HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-01-29 Transcription January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #1
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session 8:00 AM
Council: Lehman, Champion, Vanderhoef, Wilbum, Pfab, Kanner (8:15am), O'Dormell
Staff: Aktins, Franklin, Fosse, Davidson, Helling, Schmadeke, Trueblood, Karr,
O'Malley, Herting, Mansfield
TAPES: 02-13 SIDE TWO; 02-14 BOTH SIDES; 02-15 BOTH SIDES
Lehman: Steve, let's get going where we left off.
Vanderhoefi Ross?
Lehman: Ross is going to be gone. He has an emergency to take care of at
work. He will be back as soon as he can.
Atkins: Okay. We left off with Waterworks Park. There seemed to be, and I
think I understand why, a good bit of confusion on that project and so
I've placed in front of you a little summary memo to staff. We all got
together to talk about it. There was some disagreement over what
would be financed by Water, what would be financed by GO. We
think we've addressed that. We would remind you that this is the
number one priority for your Parks & Recreation Commission. And
we also took the plan, and it's not major but Chuck can walk through
it. We did make some modifi...this plan was almost four years old so
we did make some minor amendments where it's a little more accurate
with respect to trail location. The fact that we introduced two other
projects into the discussion, the Butler House and the Miller Orchard, I
think, added a little bit to the confusion. Hopefully this summarizes a
position for you to react to as to what you'd like to do with these, in
effect, three projects. It was all kind of tossed them in the hopper.
And once you...want to take a minute just to kind of scan through that.
We feel comfortable we can substantiate the GO and the Water bond
components. And also what we did was under Waterworks, you see
we broke it down into the sort of eight pieces to the project so you
understand what we're planning to do.
Lehman: Well I guess I just have a couple questions. You...South Trail
Extension, $19,000 charged to the Water Plant.
Atkins: Uh-huh. Chuck...
Lehman: Is this a hard surface access road?
Schmadeke: All of these walks and access are hard surfaced on this (can't hear).
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #2
Lehman: But this South Trail Extension is a hard surface?
Schmadeke: South Trail...it's hard surface. Right. And it's for...
Lehman: Wetland access walk?
Atkins: You got this thing?
Pfab: Chuck can we (can't hear)
Atkins: We'll mark it up. We'll show you. Just a second.
Schmadeke: The South Trail access is this access here. The north access to the
pond is this here.
Pfab: Oh yeah. I know. (can't hear)
Lehman: What...but that...now that isn't...that access, is that...how wide is
that?
Schmadeke: I'd have to look. I think this is six feet wide.
Lehman: Well in other words it's not access for vehicles it's access for people.
Schmadeke: That's right.
Lehman: Why do you...why is going against Water instead of... I don't
understand how we can justify putting that against the Water Plant
when it's a recreational trail.
Schmadeke: This is a educational facitilty for the Water Divisions...
Lehman: You're stretching it, Chuck.
Schmadeke: Well, when people come out to take tours of the Water Facility, we're
going to use these trails to explain the wetland. The wetland is part of
the Water Facility. It was required by DNR and the Corp and so we're
going to explain the benefits of wetland uses. And ~ve feel that's part
of the water function.
Pfab: I had a distraction. Where's the...where is this walk~vay?
Schmadeke: Right here.
Pfab: Okay. Okay.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #3
Vanderhoefi So this is what you're calling the amphitheater access walks?
Schmadeke: That's this one here.
Vanderhoef: That's that one over to there. And amphitheater stage is where?
Schmadeke: Right here.
Vanderhoef: That's in there. So how do you envision using that?
Schmadeke: Well in...when the buses come in with school children they'll park
here. We'll bring them over here to the amphitheater area for
orientation and to, you know, explain generally what the facility
entails. And then walk throughout the project site.
Champion: I think it's a little questionable. I don't think I can accept it because I
think we'd have to finish off that land around the waterworks whether
we're going to call it a park or not.
Atkins: Well...
Champion: ... and I think there is a lot of educational value.
Atkins: Preceding this Council, this group of seven, the time we developed the
project, the Council very, very clearly said we want an educational
component built into this.
Champion: Right.
Atkins: This had to...wetland area was pa~t of the mitigation process when we
constructed so we constructed...so we tied...so we had to build that.
We built that with Water revenue same with the other wetland area.
And that...
Lehman: Steve, I was here when we did that too...
Atkins: Yeah.
Lehman: ...but I think one of the things that the Council, and I may be
mistaken, but I think the Council was adamant that the bells and
whistles associated with Waterworks Park be not charged to the Water
fund. We're already have water rates that are the highest probably in
the state. And that only that harsh portion of the plant that is necessary
for the production of water or in the case of the sewer plant the
treatment of water would be charged to those funds and everything
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #4
else would be paid for somewhere else. And I don't think this is in
keeping with what we said we were going to do.
Atkins: Well...
Lehman: Just one opinion.
Atkins: I assume we have a respectful...
Lehman: Respectfully disagree with the way...you and I remember this
differently.
Atkins: Yeah.
Lehman: And I don't disagree with any portion of this but I...
Atkins: But you remember...
Lehman: It's magnificent, I'd love to see it happen. I just don't think it should be
paid for out of Water funds.
Atkins: So you all...just to remind you, we also have a meeting room area
component built into the Treatment Plant itself and we intend to
conduct not only the tours of the plant but that was also part of this
whole educational effort. Now this is one of those issues that it's not
worth arguing about. You can...you ultimately can decide what do
you want to charge to what and end the debate and we can move on.
Pfab: I...is there any support...I wasn't here so...lot of us weren't.
Atkins: Sure.
Pfab: Is there any supporting documents back there when this was being put
together?
Atkins: No, Irvin, it wasn't the kind of thing where...Ernie...
Pfab: Not documents but discussion, any minutes?
Atkins: Yeah, the kind of things that we talked about.
Lehman: Yeah, and isn't really...the important thing is what we choose to do
now. What happened...
Atkins: It's a matter of extent, too.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #5
Lehman: Yeah.
Pfab: I mean because I think it's kind ora stretch, it's not a huge stretch but
at the same time if there was.., if there's something back there that
would support it then it would be relatively easy to go along with it. If
there's nothing there it's a stretch.
Vanderhoefi Tell me how much parking do we have down by the plant itself?.
Atkins: Chuck, do you know?
Schmadeke: I haven't counted the stalls here but there's 28 parking stalls on this site
and this is proportionately larger.
Vanderheof: And that will have to be...
Schmadeke: Probably 35 or 40 1 would guess.
Vanderhoef: And how many of them will have to be used by staff?.
Schrnadeke: Well we have probably day shift we have 15/20 vehicles.
Vanderhoef: So there isn't a lot of additional space. If you're going an educational
process there's not a lot of parking space down there to put those
groups that come in.
Schmadeke: Yeah, we could make it a little larger, this one a little larger if we had
to. This one's under construction.
Vanderhoef: Well I was trying to see if there was enough down there that we could
eliminate that one up on top but...at this time at least.
Lehman: It's being built now, the one at the top.
Vanderhoefi No, the one down below is what...
Schmadeke: This one's being built.
Lehman: That one, I'm sorry. That's up on top to me.
Vanderhoefi Well the further north one.
Lehman: That's at the bottom.
Atkins: This is the one that on the hill.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #6
Lehman: That's in the park lane.
Atkins: This is on top of a hill, the Butler House.
Lehman: The Butler House is on top of a hill but the parking lot is...
Atkins: Yeah, is down below.
Lehman: ...in a flood plain next to the river.
Pfab: Along the river. It's pretty close to the river.
Lehman: Well folks, what do we want to do?
Champion: Well just go through them one at a time and decide.
Pfab: I think...
Cahmpion: Start with the parking lot.
Pfab: I think where I'm coming from at this point, just to get it out on the
table, is I think I can support that but, you know, not a fierce amount
of resolution on it.
Atkins: Well, do you want to...maybe I pose a couple questions to you, kind
of help you on the debate. Is there support to pursue at least a
component of the Waterworks Park in the upcoming budget?
Champion: Yes.
Atkins: And if the answer is yes to that then it's a determination of the extent
to which. We have $250,000 proposed for these eight elements. Terry
has also proposed that we add the Miller Orchard funding. And I think
Terry you may want to take a minute or two to explain about the
prairie...he explained it to me the other day in a little more detail. It's
not something that you can put off too long because it takes three to
five years you told me. Why don't you explain that to them?
Trueblood: Well it does. As I indicated before it takes three to five years,
probably closer to five for the prairie grasses and wildflowers to
actually mature so you're looking at a rather long process. But to get it
seeded, you know, the sooner the better so that we, either Public
Works or Parks & Recreation, or contract, or whatever, doesn't have to
worry about going out there on a routine basis mowing 120 to 140
acres of weeds. It's...the other thing that I'd like to just mention too is
(can't understand) and Miller Orchard proposal is that one of the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #7
proposals is that that money reappear...what it says here is FY05 and
we just feel it would be important to show a commitment to that
neighborhood, show that it does remain on the list at some future point
as opposed to going into unfunded projects. But it just, to us in Parks
& Recreation and to our commission, it makes a lot of sense to
proceed with the planting of the prairie grasses and wildflowers as
soon as possible.
Atkins: There seemed to he some interest in you all in that we didn't want to
leave the impression that the Miller Orchard Park project was gone
gone but...and Terry can speak to it because he spent the last couple of
years working with the neighborhood. They have not settled in on
what a plan is but he did indicate, as you'll note, that we would be
prepared this year, or when the weather breaks, to get in and clear the
park. You know, grub it out, get rid of the poison ivy, do the things
necessary to make it useable by the public. In fact, picnic tables and a
couple other things that you'd like. Excuse me, Irvin, yes.
Vanderhoef: Terry, with the prairie grass verses the weeds and the mowing, can you
make a cost benefit case for us that in the long run it will be cheaper to
put in the prairie grass and let it mature verses all the years of mowing
and trying to keep it up?
Trueblood: You know, I can't quote you exact dollars and ! don't want to mislead
you that when you put prairie grasses in that there will be no
maintenance because obviously there will still be maintenance. There
will still be mowing along the trail edges because both the Public
Works and Parks & Recreations would like to see a set back along the
trails of some kind of slow growing grasses that will require infrequent
mowing. Just so that the taller prairie grasses don't butt right up
against the trail. There will be, you know, maybe once every five
years or so ideally you want to burn the prairie grasses. So, you know,
that's an expense. There...when you're establishing it there wilI be
some expenses involved to try to irradiate the undesirable species, you
know, thistle and things like that that will come up. But in the long
run you don't need the mowing equipment and you don't need the
mowing accure...the mowing crews to go out there and mow on an
average once a week throughout the growing season like you do with
turf grass verses prairie grasses. So, yeah, I can't sit here and tell you
that if it was turf grass it's going to cost x amount of dollars, if it's
prairie grass it's gong to cost x amount of dollars. We could probably
come up with a pretty good estimate if that would be helpful to you but
I can' t do that right now.
Vanderhoef: Do you think it's even close to a tradeoff?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #8
Trueblood: The...
Vanderhoef: One verses the other?
Trueblood: To a tradeoff?.
Vanderhoef: Yeah. Using...doing nothing other then this constant mowing and
stuff verses doing the prairie grass and the kinds of things that you
would need to do say over the next three years. Because I know this is
a three-year process and if it doesn't go into this year...I mean that
mowing is going to move on. And I'm trying to tie it to part of your
staffing is where I'm trying to go with this in that we've not given you
any new parks maintenance folks, which disappoints me a whole lot.
Trueblood: If we don't plant it in the prairie grasses it's going to have to be mowed
and chances are that's going to have to be contracted, would be my
guess. We don't have the extra personnel or the equipment to go out
there and mow a rough area of weeds on a regular basis. And I don't
think Public Works does either. It would probably have to be
contracted would be my guess. Right Chuck? I can't tell you how
much we're talking but I know we'd be talking several thousand dollars
a year to get a contractor to go out there and do that.
Lehman: This is...
Trueblood: The trade off, I think it's a very good trade off cost wise to do prairie
grasses verses turf grasses. It's going to be more expensive initially to
plant it but over the long haul it's going to be far less to maintain it.
Lehamn: Do we have a situation out there now where we have erosion basically
under control? With...I mean, I think we talked about this last year.
There was going to be some seeding so that we wouldn't have erosion
taking place.
Schmadeke: Well we do have erosion and we haven't done anything at this point to
correct it.
Lehman: But this basically is going to be similar to a pasture that we find in
some farmers...on some farm if we don't do anything. Now I can't
imagine, and being an old farm boy you may mow the pasture three or
four times a years. Mowing rough ground like that is reasonably
inexpensive. If the erosion is under control mowing that property...I
do not see it, that as being a big expense. And I just...I love that park.
I would love to see it completed. I think it is...we're starting a project
that is going to cost us a fortune before we're through with it. We're
going to want to extend the trail down to the peninsula, that'll be the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #9
next push. The more attractive we make it...you know, we build it
they will come. We've got a lot of other places that need attention.
This is one that, in my opinion, as long as we can produce good clean
pure water, that's what we built that for. And the park is a secondary
to the production of water. And I absolutely think this something that
we shouldn't be doing now. We should be doing it but I think now is
the wrong time.
Champion: I dis...I mean, I just disagree with you a little bit.
Lehman: You disagree with me a lot. It's okay. Don't get excited about it.
Kanner: I got to...
Atkins: Ernie, Emie, Irvin's been trying to get a question in for some time.
Pfab: Okay. I talked about...I said I would...I could make a stretch and do
some of this other work up there and that I could support mildly. This
I would support 100%, getting that seeding done.
Lehman: Well listen, if we've got support for this 100% let's move on because
I'm not going to sit here and try convince...
Atkins: Well I don't you have 100% support.
Kanner: I've got a question.
Lehman: Do we have a majority?
Kanner: Wait, Er...
Atkins: Okay.
Lehman: Steven?
Karmer: A preface question to Terry. Is prairie what was originally there? Was
it wooded land? What was the original growth?
Trueblood: My understand it was some of both but it would have been a long time
ago that it was prairie.
Atkins: We didn't take...we didn't remove many trees...
Lehman: We kept the trees.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #10
Atkins: ...or anything. And we left that...I mean where the Water Plant site is
really about the only site we truly disrupted other than the construction
of the well heads on the trails.
Schmadeke: That's right.
Atkins: We really didn't remove much.
Schmadeke: The lower level was pretty much all cropland when we bought the
property.
Karmer: All right. Well here's my take on it. I agree with Eruie, I think, in that
I don't want to use Water funds for the park. I think it's inappropriate
this time. Already we got high bills and so I would not want to do
that. I'd be willing to hold off on most of these top components of the
Waterworks Park project, put it out a year or two. I do like the idea of
doing some seeding for the prairie grass. It makes sense for a number
of different reasons that have been explained. And I don't like the idea
of putting offMiller Orchard until 05. I would be willing to, I think,
compromise at 03 if people are open to that, or possibly 100,000 here a
100,000 there. One year 100,000, the next year. And possibly put
some of the money into prairie seeds for this year. So I think I would
propose the first question a little different than Steve is do we want to
use the Water budget for our funding for anything?
Champion: Well I think we need to go through these components that are going to
be paid for by water and see which of those that any, all...the majority
of us can support.
Vanderhoefi That's the way I was going and the first thing I circle out of this of the
Parks share is the shelters can come later as far as I am concerned. I
can see some justification for the sharing of the cost of the
amphitheater walks and stage. And then the other...the South Trail
Extension I guess is the one that I'm not sure fits in there right now. If
we have the North Walk that gets us up to the wetland and to the big
pond then that South Trail could come later.
