The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1995-12-19 CorrespondenceBURNS/GREATER IOWA CITY HOUSING FELLOWSHIP JOINT VENTURE 319 EAST WASHINGTON STREET, SUITE 111 P.O. 80X 1226 IOWA CITY, IOWA 52244 (319) 338-7600 FAX (319) 337-2430 December 11, 1995 City Council City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, iowa 52240 RE: CDBG/HOME Funding Burns/Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship Joint Venture Dear Council Members: We request your approval of use of city CDBG/HOME funds for acquisition of new and existing condominiums which would be leased to eligible occupants under applicable CDBG, HOME and low income housing tax credit regulations. We plan to combine city CDBG/HOME funds with private equity capital raised through federal low income housing tax credits. We had submitted an application to the Iowa Finance Authority in mid-November for low income housing tax credits at the Dubuque Road site. Upon denial of rezoning the Dubuque Road site, we notified the iowa Finance Authority and requested to have the application kept on file while we searched for an alternate site that would contain existing or proposed new condominiums. The Iowa Finance Authority has agreed to keep the application on file at this time. The Iowa Finance Authority will be reviewing the application soon. Therefore, we request city council consideration as soon as possible. Sincerely Yours, Robert P. Burns General Partner RPB/slk XC: City Clerk Karen Franklin Marianne Milkman Charles Eastham, President Greater Iowa City Housing F-~v~p General Partner December 5, 1995 SARATOGA SPRINGS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 319 EAST WASHINGTON STREET, SUITE 111 P.O. BOX 1226 IOWA CITY, IOWA 52244 (319) 338-7600 F,~X I~319) 337-2430 City Council City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 RE: Saratoga Springs Limited PartnershTp Dear Council Members: The goal of Saratoga Springs Limited Partnership is to build new construction, affordable rental housing and managed by the Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship. The limited partnership has not been able to proceed with meeting this goal due to the lack of a suitable site which is: Available for sale Priced at fair market value for an approved density Properly zoned at a density required for the housing type (apartment, townhouse, duplex or single family) preferred by the city council. Therefore, we request the city council's assistance with locating and acquiring a suitable site through the following methods: Advertising. Identifying a potential site or sites and contacting landowners. Possible use of eminent domain. We are open and flexible to the form of the neighborhood and adjacent land use, housing types and ownership into which a site would fit, Sincerely Yours, Robert P. Burns General Partner Charles Eastham, President Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship General Partner RPB/slk CITY JAZZ FESTIVALI Iowa City Jazz Festival 1996 Proposal to Iowa City Council: Prior years funding for; Porba-potties. 2. Trash receptacles. Addibonal funding comes from major grants; 2 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8 9 11. M.C. Ginsberg West Music Advantage Information Management KCCK-FM Univ. of Iowa Lecture Series Daily lowan Perpetual Savings Bank Iowa State Bank Amana Refrigeration Messer Distributing Hawkeye Food Systems Promobonal and Marketing expenses are in kind contnbubons. Tentative line-up for the Iowa C~ty Jazz Festival-1996. July 3rd, 1996 4:00PM 530PM 7:00PM July 4th, 1996 Noon 1'30PM 300PM ,4 30PM 700PM Iowa City Youth Ensemble Sunny VWlkenson Eight Bold Souls Shade of Blue Jerry Granelli Larry Goldings Tno Maceo Parker Joe Lovano Quartet Total Cost of ICJF-1996 (bands only) approximately $35,000.00 We would like the city of Iowa City to consider funding; 1 A porbon of the fesbvars artist fees-a matching dollar for dollar fund would create the greatest fund- raising potenhal. 2 Port-a-pottles 3 Trash facilities. 