Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-10-29 TranscriptionOctober 29, 1998 Formal Council Session Page 1 Lehman/Before we do Item #2, this is just for council information. I want to announce that Monday, the 2nd of November, there will be a special council meeting, executive meeting at 6:30. So you might make a note of that. Vanderhoef/Monday? Lehman/Monday at 6:30. Thomberry/We're going to be here at 6:30 anyway. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of October 29, 1998 F102998 October 29, 1998 Formal Council Session Page 2 #2 Public Discussion on Proposed Ballot Language for a Local Sales Tax and the City Council's Policy Statement regarding a Local Sales Tax. Lehman/Item 2 is public discussion on the proposed ballot language for a local sales tax and the city council's policy statement regarding a local sales tax. After a number of meetings to discuss the imposing of a local sales tax, and I'd like to use the opportunity of that, but language a policy statement were developed by the council. The purpose of this public discussion is not to hear comments on the advisability of a local option sales tax, but rather to hear citizen input on the proposed ballot language and policy statement. Plans call for the public discussion to occur at the special meeting October 29th, tonight, and the regular council November 3ra meetin . Council action calling for a special election is scheduled for the November 17tff regular council meeting. So the purpose of this meeting is to discuss the language on the ballot and the language in the policy statement. And I would open this up for public discussion. Jesse Singeman/1176 Hotz. I'm here tonight representing a group of individual citizens who've been involved in the development of several of the projects that are on the ballot and who are now interested in actively supporting the passage of this referendum. As a group, we believe it is very important that the ballot be as clearly and as simply stated as possible and that the uses to which the sale tax dollars are put be very explicit. In addition voters really need to be able to identify the tangible benefits that they and our community will receive from passage of the referendum. In effect the ballot really has to answer the question what's in it for me. While most of our recommended changes and there are quite a few of them are designed to make the ballot more easily understood, they really are just wording ram or moving things around. We also are recommending a few changes in the specific uses of funds from the sales tax because we believe that these changes will appeal to a broad constituency of Iowa City voters and will improve the referendum's chances of success. And I want to hand out so you can look at- What we've prepared (speaks offmic inaudibly). The first sheet is how we hope the ballot appears and the second sheet shows the substantive changes what we believe are the substantive changes that we're recommending. And I have this on overhead. (Speaks offmic inaudibly). Norton/Wait a minute. Singerman/Marian gave me this little laser thing which I've never used. I'm very excited about. The first change that we're recommending is to move up the fee relief portion of the ballot, the water rate stabilization and just kind of put it fight up front so that people can see that they will have a substantial benefit from passing the referendum. In addition we're recommending that you add a phrase showing what will happen to the money in this area after the eight years of water rate stabilization is completed. And we would recommend that it be stated that this This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of October 29, 1998 F102998 October 29, 1998 Formal Council Session Page 3 money would be used for water rate relief because we believe it's a significant benefit to the community and that people will respond positively to that. The next section which is the capital improvement section, the main changes in there, there were quite a few of them but they're really mostly wording changes, things we felt cleaned up the grammar, made it more understandable. We've added this phrase, 'and/or a collaborative projects with other area communities or Johnson County' to reflect the discussions that have gone on between various governmental body. Also the Chamber of Commerce has indicated that they think this is an important piece of the referendum. We do think it's important that voters know there's an intent to cooperate with other area communities in the expenditure of these funds. The next section has some changes but they're mainly wording changes. The next substantive change is in the section on transit and here we believe that it improves the voter appeal of this ballot to commit significant new money to improving our public transit system. Specifically we believe that the ballot should indicate that money will go for the purposes of fare reduction. Some money would go for the purposes of fare reduction and enhancing service, this phrase that we've included here. We think that this commitment reflects the interests of our community and that it is a progressive use of public funds and that it will resonate well with our voters. And we hope that the council will adopt this position. The next change is changes in the hiring and equipping of police officers are again just wording changes. The next area is the Johnson County area human service agencies and we think kind of fundamentally think that the ballot should clearly indicate how much new money will be going to the agencies, that that should be easily understood. We believe that the majority of Iowa City voters would support the full 5% but at a minimum we think that the percentage of increased funding is what should appear on the ballot so that it's clear to the voters. As a group we've given this a great deal of thought and we've done a lot of talking to other citizens in the past few months in various venues. We know there is no perfect ballot and we know there is no perfect tax but we believe the changes we're advocating will make the proposal more appealing to more people and increase the chances of actually getting a majority of our community to vote yes. So I'd be happy to answer any questions that I can answer. Yes. Thomberry/Jesse you keep referring to the group that you support. What group is that? Singerman/It's really a group of, we're not formed as a campaign committee. I think it's what we'll become the campaign committee. And it's the roots of it are the group from the public library that worked on the library expansion and the group that worked on the center for community events. We've been meeting on a semi- regular well regular basis for over a year. And we've expanded to include other people in the community some of whom will be talking tonight. Thornberry/Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of October 29, 1998 F102998 October 29, 1998 Formal Council Session Page 4 Singerman/Any other question? Thank you very much. Lehman/Thank you. George Matheson/I thought when I left the school board that I had successfully said adieu or goodbye to public hearings but obviously that's not going to be the case. Here I am. When you're kind of being, when you're the follow up person you never exactly know what the lead off person is going to say so there's going to be a little bit of repetition here. I'll try to keep it to a minimum and I'll try to be very short. The question was asked about the group. I did want to emphasize a few things here. One, I'm a new member or a newer member of the group. I haven't been around for a year, but I whole heartedly embrace the group and its goals and intentions. But Jesse's, the group that Jesse refers to I think it should be pointed out is a fairly sizeable group, a fairly diverse group, and the recommendations that she presents to you here really met with a strong consensus of the members of that group. I do want to as a member of that group endorse what she had to say. She made reference to the fact that there's