Pfab: Would you show me where the South Trail is again, what we're
referring to there just briefly?
Vanderhoef: Does that go to that lower well though?
Schmadeke: It's one down here. This is the interstate here...
Vanderhoef: Yeah.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #11
Schmadeke: ...and this is the trail along the south end of the site.
Pfab: Okay.
Lehman: And that's a walking trail.
Schmadeke: That's a walking trail.
Lehman: You know, I think we have to remember depending on what comes out
in the paper, we're going to have to defend using peoples water and
sewer bills to pay for a walking park and an amphitheater and all this
sort of thing. And if you can justify that lets be on with it. I can' t
justify it.
Wilburn: IfI could jump in for a minute. I guess I...in answer to that question, I
put a greater value...it seems if I have a higher value in terms of the
educational component of this.
Lehman: Fine but why would you charge it against somebody's water bill?
Why don't you take it out of the general fund where it belongs instead
of coming out of a water bill when we're already burdening the people
of this community with bills they can't pay anyway?
Wilbum: If it were no where...
Lehman: I don't question the value...
Wilbum: If it were no where...
Lehman: ... of the project.
Wilburn: If it were no where near the Water Plant project sure. But it is on site.
I guess I'm thinking...
Lehman: There's no rational to that.
Wilburn: If I could finish for a minute.
Lehman: I'm sorry.
Wilburn: That's all right.
Lehman: I apologize.
Champion: Emie, calm down.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #12
Lehman: Yes, I will.
Wilbum: I guess I'm thinking of some other projects that I've worked with some
of the schools on. For example, some of the schools have done some
things related to storm water management and tagging some of the
storm sewer drains. And so I would guess and hope that a lot of the
schools would take advantage of this. And a chance for the City to
partner with some of the schools in terms of, you know, this...people
have complained about water and the taste and because of all the
runoff and things like that for years and years and so if the value of the
water is going to change and improve, I guess, I just look at that as
kind of passing something on to the next generation to try and educate
them about what's going on out there. And that includes, you know...
maybe a shelter and or a trail can hold off but in terms of some of the
other components I guess I just... I would see that as part of ongoing
community education about what's going on at the site. And that's my
take on it.
Pfab: Emie?
Lehman: Yes.
Pfab: Where...now you're talking about getting school children out there. It
looks to me like it's a great educational place. Now do the buses...can
they be parked up on top or can they get down to the Water Plant?
Will they be able to get down to the Water Plant on a tour type of
thing?
Schmedeke: They could park at either, either lot.
Atkins: Either way.
Pfab: Okay. So there's no...they don't have to be connected to upper...
Atkins: Bum weather, Irvin, they're for sure going to want to be here cause
they're not going to want to make this...
Pfab: Okay.
Atkins: Now, nice weather they're certainly going to want to make this hike
because that's all part of the...
Pfab: Okay, and one other thing. What were...that South Trail is the one
down at the bottom there...is that...what is the state of affairs of that
fight now?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page # 13
Schmadeke: It's not under construction now.
Pfab: There's no sign of a trail?
Schmadeke: No.
Pfab: Okay. All right.
Vanderhoefi Well I guess I would propose that we cut number six and number
seven off the project.
Pfab: I could support that.
Vanderhoef: And the access...
O'Donnell: You know, and it can also be said...and Ernie I understand your point.
We do have extremely high water bills. This community does think a
great deal of their parks. This can be looked as a way of turning. I
think this would be a well used park. I do understand that the use of
Water funds...
Lehman: Oh, I don't disagree.
O'Donnell: ...and we weren't around to know how strong that feeling was back
then.
Lehman: I think it's a wonderful park. It's a great use and I'd love to see it
happen. I just don't think it should happen out of water bills. I think
that's the wrong place to put it.
Kaimer: Yeah, I think...water bills, it's a really hits lower income people a lot
harder and I think it's not appropriate use. And in terms of the overall
park budget I think we really have to be thinking West Side and park
deficit. That's what we've been heating, especially Miller Omhard and
possibly farther out with the county farm. I think that's going to be
something that's going to occupy us in the next couple years, of how to
work with the county on that.
Wilbum: I would support it without 6 and 7. And then I guess I would also add,
in terms of the proposal that was put in front of us by staff, that I think
the idea of the $10,000 transfer from parkland development honors the
work that's gone on there in terms of trying to keep some momentum
going. But also putting off until there's some final consensus
developed as to what's going to happen, whether that's more active or
stays more passive use in that park.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #14
Atkins: By postponing it to 05, the Miller Orchard, just so you understand.
When I look at the debt level, I look at the aggregate amount of all five
years so you really don't save anything. All you've done is push the
project out. Part of our thinking as a staff was that they have
not...they, the neighborhood, has not settled in on what kind of a park
project they want. In fact, they're probably the most aggressive about
getting some additional ground in that...the opportunity may present
itself, but the 200 may be for the purchase of additional acreage and
not for development. And then you'll have a decision to make.
Lehman: Well, Miller Orchard isn't going to...nothing's going to happen there
until that southeast area plan is completed and rezonings are done
and... I mean, that's a ways out.
Atkins: That's sort of up to you all but...
Lehman: Well, it's a ways out anyways.
Atkins: Where's the status of the plan?
Franklin: Well we have a commitment to have all of that done with the zoning
by September...
Lehman: September.
Franklin: ...because that's the moratorium date.
Atkins: Okay, so it's sooner than you think.
Vanderhoefi So it will be next budget year?
Aktins: Yeah.
Vanderhoef: And it is in 03.
Champion: I'm a little confused about...never mind. I just found it.
Atkins: Okay.
Lehman: Show me cause I'm confused now.
Atkins: Irvin had a question.
Pfab: Okay, I believe that until the neighborhood people are...can settle on
what they really want...and in other words until that's sorted out, I'm
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #15
reluctant to move...at some point in time that they know they can
agree on this is what they want with the normal...
Atkins: What we were trying to do, Irvin and members of the Council, was to
assure the neighborhood that this project has not left the plan.
Champion: Right.
Atkins: I mean has not left the plan. And that...they have taken a
number...excuse me...taken a number of years to reach the point that
they're at. That doesn't mean that in 04 something...you could re-
prioritize it.
Pfab: Right.
Atkins: Because again, you're not saving...don't think you're saving any
money by just simply moving this one to 05 because it's still part of
the plan. Unless you move it to unfunded, and I didn't sense that there
was a desire to do that. The $10,000 is intended to get in and get the
park reasonable useable in a shore term. And Terry feels that they can
do that with the force account work. As far as the changes in the
Waterworks Park project, the South Trail and the shelters, that
amounts to $56,000...I mean that's...I would like the staff to comment
so that we understand that if you do choose to pull those two elements
out of the project what's going to happen. Terry or Jeff?.
Lehman: Well can I suggest that because of the size of those two...I mean, to
me there's a philosophic and you know my philosophic feeling about
this.
Atkins: Yes.
Lehman: If the Council feels that we should proceed with this, I don't think we
should nickel and dime it. I think we should do it and do it right. But
my question isn't the doing it, it's the funding of it. But if the Council
agrees that this is appropriate place to fund it then I think cutting
$50,000 out of this project and turning around in two years and
spending $75,000 to do what would have cost us 50 is not a...is not
prudent.
Pfab: This is about 80...close to 80,000, those two. If I'm looking at them
right.
Champion: No.
Kanner: What are you looking...what are we looking at?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #16
Lehman: Let's take the top...
Atkins: 67, Steven, I think that's what they're talking about.
Lehman: Let's take the top part here, the Waterworks...the $250,000.
Atkins: Yeah. The project in the middle.
Lehman: Do I hear a majority of the Council who feel that this project should
move forward in next year?
Pfab: In it's entirety?
Lehman: Well I don't think you're...even if you take a piece or two out, you're
not going to effect the total that much.
Pfab: Well okay, I think the first question we have to ask ourselves is this
appropriate for the water budget?
Lehman: That's what I...
Pfab: If we can get past that then I think the rest is easy.
Lehman: That's where we are but I think I hear a majority of the Council who'd
willing to charge this to the water fund.
Champion: I just have one more question.
Kanner: Well let's...lets confirm that, Ernie.
Atkins: Yeah.
Champion: I have one more question and it seems to me that when this $250,000
was presented to us in the budget that that was not GO money.
Atkins: No, it was water revenue.
Champion: It was water revenue.
Atkins: That's correct. We failed to split it out...
Champion: So if we approve this we're basically adding $74,000 to the GO
bonding which was not included in the budget. And what does that do
to our pementage?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #17
Tmeblood: No, you wouldn't really be doing that. That would be part of the
Miller Orchard funding that's already...it's there at this time.
Atkins: Yeah, see we're postponing it...
Champion: Oh okay, so by moving that...
Atkins: We're moving it out, yeah.
Champion: So then we're actually saving...
Atkins: About 50.
Champion: We're only adding $74,000 is that correct?
Atkins: That's correct.
Champion: The GO funding. But we're actually saving $125,000 because we're
moving it up.
Atkins: Yes.
Lehman: No.
Champion: Well not ultimately saving it but...
Lehman: You get to this item, you're spending the rest of it.
Karmer: Wait. You're saying that 74,000 from the parks share is to be
subtracted from the 200,000?
Trueblood: Is part of the 200,000 that we're suggesting be moved over to the
Waterworks Park project.
Champion: Yeah, I was thinking about GO bonding for next year that's all.
Trueblood: Which is all GO bonding.
Atkins: Oh I...I see some conf...can I...
Kanner: So originally you were saying it was 250,000 for this project up here,
which we all thought was water, and then 200,000 for Miller Orchard
for a total of 450,000. Now you're saying it's 200...let's say 180,000
plus 200,000 for Miller Orchard. That seems to be what you're saying
now.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page # 18
Atkins: Yeah. I think...
Lehman: That's right.
Atkins: Steven's hit on the right point. That's right. That's correct.
Trueblood: The 200,000 coming from...
Atkins: It is not a $450,000, the two added together. It's approximately a $375
to $380,000 project. That's what you said.
Kanner: Yeah.
Atkins: And that's...that's.., you're right.
Lehman: All right, let's do the first...how many on the Council are...
Kanner: Wait, wait...Ernie, can we just straighten...
Atkins: Ernie, let's confirm that. We want to confirm that, make sure...
Kanner: Let's just confirm where we're at with the cost cause Connie brought
up a point and we want...
Trueblood: Basically all that's changed here is breaking out those costs from the
Butler House project and also taking some of the original 250,000 and
say that 74,000 of that would be the parks share. That 74,000 would
come from that 200,000 that we're proposing be moved over from the
Miller Omhard project. And the remainder of that 200,000 would then
go towards the prairie grasses and wildflowers. So we're still talking
here about a total really of $550,000 between the three projects.
Lehman: But that's right, Butler House added to it. All right, lets...
Atkins: No, no...I thought I made this easy.
Trueblood: If we do the prairie plantings, that's what we're still talking about,
200,000 from Miller Orchard...
Atkins: Let me try this. Maybe what we need to do is frame a project that you
find acceptable. Is the prairie grass component acceptable? The
shelters are not. Is something else acceptable, something not. Then
you can...we can total the thing up and we have more...a better idea
what the number is. And I hate to do that but that's sort of where we're
heading.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #19
Champion: I'm really...I mean I'm just...I really want to get this park started. I
don't' want to put it on hold. But the amount of money I'm willing to
spend is what I need...
Atkins: And I think that the elements that you select...then we would
determine the financing and get more at what Steven's question was.
Kanner: And so again gets back to, Ernie, I think the water...if we're going to
put in water or not. See if we have the majority.
Lehman: I think that's where...we need to start there.
Kanner: The first point.
Lehman: First of all, the proposal that you have in front of us right here does not
change any numbers in the budget. It just takes them out of different
places but the total does not change the budget. First question we have
to answer from my perspective is are we willing to use water funds to
fund 176,000 of the first 250,000. Are there four people who would be
in favor of that? I see one.
Champion: Yes, I am.
Lehman: I see two.
Pfab: Where is...I was interrupted here about this grass thing. Where is the
prairie grass in this...
Lehman: Irvin, we're talking about funding the first portion of it first and then
we'll get into the prairie grass.
Pfab: Well...
Lehman: That's coming up next.
Pfab: Is that not part of this...?
Lehamn: It's not part of the first part of it.
Pfab: But can we fund this and not fund...can we fund this and end up not
funding the grass...the prairie grass? Then I don't want it. If it's both
than I'm for it.
Lehman: I think you can do either or both.
Atkins: I think he's right.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #20
Kanner: I think there's a little confusion of where...which part is which but the
first main questions is do you want to use water bonding funds for any
parts of these projects. There's two people that say yes.
Champion: Well I'm talking...
Pfab: I can support...I have no trouble supporting Ross' point that this...the
public has to buy into this thing and on of the ways that you buy into
what's over the long period is get the younger generation involved in it
and education is a very important part...
O'Donnell: But, you know, we told...evidently we told the community that we
weren't going to use this money to do this.
Lehman: Well...
Pfab: That's where the debate...
Vanderhoef: That's where...
O'Dormell: That's what I'm heating.
Pfab: Somebody give me some proof that what we...
O'Donnell: Irvin, I can't prove it.
Pfab: Well no but it there minutes? Was there public documents or
something to that?
Lehman: Well look it, it's either a good idea or it isn't.
Vanderhoefi Okay...one other question on Butler House. I know we have a grant
coming for part of that work and I've forgotten the amount.
Atkins: 50/50.
Kanner: Yeah.
Lehman: 48/50.
Davidson: 48/52.
Lehman: Right.
Vanderhoef: So that would also be the parking lot?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #21
Davidson: Yeah, that includes the parking lot...
Vanderhoef: That includes the parking lot.
Davidson: That includes...the item number one under the top one there.
Vanderhoefi So the Butler House is 50,000. Okay. What I had started out with this
year when we talked about budget was that we needed to go forward
because of the grant money. And I don't know that we can push that
grant money out much longer and still keep it. Is there any danger of
losing it?
Davidson: You wouldn't necessarily have to use it this current year. You could
use it next year.
Vanderhoefi Okay. I truly think that the most we need to do this year is the Butler
House. I'm sorry I still am committed to doing a lot more of the
connection of trails and people movers on the East Side of Iowa City.
Pfab: So you're saying let's...if you had a choice, you wouldn't do the Butler
House. Is that what you're saying?
Vandehoef: No, I'm saying if there is...Jeffsaid we could possibly move the Butler
House out a year...
Davidson: And not jeopardize the grant.
Pfab: Rigth.
Vanderhoef: and not jeopardize the grant. And the rest of this Waterworks Park,
much as it is a nice thing, the only thing I would look at is the prairie
grass. But I just think we have to look at the people that we're serving
with our Parks and Recreation dollars and I'm committed to getting
continuous trail that moves people on the East Side of Iowa City. And
we don't have that connection completed right now.
O'Donnell: Let's answer the question where we're going to use water funds.
Lehman: Are there four folks who are willing to use water funds for this
project? I see one.
Champion: Minus six and seven.
Pfab: Just...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #22
Kanner: Answer the question.
Pfab: What is the project?
Kanner: Let's assume all of it.
Lehman: Irvin? Do you agree philosophically with using water funds for this
project? That's the question. Is it an appropriate use of water funds?
That's the question. If we get past that one then we can proceed.
Pfab: Is that include the Butler House?
Lehman: Butler House has nothing to do with water funds.
Pfab: Okay so we're down in the middle part here?
Davidson: Right.
Kanner: Yeah.
