HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-02-05 Transcription February 5, 2001 Council Work Session Page 1
February 5, 2001 Council Work Session 4:00 PM
Council: Lehman, Champion, O'Dormell, Pfab, Kanner, Wilburn, Vanderhoef.
Staft~ Atkins, Karr, O'Malley, Helling, Mansfield, Nasby.
Tapes: 01-15, both sides.
A complete transcription is available in the City Clerk's Office.
BUDGET REVIEW
Riverside Theater Seating
Lehman: The first thing that I think we should address is one that we brought up last
week and didn't finish. And that is the Riverside Theater-
Atkins: And just before you do that, just so we are all on board- the Animal
Shelter letter went out, the PCD letter went out, and I will be following up
on those for you. The Family Resource Letter- that we went out. That
was in your packet also. I wasn't sure a Naturalist- you know, you were
kind of banging around some ideas on where to take it. I didn't sense that
there was a number of you-
Lehman: I think that we feel that it is a priority.
Atkins: That it was a high priority but we simply chose not to fund it.
Champion: And when we do the water plant park and the Peninsula park we definitely
want to get one.
Atkins: The $2500 and the $1700 were the result of some of the changes that you
made in the community events. So it is sort of like you are $4200 to the
good in that. And in Aid to Agencies you all haven't finished because
Steven and Dee have to do their thing. Am I cool with that?
Lehman: I think that is where we are.
Atkins: Okay. And Riverside seating is (can't hear).
Lehman: Riverside Theater, the proposal as I traderstand it was for the Riverside
Theater wanted to put in seating in the Shakespearean Theater in the park.
And was asking the city to- at a cost of somewhat over $200,000- was
asking the city over a three year period to repay I believe $106,000 and
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of February 5, 2001.
WS020501
February 5, 2001 Council Work Session Page 2
some odd dollars. And also make some changes in the agreement that we
presently have with the theater.
Atkins: The letter came in today that that issue of the exclusivity is no longer an
issue.
Lehman: Right.
Atkins: If you- I think you have two options. One option is that if you choose-
well, really three. One is do nothing. The second option is that if you so
choose we could ftmd our share- approximately half the cost- through
General Obligation debt. We would have to do a borrowing. The other
option is as they propose. It is basically that they front it- Riverside
seating- excuse me Irvin- they front it and then we repay them over a
period of three years out of the General Fund.
Champion: I think that is very generous of them and I support that.
Arkins: Okay. My concerns are for both financing schemes. Not the merits of the
project. General Obligation debt is something we are all concerned about.
An additional $100,000 is not a huge difference. I mean, you would not
even see that in a debt issue. Particularly with the sizes that we are talking
about. Repaying it from the General Fund, to me, is like a recurring
expense. And while it is only for a period of three years I am just very
reluctant to encourage you to put recurring expenses in the General Fund.
Also, just as a set aside, if you approve the skywalk tomorrow night, that
is an additional $50,000 in General Obligation debt. We recommend that
you do it because the bids look good and appear to be right on point.
Champion: Wasn't there something though that- something else that we were going to
take oft'? Is there something in a memo of yours or something? No?
Atkins: I don't even know which memo. Yeah, I was going to say, have you got a
boxcar full of memos? What was the issue? Do you recall?
Champion: I thought I just saw it somewhere. Well, go on because I (can't hear).
Pfab: What were you asking about Connie?
Champion: I thought there was something else we could take off.
O'Donnell: (Can't hear) came in higher.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of February 5, 2001.
WS020501
February 5, 2001 Council Work Session Page 3
Atkins: Well, that is on the skywalk. I just wanted you to know that you have to
add the General Obligation debt if you are choosing to do it. Now,
remember, when we budget these projects- this is a budget. This is an
estimate.
Champion: Right.
Atkins: We have traditionally been really pretty good about our estimating. And
that means that you may not have to do the full level of debt which we
can- for budget purposes we make the assumption that you do.
Lehman: Irvin, you-
Arkins: Ross had a question too.
Lehmm~: I am sorry. Go ahead.
Wilbum: Excuse me Irvin- back to the Riverside seating. If we were to choose to
do it is it your preference recommendation that it be bonded as opposed to
a recurring-
Atkins: Yes. I prefer it. I am just very concerned about the General Fund if we
are going to do this and pay our share- commit to our share up front.
Champion: We could bond three different years? Not worth it?
Atkins: Yeah you could but usually it is only two because of IRS regulations
Connie. Remember when we- once you commit the monies you have only
got 2 years to have them (can't hear).
Lehman: You can't tack that on to a bond each year?
Atkins: No, we could. That is what we would do Ernie is that we would- I would-
I don't want the public to misunderstand that $100,000 is not a lot of
money but when you are borrowing $30 million at one pop.
Lehman: Yeah. Irvin?
Pfab: So where is everybody's feelings on (can't hear)?
Atkins: That is where we are right now.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of February 5, 2001.
WS020501
February 5, 2001 Council Work Session Page 4
Lehman: Connie has said that she thinks it is a great idea for us to be- let them
provide the seats and repay them. I would- I happen to agree with you
Cormie. i think it is a great idea and I would love to see that occur.
However, I am not interested in changing any of the agreements that we
presently have with Riverside Theater.
Atkins: My impression Ernie is I don't think that is on the table anymore.
Vanderhoef: There were three things that-
Lehman: One of them was the dollar a seat and whatever. I would leave everything
alone and I would also put a maximum amount of money involved here. I
think that the request is $106,0007
Atkins: That sounds about right.
Vanderhoel~ Yes, $106,637.
Lehman: Put a cap on it.
Vanderhoef: Yes, because my question was who's estimate was that?
Atkins: Theirs.
Vanderhoef: And we had a little problem with the estimates early on on this whole
project and-
Lehman: I talked to these folks and they indicate that that is a good number as
opposed to when we first started talking about the project and we were
thinking in terms of $100,000 or $150,000 on a project that cost $368,000.
Champion: Well, I view this project as well worth- as a worthy endeavor just like I do
the Englert in the sense that I think they are both valuable economic
development tools. And I think the amount of money that we are putting
into either one of them is pretty minor compared to what we get back.
Wilbum: Well, and to make a nicer venue not only for them but for some of the
other groups that I saw in it last summer. There was even a- some type of
alternative rock bands out there. They had a Saturday out there. That
would make it a nicer venue and possibly up the possibly of some funds
coming in for them. I would want to see when they design or whatever
configuration of seating that handicap seating be designed right up front
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of February 5, 2001.
WS020501
February 5,2001 Council Work Session Page 5
with it so that we are not in the situation where you are trying to make up
or make room later on. That it be done.
Lehman: I think ADA would require that wouldn't it? This is city property.
Atkins: Well, if you are inclined to go along with the project I think one of the
early things we will have to do is have a quick visit with these folks
because I kd~ow they are anxious to bid it. One- it is public property. Are
we the agent? Do we bid it and have them contribute to us as opposed to
us contribute to them? You understand. And I think they understand that
some of those issues will have to be resolved. I guess the thing that I
wanted to hear from you was one, do you want to do? And if you do
General Obligation debt appears to be what we would have to do.
Lehman: If we decide to do it then it is yours.
Atkins: Figure it out? Okay.
Vanderhoef: There still hasn't been addressed the surcharge to other groups using the
seating.
Lehman: That is all off the table. The only thing we are talking about is the seating.
Atkins: Right now all we are talking about is seating. That is what I have
understood.
Vanderhoef: Well, but that goes with it.
Lehman: No it doesn't. We just said that.
Vanderhoef: Well you said you weren't (can't hear) the dollar.
Lehman: All of the arrangements that we presently have with them would remain
the same. The only difference is we would agree to allow them to put in
the seats and we would agree to pay them back up to $106,637.
Champion: We don't get this opportunity very group from a group that is really
donating to the city a permit thing that anybody can use.
Pfab: Okay, so to summarize this- what- I think it is a wonderful idea. I was just
sick that it looked like there was- that it was in trouble. I do have a short
little note here. I agree to (can't hear) if they want it but they don't have
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of February 5, 2001.
WS020501
February 5, 2001 Council Work Session Page 6
to. No, I think it is a great thing. I understand that if- I am just kind of
summarizing here- we will fund the part that they don't donate?
Lehman: No. They pay for the entire thing.
Atkins: We have in front of us- and I am assuming you will allow me reasonable
discretion- a $200,000 seating project. You have given me authority-
assuming you all went along with this- up to $106,000 as our share of this
project. And that we would fund it- that is our share of the thing. So in
effect, however we handle this, when the bill comes due and it is $200,000
we will write a check, they will write a check and it is paid for. That is
what I understood.
Pfab: And as a result there is no more- the attempt or the offer that they made to
hold a dollar from the ticket-
Atkins: All of that is off the table.
Pthb: Okay.
Atkins: This is strictly a shared Capital Improvement project.