4 The opportunity for restaurants in downtown Iowa City to cordon off the section representing the width of their property and extending 10 feet out and all0w"alfresco" dining throughout the days of July 3 and 4 in conjunction w~th the Iowa City Jazz Festival-the "permit fee" would be paid to the Jazz Festival much like the vendors in the streets have pa~d the prior years. What does the Iowa City Jazz Fest va do for Iowa City'~ Economic impact for a 2 day event approximately $360,000 to be shared with restaurants and businesses that remain open (approx. 18,000-20,000 attendance spending approx. $20/each.) 2 Positive multi-cultural, multi-generation appeal for the entire State of Iowa with specific attention on Iowa City. Increased use of Downtown Iowa City at a period of the year that is quiet or non-existent from a retail shopping perspective. Enhancing business for retail, Old Capitol Shopping Mall, Bars, Restauranls 4 Emphasizes family enjoyment while showing the diversity and unique character of downtown Iowa City-a necessity in light of continued growth and pressures from outside the area. From the Iowa City Jazz Festival came; aFnday night concert series bold Capital Mall music series c Additional interest in downtown Iowa City from those in Iowa dAdditional interest in Iowa City from outside the state The city of Iowa City's consideration of additional funding is not only appreciated but necessary in order for events such as these to grow into regional draws of artistic and economic attention as well as national draws for the community of Iowa City. Please let us know when we can address the Qty Council concerning these issues regarding the Iowa City Jazz Festival for the sesquicentennial year-1996. 70! Oaknoll Drive Iowa City 52240 Dear City Council members; I saw in the newspaper that your staff wants to widen First Avenue. Maybe it was a misprint, but the city planner said in the paper that the traffic was 12,000 every day but capacity was only 7,000 per day. This is confusing. This suggests that 5,000 never make it, but I know from driving it that it's not that bad. And if the planner really believes this, than why only widen to 3 lanes? If volume is almost double the capacity, than you need to double the lanes. ! think you need to find out if your planner really knows what he's talking about or not. Sincerely, Bob Smith December 1995 Dear City Council Members: After graduating from college in May, I moved to the Iowa City area. My husband attends graduate school at the University of Iowa and I work in downtown Iowa City I wahl to address the ~ssue ofskatcboarding with you. I am aware of the issue of skateboarding in Iowa City and in many cities across the nation. I have watched the Cily Council meetings on television where the issue has come up several times. Council members, I want to say to you that, in my opinion, skateboarding is a spoil. I know you have heard this before, but I want to tell you again Skateboarding is a sport that people enjoy just like basketball, football, soccer, baseball, boxing, hunting, hockey etc, etc. . One might say that skateboarding is dangerous and the other sports are controlled, controlled by coaches, fields, arenas, and fans. Council members, I want to suggest to you what is ~ clear to me - build a place, designate a place, or do whatever you can to let people who enjoy the sport of skateboarding to do exactly that, without having to worry about getting m froable because ~t is banned everywhere. I am not originally from lmva, but I quickly found out that Iowa is full of Hawkeye foolball fans. I am not a football fan nor am I a skaleboarding fan, but I do find it unfair that football is accepted in this town and skateboarding is not. On game days in the Iowa Ciiy,'Cmalvillc at'~a, the towns ba~is. ally stop fm a spoil. 