Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-01-29 TranscriptionJanuary 29, 2005 City Council Meeting With Legislators Page 1 January 29, 2005 City Council Meeting With Legislators 11:45 AM COUNCIL PRESENT: Bailey, Elliott, Lehman, O'Donnell; Vanderhoef COUNCIL ABSENT: Champion, Wilburn STAFF: Atkins, Karr, Dilkes, Helling GUESTS: Joe Bolkcom, Vicki Lensing, Mary Mascher, Bob Dvorsky, Dave Jacoby TAPES: 05-11, Side B; 05-12, Side A Lehman/I'd like to thank you folks for taking the time to meet with us. Obviously, you've been doing this since 8:00 AM this morning. I know how effective Council is after that many hours. So, we'll try to be as short as we can. I think you received from us, if I'm not mistaken, a list of issues that we discussed as a Council. In addition to those issues, Eleanor has prepared a memo, and I'd like Eleanor, if you'd like to present your memo at the beginning, and then we'll get into some of these issues. PAULA CITATIONS / STATE CODE AMENDMENTS Dilkes/I'd just, I'll just highlight the basics in the memo. I don't think there's an intention to have a conversation about it. I just wanted to get the information out to you. I know that the Council has previously expressed to you its concern about fines for possession of alcohol under legal age being so low that they don't arguably serve as a deterrent. The first offense is $100 plus court costs and surcharge; and the second offense is $200 plus driver's license suspension. The driver's license suspension has become an issue for us because we started focusing on that and tracking, you know, when the officers are out in the field they cannot, they don't know whether someone's been convicted of PAULA before. So we were starting to get those charges in my office, determine whether there had been an earlier PAULA offense, and then amending the charges to a PAULA 2nd, and we were having some success in getting the license suspensions entered. However, we've had a ruling from a magistrate in Johnson County, saying that the City does not have the authority to impose a license suspension because of the State Code provision, which limits cities to imposing penalties of no more than $500, and no more than thirty days. So, that's one issue addressed in the memo. I think that...we are appealing that decision and we have some arguments in response to that, but I think that a legislative fix would be the easiest way to do that. Somebody can be charged with PAULA 2nd now under the State Code and face that ramification so it doesn't really make any sense that they can't face it when it's charged under the City Code. The second issue...well, in addition to the fine, and I have attached, because the Council seemed to be concerned about the amount of the fine, I have attached some language...that would be a very simple amendment. I don't think there's any interest in This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the January 29, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session with Legislators. January 29, 2005 City Council Meeting With Legislators Page 2 increasing the level of the offense from anything beyond a simple misdemeanor, and if it remains a simple misdemeanor, then of course the cap is $500, but I think there is an interest on the part of the Council in trying to make that high enough to have a deterrent affect. For example, our under-19 charge, which is simply a City charge saying they can't be in a bar under the age of 19, has a $250 penalty because that's set by the City Code, and we aren't seeing near as many of those. So, that's the fine issue. The suspension of the driver's license issue and the final issue is that PAULA; a PAULA charge is not what we call a "scheduled offense." All traffic tickets, for example, are scheduled offenses, meaning you don't have to make a court appearance, and if you don't show up, the fine is simply entered and you're required to pay it. With PAULA's, because they are not scheduled offenses, if somebody does not appear at the courthouse at the time for their appearance, either for their first appearance - their initial appearance, or for their trial, the court is required to issue a warrant for their arrest because it's not a scheduled offense; they can't just impose the fine, and we see a lot of warrants issued for PAULA's. It causes a lot of work for the court. It causes a lot of work for the police department in executing on those warrants, and when the fine is only, you know, $100 plus surcharge and court cost, that doesn't make a lot of sense. So those are the three issues highlighted in the memo, and if anybody is interested, I did attach some proposed language. Elliott/Eleanor, I had kind of a quick, over hear. I had kind of a quick question. Is there any information you have on the level of deterrents that the suspended license might have, if we are able to continue doing it? For instance, I've talked with some young people, and they told me, I believe it was Illinois, does that, and that they think that that is a rather significant concern among the young people. Dilkes/I don't have any statistical evidence. All I've got is anecdotal evidence that the word got around quite quickly that we were charging, or we were amending those to second offenses, and I just think it's much more of a significant penalty. What we were finding happening is the word was starting to get around and so people would come in as quickly as possible and plead guilty to the PAULA charge before we could amend it. So, you know, we'll see what happens with that, but it does seem to have a higher deterrent effect. Elliott/Thank you. Mascher/Eleanor, were you recommending $250 also for the, I mean, you said it's a maximum of $500? Dilkes/Yeah, I hadn't really, I mean, Council hadn't really, I think, arrived at something they wanted to recommend, but you know you've got a first offense and if you want to keep the graduated for a subsequent offense, both of those would want to be, you'd want to have them under $500. So you could do something like $200 and $400, or you could do something like $250 and $500. It could be any combination of those things. