HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-01-31 Info PacketCity of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
Oanuary20, 1995
Memo for Record
City Manager
Material Sent toCounctl Only
Memorandum from Mayor Horowitz and Supervisor Lacina regarding the
Adult Day Program Location Task Force.
Nemorandum from Mayor Horowttz regarding ICAD.
Memoranda from the City Manager:
a. Budget Review, FY [996
b. Congregate Meals
Copies of letters from the City Manager to:
a. Dick Myers regarding tax exemption for machinery and equipment
b. Charlie Duffy regarding land swap
Memorandum from the Neighborhood Services Coordinator regarding Program
for Improving Neighborhoods (PIN) update.
Report on city recycling program items for December Z994.
Memorandum from the Transit Manager regarding [CT/DTA Employee Bus Pass
Promotion.
Letter from Iowa State University to the Fire Chief regarding certification.q(JL
Anonymous letter regarding use of illegal identification to purchase ~
alcoholic drinks.
Article: Sustainable Development
Agendas for the informal and formal meetings of Oanuary lg, 1995, for the
Johnson County Board of Supervisors.
Agenda £or the. 1/24/95 Joist Iowa City/City Coua¢il and Jobamos County
Board of Supervisors.
Agenda for 1/26/95 Informal meeting of Board of Supervisors.
Distributed 1/23/95 Budget Session: revised pgs. 97,99,101,103,107,109,121,
1231 Budget Calendar; Maps regarding proposed Industrial Park East and
Hickory Hill Park & Oakland Ceme:ery.
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date:
January 20, 1995
To:
City Council/Board of Supervisors Members
From:
Susan M. Horowitz, Mayor
Steve Lacina, Board of Supervisors
Re:
Recommendations from the Adult Day Program Location Task Force- Supplement
Our January 12, 1995, memo set forth lhe history of the Task Force and the Adult Day Program's
strategic plan with Its two. and five-year timelines. The recommendations from the Task Fome
to "endorse the two- and five-year plan and take steps to initiate the plan as presented" was
arrived at after much anguish by participants who held differing but valid thoughts and opinions.
The segment of the Task Force who supported the plan are eager for Council and the Board of
Supervisors members to deal with the recommendation so that subsequent administrative actions
can be undertaken. For instance, ADP wishes to apply for CDBG funds and a February 18
deadline for that process is looming.
The segment of the Task Force who were not comfortable with the recommendation were willing
to recommend an extension of ADP's presence in its currant location at the Senior Center with
existing numbers of clients beyond the agreed to short.term deadline of June 30, 1995. This was
proposed as a compromise to urge a more speedy resolution of increased space such as was
recommended throughout the five-year timeline. It was felt the need for active acquisition of a
larger facility (a current possibility next door to the Health Department) was more capable of
increasing the numbers of frail senior clients and minimizing the agitation of seniors now using
the Senior Center. Also it was felt these acfivities would be seen as a good faith effort by the
Hedtage Agency and that a threat of ssvedng the funding of this program was minimal, if at all
real.
In the meantime, congressional deliberations of funding for nutrition programs places Council and
the Board in the situation of anticipatory funding at the local level of Congregate Meals.
Furthermore the cost benefit analysis of a consortium of elderly support services in a large facility
(for instance, VNA or even ESA) needs to be considered by both funding agencies. Finally,
should the ADP program relocate in the Senior Center to gain 1,500 square feet for programming
and 300 square feet for offices and quiet space to serve 24 individuals, two results will happen.
The County will face the decision to release $25,000 from escrow for a larger building, and the
City, through unused CDBG funds for Senior Center rehabilitation being used now, will be faced
with decisions relating to sharing financial costs for the eventual larger facility.
Like many decisions we face, there are no simple answers, but between the January 12 memo
and this one it is our intent to give both bodies a clearer picture of the issues. It is our intent to
have a joint City Council/Board of Supervisors discussion about this on January 30, 1995, du~lng
the informal work session, at the Civic Center.
City. of iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 19, 1995
To: City Council Members ~
From: Susan M. Horowitz, Mayor
Re: Economic Development/ICAD
Iowa City Area Development (ICAD) is beginning their fund raising activities. As you know the
Mayor and City Manager of Iowa City sit on the Board of Directors since the City has an
investment in area development policies and activities. I have enclosed a copy of the pledge card.
I will be contributing on a personal level and thought if you were so inclined I'd help you. The
City also contributes as do other municipalities in the region.
Marty Kelly has expressed an interest in. coming to Council to give an update/briefing. Prior to
scheduling him on a work session agenda, I thought review material might be useful.
Also, the state's CEBA Annual Report for FY94 is attached. Any questions you have on any of
this, let me know and I can make Inquiries or have Marty prepared to brief us all on your inquiries.
tps-2
Attachments
ICAD GROUP: BUILDING FOR THE FUTURE
/Ave agree to con~ibute to the ICAD Oroup, ln~., the annual sum of $ for the five-year p~iod F¥ 1995-96 through FY 1999-2000 for a to21
fiv~-y~ar pledge of $
Pa'vrae~t Schedule
Si_~-nture Date
Annual
Name Scmi-annunl
Individual Cnntnem Name Title
Str~t ~da,~s~ P.O. Box
First Payment Date:
CiU/. State, Zip
PhonedFax
Con~bmion~ ~ gi&s to Iowa City A~ea Dev~lopm~mt Omup ar~ no~ ~ax ,t'a~.,'*iblc as cl~uimbl~ co~ibmitm~.
THE SITE SELECTION PROCESS
Many times when ICAD is working on a project we are asked about the
selection process and how long it will take. This is a difficult question to answer.
The decision process can take anywhere from 4 months to 2 years, depending
on the company. The average seems to be about one year.
An example of how ICAD handles a project follows:
Step 1 - Initial contact is made. ICAD is approached by client and asked about
available buildings. A proposal is tailored to the client's request and mailed.
Step 2 - ICAD arranges a site visit of company representatives and the available
building representatives. Client meets with some local business leaders and city
officials.
Step 3 - At this time the client receives more detailed and specific information on
the sites, buildings and cities involved.
Step 4 - ICAD works with Chamber of Commerce, local city governments and
business community to help spread knowledge of the prospective company and
to alleviate any environmental concams about their operation.
Step 5 - ICAD appears at any needed planning and zoning meetings, city
council hearings and/or public forums.
Step 6 - ICAD works with parties involved to finalize details.
Step 7 - Interviewing for the plant begins.
Step 8 - Production begins at the new plant.
The development process is a lengthy one from the first inquiry to actually
seeing the plant in production. ICAD works with many various projects and
some do not come to fruition. Many variables can occur throughout the process
that can cause delays or even cause the project to be put on indefinite hold or in
the worse case, the prospect can be bought out by another company and the
decision to relocate terminated.
ICAD works with different entities to encourage future growth and help
facilitate successful prospects to come to town. Though the process can be a
slow one and results not visible for quite a while, assudng stable employment by
bdnging quality companies to town is one of ICAD°s goals.
Some of the clients that ICAD has worked with during the past ~o years
include: General Mills, ACT, NCS, Moore Business Forms, (Iowa City); Neural
Applications, Urosurge (Coralville); Wilkinson PreCast Concrete (a Canadian
Company that relocated to Riverside); Crystal Clear Water Distribution (North
Liberty).
IOWA CITY AREA DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.
WORKS TO PROMOTE THE REGION
The Iowa City Area Development Group, Inc. is a non-profit organization whose
mission is to position the region as a quality place to work and live and as one
receptive to technologies of the future. Our goal is to profoote business and
industrial sites, assist existing industries with their expansions, and expand a
quality workforce via recruitment of new businesses and industries. Efforts to
locate expansion prospects focus on targeted indu~uies and cover regional,
national and international markets.
ICAD's economic development program is intentionally positioned to emphasize
· the quality of life our area offers. In addition, we emphasize the role of university
. technology and expertise as a priority incentive to firms seeking to expand or
relocate in a friendly, technology-oriented environment.
These objectives a~e accomplished in a variety of ways. Some of the methods
used are illustrated below:
ICAD represents the "area" in all of its promotional informalion.
ICAD is continually updating and creating new promotional pieces
to show the strengths of the area.
ICAD promotes available buildings and office/indusffial sites to
potential clients.
ICAD provides follow through of infomarion on the area to the
c!ient and works with the communities involved to successful
complete the project.
ICAD represents the area at regional, national and international trade
shows as well as participating in "Sell Iowa" tri16s with the
State Department of Economic Development.
ICAD recruits and promotes the region overseas. Several contacts
have been made in Japan and Korea and these contacts have been
informed of the entire group of commnnities represented by ICAD.
ICAD represents the region at the "Corridor" meetings. The
Corridor is comprised of representatives from: Priority One,
ICAD, the University of Iowa, Iowa-Electric and Iowa-llllnois Gas
and Electric.
ICAD represents the Iowa City Area at the Eastern Iowa Regional
Committee. This is a newly formed committee comprised of
representatives from: ICAD, Priority One, the University of Iowa,
the Quad Cities, Musc~tine, U.S. West, I..inn County Rural Electric,
IES Utilities, Iowa-Illinois Gas and Electric, Cedar Valley/Waterloo,
Cedar County and Midwest Power in conjunction with the
Department of Economic Development. The goal of this
group is to collectively market the region. The first project will be
the pharmaceutical market.
ICAD serves the region as a liaison with the State Depa~haent of
Economic Development and the University of Iowa.
These are just a few of the ways ICAD promotes the area. A variety of marketing
methods are used to recruit new projects. The ICAD region is an area full of
marketable assets. ICAD will continue to promote the area to facilitate the area's
positive business climate.
icadinfo/regionO4.Wl~
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
DAVID J. LYONS. DIRECTOR
Dear Iowan:
We are pleased to present to you the eighth annual report of the Community
Economic Betterment Account (CEBA). This report covers the period of July
1, 1993 to June 30, 1994.
The Community Economic Betterment Account provided financial assistance for
a wide variety of value-adding, exporting businesses in Iowa during fiscal
year 1994. They range from agriculture products production to high
technology in the food and pharmaceutical industries, and the latest
innovations in the printing industry.
Job creation programs such as CEBA have been nutrients in the growth of
employment in Iowa since 1986. As Iowa's unemployment rate has improved,
CEBA's focus has been broadened from the single goal of job creation, to
the more complex task of increasing the quality of the jobs created. Not
only has the average wage increased over time but we have also seen a
growth in quantity and quality of the fringe benefits being offered.
Overall, from May, 1986, to June 30, 1994 the program has accomplished the
following:
- 398 projects have been approved for CEBA funding.
- $55.8 million has been awarded through CEBA.
Over $1.6 billion from other funding sources has been leveraged
to finance these projects -- ratio of 29 other dollars for every
CEBAdollar (29:1).
The 398 projects pledged to create/=etain 33,819 jobs.
The average wage of the pledged jobs at the time of' funding was
$9.13 per hour.
The investment by the CEBA program for each job affected was
$1,651.
65% (259) of the awards were to help existing Iowa businesses
expand.
- 55% (221) of the awards went to communities of less than 10,000 in
population.
51% (205) of the awards went to businesses with fewer than 50
employees.
~ IOWa NE"rv~K
~FOR6USlNESS 200 EAST GRAND / DES MO,NES, IOWA 50309 / ~l.242-47001FAX: 5,5.42~9
ASSI~ANCE
TERRY S. SRANSTAO. ~ov~o~
DEPARTMENT Of ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
DAVID J. LYONS. DIRECTOR
Page 2
A substantial number of these projects have reached the end of the contract
period (generally 2 years from the date of award). The following
summarizes the results of these completed projects:
- 294 projects have reached their job attainment date.
- $36,188,740 was used to assist those projects.
- The businesses created/retained 19,514 of the 22,499 jobs pledged,
or 86.7% achievement.
The actual CEBA investment per job was $1,855.
Programs such as CEBA offer evidence that Iowa can provide assistance to
both new and expanding businesses that are sincere in their pledge to
create/retain employment. We ask for your continued support of the program
so that it may continue as an effective economic development tool available
to local communities.
Sincerely,
Chairman
~OR BUStNF. SS 200 EAST ORAND I DES MOINES. IOWA $O30915151Z42'4?OO / FAX: 5151242--9 ~ ~
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
9f the
CEBA ANNUAL REPORT
Fiscal Year 1994
(July 1, 1993 to June 30, '1994)
Financial
The CEBA FY 1994 appropriation, a carry-over of funds from
FY 1993, repayments from prior years, and miscellanious revenue
enabled the program to award $10,585,900 to 45 projects during
fiscal year 1994.
Other financial sources, such as communities, counties,
utility companies, financial institutions, business owners, and
other private investors, contributed $491,195,000 to these 41
projects. This equates to a 46 to 1 leverage ratio of other funds
to CEBA funds for projects during FY '94
Smmnary of Projects:
Of the 45 projects awarded funds:
TYPE OF BUSINESS
- Thirty-six (36) were to existing businesses to expand
within Iowa;
Six (6) were to entrepreneurs to start new businesses
in Iowa;
Three (3) were to businesses to relocate or expand
their out-of-state businesses within Iowa;
COMMUNITY SIZE
Seventeen (17). awards totalling $2,944,499 were to
communities with up to 10,000 in population;
Twenty-eight (28 awards totalling $7,641,500 were to
communities over 10,000 in population;
EMPLOYMENT IHPACT
The 45 businesses pledged to create 2,973 jobs, and retain
2,969 jobs;
The CEBA cost per job was $1,782 for the 5,942 total
pledged jobs; and
- The average wage for the jobs pledged was $10.11 per
hour.
TABLE 'OF CONTENTS
Program Description
Program Authorization
Table 1 - CEBA Program Allocation
Application Approval Process
Program Statistics
Page'l
Page
Page
Page
Table 2 Statistical Summary of Awards Page 5
Funding Leverage Page 6
Financial Assistance Awards Page 7
Awards by Community Size FY 94 Page 8
Awards by Type of Project Page 9
Number of Jobs per Wags Range Page 10
Applications by County Page 12
Summary of Closed-out Projects Page 15
Awards by Community Size FY 86-94 Page 18
Chart 1
Chart 2
Chart 3
Chart 4
Chart 5
Chart 6
Chart 7
Chart 8
FY 1994 Funded Projects List and Map
Table 3 - List of Funded Projects
Summary of CEBA Closed-out Projects for FY 1994
Table 4 - List of Closed-out Projects
Statistical Summary 1986 1994
Table 5 - Statistical' Summary of Program
from May 1986 to June 30, 1994
Summary and Future Directions
Page 11
Page 13
Page 14
Page 16
Page 17
Page 19
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The purpose of the CEBA ~rogram is t6 increase employment
opportunities for Iowans by increasing the level of economic
activity within the state. The program structure provides
financial assistance to businesses and industries which require
assistance in order to create new job opportunities or retain
existing Jobs which are in jeopardy.
The program provides loans and forgivable loans to cities,
counties, or community colleges for the specific purpose of
assisting businesses to expand, start-up new operations, or to
recruit businesses that presently are operating outside the state
of Iowa.
Generally, CEBA funds may be used for: the acquisition of land
and/or buildings, building constr~ction or renovation, machinery
and equipment purchases, operating and maintenance expenses, and
working capital.
Also, the program may provide comprehensive management assistance
(CMA) to businesses involved with the program. CMA is provided in
the form of technical or professional assistance. This assistance
may be provided by department staff or department-contracted
professional .services and is generally used to assist the
business in developing one or more'of the following:
a. Entrepreneurial management skills,
b. Employment hiring, recruiting, or personnel
c. Inventory controls,
d. Financial controls,
e. Marketing plans, or
f. Other related business assistance.
assistance,
PROGRAM AUTHORIZATION
The Community Economic Betterment Account (CEBA) is now part -of
the Strategic Investment Fund Code (15.311 15.313) and is
authorized under Iowa Code sections 15.315 15.320. The General
Assembly appropriated $3,214,160 for FY 1994 from the General
Fund. These funds plus the repayment of loans, carryover, and the
recapture of funds from projects that did not proceed enabled the
program to provide the following financial assistance:
TABLE 1
CEBA Program Expenditures
FY 1994
Total CEBA Funds Awarded
Administrative Costs
Comprehensive Management Assistance
Total Expenditures
$10,585,900
398,350
125,000
$11,109,250
APPLICATION APPROVAL PROCESS
Applications may be submitted only by a political subdivision of the state
(city, county or community college). The application details the need for
the proposed use of CEBA funds. The application also requires the inclusion
of a business plan for start-ups, financial statements, a list of the
positions and the relative wages and benefits for the jobs to be created,
letters of commitment of the other funds in the project (i.e. bank loans,
community grants or loans, business equity, etc.), and the submission of
information relating to environmental considerations.
Each application is reviewed by at least two members of the CEBA
administrative staff, is rated, and assigned a score based on the
factors:
following
~eneral Rating Criteria for the Small Business
Gap Financing Applications
(businesses with less than 500 employees)
1. LOCAL EFFORT: The proportion of the total project being
funded by the local community (20 points maximum).
COMMUNITY NEED: This considers such factors as local
unemployment rates, per capita income, major plant closing and
layoffs, declining property tax base, etc. (10 points maximum).
PRIVATE CONTRIBUTION: The proportion of total project funding being
provided by private contribution; extra credit given for new cash
equity (30 points maximum).
CERTIFIED COMMUNITY BUILDER PROGRAM: Community will receive 10
points upon completion and subsequent certification by the
Department of a plan (10 points maximum).
5. SMALL.BUSINESS BONUS: Ten points are awarded if the business is a
small business as definedby the Small Business Administration
(generally less than 500 employees).
6. IMPACT: The impact of the project which includes th~ following
factors (120 points maximum):
The impact of the proposed project on the local economy.
The potential negative impact of the proposed project on other
businesses in competition with the business being considered
for assistance.
The quality of jobs to be created/retained (including wage
rates, turn-over, benefits, full-time or career positions
Total number of jobs to be created compared to the amount
of assistance requested.
3
The need of the business for financial assistance from
governmental sources.
The need for a forgivable loan rs. a loan.
The score for impact is then multiplied by a "reliability
feasibility of the business venture, the reliability of the
job creation and financial estimates, the likelihood of
success, the credit worthiness of.the business., and whether
the project would occur without state assistance. This
factor ranges from 0 100 percent, depending on the
department's judgment as to the actuality of the professed
need and the likelihood of the projections to materialize as
planned.
Projects where the wage rates are "substantially" below the average
wage in that area will automatically be given a score of zero and
denied funding.
Ra~ing Criteria fo= New Business Opportunities
and New Product Development Applications
LOCAL EFFORT: (20 points maximum) Same as above.
PRIVATE CONTRIBUTION: (20 points maximum) Same as above.
CERTIFIED COMMUNITY BUILDER PROGRAM: (10 points maximum) Same as
above.
SMALL BUSINESS BONUS: (10 points) Same as above.
IMPACT: (120 points maximum) Same as above.
POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE EXPANSION: This provides for consideration of
the business' potential to grow as an industry within Iowa beyond
the scope of this initial project. (20 points maximum)
Projects where the wage rates are "substantially" below the average
wage in that area will automatically be given a score of zero and
denied funding.
'Final Recommendations
Each application that scores 120 or more points is recommendedby the staff
to the Economic Development Board's CEBAReview Committee which in turn
reviews the project and makes a recommendation to the full Board. Those
applications that do not score 120 points are either recommended for
deferral until specific issues within the application can be clarified or
modified, or recommended for denial.
4
TABLE 2
CEBA-Summary Statistics FISCAL 1994
ANALYSIS BY BUSINESS TYPE AND PERFORMANCE OF JOB ATTAINMENT
#Awar4 Expansion i 5art-up 6
$'s Awarded, $9,427,530~ $873,400
Jobs to be Retaine~ 2,969 [ 0
Jobs to be Create~ 2,516 341
Total Pledged Job~ 5,485 341
Pledged Cost/Jo~ 81,7191 $2,561
Leveraged Fund~ $244,242,4831 $'242,204,125
R~uiun~nt3' Tocat
45
$285,000 $10,585,900
2,969
2,973 -
116 5,942
$2,457 [ $1,782
$5,024,5001 $491,471,108
ANALYSIS BY POPULATION
tinder 2.500 2;500- 5,000 5 - 10,000 .10 - 50,000 Over 50,000
# Awards 8 4 5 16 $4,195,0~
$'s Awarded $954,400 $1,090,000 $900,000 $3,446,500.
% Popul~ot~ 22.55% 9.35% 12.80%I 21.75% 33.55%
% o,f.# Awas~ 17.78% 8.89% 11.11% 35.56% 26.67%
% of $ s Awarde~ 9.02% 10.30% 8.50% 32.56% 3 9.63%
Jobs ~o b~ Remine~ 341~ 280
Jobs to be Creat~ 121
Total Pledged Job~l 362 401
CEBA CosffJol~ $2,6361 $'2,718
LeveragedFun~ $15,836,989l $13,900,416
1,274 976
319 2,147 2,713
~,~11 $1,6051Sl,546
$23,142,802 [ $96,614,5781 $341,976,323
ANALYSIS BY AWARD TYPE
ANALYSIS OF WAGES
Number* $'s Awarded
Grants 0 $0
Loam 10 $1,120,000
Buydowns 0 $0
Forgival~ Loam 38 $9,465,900
Othe~ 0 S0
* 3 projects were a combination of forgivablo loans and loans.
Wage Rates [No. of Jobs
S3 - $4.99/'m' 0
$5 - S6.99/hr 174
$7 - $8.99/hr 2,746
$9- $10.99/hr 1,105
$11 +far 1,915
Total Jobs: 5,940
Average Wage:
$10.11 per hou~
State of Iowa
Dept of Economic Development
prepared by: CEBA Staff (515.2424848)
45
$10,585,900
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
2,969
2,973
5,942
$1,782
$491,471,108
PAGE 5
Chart 1
CEBA FY 1994
FUNDING LEVERAGE
Each CEBA dollar leveraged more than 46 dollars from
other sources
. _ CEBA
OTHER FUNDS i iI i! 10.5
491.4 Million
Million
Page 6
Chart 2
C EBA FY 1994
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE AWARDS
4O
36 Projects
30--'
20--'
10--'
0
EXPANSIONS
6 Projects
3 Projects
START-UPS RECRUITMENTS
BY TYPE OF BUSINESS
Page 7
AWARDS BY COMMUNITY SIZE
CEBA FY 1994
GOING TO SMALLER COMMUNITIES
~2,944, O0
/ , O, OOO p opg ~A,,..0 .~:.~;i..; .... :~.' //'\UNDER'
{ ......................::._~...........- . . ,,.~ .....:.
,
COMMUNIITIE'$"OV~R '~'
I O. OOO POPUI..ATION .
.... I" 55%
: OVEH !0,000
'~ 7,641,,',500
72%' "%'"' ' '
% of TOTAL STATE
POPULATION
Dollars Awarded
$10,585,900
CHART
CEBA FY ! 994
AWARDS BY TYPE OF PROJECT
100
80'
60'
40''
20
ol
Expansion
Start-up
Recuritment
~-~ Awards
~ Jobs Created/Retained
Dollars Awarded
Page 9
Chart 5
C EBA FY 1994
NUMBER OF JOBS BY WAG"' RANGE
Average Wage: $9.71/hr
Number of Jobs
3000 ..................................................
2746
2500 ..............
2000 .....................~!~!~ ...............191~ ....
1500 .....................iiiiiiiiiiiiii .............iiiiiiiiiiiiii..
::::::::::::::::::::::: ~ :::::::::::::::::::::::::
o ~
$3.35-4.99
$5 - 6.99 $7 - 8.99
10.99 $11
& Over
HOURLY WAGE
Page 10
TABLE 3
CEBA Project List - Fiscal Year 1994
APPUCANT
Cedar Falls
Creeco
Indianels
Muscaline
Parkersburg
West Des Moines
Sioux City
Iowa Fails
Clay County
Davenport
Davenport
Decarab
Montezuma
Sioux City
Belle Plains
Des Moines
Le Mars
Aplington
Atlantic
Benton County
Dunlap
Hiawatha
Vinton
Fort Madison
Des Moines
Iowa City
Lee County
Fort Madison
W,-.leott
Burlington
Davenport
Grand River
Mason City
Oskalooee
S~ley
Cedar Falls -
Dubuque
Iowa City
New London
Allorton
Benton County
Burlington
Cedar Rapids
Council Bluffs
Marehailtown
ITOTALS
BUSINESS
Iowa Laser Technology, Inc
Featherlite Manufacturing
Deflects-Shield Corporation
Lewis Brothers, Inc.
Top-Air Manufacturing
CE SolWare
John Morrell
Metal Teeh Indus~ee
Eaton Corporation
Hormel Foods Corp.
Heartland BioTechnologles
Camcar Division of Textron
Rhinehart Manufacturing
Wilson Trailer Sales, Inc.
Benco Manufacturing
DICe, Inc.
Wells Dairy, Inc,
Heartland Windows
Aeeoulapian Concepts
Grainmaster, Inc.
Westsin QLF
Cedar Graphics, Inc.
Rosebar 1'ira Shredding
Four M Corporation
Diamond Animal Health
Moore Business Forms
Industrial Tooling
Cyprus Climax Metals, Inc.
T~n Wheel Intemaitonal
Acrs/Midwest, Inc.
Midland Press Corp.
Easy Set Hook Company
Alpana Aluminum
Biovance Engineering
Motowation Engineering
Blackhawk Engineering Co. Inc.
Engineering Data Systems
National Computer Systems
Design Engineering
New Zealand Milk Products
Frontier Coop Herbs
Flint Cliff Corp
Cedar River Paper
Faroare Companies
Lenox Industries
Date Pl~d~ed Jobs
Board Amount Award To I~e To Be Cost
Action Awarded Type Created Retained Per Job
30-Jun-94 67,000 FL 28 4 $2,094
16-Jun-94 $00000 I. JR- 30 140 $2,941
16-Jun-94 490,000 R- 196 105 $1,628
16 - J u n - 94 50,000 FL 20 $2,500
16-Jun-94 50,000 FL 20 $2,500
16-Jun-94 397,500 FL 155 $2,548
24-May-9~ 1,000,000 R- 0 1292 $774
19-May-94 45,000 R- 16 $2,812
21 -Apr-94= 50,000 R- 0 34 $1,470
21 -Apr-94 75,000 R- 25 $3,000
21 -Apr-94 100,000 R. 62 11 $1,370
21 -Apr-94 75,000 L 30 $2,500
21-Apr-94 36,000 R. 15 $2,400
21 -Apr-94 460,000 FL 75 109 $2,500
17-Mar-94 500,000 R. 50 140 $2,631
17-Mar-94 550,000 R. 60 175 $2,340
17-Mar-94 600,000 FL 190 $3,158
17-Feb-94 53,400 R. 22 $2,427
17-Feb-94 120,000 L 40 14 $2,222
17-Feb-g4, 25,000 R. 10 $2,500
17-Feb-94 50,000 FL 23 2 $2,000
17-Feb-94 55,000 L 26 $2,115
17-Feb-94 60,000 L 10 19 $2,069
24-Jan-94 242,000 R. 137 $1,766
20-Jan-9¢ 250,000 LIFL 108 $2,358
20-Jan-94 300,000 R. 130 50 $1,667
20-Jan-94 50,000 FL 8 16 $2,083
16-Dec-93 250,000 R. 10 124 $1,866
12-Oct-93 465,000 FL 150 $3,100
16-Sep-93 150,000 FL 75 $2,000
16-Sep-93 125,000 R. 40 $3,125
16-Sep-93 150,000 L 75 $2,000
16-Sep-93 150,000 R. 60 $2,500
19-Aug-93 75,000 R. 30 $2,500
19-Aug-g3 35,000 L 15 $2,336
15-Jul-93 100,000 R. · 25 15 $2,500
15-Jul-93 200,000 L 100 $2,000
15-Jul-93 635,000 R. 212 100 $2,035
15-Jul-g3 50,000 R. 6 19 $2,000
17-Jun-93 100,000 R. 5 25 $3,333
17-Jun-93 200,000 FL 100 $2,000
17-Jun-93 150,000 L/FL 20 75 $1,579
17-Jun-93 400,000 R. 123 $3,252
17-Jun-93 100,000 R. 41 $2,439
17-Jun-93 1,000,000 R. 400 500 $1,111
PAGE 11
s10,58s,9001I 297a. I 29691 $1,782
CEBA APPLICATIONS BY COUNTY
Fiscal Year 1994
MONT-
GONEBy
·
· Applications Funded
oApplications Denied/Withdrawn
SUMMARY OF CEBA CLOSED-OUT PROJECTS
During the 1994 fiscal year 36 businesses which had been funded
in earlier'years reached the end of their project periods.
Generally, the CEBA agreements between the state, community and
business are for a two-year period. The business has the contract
period to complete the financial package, carry-out the
construction and machinery and equipment purchases, and create
the number of jobs pledged to the community.
These 36 businesses yielded the following results:
1. Total CEBAAmount Awarded:
2. Number of Jobs Pledged:
3. N,-.~er of Jobs A~tually Create4/Re~aine~:
4. Awarded CEBA Investment per Job Pledged:
5. Actual CEBA Investment per Job:
$5,271,600
2,479
2,$65
$2,126/job
$1,978/job
A key indicator of program efficiency is the actual investment
per job. This investment at $1,978 is much more cost effective
than most business development programs. Many federal programs,
for example, will allow up to $15,000 per job in federal funds
to be used for such assistance. The Small Business Administration
has raised their allowable cost per job to $35,000 for certain
small business loans.
The Economic Development Board has developed specific guidelines
for handling the close-out of CEBA projects. Those businesses
which were successful in creating only a portion of the pledged
number of jobs repay a proportional amount of the original award.
Those businesses which create less than 50% of the pledged jobs
are subject to repayment of the entire award amount. All
repayments are negotiated as loans at six percent (6%) interest
with monthly payments. The term of the loan is negotiated based
upon the business's financial ability to make such payments.
In-e,,-~-~ ~he assisted businesses closed-ou~ during PY 1994
suo~essfully created or re~ained 108% of ~he Jobs originally
pledged for a final investment ~er Job of $1,978.
13
TABLE 4
PROJECTS THAT HAVE REACHED COMPLETION DATE
FISCAL 1994
APPLICANT
BUSINESS
AMOUNT ,# OF JOBS STATUS
Centerville
Emmetsburg
Marion
Newton
Oelwein
Ottumwa
Rock Valley
Toledo
Cedar Rapids
Cedar Rapids
Clarinda
Clear Lake
Hiawatha
Manchester
Sioux Center
Sioux Center
Sioux City
Sumner
Monticello
Cedar Rapids
Keosauqua
Orange City
Carroll
Cess County
Clayton County
Emmetsburg
Keokuk
Le Mars
Louisa County
Maquoketa
Reinbeck
Sioux Center
Sioux City
Story City
- West Union
Winterset
Iowa Timber Products
Skyjack Manufacturing
Kwik-way Mfg Co
Ambassador Steel Corp.
United Farm Tools
Lunco, Inc.
Vans Machining
Imperial Sleep Products
Eriward MendalI/PENWEST
Genencor International (EKodak)
Youth Services International
Quest, Inc.
Cedar Graphics '
Kannfab, Inc.
NOBL Laboratories
Country Wrench
Continental Financial
Lifeline Emergency Vehicles
Franklin Equlment Co.
American Profol
Barker Company
Silent Drive
General Electric
Environmental Recycling
Linear Manufacturing
8NC Manufacturing
Keokuk Steel Castings
Wells Dairy, Inc.
Grimm Brothers
Future Dreams
GM Manufacturing
Link Manufacturing
Sioux City Chamber
MBS, Inc,
Sweet Computer
Eaton Corporation
PAGE 14
$15,000 0 IN PROCESS
$50,000 95 Complete
$224,000 146 IN PROCESS
$127,500 30 Repaid $52,500
$40,000 10 IN PROCESS
$15,000 17 IN PROCESS
$50,000 24 IN PROCESS
$30,000 0 IN PROCESS
$50,000 19 IN PROCESS
$400,000 113 Complete
$237,500 107 Complete
$150,000 52 Complete
$75,000 67 Complete
$87,500 6 Repaid $60,686
$75,000 29 Complete
$35,000 0 IN PROCESS
$300,000 92 IN PROCESS
$65,000 20 Complete
$150,000 58 IN PROCESS
$75,000 57 IN PROCESS
$62,500 84 IN PROCESS
$30,000 37 IN PROCESS
$200,000 110 IN PROCESS
$40,000 10 IN PROCESS
$20,000 6 IN PROCESS
$80,000 75 IN PROCESS
$750,000 552 IN PROCESS
$600,000 403 Complete
$62,600 53 IN PROCESS
$15,000 6 Complete
$60,000 30 IN PROCESS
$50,000 26 IN PROCESS
$100,000 45 IN PROCESS
$125,000 65 IN PROCESS
$75,000 34 IN PROCESS
$750~000 187 IN PROCESS
$5,271,600 2,665
Chart 7
CEBA FY 1 986-1 994
SUMMARY COMPLETED PROJECTS
Since 1986,294 businesses have reached the
end of their project period and have yielded
the following results:
Number of projects:
294
· $'s Awarded:
936,188,740
Jobs Pledged:
22,499
Jobs Attained:
19,514
· % Attained:
86.7%
· Actual Investment per Job: 81,855
Estimated ANNUAL State Income Tax = $18,528,933
(1_9,514@ 2080 hrs. @ 89.131hr. & 5% tax rate*)
Property and sales tax increases not estimated.
* Estimated Effective Tax Rate
(Source la. Dept.. Revenue & Finance)
Page 1 5
· Statistical Summary, May 1986 June 1994
The following summarizes the information presented on Table 5, Page 17,
which reviews the awards from the program beginning in May 1986 to June 30,
1994:
Of the 398 awards made:
* Two hundred and fity-nine (259) awards were to existing
businesses expanding within Iowa.
* Seventy-four (74) awards were to entrepreneurs starting new
businesses in Iowa.
* Six, y-five (65) awards were to businesses relocating their company
to Iowa or exp~ding an existing out-of-state business within Iowa.
* Two hundred and twenty-one (221) awards totalling $24,383,608 were
to businesses in communities with less than 10,000 in population;
* On~ hundred and seventy-seven (177) awards totallihg $31,444,440 '
were to communities with more than 10,000 in population;
* The 398 businesses pledged to create 21,793 jobs and to retain
12,026 jobs;
* The average CEBA investment per job was $1,651 for the total
33,819 pledged jobs;
* The average hourly wage for each pledged job at the time of funding
was $9.13 per hour; and
* CEBA has leveraged over $1.6 billon in other investments in Iowa
businesses.
TABLE 5
CEBA-Summary Statistics (May 1986 - June 1994)
ANALYSIS BY BUSINESS TYPE AND PERFORMANCE OF JOB A'FFAINMENT
Analysis of thoseprojects that
# Awards Expansion I Start-up Recruitment I Total have reached their iob attainment date
74 $11,767,7~ 398 No. of Projects: 294
$'s^warded $37~49~2~ 56,811,052 555,5~8,048 S'sAwara~'536,188,740
Jobs to be RetainedI 11,627 ] 38
Jobs to be Created 12,284 3,615
Total Pledged Jobs 23,911 3,653
Pledged Cosl/Job [ $1,558 { $1,865
3611 12,02~-
5,894 .21,79'5- Jobs Pledged: 22,499
6,255 33~19 'Jobs Attained: 19,514
% Attainment: 86.73 %
51,881J $1,65! ' ffM:tualCost/Job: 51,855
LeveraRed Funds l $821,132,1191 $340~362,0521 5511,478,790 [ $1,672,972,961
ANALYSIS BY POPUI~TION
Under 2~00 2,500 - 5;000 5 - 10,000 10 - 50,000 Over 50,000
# Awards 92 71 58 74 103
$'s Awarded $9,513,530 $7,684,800 $7,185~78 $11,527,690 519,916,750
398
555,828,048
% ~,op,~uo,, Izz.5s~ I~5~ I 12.s0~
% of# Awards 23.12% 17.84% 1457%
% of $'s Awarded17.04%13.77% 1237%
21.75%
1859%
20.65%
33.55%
2&88%
35.68%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
Jobs to be ~,d J 7961 1,3141 1,171 [ ~961 6,149
,lobs to be Created 3,904 2,609 3,035 3,694 . 8,551
Total Pledged Jobs 4,700 3,923 4~206 6~290 14,700
12,026
21,793
33,819
CF_~A ~VJob I $2,O241 51,~ I 51,7081$1,8~3 1 51,3551
51,651
Leveraged Fuadsl $166,529,7601 $120,254,062 t S229,291,300 [ $267,787,916 1 S889,109~9231
$1,672,972,961
ANALYSIS BY'AWARD TYPE:
' :ANALYSISOF WAGES '
Number* I $'s Awarded WaRe Rat~ I No. of Jobs
Cn-aats 71 $9507,956 .$3 - $4.99/1xr 1,432
'Loans 129 $11,634,459 S5 - 56.99Par 6,815
Buydowus 6 $535,500 $7- $8.99/hr 10,978
Forgivable Loans ~ $33,550,133 $9 - $10.99/lu' 6,39/
Other 1 $300,000 $11 +/1~ 8,195
' 28 projects were a combination of av,'ard lypes.
APPLICATIONS"' ~-. ::
New
Total Ol~ortunities
Received 762 64
Pending 1
Referred 41
Withdrawn or denied 311
Total lobs: 33,817
AveraRe WaRe:
$9.13 ~er hour
State of Iowa
Dept of Economic Development
;moamd by: CEBA Staff {616-242-4848)
PAGE 17
AWRDS BY COMMUNITY SIZE
CEBA FY 1986 -1994
As a Percentage of Total
Under 10,000
45 °/~~l'
/
. ,
t "Over 10,000
55%.,
Under 10,000
·., .. ~.?
22,340,208
..'. =. '.= .. $23,627,94~
· O~"e'i-:'~i:.l o'~'ooo"':' '
'
"' :' Awarded '
' "Dollars'.
':.?~ Over 10,000
· SUMMARY AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
The CEBA program has completed eight years of operation. Iowa's
communities and economic development professionals, through continued
education and marketing efforts by the Department of Economic Development,
have learned the focus of the CEBA program and its role in their
development plans.
Again, this year, heavy participation in the program by existing Iowa
businesses is an indicator that Iowa can and will experience solid
diversification by growing from within and promoting Iowa's qualities
through its businesses.
This year the CEBA program experienced an unprecedented number of
applications. These requests for funds far exceeded the program's original
budget. This increased demand for CEBA funding and new laws passed by the
legislature stimulated program staff to recommend changes in CEBA's
administrative rules effective for FY 95. The new rules reflect the
increased emphasis Iowa is placing on the quality of the jobs to be
created. The major changes in CEBA rules are as follows.
For projects to qualify for CEBA funds in excess of $500,000, they
must meet the following special criteria:
Not a relocation within the state;
Business must pay at least 80% of standard medical and
dental insurance;
.Business must pay a median wage of at least 130% of County
Wage Average
For most CEBA projects:
Business must pay at 85% of Average County Wage, up from
75% previously;
Over half of the projects jobs must be at or above the 85%
wage level, or $9.00 per hour, whichever is lower;
For purposes of calculating appropriate award size (i.e.
S/job ratio) only those positions above the 85% wage level
will be considered.
Fo~ start-up projects:
Will not be held to 85% wage standard, only need to meet old
75% standard;
Limited to a maximum award of $100,000.
For all project_s:
* Any business receiving CEBA dollars shall make available 10%
of the new jobs created to Promise Jobs Program
participants.
19
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
January 20, 1995
City Council
City Manager
Budget Review FY 1995
I thought an agenda of what I would like to cover at the January 23
meeting would be helpful.
BUDGET REVIEW AGENDA.
January 23, 1995
Capital Project Review
- New projects proposed (Chart #13)
- Update new cost estimates
- Review debt service fund
- Review how to set new priorities
Budget Policy Issues (Chart #14)
- Police federal grant - funding option
- Industrial park
- Cemetery - future City involvement
- Fire overview of services provided
- Public Works facilities
- Stormwater management
- Assisted Housing · update
· impact on General Fund
Overview of state tax policy/reporting requirements.
Discuss schedule for appearance by Boards, Commissions, special interest
groups (suggest 2/7)
- City Boards, Commissions, Library, Airport, Senior Center, etc,
- Convention & Visitors Bureau
- Arts Council
- Museum
- Any others
General discussion - budget issues
Schedule discussions of enterprise funds and other budget policy issues
NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING:
FEB. 7, 6:00 PlVl
rng~tbudget[revlew, egd
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
January 20, 1995
City Council
City Manager
Congregate Meals
While I think we all recognize that much of it is mere rhetoric, there are likely to be changes
forthcoming in funding of many federal programs. One program which is of specific concern
to me is the status of Congregate Meals. While recognized as a County responsibility in that
the Senior Center is used as the facility to fulfill that responsibility, public perception of which
government is responsible may be a little fuzzy.
The process of reducing federal expenditures often makes little sense, but programs that are
somewhat "obscure" as they relate to overall federal fundings I believe have a higher degree
of jeopardy. Nutrition programs I believe are vulnerable. My concern is that while the
program is a County-sponsored with federal monies, it does occur within the Senior Center
and therefore if funding is withdrawn, I can certainly expect pressures to be brought on the
City Council to provide future financing. These types of human service programs and projects
often cause the boundaries of governmental responsibility to evaporate and a rush to secure
support from any means possible. I bring this to your attention merely as a matter of concern
(heads up) and I hope that federal legislation does not reduce what appears to be a very
popular and valuable program. If it were to occur, I believe there will be pressure on you,
merely as the landlord for the project, to participate in financing. The program is for county
elderly citizens, thereby the funding source.
January 20, 1995
The Honorable Dick Myers
State Capitol
Des Moines, IA 50319
CITY OF I0 WA CITY
Dear Dick:
As the State legislature begins its work on all of the various legislative proposals, one of
interest and concern to me is the proposed property tax exemption for machinery and
equipment. I am sure you have received plenty of information, and we can provide just about
all the local facts you might want. I wanted to take a moment to point out to you another
concern not always readily acknowledged as an issue associated with the M&E exemption.
While we enjoy home rule as part of the Iowa State Constitution, the constant tinkering,
changing, and general fiddling with property tax legislation has caused a shift from local self-
determination which I believe is an important element in home rule to that of strict adherence
to state-wide development policy, notably land use decisions.
Specifically, the Governor's tax policy proposal for M&E exemption seems to indicate that the
Iowa economy will grow and prosper by way of additional commercial and industrial
development if the machinery and equipment tax exemption occurs. This circumstance is
certainly desirable in many Iowa communities; however, I believe there are others who feel
we should be able to make commercial and industrial development decisions based upon our
own local economic needs and not part of some grand plan by the state. This is particularly
important in that the M&E exemption is of far greater tax revenue benefit to the State than
locals. State officials seem to feel we will enjoy increased property tax if the M&E is
exempted.
