Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-12-14 Transcription December 14, 2004 Council Work Session Page I December 14, 2004 Council Work Session 8:00 AM Council: Bailey, Champion, Elliott, Lehman, O'Donnell; Vanderhoef & Wilburn (arrived at 8:10 AM Staff: Atkins, Karr, Dilkes, Helling TAPES: 04-69, SIDE 2; 04-71, SIDE 1 and SIDE 2 Lehman! What, we are going to try to schedule a meeting with State legislators, and I think it would be well for us, and Regenia brought this to our attention, it would do well for us to have some topics that we wish to talk to them about, rather than just rambling on. So, the purpose of this meeting is to sit down and discuss whatever topics we'd like to bring to the legislator, and I do think probably three or four would be appropriate. Ifwe have too many, we're going to have a problem. So, with that, take off. Atkins/ I can be a reporter, just jot them down. (several talking at once, laughter) Bailey/ Raise the cap on hotel/motel tax. Champion! That's a good one. Condominium taxes. I don't think they care about it. Lehman! I would love to see them, in lieu...it appears that we're having tremendous problems trying to rewrite the property tax code in Iowa. I don't anticipate anything happening dramatically. I don't think it's too much to ask legislature to give the city a minimum roll-back guarantee, but we know that the roll-back will not be more than...I don't think that's unreasonable, and I think that's something they could do. Bailey/ Right; not the full tax property, property tax reform that other people are proposing. It's simpler.. . or a step in that direction, maybe. Lehman! I would think that would be... Champion! Do we want to (can't understand) property tax and the things we're interested in underneath it, or. . . ? Lehman! Well, I don't know how far the legislature's going to go with property tax. We've talked some about this, and they've talked about it for the last several years. I'm not optimistic they're going to do a whole lot, but from the city's perspectives, if we just knew that the roll-back will not exceed a certain number, and budgets could be prepared based on that number, and then anything less than that in a roll-back would just be beneficial to the city. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of December 14, 2004. December 14,2004 Council Work Session Page 2 Atkins/ Michigan at one time had a, it was something very similar to that. You do an assessed value, and (can't hear) 50%. That's the tax base, and that was forever, so there was continued growth. Our difficulty with the roll-back is that we do very well in building permit activity, new construction, and our growth is in the 2 Yz to 3% per year, which is really very healthy, but then the roll-back drops 3 to 4% a year and you never gain any ground. And, it keeps shifting, that tax, to commercial, industrial, which also isn't fair. I mean, they are truly paying a hugely disproportionate share of property taxes, but that's also the foundation of our Economic Development Policy. Get that kind of tax base in town. O'Donnell/ Is the rollback, Steve, isn't that a formula for each (can't understand)? Atkins/ It's a, you're exactly right, Mike, it's a formula. It's virtually automatic. O'Donnell/ ...amenities involved that we (can't understand) Atkins/ What you do is that, is that they do a measurement ofthe value of agricultural property, that's a productivity measurement, and in doing that, they also apply a factor, can grow no more than 4% statewide. The aggregate value of residential properties. So, you're never going to get more than 4%. Lehman! And they also use some number, based on way back in the early 80's or something, in calculating that formula? Atkins/ No. The formula started in the 70's, originally, when agricultural values... Elliott/ I think as a part ofthat it would be good to have a minimum of some multiple years, if and when it was deemed necessary to change the roll-back. I think it's conceivable that you can't set a rollback minimum for eternity, but to indicate that it could not be changed with less than a minimum of at least two years or four years, or something like that. Lehmani Well, I don't care about....I mean they can deal with the details. If they would just commit themselves to some assurance to the city, that the rollback, you can depend on... .you know, you're in the middle of a budget and have no idea of what's going to happen. You base on your best bet. I shouldn't say no idea; you do have an idea, but we don't know where we are. lfwe knew that we would have a minimum, or whatever, I think the legislature can perhaps work out the details. If they would just commit themselves to guaranteeing a minimum. In fact, they could, I don't see that as being such a difficult thing for them to do. Atkins/ Well, and the legislature will argue with you that everybody hates property taxes, and nobody hates property taxes more than the legislature, and so therefore, that would be a property tax increase. Well, quite frankly, when they reduced, when they eliminated all that state aid, that was almost 3% of our general fund budget. That just simply saying, "Fine; find another way to off-set it." Well, in our case, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of December 14, 2004. December 14, 2004 Council Work Session Page 3 property tax is our underlying foundation for our revenues, because we don't have a sales tax, and we don't use a franchise tax. It's, sometimes the logic defies me. Lehmani But I would think that most legislatures represent that the majority of constituents in Iowa live in the city, and I would think that this, some attention (can't hear). Elliott/ Don't under estimate the power of the Farm Bureau. Lehman! The Farm Bureau does not have an issue. I mean, this is not an issue with (can't hear). Elliott! No, when you said most of them are in cities, that... Bailey/ Well, and they're going to get property tax reform from a lot of different sides of the issue, so, I mean...