Lehman: All right. Okay folks...
Pfab: Okay but she's talking the Butler House. See this is...
Lehman: Yeah but we're talking now water funds.
P fab: Okay.
Lehman: How many folks would support using water funds for a part of this
project?
Pfab: If for the education aspects of it and the prairie grass I would be...that
would be fine with me.
Lehman: We have a yes from you, is that correct?
Pfab: Yes.
Lehman: Okay, we have one yes. We have two yeses. We had three yeses. Is
there another yes?
Vanderhoef: The only thing I would do out of it is the parking lot and prairie grass.
Lehman: I don't know, how can you justify...never mind. I'm not going to get
into that.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #23
Pfab: But I...before we go any farther...
Vanderhoef: That's the match to go with the Butler House.
Lehman: You'd use water money for prairie grass is what you just said? Okay.
lrvin.
Pfab: Okay, I'm not sure if I'm understanding Dee correctly.
Vanderhoef: No, the prairie grass is coming at the park.
Lehman: Okay.
Vanderhoef: I'm not...the only thing that I'm using waterworks money is for half of
the parking lot that goes with the Butler House. That's the only
thing...
Lehman: Well we just kind of said we aren't going to use waterworks money.
Now that leaves us in a whole different situation.
Atkins: Yeah, it does. It changes dramatically.
Lehman: Totally different situation. Now if you do these projects the effect on
the general fund is $176,000 or on GO bonding.
Pfab: If we do...complete everything it's here, 176,0007
Lehman: If we don't use water funds we'd be using GO money.
Pfab: I'd would say I could support that. But that's rather a minimal amount
of GO funding.., bonding.., funding or however you want to look at it.
And I think you get a lot of bang for your buck on that.
Champion: Let me just bring up one more question. We don't have a majority to
use water funds for any of the park project, and I appreciate that, but
what about things like earthwork and erosion control and storm sewer
out there? That would be done at a water plant whether we were
talking about ever putting a park there or not.
Atkins: The site itself was purchased with water revenue monies.
Champion: Right.
Atkins: I would think anything that preserves the site, the character, the quality
of the site, prevents erosion, would be a legitimate water expense
because the site is owned by the water system.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #24
Lehman: Like number 8 here, storm sewer, silt fence, earth work and whatever.
That's obviously...
Atkins: I've got to believe that's...that preserves the site...
Champion: It does.
Atkins: ...and the site is the source of our water...remember is a major source
of our water.
Champion: So I do think there are some things even...without even giving it a
stretch are definitely related to the fact that the water plant is there.
And I think it's ridiculous about some thing that the park money
should go to land that is really there because they're building a water
plant there. And to make a park out of it, right that's a whole different
ball game but them are things that need to be done on the site that
would be done whether we were ever going to put a park there or not.
And nobody would have questioned that coming out of waterworks
money.
Lehman: Right.
Champion: So, I mean, I do think we could allocate a certain amount of land
improvements to the water bill without even giving it a thought.
Atkins: Well, $26,000 to the water system is not that big a deal.
Champion: No it's not and the parking lot...
Wilburn: For the employees to park...and the parking lot for the employees to
park.
Champion: Right.
Lehman: The parking lot here is the one down below and that's not for
employees.
Wilbum: Number one parking lot.
Lehman: That's not for employee parking.
Wilburn: That's not?
Lehman: That's public parking down below.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Speeial Budget Work Session Page #25
Champion: Okay.
Kanner: May I make a suggestion for proceedure?
Lehman: Yes.
Kanner: That essentially it seems we're starting at zero. And I would suggest
that we write a list then of what we want to add back on and then we
can basically vote on each one and then we can also vote if we want to
give it water or general funds.
Lehman: I might make it even a little simpler. If we feel strongly that this first
portion should be done, and I think everybody would like to see this
happen, we could use the Miller Orchard...we're talking about
transferring those funds anyway. If we could use the Miller Orchard
funds to do what we have said we were going to do out of water, we
could do the first part of that project.
Pfab: Would that include the grass?
Lehman: No.
Pfab: No. Then I'm not interested.
Vanderhhoef: Well we may have to do grass a year later.
Lehman: Or two.
Pfab: I think that to get the grass in there and get it growing is as much
as...that's where you start.
Atkins: Can I ask a question of the staff?. If there is a priority, is it structural or
is it the grasslands that should be built first?
Trueblood: That's kind of like the chicken and the egg.
Atkins: I understand that. That's why I asked to see if you could handle it.
Trueblood: From the stand point of getting the prairie grasses established, because
they take so long to mature, it would be good to go ahead with that.
But on the other hand it would, from a construction stand point, it
would be much better to have your structural components completed
so that you don't have to go in and tear up the grass that you planted.
If I could, I need to correct an error that I made earlier because Steve
might remember it on my evaluation ifI don't. But, you know, before
I said we were still talking about $550,000 and in reality we're not.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #26
With this proposal right here because that 74 would come out of the
Miller Orchard funding we're really talking about a total of 476,000
not 550,000 like we were before.
Atkins: That would be Steve's point.
Trueblood: Right.
Champion: Maybe we just find out how much money we're willing to give them
and let the Parks Commission decide where they want to spend it.
Trueblood: The other point that I wanted to make was that if the...if none of this
comes out of water revenue funds, purely from a park perspective, we
would probably change some of this. The amphitheater and the
amphitheater access walks are not as important to the park operation as
they are to the waterworks operation because of the educational
component. Now, you know, we showed a 50/50 just because yes
from a park perspective yes we would make use of that and so forth.
But if we were looking at a reduced budget and not water revenue
supported we may very well want to alter some of the plans, just so
you understand that.
Pfab: Okay. Let me ask a question. Is there...let's suppose that we were
extremely flush in the money department.
Trueblood: That would be nice.
Pfab: Yes, which is a hypothetical, I agree. What would you do then and
how would you do it? If money was not...
Lehman: Do the whole park.
Pfab: No, no, just a minute. If money was not a problem here, and the funds,
how would you do it?
Trueblood: We would do all of the structural components first, the trails,the
parking lots, the shelters, whatever all the structural components are
and then we would come in and do all the plantings after that.
Pfab: Okay so how...to do that would take how much money?
Trueblood: In the current budget, including the unfunded list, we've got
somewhere in the neighborhood of $850,000 budgeted, round figures.
Pfab: Budgeted or unfunded?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #27
Trueblood: Well, you're...
Atkins: Budgeted. We just haven't been (can't hear)
Trueblood: Budgeted yeah but a large portion of that appears on the unfunded list.
Pfab: And what's...for instance, what are you...what do you mean is the
unfunded part?
Trueblood: That would include all of the prairie grasses and wildflowers. It would
include, I believe, it's one...it's either one or two of the fishing dock
areas around the pond, nature trails that wouldn't be constructed at this
time and maybe another shelter or two. I can' t remember for sure but
it's primarily the plantings.
Pfab: Okay so now lets say now that there is not money for anything, what
has to be done?
Trueblood: If there is no money, nothing has to be done.
Pfab: Nothing has to be done. Okay, so then we're looking at...I'm just
trying to... so we're looking at close to a million dollars of GO
funding?
Atkins: Easy, yes.
Pfab: You say easy?
Atkins: Easy to do that, yeah.
(End of side two, 02-13)
Pfab: ...scare the pants off us?
Lehman: Can't do it if that's what your question is.
Atkins: I said early in the budget I would not borrow any more money. (can't
understand) you want to get rid of something else.
Pfab: And this million dollars would be more money.
Atkins: On top of that. That's correct, Irvin. Yes.
Pfab: Okay. So...and there's no other place ot get these funds except from
the waterworks.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #28
Atkins: That's right. Water or GO, that's your choice.
Pfab: Okay and there's a small amount we could pick up from the Miller
Orchard.
Atkins: The grant, yes.
Pfab: And how much is that?
Atkins: Oh...
O'Donnell: It'd be 200,000.
Lehman: That's right.
Atkins: Oh, the Miller Orchard just to kind of open the door, the parks about
$10,000.
Pfab: So...
Atkins: That's just the cleaning and grubbing the site.
Pfab: Right. So there's 190,000 there? So you're taking the 850,000,
reducing it by 190,000 for GO if you go GO.
Atkins: No, that's coming at me too fast.
Lehman: Well, Irvin, if you're trying to do the whole project you're right. We're
not talking about doing the whole project.
Atkins: If you're doing the whole project you're right.
Pfab: Okay, right. I'm saying...okay. Now okay, what I'm saying is maybe
this is not something we should be quibbling on because we're looking
at as good time to go to the bond market as we're going to have in a
long time, probably. If this is...
Atkins: Oh, there's no doubt the bond market is great. My problem is the size
of the debt we want.
Pfab: Right, okay. So then it's...the real problem is the total amount of GO
funding?
Atkins: Yes.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #29
Pfab: So that's where this is at. Okay. Let's...what happens if we table this
and then come back and look at that?
Lehman: Well let me make a suggestion first. We have $100,000 on the Butler
and I sense there's a...this is a very important project for the City and
the for the Council. We have $100,000 from the Butler House project,
we have $200,000 that recommending that we transfer temporarily
from the Miller Omhard Park. That's a total of $300,000 and if you
look at this little itemized list there's another 26,000 that's obviously
water funds. My suggestion would be, if the Council is interested in
seeing this project start is that we tell Steve and Terry and Chuck that
you've got basically those two projects, you prioritize what you feel
needs to be done most in those parks and do it.
Champion: Do it. Great. That's exactly right.
Lehman: You can't use water funds, you've got 26,000 that you can use out of
your own calculations, 100,000 from the Butler Bridge, 200,000 from
Miller Orchard, which will be transferred to 05 and prioritize it. Why
are we sitting here deciding whether we're going to build a trail or
plant a tree?
Pfab: Okay let me ask you something else. Are there unused funds sitting in
the water thing that could be borrowed from there to do this with the
idea that down the road... ?
Atkins: Do we have sufficient reserves to do some of this work?
Champion: No.
Atkins: Yeah. But you've still got to pay it back.
Pfab: Right.
Atkins: And (can't understand) cause I don't want to pay it back out of the
general fund. I'd rather put it in the debt service fund. That's why
when I say GO debt remember it's a separate levy.
Pfab: Okay, okay. All right.
Lehman: Steve? I'm sorry, go ahead.
Atkins: Ernie with all due respect I really think Steven's idea...if we make a
list, because I'm not sure what you just told us to do.
Lehman: I'm not sure that we are capable of telling you what to do.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #30
Champion: We don't want to...
Lehman: I mean I would give...
Champion: We want to give you a certain amount of money and you do whatever
you want to with it.
Kanner: Well I've got a...sort of a...
Atkins: No, I...
Kanner: ...addendum to that going on what Connie was saying. I basically
came up with about the same figure, 476,000, take out the 100,000 for
Butler House that brings you to 376. Minus 176 from the water share
that's 200,000. Then you add back a certain amount...you were saying
26...
Lehman: Well just on these numbers.
Kanner: Let's say though we add back 76,000 so we're up to 276,000. Now I'm
not...I think we bring it back to Parks and Rec. and say you have 276
and you have to consider Miller Orchard plus these projects. I'm not
willing...I would compromise in that regard and accept what Parks
and Rec. says but I don't want to throw out Miller Orchard right now.
And I'd be willing to take Parks and Rec.'s recommendation. If they
say throw out Miller Orchard they'll feel a little pressure which is
good, from the neighborhood, and they'll throw that around. But
they'll have $276,000 in GO bonds for this year. So it's 76,000 more
than you were talking about but I think we can handle...
Atkins: That's not a huge number.
Kanner: And if they want to throw in the parking lot as the other half that gives
them 50,000 plus another 26,000 perhaps for the storm sewer. Or if
they want to put the whole 276 into prairie and whatever, they can do
that. But, put it there and then we agree to accept what they
recommend out of the $276,000 from Parks and Rec.
Pfab: While that is settling in, I want to make a minor distinction. I'm glad
you wrote it as Butler, don't write house because that screws up that
whole thing. It's not Butler House we're working on. We're working
with Butler Parking lot...
Vanderhoef: Access.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #31
Pfab: ...and accessing the trail.
Lehman: All right.
Vanderhoefi Accessing Butler.
Pfab: Right. But to get to the trail.
Vanderhoef: So only 50,000.
Atkins: Is the total budget for these three items for next fiscal year what?
Kanner: I would propose $376,000.
Atkins: Okay now I'm going to back...I want to back into this.
Kanner: That's my proposal.
Pfab: That's all GO bonds.
Vanderhoef: Okay.
Kanner: No, well part of that top 100,000 comes from...
Atkins: The grant.
Kanner: ...grant. 50,000 essentially.
Pfab: But nothing from waterworks.
Kanner: Right.
Pfab: I would say there should be some kind of a waterworks...
Champion: There is they have 26,000.
Atkins: There is.
Pfab: How much?
Champion: 26,000 for storm sewer, silt fence, and earthwork.
Kanner: Well...
Vanderhoef: And the 50,000...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #32
Lehman: I come up with 320.
Schmadeke: And the other half of that parking lot would be nice.
Karmer: What? Well I was throwing in the 200...I was throwing in an extra
76,000. You threw in 26,000.
Lehman: I threw in 26,000...oh, I see what you're mean.
Champion: You're talking about the parking lot.
Kanner: So if people...if they want to go with the parking lot and the silt...
Lehman: Right. Right.
Champion: Right. All right.
Pfab: Okay.
Atkins: The Butler project is $100,000, 50/50, grant/GO. Waterworks and
Miller Orchard combined in the upcoming fiscal year have a $276,000
budget.
Lehman: 200 from Miller Orchard, 76 from Water.
Pfab: Well we're not deciding that.
Lehman: No that's...
Atkins: That's how much we decided.
Lehman: ... (can't hear) calculations, right?
Kanner: Well that's...I'm throwing in 200,000 plus an extra 76,000.
Champion: That's from the parking lot and the (can't hear)
Atkins: Okay, well then that does make a difference because that makes this
200 and this 76.
Lehman: Right.
Atkins: Is that what you just told me?
Lehman: That's what he just said.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #33
Kanner: Right.
Atkins: What do you want accomplished at Waterworks? Whatever 76,000's
going to buy you?
Champion: No.
Lehman: I think...no, I really feel we've got to let people like Chuck and the
Parks and Recreation folks figure out priorities on spending that
money, as to what really needs to happen first. For example, you're
right, you go out and plant prairie grass and go back and tear it all up
putting in a trail, probably not the best thing to do.
Atkins: Well it's just one of those things where the staff gets exposed to. They
dump on our heads and say well why are you doing this, you didn't
receive the Council's approval. The Council...where were you
think...and on and on and on. I'm just a tad bit uncomfortable. And
the other thing...
Lehman: My guess would be that this part would happen first.
Atkins: Okay.
Kanner: Well...
Vanderhoef: Well I think Steven's on the right track there with the 76. I don't think
there's any question but what the storm sewer, silt fence, and all that
stuff, which is the 26,000 that we're talking about. I think there is
enough component to having the additional parking to match what is
being done at Butler so that's the 50. So that totals up the 76.
Champion: And that comes out of water revenue?
Lehman: 76.
Vanderhoef: Uh-huh.
Champion: Okay.
Vanderhoef: 76 comes out of water.
Champion: Now I'm going to bring up another...and I'm not...I think the
commission should decide. This is your money, you spend it where
you think you can spend it. But personally, that $100,000 going to the
Butler House I have big problems with that. That's a lot of money.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #34
Pfab: But that's...
Vanderhoef: It's only 50.
Pfab: (It's 50, it's grand.)?