The League of Iowa Municipalities indicated that simply to remain revenue neutral under the
current property tax laws following the loss of machinery and equipment revenues, the City
of Iowa City would need to building one hundred ~100,000-homes each year, and may I
repeat, just to remain current in available revenues. The tax burden could easily be shifted
from commercial/industrial to residential. At least it would appear that on the surface, but
with tax caps, rollback, etc., residential cannot be relied upon to supplant the loss of M&E
revenue. We also must not forget additional housing would require public services from the
very revenues the state now restricts, those in our general fund.
I recognize this may be a rather dramatic extrapolation of what will be called a simple piece
of economic development legislation (M&E exemption), but I am concerned not only about the
loss of revenues and in particular the state fulfilling a promise to reimburse the cities, but the
issue of self-determination and local self-governance is I~eing further diminished. I have sent
other items of correspondence in past years indicating that the state of Iowa needs an urban
policy, that is, what is the expectation of cities by the State. Last year, as I recall, for the
first year manufactured goods exceeded agricultural products. We both are aware of the fact
that manufactured goods are generally products of the commerce of cities and not rural areas.
410 EAST WASHIIqOTO~ STREET · iOWA CITY, IOWA $2~40.153~6 · (319) 3~6-~000 · FAX (J19) ]SO.
Dick Myers
January 20,1995
Page 2
If that is the direction of our economy and the state wishes local governments to play a key
role, then some type of urban policy is necessary. The broad brush of."give me an M&E
exemption and we all will enjoy unparalleled prosperity" is simply an oversell on this issue,
particularly when the role of cities is to lock-step follow State economic development policy.
While changes in city councils with respect to philosophy and direction concerning growth and
development will occur and, quite frankly, are healthy as it allows the community to
continually reassess its direction, an imposed state-wide policy, I believe, does no real benefit
to local governments and the constituents they serve. It would seem discretionary tax policy
at the local level offers far greater opportuniW for prosperity and would reinvigorate a tradition
of local self-governance, I find it most interesting that the Governor's office decries many
government programs and in general government control and reguiation, and yet the M&E
exemption and its economic consequences are a result of centralized governmental control of
local communities - the very circumstances often criticized.
As always, thanks for hearing me out.
Sincerely,
Stephen J. Arkins
City Manager
cc: City Council '
January 18, 1995
Charlie Duffy, Chair
Johnson County Board of Supervisors
P.O. Box 1350
Iowa City, IA 52244-1350
CITY OF I0 WA CITY
Dear Charlie:
As you are aware, the City is working on an annexation and rezoning request in order to
develop the proposed Greenview manufactured housing park. This proposed project is to
provide for housing opportunities for low-income citizens and those wishing to move from the
floodplain. While there are many issues yet to be resolved, one concern that has been raised
is location of the project. During earlier discussions the issue of whether Chatham Oaks could
serve as a potential site for an affordable housing/manufactured housing park was brought
forth. Many months ago I spoke with representatives of the County government concerning
the possibility of the Chatham Oaks site for a manufactured housing park. At that time I was
advised that the County felt the land was needed for some future county use, particularly a
county home, if it should be necessary. I understand the need for your decision to provide
sufficient land in order to meet such a need if it were to occur. During the earlier discussions,
it was apparent to me that a possible land swap could occur, that is the City would provide
land to the County in order to meet your needs. The Chatham Oaks site would then serve
as a location for a manufactured housing park, thereby addressing our housing affordability
issues.
I would appreciate some confirmation of this issue and, in particular, if the land swap is a
feasible alternative. The City Council will be discussing this issue and an expression of
County policy concerning the potential for such a land swap would be appreciated.
If you or any other members of the County Board need further information, please feel free
to call upon me.
Sincerely,
Stephan J. Atkins
City Manager
cc: City Council/
Karin Franklin
b~duffy
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 20, 1995
To: Steve Atkins, City Manager
From: Marcia Klingaman, Neighborhood Services Coordinator~'~"'-"
Re: Program for Improving Neighborhoods (PIN') Update
In l~ay of 1994, the City Council approved the ailocation of $25,000 for the purposes of funding
neighborhood improvements within established neighborhood associations. The program was
proposed to the City Council, was to be developed and administered by the Neighborhood
Council, a committee of neighborhood representatives that meet on a monthly basis.
I have been working with the Neighborhood Council since May, 1994 to develop a process
under which the prograra will be administered by the Neighborhood Council. At the beginning
of the program development process, there was a hesitancy by the Neighborhood Council to
assume such an intense level of participation in allocatin§ these funds. The use of these public
funds and the responsible nature in which they must be expended may have been perceived as
too restrictive and/or intimidating. In a series of 7 meetings, the Neighborhood' Council has
become more comfortable with such a task and drafted guidelines and an application that
includes the following components:
*Neighborhoods who wish to apply for funds shnll make an application to the
Neighborhood Council outlining the project, its cost, why it is needed, what other
resources are available for assisting in the project as well as what effort has l~en
made to ensure comprehensive neighborhood participation in determining this
project.
*Eligible projects include any activity that is not, under normai circumstances,
the financial responsibility of the City (i.e. Capital Improvement Projects).
Emphasis will be placed on physical neighborEood improvements that enhance the
appea.mnce and identity of the area. The funding of research/consulting
assistance to develop neighborhood historic information will nlso be eligible.
*The Neighborhood Council will review the applications based upon the need,
level of funding requested, participation and assistance by the neighborhood
association and assurance that there is no other funding available to complete this
project.
*The Neighborhood Council will review applications and recommend funding
during the months of March, April and May of 1995. A quorum of no less tha~
7 neighborhood association representatives must be pre~ent at the~e review
meeting~ to ensure impartiality. Only one representative from each association
may participate. The Neighborhood Council will present their recommendations
to the City Council in June, 1995 for approval; funding will be available July 1,
1995.
*The Neighborhood Council will be kept apprised of the progress of the approved
projects through reports presented at their monthly meetings.
I expect that the program guidelines will be revised as the process evolves for implementation
in subsequent years if funding should remain available.
Please let me know if you have any comments or questions about this informal/on. You can
reach me at 356-5237.
TO:
FROM:
Chucl( schmadel(e, Public Works Director
FIovde Pelke¥, Supt. of Solid Waste
RE:
Clty Recycling Program Items
METAL & WHITE GOODS - (APPLIANCES. ETC.)
The Iowa City Landfill started separation of metal and whitegoods on 8/I/89. The Refuse DIvisIon
started separate curbslde collectlon of white goods on 8/1/89. The curbslde collected white
goods are tal(en to the Landfill recvcle site. White goods are then plcl(ed up and recycled by
Alter Corp. of Davenport, Iowa. We have not used the services of Statewide Auto Crushing since
October 1993 so those totals have been ellmlnated from this report.
MONTH/YEAR COLLECTED CURBSIDE COLLECTED @ LANDFILL
Jan, 1994 3.40 ton 13.37 ton
Feb, 1994 1.92 ton 12.32 ton
Mar, 1994 3.36 ton 35.18 ton
Apr, 1994 4.88 ton 21.12 ton
May, 1994 3.50 ton 31.93 ton
Jun, 1994 6.58 ton 33.86 ton
Jul, 1994 7.23 ton 35.31 ton
Aug, 1994 6.29 ton 31.83 ton
Sep, 1994 5.28 ton 34.53 ton
Oct, 1994 5.00 ton 26.09 ton
NOV, 1994 2.71 ton 23.19 ton
Dec, 1994 4.79 ton 16.88 ton
The tonnages collected bV Alter 0or130t necessarily reflect the month that the whlte goods
are collected bV the Landfill.
MONTH/YEAR COLLECTED/ALTER CORP INCOME FROM ALTER CORP.
Jan, 1994 9.14 ton 754.65
Feb, 1994 12.71 ton 748.93
Mar, 1994 18.80 ton 1,125.07
Apr, 1994 14.42 ton 899.48
Mav, 1994 15.10 ton 891.92
Jun, 1994 22.63 ton 1,058.14
Jul, 1994 7.75 ton 333.88
Aug, 1994 22.67 ton 1,243.12
Sep, 1994 13.46 ton 742.86
Oct, 1994 13.79 ton 770.13
NOV, 1994 13.23 ton 747.46
Dec, 1994
Recycle Program Items - pg. 2
TIRES
The CltY's tlre recvcling program started on 9/1/89. Tires are collected at the Iowa CitV Landfill
and at the curb by the Refuse Dlvlslon, then taken to the Landfill recvcle site. The tires are
picked up bV Rosebar Tire Shredding Co. of Vlnton, Iowa at a cost to the City of $75.00 per ton
plus a fee for rims collected.
MONTH/YEAR COLLECTED CURBSIDE COLLECTED @ LANDFILl.
Jan, 1994 .02 ton .44 ton
Feb, 1994 .00 ton .26 ton
Mar, 1994 .04 ton 1.30 ton
Apr, 1994 .45 ton 2.93 ton
May, 1994 .50 ton 3.38 ton
Jun, 1994 .13 ton 6.86 ton
Jul, 1994 .36 ton 2.05 ton
Aug, 1994 .13 ton 4.20 ton
Sep, 1994 .27 ton 3.21 ton
Oct, 1994 .16 ton 2.58 ton
Nov, 1994 .17 ton 2.52 ton
Dec, 1994 .32 ton .35 ton
The tons collected by Rosebar Tire Co. do not necessarllV reflect the month that the tlres are
collected bV the Landfill.
MONTH/YEAR COLLECTED BY ROSEBAR EXPENSE PAID TO ROSEBAR
Jan, 1994 19.58 ton 1,468.50
Feb, 1994 13.12 ton 984.00
Mar, 1994 .00 ton .00
Apr, 1994 .O0 ton .00
May, 1994 .00 ton .00
Jun, 1994 .00 ton .00
Jul, 1994 .00 ton .00
Aug, 1994 .00 ton .00
Sep, 1994 .00 ton .00
Oct, 1994 .00 ton .00
Nov, 1994 .00 ton .00
Dec, 1994 .00 ton .00
Recycle Program Items - pg. 3
NEWSPRINT
The Cltv began drop slte collectlon of newsprlnt on 3/28/90, wlth seven Iocatlons now available
(Econofoods, No. Dodge H¥ vee, CIty Carton, Eastdale Mall, Recreation Center LOt, Pepperwood
Place, Rochester Hy vee). The City COlleCtS the newsprint from the drop sites and delivers them
to City Carton Co. for processing. In additlon, the City began curbside collectlon of newsprint on
7/13/92. The curbside newsprint is also delivered to City Carton Co. for processing. The City pays
City Carton Co. by weight according to the Chicago Market price. Since JulV, 1994 City Carton has
been paying the City for newsprint from the curb and bins based on the market value.
MONTH/YEAR COLLECTED CURBSIDE COLLECTED @ DROP SITES
Jan, 1994 31.10 ton 90.24 ton
Feb, 1994 28.63 ton 106.79 ton
Mar, 1994 38.02 ton 125.43 ton
Apr, 1994 35.35 ton 117.78 ton
MaV, 1994 41.27 ton 133.31 ton
Jun, 1994 34.99 ton 121.77 ton
Jul, 1994 29.88 ton 121.77 ton
Aug, 1994 39.50 ton 110.99 ton
Sep, 1994 38.67 ton 110.61 ton
Oct, 1994 37.45 ton 126.12 ton
NOV, 1994 42.06 ton 114.02 ton
Dec, 1994 37.77 ton 136.71 ton
MONTH/YEAR PD TO CITY CARTON:CURBSIDE PD TO CITY CARTON:DROP SITES
Jan, 1994 .00 902.40
Feb, 1994 .00 t,067.79
Mar, 1994 .00 1,254.33
Apr, 1994 .00 1,177.80
May, 1994 .00 1,328.51
Jun, 1994 .00 .00
Jul, 1994 .00 .00
Aug, 1994 .00 .00
sep, 1994 .00 .00
OCt, 1994 .00 .00
NOV, 1994 .00 .00
DeC, 1994 .00 .00
J
MONTH/YEAR
JUl, 1994
AUg, 1994
Sep, 1994
Oct, 1994
NOV, 1994
Dec, 1994
PYMT. FROM CC:CURBSIDE
747.00
1,777.50
1,933.50
2,434.25
2,523.60
2,915.50
PYMT. FROM CC:DROPSITES
1,832.69
3,891.91
4,468.29
6,955.64
5,722.26
8,008.46
Recycle Program Items. pg, 4
YARD WASTE
The Iowa City Landfill started separation of vard waste and the Refuse Division started separate
curbslde collection for yard waste on 5/21/90. The curbslde collected yard waste Is taken to the
Landfill recycle site.
MONTH/YEAR COLLECTED CURBSIDE COLLECTED @ LANDFILL
Jan, 1994 23.05 ton 6.88 ton
Feb, 1994 3.00 ton 5.45 ton
Mar, t994 71.42 ton 103.95 ton
Apr, 1994 196.70 ton 235.55 ton
May, 1994 207.13 ton 330.34 ton
Jun, 1994 183.52 ton 270.91 ton
Jul, 1994 166.80 ton 228.85 ton
Aug, 1994 144.42 ton 213.13 ton
Sep, 1994 123.76 ton 175.15 ton
Oct, 1994 120.03 ton 152.24 ton
Nov, 1994 71.19 ton 132.72 ton
Dec, 1994 35.29 ton 94.72 ton
PLASTIC BOTTLES
The City of Iowa City began drop site collection of plastlc milk jugs on 6/12/89,.with eight
locations now available (Econofoods, NO. DOdge H¥ Vee, City Service Yard, City Carton, Eastdale
Mall, Recreatlon Center Lot, Peppe~vood Place, Rochester Hy Vee). The City collects the bottles
from the drop sites and delivers them to City Carton Co., where thev bale the plastic and ship
It for processing.
In addltion, the Clty began curbside collection of plastlc bottles on 7/13/92. The curbside bottles
are also delivered to City Carton Co. for processing.
MONTH/YEAR COLLECTED CURBSIDE COLLECTED DROP-SITES
Jan, 1994 2.12 ton 8.36 ton
Feb, 1994 2.20 ton 10.48 ton
Mar, 1994 2.78 ton 11.54 ton
Apr, 1994 2.29 ton 8.49 ton
May, 1994 2.51 ton 8.82 ton
Jun, 1994 2.32 ton 8.95 ton
Jul, 1994 2.01 ton 8.70 ton
Aug, 1994 2.55 ton 8.20 ton
Sep, 1994 2.61 ton 7.83 ton
OCt, 1994 2.52 ton 8.94 ton
NOV, 1994 2.77 ton 7.51 ton
DeC, 1994 2.50 ton 8.07 ton
z/.Io
Recycle Program Items - pg. 5
TIN CANS
The City Of Iowa City began drop site collectlon of tln cans on 3/91, with two locations now
available (Econofoods, City Carton). The Clty collects the tin cans from Econofoods and dellvers
them to CIty Carton Co. for processing.
In addition, the City began curbslde collection oftln cans on 7/13/92. The tin cans are delivered
to ClW carton co. for processing.
MONTH/YEAR COLLECTED CURBSIDE COLLECTED @ DROP SITES
Jan, 1994 3.56 ton 2.47 ton
Feb, 1994 3.81 ton 1.16 ton
Mar, 1994 4.95 ton 2.77 ton
Apr, 1994 3.43 ton .00 ton
May, 1994 4.06 ton .00 ton
Jun, 1994 3.36 ton .00 ton
Jul, 1994 2.79 ton .00 ton
Aug, 1994 3.19 ton .00 ton
Sep, 1994 3.74 ton .00 ton
OCt, 1994 3.41 ton .00 ton
NOV, 1994 4.02 ton .00 ton
Dec, 1994 4.17 ton .00 ton
GLASS
The City started drop site colleCtion of glass on 8/90, with four locations available (Econofoods,
NO. DOdge HV vee, City Service Yard, CltY car~on). The City collects the glass, which Is separated
by color and delivers It to City Carton Co. for processing.
In addltion, the City began curbside collection of clear qlass on 7/13/92. The curbside clear glass
Is also delivered to City Carton Co. for processing.
MONTH/YEAR COLLECTED CURBSIDE COLLECTED @ DROP SITES
Jan, 1994 6.02 ton .00 ton
Feb, 1994 6.71 ton .00 ton
Mar, 1994 9.38 ton .00 ton
Apr, 1994 7.18 ton .00 ton
Mav, 1994 8.90 ton .00 ton
Jun, 1994 7.91 ton .00 ton
Jul, 1994 7.20 ton .00 ton
Aug, 1994 8.08 ton .00 ton
Sep, 1994. 7.18 ton .00 ton
OCt, 1994 6.86 ton .00 ton
NOV, 1994 7.12 ton .00 ton
Dec, 1994 7.32 ton .00 ton
Eecvcle Program Items - pg. 6
OIL
Tile City has been providing an automotive waste 011 disposal site at the City Sen/ice Yard since
9/22/89. Industrial Sen/ice Corp. collects tile Clty's uncontaminated waste 011
MONTH/YEAR DISPOSAL SITE TONNAGES
Jan, 1994 2.56 ton
Feb, 1994 1.52 ton
Mar, 1994 5.10 ton
Apr, 1994 6.02 ton
May, 1994 3.50 ton
Jun, 1994 7.18 ton
Jul, 1994 6.52 ton
Aug, 1994 4.76 ton
Sep, 1994 3.97 ton
Oct, 1994 4.55 ton
NOV, 1994 4.08 ton
DeC, 1994 3.48 ton
Brad Neuman
Carol Casey
c:\wp51~'ecycle.mem
City of Iowa City
'MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
January11,1995
Steve Atkins~.ity Manager
Ron Logsden, Transit Manager
ICT/DTA Employee Bus Pass Promotion
!n FY94 Iowa City Transit was approved for a grant to allow apartment owners to
purchase one year (12) of monthly bus passes at one-half the normal cost. The
contract stipulates that all 12 passes would have to be pumhased at one time. The -
Iowa DOT would pay the remaining one-half of the cost of the monthly passes up to a
maximum of 30 yearly passes. The grant was originally for FY94, but was extended to
FY95 because no landlords were willing to participate in FY94. Last summer I
contacted the landlords and again I found that none were willing to participate in this
grant.
Because the money was paid to Iowa City Transit in FY94 and we did not want to have
to pay it back, I asked for and received an amendment to the grant. The amendment
allows us to sell the monthly passes to downtown business for employee passes rather
than to apartment owners. All other stipulations of the grant remain unchanged. The
grant will be administered in cooperation with the Downtown Association. The
Downtown Association promotes employer participation in the employee monthly pass
program and they feel that the half price passes will be an added incentive for ,
downtown businesses to try the employee bus pass program. Participation in the
promotion will be limited to the first thirty applicants. An article will appear in the
February Iowa City Chamber of Commerce Newsletter and the DTA Newsletter which
will give the details of the promotion. I look forward to working with the Downtown
Association to ensure the success of this promotion and the long term success of the
employee bus pass program.
EMPPASS.DOC
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY
OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
~. !niver~itv Ext¢_n.$ioo
Ames. Iowa 500~ ~-3~0o
5~5 2c)4-08~7
FAX ~t5 2t~ae-2t56
l:mafl i~u fir~exneLiastat¢.¢du
December 29, 1994
Chief Jim Pumfrey
Iowa City Fire Department
410 East Washington
Iowa City, IA 52240-1826
Dear Jim,
In reviewing the year end Certification System records of the Fire Service Institute, I noticed
some interesting data which may be of interest to you.
The Iowa City Fire Department has a very high rate of certification -- higher than any other
Iowa fire department. Our records indicate that, including pending applications, your
department's personnel have earned over 200 certifications. Given the size of your
department, that indicates a certification rate of approxima~ly 4 per person!
Further analysis of our records indicate that your department personnel are apparently
systematically pursuing a policy of earning all certifications available and / or appropriate for
their duties.
As you know, Jim, the benefits of certification are many. Certifying to national standards,
through an accredited certifying agency provides:
· individnals with a measure of their professional achievement
· city administrators and local officials with a gauge of the effectiveness of local policies,
training and management techniques
· the public with a better understanding of the level of service to be expected from their
community service providers
· an effective method of documenting proficiency in the case of liability claims against a city
Quite frankly, I am aware of no other city in Iowa which matches the achievement of your
department. I see no other fire department pursuing a policy of certif'tcation on such a
systematic basis!
I offer my congratulations to your leadership and the achievement of your department's
personnel.
It is a pleasure and rewarding experience for the Fire Service Institute staff to be associated
with your department. If I or the staff can be of assistance to you in any way during the
coming year, please do not hesitate to call.
ly,
George Oster, Executive Officer
Fire Service Institute
Iowa State University Extension
3anu~ry 6, 1995
Mayor's Office
City of Iowa City
Iowa City, Ia 52242
Dear Mayor:
My son is a freshman at the University of Iowa. Throughout
his first semester he has told me of his weekday and weekend
activities. These include partying at his fraternity house
and at the local bars. As a freshman, he is just 18, I was
wondering why it is so easy for him to purchase alcohol. He
told me that he uses someone else's drivers license and has
never been turned down with it. He showed it to me, and I
saw-date of birth 1973, brown hair, brown eyes, 5'10" tall
and 180 lbs. My son is a young looking blue eyed blonde
haired 5'11 1/2" tall and weighs 165 lbs. He and the picture
on the license share no resemblance whatsoever. I now have
the license in my possession.
I know underage drinking is a problem on a lot of college
campuses. But I wonder why. since the college towns are
aware of such activity, they don't make these students show
two forms of ID to get served. It seems like such a simple
solution. Couldn't this be .implemented in your town? I be-
lieve somethinq should be done to make it more difficult for
underage drinking to occur.
Sincerely,
A concerned parent
Sus aina }..e )eve..o men
Prosperity
Without
Growth
Michael I(insley
he assumption that economic prosperity requires growth
seems so reasonable that most of us do not think much
about it. After all, we always have been told that growth is
the solution to our economic problems.
This assumption is so pervasive that virtually every
American community is looking for ways to grow in order
to soh'e its local economic problems. Declining communi-
ties search fxanfically for any new business they can find,
while growing communities assurae that they can grow
their way'out of their problems.
But to believe that prosperity requires growth is to con-
cede the demise of thousands of American communities
for which growth is simply ngt a realistic possibility. It also
condemns fast. growing communities to a stormy and vex-
ing future.
There are alternatives: sustainable economic develop.
merit strategies offer practical solutions to declining com-
munities, regardless of whether they are able to attract
growth. These strategies also offer realistic alternatives to
communities overwhelmed by the side effects of too
much growth. They offer a manageable future for com-
munities that are comfortable and want to stay that way.
For the purposes of this discussion, growth is defined
as expansion in the size of a community--for example,
construction of buildings, roads, and utility netsvorks.
Though an increase in business activity and creation of
jobs also might be included in the definition of growth, it
will be referred to here as developmenL But before the
distinction between growth and development is thor-
oughly explored, a brief glimpse at
declining and growing cornunities is
useful.
Declining Communities
Business failores, loss of jobs and
population, lack of opportunity for
young people, deteriorating infra.~
tructure, and loss of hope are some
of the daunting problems of a declin-
ing community. The town's economy
is probably based on one or two such
saleable resources as timber, coal,
wheat, or a manufactured product.
Such to,ms may seem prosperous
until the international economy de-
cides that the town's products are no
longer worth what the town must
cha~e for them.
The normal response to decline is
industrial recruitment, the search for
any new business that might want to
move in. But outside businesses are
seldom inclined to invest in someone
else's problems. Most business re-
cruitment efforts in declining towns
lead to disappointment. The few
towns that successfully lure new busi-
ness often give a,,~y so muchroland,
infrastructure, tax breaks---that the
result is a net loss to the community.
Worse, in a few years, the new busi.
hess may move on to a town that of-
fers even bigger giveaways.
G~owing Communities
Saleable resources also are the eco-
nomic basis for growing towns. These
towns are growing because their re-
source is in demand. But in many of
these towns, the resource (for in-
stance, coking coal) is in demand for
one year, while nobody wants it the
next. The town experiences radical
economic fluctuations, booms then
busts--hence the term "boom town."
Quality of life is the saleable prod-
uct in many other growing towns,
They have clean air and water, little
traffic, and low income. They feel a
lot more like home than the city.
They also may be towns that attract
Public Managemoot
the lieiv wave of information bual-
nesses that depend upon telephones,
fax machines, and computers.
Past development has been bene-
ficial to these towns. In virutally
every fast-growing town, however, an
ill-fated scenario is played ou.t: towns-
people accept virtually any new pro-
posal for growth because the}, want
to maintain a healthy economy. More
people move into the area and things
look pretty good.
Then, the side effects hit home:
the sparkling, clear air begins to mrn
gray; traffic slows and snarls; parking
gets more difficult; doors must be
locked; taxes go up; and the quaint
old buildings that made the town
feel like home are replaced by mas-
sive blocks of cement and glass.
Though they bring needed rev-
enue, second-home and resort buy-
ers tend to bid up the price of hous-
ing. Working people, forced to
relocate many miles from the com-
munity they built, face a long, often
dangerous, commute. What had
been a close-knit community begins
to feel like an amusement park to
which locals drive each day to oper-
ate the rides and sell trinkets.
Can a Community Prosper
Without Growth?
Some residents of fast-growing towns
inevitably begin to talk about con-
trolling growth. Others will not hear
of it. For instance, struggling retail-
ers appeal for more growth so that
they can get more customers. But
over time, increased sales are the
landlord's signal to ratchet up the
rent. Fast growth not only attracts
more retail customers but also brings
more competitors and an upward
spiral of costs: higher rents, higher
taxes, and demands for higher wages
to meet the higher cost of living.
Cash flows faster out of the hands of
business people. Formerly relaxed
and friendly, business becomes tense
and frenzied. "Gone fishin'" signs
fade into memory.
No matter how serions the prob-
lems of growth become, there always
will be hard-working local business
people who, for their own good rea-
sons, appeal for more growth. Look-
ing for justification, they will say that
new taxes fi-om growth will pay for
the solutions to growth problems.
But in most cases, problems worsen
while taxes increase to pay for at-
tempted solutions (e.g., affordable
housing and mass transit). Locals
end up subsidizing growth with in-
creased taxes.
Residents of growing towns find
that Alice was tight when, in Wonder-
land, she said, The burrlet I go, the
behinder I get.' Their quality of life,
often their only saleable product, be-
gins to decline. Their sources of in-
come--tourists, second home buy-
ers, and retirees who cherished the
small-town character and clean envi-
ronmentmbegin to look for the next
unspoiled paradise.
Overwhelmed by cars, congestion,
pollution, and taxes, residents of
these overgrown towns are drowning
in someone else's prosperity. Many
are beginning to examine more care-
fully each new proposal for growth to
determine if possible benefits out-
weigh side effects. But virtually none
of these communities has realized
that it need not give up prosperity as
it slows down its growth, that there
are sustainable development alterna-
tives that do not require growtab.
Ironically, the thousands of declin-
ing towns that would benefit from
growth are seldom in a position to at-
tract the growth with which fast-grow-
ing towns are struggling. The only
opportunity for prosperity in most
declining towns is development with-
out growth.
Development noes Blot
Equal Grous~h
Though a sound economy requires
development--that is, vigorous busi-
ness activity--it does not require
growth, that is, increased community
size. A community might be com-
pared to a hnman being. Human
growth after maturity is cancer.
When a town continues to grow after
matnrity, its cancer is manifest in
many ways--environmental degrada-
tion, spiteful controversy, and loss of
a sense of community.
But development is different from
growth. After reaching physical many
dry, we humans can continue to de-
velop in many beneficial and interest-
ing ways-learning new skills, gaining
deeper wisdom, and much more, Sim-
ilarly, a community can develop itself
without growth. It can create housing
and jobs, expand cultural and educa-
tional opportunities, improve health,
and protect the public safety.
Aitamat~vus
Surprisingly, there are plenty of ex-
amples of economic development
without growth. One is Osage, Iowa,
a town that plugged its energy leaks
and now is saving over $900 per fam-
ily per year. Money that has been
spent out of town to buy gas and elec-
tricity now is additional, essentially
tax-free, income. A total of $1.2 mil-
lion now stays in Osage each year.
Much of it recirculates in the econ-
omy-strengthening local businesses
without growth in size of the coremu-
nit..', Moreover, the program put Itcel
people to work plugging energy leaks
(insulating, caulking, installing new
lighting, etc.). Osage's simple pro-
gram is so dramatic that it repeatedly
has made nationwide news.
In plugging its energy leaks,
Osage plugged a huge leak in the
local economy, Researchers for
Rocky Mountain Institute's Eco-
nomic Renewal Program have found
scores of examples of towns that
plugged other kinds of leaks in their
local economies. By becoming more
efficient, they have improved the
bottom line. Rocky Mountain Insti-
tute calls plugging the leaks the first
principle of economic renewal.
Another principle is to support
8
existlug businesses. A busiuess-
woman in Eugene, Oregon, did just
that when she started a program link-
ing local suppliers with local buyers.
In its first year, Oregon Marketplace
generated $2.5 million in new local
contracts and 100 newjobs-just by
identifying items purchased out of
state that could be obtained locally.
The Eugene program did not re-
quire growth. Rather, it created more
wealth by using existing resources
more effectively. Like Osage's pro-
gram, it caused locals' dollars m be
respent more often. Each dollar re-
spent within the community provides
all the benefits of a new dollar from
the outside, without possible side ef-
fects created by growth.
Any town will slowly bleed to
death ff its imports exceed its ex-
ports. Because declining towns have
lost some portion of their export ca-
parity, they must either reduce im-
ports or find additional exports. Two
.excellent ways to reduce imports are.
plugging leaks and supporting exist-
ing businesses. These two efficiency
measures are particularly powerful
when applied to the basics-energy,
food, water, and housing. A town that
becomes more efficient in the basics
and produces many of its necessities
locally is far stronger and more eco-
nomically resilient.
The third principle of economic
renewal, to encourage new local busi-
.hess? can be pursued by identifying
an underused local asset and putting
iF to work. Until a group of women in
declining Colquirt, Georgia, started
canning the Mayhaw berry and sell-
ing jelly to specialty shops, residents
had taken the native berry for
granted as something to can for fam-
ily use. A workforce of 40 now is pro-
ducing and selling Mayhaw jelly in ~§
states, with sales doubling each year.
None of these examples required
growth in the scale of the commu-
nity. Therefore, each of these mea-
sures, and hundreds more found by
Rocky Mountain Institute re-
searchers, will work in towns that
cannm attract growth. Each also will
work in towns that desire less growth.
Though growth in many declining
communities is unlikely, in others it
remains a possibility. After pursuing
the first three principles of economic
renewal, these communities are far
more attractive to investment. They
may then be in a position to recruit
compatible business. the fourth prin-
ciple of economic renewal. In this
process, a community assures itself
that its recruitment targets will be
compatible with local conditions and
local goals, that the community will
experience a net gain rather than
being tipped off.
Careful consideration of compati-
bility also is appropriate in growing
towns that prefer to limit growth.
They can examine each growth pro-
posal to determine if it is compatible
with the desired scale and character
of the community.
Sustainable IEeonomio
Development
One compelling characteristic of the
four principles of economic renewal
is that, because they offer solution~
~hat are sustainable over time, no m.at-
ter the condition of the local econ-
omy, their solutions are applicable t.o
both declining and growing towns.
They are four practical ways to pursue
sustainable economic development.
A global perspective often is use-
ful when examining local problems.
For instance, we know that the earth
is not growing, but it is developing.
Since the economy is a subsystem of
the earth, it cannot continue to
grow forever, but it can continue to
develop.
In contrast to growth, sustainable
development is a potent new ap-
proach to economic development
that can be perpetuated contintmHy
. for future generations. Unlike the
national debt, it does not put our
grandchildren in hock. Sustainable
development requires thinking long-
term, well beyond the next quarter's
Oct0bor 1894
balance sheet. This is the kind of
thinking that once made American
corporations great.
Sustainability is old news m conser-
vative bankers who live off their inter-
est income rather than their capital.
Because the earth and its natural re-
sources are finite, it is simply good
business practice to regard depletion
of natural resources as a capital ex-
pense rather than a windfall. Using
up our nonrenewable resources is
like living off our capital, a dangerous
business practice. If we exhaust our
capital, our communities, our natiod,
and our planet are out of business.
Sustainable development does not
use resources faster than they can be
renewed. Mining towns that use up
their nonrenewable mineral re-
sources faster than they can be re-
newed also will be out of business.
Agricultural towns will ease them-
selves out of business if their level of
production requires removing more
nuUients from the soil than are re-
placed. Retirement and resort towns
whose growth results in urban pollu-
tion and congestion will grow them-
selves out of business.
The economies of these commu-
nities are using up their capital. They
are out of balance with their human
and natural environments. Environ-
mental balance is not just love of
trees and little furry creatures. It also
is a requirement for long-term (sus-
tainable) economic viability.
Sustainable development requires
careful consideration of the "ecologi-
cal threshold," the point past which
an ecosystem can no longer be dam-
aged or altered without permanent
failure of that ecosystem and the
economy that depends on it.
Sustainability recognizes "carry-
inc capacity," the [concept] that any
given area--a community, a nation,
the earth--can sustain only a cer-
tain number of people. Therefore,
establishing a sustainable basis for
our development requires address-
ing the toughest problem of all,
overpopulation. Recognition of the
Public Management
Overwhelmed by
cars, congestion,
pollution, and
taxes, residents of
these overgrown
towns are
drowning in
someone eise's
prosperity.
validity of sustainable economic de-
velopment compels growing and de-
clining communities to confront
each decision about proposed
growth with the question, "Is this
kind of growth sustainable?"
In Ethiopia '25 years ago, the land
was fertile and bountiful. Nobody
asked the sustainability question. But
each year, as the population grew,
Ethiopians developed export crops
and intensified farming practices that
exhausted their soil. Now, too far
down an unsustainable path, its eco-
logical threshold crossed, Ethiopia's
amber yeayes of grain have become
parched thornbush and sandstorms.
Though at first it may seem ab-
surd to think that this scenario could
play out in our country, the Ameri-
can dust bowl of the 1930s is a dis-
tant, though painful, case in point.
We can and must learn from these
tragedies. Year after year, Ethiopians
made reasonable decisions--where
and what to plant, what to export--
that led to disaster. Each of those de-
cisions was no more dangerous than
each decision made today by the citi-
gens of American towns.
Nearly everyone who takes the
time to think about it is concerned
about those who suffer from unsus-
rainable practices: Ethiopians, the
shorebirds of Valdez, and the beings
on a planet whose climate may be ir-
reversibly altered. But we must learn
to apply the lessons of these tra-
gedies to our daily lives. Thinking
globally and acting locally is not just
some glib phrase for use on Earth
Day. It is a rule for survival--of
species and of economies.
Sustainable Strategies
In summary, while growth often is per-
ceived as the only path to economic vi-
ability, the good news for both declin-
inc and growing communities is that
there is an alternative. Prosperity does
not require growth, it requires devel-
opment that is sustainable.
The drama being played out in
local communides -the controversy.,
the social and environmental side ef-
fects of growth and decline--is not
the concern of a few isolated people.
Rather, it is their version of a drama
that will play across the planet as the
international economy impinges on
each individual's life, as the popula-
tion swells, and as nonrenewable re-
sources become more scarce. The
global perspective makes it painfully
clear that, ff our strateaies for eco-
nomic development are not sustain-
able, they will be terminal.
Michael I~nslq. is director of the Eco-
nomic t~tewal Prograin, Rocky Moun-
tain Institute, $nou. nass. Colorado.
R~pdnttd a~ ~ni~don [~m Pacilic Stoumain
Review. I~iid~d 6y t& P~ml C~m~nunity Aui~tante
To: TOgA CTTY CLERB From: Board o~ ~upervJ. sors 1-18-95 0:41am p, Z of' 3
Charles D. Duffy, Chairperson
Joe Bolk~om
$tcph~n P. La¢ina
Don Schr
Sally Stutsman
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
January 19, 1995
INFORMAL MEETING
Agenda
1. Call to order 9:00 a.m.
Review of the informal minutes of January 3rd, recessed to January 5th,
recessed to January 9th, informal minutes of January 10th, recessed to
.JanuaD' 11th, recessed to January 12th and January 13th, and the formal
minutes of January 12th.
3. Business from Rufme Anciaux re: Senior Center update/discussion.
4. Business from the Assistant Zoning Administrator.
a) Discussion re:
Agreement.
b) Other
5. Business from the County Attorney.
a) Executive Session re: litigation Oakes rs. Johnson County/discussion.
b) Other
status of North Corridor Study and Fringe Area
Business from the Board of Supervisors.
a) Reports
b) Other
913 SOUTH DUBUQUE ST. P,O. BOX 1350 IOWA CITY, IOWA 52244-1350 TEL: (319) 356.6000
FAX: (319) 356-6086
To.' I0~ C]~ CLERI(
Board of Suparvisors 1-18-95 8:41a,. p. 3 of' 3
Agenda 1-19-95
Page 2
Business from Rona Berinobis, Account Executive of Blue Cross/Blue
Shield of Iowa re: proposed health insurance premiums for FY
96/discussion.
8. Discussion re: budgets.
9. Discussion from the public.
10. Recess.
FORMAL MEETING TO FOLLOW
To: ]0',~ C~ CLERk(
From: 8oard of Super~.s~rs 1-18--95 9:69am p. 2 of 3
Johnson Count'
Charles D. Duffy, Chairperson
$o¢ 'Bolkcom
Stophen P. Lacina
Don Sahr
Sally Stutsman
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
January 19, 1995
FORMAL MEETING
Agenda
Call to order following the informal muting.
Action re: claims
Action re: informal minutes of January 3rd, recessed to January 5th,
recessed to January 9th, informal minutes of January 10th, recessed to
Januat3t 11th, recessed to January 12th and January 13th, and the formal
minutes of January 12th.
4. Action re: payroll authorizations
5. Business from the County Auditor.
a) Action re: permits
b) Action re: reports
1. County Recorder's quarterly report of fees collected.
2. Report of Commission of Veteran Affaks.
c) Other
6. Business from the Assis~ant Zoning Administrator.
a) Final consideration of application Z9444 of Daniel and Diana Wenman.
b) Final cousidemtion of application Z9449 of Robert Frees.
Final consideration of application Z9457 of Russell Thompson.
913 SOUTH DUBUQUE 8T. P.O. BOX 1350 IOWA CITY, IOWA 52244.-1350 TEL: (319) 356-6000 F/U{: (319) 356-6086
Fro.: Board of Supervisors 1-~8~J5
p, 3 of 3
Agenda 1-19-95
Page 2
d) Final consideration of application Z9458 of Karen Harris.
e) Final consideration of application Z9461 of Darrell and Carolyn Marak.
Final consideration of application Z9462 of Michael and Nancy Scheetz.
g) Final consideration of application Z9463 of Robert and Betty Bream.
h) Other
7. Business from the County Attorney.
a) Report re: other items.
8. Business from the Board of Supervisors.
Discussion/action re: agreement from Brian Fleck and Phil Prichard,
Publishers of Lone Tree Reporter, Solon Economist and The Leader to
request a designation that all three are official newspapers of Johnson
b) Discussion/action re:
c) Discussion/action re:
appointment to the
Commission.
d) Other
appointment to the Senior Center.
recommendation to the Iowa City City Council
Iowa City Riverfront and Natural Areas
9. Adjournto informal meefin~
a) Inquiries and reports from the public.
b) Reports and inquires from the members of the Board of Supervisors.
c) Report from the County Attomey.
· d)Discussion re: budgets.
e) Other
10. Adjournment
Charles D. Duffy, Chairperson
Io~ Bolkcom
Stephen P. Lacina
Don Sehr
Sally Stutsman
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
JOINT IOWA CITY/CITY COUNCIL AND JOHNSON COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING
Tuesday, January 24, 1995
The Brown Bottle
115 East Washln~on Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
1. Call to order 4:30 p.m.
2. Discussion regarding the following:
a) Industrial Park. (county and city)
b) Fringe Area Agreement update.
e) Local option sales tax. (city)
d) Scheduling next meeting.
3. General discussion.
4. Adjourn $:45 p.m.
(city and county)
h:~ge.das~joia.doo
913 SOUTH DUBUQUE S~.
P.O, BOX 1350
IOWA CITY, IOWA $2244'15~0
TEL: {319) 3964000
FAX: (31 4~
I am sending you a new agenda for the Joint Iowa City/City Council and
~Iohnson County Board of Supervisors' meeting, because the wording for
number 4 was incorrect. Please attach the new agenda with your packet.
Thank you.
J olmson County
Charles D.
$oe Bolkcom
Stephen P. Lacina
Don Sehr
Sally Stutsman
Chalr~raon
Call to order 4:30 p.m.
Discussion regarding
a) Industrial Park.
b) Fringe
c) Local option sales
d)
Adjou~ to:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CITY/CITY COUNC1L AND
BOARD OF SUPERVISOR8
Tuesday, January 24,
The Brown i
Iowa
(county
(city)
h:~agendu~Joln.do~
913 SOUTH DUBUQUIi ST.
P.O. BOX 13~0
IOWA CITY', IOWA 52244'1350
TEL: 019) 356.6000
FAX:
Karen Kubby
CITY COUNCIL MEMI~EF,
CMc Center
410 E. Waehlngton St.
Iowa CIt, y. IA 522~0
I~e~ldence
728 2nd Avenue
Iowa Clt, y, IA 52245
( 19)
CITY OF I0 CITY
Prln~;ed on
re, c~led paper-10/,
poe~.coneumer
To:
Board of Supervisors
City Council
Date: January 18, 1995
Re: Traffic issues and meeting frequency
Since we have not met for at least fifteen months,
the list of topics to discuss has grown. We only
have time at any one meeting to focus on one or
two subjects. I have been asked by the Mayor to
express my thoughts on a topic I had requested to
be an agenda item. This is for informational
purposes only and will be an agenda item at
another meeting.
The City of Iowa City had requested that Johnson
County become partners with us in putting up a
traffic signal on the corner of Highway 1 and
Mormon Trek. This intersection was in the county
and it was an opportunity for the city and county
to work together on a safety issue caused and
faced by both city and county residents. This
partnership did not materialize and the city chose
to annex this property into the city limits so
that we could act on this traffic issue.
As the city expands on its fringes and as more
subdivisions are approved by the Board of
Supervisors, this issue will come up again. I
believe that the county is going to have to become
involved in issues and services that it currently
does not involve itself. I would like to see the
city and county further discuss how we can
cooperate on traffic issues.
As time goes on, the need for these two bodies to
be in communication becomes more imminent. It is
a positive trend that the Chair of the Board and
the Mayor speak frequently. But most issues need
the deliberation of the whole group. I would like
us to renew our commitment to meeting twice a year
and create some regular meeting times, so that we
know in advance of our schedule. Meeting before
the budget process makes sense. Maybe once in
November and once in May. We could even pick a
week and day that is regular, i.e. the third
Wednesday in November and May we will meet.
Thank you for your consideration of these issues.
Chapter 4
Sales and Excise Taxes
"F. xcTs~--A hateful tax levied on commodities, and adjudged not by the
common judges of property, but wretches hired by those to whom ex-
cise is paid." Samuel Johnson
DICTIONARY (1755)
How Sales Taxes Work
To compute a sales tax, the cost of taxable items is multiplied by the tax rate. For
example, in Michigan, where the sales tax rate is four percent, the sales tax on
a $20 book is 80 cents. The final cost of the book to the consumer is $20.80. To-
tal collections should equal the tax rate times the sales tax base-the total price of all the
goods and services subject to the tax.
