HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-01-10 Info Packet of 1/7 --- CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET
~/~1 C~'''~ January 7, 2000
I MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS
IP1 Meeting Schedule and Tentative Work Session Agendas
IP2 Memorandum from City Attorney and First Assistant City Attorney: Legal
Distinctions between Subdivision and Rezoning Applications and Appropriate
Criteria for Assessing Merits of Land Use Proposals
IP3 Memorandum from Administrative Assistant: Sharpshooting Program Update
IP4 Memorandum from City Clerk to Iowa City Census 2000 Committee:
December 13, 1999 Meeting
IP5 Memorandum from Housing Inspection Services Director: HUD Recognition
Ceremony for "High Performer" Achievement by the Iowa City Housing
Authority (ICHA)
IP6 Memorandum from Planning and Community Development Assistant Director:
Ecumenical Towers Elevator in Tower Place Parking Facility
IP7 Memorandum from Community Development Coordinator: Update on
Swenson and Associates Home Ownership Project
IP8 Memorandum from Community Development Coordinator: Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships
Program (HOME) Allocations for FY01
IP9 Memorandum from Dianna Furman Utility Discount Program Statistics by
Month - Fiscal Years '99 and '00
IP10 Board, Commission, and Committee Applicants
IPll 1999 Iowa City Area Quicklook [Council packets only]
Memo from City Manager regarding Capitol Improvement Program (CIP).
Memo from City Manager regarding Debt Management and Capital Project -
Criteria for Review.
Memo from Stormwater Management - Initiation of Policy Planning.
Information distributed 1/10 regarding Budget issues.
Info Packet
January 7, 2000
page I
Memo from City Manager regarding Englert Theatre.
Parks & Recreation Commission Capital Improvement priorities FY2001-2004.
Personal Services Summary All Funds (Council Request regarding Temporary Wages).
{ 01-07-00
IP1
City Council Meeting Schedule and Januar.~ 7, ~ooo
Tentative Work Session Agendas
January 10 Monday
8:30a-12:00p SPECIAL COUNCIL WORK SESSION Council Chambers
Budget
January 11 Tuesday
6:30p-9:O0p SPECIAL COUNCIL WORK SESSION Council Chambers
Budget
January 17 Monday
CITY OFFICES CLOSED - MARTIN LUTHER KING DAY
January 18 Tuesday
3:00p SPECIAL COUNCIL WORK SESSION Council Chambers
7:00p FORMAL COUNCIL MEETING Council Chambers
{January 20 Thursday
TBD SPECIAL COUNCIL WORK SESSION TaD
Joint Meeting Cities of Coralville and North Liberty,
School Board, and JC Board of Supervisors
{January 24 Monday
8:30a-12:00p SPECIAL COUNCIL WORK SESSION Council Chambers
Budget
l January 25 Tuesday
6:30p-9:00p SPECIAL COUNCIL WORK SESSION Council Chambers
6:30p City Conference Board
6:50p Budget
Meeting dates/times subject to change
FUTURE WORK SESSION ITEMS
Hickory Hill West Council Goals
Commercial Use of Sidewalks Newspaper Vending Machines
Kirkwood Avenue Signalization Communication Towers
Liquor Licenses Near Southside Transportation Center
Cemetery/Hickory Hill Park Sidewalk Cafes
--- - City Council Meeting Schedule and
,¢, Cltll ;~ 1 O,
Tentative Work Session Agendas
January 10 Monday
8:30a-12:00p SPECIAL COUNCIL WORK SESSION Council Chambers
Budget
January 11 "' Tuesday
6:30p-9:oop SPECIAL COUNCIL WORK SESSION Council Chambers
Acquisition of Englert Theatre
Budget
January 17 Monday
CITY OFFICES CLOSED - MARTIN LUTHER KING DAY
January 18 Tuesday
3:00p SPECIAL COUNCIL WORK SESSION Council Chambers
7:00p FORMAL COUNCIL MEETING Council Chambers
J January 20 Thursday
TBD SPECIAL COUNCIL WORK SESSION TBD
Joint Meeting Cities of Coralville and North Liberty,
School Board, and JC Board of Supervisors
January 24 Monday
8:30a-12:00p SPECIAL COUNCIL WORK SESSION Council Chambers
Budget
J January 25 Tuesday
6:30p-9:oop SPECIAL COUNCIL WORK SESSION Council Chambers
6:30p City Conference Board
6:50p Budget
Meeting dates/t/rues subject to change
FUTURE WORK SESSION ITEMS
Hickory Hill West Council Goals
Commercial Use of Sidewalks Newspaper Vending Machines
Kirkwood Avenue Signalization Communication Towers
Liquor Licenses Near Southside Transportation Center
Cemetery/Hickory Hill Park Sidewalk Cafes
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date:January 6, 2000
To: Iowa City Council AA~ts~;n~o
From: Eleanor M. Dilkes, City ~ ~
Sarah E. Holecek, First rney
Re: Legal distinctions between Subdivision and Rezoning Applications and
appropriate criteria for assessing merits of land use proposals
As land use issues are frequently before the Council and, by their nature, lend themselves to
a great deal of debate, we want to provide an overview of the legal distinctions and
resulting Council discretion in approving or denying Subdivision vis-~-vis Rezoning
Applications. Additionally, as there are frequent debates regarding the appropriate criteria to
be considered when assessing the merits of a land use proposal, a discussion of some valid
and invalid considerations may prove helpful in guiding you in your future deliberations.
I. Subdivision Plat Approval: Limitations on Discretion-Administrative in Nature
Iowa Code Chapter 354 governs the platting and subdivision of land, and specifically
outlines a municipality's scope of review in approving or denying subdivision plats. First,
§354.8 (1999) limits a city's authority to impose conditions on subdivision approval by
stating that:
"...governing bodies shall apply reasonable standards and conditions in accordance
with applicable statutes and ordinances for the review and approval of subdivisions.
The governing body, within sixty days of application for final approval of the
subdivision plat, shall determine whether the subdivision conforms to its
comprehensive plan..."
Iowa Code §345.8 (1999)
This same section goes on to provide that the city must consider the burden of the new
subdivision on public improvements and balance the interests of the proprietor, future
purchasers and the public when reviewing the proposed subdivision and requiring the
installation of improvements in conjunction with approval. See, Iowa Code §354.8(1999).
Lastly, and most importantly, this section provides for limited reviewing power and
discretion when a subdivision plat is presented to the body, stating that:
"If the subdivision plat and all matters related to the final approval of the subdivisin
plat conform to the standards and conditions established by the governing body, and
conform to this chapter and chapter 355 (concerning land surveys), the governing
body, by resolution, shall approve the plat and certify the resolution which shall be
recorded with the plat."
Iowa Code §354.8 (1999)(emphasis added).
In short, the city has limited authority with respect to the review of subdivision plats, and
once a developer has met our local development regulations, such as stormwater
management, grading and erosion control and street design standards, the city is under a
legal obligation to approve the plat. The exercise of this type of authority is said to be
"administrative" in nature, as it does not concern the passage of new law, but rather
making sure that the plat is in compliance with existing law. However, this does not
mean that the objection to the subdivision plat must be specifically articulated in the city
code. Rather, infrastructure concerns such as adequate water, sewer and/or access are
valid considerations when reviewing a subdivision plat.
For example, while access is not a consideration specifically enumerated in either state or
city code, the Iowa Supreme Court has determined that it is a valid public safety,
infrastructure and planning concern to be considered during subdivision plat approval.
Oakes Construction Co. v. City of Iowa City, 304 N.W.2d 797,806 (1981 )(stating that
establishing access was factually a necessity and also a legally legitimate question in
providing for the harmonious development of Iowa City, and thus denial of a plat based on
inadequate access was appropriate).
Lastly, state law also provides that if a city council denies a subdivision plat, it must state
its objections and reasons for disapproval:
"If the plat is disapproved by the governing body, such disapproval shall state how the
proposed plat is objectionable." Iowa Code §354.10 (1999).
Thus, while such objections are typically contained in the resolution denying a plat, it is
important to articulate your objections and findings on the public record.
II. Zoning Approval: Scope of Discretion-Legislative in Nature
Iowa Code Chapter 414 grants the power to zone land use districts within a city's
corporate limits to the local legislative body, and outlines the general health, safety and
welfare factors to be considered when making zoning regulations. (See, Iowa Code
§414.1, 2 and 3 (1999)). When the City Council enacts a zoning ordinance or designates
a zoning district, it is said to be acting in its "legislative capacity", which means that it is
exercising its authority under home rule and the police power to enact legislation based on
the public health, safety and welfare. Thus, the City Council has broader discretion with
respect to zoning issues, and a council may amend such classifications any time it deems
circumstances and conditions warrant such action in light of the public health, safety and
welfare.
Zoning decisions by a governing body will not be disturbed by a court on appeal unless the
party challenging the decision shows it is "unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious or
discriminatory, with no reasonable relationship to the promotion of public health, safety or
welfare." See, Shriver v. City of Okoboji, 567 N.W.2d 397,401 (1997). Further, as there is
a presumption that the zoning designation in place on a particular tract is appropriate and in
furtherance of the public health, safety and welfare, it is the burden of a rezoning applicant
to show that the proposed classification is more beneficial to the public interest or clearly
furthers the intent of the zoning ordinance better than the existing zoning classification.
Conditional zoning agreements are contemplated and specifically authorized by Iowa Code
§414.5, which provides that, when considering an application for a rezoning or site plan
approval, the city may impose:
"...conditions on a property owner which are in addition to existing regulations if the
additional conditions have been agreed to in writing by the property owner before the
public hearing required under this section or any adjournment of the hearing. The
conditions must be reasonable and imposed to satisfy public needs which are directly
caused by the requested change."