Kanner: We would write a contract with them and that would be in the contract or
there would be no mention of those other things?
Atkins: What I would do Steven is- so that they can begin the planning process
and they have already done that, that I am assuming I would write some
letter to them that the Council gave me the tentative go ahead to do (can't
hear) and I would spell out whatever all of the issues are. So that we are
covered.
Kanner: I- it looks like there are a majority of Council but I would object to certain
aspects. I think- Connie I am glad that you see it as economic
development and I would recommend that it come out of our Capital Fund
from the economic development. I think that would be an appropriate use
for that. And that we have set aside $700,000 each year- except for
$600,000 I think in ~03- and so that might be an appropriate set aside.
And Steve, you put it well but I think $100,000 here and $100,000 there as
the old saying is pretty soon you are talking real money. And I would like
to propose that instead of the theater doing the seats that it is the other way
around. That they put in the drainage- the proper drainage- because that
would take care of a lot of problems and that we either use economic
development money this year or we say that this is something that we will
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of February 5, 2001.
WS020501
February 5,200I Council Work Session Page 7
ftmd in the near future when we have a better handle on the Capital costs
that we are using. That makes more sense to me in this (can't hear).
Lehman: I don't know that I understood what you are saying.
Kanner: i would say- first off I would say that we would put it off for a year to a
couple of years until we have a better handle on our Capital costs. And
two, that if the theater wishes to begin work on something- mainly the
drainage problem- that they do- fix the drainage problem and put in the
cement base. And then when we are ready we will add the chairs in a
couple of years. So essentially we are reversing the obligation of chairs
and the cement base/drainage.
O'Donnell: I totally disagree with that. It is new to the city right now- anybody who
has been out there understands that seating is needed right now. So I am
for doing it, as was suggested earlier.
Kanner: When you voted on it earlier Mike, a couple of years ago, wasn't it- what?
Wasn't it sold as that it would be without the seating? That would be one
of the attractive things.
O'Donnell: This is a change.
Kanner: Right and I say-
O'Dormell: I think it is a good change.
Kauner: -things are tight right now and I think Capital and General Funds- we need
to think about other ways of spending. And sometimes we have to hold
off on some of these things and I would recommend holding off2
O'Donnell: I agree with you we do have to hold off at times but this is something that
I do not want to hold off on.
Lehman: Other input? How many are willing to proceed as we have described it
with allowing them to place the seating in the theater and we will repay
them up to $106,636 over three years?
Pfab: I have one question. Are we going to solve the flood swamp problem over
there?
Arkins: It is intended that when the project is built you have to take care of that. It
has to be drained.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of February 5, 2001.
WS020501
February 5, 2001 Council Work Session Page 8
Lehman: That would be part of the project.
Atkins: I don't know how it is split as far as the cost Irvin but there would be no
reason to put the seating in unless we are going to resolve the drainage.
Karmer: Point of information- the proposal was seats go in '02- in one of their
letters that they sent. Is this moving at- or in '02, that is correct. (Can't
hear) year '02. Is that still the proposal?
Arkins: I don't think so.
Kanner: The proposal is to put the seats in calendar year '01 ?
Lehman: Calendar year '01 could be fiscal year '02.
Atkins: Yeah, fiscal year '02 is July 1.
Kanner: But the proposal- I think they talked about in one of their letters seats
going in '02. So I just want to make sure that the proposal is- seats will be
installed in '02. This was as of December 13. Now, I don't 'know if they
corrected that on their latest letter or not.
Pfab: Is that fiscal year or calendar year?
Karmer: Calendar year. So there should be some clarification about that.
Lehman: Well is there any concern on the part of the council whether that gets done
in '01 or ~027
Champion: No.
O'Donnell: No.
Pfab: I would like to see it done as soon as possible.
Vanderhoef: 1 agree with you on that one Irvin. It does need to be done and it will be
enhancing the look of it for the folks who come and see it this year. Last
year some people had sort of soggy seats and we need to move forward.
Kanner: And payment begins February 2, 2002 is what they said.
Atkins: That is payment. I am assuming-
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of February 5, 2001.
WS020501
February 5, 2001 Council Work Session Page 9
Kanner: Our share or whichever way it works out.
Atkins: I am assuming it is General Obligation debt. Which means we can take it
from (cm~'t hear).
Pfab: Okay, one other thing though. Wouldn't it be a year after we make the
first payment?
Atkins: There is no payments.
Pfab: Okay.
Atkins: We pay one time.
Pfab: I see.
Lehman: That is not the way I understand it. We make $100,00 in three equal
installments.
Atkins: No.
O'Donnell: We are going to do it in one payment.
Champion: They were just saying that wouldn't be practical.
Atkins: That is three separate borrowings. I don't think you want to do that.
Champion: However you do it-
Lehman: That is why I asked if you can just tack it on each year.
Atkins: I would.
Lehman: All right, fine.
Atkins: But I would (can't hear). Thank you.
Lehman: We've got a done deal? Moving along.
Atkins: I will correspond- they are sitting in the audience but I will correspond
with them explaining that it is a "go" project.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of February 5, 2001.
WS020501
February 5, 2001 Council Work Session Page 10
Aid to Agencies
Lehman: All right. I think the next thing we probably can take up before- Aid to
Agencies I think we can probably address now. After that I think we will
probably address individual concerns with the rest of the budget. We got a
handout today-
Wilburn: I have to excuse myself because of conflict of interest.
Lehman: And we will try to watch for you so that you don't miss the rest of the
meeting.
Champion: I would like to ask a question before Ross leaves. We don't have a lawyer
here but it seems to me that he should be involved in the mount of money
that we are going to give to Agencies but not in the distribution.
Lehman: Probably not because the amotmt that we give to Agencies could impact
the mount of money that might be given to the Agency for which he
works.
Champion: Okay.
Lehman: So I think that that is just to be fair to everybody. He is right. I did agree
with- I thought we talked about that. Just to avoid any discussion of
conflict of interest is probably better.
Atkins: I think what you would hear Eleanor say is even the appearance of, even
though there wouldn't have been.
Lehman: Right.
kgilburn leaves room.
Lehman: Okay, we have recommendations from Steven and also from Dee as to
funding for Human Services from our General Fund. I guess why don't
Steven- would either or both of you like to explain what your
recommendations are and we will go from there?
Vanderhoef: Go ahead Steven. You do yours and then I ~vill do mine.
Atkins: And before they start don't forget there is $4200- you reduced the 4th Of
July celebration and we reduced Irving Weber. Just so you know that that
in a sense for budget balancing purposes, that is to the good.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of February 5, 2001.
WS020501
February 5, 2001 Council Work Session Page 11
Vanderhoef: That is General Fund dollars?
Atkins: That is General Fund dollars, right.
Vanderhoef: Leave them in General Funds.
Atkins: I just want you to know what is there.
Lehn~an: Okay.
Kanner: 30 plus agencies presented to United Way and are continuing to present on
a weekly basis to United Way. Dee and I were appointed to observe and
interact for the presentations for agencies that are requesting money from
the City of Iowa City. They are also requesting money from the United
Way and from City of Coralville and from Johnson County. And what we
gave out, as you can see on the sheets that were handed out, in fiscal year
'01 was $455,500. And that was a 6.6% increase over the previous year
and that was given out a large increase- a 6.6% increase because there was
extra contingency funds that had accumulated. This year those agencies
that received money in '01 plus three new ones- The ARC, 4 C's and
Youth Homes are requesting $516,850. It was recommended by the City
Manager that we keep the overall budget at the same rate of $455,500. I
think one of the things that impressed me by the United Way evaluations
is they looked at not only the needs- the human needs- in the community
but they also looked at the management of the agencies. And most of the
agencies did a pretty good job of management with some pluses or
minuses. I think Dee would probably agree with that. But generally a
good job. And they fulfill many needs in our community. I recommended
an increase- a slight increase- so that we could include ftmding for the
three new agencies and I also noted some slight decreases in a few
agencies. And so I recommended an increase to $460,952, which is a
1.2% increase. Plus figuring that we would keep the contingency from
last year ~vhich has not been spent at this time for fiscal year '01. And so
that would give us a total budgeted of $470,952. Which would still be that
1.2% increase. We have some money available here. I would recommend
that these are agencies that help us in the long ran. They- I can discuss
some of the reasoning for what they do and why we should fund them if
you would like. But I will leave it at that right now and then Dee can give
her explanation.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of February 5, 2001.
WS020501
February 5, 2001 Council Work Session Page 12
Pfab: Can i ask just a question? It is in regards to a statement you made. You
said that these organizations receive funds from the City of Iowa City,
Johnson County and you said something-
Kanner: Coralville.
Pfab: Coralville. Do they also acknowledge the other funds they receive from
other agencies- other funding sources?