1 find it very frustrating to run errands ol to take lny husband to the hbrary on game days because it takes so long to get anywh~:m and I have to fight the traffic of the fans who are going to watch the sport they enjoy. It is such a hassle to go an?here in Iowa City on a game day. However, one would not think of, dare to, or try to ban Iowa Hawkeye football. Hawkeye fans would probably move out of the state~ How would a football fan or especially a football player feel fffootball was banned? I think one can guess how they would feel Well, that is exactly how people who enjoy the sport of skateboarding feel now. I heard a council member say that it is so easy for a skateboard to be out of control because it can become detached from the skateboarder and can cause harm to bystanders. That is true. That is also the kind of harm a baseball, baseball bat, football, soccer ball, hockey stick or puck, not to mention the harm a hunting rifle can do to a bystander That is why all of these sports are controlled by dcsigmated areas. l understand why the Council is concerned about skateboarders m Iowa City. It can be da.gecous to ~kaie on busy streets, on sidewalks, a[tft ill parking ramps. It is dangerous to the skateboarder, to a bystander, and to a car. Oa~ g$o,m, that is why skateboarding needs a designated area m Iowa C~ty. I have also heard the Council address the issue of liability to skateboarders. It sounds to me like the city does not want the responsibility, and I guess I do not blame it. However, this argument does not make sense to me. What about the liability at all public place in Iowa City? For example, city parks, playgrounds, ball fields, public sidewalks, etc., etc. ... Why couldn't the same apply to a designated skateboarding area? I live in Coralville, so I do not know if this letter will have any significance to you, however I ask you to consider a designated area for skateboarding in Iowa City. If it is to your convenience, 1 would appreciate a response to my letter. I want to thank you in advance for your attention and consideration to this matter. Sincerely yours, Becky Feuerbacher 208 6th Street, Apt. A-6 Coralville, Iowa 52241 (319) 337.4405 'h / BARKER A P A R T M E N T S December 11, 1995 Susan Horowitz 1129 Kirkwood Ave. lowa City, Iowa 52240 CC: City Manager, City Clerk, City At~y,~::~ Director of Finance An identical leter and attachments wa~i2fiitiled"' · ---4 to all counmlors and councdors-elect ,o.I!Mon~ily, December l l, 1995 Dear Mayor Horowitz: This will be a comparatively short letter, but with attachments! Enclosed you will find copies of recent letters to and from the City Manager and myself. He apparently feels that you folks are intransigent in your positions; 1 can not believe that is the case. Submitted in the attachments is a proposal that will bring within your grasp a solution to our long ordeal over water/wastewater rates with which we can all be pleased. The rate increases are spread out evenly, are reasonable for what you want to accomplish, and will permit the completion of both projects in a timely manner. Please read the enclosed materials closely and see if you agree with me. Although these rate proposals for 1996 are far less than what the City Administration first proposed and far more than what I originally suggested to you, they achieve the desired construction results at rate increases the citizens will, in my judgment, be willing to accept. It is a win/win situation and deserves your support. A majority of the Council members chose not to vote in 1995 on the rate increases. lfyou agree with this proposal, I urge that you reconsider this decision. My suggestion is to move quickly even if it means a special meeting, with the first vote in 1995. Then the new Council can proceed in January to have two votes at two regular Council meetings. This will demonstrate that two successive Councils have given this proposal their support. Rate increases of no more that 15% per year are doable. A proposal for this is before you in my letter to Mr. Atkins. He can have the numbers quickly to demonstrate how they would work if you instruct him to do so. I urge you to act favorably on this proposal so that the City Administration can concentrate its efforts in implementing the construction schedule in a timely manner. Thank you for all of the work and effort you have put into what has been a very divisive issue. I especially appreciate your putting up with me these last 13 months. You now can bring us all together. Sincerely