no perfect ballot proposal. In my way of thinking that would be one in which 100% of the people agreed every aspect or detail of the ballot. And I'm not telling you folks anything when we say that there's no perfect ballot. And I'm not- when I say that I say it not for your benefit but I think to let you know that we recognize that there is no perfect ballot. We're here to try to help, not hinder you to move things forward, not drag things back or hold them back. With this as a basic assumption, we also recognize that in order to take advantage of the opportunity that presents itself to our community, there will have to be some give and takes, some concessions by all the interested parties. We've given a lot of thought to this. As Jesse indicated we've talked at length. We've tried to answer the question as what will it take to make this work. Furthermore we believe that the proposition proposal under consideration that is the one that you've put forward is essentially in the fight direction and if passed as is would benefit a broad range of citizens and constituencies in our community. Having said this however we respectfully submit that the recommendations that we respectfully submit with the belief that they make the proposition as Jesse indicated clear and more understandable and more importantly more attractive to a broader segment of the community. What we're about is trying to make this work with you the council and the community and I think as Jesse pointed out and as I would point out we need to keep in mind the give and take and the wording that we suggested as she indicated for example with respect to the collaborative projects speaks to the Chamber of Commerce, it's constituency or majority I think of its constituency in urging that there be collaborative projects and collaborative intent. With respect to the wording on fare reduction and service, I think that addresses something that has been said by many people and that is as I understand first and foremost councilor Kubby has indicated an interest in this particular area. And finally in this day and age when ~mding for human services is kind of dwindling I agree and I think the group agrees that to show an increase in human This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of October 29, 1998 F102998 October 29, 1998 Formal Council Session Page 5 service funding is what needs to be done. We recognize that this does not come without some controversy, but we certainly think that that should be the intent and would enhance the opportunities for this ballot proposal to pass. In the summary I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak here. I again would reiterate we hope that you would accept our suggestions in the spirit that they're offered, that we want to try to help not hinder you. And I sure wish you the best of luck as you move forward with your discussion. Thank you very much. Lehman/Thank you. Thornberry/I have a question from Mr. Matheson. Matheson/Go ahead. Thornberry/Or maybe Jesse. On the 10% to support the operating and capital improvement expense of public transit include fare reduction, is that fare reduction for paratransit? Lehman/A comma there. Matheson/No. Thornberry/To include fare reduction, comma, paratransit. Matheson/Right. Toward the group of those. Thornberry/Fare reduction in. Singerman/The new ideas are fare reduction and enhanced service. Thornberry/Fare reduction for what? Norton/For the regular system. Singerman/The cost of taking a bus. Thornberry/For riding the bus. I'm asking Jesse here. And then what else? Singeman/Enhanced service. Service to new areas I think was what we thought that would refer to. We tried to phrase it in a way that you would have some latitude about what you actually did with the money. It's just- this would just indicate that this 10% would include the purposes of fare reduction and enhanced service so you have a lot of latitude. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of October 29, 1998 F102998 October 29, 1998 Formal Council Session Page 6 Thomberry/You want more for less. Singeman/Isn't that what people always want? Thomberry/You want more services? Singerman/Correct. Thornberry/And you know spend less for that service. Singerman/We feel that the public would support, would be more likely to support this proposal with the additional benefit of cheaper public transit and that that would resonant in a lot of ways environmentally, in terms of affordability, and so on. That there's just a lot of. Thomberry/I was just wondering, just trying to clarify the language in here. Singerman/Yes. Thornberry/You're trying to make it clearer, right. Singeman/Okay. Kubby/And as a point of information, if we reduce the fares in the fixed route it automatically reduces the fares for paratransit because paratransit fares can only be twice that of the fixed route so the answer would be the reality of it would be that it would reduce the fares for both parts of our system. Thomberry/Okay. Thank you. Alan Swanson/I'll be very brief too but I really agree with what Jesse and George have said already. I think our key thing is to encourage cooperation among all the different groups and all of you up here to try to get this to pass and we felt by just tweaking a little bit the excellent language and the proportional elements that you've already come up with, people might understand it a little better and it might have a better chance of passing. Basically we're completely in favor of what you had. I think just as a matter of background, I come from about 10 years of working with the cultural center concept which used to be called CenterSpace and in the process of that though in the last few years as we started to talk to more and more people and the library became involved and its importance and we start to see coalescing something here that could really be on many levels a great benefit to the community, I think all of us in our various little boxes that we were in have left those boxes and have all got together in a much larger way like you have up here to see how we could benefit the city and we I think the whole think This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of October 29, 1998 F102998 October 29, 1998 Formal Council Session Page 7 has become more even the center idea has become completely multidisciplinary and I guess I'm really excited about the whole idea and the fact that also the other elements that are on this ballot now address a lot of other things that are not were not in there before but that we've also in our own groups discovered by meeting in our homes with lots of different groups and interviewing them and asking them what are your concerns about the library or what are your concerns about the conference or the center the center for events. And a lot of the things on this ballot address some of those needs so I really feel good about this and I just want to kind of echo what they're saying that we're trying to help you and the city get this passed and I know there'll be people against it but there'll be a lot of us working very hard to make it work and we think that the current wording that we're suggesting would help do that. And again like George said and Jesse, too, we really thank you for your role in this. I think this is kind of a forward thing to be doing for the City of Iowa City. It is the right thing to be doing at the right time and the elements are coming together very well in my opinion. Thanks. Lehman/Thank you. Julie Stamper/President of the Downtown Association of Iowa City and the DTA, I know you are familiar with, but we represent over 150 businesses in the downtown area and I am just here to communicate to you from our board of directors that while we did realize the wording was somewhat vague and we did cover some of the changes that the other groups have talked about. Overall we are in support of the ballot proposition and the allocation of resources. And also wanted to thank you for your work on this. So, thank you very much. Lehman/Thank you. Julie. John