(can't hear) Atkins/ It's going to be proposed property tax reform. Often it, we can't guarantee it's actually going to happen. Bailey/ Right, right, but I mean... Atkins/ That's the plan. Bailey/ It's not going to be anything new. Lehman! We've talked about property tax reform for several years. We've never really gotten anywhere with it. This could be kind of a stopgap thing that would, I think it's worth asking for. Atkins/ Yeah, well, the governor's proposal, to seek true reform, (can't understand), of course we don't know the answer to that, what the governor is putting forth for state revenues, but of course, most of the state revenues have some elasticity in them. There's movement, and when things get prosperous, their revenues spike. Property tax doesn't work that way. You know, it just kind of slugs along every year. Well that's decided. (laughter) Elliott! Another thing, I think one ofthe things we need to do is talk to Eleanor to get some information on it, but we need to have more meaningful penalties for alcohol related infractions. I'm not sure right now which one the state regulates and dictates, and what even they are. O'Donnell/ The only one we really regulate is the 19. Atkins/ Eleanor, virtually the state does most ofthem? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of December 14, 2004. December 14,2004 Council Work Session Page 4 Dilkes/ The main one I think we're talking about is the PAULA charge, I mean that's the one we charge most often, possession of alcohol under legal age. The fine is, per State Code, is $100 for the first offense. For the second and subsequent offenses, it's $200 plus the possibility oflicense suspension for up to a year. We have been, I think as I told you, when they chart, the officers don't know whether it's the second or third and they just charge a PAULA. We review them, and amend them to second offenses ifit is a second offense, and if we can get that done before they appear in court, then we can get the penalty enhanced; although we recently got a decision from Magistrate Goddard, finding that cities, if it's a city- charged offense, there cannot be a license suspension, and he based that on the State Code provision, which says that a city may not charge a penalty of more than a $500 fine, or more than a year in jail. I think we had some good arguments to that, I mean, there are a number of things that courts do that aren't a $500, I mean, they defer judgments, they do community service, etc., but anyway, the judge ruled against us. We intend to appeal that, and we may in the meantime amend them to State charges, but we're talking to the County Attorney's office about that. So that's the situation with PAULA's. I don't, I think you should stay focused on what offenses you're talking about. I mean, there's any number of alcohol-related offenses. That's the main one that we, obviously you know, that's the primary charge that our officers give, and there's arguably very little deterrent affect. I mean, because you see the same numbers over and over again, every year. Bailey/ What about (can't understand)? Because we've had some serious accidents in this community, and fatalities from drunk driving, and I think that we should look at that, as well. Champion! There's very stringent, I mean, it's very costly, and the task force has found that people who have second offenses are probably going to have third and fourth, and no matter what the penalty is (can't hear), or what you do, they're going to have those offenses. Most people have one offense. Bailey/ Well, and unfortunately some of those young people have one offense, it's... Champion! Well, they don't usually have another one after that. Bailey/ At least they survive it, or their friends survive it. Dilkes/ I think you see charges other when there is a fatality, you often see charges other than the OWl, like the one down on Taft Speedway. The gentleman was charged with Vehicular Homicide and was sent to prison for a good period of time. Bailey/ These are the things that I see in the paper that aren't, I mean, the PAULA, I don't know, but I see a lot of (can't hear) age range is why, as well, and so I don't know (can't hear) because I think that we've had, like 1 said, so many fatalities. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of December 14, 2004. December 14, 2004 Council Work Session Page 5 Dilkes/ Well the reason I focus, the big difference is that we don't prosecute OWl's. I mean, we don't have any authority to prosecute. Bailey/ So we're talking about the State (can't hear) affects our community. Dilkes/ Yeah, that's another issue. (several talking at once) But I don't think you should simply say "alcohol-related offenses." I think you need to be more specific than that. Elliott! Oh, yeah, that's why I would like to sit down with the Chief and find out what the predominant or the usual offenses are, and (several talking at once). Yeah, but we have a lot of other problems with people over the age of 21 that cause problems for Iowa City. Dilkes/ Sure, but the primary offense that we charge is PAULA. Elliott/ That's because that's what we're focusing on. Dilkes/ No, in recent years we have focused on sales by the employees of the bars. I mean, we've done a whole sting operation to that, and I think because there's a license suspension, or a license ramification to that, that has had a lot of deterrent effect. Elliott/ Ijust don't want to limit our focus only on those people who are under 21. There are people who are over 21 that cause a number of difficult situations for Iowa City, and others, and I'd like for us not to overlook that. Lehman! Public intox (can't hear) because we do a