Often, states have more than one sales tax. They have a general sales tax (which
is what most people mean when they talk about "the sales tax") and they have speolal
sales taxes on particular goods or services. A typical special sales tax, which may have
a different rate than the general sales tax, is a tax on utilities-such as electricity and
telephone service.
Many states also have local sales taxes. These usually (but not always) have the same
base as the state sales tax. Thus, calculating the total state and local sales tax is generally
simply a matter of adding the state rate to the local rate and multiplying it by the cost
of taxable items.
Unfairness
Sales taxes are inherently regressive
because the lower a family's income,
the more of its income the family must
spend on things subject to the tax. Typically
low.income families spend three-q~arters of
their income on things subject to sales tax,
middle-income families spend a little less
than haft of their income on things subject
to sales tax and the richest families in the
country spend only about a sixth of their
income on sales-taxable items. Thus, three-
quarters of the income of a low-income fam-
ily, half of a middle-income family's income
and just one-sixth of the income of a rich
family is typically subject to sales tax. Put.
another way, a 6 percent sales tax is the
equivalent of an income tax with a 4.5 per-
Florida's General Sales Tax
As Shares of Family Income
6%-
5%-
4%-
_
o
3Yo-
....
cent rate for the poor (that's three-quarters of the 6 percent sales tax rate), a 3 percent
rate on the middle-class (half of 6 percent) and a one-percent income tax rate for the
rich (one-sixth of 6 percent). Obviously, no one could get away with proposing an in.
Cmz~s FOR TAX Jus~c~
15
come tax that looked like that. The only reason sales taxes are tolerated is that their
regressive nature is hidden in an innocuous looking single rate and the amount families
pay is hidden ill many small purchases throughout the year.
Of course,/.he share ofil~comc subject to sales tax varies from state to state, depend-
ing on what types of purchases are taxable. But the sales tax is very regressive every.
where. In Florida, for example, a middle-income family making $35,400 a year pays 3.2
percent of its income in state and local general sales taxes, while a family in the richest
one percent, with an income close to $!.2 million, pays only 1.1 percent of its income
in sales taxes. Florida's low-income working families pay about 5 percent of their in-
come in state and local general sales taxes.
The "Equal Tax on Equal Purchases" Fallacy
Despite the regressivity of the sales tax, some people claim that sales taxes are fair.
After all, it is said, no one can completely avoid paying sales taxes since they apply
to things that everyone-rich and poor alike-needs to buy. The sales tax hits everyone
"equally," goes this argument; the tax is the same on, say, a tube of toothpaste, no mat-
ter who buys it.
But this so-called "equality" is precisely why sales taxes fail the test of fairness. The
cost of toothpaste, and therefore the sales tax on it, is the same for a rich person as for
a poor person. But the rich person has many times more income. So the amount that the
rich person pays in tax on that tube of toothpaste is a much smaller share of his or her
income than the same tax on a middle- or low-income family.
Of course, a rich family does consume more, and thus pays more sales tax in dollars
than does a less well-off family. But in terms of what those dollars mean to rich families-
as a portion of their income and how it affects their standard of living-the sales tax is
far, far less of a burden on the rich than it is on middle- and low-income families.
The Business Share of Sales Taxes
Most state sales taxes exempt many types of business purchases from their tax
base, on the theory that the sales tax is supposed to be a tax on final personal
consumption. But some business purchases are subject to sales tax. These bus-
iness-input sales taxes add to the cost of producing goods and services, and therefore
are mostly passed forward to consumers in the form of higher prices at the retail level.
There are, however, some exceptions to this rule. For example, manufacturers that
compete against out-of-state producers that do not pay equivalent business-input sales
taxes may be unable to pass on their added tax costs to consumers. If they try, their
competitors not paying the tax will be able to undercut their price. In such circumstanc-
es, companies might have to try to cut other costs-e.g., wages-to make up for their
higher taxes compared to their competitors. Or they may lose profits. But because busi-
ness-input sales taxes don't vary a great deal from state to state, the vast majority of busi-
ness sales taxes are indeed passed forward to consumers.
Some of the sales taxes paid by businesses may be exported to out-of-state consum-
ers. For example, Mississippi taxes industrial electrical use at a 1.5 percent rate. Assum-
ing that competitive forces do not keep down the price of Mississippi-made products
sold in other states, a Biloxi-based maker of infant car seats with only 10 percent of its
sales in Mississippi will shift most of the tax it pays on electricity to buyers who live in
Texas, California, Massachusetts, and elsewhere. In this case, only a little. of the tax hits
Mississippi's middle- and low-income families. But their counterparts in other ~tates will
16
GUIDE TO ]~AIR STATE & LOCAL TAX POLICY
pick up the tab (in a regressive manner), while Mississippi families may, in effect, pay
the cost of similar taxes imposed by other states. (Alternatively, if competitive pressures
do not allow the electricity tax to be passed on to out-of-state customers, then the Missis-
sippi car-seat maker may find itself at a competitive disadvantage compared to out-of-
~tate manufacturers.)
Revenue a.nd Stability .
el ales t .a~.e,s. rat.se a lot of revenue. Nationally, state and local sales tax revenues were
'~ $12.1 bd!lon ,n fiscal 199.0-one quarter of total state and. local tax collecti.o. ns. But
~ during times of economic uncertainty, sales tax collections can be volatile. They
can fall both when there is an economic downturn and when people are afraid an eco-
nomic downturn is coming. In other words, revenue is dependent both on families'
incomes and their confidence in their fiiture earnings. Ifs family thinks it may face hard
times soon, it may delay spending if possible-in anticipation of the worst. Purchases of
big.ticket items like new cars are particularly likely to be postponed. As a result, sales
tax revenues can fall during periods of economic uncertainty-even before a recession
has set in.2°
State sales tax collections nationwide grew by only 0.9 percent from the last quarter
of 1990 to the last quarter of 1991-not counting legislated rate increases or base expan-
sions. But inflation was about 3 percent for that period. So, in real terms, sales tax reve-
nue dropped by about 2 percent. In contrast, personal income tax collections increased
by about 1 percent in real terms during the same period-despite the recession.2~
The sales tax usually is not a high-growth tax. Purchases of goods and services sub-
ject to sales tax do not necessarily grow as fast as the rest of the economy. In recent
decades, this has been particularly noticeable as consumption has shifted from goods
to services. Since goods are subject to sales taxes to a much greater degree than services,
that shift in consumption has adversely affected sales tax revenues.
No Federal Deductibility
One big problem for a state that relies heavily on sales taxes is that sales taxes are
not deductible by itemizers in computing their federal taxable income. Thus,
compared to income and property taxes (which are deductible on federal tax
returns), sales taxes cost the citizens of a state considerably more for every dollar in
revenue collected.
Sales Tax Issues
Every state and local general sales tax is regressive. The degree of unfairness, how-
ever, ranges substantially-from moderately regressive in states like Vermont and
Massachusetts to extremely regressive in states like South Carolina and Georgia.
(See the chart on the next page.) These differences primarily reflect the kinds of pur-
chases that states decide to tax.
Z°As Len McComb, Director for the Department of Revenue for the state of Washington, said recently
in discussing his state's revenue shortfall: uPeople may restrict spending behavior because they are {:on.
cemed about the economy or their job.'
*lCenter for the Study of the States, State Revenue Reports (Feb. 1992).
CmZ~NS Poa TAx Jusr~c~
17
Adjusting the Tax Base
Sales taxes can be made less regressive Sales Tax. Burdens in
by taxing more of the things the South Carohna & Vermont
wealth~, consume the most and fewer of
the things middle- and low-income fami-
lies spend most of their money on. The
single most important difference among
the states as far as sales tax regressivity is
concerned is whether groceries are taxed.
Taxing food is extremely regressive be-
cause such a high portion of the income
of poorer families goes to mere sus-
tenance. In fact, of the ten states with the
most regressive sales taxes, eight tax gro-
ceries.
While a tax on food hits middle- and
low. income families the hardest, taxes on
(combined state & local sales razes)
.... --
4°/°- I'"~"' South Carolina ]
3%-' .......i...'~..,..Vermont
2%- " ........
1%-
0% LO~ I$e~o~I MiddleIFourIllI Nxlls%lNe~4%lTepl%
~0% a)% ~ 20% 4; Top L~Q% )
luxury goods such as limousine purchases, fur coats, expensive jewelry, airplanes and
high.priced cars hit the rich. Although a sales tax will be less regressive if such luxury
items are taxed at higher rates, the benefits should not be overstated. First, these luxury
goods make up only a very small fraction of the sales tax base. Second, there is a "border
crossing" problem. For infrequent, big-ticket, purchases a difference in sales tax rates
can be an incentive to make the acquisition out of state. Though border-crossing con-
sumers are legally subject to use tax in their home state (which is supposed to eliminate
the advantages of border crossing), stopping use tax evasion is extremely dLfficult and
infrequently accomplished?
Sales Tax Credits
Tax credits or d. irect rebates are often suggested and sometimes used to make sales
taxes less unfaLr, especially to the poor. In theory, rebates could completely offset
the regressivity of the sales tax. But in practice, it simply wouldn't work.
One central problem is that while a state may be able to relieve the sales tax. burden
on low-income families through a credit or rebate, there is no practical way to make
sales taxes on middle-income families commensurate with the light sales taxes borne by
the wealthy. Since low- and middle.income families bear most of the burden of the sales
tax, a sales tax and rebate system that ended up taxing the middle class at the same low
rate as the rich wouldn't be worth the trouble of collecting (and rebating).
Even as a means for helping only low-income families, credit or rebate systems have
difficulties. The biggest is getting poor families to participate in the program. Trying to
give rebates through a state's income tax system, for example, runs into the difficulty
that poor families often don't have to file income tax returns. To inform low-income
families of a rebate program and encourage their participation requires a huge outreach
effort?
ZZA ~use tax" is a sales tax which applies to goods bought from out-of-state retailers. Technically, mall
order sales from out.of-state vendors, for instance, are subject to the use tax where the consumer lives.
But this tax is seldom paid.
zSNew Mexico, however, claims to have a high rate of participation in its low.income credit program.
18
Gt~l~B TO l:Am $TAT~ & LOC~ TAX Pouer
Another problem with existing low-income sales tax credits is that they are not large
enough. For example, they don't take into account the added costs to families of sales
taxes initially paid by businesses and passed on to consumers. And unfortunately, the
credits usually are not indexed for inflation-thus their value erodes over time.
To be sure, rebates or credits can be valuable to poor families. But no one should
think that they can entirely solve the problem of sales tax regressivity.
Sales Tax "Loopholes"
The s.41es t&x is well enough understood that special interest loopholes in the tax tend
to be noticed, especially compared to some of the more complex tax breaks that are
sometimes hidden in the income tax. That doesn't mean, however, that special interests
don't work hard to get preferential sales tax treatment. Indeed, when states consider
expanding their sales tax bases, lobbyists for such potential targets as lawyers, accoun.
tants, dry cleaners, advertising agencies, country clubs and others fight tooth and nail
for their exemptions.
On the other hand, one type of supposed "business loophole" in the sales tax-the
exemptions given for certain purchases by businesses-is not only the result of effective
lobbying, but also is often based on sound economic grounds. For example, nobody
thinks that retailers should pay sales tax when they buy goods at wholesale. If they did,
the goods would be taxed twice-once at the wholesale transaction and once at the retail
sale-with the ultimate consumer bearing the burden of this double-taxation.
But the same principle applies when, for example, furniture-making companies buy
wood to make into tables and chairs. If they must pay sales tax on the wood, then the
wood will, in effect, be taxed twice-once when it is bought by the manufacturer, and
again when it is bought by the consumer as part of the furniture.
Such multiple levels of sales taxation-which once were common in Europe-can
create serious economic problems. For example, suppose one furniture manufacturer
chops down trees, does all the wood machining, shaping and assembly itself, and runs
its own retail stores. But another furniture manufacturer buys semi-finished wood from
a lumber company, which in turn bought it from a timber company. And suppose that
the second manufacturer sells its furniture at wholesale to unrelated retail stores. Only
the final retail furniture sales of the first, integrated manufacturer will be taxed, since
until then, the furniture and its components never change ownership. But under a "cas-
cading" sales tax system, the products of the second manufacturer would be taxed four
times: first when the wood is purchased by the lumber company, second when pur-
chased by the furniture manufacturer, third when bought by retailers, and finally when
sold to consumers at retail. Such a strange tax system would give the products of the
integrated company a huge competitive advantage over those of the second manufac.
turer-even though the multi-company approach to furniture making and sale might be
just as-or more-economically efficient.
An oddity created by taxing business inputs is that the effective sales tax rate on
income may actually end up higher than the nominal sales tax rate. In other words, a
state can have a 5 per. cent sales tax rate but there may be families that have 6 percent
of their income going to sales taxes. This is caused by two related phenomena. First,
families pay a higher price for a product because the tax on the purchases by businesses
increases the cost of making, wholesaling and retailing the product. Second, the retail
sales tax applies to this added increment in the price, compounding the problem.
Very low-income families often have a higher effective sales tax rate on income than
the nominal sales tax rate. Even before accounting for sales taxes on business inputs,
CITlZENS FOR TAX JUSTICE
--. qll
poor families already have a high effective sales tax rate on income because so much of
what they spend their money on is subject to the sales tax. Waea the effect of higher
costs of products from sales taxes on business inputs is added in, the effective tax rate
on low-income families can actually be above the nominal sales tax rate.
Taxing business inputs can also undermine some of the methods used to make the
sales tax less unfair. For example, if grocery stores pay sales tax on the smocks they buy
for their clerks, the fees they pay their lawyers, etc, and pass this tax on to their custom-
ers in the form of higher retail food prices, the benefit of exempting food from the sales
tax is partially undermined.
These examples illustrate that supposed "business loopholes~ in the sales tax must
be analyzed to see if they are sensible structural rules or undeserved tax breaks.
What is a fair tax?
"l~'s a notion as old as the biblical parable of the
"widow's mite"...
Adam Smith, 1776 - the citizens "of every state
ought to contribute toward the support of
government as nearly as possible in
proportion to their respective abilities."
A fair tax is a proqressive tax!
Who pays the~sales tax?
Sales tax can be a
for cities in Iowa
CITIES TRYING TO AUGMENT REVENUE
through sources other than property taxes are
finding the local option sales tax can often be an
excellent solution to this challenge. In 1985, the
Iowa General Assembly gave local governments
the authority to impose a 1 percent sales tax that
would be collected with the state sales tax, but
which would be redistributed hack to the local
jurisdictions where the tax was collccted.
Generally, the tax is imposed on the same items
that are subject to state sales tax.
Currently, 235 cities and 13 unincorporated
county areas in Iowa are benefitting from local
option sales tax revenue, making it the most
utilized of the various local option taxes.
Many officials in those cities agree that this
extra revenue has improved the quality of life in
their communities without an increase in property
taxes. Despite the success of about one-quarter of
the state, some cities are reluctant to investigate
the option. A common misconception is that the
local option sales tax only benefits urban areas or
counties that contain regional retail centers·
Revenue figures, however, show that even small
cities can cash in substantial local option sales tax
disbursements without being near a shopping hub.
· For example, in Buena Vista County.there am
s~x communities with populations ranging from
132 to 1,089 that collect local option sales tax.
Sioux Rapids, a city with a population of 792~
received $32,909 in local option sales tax revenue
in fiscal year 1994 despite the lack of9 regional
retail center in the county·
On the other hand, cities in counties with retail
centers do have a definite advantage. In Cerro
Gotale Couuty, 10 cities, plus the anincorpora!ted
area of the county, collect the local option sales
tax. Rockwell, population 1,008, received $67,818
m fiscal year 1994, while Ventura, population 590,
received $47,600. According tO Ventura City Clerk
Eisa Taylor, it is'a good way to ihcrease city
revenues in order to be able to provide the
son, ices citizens want·
For cities looking for simili~r financial help, the
process for imposing a local option sales tax is
straightforward. The tax can be imposed by
ordinance following a general or special election
where a approval is given by a simple majority of
voters. A special election can be sought by
petitioning the county board of sul~ervisors, or the
12 10WA MUNICIPALITIES January 1995
question may be added to a general election
ballot by motion of the governing bodies
representing at least 50 percent of the county
population. The local option sales tax question
cannot be voted upon at a regular municipal
election, and the ballot must specify the rate of
imposition (up to 1 percent) and the purpose for
which the money will be used. Although the
election to impose the tax is held countywide, the
tax will only be imposed in the jurisdictions where
there was majority approval
For the purposes of voting on and imposing the
tax, specific cities and the unincorporated area of
the county are each separate jurisdidtions, except
when two or more cities are contiguous. Where
cities share common b~rdcrs, they are treated as
one large incorporated area. In order for the tax
to be imposed, a majority of those voting in the
total contiguous area must favor the imposition of
the tax. In Blackhawk County, for example, the
question failed in Waterloo by a narrow margin,
but the tax passed by a wide enough margin in the
contiguous communities to earn majority approval
from the entire area. As a result, Waterloo both
collects and shares in the disbumement of the
local option sales tax.
The key to getting voters to approve the local
option sales tax lies in explaining to citizens how
the revenue will be used and what other financing
options may be available. Seven cities in Delaware
County did just that when they re. cently jumped
on the local option tax bandwagon. Manchester
City Manager David Heiar said it was a question
of giving voters a choice of how they wanted
certain improvements to be financed· "We tried
the local option sales tax," he said. "We needed
funding to implement a long overdue street
improvement program, and the choices were clear
-- increased special assessments, incur debt that
would raise property taxes, or pass the local
option sales tax." Heiar anticipates the local
option sales tax will generate about $175,000 per
year for the city.
Overcoming the referendum hurdle takes a lot
Finding the project, program or activity that
citizens are willing to vote for is critical to a
successful local option sales tax campaign. Ballot
questions that are kept simple and easily
identifiable by the citizens tend to have a better
chance of passing. In Council Bluffs two measures
that divied up the local option sales tax revenue
between projects were unsuccessful. Finally, the
city declared 100 percent of the funds would be
used for streets and sewers and the question was
approved. While city officials may not like the
idea of committing all of the local option
resources to a narrow area when there are so
many priorities, keep in mind that money
currently spent on that area will be freed up for
other priorities.
Other strategies may help city officials combat
voter disapproval of any additional tax, despite its
purpose. First, start by building a core support
group that represents various community
interests. Make a special effort to include
members of the business community, as
they are often opposed to the sales tax
until they understand the impact it will
have on property taxes and other fees.
Second, stress the equity of the tax,
especially if the activity to be funded will
benefit not only city residents, but others
who enjoy the advantages of the
community. Streets are a good example
because many people come to the city and
use the street system without contributing
to its maintenance. The local option sales
tax is a way to have all those who use the
city infrastructure, cultural and
recreational facilities help support them
financially.
A final strategy for passing a local
option sales tax is to include a sunset
provision. State law allows the city to
include on the ballot question a set length
of time (a minimum of one year is
required) that the tax will be imposed.
When thqt time has lapsed, the local
option sales trax will automatically
end. It would take another elcOion
with a majority vote to continue
imposition of the tax. Without a
sunset provision, the tax ¢outiuuus
until another referendum wilere a
majority approves repealing the tax.
Local option sales tax will likely
continue to be popular with cities
because it raises revenue, reduces the
property tax burden, increases auto-
matically as retail sales increase, and
helps support basic city services
citizens demand. Sioux City, the first
city in Iowa to approve the local
option sales tax in 1986, is a prime
example of how the local option sales
tax can work for cities in Iowa. In
1994, the city received more than $6.6
million in revenue from the tax.
Because 60 pement of the sales tax
revenue is required to be used for
property tax relief under the spedtics
of the ballot proposition, Sioux City
has used those funds to pay their debt service
requirements instead of levying property tax.
At the National League of Cities annual
conference in Minneapolis in December, Sioux
City was cited for minimizing the use of property
taxes to pay relatively high debt. "If Sioux City did
not have those revenues to pay debt service, we
would have lost our AA bond rating," City
Finance Director John Meyers said. "It's kind of.
neat to have Sioux City cited at a national
conference for doing things very well."
For more information on local option sales tax,
contact the Iowa Department of Revenue and
Finance at (515) 281-3114.
,._,1- i:.'~i'tl., '.[,y.' ..l*slednameinwaterstOIage
· in me' . lust . :...L,,,.,' ^. ,.i so.,oo '.
'1 ,: ! ' walor tai~k company.' Magnir¢,
' i',
I .~." · i If ~:~ ~.~:~ j ,C0mpfelc~ankMainlenanco
· '. J. · .~[5,~.;~ ] Wdh salJslied customo¢s in
' ' ' .- · ' '. J to be the loadnrta {he Wator :
· Magulre Iron, Inc.
IOWA MUNICIPALITIES J..uttry 1095 13
City of iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 18, 1995
To: City Council
From.~(Marianne Milkman, Community Development Coordinator
Re: Housing Rehabilitation Needs in Johnson County
Over the past few years, and particularly in recent months, the Iowa City Housing Rehab staff
has received a considerable number of phone calls from low income Johnson County residents
(including residents of Coralville, North Liberty, etc.) requesting assistance with rehabilitating
their homes. They estimate between 20-30 calls in the past year. Similarly, Jean Mann,
Director of the Elderly Services Agency, also sees a great need to expand the Small Repair
Program for elderly persons who own their homes but live outside the Iowa City city limits.
She has a list of approximately 25 rural Johnson County residents and 8 Coralville residents
who have requested such assistance.
We always direct County residents who call the Rehab office to contact the Board of
Supervisors about their need, but we are not sure how many of them actually follow through
on this. The need to maintain the affordable housing stock in the area and to help low income
and elderly residents remain in their homes is a regional need and not one confined to Iowa
City.
CITY STEPS, Iowa City's Consolidated Plan for housing, jobs and services for low income
residents, identifies various housing and rehabilitation needs as having a high priority,
particularly for very low income residents. In the preparation of the Consolidated Plan, the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) also requires that cities consult
with the surrounding communities regarding needs and strategies for resolving regional issues
that are related to housing, jobs and services for the low income population. We plan to
discuss these issues at the February JCCOG meeting.
Meanwhile, if you have any questions regarding these issues, please call me at 356-5244.
bc3-1 MM
To: IO~ CI~ CLERK
Fro.,: Board of Supervisors
1-23~55 8:49om p. ~' of 3
Johnson Count'
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Charles D. Duffy, Chairperson
Joe Bolkcom
Stophen P. Lacina
Don Sehr
Sally Slutsman
January 24, 1995
INFORMAL MEETING
1. Call to order 9:00 a.m.
Agenda
Review of the informal minutes of January 3rd, recessed to
recessed to January 9th, informal minutes of January 10th,
January 11th, recessed to January 12th and January 13th, and
minutes of January 19th.
January 5th,
recessed to
the formal
Business from Rosalie Rose, Executive Director for Visiting Nurse
Association re: support for Visiting Nurse Association application for
Home and Community Basexi Services Waiver Program/discussion.
Business from Heidi Lauritzen, Director for Coralville Public Library re:
public libraries of Johnson County/discussion.
Business f~om Roma Berinobis, Account Executive of Blue Cross/Blue
Shield of Iowa re: proposed health insurance premiums for FY
96/discussion.
6. Business from the Assistant Zoning Adm/nistrator.
a) Discussion re: Fringe Area Agreement with Iowa City.
b) Other
7. Business from Bob Wolfe, Contractor re:
project/discussion.
affordable
913 SOUTH DUBUQUE ST. P.O. BOX 1350 IOWA CITY, IOWA 522~1-1350 TEL: (319) 356-6000
housing ~
:;
FAX: (319) 356 ~
Te: ~ C~TY CLERK
Agenda 1-24-95
Fro~: Board of Supervisors 1-23-9§ 8:49am p. 3 of' 3
Page 2
8. Business from the County Auditor.
a) Discussion re: cash flow analysis for December.
b) Other
9. Business from the Board of Supervisors.
a) Discussion re:
b) Reports
Other
appointments to the Compensation Commission.
10. Discussion re: budgets.
11. Discussion from the public.
12. Recess.
PARKING OPEP. ATVONS
PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FY96 - FY98
Parking Fines
BuiXding Ren=ale
~ Revenue
O~er Park~ R~enue
~sceLl~ Rev~ue
~sceL~us ~fer
Rerso~l
~icies
Seaices ~
~pital
~fers
FY04 ~Y98 Dgl~ CITY M~
~nd~n~ Bainnce
1,2S%,344 1,018,340 708,~6
P~SON~ S~VICI~: FYg8 FY86
C2%SHXF~R - PA~JCING 3.00 3.00
M.W. 3: - PZGU',XNG SYSTemS 2.00 2.00
P~ ~R~ AZ'A-~ 4.00 4.00
M.W. ~ - P~ ~ 2.00 2.00
M.W. ~Z - ~/~'~ ~P~R 2.00 2.00
~ ~V ~P - ~ 1.00 1.00
P~G O~ZO~ ~ 1.00 1.00
P~G ~ 1.00 1.00
P~G ~ ~S~T DI~R ,50 .50
~ ' V~ ?.00 ~.00
M.W. ~ - p~ ~ 1.00
M.W. I * ~G ,50 .S0
V~ ~R~ A~ 1.50 1.50
~7.25 27.25
1985 Revenue Rends
1992 Capital Loan ~oces
1992 Revenue Refunding 86 GO
Improve/Replace Reserve
~ans 1 t Subsid~
~ine$ To ~eneral ~und
462,495
330,605
169,928
170,000
90,000
280,000
1,503,028
- 97 -
PRO,.TECTXON PROTECTION
?68,776 4S2,997
280,000 280,000
75,000 75,000
18,000 15,000
1,634,000 1,634,000
760,500 760,500
0 0
6,000 6,000
0 0
2,770,500 2,770,500
3,035,498 1,063,777
28,547 29,412
524,846 543,473
0 0
1,497,388 1,493,943
3,086,279 3,130,605
452,997 92,892
FY96
40,439
40,439
1992 CAPITAL LOAN NOTES
PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FY96 FY98
Ba~l~ieg Balance
Bond Ordinance Transfers
Total Receip=s
Capl~al Outlay
Total Bxpendi=ur~s
~d~g ~l~ce
pE~0RAL S~RVICES:
A~J~ ~'TIIIATB 8UDOET PRO.ION PR~0N
0 0 0 0 0
337,468 334,155 330,~08 331,818 327,458
337,468 334,155 330,605 331,818 32~,4S8
337,468 334,155 330,605 331,818 327,458
337,468 334,155 330,605 331,818 327,458
O 0 0 8 0
taY9S PY96 C~PIT~L 0~'~¥: FY96
1992 LOAN NOTgS-INTBREST 145,605
.00 .00 330,608
1992 PARKING BONDS-REFUND 86
PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FY96 - FY98
Beginning Balance
Bond Ofd/nance Transfers
Total Receipts
· Capital Outlay
Total Bxpenditures
Ending Balance
ACI%'AL I~TIHAT~ BUILT PROo'~CTZON PR0~ECTZON
171,885 165,905 169,915 168,425 166,66~
164,615 168,89~ 162,915 166,675 165,045
164,615 168,898 162,915 166,675 165,045
143,443 140,453 147,463 149,213 150,833
PARKING, BOND & INT SINKINg
PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FY96 FY98
BeginnJ. ng~alance
~arking Impact Fee
Total Receipts
$e~ces And Cha~ges
Ending ~alance
FY94 FY9S FY96 F~97 FY98
ACtLIAb ~qTL~I~ BU00BT PROJECT:ON PR(X]SCTIOR
0 153,500 153,500 153,500 153,500
156,000 0 0 0 0
~56,000 0 0 0 ~
2,500 0 0 0 0
3,500 0 ~ 0 0
153,500 153,500 153,S00 153,~00 153,500
- 99-
Bagtnn£ng Balance
~ding Balance
Beg:Lnn.tnc~ Ba't ante
Balance
WASTEWATER REN & IMP RESERVE
PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FY96 FY98
2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
2,000,000 2,000,000 2~000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
WASTEWATER BOND a INTEREST RES
PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FY96 - FY98
3,672,550 3,672,550 3,672,550 3,672,550 3,672,550
3,$72,550 3,672,550 3,672,550 3,672,550 3,672,550
SEWER BONDS SINKING-1986 ISSUE
PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FY96 - FY98
FY94 FY95 EYE6 PY9~ FY9~
~1~i~ Bal~ce 927,988 971,225 986,575 0 0
~nd ~d~ce ~ern _. ~,042,450 1,023,150 0 0 0
Total Receipts 1,042,450 1,023,150 0 0 0
~p~Cal ~Clay 999,213 1,007,800 986,575 0 0
~ ~d~es 999,213 1,007,800 986,575 0 0
Balance
PERSONAL S~.VIC~S:
971,225
996,5?5 0 0
I'Yg5 EY9$ CAPITAL OUTLAYi FY96
1986 R~V~NUE ~ONDS-~R~NCIpAL 950,000
Ba(j:[rmf. ng Balance
Bond ordinance T~ansfe£s
Total Becelp~s
Capital 0utla¥
To=a1 Ex~e~di~ures
~ndlng Balance
FY94 FY99 FY96 FY9? FY98
~.-~.~I. ~T,I~T~ B~ ~ION PRO,ION
1,2~1,99~ 1,360,952 1,368,267 2,1~S,148 2,432,594
2,4~6,904 2,456,534 3,455,294 3,475,184 3,469,564
2,456,904 2,496,5~4 3,455,294 3,479,~84 3,469.564
2,347,948 2,449,219 2,448,413 3,417,738 3,434,8?3
2~34~,948 2~449,219 2,448,413 3,417~738 3~434,873
1,368,267 2,375,148 2,432,594 2,46~,285
1993~-P~CZP~ 280,000
1993 ~S-~ 2,168,413
1,360,953
FY95 I'Y95
· 00 .00
2,448,413
- 101 -
P~PUSE COLLECTION OPERATIONS
PROPOSED BUDGET FOR PY96 - FY98
B~Jinntng Balance
Refuss Collection Fees
RF~IFH~ R=vanues
Flood
S~ces ~
-- FY9$ 8VD(~T --
F~94 ~Y9S DB~T CITY MG~ ;Y97 ~Y98
ACT~L ~STXMAT~ P~ PROPOSED PROJ~CTION 9ROOECTION
271,793 298,238 83/765 131,091 162,312
1,280,596 1,250,000 1,525,000 1,600,000 1,650,000
328,985 325,000 325,000 340,000 3SS,000
2,921 0 0 0 0
9,177 6,500 0 0 0
0 6,300 0 0 0
g8,381 80,000 $0,000 80,000 80,000
1,717,990 1,667,800 1,930,000 2,020,000 2,085,000
606,100 684,385 710,316 697,527 767,835 792,196
18,183 30,865 2S,133 25,133 25,887 26,664
1,031,492 1,124,506 1,140,014 1,140,014 1,175,057 1,210,758
0 6,927 0 O 0 0
36,700 35,700 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000
~'t d,fmg Balance
298,238 83,765
131,091 . 162,312 197,694
~:~'g6
.50 .80
8.00 8.00
9.00 9.00
.50 .80
18.00 18.00
(~XT~ ~:
· o
'1'9.~S l~t TO:
Loan-Equipmen=- Replacement
20,000
20,000
- 103-
AIRPORT OPEIUtTIONS
PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FY96 - FY98
FY95
BSTIMATI
9,170 36,820
1.087 0
110,721 105,000
5,462 5,000
57,975 06,500
28,818 23,19~
217,992 219,696
$9,554 62,931
6,$70 6,940
63,881 115,875
8.515 23,824
S1,516 33,873
190,336 243,442
-- PY96 BUDGBT ~-
DBPT CITY M~R '~/97 PY98
I~TEST PR0~lg~D N~I~CTZON PRO~CTION
68,322
6,945
89,627
131,500
46,913
333,304
13,080 3,940 3,810
· 0 0 0
0 0 0
105,000 105,000 305,000
8,S00 5,500 6,S00
98,650 113,000 111,000
0 0 0
210,150 224,500 222,500
68,322 75,210 77,285
6,945 7,169 7,402
89,610 93,751 97,764
?,SO0 8,500 0
46,913 ,, 40,000 40,000
219,290 224,630 222,431
Balance
36,826 13,000
3,940 3,810 3,879
P~P.~ON~L 8I~.VZC~S: .
A/R9ORT MAI~.G~R
~Y95 FY90
1.00 1.00
.50 .50
'Lso ~.so
C~PlTA~ OUTLAy~
SWING BLADE - SI~0W PLOW ~RUCK
7,$00
26,913
20,000
46,913
- 107-
TR3~STT REPLACEMENT RES
PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FY96 - FY98
Federal ~an~s
Tran~le= ~ Tran~£~ Fund
To~al Receipts
Services ~d Om~es
Cap£~a! Outlay
T~ans~ers
Total ~xpendl~ures
P~4 FY95 DBPT CITY
ACI~L 8STIM~TB F~GUBST PROPOSED
515,252 521,584 506,554
6.380 0 0
?6,882 65,000 00,000
83,262 6S,000 60,000
49 0 51 51
76,881 0 0 35,637
0 0 201,922 201,922
75,930 0 201,973 237,610
PRO,.~C~ION PRO~gCTION
408,974 229,284
0 0
60,000 $0~000
80,000
53 55
35,637 35,63?
204,000 0
239,690 35,692
Ending Balance
S86,584
408,974 229,294 253,592
PE~SO'~A~ S~VZC~,..
.00 .00
201,922
201,922
109-
E~UIPMENT ~AINTENANCE
PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FY96 - FY98
Balance
212,701 302,702 271,039 203,130 100,385
~SP~O~tL 88P. VICES:
pARTS/DATA ~NTRY CLERK
~CI~RIC Z
MECI~/~IC IZ
EQUIPmEnT SHOP SUP~%'ISOR
FY98 FYg$
1.00 1.00
3.00 3.00
2.00 2.00
2.00 2.00
1.00 1.00
.50 .50
9.50 9.50
C~ITAL OUIV.~¥: FY96
20,000
TRANSIT
PROPOSED
EOUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
BUDGET FOR FY96 - FY98
-- I"/96 BUDGET --
FY94 FY95 DSPT CITY ~R FY97 FY98
ACtUaL ESTIMAT~ R~(~FgST PROPOSED PROu-ECT~ON PRO~TECTION
Begtnn/n~ Balance 0 0 0 0 0
8qui~en~ Ren~:al 700,836 743,$03 819,096 871,375 900,134
TO t,a 1 Receipl:s 700,836 743,063 819,096 87X, 375 900,134
Per so~a]. Serv~.ees 288,072 341,273 380,962 355,962 391,848 403,632
Commodl~. £es 383,368 303,101 430,838 430,830 440,104 461,946
Services And Charges 29,396 19,289 32,296 32,296 33,423 34,556
Tot:al ~&pendltures 700,836 743,603 019,096 819,096 071,375 900,134
lhtdlng ~alance
0 0 0 0 0
P~RSONA~ S~RV/O~,S:
PARTS/DATA ~TRy
BODY PEPAIR ~C~NIC
M~CH~NIC
SR ~CH~C
E~O~pIq4B~T SHOP SUP~V~GOR
1.00 1.00
2.00 2.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
.$0 .50
7.50 7.50
- 121 -
CENTI~J. SERVICES
PROPOSED B~D(~ET FOR FY9$ - FY98
neginn~ Balance 196, 4S3
C~m~es For SedUces 52,339
~al ~e~encal ~c~es
~n~eres~ lnc~
~scel~eous Revenue 2
~scel~eo~ ~fer ~0,000
~al Receipts ~62,102
Barso~l Se~lces 45, S~S
C~c~es 61,717
~p~al ~lay 17,270
~fers 30,000
To~al ~es 343.926
· nding Balance
MAIL
FY9S DSPT CITY MGR
~M~TE ~ PROPOS~m
123,'317
0 0
7,200 7,800
2,000
0 0
415,900 S8S,900
0 0
424,900 594,400
50,207 S3,254 53,254
62,842 66,695 66,693
2S9,113 407,263 407,263
144,050 2S,400 2S,400
0 0 0
516,212 $82,612 $52,612
205,870
0 0
7,900 8,300
0 0
0 0
0 0
626,080 660,000
58,622 60,410
68,698 70,760
438,165 454,638
19,800 15,O00
0 0
$85,285 600,808
123,317
165,105 208,870 265,062
PY9S FY96
1.00 1.00
.S0 .S0
1.50 1.50
CAPITA~ 0UI~tY:
FOLDER
FY9$
23,000
2,400
25,400
- 123 -
Budget Calendar
The tentative schedule is as follows:
February 14 (regular Council meeting) City Council sets public hearing for February 28.
February 17
Budget available for public inspection if hearing on 2J28.
February 23
Budget available for public inspection if hearing on 3/7 or
special meeting.
February 28 (regular Council meeting) City Council holds public hearing.
March 7 (special Council meeting)
City Council approves FY96 budget and FY96, FY97 and
FYg8 Financial Plan.
ff the budget is not approved on March 7, 1995, then a
special meeting will need to be scheduled prior to March 15,
1995, to approve the budget.
March 15
Deadline for filing budget with County/State.
Per State of Iowa law, the budget has to be available for public Inspection at least 20 days prior
to certification with the County/State which ls no later than February 23, 1995, or at least 10 days
prior to the public hearing, whichever Is earlier.
Once the Public Hearing Notice is published In the newspaper the City Council cannot Increase
the tax levy rate or expenditures but can reduce them.
finadm~budget~udget.cal
1~3~5
FIRST
II
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
January 27, 1995
City, Council
City Manager
Material in Information Packet
Memoranda from the City Manager:
a. General Fund Revenues ~(~
b. Wastewater Projects - Connecting the Two Plants and South Plan~q~O
Expansion
c. Pending Development Issues
d. Budget Presentation
Copy of letter from City Manager to special interest groups regarding
budget session of February 6.
Memorandum from the Senior Planner regarding Lake Calvin rezoning.
Memoranda from the Department of Parking and Transit:
a. Ramp Improvements
b. Parking Division Usage
Memorandum from the Assistant Director o~ Planning and Program Development ~'7
and the Director of Parking and Transit regarding traffic reduction
initiatives.
Memorandum from the Associate Planner regarding Towncrest ReiDcation ~/~
Program Update.
Memorandum from the City Attorney regarding partial litigation update.
Copy of letter from the City Attorney to William and Barbara Buss
regarding "Protest of Rezoning". . .
Memoranda from the City Clerk:
a. Sidewalk Cafes
b. Council Work Session of January 10, 1995
c. Council Work Session of January 16, 1995.
Memoranda from the Chair of the Design Review Committee:
a. Proposed Eagle Country Market
b. Exterior Stairwells and Exterior Corridors on Multi-Family
Residential Buildings
Thank you note from West High PSTO Board regarding traffic light.
Copy of memo from Heritage Agency regarding "Contract with America",
Article: Renewing the visitors bureau
Copy of KXIC Editorial from the Chair of Parks and Recreation Commission.
Memorandum from the Finance Director regarding preliminary financing
schedule to issue $8,500,000 General Obligation Bonds.
Information Packet
January 27~ 1995
page 2
Agenda and infor~atinn regarding the City Con£er~nce Board meeting January 30, 1995. ~/.
Agenda for 1/31/95 Informal meeting of the Board of Supervisors. ~
Information regarding construction projects eligible for CDBG Supplemental Flood fund.
Information regarding Parking Division hours' and revenues.
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
January 24, 1995
CityCouncil
CityManager
General Fund Revenues
During my early budget presentations I reminded the Council of their severe lack of
discretionary authority with respect to General Fund Revenues. Specifically, I mentioned that
approximately 83% of available General Fund Revenues have some form of state.regulation
or related control, whether it be the rate-base, or rules and regulations concerning
administration of that revenue. The attached is a summary of the FY96 General Fund
Revenue. Hopefully, this will demonstrate the general concern I expressed of your lack of
discretion, particularly when it comes to major revenues in the General Fund.
GENERAL FUND
FY96
January23,1995
REVENUE SOURCE
Property Tax
State sets allowable rate ($8.10), tax base, rules/regulations on administration
Transfer: Emp Benefits Levy
State sets allowable rate (unlimited), tax base, rules/ragulatjons on administration
Road Use Tax
State sets tax base (gasoline, fuel purchases) and amount to be distributed -
State formula on per capita basis.
State Funding
State sets tax base and amount to be distributed
Chargeback of Services
City sets rate or % and administrative rules
Fines, Permits & Fees
Recreation fees -
Building permits -
Parking fines -
Magistrate's Court-
Library.
Pollcs services -
Food, liquor -
Housing inspection -
Cemetery -
Building fees -
Animal Control services -
Contractual Services
City sets rates
City sets rates
State sets maximum rate
State sets maximum rates, City determines what is
filed with Court
City sets rates
City sets rates
State sets rates, City collects revenue
City sets rates
City sets rates
City sets rates
City sets rates
City negotiates with other governments
Hotel/Motel Tax
State sets rate, tax base, rules/regulations
All Other Income
interest income -
Miscellaneous -
Monies & Credits -
Military Credit -
Parking Fines -
Rates determined by private market, City invests
within State guidelines
C~ty
State determines amount
State determines amount
City determines transfer of money. State sets maxi-
mum rates.
GRAND TOTAL REVENUES
FY96
PROPOSED
$13,727,149
3,326,447
2,704,155
1,056,000
1,185,731
1,985,793
1,094,680
400,000
613,425
26,093,380
rngr~budget~revenues
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
January 27, 1995
City Council
City Manager
Wastewater Projects -- Connecting the Two Plants and South Plant Expansion
The City Council raised the question of the costs associated with two Wastewater Treatment
Capital Improvement Projects -- connection of the two Wastewater Treatment Plants
($25,712,000) and improvements at the South Plant ($16,415,000).
The costs were taken from the Wastewater Projects' Stanley Consultant report cost estimate
sheet. The total cost for both projects is $42,127,000.
To reconcile from the Stanley Consultants' Stage 1 -- Project Cost Estimate of $42,880,000
(see attached) to the $42,127,000 for the two projects, subtract the second project listed --
Relief Sewers $610,000 plus $143,000 for engineering, contingency etc. for a total of $753,000.
The Relief Sewers project is a. separate CIP but part of the overall proposal from Stanley.
Connecting the two Plants
South Wastewater Plant
Relief Sewers
Total
$25,712,000
16,415,000
753.000
$42.880,000
I
!
i
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
,%
Table X'V. 1.
Stage 1 - ProJect Cost Estimate
Description
Construction Costs
South River Corridor Interceptor Sewer
Relief Sewers
Napoleon Park Pump Station
North Plant Improvements
Grit Chamber Modifications
Supplemental Breakpoint Chlorination
Inslrumentatian and Control
Total North Plant Improvements
South Plant Improvements
Infiuent Pump Station
Equalization Poml Expansion
Return Flow Equalization Pumps and Tank
Vortex Grit Chambers
Primary Clarifiers
Secondary Clarlfiers
Sludge Pump Station Modifications
Air Blower Buildin§
Aeration Basin
Sludge Thickening Building
Chlorine Contact Tank and Equipment
Instrumentation and Control Systems
Site Piping
Maintenance Building
Total South Plant Improvements
Esfimuted Total Construction Cost
Contingencies, Legal, Flscn!~ Administrative,
Engineering (Final Design, Blddln$ and
Construction Phases) Costs
EstImatexl Cost
410,000
380,000
290,000
400,000
T/O,000
1,000,000
420,OOO
69O,OOO
610,000
310,000
$10,800,000
$~4.~00,000
$8~80,000
ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COST
C. Stage 2 Project Costs
1. Since Stage 2 is likely 10 to 15 years into the future, a detailed cost estimate has
not been made.