Iowa Code §414.5 (1999)(emphasis added).
Generally, conditional zoning agreements are used to address and mitigate potential negative
externalities and impacts associated with a zoning district change or site plan approval.
Lastly, I wish to note that under Iowa Code §414.3:
"regulations shall be made with consideration as to the character of the area of the
district and the peculiar suitability of such area for particular uses, with a view to
conserving the value of buildings and encouraging the most appropriate use of land
throughout such city."
Iowa Code §414.3 (1999).
In sum, the salient question to be asked in making a zoning decision is whether the
boundary designation and/or regulation results in an appropriate use of the land when
considering the public welfare. Further, "even though a challenged zoning [decision]
adversely affects a property interest or prohibits the most beneficial use of the property, a
court should not, for that reason alone, strike it down." See, Neuzil v. City of Iowa City,
451 N.W.2d 159,164 (Iowa 1990). Where weighing the factual determinations brings fairly
debatable results, the determination of the local body will be upheld as long as those voting
articulate valid reasons for voting for or against the application. Of course, this decision
must be based on facts, professional opinion, and sound land use policies, not on pure
speculation and conjecture.
III. Valid Criteria for Assessing the Merits of a Land-Use Application:
While not exhaustive, the following are valid considerations when assessing the merits of a
land-use application:
1. Impact of any rezoning action on the environment and the infrastructure.
Adequacy of existing infrastructure and costs of providing infrastructure to
the area to be rezoned are legitimate concerns, particularly when an increase
in zone intensity is requested.
2. Does the proposed zoning classification further the public safety, health and
welfare?
3. Traffic, transportation and congestion concerns.
4. Population density.
5. Drainage and impact on waterways or surface water drainage.
6. Appropriateness of the permitted land uses for the area being considered.
7. Compatibility with the spirit of the Comprehensive Plan and/or the appropriate
District plan.
8. Existing land uses of abutting property and surrounding areas.
9. Negative externalities associated with the proposed use, such as noise, odors,
lights, pollutants, etc.
10. Impact on property values of abutting property and surrounding neighborhood.
11. Whether uses permitted in the proposed rezoning classification are compatible
with existing and proposed uses in the surrounding area.
12. Whether substantial and reasonable grounds have been presented and
discussed to justify rezoning the property, or for denying the same.
13. Will the rezoning permit the owner reasonable use of its property and/or does
such rezoning reflect the wishes of the residents of the territory to be
rezoned? (assuming those wishes are based on valid criteria)
IV. Invalid Criteria for Assessing the Merits of a Land-Use Application
Conversely, I wish to point out some considerations which are NOT VALID when assessing
the merits of a land-use application:
1. Ownership of the subject property (i.e. Owner-occupied v. rental property v.
land leased community).
2. Private financing for the development of the subject property (e.g. Housing
credits/subsidies for development).
3. Income levels, race or ethnicity of likely inhabitants of the subject property.
4. In zones permitting detached, single-family homes, whether the STRUCTURE
to be placed on the subject property is stick-built or manufactured
We hope this discussion is helpful to you. If you have any questions or wish to discuss this
information further, please feel free to contact either one of us.
cc: Marian Karr, City Clerk
Steve Atkins, City Manager
Karin Franklin, PCD Director
Bob Miklo, Senior Planner
Scott Kugler, Urban Planner
Marcia Klingaman, Neighborhood Services
sarah\council\zonvsubmmo .doc
4
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council (~
FROM: Administrative Assistant
DATE: January 6, 2000 .
RE: Sharpshooting Program Update
As you are aware, the sharpshooting component of Iowa City's Deer Management
Plan is underway. Our office has received a half-dozen calls and the Police
Department has received inquiries regarding the shooting.
The calls I received were residents wanting to confirm that the shooting was being
conducted by White Buffalo staff, that it was not illegal activity. They were also
calling to make certain shooting was not occurring in Hickory Hill Park, as they use
the park on a regular basis.
Two callers heard shots in the peninsula and wondered if White Buffalo would be
able to shoot in the Manville Heights area this year to provide relief to residents
experiencing problems associated with an overpopulation of deer. I informed them
of the current State law prohibiting discharge of firearms within 200 yards of an
occupied residence or structure without the permission of the property owner and
that although there are most likely safe sharpshooting zones in that area, it would
be next to impossible to receive all necessary authorizations. They encouraged the
City to pursue attempts to change the law for purposes of suburban deer
management.
Most callers expressed concern with the noise associated with shooting. I
explained the City will encourage legislators to amend the State law to allow
federally-registered personnel conducting a deer management sharpshooting
program to possess a suppressed weapon in Iowa. All callers have been in favor of
that action. Iowa is currently one of only thirteen states that does not allow a
private citizen to possess a suppressed weapon. You will recall US Department of
Agriculture staff were allowed to use suppressed weapons in Iowa City during their
shoot of January 1999 because they were federal agents.
As an aside, I have reassured callers that extreme precautions are in place to ensure
safety of our residents. Deer are baited to areas that have been properly analyzed
and prepared for safe shooting. Shots are fired at a downward trajectory from
raised structures or against an elevated soft backdrop, both at close range. No
shooting has or will occur within 200 yards of an occupied residence or structure
without the permission of the property owner.
Those I spoke with have confidence the City hired a competent agency to carry out
the shoot. Fears are many times based on perceptions of how a sharpshooting
program is conducted. We will work with the media to educate residents on the
Iogistics of sharpshooting so they better understand the procedure.
City of Iowa City IP4
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 30, 1999
TO: Iowa City Census 2000 Committee
FROM: Marjan K. Karr, City Clerk
RE: Committee Meeting of 12/13/99, 8:30 a.m., City Manager's Conference
Room
Committee Members Present: Don Canfield, Maeve Clark, Paul Maske, MaryMcInroy,
Dottie Ray, Bob Roelf
Committee Members Absent: Dale Bentz, Bob Elliott, Jane Hoshi, Ann Rhodes
Staff: Marian K. Karr, Julie Voparil
Others: Phillip Jones, University of Iowa
Mackenzie Wilson, CR Census Bureau
Marian Karr stated that a committee has been formed by the State called Census 2000
Complete Count Committee and Phillip Jones, University of Iowa has been appointed.
· Dale Bentz (Elderly Services)
Dale submitted a report saying that an announcement appeared in the Gray Hawk
newsletter indicating the need for Census workers. Dale indicated he has
communicated with nursing homes and retirements residences in Johnson County
concerning the need for a coordinator for each place. It was brought up by Marian
and affirmed by Mackenzie that these establishments are defined as "special places"
and a coordinator has already been assigned. Educational efforts to seniors living
independently of "special places" should be the goal of the Committee.
· Jane Hoshi (University)
Marjan highlights a report Jane submitted saying that a regional representative from
the Census 2000 office distributed information about job opportunities with the
Census to students at the Memorial Union. Jane will be keeping Phillip Jones, who is
now on the Census 2000 State Committee, updated on Census Committee activities.
Madan shared materials (postcards and promotional items) that Jane had received
from Mr. Jones from the state meeting. It is hoped we can download some of the
postcard information and add a local connection to it. Posters are also available in the
City Clerk's office targeting special interest groups. Madan stated posters should go
out the latter part of January or first part of February and asked Members to provide
possible locations for display. Jane is working on a media plan and timeline for on
Campus planning. Celine Hartwig, Assistant Director of Residence Services, has
been contacted by the Census Bureau and will work directly with enumerating
students. Cultural Diversity Day is February 20th and there will be a Census table to
distribute information in a variety of languages.
Census Committee Meeting
December 30, 1999
Page 2
· Bob E!liott (Schools) Madan reported that Bob had met with Regina Schools Adm.
Pechous the previous week. No other information available.
· Paul Maske (Churches)
Paul stated a letter has been prepared which will include a return postcard for
additional materials. Tentative plans call for the letter to be sent out in January (after
the holiday rush is over). Postcards will be returned Maeve to coordinate materials
needed. Additional information found on the Census web page geared for religious
institutions was given to Paul for review. He will follow up with anything that may
be incorporated into letter from this information. Paul reported he will be out of town
January 12 through April 15.
Marian showed special Census stationery that should be used for all future
correspondence.
· Don Canfield (Services Agencies)
Don acknowledged receipt of mailing labels from Maeve for follow up letter that will
go out in January to service organizations re. special speakers. He is working on a
couple revisions to letter. So far there are 6 speaking engagements (UIHC Lions
Club; Farm Bureau Women; Noon Optimist; JC Senior Health Coalition; Mercy
Hospital Food For Thought; and Neighborhood Council Board) lined up.
· Dottie Ray (Media)
Dottie said that scroll advertising on the Weather Channel would begin in March.
Will get confirmation on exactly what will be in message well ahead of time to avoid
any conflicts.
· Maeve Clark (Library)
Maeve said that one half of display area at the library will be reserved for Census
posters. She can also reserve a 2-person study room for assistance in completing
census forms.
Mackenzie Wilson stated that there will be 3 recruitment centers in Johnson County.
Maeve suggested possibility of airing a program on the Library Channel mentioning
different aspects re. the Census. Dottie suggested that involving school kids would
encourage participation. Gary Neuzil (West High) and Dale Hibbs (City High) were
suggested as teachers to help precipitate student participation. Carol Logsden would
be the Library contact for programs. Maeve will talk to Bob Elliott about this.