lot of... Dilkes/ Yeah, we do a good number of public intoxs. Vanderhoef/ The public nuisance thing goes along with that because of the things that they do. They charge them, for instance, urinating on the street, and all those kinds of things, and those contribute heavily to what our downtown looks like after a party night. Bailey/ Do we have any sense of correlation between fines and, I mean, and recurrence, or recidivism? Because I think we're going to get, I think when you mentioned this at another legislative forum, we're going to get some resistance, similar to what you said about OWl, that those who have a first offense typically have a second. Well, penalties don't seem to matter to those who repeat. So... Elliott! I think most research has shown that more prevention would be greater with fewer penalties, or lesser penalties, but a greater chance of being apprehended, than with less chance of being apprehended and greater penalties, but I don't know that This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of December 14, 2004. December 14,2004 Council Work Session Page 6 we're going to be able to control the percentage of apprehensions, so we have to look at the severity of the penalty. Wilburn! Well, I don't think it's fair to say that there's a focus on a certain age group because of, I mean, I could make the argument that this isn't something I'd be willing to highlight because if we make and stick to the assessments against the liquor license holders, I mean, that's a pretty big stick. I mean, it's gotten some attention, and it's not related to certain age group. Dilkes/ Well I think maybe. . . Wilburn! I mean, you may not like that part of it, but that's certainly, you know, concentrating on another area. Elliott! Yeah, just so those penalties are shared equally by the people who are purchasing and abusing, and by those who are assisting them in buying and abusing, meaning the servers and the receivers. I don't want to be more hard on the server than on the receiver, and I don't want to let the server get off either. I think we need to have more stringent penalties, more meaningful penalties all around. Whether you're serving somebody or whether you're purchasing and abusing it. O'Donnell! How can you make it more stringent on a business owner than taking away his business, and you can do that. The fine is fairly severe, and there's also a matter offake I.D.'s. You know, you can buy one off the Internet for $25 or $35. What's that? (several talking at once) No, that's not true, because these kids that go in the door with a fake LD., as soon as they go in the door, their 21-year-old friend that's going to have their fake LD., and they never had one in the first place. That's a standard practice downtown. Champion! But, if the bartenders ask for I.D. 's and they produce a fake I.D., and they serve alcohol, the bartender's covered. You just have to ask for the LD. Elliott! No. O'Donnell! But you have to prove that, you have to prove that they showed an LD. Elliott/ Mike is 19 goes into a bar, fake LD. gets him in the door, goes to somebody else's pocket. Then an hour later, he has a drink in front of him, or they smell alcohol on his breath, and he says, "No, I just got in without an I.D." And they do not have grounds to search him. Champion! I don't think that's ever been a problem. O'Donnell! Oh it's a huge problem. Elliott/ All the time. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of December 14, 2004. December 14, 2004 Council Work Session Page 7 Champion! But not with the bartender. . . Dilkes/ No, I don't think the County Attorney's office would prosecute that. If the person came in, got a stamp on their hand, and then was served by a bartender, on the basis of that stamp, the County Attorney will not prosecute that as a criminal charge. Elliott/ That's where that stamp really helps. O'Donnell! But you know, there's bars downtown that don't stamp. Lehman! But that's the bar's problem. They know better. O'Donnell/ That's right, Ernie, they need to check the I.D. at the door. Lehman! I know, but if they want to protect themselves, there is a way to do that. O'Donnell/ How many bars have we had, you know, the penalty, if a bartender knowingly serves an underage person, they're breaking the law, and so is the underage person. And the fine should be relatively, what is the fine now for PAULA's? $100. If that were $500, you know, that would certainly change some young person's mind from going in to buy a beer. Elliott! The parents would probably find out about it more quickly. Lehman! Well, if! recall correctly, Lincoln, Nebraska, does have a $500 fine for PAULA's. They do not have a problem with PAULA's. They do not necessarily impose the $500. If you get picked up, you have an opportunity if you do certain things to avoid having to pay that fine, but you must do those things, and if you're every picked up a second time, it really hammers you, but it really has been a very effective deterrent for those folks. When the fine in Iowa went to $100, and I can't remember what it was before and that's been what, five or six years ago, or maybe a little more? There was an article on the front page, a young fellow (can't hear) and they asked him how the increased fine would affect his behavior. He said 'Hey the chances of being picked up are very, very minor when you look at the number of kids in a bar.' The fine is one of those unexpected offenses. It probably would not affect his behavior at all. My guess is, a $500 fine would dramatically affect (can't hear; several talking at once). Wilburn! But other than... Bailey/ ... $1 00 now for many college students is not... Elliott/ Regenia, do you remember Rachel Hardesty? One of the candidates. I think, if I'm not mistaken, she's the one who had worked in Lincoln, I think, and talked