2. Based on the Stage I estimate and on other similar projects, an approximate
construction cost range is $23,000,000 to $27,000,000.
3. Adding an additional 25% for contingencies, legal, fiscel, administrative, and
engineering services results in an estimated total project cost range of $29,000,000
to $34,000,000.
4o Costs are expressed in March 1994 dollars.
ctm:kclaacziebg:12004do
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 25, 1995
To: CityCouncil
From: City Manager
Re: Pending Development Issues
An application submitted by James and Nancy Kestel to fezone an 8,075 square foot lot located
at 202 Douglas Street from RS-8, Medium Density Single-Family Residential, to C1-1, Intensive
Commercial.
An application submitted by Chandler Signs, Inc. to amend the Conditional Zoning Agreement for
1069 Highway 1 (Westport Plaza) to allow an additional freestanding pylon sign. [Red Lobster]
An application submitted by David Larson for preliminary plat approval of D&L Subdivision, a 6.41
acre, 4 lot commercial subdivision located on the south side of Highway 1 West, west of Sunset
Street.
A preliminary plat submitted by William E. and Joan Frees for Orchard View Estates, a 107 acre,
35 lot residential subdivision for property located partially in Fringe Area 4 in Johnson County
· south of Dingleberry Road NE approximately .6 mile east of its intersection with Highway 1.
An application submitted by Ned Mendenhall, on behalf of property owner John Moreland, to
amend a special exception granted by the Board of Adjustment on January 12, 1994, for a youth
center, and to request parking on separate lots for property located In the CC-2 zone at 1550 First
Avenue.
An application submitted by the Iowa Zeta Chapter Pi Beta Phi Association for a vadanca to the
lot area requirement for a sorority located in the RNC-20 zone at 815 E. Washington Street.
City of iowa city
MEMORANDUM
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
January 24, 1995
Chairs, Iowa City Boards and Commissions
City Manager
Budget Presentation
The City Council has set aside the evening of Monday, February 6, as an ol~portunity for
boards and commissions to appear before the City Co~,Pcil to discuss budget issues they feel
appropriate. The meeting is schedbled to begin at 6:30 p.m., Monday, February 6 in the City
Council Chambers. Please feel free to ~ttend the meeting and participate as you or your
board/commission see fit. Depending on the number of persons wishing to speak on behalf
of their boar'd/commission, time may have to be limited. Any written information should be
in the City Manager's office no later than Thursday, February 2, at 5:00 p.m. so we may
photocopy and deliver to Council the next day.
Please feel free to call me or Lorraine Saeger in the City Manager's office if you need any
additional assistance.
CC:
bNx~dget
City Council
Department Directors
Staff - Boards/Commissions
CITY 0t: IOB A CITY
January 25,1995
WendyFord
Convention and Vis~om Bumau
408 FimtAvenue
Coralills, IA 52241
Dear Wendy:
The City Council has set aside the evening of Monday, February 6, as an opportunity for board
and commissions as well as other special interest groups to appear before the City Council to
discuss their budget issues and related funding requests. The meeting is scheduled to begin
at 6:30 p.m. in the Iowa City City Council chamber. If you are interested in participating in the
meeting and making a presentation before the City Council, please let us know. You may call
me or Lorraine Jaeger in the City Managers Office at 356-5010.
The City Council would also appreciate receiving written Information early in the process of their
review and therefore if you have any such written materials the~/may be dropped off at the City
Manager's office. We will photocopy and distribute the information to the City Council. This
· information should be in the office no later than Thursday, February 2 at 5:00 p.m., so we may
deliver the information to the City Council the next day.
Sincerely,
Stephen J. Atkins
City Manager
co: City Council
w~appfit
Same letter to:
Mark Ginsberg
Iowa City Jazz Festival
Julie Ktnkade
Iowa City/Johnson County Arts
Council
Laurie Robinson
Johnson County Historical
Society
610 EAST WASlIINOTON ST~EETe IOWA CITY. IOWA ~12140.11~'6 · (Jig) HI6dO00 · FAX (Jig) 3J6~1t~
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 27, 1995
To: City Council
From: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
Re: REZ94-0014, Lake Calvin RFBH Rezoning
Based on Council and public discussion at the January 17, 1995, City Council meeting, staff
has revised the conditional zoning agreement for the proposed Lake Calvin RFDH zone.
Provisions are contained on page 2, paragraph 3 of the attached conditional zoning
agreement.
.Steve Bright has indicated that he will submit covenants that he will place on the property if
it is rezoned from RS-8 to RFBH. These covenants have not been submitted to date.
Attachment
bc5-5
CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made by and between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a Municipal
Corporation (hereinafter "City") and Lake Calvin Properties, an Iowa General Partnership
(hereinafter "Owner").
WHEREAS, Owner has requested the City rezone approximately 62 acres of land located south
of Whispering Prairie Drive from RS-8, Medium Density Single-Family Residential to RFBH,
Factory Built Housing Residential; and
WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning will allow the development of a manufactured housing
subdivision adjacent to an existing medium density residential subdivision; and
WHEREAS, Iowa Code § 414.5 (1993) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose
reasonable conditions on granting Owner's rezoning request, over and above existing
regulations, in order to satisfy public needs directly caused by the requested change; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to ensure that the proposed manufactured housing subdivision is
compatible with the adjacent residential development in terms of density and street design; and
WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning to allow the development of a manufactured housing
subdivision is compatible with adjacent development and the Comprehensive Plant for the area
provided that certain conditions are adhered to; and
WHEREAS, Owner acknowledges that certain conditions and restrictions are reasonable to
ensure appropriate urban development on the southeastern edge of Iowa City; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has agreed to develop this property in accordance with certain terms
and conditions to ensure appropriate urban development on the southeastern edge of Iowa
city.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual promises contained herein, the Parties agree
as follows:
Lake Calvin Properties is the owner and legal title holder of property located south of
Whispering Prairie Ddve which property is more particularly described as follows:
A tract of land in the west half of the Northwest Quarter of Section
25, Township 79 North, Range 6 West of the Fifth Principal
Meridian, described as:
Beginning at the northwest comer of Section 25; thenca
N88°21'05"E, 1244.42 feet along the north line of Section 25 to
a point on the west line of the sanitary sewer easement recorded
in Book 1053, Page 40, of the Jonson Country Recorder's
records; thenca S0°09'02"E, 1618.31 feet along said west line;
thence S76°51'50'~/V, 135.62 feet; thence S50°55'36'~/V, 231.50
feet; thence S41°54'27'~/, 388.36 feet; thence S32°46'33'I/V,
698.64 feet to a point on the south line of the Northwest Quarter
of Section 25; thence S88°50'25'I/V, 292.04 feet to the West
Quarter Comer of Section 25; thence N0°08'49"~/V, 2641.60 feet
to the Point of Beginning. Said tract contains 61.963 Acres, more
or less.
-2-
Owner acknowledges that the City wishes to ensure that development of the subject
property is compatible with adjacent properties which are zoned RS-8. Therefore, Owner
agrees to certain conditions over and above City regulations in order to ensure that
development of the subject property is compatible with adjacent prope,ies and to
ensure' appropriate urban development on the southeastern edge of Iowa City.
In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property from RS--8 to RFBH, Owner
agrees that development and use of the subject property will conform to all requirements
of the RFBH zone as well as the following additional conditions:
Development of the property shall be subject to subdivision approval pursuant
to the Iowa City City Code, and shall include the extension of Whispering Prairie
Drive to the proposed east/west parkway along the southern boundary of the
property,
The density of development of the subject property shall not exceed eight
dwelling units per acre.
Development of the property shall be subject to the design and implementation
of a landscape plan with special emphasis on a buffer stdp and vegetative
screening along the north and west boundaries of the property. The design of
the landscaping plan shall be approved by the Director of Planning and
Community Development pdor to final subdivision approval, At the City's
discretion, the buffer area may be credited toward meeting neighborhood
open space requirements.
A maximum of percent of the total number of dwelling unite located
within the development will be single wide mobile homes.
The minimum width of any mobile home located within the development
shall be t6 feet.
Single wide mobile homes shall not be located within 500 feet of the north
or west boundaries of the property.
Owner, Including its successors and assigns In Interest agree that neither
Owner, subdivider or subsequent purchasers shall purchase lots for
speculation purposes, namely to rent out subdivided Iote and/or mobile
homes placed hereon. Notwithstanding this provision, nothing herein is
intended to preclude individual lot owners from renting one individual lot.
Owner agrees to establish and reasonably enforce covenants to protect the
safety, quiet and enjoyment of the mobile home subdivision, said covenants to
be approved by the City and incorporated by reference herein,
Development of the subject property shall be subject to all conditions contained
in the Conditional Zoning Agreement entered into between the City and the
Sycamore Farms Company recorded in the Johnson Country Recorder's Office
at Book 1793, Page 220-223.
The Owner acknowledges that the conditions contained herein are reasonable
conditions to impose on the land under Iowa Code § 414.5 (1993), and that said
-3-
conditions satisfy public needs which are directly caused by the requested zoning
change.
The Owner acknowledges that in the event the subject property is transferred, sold,
mdeveloped, or subdivided, all redevelopment will conform with the terms of this
Conditional Zoning Agreement.
The Parties acknowledge that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to
be a covenant running with the land and with title to the land, and shall remain in full
force and effect as a covenant running with the title to the land unless or until released
of record by the City. The Parties further acknowledge that this Agreement shall inure
to the benefit of and bind all successors, representatives and assigns of the Parties.
Owner acknowledges that nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be
construed to relieve the applicant from complying with all applicable local, state and
federal regulations.
The Parties agree'that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by
reference into the Ordinance mzoning the subject property; and that upon adoption and
publication of the Ordinance, this Agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County
Recorder's Office.
Dated this day of , 1995.
LAKE CALVIN PROPERTIES
CITY OF IOWA CITY
By
Stephen F. Bdght
General Partner
Approved by:
City Attomey's Office
By
Susan M. Horowitz, Mayor
Attest:
Marian K. Karr, City Clerk
-4-
STATE OF IOWA )
) es:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On this day of , 1995, before me,
, a Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa, personally appeared Susan M.
Horowitz and Marian K. Karr, to me personally known, and, who, being by me duly sworn, did
say that they are the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City, Iowa; that the
seal affixed to the foregoing instrument is the corporate seal of the corporation, and that the
instrument was signed and sealed on behalf of the corporation, by authority of its City Council,
as contained in Ordinance No. passed by the City Council on the
day of ,19 , and that and MarianK. Karr
acknowledged the execution of the instrument to be their voluntary act and deed and the
voluntary act and deed of the corporation, by it voluntarily executed.
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
STATE OF IOWA )
)es:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On this . day of ,1995, before me the undersigned, a Notary Public in
and for said State, personally appeared, who
being by me duly sworn did say that he is a partner of Lake Calvin Properties, an Iowa General
Partnership, and that the instrument was signed on behalf of said partnership by authority of
its partners; and that acknowledges the execution of the
instrument to be the voluntary act and deed of Lake Calvin Properties and by said partnership
to be voluntarily executed.
ppdadm~nU~calvn.c~a
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
City of iowa, .City
MEMORANDUM
Date:
January 26, 1995
To:
From:
Re:'
Joe Fowler, Director of Parking & Transit
Bill Dollman, Parking Uanager~""~
Ramp Improvements
At the informal council session on Monday, January 16th, the council requested Information on
possible improvements to the parking ramps. One of the suggestions was to increase the lighting
within the ramps.
During the past couple of days, the parking staff has been taldng random light meter readings at
both ramps in an attempt to identify areas that are below suggested lighting levels. With the
exception of the center (east-west) bay of the Capitol St. ramp, all areas meet or are above the
suggested level of 10 footcandles (fc) for traffic lanes. The center lane readings of the middle
bay are in the 5 fc range. All areas tested in Dubuque and Swan ramps are over the minimum
requirement.
As a result of the readings, I instructed the staff to change severel bulbs in the Capitol ramp from
100 to 150 watt. We are currently using 100 watt high pressure sodium bulbs throughout both
the Capitol and Dubuque ramps. As a point of comparison, the Swan ramp uses 150 to 400 watt
lamps. As a result of the change, additional readings were taken with little improvement being
made directly over the parking areas but no improvement to the driving lane which was the
deficient area at the outset. The increase in wattage in the area is not perceivable to the human
eye. The staff was not able to test 200 watt bulbs as the bulbs are too long to fit within the
current fixture housing. If Council should decide to go with 150 watt bulbs, the cost for the
Capitol ramp alone would be approximately $6500. Installation of larger wattage bulbs would
require replacing the existing fixtures at an additional and substantial cost. If Council decides to
pursue increasing the wattage in the driving lane, outside mechanical engineere would need to
be consulted regarding size and placement of fixtures.
Another area discussed was painting the ceilings and north walls of each ramp. In September,
1994, I received bids for this work. At that l~me, the cost was $88,000. I would also
recommended painting the cashier booths and. some additional paint around the entrances/exits
which would bring the total more in the $100,000 range.
I once again made an attempt to contact ~ firm that manufactures signs for the exterior of the
ramps to show the number of spaces available or offer directional arrows to additional parking.
This was the same firm you had tried to contact two years ago and had the same result - no
answer, no response. I would not recommend pursuing this avenue any further. If the company
is this responsive to sales, I can only Imagine their response to service calla.
These are my findings In terms of ramp improvements. Please let me know if any additional
information is required.
1p4-1
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date:
January 26, 1995
To:
Stephen Atkins, City Manager
From:
Joe Fowler, Director Parking & Transit ..~-/
Re:
Parking Division Usage
The first year of operation of the Chauncay Swan ramp has been very successful. The City has
achieved the desired results: increased permit spaces; additional long term, reduced rate hourly
parking; and moving long term parkers from the existing ramps, thus freeing spaces for short term
parkers In the CBD. These goals were ~stabllshed after meetings with the Downtown
Association. The result has been a decrease in revenue. The spaces freed by this relocatlon
are not being used by additional short term parkers.
There has been concam raised that the current demand for parking In the CBD is decreasing.
This assumption is incorrect. The Parking System has experienced an increase in the number
of hours parked, but at the same time has had a decrease in revenue generated. Thls Is a result
of the public acceptance and usage of the Chauncey Swan Ramp.
With the addition of this facility 330 additional monthly parking permits were sold. These permits
were sold to persons who were on waiting llst for other ramps and who were paying to park
hourly. Using the daily maximum charge in the Dubuque Street Ramp ($3.60) and a 20 day work
month, the sale of these permits resulted in a decrease in revenue of $12,210 per month. In
addition to this decrease, hourly parkers pay a reduced rate, $.30 @ hr. This reduction has
resulted in a decrease in revenue of $15,800 during the first six months of FY95. These two
factors combined resulted in a decrease in revenue of $89,060 during the first half of FY95.
The current hours of usage figures are based on the number of hourly parkers. There Is no
accounting for permit parkers' hourly usage. As a result, converting the previous houdy parkers
to permit holdera results In a decrease in Parking Division houdy figures. A new base line must
be established to reflect this relocafion or the permit hours must be converted to hourly and
added to current usage figures. By converting the hours at 8 hours per day, 5 days per week, an
additional 343,200 .hours should be added to the current six month figures. This would result in
a six month average of 448,276 for FY95 compared to 413,160 ~or FY94, or an increase of
210,696 hours for six months.
A comparison of Park & Shop usage in the Capitol and Dubuque Street Ramps during the first
half of FY95 to FY94 shows a slight Increase, 1,310 hours, In FY95. Total Park & Shop hours
were 259,580. These figures would indicate that the level of shopper parking has remained
constant.
tp4-2
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date:
Janua~/23, 1995
To:
From:
Mayor and City Council
Jeff Davidson, Assistant Director, Planning and Community Development ~,-//
Joe Fowler, Director of Parking and Transit
Re:
Janua~/30 Work Session on traffic reduction initiatives
At the work sessions we held with you last September and November, there seemed to be a
realization by the City Council that there are limitations on what we can expect Iowa City
Transit to accomplish in our community. Because of the pattern of land development and
changes in population and demographics over the past 30 years, we cannot expect public
transit to fulfill a significantly greater proportion oftalp-making in our community. Single parent
families and families with both parents working require the flexibility afforded by an automobile.
The modest expense of owning a car makes it accessible to a large segment of the population
at all income levels.
In the 1990s transit needs to focus on specific niches it can serve effectively. Iowa City
Transit's niches are rush hour commuting and serving transit-dependent persons who do not
have an automobile available. Io~va City Transit service is currently oriented to these two
functions. Iowa City Transit cannot serve other types of tdps effectively with the current level
of service. Any increase in the level of Iowa City Transit service provided will add to the
existing $1.8 million annual property tax operating subsidy.
In December we had the opportunity to discuss traffic reduction initiatives with Jim
Throgmorton, Larry Baker, and some transportation individuals from the University. The
specific goal we focused on was, how can we reduce overall traffic volume in the
community? We assume Council agrees that this is a priority. Whether you feel it is
important to keep traffic out of residential neighborhoods, to keep from having to widen artedal
streets, or to generally improve the quality of life in Iowa City; we are proceeding with the
assumption that Council can agree decreasing overall traffic volume is a good idea. This is an
especially difficult task in a growing, economically vital community such as Iowa City.
At our meeting there was a consensus that we should direct our efforts away from attempting
to reduce traffic volume by increasing transit driership, for~he reasons stated above. It was felt
that strategies with better potential to reduce traffic include providing initiatives to encourage
walking and bicycling, and attempting to increase average auto occupancy.
Walking and Bicycling
Walking and bicycling are already significant components of our transportation system in Iowa
City. Census journey-to-work figures tell us that more people commute to downtown Iowa City
by walking than do by public transit. The City's role in walking and bicycling is to provide safe,
convenient facilities for these modes of transportation.
Both walking and bic~,cling are constrained by our local climate. The communities which are
frequently referred to as the major pedestrian and bicycling success stories are almost always
in more moderate climates -- places like Da. vis, California and Gainesville, Florida. In these
places year-round walking and bicycling is considered feasible by a majority of the population,
which helps legitimize the expenditure of public funds for. facilities. There are, however, other
success stories in climates more similar to ours, such as Boulder, Colorado and Madison,
Wisconsin.
In recent years we have stepped up our efforts to provide safe, convenient walking and
bicycling facilities. Our bicycle trail planning has received a big shot in the arm with federal
ISTEA funds, and we have several projects in the planning and implementation stages. VVhen
new streets are constructed or old streets reconstructed, we attempt to establish adequate
facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists to coexist with motor vehicles. Another important factor
is the City's ability by ordinance to ensure that sidewalks are kept free of ice and snow in the
winter. To the degree that Council pledges additional resources to these efforts, we can
encourage persons to walk and ride bicycles in lieu of driving.
Average Auto Occupancy
Approximately four years ago JCCOG measured the average number of occupants per car at
the City's downtown parking lots. It was 1.1, meaning nine out of ten cars had one person in
them, and the tenth one had two people. This level of auto occupancy is similar to national
figures, and reflects the automobile being the most effective surface transportation system ever
devised: A personalized, private, instantly available transportation service which, due to public
subsidy, is relatively inexpensive.
The economies of increasing average auto occupancy are obvious. 1,000 people commuting
to downtown Iowa City at a rate of 1.1 persons per car requires 909 parking spaces. If you
increase the rate to 1.4 persons per car, you only require 714 parking spaces. At a
construction expense of approximately $12,000 per space, the savings to construct 195 fewer
parking spaces is $2,340,000.
So how do we achieve an increase in average auto occupancy? There are several options to
explore. However, we must state in no uncertain terms these initiatives will not be
embraced by the public voluntarily. They will require adoption of public policy measures
to achieve any degree of success, Over the past ten years several localities have attempted
to implement what are called Travel Demand Management (TDM) measures. These have been
especially prevalent in high growth, high traffic areas such as large cities in California and
Florida. TDM includes such measures as ridesharing (car pooling), staggered work hours,
parking management, and peak period pricing. Many of these strategies are specifically
designed to increase average auto occupancy.
What is apparent now that many TDM programs have been in place for several years, is that
they have had limited success. Voluntary programs have been largely ineffective. In order to
modify human behavior, which will naturally seek the most convenient I~ath, TDM measures
must have some legal basis combined with economic incentives to succeed. If Council is
willing to establish the necessary public policy initiatives, we feel there is merit in looking at
several ideas in an attempt to increase average auto occupancy.
Several of the more common mechanisms are simply not feasible in Iowa City because they
are oriented to large metropolitan areas. For example, peak period pricing of toll facilities such
as bridges or expressways is not going to work in Iowa City, because we don't have any toll
*3-
facilities. We feel the following ideas may have some merit in a community the size of Iowa
City.
Ridesharing, Approximately 12 years ago JCCOG attempted to establish ridesharing
programs in the small Johnson County communities surrounding Iowa City. These
attempts were met with virtually no interest. We have no reason to believe these efforts
would fare any better today, unless they are combined with some type of economic
incentive. An example of an economic incentive would be a variable rate structure for
monthly parking permits. If the existing permit rate is $40 per m. onth, a new rate
structure would be established with single occupant vehicle monthly permits costing $80
a month, and multiple occupant vehicle permits $20 a month. The incentive is to find
someone to carpool with, and save $60 a month. Another incentive can be to provide
the most conveniently located permit parking spaces to multiple occupant vehicles.
These types of initiatives would require additional expense for enforcement by the
Parking Division. A variable pdcing system such as this may also increase transit
aldership.
Parking Management Measures. An example of a parking management measure
designed to increase average auto occupancy is to limit the number of single occupant
vehicle monthly parking permits made available to the public. For example, if there are
400 monthly parking permits sold in the Dubuque Street ramp, 200 would be made
available for single occupant vehicles and 200 for multiple occupant vehicles. This is
a significant change in existing parking system policy, as there are currently no
preferences given to multiple occupant vehicles.
Since the existing monthly permit parking system is essentially at capacity, Council will need
to consider where additional parking capacity would be made available to begin a program to
give priority to multiple occupant vehicles. Existing single occupant monthly permits could be
taken away, or the amount of short-term parking reduced. For the long-term, an additional
parking facility can be provided, such as has been discussed for the Near Southside.
At the January 30 Work Session we can discuss additional ideas Council has with respect to
Travel Demand Management. Certain members of the Council have suggested outlying
commuter parking lots to reduce congestion around the CBD and reduce the demand for
structured parking downtown. We question the feasibility of commuter parking lots in this
community, as we are not aware of good locations where large commuter surface lots could
be provided. There is also the expense of express transit service from commuter lots in order
to make travel time competitive with the automobile.
We have also taken a cursory look at the concept of a transportation allowance program, which
a couple members of the City (;ouncil have expressed interest in. A transportation allowance
program requires an employer to establish a monthly allowance for transportation, say $50,
which is provided to all employees. This allowance may be used to pay for parking (which
previously may have been provided for free), or the employee can choose to keep ait or part
of the allowance and use a less expensive mode of transportation such as transit, bicycle, or
walking. In this way-alternative modes of transportation are encouraged. We believe it would
be difficult to establish such a program in this community, because there are not the
documented air quality or traffic congestion problems which enable these programs to be
established by ordinance.
We can get into any other ideas you have at the January 30 Work Session.
jcco~pVe~/uc~.n~o
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Manager and City Council
FROM: Steven Nasby, Associate Planner
RE: Towncrest Relocation Program Update
DATE: January 25, 1995
According to your request, the following brief update of the Towncrest Rdocation Program
provides a general summary.of our activities to date and provides detailed information relating to
the special needs households.
There have been 54 households identified as eligible for relocation assistance. Of these, 33
households have moved out of Towncrest, six units are abandoned and 15 households remain to
be relocated. There are now only four special needs households among the 15 yet to be relocated.
The remaining 11 households are either working with LIFE Skills or looking for housing on their
own (at least two have found other housing but are waiting for better weather to move).
Rdocation funds that have been expended total approximately $139,000, not including LIFE
Skills' expenses or City administration. This figure is lower than our original projections,
however, there are some outstanding expenses from the households that have already moved.
The households that have relocated have been finding housing that satisfies their needs and is, for
them, affordable in the long term. As mentioned previously, a number of the residents have taken
this opportunity to improve their situation. Six households have used our replacement assistance
to buy single-family homes, 13 purchased another manufactured home, 13 rent, and one
household moved in with a friend or relative.
On December 19 you received a memo regarding the Towncrest Relocation Program that
described the status of eight special needs households in Towncrest. The following is an update
on those eight special needs households.
Client #1: (renters) (RELOCATED TO ANOTHER PARK IN IOWA CITY)
Client ~t2: (owner) A single man who is developmen!ally disabled. He receives only a small
income from his employment at Goodwill and Social Security. Client #2 has a sister in town who
is helping him look for a replacement unit. He fpund one that he could afford with our assistance,
however, the manufactured housing park would not accept him because of his credit history
showing unpaid child support. Client #2 and his sister were offered LIFE Skills assistance,
however, they have not responded to our offer. He would prefer to live at Hilltop MHP because
it is close to his employment and he does not drive.
C~ient #3: (owne0 (RELOCATED TO WAUKEGAN, IL AS A RENTER)
Client #4: (owner) (RELOCATED AND PURCHASED A REPLA(~EMENT UNIT AT A
LOCAL PARK)
Client #$ (owner) This is a single male with a criminal record. His home is in excellent condition
and may be moved into almost any other local manufactured housing park A sister of this client
is helping him look for a place to relocate. Client #:5 has expressed no interest in moving out of
Towncrest anytime soon. His sister believes he will have a difficult time moving to another park
because of his criminal record. Client #:5 has substantial equity in his unit and as a result may
choose to pursue another type of housing arrangement.
Client #6 (owners) 01q' THE PROCESS OF PURCHASING A REPLACEMENT UNIT
OUT OF IOWA CITY)
Client #7 (owner) and Client #8 (owner): Both individuals are elderly and low income. Client #7
is physically disabled and client #8 acts as his c, areglver. As of~'anuary 6, 199:5, client #7 has had
44 centa~.s (visits and phone calls) with LIFE Skills totaling 27.25 hours at a rat~ of $20 per
hour. Some options presented to both client #7 and client #8 by LIFE Skills inciudo the
following: I. assistance in locating two rental lots within a local manufactured housing park; 2.
assistance in locating rental lots outside Iowa City; 3. assistance with locating replacement units
so they could move into local manufactured housing parks; and 4. assistance with locating
d!R~erent types of rental u~its. To date none of these options have been acceptable to either
client. LIFE Skills has found that there are no vacancies at manufactured housing parks in Iowa
City that will take both clients in their existing units and a pet. Local parks with vacancies would
require that one or both of the clients obtain a replacement unit, which the clients resist. Both
¢Hents say they like the smaller size of their existing units and the resulting lower utility bills.
· Client #8's unit is only 10' wide, a size which no longer meets manufactured housing standards,
and for which only 1 or 2 pads are available in existing parks in Iowa City.
Due to location preferences, neither client wishes to move into a park located in the floodplain or
move out of town. Finally, the clients must be relocated together and wish to continue as
homeowners. These parameters make relocating them diflioult. LIFE Skills is continuing to work
with both clients.
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
January 27, 1995
The Honorable Mayor Susan M. Horowitz and Members of the City Council
Linda Newman Woito, City Attorney -~-~~
Partial Litigation Update
Baculis Mobile Homes, Inc. and David A. Baculis, St. v. City of Iowa City (Baculis II);
State Docket//55921.
David Baculis filed this petition in state court on August 17, 1994, against the City,
challenging the City's atte~npt to certify the lien for unpaid sanitary sewer services to the
County for collection in the same manner as property taxes. Baculis also claims the City
violated the open meetings law by going into executive session without proper grounds for
such action.
As reported to you earlier, Judge Thomas denied Baculis' request for temporary injunction on
September 12, 1994. Baculis subsequently requested a copy of the audio tape of the
executive session concerning the Baculis dispute. We objected strenuously to the request.
After a hearing January 6, 1995, and after Judge Robinson reed a transcript of the tape and
listened to the tape, he agreed the tape and transcript should remain confidential and ordered
those records sealed (see c.opy of ruling attached). While this case is far from over,
congratulations are in order to First Assistant City Attorney Anne Burnside for this ruling.
Ronald P. Schoborq and Carol Schobor~, Plaintiffs v. Matthew 8ovd Anderson and East
Central Iowa Council of Governments, Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs v. the Citv of
Iowa City; and the City of Coralville, Iowa, Third-Part,/ Defendants: State Docket
//55099
This lawsuit was filed against the City of Iowa City January 27, 1994 by Matthew Anderson
and ECICOG as a third-party petition against both Coralville and Iowa City. The original
underlying cause of action arises from an accident which occurred on First Avenue in
Coralville, just south of Highway 6 and north of the railroad overpass near what used to be
"Little Finkbine." Plaintiffs Schoborgs claim they were traveling north on First Avenue, hit an
icy spot on the road and jumped across the centerline to collide with an ECICOG van.
Records reveal the County deeded the eastern one-half of the road to Iowa City and the
western half to Coralville. Based on actual knowledge over a period of years, Public Works
Director Chuck Schmadeke, City Engineer Rick Fosse, and Streets Superintendent Bud
Stockman have stated in sworn affidavits that the City of Coralville has always assumed
responsibility for this stretch of roadway, and has always maintained the roadway.
Coralville's snowplow driver admitted to the same in his Deposition, and also stated he
2
followed Coralville's policy on the day of the accident by sanding and salting that stretch of
roadway.
Coralville filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in October, 1994 asserting immunity under
Chapter 668, Code of Iowa because Coralville had followed its own city snow removal policy.
Sarah Holecek then filed a similar Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of Iowa City,
asserting that Coralville had assumed responsibility for snow removal, had actually performed
its duties, and that even though the eastern one-half of the roadway was ostensibly owned
by Iowa City, Coralville's discharge of a legal duty also discharged any duties remaining with
Iowa City. Hearing on both motions occurred January 13, 1995; and on January 26, 1995
we received the court's ruling granting both Coralville's and Iowa City's motions for summary
judgment (see attached copy of ruling). This is truly a big victory, and congratulations are
again in order to First Assistant City Attorney Anne Burnside and Assistant City Attorney
Sarah Holecek for a job well donel
I trust this will be of some assistance to you, but please do not hesitate to contact me at
356-5030 if you have any questions.
cc: Marian Karr, City Clerk
Steve Atkins, City Manager
Dale Helling, Assistant City Manager
Chuck Schmadeke, Public Works Director
Sarah Holecek, Assistant City Attorney
Anne Burnside, First Assistant City Attorney
Attachments
ntem(~update.ja~
RECEIVED
{995
IOWA DISTRICT COURT IN AND ~0R JOHNSON COUNTY
.~r.-" '-~ '°" ' 'F:~-
BACULIS MOBILE HONES, INC. )
and DAVID A. BACULiS, SR., ) No. 55921
Plaintiffs, ) RULIN~ ~
vs )
) ~',.. ~ k ~
CItY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, ) .~
Defendant. ~. )
On January 6, 1995, the court heard arguments on the
Plaintiffs' motion to compel and the Defendant's motion for
protective order. The question is whether or not the
Plaintiff is entitled to a transcript of a.closed session
council meeting which occurred on February 1st, 1994.
Plaintiff asserts there had been a violation of the open
.{
meeh.ings law. The court finds otherwlse. The court has
had an opportunity to review the transcript of the February
1, 1994, hearing, and the court finds that it was proper in
that it was permitted by section 21.5(1)(c), Iowa Code.
This section permits a governmental body to go into closed
session to discuss strategy in matters that are presently
in litigation or litigation is imminent. These were
matters which were discussed at the February 1st hearing.
-2-
In short,
the open meetings law and properly met in closed session.
A review of the transcript shows that no one was present
at the meeting except city council members, legal counsel,
and staff. The Plaintiff's motion to (~pel discovery is
overruled. The transcript of the February 1st, 1994,
is ordered sealed
approval.
Dated this
the court finds that the City did not violate
meeting
and shall not be opened without prior court
12th day of January, 1995.
~E~N ROBINSON,
6th Judicial
Judge
District of Iowa
RECEIVED
JAN 2 6 1995
IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR JOHNSON COUNTY
RONALD F. SCHOBORG and )
CAROL SCHOBORG, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
vs )
)
MATTEEW EOYD ANDERSON and )
EAST CENTRAL IOWA COUNCIL )
OF GOVERNMENT, )
)
Defendant/Third-Party )
Plaintiffs, )
)
vs )
)
THE CITY OF CORALVILLE, IOWA, )
and THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, )
IOWA, )
)
Third-Party Defendants. )
No. 55099
RULING
Hearing on the Third-Party Defendants' motions for summary
judgment was held on January 13, 1995. Chris Bruns appeared for
the Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff. Anne Burnside and Sarah
Holecek appeared for the City of Iowa City. JoAnne Lilledahl
appeared for the City of Coralville.
Matthew Boyd Anderson and East Central Iowa Council of
Government (Anderson) were sued by the Schoborgs following an
automobile accident which occurred December 21, 1991, on First
Avenue in Coralville, Iowa. There had been recent winter
-2-
precipitation and Anderson cross-petitioned against Coralville
and Iowa City asserting that either or both were negligent for
failing to adequately follow their municipal policies in removing
snow and ice or in failing to adequately sand the roads. First
Avenue makes up the boundary line between Iowa City and
Coralville. Coralville has always maintained this section of
road even though technically the City of
title owner to one-half of the roadway.
followed its policy or level of service
Iowa City may be the
Coralville asserts it
for snow and ice removal
or placement of sand or other abrasive materials, and that
summary judgment should be entered for it. Iowa City also
asserts it is entitled to summary judgment because either
Coralville followed its policy relating to snow and ice removal
or the de facto boundary between Iowa City and Coralville placed
the property in Coralville's jurisdiction, hence, any duty to
remove snow and ice was solely that of Coralville's.
RepresentatiFes from the City of Coralville (including the
operator of the vehicle which sanded the area in question) filed
affidavits attesting to the"fact that Coralville's policy was
foliobed. Anderson claims a fact issue has been generated
-3-
because the Coralville employee who was operating the sand truck,
which was treating First Avenue on December 21st, had no specific
memory of many events on that exact date. Also, Anderson asserts
the provision in Coralville's policy which states the City is to
apply sufficient sand and salt to curves so that they "can be
safely negotiated" necessarily raises a fact ~ssue since the
Plaintiff's and Defendant's cars were skidding at the time of
accident.
the
The purpose
genuine issue of
Stammer, 411 N.W.
of summary judgment is to avoid a trial where no
material fact exists. Amco Insurance Co. v
2d 709, 711 (Iowa App. 1987). When, under the
entire record, the only conflict concerns the legal consequences
flowing from undisputed fa~s, entry of summary judgment is
proper. Hernandez v Farmers Insurance Co., 460 N.W. 2d 842, 843
(Iowa 1990). Even though issues of negligence and proximate
cause are ordinarily jury issues, the court concludes that the
Cities' motions for summary judgment should be sustained.
Section 668.10(2) states a municipality may not be assigned a
percentage of fault for:
-4-
The failure to remove natural or unnatural
accumulations of snow or ice, or to place
sand, salt, or other abrasive material on a
highway, road, or street if the state or
municipality establishes that it has complied
with its policy or level of service for snow
and ice removal or placing sand, salt or
other abrasive material on its highways,
roads, or streets.
The work schedule and the affidavits of Coralville's
representatives prove that the sanding and ice removal procedures
promulgated by the City of Coralville were followed. The court
does not believe that the statement in the Coralville policy to
the effect that the City should apply sufficient sand and salt to
curves so they "can be safely negotiated" undermines the ~ntent
and purpose of section 668.10(2). A municipality which follows
its policy for snow and ice removal or sanding need not make its
roads
accident proof. A contrary interpretation of the statute
render it meaningless because even when a muntcipality's
would
snow and ice
snow and ice
removal policy is followed, it will
from a roadway. This reasoning was
never remove all
set out in the
Iowa Supreme Court decision of Paulsen v Cedar County (filed
March 23, 1994). The decision was not published and the court
agrees with Anderson that it cannot be considered as binding
-5-
precedent. Nevertheless, the logic and reasonableness of the
Court's decision is clear. Also, it is hard to overlook the
source. Section 668.10(2) is to be broadly interpreted and it
should apply even when the municipality has attempted to remove
snow and ice from a roadway but has failed to successfuly do so.
Thus, a municipality is immunized from liability even if it
failed to remove all of the snow or ice from the roadway.
The court does not believe the Coralville policy statement
~o apply sufficient sand and salt to curves so that they "can be
safely negotiated" gives the Third-Party Plaintiff relief from
the statutory immunity. It is, of course, the goal of every
municipality to apply sufficient sand and salt to streets and
curves so that they can be safely negotiated by motorists. To
suggest that a municipality is liable for accidents resulting
from icy road conditions because their policy to sand and salt
was "so that roads can be safely negotiated" would, in effect,
eviscerate the statutory immunity allowed municipalities.
In short, the court concludes there is no factual issue as
to whether or not Coralville followed its policy for the removal
of snow and ice and, as a result, the motion for summary judgment
-6-
by both Coralville and Iowa City, should be, and they are, hereby
sustained.
Judgment is entered for the City of Coralville and the City
of Iowa City, Iowa, and against Matthew Boyd Anderson and East
Central Iowa Council of Government. Any costs relating to the
Third-Party action are assessed to the Defendants/Third-Party
Plaintiffs.
Dated th~s ?__~_~ ~/ of January, lgg~.
. ~L.~' V~N ROBINSON, Judge 6th Judicial District
January 27, 1995
CITY OF I0 WA CITY
William G. & Barbara M. Buss
747 W. Benton St.
Iowa City, IA 52246
Re:
Legal Effect of"Protest of Rezoning" Dated January 17, 1995;
Rezoning Request REZ94-0019
Dear Bill & Barb:
You have filed a "protest of rezoning" with the City Clerk for the City of Iowa City concerning
rezoning of a portion of property which abuts your property, street address 747 W. Benton St.,
based on the legal assertion that the calculation of the "20% or more of the property which is
located within two hundred feet of the extedor boundaries of the property for which the
change...is proposed," should exclude other surrounding properties because owned by the
zoning applicant.'
I respectfully disagree with your legal conclusion. The protest rights set forth in the State law,
namely Section 414.5, Code of Iowa (1993) does not depdve a property owner, who happens
to be the-applicant seeking rezoning, of any property rights by roason of another adjoining
property owner's protest. That is, it appears to me that the adjoining property owners, which
includes you as well as the applicant, 'stand on equal footing under the law for purposes of
protest.
Stated otherwise, the principles of the protest laws do not grant you a '~vindfall" by increasing
the weight of your protest by excluding the applicant's property - by depriving the applicant's
property of certain benefits and dghts ordinarily running with that land. By construing the state
statute, which is incorporated into the City Code, as you would construe it would not only be
a '~Nindfall" for a property owner such as you, but would also be deprivation of certain
recognized property dghts of the adjoining property -- simply because the adjoining property
is owned by the applicant.
Moreover, since the state legislature adopted conditional zoning, set forth in Section 414.5,
Code of Iowa (1993), the concept of "spot zoning" is an archaic notion and no longer
recognized in Iowa law. In sum, the protest which you attempted to lodge against the eastern
most portion of the Ruppert tract, now being proposed for zoning from RS-8 to CC-2, is not
effective under state or local law.
410 EAST WASHINGTON STEEET · IOWA CITY, IOWA S2240.1126 * (Jig) 356.S000 * FAX (Jig) JS6-J__
William G. & Ba~araM. Buss
Janua~ 27,1995
Page 2
This legal opinion is limited only to the "protest of rezoning" conceming the above-noted
mzoning, and has no force in effect with respect to your other protest filed with the City Clerk
and also dated January 17, 1995.
I trust this is responsive to your question, but please do not hesitate to contact me if you have
further questions.
Cordially yours,
Lind ew~
City Attorney
City Clsrk
City Manager
City Council
Karin Franklin, PCD
Bob Mildo, PCD
Sam Holecek, Land Use Affomey
Attachments
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
January27, 1995
TO:
FROM:
Mayor and City Council ~,~
Marian K. Karr, City Clerk
RE: Sidewalk Cafes
A staff committee has been working on revised sidewalk cafes regulations wlth the hope of having
a proposal to you by the final meeting in January. Another committee meeting Is scheduled next
week and a recommendation will be to you in February.
bc5-$
CC: Committee Members
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date:
'ro:
From:
Re:
January 26, 1995
Mayor and City Council
City Clerk
Council Work Session, January 10, 1 995 - 6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers
Mayor Susan Horowitz presiding. Council present: Horowitz, Baker, Kubby, Lehman, Novick,
Throgmorton, Pigott (6:30 p.m.). Staff present: Atkins, Helling, Karr, Yucuis, Mansfield,
O'Malley. Tapes: 95-6, Side 2; 95-5, All; 95-7, Side 1.
BUDGET DISCUSSION:
City Manager Atkins presented Council with a detailed overview of the proposed financial plan
and a summary of budget policy issues. Council received the document, Financial Trends
Monitorin~ Svstems.
Atkins explained that the proposed budget is based on the following assumptions:
Assumes no state-imposed freezes at least during the next three year period;
Machinery and equipment revenue will be lost in accordance with the state plan;
There are no new general revenues from any source;
No dramatic change in road use tax;
No change in tax policy by the state;
No major changes in pensions, social security, public employee retirement systems;
The taxpayers rights amendment will not likely be in front of the legislature;
Most services maintained at current level of service, staffi.ng and support services;
Use of City's cash reserves during the three year plan for the purposes of balancing the
General Fund budget;
Budget estimations made on assumption the City will continue-to negotiate openly and
reasonably with employee groups.
Atkins noted that fringe benefits for employees are growing disproportionate to the cost of
the City's payroll. Kubby suggested the City bring the bargaining unit and management
together to discuss benefit costs. Atkins stated that the City has unlimited taxing authority
with respect to employee benefits.
EXPENDITURES. Atkins stated that expenditures are controlled by eight factors:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Inflation
Private market influence
Collective bargaining
Cost of employee benefits
Services you choose to expand
Services you have no choice
Services in General Fund
Debt
Council Work Session
January 10, 1995
2
Atkins said the bottom line question with respect to expenditures is how does the City fulfill
public expectation within.the resources that are being made available. Kubby inquired about
the City's self-insurance program. Atkins explained that Workers Compensation is the state
law and the City self-insures; police and fire pension is the state law and the City currently
finances from its reserve; IPERS is hot self-insured: social security i~ not self-insured; life
insurance is not self-insured; and health insurance is self-insured. Atkins explained that the
greatest exposure comes from health insurance and Workers Compensation. In response to
Kubby, Atkins explained the City's general obligation debt is paid from the debt service levy.