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the January 29, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session with Legislators. January 29, 2005 City Council Meeting With Legislators Page 3 Vanderhoef/One of the things that has been talked about a little bit is the fact that the $100 fine, years ago when it was first put into place, if you put it in relationship to their tuition at the University, it was right close, years ago, fight close to what their tuition was at that time, and there wasn't any problem in the town in the early 60's, and then as it grew, the tuition, it's like, well, $100 really does not say much to them in comparison to the kinds of tuition bills and so forth, so it was an easy comparison to go back to how they reacted to it, so that's why I think the deterrent factor of higher fines is terribly important. Dilkes/I think there was some, as I recall, last year, some legislative proposal floating around to increase the level of the offense, which seemed, at least what I read, seemed really harsh to increase it to a serious, indictable misdemeanor. Mascher/I think Doug __ had that one, if I remember. Elliott/I think, Eleanor, there was an exorbitant, a recommendation for an exorbitant fine of $3,000 or something. Dilkes/And I think, you know, I think there's an even heightened concern at that point at what kind of affect that's going to have on someone, a student's educational or career choices, and that kind of thing. Lehman/I do think that there are cities who do have higher fines that find it is an effective deterrent. Certainly not $3,000, but I think Lincoln, Nebraska, for example, I believe is $500, which they do not necessarily impose. You get picked up, the judge can make arrangements, you do this, this, and this and you don't pay the fine, and you get picked up the next time, you not only pay the first fine but you pay the second. But it just, it doesn't seem to be much of a deterrent. Anyway, that was one of the issues. I'm sorry, go ahead. Dilkes/To make, remember to make the first offense a scheduled offense. You can't have the judge monkeying with it. It's just an amount that gets imposed. Bolkcom/In terms of a priority, there are several provisions here. Do you have a priority order; you had to say what was the most? Lehman/They're all number one. Bolkcom/They're all number one. (laughter) Lehman/I think that really is a high priority for them. Dilkes/I think for the whole system...we've been dealing with the chief judge and the police chief and the clerk of court over there, and not having them be scheduled offenses has really been difficult. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the January 29, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session with Legislators. January 29, 2005 City Council Meeting With Legislators Page 4 Jacoby/Do we have a side-by-side comparison of other college communities, not only with the fines for PAULA, but what their city and state statutes are for allowing people in bars and quite frankly, the number of bars per 1,000 students? I mean, I like apples and apples, and oranges to oranges, and I'm looking at this, and see, is there, you know, as the Mayor mentioned, Lincoln, I don't know the rules in Lincoln. Does Lincoln allow 19 to 21-year-olds in the bars after 10:00 PM, or any of the other factors that may come into play. Now I think some point increasing the fine may or may not be a deterrent; it's hard to do a longitudinal study because in the 60's and 70's the drinking age was 18 for a number of years, and then 19 and then 21, and I guess what, and I think Mr. Elliott made the comment, one form is when I was in college, starting in 74, the drinking age was 18. There were less bars then than there are now in downtown Iowa City. So, that's always kind of confused me a bit why in 1975 were there more, maybe I'm wrong, perception of more drinking establishments than there are right now when the drinking age is 21. Vanderhoef/One of the things I would answer to that is the business climate in downtown and availability of places to have bars and the costs of the rents and so forth, at that time. But one of the cities that you might want to look at who has discussed this at the state level and at the national level, there are caucus groups of university cities and college cities, and Iowa university cities are not unique. What's hapPening across the nation and certainly other states do things differently; however, within the state, Dubuque was one of the places and they have multiple small colleges, and collectively the councilors have recognized a problem over there. Some people try to say it's a big university problem. What heard around the table from the small schools that even though their populations are smaller, their colleges are smaller here in Iowa, they still have problems. So how to address that is something they would like State to look at, versus every city trying to do something differently. O'Donnell/Well, it's not a new problem. Bob Elliott, didn't you have a paper from 1954 that said we were looking at a train delivering fans to the Hawkeye football games, as well as Iowa City had a drinking problem? Elliott/It's the problem, the problem wasn't extensive then because I'm very familiar with that period of time, as you can see, and none of us had enough money to get into real trouble. (laughter) But yeah... O'Donnell/It's not a new problem. There's been a great deal of emphasis put in Iowa City on trying to stop underage drinking, and many people think that if you go to 21 you're going to have a big influx of house parties and so forth, and I'm one of the people that agrees with that, and our Mayor does not, but we have disagreed before in the past. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the January 29, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session with Legislators. January 29, 2005 City Council Meeting With Legislators Page 5 Lehman/We're not going to beat a dead horse on that issue. Obviously, you have...I mean, Eleanor, I think made it clear some of the issues we have with deterrents that don't seem to work. So I think we should move on, and I think Regenia has the first item on our list, hotel tax, if you'd like to address that. HOTEL TAX Bailey/I serve on the Board of Directors of the Convention and Visitors Bureau, and we would certainly like to have the option locally to raise the hotel/motel tax from the current 7%, to 9%. I know that this has been talked about in various ways on the State level, and we are interested, too, in continuing to have the local control of how these funds are used, although we did discuss this as city, it would be helpful if we used them for cultural support of our cultural entities. Now that we have two cultural districts in Iowa City, we think this is a real area that we can bring more people into Iowa City, and so we're interested in having this option. Naturally, it would be approved locally as the previous tax, but something to consider. And, something to avoid, is having any kind of state control or state designation beyond what it is right now, having it come to the city and having us use it as we choose. Mascher/Is this a League of Cities priority, as well? Bailey/I think so. Yeah, and I think that they might have discussed a different variation on this, or the Chambers might have discussed a different variation. Dvorsky/Well the one variation seems to be taking 2% and using it regionally. I don't know quite how they're going to administer all that, but... Bailey/And I think that that has been withdrawn, and I don't think there's a lot of support among the CVB's throughout the state for that particular proposal. We're really interested in, we think we know what needs support in our own areas and the Convention and Visitors Bureau here has a wonderful grants program for community events, and perhaps that's where some of that increased percentage would go. Lensing/You might want to share that with the Chamber so that you're not coming at it from two opposite directions. Bailey/I know we've talked to them, but I think that there was a proposal of the Cedar Rapids Chamber that had the 2% regionally, and it was my understanding that that had kind of gone away. Lensing/They mentioned it this morning. Bolkcom/It's still alive in North Liberty at the meeting we were at. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the January 29, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session with Legislators. January 29, 2005 City Council Meeting With Legislators Page 6 Bailey/We currently don't have the regional structures to do that, quite honestly, and I think that our CVB's communicate quite well, and maybe that would be ten years down the road, but I think, let's look at what we have now. We're all doing a really good job, and give us an opportunity to do a better job. Vanderhoef/One of the things that I see in keeping it locally is the fact that there's a lot of spin-off in our whole region from things that happen through our CVB, and if the money is spread out in little tiny pots, I don't know that collectively a regional plan would be affected, so that we would truly see the increase in the number of people who come in. Mascher/But Vicki's point is well taken. If you're divided on that, nothing will happen. We need to get... Bailey/Well, all I understand is that there had been some discussion, that that was being pulled back. Simply because we don't have the regional structures in place, and you don't want to create an additional entity. That's not where we want the money going. Dvorsky/They may have it in Des Moines though; so that's kind of where they're coming from, is the regional situation for Des Moines with all their large-scale attractions and things that are in the City of Des Moines, but they need financing from elsewhere to promote those, and it does make some sense for them on how they're doing it. The question would be, if this comes up and the money goes to regional, do you want us still to support it? I mean, that's the essence of(can't hear; several talking) you know, not everything is linear. It works different ways. So... Bailey/I think the Board of Directors of the CVB will talk about this. I think as a Council we're interested in the local impact. Is that correct? And having it go locally? Vanderhoef/Excuse me, can I ask some questions? Mascher/But Bob's question was do you still want us to support it if it's regional? Vanderhoef/Define the regional for me. Where the... Dvorsky/I'm not sure. That will be some detail they'll have to work out. Vanderhoef/If the money is going to go to established CVB's, that's one thing. If it's going to a community, even though they don't have an established CVB, I think that needs to be clarified, for me. Bailey/Exactly...where would, I mean, right now it comes to the cities. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the January 29, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session with Legislators. January 29, 2005 City Council Meeting With Legislators Page 7 Dvorsky/Yeah, I think they would set up some kind of board that involves people throughout the region, and then they were going to talk about the attractions in the region. Elliott/I think the differences between the city and the chamber, if there is a difference as you indicate, is a problem we need to work out. Dvorsky/Well, that brings in a larger thing. They really are working this corridor situation and you know, you're at the southern end of the corridor so you might want to take that into consideration on all these sort of issues, that we are.., for good or bad, we're being sort of forced to hang out with the Linn County legislators, which I am one of those too as I have ten precincts in that county. Bolkcom/That's good, Bob. (laughter) Lehman/Regenia, let me suggest that perhaps Josh meet with... Bailey/I have a note to call Josh... Lehman/Right, and I think... Bailey/...and he can clarify that, but I would caution you in setting up yet another entity in the corridor to try to accomplish the kinds of things that the Convention and Visitors Bureau of Cedar Rapids and Iowa City... Jacoby/Certainly don't have to convince me of that, because another entity, or gosh, the weights being rolled out as Bob, or Senator Dvorsky's point is that they're leading with regional and then asking for the plus 2%. So that's the way the discussion has rolled out in some groups. Dvorsky/Well if they make it an option that would probably be ... Jacoby/I'd like to see it local. I think what we do here is impressive, and when we do regional projects, both entities can speak, or you know, both ...but that's how it's being rolled out. Regional and...so that's part of the problem, and if it comes down that way, that's when we need to hear from you saying 'if it's only for regional, then raise it', I mean, if that's the way you feel about it, because it may come out in the bill saying 'plus 2% has to be used for regional activities'. It doesn't go local, and we need to know if your opinion is... Dvorsky/How they define regional activities and all that. (several talking at once) Bailey/...who controls the decision about (can't hear) is key. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the January 29, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session with Legislators. January 29, 2005 City Council Meeting With Legislators Page 8 Elliott/I gather that you folks are not enamored of the idea of creating yet another task force or commission or committee or entity, and certainly, I don't think that we would be in favor of that either. That's distasteful to me. Lehman/My suspicion is that if our CVB visits with the Cedar Rapid's CVB, and the corridor folks, that this might be able to be resolved and we might be able to speak with one voice. Bailey/Well, and I think it's the Chambers and (can't hear). CONDOMINIUM TAXES Lehman/Yeah, yeah, and we'll check that out. The next one is condominium taxes. Obviously, in Iowa City, perhaps more than in some other communities, although I think this is almost coming statewide, where condominiums are being built for rental purposes because the taxes are residential on condominiums, and they are commercial on apartments. That has a tremendous impact on communities with large numbers of apartments. Is there any move at the state level...obviously, if you live in your own home, you get homestead. If you live in your own condo, you get homestead, but if you live in your own condo and own the other fifteen in the same building, you pay residential taxes, even though you can rent them all. It does not seem to be equitable. Vanderhoef/I just would like to check with the legislators to follow up on this. In the ISAC/Iowa League of City proposal, tax proposal, they're talking about having one, the home that you live in, taxed at one rate; and any second or more homes that you own, taxed at a different rate, which would get at exactly this problem, and I don't know where you folks are on what information you have about the ISAC/Iowa League of Cities proposal, tax proposal. Bolkcom/Well, I think first to talk about the condo conversion issue. You know, it's really had quite a history. Minette Doderer actually worked quite a bit on this a few years ago, but in preparing for today, I talked to Revenue and Finance about what they thought we should do about it because they wrote rules that basically would disallow this practice. They were struck down by the Rules Review Committee. This has been like in 1999 maybe...quite a while ago. Yeah, you came to those, and others, and then the legislature tried to close the door on it, and there was legislation that essentially grandfathered people in that did conversions, and also gave some local authority around the fire code issues. So you could turn them down. And then the next year, and so we were on track, and then the next year the sunsetting provision got repealed by the legislature, so those who had done the conversions were going to benefit indefinitely from the conversions, and here we are today where people are essentially building new buildings here in Iowa City and other places, as condominiums, and getting rollback. They, the Revenue and Finance people that I visited with, suggested that the approach that we would take would basically be...because now you have property owners that This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the January 29, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session with Legislators. January 29, 2005 City Council Meeting With Legislators Page 9 own apartment buildings they're paying as commercial, and those are essentially owned apartment buildings, calling them condos, and getting the rollback. You may be in a position where you just set a date in time and say 'this is no longer...'...you're going to let everybody be where they are that's done it, but from this point forward you're not going to allow it anymore, and so whether or not that has any support. It's amazing that, I think, at one point there was an interest to knock this off, by the General Assembly, and the people working against it really did quite a job to get it, get us setback on it. So that would be the approach, and you would have an unevenness, and some people suggest, the apartment people that are building these condos, say this would be bad, nobody will build any apartment buildings from here on out, is their comeback on it. In terms of the county/city tax proposal, that...the issue of second homes being taxed at 100%, no rollback, doesn't really have much affect on this kind of separate issues. Lehman/Right. Bolkcom/As I've read, they're...at least as I've read there. Vanderhoef/Well, the second home, and if they don't live in it, and so the distinction of whether they live in it or not makes the difference, and if you don't live in it, if you own five condos, as Ernie described, and you only live in one of them, you would be taxed as a homeowner at the 50% rollback, with the exceptions on the dollar amount, the value of the condos, but then after that, they would automatically, which would pick up all of those, rather than this grandfathering thing, and allowing all the other condos, designated condos, that are not owner occupied. It would pick all of them up. Elliott/Dee, it always seemed to me that it's easy, it seems like a simple question to me because I know so little about it, but it seems to me that you tax residences, and those residence in which you and what you own, you get homestead exemption. If you own something, you don't live in it, you don't get homestead exemption. It just seems so easy to me, and obviously you folks work with it, and it's just not that easy. Lehman/Well, I think it really is a matter of use. If it's used as commercial, whether it be a condo, an apartment, or whatever, if you collect rent on it, it is a commercial use, and as a commercial use, probably should have commercial tax. If you live in it and it's residential, then you are entitled to the rollback. Obviously, that's too simple, but it is that just, really that simple. Jacoby/I think that phrase 'no brainer' was used about an hour ago, and I wish that rollback was at 50%. I'd like that, instead of 48, but there must be something going on with this issue at the Capitol because I was approached three times this week on it, and I believe there's a House study bill right now that I haven't had a chance to read, two lobbyists and Representative Schultz from Waterloo and I had