yours, Edwin K. Barker Seville Scotsdale Park Place Parkside Manor Westgate Villa 6 Lime Kiln Lane N.E. o Iowa City, Iowa 52240 · (319) 354-2410 Emerald Court BARKER A P A R T M E N T S December 6, 1995 Mr. Stephen Atkins City Manager Civic Center Iowa City, Iowa Dear Mr. Arkins: After listening to the discussion at the Council meeting last night, it appears that now is a good time for us to work together very closely to develop a scenario that can be accepted by a large portion of the populace. I believe some of the proposals contained in the June 30, 1995 memorandum to you from Donald Yucuis describing wastewater/water rates has the promise of forming a basis for ~ sound proposal to the Council. It would be one that can gain broad support needed to bring us all together to achieve our common goal wlfich is to provide the citizens of Iowa City with ample high quality drinking water and a responsible wastewater treatment system, both of which is affordable. There are two suggested rate structures in that memo that I feel could form the basis of a sound Council decision to achieve our gbals. They are the "15% CASH IN 2001" column in the Wastewater Projects proposal and the "10% CASH IN 2001" column in the Water Projects proposal. Both are very close to what we feel the community will be willing to accept. I would like to meet with you and Mr. Yucuis soon to see if we can come to an agreement on a rate structure that you can present and we can accept in an enthusiastic manner. If we can do that, I believe that the necessary voting can take place in a timely manner so that the new rate structure can go into effect with billings beginning March 1, 1995. Please contact me in the next few days if you feel that such a meeting could be beneficial. For some reason or other, I was not paying as close attention to the water/wastewater situation as I should have during mid-summer and did not study or have access to this memo until I heard it mentioned in a recent council meeting. Sincerely yours, Edwin K. Barker Seville Scotsdale Park Place Parkside Manor Westgate Villa 6 Lime Kiln Lane N.E. · Iowa City, Iowa 52240 · (319) 354-2410 Emerald Court December 8,1995 CITY OF I0 WA CITY Ed Barker 6 Lime Kiln Lane NE Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Mr. Barker: This will respond to your letter dated December 6. In your letter you apparently request the Director of Finance to consider other options with respect to water and sewer rate adjustments, notably cash accumulation strategy. 'lhe City Council's policy decision is clear. Following debate over the matter of whether there would be cash accumulated, the Council settled on and directed that a rate structure be designed to provide for a 20% cash accumulation. The options of 10%, 15%, etc. were debated and rejected. The City Council also established a capital program schedule for the water plant and the wastewater system improvements in accordance with this financing plan. and considering any DNR schedule issues to be revised as so directed. At this time, to pursue other financing options, particularly the cash accumulation issues, is contrary to a clearly articulated Council policy. We do plan to constantly monitor the bond market, use cash whenever practical on uihe~ wui. eriwa~iewai. er p~ujuci~, arid cur~ider general obligation debt. if you choose to submit to the City Council other proposals, I will review those as so directed by the City Council. Sincerely, S City Manager cc: City Council Director of Finance bc4.1SA BARKER A P A R T M E N T S December 12, 1995 Mr. Stephen Atkins City Manager Civic Center Iowa City, Iowa Dear Mr. Atklns: I am disappointed that you feel a meeting I suggested in my December 6, 1995, letter would not be beneficial. Let me tell you what I would have proposed if such a meeting had taken place. First, let me say, that I believe it is not too late to make some minor revisions in one of your rate structure proposals and to present it for the first vote at a special Council meeting sometime in December. The necessary advance work must be done expeditiously in order to