REVENUES. Arkins explained that state law regulates taxes the City chooses to levy; and the
tax base is also regulated by the state. Atkins explained revenues are impacted by
2.
3.
4.
Limited and choice of revenues,
Tax base for available revenues regulated by state,
Growth and tax base regulated by state, and
Stability of revenues - assured level of funding.
Atkins noted that 83% of the money in the General Fund is subject to some kind of state or
federal regulation with respect to the rate, base and growth.
TOTAL ASSESSED AND TAXABLE VALUATION. Atkins reviewed the total assessed and
taxable valuation by commercial, industrial, utilities and residential for fiscal years 1986-1996.
Horowitz asked for an explanation xegarding rollback. Atkins explained the rollback factor is
based on two factors: 1) agricultural land values statewide and 2) a growth factor of 4%
imposed by the state. In response to Novick, Atkins stated the rollback factor applies to only
residential. Throgmorton noted that given the presented figures the. taxable value of land in
Iowa City has been remaining essentially stable in constant dollars, Atkins stated the concern
is that the rollback as a trend is declining more rapidly than the offsetting growth in new
construction and value for Iowa City. Atkins stated that property values are increasing but
the City is losing ground quickly. Atkins stated that the City is keeping pace but the concern
is that the City's growth in taxable values are just keeping pace with i~flation. Atkins
presented information about the rollback, Atkins explained that the rollback has declined
steadily since FY90 and the City's growth is automatically wiped out by way of the rollback.
Horowitz inquired about FY97. Atkins explained that there is a revaluation every two years
and he assumes that the City will have about a 7% decline in the rollback factor in FY97.
M AND E FISCAL IMPACT. Atkins reported that the state wants to remove machinery and
equipment from commercial and industrial values. Atkins stated Iowa City's value for
machinery and equipment is $53.6 million, and taxes generated through the General Fund are
$693,000. Atkins explained the state's thinking is that Iowa will become more attractive for
commercial and industrial property if the M and E is eliminated. Atkins stated the state
predicts there will be growth in commercial and industrial property purchases to offset 2/3 of
the tax money that is lost and the state will only have to make up 1/3 of the. money. Arkins
stated the state wants commercial and industrial to grow and believes that communities gain
the benefit of new industrial buildings as property tax base. Arkins stated that the state gains
the most from the M&E exemption by way of income tax and sales tax. Atkins emphasized
that the City Council is losing control over the ability to make decisions about the develop-
ment character of the community. I(ubby requested information regarding the two years
before and the five years after when the M and E went from 100% to 30%.
Council Work Session
January 10, 1995
STATE POPULATION ALLOCATION, Atkins reviewed the schedule of state population
allocation, monies and credits and personal property replacement tax revenues from FY88
through FY98 and as.a percentage to the total General Fund revenues received. Arkins stated
that he has trouble with the state's policy of telling local governments how they should grow
through tax policy, promising certain reimbursements, and then not following through with
it.
TAX LEVIES AVAILABLE. Atkins explained that the $8.10 general levy can be used for any
legitimate government purpose, is the primary levy for the General Fund, grows by way of
increase in taxable value, is a maximum levy, and is a Council-initiated levy.
Atkins stated that the .95¢ transit levy can only be used for transit, is Council-initiated, is a
maximum levy which cannot exceed .95¢, and grows by way of increased taxable value.
Atkins stated that the employee benefits levy grows by way of increase in taxable value and
increase in levy rate, has no upper limit, is Council-initiated, used to pay for employee
benefits, and the City must be at the $8.10 general levy before it can be used,
Atkins stated that the Police/Fire pension benefit is normally part of the employee benefits
levy, however, due to the financial position of the City, the City uses available cash reserves
to pay the City's share and thereby avoiding the levy for these expenses. Horowitz asked if
the City is allowed to use the reserve for something else. Atkins stated no. Finance
Department Director Yucuis explained that for Police and Fire, the employer contribution is
actuarially figured and is currently at about 18.4% and the new rate is sbout 17.66 starting
July 1. Yucuis explained that the City taxes for about 93.5% of the General Fund employers
share of the contribution and the other 7% comes out of the General Fund.
Atkins explained that the Library levy grows by way of increase in taxable value, is a
maximum levy and cannot exceed .27¢, requires voter approval, and is used to support library
operations.
Atkins explained that the debt service grows by way of increase in taxable value and an
increase in rate, the upper limit is determined by property value and limited to 5% of the
assessed value, is Council-initiated and only used for debt payments.
Atkins stated that 7% hotel tax is based on room rates at local hotels, is a maximum of 7%,
requires voter approval, and is defined generally at referendum. Kubby asked how long the
City is obligated to comply with the current application of the hotel tax. Arkins stated that
he would have to get an opinion on the legal use of those monies.
TAX LEVIES NON-VOTED. Atkins reviewed the non-voted tax levies including th~ $8.10
regular general, .675¢ contract for use of bridge, .27¢ aviation authority, the liability, property
and self-insurance tort, and the non-voted special revenues. Pigott asked what constitutes
an emergency. Finance Director Yucuis stated that he has contacted the state regarding a
definition for emergency; there's really no definition on how that can occur and there are no
rules that say the City has to define emergency.
TAX LEVIES VOTED. Horowitz asked where money would come from for flood mitigation and
river basin planning. Arkins stated the General Fund right now. Horowitz asked if the
emergencies could be used. Atkins stated that he will provide additional detail and reported
Council Work Session
January 10, 1995
.4
that he received correspondence from the Corps of Engineers who are requesting funds from
Iowa City for a reservoir study.
Atkins noted that council received the budget policy memorandum. Atkins reviewed that the
total General Fund expenditures from FY95 to FY96 are proposed to increase 2.4 percent and
the expenditure proposal for the general fund is 2.4%. Atkins stated that FY96-97 there is
a payroll issue Council should be aware of, that being the City will need to plan to pay 27 pay
periods.
NOTABLE CHANGES IN GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES. Atkins stated he listed the notable
new items in the General Fund Budget. Atkins stated that a notable change is Personnel for
the monthly utility billing ($1OO,000); the General Fund subsidy to Transit is growing
dramatically; the Risk Management position is proposed to be financed out of the City's
reserves; the PCD Administration - Consultant for Near Southside; Forestry is proposing a new
position; and an additional $6,OO0 for Police/School Crossing Guards. Arkins sta~ed the City
cannot get people to serve as crossing guards and therefore, a proposal to increase
compensation. Arkins noted there is a $30,000 proposal to repay the weather alert sirens,
and 910,000 for the Mercer Park pool school district reduction in use. In response to Novick,
Arkins stated that staff will check on the Parks and Recreation accounting for the school
district use of Mercer Park pool. Arkins noted other notable changes in General Fund
expenditures include the Police Emergency Communications due to a state change in the
protocol for the communications center dispatch requiring new software.
Kubby requested information about Transit costs including paratransit, other services and
maintenance chargeback.
PERCENT INCREASE BY PROGRAM FY95-FY96. Atkins reviewed the percent increase by
program as listed by departments. Atkins noted that the Community Development nongrant
are the monies that the City contributes to the General Fund for the operation of the CDBG
program. Novick asked what is Risk Management? Atkins explained that the 9200,000
transfer caused it to double. In response to Kubby, Atkins stated that he will obtain additional
information regarding the HIS Administration program increase. Horowitz asked why there
was a 19% decrease in landfill. Atkins stated because the City is not going to build a landfill
cell. In response to Kubby, Yucuis explained that in HIS Administration one of the secretarial
positions was originally budgeted in Housing Inspection and HIS Director Boothroy moved that
position to HIS Administration; Atkins stated he would obtain more information about that
item. Atkins explained that there was reduction in the landfill budget because in FY95 there
were transfers to the CIPs and in FY96 transfers to the reserve. Kubby asked why
wastewater was low. Arkins stated because of the bigger base.
FINANCIAL TRENDS MONITORING SYSTEM. Atkins explained the Financial Trends
Monitoring System is used to assess the City's overall financial strength and.allows the City
to use the historical information to its advantage, Atkins referred Council members to the
Financial Trends Monitoring Systems (FTMS), page 9-10, Intergovernmental Revenues. Atkins
stated there is a positive trend in the University Fire Contract and the Road Use taxes are
doing fairly well, Kubby asked if it would be worth the City's while to do a mid-census count
in 1995. Atkins stated that it is an expensive proposition, $50,000 - 980,000 and should be
discussed at some time, Arkins noted the concern that intergovernmental revenues of the
City's total net revenues is declining and will need to be made up somewhere else. Kubby
raised concerns about not putting money into the fire equipment reserve. Arkins noted that
in the year 2008 the City is going to have to replace the aerial truck and currently cannot
Council Work Session
January I0, 1995
5
afford to set aside that kind of cash. In response to Kubby, Arkins noted that the City can
buy a fire truck on Council's initiative, but buses are subject to referendum.
Arkins reviewed the summary of expenditure indicators (FTMS), page 18 and employee per
capita, page 21). Baker inquired about comparing employees per capita with other
communities. Atkins stated that he did not know if other communities keep records the way
Iowa City does. Atkins offered the example that Waterloo is a town of similar size to Iowa
City and Waterloo has 120 police officers and Iowa CiW has 59. Atkins reviewed fringe
benefits (FTMS), page 23, and stated that a concern is the jump in the cost of fringe benefits
as a proportion of the personnel costs. Kubby suggested that management sit down with the
City's bargaining unit to work on benefit cost issues. Finance Director Yucuis noted that on
page 37 of the Financial Trends Monitoring System, paragraph 2, end of first sentence, 1995
should read 1985.
Kubby referred to fund balances (FTMS, page 27). Kubby asked in the past five years what
is the dollar amount the City has spent above and beyond the fourth quarter payroll. Kubby
asked what else does the City spend from the cash balance. Atkins and Yucuis replied that
monies were spent on the flood, and the Civic Center remodel. Atkins referred to the third
paragraph of the fund balances in the FTMS. Atkins explained that the restricted fund balance
is the total of the cash balances of debt service, employee benefits, road use tax and federal
revenue sharing as well as a number of other smaller accounts. Arkins stated that it is
unrestricted because the City can basically use them for other purposes. Kubby suggested
that Council look at on the average of the last five years what has been spent out of the cash
balance. Atkins noted that under fund balances there will be a decline because the City is
using cash to balance the budget. Novick asked if the pure fund balance is the same as the
unrestricted cash balance and do figures include next yeads first quarter. Yucuis stated no,
the pure fund balance is after the City backs out reserves for parkland acquisition, fire
equipment reserve, etc. Atkins explained one of the reasons the City is allowing the pure fund
balance to go down is to pay for payroll adjustments during the course of the year. Atkins
explained that at the end of the fiscal year, the end of the year balance is transferred
immediately to the fund balance. Kubby inquired about the contingency fund. Atkins stated
the City has a contingency account of $250,000 that is strictly for contingencies. Novick
raised concerns that percentages in the pure fund balance are decreasing. Atkins presented
information about departmental budgets. Atkins explained that budgets for departments are
done through computer projections, and the departments then amend based on trends.
Kubb¥ inquired about liquidity (FTMS, page 29). Kubby asked if there is less money in long-
term investments. Yucuis stated there are fewer liabilities and payables that affect the City.
Kubb¥ inquired about overlapping debt. Atkins stated overlapping debt is an issue that applies
to the community in general.
Novick asked if the hotel/motel tax should be long on the elastic tax revenues page (FTMS,
page 11 ). Atkins stated that it could be located there because the base of the hotel/motel tax
is determined by room values which is subject to increases in the cost of that particular
industry.
Kubby inquired about other possible taxes. Atkins stated a wheel tax is usually a flat fee, and
income tax is an elastic revenue. Yucuis stated that a utility tax in Illinois is a tax on
telephone, electricity and gas and is a significant local revenue source. Kubb¥ inquired about
franchise fees with Iowa Illinois Gas and Electric Company. Atkins stated the City currently
has existing right-of-way agreements with Iowa Illinois Gas and Electric. Horowitz asked if
Council Work Session
January 1 O, 1995'
6
the City can charge Iowa Illinois Gas and Electric for use of the right-of-way. Assistant City
Manager Helling stated research is being done on charges to telephone companies. Atkins
stated that sales tax discussion can be scheduled as a separate item.
ENTERPRISE FUNDS PARKING FUND. In response to Kubby, Yucuis explained that the
departmental requests are not in the enterprise funds. Atkins stated that he can prepare that
information for Council. Kubby stated she would like to look at the departmental requests.
Atkins stated that parking fund revenues are flat and there have not been any dramatic
change in receipts. Atkins stated there is decline in the operating reserve position. Atkins
stated that the improvement reserve remains healthy. Atkins stated that it has been Council
policy that parkling now pay for itself and Council has chosen recently to subsidize transit
through that. Baker inquired about funding for fiscal improvements on the ramps. Atkins
stated that funding would come out of the parking renewal and improvement reserve. Atkins
stated that that fund is used every other year to do major repairs on the existing ramps.
Baker inquired about the projected costs about the budget for ramp improvements as
previously discussed by Council.
WASTEVVATER, PAGE 100. Atkins noted there has been one rate adjustment, there is an
accumulation of cash that grows from the FY95 estimation to almost $3 million in FY98.
WATER, PAGE 102. Arkins noted there are no other major adjustments. Kubby asked how
many years are left in the 1985 t~40 million bond issuance. Atkins Yucuis stated that bond
ends in the year 2012. Atkins stated that the water and wastewater debt is not governed by
general obligations standard. Horowitz asked where the chargeback line item for City
Attorney's office is located in the water treatment operation budget. Atkins stated that he
will prepare those figures. Atkins noted a correction at the bottom of page 102 showing
ending balance in water depreciation in improvement reserves, add 1.146 million. Atkins
noted that the cash position within the water fund is excellent. Yucuis stated that personal
services and water should read 1.5 positions. It was asked why the City would want to hire
new staff and pay for them out of user fees. Throgmorton asked why not draw down the
ending balances. Atkins stated that that can be done.
REFUSE AND LANDFILL OPERATIONS, PAGE 103-104. Atkins raised concerns about the
impact of the transfer station business on landfill operations and noted that a meeting is
scheduled on January 17 in Des Moines with the DNR to discuss transfer station issues.
AIRPORT, PAGE 107. Atkins reported that the City is beginning to spend money at the
Airport and Council will need to address serious Airport issues including the possibility of
buying another mobile home park and a bowling alley. Kubby asked if the rental fees on the
hangar are going to reflect the real costs of building the ~200,000 hangar. Atkins stated no.
Arkins stated that the General Fund subsidies were beginning to increase at the Airport and
it is primarily because Airport revenues are flat ahd they are beginning to incur some new
expenses. Atkins provided information about an aviation authority. Throgmorton asked ifthe
master plan looks at sources of revenue. Arkins stated Council would need to give a specific
charge to the Airport Commission. Throgmorton suggested asking the Airport Commission
to recommend sources or revenue to help defray the costs of Airport improvements. Yucuis
noted requested Airport improvements include improvements to a terminal building and
asphalt around the T-hangars, costing approximately 9114,000. In response to Kubby, Atkins
stated that staff will prepare the airport capital budget.
Council Work Session
January 10, 1995
7
TRANSIT, PAGE 108. Atkins noted Council has asked for some additional information.
Atkins emphasized that the General Fund subsidy is growing dramatically, the population
served is not changing and ridership remains flat. Atkins expressed caution in additional
routes and stated the City may face the loss of federal aid. Atkins noted that in FY97 the
City will be purchasing a number of buses. Atkins noted that costs related to SEATS will be
split out.
Horowitz inquired about funds for computer equipment replacement. Atkins stated that
monies are not set aside for computer replacement, but staff could prepare figures relating to
computer replacement costs. Horowitz stated that the City should look at reserves for
computer equipment replacement.
Atkins stated that future budget discussions will include new capital projects and a number
of budget policy issues including police staffing, federal grants, industrial park, library
extension, cultural center, and cemetery. Atkins stated the next budget discussion is
scheduled January 23. Kubby requested that time be scheduled for Council discussion.
Kubby asked if a ClP priorifization is scheduled. Kubby stated that Council should do a
prioritization on the CIP.
COUNCIL AGENDA/TIME
Reel 95-7, Side 1
Kubby inquired about flood damage to Santa Rosa, California. City Manager Atkins
reported that the former mayor Darrel Courtney has been in contact with the former
mayor of the City of Santa Rosa.
Kubby noted Council received a letter from the Free Medical Clinic regarding Council
tours, and encouraged Council members to tour the clinic.
3. Novick stated that she has a list of water and sewer rates from Portland, Oregon.
Atkins noted that a citizen summary of the budget has been prepared and mailed out
to all Board and Commission members.
Meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date:
January 27, 1995
To,'
Mayor and City Council
From: City Clerk
Re:
Council Work Session, January 16, 1995 - 6:30 p.m. in Council Chambers
Mayor Susan Horowitz presiding. Council Members present: Horowitz, Baker, Kubby,
Lehman, Novick, Pigott, Throgmorton. Staff present: Atkins, Helling, Welt., Karr, Franklin,
Nasby, Severs,n, Milkman, Dollman, Davidson, Schoon, Fowler. Tapes: 97-5, Side 2; 95-8,
All; 95-9, All; 95-10, Side 1.
ADULT DAY CARE:
Reel 95-7, Side 2
Council agreed to defer discussion regarding Adult Day Care to allow for further review and
preparation of a memo.
REVIEW ZONING MATTERS:
Reel 95-7, Side 2
PCD Director Franklin presented the following Planning and Zoning items for discussion:
Public hearin~ on an amendment of the Comorehensive Plan to chan~e the land use
mao designation of ~rooertv located on the north side of Highway 1 West from 8-16
dwellinn units per acre and 16-24 dwelline units 13er acre to 2-8 dwellin~ units Der acre
and qeneral commercial. (HarlockeANeeber)
Public hearin(3 on an ordinance chan~in~ the use reQulations of an a~oroximate four
acre tract of land, known as the Jensen tract, located east of Harlocke Street from
RM-44, Hieh Density Multi-Family Residential, to RS-5, Low Density Sin=le-Familv
Residential. (Harlocke/VVeeber/REZ93-0007)
Public hearin~ on an ordinance amending the Zonine Ordinance by chan~in(~ the use
re¢~ulations of aeoroximatelv two acres located eenerallv on the west side of Harlocke
Street from RM-44, Hiah Density Multi-Family Residential, to RS-5, Low Density
Sinele-Familv Residential. {Harlocke/VVeeber/REZ93.0007)
Public hearin~ on an ordinance amendin.cl the use regulations of an aporoximate 4.57
acre tract of land, known as the western 13ortion of the Rue,eft tract, located (~enerallv
north of Hiqhwav 1 West from RM-44, Hiqh Density Multi-Family Residential, to RS-5,
Low Density Sinqle-Familv Residential. (Harlocke/Weeber/REZ93-0007i
Public hearin.q on an ordinance amendtnq the Zonine Ordinance bv conditionalIv
chan~in.~ the use reeulations of an a~eroximate 4.09 acre tract, known as the eastern
2
o~rtion of the RuoDert Tract, located oenerallv north of Hiqhwav 1 West from RM-44,
High Densitv Multi-Family Residential; to CC-2, Community Commercial. (Harlocke/
Weeber/REZ93-0007)
Public hearin~ on ~in a~olication to rezone an a~oroximate 1.5 acre tract of land located
north of Hiqhwav 1 West and west of Miller Street from RS-8, Medium Density Sinale-
Familv Residential,to CC-2, Community Commercial. {Harlocke/Weeber/REZ94-0019)
Franklin noted six out of seven Council votes are needed to approve the Jensen tract
rezoning. City Attorney Woito and neighborhood representative William Knabe
presented information. Council agreed to combine public hearings a-f.
Public hearinq on an ordinance amendin(~ the Zoning Ordinance bv chanein~ the use
re(~ulations of a 0.32 acre [3arcel located at 719 S. Capitol Street from C1-10 Intensive
Commercial, to P, Public. (REZ94-0017)
Public hearinq on a resolution to annex an 80 acre tract of land, for a project known
as the Green View Manufactured Housincl Park, located southeast of Sycamore Street
and east of the Pleasant Valley Golf Course. (ANN94-0007)
PCD Director Franklin, Community Development Coordinator Milkman, manufactured
housing park developer Bob Wolf, and area resident Randy Moore provided information.
In response to Novick, Franklin explained that only four Council votes are needed to
approve the annexation and six out of seven votes are needed to approve the rezoning
because a protest has been filed by abutting property owners; if Council approves
annexation but then there is not six votes to approve the rezoning, Council can then
reconsider the annexation; the Council will need to consult with Planning and Zoning
Commission if they are going to deny the rezoning; and the purchase offer on the
property expires March 1.
Council requested that staff explore a land swap with Johnson County and present
information relating to alternative uses for flood money that includes providing
assistance and opportunities for people to relocate out of the floodplain.
Resolution to annex an 80 acre tract of land, for a project known as the Green View
Manufactured Housin¢l Park, located southeast of Sycamore Street and east of the
Pleasant Valley Golf Course. {ANN94-0007)
Public hearin~l on an ordinance amendinn the Zonin.q ChaDtar bv chan(lin¢l the use
regulations of an 80 acre tract of land, for a 13roiect known as the Green View
Manufactured Housinq Park, located southeast of Sycamore Street and east of the
Pleasant Valley Golf Course from County RS, Suburban Residential, to RFBH, Factory
Built Housin¢l Residential. (REZ94-0012)
Ordinance amendin{3 the Zonin¢~ Cha13ter bv chanain¢l the use regulations of an 80 acre
tract of land, for a 13roiect known as the Green View Manufactured Housin(~ Park,
located southeast of Svcamore Street and east of the Pleasant Vallev Golf Course from
3
Countv RS, Suburban Residential, to RFBH0 Factorv Built Housine Residential. (REZ94-
O012) (First Consideration)
Public hearin(~ on an ordinance amendine the Zonina Chaoter bv chaneine the use
requlations of 61.96 acres of land located south of Whisoering Prairie Drive from RS-8,
Medium Density Sinqle-Familv Residentialj to RFBH, Factory Built Housing Residential.
(Sycamore Farms/Lake Calvin/REZ94-0014)
Developer Steve Bright and Jim Miller presented information. Franklin noted that a
protest was received and therefore six out of seven votes are needed to approve item
m. Franklin stated if Council votes in the affirmative for Lake Calvin, that would be
contrary to Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation so there would need to
be a consultation between the Planning and Zoning Commission and Council. Franklin
requested that Council continue the public hearing because the conditional zoning
agreement has not been signed.
Ordinance amendine the Zoninq Chapter bv chan~ina the use re=ulations of 61.96
acres of land located south of Whis13erin~ Prairie Drive from RS-8, Medium Density
Sin~le-Familv Residential, to RFBH, Factory Built Housine Residential. {Sycamore
Farms/Lake Calvin/REZ94-0014) (First Consideration)
Ordinance amendine Zonine Cha13ter Article N., Off-Street Parkin~ Requirements,
Section 14-6N-1 B1 soecifvin~ construction materials for required hard-surface oarkinq
areas. (First Consideration)
Ordinance amendin(~ Zonine Cha13ter Section 14-6E-6C1 to clarify the densiW
requirement for dwelline units in the CB-2, Central Business zone. (First Consideration)
Ordinance to vacate a portion of Waterfront Drive located south of Hiclhwav 6 and
west of the CRANDIC Railroad rieht-of-wav. (Hv-Vee/VAC94-0007) (Second
Consideration)
NEW SOUTHSIDE DESIGN PLAN:
PCD Assistant Director Davidson and City Attorney Woito presented information about the
new Southside Design Plan. Council suggested the following additions to the request for
proposal for a Near Southside Design Plan as follows:
Page 2, c., //2 - add ...to encourage safe pedestrian and bicycle use, and add ...to
make Burlington Street a safer and more attractive street for pedestrian to~.
Page 2, c.,//2 - add ...and bicvcle use of streets and walkways.
Page 2, c., #5 - insert period after art and delete, and shall define a orocess bv which
public art can be commissioned and oroduced, and add ...which reinforce a sense of
place and oublic qatherin(l areas.
Page 2, c.,//6 - change to read promote. cont nu ty...
4
Council asked that Davidson work with City Attorney regarding RFP language, set out
information relatin~ to outdoor service areas, and add language to reinforce sense of space
and public gathering spaces with art,
'Staff Action: Staff will Incorporate Counctl's comments into the RFP and begin the RFP
process. (Davidson)
CITY STEPS:
Reel 95-9, Side 1
Community Development Coordinator Milkman presented information about CITY STEPS.
Kubby requested a list of all programs cited in CITY STEPS which the City has control over
the definition of family and which ones the City does not have control over the definition of
family.
Staff Action: Staff will work with HUD to determine which definition of family is applicable
to each program. {Milkman)
PARKING RATEINCREASE:
Reel 95-9, Side 1
City Manager Atkins and Parking and Transit Director Fowler presented information about
parking rate increases. Arkins stated staff will prepare a list of ramp improvement projects
for City Council's next meeting. Fowler stated he will prepare a memo regarding Dubuque
Street ramp usage figures, including Holiday Inn use, permit holder use and Park & Shop use.
Staff Action: Fowler to prepare memoranda respondlng to these questions. (Atkins)
WATER/SEWER/REFUSE MONTHLY BILLING:
Reel 95-9, Side 2
Finance Director Yucuis, Water Superintendent Moreno, and Customer Service Manager
Donahue presented information about utility monthly billings. Kubby requested that the City
establish a budget plan where consumers pay the same amount on a monthly basis based on
their annualized billing. Kubby asked that information about the City's lockbox procedure be
forwarded to local banking institutions. Council asked that water usage in gallons be stated
on utility bills.
Staff Action: Programming changes are being worked on. Anticipate going to monthly billing
no later than May 1, 1995. Water usage In gallons as well as annual usage will
be added to bills. Budget planning for bill payments will be Incorporated into
utility options. (Yucuis)
COUNCIL AGENDA~IME:
Reel 95-9, Side 2
Throgmorton requested that staff contact the Board of Health to discuss the 1994
Code revision that changed language to ban private water wells in the city.
Kubby requested that staff respond to correspondence received from Nila Haug
regarding parking on Washington Street. City Manager Atkins stated he will follow-up.
5
Kubby explained that a resident requested that she distribute an audio tape to other
Council members.' Council members discussed policy regarding the distribution of
audio and videotapes to Council. Council agreed that a Council member may give the
City Clerk a videotape or an audiotape to the City Clerk's office and place a memo in
the packet.
In response to Kubby, City Manager Atkins stated that he will obtain information from
the DNR regarding the Coralville Reservoir studies and costs.
Kubby requested a SEATS update. Mayor Horowitz explained that the SEATS
subcommittee is working on it, the County has an overall figure that shows they
overcharged the City, and work is being done for a multi-year contract next year. City
Manager Atkins stated that he will contact Bd. of Supervisors Chair Duffy regarding
contract figures.
So
Horowitz reported that a Council representative is needed to attend the ECICOG and
JTPA meeting on Thursday.
Horowitz stated Council members are needed to work the Walk of the Stars booth on
Friday, Saturday and Sunday - Februaq/24-26. Council members discussed those
work shifts. Kubby noted that Council members will be working a~ the City booth to
answer questions regarding water and sewer.
Kubby noted that she will discuss her 12/29/94 memo concerning commercial buses
parking at the Holiday Inn and the impact on Hawkeye State Bank at a Council meeting
in two weeks.
APPOINTMENTS:
Reel 95-10, Side 1
Airport Commission - defer two weeks.
Broadband Telecommunications Commission - Steve Hoch.
Meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date:
January 26, 1995
To:
From:
Karin Franklin, Director
Department of Planning and Community Development
Laura Hawks, Chai~
Design Review Corfimittee
Re:
The Proposed Eagle Country Market Development at First and Muscatine
Avenues
Over the past few months. the Design Review Committee has been discussing its potential
future role in the community. As part of that discussion, members of the Committee have
expressed their concerns regarding the proposed Eagle Country Market development at the
corner of First and Muscatine Avenues. Given the enormity of the proposed development in
the midst of an existing and modest residential neighborhood, the ,Committee would like to
propose that certain concepts be taken into consideration in the design phase. Our hope is
the new store will enhance the site and the surrounding community through the creation of
a more pedestrian oriented environment rather than as an auto dominated development.
The Committee is aware that as part of the conditional zoning agreement for the subject site,
the Director of Planning and Community Development was given the responsibility of
approving "e concept plan, including building elevation drawings and a landscaping plan prior
to site development." The Committee submits the following guidelines for your consideration
when you review and approve the project:
The development should be pedestrian oriented in terms of its relationship to the street
and the view of the site from the street should not be dominated by parking. Parking
and service areas should blend with the street frontage or be screened from public
view and adjoining residential developments.
The development should integrate any open space (stormwater management detention
basin, Ralston Creek, or other areas) into the overall pedestrian orientation of the
project. The open space should be creatively integrated with the rest of the
development (ie. green area, park space).
The project should integrate with adjoining properties, provide a transition between the
project and pedestrian uses, provide appropriate landscaping, and provide adequate
buffering between residential uses to the north and east of the site.
The development's lighting should be sensitive to the surrounding residential
neighborhood (downcast lighting, light poles of a pedestrian scale, and lighting that
provides adequate illumination for safety concerns without excess glare).
The building facade should create visual interest and depth. In particular, the building's
· streetscape elevations should provide visual interest and interaction with pedestrians.
Exterior materials, colors, lighting, and fenes/rations should be carefully chosen to
minimize the visual impact of the building's mass. In addition, the building facia signs
should not dominate the face of any one side of the building.
The Committee suggests that you share these ideas with the developer prior to the
developer's submission of the development plans. In this way, the developer will have an
opportunity to incorporate these ideas prior to his/her investment in the plans.
The Committee requests that you keep it apprised both as to how you plan to use these
suggestions and as to the status of the proposed development once the required documents
have been submitted. If you have questions or would liketo discuss this issue with me or the
Committee, you may reach me at 354-1984 (work) or ~38-3867 (home).
cc: City Council
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date:
January 26, 1995
To:
From:
Tom Scott, Chair
Planning and Zoning Commission
Laura Hawks, Ch 'ai~f~
Design Review Committee
Re:
Exterior Stairwells and Exterior Corridors on Multi-Family Residential Buildings.
At its meeting of January 23, 1995, the Design Review Committee voted 9-0, to recommend
to the Planning and Zoning Commission approval of the ordinance amending the Site Plan
Review Ordinance (Title 14, Chapter 5, Article H) by adopting design guidelines for exterior
stairwells end exterior corridors on multi-family residential buildings subject to: 1} labeling the
sketch elevations accordingly and 2) expressly stating in the ordinance that the design
standards apply to exterior lifts.
The Design Review Committee strongly supports the adoption of these guidelines to improve
the streetscape in multi-family residential neighborhoods, and applauds the Planning and
Zoning Commission and City Council's effort to do just that. The Committee only'regrets that
these guidelines were not adopted sooner to prevent the recent proliferation of exterior
stairwells and exterior corridors.
A representative of the Design Review Committee will attend your February 16, 1995,
meeting, to answer any questions you may have.
cc: City Council
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJ:
MEMORANDUM ALERT
Senior Dining Participants Home-Delivered Meal Participants
Boa Trachta, Volunteer Chairperson
Heritage Agency's Govemmsnt Relations Committee
January 9, 1995 ~
Emergency Alert "Contract With America" Threatens Senior Nutrition Program
'"l'he Personal Responsibility Act- Welfare Reform" bill, one of the ten proposed bills contained
within the Contract With Amedca will have, if enacted intact, a negative effect on the ability of the
Heritage Agency to fund nutrition programs.
'"i'he Personal Responsibility Act" wants to combine food stamps, WIC (Women's, Infants and
Children Nutrition), school lunches and area agency's nutrition programs into a single "block grant" to
the State of Iowa, while reducing the combined funding for the program. Aspects of this proposal
would be disastrous for Heritage's Senior Dining sites and for those who depend on home-delivered
meals,
Some of fie youth programs mentioned above have guaranteed minimum funding levels;
Herltage's Senior Din. ing (Congregate Meals) and Home-Delivered meals do not. Thus, any
reduction in funding as a result of block granting will likely come at the expense of the senior
nutrition program. It may result in no Senior Nutdtlon Program at all in your local community.
The "Personal Responsibility Act" bill would effeclJveiy remove the Senior Dining and Home-
Delivered Meals programs from the Older Americans Act, and therefore, places the entire Older
Americans Act itself in jeopardy. Heritage would no longer have enough resources for most
senior dining sites (should any remain open) and other in-home programs could also be affected.
Decisions about services and sites would no longer be made at the local area agency level, but
at the state level.
Congressman Jim Nusele, Jim Leach, and Jim Ughtfoot appear to be in key positions to change this
bill in Congresst It is important that each of you write your congressman today and let him know how
important congregate and home-delivered meals are to you and to your community, and how
important it is that these programs remain as part of the Older Americans Aot. Senator's Grassley
and Harkin should also be contacted. Here are their addresses:
The Honorable Charles Gressley
135 Hart Senate Office Bldg
Washington DC 20510
The Honorable Tom Harkin
531 Hart Senate Office Bldg
Washington DC 20510
The Honorable Jim Nussle
303 Cannon House Office Bldg
Washington DC. 20515
The Honorable Jim Ughfroot
2444 Raybum Bldg
Washington DC 20515
The Honorable Jim Leach
2188 Raybum Bldg
Washington DC 20515
The Hedtage Area Agency on Aging will keep you informed of the status of this bill. If you have any
questions, please call Heritage Agency's Director, Tom Mlsklmen, at (319) 398-5559 or (1)(800) 332-
5934. Tom or someone else from the Heritage office will be happy to speak to your site members if
need be.
Renewing the visitors bureau
Its brin it
more revenue than needed.
n the last 10 years, the'Greater Des
Moines Convention and Visitors Bu-
reau has done a remarkable Job of
bringing paying guests .to a metropoll.tan
area that has no mountains, oceans, major.
league sports teams or national landmarks.
The number of hotel and motel rooms has
~oCr,~.~,~ by 1,400, and collections of the
tel motel sales tax have doubled.
Just as the bureau has e~oyed urn'e-
strained success, it has e~joyed unre-
_~rained budget growth. Six dries and PoLk
~otmty finaz/ce the bl~eau by contributing
28./5 percent of their hotel-motel tax re-
eeipts. The more hotel rooms the visttors
group helps ffil, the more money it has to
work with.
But thos.e lnte~twining spirals have
reached thew apex. The dues that finance
get . iw~ce its lg84-86 budget-- and
ate aeve~oping prolx~ala to keep more of
thetr tax dollars at home. T~e cities ate
~t~e b~te~g their own budgets, and will ask
~e~oureau to tigh _t~_ its budget, too.
· ~ 'he Des Moines C/t7 Cotmeg voted 8- ! in
December to withdraw from the metropoli-
tan agreement ~ has financed the v/at.
tots group since lg84. It wants to negotiate
a new agreement with Cltve, Urbandale,
West Des Moines, Johnston, Windsor
Heights and the cottafT. ,
Nobody is questtoning ~e bureau s ef-
fect/venesa. ~ne dues ate ju~ asking how
much the bureau should be allowed to
grow, and whether it could do a~ good a Job
with le~ money.
T~eee are reasonable questions thai: are
probably overdue. From the time the cur-
rent metropolitan agreement was ap-
proved I0 years ago, mayors of parttcipat.
ing cities knew that a mechanism
eventually would be needed to keep the bu-
reau's budget in check.
Clive Mayor Robert Brownell and Urban-
dale Mayor E. J. Oiovarmetti are leading a
study on alternative formulas. "We don't
want to cripple the Convention and Vlsi.
tots Bureau," Brownell said. "We just
wa~t to look at another fundL, lg formul~
T~PerOblem is, w~t is the right formula?"
po~tbiltty is reducing the bureau's
share of hotel-motel tax receipts. A drop
from 28.5 percent to 2~.7§ percent would
reduce.the b..ureau's budget by about
percent, purring it back at its 1992-93
level. A~other l~aibllity is indexing--
tablishing a baseline for contributions to
C~omumere bureau and linldng any increases to the
Price Index, or some other meas-
ure of the economy.
The cities could use the savings any way
.key want. Des Moines would probably use
t~em to help cover its budget sho~fall;
some of the suburbs would contribute
savings to local attractiota such as muntd-
pal parks.
concerns, It still must work
with the suburbs ~o form a new agreement
to back the visitors group. Separate agree-
merits, or the permanent withdrawal of
lany of the cities from an agreement, would
eave the bureau in limbo. It needs a secure
base of timcling to continue its good work.
As chair of the Iowa City Parks and Recreation Commission, I was most
disappointed with the recent KXIC editorial concerning our Parks and
Recreation brochure which identifies City-sponsored park and recreation-
progra~_. First,. I would like to point out the fact that the figure of
$60,000 quoted by KXIC is not acc~ate. The actual cost for this fiscal
year will be closer to $53,000. It is also important to realize that
$683,000 of the Recreation Division budget (over 40%) is derived from
various fees and charges, which this brochure helps to generate. To
expend less than 8% of these revenues (approximately 85 cents per
resident) to keep the public informed hardly seems a frivolous
expenditure. Over the years, the citizen members of the Parks and
Recreation Commission have found the brochure the most efficient and
economical method to communicate their many and varied recreation
programs. During this time, the commissioners have received many
compliments and comments of appreciation, and very few complaints. They
have taken their responsibility seriously, and have done their best to
make sure that each citizen is equally, and adequately informed about
the opportunities for parks and recreation activities. To criticize the
process of informing and identifying recreation activities is not only
disappointing, but the harshness of your criticism, I believe, is not
deserved. This is not a frivolous expenditure as you would suggest, but
a responsible expenditure for the citizens of Iowa City. I would like
to believe as an Iowa City citizen, not an employee of the local
government, that the Parks and Recreation Commission can offer our
leadership to assure that our parks and recreation brochure continues to
be made available to 9~1 of our citizens.
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 27, 1995
To: City Council and City Manager
From: Donald Yucuis, Director of Finance ~)~-.
Re: Preliminary Financing Schedule to Issue $8,500,000 General Obligation Bonds
Attached you will find the preliminary listing of the projects to be funded from general obligafion
(GO) bonds. The projects to be funded including bond issuance costs and discount total
$8,500,000. The projects are separated by Wastewater, Water and Other Projects. Wastewater
and water fees will repay the debt over the life of the bonds from their respective funds. The debt
service property tax levy will repay the debt for other projects. The debt repayment has been
factored into each respective fund in the Fiscal Year 1996 through Fiscal Year 1998 three year
financial plan. Historically, the City has issued GO bonds to be paid back over ten years. I have
reviewed opfions for 10, 12 and 15 year maturity schedules. I am leaning for the 12-year maturity
schedule because of the size of the issue that is paid back from Wastewater and Water fees.
Below is the preliminary financing schedule from start to finish to issue these bonds:
Date
A ion
February 14, 1995
February 28, 1995
March 28, 1995
Apd128, 1995
City Council adopts resolution to set date of pubtic hearing
regarding the bond Issue for February 28, 1995.
Public headrig on proposed Issuance of GO bonds. City
Council adopts resolution to proceed With bond issue.
2:00 P.M. - Bid opening on bond sale.
City Council adopts resolution to award lowest qualified bid.
Tentative bond closing date. This Is when the City gets the
money from the bond sale and the lowest bidder gets the
bonds.
Please call me at 356-5052 if you have any questions.
b04-2
City of Iowa City
1995 General Obligation bond Issue-April 1995 estimate
Wastewater ProJeot~
Highlander Uft Station
NW Trunk Sawer. Phase II
Scott Blvd Uft Station
Connect the two Rants & Expand
the South Plant. Engineering Sendess
Oakland/Grant Sanitary Relief Sawer
(A~so sea Storm Sewer)
Sub-total Wastewater
Water ~oJants
Condemnation
Water Project-Engineering Fees
Sub-tctaJ Water
Ot~er ProJests
Melrose Ave. West High to 218
Melrose Ave-Eyington to Hawkins
South Site Soccer Raids
High St. Storm Sewer
Shamrock Peterson Storm Sewer
Fain, few Storm Sewer
Kiwanis Park Storm Sewer
Sandusky Storm Sewer
Hafor Circle Storm Sewer
Oakland/Gract Storm Sewer
Sump Pump Discharge Tiles
Iowa River Flood Repair Projects
Sub-total Oth~ ProJeers
Total projects
Total Bond !esue Cesta/Olseeunt
Jimrid Total
1996
00 Bond Issue
426,000
90,000
666,000
330,000
500,000
2,000,000
4,396,100
503,900
4,900,000
100,000
170,O00
240,000
120,O00
105,000
130,000
38,000
82,000
245,000
125,O00
76,000
90,000
1,520,O00
8,420,000
80,000
· .~,_5oo, ooo
OFFICE OF THE
IOWA CITY ASSESSOR
JOHNSON COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
January 25, 1995
Dear Conference Board Member:
DAN L. HUDSON
DENNIS BALDRIDGE
CAROLYN BURKE
The annual meeting of the Iowa City Conference Board for the
consideration of the Iowa City Assessor's F¥ 1996 budget is
scheduled for Monday, January 30, 1995 at 6:30 P.M. at the
Iowa City Civic Center. Enclosed, so you may review the
information before the meeting, are:
1. The Agenda.
2. The Proposed Budget.
3. The 1994 Annual Report which includes
the program division statement.
4. A copy of February 28, 1994 minutes.
5. Joint mapping expenditures to date and status report.
6. A copy of letter stating I have met continuing
educatidn requirement for reappointment.
7. Board of Review Applications.
Please note that the amount to be raised by taxation for the
Assessment Expense Fund has decreased over last year's amount.
The decrease consists of:
a. $ 6,825 for the biennial assessment rolls and postage.
b. 17,306 increase in the unencumbered balance.
c. 500 cancellation of 28E Agreement.
$24,631 Total Decrease
This decrease is offset by the following increases:
d. $10,740 for a 4% increase in salaries.
e. 1,420 increase in FICA and IPERS.
f. 450 for minor funds to bring up to date.
g. 1,600 for bonds which is an expense only every sixth year
$14,210 Total Increase
$10,421 Net Decrease
913 SOUTH DUBUQUE STREET ,,, POST OFFICE BOX 1350 · IOWA CITY, IOWA 52244
TELEPHONE: 319-356.6066
The Expense Fund levy rate will be decreasing from .22132
to .20601, a decrease of 8%.
I am also levying for the remaining amount needed for our
mapping contract in the Special Appraisers Fund. I am also
adding $1,500 to the office car replacement fund. The car
was replaced during the current FY and we should start building
a fund with $1,500 each year.
The new construction t3~at will be taxed for the first time in
FY '96 will produce approximately $11,900, for the City
Assessor Assessment Expense F~nd which is more than the wage
increase requested, and approximately $i,170 for the Special
Appraisers Fund.
My current six year term ends on December 31, 1995 and the law
requires the Conference Board to make their reappointment at
least 90 days before the expiration date. The normal procedure
is for the Conference board to make the reappointment during
their annual budget meeting in January or February of the last
year of the term. I am requesting reappointment and have
enclosed the letter from the Assessor Education Advisory
Committee which states that I am eligible for reappointment.