Vanderhoef: 50 of it's GO, 50 of it is grant.
Lehman: It doesn't go to the house...
Champion: Yeah but it's still $100,000.
Lehman: Yeah, but nothing goes to the house.
Atkins: The house is...
Lehman: Part of that for a trail and part for a parking lot.
Champion: I know it doesn't go to the house.
Atkins: Karin.
Lehman: The building itself doesn't. Okay.
Champion: Because here we...well okay, never mind. (can't hear) it's a project.
O'Donnell: It's a project.
Atkins: Now...
Kanner: Dee...
Atkins: I'll wait. Go ahead, Steve.
Kanner: To keep it simpler, I would say give the whole 276 to Parks and Rec.
and they come back with their list and if we find any of those.., of that
list...if they...They might not include that parking lot but perhaps they
will. But whatever they put in that list, we see if anything is
appropriate for water at that time. I say give them the whole 276,000
and say these are your possibilities, the Waterworks Park and Miller
Orchard, plus the prairie grass seeding and you decide with 276 what
you want to do. And then once it comes back to us we see if there's
any components that we feel comfortable with water GO bonds.
Champion: Well I think we've made it clear that...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #35
Vanderhoefi I think we...
Cahmpion: ...there are things we are willing to spend water money on are the
parking lot and the storm sewer. So...
Pfab: And I would...one other suggestion. I would make a suggestion that
to cover their position that Steve, you write a...put together a
statement as you see what we're saying here to go into the record. So
when Parks and Recreation or whatever, when they have to make
decisions this is what's going to give them the authority.
Atkins: Well you'll hear from them tonight anyway so you've got (can't hear)
Pfab: So, I think that...
Atkins: A summary memo makes sense. I agree.
Pfab: Okay.
Lehman: Well now, Steve, the way this is proposed as you see it on the...that
does not basically change our budget at all.
Atkins: No.
Lehman: So there's no effect on the budget what so ever and it allows $276,000
for the beginning of the development of that park. 76,000 which
would be charged against the water and 200,000 that would be
transferred from Miller Orchard temporarily and then put back in in
FY05.
Atkins: Put this back in 05 and I'm assuming...
Lehman: Cleaning up.
Atkins: ...Terry has permission to clean it up, to do that.
Lehman: Yeah, is that agreeable to the majority of the Council?
Vanderhoef: That's where I was...
Wilburn: That's fine.
Vanderhoef: That's where I was headed.
Pfab: I...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #36
Kanner: I don't want to throw out Miller Orchard.
Champion: We're not.
Vanderhoef: We're not.
Kanner: What?
Champion: We're not.
Vanderheofi We're not.
Kanner: We're throwing it to 05, which I...throw it out from this year or
possibly next year. I want Parks and Rec. to come back with the final
recommendation. If they decide after hearing some more from local
folks that they want to put that whole 200,000 in Waterworks, I'll
accept that. But they might feel pressure and hear some good
arguments for keeping it in Miller Orchard.
Vanderhoefi I think we have heard from Miller Orchard through our staffright now
that they are still looking towards wanting another couple of acres to
go with the land that they presently have. They don't want to make
any large scale plan or do any kind of construction up there other than
cleaning it up until they know what the size and shape of that park is
going to be. And I think that is a very responsible position from the
Miller Orchard people. And for Parks and Rec. to have to wrestle with
more of that, they're going to get the same word from out staff, from
the staff meetings that they've had with the neighborhoods. So, I
think, they're real comfortable out there with waiting another year or
two as long we spend the dollars to clean up the poison ivy and the
brambles and so they can us it as a passive area until a bigger plan is
made.
Pfab: I...now that we seem to have somewhat agreed on something I'd like
to make some modifications to it.
Kanner: Wait, we...wait, wait...I want to respond to what Dee said, Irvin. Dee
we did hear that other people aren't quite satisfied with that and...
Vanderhoefi But there's not consensus. That's the point.
Pfab: Without consensus...
Kanner: Well I think we should say that you have...give them the opportunity
to address Parks and Rec. and see if there is a consensus. Or if there
isn't, let Parks and Rec. get what they can out of it taking into account
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #37
what Terry said and then also what representatives from the
neighborhood said. I think we need to hear more from them before we
push back Miller Orchard two or three years. If this...
Vanderhoef: Well I guess I...
Tmeblood: If this goes before Parks & Recreation Commission, which is what I
think I hear you saying, we have certainly no problem with notifying
the neighborhood that it's going to be an agenda item if they want to
come and talk about it.
Champion: I'm not going to make those decisions for the Park and Rec.
Commission because I think they've heard Miller Orchard, they know
it's a problem. I mean to me...they know a lot more about it than I do.
Lehman: That's what you're saying. Let Parks and Recreation make the
determination.
Champion: Yeah, that's exactly right, Steven.
Kanner: The 200,000, let the...and keep Miller Orchard in the running until
Parks and Rec. rules it out.
Lehman: Is that acceptable to the Council, to proceed with this...these numbers
at this time?
Pfab: No. Okay I think that we...the park...the well and pond access roads
and the wetland access walk should be out of waterworks funds and
that should be added, I believe, to this.
Lehman: Well what we've left...what we have now...lets show of hands.
Champion: Yeah, lets do it.
Lehman: The 76,000 out of water is basically for a couple items I guess that
that's up to the discresion of the staff folks but are there four folks or
more who would proceed with this as a compromise sort of procedure?
I see one. I see two. I see three.
Kanner: Wait, wait...
Lehman: I see four, five, six.
Kanner: Wait, I'm not sure what you're asking. Are we...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #38
Lehman: Actually doing what you suggested. The Parks and Recreation
Commission will make the decision. My suspicion is that because
Waterworks Park is their number one priority they will choose to use
the 200 there but that's their choice. If they do, Miller Orchard will
then go to 05, which obviously can be changed next year by this
Council or any other council.
Kanner: We'll accept if they do decide to put money...some money into Miller
Orchard next year. We'll accept that?
Champion: Right.
Lehman: Yeah.
Kanner: Okay, I'm willing to go with that.
Lehman: All right we've got a deal.
Pfab: Before we come to a vote I'd still like...
Lehman: We just voted, Irvin. Next item, Steve.
Karmer: But you were...wait just to be fair to Irvin, you were making a pitch
for putting more into Waterworks.
Pfab: Well I think that...
Kanner: I don't think we have the votes for that though.
Pfab: Okay, the well and the pond access roads, that's certainly waterworks
and I believe the wetland access walk is part of waterworks also. So
there's another $63,000. I think that should go in there.
Lehman: And we don't agree with you, Irvin.
Pfab: Okay.
Lehman: Okay, what's next, Steve?
Pfab: That's not the first time.
Lehman: Nope.
Atkins: We left off, we had not finished Camp Cardinal.
Lehman: All right.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #39
Atkins: That discussion. Somebody help me out where we were. I'm trying to
remember...we did not...that's in 05. You've not received the formal
proposal. I put it in as much as a heads up as anything.
Lehman: I think that...
Atkins: (can't hear) discussion about this road.
Lehman: I think that Camp Cardinal...
Atkins: I'm trying to remember where we left it. I just...I honestly don't recall
where we left it.
Davidson: Can't remember.
Champion: I think you wanted us to be ready to move on it if there was going to
be any development.
Atkins: As it was all GO debt.
Lehman: I think that's right.
Atkins: Million-nine. And it's shown in 05, I believe.
Davidson: Yes, 05.
Atkins: Yes.
Davidson: 1.9.
Atkins: Yeah. It didn't get checked of my list so was there anything else that
you need to talk about on that one?
Lehman: Well I think...I think the problem with that project is that we really
don't know anything about it and you're really reluctant to say if you
won't do it but it's far enough out that we can obviously make
whatever adjustment we need to later.
Atkins: Well I think they're going to want to move it up.
Champion: Yeah. That was the point.
Atkins: I think that you're going to hear that they want to move it up into...
Vanderhoef: They meaning...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #40
Atkins: They, the developer.
Lehman: The developer. I have no objection to leaving it knowing full well that
if it doesn't, you know... Council's obviously changed priorities from
time to time.
Atkins: Jump in any time.
Franklin: Well I think what's...what will happen next on this is that you'll have a
full presentation of the project by the developer. You will, as will
Coralville and at that point it's kind of taking it to the back step as to
the degree of commitment. But this merely puts it in there as a
possibility.
Lehman: And I don't object to that but until you...you know I don't want to
close the door on something I don't know anything about so I mean to
me this kind of just leaves the door open for the presentation. Based
on the presentation we can decide it's a good or a bad project. But I
don't have a problem leaving it.
Vanderhoef: So you're saying it's far enough out? Okay. Just clarification. The 1.9
is for the entire project piece that would be split between Coralville
and Iowa City. But this does not include anything in the way ora
contribution from the developer.
Franklin: The 1.9 is our obligation if we...
Atkins: Do this.
Lehman: If we do it.
Franklin: ...get involved in this. It is not the...unlike some of your other
projects, it is not the total cost of the project. It is not the total cost of
putting that road from Melrose Avenue to Highway 6. It is just the
City's...Iowa City's obligation. (can't hear) deal.
Vanderhoef: That's what ! was saying.
Davidson: And the total is...
Vanderhoefi But my question to you then is...
Davidson: Six or seven.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #41
Vanderhoef: ...if we negotiated dollars from the developer that would be
subtracting from the 1.9 because 1.9...
Lehman: No, she's...Karin already did that.
Franklin: No. And that's how this is different from the way we have...
Atkins: It's different than the packet.
Franklin: ...listed some of your other projects. And maybe that shouldn't be. I
don't know.
Atkins: Let me take a run at this. The project itself...
Vanderhoef: Is split.
Atkins: The total is about six million dollars plus.
Vanderhoef: Total.
Atkins: Total. The developer wants special assessment bonds sold for a...for
their portion of the project. Coralville has a share of about 1.6 million.
That sound about right? Or 1...that seems a little high.
Franklin: It does.
Atkins: Our share is 1.9. The remainder of the construction...of that roadway
is to be financed by special assessment bonds. Coralville will take the
lead in securing the special assessment funding. You need six votes.
Are there six members of the Council that'll approve a special
assessment bond for this project? Probably not.
Lehman: Well we'll deal with that when it...
Atkins: Well, I mean, those are political questions that you're going to get
posed to you. I also understand that Coralville is reaching it's cap on
its general obligation debt because of obligations for a number of other
projects. So their...
Karmer: State...that's a state debt of 5%?
Atkins: Yeah.
Kanner: Of their property assessed (can't understand)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #42
Atkins: Yep. Same as ours except they're approaching the cap. They in term
then will need to make this decision in the short term. Now they're
assuming certain growth in their tax base. Folks, all the other things
that are going on and the commitment, I do not know. I've not read
their financials and quite frankly didn't intend to.
Lehman: But the question really here is do we want to leave this in the CIP?
Atkins: Yeah.
Lehman: All right.
Pfab: I'm for taking it out.
Kanner: Ernie?
Lehman: Yes.
Kanner: Yeah, I would propose putting it out and possibly putting it next year
after the Southwest District Plan is put in because it's going to connect
up to thing in the Southwest District, some trails and what's going to
be done with that land out there. And I think we ought to find out
what the citizens in that neck of the woods want...
Atkins: Okay. Now there's going to be a heating process, presentations, all of
that has yet to occur and the numbers that I'm giving you are...and
please quote these our best guess estimates right now. The project has
to be refined. You have to decide whether you choose to contribute ot
it. If you choose not to contribute to the project that doesn't mean they
may not proceed with a partial project. I don't...we don't know the
answers to any of those. But it does clearly involve both communities.
Lehman: Well because...
Atkins: It can not succeed unless both communities are on board.
Vanderhoef: Okay, tell me about the special assessment bonds. How do those get
paid of that are different than other... ?
Atkins: Well this is a little unusual. We don't use special assessment bonds
traditionally. I don't...I'm not sure (can't understand)
Vanderhoef: That's why I don't know anything about them.
Atkins: Well, I'm so sure I know a whole lot about them because we've just
traditionally not used them.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #43
Lehman: But that sort of discussion will take place when the presentation is
made to us.
Atkins: Those special assessment bonds in effect you build the road and you
charge it against the abutting property and as it develops and improves
in value its...you do not pledge full faith and credit on special
assessment bonds. The difficulty we have on this one, it's raw land.
We don't know how...I mean normally special assessment bonds occur
in projects where it's already begun to develop and we have some base.
Franklin: And as this project has been discussed, Iowa City would not be
involved in the special assessment bonds.
Atkins: It's not...yeah, they would be on the...
Franklin: Coralville would be the entity that would take responsibility for the
special assessment bonds and hold any liability that there is related to
them. What we would have is an agreed upon, if it goes forward
through the Council, and agreed upon share of that cost of the road
going through the property. It's very comparable to what we talked
about with Lower West Branch Road where we talked about getting
the developer to pay a portion of that cost, where you take 50% it and
you say that that is the cost attributable to community wide traffic.
What this is saying is the same sort of thing in that that 50% of the cost
of the stretch that goes through the private development would be paid
for by Coralville and Iowa City. The other 50% would be paid for by
the development.
Pfab: I question...I think maybe this is a good time to question is this 50%
sacrosanct that we can't reassess that? 50%...
Franklin: No, it's not sacrosanct, Irvin, it's...
Pfab: But it looks a little generous...it looks a little burdensome for the City.
Franklin: That's something that you would have to discuss...
Atkins: You have to decide.
Franklin: ...as we went through this whole project.
Atkins: And I suspect...
Franklin: And that would be something that the community would have to agree
tO.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #44
Atkins: And I suspect that Coralville will want a 20/80 agreement to protect
their...the financial underbelly of this special assessment. Which
means we'd have to sign up...we're going to sign on. We may not be
selling them but I suspect you're going to see some sort of an
agreement. It is unusual in the sense because it's raw land.
Pfab: So that's way out before the City starts getting any feedback on it.
Atkins: Personally I would encourage you...we have a developer who has a
proposal who's entitled to his day.
Champion: Right.
Atkins: You need to hear that. The $1.9 million, we've not sold the bonds.
We don't intend to go out and sell the bonds tomorrow. I put it in the
out year. You may find it a wonderful project and excited about it and
you may want to move it up. Remember I try to deal with it in mostly
in aggregate. If you choose not to proceed with the project, that in
effect is a general obligation bond reduction but it is a complex
financial undertaking.
Wilbum: At what point...and you probably said this. I'm sorry, I understand the
developer is going to ask for some...for it to be moved up but at what
point would we be asked to make a commitment?
Atkins: I would suspect that you'll see this in the next couple of months.
Pfab: It looks to me like this is a commitment if it's in the here.
Lehman: No it isn't.
Atkins: No it is not. That's why we're here. You flag these...and, you know,
that's in our capital plan. It's a plan. And it's with the understanding
that you have not committed to selling those bonds.
Pfab: But the fact it's in here is a commitment.
Atkins: But I have to put it in there, Irvin, or you wouldn't know about it.
Kanner: It's...It's a philosophical commitment and that's what we're discussing,
if we want to go ahead with that philosophical commitment.
Pfab: I'm not interested in go ahead with that and also I'm interested in
taking another hard look at the 50% assessment for these bonds.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #45
Atkins: I don't know what you're...I don't know what this 50% assessment is.
Lehman: Oh, could I suggest that because this is a joint project...actually this is
a project with a developer, with the City of Coralville...
Aktins: Three party agreement, Emie.
Lehman: It may have a lot of merit, it may have no merit what so ever. It's
certainly something that we're going to decide if and when we get the
presentation from the developer. This does not obligate us in any way.