Beckord/Use some of that money to buy a new pen. From the area Chamber. I have a few brief comments. You have seen a communication that we sent to you recently about some deliberations by our board about this issue. It is very hard for a Chamber of Commerce to embrace a new tax as you might expect. I talked to 100's of members over the last few months about this issue. It is very difficult to talk to them, of course, until we get to this point when the spending proposals are out there. But the first hurdle that needed to be crossed was whether or not there could be a statement of support from our board of directors on the basic idea of endorsing a tax, period. And it is complicated by the fact that when you talked to members of the business community in this area. You have basically three groups. There is a group on one side of the issue that says it doesn't matter to me in terms of my business. If it can buy some vitality for this community, if it can buy some infrastructure which is often mentioned, then let's do it. On the other side of the extreme there is a group of people and they are not just business people. I think you can say this generally about the community, who don't like any flavor of a tax under any circumstance. And you are going to have a very difficult time This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of October 29, 1998 F102998 October 29, 1998 Formal Council Session Page 8 convincing them regardless of how you decide to spend this money to vote for this tax. In the middle, of course, is a larger group of people, I think at this point in time, that can be swayed one way or the other depending upon the decisions you make here. And the decisions, of course, that are made at the other council- the board of supervisors. I think it is bears repeating that the supervisors will get about a 25% allocation of revenue from this tax, a very significant number of dollars the board of supervisors have at their disposal should this tax pass and that becomes a very important question as well. Also I need to remind you, of course, we are an area Chamber of Commerce. We cannot evaluate this in a vacuum only looking at what this council does. We need to take into consideration what the Coralville council, North Liberty council and the Johnson County board of supervisors decides to do as well. So the first hurdle of our board was to look at the tax issue without regard to the spending proposals and a decision was taken recently to accept the fact that a sales tax is an acceptable funding mechanism for local governments. A full fledge endorsement would depend upon how the money was spent and through the work of members of a task force led by Bill Nusser from Hands Jeweler downtown who happens to be a large ticket retailer, by the way. The group that most typically has the most problem with this tax. We came up with five criteria and you have seen them but I will briefly mention them. Since this particular proposal is driven by Iowa City and since Iowa City' s proposal is designed in such a way that a sunset clause is really not feasible, then the idea of community input must take on some other type of approach than a referendum at some point in time. This would be typical with one of these local option sales taxes that is in most communities where there is a local option sales tax. There is a sunset clause where citizens have a chance to come back at some point in time and vote on it again. Of course it is interesting to note that in most of those cases the voters do vote it in again but that nevertheless the voters have that opportunity to review the tax and the spending proposals at some point in time. Since that is not possible here under this scenario, what we are asking you to do is take a long look at how you would solicit further community input down the road. Now firm concrete proposal here and maybe it is as simple as when you have paid off some of these initial projects and new ideas come to the fold, you simply have an opportunity for citizens to come forward and provide their input. The second item in the criteria were benefits to lower income groups. Most of us have taken economic 101. We all know that sales taxes are regressive. All things being equal, it is more difficult for lower income people to afford this tax than it is for middle and upper income people. Of course the real story in the end though, in terms of real dollars and cents is how the money is spend can affect that impact on lower income people. And we are asking that you consider items in the list of spending proposals that in fact lower the cost of living in this community, especially for lower income groups. Naturally that can apply to all income groups This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of October 29, 1998 F102998 October 29, 1998 Formal Council Session Page 9 but the savings that are offset by one proposal could more than offset the regressive nature of the tax and we think that is important. Fee or tax relief. In most communities we are talking about property tax relief. The spirit of this legislation the state passed allowing you to even do this was based on the idea that it would provide for property tax relief. That is why under law you have to put how much money you are going to allocate to property tax relief on the ballot and at this point, of course, there isn't any plan to indicate any property tax relief. But that can be- A substitute for that, of course, would be fee relief and of course water rate relief is part of this tax proposal and we applaud that and think that bares emphasizing when you take this to the public as I think, we think voters will greatly identify with that particular part of the proposal. The last two are related. Collaboration, of course, has been mentioned several times here and this gets to the notion that we are an area Chamber of Commerce as I said. We have to take into account the interest of not only Iowa City but Coralville, North Liberty and Johnson County. And once you get beyond the reality of how this money will be spent and the impact it will have on certain areas of your community and I understand you are elected to represent the people in Iowa City and not elsewhere. The fact of the matter is there is a political reality here in that you are going to vote as a block and there needs to be a positive relationship between these communities over a long term. So it is important to you and it is important to this community and certainly important to the business community that you look at collaboration very seriously, even beyond this initiative. And carry on a regular dialogue on how you can work together with Coralville, Johnson County and North Liberty and other communities in the area, other jurisdictions or other government bodies, perhaps like the school district and find ways to collaborate together. I think it is important to note that this is not in response to a feeling that there hasn't been collaboration because, of course, there are numerous instances where Iowa City has collaborated particularly with Johnson County and Coralville on various issues and we applaud that and think it is very important. This has the potential of fracturing these communities in a way that would be very unhealthy. I think it is very important that you take a very serious attitude about preventing that from happening because it could spill over into other issues and that would be unfortunate. And then not only are we looking at collaboration in terms of this particular initiative but we would like for you to express a very long term commitment to this kind of collaboration. So our next hurdle then will be to take this proposal that you end up with as well as those from the Coralville council, the Noah Liberty council and the Johnson County board of supervisors and essentially evaluate those proposals against these criteria and our board will then position on that. In the newspaper articles about our position it was stated that perhaps business people are real independent and will likely vote