If you have any specific questions or wish to look at any of
the supporting documents for this budget, feel free to call
me at work at 356-6066 or at my home at 338-6176.
Sincerely,
Dan L. H~adson
Iowa City Assessor
January 25, 1995
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
The Iowa City Conference Board will meet at 6:30 P.M. on
Monday, January 30, 1995 at the Iowa City Civic Center.
The purpose of this meting is to discuss the Iowa City
Assessor's proposed budget for fiscal year 1996.
AGENDA:
1. Call meeting to order.
2. Roll call by taxing body.
3. Act on minutes of February 28, 1994
Conference Board meeting.
4. Assessor presents proposed budget,
5. Discuss proposed budget.
6. Conference Board acts on proposed budget.
7. Set date for public hearing.
8. Appointment of Board of Review member.
9. Reappointment of Assessor.
10. Other business.
11. Adjourn.
Dan L. Hudson
Clerk, Conference Board
ITEMIZED BUDGET - ASSESSMENT EXPENSE FUND
ITEM NO.
EXPENDITURE
31
32
32
35
35
35
31,32,35
SAI~IES
City Assessor
First Deputy
Second Deputy
Plat Supervisor
Clerk
Appraiser/Clerk
Longevity
$ 49,600 $ 51,600
42,160 43,860
39,680 41,280
29,660 30,850
25,090 26,100
17,330 20,420
2,375 2,525
Total Salaries
$205,895
$216,635
OTHER EXPENDITURES
34
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Board of Review
Employer Share: FICA
Employer Share: IPERS
Mileage & Auto
Office Supplies, Post. & Tele.
Publications, Subscr.& Dues
Bonds & Workman's Comp.
Equipment Maintenance
Appraisal Service
Insurance
Continuing Education
Appeals to Court
Schools & Conferences
Legal
Unemployment
Conference Board
Examining Board
Computer Charge
Total Other Expenditures
TOTAL BUDGET
UNENCUMBERED BAI~%NCE
TO BE RAISED BY TAXATION
$ 9,000 $ 9,000
16,440 17,260
11,020 11,620
1,600 1,600
16,125 8,800
1,200 1,400
800 2,400
200 200
400 400
31,250 31,500
3,000 3,000
25,000 25,000
3,000 3,000
2,000 2,000
2,000 2,000
0 0
30 30
8,800 8,800
$131,865
$337,760
- 21,758
$316,002
$128,010
$344,645
- 39,064
$3o5,581
Mapping
Car Replacement
BUDGET - SPECIAL APPRAISERS FUND
$ 168,157
+ 7,000
$ 165,636
+ 1,500
TOTAL
UNENCUMBERED BALANCE
$ 175,157
-111,157
$ 167,136
-137,136
TO BE RAISED BY TAXATION
GRAND TOTAL TO BE RAISED BY TAXATION
$ 64,000 $ 30,000
$ 380,002 $ 335,581
MAXIMUM LEVY ALLOWED
Maximum assessment expense fund 1,483,301,875 x .00027 = $ 400,490
IPERS & FICA Funds = 28,880
Unemployment Compensation & Tort Liability = 2,800
MaximtLm for assessment expense fund = $ 432,170
Maximum special appraisers fund 1,483,301,875 x .000405 = $ 600,740
Maximum allowed without State approval
= $1,032,910
Maximum emergency fund 1,483,301,875 x .00027
(Which requires State Appeal Board Approval)
= $ 400,490
Maximum that could be raised by taxation for F¥ '96 = $1,433,400
LEVIES AND RATES SINCE 1980
Assessment Expense FU~4
~Ap~ra!ser's Fund
Fiscal ~ear Amount Levied Levy Rate
Amount L~vied Levy Rate
1979-80
1980-81
1981-82
1982-83
1983-84
1984-85
1985-86
1986-87
1987-88
1988-89
1989-90
1990-91
1991-92
1992-93
1993-94
1994-95
1995-96
146.050
175 930
184.145
192 960
201186
200.278
181 958
186~780
149 491
218.823
191,619
234,390
252,789
242,474
228~690
316,002
305,581
.26746
.29593
.30081
.28004
.27000
.22454
.18905
.17616
.13953
.19279
.16666
.19498
.20574
.18729
.16688
.22132
.20601
$ 61,000
15,000
98,868
73,890
75,000
45,000
75,000
120,000
78,000
64,000
30,000
.09592
.02177
.13000
.08284
.06416
.03743
.06104
.09269
.05845
.04482
.02023
CITY CONFERENCE BOARD
FEBRUARY 28, 1994
~ Conference Board: February 28, 1994, 6:35 P.M. in the
Council Chambers at the Iowa City Civic Center. Mayor Susan
Horowitz presiding.
Iowa City Council Members P~esent: Baker, Horowitz, Kubby,
Lehman, Novick, Pigott, Throgmorton.
Johnson County Supervisors Present: Bolkcom, Duffy, Lacina.
IC School Board Members Present: Champion, Matheson.
Others Present: Hudson, Atkins, Gentry, Kerr.
Tape Recorded: Reel 94-41, Side 1.
Chair Horowitz called the meeting to order and Clerk Hudson
called roll and stated that a quorumwas present.
The city moved to accept the minutes as corrected of the last
Conference Board meeting, January 31, 1994, County seconded,
and the motion passed, 3/0.
Assessor Hudson explained the changed in the budget.
After discussion about longevity, the School moved to set the
Iowa city Assessor's Office longevity schedule to correspond
with the Iowa City schedule. The City seconded and the motion
carried, 3/0.
Mayor Horowitz declared the public hearing open. There being
no comment from the public, the public hearing was declared
closed.
The County moved to adopt the proposed budget as published in
the Iowa City Press Citizen on February 10, 1994, it was
seconded by the City. Motion carried unanimously, 3/0.
There being no further business, it was moved bythe City,
seconded by the County, to adjourn at 6:48 P.M. Motion carried
unanimously, 3/0.
Dan L. Hudson
Clerk, Iowa City Conference Board
JOINT ~PING EXPENDITURES
IOWA CITY i JOHNSON ~UNTY
AERIAL PHOTO SERVICES CONTRACT
Contract Signed April 3,
Paid July 10, 1992
Paid November 19, 1992
Paid February 19, 1993
Paid March 12, 1993
Paid March 25, 1993
Paid April 22, 1993
Paid Jul~e 17, 1993
Paid July 14, 1993
Paid August 6, 1993
Paid September 23, 1993
1992
$ 369,523.79
- 92,132.00
- 44,669.60
- 14,652.38
- 11,467.08
- 27,049.52
- 26,695.20
- 48,995.76
- 51,240.86
- 34,832.27
- 10,049.91
Balance to be Paid
$ 7,739.21
PARCEL NUMBERING CONTRACT
Contract Signed April 1, 1992
Contract Start Date January 19,
Paid August 5, 1993
Paid January 12, 1994
Balance to be Paid
$ 383,315.00
1993
- 16,930.00
- 75,665.00
$ 290,720.00
PILOT PROJEC~
(Not Part of Contract)
Paid in April, 1991
Paid in April, 1992
Total Pilot Expense
$ 1,503.39
$ 120,616.79
$ 122,120.18
MAPPING EOUIPMENT~ IOWA CITY ONLY
Beginning Balance $ 10,000.00
Paid August 10, 1993 - 1,519.28
Remaining in Account
$ 8,480.72
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Johnson County Conference Beard
Iowa City Conference Board
Jerry B. Musser, Johnson County Assessor
Dan L. Hudson, Iowa City City Assessor
Mapping Project Status.
Since November 1, 1994, there have been several informal discussions
held regarding the Johnson County mapping project. A brief summary of these
discussions follows.
1) Early November...Dan M., Jerry M. and Steve L. met with
representatives of J g & Associates, Inc., a professional mapping
company and bidder on the project. J E had been furnished computerized
map data, printed line drawings and printed line drawings overlaid on
aerial photos, of four adjacent sections of Johnson County, including
a small town. The better. part of a day was spent discussing mapping and
what was to be seen in this small portion of the Johnson County project
2) Each of us involved made notes of our observations and met to
discuss these notes.
3) We met on Nov. 28 with Mayor Susan Horowitz to relay our findings
to her.
4) On Dec. 6, Dan H., and Jerry M. met with Mark Kistler, mapping
project manager, to go over our findings.
Major items of discussion at these meetings were:
I) The map data viewed did not seem to "close" in all data layers.
This raised questions as to the value of the data for a GIS application.
It should be noted here that GIS readiness was discussed, but
is not a requirement of the mapping contract.
K~stler's reply to these questions was that they are concerned
about GIS and believe they are creating a combination of data layers
that will give a base that is adaptable to GIS.
2) Questions were raised about some appl~cations of the permanent
parcel numbering system.
Ktstler answered that the questions raised were due to differing
opinions on how to define "blocks" and that they are following the
guidelines set by their consultant, the Donahue Co.
3) As of this writing, there are unanswered questions regarding the
alignment of the "tics" on the composite maps.
4) Another comment was about duplinat~on of lines across a map edge.
The duplicated lines should be removed or at least put into a separate
layer so they don't create problems with closing polygons for future C, IS
o8e,
A significant comment from one of the owners of J E & Associates is
approximately quoted as follows; "he would like to throw rocks at the project,
but cannot honestly say that there are major p~oblems".
As a result of these d$scussions we feel that the Iowa City and Johnson
County Assessors will be receiving a usable map product. Payments made on
January 13th, 1995 covered all billings to that date.
Da . 8on
Iowa City City Assessor
DEPARTMENT Of REVENUE AND FiNaNCE
GERALD D. BAIR. DIRECTO.~
$anu~'7 19, 1995
Chairperson
City o£Iowa City Conference Board
Courthouse
Iowa City, IA 52244
Dear Chairperson:
TMs is to officially notify you that Dhn L. Hudson, City of Iowa City Assessor, has successfully
completed the continuing education requirements for Iowa assessors as set forth in Iowa Code
Section 441.8 (1995).
In compliance with Section 441.8, tho Assessor Education Advisory Committeo certifies that Dan
L. Husdon is eligible for reappointment as the City of Iowa City Assessor.
_AsjeB~/~dueation Advisory Committee
cc: Dan L. Hudson
Males~ 3
Females= I
January 30, 1995
BOARD OF REVIEW
One vacancy - Six-year term
(Representative of the Ptlblic)
January 1, 1995 - December 31, 2000
Ernest L. Oaler
1749 W. Benton Street
ADVISORY BOARD/COMMISSION APPLICATION FORM ~o
Individuals serving on Boards/Commissions play an important role in adws~ng the Coua.~i~on Z~a of intere,<
~ community and its future. Applicants must reside in Iowa City. .~_. ~ ~
After a vacancy has been announced, the Council reviews all applications durin~thp ~k ~sion. Th
ppointment is made at the next formal Council meeting. Appointees serve as unpai~bn~rs.;~
PLEASE USE A BLACK INK PEN. Return the application to City Clerk, 410 E. ~in~n ~ Iowa Cit,
wa.
'HIS APPLICATION IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT AND AS SUCH CAN BE REPRODUCED AND DISTRIBUTED FOR TH
~UBLIC, THIS APPLICATION WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR THREE MONTHS ONLY AND AUTOMATICALL'
;ONSIDERED FOR ANY VACANCY DURING THAT TIME.
tAME ~-~~ ~ '~~ HOME ADDRESS ~
s your home a above) within the corporate limits of Iowa City?~... No
:XPERIENCE AND/OR ACTr
TI~I-TA,ES WHICH YOU FEEL QUALIFY YOU FOR THIS POSITION:
/VHAT IS YI~;:IR~RESENT KNOWLEDGE OF THIS ADVISORy BOARD?
NHAT CONTRIBUTIONS DO YOU FEEL YOU CAN MAKE T~T~11S ADVISORY BOARD (OR STATE REASON FC
~PPLYING)? ~ ~'~(-~ !~ ' I {~:~ ~ ~/~
-;pecific attention should be directed to possible conflict of interest as defined in Chapters 362.6, 403A.22 of t~
2ode of Iowa. Should you be uncertain whether or not potential ~;f interest exists, contact the Ci-
Attorney's Office. Will you have a conflict of interest? YES
if you are not selected, do you want to be notified? ~ YES NO
O 'ou currently ser{/e on another Iowa City Board or/r Commission? YES ,~_NO
/
t has been Council policy not to permit an individual to serve on two Boards or Commissions at the same tim
:le~f~l~comm.epp January 19
IOWA CITY
CITY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE
1994 ~NUAL REPORT
1994 REPORT
OFFICE OF IOWA CITY ASSESSOR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents
Iowa City Conference Board
Staff of City Assessor's Office & Members of
Board of Review and Examining Board
Report of City Assessor
Abstract for 1994 Iowa City Assessments
Exempt Property as of July 1, 1994
Comparison of Values with Rollback Applied
Comparison of Residential, commercial and
Industrial Values
Top Taxpayers for Iowa City
Comparative Millage Rates
Iowa City Assessors Program Division Statement F¥
1
'96
3
4-6
7
7
8-10
11-12
13
14-15
16-23
1
2
1994 IOWA CITY CONFERENCE BOARD
IOWA CITY CITy OUN~
Susan Horowitz, Mayor
Larry Baker
Karen Kubby
Ernie Lehman
Naomi Novick
Bruno Pigott
James Throgmorton
IOW~ CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOL B0~RD
Tom Bender, President
*Connie Champion
Betsy Hawtrey
Michael Howard
Alan Leff
*George Matheson
Sally Staley
*Conference Board Designee
JOHNSON ~OUNTY ~ QF SUPERVISORS
Steve Lacina, Chairperson
Joe Bolkcom
Charles Duffy
Patricia Meade
Don Behr
.!0WA DEPARTMENTOF REVENUE AND FINANCE
Gereald D. Bait - Director, Iowa Department of Revenue & Finance
1994 STAFF OF CITY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE
MEMBERS OF BOARD OF REVIEW AND EXAMINING BOARD OF IOWA CITY, IOWA
IOWA ~ITY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE
Dan L. Hudson Appt. 1990 through 1995
City Assessor Date of Employment: 1 Aug, 1977
Dennis J. Baldridge
First Deputy Date of Employment: 12 Jul, 1982
Carolyn R. Burke
Second Deputy Date of Employment: 8 Oct, 1979
Jerry L. Denison
Plat Supervisor Date of Employment: 20 Oct, 1980
Patricia Kuhns
Clerk Date of Employment: 26 Sep, 1988
Mark Fedlet
Appraiser/Clerk Date of Employment: 20 Jun, 1994
IOWA CITY BOARD OF REVIEW
Jack L. Yanaush, Chairperson
E. Norman Bailey
William J. Doherty
Janice E. Sweet
Keith A. Wymore
William White, Clerk
Appt. 1994 through 1999
Appt. 1989 through 1994
Appt. 1991 through 1996
Appt. 1990 through 1995
Appt. 1992 through 1997
IOWA CITY EF~%MININGBQARD
John McDonald
Jerald L. Palmer
Patricia Sueppel
Appt.
Appt.
Appt.
1994 through 1999
1994 through 1999
1992 through 1997
LEGAL COUNSEL
Linda Newman Woitc - City Attorney
Sarah E. Holecek - Assistant City Attorney
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Members of the Iowa City Conference Board
Dan L. Hudson, Iowa City Assessor
1994 Annual Report - Issued December 30, 1994
The following report covers the activities of this office
from January 1, 1994 to date of issue.
VALUATIONS
Since 1994 was not a real estate revaluation year, the real
estate assessed value remained the same as 1993. There was
approximately 40.3 million dollars of new residential
construction, 14.2 million dollars of new commercial
construction, and 0.9 million dollars of new industrial
construction added to the rolls for 1994.
The 590 residential deed sales for the first 11 months of
1994 give us a median ratio (assessed value vs sale price)
of 83°7% as compared to 90.8% for the whole year of 1993.
This shows that the selling prices of homes have increased
substantially since last year. This followed the trend
started last year and will result in significant increases
in the 1995 assessments.
It should be kept in mind that when a jurisdiction is at the
State mandated sales ratio level of 100%, a full one-half of
home sales will be for less than the assessed value. Sales
for less than the assessed value generally result in appeals
to the Board of Review.
COURT CASES
There were three properties appealed to District Court in
1994. The three appeals are all commercial properties
represented by three owners. One of thsse has been
dropped, and one is cable TVwhioh should be dropped along
with the pending 1993 case. Of the four 1993 cases that
were carried over into 1994, two have been dropped, one went
to court and we won, and the other one is cable TV which
should be dropped after the recent Iowa Supreme Court decision.
4
4ql
BOAR~ OF REVIEW
The Board of Review was in session from May 1 through May 18,
the day of adjournment. The Board had 8 protests filed with 1
being upheld and 7 denied. The total value of real estate
being protested was $11,667,400 with a total requested reduction
of $2,756,760. The Board also reduced 3 additional properties
and raised 3 properties on their own volition or at the
request of the assessor. The Board allowed a total reduction
of $498,850 which was partially offset by an increase of $40,720.
EOUIT¥ VERSUS MARKET IN ASSESSMENTS
It is hard to be both equitable and in tune with the market.
The market is not always equitable, sometimes a long way from
it. Most assessors would lean towards equity if they could
choose between the two.
NEW LEGISLATION
HF 2204:
HF 2413:
HF 2421:
SF 2057:
SF 2190:
Makes many changes in the TIF law, in particular it
changes the method of computing the base year and
requires notification of "Affected Taxing Entities.',
Adds some penalty if a homeowner fails to notify the
assessor that they no longer live in a homestead.
Changes who must be notified by mail of disallowance
of a homestead or military tax credit.
Allows the Director of the Department of Revenue &
Finance to correct obvious'errors in assessments as
recommended by the local Board of Review. No
corrections can be made if the error involves the
exercise of judgment.
Requires all mobile homes outside of a mobile home
park to be assessed and taxed as real estate. Bill
also makes many other changes in mobile home law.
5
CONTINUING EDUCATION
Continuing education is a requirement for the assessor and
deputies for their reappointment to their positions. I feel
it is also good for the other employees to attend some classes
so they can adequately respond to inquiries and questions.
The Assessor attended the following courses and conferences
during 1994:
IAAO Conference
ISAA Annual School of
IAA0 Course A
Instruction
ll C.E. hrs.
30 C.E. hrs.
The First Deputy attended the following courses and conferences
during 1994:
ISAA Annual School of Instruction
NCRAAO Conference
11 C.E. hrs.
12 C.E. hrs.
The Second Deputy attended the following courses and
conferences during 1994:
ISAA Annual School of Instruction
NCRAAO Conference
11 C.E. hrs.
12 C.E. hrs.
The Appraiser/Clerk attended the Iowa Basic Assessment School.
T = Tested Hours
APPRECIATION
My staff and I would like to thank the Conference Board, the
Board of Review, the City Attorney and her assistants, and
the City Staff for their assistance, cooperation and
confidence during the past year. I would also like to
recognize and thank my staff at this time for their part in
establishing and maintaining the professional standards of
the office.
6
1994 ABSTRACT OF ASSESSMENT FOR IOWA CITY
Value of Agricultural Land & Structures $
Value of Residential Dwellings on Agricultural Realty
Value of Residential Lots & Buildings
Value of Commercial Lots & Buildings
Value of Industrial Lots & Buildings
Value of Industrial Machinery & Commercial
Equipment as Real Estate
1,884,736
1,224,510
1,135,164,290
555,664,033
37,584,600
63,678,377
*Actual value of All Real Estate
$1,795,200,546
*All the above values are based on the 1994 abstract as
reported to the Iowa Department of Revenue and Finance July
1, 1994. The values for Railroad and Utility Property are
supplied to the Auditor by the Iowa State Department of Revenue
and Finance. The value of utilities and railroads in Iowa City
for 1993 is $59,576,910.
EXEMPT PROPERTY IN IOWA CITY FOR 1994
Religious Institutions $
Charitable and Benevolent societies
Educational Institutions
Low Rent Housing
Associations of War Veterans
Forest and Fruit
Partial Industrial
Sub-Total
University of Iowa (As reported by SUI)
TOTAL
7
38,452,220
51,888,660
605,350
3,100,280
305,610
258,647
3,839,030
98,449,797
686,549,000
$ 784,998,797
VALUE COMPARISONS WITH ROLLBACKS APPLIED
YEAR
STATE
ORDER
STATE ADJ.
TYPE VALUE ROLLBACK .V.~J~UE
1983'
1984
+36%
Agricultural 3,687,530 .865024
Ag I~ellings 1,458,620 .698754
Residential 665,822,880 .698754
Corm~ercial 309,092,490 .917230
Industrial 27,788,340 .974567
M. & E. 31,053,824 1.0
$1,038,903,684
Agricultural 3,585,908 .900058
Ag [~wellings 1,480,680 .724832
Residential 686,797,678 .724832
Commercial 334,805,992 .954242
Industrial 28,430,500 1.0
M. & E. 28,913,025 1.0
TOTAL $1,084,013,783
3,189,802
1,O19,217
465,246,401
283,508,905
27,081,599
31,053,824
$ 811,099,748
3,227',525
1,073,244
497,812,935
319,485,939
28,430,500
28,913,025
$ 878,943,168
1985,
1986
Agricultural 3,503,787 .935922
Ag [~elltngs 1,269,610 .756481
Residential 724,508,730 .756481
Col~ercial 369,476,553 .987948
Industrial 29,145,510 1.0
M. & E. 29,306,071 1.0
TOTAL $1,157,210,261
Agricultural 3,289,203 1.0
Ag l~elling 1,208,010 .773604
Residential 734,394,558 .773604
Co~ercial 376,014,043 1.0
Industrial 31,458,600 1.0
M. & E. 32,720,338 1.0
TOTAL $1,179,084,752
3,279,271
960,436
548,077,089
365,023,621
29,145,510
29,306,071
$ 975,791,998
3,289,203
934,521
568,130,568
376,014,043
31,458,600
32,720,338
$1,012,547,273
8
VALUE COMPARISONS CONT'D.
STATE STATE ADJ.
YEAR ORDER TYPE VALUE ROLLBACK VALUE
1987' -15%
Agricultural
Ag Dwelling
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
M. & E.
TOTAL
2,815%%775 1.0
1,208,010 .805966
745,381,060 .805966
396,742,189 1.0
31,296,340 1.0
38,819,952 1.0
$1,216,263,326
2,815,775
973,615
600,751,791
396,742,189
31,296,340
38,819,952
$1,071,399,662
1988
Agricultural 2,740,854 1.0
Ag Dwelling 1,130,020 .806384
Residential 758,164,620 .806384
Co~h~ercial 401,581,399 1.0
Industrial 31,730,750 1.0
M. & E. 40,119,662 1.0
TOTAL $1,235,467,305
2,740,854
911,230
611,371,819
401,581,399
31,730,750
40,119,662
$1,088,455,714
1989, -13%
1990
Agricultural
Ag Dwelling
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
M. & E.
TOTAL
Agricultural
Ag Dwelling
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
M. &Eo
TOTAL
2,659,169 1.0
1,163,090 .798471
808,471,670 .798471
418,611,709 1.0
32,321,290 1.0
43,925,077 1.0
$1,307,152,005
2,206,484 1.0
1,163,090 .794636
830,877,911 .794636
428,045,979 1.0
33,242,630 1.0
49,473,401 1.0
$1,345,009,495
9
2,659,169
928,694
645,541,183
418,611,709
32,321,290
43,925,077
$1,143,987,122
2,206,484
924,233
660,245,500
428,045,979
33,242,630
49,473,401
$1,174,138,227
VALUE COMPARISONS CONT'D.
STATE
YEAR QRDER TYPE
STATE ADJ.
~ALUE ROLLBACK VALUE
1991'
Agricultural
Ag Dwelling
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
M.&E.
TOTAL
2,082,540 1.0
1,159,280 .730608
924,095,521 .730608
469,155,456 1.0
34,390,300 1.0
54,708,712 1.0
$1,485,591,809
2,082,540
846,979
675,151,580
469,155,456
34,390,300
54,708,712
$1,236,335,567
1992
Agricultural
Ag Dwelling
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
M. & E.
TOTAL
1,977,575 1.0
976,430 .726985
948,162,720 .726985
483,983,100 1.0
36,088,910 1.0
59,612,801 1.0
$1,530,801,536
1,977,575
709,850
689,300,075
483,983,100
36,088,910
59,612,801
$1,271,672,311
1993'
Agricultural
Ag Dwelling
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
M. &E.
TOTAL
1,865,755 1.0
1,124,020 .680404
1,088,592,820 .680404
541,066,293 1.0
37,640,010 1.0
55,181,660 1.0
$1,725,470,558
1,865,755
764,788
740,682,909
541,066,293
37,640,010
55,181,660
$1,377,201,415
1994
Agricultural
Ag Dwelling
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
M. &E.
TOTAL
1,884,736 1.0
1,224,510 .675074
1,135,164,290 .675074
555,664,033 1.0
37,584,600 1.0
63,678,377 1.0
$1,795,200,546
1,884,736
826,635
766,319,898
555,664,033
37,584,600
63,678,377
$1,425,958,279
The adjusted values given are not exact but are meant to give
a representation of the growth of Iowa City's tax base.
* Reassessment year
10
YEAR RESIDENTIAL ~
1985 724,508,730 60.2
1986 734,394,558 61.4
1987 745,381,060 60.6
1988 758,164,620 60.9
1989 808,471,670 61.7
1990 830,877,911 61.8
1991 924,095,521 62.2
1992 948,162,720 62.0
1993 1,088,592,820 63.1
1994 1,136,388,800 63.3
COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL
ASSESSED V~__~/k~
APARTMENT
COMMERCIAL ~
162,129,009 13.5
165,055,059 13.8
163,031,389 13.2
162,923,079 13.1
166,829,929 12.7
169,428,179 12.6
180,660,316 12.2
187,803,160 12.3
215,508,613 12.5
220,464,483 12.3
1985 548,077,089 53.6 160,175,030 15.7
1986 568,130,568 55.2 165,055,059 16.0
1987 600,751,791 55.3 163,031,389 15.0
1988 611,371,819 55.7 162,923,079 14.8
1989 645,541,183 56.2 166,829,929 14.5
1990 660,245,500 56.2 169,428,179 14.5
1991 675,151,580 54.6 180,660,316 14.6
1992 689,300,075 54.2 187,803,160 14.8
1993 740,682,909 53.8 215,508,613 15.7
1994 767,146,533 53.8 220,464,483 15.5
OTHER
COMMERCIAL ~
207,347,544 17.2
210,958,986 17.6
233,710,800 19.0
238,824,330 19.2
251,781,780 19.2
258,617,800 19.2
288,495,140 19.4
296,179,940 19.3
325,557,680 18.9
335,199,550 18.7
~AXABLE ¥ALUES
204,848,591 20.0
210,958,986 20.5
233,710,800 21.5
238,824,330 21.8
251,781,780 22.0
258,617,800 22.0
288,495,140 23.3
296,179,940 23.3
325,557,680 23.6
335,199,550 23.5
** Personal Property is no longer included in this total.
11
AND INDUSTRIAL VALUES
TOTAL
COMI4ERCIAL ~
369,476,553 30.7
376,014,043 31.4
396,742,189 32.2
401,747,409 32.3
418,611,709 31.9
428,045,979 31.8
469,155,456 31.6
483,983,100 31.6
541,066,293 31.4
555,664,033 31.0
INDUSTRIAL ~
67,615,591 5.6
74,181,825 6.2
76,857,584 6.3
74,706,504 6.0
73,597,442 5.6
73,198,642 5.4
79,879,255 5.4
84,743,140 5.5
80,274,334 4.6
86,882,374 4.8
OTHER ~
41,954,152 3.5
11,443,811 1.0 **
11,513,716 0.9 **
10,501,754 0.8 **
10,357,933 0.8 **
12,886,963 1.0 **
12,461,577 0.8 **
13,912,576 0.9 **
15,537,111 0.9 **
16,265,339 0.9 **
365,023,621 35.7
376,014,043 36.5
396,742,189 36.6
401,747,409 36.6
418,611,709 36.5
428,045,979 36.5
469,155,456 37.9
483,983,100 38.1
541,066,293 39.3
555,664,033 39.0
67,615,591
74,181 825
76,857 584
74,706.504
73,597 442
73,198642
79,879.255
84,743 140
80,274 334
86,882.374
6.6
7.2
7.1
6.8
6.4
6.2
6.5
6.7
5.8
6.1
41,420,462 4.1
11,170,322 1.1 **
11,279,321 1.0 **
10,240,392 0.9 **
10,123,537 0.9 **
12,648,106 1.1 **
12,149,276 1.0 **
13,645,996 1.0 **
15,177,879 1.1 **
16,265,339 1.1 **
12
RaNK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
1994 TOP TAXPAYERS
Excluding Utilities Assessed By The State
NAME
Procter & Gamble
Old Capitol Mall
James & Loretta Clark
Southgate Development
United Technology Automotive
Gillette Canada
American College Testing
Release International
Edwin & Ethel Barker & Barker Partnership
Holiday Inn
NCS Learning Corp.
Sycamore Mall
Moore Business Forms
Hawkeye Real Estate Investment
Lakeside Apartments
Iowa State Bank & Trust
Millard Warehouse
Highlander Partnership
First National Bank
Pheasant Ridge Apartments
TAXABLE VALUE
$26,882,440
21,071,850
18,249,866
15,442,266
14,541,379
13,673 251
13,318,207
12,699,501
11,251,110
10,975,860
10,713,045
9,995,580
7,677,588
7,115,445
6,436,980
5,806,499
5,763,070
5,555,160
5,422,526
5,263,780
13
COMPARISON 0F TAX RATE PER THOUSAND AS COMPILED BY THE
CITY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE, DES MOINES, IOWA
SORTED BY 1994-95 TAX RATE
CITY
MASON CITY
AMES
IOWA CITY
CEDAR RAPIDS
DUBUQUE
DAVENPORT
CLINTON
FT. DODGE
SIOUX CITY
MARSHALLTOWN
DES MOINES
!992-93
29.24513
29.21612
31.07231
32.'99536
34.92442
36.33779
35.30230
37.82457
37.60519
39.19201
42.28406
TAX RATE pAYABLE IN
1993-94
28.72632
29.87701
32.19800
33.20066
35.12986
36.20097
36.33605
38.76738
39.90992
39.59962
43.40839
1994-95
29.71696
31.39986
32.25856
33.05153
33.37488
36.36004
36.64991
38.38729
39.76232
41.20486
44.12684
14
COMPARISON OF EFFECTIVE TAX RATES FOR 1994
IN MIDWESTERN CITIES
AS COMPILED BY THE DES MOINES CITY ASSESSOR
RANKED BY RESIDENTIAL RATE
~IT3
RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL APARTMENT
St. Joseph, MO .903 1.818 1.818
Denver, CO 1.038 2.341 1.038
Minneapolis, MN* 1.280 3.850 3.400
Rochester, MN* 1.280 3.850 3.400
St. Louis, MO 1.286 2.691 2.691
Chicago, IL 1.852 4.399 3.820
Kansas City, MO 1.859 3.131 3.131
Kansas City, KS 1.928 4.191 1.928
Iowa City, IA 2.195 3.226 3.226
Fargo, ND 2.285 2.285 2.285
Omaha, NE 2.819 2.819 2.819
Lincoln, NE 2.954 2.954 2.954
Des Moines, IA 3.002 4.412 4.412
Moline, IL 3.083 3.083 3.083
Madison, WI 3.416 3.416 3.416
LaCrosse, WI 3.633 3.633 3.633
New York, NY 4.852 4.671 4.852
*Residential Based on $100,000 Home
Commercial Based on $200,000 Property
15
IOWA CITY ASSESSORS PROGRAM DIVISION STAT~4ENT FY '96
DIVISION PURPOSE:
The purpose of the Iowa City Assessor's Office is to find,
list and value for tax purposes, all real property in Iowa
City and maintain records for all parcels in Iowa City.
DIVISION GOALS:
To establish values according to Iowa law on all commercial,
industrial, agricultural and residential property within the
City of Iowa City in the most equitable manner based on
actual physical aspects of the property and all the pertinemt
sales data available; to improve the efficiency by which
these assessments are made; to provide prompt and courteous
response to all inquiries for information.
GENERAL DIVISION OBJECTIVES:
Receive calls and inquiries and dispense information
efficiently and on a timely basis.
Complete all daily record changes and related duties
as received.
On a quarterly basis, review in the field all new
construction and demolitions and by January 1, 1996,
make final review of said construction and demolition.
e
Prepare forms and get signatures for all new homestead
and military credits by July 1, 1996.
Remove all homestead and military credits from the
permanent file for those who are no longer to receive
the credit by July 1, 1996.
Prepare and get signatures on all other new annual
forms, making sure they are in compliance with all
laws and rules, by their statutory dates.
Receive and review tentative equalization orders from
the State Department of Revenue in Auqust, 1995.
GENERAL DIVISION OBJECTIVES CONT'D.
8. Receive final equalization orders by October 1, 1995.
Accept formal written protests for the Board of Review
Special Session from October 15 to October 25, 1995
and coordinate the Board of Review Special Session
from October 15 to November 15, 1995.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Accept formal written protests for the Board of Review
from April 16 to May 5, 1996, and coordinate the Board
of Review meetings during May 1996.
Hold preliminary meetings and public hearings to adopt
the annual budget by March 15, 1996.
Prepare and submit arnnual abstract by July 1, 1996.
Prepare and distribute to Conference Board members the
annual report by December 31, 1995.
NEW DIVISION OBJECTIVES:
Explore the possibility of a sketch program for the
office micro-computer that would allow us to put our
building sketches on the computer.
Review sales as they occur for all classes of property
so we may complete our biennial reassessment for 1997,
making sure our values stay at the mandated level.
Continue to use the appraisal system to review
assessments and sales by neighborhoods and other
criteria to be established during the studies.
Work with the Johnson County Assessor and Auditor
to develop our new computer generated mapping system.
Look into the use of a G.I.So system which would
utilize these maps.
Continue a program to review all of the quality grades
on residential property to enhance our equity.
Look into a future mass re-appraisal. While our
statistics show we are still one of the more accurate
assessors offices in Iowa, many home sales reveal
changes in property listings which have been done
without building permits. The only way to discover
these changes is by an interior inspection of each
property. Outside help or additional staff would be
needed for this project.
17
PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS:
The median sales ratio (median) is the middle sales ratio and a
measure of the % of our assessment to the actual sales prices.
The coefficient of dispersion (C.O.D.) is a measure of assessment
uniformity based on the'degree to which individual sales ratios
vary from the median sales ratio. The goal of the Iowa City
Assessor is to keep this C.O.D. below 10. A C.O.D. of 10 is
considered excellent and was attained in 1993 by only 5 of the
109 assessing jurisdictions in Iowa. The following table shows
the median, C.O.D., and the number of deed sales for Iowa City
residential property since the assessments went to the 100% level
in 1975.
Assessment Year
Assessment Year
State Orders
Assessment Year
Assessment Year
Assessment Year
Assessment Year
Assessment Year
Assessment Year
Assessment Year
*Data Based on
YEAR MEDIAN C.O,O. NO. OF SALES
1975 87.10 10.36 682
1976 76.30 11.38 681
1977 65.10 12.10 840
1978 74.70 9.83 639
1979 91.80 9.40 551
1980 87.85 8.69 394
1981 88.90 8.74 393
1982 87.30 9.38 299
1983 94.00 7.19 544
1984 92.80 8.03 451
1985 96.15 8.27 448
1986 95.30 9.02 513
1987 94.90 9.26 522
1988 93.60 9.34 555
1989 91.80 9.80 538
1990 87.05 9.75 608
1991 90.40 8.49 659
1992 85.00 9.88 688
1993 90.80 8.57 651
· 1994 83.68 9.75 590
first 11 months only
18
MEDIAN
SALES RATIOS BY QUARTER
100
- 1985 1986
9~1/// /i /
_..////
////
--////
_////
80 I I I I I I I I I I I I II i i i i i i
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
7
12 3~, 128~, 1234 123~, 1234 123
MEDIAN RATIO STUDY
This graph best illustrates the changing market we have
experienced in Iowa City. The median ratio for each quarter
is found by calculating the assessed value to selling price
ratio for each sale, sorting those ratios in ascending order,
and identifying the middle ratio. There has been a definite
trend downward in the quarterly ratios since 1985, with a
large drop beginning in late 1989. This downward trend would
have been much worse if not for the increase in residential
assessed value in 1989, 1991 and 1993 which averaged over 5%
in 1989, nearly 10% in 1991, and over 12% in 1993. Since our
assessed values have not declined in the time period, the
trend is measuring the increase in selling prices of properties.
The Iowa Department of Revenue requires that the assessed
values be adjusted January 1, 1995, to within 5% of full
value. The chart indicates the need for changing values
dramatically this next year. Since this is an equalization
year, if we failed to change values accordingly, we would be
subject to a raise through State equalization orders.
19
The table below showing the top 25 jurisdictions illustrates
the instability of the statistics for commercial sales.
While Monona County has an exceptional C.O.D. of 2.92, the
median is 169.05 which means the properties are assessed at
69% more than their selling price. The commercial C.O.D.'s
vary from 0 to over 80 with a median of nearly 28 for all of
Iowa, while the residential C.O.D.'s vary from 7 to 35 with a
median of just under 20 for all of Iowa.
COMMERCIAL SALES SORTED BY C.0.D.
NO JURISDICTION NO SALES TOTAL PRICE AVG PRICE MEDIAN C 0 D
1 LUCAS 2 114,000 57,000 102.35 0.24
2 MITCHELL 3 45,700 15,233
3 MONONA 2 35,000 17,500
4 CASS 2 580,000 290,000
5 MARION 4 1,432,477 358,119
60BRIEN 6 252,000 42,000
7 AMES CITY 9 1,696,250 188,472
8 CEDAR 3 214,000 71,333
9 JACKSON 5 342,000 68,400
10 MADISON 4 161,320 40,330
11 IOWA CITY 26 9,109,100 350,350
12 UNION 6 437,000 72,833
13 MARSHALLTOWN CITY 10 854,250 85,425
14 TAYLOR 6 214,700 35,783
15 SHELBY 2 47,000 23,500
16 CEDAR RAPIDS CITY 40 8,769,075 219,227
17 POWESHIEK 9 832,500 92,500
18 PLYMOUTH 7 310,750 44,393
19 POCAHONTAS 3 191,130 63,710
20 DUBUQUE 6 342,500 57,083
21 LINN 24 2,202,000 91,750
22 SCOTT 12 4,014,663 334,555
23 MONTGOMERY 4 422,500 '105,625
24 KEOKUK 2 63,000 31,500
25 POTTAWATTAMIE 9 536,752 59,639
95.70
169.05
110.95
92.50
87.00
80.80
75.70
76.80
121 50
90 35
94 90
78 50
7775
9270
go, go
82,60
104.40
84.20
91.15
93.90
91.75
96.25
59.95
97,70
0.94
2.92
4.55
5.24
9.82
10.51
11.17
11.61
14.17
14.24
14.75
14,76
15.12
16.18
16.22
16.22
16.37
16.93
16.95
17.53
17,92
18.25
18,59
18.76
The following statistics are for residential sales, and below
are tables of the ranking of Iowa City in comparison to the
other 108 assessing jurisdictions in Iowa. For brevity, only
the top 10 or 15 are shown. Data is for 1993 sales which is
the last complete year available°
These tables show that Iowa City is still one of only a few
jurisdictions in Iowa with a C.O.D. of less than 10. ~ne
average sale price of a home in Iowa City is among the
highest in Iowa, topped in 1993 only by the suburbs of Des
Moines in Polk County. Iowa City also has a large number of
sales as could be expected by it's size and mobile population.
20
.$_Q~ED BY C.O,D,
NO JURISDICTION MEAN MEDIAN WGHTD C 0 D REGR INDEX
i POLK 90.67 90 50 90 79 7.03 99.86
2 AMES CITY 94.62
3 IOWA CITY 90.82
4 JOHNSON 92.14
5 SCOTT 92,23
6 LINN 96.21
7 WINNESHIEK 96.74
8 WARREN 96.36
9 MARION 93.47
10 CERRO GORDO 93.81
94 00
90 80
91 90
92 00
9410
9540
96.05
91.80
91.90
93
89
92 03
91. 68
93. 98
93 37
95.42
90.88
89.63
85
87
7.45 100.82
8.57 101.05
9.11 100.11
9.85 100.59
10.74 102,37
11.85 103.60
12.04 100.98
12.25 102.84
12.32 104.66
~ORTE~ By AVERAGE SALE PRICE
NO JURISDICTION NO SALES TOTAL PRICE AVG PRICE
1 POLK 2397
2 IOWA CITY 651
3 SCOTT 735
4 AMES CITY 508
5 JOHNSON 316
6 CEDAR RAPIDS CITY 1873
7 LINN 555
8 WARREN 376
9 DUBUQUE CITY 685
10 DICKINSON 157
265,012,398 110,560
66,135,650 101,591
73,132,548 99,500
48,783,280 96,030
28,873,900 91,373
153,287,906 81,841
43,589,343 78,539
26,925,O10 71,609
48,881,481 71,360
'10,322,O70 65,746
SORTED BY NUMBER OF SALES
JURISDICTION NO SALES TOTAL PRICE AVG PRICE
NO
1 DES MOINES CITY
2 POLK
3 CEDAR RAPIDS CITY
4 BLACK'HAWK
5 DAVENPORT CITY
6 SIOUX CITY
7 POTTAWATTAMIE
SCOTT
9 DUBUQUE CITY
10 IOWA CITY
2719 176,640,478 64
2397 265,012,398 110
1873 153,287,906 81
1375 79,869,348 58
1359 89,215,421 65
1094 68,611,485 62
780 40,124,746 51
735 73,132,548 99,
685 48,881,481 71,
651 66,135,650 101,
965
560
841
O87
648
716
442
5OO
360
591
21
The regression index is an indicator of the degree to which
high value properties are over or under assessed in
relationship to low value properties. An index of 100.00
indicates no difference in assessments of high value
properties in comparison to low value properties based upon
that years sales. An index over 100 indicates that high
value properties are under assessed in relation to low value
properties. As you can see in the following table, Iowa
City's regression index is one of the closest to the ideal
100.00 level.
,SORTED BY REGRESSION INDEX
NO JURISDICTION MEAN MEDIAN WOHTD C 0 D REGR INDEX
1 POLK
2 JOHNSON
3 IOWA
4 SCOTT
5 AMES CITY
6 PLYMOUTH
? WARREN
8 IOWA CITY
9 JACKSON
10 EMMET
90.67
92,14
92 74
92 23
94 62
91 37
96, 36
90, 82
87~ 11
86, 14
90.50 90.79 7.03 99.86
91.90 92.03 9.11 100.11
94.80 92.47 18.02 100.29
92,00 9~.68 9.85 100,59
94.00 93.85 7.45 100.82
91.30 90.50 13.62 100.96
96.05 95,42 12.04 100,98
90.80 89.87 8,57 101.05
85.10 85.58 13.85 101.78
83.20 84.56 21.10 101.86
22
The following is
the same period.