Kanner: Yes, the percentage that those government entities that you mentioned
ranges anywhere from a couple percent of the total budget to maybe 30%-
40% of the total budget. Most of the funding comes from other sources-
grants, federal government, fund raising.
Pthb: Okay, so you are looking at the total income (can't hear)? On your
recommendation?
Kanner: Well, in part but actually that doesn't have that much of a weight because
some of them we are a higher percentage of the total budget for some of
these agencies. But what is looked upon for increases or decreases are
pretty insignificant in that total budget- in some ways. In some ways it is
not.
Pfab: So on your recommendations of increases or decreases-
Kanner: Before you go on maybe do you want to hear from Dee- [she] has a
slightly different perspective and we decided to present both.
Pfab: That is fine.
Kanner: Do you want to do it that way?
Vanderhoef: Is that okay?
Pfab: I just thought maybe when I had the questions that came up you wanted to
address them in your presentation (can't hear). You would save yourself
another trip around the block.
Vanderhoef: Well thank you for the offer there. I don't know which is best but I will
go with this.
Pfab: Okay, that is fine.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of February 5, 2001.
WS020501
February 5, 2001 Council Work Session Page 13
Vanderho ef: This was a very good presentation that we got at Human Service Agencies
hearings. When we heard from the new folk I listened carefully. I wanted
to see what they had to offer that we were not already funding at this point
in time. Maybe in a slightly different form but still that we are funding for
some of those same folk. I didn't see any huge need to add new agencies
at this point in time. And part of the reason I say that is that we give
generously to these agencies and always have. And I am sure we will
continue to do that into the future. But what I am concerned about is the
future and how we can continue to do these things. And certainly my
philosophy of building a tax base so that we gro~v our general fund so that
there are dollars to have things happen, not only in Human Services but in
city services and so forth leads me in a slightly different direction than
what Steven chooses to profess. Anyway, I looked at the bottom lines and
~vhen I saw the 6.6% that was given last year and as I understand it was
the payout for the accumulated dollars in the contingency fund I felt that
was overly generous at that point in time and yet I understand spending
down the contingency fund. So when I look at all of this and I see a 6.6%
increase I would say that if we averaged out the two years at 3.3% that is
still a very generous increase for all of the agencies that we serve. I am
recommending no increases and I am recommending no new agencies this
year.
Lehman: And no decreases?
Vanderhoef: No decreases. Exactly ~vhat they got last year.
Lehman: Okay.
Vanderhoef: What I also see out there- and I mentioned it a few minutes ago- was what
can we do for the future? And I find that going on a payout every year-
dollars in and dollars out, never gives anything new and different for the
city and the city funds or for the agencies. So personally I would like us
as a Council to have some conversations about and to put together with the
assistance of our staff a possibility for a foundation or an endowment that
would be (can't hear) for Human Services. Now, whether this comes in
the form of using the new commtmity foundation or whether it would be
within the city and a foundation on its own- I don't have all the legal
answers to all of that. But I feel that we need to have dollars put aside that
are growing dollars rather than always depending on our General Fund.
Something came to my attention over the weekend of a possible way to
start such a fund and that as I traderstand it the sale of the 641A property
has HUD guidelines to it that was agreed upon a long time ago. And that
upon the sale of that property those dollars must be used in CDBG kinds
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of February 5, 2001.
WS020501
February 5, 2001 Council Work Session Page 14
of activities of one form or another. If that property were to be sold at say
$1 million, that could generate $75,000 a year roughly in new monies.
Those dollars could well be used towards Human Services if that is what
we as a Council chose to do. I would like to do some exploring on this but
in the meantime I will stand with my recommendation of a same budget as
the FY01 actual dollars spent and leave it out for discussion. Thanks.
Lehman: Thank you. Irvin?
Pfab: I appreciate your idea of looking for other sources. But I believe that the
City Council is probably the closest thing in the community for the
community to speak to address issues. I believe by putting a foundation in
between that is not in the best interest of either the City Council or the
community.
Vanderhoef: Okay, may I respond?
Pfab: Sure.
Vanderhoef: I had no intention of saying that it wouldn't be still under the City Council
to allocate those dollars. I am just saying a foundation or an endowment
or whatever you want to call it that earns money for Human Services is my
interest in this. We still can be the sole proprietors of those dollars. Or we
could put up a separate board. There is lots of ways it could be designed.
I have no wish one way or another. So I think that answers your question.
Pfab: I have no trouble with the concept in the sense oflooking at new ideas. I
think you have to be commended for that. I believe that as the people
governing the city we are close to what goes on. Now, hopefully it would
be nice if none of these organizations were necessary. If we could solve
the problems at they are trying to solve as a city. That is probably not
going to happen. So the idea would be to try to keep making these less
and less necessary. So I think that keeping this in from of our attention
and keeping it in front of our mind as we go along I think is one of the
ways that we stay in touch with the people.
Vanderhoef: I agree.
Lehman: That wouldn't change. I guess we really have a couple three questions
here. Steven's recommendation is for a very small-
Pfab: I just want to make one more comment before you-
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of February 5, 2001.
WS020501
February 5, 2001 Council Work Session Page
Lehman: Go ahead.
Pfab: Okay. The problem is what will that lump of money sitting in a
foundation- what will that earn us?
Lehman: We are not going to (can't hear).
(Several talking)
Pfab: I mean, that is the other thing.
Lehman: We are not going to decide that here.
Pfab: I know.
Lehman: We are working on this now. It is a concept, which will obviously get
some discussion. But we have a recommendation for a very small
increase and we have a recommendation to remain exactly the same. And
the other issue here, I think- there are two new agencies that have
requested funds.
Vanderhoef: Three.
Kanner: Three.
Lehman: Three, I am sorry. And Steven, your recommendation does give
something to all three of the new agencies?
Kanner: Yeah, but not at the rate that they-
Lehman: No, no- obviously. I don't think any of the rest of them we probably did
either. But I think we need to decide firstly if we want to fund at last
year's total from our General Fund perspective. If we want to increase the
funding or if we want to add three agencies and remain with the total
funding as it was last year. I think we have got three options: add with the
same amount, add with an increase in funding, or leave everything the way
it was.
Pfab: Okay, now on a contingency fund here is there- is that something that
should be just left in the bank?
Lehman: Right, leave it alone. That is for emergencies. That is rainy day money.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of February 5, 2001.
WS020501
February 5, 2001 Council Work Session Page 16
Pfab: So in this case that basically we are taking off the table?
Lehman: Right.
Pfab: Okay. So that would change what Steven-
Lehman: No, that doesn't change anything.
Kanner: What we gave last year was the $455,000. And what Dee and the city
manager are recommending is that we keep it at the same level. And I am
recommending-
Pfab: That we add the contingency fund.
Kanner: No, no- forget that. That it up- aside from the contingency fund- that it go
up to 4460,000. This is mine. So go from here to here. And that takes a
little bit out of some of the agency's- what they got in '01. And it adds a
little bit in some other agencies, including the new ones.
Vanderhoef: And remember of this- I am not sure which way you figured yours- of that
total dollar amount $105,000 of that is money that comes from CDBG's
annual allocation that we as a council have had a policy for years and
years. So not all of this is General Fund. You take $105,000 off of that
and that is what the General Fund hit is for us on an mmual basis at this
point.
Pfab: Are we talking- was the contribution by the CDBG the same last year as it
is this year?
Vanderhoef: Yes. And many years before that too.
Pthb: So that is (can't hear)?
Karmer: But that is another-
Vanderhoef: I want you to understand that not all of this is General Fund dollars.
$105,000 of it is CDBG monies.
Pfab: For point of information, how much was taken out of the contingency fund
last year? Was it $10,0007
Champion: $28,000.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of February 5, 2001.
WS020501
February 5, 2001 Council Work Session Page 17
Pfab: $28,000- okay.
Champion: Wasn't it $28,000?
Lehman: I don't think anything came out this last year.
O'Dormell: Yes we did.
Lehman: '01 ?
Vanderhoef: A year ago. When the increase went to 6.6%.
Lehman: Right.
Champion: And we gave them a very generous increase and I think everybody got
more than they asked for, which was kind of nice. But I do agree with
Dee on adding new agencies because I don't know where you ever stop.
AI1 of these agencies have value. And all the United Way agencies have
value. And even some agencies that aren't United Way agencies have
value. And i don't know where you stop adding them. And I think the
Iowa City City Council has for years had a tradition of generosity toward
the agencies that are included. And I think it is a really great idea that we
continue to do this and I am not willing to cut it out. But I am not willing
to fund new agencies at this point. So I do agree with you on that Dee.
Last year these agencies- we also had some asking for increases and- I
mean for coming into the-
O'Donnell: New agencies.