This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the January 29, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session with Legislators. January 29, 2005 City Council Meeting With Legislators Page 10 a discussion on it also. I think we dealt with it in Coralville because all the new condos over on, west of 965 were built that way, and when we looked at the total talley of what we were looking at in lost revenue, it was more than $1.50 and it does seem simple. Either residential is reside, and commercial is that which you rent out, so I don't...there is a movement from a very large land owner, property owner in Des Moines, who put a lot of money into races this last year, and would like to have something like this go through. Lehman/Well, but it's an issue of fairness. You know, from my perspective, I'd love to see it stay the way it is. I rent condos. On the other hand, that's totally unfair. I rent condos for the same price that the guy across the street rents apartments. I pay half the taxes they pay. That's just, that's not right. Jacoby/It's not fair. Elliott/I think that's key, Ernie, too, that this is more than just a tax income issue. It's a significant issue of fairness. PROPERTY TAX CODE Lehman/Right. Okay, the next one, that's pretty simple. I mean, the issue is simple. Whether or not the resolution, whether or not there is even going to be any resolution is something else. The next issue, obviously we just discussed a little bit the property tax code, and I understand from the years that I've been on the Council that legislator has looked at property taxes on many occasions, perhaps annually, for the past ten or fifteen years. Little or nothing really has happened, but, and obviously League of Cities has proposals which I'm sure you've all seen, but one of the things that seems to me that would be reasonable. In the event, in the likely event that you're unable to revise the property tax code, which I think is a huge, huge issue, if cities could just be assured that the rollback will not be more than a certain number. You know, every city in the state has to certify their budget by, what is it? The first of March? Fifteenth of March. If we just knew that the rollback will not be more than a certain number, and that number is a finite number. It may be more than that. We may collect more taxes than that, but it seems to me it would be fairly easy to put that guarantee in so that, you know, far and away, the majority of the people who live in Iowa live in municipalities and cities. Life would be just so much easier if Steve Atkins and the finance directors of Cedar Rapids, Des Moines...everybody knew that the rollback will not exceed a certain number. Even if it does, we're guaranteed we, that would be such a tremendous benefit to the, far and away, the majority of the people who live in the State of Iowa. And certainly that's a bandaid approach for overhauling the property tax system, but it would certainly give a little bit of comfort during the process. Elliott/Stability. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the January 29, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session with Legislators. January 29, 2005 City Council Meeting with Legislators Page 11 Lehman/Yeah, a little, and I don't know, but that...is that controversial? Concept? Bolkcom/Yes, of course it is. (laughter) Lehman/I mean, seriously, is it really? Bolkcom/Well, I just... I mean, there's a number of things. I think one big issue that local governments face probably since the beginning of the state is that the legislature doesn't think local elected officials know what the hell they're doing, and so they don't, in the sense that they're trying to ratchet down on local governments and what their ability, spend the money, spend property taxes, so anything that, the notion that predictability is a really good thing, but I think some people sometimes see predictability as more money, as opposed to this arcane system that we have. I think if we were to do one thing, and only one thing, decoupling ag land values from residential values would allow some more flexibility here, and we probably, we wouldn't see the dampening affect that we've seen. I kind of like ISAC's proposal and the Cities proposal on $150,000 credit, to own a house, up to $300,000. If you own, if you're lucky enough to own a house worth more than $300,000, you pay the value above that. It's a difficult for some people to go there because you're going to raise taxes on a bunch of people if you do with that proposal. Lehman/But they're also those who are able to pay (laughter). Bolkcom/There ya go! There should be some relationship between that. Jacoby/I think one of the bigger issues, also, is the relationship with some of the people who serve in Des Moines with their cities and not understanding city budgets. Just this morning, Representative Paulson was making the point about property taxes, while the line share goes to the State and we need to reduce that, and bring ...well, there's a little skit at what happens at the local entities and Jamie VanFoss from Davenport actually told me last year, because you know, I was with Coralville during that debacle of reducing our budget after certification process. Honestly, this is what he told me and a couple people agreed, is that we did the mayors a favor. Now they can blame us for the cuts they've known all along they needed to make, because there's so much waste in local government. (several people make comments) Susan Jenkins, from the League of Cities, I thought she was going to toss him down the stairs. (laughter) Because I'm sitting there, but there were a couple people, I was sitting there, and I was new last year, kind of going 'he's kidding; he's got to be kidding'. He's not kidding. (laughter) He's not kidding. He really does believe this. So, it was like my god, he thinks he did us a favor, and I talked to him afterwards. You know, it hurt us quite a bit, but we were lucky enough in our particular position, we had two openings in our police department that we had not yet taken anyone in off the civil service list, but we were lucky because it got stalled two weeks because we couldn't make the meeting, but there's some people with that mindset, and strangely enough too, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the January 29, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session with