Assessment Year
Assessment Year
State Orders
Assessment Year
Assessment Year
Assessment Year
Assessment Year
Assessment Year
Assessment Year
Assessment Year
a tabulation of the commercial properties for
YEAR MEDIAN C.O.D. NO. OF SALES
1975 84.30 19.75 14
1976 72.30 13.19 18
1977 62.90 28.20 27
1978 84.60 13.49 12
1979 78.00 16.66 15
1980 80.85 22.69 12
1981 87.55 10.07 14
1982 78.00 10.25 8
1983 87.85 10.58 26
1984 76.80 18.30 13
1985 82.00 12.63 16
1986 98.20 14.21 15
1987 87.65 17.27 16
1988 95.40 19.77 20
1989 94.40 13.81 13
1990 89.60 19.53 13
1991 87.85 8.38 8
1992 89.90 14.86 21
1993 90.35 14.24 26
,1994 87.91 11.41 24
only
*Data based on first 11 months
Because of the small number of sales, one or two bad sales
can greatly influence the performance measurements, therefore
creating more fluctuation in the measurements. See data on
page 20 to illustrate this and to show Iowa City's standing.
DIVISION ANALYSIS:
While the program division statement is on the fiscal year,
the remainder of the annual report is based on the assessment
year which is the calendar year. The annual report has more
meaning when based on the assessment year, since the state
equalization orders come in a different fiscal year than the
biennial reappraisal which the orders are to equalize.
23
To: IQ~ CITY CLERK
From Board o[~perv~sors
1-38-95 3:15pm p. 2
Johnson Ceun~'
Charles D. Duffy, Chairporson
Joe Bolkcom
Stephen P. Lacina
Don Schr
Sally Stutsman
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
January 31, 1995
INFORMAL MEETING
Agenda
1. Call to order 9:00 a.m.
Review of the informal minutes of January 16th recessed to January 17th,
recessed to January 18th, and recessed to January 19th, and the formal
minutes of January 26th.
3. Business from the Physical Plant Manager re: repair cost for courthouse
garage/discussion.
Business from Graham Damcron, Director of Public Health and $her
Haven, Wellness/Well Elderly Manager re: Community Development
Block C-rant Application/discussion.
5. Business from Rona Berinobis, Account Executive of Blue Cross/Blue
Shield of Iowa re: health management review/discussion.
6. Business from the Board of Supervisors.
a) Reports
b) Other
7. Discussion re: budgets.
8. Discussion from the public.
9. Recess.
913 SOUTH DUBUQUE ST. P.O. BOX 1350 IOWA CITY, IOWA 52244-1350
TEL: (319) 3564000
EAX: (319) 356~0~
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS ELIGIBLE
FOR CDBG SUPPLEMENTAL FLOOD FUNDS
INFORMATION FROM CITY ENGINEER RICK FOSSE
Project
Oakland/Grant Storm & Sanitary Sewers
South Gilbert/Stevens Drive Additional Sewer Valve
Hafor Circle Storm Sewer
High Street/Fairview Storm Sewer
ppdc~p~o~eSg.sff
Estimated RoodFunds
to be Used
$500,000
$30,000
$250,000-400,000
$250,000
PKGREV94.XLS
CiTY OF 10WA CITY I
PARKING FUND REVENUE REPORT 12 MOS.
- 6 MOS. 6 MOB. STIMATED
ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL TO
ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL @ 12131193 ACTUAL @ 12131194 @ 12131/84
ACT XACC DESCRIPTION FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY94 FY95 FY95
41100 4220 $3 FINES 216,265 214,012 238,066 119,316 301,965 229,288 382,147
41100 4510 INTEREST 181,985 175,278 110,374 36.073 151,448 97,822 150,000
41100 4520 BUS DEPOT 7,378 3,318 8,102 7,890 15,089 7,200 14,400
41100 4531 ON-STREETMETERS 410,813 423,742 487,128 252,713 484,896 254,145 485,000
41100 4532 OFF STREET METERS 118,409 132,816 132;~06 64,736 119,060 57°782 107,004
41100 4534 PARKING LOT PERMITS 108,755 108,800 124,387 70,764 115,905 61,052 100,085
41100 4535 METER HOODS 10,869 17,617 24,491 13,239 24,038 35,550 45,000
41 I00 4536 CAPITOL ST RAMP 855,468 861,796 996,099 548,331 1,041,551 480,649 913,781
41100 4537 DUBUQUE ST RAMP 287,121 290,231 372,501 217,275 401,017 176,038 325,996
41100 4538 RAMP PERMITS 109,357 118,316 146,138 63,630 168,753 122,874 245,748
41100 4539 RAMP C METERED REVENUE 8,607 31,896 31,656 63,312
41100 4540 HotelParking 52,000 44,270 53,500 27,000 54,000 31,500 54,000
41100 4660 MISCELLANEOUS 1,754 415 1,506 1,044 1,503 -2,431 0
41100 5170 SENIOR CENTER PARKING 6,000 6,000 6,000 3,000 6,000 3~000 6,000
Sub-Total Parking Revenue 2,366,172 2,396,712 2,701,098 1,433,616 2,917,121
100 5180 TRANSFER IN/SALE OF LAND 205,000 119,315 0 121,888
Gran Total Parking Revenu 2.366,172~ 2.601,712 2,820,413 1,433,616
3,039,009
2,387,
1,586,125 2,892,473
0 0
1,586,12512,892,473
1,219,7461
D FY95
L ~CTUAL
:'T AS A
S BUDGET % OF
T) FY95 BUDGET
~7 230,000 99.7%
)0 75,000 130.4%
)0 12,000 60.0%
)0 476.000 53.5%
)6 132,00¢ 43.8%
[5 125,00¢ 48.8%
)0 20,00C 177.8%
[9 1,025,00C 46.9%
)4, 375,00C 46.9%
~E 165,00C 74.5%
2 24,00~ 131.9%
C 54,00(3 58.3~
C 0
(3 6,000 50.0~
'3 2,718,000 58.4%
0 0
3 2,718,000 58.4%
I I
162,147
-111
Page 1
AREAU
TOTAJ.S
CITY OF ]0WA CiTY
PARKING DIV1SiON REVENUES
COMPARATIVE TOTAJ..S FOR FY 1995, FY1994, FY1993, FY1992 AND FY1991
JUL AUG ~p OCT NOV
PARKHIST.XLS
DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAy
JUN
1994 7,601.82 7,888.40 10,299.72 7,907.99 7,114.14 8,697.82 4.321.63 10,133.37 9,600.61 8,538.80 7,772.43 9,O51.30
1993 7,216.59 7,342.90 10,037.84 8,124.34 5,726.97 8,068.83 6,014.60 8,O48.44 12,377.30 6,107,83 7,757.46 8,878.33
1992 9,011.19 7,391.17 8,469.04 11,201.50 8,264.70 7,714.43 7,316.99 9,043.03 9,040.30 11,0~9.29 7,454.69 8,104.48
1991 7,947.91 10,760.15 9,719.15 11,983.94 8,062,67 7,171.49 8,137.44 8,874.28 8,376.14 9,618.52 9,826.67 B,904,31
1996 4,611.08 4,991.24 8,756.67 5,943.86 6,430.38 6,157.37 0.00 0.00 ~ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1994 6,679.30 6,150,58 7,281.73 6,714.36 6,294.09 6,111,11 2,626.29 6,864.54 6,134.26 6,430.46 4,794.44 6,781.32
1993 6,502.48 4,380.90 5,288.77 6°749.26 6,111,70 6~3~5.13 3,858.14 4,730.01 4,814.11 6,819.99 5,141.65 4o517.03
1992 3,872.21 4o805.27 4,364.09 9,088.83 4,967.65 4,113.07 4,404.08 4,637.43 4,429.19 6,898.49 4,241.96 4,083.O1
1991 3,680.88 6,O3~.O~ 4..477.87 4,344.79 6,128.O3 3,58~.64 3,104.10 4,800°23 3,748.16 4,266.20 4,564.89 3,434.44
1995 26,326.08 28,408.26 29,128.61 26,756.94 29,125.63 28,340.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.00
1~94 28,704.O5 28,612.38 25,794.18 29,927.75 27o830.23 25,358.29 21,435.10 21,980.18 30,629.66 30,372.99 25,038.91 22,676.98
1993 29,310.09 25,719.28 28,986.12 30,527.68 26,349,68 27,422,64 22,767.68 26,621.14 26,660.17 28,149.06 28,131.58 25,943.30
1992 21,253.51 20,790.29 20,465.36 23,361.13 20.565.40 20,816.45 23,484.41 22,704.47 26,010.69 23,25t.81 23,239.63 19,804.68
1991 22,199.28 22,981.65 20,120.14 23.533.89 22,495.85 16,258.36 19,620.16 21,554.21 22,489.83 23,965.33 18,996.16 17,764,62
1999 38,248.50 43,432.76 44,502,56 41,537.56 44,601.61 41,821.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1994 42,986.47 41,661.36 43,375.63 43,550.10 40,238.46 40,167.22 28,283.02 38,078.09 46,364.42 44,342.24 37,605.78 37.509.60
199~ 42028.18 37,443.08 44,312.73 45,401.18 38,188.35 40,886.60 32,640.42 39,299.69 42,851.58 43,076.88 41,030.59 39,338.66
1992 34,136--ql 32,.~96.73 33,288.4,9 3~,951.46 33,797.65 32,643.95 35,205.48 3~,384.93 38,480.38 40,237.59 34,936.14 31,992.37
1991 33,829.07 38,777.88 34,317.18 39,862.82 35,686.55 27,O19.49 30,861.70 35,228.72 34,623.13 37,850.05 33,386.72 30,103,37
85 VS 94 +l- -4.736.97 1,771.40 1,126.93 -2,O12.64 4,363.45 1,854.41 N~A ~ N~A ~ N~A N~A
94 VS 93 +/. 957.3I 4,218.28 -937.10 -1,891.98 2,050.11 -719.38 -4,357.40 -1,221.50 3,512.84 1,265.36 -3,424.81 -1,829.06
93 VS92 4-~. 7o891.2S 4,466.35 11,024.24 8,749.72 4,3~O.70 8,242,69 -2,665.06 2,914.66 4,371.20 2,839.29 8,094.45 7,34~.2,9
92 VS 91 4-/- 311.84 -9,791.16 -1,028.67 -211.16 -1,888.90 5,624.4~ 4,343.78 1,16621 3,957.25 2,387.54 1,549.42 1,88~..00
Page 1
PARKHIST.XL$
AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FE~ MAR AFR MAY JUN
TOTALS AVERAGES
),033-26 6,617.29 8,836.77 10,045.90 7,324o16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50,163.71 8,361.45
;,898.40 10,299.72 7,907.99 7,114.14 8,697.82 4,321.63 10,133-27 9,600o61 8,53~.80 7,772.43 9,061.30 98,937.93 8,244.83
~,342.30 10,037.84 8,124.34 5,726.97 8,068.83 6,014.60 8,048.44 12,377.30 8,107,83 7,757.46 8,378.33 97°700.43 8,141.70
~'.391.17 8.469.04 11,201.50 8,264.70 7,714.43 7,316.99 3,043.03 9,040.30 11,089.29 7,464.65 8,104.48 104,100.77 8,675°06
),760.15 9,719.16 11,983.94 8,062.67 7,171.49 8,137.44 8,874.28 8,375.14 9,618.52 9,825.67 8,904.31 109,380.67 9,115.06
S,30~.27 4,364.09 3,063.63 4,967,55 4,113.07 4,404.08 4,637.43 4,429.19 5,636.49 4,241.96 4,083.01 54,903.18 4,675.27
5,036.08 4..477.87 4,344.79 6,128.03 3,589.64 3,104.10 4,800.23 3,748.13 4,266.20 4,564.63 3,434.44 50,175.31 4,181.28
3.40~.26 29o128o61 26,756.94 29,125.63 28,340.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 168,086.62 28,014.27
3.612.63 26,7~4.18 29.927.75 27,830-23 25,358.29 21.435.10 21,980.18 30,629.66 30,372.99 25,038.91 22,676.98 318,360.70 26,530.06
'r:,719,28 28,986.12 30,527.63 26,34,9.68 27,422,64 22,767.68 26,621.14 25,660.17 28,149.06 28,131.58 25,943.30 326,488.32 27,124,03
).790-29 20,455.36 23,361.13 20,685.40 20,816.45 23,484.41 22,704.47 25,010.63 23,251.81 23,263.53 19,804.89 264,738.13 22,061.61
~981.65 20,120.14 23,533.89 22,495.86 16,258.36 19,620.16 21,654.21 22,499.83 23,965.33 18,996.16 17,764.62 251,986.48 20,998.87
1,661.36 43,375.63 43,550.10 40,238.46 40,167.22 28,~8~.02 38,078.09 46,364.42 44,342-24 37,605.78 37,50~.60 484,161.38 40,346.78
~,443.08 44.312.73 45,401.18 38,188.36 ,~O,886.60 32.~40.42 39,299.59 42,851.58 43,076.88 41,030.59 3~,338.66 486,497.82 40,541.49
1,771,40 1,126.93 -2,012.54, 4,~63.~5 1,654,41 ~ NTA ~ Nt.A ~ N~A ~ 2,010.71
~-218.28 -937.10 -1,881,08 2,050.11 -719.38 -4,357.40 -1,221.E0 3.812.84 1,265.36 -3,424.81 -1.829.06 -2.336.43 -194.70
~,456.36 11,024-24 5,749,72 4,390.70 8,2.42.65 -2,565.06 2,914.66 4,371-20 2,839.29 6,094.45 7,346.29 62,766.74 5,229.65
3o791.15 -1,028.67 -211.16 -1,888.90 6;824.4~ 4,343.78 1,156.21 3,857.25 2,637.54 1,549.42 1,889.00 12,199.62 1,016.64
Page I
LOT
METER~
crrY OF IOWA el'P(
PARKING DIVISION REVENUES
COMPARATIVE TOTALS FOR FY 1995, FY1994, FY1993, FY1992 AND
FY1991
PARKHIST.XLS
LOCATION JUl. AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEEl MAR APR MAy JUN
8t/RUNGTON 1995 1,637.71 1,E116.00 1,804.74 1.431.01 1,406.37 1,614.80 O.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OO
1994 2.125.63 1,701.91 2.129.84 1,913.97 1,520.11 2.1 ~4.~ 1,170.24 1,985.39 2,O52.70 1 ,~30.O4 1,478.83 1,387,24
1993 1,889.12 1,694,91 1,714.25 2,018.76 1,544.62 2,038.66 1,460.28 1,725.85 1,633.16 2.210.85 1,257,96 1,612.66
1992 1,209.64 1,620.23 1,157.03 1,330,44 1,390.88 1,347.11 1,514.74 1,371.69 1,434.67 1,469.70 1,678.76 1,341 ,96
1991 759.45 1,515.74 1,140.29 1,306.36 1,639.6= 1,151.38 1,111.77 1.258.99 1 ,$33.38 1,272.67 1,452.07 1.163.64
CHAUNCEY 1995 4,587.06 4,270.76 6,733.76 S,781.91 6,554.64 5,673.60 0.00 O.00 O.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1 ~J4 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,579.76 2,838.16 4,189.25 3,058,94 3,762.60 5,078.85 4,573.90 3,921.85 3,053.55
1 ~q3 3,254.17 2,680.00 3,221.33 578.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1992 1,913.43 2,62.8.48 2,392.80 2*908.E12 2o778.93 2,448.96 2,671.13 2,642.80 2,583,94 2,613.97 2,896.79
1991 1,984.66 2,889.52 2,577.11 2,510.47 2,932.47 1,721.57 1,735.00 2,088.78 2,619.25 2,232.66 2,126,14 1,746.13
MBRARY 1995 4,257.66 4~42,56 4,077.63 3,903.79 4,343.91 4,292.14 0.00 O.00 0,90 0.00 0.00 0.00
1994 5,458.80 5,380.97 4,974.50 4,969.44 4,396.40 4o168.84 3,10~.47 3,126.53 4,613.49 4,588.67 3,825.75 4,138.56
1993 5,230.83 3,919.83 4,861.42 5,055.21 4,151.71 4,562.70 4.159.92 4,270.27 5,066.12 4,525.65 6,235.04 4,801.62
1992 3,422.57 3,589.74 3,458.47 3,931.55 3,424.87 3,776.53 4,271.82 3,774.90 4,363.96 4,131.61 3,971.62 3,918.02
1991 3.761.13 3,937.24 3,301.22 3,834.44 3,644.99 2,778.03 3,063.31 3,275.41 3,571.24 3,607.10 3,027,98 3,280.11
MARKET 1998 1,099.79 1,314.90 1,997.44 1,707.99 1,561,28 1,511.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.00
1994 2,000.52 1,373.20 2,095.07 1,631.72 1,479.04 1,447.72 736.40 1,905.70 1,896.62 1,604.10 1.397.65 1,418.62
1993 1,681.20 1,145.15 1,687.26 2,210.89 1,557.48 1,619.84 1,106.40 1,727.01 1,774.77 2,446.40 1,722.30 1,448.71
1992 717.48 1 °238.86 1,355.79 1,463.44 1,616.33 I, 314.00 1,294.58 1,428.38 1,260.29 1,510.92 1,665.07 1,188.59
1991 1,188.43 1,501.08 1,277.43 1,165.62 1,580.56 684.50 922.56 1,194.90 1,433.13 1,226.87 1,281.13 1,084.92
RECREATION 1995 1.241.66 10099.17 10433,99 1.236.72 1.215.64 1,39~.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1994 1,~06,50 1,329.88 1,493.41 1,241,99 1,082.99 1,072.10 622*48 1,482.18 1,443.30 1,192.03 911.62 1,339.90
1993 Io836.13 841,91 90~ .44 1,813.58 1,243.71 1,166.62 984,37 1,402.76 1,489.O7 1,688.58 1.270.71 1,094.96
1992 970.72 962.32 926.86 1.109.93 1,162.46 798.68 1,226.21 1,370.31 1,271.91 1 o318.63 1,237.63 1,169.01
1991 1,003.18 1 ,t 23.02 816.59 939.63 1,090,94 618.12 833.28 1,015.79 1,195,98 1,070.17 968.61 1,010.72
SCHUM~N 1995 847.47 807:67 1,338.20 1,207.56 1,021,70 1,107.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00
1994 1,174.01 915.00 1,130;48 957.47 823.39 971.98 296.45 1,246.31 1,101,95 1,111.50 739.97 808.10
1993 1,018.25 837.42 1,O18.02 1,218.48 867.15 757.10 515.11 977.49 903.40 1,066.89 758.21 678.09
1992 729.97 854.71 842.20 816.76 854.90 593.70 623.31 844.86 837.85 883.10 823.05 575.40
1991 693.69 877.86 858.05 817.50 756.33 656.93 450.30 817.17 855.70 909.90 663.~0
MISC 1995 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1994 21,90 27.00 30.00 24.00 33.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,90 24.00 0.00 0.00
1993 24.00 30.00 0.00 O.00 O,00 9.00 21 .OO 27.00 O.00 21.00 16.00 15.00
1992 21.00 0.00 O.00 0.00 36.00 0.00 O.00 0.00 O.00 O.00 0.00 183.00
1991 21.00 8.00 24,90 0.00 21.00 6.00 21 .O0 27.00 30.00 33.00 18.00 O.00
Page 2
CITY OF IOWA CITY
PA.R~ING DIViSiON REVENUES
~IpARATIVE TOTAJ. S FOR FY 1995, FY19<J4, FY1993, FY1992 AND FY1991
3,837.2.4 3,301.22 3,834.44 3,544.89.
1,314.90 1,997,44 1,707.99 1,561.28
1,373.20 2,096.07 1,631.72 1,479.04
1,145.15 1,687.2e 2.210,89 1,557.48
1 .~ -"~--~J8 1 ,,355.7e 1,463.44 1,615.33
1,501.08 Io277.43 1,165.62 1,580.56
10039.17 1,433.09 1,236.72 1,218.64
1,329.88 1,493.41 1,241.99 1,0~2.68
841.91 901.44 1,813.58 1,243.71
854.71 843.20 816.76 854.90
877.86; 858.05 317.60 756.33
PARKHIST.XLS
DEC JAN
1,514.80 0.00
2,134.56 1,170.24
2,038.66 1,4~0.28
1,347.11 1,514.74
O.00
3,058.84
2,448.96 2,671.13
1,721.57 1,735.00
2,776.03 3,063.31
1,447.72 736.40
0.00
1,072.10 ~22.48
798.68 1,226.21
618.12 833.28
683.70 623.31
2,642.80
2,088.78
0.oo
3,275.41
1,194.90
0.00
1,492.18
1,370.31
1,015.79
844.66
2,052.70
1,633.16
0.00
5,078.85
2,r~3.84
2,619.25
o.oo
4,513.49
5,o66.12
4,363.95
3,571.24
o.oo
1,896.52
1,774.77
1,433.13
0.00
1,443.30
1,485.07
1,195.98
0.00
837.85
855.70
O.00
O.00
O.00
0.00
O.00
1,630.04
2,210.85
1,469.70
4'573.90
0.00
20613.97
2,232.65
0.00
4,588.57
4,525.65
3.607.10
0.00
1,162.03
1,686.58
1,070.$7
883.10
MAy
O.O0
1,257.96
1,452.07
3,921.89
2,896.78
2,126.14
0.00
3,825.75
$,2.3~.04
3.971
0.00
1.397.65
1,722.30
1,6~5.07
0.00
911.62
1,270.71
1,23~.63
96~.61
0.00
739.97
758.21
0.00
0.00
18.00
JUN
O.00
1,387.24
1,612.66
O.OO
3.053.55
0.00
2,508.58
1,746.13
0.00
4,138.56
4.901.62
3o918.02
3,280.11
0.00
1,419.62
1,188.59
1,084.92
0.00
1,339.90
1,094.96
1,010.72
808.10
678.06
575.40
552.80
0.00
0.0o
19.OO
183.O0
0.O0
TOTALS
20.800.78
16.886.73
15,304.39
32,056.74
9,734.38
30,888.32
27,163,75
26,217.66
52,350.32
96,940.32
46,035.65
40,980.20
9,193.05
18,986.26
20,027.41
16,053.65
14,542.03
7,622.71
15,087.98
15,627.84
13~512.67
11,685.89
11,276.27
10,613.49
9,279.81
8,909.19
0.00
159.00
162.O0 .
240.00
AVERAGES
1,551.77
1,760.86
1,733.40
5,266.94
2,671.40
811.20
2,674.03
2,263.65
4,202.94
4,362.53
4,661.69
3,836.3O
3,415.02
1,532.18
1,582.19
1,668.95
1,337.80
1,270,45
1,257.33
1,293.99
1,126.06
973.82
1oO55.O9
939.69
773.32
742.43
0.00
13.50
20.00
17.29
Page 2
TYPE
LOT
LOCATION
TOTALS
95 VS 94
94 VS 93
93 VS 92~
CiTY OF IOWA CITY
PARKING DIVISION REVENUES
COMPARATIVE TOTALS FOR FY 1995, FY1994, FY1993, FY1992 AND FY1991
PARKHIST.XLS
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
1993 13,571.24 13,451 .O6 16,384.85 15,268-95 13,103.54 1 E,436.98 O.00 O.OO 0-90 O.00 0.OO O.00
1994 12,686.36 10,727.96 11,653,30 12,218.$4 12,172.64 13,984.45 8,992.88 13,619.71 16,O88.61 14,684.14 12,276.67 12,145.97
1993 14,733.70 11,148.92 13,403.72 12,8~3-90 9,364.67 10,053.92 8,247.08 10,130.34 10,862.62 11,957.33 10,269.22 9,751.00
1992 8,984.81 10,794.34 10,133.11 11,660.74 11,254.37 10,278o98 11,601.79 11,432.94 11,732.47 11,925.93 12,272.90 10,884.45
1991 9,412.50 11,850.46 9,994.65 10,573.92 11,565.88 7,614.53 8,137.22 9,678.00 11,238.68 10,352.36 9,536.93 8,837.32
+1- 884.88 2,723.10 4,631.65 3,050.61 2,930.90 1,512,13 NIA NIA N~A NIA M,A I~A
+/- -2.047.34 -4.20.96 -1,850.42 -675.46 2,807.97 3,930.93 749.80 3,388.37 9,223.99 2,726-91 2,016.46 2,394.97
+/- 5,748.ES 354.58 3,270.61 1,333.06 -I ,889.70 -225.06 -3,354.71 -1,302.60 -888.95 31.40 -2,013.68 -1,133.45
+/- -427.69 -1,056.12 138.48 986.82 -311.51 2,664.45 3,464.57 1,754.94 613.79 1.573.57 2,735-97 2,047.13
Page 3
cn-Y OF iOWA crr~,
PARKING DIVISION REVENUES
~ARA"FIVE TOTALS FOR FY 1995, F'~19940 FY1993, FY1992 AND FY1991
PARKHIS'T. XLS
AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAy JUN TOTALS AVERAGES
13,451.O6 16,384.85 15,268.95 15,10~.54 18,496.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 8~.278.22 14,879.37
100727.96 11,553.30 12,218.34 12,172.64. 13,984.45 8,992.98 13o518.71 16,086.$1 14,684,14 12,278.67 12,148.87 151,046.93 12,587.24
11,148.92 13.403.72 12,893.80 9,364.67 10,053.92 8,247.08 10,130.34 10,862,52 11,957.33 10,289.22 9,751.00 132,806~2 11,067.19
I0,794.34 10,133.11 11,560.74 11,254.37 10,278.98 11,601,79 11,432.94 11,752.47 11,925,98 12,272.90 10,884,4B 132,876.83 11.073,07
11,850.46 9,994.65 10,573.92 11,665.88 7,614.53 8,137.22 9,678.00 11,238.68 10,352.36 9,536.93 8,837.32 118,792,45 9,899.37
2,723.10 4,831 .$5 3,050.61 2.930.90 1,51 2-13 ~ N~A N~A N~A N%A N~A N~A 2,292.13
-42.9.96 -1,8~O,42 -675.48; 2.907.97 3.93Q.53 746.80 3,388.37 5,223.99 2,726.81 2,016.45 2,394.97 18,240.71 1,520.0~
354.58 3,270.61 1,:333.06 -1,889.70 -225.06 -3,354.71 -1,302.60 -889.95 31.40 -2,013.98 -1,133.4S -70.61 -5.98
-1,056.12 138,46 986.82 '311.51 2,664.45 3,464.57 1,754.94 513.79 1,573.57 2,735.97 2,O47,13 14,084.38 1,173.70
Page 3
LOCATION
CiTY OF IOWA CF~Y
PARt(ING DIVISION REVENUES
COMPARATIV~ TOTAJ..S FOR FY 1995. FY1994, FY1993, F'Y1992 AND FY1991
JUL AUG '~EP OCT NOV
CAJ:~TOI. 1996 $0,765.41 64,365.29 87o873.40 80,099.64 76,628.09
PARK&SHOP 1995 12,684.70 0.00 12,825.25 14,263.50 0.00
TOTALS 1995 63.450.11 64,365.29 80.498.65 94,383.14 75,626.C9
PARKHIST.XLS
77.292.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
25,048.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
102,340.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CAPITOl. 1994 68,619.69 69,967.70 80,791.12 81,705.02 84,970.45 84,550.40 69,453.78 82,373.86 78,232.46 71,560.38 58,242.29 54,436.83
PARK&SHOP 1994 12.381.60 12,737.25 0.00 24,321.05 12.451.20 13,920.95 0.00 21,944.16 11.678.95 10.894.60 24,324.05 11,95B.60
TOTALS 1994 81,001.29 82*704.96 80,791.12 106,026.07 97,421.65 98,471.35 69°453.78 104,318.01 89,911o41 82.444.98 82*566.34 66,395.43
CAP~OL 1993 61.082.60 58,751.94 75.185.66 77,498.41 81,746.68 78,882.99 51,529.68 77.363.16 ' 81,219.93 83o281S.11 54,865.97 62.719.15
PARK&SHOP 1993 9,792.90 10,508.40 I1,0~0.10 14,902.30 12.450.30 13.443.75 20,500.05 11,640.76 10,428.20 11.800.85 12,482.05 12,714.20
TOTAJ. S 1993 70,876.50 69,260.34 86,275.76 92.400.71 94ol 96.98 90,326.70 72*029.73 88,893.91 91.648.13 95~085.96 67,348~02 75,433.~5
CAPITOL 1992 52.433.18 46,768.58 69,769.99 76.126.42 67,238.87 70.913.09 53.729.13 89,117.53 67,198.60 69oS84.94 44,139.03 4Oo501.01
PARK&SHOP 1992 10,673.30 11,119.90 12,85;.30 10o120.10 11,759.30 0.00 29,666.40 10,616.60 10,081.50 10,190.30 10,461.00 9,899.10
TOTALS 1992 63,106.48 57,888.48 78,621-29 88,248.52 78,997.97 70,913.09 83,394.53 79, 734.13 77,280.10 80,155.24 54,600.03 50,400.11
CAPITOl. 1991 52,031.36 56,112.52 59.411.08 78,081.05 C4,011.27 61,053.94 60,842.44 65,818.23 60,597.10 67,260.60 43.988.84 40,739.96
PARKESHOP 1991 10,284.60 11o012.40 10,887.10 12.341.10 9~976.80 11,111o70 O.00 11o609.10 37~719.30 11,237.40 9.946.10 10~993.10
TOTALS 1991 62,315.96 67,124.92 70,298.18 88,422.19 73.988.07 72,165.64 60,842.44 77°427.35 98.316.40 78,498.00 53,934.94 61,732.66
Page 4
C~TY OF IOWA QTY
PARKING DiViSt0N REVENUES
~PARA'nVE TOTALS FOR FY 1995, FY1994, F'Y1993, FY1992 AND FY1991
AUG SGP OCT NOV
64,365.29 67,673,40 80,099.64 75,626.09
0.00 'i2,825.25 14,263.50 0.00
64,365.29 80,498.65 94,363.14 76,626.09
12,737.25 0.00 24,321.05 12,451.20
82,704.95 80,791.12 106,025.07 97,421.65
58,751.94 75,185.66 77,498.41 81,746.68
10,5~8.40 11o090.10 14,902.30 12,450.30
69,260.34 86,275.76 92,,4~0.71 94,196.~8
48,768.58 65,769°99 76,126.42 67.238.67
11,119.90 12`861.30 10,120.10 1%759.30
57,8~8.48 78,621,39 96,24~.$2 78,997.97
24.92 70,298.18 8~.422.15 73,98~.07
PARKHIST.ZLS
JUN
TOTAJ. S AVERAGES
77,292.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 415,822.05 69,303.68
25,048.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 64,821.45 10,803.68
102,340.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 480,643.50 80,107.26
84,550.40 69,463.78 82,373.86 78,232.46 71,550.38 58,2.42.29 54,436.83 884°893.98 73,741.17
13,920.95 0.00 21,944.16 11,878.9I:: 10,894.60 24°324.05 11,958.60 156,612`40 12`051o03
98,471.36 89,453.78 104,318.01 89..911.41 82,444.98 82,566.34 66,395.43 1,041,506.38 86,792.20
76,882,.95 51,529.6S 77,353.16 * 81,219.93 83,285,11 54,865.97 62,719.15 842,.121.24 70,176.77
12`443.75 20,500.05 11,540.76 10,428.20 11,800.85 12,482.05 12,714.20 151,663.85 12,637.82
90,326.70 72,029.73 88,893.g'~ 91,648.13 95°085.96 67,348~02 75,433.36 g93,775.09 82,814.59
70,913.09 53o729.13 69,117,53 67,198.60 69,964.94 44,139.03 40,501.01 723,900.17 60,325.01
0.00 29,665.40 10.616.60 10.081.50 10,190.30 10,4~1.00 9o899.10 137,437.80 11,453.15
70,913.09 83,3,94.53 79,734.13 77,280.10 80,155.24 54,600.03 50,400.11 861,337.97 71,778.16
61o053.94 60,842.44 65o818.25 60,597.10 67.260.60 43~988.84 40,739.96 707,948.00 58,995.97
72,165.64 60,842.44 77,427.35 98,316.40 78°498.00 63,934.94 51~732.66 865,066.70 71,256.56
3,868,87 N~A N~A N~A N~A N~A N~ N~A -6,684.95
8,144.65 -2`675,95 15,424.10 -1,736.72 -12,640.98 15,218.92 -9.037.92 47,731.29 2`977.61
-1,252.55 22.55209 2,306.78 -21,0~6.30 1,657.24 665.09 -1,332.55 6,271.27 622.61
Page 4
LOCAl'ION
PARKHIST.XLS
DUBUQUE 1995 22,964.36 27,220.61 27,899.07 34,617-09 29,260.95
PAR~&SHOP 1995 1,923.45 0.OO 1o053.40 871o36 0.00
TOTALS 1995 23,978.31 27~220.61 23,952.47 35,484.44 29,260.99
FEB MAR APR MAY
JUN
29,358.37 0,00 0.00 0.00 O.O0 O.00 0.00
1,970.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.O0
31,228.42 O.OO O.OO O.00 0.OO 0.00 O.00
DUBUQUE 1994 30,96?-75 34,167.04 38,433.09 3~,021.83 35,697.24 34,495.97 27~724o86 30,261.20 32,634.56 30,916.30 27,458.38 25,100.10
PAR~&SHOP 1994 1,096,29 1,257-76 0.00 2,217.70 1,577.40 1,277-95 0.00 2,553.10 1,025.86 950.45 2,261.15 90?_90
TOTAJ. S 1994 31,969.00 35,419.79 38,433.09 40,239.53 37,274.64 36,768.92 27,724.86 37,.,814.30 33,660.41 31,966.75 29o719.53 26o003.00
DUBUQUE 1993 22,364.12 24,629.50 30,876.21 34,682.41 30,134.39 30,694.40 26,763.58 32,219.63 36,704.54 36,843.53 27,615.15 29,278.20
PAR/r,.&SHO P 1993 769.10 786.90 700.00 95?-45 775.60 767.80 1,731.15 977.50 926.60 1,046,80 1,098.69 1,387.70
TOTAJ. S 1993 23,123.22 29o416.40 31,576.21 :35,634.86 30,909.~9 31,462.20 27,494.73 33,197.13 37,631.14 38,890.33 28,613.80 30°665.90
DUBUQUE 1992 17,501.69 16,962.32 20,320.21 26,946.73 21,959.67 22,983.11 19,907.00 39o408.60 23,580.03 28o218.49 20,426.06 18,917.68
PARi(&SHOP 1992 624.80 60~.80 76?-80 755.30 761.50 O.00 2,264.90 2,941,40 781.00 626.30 837.90 608.60
TOTAJ..S 1992 18,129.49 17,571o12 21,073,01 27,40?-03 22,721.17 22,983.11 22,171.90 42360.00 24,961.O3 28,944.79 21o263o95 19,526.28
DUBUQUE 1991 16,766.40 19,974.24 20,735.48 67,602.36 22,636,94 21,238.20 20,188.64 20,929,31 20,898.65 24,638.65 16,764.$9 15,388.15
PARK&SHOP 1991 572.60 833.70 649.00 657.50 514.80 730.40 0.00 891.20 2,822.40 736.90 502.70 503.40
TOTAJ. S 1891 17o329.00 20,807~4 21,384.48 58,259.86 23,150.84 21o966.80 20~188.64 21,820.51 29,721.05 26,276.55 17.267,29 16,989.69
95 VS 94 ~/- -7,980.69 -8,199,18 -9,480.62 -4,755.09 -8o013.69 -4,540.50 N~A N~A ~ ~ ~ ~
94VS 93 +/. 8,935.78 10,003.39 6o8F~.88 4.604.67 6,364.65 4,306.72 230.13 -382.83 -3,970.73 -5,023.68 1,105.73 -4,667-90
93 VS 92 +1. 4996.7'3 7,845.28 10,50~20 8,232.83 8,188.82 8o479.09 5,327-83 -9,162.87 13,270.11 8,O45.64 7,349.85 11,139,62
92 VS 91 +~- 797.49 -3,23~.82 .Gff ~ .47 -30,857.83 -429.67 1 ,O16.51 1,983.26 20,529.49 639.98 3~569-24 4,006.66 3~638.73
Page 5
CeTY' OF IOWA Cr'f'Y
PARKING DIVISION REVENUES
RATIVE TOTALS FOR PIf 1995, FY1994, FY1993. FY1992 AND PIll991
27,2.20.61 27,899.07 34,913,09 2~1,260.95
0.00 1,053.40 871,35 0.00
27,220.61 28,952.47 35,484.44 29,260.95
PARKHIST.XLS
~ J~ FEB MAR ~R
MAy
JUN
TOTALS
29,358.37 O.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 171,306.95 28,551.16
1,970.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,818.25 803.04
31,228.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 176,125.20 29,3~4.20
34,167.04 38,433.09 38.021.83 35,697.24 34,495.97 27,724.86 30,281.20 32,634.56 30,916.30 27,458.38 28,100,10 385,773.32 32,147.78
1,252.75 0.00 2,217.70 1 ~77.40 1,272.g$ 0.00 2,653.10 1,025.85 g50.45 2,261.15 902.90 18,110.50 1,259.21
96,410.79 38o433.08 40,239.53 37,274.64 35,768.92 27,724.86 32,814.30 33,660.41 31,866.76 29,719.53 26,003.00 400°883.82 33,406.93
24,629.50 30,876.21 34,6~2.41 30,134.39 30.694.40 25,763.58 32,219.63 36,704.54 35,843.63 27,515.16 29,278.20 360,705.66 30,058.81
786.90 700.00 952.45 775.60 767.80 1,731.15 977.50 926.60 1,04~.80 1.098.65 1,387.70 11,910.28 992.52
25,416.40 31,576.21 3~,634.86 30,909.99 31,462.20 27,494.73 .33.197.13 37,631.14 36,8~0.33 28,613.80 30,665.90 372,615.91 31,051.33
16,962.32 20,320.21 26,646.73 2t,959.67 22,983.11 19,907.00 39,408.60 23,580.03 28,218.49 20,426,015 18,917.68 279,831.58 23,069.30
608.80 752.80 755.30 761.50 0.00 2,264.90 2,941.40 781.00 626.30 837.90 608.60 11,563.30 963.61
17,671.12 21,073.01 27,402.03 22,721,17 22,983.11 22,171.90 42,350.00 24,361.03 28,944,79 21.2.63.95 19,526.28 288,3~4.88 24,032.91
19,974.24 20,735.48 57~602.36 22,636.04 21,236.20 20,188.64 20,929.31 20,898.65 24~538o65 16,754.59 15o386.15 277,636.71 23,136.3~
833.70 649.00 657.50 514.80 730.40 0.00 891.20 2,822.40 736.90 502.70 503.40 9,414.60 784.55
20,807.94 21,384.48 58,269,96 23,150.84 21,966.60 20,188.64 21,82~).61 23,721.05 25,276.65 17,257.29 16,889.55 2'87,051.31 23,920.94
-8,199.18 -8,480,62 '4,755.09 -8,013.69 ..4,540.50 N~A N~A N~A N~ N~A N',A N~A .-4,052.79
10,003.3~ 6,856.88 4~604.67 6,364.65 4,306.72 230.13 -382.83 -3,970.73 -5,923.58 1,105.73 -4,662.90 28,267.91 2,355.66
7845.28 10~03.20 8,232.83 8,188.82 8,479.09 9,322.83 -9,152.87 13,270.11 8,045.64 7,349.85 11,139.62 84,221.03 7,019.42
· .3,236.82 -311.47 -30,857.83 -429.67 1,016.51 1,983.26 20,529.48 639.98 3,569.24 4,006.66 3,636.73 1,343.57 111.96
Page 5
cr1Y OF IOWA CiTY
PARKING DIVISION REVENUES
COMPARATIVE TOTALS FOR FY 1995, FY1994, FY1993, FY1992 AND FY1991
LOCATION
MI~C LOTS 1998 15,850.00
CHAUNCEY 1995 2%671.85
RAMp A 1995 7,692,00
RAMP B 1995 30,097.00
TOTALS 1995 73,310.85
MISC LOTS 1994 19,068.40
CHAt,~NCEY 1994 0.00
R.N~z A 1994 9,317.00
RAMP B 1994 19,667.65
TOTA/.S 1994 41,092.99
MISC LOTS 1993 21,847.65
CI'~AUNCEY · 1993 0.00
RAMP A 1993 7,997.9O
RAMpB 1993 30,917.00
MISC LOTS 1992 18,423.22
CHAUNCEY 1892 0,,00
RAMP A 1992 $,476.00
RAMP B 1S92 23,735.00
TOTNS 1992 47,632.22
M~SC LOTS · 1991 11,536.26
CHAUNCEY 1991 0.00
RAMP A 1991 3,904.40
RAMP B 1991 10,682.00
TOTAJ. S 1991 26,122.66
PARKHIST.XLS
95 VS 94 +/- 34,257.90
94 VS 93 +/- -19.288.70
93 VS 92 +1- 12,689.43
92 VS 91 +/- 21 *509.56
3,076.00 14,697.65 9,178.70 8,273.50 4,940.00 0.00
4,706.90 7,991.70 15,227.60 3,202.00 1,745.45 0.00
676.60 2,822.26 6,845.64 394.50 385.00 ' 0.00
990.00 3,180.00 13,109.OO 930.OO 1,188.00 O.00
11,448.50 28,691.60 44,356.94 12,800.00 8,255.49 0.00
O.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.oo
0.00
MAY
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
JUN
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.o0
13,440.50 6,256.85 28,566.20 4,540.40 4,697.00 12,8~8.45 5,524.70 5,852.95 10,754.90 2,179.95 7,927.40
0.00 0.00 786.00 2.064.65 9,668.00 18,908.90 3*577.50 6.581.05 17,686.00 6,728,00 1,325.05
825.00 2,970.60 4,976.50 624.90 585.00 7,705.00 390.00 1,825.00 6,140.90 509.00 399.00
1,195.00 5,502.40 10.560.90 1,029.85 945.00 14.550.00 927.50 2.985.00 12,330.00 900.00 900.00
4,040.58 9,352*23 10,281.23 1,447.50 7*526.20 14,562,00 4,020.00 6,464.70 12,895.70 1,362,00 14,342.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
940.50 4.519.70 4.644.OO 1 ,O43.00 1,600.00 8,140.00 1.506,25 4,400.00 5,720.00 1,045.00 5,04.7.00
'1,210.00 7,350.00 10.555.00 1,218.00 2,405.00 14,160.00 1,170.00 4,293.90 0o00 1,127.00 12,663.00
3.534~OO
15,158.60
6,191.08 21,321.93 25,780.23 3,705.50 11.531.20 36,862.00 8,796.25
18,615.70
32,052.00
9,39~.33 7*544.90 11,802.33 3,409.83 3,384.33 15,359.33 4,051.47 5,459,33 13,990.99 3,37~.33 4.518.06
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1,749.65 3,865.46 6,025.00 600.00 340.OO 8,450.00 1,137.~6 3*200.00 ' 6,85~.00 400.00 2.710.00
1,040.00 4,385.00 10,565.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 14,130.00 1,363.80 5,800.00 9,428.00 985.00 4,0~.00
14,459.33
30,268.89
6,185.99 15,794.46 28,392.33 5,009.83 4,724.33 37,939.33 6,652.33
11,311.06
0.00 10,310.00 · t0,716.79 4,619.95. 3,679.00 17.166.33 4,679.63 11,304.33 7,090.00 3,491.30 9,050.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1,299.20 3,776*55 5,746.00 257.75 2.100.00 6,800.00 376.90 5,140.00 5,280.00 300.00 1,820.00
1,240.00 9,746.00 7.233.10 1,489.70 2,400.00 13,407.50 1,320.00 10,132.65 6,236.83 1,238.40 7,616.80
26,576.98
2.53~.20 23,832.55 23,6~5.89 6,367.40 8,179.00 37,373.83 6,376.53
5,029.70
18,616.83
Page 6
-4,012.00 13,961.75 1,378,24 4,541.20 -3,599.55 N~A N~A ~ N~A N~A ~
9,269.42 -6,4~92.08 17,198.47 4,553.30 223.80 17,298.35 3,723.45 2,485,30 28,295.20 6,782.95 -21,500.65
3,646.78 -8,O38.0~ 4,696.44 -1,357.37 -3,494.67 565.50 175.80 -12,117.65 11.552,06 -271.37 -7,176.74
CITY OF IOWA CITY
PARKING DNISION REV;NU=S
[VETOTAJ. SFORFY 1995, FY1994o F'Y1693, FY1992 AND FY~.991
PARKHtST.XLS
AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
.075.00 14.697.65 9,178.70 8,273.50 4.940.00 0.00
,706.90 7,991.70 16,227.60 3,202.00 1,745.45 0.00
,448.EC 28,691.60 44,356.94 12,800.00 8,259.45 0.00
0.00
TOTAJ, S
68,014.85
54,545.50
180,863.34
AVERAGES
8.669.14
8.090.92
8.247.93
30.143.89
.440.50 6,256.85 26,666.20 4,540.40 4,667.00 12,898.46 5,524.70 5,852.85 10,754.90 2,179.95 7,927.40 115,667,60 9,638.97
0.00 0.00 786.00 2,064.66 $,668.00 18,906,90 3,677.50 6,981.05 17,686.00 6,728.00 1,325.06 83,823.06 6,318.69
825.00 2970.60 4,976.50 62400 585.00 7.705.00 390.00 1,925.00 6,140.00 508.00 399.00 33,266.10 2,772.18
,155.00 5,502.40 10,650.00 I ,O?.9o85 945°00 14,650.00 927.50 2,985o00 1 2,330.00 900.00 900.00 71,682.30 6,973.63
.46Oo50 14,729.85 42.978.70 8.258.80 11,858.00 54,160.35 10,519.70 17,643.90 46,910.90 10,316.95 10.881.45 284,439.O5 23,703.28
.040.58 8,35223 18.281.23 1,447.50 7,626.20 14,562,00 4o020.00 6,464.70 12,895.70 1o362.00 14,342.00 108,241.79 8.020.15
0.90 O.00 O.00 0.90 0.00 O.00 O.00 O.OO O.00 O.00 0.00 O.00 0.00
940.50 4,.519.70 4,644.00 1 o043.00 1,600.00 8,140.00 1,606.26 4,400.00 5,720.00 1,045.00 5,047.00 46,662.45 3,888.64
~210.00 7,350.~0 I0,855.00 1,215.00 2,405.00 14,160.00 1,170.00 4,293.90 0.00 1,127.00 12,~63.00 86,985.90 7,247.16
,191.08 21,221.93 25,780.23 3,705.50 11.631.20 ~6,862.00 8,796.28 15,158.60 18,818.70 3,634.00 32,052.00 241,870.14 20,155.85
~3~1l~.~3 7,544.00 11,802.:33 3,408.83 8,384.33 18,3E9.33 4~051.47 6,489.33 13°990.89 3,373.33 4,518.06 94,712.46 7,892.70
0.00 0.00 O.00 0.00 0.90 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
~749.65 3,665.46 6,025.00 600.00 340.00 8°450,90 1,137.06 3,200.00 ' 6,850'.00 400.00 2,710.00 40,803.17 3.400.26
,040.00 4,385.00 10,565.00 ' 1,000.00 1,000,00 14,130.00 1,963.80 5o800,00 8,428.00 985.00 4o0~.00 77,512.80 9,469.40
0.00 10,310,90 - 10,716.79 4,619.95. 3,679.00 17,168.33 4,679.63 11,304.33 7,090.00 3,491.30 9.060.00 93,643.59 7,903.63.