Champion: -coming into the fold. And we also agreed last year not to add any new
agencies. So I think that is a good place to start. And because they got
such a nice increase last year I am willing to keep it at the
recommendation of the City Manager and Dee Vanderhoef that we keep
the amount of money that we gave to each agency the same. I would not
be willing to decrease it at all because I think once ~ve give them a certain
amount of money they automatically become dependent on that. And I
would not be willing to decrease an agency, not even a dollar. That is
kind of where I stand on it. I guess I think that this is a great tradition and
we are keeping it up. And I don't have any intentions of not keeping it up.
But I think this year because they got such a generous increase last year
that I am willing to hold it at whatever we did before- the $455,500.
Lehman: Mike?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of February 5, 2001.
WS020501
February 5,2001 Council Work Session Page 18
O'Donnell: Well, this is a priority for this Council. And it has been in the past. And I
will support Dee.
Pfab: I would counter what Cormie's recommendation of not adding any new
agencies is. And my point would be that I don't know how much monies-
I haven't totaled them all up here yet but it is not a huge amount, but it is
substantial. By the city helping fund these it gives them legitimacy to go
and seek other funds- other sources of funds. So not only are you
contributing to them but you give them the legitimacy to seek grants and
what not. You make it easier for them. Now, I- the one that I am most
familiar with is 4 C's. I work with that by being on the Johnson County
Board of Social Welfare. Those- this childcare thing is just almost out of
control-
Champion: Is that a conflict of interest for you on this?
Pfab: I don't know. If it is I will leave.
O'Donnell: Ernie, (can't hear).
Kanner: You are not on the 4C's Board of Directors?
Pfab: No.
Lehman: All right. So your- you would prefer adding agencies?
P~ab: I don't think I would have a blanket no. I mean, I believe- my
understanding is that there has been a screening process before they got
here. And I would anticipate that the screening process is relatively tight.
But if the group that does the screening sees this as something that is
worthwhile I certainly would listen to their recommendations. And again,
it may be a counter to what Counie said, there are organizations I would
not feel uncomfortable reducing if they are not doing what they intended
to do. If they are not efficient in what they are doing or the needs have
changed.
Champion: That is true.
Pfab: So, I mean- I just-just so we know- I mean, I am not saying you are
wrong.
Champion: I agree with you on that.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of February 5, 2001.
WS020501
February 5, 2001 Cotmcil Work Session Page 19
Pl~b: And I am not saying that I am right.
Champion: But I would hope that our people who go to hear these presentations for us
every year would come back and say that this organization is not doing
what they are supposed to be doing. And that is a whole different
ballgame then just whatever. But I just feel like we are supporting these
organizations and it is unusual because cities don't usually support these
organizations. And I think it is very positive that we do it. But I am not
willing to add anybody.
Pfab: But you also-
Lehmm~: I am willing to support doing the same thing that we did last year. And I
think that gives us four folks to-
Champion: Do you ~vant to add new agencies though?
Lehman: You know,- no, I guess I am not interested in adding new agencies at this
point. But I certainly wouldn't want to close the door that we would never
add new agencies. Because I think that is not necessarily a good policy
because there may be cases some time in the future when we really want
to. But for this year I am willing to accept the recommendation of the City
Manager and Dee and go ahead with the recommendation for the same
amount as we did last year.
Pfab: I have a question. When was the last time we added a new agency?
Lehman: I have no idea.
Atkins: Oh, four or five years ago Irvin. I am trying to recall when it was. Maybe
a little longer. I think it was EHP. We had not contributed to the
Emergency Housing Project for (can't hear). I think that was the last one.
Pfab: That would indicate that things have not changed in the last four or five
years.
Champion: (Can't hear) another Council.
Plhb: But I mean also the actual circumstances going on here have changed
some. Maybe we want to intend to be a little bit more flexible. So I won't
agree with that but that is one vote.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of February 5, 2001.
WS020501
February 5, 2001 Council Work Session Page 20
Kanner: i wanted to note that my understanding is that we did use to fund not from
CDBG- we brought in CDBG to replace General Funds. My
understanding is that that is the way it happened a few years ago.
Lehman: Wait a minute- Steve, you have been here 14 years. Now, has that
occurred since you have been here?
Atkins: We have always- in all of the years that I have been here- have taken a
percentage of the CDBG money and I think it was capped at 15% or
something such as that. And then it became a number- a fixed number-
the $105,000. And that has gone on as long as I can recollect. And then if
you choose to add anything it all canoe from the General Fund. That is
what I have understood it to be.
Kanner: Okay, then perhaps it was before- a way back.
Atkins: It could be.
Kanner: But in any case I think that the Council- Dee, I think your idea is
something to look into as far as the endowment. But I think the Council-
how we put our funds in all areas of the budget- ~ve are sending a message.
And I think ~ve do have room to send more and move some other things
around. I think that we can use some of the childcare for- a number of
agencies provide childcare and I think we can use economic development
money for some of that. In fact at our goal setting session that was listed
as a high priority- economic development and childcare was part of that.
And I think this is an appropriate use. Not only is it good for economic
development so that we can get more workers- full time workers that
could work at good jobs while they have good childcare but it is also listed
high on the Johnson County capacity assessment which is a Human
Service need. And it is needed by all incomes. And that is why I think it
~vould be appropriate to use economic development money. And also
since the schools aren't using the DARE, the DARE program- the public
schools- I think it ~vould be appropriate to put some of that money from
the police officer that we would lose through attrition if we so budget it,
into some of these programs and possibly the Family Resource Center. So
I think it is a matter of where our priorities are. And I think it is- in the
long run we get better results if we fund agencies that are doing good jobs.
And these are agencies that we saw- Dee and I- that are tracking the
results and are getting results and helping our community be a better
place. And I think it could only be better if we fund these new agencies
that have been working in our community for a number of years. And
they did- to be included among a United Way agency they do have to pass
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of February 5, 2001.
WS020501
February 5, 2001 Cotmcil Work Session Page 21
certain criteria. And these are the ones- the new ones are United Way
recipients. And I think for us to fund them is saying we appreciate what
you have done for our community. And it might not be a lot, and it is
probably more symbolic, but I think it is an important thing to say we
appreciate what you are doing because the budget says what our priorities
are.
Pfab: When I made my statement I hadn't thought about these people having
also been (can't hear) so to speak through the United Way. And if they
pass that that is an accomplishment. And I know some of the work that
some of these do. So-
Lehman: Okay, but for this year we going to accept the recommendation from
Steve. Mike, would you like to see if Ross is ready?
Atkins: As I understand it it is the budget plus contingency, which is $466,000.
Lehman: $465,500 according to this.
Atkins: We have got $466,000 budgeted.
Vanderhoef: Only to bring the contingency back up to the $10,000, not an additional
$10,000.
Atkins: No new agencies and agencies can expect to receive what they received in
the previous year? Okay.
Vanderhoef: Yes.
Kanner: In fiscal year '01 ?
Atkins: Yes. Ernie, will we save the Foundation discussion for a separate
discussion?
Lehman: I think that needs to be. We are not going to have time to address that
tonight.
Arkins: So put that on our things to do?
Lehman: I think the time now is if any Council person has any concerns or changes
they would like to be seen in the budget now is the time to bring those up.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of February 5, 2001.
WS020501
February 5, 2001 Council Work Session Page 22
Misc. Budget Issues
Karmer: Yeah, I am going to go over my proposed budget change that I passed out
last week. I will start with some things that perhaps are not quite as
controversial but you never know. One thing I noticed that isn't on here is
the ADA- you are proposing that the ADA curb cuts, Steve, go down from
$100,000 to $75,000. I would like to-
Atkins: Let me go back to that.
Kmmer: I would like to not see that. I think we are known as a city that is very
accessible. And ~vith the University we have a good reputation. I want to
continue that. If we think we need that money to maintain our curb cuts-
Atkins: Hang on a second.
Kanner: And that was in the- last week you gave us the-
Arkins: I am looking it up Steven. I don't recall (change tape sides) I think it is at
$100,000- curb ramps (can't hear) it was $100,000.
Karmer: And it went down to $75,000?
Arkins: No.
Mansfield: It is page 3 of 37.
Arkins: Page 3 of 37. We eliminated the General Obligation funding and went to
road use tax. The $75,000 was the recreation equipment.
Lehman: Park equipment.
Atkins: One thing to keep in mind-
Karmer: Okay, so you are keeping it the same?
Atkins: Yeah, we are keeping it the same. One thing to keep in mind is that we
have really done a good- the major intersections in town have been taken
care of. And quite frankly, what we do is we get calls in and we stack
these up until we reach a number and we go out for one big contract to
take care of those.
Lehman: One year we were unable to even get a bidder.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of February 5, 2001.
WS020501
February 5, 2001 Council Work Session Page 23
Atkins: One year- yeah. And we doubled it up the following.
Lehman: So we lumped them together.
Atkins: But I did not reduce that Steven.
Kanner: Okay. See, that was easy.
Atkins: Yeah, thanks.
Kanner: Well, then in the General Fund I had some proposals. I think again that
we- we have added at least fourteen officers since '94, I think.