This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of December 14, 2004. December 14,2004 Council Work Session Page 8 about some of the penalties and preventive measures they have in effect there, and she had some good things to say about that. Also, in Illinois, they do something with the driver's license, you can, I don't know if that's meaningful, but I'd certainly like to, for us maybe to sit down with R.J. or at least I plan to do it and bring something to you, and if Eleanor, I could sit down with you sometime and look at what's in effect now, what we would be, therefore, reasonable to suggest to the legislature. Dilkes/ Well, you are, currently cities cannot charge more than $500 for a simple misdemeanor. We only have charging authority for simple misdemeanors. That's the, the $500 is the State level for a simple misdemeanor. That's basically going to be it for you, unless you want to make some argument that that whole simple misdemeanor penalty should increase. I think that's a more complicated argument, or you want to make it a higher-level offense, and that's also a completely different issue. So, I think if you want to keep it a simple misdemeanor, your limit is going to be $500. Vanderhoef/ How long has it been since that simple misdemeanor has been changed? Dilkes/ Not that long. It's only been in the last several years. It was $100 prior to that. Champion! Well, is that one of the things. ..1 don't know if that's one of the things I want to spend time with the legislature on because I don't think there's going to be any support for it, and it's probably Iowa City and Ames are probably the only communities.. . Dilkes/ There was a proposal, there were proposals in the legislature last year to increase the penalty significantly, but they were talking about, you know, making it an aggravated misdemeanor and some major, so, and I don't really know where that came from, but it didn't go anywhere. Atkins/ They made it so extreme (several talking at once). Lehman! There was a paper sent by the ABD to the legislature, three or four years ago, a very, very well thought out paper, and it's recommended outlawing "all you can drink" specials; it recommended increasing the fines for PAULA's; it recommended a number of different things, and it was largely ignored by the legislature, but I think it was a very, very well drafted paper, and it made a lot of sense, but the legislature wasn't willing to do much. Elliott! Well, I would like for us to put something together. I, that would be one of my highest priorities. Lehman! Well I think what we need to do today, you know, this is the only meeting we're going to have prior to meeting with the legislature. We need to, I mean, if alcohol issues are something we want to bring up, I think we specifically need to say we This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of December 14, 2004. December 14,2004 Council Work Session Page 9 have issues with one, two three - the fines are not significant enough to be a deterrent; we're concerned about public intox or Paula's, or whatever. O'Donnell/ We're interested in more severe penalties, Ernie. Lehmani I think that's right. And I don't know that we;re going to get... we're not going to draft laws to the legislature, but I think it would impress our interest in more, let them do the drafting. Atkins/ Can I suggest that, sort of, after we've beat up the subject, move on to another one, but I was going to suggest to you is that when we're all done with today, we'll go back and select those out, and then I can write a letter of some kind, as if it's coming from you all, saying, "Here are our concerns." I don't think you need to fashion legislation, but you need to say PAULA fines are a problem, you know, and then sort of tease them in order for them to come up with some issues. Bailey/ When we meet we can actually have a discussion, so they're not cold. Atkins/ Yeah, I'd write something, kind of chatty, I mean, I'm not proposing legislation, but here are a number of our concerns, and we would like for you to consider those things. Vanderhoef/ And put it in the context of number one is a public problem for our community, and number two that revenues are a problem also for cities. Elliott/ Revenues? From alcohol? Vanderhoef/ I'm looking at the whole list. Elliott! Oh, you're starting at the top. Vanderhoef/ You know, these are (several talking at once) Atkins/ Ernie, we'll got over it together, and then we'll circulate it amongst you, decide what you want it to say. Lehman! Okay. Atkins/ I'll try to take the tone of what I'm hearing today too. Lehman! Besides alcohol issues, are there other issues we want to talk to them about? Vanderhoef/ Okay, I have one that I've thought about for a long, long time, and having just done contracts and the arbitrator rules that are in place. Atkins/ Labor contracts, we're talking about. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of December 14, 2004. December 14, 2004 Council Work Session Page 10 Vanderhoef/ Labor contracts, arbitrator rules, and right now the State legislature says to us that an arbitrator can only compare job with another public institution, and not what the private part of the community does, so we've watched benefits, in particular, change in the private sector as health care has gone up, and we can't do that because an arbitrator only can do it with another public institution of similar sIze. Atkins/ Dale, can you comment just to make sure that I've got this down. Helling! The language in the code is a little looser than that, but the interpretation is, over the years has in fact. . . Elliott! Excellent point. (several talking at once) Vanderhoef! It's out of whack right now because of the rule that's been in place. Bailey/ I'm not sure I understand this. Public entities of similar size. .. Vanderhoef/ Other communities, that's the only people