It says basically that if we accept the presentation we're willing to...
Champion: Think about it.
Lehman: ...proceed with it. So I have no problem with leaving it in.
Wilbum: No, leave it in.
Lehman: Are there four votes...?
Atkins: And I have no trouble preparing a letter for you to send to the
developer in Coralville saying this is placed in our capital plan clearly
with the understand that we have yet to...
Lehman: I would have no problem...
Atkins: (can't hear) cover what your concerns are.
Lehman: I don't have a problem taking it out.
Pfab: Well then take it out.
Vanderhoef: Them...
Lehman: No, I mean when it comes up I have no problem not approving it.
Champion: You don't even know what the project is, Irvin. Why do you want to
take it out?
Lehman: Are there four folks who would choose to leave it in?
O'Donnell: Yes.
Champion: Yes.
Vanderhoef: Okay, we can leave it in.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #46
Lehman: I see one, two, three, four...all right, we're going to take a break for
five minutes.
Atkins: Well just before you take...
Lehman: Yes.
Atkins: Is there anything on Camp Cardinal staff that...
Franklin: No.
Atkins: I think we beat that one?
Lehman: Right.
O'Donnell: Can we come back about 107
Lehman: No, we're not going to come back about 10.
(Break)
Atkins: Okay, CIP stuff. Three other issues you raised when we went through,
Foster Road, Dubuque intersection, road connection to Prairie du
Chien, shown in 05. $1.9 million for those projects. Remember we
had some difficulty; I think we resolved it with the contractor. That
was, you know, a month or so ago you received a complaint about
(me?). Chuck's taken care of that and I think the neighbors are...I
mean it's not a pleasant circumstance with your front gone but you
know what I mean.
Franklin: There are two properties that are currently for sale in this area which
usually means that the possibility of some development projects
coming in that would...
Lehman: Exacerbate the problem.
Franklin: ...facilitate us looking at this. Is there...
Lehman: Well the other thing we have to look at too is the peninsula
development. As that occurs is going to put more and more pressure
on that intersection. And then we also have...and Jeff's not here. But
when we talked about this briefly the last time, when Interstate 80 is
widened to three lanes each way, if there's any kind of realignment of
the exit ramps on Dubuque Street I would think that would be the time
that we might look at this pretty carefully.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Bridget Work Session Page #47
Atkins: Well you have...you got a recent letter from the folks there
complaining about the traffic. I do...Jeff, just so I understand, that
exit ramp change plan for Dubuque and 1-80 is more like what Dodge
Street is, come to a stop and have to turn as opposed to the
acceleration...
Davidson: Actually what we hope to do is reconstruct both Dodge and Dubuque
similar to First Avenue, Coralville, where you come off the ramps and
there's four way signalized intersections.
Atkins: Oh, okay.
Davidson: That's an urban style as opposed to the rural style, which you see there
nOW.
Atkins: Okay. And that also should help slow traffic down and also create
gaps I'm assuming along Dubuque Street. But that's not for how long?
Davidson: 2005 or beyond. We're not really...
Atkins: Okay.
Lehman: We're showing this in 2005.
Pfab: I...
Atkins: This is our piece of it, fight.
Lehman: Right.
Pfab: It...what can be done with Dubuque Street and Foster Roads, is that
the fight one going over to the peninsula?
Atkins: Yeah.
Pfab: Dubuque Street...what can make that done to make that more safe in
the interim?
Atkins: I'm not sure much.
Pfab: Is there any...
Atkins: Rick? Anybody?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #48
Davidson: I mean, Irvin, by the standards by which we judge whether or not
something is safe, it is safe. It does not have a high accident rate but it
is difficult. A motorist has to have a lot of patience.
Atkins: That's true.
Davidson: And then that's where people claim that there's a safety problem. In
fact, it's just because there's so much more traffic in the dynamics of
the intersection changing that you have to be very patient and wait.
The other thing that, you know, I don't know about all of you but
probably 80% of my calls about that are when the church lets out.
Well, when the chumh lets out there's very little that we can do.
Whether there's a signal there or not there's going to be a lot of traffic
there when the church lets out.
Pfab: Is this a place for a slower speed limit or a stop sign some place?
Champion: People don't pay any attention to it.
Davidson: Well slower speed limit won't change anything, Irvin, because people
will go as fast as they (can't hear)
Pfab: Maybe with this new camera (can't hear)
Davidson: Yeah, it you have a police officer out there then of course they will
slow down.
Pfab: Yeah but I mean...I mean, if we get to the technology of...
Champion: There's no stoplights.
Pfab: ... photocopying.., or photoing.., taking pictures at stop signs that
eventually I think you can...the next step is you will be taking pictures
of people speeding.
Cahmpion;: Well, I'm not going to do that.
Lehman: Well, is there interest...I don't know what to do with this.
Pfab: But if...
Lehman: I think we leave it.
Pfab: I'm not going to question the fact that if the engineers say it's relatively
safe then that's...that was my biggest concern. But if that isn't the
case...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #49
Atkins: And the other thing...
Davidson: Yeah, you do have...excuse me, Steve. You did get a memorandum
from me a couple of months ago.
Lehman: Right.
Davidson: I do believe we're buying time here. I mean this is an intersection
that's going to require our attention with the peninsula happening...the
potential connection of the road up to Prairie du Chien and...plus the
increase in traffic on Dubuque Street. I think you are buying time
here.
Atkins: Can I split the issue and have you comment on to Prairie du Chien
because that was one of the issues that seems to have begun to
percolate? Now that gee if you've graded it and put the water lines and
sewer lines why don't you just finish and build that road? Is there
anything we need to...outside (can't hear)
Kanner: Wait, what was that last? I didn't hear what you said.
Atkins: Build the road that is from Dubuque to Prairie du Chien.
Franklin: If you do that, you have to do the other.
Lehman: Right.
Aktins: Then we have to do the intersection, yeah. That's what I thought. And
we're not planning to do that.
Champion: We're not.
Vanderhoef: The road is... would only be prudent in the out years right now.
Atkins: Yes. Now the roads here, is that how I read that? Yeah, the
intersection's a million dollars and the roads 900,000.
Pfab: What 2005?
Atkins: 05. Yes. 05, about two-thirds of the way down.
Lehman: Right.
Pfab: Okay, here it is.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #50
Atkins: Foster and Foster.
Pfab: Okay.
Atkins: One's the intersection, one is the road construction. All right.
Vanderhoef: In my perspective, we could move that road out.
Lehman: Yeah, but that may be another situation where the economics of
the...of doing it, it may be better to do it at the same time.
Atkins: Yeah. This gets a check, right?
Lehman: Costs a lot less, yeah.
Atkins: Okay. Economic development was added. We have economic
development funding shown for 04 and 05, 300 and 700,000.
Franklin: In 02.
Atkins: In 02? Yes, excuse me.
Lehman: That's all GO isn't it?
Vanderhoef: Uh-huh.
Atkins: Yes.
Lehman: I really think as strongly as I believe in economic development that
given the amount of GO we have that those numbers probably need
some adjusting.
Atkins: Now keep in mind this is a budget. Unless you have projects...
Lehman: You don't spend it.
Atkins: ...assuming you wouldn't intent to spend it. Not on...I mean, it's not a
whole lot different than Camp Cardinal. We show it in the plan that
we're considering it. This is used by David and some of his marketing
and promotional material about...so you know, if you do think about
reducing it just keep that in mind also. But we had...this is not spent
money unless there's a project that warrants it's use. Did you have...
Franklin: Yeah, I just want to make that point that as we talk to people about
what's available when we're marketing that we need a good sense from
the Council as to how much you want to have in this fund. So if
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #51
you...if there's 700,000 and you actually don't want to spend any more
than 500,000 or 300,000 that's something we really need to know up
front so that we don't mislead people about what's available for them.
Champion: So unless there was a project this money would not be bonded for.
Lehman: Oh, fight.
Franklin: That's correct.
Atkins: That's right.
Vanderhoef: We don't have any in 03.
Lehman: I think 03...
Atkins: Remember what we did, Dee...
Vanderhoefi And the 02 we're using for Mormon Trek extension.
Atkins: That's right. Yes.
Vanderhoef: And we know that we have three phases of Mormon Trek and that is a
high economic development priority for me.
Atkins: Well if that's the case I think what you ought to do is that just simply
identify it as Mormon Trek. I mean the economic development
component is intended to be a pool of money available for some
unique project need that the ABC Company wants to do this and we
need to make a road extension or build a water or sewer line or
something such as that.
Lehman: Steve?
Vanderhoefi I'm not willing to commit it to Mormon Trek.
Atkins: Okay, I'1i just leave it alone then.
Vanderhoefi I am committed to leaving it in the budget.
Champion: I'm committed to leaving it in the budget because it won't be spent
unless something really worth while comes along.
Atkins: You must approve of such a thing, yes.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #52
Lehman: Steve, in 03 is that...I don't see economic development as an item in
03.
Vanderhoef: It isn't.
Atkins: But is that...
O'Malley: Let me correct...
Franklin: It's all shifted to Mormon Trek.
Lehman: It's all shifted to Mormon Trek.
Atkins: Mormon Trek.
Lehman: Okay, that's what I thought.
Atkins: Funding was put into Mormon Trek.
Lehman: And the same thing is tree in 04?
Franklin: Yes.
Atkins: Yes.
Lehman: Okay, fine. Fine.
Kanner: So 04 is...well you list $300,000.
Atkins: Yes.
Kanner: That's all for Mormon Trek?
Atkins: No that is not. That is pure economic development money. It was 700
at one time, we reduced it by 400. That 400 was committed then to
Mormon Trek project.
Vanderhoef: So that 400 is showing up in the Mormon Trek line of 2 million?
Atkins: To pay for Mormon Trek.
Lehman: Rigth.
Vanderhoefi That's fine.
Atkins: Okay.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #53
Kanner: And then...
Pfab: How much is economic development in 03? Included in Mormon
Trek?
Lehman: 700,000
Vanderhoefi 700.
Atkins: No, it used to be economic development money at $700,000. In order
to find a way to fund Mormon Trek you chose to do the
grant...remember all those other things...as well as taking economic
development. Take 400 offofit. Pledge those...that debt to that
project and the re...you have 300,000 remaining. And then the next
year it picks back up at the same schedule of 700,000.
Vanderhoefi And that's when Mormon Trek has been completed?
Atkins: Yes and hopefully that project, according to this plan, would have
been finished by then.
Vanderhoef: And that's when we would need the 700 again for marketing purposes
again for...
Atkins: Who knows. I mean, whatever the project that comes along.
Karmer: Steve? Well first, how come you don't have anything for 06?
Atkins: I think when I got out into 05 and 06, when I was trying to put together
the 10 million dollars a year, each year, keeping with that policy, I
begin to pick away at projects because this ones a pretty skinny list.
And the big one on that was that 3.8 million for Lower West Branch
and I'm almost positive that was my thinking. That we just simply...at
that time I'm not so sure we could afford to flag another $700,000 in
debt.
Kanner: And have there been any discussion about economic development
capital, specially but otherwise in for child care? That was on our list.
I can see for instance a new development coming in and saying we'll
help subsidize your child development...if you build a child
development plant there.
Atkins: Indirectly...(can't hear) Help me, Jeff. A portion of the near
Southside Transportation Center involves a daycare center and that...a
potion ofthe cost to finance that project is attributable to the City. So
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #54
that child care is a component of that project and therefore we would
be participating. Now there is a...they have a CDBG grant, I think.
We were thinking about applying CDBG money to that.
Davidson: We're thinking about applying for one.
Atkins: And we've just started the discussions with a potential...
Davidson: Well they've progressed to the point where we're working pretty
closely with the...
Atkins: Yeah, trying to put together some sort of a lease agreement.
Davidson: ...that particular group.
Atkins: I think it's inevitable that the will require some sort of a subsidy.
Exactly how it's going to shake out, I don't know yet. Is that take care
of it?
Davidson: Uh-huh.
Kanner: Well what I'm thinking is that use some of this money for the
transportation center or elsewhere...
Atkins: That's not out of the question.
Kanner: ...for childcare for our approximately 20% of the cost. So...
Atkins: That's not out of the question.
Karmer: Two million that we're putting into that childcare center lets say, is
how much of that?
Davidson: Probably 20% of 600,000, whatever that would be.
Atkins: Yeah, (can't hear)
Champion: 120,000.
Davidson: Come in with the 20% of 600,000.
Pfab: 120,000
Lehman: 120,000
Davidson: That's about what our commitment is to the daycare center.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #55
Kanner: So that might be an appropriate use for the economic development
money, to put it in here.
Atkins: We haven't finished the financing but that's certainly an option.
Kanner: And that would be in...if we did that it would be 04?
Atkins: Oh, by the time we put...that building starts to go up and all everthing,
yeah. It's at least 04.
Davidson: At least 04.
Atkins: Yeah.
Vanderhoef: Maybe 05.
Atkins: Maybe 05, yeah. Cause we could pass...
Davidson: Probably at least some in 04.
Atkins: ...I'm assuming, some reimbursement resolutions and...it may be out
there a few years yet.
Lehman: Do I hear us wanting to...
Atkins: In principal it's okay.
Lehman: Do I hear us wanting to leave the economic development alone?
Vanderhoef: Yes.
Wilburn: Yes.
Lehman: Okay.
Kanner: Well, yeah I would propose we go for that. Let's use some of that
money for that childcare center.
Lehman: I think that decision will be made when it comes up.
Atkins: Yeah.
Lehman: If we don't have the money in economic development it won't be
available for that. Economic development funds basically are
unallocated funds except for that Mormon Trek extension.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #56
Atkins: Yes.
Lehman: They're available if we choose to use them. And when the childcare
comes up that's our choice at that time to invest it in that or not.
Atkins: It's another financial tool for us when we're putting together the plat. I
have not heard you tell me no don't do that so that's something...
Pfab: I would...
Vanderhoef: CDBG is...
Atkins: Is another option.
Vanderhoef: ...could well be our contribution for match to the grant.
Atkins: I understand we can match FTA money with...Federal Transit
Administration money with CDBG money. That's not out of the
question either.
Pfab: I think what Steven is saying, and I would support that, is he's saying
put it in here because that is a political statement about these CD...or
not the economic development money going to that childcare.
Vandehoef: We can't commit.
Champion: (can't hear)
Pfab: You're saying show a commitment.
Kanner: Yeah.
Pfab: But by putting it in here that is a conunitment. By not putting it in
there's not a commitment.
Kanner: Right there's not the philosophical commitment just like we put in
commitment...we took economic development money for Mormon
Trek expansion before it was being built.
Champion: Except we may have another way to finance that childcare subsidy.
Pfab: Well...
Kanner: Well there's always other ways to finance a lot of other things too.
It's...I would like to see CDBG funds go for perhaps another childcare
center somewhere else that doesn't have that flexiblity. But we haven't
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #57
been using...we haven't shown any commitment to using economic
development funds for childcare which was one of our priorities when
we did our goal setting in there. I've heard talks about industrial parks
and it talks about roads and...but nothing for childcare...
Lehman: We have not had...
Kanner: ...and that's a top need in our (can't hear).
Lehman: ...requests either.
Kanner: What?
Lehman: We haven't had any requests for it either.
Kanner: So you're...
Lehman: I don't think we're going to go out and...
Kanner: I think...a lot of it is driven by the Economic Development Committee
and going out there. I mean the money for Mormon Trek, I think, is
something that was driven by... from within the City (can't understand)
Council and staff.
Lehman: That's correct.