Atkins: 6.
Karmer: Okay. And we added a few more with some other grants. So at least since
'96- and those were funded mostly by 3 year grants that all but the last
$150,000 in fiscal year '02 have dissipated. And I think through attrition
we can bring back the number of police officers. We have community
police officers, which are not at the same level. But that adds to our ratio
of police officers to number of citizens. And so some might say we have a
lo~v ratio but I think that is often not counted. And other communities
don't have that level perhaps that we have of community police officers.
So I think- and our crime rate probably has not really deviated that much
such that the officers are warranted. And I think that we can put that
money into other areas that we have some concern about. Notably the
Parks and Rec Natural Resources Manager, which would add about
$51,000 but then also we would save some money on consulting fees.
Probably about $5000. We could also increase aid to the Human Service
agencies. We can continue to fund a police and school presence. I would
budget that at about $20,000 a year. And I would also look at a funding
increase that in addition- or to work out with the funding increase for the
parking rates that we- besides what might be budgeted- $600,000 in
parking rates. I think there is room for increase in not affecting the
number of cars that will continue to use the parking. We have very
inexpensive parking. And I think we can direct that money to public
transportation. And that would help alleviate some of the problems that
we are going to talk about Iater such as Kirkwood perhaps. If we added a
route or two there or talked about the Sycamore Mall Park and Ride, I
think that would have a significant impact and we could ask our traffic
people to take that into consideration and see how that would affect traffic
on places like Kirkwood. And in addition, I think we can budget in some
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of February 5, 2001.
WS020501
February 5, 2001 Council Work Session Page 24
of the money that we are not going to have to pay for the Airport General
Levy. And for the Broadband radio infrastructure I would recommend
only budgeting that at half the amount at $4000. And so I think there is
quite a bit we can do with the General Fund and the Capital Fund. I think
we have a number of options. And I would say again that economic
development- we could take some money from that. I don't think we have
to fund it at that high of an amount. And I don't think we should be
putting it into the road use to build roads down there. I think that at this
time we can delay that. We were talking about Sycamore- or the Mormon
Trek extension, not for 5 to 10 years. That is what the talk was last year
~vhen we were talking about the South District Plan that this is in. And
now all the sudden it is being accelerated. And I think we can push that
back, especially with our tight Capital funding. And I think we can also
look at delaying or eliminating the Burlington Parking Ramp also kno~vn
as the Intermodal Facility- the Transit Intermodal Facility. And that
would save substantial Capital money. And we could, if we want, support
a childcare center or a smaller parking area with some of the money that
has been accumulated from- we have about $100,000 from set aside from
owners in that area. But there is a lot of other things we can do. And I
think that we can even talk about delaying Captain Irish/Scott to
Rochester. And that would save us. Put that further down the road. If we
are going to go through First Avenue- and I don't think that would
increase traffic south of Rochester.
Lehmm~: Steven, I think- I hate to interrupt you but- you know, the Council has
stated that we will not use First Avenue until Scott Boulevard is done.
Kanner: And so that is something that could change or not change. I understand
what you are saying. But I think things changed with the election and as
long as First Avenue is going through-
Lehman: I don't think- First Avenue is scheduled to go through at precisely the
same time as Scott. I don't think we can change that. I don't think we
should change that because of what we told the public when they voted. I
think we have an obligation to honor what we said to the public when we
talked about the First Avenue/Scott Boulevard proposition that we would
not open First Avenue until Scott Boulevard was completed. That is the
way it has been and that is the way it is on the Northeast District Plan.
And that is the way it has been presented with Capital Improvements
Projects. And I for one would not support opening First Avenue without
Scott Boulevard being completed.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of February 5, 2001.
WS020501
February 5, 2001 Council Work Session Page 25
Pfab: What would be wrong with doing Scott Boulevard first and then doing
Rochester?
Lehman: Either way. They are both on the CIP at approximately the same time.
Pfab: Well, according to the changes that were made last year we were going to,
according to a motion that you made, that we would delay First Avenue by
a year in addition to moving it out one more year to Scott. And that is the
latest that I think the public is counting on.
Lehman: It came in two different fiscal years. And the fiscal years change as of
July 1.
P/itb: Right.
Lehman: So it is conceivable that it would be both in two different fiscal years and
yet paved in the same construction season. Our planning is by fiscal year.
When we let the contracts pay for the projects.
Pfab: Was that a fiscal year or a calendar year?
Lehman: Fiscal year.
Pfab: Calendar year that-
Lehman: Everything is fiscal year when it comes to Capital Improvements. But go
ahead Steven.
Karmer: Okay. And so I would say delay Mormon Trek possibly two to three
years. I would agree with the Scott Park delay. And I would agree with
the ne~v proposal of only half of the delay of North Street Marketplace
instead of the $900,000 that I listed here. Those are the major things for
delaying that would give us some more breathing room along with the
deleting some Capital funds that are listed above the delay that would give
us additional Capital. And I agree with the Sycamore Burus Street.
Lehman: Well I think that- go ahead Steven.
Kanner: One other thing I wanted- welI, actually two things. One, i think we
should show the potential gain from selling the University the water plant
property.
Lehman: But that goes into the water fund. It has to go there.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of February 5, 2001.
WS020501
February 5, 2001 Council Work Session Page 26
Karmer: Okay.
Lehman: So it doesn't help us out.
Kanner: Well, it helps the water users perhaps and we should put that in there as a
potential gain. And we have some rough ideas what that property is
worth. I think anyone can say this is worth at a minimum so much money.
People who have more skill than I can do that pretty easily.
Lehman: But because it is a revenue fund it is not going to have any effect on the
budget. None whatsoever. Zero effect.
Kanner: Well, it would be listed in the budget under the revenue fund portion of
our extended fiscal plan.
Vanderhoef: But it is not an expendable.
Lehman: No, you are right. It would be reflected- if any reflection, it would be in
decreased water rates. It would have no effect other than that on the
budget.
Kanner: But I think looking at the total picture that is an important thing to show
that there is a possibility of some of those going down. And actually later
on I will be mentioning we got a memo about refinancing some bonds for
sewer. And talk about it to see if we can use that to decrease peoples'
bills. And I think that is important because the total picture is
homeowners in Iowa City- property owners are at the $33 levy. And that
is quite a bit. And any way that we can work to reduce any of their bills I
think is a good thing in many ways. Then the final thing is the Dodge
Street- even though it mostly federal ftmding I have some concern about
the proposed four lane project even though it is projected with First
Avenue going through that traffic will be going down on Dodge Street in
areas from the intersection of Dodge and Governor north to Captain Irish.
That is projected to go down by our JCCOG folks.
Vanderhoef: And it needs to go down because it is over capacity as is.
Kanner: And I don't think we need to widen it, ~vhich in many ways- either way
you look at it- if you widen it it tends to attract more cars. And I think we
can do some- redo some of the problems there with a couple of stoplights
and some spot improvements- one of the options. So I think we need to
rethink that as part of the budget also- the Capital Budget.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of February 5, 2001.
WS020501
February 5, 2001 Council Work Session Page 27
Lehman: You know, as we look at your Capital Fund items and delays I think we
need to decide what direction the Council is interested in going. We have
said- at least a year ago and perhaps more- that we feel that growing our
tax base is the only way that we are going to come up with the kinds of
monies that it takes for Human Service agencies and all of the kinds of
things that we would like to do in this community. Most of the items that
you are talking about in the Capital Fund for deleting are items that, I
thi~Tk, are done with the intent of making property available for
development where we can collect tax on commemial property which is
100% instead of the residential property which is at 56%. And I think we
need to know as a Council- a year ago the budget included money from
bonding for economic development and that was a very, very high priority
on this Council. Now, if that has changed we need to say that. If that has
not changed then I think we need to look at the items in the budget that
pertain to economic development. The portion of Mormon Trek on the
southern portion of the Airport opens up 280 acres for commercial
development, which is a very significant amount of property. If that is not
our priority then I think we need to say so. And if it is our priority then I
think we need to pursue it.
(Several talking)
Champion: When went over this already when we went over Capital Improvements. I
think we made it clear that those are projects we were supporting. So I
don't know why we are discussing this again.
Lehman: Well, that is- okay. Let's put it this way, which of these items is there
interest in discussing on the part of the Council that Steven has proposed?
Pfab: I would make a slight difference on the very last item. I would propose
that that be funded some way. Now, it doesn't have to be out of the
Capital Fund. I think this would be a great way to use economic
development funds for part of this.
Champion: What item are you talking about Irvin?
Pfab: The North-
Vanderhoef: Marketplace?
Pfab: -Marketplace up there.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of February 5, 2001.
WS020501
February 5, 2001 Council Work Session Page 28
Champion: We are decreasing that. What are we funding that at?