their won way anyway regardless of what the Chamber of Commerce says and that is probably accurate. We have several business people on this This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of October 29, 1998 F102998 October 29, 1998 Formal Council Session Page 10 council. However that doesn't mean that what we do as a board and the position that we take is irrelevant because it is hardly irrelevant because when we do take a position, we are going to be forced to explain that position very carefully and give them a lot of informed thought about how to think about this issue and what it means to the community and the relationship between the communities in our county and that effort to communicate why we have taken a particular position is perhaps more valuable than the position itself. Because in the end business people and residents go to that ballot box and vote one way or the other, it is important that they understand the issues and this is a very complex set of issues that fit together in a very unusual way with the laws in place and the way that Coralville can respond and in the way the county and everybody fits into the distribution of the funds. My guess is most of the people at this point in time do not understand the fundamentals of this issue. So we have, as well as other groups, have a Herculean task to try to explain how this all will work and what it means to this community and the other communities in the area. Questions? Champion/I would like to say that I think you underestimate the value of your endorsement or your lack of endorsement because even though there might be independent people who are members of the Chamber of Commerce, there are also a large group of people out there who take your endorsement with a lot of weight and I would hope that the communities can put something together that would get the endorsement of the Chamber of Commerce. It would behoove us to do that. Beckord/I appreciate that, Connie. That would happen up the road. Of course there are different thoughts about that. Thank you. Lehman/Thank you, John. Further public discussion. We would certainly entertain council- Go ahead, Paul. Paul Davis/I just retired from the school district. Let me tell you a little bit about a good school. A good school adjusts to changes in population, their needs. They adjust to a curriculum as dictated by society such as technology, adjusts to when we get a group of kids, we adjust everything to their needs. Now that I am no longer a principal, I am with this city group I am a drum beater of people. You know, I appreciate the Chamber and their discussion. They are correct. But I am going to be dram beating for the city and drum beating very hard. I have been a principal all over this district and so I do know a lot about the constituents out there and I agree with Connie. I kind of know what they are thinking and where they are going to go. That is one reason why I am really- This ballot does meet the needs of a lot of people. That is why I will back it 100% and the city, you know, I think you people realize you are having a population change. I think the DTA certainly their needs have changed a bit. And such things as this. So we have got to have a vision. This ballot does have a vision of how we can kind of revitalize a lot of the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of October 29, 1998 F102998 October 29, 1998 Formal Council Session Page 11 city and I am going to be backing it. I am going to be a drum beater. I am going to be also honest, I am a Iowa Citian, you know. And I don't expect to be invited out to Coralville or Noah Liberty or anywhere else. But I will be joining some neighborhood associations and I will be backing this and I will be talking this up. This does meet the needs of a lot of our people and I do know that lower income people are going to see a regression but we can- They can also visualize what is going to happen. This will help. So I hope you will back this ballot and get out there. I just want you to know there are going to be some people go out there who are going to be pushing it. Thank you. Do you have any questions? Champion/I am glad you are on our side. Thomberry/What is our side? Are you speaking again for me, Connie? Joyce Summerwill/Until about a year ago I was quite active in the combined group of the library and the Committee for Community Events in what is called CenterSpace and we have been working on that for many years as you have all known. I want to congratulate all of you for coming up with a very doable proposal and I would like to make a comment following John Beckord that I feel very very strongly that this community, when you start examining what community is, then you start thinking what we are all here. And I think we are all here for the diversity that Iowa City has to offer and it is something that takes us out of our houses everyday and brings us either to destination points, if you want to call them that. Or the sense of community. And when you ask people why they have either moved to Iowa City or why they live here, they usually say grade schools, semi-safe neighborhoods, good healthcare, great people, diversity, good education, the list goes on and on. But by and large, all of us are here because we really have a sense of community. And I think the great thing about this community is that we support either people who do activities in this community that we might now participate in ourselves but we take a part of them. There are many many artists in this community that we have no interest in participating in art events and yet because they are our next door neighbors we are sort of fascinated by it and we benefit from that and we learn something from it. The same way the great athletic program, we might now play baseball or football but it is sort of neat that our neighbors take part in that and we go down and watch the kids play and we learn something from that and it becomes our sense of community. I would like to suggest to you that you, as leaders of Iowa City, are sort of the heart of this region and when we say- And when John kept referring to the regions around, we are all one community. But for the last ten years or so, we have been feeding, if I can make this implicit analogy, we have been feeding the arteries and veins of our heart and I think of Iowa City as being a heart of this community, as a physical heart of it. And it is now time to feed and nurture the heart and we all know that if you let the heart go without proper nutrients, it will wither and die and eventually your little arteries and veins that you are been supporting all along are going to This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of October 29, 1998 F102998 October 29, 1998 Formal Council Session Page 12 wither and die, too. And I think now is the time to put this forward and I think that with a hard working group of people in this community with all of the things here because it does show that this is the sense of community that we all have and I think it is a good ballot and I think we need to go out there with a positive approach that it is now time to rethink what our community is all about. Noah Liberty benefits from these things that are going on. If it is not immediate, it is going to be down the road. When you ask people from North Liberty why they are here, you know they are either working at the University or in some business. But they are associating in some way because of Iowa City. This is the heart. So thank you., Lehman/Thank you, Joyce. Is there further public discussion? Council discussion? O'Dounell/Well, I like the wording of the ballot. I could certainly support fare reduction, paratransit and human service. I am wondering and I do like putting the- There have been some very good things said tonight. I like what it is in it for me. And John, I think we all recognize we have something in this for property tax reduction, we have a much better oppommity to pass it and I think at least three of us up here are supporting that. It is