accomplish this. There is a simple solution to the entire situation which would be good for the City Administration, the City Council, and the citizens of Iowa City. First, let me offer a little background. I first proposed the "down payment" concept in December, 1994. Not then, nor at any time, did I specifically say that we should strive for a 20% "down payment". Rather, I simply suggested the concept; the council eventually decided on 20%, provided minor construction work be done in the first couple of years with the major work being done thereafter. It is now our job to demonstrate to the Council members that, although the "down payment" concept is the desired way in wlfich to proceed, 20% is not necessarily the best choice of percentages. The 20% figure is a good choice only if minor construction is done during the early years. Since you and several Council members want to proceed more quickly than a 20% "down payment" would permit with rate increases spread out evenly, the question then becomes, "What is the best choice for the percentage of "down payment" that will permit reasonably speedy construction with rate increases to be spread out evenly over the .n.e.~. few years? The obvious choice is the 10% "dov, n payment" for the water project and 15% for the wastewater project. With minor adjustments in these two proposals, evenly spread out rate adjustments can be developed and will permit your construction goals to be achievable. If that can be done, why not do it and get it over with? One adjustment could be to reduce the projected interest rate for the bonds currently being used in making your projections. The timing goal should be to have the current council vote on December 19 or at a special meeting shortly thereafter, with the new Council voting twice at separate meetings in January. By doing it this way, you and the Council will demonstrate, if the vote is close to unanimity, that the proposal has broad support from two Councils. This is all tied to the art of negotiation and compromise where a win/win decision emerges. I urge you and the Council with all the earnestness I can muster to give this a try. Seville Scotsdale Park Place Parkside Manor Westgate Villa 6 Lime Kiln Lane N.E. * Iowa City, Iowa 52240 · (3t9) 354-2410 Emerald Court Most people in the community look at their "water bill" in total and do not look at the breakdown between water and wastewater costs. That is why I am suggesting that the per cent increase of the total bill be the one more prominently presented to the citizens. You, of course, need to break it down into increases in each of the divisions which can easily be done. This letter, along with a copy of the letter I delivered to your office on December 6, 1995, and your response to it will be delivered to each councilor and councilor-elect on Monday, December 11, 1995 or Tuesday, December 12, 1995. A cover letter will be sent to them with a copy going to you. I sincerely regret that we have not been able to work more closely and in a cooperative manner on this issue during the past 13 months. However, I am a firm believer, that adjustments in tentative decisions can be made up to the last minute. I hope that neither you nor the Council feel you are at the point where adjustments in the rate structure can not be made. I believe you stated at the Council meeting last Tuesday that annual 15% increases would work. I assume that this was said in the context of keeping the construction schedule you were proposing and adjusting the 20% "down payment" to 1(1% for the water projects and 15% for the wastewater projects. It appears to me that your desire not to continue discussing adjustments in the proposals is based on your feeling that the Council is firm in its position, rather than believing the adjusted proposals I am suggesting are not workable. In all due respect, let me suggest that the consideration of the rate payers is of primary importance. I can not at this time believe that the Council would not look favorably to a better rate structure from the payer's point of view, provided the goals of completing the two projects in a timely manner are accomplished. Since all of these things can be accomplished, I can not imagine the Council not wanting this proposal presented to them. I would have preferred having you present it rather than me, but I will be glad to do so, although it is not what I had originally hoped the outcome would have been. However, the most important benefit of this proposal, it seems to me, i.