· Mary Mclnroy (University)
A couple of the presentations have already been made on the Census. Bookmarks
with population information by year and Iowa county map and projected population
groups information were passed out. Getting a local prominent figure to speak out on
the Census video might help with local promotion. Marian said that she would follow
through with Bob Hardy after the first of the year on this.
Census Committee Meeting
December 30, 1999
Page 3
· Miscellaneous:
Marjan will follow up on ordering bookmarks and stickers promoting Census. Maeve
mentioned that the state was cutting the Census budget and would be a good idea to
get the supplies ordered now while there is a good chance they still have them.
Madan is waiting to hear from Beth Henning from the state office. Marian also stated
that both sides of city buses are reserved to carry banners in January and February at a
cost of $19.00 per banner. (This is done "in house" at a significant savings compared
to having it hired out.) A total of 40 banners would be made if test for wear and tear
of them is positive. Paul Maske noted that mid-March should be when we really want
to start putting advertising of Census into high gear. Advertising will also be done
through Neighborhood Service Coordinator and through all city publications such as
utility newsletter, senior citizen newsletter, community Insights, etc. Again, it was
stated that forms will be mailed out anytime from mid-March to April 1 st by the
federal government. The personal follow up will begin in May.
Madan reported that Chris Nolte told her that HyVee has agreed to put Census
advertising on 5.8 million bags throughout Iowa. Late February to early March
advertising will be on Iowa lottery powerball tickets and Wells Blue Bunny will have
advertising on milk cartons. Census posters will be distributed to Human Service
agencies. Youth were also mentioned as an aid for distribution of posters. Phillip
Jones stated need to get word out to disabled and importance of getting them counted.
Dottie stressed getting kids involved is important. Discussion incurred re. the size of
Census posters. Many are too large for most bulletin boards. Marjan will work with
City DS department to see what she can do with posters and look into the 8 ½ x 11 or
11 x 17" size.
The next Iowa City Census 2000 Committee meeting will be Monday, January 10,
at 8:30 a.m. in the CITY MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM of the Civic
Center, 410 East Washington Street.
cc: Ben Arzu, KC Regional Office of the Census
City Council
Interested JC Entities
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 6, 2 t ~ ~
To: City Council ~~2;rv~e
Re: " "' ' ' vement by the Iowa City
Maggie Grosvenor, Housing Administrator, has been invited to a recognition ceremony at HUD
headquarters in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday, January 12, 2000. This ceremony is to
acknowledge the Iowa City Housing Authority achievement of "high performer" status and the
excellent job done by Maggie and her staff in the area of public housing management. At this
event, Secretary of HUD Andrew Cuomo will personally recognize Maggie and other housing
administrators' achievements. While in Washington, Maggie will also be attending HUD briefing
sessions about implementation of new public housing reforms.
jw/rnem/db-hud.doc
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 6, 2000
To: City Council
From: Jeff Davidson, Assistant Director, Dept. of Planning & Community Development '~.,/,(
Re: Ecumenical Towers elevator in Tower Place parking facility
It is my understanding there was discussion at the January 4 City Council meeting pertaining to
the Ecumenical Towers elevator in the Tower Place parking facility. This elevator is designed to
operate only from the ground floor on the alley side of the facility down to the secured
Ecumenical Towers parking area. The configuration of this elevator was negotiated with the
Ecumenical Towers Corporation and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) when we acquired their parking lot, and is part of our agreement with them. It is a high
priority of both Ecumenical Towers and HUD that this elevator be completely secured for the
exclusive use of Ecumenical Towers.
There has been interest expressed by members of the City Council to reconfigure the
Ecumenical Towers elevator so that it is open to the public and serves the upper floors of the
Tower Place parking facility. Besides the previously mentioned issues with our agreement with
Ecumenical Towers and HUD, there are some additional difficulties in doing this. If the elevator
was extended up there would be a loss of two parking places per floor for a total of ten. These
10 spaces have construction value of approximately $150,000.
Additionally, the sloped floors on each level where the elevator would open would require
structural modifications, the redesign of which would delay the project at least a month. The
single floor elevator has already been ordered and is not suitable for a multi-floor installation.
Our architect estimates the required modifications to the project to make the Ecumenical
elevator serve the upper floors would entail an expense of $200,000.
Please let us know if Council would like us to proceed with investigating the redesign of the
Ecumenical Towers elevator, and amending our agreement with Ecumenical Towers and HUD.
cc: Steve Atkins
Eleanor Dilkes
Joe Fowler
jccogadm%mmos%ecumtwrs.doc
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 5, 2000
TO:, C~ty Council and City Manager
FROM: Steve Nasby, Community Development Coordinato~-'~/
RE: Update on Swenson and Associates Home Ownership Project
In FY97 Swenson and Associates was allocated $68,238 in Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) funding for a home
ownership project. The goal of this project was to construct three affordable single-
family homes and then sell them to income eligible buyers, while maintaining the long-
term affordability through a land lease.
Due to a variety of factors there have been numerous delays with this project. City staff
and the Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC) have worked with
Swenson and Associates on finding ways to get this project completed. Progress on the
project has been made with one home buyer under contract and one home under
construction; however, the last deadline set by HCDC for Swenson and Associates was
missed on September 30, 1999. As a result we have been working with all of the parties
involved to mutually agree to a termination of our agreement with Swenson and
Associates.
One of the consequences of our anticipated termination of the Swenson and Associates
agreement is the availability of two undeveloped lots in the Southpointe Addition. The
HCDC requested that we identify local organizations that have successfully taken on
similar projects. In October I notified the Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship (GICHF),
Habitat for Humanity and the Iowa City Housing Authority (ICHA) of the potential
availability of these two lots. HCDC received two requests for the lots, from GICHF and
the ICHA. At their November meeting HCDC reviewed these two requests and voted to
award the two Southpointe lots to GICHF. In January the HCDC will be making a formal
recommendation to the Council regarding this issue.
Over the last couple of months Mercantile Bank has been working with Swenson and
Associates to complete the construction of the one home. The sale of this home is
scheduled for January 14. At that time we are hoping to have a resolution with Swenson
and Associates and a formal termination of our HOME agreement. Once this is
completed we will be bringing the disposition of the two Southpointe lots to the Council.
If you have any questions about this project or would like additional information please
call me at 356-5248.
Cc: Karin Franklin, Director of Planning and Community Development
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 4, 2000
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Steve Nasby, Community Development Coordinator(~v
RE: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment
Partnerships Program (HOME) Allocations for FY01
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) very recently released
funding information regarding the CDBG and HOME programs. In FY01 the City of Iowa
City will be receiving $938,000 in CDBG and $642,000 in HOME monies. This allocation
from HUD is a $6,000 decrease from last year. While it is unfortunate there was a
decrease; this FY01 HUD allocation is in line with our expectations.
These federal funds are used by the City and irs partners to provide housing, jobs and
services to lower income residents according to the goals and objectives in our CITY
STEPS Plan. In December 1999 we opened our annual CDBG and HOME application
process. Applications for FY01 CDBG and HOME funding are due to the Planning and
Community Development Department on January 18, 2000.
If you have any questions or need additional information about the HUD allocations or
the FY01 CDBG\HOME application process please call me at 356-5248.
Cc: Karin Franklin, Director of Planning and Community Development
Treasury Division Memorandum
Date: 6-Jan-00
To: City Manager and City Council
From: Dianna Furman
Subj: Utility Discount Program Statistics by Month - Fiscal Years' 99 and ' 00
Water Sewer
Refuse Total Accounts
Recyling Water Sewer on Discount Water Sewer Refuse Recycling
Month Discounts Discounts Program Discount Tax Discount Discount Discount Discount Total Discounts
FY99
Jul 109 59 168 431.88 21.61 433.10 478.88 153.30 1,518.77
Aug 115 59 174 612.42 30.70 614.16 728.16 233.10 2,218.54
Sept 120 62 182 631.89 31.67 633.68 780.64 249.90 2,327.78
Oct 117 57 174 654.90 32.80 656.76 806.88 258.30 2,409.64
Nov 119 62 181 633.66 31.72 635.45 780.64 249.90 2,331.37
Dec 117 65 182 649.59 32.52 651.43 783.93 250.95 2,368.42
Jan 124 66 190 651.36 32.74 653.20 780.64 249.90 2,367.84
Feb 134 67 201 700.92 35.12 702.90 852.80 273.00 2,564.74
Mar 138 73 211 725.70 36.44 727.75 879.04 281.40 2,650.33
Apr 141 73 214 762.87 38.36 765.03 921.69 295.05 2,783.00
May 144 76 220 768.18 38.60 770.35 938.08 300.30 2,815.51
Jun 144 76 220 796.50 39.90 798.77 970.90 310.80 2,916.87
Totals 1522 795 2317 $8,019.87 $402.18 $8,042.58 $9,702.28 $3,105.90 $29,272.81
FY 00
Jul 120 63 183 * 614.19 30.81 615.93 744.57 238.35 2243.85
Aug 124 66 190 754.99 37.95 725.30 738.00 252.00 2508.24
Sept 130 75 205 600.33 30.29 576.72 498.15 170, 10 1875.59
Oct 134 75 209 846.57 42.60 ' 809.36 817.94 279.30 2795.77
Nov 137 83 220 893.38 44.89 854.32 836,39 285.60 2914.58
Dec 141 85 226 923.90 46.52 883.20 873.30 298.20 3025.12
Jan 0 0.00
Feb 0 0.00
Mar 0 0.00
Apr 0 0.00
May 0 0.00
Jun 0 0.00
Totals 786 447 1233 $4,633.36 $233.06 $4,464.83 $4,508.35 $1,523,55 $15,363.15
· Renewal for verification of eligibility status were sent April, 1999 and due back in Treasury June 30, 1999. UTI LDIS.XLS1/6/001:29 PM
Customers who did not respond were removed from the discount program in July.
cc: Kevin O'Malley
Spouses and relatives of City Council Members and members of comparable County
Boards and Commissions are not eligible for appointment to City Boards and
Commissions. This includes: spouse, child, mother, father, mother- in- law, father-
in- law, brother, sister, brother- in- law, sister- in- law, step-father, step-mother,
step-child, aunt, or uncle. (Resolution 85-354)
Males: 3
Females: 3
January 18, 2000
PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE
One Vacancy - Unexpired Term
(Community Representative)
January 18, 2000 - January 1, 2002
No Applications as of Noon January 6, 2000
[] Denotes applicant completed the Confidential page of the application.