Kanner: so I don't think there was an overwhelming throng of people saying we
need to extend Mormon Trek. That wasn't there either. So I'd say if
we said lets have some proposals for childcare centers I bet we'd get a
few in there. If we said this is available...if we went to Owen's
Broccoli and said we're going to give you 500,000 to build a childcare
center and you're going to give it at certain rates, you're going to allow
a few at lower income, I bet they might gobble it up. I think it's worth
taking a shot.
Vandehoefi This is part of the marketing plan just in general for economic
development monies. There's a list of lots of things that it can be used
for and you have to see someone come to us with their project because
obviously we can't build the whole thing and we need to have that
public/private partnership to make those things happen. So I think
what Emie was saying and what I am saying is you leave it in there.
It's...childcare is definitely one of the things that can...the monies can
be used for and if a project comes to us it will be evaluated like every
other project that will come for economic development and we'll all
vote on it.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #58
Pfab: I think that we need to make a commitment because we say...when we
try to take some things out of here because we intend it as a
commitment then we don't want to do that. But here we don't want to
put it in because it's a commitment. So I think if we're going to be
philosophically honest here we should start putting in childcare into
these places.
Lehman: Are there four folks who want to put childcare as a line item in a
budget?
O'Dormell: What a good question?
Lehman: Okay. We're done with that one.
Kanner: Well there's, I guess, two votes.
Lehman: Yes.
Atkins: City Park Pool...asked that that be placed on. I don't recall; I thought
we took care of that. Terry is there anything about that?
Champion: Well did we...
Tmeblood: No that was the Recreation Center Pool we took care of.
Atkins: Oh, that's right. I'm sorry. Go ahead.
Champion: My concern about the City Park Pool is the tilt...is it filtration?
Lehman: Filtration system.
Champion: That...I consider City Park Pool, well frankly it's the nicest pool in
town and my fear is that that might have to be closed for a summer and
I don't want to be on the City Council if that happens. And I think that
money has got to be made available. That doesn't mean...I believe
that is a great fear of mine...
Kanner: I don't see it.
Champion: Terry, I don't know if you're exaggerating that it could only last
another year...
Trueblood: I would never exaggerate.
Champion: ...because that's your job. Your job is to exaggerate.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #59
Karmer: Well I think it's unfunded.
Champion: But my fear is that you might be right.
O'Donnell: We've been told it's (can't hear).
Champion: Yeah, it's quite old. It's as old as I am so that's really quite old.
Wilburn: We better put it in then.
Champion: Because I'm really concerned...
Lehman: You're still working.
Karmer: I thought we had agreed we were going to move it up a couple years and
look at some, possibly, innovative ways of doing filtration and cleaning.
Atkins: I wasn't sure, Steven, that's why I was...it's on the list. I wanted to make
sure where we were.
Champion: And I want Terry to refresh my memory on that.
Trueblood: Well if it's any consolation, I don't want to be Parks and Recreation
Director if we have to close it down for a summer either.
Lehman: We may have a whole sale change of everybody around here. But I think
you said you anticipated that it probably would be functional for at least
another year.
Trueblood: We anticipate that we'll be okay this next year, probably even the year
after that. But, you know, if we look at putting it in FY04 for example,
then that would mean that either in the fall of 2003, preferably in the
fall.., almost assuredly in the fall of calendar year 2003 is when we would
need to do the project.
Atkins: Well let me ask some questions then of Terry. Is this thing going to
collapse some day soon?
Trueblood: I don't believe so.
Atkins: Okay. Good.
(End of side one, 02-14)
Lehman: This is a discussion that may take...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #60
Atkins: (can't hear) say yes because it would seem to me then if...you know, if
you have an expectation level of trying...you know, doing it some
different ways. Terry needs it...the lead-time to say we got to replace this
filtration system.
O'Donnell: How long does it take to...?
Atkins: Now I was under the impression when I put it unfunded that if it breaks
then we will fix it then.
Champion: But that doesn't work...
Atkins: None of you want to be on the Council if this thing breaks down at the
wrong time. If it breaks today it's okay.
Champion: Oh, today'd be perfect.
Atkins: Okay. Well we don't...we can't guarantee that.
O'Donnell: How long does it take to put that filtration system in?
Champion: Well that's what scared me.
Trueblood: The actual construction part?
O'Dormell: Yeah.
Trueblood: We're looking at probably six to eight weeks I would guess, a month
minimum.
Wilburn: Well but you'd also said that it was...there was a case...it could be a case
where some equipment would need to be manufactured.
Trueblood: Yeah, that's what I mean.
Wilbum: So, which could extend that.
Trueblood: Actual construction time...from the time you start designing it, bidding it
out and so forth you know we're probably talking maybe a close to a six
month process.
Atkins: It seems to me then my proposal won't wash.
Lehman: Are you reasonably...
Atkins: We'll have to move that up.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #61
Lehman: Terry, are you reasonably comfortable with...
Champion: For a year.
Lehman: ... for the next year or two?
Trueblood: Right.
Atkins: Okay.
Kanner: So 04? Put in 04, 200,000?
Atkins: I think it's got to be moved in to the plan...
Vanderhoef: I do too.
Atkins: ...to give it consideration particularly if we're going to do...if you're going
to try anything different, that requires a lot more lead time.
Vanderhoef: And likewise I think we have to put the Rec. Center in an thank you that
it's not nearly so expensive.
Trueblood: Oh, well...
Atkins: He gets the credit.
Trueblood: I'll take all the credit even though I have no idea what was done so...
Atkins: Yes you do.
Vanderhoef: Well it has to go in.
Lehman: Okay?
Atkins: Okay. Now I want to go to the list here. See where we are.
Champion: I had one more thing. Did we talk about it?
Lehman: I think...
Atkins: Add to the list? Just, if you give me one second, Connie, I'll try and get
through here.
Lehman: See where we are.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #62
Atkins: No, those are all operational. Public Art. No, these are all operational
things.
Champion: Did we ever talk about...because I have short-term memory loss.
Did...like the...what is that thing is at the pool, see I already forgot. What
about...I mean I know it's part of a complex system but I have some
problems with the amount of money for that trail across the river off the
peninsula and then we have the dam there.
Atkins: Oh, the power dam.
Champion: I mean it's a lot of money for that. Was it over a million dollars?
Lehman: Yes.
O'Donnell: A million two.
Lehman: 1.2.
Champion: A million two for a trail, I'm sorry folks I've got big trouble with that.
Atkins: Okay let's talk about it. Rick can explain to you...why don't...Rick, take
two minutes and tell them what the projects all about. Then, I think,
Connie, take if from there.
Fosse: Of course the base...
Kanner: Could you speak into the microphone?
Fosse: Okay. The base of the project is to renovate the dam so that it's going to
last long term and then as a part of that...as a minimum we need to re-
establish an opportunity for the rescue workers to work on top of the dam.
Champion: Right.
Fosse: And as a part of that we've built in a pedestrian bridge and the pedestrian
bridge not only expands...or expands the dam but also the emergency
spillway that's offto the east of that, which is longer than the dam itself.
Champion: And that's over a million dollars?
Fosse: To get all that in.
Champion: For the trail.., for the thing on top it's over a million dollars?
O'Donnell: (can't hear)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #63
Champion: No, the dam though should...isn't that part of the water money?
Lehman: Right.
Atkins: Yes. Yep, we're going to pay for dam collection.
Champion: So how much of that money is for that trail then?
Atkins: 1.25.
Champion: No, I just...is that possible?
Franklin: Well part of it is a road because you've got to have...I mean, it's not a road
that anybody can drive on but rescue stuff, crime scene.
Atkins: yeah, we have a commitment...
Franklin: The truck that's going to go (can't hear) is going to have to be able to go
across.
Atkins: ...that we must...
O'Donnell: What is the commitment, Steve?
Atkins: I'd have to go look it up.
Vanderhoef: And where is this in the Parks and Rec. list?
Atkins: It isn't.
Lehman: It isn't.
Atkins: Oh, them list?
Vanderhoef: I don't see it.
Atkins: I think they figured it was a gimme, that it was a done deal in 02 cause we
had to redesign the thing. What's that?
Trueblood: The trail across the dam?
Atkins: Yeah.
Trueblood: It was never...it was never on the list for an prioritization.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #64
Atkins: Okay.
Lehman: (can't understand) understand correctly that this trail is going to be wide
enough to drive a pick-up on?
Fosse: But it won't be designed to do that.
Lehman: No, no but if we need or if City vehicles could use...didn't I hear that?
Didn't you say that at one time that it's going to be able to drive a pick-up
truck across?
Pfab: Emergency?
Fosse: No. The...at the west end there it's going to have a 90 degree angle, the
(can't hear) well to go down in the...
Lehman: But for a million two we can't even get a pick-up on it?
Atkins: No, you can't. But we...we have an agreement with, I believe it's the
county, that we have got to maintain access to that dam for rescue
purposes. And we haven't...and it's an older...I'm not...I'd have to look it
up. I did read it and I'll be happy to share it with you I just...
Champion: Yeah but my...I guess I have a hard time understanding how access could
cost a million dollars.
Atkins: Let's try this. What...
Champion: Is it going to be the yellow gold road?
Atkins: No.
Champion: No.
Atkins: No. I'm almost afraid to say anything now.
Fosse: One thing that they could do is...if you want more detail on this, and I
don't have a lot with it...with me today. I can get you some drawings on
it. We can get a breakdown on the cost. We were working last summer
on reducing the cost of it. Remember I told you that that one was one that
started to get too big and we wanted to scale it back? And I don't know
the full impact of those scaling it back yet on the budget. We may be able
to get it done for less then that but I don't want to promise...
Atkins: Do you want an asterisk next to that project?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #65
Champion: Yeah.
Lehman: I mean is this concrete?
Fosse: The bridge?
Lehman: Yeah.
Fosse: No, it's (corten?) steel.
Lehman: This is a steel bridge over the dam and then extending over the spillway.
Atkins: Now it does...
Lehman: And that is a million two.
Atkins: ...when it hits the peninsula doesn't it...there's a, what is it that ADA
requirements to run the thing well...
Lehman: Oh yeah.
Champion: I think it would be cheaper to drain the river so you wouldn't ever have to
rescue anybody.
Lehman: We have to have water for this...
Atkins: They wrote that down.
Lehman: ... 50 million dollar plant you know.
Kanner: Ernie, I got a question. A follow up on what you were saying. It does
make sense to have access for an emergency vehicle. If we have
complaints about limited access on Foster Road in maybe it would be
good to design...in emergencies you'd be able to drive a pick-up truck
over the bridge.
Fosse: That changes completely how that the west end is designed and how it
interfaces with the parking lot and how the easements would need to be
required in the parking lot. If you run a ramp down off the end of the
bridge it cuts that parking lot virtually in half and that's why there's a 90-
degree bend at the end of it.
Davidson: I would point out to Council too that just to put it into perspective, the
bridge that we just got building with the University, the pedestrian bridge
over Highway 6, that was about a million two.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #66
Lehman: Yep. That's a million bucks.
Davidson: That's a pedestrian bridge.
Fosse: That was a million four, that one.
Davidson: A million four, okay.
Kanner: I think part of the trouble I'm having, perhaps others, are that you think of
a dam that you just built something on top of it. But you're saying you
need to build the whole support structure ora new bridge. You can't use
the dam as the support structure for a path on top of it.
Fosse: We will be using the dam from the waterline down but we'll be rebuilding
it from the waterline up and then once you get east of the dam, again that
bridge is longer than the (can't hear) dam itself. That needs all new
supports there.
Lehman: But that's...
Kanner: So it's not the part over the dam it's the entrance on either side that's the
major cost of it, that we have to build the supports like a full bridge.
Fosse: I don't know ifI could say that that's true because the part over the dam,
what makes that difficult and expensive is getting it in, getting it set
because you are working over water there. You're working over a dam
which is different than working over a highway. It's got different risks,
different access issues.
Vanderhoef: Okay so you're talking about rescue and you could enter it from the west
side of the river, which is the short piece, and up over the water itself to
create the rescue. A lot of the additional cost is this extension out east to
get it through the wetland area and all that stuff?.
Franklin: The spillway. Because the corp changed how they're letting the water out
and so now it's going to be under water more.
Schmadeke: If you look at our agreement with the county when we purchased the dam,
their access is from the east. Now they actually accessed it from the west
whenever they had a rescue but their legal access is from the east.
Vanderhoefi Why?
Schmadeke: Well when they acquired the dam that's what they acquired.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #67
Atkins: How about this? Asterisk. We know we're going to build the dam; you
have questions about the rest. Let's plan a formal presentation. You bring
in the pictures and we'll bring it to a work session and kind of walk you
through the whole thing.
Vanderhoef: Okay.
Atkins: And then you can understand at least the $1.2 million component which is
the one that troubles you.
Champion: The dam I have no trouble with.
Atkins: The dam, we're okay.
Vanderhoefi What I would like a break out in that then is if the access where the west
access, is there any way that this could be done in two pieces, that we
would have the walkway over the water area for the rescue purposes and
not complete the rest of that on to the east. That might cut the project cost
down considerably. Because the minute that whole piece is completed,
the pressures are going to come to Parks and Rec. to develop that whole
peninsula area and that kind of thing. And I am not committed to doing
that at this point in time because I'm still committed to some other things
that need to be completed within...
Atkins: Well, we will prepare a formal presentation for you. It's understood, we
know where you are in the thing. We are as far as technically speaking,
we are proceeding with the dam project because it's got to go to bid before
too long. We'll bring this roadway business to you and you can decide
what you think is best on that. And so Rick will prepare that.
Kanner: But what Dee says, I think, makes sense...
Atkins: And we'll answer those questions.
Kanner: ...if you can get those costs. And then also a comparison, after you've
broken that down, what would it cost to do it now and then after the dam's
complete cause I think Ernie's mentioned there's probably some savings of
doing it now as opposed to waiting.
Champion: I know my problem is I don't know how much money we can afford to
save.
Atkins: Yeah. I understand.
Fosse: At least that portion over the dam...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #68
Atkins: Yeah, I understand.
Fosse: ...we need to put something back to...where the sheriffs department ot
use for rescue operations.
Atkins: Yeah.
Vanderhoef: For the rescue. And that's what I was asking. (can't hear)
Atkins: It's an interesting...it's an agreement with the sheriff however, our folks
are all being trained now to do river rescues. So it's much to our benefit
and I'm expecting our people would be involved in it.
Champion: Well I can understand why you'd want something on there for rescues, the
only problem is the mount of money.
Pfab: Rick...
Vanderhoef: But they all do it (can't hear)
Pfab: I was listening to something and I don't know ifI understood exactly what
you were saying. Were you saying that the cost to put the structure over
the water is considerably more because you're working over water and is it
a single span?
Fosse: It's a two span bridge and the cost to build something like that over a dam
of course is higher than just sparming a gully or a roadway, for instance.
Pfab: Okay. Well are you going to build it or are you going to set it in after it's
been built?
Fosse: We'll set it in. It's a prefabricated structure.
Pfab: So then how...do you air it in or bring it on rollers or something like that?
Fosse: It'll probably involve a couple large cranes.
Pfab: Okay.
Fosse: But that's part of what the contractors will come up with.
Pfab: Am I understanding this unrelated buy somewhat connected...is the Air
National Guard or something going to set some bridges out in Hickory
Hill?
Atkins: Terry can tell you that.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #69
Tmeblood: Yes, two of them.
Pfab: Okay. So is this something that's available for that too?
Atkins: I think it's the Army National Guard, Rick.
Fosse: It may be too big.
Trueblood: Army Air National Guard, yeah.