(Several talking)
Lehman: $550,000 through GO bonds. Steven, you- in you proposed budget you
have moved a substantial amount of economic development funding from
economic development to like the extension of Mormon Trek. Is that not
correct?
Kanner: i think $1.3 million.
Mansfield: $1 million.
Lehman: Is that what it is?
Atkins: One.
Lehman: Out of which fiscal year?
Mansfield: I think it was between 2003 and 2004.
Kanner: Was it $700,000 one year and $300,000?
Atkins: Yeah, Steve, you are fight.
Kanner: Okay, only half then. So $1 million.
Lehman: Okay.
Kanner: Ernie, we have substantial development that is going on at North
Commercial- the Airport that we are counting on. We have housing- over
200 housing starts and that grows our tax base. I think we have to invest
in businesses but I have a different idea of the businesses. I think
childcare is a business that is going to help us in many different ways in
paying property taxes and providing quality childcare. It is worth putting
economic development money into. And I think to develop in the older
parts of town is a good investment also. And I would be open perhaps to
that idea Irvin of using economic development money perhaps instead of
the roads for Mormon Trek.
Champion: But economic development money is GO money isn't it?
Atkins: Yes.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of February 5, 2001.
WS020501
February 5, 2001 Council Work Session Page 29
Champion: So it is not really saving (can't hear).
Kanner: What?
Champion: It is bonded.
Atkins: No, it is reassigning it.
Kanner: It is reassigning it, right. So I would be open to that. It is not my first
choice but I think it is a better choice. If we are going to use that money I
think it is a better choice of economic development because the issue
became as you said- we discussed this perhaps and so there is a majority.
But I am saying let' s see if there is any compromise then.
Lehman: Steven, I think that the economic development fund is available. I mean,
if we decide April 13 that we have a project for childcare that ~ve feel
strongly enough about that is what the economic development fund is for.
And ~ve can do that at any point.
Wilbum: And we also (can't hear) broadened the scope a little bit to-
Vanderhoef: Workforce.
Wilbum: Yeah.
P~ab: To what?
Vanderhoef: Workforce Development.
Wilbum: -Workforce Development even the possibility of opening up for a grant.
Lehman: Right.
Wilbum: (Can't hear) as a grant. Yeah.
Lehman: And I think those are definitely possibilities. I am not so sure you address
them in the budget when you don't have a project- ~vhen you are not
project specific. If there is a project that comes along then-
Pfab: I am project specific- the Marketplace.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of February 5, 2001.
WS020501
February 5, 2001 Council Work Session Page 30
Kanner: Well, that is why I would say that on the non Capital portion of economic
development we can redirect into Human Service agencies that deal with
childcare. And I think that is project specific. I just don't agree with the
idea of putting the money into building the roads- especially ones that are
going to go through- eventually over the river and through the woods and
over wetlands. And I don't think that is the appropriate place to do it and
the way to do that economic development. And I don't think that is the
best thing for Iowa City. I think there are other ways that we can do
development. And we are doing it. We are growing actually. We are
growing.
Pfab: I have another comment. I believe that of the concentration of money in
the Downtown area that that is starting to be a drawing point. And I think
that Marketplace is sitting in a situation where they can piggyback off of
that increase in activity there. But at the same time I think they have kind
of been the neglected sister so to speak. And that it is a good time to
spend some money there.
Lehman: I agree with you Irvin. And we have basically said we would do it in two
phases. Even the Downtown Streetscape was done in three or four phases.
We didn't do that all at once either.
Pfab: But while you were going through all these phases these people got
nothing.
Lehman: Well, Downtown got nothing until we started theirs too.
Pfab: All right, okay.
Lehman: I don't have any problem with phasing it. I do think it is important that we
complete it.
Pfab: I think that this would be a tremendous way to talk about economic
development. But let me change the subject here a little bit. Childcare I
think is something that we really, really need to work on wherever we do
it. Is the city's basic need when we go to tracking history, isn't it
available full time workers? I mean, I think that that is probably the
biggest problem that- how many projects walk away from Iowa City
because they look around and they can't find the workers?
Lehman: That is pretty hard to determine.
Pfab: I 'know, but I think that is a very, very serious issue.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of February 5, 2001.
WS020501
February 5,2001 Council Work Session Page 31
Lehman: It is the same issue with Cedar Rapids and other cities.
P lab: Right.
Lehman: That is an issue all over the country. No question.
Pfab: One of the simplest ways is by increasing the availability of good high
quality childcare. That opens up a lot of people that otherwise can't-
Champion: We are willing to do that.
Lehman: That is available to us any time we want to do it.
Champion: We are not going to open a daycare center. Iowa City is not going to. But
if somebody comes up to us as an economic development tool and wants
to open a childcare center we are going to help them in any way we can.
Lehman: Or we could. That is an option that is available to us.
Champion: Right. So I mean, that is being addressed. But we are not about to open
up a daycare center ourselves.
Pfab: But I mean make the funds available there.
Champion: They are there. That is why we need the economic development money.
Pfab: So as we look around for new industries to move into town where are the
workers going to come from?
Champion: That is not- that is a problem everywhere. Not so much- I think the boom
is over and now people are laying off people so maybe that will take care
of itself too.
Lehman: I think we need to be prepared to respond when people come- if there are
projects- and I think our economic development committee is pretty much
tuned in. If there are projects that come up and need our attention we
certainly have the ability to respond. Are there other comments on
Steven's proposals?
Pfab: I guess when I look through here I don't see any dogs barking so I don't
suppose there is any dog park worked on in here?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of February 5, 2001.
WS020501
February 5, 2001 Council Work Session Page 32
Lehman: Very astute observation. Are there other suggestions from Council
Members relative to the budget? Just general anything? I have got one
that I would- it probably won't be real popular but that is okay.
Vanderhoef: When you get done with yours I have got one too.
Lehman: All right, Steve, this budget you propose has- assumes that the shuttle will
discontinue service from I am assuming sometime in late May or first of
June until sometime in August or September?
Atkins: This budget makes a proposal to do that. But the shuttle is fully funded.
What the proposal calls for is ending the shuttle in the summertime- June,
July and August- and that the hours that are created, the time, stays in the
budget. We will shift them to three other routes. We would reduce the
Eastside Loop and make the Eastside Loop and the Westside Loop match.
And I believe the other two are Oakcrest and Towncrest and we would go
back to have to half-hour service. So it is budget neutral. Ifyouchoose-
Lehman: Year round though for those?
Atkins: Yes.
Lehman: Okay.
Atkins: If you choose not to accept the shuttle recommendation then you cannot
do the others.
Lehman: Then the others are off the table.
Atkins: So it is no new dollars.
Lehman: I would like to suggest that we consider charging 25 cents for the shuttle.
That will come very close to covering the cost of the shuttle. It is a fee
that is small enough that I have no doubt that it would have very little
impact on the ridership and certainly in a tight budget could generate some
funds without creating a lot of ill will to go along with it.
Pfab: Let's talk about that just a second.
Lehman: That is why I brought it up.
Pfab: What does the city get from the federal government for each rider that
goes on that?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of February 5, 2001.
WS020501
February 5, 2001 Council Work Session Page 33
Lehman: I have no idea.
Atkins: On that particular?
Lehman: It goes into the total doesn't it?
Pfab: Yes it goes into the total but what- every time that they count somebody
getting on that shuttle how much- is that federal money?
Atkins: Yeah. State and federal.
Pfab: State and federal money. How much is that per person? So the quarter
you get may not be worth the quarter or the 35 cents you lose. I don't
know ~vhat the number is.
Lehman: The folks that I have talked to who use the shuttle- and I have talked to an
awful lot of kids- love it. Absolutely love it. And if- the ones I have
talked to would have no problem whatsoever paying a quarter to ride that
bus. 75 cents- that is, you know- they can drive their car down and park
for 50 cents or 60 cents.
Pfab: Until we raise the parking rates.
Lehman: Well, but they can't- at a quarter they can't drive their car down and park
for an hour. For what it costs to take the bus to and from. And I think it is
a very painless way without really impacting any group of people in a
significant fashion.
Pfab: I don't disagree. I am not saying your idea is wrong. But I am just
saying- have you been able to figure that out?
Atkins: No. I will have to find out for you.
Vanderhoef: But that would be, as I understand transit funding and so forth, it would be
all in the big pot and not just specifically to those shuttle Irvin. So we
aren't anywhere near breaking even. We are subsidizing buses.
Lehman: But Irvin's point is that if the three months that we don't carry any people
onto those shuttles we also will not be able to count the people who would
have ridden in the subsidy that we get from the feds and state.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of February 5, 2001.
WS020501
February 5, 2001 Council Work Session Page 34
Atkins: Remember, the intent is to take that time and switch it to other routes to
increase the ridership on those routes. I mean, Oakcrest and Towncrest
are routes that we believe have the potential for increased ridership.
Lehman: There is a demand there that we haven't been able to serve.