O.OO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
299.20 3,776.55 5,746.00 257.75 2,100.00 6,800.00 376.90 5,140.00 5,290.00 308.00 1.820.00 36o810.80 3,067o97
240.00 9o746.00 7,233.10 1,488.70 2,400.00 13,407.50 1,320.00 10,132.65 8,239.83 1,238.40 7,618.80 72,742.98 6,061.92
539.20 23,832.55 23,695.89 6,367.40 8,179.00 37,373.83 6,376.53 26,576.98 18,616.83 9,029.70 19,486,90 203,197,27 16,933.11
012.00 13,961.75 1,378.24 4,541.20 -3,599.55 ~ N~ N~A ~ N~A ~ N~. 6,440.64
269,42 -6,492.08 17,198.47 4,553.30 223.80 17,298.35 3,723.45 2,486.30 28,295.20 6,782.96 o21,500.55 42,568.91 3,547.40
5.10 5,427.47 -2,612.10 -1,804,.33 6,906.97 -1,077.33 243.92 699,27 -11,653.19 -1,224.33 20,740.94 28,841.72 2,403.48
646.78 -8,038.09 4,696.44 ol,357.57 -3,454.67 565.50 175.80 -12,117.65 11,652.06 -271.37 -7,175.74 9,831.05 819.25
Page 6
LOCA~ON
CITY OF IOWA Cn'Y
PARK;NG D~IS~ON REVENUES
COMPARATIVE TOTALS FOR FY 1995, FY1994, FY1993, FY1992 AND FY1991
JUL AIJG S~P OCT NOV
PARKHIST.XLS
DEC JAN Ft;B MAR APR MAY JUN
95 VS94
94 VS 93
93 VS 92
92 VS 91
1995 214,559.01 159,918,22 199,030,13 231,011.03 177,392.49
1994 209,685.07 185,974.56 188o882.99 245,012.74 195,366,19
1993 211,082.23 149,459.82 196,790.35 212,110.78 176,365.49
1992 171,986.91 125,426.65 158,910.36 193,253.08 151,780.99
1991 149,005.18 141,100.40 159,827.02 220,814.44 150,758.74
+F 4,873.94 -26,056.34 10,147.14 -14,001.71 -17,975.70
+:- -1,397.161 36,514.74 -7,907.36 32,901.96 19,000.70
+/- 39,095.32 24,033.17 37,879.99 18,857.70 24,584.50
+;- 22,981.73 -15,673.75 -916.66 -27,561.36 1,022.25
199,142.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
200,246.94 188,614.89 199,248.81 203,666.65 ?.20,249.~)1 172,484.27 152,605.46
184,360.62 177,273.96 178,317.22 198,191.97 205,626.20 150,785.63 187,240,91
141,543.46 190,313.03 176,454.33 166,333.31 191,432.44 127,831.35 124,114.27
136,945.26 11~7,403,93 150,931.11 194,476.24 170,592.79 119,145.58 125,049.70
-1,104.64 N',A N~A N~A N~A ~ ~
15,886.32 11,340.93 20,931.69 8,614.68 14,622.81 21,698.64 -34,635.46
42,817.16 -13,033.07 1,862,89 31,818.66 14,193o76 22,854.28 63,126.64.
4,598.20 32,909.20 25,923.22 -28,142.93 20,839.68 8o685.77 -935.43
Page 7
crI'Y OF IOWA crrY
PARKING DMS~ON REVENUES
~ATIVE TOTALS FOR Pt' 1995, FY1994, FY1983, F'Y1992 AND F¥1991
AUG $EP
NOV
159,918.22 199,030.13 231,011.03 177,392.49
185,974.56 165,882.98 245,012.74 195,366.19
149,459.82 1656,790.35 212,110.78 176,365.49
125,426.65 165,910.36 193,253.08 151o780,99
141,100.40 189,82.7.02 220,914.44 150,758.74
PARKHIST.XLS
199,142.30 0.00 0.00 0.O0 0.00
200,246.94 165,614.89 165,24.8.81 203,665.65 220,249.~)1
184,360.82 177,273.96 178,317.22 198,151.97 205,626.20
141,543.46 190,313.03 1760454.33 166,333.31 191~432.44
;'6,056.34 10,147.14 -14,O01.71 -17,973.70 -1,104.64 N~, N~A
36,514.74 -7,907.36 32,901.96 19,0OO.70 15,886.32 11,340.93 20,931.59 5,514.68 14,622..81
24,033.17 37,879.99 18,857.70 24,584.50 42,817.16 -13,039.07 1,862.89 31,818.66 14,193.76
15,673.75 -916.66 -27,561.36 1,O22.25 4,598.20 32,809°20 25,923.22 -28,142.93 20,889.65
MAy JUN TOTALS AVERAGES
0.00 0.00 1,181,053.18 165,842.20
172,484.27 152.605.45 2,362,037.57 196,836.46
150,788.63 187,240.9'~ 2,227,565.18 188,630.43
127,831.35 124,114.27 1,919,380.18 159,948.35
11g,145.68 125,O49.70 1~875,650.29 156,304.19
~ NtA N~A 5.73
21,698.64 -34,635.46 134,472.39 11,206.03
22,954.28 63,126.64 308,185o00 25,682.08
8,685.77 -835.43 43,729.89 3,644.16
Page 7
AREA TOTALS
CITY OF 10WA CITY
PARKING DIVISION HOURS
COMPARATIVE TOTALS FOR FY1995, FY1994, FY1993. FY1992 AND FY1991
PARKHIST.XLS
JUt. AUG SF.P OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAy ,JUN
1895 24.371 33.44.4 22,O58 29,458 33.486 24,414 0 0 0 0 0 0
1994 25,339 26,328 34.332 26.360 23,714 28.993 14.405 33,778 32,002 28,463 25.908 30,171
1993 24,052 24,476 33,459 27,081 19,090 26,896 20,049 26,828 41,258 27.026 25,888 29,594
1992 30,037 24,637 28,230 37,338 27,549 25,716 24,390 30,143 30,134 36,964 24,849 27,015
1991 26,493 35,867 , 32,397 39,946 26.876 23,905 27,125 29,581 27.917 32,062 32,792 29,681
1984 22,265 17,169 24,272 19,048 1 ?,647 20,370 8,421 19.882 20,448 18,102 15,981 19,271
1983 18,342 14,603 17,629 22,498 20,372 17,984. 12.860 15, 767 16,0~.7 22,733 17,139 15,057
992 12,907 16,018 14,547 16,963 16,559 13,710 14,680 16,458 14,764 19,668 14.140 13,610
991 12.270 16,787 14,926 14,483 17,093 11,965 10,347 16,001 12.494 14,221 15,216 11,4.48
1 ~95 52,862 56,817 58,267 53,514 58,251 56,680 0 0 0 0 0 O
1994 67,408 57,225 51,588 59,856 65,660 50,717 42,870 43,960 61,259 60,74~ 50,078 49,364
1993 58,620 51,439 87,972 61,059 62,899 64.845 45,535 59,042 51,320 56,2)8 59.263 51,887
1992 70,845 69,301 68,185 77,870 68,551 69,388 78,281 75.682 83,370 ' 77,500 77.465 66,018
1991 73.988 76.606 67.067 78,446 74,986 54,195 65,401 71,847 74,999 79,884 63.321 59,215
1995 92,393 106,898 109,604 102,783 109,838 101,619 0 0 0 0 0 0
1994 105,012 100,722 110.192 105,264 97,021 100,080 65,696 97,620 113,709 107,311 91,967 94,796
1993 101,014 90.818 109,060 110,634 92,161 99.725 78,444 95,637 108,625 106,057 99,260 96,538
1992 118.7RS 109,956 110.962 132,171 112,659 108,813 117,351 121,283 128,268 134,129 116.454 106,641
1991 112.751 129,260 114.390 132,875 118,955 90,065 102.873 117.429 115.410 126,167 111,289 100,344
96 VS 94 +/- -12.619 6.176 -688 -2,481 12,817 1,539 N~A ~ N~A N~A N~A N~A
94 VS 63 +/- 3,998 10,204 1,132 -5,370 4,860 355 -12,748 1,983 6,084 1,264 -7,293 -1,742
93%'592 +/- -12,775 -19,438 -1.902 -21,537 -20.498 -9,088 -38,g07 -25,64.6 -1g,643 -28,068 -17,194 -10,103
92 VS 91 +1- 1,038 -19,304 -3,428 -704 -6.296 18,748 14,478 3.854 12,858 7,958 5,165 6,297
Page I
CITY OF IOWA CITY
PARKING DIVISION HOURS
J~ATIVE TOTALS FOR F'Y1985, F'Y1994, FY1993, teY1992 AND FY1991
PARi(HIST.XLS
AUG SEP QCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN TOTALS AVERAGES
33,444 22,059 29,456 33,486 24,414 0 0 0 0 0 0 167,229 27.872
26.328 34,332 26,360 23.714 28,S93 14,405 33,778 32,002 28,463 25,908 30,171 329,793 27,483
24,476 33,459 27.081 19.090 25,896 20,049 26.828 41,256 27,026 25,858 29,594 325,667 27,139
24,637 28,230 37,339 27,~49 25.715 24,390 30,143 30,134 3e, 99'.4 24,849 27,015 347,001 28,917
35,867 32,397 39,946 26,876 23,905 27,125 29,581 27,917 32,062 32,752 29,681 364,602 30,384
16,637 29,189 19,813 18,101 20,526 0 0 0 0 0 · 0 119,635 19,939
17,169 24,272 '[9,048 17,647 20.370 8,421 19,882 20,448 18,102 15.981 19,271 222,876 18,573
14,603 17,629 22.498 20,372 17,984 12.860 15,767 16,047 22.733 17,139 15,057 211,031 17,686
16,018 14.547 18,963 16,559 13,710 14,680 15,458 14,764 19,656 14,140 13,610 183,011 15,251
16,787 14,926 14,,483 17.093 11,965 10,347 160001 12.494 14,221 15.216 11,448 167,261 13.938
56,817 58,257 S3,514 58,251 56,680 0 0
67,225 81,588 89,856 55,660 50,717 42,870 43,960
51,439 57,972 61.055 52,699 54,845 45,535 53,042
69,301 68,185 77,870 68,551 69,388 78,281 75,682
76,606 67,067 78,446 74,986 54,195 65,401 71,847
0 0 0 0 336,171 66,029
61,269 60,74~ 50,078 45,354 636,721 53,060
51 °320 56,298 56,263 51,887 650,975 54.248
83,370 ' 77,506 77,465 66,016 882,460 73,538
74.999 79,884 63,321 59,215 839,955 69.996
106,898 109,604 102,783 109,838 101.619 0 0 0 0 0 0 623,035 103,839
100,722 110.182 105,264 97.021 I00,080 65,696 97,620 113,709 107,311 91,967 94,796 1,189,390 99,116
90,618 109o060 110,634 92,161 99,723 78,444 95,637 108,625 106,057 99,260 96,538 1,187,673 98,973
109.956 110,962 132.171 11 2,659 I 0~,813 117,351 121,283 128,268 134.125 116,454 106.641 1,412,472 117,706
129,260 114.390 132,876 118,955 80,068 102.873 117,429 115,410 126.167 111,289 100,344 1.371,808 114,317
6,176 -689 -2,481 12.817 1,539 N~A N~A N~A ~ ~ N~A N~A 4,723
10.204 1,132 -5,370 4.860 355 -12,748 1,983 5,084 1,254, -7,293 -1,742 1.717 143
*1e0438 -1,902 -21,537 -20.498 -3,088 -38.907 -26,646 -19,643 -28,068 -17,194 -10,103 -224.799 -18.733
-19,304 -3.428 -704 -3,296 18,748 14.478 3.854 12,858 7.958 S,165 6.297 40,664 3,389
Page I
CITY OF IOWA CiTY
PARKING DIVtSION HOURS
COMPARATIVE TOTALS FC'R FY1955, F'Y1994, FY1993,
FYI992 AND FY1991
PARKHIST.XLS
TYPE LOCA'RON JUL AUG S~P OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB
LOT BURliNGTON 1995 3,075 3,232 3,609 2,862 2,813 3,030 0 O
METERS 1994 4,251 3,404 4,260 3,628 3,O40 4,269 2,340 3,971
1993 3,778 3,389 3,429 4.O38 3,089 4,077 2,921 3,452
1992 3.O24 4,051 2,8~3 3,326 3,477 3.368 3,787 3.429
1991 1.899 3,7~9 2.851 3.266 4,099 2,878 2,779 3,147
CHAUNCSY 1995 15,290 14,236 19,113 19,273 18,515 18,912 0 0
1994 0 0 0 5.266 9,461 13,964 10,196 12,542
1993 10,847 8,933 10,738 1,930 0 0 0 0
1992 4,784 6,321 5.982 7,272 6,947 6.122 5.676 6,607
1991 4.962 7,224 6,443 6,276 7,331 4,304 4.338 5,222
U~e. RY 1995 8.615 8,685 8,155 7,808 8,688 8.584 0 .0
1994 10,915 10, 762 9,:34~ 9,93S 8,793 8,338 6,217 6.253
1993 10,462 7,840 9,723 10,110 8,303 9,125 8,320 8,541
1992 8,556 8,974 8,646 9,829 8,562 9,441 10,680 9,437
1991 9,403 9,843 8,253 9,586 8.862 6,940 7,658 8,189
MARKET 1995 3,666 4,383 6.658 5.693 5,204 5,039 O 0
1994 6,668 4,577 6,984 5,439 4,930 4,826 2,455 6,352
1993 5,604 3,817 5,624 7,370 5,192 5,066 3,688 5,757
1992 1,794 3.097 3.389 3,659 4,041 3,285 3,236 3.571
1991 2,974 3,763 3,194 2,914 3,551 1,711 2,306 2,987
RECREATION 1995 4,139 3,664 4,777 4,122 4,052 4,655. 0 0
1994 6,355 4,433 4.978 4,140 3.609 3,574 2.075 4,974
1963 5,454 2,806 3,005 6,045 4,148 3,889 3,281 4,676
1992 2,427 2,406 2,317 2,775 2,881 1,997 3,O66 3.426
1991 2,508 2,808 2,041 2,349 2,727 1,545 2,0~3 2,539
SCHUMAN 1995 2,825 2,692 4,461 4,025 3,406 3.693 0 0
1894 3,913 3,050 3,768 3,192 · 2.745 3.240 988 4,154
1993 3,394 2,791 3,393 4,055 2,891 2,524 1,717 3,259
1992 1,825 2,137 2.106 2,042 2,137 1,484 1,558 2.112
1951 1,734. 2,195 2,145 2,044 1,891 1,642 1,126 2,043
MI,SC 1995 O O 0 O O 0 O O
1994 70 90 100 80 110 0 O O
1593 80 100 O 0 0 30 70 90
1992 53 0 0 0 90 0 0 0
1991 53 I 5 60 0 53 15 53 68
Page 2
MAR APR MAy JUN
0 0 0 0
4,105 3,260 2,958 2,774
3,265 4,422 2,516 3,225
3,587 3.674 4,197 3,355
3,833 3,182 3,630 2,907
0 0 0 0
16,930 16,246 13,073 10,179
0 0 0 0
6,4~0 5,535 7,242 6,271
6,548 5,582 5,315 4.365
O 0 O O
9.027 9,177 7,652 8,277
10,132 9,051 10,470 9,803
10,910 10,:329 9,929 9,796
8,928 9,018 7,570 8,200
0 0 0 0
6,322 5,347 4,659 4,729
5,916 8,155 6.741 4,829
3,151 3,777 4,163 2,971
3,583 3,067 3.203 2.712
0 0 0 0
4,811 3,840 3.039 4,466
4,950 ' 5,622 4,236 3,650
3,180 3,292 3,094, 2.323
2,990 2.675 2,422 2,527
0 0 0 0
3,672 3,705 2*467 2,694
3,011 3,566 2,527 2,260
2,095 2,208 2,058 1,439
2,139 2,275 1,658 1,382
0 0 0 0
O 80 O O
0 70 50 50
0 0 0 458
75 83 45 0
CiTY OF IOWA CITY
PARKING DIVISION HOURS
iTNE TOTALS FOR FY1995, FY1994, FY1993.
FY1992 AND FY1991
AUG SEP OCT
3,232 3,609 2,862
3,404 4,260 3,628
3.389 3,429 4,038
4.051 2,893 3,326
3.7~9 2.851 3.266
14,236 19,113 19,273
0 0 5,266
8.933 10.738 1,930
6,321 6,982 7,272
7,224 6,~43 6,276
8.G89 8,155 7,808
10,762 9,349 9,939
7,840 9,723 10,110
8,974 8,646 9,829
9,843 3,253 9,586
4,383 6,658 5.693
4,577 8,984 8,439
3,817 8,624 7,370
3.097 3,389 3,659
3.763 3,194 2,914
3.664 4,777 4,122
4,433 4,978 4,140
2.8O6 3,005 6,049
2,4~6 2.317 2,776
2,808 2,041 2,349
2,682 4,461 4,028
3,050 3,768 3,192 -
2,791 3,393 4.055
2,137 2.1O6 2,O42
2,195 2,145 2,044
0 0 0
90 100 80
100 0 0
0 0 0
15 60 o
PARKHIST. XLS
NOV DEC JAN
2,813 3,030 0
3,040 4,269 2,340
3,089 4,077 2,921
3,477 3,368 3,787
4.099 2.378 2,779
18,515 18,912 0
9,4~1 13,964 10,198
0 0 0
6,947 6.122 6,678
7,331 4.30~ 4,338
8,688 8,584 0
8,793 8,338 6,217
8,303 9,125 8,320
8,562 9,4~1 10,680
8,862 6.940 7,658
5,204 5,039 0
4,930 4,826 2.485
5,192 5,066 3.688
4,041 3.285 3,236
3.951 1,711 2,306
4.052 4.655. 0
3,809 3,574 2..075
4,146 3,883 3,281
2,881 1 .~97 3.066
2,727 1,545 2,O83
3,406 3,693 0
2,745 3.240 988
2,891 2,524 1,717
2,137 1,484 1,558
1,891 1,642 1,126
0 0 0
110 0 0
0 30 70
90 0 o
53 15 53
0
3,371
3,452
3.429
3,147
0
12,542
0
6,352
2,987
3,426
2,539
0
4,'t64
2,112
0
9O
68
MAR
0
4.105
3,266
3.887
3,833
0
16.930
0
0
10,132
6,322
3,583
4,950
3,180
0
0
0
APR
0
3,290
4,422
3,674
3,182
0
15,246
0
6,635
5,582
0
9,177
9,061
10,329
0
5.3~.7
8,155
3,777
3,067
0
3,840
5.622
3,292
2,675
0
3,705
3,356
2,208
2,275
0
SO
70
0
83
MAY
0
2,958
4,197
0
4,659
0
3,094
0
50
JUN
2,774
3,229
3,355
2.907
0
I0,179
0
6,271
4.365
0
8,277
9,803
9,795
8,200
0
4,729
4,929
2,971
2.712
0
4,466
3,650
2,923
2,527
0
2,694
2,260
1,439
0
0
50
0
18,621
42,260
41.602
42,168
38.260
105.339
106,857
32.448
77,221
67,910
60,435
104,702
lO2,450
63,288
66.759
40.134
36,355
25.409
50,294
51,760
33,784
29,214
21,102
37,588
35,377
23.201
22,274
0
530
640
601
520
AVERAGES
3,522
3,467
3.188
17.557
8,905
2,704
3.435
6,659
3,408
9,725
9,323
9,591
8,538
5,107
5,274
5,563
3,345
3,030
4,235
4,313
2,818
2,435
3,517
3,132
2,948
1,933
1,856
0
44
45
50
43
Page 2
96 VS 94
94 V~ 93
93 V$ 92
92 VS 91
cn'Y OF IOWA CiTY
PARKING DMSION HOURS
COMPARATIVE TOTALS FOR FY1995, FY1994, FY1993, FY1992 AND FY1991
PARKHIST.XLS
JUt. AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
1995 37,$10 96,892 46,773 43,783 42,678 43,913 O 0 0 0 0 0
1994 32,175 26,316 29,439 31,684 32,688 38,211 24,271 38,246 4~.,867 ~0,655 33,848 33,119
1993 39,619 . 29,676 36,912 33,848 23,621 24,711 19,997 25,774 27,276 30,876 25,640 23,817
1992 22,463 26,996 29,333 28,903 28,139 25,697 29,005 28,582 29,383 29,815 30,6~3 27,212
1991 23,533 29,827 24,987 26,435 28,914 19,035 20,343 24,195 28,096 25,882 23,843 22,093
+ I- -7,444 -3,360 -~,473 -1,864 9,067 13,600 4,274 12,472 17,692 9,779 8,308 9°302
+/- 17,166 2,6~0 10,679 4,649 -4,514 -986 -9,008 -2,808 -2,108 1,061 -6,143 ' -3,399
+/- -1,070 -2,641 346 2.468 -779 6,662 8,662 4,387 1,287 2,933 6,840 6,119
Page 3
~ OF IOWA CITY
PARKING DIVISION HOURS
;'AJ.S FOR FY1995, F~1994, FY1993, F~f1992 AND FY1991
PARKHIST.XLS
SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN F~B MAR APR MAy JUN TOTALS AVERAGES
46,773 43,783 42,678 43,913 0 0 0 0 0 0 251,549 41,923
29,439 31,684 32,688 38,211 24,271 38,246 44,867 40,655 33.848 33,119 405.51 g 33,793
35,912 33,54~ 23,621 24o711 19,997 25,774 27,275 30,876 25,s40 23,917 340,366 28,364
25,333 28,903 28,135 25,697 29,005 28,582 29,3~3 29,815 30.683 27,212 332,197 27,683
24.997 26.435 28,914 19,035 20,343 24,195 28,096 25,882 23,843 22,093 296,983 24.749
17,334 12,0~9 9.g90 6,702 N~A N~A ~ ~ ~ ~ N~A 6,132
-6,473 -1,864 9,067 13,500 4,274 12.472 17,592 9,779 8,308 g,302 6B,163 5,429
10,579 4,645 4, 514 -986 -§,008 -2o808 -2,108 1,061 -5,143 ~,395 8.169 681
346 2.488 -779 6,662 8.662 4,387 1,287 3,933 6,840 5,119 35,214 2,935
Page 3
LOCATION
CITY OF IOWA CrT'Y
PARKING DIVISION HOURS
COMPARATIVE TOTALS FOR FY1995. F~1994, FY1993, FY1992 AND FY1991
PARKHIST.XLS
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR
CAP~OL 1995 101,545
P&S .35 1995 28,829
P&S A5 1995 5.890
TOTALS lg95 136,264
CAPITOL 1994 137,236
P&S .35 1994 28,683
P&S.48 1994 5,996
TOTALS 1994 171,915
CAPITOL 1993 122,172
P&$ .36 1993 28.228
P&S .45 1993 6,100
TOTA/-S 1993 185.500
CAPITOL 1992 131,O65
P&S .30 1992 28,697
P&.S ,40 1992 6,350
TOTALS 1992 186,O12
CAPITOL 1991 130,030
P&S .30 1991 30,S61
P&S .40 1991 4,297
TOTALS 1591 1Eat,908
128,732 135,378 160,233. 151,188
32,593 26,678 28,383 32.981
6,534 6,575 6,252 5,867
167,859 168.631 194,878 190,036
APR
MAY
JUN
154,679 0 0 0 0 0 0
53,627 0 0 0 0 0 0
7,470 0 0 0 0 0 0
215,676 0 0 0 0 0 0
139,902 161,561 163,412 170.045 169,160 138,928 164,780 156.470 143,124 116.449 108,920
30,645 26,261 27,993 31,075 52,921 25.236 23,810 26,373 27,810 27,165 29,447
6,906 4,670 5,907 6,766 7,604 8,326 6,640 8,074 6,554 5.454 5,285
176,432 192,482 197,302 207,886 229,685 170,489 194,230 188,917 176.488 149.068 143,662
95VS94
94VS93 +F
93VS92
92VS91.
1 'i 7,608 150,414 155,038 163,528 153.811 103,023 154,729 162,106 166,458 109,737 125,528
30,047 26,257 27,948 30.591 50,955 25,916 23,284 25,249 27,860 29,170 28,077
5,19o 8.854 5,93o 6,o82 5,924 5,490 5,o64 6,906 6,069 5,590 5.877
152,845 181.825 1 90,918 200,201 210,690 134.428 1 90.077 193.941 200.387 144,473 189,282
116,981 164,442 190,341 168,107 177,34.2 134,3~7 172,790 167,972 176.O43 110,335 101,290
33,303 26,683 29,747 31,761 46,725 0 26,457 25,565 28.864 26,085 25,715
7,151 6.038 7,088 7,387 7,912 0 6,111 6,302 6,012 5,184 5,196
157,435 196,163 227,176 207,255 231,979 134,337 204.358 199,839 207.909 141,604 132,177
40,274 14.8,669 190,159 160,074 152.690 152.138 164.586 161,527 168,104. 109,965 101,846
33.457 28,60~ 29,211 31,244 50,490 2e.513 24.421 28,522 26,125 29,177 27,487
5.760 5.736 5,871 5.593 6,032 6,424 5.771 6.702 5,273 5,800 6,088
79,491 179,913 225,241 196,911 209,212 1 90,075 194,778 186,761 199,~00 144.742 135,403
-36,651 -8,673 -23,851 -2,424 -17,850 -14,009
16,416 23,587 10,957 8,386 7,685 18.995 36,061 11,153 -6,024 -23.899 4,585 -15,630
-10.512 -4,590 -14,638 -38,260 -7,054 -21,289 91 -21,281 -5,RS8 -7,622 2,869 27,105
1,124 -22,056 16,250 · 1,935 10,344, 22,767 -50,738 9,580 13,088 8,409 -3,138 -3,226
Page 4
cFr'Y OF IOWA CITY
PARKING DIVISION HOURS
liVE TOTALS FOR FY1995, FY1994, FY1993. FY1992 AND FY1991
PARKHIST.XLS
128.732 135.378 160,233 151,188
32,593 26,678 28,383 32,981
9,534 6,575 6,262 5.867
167,859 168.631 194.878 190,036
FEB
MAR APR MAY JUN TOT~
154,679 0 0 0 0 0 0
53,627 0 0 0 0 0 0
7,470 0 0 0 0 0 0
218,676 0 0 0 0 0 0
831,653
203,091
38,698
1,073,344
AVERAGES
138,609
33,849
6,433
178,891
13~,902 161.561 163,412 170,045 169,160 138.928 164,780 156,470 143.124 116.449 108,920 1.769.987 147,499
30,645 26,251 27,993 31,075 62,921 25,235 23.810 26,373 27,810 27,155 29,447 357,398 29.783
5,886 4,670 6,897 6,766 7,604 6,326 5,640 6,074 5,554 5,454 5,285 71,151 5,929
176.432 192,482 197,302 207,888 229,685 170,489 194.230 188.917 176,488 149.058 143,652 2,198,536 183,211
30,0~7 25,257 27,948 30,591 50,955 25,915 23,284 25,249 27,860 29,170 28,077 352,$8'J 29,382
5,190 5,854 5,930 6,082 5,924 8,490 5,064 6,586 6,069 5,566 5,677 68,532 5,711
182,84S 181.626 188,916 200,201 210.690 134.428 183.077 193,941 200,387 144,473 159,282. 2.105,266 175,439
116.981 164,442 190,341 168,107 177,342 134,337 172,790 167.972 175,043 110,335 101,266 1,810,021 150,838
33.203 25,683 ?.9,747 31,761 46,726 0 25,467 26.565 26,654 26.085 26,715 325,492 27,124
7,151 6,038 7.088 7,387 7,912 0 6,I 11 6,302 6,012 5.184 5,196 70,731 B,894
157,435 196,163 227,176 207,255 231,979 134,337 204,358 199,839 207,909 141,604 132,177 2,206,244 183.854
140,274 148,569 190,159 160,074 152,690 152,138 164,586 151,527 168,104 109,966 101,848 1.769,964 147.497
3~;457 25,608 29,211 31,244 50,490 26,513 24,421 28,":22 26,123 29,177 27,487 362,814 30.235
8,760 5,736 5,871 5,593 6,032 6,424 5,771 6,702 5,273 6,600 8,068 69,127 6,761
179,491 179,913 225,241 196,911 209.212 185,076 194.778 186,751 199,5~O 144,742 135,403 2,201,905 183,492
Page
G~.~D TO'TA~
LOCATION
CITY OF IOWA CiTY
PARKING DIVISION HOURS
PARKHIST.XLS
~JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
DU~UQUE 1995 5%030
P&S .35 1996 1.427
P&S .45 1995 1,291
TOTALS 1995 53,688
DUBUQUE 1994 68,623
P&S .35 1994 1,688
DUBUQUE 1993 49,649
P&S .35 1993 1,343
P&S .45 1993 960
TOTALS 1993 61,952
DUBUQUE 1992 43,764
P&S .30 1992 1.304
P&S .40 1992 544
TOTALS 1992 45,912
DUBUQUE 1991 41,900
P&S °:30 1991 1.342
P&S .40 1991 616
TOTALS 1991 43,858
95 VS 94 +1- -I 8,094
94 VS 93 +/- 19.830
93 VS 92 . +1- 6,340
1995 319,855
1994 380,884
1993 348,089
1992 347.876
1991 345,030
60,469 61,954 76,878 65,C57
1,362 1,366 1,691 1,800
877 870 908 805
62.708 64,190 79.477 67,662
65,254 0 0 0 0 0 0
4,379 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,175 0 0 0 0 0 0
70,808 0 0 0 0 0 0
75.966 85,392 84.625 79,329 76,736 61.563 67,308 72,585 68,720 60,997 55,772
1,599 1,895 1,650 1,846 5,420 1,185 2,694 1,648 1,652 1.454 1,678
79,116 88,979 88,397 82,5RS 83.614 64,105 70,826 75,688 71,330 63,331 58,397
54,727 68,457 77,027 66,928 68,213 57.203 71,619 81.514 79,737 61.188 6~074
1.260 1,250 1.424 1,511 3,699 1,070 1.201 1,133 1,330 2,548 1,507
805 659 616 531 970 1,340 1,125 1,445 1,407 1,102 1,264
56,792 70,366 79.067 68.970 72,882 59,613 73,948 84,092 82,474 64,838 67,845
42,339 50,732 66,601 54,806 87,487 49,779 98,522 58,978 7~588 51,064 47,343
1.376 1,027 1,253 1,400 3,895 0 1,246 1,133 1,437 1,226 1,137
850 1.118 964 699 992 0 1,018 716 1.017 602 1,045
44.555 52,877 68.818 57,005 62,374 49,779 100,799 90,827 73,012 52,892 49,525
49,925 61,833 144,005 56.585 63,071 50,502 52,314 52,247 61.347 41,891 38,430
1.389 1,184 1,216 1.368 3,688 970 1,342 1,383 926 1 o010 1,104
602 399 914 1,202 911 743 902 805 563 501 734
51,916 53,416 146,135 69,155 57,670 62,215 54, 558 54.435 62,835 43,402 40,288
-I 6,407 -24o789 -8,920 -14.906 -12,806 N~A I'AA N~A N~ N~A N~A
22.323 18,613 9,33~ 13,598 10,732 4,493 -3.119 -8,404 -11,144 -1,507 -8,448
12.227 17,489 10,249 11,965 10,508 9,834 -26.841 23,263 9,462 11,946 18,320
374,357 389,098 420,921 410,214 432,016 0 0 0 0 0 0
382,585 421.092 422,647 420.163 451.590 324,562 400.922 423,181 393,784 338,204 329,964
329,831 396,863 412,165 384,953 408,008 292,482 378,433 413,933 419,794 334,111 347,482
338,942 385.336 457,068 405,O54 428.863 330,472 456,009 418,317 444,861 34~ ,633 315,555
390,294 372,706 530,686 403,935 375,982 360,606 390,960 384.692 414,384 323.276 298,128
95 VS 94 +/- -81,029
94 'dS 93 +/- 32,799
93 VS 92 +/* 209
92 VS 91 + F 2.846
-8,228 o31,994 -I ,726 -9.949 -19,574 N~A N~ N~A N~A N~A N~A
92,764 24,229 10,482 35,210 43,582 32,080 22,489 9,248 -24.010 4,093 -17,518
-8,111 11,528 -44,903 -20,101 -20,955 ' -37,990 -76,576 -4,3~4, -29.067 -7,522 31,827
-81,362 12,629 -73,618 I, 119 62,881 -30,034 64,049 33,625 30,477 18,357 17,427
Page 5
CITY OF IOWA CITY
PARKING DIVIS{ON HOURS
tATtVE TOTALS FOR F'Y1995, FY1994, FY1993, FY1392 AND FY1991
PARKHIST.XLS
AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR
60,469 61,954 76,878 65,057
877 870 908 805
62,708 64,190 79,477 67,662
MAY
JUN
TOTALS
AVERAGES
65.254 0 0 0 0 0 0 380,642 63,440
4.379 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,025 2,004
1,176 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,866 978
70,808 0 0 0 0 0 0 398,533 66,422
75,966 85,392 84,525 79.329 76,736 61,563 67,308 72.585 68,72O 60,997 55,772 857,516 71,460
1,5~9 1,895 1,650 1,846 6,420 1,185 2.694 1,545 1,552 1,454 1.578 24,106 2,009
1,550 1,692 2,222 1,393 1,4S8 1.358 824 1,658 1.058 880 1,047 16, 511 1.376
79,115 88,979 88,397 82.568 83,614 64,106 70,826 75,688 71.330 63,331 58,397 898,133 74,844
S4,727 68,497 77,027 66,926 68,213 67,203 71,619 31,914 79,737 61.188 65,074 801,336 66,773
1,260 1,250 1,424 1,611 8,699 1,070 1,201 1,133 1,330 2,548 1,507 19,276 1,606
805 659 616 531 970 1,340 1,126 1,445 1,407 I, 102 1.264 12,224 1,019
56,792 70,366 79,067 68,970 72,882 69.613 73,945 84.092 82,474 64,838 67,845 832,836 69,403
42.339 50,732 66.601 54,906 57,487 49,779 98,522 58,978 70,558 61,064 47,343 692,073 67,673
1,376 I, 027 1,2. 53 1,400 3, 895 0 1,246 1,133 1,437 1 ,?.26 1,137 16,434 1,370
890 1,118 964 699 992 0 1,018 716 1,017 602 1,049 9,569 797
44,565 52,877 68,818 57,005 62,374 49,779 100,786 60,827 73,012 52.892 49,525 718,072 59,839
49,825 51,833 144o005 56,585 53,071 90,502 52.314 52,247 61,347 41 o891 38,450 694,070 57,839
1,389 1,184 1,216 1.368 3,688 970 1,342 1,383 925 1,010 1,104 16,921 1,410
602 399 914 1,202 911 743 902 805 563 501 734 8,892 741
51,916 53,416 146,135 58,155 57,670 52,215 54,558 54,435 62,835 43,402 40,288 719,~83 59.990
-16,407 -24°789 -8.920 -14,906 -12,806 N'*u~ Nt.A N~A N~. ~ ~ ~ -8,422
22.323 18,813 9.330 13,598 10.732 4,493 -3,119 -8,40~ -11,144 -1,507 -9.448 65,297 5~441
12,227 17°489 I0~248 11,965 10,508 9,834 -26,841 23,265 9.462 11,946 18,320 114.764 9,564
-7,,351 . -539 -77.317 · -2,150 4.704 -2,436 46,228 6.392 10,177 9,490 9,237 -1,811 -191
374,357 389,098 420,921 410,214 432,016 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,346,461 391,077
382,585 421,092 422,647 420.163 461,690 324,562 400,922 423.181 395,784 338,204 329,964 4,691,978 390,965
329,831 396,863 412,165 384,953 408,008 292,482 378,433 413,933 419,794 334,111 347,482 4,466,140 372,178
338°942 3~5,335 457,068 405.054 428.863 330,472 455,008 418,317 444,861 341,633 315,555 4,668,985 389,082
290,294 372.706 530,686 403,935 375,982 360,506 390,960 384,692 414,384 323,276 298,128 4,590,579 382,548
-8.228 -31 ~994 -1 ~726 -3~949 -19,574 N~A ~ ~ N~A N~A N~. N~A 112
52.754 24,229 10°482 35,210 43,582 32,080 22,489 9,248 -24,010 4,093 -17,518 225.438 16, 787
-3,111 11,528 -44.903 -20,101 -20,855 ' -37,g90 -76,576 -4.384 -25,067 -7,522 31,927 -202,845 -16,904
· 81,352 12.629 -73,618 1,119 52,881 -30,034 64,049 33,625 30,477 18,357 17,427 78,406 6, 534
Page 5
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
January 24, 1995
Steve Atldns, City Manager
Ron Boose, Sr. Building Inspector ~;~
Public Sidewalk Snow Removal Policy and Procedure
Invoices for snow removal from the first snowfall of this winter were mailed out last week. Since
our office has received several phone calls from unhappy citizens, I am sure you will also be
receiving calls and letters concerning our enforcement policy, Therefore I'll take this opportunity
to reiterate our policy and procedure so that you may respond to citizen questions and complaints
with current and complete Information.
Iowa City ordinance requires public sidewalks to be cleared of all snow and ice within 24 hours
of a snowfall event. The Building Inspection Division responds to citizen complaints of non-
compliance with this requirement In the following manner. For the first complaint in a winter
season, an inspection is made to confirm a violation and, if confirmed, an informational tag is
placed In the door of the residence explaining the ordinance and the property owner's
responsibility for clearing the sidewalk. When investigating a specific complaint, the inspector
checks all sidewalks on that block face. A letter is also mailed to the property owner. A follow-up
inspection is made 48-72 hours after the letter is sent. If the sidewalk has not been completely
cleared, a contractor Is authorized to perform the work. Sidewalks are required to be cleared for
their entire width. A shovel's width is not acceptable and if the abutting sidewalk is eight feet
wide, the entire eight feet must be cleared. The property owner Is then-billed for the cost of
removal plus a $25 administrative fee, which helps offset the .costs of inspections and billings.
If City snowplows deposit snow and ice on a sidewalk, it remains the abutting property owner's
responsibility to remove it. As unjust as this may appear, there Is simply no other practical way
to get the sidewalks cleared. For subsequent violations in the same winter season, a confirming
inspection is made and a contractor is aulhorized to perform the work with no further notification
to the property owner. Although many citizens have claimed that they and not the contractor
performed the work, we have received several invoices from the contractor reading "no charge,
sidewalk was clear."
Our procedure for enforcement of this ordinance was altered last winter by changing from having
City employees perform the work to the use of a private contractor. While this has increased the
cost to the property owner, it has reduced the time period from which a complaint is received to
when the sidewalk is cleared from two or three weeks to three or four days.
bJ~,.s~ew~emv