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Marian Karr
City Clerk
Date: December 21, 1999
From:
Re: 1999 Iowa City Area Quicklook
Attached you will find a copy of the updated Iowa City Area Quicklook which has been
compiled by the Department of Planning and Community Development. The Quicklook
is a graphical summary of the 1999 Community Profile; it contains graphical
representations of selected categories (demographic, economic, etc.).
Copies of the 1999 Iowa City Area Quicklook are available to the public at the Iowa City
Department of Planning and Community Development.
The Quicklook is updated on a regular basis, if you have any suggestions for additional
information that should be included in the Quicklook, please contact me with your
suggestions. If you need additional copies, please give me a call (x5236).
Attachment
X:\USERSXECODEVXINTERNXQUICKLOO\citymemo.doc
Iowa City Area Quicklook
A graphical summary of assorted demographics and statistics
compiled by the City of Iowa City Economic Development Division
~ Iowa City Area
_ QuickLook
A graphical summary of assorted demographics and statistics
TABLE OF CONTENTS
__ Page
Introduction i
' Population 1
Employment 2
- Income 5
Construction 7
_ Retail 12
Home Sales Report 15
Education 17
Sources 19
Prepared by:
- Karin Franklin, Director of Planning and Community Development
David Schoon, Economic Development Coordinator
Shawn Siders, Planning Intern
ecodev/pmfile/quicklook99-toc.p65
Introduction
For the past several years the City of Iowa City has compiled the Community Profile for the Iowa
City Area. The profile is a compilation of demographic, economic, and statistical data for the Greater
Iowa City Area. The Quicklook summarizes selected data from the Community Profile that is easily
converted to a graphical format. The Quicklook can be used as a supplement to the Community Profile,
or as a quick source of facts and information. The Quicklook has been divided into 7 separate sections.
The following is a brief summary of each section.
The Population section consists of graphs that show total population in the Iowa City area and how
this population breaks down by age group. In Iowa City there is obviously a significant percentage of its
population in the 18-24 year old category, this is due in large part to the presence of a community college
and a major university in the area. The University has important subsequent impacts on the demographic
makeup of the area and will be noted in other sections of the Quicklook.
The Employment section summarizes the makeup and welfare of the local workforce. Johnson
County has consistently experienced a lower unemployment rate than the national average. This is the
result of a local economy that has been able to withstand national and regional recessions. However, the
low unemployment rate can also serve as a double-edged sword. The City of Iowa City benefits, because
citizens are employed and productive. The downside is that businesses face a tight labor market. Despite
this, the area continues to thrive, as Iowa City offers many amenities not available in communities this
size. The area continues to grow due in large part to the surrounding community's ability to fill the labor
needs of local businesses. There have been increases in the resident civilian labor force and total
employment nearly every year in the past decade. Expansions in the Nonmanufacturing and Government
workforces have helped lead the way for a growing local economy.
The Income section provides an analysis of the trends in earnings for the local population. Increases
in total personal earnings have been particularly strong in the Nonmanufacturing and Government sectors.
Average weekly wages for all industries combined have steadily risen year after year. The Government
Sector has had the highest average weekly wages for a number of years. Per capital income in Johnson
County has consistently been above per capita income for the State of Iowa. This is due in large part to the
presence of a major university that employs nearly 15,000 non-students. Per Capita income in Iowa City
does fall slightly lower than the national per capita income average.
The Construction section contains a number of graphs depicting the total value and number of
various building permits. In many categories, the total value and number of Iowa City permits peaked in
the years 1992-1994. Iowa City has experienced small declines in total value with small increases in 1998.
An overall trend across all categories is less apparent in Coralville. With the 1997-1998 building of the
Coral Ridge Mall, Coralville permits experienced massive increases in value and total permits issued.
While this growth should not continue at the rate it has, Coralville will continue to experience residual
effects from the mall and may have created a new trend within this community. North Liberty has
experienced a similar trend to that of Iowa City in many of these categories.
Retail Sales for the area have increased steadily throughout the 1990's. Johnson County retail sales
have increased in ten of the twelve categories since 1992. This is a result of growth in retail sales in
Johnson County's two major retail trade areas, I0wa City and C0ralville. This growth in retail sales will
experience an even greater increase with the addition of the Coral Ridge Mall in Coralville.
The Home Sales Report summarizes trends in home sales for Iowa City, Coralville, and Noah
Liberty. Iowa City has the largest number of home sales and the largest total sales volume. Iowa City,
Coralville, and Noah Liberty all sell the largest amount of homes in the $100,000-$149,999 price range.
Coralville and Iowa City have now converged and have nearly the same average sale price of homes while
North Liberty is lower than both communities.
The Education section describes the high level of quality education that is present in the Iowa City
area. Johnson County and Iowa City have a higher percentage of its citizens with a high school and
bachelor's degree. The Iowa City workforce is well educated and prepared for current and future
challenges they may encounter in the job market.
ecodevlpro~le/quicklook99-intro,p65
Population
Employment
40 Labor Force Summary - Johnson County
Labor Force Summary By Sector
Johnson County {1998)
Income
Average weekly wages - johnson county
Construction
Total value of commercial & industrial building permits
total value of single family and duplex building permits
toal value of multi-family dwelling building permits
total number of units for new multi-family dwelling building permits
Retail
taxable retail sales - iowa city
taxable retail sales - johnson county
Home Sales Report
average sale price of residential homes
total sales volume of residential homes
Education
enrollment for iowa city area schools
educational attainment - persons 25 years and older
enrollment by session and student level - university of iowa
Sources
I. Population
A & B. Population; 1990 Population Comparison by Age Group, Page 1
Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1990 Census of Population; Iowa
City population projections provided by the Iowa City Department of Planning and Community
Development; Johnson County population projections provided by the East Central Iowa Council of
Governments
II. Employment
A -C. All graphs for this Section, Pages 2-4
Sources: "Labor Force Summary Annual Averages 1988-1993 and 1994-1998", and "Labor Force
Summary, 1998 January through December", Labor Market Information Unit of the Iowa Department
of Employment Services; "Economic Indicators", Prepared for the Joint Economic Committee by the
Council of Economic Advisers (National Unemployment Rate)
III. Income
A & B. Total Personal Earnings by Industry; Per Capita Income, Page 5
Source: Regional Economic Information System, 1969-1997, May 1999, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional
Economic Measurement Division C & D. Average Weekly Wages'-Johnson County; Average Weekly
Wages by Industry- Johnson County, Page 6
Source: Employment and Wages Covered by Unemployment Insurance, Iowa Workforce
Development, 1997
IV. Construction
A-H. All graphs for this Section, Pages 7-11
Sources: City of Iowa City Housing & Inspection Services, City of Coralville Building
Department, City of North Liberty
V. Retail Sales
A-D. All graphs for this Section, Pages 12-14
Source: Iowa Department of Revenue and Finance, "Iowa Retail Sales & Use Tax Reports"
VI. Home Sales Report
A-D. All graphs for this Section, Pages 15-16
Source: Iowa City Area Association of Realtors
VII. Education
A. Iowa City School Enrollment, Page 17
source: Iowa City Comxnunity School District
B. Educational Attainment-Persons 25 years and Older, Page 17
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1990 Census of Population
C. Enrollment by Session and Student Level-The University of Iowa, Page 1 ~
Source: The University of Iowa, Office of the Registrar, Student Profile 1997-1998
ecodev/proffielquicklook99.p65 I 9
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 10, 2000
To: City Council
From: City Manager
Re: Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
The following memorandum is similar in narrative content to a memorandum I presented to the
City Council in 1993 and again in 1998. In order to assist in the review of capital projects, I have
reworked the memorandum.
There are three principal steps in the CIP process: 1) understanding each CIP proposal; 2)
evaluating projects to determine their merit and priority in relation to other projects; and 3)
selecting projects in relation to amount of money available. Traditionally, our approach to capital
improvement planning had been similar to that of most communities. The staff would prepare a list
of proposed capital projects, incorporating those projects into some type of a plan or summary,
and then during the budget process identify available funding for the proposed projects. Most
often the availability of state or federal aid has substantial influence on whether or not a project is
approved. Due to the limited capital resources, it is essential to assure that capital projects provide
a necessary and meaningful addition to our community's assets.
As you begin the process of evaluating capital project requests, it is important to focus on some
inherent issues in the CIP process.