Fosse: The spans on these may be too big. The weight may be too high.
Pfab: Okay.
Lehman: All right.
Pfab: I mean if...I would say that if that would work it would be a great
combination of resources.
Lehman: Okay
Trueblood: Just one quick...
Lehman: I'm sorry, Terry.
Trueblood: Quick point of clarification. Dee had asked earlier where that trail
component going across the bridge appeared on the Parks and Recreation
Commission's list. And it doesn't but the Peninsula Park development
does. That's number five on their priority list. But the bridge or slash trail
component going over the river never was on their list. You know we've
been working on it for several years and it's been primarily under Chuck
and Rick's bailiwick so our commission has just never addressed that
component. That's the reason it doesn't appear.
Vanderhoef: But that's where the bridge is and would double that cost.
Trueblood: Evidently.
Kanner: Those Peninsula Park people won't be able to buy their Bruegger's Bagels
for a few years.
Tmeblood: They'll swim.
Lehman: Well we've got to build the houses first.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #70
Tmeblood: They'll have to go somewhere else first to get it, I guess.
Kauner: Yeah, come into Iowa City for those.
Lehman: Okay?
Atkins: That is it for capital projects. The rest are operation...
Lehman: I have one project...
Atkins: I was going to say raise them while their staff's...
Lehman: Which my short-term memory may have failed me on. We...when we
talked about the North Side Market Place streetscape, we did that in
conjunction with the University of Iowa and a walkway, I believe, that
they had planned to go...
Atkins: (can't understand) street connector?
Lehman: right.
Atkins: Karin can tell you.
Lehman: My understanding is that the University has moved that out for a couple
years at least.
Franklin: Four or five.
Lehman: Yeah. 05?
Franklin: Four or five.
Lehman: I would think that it might be prudent for us to match their schedule which
means it would be moved from 02 to 04/05. I mean that was one of the
factors that...
Atkins: Yeah, we have it in 02.
Lehman: Right. But I do believe if I'm not...if my memory serves me correctly,
that was one of the pushes to do it was so we could connect up with them
and, you know, kind of improve their campus along with the Iowa Avenue
streetscape.
Atkins: Yeah, I'm not so sure if it was a desire...we talked about that Linn
Street...the connector just simply opening up that shopping area to the
downtown and it just seemed to me that there the right thing to do. I
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #71
believe you can do the North Side project independent of...it is a better
project to do what you're suggesting.
Lehman: But, I mean, if we're looking at a time when we could...we're kind of
burdened with debt. Moving it out a couple years, I have no problem
with. I don't' know how the rest of the Council feels.
Wilburn: I guess I'm thinking back to when some folks from that area were here. It
seems to me that they... I mean, wasn't this...wasn't this a little bit more
and didn't we scale...
Lehman: It was a million bucks.
Atkins: I was a million and we split it.
Lehman: We cut it down to half.
Wilburn: But it seemed...I feel that they walked away with an expectation that
something was going to happen and something sooner. That's'just my
impression that we walked away from that.
Champion: Right.
Franklin: They probably walked away with that expectation although some of those
players have changed.
Wilbum: Okay.
Pfab: Such as?
Franklin: In that the people who own businesses there at that time who were active
in that particular effort are no longer there. So, that's just...
Wilburn: Okay.
Franklin: If you're thinking about basing it on expectations, there may be some
moderation of that...
Wilburn: Okay
Franklin: ...from the past.
Pfab: I think that these...the people in that area have been pretty patient and I
think that they're...they have to...their needs...their wants and their needs,
I think, need to be...get some priority, for that development in that area.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #72
Lehman: We put this on the CIP what two years ago?
Wilbum: Yes.
Lehman: Yeah, so I mean this isn't something that they've been waiting on for a
long time. Not like...
Wilbum: Two years.
Lehman: ...the South Sycamore Street extended that we've been going to do for the
last ten years until that was done. So if we look at expectations and when
we expect to fill those expectations, we certainly have other projects that
have been in the mill a lot longer than this one. I just think it's a place
where we could move it out but I...Is there interest?
Vanderhoef: Well, it's listed for this budget year.
Lehman: I'm well aware of that.
Atkins: It's ready to go.
Vanderhoef: And it's ready to go.
Atkins: Where's the engineering work on this?
Fosse: Early stages.
Atkins: Okay.
Lehman: Is there interest in moving it?
Vanderhoef: So it would be done in the spring is what you're saying?
Fosse: I'm sorry?
Vanderhoef: It'll be done in the spring?
Fosse: The engineering, yeah.
Vanderhoefi Well...
Atkins: Could we bid it this summer?
Fosse: The construction we'd aim for the summer months.
Atkins: Okay.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #73
Vanderhoef: So essentially it has been moved out to 03, other than the planning part?
Fosse: Fiscal year 03. Right now we're targeting calendar year 02 for
construction.
Lehman: Calendar year 02, which is this summer.
Vanderhoef: Yeah, that...I said...that's why I was asking if you were starting it in the
spring.
Fosse: That'll straddle the two fiscal years.
Vanderhoef: It'll straddle.
Fosse: Which is not unusual.
Pfab: I'm not interested in moving it out. I have...
Lehman: Okay.
Vanderhoef: Well I would but I have a real problem that our fire station number 4 is not
in a funded year. And I think this council made a real large commitment
to the fire station. And we understand the staffing part of it so this gets
into a staffing as well as into the fire station. Because I think the fire
station needs to be funded in the 03 or the 04-year. And my proposal is
that we add one firefighter.
Lehman: Well are you...we were talking about Northside Market Place. I mean, are
we done that?
Vanderhoef: Well, I thought we were done with that. Excuse me.
Champion: No.
Lehman: No, no...well, no if...we may be done with it. Is there interest in moving
that to another year?
O'Donnell: I think we (can't hear)
Lehman: I mean, I think we should move it but I don't think...
Pfab: I'm not interested in moving it.
Vanderhoef: I think it could be moved but it just prolongs it and then it's like what do
we have for moving it into 03?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #74
Lehman: Or 04...
Vanderhoef: Yeah.
Lehman: ...to correspond with the University.
Vanderhoef: That's the problem.
Lehman: I don't sense other than two of us that there's any interest in moving that.
Forget it, it's done. Now Dee, go ahead.
Vanderhoef: Okay, so fire station number 4.
O'Donnell: I think it's a lot more difficult (can't hear)
Atkins: Any...okay, any more...I just want to make sure because I can excuse
some of the staff. Any more capital? We're going to talk...this is a capital
project.
Vanderhoefi And is the...it's in an out year so is that 1 million still a target?
Atkins: That's a good number. No, we're comfortable with that number.
Vanderhoefi Number to work with?
Atkins: Yeah.
Vanderhoef: Okay.
Atkins: We're figuring 700 plus for the station and 300,000 to buy a pumper.
Kanner: What...
Pfab: My question is the one...the remodling down on...by...
Atkins: Muscatine.
Pfab: That's already...
Atkins: That's in the budget. That's still a go.
Pfab: Okay. Then that's fine with just...I go along with that.
Atkins: Well unless there's any other capital... Steven, excuse me.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #75
Kanner: Well in lines with the fire station and looking for money elsewhere, we
talked Foster Road, Dubuque to Prairie du Chien. It seems that that could
go to unfunded, that paving for 900,000. Is there any big need for that?
What were some of the reasons why we need to put it in funded?
Atkins: You can't do the road without the intersection and can't do the intersection
without the road.
Franklin: No you can do the intersection without the road.
Lehman: Yeah.
Vanderhoefi Yeah.
Atkins: You can do the intersection without the road?
Franklin: Yeah.
Pfab: But there is...
Vanderhoef: And that was a piece that I had looked at.
Davidson: Yeah, it would open up that area for development which fight now can not
be opened up for development without the road. And then, you know,
we've had a concern with the Dodge/Prairie du Chien intersection which
that would allow some diversion of traffic but hopefully when we
reconstruct the Dodge/Prairie du Chien intersection it'll work much better
and that will mitigate the need for that element of doing it.
Vanderhoefi Well we are opening up north of Rochester. We're opening up on the
south part of town. And yes it would be nice to have this road in there but
I'm not committed to putting 900,000 into building that particular street
right now. And I would be happy to move that one out.
Atkins: To unfunded?
Pfab: Yes.
Fosse: From a traffic perspective...
Vanderhoef: The street part.
Fosse: ...it does provide some relief in certainly for the Kimball Road residents
which get a lot of cut through traffic now. And then it takes a little
pressure of the Dodge Street corridor as you get...people are coming in
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #76
from the north and heading for the University they have to go Dodge to
Chumh and then back out again and this provides a direct route for that.
Vanderhoefi And they may come in on Dubuque Street if they're coming in from the
north if that intersection is taken care of. I don't know.
Davidson: I mean some people use Linder Road for what Rick just described. Of
course Linder Road is not your problem.
Lehman: I'd leave it where it is, I mean, we can always decide when it comes up
whether or not it's a priority.
Wilburn: (can't hear)
Lehman: Yeah, it's clear out in 05 but we may find all kinds of pressures by then.
But I hate to take it out at this point.
Kanner: Well the question is...
Vanderhoefi Well I'm looking for a place to put in the fire station.
Lehman: I know, I realize that.
Vanderhoef: And a fire station is a much higher priority for me than that street.
Pfab: I would support that idea, Dee.
O'Donnell: (can't hear)
Lehman: Same here.
Pfab: I think we're going to get hit awful hard out in Lower West Branch Road
coming up here too. I don't know where that is. What year is that in right
now?
Atkins: 6.
Kanner: Mike, I think that you made a good point about North Side Market Place.
Perhaps it's not a priority but I think that's a neighborhood that's a thriving
neighborhood and we need to keep that neighborhood going to a certain
extent.
O'Donnell: I don't have a problem with that at all, Steven, but this is a very, very
difficult budget and we're here to set priorities. And one safety ones North
Side Market Place, I chose safety. It's going to be more difficult to do
safety when we're spending 500,000 on North Market Place.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #77
Kanner: And I'd be willing to compromise on North Side Market Place if we had to
but I think that this Prairie du Chien/Foster Road project is one that's not
necessary at this time. It could go to unfunded and we can put that money
into the fire station in 04/05 itself.
O'Donnell: I'm not (can't hear)
Kanner: I think that works out well. I think we've heard there's some pressure on
some of the roads but Prairie du Chien, Dubuque, Foster Road is not
something that's a necessity in the next few years.
O'Donnell: I'm not ready to take that road out.
Vanderhoef: Well some of the pressure will go off of the Dodge/Governor couplet with
the opening of the Scott Boulevard.
Kanner: First and Scott, yeah.
Lehman: Right.
Vanderhoef: And how much is certainly a question. And until we open we won't know
that but I can move the 900 out.
Pfab: I'd support Dee on that.
Franklin: I guess one thing I just have to throw in. The Dubuque to Prairie du
ChienfFoster Road does enable (can't understand) development opposed to
development on the edge. As I said there are two properties for sale right
now there and I do expect within the next six months to a year to have
people interested in developing that property which will require the
construction of Foster Road. What I will tell people if...whether it stays
in 05 or moves out is that if they wish to do development in the short term
that is before 05 or the indeterminate period of unfunded is that they will
have to pay for that.
Pfab: That they will have to what?
Franklin: They will have to pay for the road which would be a deterrent to that (can't
understand) development.
Kanner: It seems that this has a lot of steep and critical slopes and a lot of
woodland, probably a lot of sensitive areas overlay. Yeah I think it might
be an area we'd want to hold off on intense development for right now.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #78
Pfab: You bring up something that I was going to ask...bring up earlier. How
many...or how much area is now open for development, commercial, that
is ready to go. Or is there...
Franklin: For commercial?
Pfab: Yeah, commercial or industrial or however...other than residential. It
seems to me there's a lot of them...
Franklin: Well we've got Scott Six which is say 110 acres for comanercial and
industrial. The Airport Commercial Park now, which is 54 acres. We just
annexed approximately ! 5 acres of Scott and Rochester for commercial
development.
Pfab: How much was that?
Franklin: 15. But that's not ready to go.
Pfab: Okay.
Franklin: The Scott Six and the Aviation Commercial Park are ready to go. Other
than that, that's all we have.
Pfab: There's nothing else ready? Okay.
Vanderhoef: There will be...
Atkins: Good memory too, Karin.
Vanderhoef: ...when the Mormon Trek extension is complete.
Pfab: Well that's...that was my question.
Vanderhoef: And that...
Pfab: That was the question that was...
Vanderhoefi ...will be both commercial and residential.
Pfab: Well then also won't...will there be commercial up on Scott?
Franklin: Pardon me?
Pfab: Will there be commercial up on Scott?
Davidson: Neighborhood commercial.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #79
Franklin: Off of Scott that we're building now?
Pfab: Right.
Vanderhoefi It's onwest...
Pfab: Yes the...
Franklin: That's in our long-range plan but it's hard.., it's not ready to go. It has an
owner that is not a developer so...I don't know.
Fosse: One thing about the Foster Road corridor is that the water infrastructure
and sanitary sewer infrastructure are in place so the only piece that's
missing right now...
Lehman: Is the road.
Fosse: ...is the roadway. And as Karin said, it's infill...two-thirds of the
infrastructure's in place. That's one of the reasons staff recommended to
put the third in place.
Pfab: How much commercial is that...or how much...
Champion: It's not.
Pfab: ...I guess commercial, is that what you're looking for here?
Champion: No, it's not...
Lehman: No, it's residential.
Kanner: No, it's residential.
Pfab: Okay.
Lehman: Steve, where...I think Dee's right. That fire station does have to appear
someplace in the capital improvements program, I think. I don't know
quite how or where or when but that was...
Atkins: You didn't answer any questions at all then.
Lehman: No, I'm posing questions. But that was a significant reason that we...
Atkins: How, where, who, when? I have no idea. Thank you. Next question.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #$0
Vanderhoef: Okay that road is like 900,000 and fire station is a million.
Atkins: It's almost...it's a swap.
Vanderhoef: It's almost a swap for the two projects and I vote for a fire station.
O'Donnell: (can't hear)
Pfab: I would go along with that.
Karmer: Why don't we wait and see what Ross, see if there's a forth vote. If not see
if Ross is there and then we can move on.
Lehman: Are there four folks who would like...
Atkins: yeah, North Side we're leaving alone. That still hasn't changed.
Lehman: Right, that's half the fire station right there but...
Atkins: Well no but you've already agreed to leave it alone.
Lehman: That's right.
Atkins: Okay.
Pfab: Here comes Ross.
Kanner: The question is about the road, Foster Road.
Lehman: All right, are there...
Pfab: We need to get Ross up to speed.
Lehman: Is there interest in removing the Foster Road between Dubuque Street and
Dodge or Prairie du Chien off and place the fire station in place of it? All
those in...would go along with that.
Pfab: I'm...
Vanderhoef: I will.
Champion: I've got to think for a minute.
Lehman: Yep, three in a half.
Champion: Well because...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #81
Wilbum: Did you give any thought as to how you're going to staff the fire station?
Atkins: I'm going to ask that question because we don't have the money to do it.
Lehman: Well that's coming.
Wilbum: That's going to have a...
Vanderhoef: And that's where I'm coming.
Wilbum: Okay, I'd rather hear it now before I make the...
Vanderhoef: I started in on that and I thought it tied together so that...
Atkins: It's next up I'm sure.
Lehman: Well it's an 04 year...
Vanderhoef: Yes it is.
Lehman: ... so it does give us a little time.
Atkins: What happens? What did you do?
Lehman: Well, Connie's still thinking.