Atkins: We believe there is demand there. You don't know until you start
providing the service.
Kanner: Ernie?
Lehman: Yes?
Kanner: I would be open to the idea and I would offer this addendum to that- we
extend it a block or two. I think the further out we go the better and the
more people we are going to get. So of course that is going to cost
perhaps a little more.
Champion: That messes up the time.
Lehman: I wouldn't-
Vanderhoef: Yeah, timing is the-
Lehman: I would leave that Joe. If he can add an extra block or two to each route
and still make it work I don't have any problem with that.
Kanner: I think we have to look- if you want to go with that idea of adding an extra
block or more we have to see if maybe we have to add a whole new bus to
it and see what the ridership would be.
Lehman: I would not favor adding a whole new bus for a service that is costing us a
fortune right now. I wouldn't even consider it.
Pfab: But if you went to a quarter a fide.
Lehmau: A quarter a ride isn't going to begin to pay for another bus. If that is what
we are going to do I will forget my quarter.
Pfab: But if by adding a quarter- if you could have a little bit farther reach. I
have no trouble with the quarter.
Lehman: I would leave that with the bus folks to see how they can figure that out.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of February 5, 2001.
WS020501
February 5, 2001 Council Work Session Page 35
Champion: I am willing to try it. A quarter- I am willing to try it.
Vanderhoef: So am I.
Wilbum: I actually am not. I guess- you know, you and I talked and I understand
what you are saying but I view- the same reason I don't support adding the
quarter on is the same reason I don't support adding above what we are
going to add on the parking just because you can. So, just the concept-
Champion: What if we make it voluntary? I am serious.
Wilbum: It would be interesting to see what happens.
Pf:ab: I think there was a can in there for a long time and I don't think they ever
collected- that the dust ever got out.
Lehman: Are there four people who would be interested in charging a quarter?
Vanderhoef: I would.
Pfab: I think I am going to back away.
Atkins: I also need to prepare some of the things-
Lehman: I was going to say, at the same time I think-
Atkins: This is not a done deal.
Lehman: If it is possible-
Atkins: But four of you want me to do this? Okay.
Lehman: But if it is possible to make that shuttle route a better route-.
Atkins: Yeah.
Pfab: With a quarter then I would be for it.
Lehman: Yeah.
Pti~b: But if not, no. As it is right now, to add a quarter no I won't- I have no
interest in supporting that. But what about-
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of February 5, 2001.
WS020501
February 5, 2001 Council Work Session Page 36
Lehman: What we have decided to do is add the quarter, if we have to, to what we
have right no~v. If we can make it better we will do that too.
Pfab: No, then I won't do it.
Lehman: I know that but four people will.
O'Donnell: It is still a tremendous deal with a quarter.
Lehman: Yeah, the cost is $3.60 a ride and we charge-
Champion: And it goes like every 17 minutes?
Pfab: But what about another idea here- what about when Sycamore Mall starts
cooking out there? Is there any way- is that going to change much? For
the businesses downtown (can't hear).
Lehman: I think that is (can't hear) factor.
Pfab: 1 mean, I think that that thing is going to start drawing one of these days
and I think that that thing has the potential of making a lot of changes.
Lehman: And it also may require changes in bus routes to service it more
frequently.
Karmer: -if there is a grocery store there.
Pfab: Right, and the grocery store and also I don't know if it is ever possible for
those shopping areas just to do a shuttle on those? Like your various-
maybe out even at Mormon Trek- Gateway I guess it is now and
Sycamore or whatever. Is there any way that would accommodate those
people so people could take the bus downtown and get to where they were
and not have just delays?
Atkins: We used to call those (can't hear)- trippers- where we ~vould run a special
twice a day or something such as that.
Pfab: Or even more often than that.
Champion: Do we do any of those now? I can't remember.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of February 5, 2001.
WS020501
February 5, 2001 Council Work Session Page 37
Atkins: I don't recall that. I think at one time we had the one out to the Hawkeye
Apartments.
Champion: Didn't we have one out to ACT or somewhere?
Atkins: NCS has one.
Lehman: I think that is something that we have got to be prepared to talk about.
Atkins: I understand that you are considering the 25 cents. The majority of you
said that I need to do the calculations like Irvin pointed out on the nose
count on the number of people. Does it reduce federal funding and all of
those things? I will see if we can put it together fairly quickly for you.
Champion: (Can't hear).
Pfab: No, I am looking just for information. I don't know the answer.
Vanderhoef: And we can try it and if it works out and your numbers are right.
Atkins: My only concern about transit folks is be cautious about experimenting.
Lehman: Yes. People are (can't hear).
Atkins: Once we can provide the service and really establish it hopefully that is
when the following begins to occur. And if it there and 6 months later it is
gone that is damaging. You have just got to be careful.
Pfab: That is the bad thing about shutting it off for the summer. People can't
count on it. I mean-
Lehman: Although in the summer a lot of those folks aren't here. So that is one
thing.
Vanderhoef: Okay, I have a couple of concerns and I can tie them together just because
of the dollars. I sat on this Council when the Public Art funding was put
in place. There was support for public art by all the Councilors as I recall
at that time and at different funding levels. At that time those dollars were
taken from the General Fund. And the next two years or three years it was
paid for out of General Fund. Last year was the first year that Public Art
was put into bonding. And I made comment of it last year that I didn't
feel real good about that. And as our General Fund and our bonding issue
both have greater concerns and greater impacts on them, I see that we have
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of February 5, 2001.
WS020501
February 5, 2001 Council Work Session Page 38
done some good things with art projects. I think we are well represented
now with the things we have ordered for the Downtown Streetscape. And
I would like to suspend the Public Art funding until such time as it can be
absorbed back into the General Fund. In saying that then where my
biggest concern is in this total budget process and one of the things that we
pulled back on was our priority on the stormwater management. And yes,
we are doing a whole lot of things there but I saw the pullback in the total
dollars putting out there in the project to get it started up. We tried
something earlier this year on just a straight-out fee to assess for
stormwater management programs and found that we have to go to a
different progran:. We have to go to the impermeable surface projects.
Anyway, my thought would be to put the $100,000 that is presently
allocated in this budget for public art into the stormwater project and get it
up and running sooner rather than later.
Pfab: I have no difficulty supporting that.
Champion: I do.
Vanderhoef: What I want and what I think is important for the city are two different
things Connie.
Lehman: But I think Dee, are you saying that you don't want to fund Public Art or
are you saying you don't want it funded from bonds?
Vanderhoef: I don't want it funded from bonds and until our public General Fund can
support Public Art from the General Funds I think it needs to be put on
hold. I certainly support arts projects. It is just that priorities for my
dollar fight now head toward stormwater management rather than another
piece of artwork for the city.
Kanner: So you are saying budget for this fiscal year '02 zero for artwork?
Lehman: We have to I think.
Vanderhoef: We have already committed to that and that is fine. But an additional
$100,000 allocation for the '02 budget, I am not willing to support that.
Kanner: I said for '02-
Vanderhoef: I thought you said '01.
Kanner: No, '02.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of February 5, 2001.
WS020501
February 5, 2001 Council Work Session Page 39
Lehman: '02 is what we are doing now.
Vanderhoef: Yeah.
Kanner: But basically actually we committed to everything but $50,000 of that so
far. Would you say go back on the- I don't know if we have contracts yet.
Vanderhoef: We have contracts on some things.
Kanner: Would you say just go back to $50,0007 Cut out $50,0007
Vanderhoef: No new contracts. I will say that. How is that?
Kanner: Okay, so-
Plab: We are talking one year?
Vanderho ef: Until such time as we can pay for it out of the General Fund.
Pfab: But as of now it is just one year?
Champion: We will never be able to support that out of the General Fund. That is not
going to happen.
Pfab: But I think we have made a lot of progress with art here. I presume this is
basically talking about the downtown area. I don't see much going
anyplace else.
Champion: The water park. The- what do you call that?
Wilburn: Waterworks.
Lehman: Waterworks park is scheduled to have a piece of art.
Pfab: But that is part of that project because of the federal funding right? So a
number ofthose-
Kanner: No.
(Several talking)
Pfab: So there is no requirement to do any? Okay.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of February 5, 2001.
WS020501
February 5, 2001 Council Work Session Page 40
Vanderhoef: We as a Council chose not to put that on the rate (can't hear) in the
project.
Pfab: That is fine. I was just looking at some of the other projects and I was
saying-
Atkins: You are correct on the federal if it was federal.
Champion: Right. But however, I would be willing to talk about reducing that amount
in future years now that we have kind of a good start on it. But I think to
eliminate it I think that eliminates the program. I think you just might as
well say that eliminates it because you never- the General Budget as tight
as ours is is always going to be tight. And there is always going to be
other needs besides art. Art is not essential to life, it is essential to being.
i think we are just getting going on it. How is that for a statement? I think
there are things that are more important to living than where the
wastewater goes but I might not have a choice on that.