First, public projects in a municipal government are difficult to evaluate because of their diversity
and the fact that many are essentially non-comparable. Attending a meeting of department
directors I am in the company of a law enforcement official, library director, an engineer, fire chief,
airport manager, etc. One of the few things this diverse group of people have in common is that
they are all subject to substantially the same budgetary procedures. Individual CIP project
requests reflect the need to serve different constituencies and diverse community values. Who is
to say that spending for the fire department is more important than spending for a library, or
sewers or water? One of the major responsibilities of a municipal government and the City
Council is to reconcile and balance conflicting community values and objectives. In this climate,
who can devise a scientific method of evaluation to reconcile values? In the private sector it may
be easier to have an evaluation system because there is initial agreement on objectives, a
common financial measurement, and a more narrowly defined mission. Local government does
not enjoy such circumstances.
Another problem inherent in the CIP process is the political climate in which decisions must be
made. While computer techniques are helpful, a CIP is not an objective process that can be
reduced to a computer program. It is a political process, in the best sense, in which elected
officials evaluate conflicting interests and develop a program of the greatest good for the greatest
number, subject to the individual opinion of individual Council members.
Invariably the total amount of projects requested will exceed the money likely to be available. In
every CIP process the number and dollar amount of project requests must be reduced somehow
to correspond to the amount of money available and/or other priorities identified by the City
Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
January 10, 2000
Page 2
Council. The process is filled with policy decisions. The nature of the political/budgetary process is
that not everyone will agree with all the policies and recommendations, but they will at least have
some understanding of the basis for them.
The first level of review is to understand each project requested. There is no universal one-size-
fits-all set of evaluation criteria. Proposed capital projects must be prioritized in some way so that
the limited funding can be allocated to those which are the most important. Although there are
weighted rankings and other scoring systems, they often convey a false sense of objectivity or
precision. In my judgment, there is not a system or set of criteria that will automatically rank
projects and in the final analysis a priority ranking is based upon the judgment of the City Council.
An important function of the CIP plan is to establish priorities for capital projects to allow us to plan
our engineering work program and financial strategies over a number of years. A well-planned
multi-year CIP enables us to illustrate to future city councils agreed upon plans and priorities, and
can provide a far better and more informed involvement on the part of interest groups and
citizens.
As you review the capital projects, there are many options for establishing priorities. How you
settle in on a particular mechanism will be an important element in your review process. You may
choose to give final approval to proceed or, as an option, possibly identify the project as important
and direct additional planning or engineering work done. Final approval can come at a later date.
You may wish to authorize the design of a project, shelve the design, and then pursue
construction financing at some time in the future when a particular project may reach a higher
priority position with respect to state funding and/or other financing. A similar policy option could
exist with respect to practically any of the projects. Please keep in mind that depending upon the
number of projects that you would authorize for design, our engineering capacity may be strained
and therefore hiring engineering consulting/design firms can have a bearing on your priority
assignments.
As you achieve a better understanding of each project there may be projects that you would find
unacceptable. They should be removed from the proposal list. Going through a formal priority
process with projects that are of no interest would be a waste of your time, notably due to our
limited resources.
Comprehensive plans are also currently in place. As I am sure you are aware each of these
plans represent our community's vision and thereby directs future actions in accordance with
that vision. Inevitably capital projects involve a staging of activities as resources are assigned in
various phases; however, they are to be directed at a goal or vision. I believe we all share the
collective belief that we wish to grow our community, both physically and socially. Each project
has some bearing on our ability to fulfill that vision. Our prosperity is achieved by many
interests and initiatives. Projects and policies directed at visions fulfill the intent of the various
comprehensive plans and reaffirm our commitments.
mgr/cip/memoO0.doc ~ -.
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: December 28, 1999
To: City Council
From: City Manager
Re: Debt Management and Capital Project - Criteria for Review
Some time ago I prepared a similar memo concerning debt management. I have made a
number of minor revisions and am resubmitting this memo to you. As we think more about the
means by which to finance capital improvement projects, I thought the attached information
excerpted from An Elected Official's Guide to Debt Issuance, Government Finance Officers
Association, might give you a better understanding of the various aspects of capital
projects/bond market/debt policy.
Also attached is a summary of review criteria which can be useful in evaluating capital projects.
These factors imply some priority in your consideration, but all capital projects are subject to
your individual review and ultimately collective approval or disapproval of a project.
cc: Department Directors
Attachments
jw/mern/sa-debt.doc
Why do governments issue debt?
State and local governments rely on debt for a variety of reasons. The issuance of long-term debt
has historically provided a major source of funding for capital needs. Because of the high cost of
acquiring or replacing capital assets, governments are generally not able to accumulate enough
cash from current receipts to pay for necessary improvements. Debt permits governments to
acquire assets as needed rather than wait until a sufficient amount of cash has been built up.
In addition, governments sometimes borrow on a short-term basis to meet operating expenses in
anticipation of receiving future moneys. Among the commonly issued short-term instruments are
tax anticipation notes (TANs), revenue anticipation notes (RANs), tax and revenue anticipation
notes (TRANs), and grant anticipation notes (CANs). Issuance of short-term notes permits
governments to smooth out cash flows, thereby enabling them to provide essential services prior
to receipt of major tax or revenue inflows. We choose not to use these financial instruments and
thereby avoid borrowing costs for operations.
Bond anticipation notes (BANs) are issued to meet interim financing needs of construction
projects. They are sometimes issued if the full cost of a construction project is not yet known, or if
the issuer believes that market conditions are such that delaying issuance of long-term bonds is a
more advantageous approach. These notes provide funding for a Project until permanent
financing can be arranged.
What are the unique characteristics of debt issued by state and local governments ?
A fundamental characteristic of state and local debt securities is their tax-exempt status. Interest
income is, in general, exempt from federal income tax, and may also be exempt from state and
local income taxes. As a result, tax-exempt bonds carry the lowest rates of interest in the
securities market.
For what purposes can debt that is exempt from federal taxation be issued?
Federally tax-exempt debt may be issued to finance "governmental purpose" projects. This means
that the project must benefit the public in general. Examples of governmental purpose projects are
schools, roads, and fire stations.
In addition, certain "private activity" bonds are sold on a tax-exempt basis. The Internal Revenue
Code defines private activity bonds as those for which (1) more than 10 percent of the proceeds
will be used to finance facilities to be used by a private entity, and (2) more than 10 percent of the
bond proceeds will be secured by payments from private sources.
Bonds issued for construction or improvement of governmentally owned and operated docks and
wharves, airports, water and sewage facilities, facilities for the local furnishing of electric energy or
gas, and solid waste disposal facilities may be designated as private activity bonds under the
federal tax code definition. Nevertheless, they are permitted to be issued on a tax-exempt basis.
Because federal tax law governs the types of projects for which tax-exempt bonds may be issued,
as well as investment of bond proceeds, refinancing of debt, and other activities, it is essential for
issuers to stay abreast of changes in federal regulations. Failure to comply could result in loss of
an issue's federal tax exemption.
2
Why is a capital improvement plan essential to a long-term debt program?
Before undertaking a long-term debt program, governments must have a clear understanding of
the types of projects they intend to finance and when the projects will be implemented.
Development of a capital improvement plan is an essential first step in preparing to issue debt.
The plan should be formally submitted to and adopted by a jurisdiction's elected officials.
A capital improvement plan identifies projects to be funded, funding sources, and project
expenditures over the planning horizon. The capital improvement plan is a management tool that
assists managers and policy makers to:
_ Establish priorities in order to balance capital needs with all available funding;
_ Match projects with appropriate funding alternatives;
_ Ensure that debt-financed projects do not exceed legally or statutorily permitted levels of debt
issuance; and
_ Plan for debt issuance to meet expenditure requirements.
In addition to serving as a planning, financing, and management tool, a well-prepared capital
improvement plan is viewed as a positive factor by the credit rating agencies in evaluating the
credit quality of a jurisdiction. A capital improvement plan demonstrates a jurisdiction's
commitment to systematically replacing or improving its capital infrastructure. It also provides
evidence that a community has evaluated its long-term financial resources, and has developed a
plan to meet both operating and capital needs.
Should capital programs rely solely on debt financing?
Capital needs exceed available resources in many jurisdictions. Before issuing debt, community
leaders should evaluate all potential capital funding resources for the planning period. These
include intergovernmental grants from federal, state, or other sources; state revolving funds or
loan pools; current receipts and fund balance available from prior years; private sector
contributions through impact fees, service contracts, or public/private partnerships; and leasing. A
systematic review of all funding alternatives will help a jurisdiction to maximize resources available
for its capital program. Funding alternatives which are appropriate for some activities but not for
others can be targeted early, thereby ensuring that these options are not closed off before they are
given full consideration.
When reviewing various funding alternatives, governments need to be realistic in their assessment
of whether certain funds or financing methods will be available or are feasible. For example, some
financing methods may entail a higher degree of risk than the community is willing to take. Other
financing methods will be new for a jurisdiction or involve such complexity that significant costs for
legal and financial advice will be incurred. Additional time will be needed to gain consensus among
interested parties on the use of these methods. Finance officials may decide that such
alternatives, while allowing the jurisdiction to maximize its capital resources, involve transaction
costs that are too high or are politically unacceptable.
What factors should be considered in choosing a capital financing method?
State and local governments should be guided by three general principles when selecting a
funding source for capital improvements: equity, effectiveness, and efficiency.
Equity is achieved if the beneficiaries of a project or service pay for it. For example, it can be
argued that since the community as a whole benefits from the public school system, public school
buildings are appropriately financed from general tax revenues. Alternatively, certain facilities,
such as water supply systems, benefit specific users. Financing for these types of capital facilities
should be derived from user fees.
An effective financing method is one that provides a sufficient amount of funding when it is
needed. Governments will generally have difficulty amassing sufficient funding from current
receipts to pay for major capital improvements. Relying on available cash for these types of
improvements would be an ineffective financing method.