we can compare with. Helling/ They are, but it talks about, I'd have to get the code to quote it exactly, but it talks about, I don't know, I'll use the term similarly situated employees, or doing comparable work so if it's fire fighters, you basically have to look at other fire fighters, and there's only a number of cities in the state that have paid fire fighters and they naturally become the ones you look at. O'Donnell! (can't hear) Helling/ Well, we look at, I don't know how many have paid fire fighters, we, generally our comparability is with about ten or eleven, maybe twelve, largest cities in the state, and now there's a thing called internal comparability too. It looks at your other bargaining units within your own jurisdiction, but that really isn't all that helpful. Elliott/ Dee, I think that's an excellent point. Helling/ There was a proposal, I believe last year, to revamp some of that language, as far as what arbitrators could consider and so forth, but it didn't get anywhere. I think it was last year. We can try and dig that bill up. Atkins/ Thank you. Lehman! Other issues? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of December 14, 2004. December 14, 2004 Council Work Session Page II Champion! What about, I don't know if we're interested in this, but what about the fact that we can enforce the "no smoking" ordinance? (several talking at once) Vanderhoef/ No, it's home-rule kinds of things. Wilburn! There was an attempt last year to make it so that cities could. .. Dilkes/ The League, I believe, has drafted a proposal and is furthering that, and is trying to get early support for a statute that would give cities home-rule authority to pass their own no smoking. Elliott/ In other words, making rules more stringent than that indicated by the State, wasn't that the point? Dilkes/ Yes, that they could do that. It would allow them to do that. To basically do a statute that would override the Supreme Court decision. Atkins/ That's something we want... Elliott! But not just for smoking. Atkins/ That's not what I heard. (several talking at once) Bailey/ I'm interested in the home-rule issue. I'm not necessarily interested in a specific ordinance, because we also had a pesticide issue. Wilburn! Well, it would seem to me it would be pretty broad and difficult about the home rule because it would be just a vast array, I don't know if the legislature is willing to give us that free reign. I would like to give cities an opportunity to decide for themselves. Dilkes/ I do think, you do have to be more specific with home rule. I mean, the analysis for home rule they're a specific statute in the code that conflicts with what we're doing. If there is, we're preempted, so you, so it's a case by case analysis. Vanderhoef/ So its preemption is the problem in protecting cities on home rule. Dilkes/ Right, but if you don't know what issue you're talking about, you can't really address the merits of it. Wilburn! The legislature's not going to do that because, in such a broad fashion, because we could start doing whatever taxes we wanted to. Atkins/ Well the constitution takes care of.. .no taxing ability at all from a constitutional standpoint. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of December 14, 2004. December 14,2004 Council Work Session Page 12 Elliott/ I am not interested in this aspect as it pertains to smoking. Atkins/ Well, I'm assuming a little before 9:00 we'll go through and scratch them out. Lehman! We're going to pick three or four issues. I think we need to get ones that we feel are particularly important. Wilburn! As a group. (laughter and several talking at once) Champion! Well, does anybody have any other ideas? Lehman! You know, we really just glazed over one that you brought up, but I think that (can't hear) tax, really, really, we really (several talking at once). Atkins/ Why don't you describe that? I think I know what you mean, but just describe it, as you understand it. Champion! Condos or tax.. . rented or not. Atkins/ That's the issue. Vanderhoef/ The rules needs to be "owner occupied." (several talking at once) Dilkes/ The comparison is apartments and condominiums. Champion! Because that would be a major benefit to us, a major benefit. Atkins/ We have not seen a dramatic conversion, but it could be, you know in numbers, I mean... we have in our community an apartment industry. I think we know that. And there are people making a lot of money off those things. Apparently in Davenport, I think Barker Interest converted a number of condos. We have not seen it as much. It has happened, but it is clearly something that could be knocking at our door, and it would really put a big hunk out of our commercial/ industrial. (several talking at once) Oh yeah, the new ones are being built as condos. The conversions are the ones that scare me. Vanderhoef/ And people buy them as income properties. So... Lehman! Eleanor has something... Dilkes/ There's a deterrent to the conversion. You have to comply with the current building code if you convert, and that's the problem. Lehman! Wasn't there a rather large conversion? Didn't Barker do a number of those four or five years ago? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of December 14, 2004. December 14, 2004 Council Work Session Page 13 Atkins/ Yeah. Lehman! It would seem to me that it would be very easy to determine whether an apartment, whether it's commercial or residential use. If you collect rent, it's commercial. Elliott/ Are we talking about condos where the owner is a non-resident? Or are we talking about all condos? Lehman! Any condo that's rented. Elliott/ All housing facilities would be treated like, if you own it and you rent it, whether it's a part of a complex or an individual, it would be taxed as either residential or commercial? Okay, yes, very much so. Vanderhoef/ Once the rental permit is received by the owner, then it could immediately go on as commercial, and get the people moved back into it, and prove occupancy. Elliott/ This has been going on in the cities for sometime, has it not? New York, Chicago? Atkins/ Oh, some of the bigger cities, so they have rent control ordinances and you know all kinds of other ways that they attack that issue. It's something recent. It's been in the last ten years that, because commercial taxes on the folks who are in the apartment industry, have gone up rather dramatically, because they're 100% value and they watch residential drop 50, 60, now into the 40's. Elliott! I recall reading that people who had lived in an apartment for years and years were being kicked out because it was being turned over to a condo and they either had to buy, they had first shot at their condo. That's not what we're talking about. Atkins/ My neighborhood, there's a recent condominium project. I mean, the sign in the front yard said 'for sale' and people were buying those units and turning around and renting them to someone else. They don't live in that unit. That's the real problem. Then they're taxed at residential rate. Champion! Then they call it a condo. (several talking at once) Vanderhoef/ As a style ofliving, not making a distinction. Lehman! My suspicion is they'll grandfather the ones that are here, but... Elliott! I think it should be either commercial or residential. Period. Lehman! But that's a huge issue. Something they should address. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of December 14, 2004. December 14, 2004 Council Work Session Page 14 Vanderhoef/ But grandfathering is not the way to go, and I think we should address that right up front, that ifthere is a rental permit, which we control, then it's going to be commercial. Lehman! I think the big thing is that we bring to their attention that this is a significant problem. They'll write it, but... Champion! It's a very significant problem for us and Ames, I'm sure. Bailey/ Some people don't get rental permits. Champion! I was going to say, how do we even know they have permits? Atkins/ There are people that own their property, like a condo, that they turn around and rent to someone, and they never let the city know. (several talking at once) Lehman! I went to Des Moines, what two or three years ago when they were doing that, and that's precisely what was suggested, is that if you don't have a homestead, you don't get it, and they agreed with us, and then they changed their minds after we left, and we went back again. One of the people on the committee had a friend from Spirit Lake. I mean, you talk about.. .one guy on the committee (several talking and laughing) I mean, we were talking about $200,000 worth of taxes for Iowa City and my friend in Spirit Lake has a condo... .I'm not going to do that. Champion! Spirit Lake, wouldn't that be considered a vacation home? I mean, aren't you allowed a second residence? (several talking at once) Vanderhoef! Well, the second residence is now being discussed in the League's property tax proposal, in that you pay a different rate for a second house, and that was put in especially to get at the fact that someone who owns two houses, has more income and more ability to pay, and that they were using that somewhat to address lower income. Atkins/ It was well done by the League. It was a clever way to take that issue on. If you can afford a second home, then you can afford, you know. Vanderhoef/ So, in the new proposal, if that piece of the League proposal went in, it would automatically kick that second, if they hadn't gotten a rental permit, and they owned four condos, above and beyond their house, those four condos would be taxed differently. Lehman! Okay, what else do we got? Champion! The other one that would bring income to us is to raise the cap on hotel tax. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of December 14, 2004. December 14,2004 Council Work Session Page 15 Lehman! Well that really wouldn't (can't hear) but that's something that would be a good tool for the Convention Bureau. Bailey/ Well, and some people are actually talking of raising that, and it would be a percentage or however high it's raised, more cultural (can't hear). Vanderhoef/ It would get earmarked, but tying it so closely, even though I support that idea, it does not bode well in a lot of the smaller towns, so to get the support... Bailey/ .. . have to do is allow us to (can't hear) Atkins/ Yes. Bailey/ .. . and then we could also choose to designate (can't hear). Vanderhoef! So you're saying what I thought I saw in the legislature last year, was real specifically, that ifit was raised, it would go to this. Bailey/ I think the Department of Cultural Affairs has also talked about something very specific. I am not. I'm just talking about raising the cap and allowing (can't hear) to decide. Vanderhoef/ Okay, I think that's a distinction we need to put with our hotel and motel... Bailey/ I'd like to see that but I see your point. Vanderhoef/ Community choice on what that money is used for, and then that's a home rule too. The one directed directly to cultural isn't going to fly over the broad state, I don't think. Lehman! Are there any restrictions on the tax now? As far as what it can be spent on? Do we know? Vanderhoef/ Yes. Atkins/ Yeah, there are. I can't remember them. (laughter) Vanderhoef/ 50% has to go for activities that would be used by a visitor to the city. Atkins/ And Ithink the other 50 I think you're free to do... we have a policy... Lehman! I think what Regenia is saying, we'd like the cap raised with no further restrictions, and let us choose, so it's unencumbered. (several talking at once) Vanderhoef/ Well, even if we got the raise, if we still kept the 50% for the Parks and Recreation, and then... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of December 14, 2004. December 14, 2004 Council Work Session Page 16 Bailey/ If truth be told, I'd like to see some of it go into our cultural events and downtown events, as we choose, but... Vanderhoef/ And that would be fine, but if they didn't want to mess with that formula, I could live with the 50%, because we do so much with trails, and that money is certainly a recognized use for trails. Bailey/ And I think without constraints, this would be something fairly easy to do because then communities need to authorize it, so it's not really "imposing a tax." It's allowing (can't hear). Vanderhoef/ And a little work on comparisons, if you've traveled to other cities and stayed in hotels and look at my travel budget, and you'll see what kind of. . . (several talking at once) Lehman! Okay, are there other issues? (several laughing and talking at once) Are there other issues? Vanderhoef/ We've got a very good list. Lehman! I think so too. Atkins/ I'm sorry, Ernie, I didn't hear you. Lehmani I think we have a good list. As I see it, we have some sort of freeze on rollback, alcohol issue, labor contract issue, condo issues, and hotel tax cap. Are there other? Well, no, the home rule on no smoking. I don't know that that's... Elliott/ I'm not interested in that personally. Perhaps everyone else is. (several talking at once) Vanderhoef/ ...if they are working towards that also. Elliott! All I'm saying is I'm not interested in it for Iowa City. Vanderhoef/ Right, but to get that piece of home rule back for cities, I think, is very important. Elliott/ I'd rather worry about Iowa City, right now. Bailey/ I'm always interested in home rule. Atkins/ Well, is there anything you want me to scratch off, thinking that we're going to be writing a letter. . . This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of December 14, 2004. December 14,2004 Council Work Session Page 17 Lehman! Why don't we prioritize these, just for fun. Bailey/ We've got revenue sourcing and community sorts of things. We've got a pretty balanced. . . I mean, we could categorize them, by revenue, by controlling expenses, and by... Lehman! Well, what would be our number one priority? Atkins/ Of everything in there? Lehman! Yeah, what would be the one that we think would be... Champion! Mine would be condo taxes. Elliott! Mine would be alcohol. Bailey/ Mine would be minimum rollback. Atkins/ Well there we go (laughter). Vanderhoef/ I'm going to come at this from a different perspective. What have you heard the citizens talk about most, and in my mind it is the taxes are too high for me. So, then the first thing that they sort of, but don't fully understand, is labor contracts. They complain about the City giving great big wonderful benefits, and they as a private business owner with employees, are having to face cuts. So, the people who are paying higher taxes and recognize that it's because the benefits in the public sector is much better than in the private sector. Champion! You think people really understand that? Bailey/ I'd be really surprised. Vanderhoef/ They're so concerned, so if you take labor contract kind of things and tie it to directly how much it increases your tax bill every year, because that's the one thing that sits outside of our general fund, and you can show a tax decrease by negotiating, and they don't need to know it's by negotiating, but that is a huge piece ofthe tax. Bailey/ We could present these though to the legislators as we would like some options to improve our revenue stream. These are the three things we discussed. We would like options to control our expenses. This is the thing that we see most, influences this, and then address some community issues, which are alcohol and smoking. I mean, so we have three things, it's just that they have bullet points underneath. Elliott! I prefer that process. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of December 14, 2004. December 14, 2004 Council Work Session Page 18 Bailey/ Do you think that's too much for them? Lehman! No, I don't think so, but I do think, for example, that if we're talking community issues and we're talking alcohol and smoking, I sense the alcohol issues are significantly more important to us than the smoking issue is, because of the difficulties we experienced and I wouldn't want to water down the importance of alcohol by including, or putting the same emphasis on smoking. Even though.. .even though I don't have a problem with it, I view alcohol as a significantly greater problem to the community and one that needs far more attention that whether. . . O'Donnell! Is the penalty for marijuana about the same as it is for alcohol? Dilkes/ I didn't hear you, Mike. O'Donnell! Is the penalty for possession of marijuana about the same as for possession of alcohol? (TAPE ENDS) Lehman! Well, we've got the issues. (several talking at once) Atkins/ Give me the three large groupings. Bailey/ Revenue, expense, and community issues, revenue stream. Expense concern. Atkins/ Revenue, expense...as one? Bailey/ Revenue expense, and then community issues, or I don't know what you want to call it. Vanderhoef/ Community issues, home rule. (several talking at once) Lehman! I don't think you want to use the term home rule, or we're going to lose the legislature right off the bat. We need to go... community issues. Elliott! And your revenues, Steve, were you looking for how she would distribute the various topics? Atkins/ I'm trying to put them in some kind of category. Like these three are tax related. Now, on alcohol, you folks were all over the lot, you know, but what was important to you? You know, someone thought fake I.D.'s were important than this and.. . Bailey/ What I heard Eleanor saying was PAULA's are the frequently occurring issue and then we talked about $500 being... Atkins/ I heard you saying that too. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of December 14, 2004. December 14,2004 Council Work Session Page 19 Dilkes/ You could frame it as the concern about the minimum penalties for alcohol offenses, by way of example the PAULA is a $100 fine. Vanderhoef/ How about a $100 fine for a fake LD.? Right now, as I understand it, at least some of the bars, if they recognize a fake LD., they collect it. Remember when they told us, they brought in a stack of fake LD. 's, and fake LD.' s, is there any way to get at (several talking at once). Dilkes/ It is an offense to use a fake LD. I don't know. I'd have to 100k...I think if you're going to want to be more specific about each of these alcohol offenses, we have to have a conversation with the P.D. about what they see as the issues, and we have to, I can give you all the fines, and you can, but... .we're not at that point. Atkins/ I want to prepare...is there anything on here that you want off? Bailey/ Home rule. (several agreeing) Atkins/ Now, the smoking ordinance can be a grant of the legislature. It doesn't have to be home rule. They simply say "you're allowed to do this." That's what they took away from us. Anything else? Because I'm going to try and write a letter form to each of our legislators. Bailey/ And then we're going to meet with them, right, as a group? (several talking at once) O'Donnell/ I don't know if that's necessary to meet with them. No, what I'm talking about is, you know, you can read a reason or an excuse, or maybe those two are the same, you can read those as well as have somebody speak those to you. Atkins/ You know the Chamber has its Saturday sessions? Yeah, okay. Bailey/ I think we're going to hear some discussions about the fines if the event in (can't hear). Atkins/ We're communicating our interest in having a meeting. They may not go along with it, but we can communicate to them we'd sure like to have a sit-down. Vanderhoef/ And the other piece of the meeting with them, that I think is real positive, is that they have maybe seen some of these things come before and can give us their insight on what works or what became the barrier, and how we might rephrase it, redo, those kinds of things, so that we're speaking hopefully with the same voice from the city and from our legislators. Bailey/ Well, and I think giving them these options within the revenue generating. I mean, as things come up they'll be aware of our interest. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of December 14, 2004. December 14, 2004 Council Wark Session Page 20 Lehman! Just to be able to explain how we came up with these things, that they understand where we're coming from. I really would agree with Bob. I am, to me the smoking ordinance issue is not anywhere near as important as the other issues we have here. I think the rest of those are significantly more important. Elliott/ I agree that we would like to have the authority to do that sort ofthing. To me, it sort of waters the other things down. Dilkes/ Just on the no smoking issue though, you need to be aware that the focus is on Iowa City and Ames, because Iowa City and Ames are the communities that had the ordinances in place, and were nullified by the Supreme Court decision, so I do think they look to Iowa City and Ames as communities who are interested in doing something like that, and then could not. Wilburn! And there were other communities that put some measures into place. Bailey/ And they have talked about doing some more stringent measures with smoking state-wide, so... Atkins/ How about leave it on the list. Ernie, let me call Ames, talk to Ted and Steve, and see what they're doing. Ted Tedesco the Mayor, Steve Schainker the City Manager, and say' What are you guys planning to do, if anything, with this?' so you can have some idea. Dilkes/ The League has a proposal, it's made a proposal. The League is taking the lead on that. Elliott! I think if and when we meet with them, I would certainly like to have some more specifics, certainly with the alcohol penalties. I just think that most people do not want you to come and say 'we'd like you to do something different.' They would like to say 'give us some ideas." Atkins/ Well, let me write this. When I send it around to you, make a note, 'I'd like to have a list of, you know.. . Dilkes/ I'll give you a list of the penalties for all those offenses. Now, but the other piece is, do you want something from the P.D. about what they see, other than PAULA, as the issues? O'Donnell/ I think that would be very helpful. (several talking at once) Vanderhoef/ Oh, the public nuisance thing would be one of the things that I would like. They may not be intoxicated, but they still are not being good citizens in some of the activities that they do downtown. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of December 14, 2004. December 14, 2004 Council Work Session Page 21 Lehman! So it wouldn't necessarily be alcohol related? Vanderhoef/ It might be. (several talking at once) Atkins/ Remember that report that I put out weekly, we have on public intox's, arrests? And you've seen it. Inevitably, it involves fighting, and vandalism, and alcohol just simply creates the false sense of courage, and the next thing you know, the officer has to make an arrest, take them to jail, and then it gets real messy. Vanderhoef/ Continuing with that piece is the problems that our senior citizens and some of our other community members are saying 'I'm afraid to go downtown. I don't want to be downtown at certain times ofthe day.' (several talking at once) Atkins/ Anything else that has to come off? Because I'm going to write a letter that discusses most of these issues. Okay. And I'll work it through Ernie, but I'm sure ....(several talking at once). This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of December 14, 2004.