unfortunate that we don't have 110%. We have 100%. But I like the new wording and I certainly would have no trouble supporting this. Lehman/I would want to know- I would like to know what dollars. We need to know- I don't disagree with what I have heard tonight. I would like to know what that boils down to in dollars and cents and what- I don't think it is enough to tell folks that we are going to reduce the bus fare. I think we need to tell them what reduction will be in the bus fare and what we intend to do. One of the problems that I sense on this council with the sales tax is a problem of being very very honest and square with the public. Not having something- It has to be general in a way so that it is a living son of thing should it pass. On the other hand, if it isn't fairly specific, you are not really telling the public what you are going to spend your money for. The proposal that we are looking at I think basically ties up probably in access of 75% of all of the money to absolutely required spending projects. There is a limited amount of discretion on those other projects. And I think the more the public knows how we expect to spend that money, the better the chance of passing the bond issue. But I do think we need to know the kinds of numbers that we would be associated with fare reduction because it does, as Karen pointed out, it has implications for SEATS as well as public transportation. Atkins/It is easy enough to calculate. Lehman/I think that is the son of thing we need. We are not going to arrive at any conclusions tonight. We don't intend to because this meeting is going to continue next Tuesday night but I think there are some questions that we need to at least This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of October 29, 1998 F102998 October 29, 1998 Formal Council Session Page 13 put out that we can have some answers to on Tuesday and that is one of the questions. Norton/I think it would be terribly hard to specify what the fare reduction might be because it depends on what you decide to do in terms of the capability of the system, whether you add or expand the system. What I want to be clear about is the proposal as presented to you and certainly the one the library is talking about as well despite the wording changes is envisioning 10% in some increase in transit as well, for example, 5% increase in human services. Those of us on council who have looked heavily at this, whether we should get some number in the property tax relief. The only way to do that- For example, we support transit with about $500,000 subsidy. We could, instead of taking that out of property tax, we could take it out of sales tax and then reduce property tax which would be about $30 a year or something like that. But that would leave nothing in here for transit explicitly. So we are in a bind trying to get something and I know Mike would like to get something in the property tax column other than zero. But to do so you got to cut out some of the others. At least it is a very difficult proposition. But as long as we understand that these are additional numbers. That is what you are talking about the way it is presented here. Thornberry/Dee, I too would like to have something for property tax relief. But unless I can look at my property tax bill and then say, for example-just on a wild hair, that that passes and I look at my property tax and it stays the same or it goes up, I am going to think those lying- They lied to me. I would think that and many other people would think that, too. That is why, I think, if we don't have- If we have zero for property tax relief and the property taxes stay the same or go up a little or whatever, that is all right. But if you say 15% for property tax relief and your bill doesn't go down 15%, I think we are in trouble. Norton/We have got to clarify that right away. It isn't a matter of the 15%- the 10% of the sales tax went to property tax relief. If you took- Let's just lay it out. Thornberry/I understand that scenario but I think that if people look at their property tax bill and it hasn't gone down, I think they are going to think that it didn't go down. Norton/I guess that it won't go down. If you- Thomberry/I know it won't. Norton/$500,000, Dean, $5000,000 which is 10% of this. Let's say roughly $5 million that would be raised. 10% of that is $500,000. If that $500,000 went into transit instead of doing transit out of property tax moneys, you could in principle, reduce property taxes by about $30. I will give you the numbers if you want. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of October 29, 1998 F102998 October 29, 1998 Formal Council Session Page 14 Thornberry/I understand. Norton/So you could accomplish that but you would then have a ballot that showed 10% for property tax and nothing for transit. And which way sells the better is the question. Which way is more understandable for the public and more acceptable for the public is one of the kind of issues we battled a lot of we have come up with where we are, at least the majority have come up. Thomberry/Dee, I understand the scenario very very carefully. We have talked about it, talked about it and discussed it and argued about it. But if my tax bill doesn't go down then I can't- I cannot personally- Norton/I believe it would have to go down, no doubt about it Dean. And there would be no additional money into transit. Thornberry/No, all I am saying and regardless of transit. If you say 15% for property tax relief and my property taxes don't go down, I'm thinking I have been lied to. Norton/I would entirely agree with you. Thornberry/Regardless of what is done with any other moneys. Norton/I would entirely agree. Just don't make it a confusion of 15% reduction in your property taxes. 15% of the sales tax would go toward that at the extent of other categories that we would all like to see in here. So that is it. Just to let you know we are thinking about those more than anything. (All talking). Lehman/We still have the same concerns we had before. Steve, if I am not mistaken, Ames does have an amount on their ballot that said property tax relief?. Correct me if I am wrong, I don't know how much, but I know that, if I am not mistaken, Ames prepares their budgets. They have a total, they subtract the amount that the property tax services of that budget and that amount is in effect, it is the relief on property taxes. I mean it is taxes that didn't to be levied to provide the services that were paid for by that sales tax. Isn't that how Ames does it? Atkins/That is how it works. Vanderhoef/Subtract it off the bottomline. Lehman/That does not reduce the actual dollars spent in taxes. It, on the other hand, provides more with less pressure on taxes. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of October 29, 1998 F102998 October 29, 1998 Formal Council Session Page 15 Atkins/It would reduce the property tax. They develop a budget, total it up, then add in the sales tax revenue that is directly to offset the property tax, that is it. It gives them a new bottomline. O'Donnell/Well, it sure looks a lot better than a goose egg up there. Thomberry/The only way that that is reduced is if you don't spend it. The only way, and I started first- The only way that that could be and we have talked about 15% for property tax relief and I said will the people look at their tax bill and see a 15% reduction? The answer was no. Champion/It could. Thomberry/If the council didn't spend it. If any council down the road didn't spend the money that was allocated at 15% from property tax, if they didn't spend it, yes it would be a property tax relief. But don't tell me there is not a city council that is going to spend that money. They will. Norton/Certainly not this one. Vanderhoef/I have been sitting on the middle on listening and seeing both sides of this wording and I truly would like to hear from the public which they think is clearer to have for the public. George Mattheson/I am not going to speak for the- CHANGE TO TAPE 98-120: SIDE 2 Mattheson/We did have the same discussion, too. It is really encouraging. This is the give and take and concessions that I was referring to. But it seems to me, Dean and Dee, I really - I understand thoroughly what you are saying. It could be that if you put it towards property taxes at the same time the assessed value went up and everything, actually our taxes might go up but at a slower rate. And that is what you talking about, the credibility issue. So I think that it would be more noticeable in the transportation. I mean it just would show up. It would be more noticeable. The percentages might- I mean you could talk about greater percentages of reduction than you ever could with respect to property taxes and I think it might be interesting to see what additional use you get out of transportation system if we did make it more accessible by way of reducing those rates. So, I for one, would opt in that direction and I think you could keep your credibility and I think you could say to the people that we have made an effort to reduce fees, reduce taxes, and I think the credibility issue would not be an issue at all but I do understand and feel sympathetic to what you say. Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of October 29, 1998 F102998 October 29, 1998 Formal Council Session Page 16 Kubby/I don't believe that rents would go down if property taxes went down. Mattheson/Imperceptibly maybe. But- Or they wouldn't raise at as great a rate maybe. Kubby/And I think the community would feel more impact of this money with having zero for the property tax relief and it would be actually more directly stated. Lehman/Well, I really do agree and I guess I would need to know and I am sure the rest of use would need to know what the impact would be, for example, of various size reductions in transit fares. Atkins/I can have that for you very shortly. Lehman/And the other thing about the reduction in transit fare, it would be- You would have to have the numbers but it would be perhaps entirely possible using a portion of the sales tax to reduce transit fares. To reduce fares and still provide the same or better service at no greater cost to the public. In other words, you could ride that bus for less money but the cost to you as a tax payer remains the same or less than it was before and I think that is the key issue. Your tax that would have had to support a reduce rate will not have to happen. With a sales tax, that will support the reduced rate. Thomberry/You mean the moneys coming in from the sales tax will fund the reduction in rate. Fund the reduction in rate and expand service. Lehman/Well, you have to be really careful when you start talking. I mean you have to have some flexibility but I don't think you are going to suddenly put buses on every street now. Norton/No but we are talking about a west side shuttle, for example, that is being pushed by a lot of folks. Lehman/I think you have better be really careful on that one. A reduced rate you can compute. And we know exactly what that means. I don't think we are at a point where we can compute what differences in routes or whatever is going to be and I would really hate to see that in the ballot proposition. Kubby/The suggested wording change does not say expanded services. It says enhanced. It does have a different flavor to it. It might mean that we change how we deliver services as Dee Vanderhoef has been advocating. That may not actually be expanded services but serves the people who are using it in an enhanced way which actually is better service but not necessarily (can't hear). Lehman/I like that wording. Jim- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of October 29, 1998 F102998 October 29, 1998 Formal Council Session Page 17 Jim Fausett/Yes, Ernie, as your sister city in Coralville I do have some concern if you start putting a reduction of fares on the transit because fight now we have a pretty integrated system where our fares are tied to your fares. I don't see how, at this point, that Coralville could possibly lower fares and still provide the service that we do because we have a lot of distance and I think this might cause some what of a problem of the two areas in being able to continue as we have with the cooperation whether we have the transfers. I know we had intended to raise our fares to a dollar quite a year ago but due to the fact that this was not in your plans and so forth and it was going to cause problems, we did not do so. So I think this could cause somewhat of a problem. As far as property tax relief, that you could have some property tax relief and you could still have the county and the schools taxes go up and it might not show so I don't know that there's an easy way to do that but those are a couple of problems that might surface. Lehman/Thanks Jim. That is a point that I hadn't thought of. Vanderhoef/It's on a tax bill but not everybody divides it all up. Lehman/The very fact that we do transfers and we do the same bus fares would certainly require some coordination with Coralville. Thornberry/And when we raised our rates this last time we spent quite a bit of time with Coralville trying to get everything to mesh properly and came to a resolution. Vanderhoef/But the enhancement kind of things that I've talked with other people about around the country could actually make it more accessible and make it easier for people to get to and from the jobs in off times. Those kind of things that they can afford the time if the fide is available when they need it. And right now that's one of the things that I see as a real barrier to getting some of our hourly workers to work. Some of them when they get there first jobs they have to have the shift jobs and that's when we don't have the buses running. So there are some real innovative things out there that could be enhancement, I think, to our lower income citizens that wouldn't necessarily include a reduction in the fee for the ride. Lehman/Steve, I think we are going to need some information come Tuesday, though. I mean- I think what if- Atkins/Don is taking notes. Lehman/And also I think it is also going to be how does this affect our relationship with the Coral transit system. Obviously that is going to have, I would think, a significant impact on what we do. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of October 29, 1998 F102998 October 29, 1998 Formal Council Session Page 18 Atkins/I understand. Kubby/I have a legal question for Eleanor that she may or may not have answer for now. Having an 'and/or' in the proposed language about the collaborative projects. What does that bind us to legally? I mean, because what I am thinking about because I was making this argument to not have a sentence like that in there because there may be some some years- Once the library and the community events center, those bonds are paid off and we are focusing the money on other capital improvements. There may be years that we collaborate- Because most of the collaborative projects that have been talked about have been road projects and I can foresee that in, you know, for the next 10 -20 years that being the major thing in this growing community. That if there are some years where there isn't a collaborative road project that we want to work on, that we might be forced to be building roads that we don't need yet because of this ballot language and I just want to make sure I understand what 'and/or' means and how does that binds us legally or gives us flexibility legally. Dilkes/Yeah, I think we are going to have to work with that a little bit because- I mean, you can read to that to be- First of all you have got other clauses here that are attached with an 'and'. So we have got public library, the community events center and these other capital improvements and/or the collaborative projects which would say to me those capital improvements and collaborative projects or substituting for those projects the collaborative projects. So I think we are going to have- (All talking). Vanderhoef/And do we not have that same flexibility that I think they are asking for which is what our intent is when we go to our ballot policy? Or our policy statement is what I am trying to say. Dilkes/The question would be whether you want to bind yourself to doing collaborative projects? If you do not, then you would just say for other capital improvement such as bridges, parks, sewers, public buildings, and collaborative projects, etc. I mean it would be one of the options. Lehman/Okay. Kubby/Because I think it may not be every year that we need to collaborate. Some years we do and some years we don't and I think I don't want us to trap ourselves. I don't think that is good public policy. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of October 29, 1998 F102998 October 29, 1998 Formal Council Session Page 19 Vanderhoef/And the other thing that we have been saying all along in our own discussions had to do with is that we have bonding capacity to do collaborative projects anytime we choose to do them and have a willing partner to do it with us, so it doesn't necessarily have to come out of sales tax money top have that happen. Lehman/Well, I think that is what you are saying. We have the flexibility, if we choose to. Vanderhoef/We want to be careful about putting it into the ballot. Kubby/But what we are heating from the public is that it would be a political decision to add this. That I would suggest that if the majority wants to do that, to come together- to have the different entities come together and that we do it in as flexible way as possible. I think we all agree on that. Vanderhoef/We agree on it and we addressed it in the sales tax policy part of it. Lehman/I have a question. Eleanor, the ballot proposition, is that portion that will govern how the money is spent. Is that not true? Dilkes/That is correct. Lehman/The policy section is how this council interprets this ballot. Dilkes/I don't have that in from of me but I know that I put some disclaimer language at the beginning of that policy statement which I hope very clearly says this is all this is and it is only the ballot proposition that is binding. Lehman/I think it is very important that the public realize that, too, that this is the intent of this council, this policy section. But that does not have the force of law. It is only the ballot proposition that would be goveming. Atkins/I would remind you that if you do commit to capital debt, this council is binding future councils for potentially 20 -25 years. Lehman/We know that. Atkins/As long as you- You can't get out of that. Okay? Vanderhoef/But one of the things that John spoke to earlier about getting community input. Because we have got a sales tax policy that this council is looking at, it does not bind the future council from changing that part of the policy and still leave the ballot categories still in place. So that is the opportunity. So that if a This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of October 29, 1998 F102998 October 29, 1998 Formal Council Session Page 20 council decides that they are going to change the policy on some of that, that is where I envision regularly to see people come in and give us input. Alan Swanson/I just have a question. Is it important that the ballot be clear enough too that the voter does not have to read the policy to understand? Lehman/Yes. Swanson/So we have to be sure that it is self explanatory. Thornberry/You bet. Norton/Isn't it true that many ballot statements are much briefer than this? Some of them just say for capital projects and other community needs, community betterment. Some of them are extremely brief. Vanderhoef/Public safety. Norton/No details at all. And I think it is safe to be fairly careful about how specifically we encumber otherwise we are going to bind if we can't do what we promised. I think we have got to be reasonably cautious, honest but cautious about how we word those things. O'Donnell/I think preparation going up to this, too. Because we have zero property tax relief. We have got 25% water rate stabilization or water rate relief and I wonder how many people are aware that we are talking freezing the water bill and for what period of time. And I wonder if that would be beneficial to put on there. Norton/In the campaign. Thomberry/It is scheduled to go up for the next few years and then start coming down again and if it is stabilized, that means it won't go up but it doesn't mean- It means it won't go down either. I can see where after it has been stabilized and then we get some of these things paid off and they start coming, let it come down. Lehman/You would have to, under this ballot, you would have to apply those funds to water rates. Thornberry/Right. Lehman/You would have no choice. Thornberry/Right, I want that. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of October 29, 1998 F102998 October 29, 1998 Formal Council Session Page 21 Lehman/Period. O'Donnell/But what is the water rate? That is hard to say. Water rate relief, is it 10 cents a month or what is it? Lehman/We will have those numbers. Atkins/We can calculate that. Lehman/Don knows. O'Donnell/But we were talking freezing the water rates for like eight years. Thornberry/Don knows to the penny. O'Donnell/And that is in our policy. And that is my question, should it be more accurately defined here? Champion/No, what if we get more revenue that we need and we can reduce the water rate in eight years. Yeah, I think you should leave it the way it is. Thomberry/Or we have some broken lines that we didn't know we are going to break when we turned the faucet on and all of those things. The old ones break. Maybe we would need for a period of time. But when it comes to that point, yes bring it down. Yes, get relief. Norton/Stabilization could be kind of a difficult word. If your scenario worked out, Dean, stabilization is the wrong word, isn't it? Thornberry/It is not relief. Atkins/The idea of the water rate relief which was the original language was to take the money and contribute it directly into the water fund. And then by policy you had indicated we will freeze the rates for the next eight years. There is, in calculations, potential for those rates to decline over a period of time by the continue of putting the money in. That is truly relieving the water rates. Thornberry/But again, you look at your water bill and if this passes and your water bill does not come down- Atkins/It is a city utility bill and folks have got to realize this affects water only. Not refuse, not sewer, none. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of October 29, 1998 F102998 October 29, 1998 Formal Council Session Page 22 Thornberry/That is correct. All I want to be is very clear to the public what is going to happen to their water bill, their property tax bill, whatever. I don't want to mislead them in any way. Norton/I wonder if just water (can't hear- all talking). That is my thought. Atkins/You weren't going to decide that tonight anyway. Lehman/No, I don't think so but I think we used the word stabilization instead of freezing. When you talk about water and freezing, stabilization sounds better than freezing water. I think that is true. Kubby/That is what the campaign is about. The campaign is to talk about what the ballot would actually do for people. Thornberry/Because our water rates will be going up. Kubby/There is not room enough on the ballot to put the discussion. O'Donnell/That is why it has to be as clear as possible. Lehman/It seems that we have heard a little bit of a change which I think has to be clarified and Karen, I think you pointed it out pretty well from Jesse on the 40%. I think that is correct. We do need to have that. Obviously collaborative projects are important. I don't think that they are compulsory. I mean I think, as Karen stated, there may be years where there may be projects and years where they may not. The fare reduction is something that we are going to need some more information on come Tuesday night. Atkins/Okay. Lehman/The item that we have not talked about and I am assuming from this discussion tonight that the rest of the items we seem to have either a few questions which are going to be answered on Tuesday night or we are in agreement on. The 5% for increased funding for human service agencies. This is a change from what we had originally proposed. How does the council- Again, we are not going to come to a decision on this. Atkins/Ernie, may I make a suggestion? I would not commit to this ballot language or any ballot language until after next Tuesday's meeting. Lehman/We aren't going to but I thought we should mention it because it is- I guess I would like to know how people feel about that. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of October 29, 1998 F102998 October 29, 1998 Formal Council Session Page 23 O'Donnell/I just got this. Thornberry/I would like to have a chance to look at it and back and forth. Lehman/Okay, that is fine, I don't care. Norton/I think so but I agree with Steve. For example, operating expenses for the library/community events center. At that time we were looking at that general issue, there were a number of other things that were raising some operating expenses. I remember the Scanlon Gym, for example, was one I take it. Would it be excluded by this? Or does go under community related activities? Lehman/Related activities. Norton/And you know we are acquiring all kinds of park facilities as we were seeing last night that we will begin to have difficulty keeping up with everything. Lehman/Dee, you are right. But if we get everything that we have put in the pot- But if start putting everything in the pot, we are going to have so much soup that nobody is going to want to eat. Norton/I just want that category to not be loaded necessarily totally on the library and the community events center. I think- Champion/I think we can all relax a little bit. Kubby/Well, when we talked about it before, we talked about other related community activities. We were thinking more of some of those cultural activities like Arts Fest and Jazz Fest and other things that may come up. We weren't really thinking about Parks and Rec type of related activities. I mean, I am trying to find real quickly where that is stated. Atkins/Karen, I remember the same way you do. Kubby/Maybe that should be clarified in the policy statement. Atkins/You need to rework that definition if you have a difference of opinion because I recall it the same way you do. Kubby/Right because that is why we added that so we could have flexibility about cultural events that bring people in, not our normal day to day operations of the city. That is not an increase service to this community. I mean one of the messages I am heating from the public is that some of the things in our original language was to switch over from property taxes to sales taxes and then that kind This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of October 29, 1998 F102998 October 29, 1998 Formal Council Session Page 24 of leaves us a blank check for the property tax part of it whether it is to relieve property tax or to spend it for other community needs and I am hearing the message that some of these things need to be additional services. Thomberry/Jesse, you and your people have done a good job here but it seems to me that we have done a fairly good job because it is not that different. I mean- Jesse Singerman/You have done a great job. Thomberry/You know, we really really worked hard on this. You took what we had and changed it a little bit. You apparently had a pretty decent thing to start with. Singerman/(Can't hear). Lehman/Yeah, Dean, you done good. Thornberry/You know, we all worked very hard on this and it shows because you people are pretty brilliant and couldn't find a whole lot wrong with it. I feel pretty good. Lehman/Is there further discussion? We are going to be taking this up again on Tuesday night. We do have some things I think we need to think about over the weekend. Is there further council discussion? Kubby/I just want to state something about fare reduction. I know it presents challenges with Coralville. Before we dismiss that part of the suggestion, to think how do we compensate for that challenge with Coralville instead of not accepting this idea because I think one of the reasons that we have 1.5 million fewer riders a year is because of that year when we reduced service and increased rates. You paid more and got less. It is about time, you stabilize or tum it around. So I hope people would seriously over the weekend think about it. O'Donnell/I think we can work that out with Coralville. Lehman/But I also think this is something Steve can visit- Atkins/We will address that issue, Karen. (All talking). Lehman/Any other comments from the public. There is two things I would like to bring up before we adjoum. Kubby/Do I need to- We don't need to continue the p.h because it is already- We do? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of October 29, 1998 F102998 October 29, 1998 Formal Council Session Page 25 Dilkes/It is already advertised. Kubby/So we just don't close it. Lehman/Karen, you called me today about relative to the discussion of the disorderly house ordinance. Dilkes/Mr. Mayor, we don't have anything else on the agenda except p.h. for the sales tax. Lehman/Schedule a meeting? I am just talking about scheduling a meeting. Dilkes/Talking about scheduling a meeting? Lehman/Yeah. We offered to meet with some University folks and Karen, I think you told me that they could meet with us? Kubby/November 9, 6:00, is when they would like to have a student forum on the disorderly house and then- (All talking). Lehman/I think we are all going to be here on that meeting. Dilkes/We can't hear a thing. Marian can't hear. (All talking). Kubby/If someone else would like to take on the task of working with Bfian White to get a date that works for all seven of us plus the folks at student senate who are doing this. I would be happy to have you take that task on. I don't have time to deal with that in my life fight now. Norton/I would be glad to try. Kubby/Or if it is date that I can't be there, that is fine with me. Brian and I just connected on this and if someone wants to take over the task, cool. Lehman/How many can make it? Vanderhoef/So exactly what is the request that they want a date to meet with at least some of the council. Lehman/Just visit about this proposed ordinance. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of October 29, 1998 F102998 October 29, 1998 Formal Council Session Page 26 Kubby/We shouldn't probably talk about the details of it because it is not on the agenda. I am just notifying you of the date so you can put it on your calendars. Vanderhoef/What is the date? Kubby/November 9 at 6:00 PM. It can change if people want it to change. Otherwise I don't know what the flexibility is. Just so it is on your calendar for those who could make it. I don't have any details. I just have the date and the time. This is a courtesy thing. I am sorry this is becoming a big deal. So it can be on your calendars and details are forthcoming. Lehman/Let's just put it down. Those of us who can be there, will be there. Kubby/I will try to have details on the 2nd and if someone wants to call me about some other suggested dates, I would negotiate. Karr/And we will need to know whether we are going to post it as a meeting if there is a quorum there. Kubby/And if we can figure that on the 2"d. Champion/I think you should post it as a meeting. Lehman/We will firm this up on Monday night. All fight. The other one, I am only going to firm this up. I would like to see us meet sometime, preferably before the end of November before a regular council meeting or before a regular work session with the Johnson County Board of Supervisors. Karr/Mr. Mayor, you had asked me to put a memo together. It will be in tomorrow's packet. Lehman/Tomorrow's packet, folks. Could we have a motion to adjourn? (Norton, Thornberry). All in favor- (ayes). Meeting is adjourned. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of October 29, 1998 F102998