Efficiency refers to the relative costs of using one financing method over another. As discussed
earlier, governments may decide that certain financing methods have financial or nonfinancial
costs or risks that are too high relative to the benefits they generate. Such financing methods may
be regarded as inefficient.
What factors should be examined when deciding on the mix of pay-as-you-go and debt
financed projects ?
For most jurisdictions, an important consideration is whether to pay for capital improvements from
current revenues (pay-as-you-go) or issue debt. Debt is appropriate to finance assets with high
capital costs and long useful lives. In accordance with the equity principle, taxpayers of several
generations will both benefit and pay for the project, and no one group of taxpayers will be unfairly
burdened. The maturity of the debt should not, however, exceed the useful life of the project being
financed.
Some pay-as-you go financing should be a part of every jurisdiction's capital finance program.
Repair and replacement projects with short useful lives are not appropriate for long-term debt
financing, and should be considered for a jurisdiction's pay-as-you-go program. A carefully
planned use of current revenues or fund balance for a pay-as-you-go program is regarded as a
positive factor in credit analysis, in that the program provides a cushion that can be used for debt
service payments in the event that anticipated future revenues do not fully materialize.
Governments should exercise caution, however, when drawing down fund balance revenues for
capital purposes. Significant reduction of fund balance restricts a government's flexibility in
responding to unanticipated revenue downturns or other emergency situations.
What is a debt policy?
Once a jurisdiction decides to issue debt, it should develop a formal debt policy to establish
parameters and to provide general direction in the planning and implementation of a debt program.
Debt policies should be formally submitted to and adopted by a jurisdiction's elected officials.
A debt policy will encompass several elements. Among the more common considerations will be:
_ Acceptable levels of both short-term and long term debt;
_ Purposes for which debt will be issued;
_ Use of tax-supported, general obligation bonds versus self- supporting, revenue bonds;
_ Mix of pay-as-you go and debt financing;
_ Use of variable rate debt; and
_ Debt maturity schedule.
4
In setting policy goals in each of these areas, governments will be required to undertake a
comprehensive review of a variety of factors affecting the financial position of their jurisdiction. For
example, establishing a policy on acceptable levels of debt will require an understanding of the
legal limitations on debt issuance, service levels and other factors affecting long-term operating
expenses, debt commitments of other government entities relying on the same tax base, and
demographic and economic trends affecting the community.
Why develop a debt policy?
A debt policy offers a number of advantages. First, a debt policy can help community leaders to
integrate the issuance of debt with other long-term planning, financial, and management
objectives. A debt policy is also useful once bonds are issued to evaluate the impact of each issue
on the jurisdiction's overall financial position. Finally, a debt policy provides guidance to community
leaders so as not to exceed acceptable levels of indebtedness. While debt policies are beneficial
in establishing a framework for debt issuance, they should be sufficiently flexible to permit
governments to take advantage of market opportunities or to respond to changing conditions
without jeopardizing essential public services.
A carefully crafted and consistently applied debt policy provides evidence to the rating agencies of
a community's commitment to controlled borrowing practices. As such, it is regarded positively in
evaluating a jurisdiction's credit worthiness.
What are general obligation bonds?
General obligation bonds are typically issued to finance government improvements benefitting the
community as a whole. These obligations are secured by an unlimited tax levy of the issuer; that
is, the issuer pledges to levy the necessary taxes on all assessable property within its jurisdiction
to provide timely repayment of the debt. Due to the strength of this security pledge, general
obligation bonds are readily accepted in the municipal marketplace, and usually have lower
interest rates than comparably rated revenue bonds. General obligation bonds have a further
advantage in that they do not require the issuer to create a debt service reserve fund or use the
services of a trustee, both of which may be necessary when issuing revenue bonds. Consequent-
ly, general obligation bonds can be issued at a lower cost relative to revenue bonds.
General obligation bonds have certain limitations of which the issuer should be aware. Many
governmental entities are subject to state constitutional or statutory limitations on the amount of
general obligation debt they may incur. Further, voter approval is often required in order to
authorize the issuance of general obligation bonds. This requirement can limit the ability of the
jurisdiction to enter the market quickly to take advantage of favorable market conditions. Debt
limitations have, in some cases, necessitated the issuance of "limited tax" general obligation
bonds. For this type of security, an issuer might pledge to levy property taxes up to a specified
millage rate to support debt service payments.
What are revenue bonds?
Revenue bonds are issued to finance facilities that have a definable user or revenue base. These
debt instruments are secured by a specific source of funds, either from the operations of the
project being financed or from a dedicated revenue stream, rather than the general taxing powers
of a jurisdiction; hence, revenue bonds are considered less secure than general obligation bonds.
Voter approval is not usually necessary to issue revenue bonds. Nevertheless, revenue bond
issuers are customarily required to set reasonable rates and charges, thereby limiting the amount
of debt service that can be supported by the facility. To enhance their security, some jurisdictions
choose to issue "double-barreled" bonds, which are secured both by a dedicated revenue stream
5
as well as by the general taxing powers of the jurisdiction.
Revenue bonds are subject to more stringent issuance requirements than general obligation
bonds. Issuers may be required to maintain a debt service reserve fund to be used for debt
service payments if planned revenues from the facility's operations do not fully materialize. In
addition, market conditions may compel issuers to enhance the credit of the bonds by purchasing
bond insurance. Either option increases the cost of the borrowing for the issuer.
Issuers may also be subject to the provisions of a bond resolution or trust indenture, legal
contracts that protect the bondholder by establishing the flow of funds from the issuer for payment
of debt service. These contracts specify the rate covenants, the additional bonds test, and
operation and maintenance requirements that must be met by the issuer.
From: An Elected Official's Guide to Debt Issuance, J. B. Kurish and Patricia Tigue
Government Finance Officers Association
mgddebtrngt. doc
CRITERIA FOR REVIEW
1. Mandate from higher governmental authority
A mandate, that is where there is no choice for the City with respect to the provision of a
required capital expense to meet some federal or state law or regulation.
2. Compelled by decision of referendum or another jurisdiction
A mandate by community choice such as expressed through referendum (First Avenue
extended). This would also include actions by other governments, such as the location of a
new school and the associated city costs in providing for public infrastructure to serve that
school.
3. Furthers a City goal
Would the capital project further some City goal? If so, what is the goal and where is that
goal supported and substantiated, as in the Comprehensive Plan, Arterial Street Plan,
etc.?
Through capital improvement initiatives we fulfill and often establish new goals:
a. A new park -- this new park can create a sense of community in a particular
portion of our city, fulfill a need such as reflected by an open space plan, change or
reverse demographics, and create other issues, such as additional traffic,
programming by the Parks & Recreation Department, policing, etc.
b. An industrial park -- this project would create employment opportunities. Does it
provide for a competitive advantage or does it represent our need to overcome a
disadvantage?
c. Branch library -- this can be called a community-wide issue although of narrow
interest in that it will be located in a specific neighborhood and thereby change
traffic patterns and volumes. It will also lessen traffic and other issues associated
with other facilities, such as the downtown library. The same basic principle would
apply to a fire station.
4. Public safety
Is the project representative of some public safety concern and thereby extends and/or
exposes the City to potential liability? Is it part of your general consideration of health,
safety and welfare responsibilities as an elected official?
5. Advocated by interest groups
There are those that may be of narrow focus, such as a new park in a neighborhood, or of
a community-wide focus, such as the provision of a new water system. Interest groups,
particularly those that are considered narrow, also present Iocational issues, such as the
effect of the project on the surrounding environment, traffic, etc.
mgr/cip/criteria ,doc
6. Project consequence
Would the capital project cause something to occur rather than reacting to a decision, such
as the extension of water and sewer lines, construction of streets in an undeveloped
neighborhood? Will the project precipitate a need/demand for subsequent projects?
Will the project affect the operating budget and, if so, what fund? When you construct a
capital project such as a new street, the City assumes the responsibility for snow removal,
maintenance, street sweeping, street lighting, etc. What might be other interest group
factors affecting a capital project, such as motoring public issues, pedestrian,
neighborhood interests, etc.
Is the capital project a long-standing commitment such as our annual $350,000 per year
for asphalt resurfacing or will it become such a commitment? A recent commitment is our
policy of attempting to replace our brick streets with brick as much as possible. Our
program of curb cuts, now affected by ADA rule changes, also represent such a
commitment.
7. Miscellaneous
Will there be state or federal monies made available? Are those monies available now or in
the future? Do we anticipate such a program and should we prepare projects accordingly,
or do we simply wait and see?
Is this capital project a less costly alternative to some other capital proposal? If we were to
widen streets and thereby improve traffic flow would we in effect provide for increased
safety response capability and thereby lessen the need for another safety expense (a new
fire station)? Oftentimes these alternatives do run headlong into conflicts.
mgr/cip/criteda.doc 2
City of Iowa City
- MEMORANDUM
Date: July 16, 1999
To: City Council
From: City Manager
Re: Stormwater Management - Initiation of Policy Planning
The Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will soon initiate new rules and
regulations regarding'urban stormwater runoff. After the regulations have been released,
they will become effective in three years and three months or around January 2003. These
new stormwater regulations will likely be administered by the Iowa DNR.
The federal government currently regulates water quality through the Safe Drinking Water
Act and wastewater quality (effluent) through Clean Water Act. Other state laws exist
which supplement these federal laws, all of which have an impact our efforts to fulfill the
water and wastewater quality requirements. Other federal and state environmental laws
such as landfill regulations can affect our community' s development and the extent and
nature of municipal services designed to fulfill these requirements. The state and federal
agenda also has a direct impact on the local government services we provide to our
citizens.