~ *.hat. *.he cJ*.izens of!owa City, the rate payers, will accept it not only with very little complaining, but w, itb enthusiasm. Therefore, it's worth doing! Sincerely yours, Edwin K. Barker Proposal - Edwin Barker Prepared Dec 9, 1995 15% Cash In 2001 i0% Cash In 2001 Combined Water/Wastewater Monthly Wastewater Residential Monthly Combined Total Monthly Rate Cost for Water Rate Residential Rate Residential FiscalYear Adjustment Wastewater Adjustrnenl Cost for Water Adjustment Cost FY 1995 35.00% '19.94 40.00% 14.05 33 99 FY 1996 11.08% 22.15 20.56% 16.94 15.0% 39.09 FY 1997 11.51% 24.70 19.53% 20.25 15.0% 44.95 FY 1998 10.44% 27.28 20.54% 24.41 15.0% 51.69 FY 1999 13.93% 31.08 14.15% 27.86 14.0% 58.94 FY 2000 5.00% 32.63 10.00% 30.65 7.4% 63.28 FY 2001 0.00% 32.63 10.03% 33.72 4.9% 66.35 FY 2002 0.00% 32.63 0.00% 33.72 0.0% 66.35 Proposal - City Administralion 15% Cash In 2001 Monthly 10% Cash In 2001 Fr~m Memo of June 30, 1995 Combined Water/Wastewater Wastewater Residential Monthly Combined Total Monthly Rate Cost for Water Rate Residential Rate Residential FiscalYeager Adjustment Wastewater ._Adjustment Cost for Water Adjustment Cost FY 1995 35.00% 19.94 40.00% 14.05 33.99 FY 1996 15.00% 22.93 25.00% 17.56 19.1% 40.49 FY 1997 12.00% 25.68 20.00% 21.07 15.5% 46.75 FY 1998 10.00% 28.25 15.00% 24.23 12.3% 52.48 FY 1999 10.00% 31 08 15.00% 27.86 12.3% 58.94 FY 2000 5.00% 32.63 10.00% 30.65 7.4% 63.28 FY 2001 0.00% 32.63 10.00% 33.72 4.9% 66.35 FY 2002 0.00% 32.63 0.00% 33.72 0.0% 66.35 15% Cash In 2001 Monthly ....... P_r0p_Q.s__al _-_Ci._?.y~Adm!.l~is_tration as Adjusted by Edwin I~. Barker Based on June 30, 1995 Memo 10% Cash In 2001 Combined Water/Wastewater Wastewater Residential Monthly Combined Total Monthly Rate Cost for Water Rate Residential Rate Residential ,_Fi_s_._ca_l?ar Adjustment Wastewater Adjustment Cost for Water Adjpst.m_..~ent Cost FY 1995 35.00% "~'9.94 ~- 40.00% 14.05 '--' ,,.o 33.99 FY 1996 14.90% 22.91 24.90% 17.55 ~9.0% 03 40.46 FY 1997 10.80% 25.38 21.70% 21.36 :~:::~5% r~ ~,?..~46.74 FY 1998 10.50% 28.04 13.80% 24.31 3~,~..~% ~ ,~.~52.35 FY 1999 10.00% 30.84 14.40% 27.81 ~,.~% ~ ;'"~58.65 FY 2000 5.30% 32.47 10.45% 30.72 ~.7% "'o ~ ~"'~-~ 63 19 FY 2001 0.00% 32.47 10.30% 33.88 ~-~.0% ~ ~1 ~l ' O . ~ ~ ,~,,~..~66.35 FY 2002 0.00% 32.47 0.00% 33.88 .."~0 ','0 ,, ~66.35 Proposal- City Administration Based On December 11, 1995 Information 20% Cash In 2000 Monthly Wastewater Residential Rate Cost for Water Rate Fiscal Year Adjustment Wastewaler Adjustment FY 1995 35.00% 19.94 40.00% FY 1996 15.00% 22.93 30.00% FY 1997 12.00% 25.68 26.00% FY 1998 10.00% 28.25 25.00% FY 1999 10.00% 31.08 20.00% FY 2000 10.00% 34.19 20.00% FY 2001 -10.00% 30.77 15.00% FY 2002 -5.00% 29.23 -15.00% 20% Cash In 2001 Combined Water/Wastewater Monthly Combined Total Monthly Residential Rate Residential Cost for Water Adjustment Cost 14.0,~ 33.99 18.27 21.2% 41.20 23.02 18.2% 48.70 28.78 17.1% 57.03 34.54 15.1% 65.62 41.45 15.3% 75.64 47.67 3.7% 78.44 40.52 -11.1% 69.75 Proposal- City Administraii'~'B~-~'d-"~Dn M-~-b~ed Nov 17, 1995, adjusted ..................... 20% Cash In 2000 Monthly 20% Cash In 2001 Combined Water/Wastewater Wastewater Residential Monthly Combined Total Monthly Rate Cost for Water Rate Residential Rate Residential F~scal Yeai Adjustment Wastewater Adjustment Cost for Water Adjustment Cost FY 1995 35.00% 19.94 40.00% ' 14.05 "' 3399 FY 1996 14.60% 22.85 30.00% 18.27 21.0% 41.12 FY 1997 11.65% 25.51 26.00% 23.02 18.0% 48.53 FY 1998 9.80% 28.01 25.00% 28.78 17.0% 56.79 FY 1 999 9.90% 30.78 20.00% 34.54 15.0% 65.32 FY 2000 9.36% 33.66 20.00% 41.45 15 0% 75.11 FY 2001 -9.61% 30.42 15.00% 47.67 4.0% 78.09 FY 2002 -3.92% 29.23 -15.00% 40.52 -10.7% 69.75