Pfab: But drinking clean water is kind of important too.
Lehman: There are basically two issues here. One is Public Art and whether or not
we feel that is something that is important enough to fund. And if we do
are we willing to fund it out of bonds or out of General Fund? I mean, I
think that is the question. Dee I believe is saying not that she doesn't like
art but she doesn't want to fund it out of debt. Is that correct?
Vanderhoef: That is right.
Lehman: Cormie says she likes it and regardless of how it is funded she wants it.
Okay?
Kanner: I think the issue is Dee saying bring it down to zero except for what we
have committed for. And just to get on the same page literally, you are
talking- this is on page 17 of 377 EPA Stormwater Permitting? That is
what we are talking about Dee?
Vanderhoef: What page did you say?
Kanner: The new handout 17 of 37.
Pfab: I am going to have to disappear at 5:30 for a short time. I am in the
delivery business- the people delivery business at that point.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of February 5, 2001.
WS020501
February 5, 2001 Council Work Session Page 41
Kanner: Is that what we are talking about?
Vanderho ef: The stormwater- well the permitting has to be done before we can move
forward with the rest of the things. As I understand it.
Kanner: But you are saying to replace something with the art funding. And what
exactly are you asking? Is that what you are asking to replace? Use the
art funding to fund that $250,000 in '02 that is listed here?
Vanderhoef: The bonding is my concern with the art. I shouldn't have tied them
together.
Atkins: Your overall position is to reduce the amount of debt that we have. That
would reduce the amount of debt. Kind of trade it- I think that is what you
are saying. I think that is what I understand. I think ~vhat you want and
what you were saying- because I was a little confused too Dee. EPA
Stormwater Permitting is a $500,000 commitment. The art is $400,000. If
we don't fund the art- right now they are both funded. We save in efI~ct
that way.
Lehman: But Dee's comments really don't affect anything until 2003 because 2002
budget for art is partially already either contracted for or we have made an
obligation- at least I think we have made an obligation.
Atkins: We have some obligation. I don't know the extent of it Ernie.
Lehman: I don't either.
Atkins: (C an' t hear)
Kanner: I think my understanding from what I heard Karin Franklin say is that
there was like $47,000 that would be available for '02. Everything else of
the $100,000 in the previous years is accounted for. So basically you are
saying take that $47,000 and make it zero for '02.
Vanderhoef: So that would be the decline position that reduced the amount that Cormie
way saying which would be half.
Champion: That would reduce it do~vn to nothing in that year and I wouldn't be
willing to do that.
Vanderho ef: No, they have already spent it for that year.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of February 5, 2001.
WS020501
February 5, 2001 Council Work Session Page 42
Champion: I know it but that year is a long way away.
Lehman: All right folks, what do we want to do here?
Pfab: I think- my understanding was that there was more art funding going to
come from other projects. So I am a little less interested in reducing the
amount of money spent for art. And overall, Dee, what is going into the
stormwater permitting- I don't like to see- I would be willing to go along
the ~vay it is here with Steve's recommendation.
Lehman: Ross?
Wilbum: I want to stick with what we have.
Lehman: Mike?
O'Donnell: Stick with what we have.
Lehman: Okay, any other suggestions Dee?
Vanderhoef: No.
Lehman: Other comments from Council folk relative to the budget because when
we get through tonight this is the way it is going to be presented for the
public hearing. And obviously at the public hearing anything can be
changed. And the public will have an opportunity-
Atkins: It can't go up.
Lehman: It can't go up, that is correct. it can go down.
O'Donnell: Dee, I understand your position really well but (can't hear).
Pf:ab: It is like starting a bus.
O'Donnell: -cutting it off completely.
Pfab: Bus routes.
Lehman: It is the source of funding that I find to be troubling.
Vanderhoef: That is my point.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of February 5, 2001.
WS020501
February 5, 2001 Council Work Session Page 43
Kanner: While we are at that EPA Stormwater Permitting I would like to get a
better handle on that. I am not quite sure where we are at with it as far as
funding and-
Atkins: I will give you about 2 minutes worth (can't hear).
Karmer: We didn't put the impact fee on and so just tell me where we are at with
that and where we have to go.
Atkins: We had originally- as you understand, it is a federal requirement. And so
we have to put together a comprehensive plan on how we are going to deal
with stormwater. Federal law. And we have about three years to get this
all together. It is something that is going to be reasonably complex. The
federal guidelines are obscure at the best. They are still trying to figure it
out. But what we originally proposed to you was that we would have a
monthly fee added onto the wastewater bill that you get at home. And I
believe it was $1.80. That fee would have generated about $500,000 a
year. With the intent that it would pay for this permitting process- this is
just the permit. It is a half million dollars to file our plan. And then after
that stormwater projects would be funded from that fee. Because once we
commit to the plan we have got to commit to correct all of the things that
might need correction. As I have told you in the past we are kind of way
ahead of the game because we have had stormwater management as a part
of our subdivision ordinances and things for many, many years. And that
makes it a little bit easier on us.
Vanderhoef: But it is being paid for-
Atkins: Out of the General Fund and General Obligation.
Vanderhoef: -out of the General Fund and not service (can't hear).
Atkins: So when I talked to Eleanor about it she became a little reluctant to agree
to that kind of a fee. I did explain to her that Ames and Solon and a whole
bunch of other towns had substantially higher fee than ours proposed.
And she wanted to think a little more about it. it appears that- and she has
not issued a formal legal opinion- it appears that we are likely going to
have to go to the impervious surface plan which is tantamount to saying
123 Wild Green is a lot in the city that has a house and driveway that
covers 42% of the lot. Now, that is a single family. We will measure the
amount of impervious surface on that lot. Next door the person's house
may be 35%. The next person may be something other than that. So the
fees will be different. That is why we need the information systems that
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of February 5, 2001.
WS020501
February 5, 2001 Council Work Session Page 44
we have to have in order to put something together such as that. There are
many cities that already do do it. Most of them are smaller towns. That is
where we are fight now. So we do not have any money in this budget.
We have not accumulated any money.
Kam~er: But you are going to sell a bond before this fiscal year is done to get that
money?
Atkins: Yes.
Kanner: And let me ask you- is the plan- once we have something that passes legal
muster is the plan to pay back this General Obligation bond of $500,000
from the two fiscal years with revenue bonds?
Atkins: That is a good thought. No, I had not thought about it Steve. But yes, if-
Kanner: Can we do that?
Atkins: Yeah, if you approve the plan that is correct, you could do that. And that
would lessen the demand on property tax. That is a good idea. So I am
assuming that you ultimately- this council or the next Council approves
that. You have got to comply. You have no choice. And if you don't
comply you run the risk of fines.
Lehman: But I think what I hear is you can determine the percentage of each
property and base the fee for that property-
Atkins: But in the income generated we may pledge-
Lehman: -would be used to retire the bonds?
Atkins: We could pledge the property tax but just choose to pay it back as Steven
has suggested. I think that is- Kevin, you are nodding your head like I
think we are okay ~vith that. Yeah.
Lehman: IfKevin likes it it is okay.
Atkins: That is a good thought. I think we can do that.
Lehman: Other comments?
Atkins: Tomorrow night you will be asked to pass a resolution calling a hearing on
the 20th. And I am assuming you would vote on March the 5th. I really
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of February 5, 2001.
WS020501
February 5, 2001 Council Work Session Page 45
can't have a vote much later than that because I have got to get the
paperwork in because we have to redo all of this to make it satisfy the
state.
Lehman: We have got sandwiches up here and we have a-
Arkins: At 6:30 you are here for a work session and conference board.
Lehman: -conference board at 6:30.
Atkins: She had a question.
Kanner: We are going to be sitting here right?
Champion: I know I am right about this but I just want to make it clear. Now, all of
these things that we have projected for our Capital Improvement projects-
we could always refuse to do those if those bids come in too high?
Atkins: Absolutely.
Chmnpion: We always have that right.
Lehman: Even if those come in lower we can say no.
Atkins: Remember when I start off each presentation of budget-
Champion: I know.
Atkins: -this is an estimate of expenditures. An estimate of revenues. During the
course of the year-
Lehman: We can say no.
Atkins: -a couple of you may recall when the Governor vetoed that bill and we had
adopted a budget and were prepared to go and we have to take 3.5% to 4%
out of our General Fund expenditure right off the top of the money (can't
hear).
Lehman: We can say no to any and all Capital Improvement projects that we pass.
Atkins: Any and all. You can say no Ernie to any and everything that is in here.
Lehman: As it comes up.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of February 5, 2001.
WS020501
February 5,2001 Council Work Session Page 46
Atkins: You just have to understand the consequences of the sunk cost. That we
put money into this and we proceed. You may refuse the bids on seating if
we end up doing it. Something like that. Thank you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of February 5, 2001.
WS020501