Urban stormwater, which is often viewed as a 'bleansing process", can and does add
.pollutants to receiving waters such as the Iowa River, Rain, in the form of stormwater
runoff, will find its way into our creeks, streams and eventually our rivers. All along the
way it accumulates pollutants,
A variety of human made or altered surfaces covers much of our urban and suburban
environments. These include factories, offices, homes, highways, parking lots, lawns and
gardens. During the course of our daily activities, these surfaces are often coated with
unpleasant and hazardous materials such as oil, gasoline, grease, dust, pesticides and
trash. Rainfall and snowmelt as they flow across these surfaces will cleanse them of this
coating, but as these pollutants leave that surface, they can contaminate receiving waters.
The seriousness of urban stormwater pollution would seem to be exceeded only by its
intractability. Rain and snow cover large areas and the resulting runoff flows
indiscriminately over vast expanses with what appears to be little apparent hope for
conventional control without some drastic measure and enormous expense. Stormwater
quality issues will most certainly drive new technologies and management practices as
they relate to community development.
There are two types of water pollution. The better known is point source pollution. This '
being any discernable, confined and discreet conveyance that would transport pollutants to
2
a body of water. The sewage treatment plant discharging waste through a pipe to a river
or facility pouring toxic chemicals into a ditch that could lead to the ocean are examples of
such point sources.
The other type is non-point source pollution, also referred to as runoff pollution. Such non-
point source pollution does not originate from a pipe or culvert. Non-point source occurs
when rain and snow melt flow across the land and gather contaminants from the land, and
transport those contaminants to nearby waterways. We have all seen that oily sheen on
rainwater in roadside gutters. Non-point source pollution can come from urban and
suburban communities, farms and agricultural sites, and forests. No land use is immune.
Urban stormwater pollution is somewhat of a hybrid of both types. Urban stormwater
starts as non-point source and gather most of its contaminants as it carries rain and snow
melt freely across rooftops, roads, parking lots, and construction sites, lawns and other
surfaces. Once in the storm sewer system, the stormwater runoff may also pick up
additional contamination when oil and other substances have been dumped into the
stormwater system or when sanitary or industrial waste are discharged through illicit
connections to the storm water system. As it leaves our storm sewer system, it becomes
point source pollution.
The federal government has established as a national goal the reduction in these pollutants,
ultimately improving the quality of stormwater as it finds its way into our lakes and rivers.
Laws mandating stormwater management are new and therefore many local governments
have not yet developed comprehensive programs. Such comprehensive plans will soon be
mandated. Our City has enjoyed the benefit of addressing some of these issues over the
years as part of our development regulations and other City services. We now need to
compile that work effort into a comprehensive plan. It is important to note that most
current efforts are directed at stormwater quantity, not stormwater oualitV.
There are many issues to be addressed and this memorandum is intended to introduce the
subject of stormwater management, create an opportunity for discussions concerning a
comprehensive policy, encourage public education, develop a plan, and thereby change the
way the public as well as the City organization thinks and acts on issues associated with
stormwater management.
I would hope that we can develop an agenda of issues in order to provide discussion points
so that we may all understand better what our new stormwater management obligations
will be. As I had mentioned, one of the most critical components of this policy
development will be public education. The public can easily identify with the consumption
of water, we are all aware of the discussions about the cost of the water plant, how bad
the water tastes, etc. The importance of wastewater treatment, while a little less
understood, is certainly something the public is aware of with every flush. An
understanding of rain, snow melt, stormwater, and the runoff created will be an
educational challenge.
Our neighboring communities and governments will also play a role in stormwater
management, particularly as we use watersheds as a measure or instrument of our land
use development plans. Development regulations or lack thereof can also influence our
plans to address the elimination of pollutants.
3
The attached represents an agenda of issues, questions and concerns. We will plan future
work sessions to work through these matters. We will likely have a comprehensive and
complicated City policy in order to fulfill State and Federal stormwater regulations as well
as our own community' s expectations.
mgr\mmos%strmwlr2 .doc
Stormwater Questions/Concerns
What do we do now to address stormwater quality through City services?
Stormwater sewer construction
Street sweeping
Leaf vacuum
Creek, drainageway maintenance
Wetland parks - one existing
- one planned
Grading ordinance
Erosion control ordinance
Sensitive areas ordinance
Stormwater management ordinance
Development regulations
Street design
Recycle site - oil drop off
New recycling center
Hazardous (toxic) clean-up and more...
How can we measure our stormwater policy and management efforts?
Finance - How can we create sufficient revenue to address this issue?
What other policies/programs may have a bearing?
Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
Fdnge area
County development regulations, or lack of
- Other cities
Annexation
Review of City land use development plans.
Public Education
Who to talk to:
Neighborhood associations
Community organizations
Realtom
Homebuilders
Chamber
What is stormwater? Your role? How much will it cost? How will it affect my
property?
Strategy
Start eady.
mgr%strmwate.doc
Developing a Storm Water
Management Policy
Local Examples of Storm Water Zssues
General l'ssues · What is Storm Water?
· Variety of Storm Water Components
Faderally Mandated Requirements
EPA Phase ZZ Storm Water Regulations
· Municipal Permits
· Zndustrial Permits
· Construction Permits
Non Mandated Activities
Storm Sewer Zmprovements
· Projects to Reduce Property Damage
· Projects to Reduce Street Flooding
Maintenance Activities
· Repair of Pipes and Intakes
· Maintenance of Basins
Financina Options
Current Method
· General Obligation Bonds
· Road Use Taxes
· General Fund
Storm Water Utility
· Flat Fee to all Users (to be determined)
· Fee Based on Contribution
Utility Development
· Draft an Ordinance
· Assemble Task Force for input before Drafting Ordinance
01-02-03
BUDGET POLICY
Balanced 3-year operating budget
Multi-year Capital Improvement Plan
Cash reserves with a 5-year average of 20%, but
no less than 15% in General Fund
Maintain 1% General Fund contingency account
Maintain Aaa credit rating for General Obligation
Debt
No effect on low-income programs
When practical, shift 8.10 levy expenses of
General Fund to capital budget (debt service)
Other budget policies are found on Pages 7-13 in
budget document
mg~udgpoli.doc
BUDGET ISSUES
01-02-03
How to grow the tax base
- loss of machinery & equipment tax
- Economic Development Strategy
Declining ability of the General Fund to absorb
new programs
- property tax freeze could worsen situation
Expanded State control over local finance
~ loss of M&E
- declining rollback
- loss of property tax value - utilities
- possible freeze
Extensive capital improvement plan
- extent of debt, tax support needed
- those projects which create a demand for new personnel
Board/Commission Staffing (and support)
- Public Art Advisory Committee
- Historic Preservation
- PCRB
Fulfilling our master plans, visions,
comprehensive plan/policy statements
Rollback History
Fiscal Year State Rollback % Change
1986 0.724832 3.73%
1987** 0.756481 4.37 %
1988 0.773604 2.26%
1989** 0.805966 4.18%
1990 0.806384 0.05%
1991 ** 0.798471 -.0.98%
1992 0.794636 -0.48%
1993** 0.730608 -8.06%
1994 0.726985 -0.50%
1995** 0.680404 -8.41%
1996 0.675074 -0.78%
1997** O. 593180 - 12.13%
1998 0.588284 -0.83%
1999** 0.549090 -6.66%
2000 0.564789 2.86%
· -2;97% ,,, ,.. ~, ,-~,
200~ ,,; ~ ,, ..~, ,. 0.54852~2 ,., 2r ~
**Reassessment year
Tax Rate Comparisons
FY98FY99 FY00 FY01 * FY02FY03FY04
General 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10
Emergency- - - .27 .27 .27 .27
Library .27 .27 .27 .27 .27 .27 .27
Transit .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
Tort - .110 .220 .221 .224 .220 .232
Employee 1.8611.8342.0091.9932.1322.1582.228
Benefits
Debt 1.615 1.868 2.300 2.9883.349 3.5513.891
Service
Total 12.79 13.13 13.85 14.79 15.29 15.51 15.94
mgr~budget\taxrate.doc
FY2000-01-02
$100,000 home with a rollback of .564789 =
taxable value of$56,478
tax rate 13.851
$782.27 in City taxes
of that:
debt service tax rate2.300
$129.89 or 16.6%
$100,000 home with a rollback of .548525
taxable value of$54,852
tax rate 14.792
$811.32 in City taxes
of that:
debt service tax rate2.988
163.89 or 20.2%
Increase in City taxes 2000 to 2001=$29
Increase in share of City taxes for debt service=$34
Total tax rate 13.851 to 14.792=6.8%
Total City taxes $782 to $811 = 3.5%
mgr~b~:lgetVoilbac~.doc
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 11, 2000
To: City Council
From: City Manager
Re: Engled Theater
On or about January 17 it is our understanding that Mr. Kip Pohl is to close on the purchase of
the Englert Theater. The current owner of the theater (Central States Theaters) has a signed
contract with Mr. Pohl for the purchase of the Englert. As we understand it, the purchase price is
approximately $700,000. At this time we do not have nor have we seen a copy of the purchase
agreement, but have learned of the approximately $700,000 purchase price from discussion
with representatives of the citizens' group. Mr. Pohl has indicated an interest and willingness to
sell the Englert Theater to the City for the purchase price. This price is significantly less than the
$1,050,000 I understood originally negotiated between Mr. Pohl and the local citizens' group.