Legislators. January 29, 2005 City Council Meeting With Legislators Page 12 some people in rural areas where their towns are a bigger percentage of residential in their towns, and so their evaluations are falling, but with rollback they have no monies to .... they're down, literally. Rockwell City is an analogy. They're down from one snow plow...or two to one, you know, one full time public works person, and another person who drives over from Sac City 2 hours a day. They don't see the connection there, but it's complicated. I wish we could just freeze rollback, freeze it...what is it, 48, 43 or something this year? I don't know. Lehman/It would certainly be a temporary...it would give some measure of stability to municipalities while the legislature wrestles with all of these issues, which I don't, really don't think you're going to come up with answers to in this session, but it would take a little pressure off of cities, if... for that period we wouldn't have the uncertainty hanging out there. We really don't know what the revenues going to be, and yet we're required to certify a budget. Mascher/Emie, at the risk of being political, people who voted on that last year, or two years ago, and put those kinds of pressures on their cities, Bill Shickle, good example. A person who was a former city council member who should know better. (people talking) Yeah, mayor, even worse. I mean, even better. (laughter) You know what I meant. But the point being, those people returned. I didn't see much of a political effort to punish anybody for doing that, in terms of, you have an!enormous clout if you mobilize that in some way to say 'we cannot allow that and you're not going to get by with it' because people continually do, and that was an issue that I think could have had an enormous impact on this election. And should have. Bolkcom/It did in the Senate. We elected three mayors, and... Mascher/But getting rid of people who supported it is my point. Bolkcom/We've knocked off three incumbents. Mascher/Okay. Bolkcorn/With Julie Hosch, Sievers, and Scherer, and that was an issue, that was an issue - what had happened with the money not being spent on credits. Vanderhoef/Excuse me, before we go to the next one, can I get an update? Ernie? I'd just like an update. The state committee on governance has been hearing proposals. They've heard the ISAC/Iowa League proposal, but I understand there was another proposal put forth yesterday or the day before, I forget which, from Farm Bureau and Home Builders, and some of those folks, and I just want to know what's being talked about? What are they looking at, and are they truly looking at a full package? I mean, Emie's talking about 'give us the 50% rollback' and freezing it there, but this is the year for a total reform. It's a non- election year, and certainly, if we don't get a total proposal out, that's the...the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the January 29, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session with Legislators. January 29, 2005 City Council Meeting With Legislators Page 13 50% to me is only a last minute fallback position. We've got to do a whole lot more and I don't know about this new proposal, and what can you tell me? Bolkcom/I think...just in general, I think there are members of the General Assembly that are really interested in doing something to reform property taxes, and there's questions whether the leadership really wants to pursue this year one, you know, it's tight. The General Assembly is narrowly divided. It's an opportunity to do something. It's also an opportunity to be pretty (can't understand) and not make anybody mad. I think those two things are balanced, okay? In the macro sense. Now, whether our leader in the Senate or the majority, or the republicans, whether they want to bring a property tax proposal, or in the House - Murphy, Rants, and Gipp, whether they're really committed and say 'go for it'. Now, the Governor is, and he's put together this committee that's trying to look at these massive issues, one is the property tax issue. So, I think, and there's been no other proposals. The city/county proposal, very interesting proposal, I think it has some really interesting things in it. There's things I like and don't like. People are starting to read it. I've gotten calls from non-profit organizations here in Iowa City that don't like it. (laughter) That kind of stuff. The proposal, the other proposal, Senator Miller's going to have a proposal, which we haven't seen yet. There's a city/county proposal, and then there's the ABI, Farm Bureau, and all, proposal. I've only seen one piece of paper on it a couple of weeks ago. It didn't have any of their names on it, and the proposal...it's a two-year proposal. The first year is to have some sort of focus group around the state that would ask people what services should be provided by local governments, and then somebody's going to write a report about that, and then next year we actually start looking at doing something serious in terms of like reform. There was another provision - one would establish a state-wide assessment review board so that if somebody doesn't like their proposed taxes, they go to the county assessor, conference board, or whatever that process.., what is it, the board of adjustments? The board of review - if they don't like that decision, we'd set up another state committee rather than district court to decide it. So that's in year one, but trying...I mean, local, county boards and city councils all the time try and figure out what services people in their community want. It seemed kind of goofy to me to have some sort of assessment, because what we might want in Iowa City might be different than what they want in Storm Lake, and by basis of local services, so I didn't really understand or talk to them about it, so I don't understand how you're going to come up with like a basic list of things that people should do, and that's the only thing we're going to do? Because it was like police, fire, streets, and then everything else was add-on. Vanderhoef/Well you know we wouldn't get re-elected if we didn't provide the services to the level that our constituents expect of us. Mascher/Library and Parks & Rec were add-ons. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the January 29, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session with Legislators. January 29, 2005 City Council Meeting With Legislators Page 14 Bolkcorn/They had them as kind of optional. So that's their program, that's what they propose. Again, it was one piece of paper. Nobody's names were...none of those organizations. I don't know if they were just kind of floating it out, but no real reform until year two, which next year is an election year. There's no way we're going to make up some massive thing that makes people mad at us. Vanderhoef/Well, I for one will vote, both with my City Council hat and my League of Cities hat that we need to really work very hard to get something major done this year. I just cannot see that we can wait any longer, and in the meantime, even those cities like Iowa City that have growth in their...we're struggling in our own way, but I can't imagine sitting on a council where they have declining populations in their cities, and still trying to provide basic services. Dvorsky/And that's the norm. Vanderhoef/Yeah, it is. That's why I think it's very important that we look at the fact that the two largest governing groups, individuals, put together a proposal that said it isn't perfect for either one of us, but we certainly can live with it. It will give us the predictability that we're asking for, and so we can continue to provide those basic services and have an idea whether we can provide any of the other services that we'd like to do. Thank you. LABOR CONTRACTS Lehman/Well, good luck. The next issue that we have brought up, and I think this is an issue that has been an issue for some time and I look for it to become a more and more and more significant issue for cities, is the way we, our arbitrators handle, and I'm not...Dale..Dale is here. Dale, do you want to, I apologize for surprising you, but if my understanding in contract talks with our union folks, if it goes into arbitration, we can only use other public agencies to compare salaries and benefits, and as we all know, health insurance has become an astronomical cost for every employer in the state. Most folks in the private sector, and some public sector employees, have had to pick up a larger share of the cost of that insurance, when we're only allowed to compare with the ten largest, is that what we compare with? Helling/Well, we do use the ten largest cities as comparables. I think in the Code, Chapter 20 of the Code, essentially what's happened is the original language in the Code talks about comparability and it defines it in terms of something like similarly situated employees doing comparable work, but in reality over the last twenty-five to thirty years of the Code being in effect, it seems to have evolved to public employees doing the same work, and what's happened is, as comparable entities have been defined, it's either counties of a similar size, for counties; cities of a similar size for cities, and so forth; and really it's gotten to the point where neutral seemed to be very uncomfortable, if not actually interpreting the law as disallowing them to take into consideration other kinds of issues in the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the January 29, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session with Legislators. January 29, 2005 City Council Meeting With Legislators Page 15 communities where these public entities exist and work that they're, you know, acting in a neutral capacity for, and I think there was a bill last year that maybe tried to get at that a little bit, in terms of broadening that out a little bit, just to make it clear that a neutral is not just confined to looking at other city employees doing the same work. That there may be other things going on in the community that maybe they should be looking at. I think that health insurance is a good example of that because there seems to be a widening gap between what a lot of private sector employees are doing in terms of sharing the cost of health insurance, versus what's happening in the public sector, and part of the reason for that is that, and you know, if I'm in a union I'm probably going to take the same position, there's arbitration, let is...you know, why give it up? Let an arbitrator force it on me, and you know, they're reluctant to do that. So the essence of it, ! think, is just maybe making it clearer in the Code that arbitrators can look at other issues besides just police officers in a community of you know X size, and so forth. Does that...? Lehman/...the gist of it. Vanderhoef/One of the things, when I brought this up and we got Dale to give us some even more background a few weeks ago, what is being talked about at the local level in the community is people look at the wages and benefits for secretary A at the City, versus secretary at the University, versus secretary in the local financial office. All have great responsibilities and are efficient in what they do, but the comparison of a small business and what benefits they can offer are quite different than what through arbitration becomes mandated, and when they cannot compare outside of government entities, there seems to be the disparity between the government sector and the private business sector, and our citizens don't understand it. I recognize it. How to do anything about it, I don't know, and certainly when we get into the longevity, coming from a small business, if the bottom line says 'you held your own this year but you didn't make anything extra', they're aren't going to be raises, and cost of livings, and so forth. You give the best you can, and it gives options, but the way it works with the bargaining and arbitration kinds of things. Certainly our confidential secretaries that aren't bargained, we're not going to pay them less than what our bargained secretaries (can't hear). Mascher/Can I play devil's advocate for just a minute? That, you know, private businesses obviously had terrible years ever since 9-11, and we've really struggled to maybe find increased and to provide additional costs and health benefits, but in good years, you're going to have them as your comparability group too. And so that means that they're getting 20% increases (TAPE ENDS) We're not going to be able to meet that, and are you willing to do, you know, play both sides of that, because in bad years, that may be to your advantage, but in a good year for business, that could be an enormous disadvantage for the city. Have you thought about that? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the January 29, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session with Legislators. January 29, 2005 City Council Meeting With Legislators Page 16 Helling/Oh yeah, and I don't think you're ever going to see, nor are we advocating that, the, all these just be brought in as equal comparables because I don't think you'll ever see that. It will still be public employees. It will still be...that comparability will still be similarly situated. What we're talking about is something just to allow arbitrators, in addition to that, they seem to have, it seems to have been interpreted that they can't look at anything else at all, and when there are unique things happening in a community, the feeling is that they should probably be able to take that into account, along with that comparability that's been established over the years. So I don't think we're talking about changing the system. Just kind of tweaking it so that maybe they can take... Mascher/The last sentence says 'a change in the public employees bargaining to allow a broader comparison opportunity would be helpful to managing costs.' A broader to me means you want to include business. You want to include other entities that may not be part of the comparability study now. Lehman/I think that's right, but you'll also note, and you're right, since 9-11 things have been a little more difficult, but so have the increases in employee salaries, city employee salaries, and if you look back more years, and you look at the cost of living increases for employees' salaries, it's very, very close to the private sector. I mean, I do think they parallel each other, and I don't think, I do not, and I'm not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, but I don't remember any time that ! can ever remember, the private sector giving 20% increases in salaries. Mascher/Well I just hear about bonuses and things that are occurring in the private sector. Lehman/But overall, yeah, but overall, and certainly, you're talking about some management positions, but... Mascher/No, I'm talking about some of their workers. Lehman/Very, very few, and certainly not in the 20%. I think we'd take our chances to be able to have, to use comparables, if it goes to arbitration. Elliott/Mary, one of the things you need to remember there are times when bonuses helped to hold down salary costs, because if you get a bonus in lieu of a raise, then the salary, a salary increase keeps increasing every year. Mascher/Right. Elliott/It's a gift that keeps on giving. A bonus is a one-year only, and I think there are those who combine bonuses and increases in an effort to keep down both salary costs and benefit costs, which are, but I can't remember, for instance, ! can remember oh must have been ten years ago, when I was, the firm for which I was working, we were involved in looking at salary schedules, and at that time I This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the January 29, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session with Legislators. January 29, 2005 City Council Meeting With Legislators Page 17 noticed that the city, at that time, was paying top dollar for secretaries, and I thought, that's not right. The city should pay a fair competitive wage, and we should be assured that it's fair and competitive, but it is not fair to tax payers if it goes beyond fair and competitive, and I think as long as we have the private sector as a means of comparison, it enables us to be much more fair and sometimes even more competitive. Mascher/And I'm coming from the perspective of a school district employee, who I have seen many employees, secretaries, clerks, associates, that have been going to private business because they are not making the wages. They can't afford to work for the school district anymore. People in our food service. We cannot find people to be playground associates; to be the people that are working in the cafeteria, because they can't afford to work there. They make so little, and they have no benefits at all. They might as well not work there. I mean, a lot of them, their health insurance is what is paid for by their salary. I mean, it's ridiculous. Elliott/Yeah, I think on both sides, and your point is well made, but I think, for instance, the private sector, you'd be hard pressed to find the private sector any benefit for medical insurance that where the employee pays less than 20% of his or her medical insurance, and in the public sector, that's not the case. I got something this morning that just indicated about State employees were, if it is accurate, were enabled to pay less for medical insurance now than they had been paying. NO SMOKING Lehman/Well, anyway, I think we have our point. The last point we have here and obviously Iowa City was one of two cities, I believe, a couple years ago that passed a 'no smoking' ordinance in our restaurants, which was struck down by the courts. I understand early on in the session there was a legislator who wanted to introduce a bill prohibiting smoking everywhere. I really, really, really would love to see the State do this, rather than give it to the cities, but on the other hand, I think our Council has expressed an interest, at the very least, the City would like to have the ability to prohibit smoking. It would be more restrictive than...and I heard that also, coming from Ralph and Public Health Department during the League. So, I think you've probably heard all about it. Bolkcom/I think there's a bill in the Senate, or the House now. Representative and we're working on the language to enable cities, give cities the authority. Lehman/I saw that. That's what we have. Are there other issues that Council people would like to address or visit? If not, thank you very much. You've had...you guys work all week, then come back and spend your weekend with us. We really appreciate it. (several talking at once) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the January 29, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session with Legislators. January 29, 2005 City Council Meeting With Legislators Page 18 Elliott/Senator Bolkcom, one question. You made a statement about local officials don't know what they're doing; don't spread that around. (laughter) (TAPE ENDS) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the January 29, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session with Legislators.