This citizens'group is actively pursuing the purchase of the Englert Theater. It appears to be
their desire to preserve the property for not only its historical value to our community and
downtown but also to provide an opportunity for live theater, lecture hall, dinner theater and/or
similar types of uses other than a movie theater. Upon sale we understand a deed restriction
prohibits use of the Englert property by future owner as a movie theater.
It has been suggested the City become a partner in this prospective real estate purchase.
Representatives of citizens' group have appeared before the City Council and expressed such
interest. The shared financing and partnership relationship is yet to be determined.
2
AS I understand the City Council's interest, with specific terms and conditions yet to be decided,
the City would purchase the Englert property at the price paid by Mr. Pohl. The City's ownership
would allow the citizens' group greater time to raise monies as well as create a not-for-profit
corporation in order to manage the theater at some time in the future. The City Council's
participation is intended to "buy time" for this citizens' group. If, after a specified period of time,
the citizen's group has not raised sufficient funds or fulfilled City Council expectations, as the
owner of the property, the City would place the Englert Theater on the open market for sale. The
City has no interest in managing the theater as an operation of the City government.
For the purposes of discussion the followingis provided:
1. The City could raise $700,000 and purchase the property from Mr. Pohl upon closure of the
real estate transaction he has pending with the Central States Theater Company. The
$700,000 in City funds would need to be raised by way of a short-term note (interest costs
on this note to be assigned as part of the project costs) or borrowing from a City reserve, or
some combination. If borrowed from a City reserve, it would be recommended it be of a
short-term nature. Our reserve positions are important to the day-to-day operations of the
City government. It is at this point my inclination to recommend use of the City reserve. The
lost investment income would need to be evaluated and also assigned as project cost,
2. The City would guarantee the citizens' group a specified period of time, say nine months,
from the date of closure of the real estate transaction in order for the citizens group to raise
the money for the purchase of the Englert Theater from the City.
3. The City would provide the initial $700,000 in capital resources for the purchase. I
understand the citizens' group has raised from $50,000 to $70,000 for the purchase of
options and/or the use of these monies toward the purchase of this theater. It is here that I
believe I need to comment on the long-term financial commitments by the City. If the City
3
chooses to be a partner in this project, I believe it is likely that the City Council will be called
upon to provide for permanent financing commitment. That is, while we can secure
$700,000 in short-term financing and assuming a successful fundraising effort, the cost of
renovation will also need to be considered. If the cost of renovation is say $500,000 and the
cost of the capital purchase is $700,000+, the project is more likely and should be estimated
at $1.2 million.
How and who should cover the total cost needs to be clearly understood by all parties. Will
the City share grow from short-term to permanent (long-term) capital commitments? If the
citizen's group raises 50% or $600,000, the remaining responsibility will likely fall to the City
Council. It is at this point that we would need to arrange permanent financing. At no point
should the potential for permanent financing exceed $700,000 or the referendum
requirement by State law would need to be considered. Additionally, this would require a tax
commitment and/or changes in the proposed Capital Improvement Plan in order for the City
to add this new debt to existing plans and obligations.
4. The City Council would need to determine the extent of the City's participation in this fund-
raising goal. I understand an early goal was $500,000 in private monies with the possibility
of the City "making up the difference". This was at a time when the purchase price for the
citizens' group was $1,050,000 and an estimated $500,000+ in renovation, or a total project
cost of $1,550,000.
5. The City could assume responsibility for the property during the interim, that is heat, light,
now clearance, insurance, etc. If in the business plan of the citizens' group there is an
opportunity to provide for specific uses and create some income stream, the City Council
can consider it at that time; however, any fund raising efforts will likely detract from such
initiatives.
4
6. We understand there are leases in the theater for residential uses. They will need to be
considered.
7. Any deed restrictions, and other issues, notably those that are environmental that need to
be researched in order to understand whose obligation it would be to do what with respect to
these types of issues.
8. The property taxes on the Englert Theater are $21,800 per year (all jurisdictions) or $16,300
for nine months. Will that cost need to be assigned to "the other parties" as an incidental
expense?
If it is in the Council's interest to proceed, I would suggest you communicate with Mr. Pohl, that
is authorizing the Mayor to send a letter expressing our interest in the purchase of the property
at the price he paid. You should also inform the citizens' group that it is our intent to own this
property for a short period of time and thereby affording them a further opportunity to raise
monies for the purchase of the property in the future, a specified period of time to be decided.
We also need to assign, I assume to me, the responsibility to negotiate the final details of the
transaction. Therefore, your guidance in any limitations I would have needs to be very clear.
mgr\mem\englert.doc
12/9/99
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PRIORITIES
FY2001-2004
TOP 10 CIP PRIORITIES
1 Miller/Orchard Park Development $150,000
2 Willow Creek Trail, Phase III $1,635,000
Iowa River Trail: West Bank-Benton to Sturgis Ferry
3 and Pedestrian Bridge to Napoleon Park $1,200,000
4 City Park Amusement Ride Enhancement $150,000
5 Waterworks Park Development $500,000
6 Court Hill Trail Development $352,000
Rebuild Mercer Park ConcessiondRestroom Building
7 and Relight Field #3 $200,000
8 City Park Trail Renovation $75,000
9 Tennis Court Relighting (City Park and Mercer Park) $80,000
10 Peninsula Park Development $1,000,000
PERSONAL SERVICES SUMMARY
ALL FUNDS
(COUNCIL REQUEST REGARDING TEMPORARY WAGES)
FY2001
FY99 FY99 FY2000 FY2000 ADMIN ',FY2001 FY2002 FY2002 FY2003 FY2003
% of % of % of % of % of
EXP :DESCRIPTION ACTUAL Total BUDGET Total .pROpOSALi Total PROJECTED: Total PROJECTED Total
6110 .Permanent Full Time _ ~ 19,370,p54! 65.8%~ 20,287,0~.1.64.5% 22 415,270! 66.1% 22,749,587~ 65.3% 24,027,816 65.8%
6120 :Permanent Pad Time 1,518,856' 5.2% 1,674,050i 5.3%' 1,719,874, 5.1%" ~,840,1847 5.3% 1,922,992 5.3%
6130 'Temporary Employees .... 1,431,442! 4.9% 2,006,526; 6.4% 2,069,5~9~ 6.1% 2,201,785 6.3% 2,267,840 6.2%
6211 'Ovedime.Wages~_ 919,535: 3.1%= __827,_1__66~ 2.6% 919,8101 2.7% 957,955 2.8% 996,279 2.7%
621~Z 'Flsa Ovadime Wages 14,638 0.0%' 19,038! 0.1% 16,395: 0.0% ' 17,051' 0.0%' :17~733' 0:0%
6221 'Term. - Vacation Pay ! 62,5_23~ _0.2%~ 0 0.0%' O[ 0.0% .... Oi 0.0% 0 0.0%
6222 Term. - Sick Leave ; 35,569 0.1%! Oi 0.0% 0a 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
6230 LongeVity Pay ' r 203,844i 0.7% 223,941! 0.7% 233,4~9i 0.7% 233,429[ 0.7% 233,429 0.6%
* Total Wages ~ 23,556,461~ 80.0% 25,037,7321 79.6% 27,374.337i 80.7% 27,999,991: 80.4% 29,466,089 80.6%
6310 Fica : 1,392,766: 4.7% 1,584,798: 5.0% 1,583,005~ 4.7% 1,666,918; 4.8% 1,741,929 4.8%
6320'lpers . 979:~5'.7_213.3% 1,067,225:. 3.4% 1,052,{6"~L'% _~'i?_/~"' _.1~1.04,951! 3.2% 1,154,668 3.20/0
6333 Police/Fire SurviVOrs B~nefits ; 8,669~ 0.0% 20,000, 0.1% 20,500! 0.1% 20,890 0.1% 21,287 0.1%
6344 'Police/Fire Retirement ' 856j1~_6! 2.9%i 971,12~4~ 3.1% 972,042~ 2.9%1' 1,010,925, 2.9% 1,051,361 2.9%
6350 'Supplemental Retirement ' 19,500: 0.1% 27,500: 0.1% 15,000t 0~0%~ .... 15,000'~ ~.0°/o' 15,000 0.0%
6410 Medical Insurance ;' 2~397,074j 8.1% 2,486,281 7.9% 2,628,106 7.7%I 2,724,557~ 7.8% 2,779,044 7.6%
6420 Life Insurance : 55,916~ 0.2%, 65,180 0.2% 64,774i 0.2%! 66,353: 0.2% 67,681 0.2%
6430 'Disability Insurance ~ '~0~,0~9! 0.3%; 130,551 0.4% 129:209 0 4%~" 132,202, 0.4% 134,848 0.4%
' 17,276! 0.1%i 23,071 0.1% 22,925i 0.1~o 22,925 0.1% 22,925 0.1%
6510 Uniform Allowance ~ + _ . ~
6520 'Food Allowance . 33,075'' 0.1%. 31,725; 0.1% 32,900! 0.1 Yo! 32,900 0.1% 32,900 0.1%
6530MechanicsStipend 550= 0.0% 250 0.0% 3~)'i~ 0.~°,/~7.. 351~ 0.0% 352 0.0%
6540 Holiday Pay Allowance 7,380i 0.0%! 21,250: 0.1%% 21,250~ 0.1% 21,250] 0.1% 21,250 0.1%
** Total Benefits 5,869,966! 19.8%'. 6,428,955! 20.5%' 6,542,226~ 19.4% 6,819,222~ 19.7% 7,043,245 19.5%
*** Total Wages & Benefits 29,426,427 ] 99.8% ~ 31,466,687i 100.1% 33,916,563 ~ 100.1 %~ 34,819,213! 100.1% 36,509,334 100.1%
temp_qst.xls