Champion: I haven't voted, I'm thinking. I'm thinking because I do want that fire
station in there but I also...before I put a fire station up I want to make
sure I have a fireman to put in it. And number two, I am so much in favor
ofinfill development that I also want the road in. Can we just leave them
both in and let the Council that's here at the time decide?
Vanderhoefi Well the fire station unless...the fire station may not get in there...
Champion: Except we already have 16 million, what's another million?
Vanderhoef.' ...if the staffing thing doesn't get through.
Champion: Right.
Vanderhoefi So, that's why I think we need to have the conversation about the staffing
first.
Atkins: There's a point to it, yeah. Obviously you've got an idea you want to float
SO...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #82
Vanderhoef: I have an idea I want to float.
Kanner: All right.
Vanderhoefi So...
Lehman: All right we're going to let the fire station float while Dee floats here next
idea.
Vanderhoef: And then...
Atkins: Okay, now so far you haven't changed this. It stays put.
Lehman: Right.
Atkins: And Dee asked...
Vanderhoef: And we have a fire station sitting there that wants...
Atkins: Now that stays. There, we're not at fire station 4.
Vanderhoef: Okay. I have asked...a year ago I asked for a prioritization of the staffing
for the City and the priorities for the City. We didn't ever do that. It didn't
come from staff, what their priorities might be. We get individual request
from departments. With my Parks and Recreation background it's very
apparent we have grown and grown and grown. We have not created new
maintenance folks for our parkland and I think that's an important priority
for me. But the fire station...I think this whole Council committed to a
fire station for safety reasons for emergency vehicles in circulation and a
little off shut benefit of our transportation system with out buses and so
forth. So to me this...the last two years, three years, that fire station and
staffing it has been a priority. We also have a request for five persons to
staff a new library and when I look at library staffing verses safety issues
for staffing, I have to go with my safety issues. I recognize that we're
building a new library. I recognize we're building it with space for future.
But right now I can not commit for the next three years to add a person to
the library's staff. If they can change their budget around to do what they
can do with their staffing, with the internal budget, but I'm not willing
to...for the next three years I am not committed to adding any new line
item staff for the library. And those three staffing positions are my
priorities for firefighters.
Pfab: Are we waiting for amen?
Lehman: So what you're saying...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #83
Vanderhoef: Shall I pray?
Lehman: So what you're saying...
Vanderhoefi Well that's not legal is it?
Lehman: What you're saying is you do not pay for adding a person to the library
in...
Vanderhoef: Well there's a line item for a library person this year and previous
Councils, I was not part of the majority on that, made a nod of the head
that yeah sure we recognize you will need those extra people to staff the
new library. Well Terry has had on his budget for years that he needs
more people to take care of our...the parkland we have. We continue to
get more parkland. So my priorities right now for staffing will be three
firefighters and another maintenance worker either for the downtown area
or for the major parks but I suspect that my first priority would go for the
major park. We have just added far too much in our parkland not to be
taking care of it and not overtaxing the abilities of the workers that we
have.
Kanner: Well along with what you're saying Dee I would also throw out that if we
put a fire station in 05, we're going to be talking about regional efforts in
the next couple years and see if there's any economy of scale of sorts.
And perhaps there could be some staffing with volunteer firefighters from
other communities in that area. Hopefully with that fire station we'll
be...be putting in more of our share in fighting fire emergencies. Right
now we get more help from the outside apparently then putting...what we
put out. So I don't know if we have to find the exact funding source right
now for some of those staff for the new fire station. I think we need to
begin to find some sources but we can also think that we'll find a way in
the next couple years. And if we don't we could always pull it back if we
have to.
Vanderhoef: No, I'm not...I'm not committed that way. I'm am committed not to add
an FTE for any of the folks until we get the firefighter and another person
for parks maintenance.
Pfab: Without just putting what your statement is on hold, let me ask a question
here. Is there any possibility that we're going to see homeland security
funds come in?
Atkins: No.
Pfab: That's... forget that.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #84
Atkins: I think that's all a bunch of hooey.
Pfab: Okay.
Atkins: Excuse the term but I (can't hear)
Pfab: It's probably...it'll probably be a big item tonight at the...
Atkins: Yeah, I don't know how we would be eligible for it.
Kanner: At the where?
Pfab: (can't hear)
Atkins: So you do know, I was questioned by the press not long ago and all the
departments have reviewed their security procedures, policies, the way
they maintain their buildings but I don't see how you hang a dollar figure
on that.
Pfab: No, no. I'm sorry, that wasn't the question I thought I was asking. Okay,
is there any potential of outside funds coming in because...like for fire
department and that type of thing.
Atkins: I would be very surprised. Traditionally...
Pfab: Okay that was the question you answered the first...okay.
Atkins: Traditionally the federal government has little involvement in the fire
service. Public safety has always been police (can't hear)
Champion: I think...no go ahead, finish. I thought you were done.
Kanner: Well just to follow up on what Irvin was saying, what about in terms of
EMS services? Right now there's county money that goes into that be
perform many of the same services and isn't there talk of us perhaps fully
integrating EMS into Iowa City?
Atkins: Well we have an EMS (can't hear) in the sense that we train our
firefighters as part of our primary response to those kind of calls. It has
been kicked around but we can not afford to assume an ambulance
operation.
Davidson: And there's a important distinction, Steven, in that what the first responder
firefighters do is not EMS. They stabilize an individual until EMS gets
there and then EMS provides a higher level.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #85
Atkins; And it's often our police that are first on the scene and those folks also
have some basic first aid training in doing what they can do.
Davidson: But part of the strategic plan that you'll be seeing in the next few months
does involve possibly evaluating Johnson County EMS and Iowa City Fire
Department consolidating.
Atkins: I don't want to put a damper on the discussion but I feel compelled to.
We're going in to the budget year with a declining cash balance and I'm
not prepared to recommend...you know, ifI had my way I don't think we
should be adding any additional general fund staff.
Champion: Well then we won't.
Lehman: I think that probably is prudent.
Atkins: Well, you've made... I truly believe that you've made a commitment...
Champion: Then we won't.
Atkins: ...to the library.
Champion: Well we didn't make a commitment to the library but...I mean...
Atkins: Folks, you know, this...there's a couple...these are two big issues that if
we're going to talk about a little bit. That cost of over $100,000 in new
money and I don't know what you want to do with that and that's not in
the budget. And I'm just reluctant to put together a long term commitment
on staffing. And, Dee, I did begin to put together some ideas on...but it
made the assumption of where we were going to grow. After we saw the
numbers there's no place to grow. I mean with a roll back that drops
almost 10% in one year. I mean...
Champion: That's amazing.
Atkins: I just don't know how you...you know, how you plan for the future in the
state unless you are willing to purse an additional source of revenue. And
that's got all sorts of ramifications. I just...I'mjust...please be very...
Vanderhoefi Let's talk a I% sales tax.
Atkins: Please be very...yeah.
Vanderhoef: That's the one...that's the one place...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #86
Atkins: That's it. That's all you get.
Vandehoef: That's the only place we can increase our revenue.
Atkins: So I just am very reluctant to encourage...I mean, yeah. I do believe, Dee,
you're correct. We made a substantial commitment to fund the fire station.
I truly believe that. In fact we started...we're well on our way. We hired
six people last year but we need three more. How could we predict that
the state's going to knock our socks offwith financing? I don't see how
you can do that. It's difficult to provide staffing for the...I mean, the
library I'm assuming they wouldn't request a position unless they needed
them.
Vanderhoef: But look at all the ones that have requested and have been put off for how
many years.
Atkins: Oh yeah. I understand. Now Terry and I have had this discussion many
times.
Vanderhoefi So the commitment to a library line item this year, I'm just not
committed...
Atkins: Okay.
Vanderhoef: ...to...
Atkins: That I understand. But I just...
Vanderhoefi If I'm going to do anything I'm going to do fire and I'm going to do Parks.
Atkins: I mean...
Lehman: Have we just...
Atkins: What we had to do with police...police is an example. We got rid of...I
mean we didn't get rid of. We eliminated one police officer because we
need that systems analyst. If we're going to use technology...now that's
somewhat unheard of. So we went from 75 to a compliment of 74 now.
In total dollars is basically a wash but that's what they needed. But unless
you can show me some trade off, I'm just reluctant to add additional staff.
Champion: The thing that I'm concerned of what you just brought up...I don't want
our cash reserves to fall below the level where we're going to start to get in
trouble.
Atkins: Well you have an expectation that I'm going to work to keep those there.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #87
Champion: Yeah.
Atkins: I mean, that's your expectation of me. Well but if you pile new expenses
on top of it...
Champion: I'm not going to pile new expenses.
Atkins: ...we can't get there.
Champion: ! mean I do agree with Dee that we expanded parks base every year...
Atkins: Yes.
Champion: And I did think we give them...didn't we just give them a half of a person
a couple years ago?
Vanderhoef: But that was recreation.
Atkins: Well, yeah...
Vanderhoef: That was recreation.
Atkins: Think about...
Champion: But what I mean is I do think we've fallen back in doing that and that's not
good.
Atkins: Well think about trails, which is one of the physical assets of...that's
become, you know, a characteristic of the community. We've tripled them
over the last ten years. They've got to be maintained.
Lehman: Well, and then...and then we list trails as a high priority. We look at
Waterworks Park, which is a huge park, and all we're doing is dumping
more and more and more into Parks and Rec. and then complaining
because we don't have enough people to maintain what we have.
Atkins: Well, but...if we were funding a portion of Waterworks Park with water
revenue it wouldfft be as...
Lehman: But that wouldn't be ethical would it Steve?
Atkins: Ethics is not the question. It's a policy question.
Champion: Now, I...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #88
Vanderhoef: It's a policy question.
Atkins: My ethics are in order. The policy question rests with you.
Champion: Well I need to finish. I also one of those people that really wants that fire
station built but if we can't staff it, and I'm not going to staff it at the
expense of reducing our cash reserves. And I'm not so sure I'm even
willing to give the library those three people. I think the most important
thing we can do with this budget, and I'd be glad to eliminate something
else ifI have to, is to maintain our credit rating. I think that's...that is my
number one priority.
Vanderhoef: I'm with you.
O'Donnell: Well said.
Champion: And whatever we have to do to do that, I'm willing to do it. So if you
think we're getting beyond that point I want to know.
Atkins: Well I'm telling you that was a $100,000 surprise.
Champion: That's terrible.
Atkins: Now...
Vanderhoef: Inexcusable.
Atkins: some times budgeting is not particularly scientific but you will note we did
away with $100,000 deer kill for a year in order to...I mean we do trade-
offs. This could be a surprise. How much...what are we going to do
here? I mean the budget was basically assembled before that issue began
to percolate and you've got to think about doing that. That's a new
expense. Now maybe one time that's okay. This appears to be fixed. And
I don't mean...I'm not...yeah I am, I'm picking on them because it...
Champion: No, I'm picking on them too.
Vanderhoef: They deserve it.
Atkins: Because it does...that's two firefighters, that subsidy. Extra subsidy, not
just the subsidy, the extra subsidy is two of them.
Wilbum: If I could retrace our steps for a minute. When I came back in you were
discussing whether or not to remove Foster Road. And after hearing some
of this and thinking I guess I would because of the possibility for infill
development, I would not support removing that. In terms of...in terms of
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #89
the fire, I'm thinking not at this time adding it partially because of the
staffing issue but also if we could hear some more in the next year
about... Steven said something that kind of range with me, some
exploration, maybe a little more effort exploration about the possibility of
regional fire and what that might mean in terms of staffing the station.
Atkins: Well that is an ongoing discussion and we...you'll remember over a year
ago when Coralville experienced their problem and we responded to the
calls for them when they were short handed and they did hire a chief and
they're pursuing some of those things. You know, candidly it's a natural
extension of having some sort of a regional fire service for those two
communities alone. Now there are nine other fire districts in Johnson
County. Now their involvement is something...it's not that we don't talk
about these things it's just the practical aspect. We have labor agreements.
We choose to have a full time professional fire service. Coralville does
not. Now if you start substituting, you understand the sensitivities that
you have to make sure that this...
Wilbum: Yeah, sure.
Atkins: But you're not wrong. It's just not an easy decision.
Wilbum: yeah, and I understand that but I'm talking in terms of a budgetary item
right now that I'm willing to put down.
Atkins: Yes.
Wilburn: And I guess the...ifI could finish, Irvin...oh and then the discussion about
the library I guess I, and this is for me, felt when I supported that project it
was a commitment and that would include the staff. So, I'll end right
there. Go ahead.
Pfab: My point is...or the question that piggy-back to what you had said there.
Is it my understanding that it's become more and more difficult to find
volunteer help for a fire department just because...
Atkins: I think it's difficult, Irvin, and I've been a manager in communities where
we had a volunteer department. Traditionally the problem is during the
day, the 8am to 7pm. It's not difficult to get folks...not as difficult to get
them in the evening.
P fab: Okay.
Atkins: yeah, I mean that's been the...but during the day folks are required to
leave work to take a fire call. That's where they have the most difficulty.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #90
And that's where a lot of fire stations...there's a fire policy called paid on
call...
Pfab: Okay.
Atkins: And that means you're at your job during the day and we will pay you but
you will respond. But I'm not prepared...
(End of side two, 02-14) (Tape problem)
Davidson: ...professionalism is what's creating some of what Irvin might be referring
to. And that the training is getting more and more sophisticated and taking
a lot more time and more expense and that's making it a little harder for
some of the volunteer departments to attract people.
Pfab: Right, I mean it's just...
Atkins: It is.
Pfab: ...it's a volunteer thing but it's almost a full-time occupation as a
volunteer.
Karmer: But if you believe those Ford commercials, all you need is a Ford truck to
just hop in and you're ready for action.
?: Or Chevy, like a rock.
Kanner: Chevy, maybe that's it.
Pfab: No, I think they're both...
Kanner: Both...they both got those firefighters. Everyone's using firefighters.
Atkins: You guys watch too much TV.
Vanderhoef: Let's give you something to do.
Kanner: But I still think that we...again, when we put in the out years, 04/05,
especially 05, we're...this is a philosophical statement. And I think if we
put the fire station in there in 05, even 06 if we have to, but I think 05, and
we take out the road, we're saying our commitment is to have it there.
And next year we're going to look at this personnel question again. I think
it gives us a little more time to put the pieces together and make that
decision. I think we need to put it in the funded years for the fire station.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #91
Atkins: In principal, Steven, I do not disagree with you. In principal that sort of
holds our feet to the fire, collectively. Excuse the pun.
Champion: (can't hear)
Atkins: But the other thing is that I think it's also political questions where the
Council needs to approach the other city councils and say we need serious
regional fire talks. I mean if we're going to make this thing work...we've
done some preliminary work, for example where the Coralville Fire
Station is, particularly when they're staffed like in the evenings, they can
be in Manville Heights almost faster than we can. Now it would only
seem to make good sense... I don't want to call that a satellite fire station
but if you have it as region, we might...I think where we're proposing to
locate the fire station we'd do that anyway. And remember one of the
reasons that we'd like to put the fire station in now is get it in ahead of any
development that occurs up there.
Champion: You need still to buy the land, there's no question about that so people
know it's going to be a fire station.
Atkins: Yeah. It's going to be there. Because while people love them, at one
A.M. in the morning they are noisy.
Lehman: Steve, even if we don't have this fire station in the CIP will we acquire that
property as...
Champion: Yes.
Lehman: ... soon as it becomes available (can't hear)
Atkins: I believe... I believe we should.
Lehman: Well, I mean I think we should...
Atkins: That's in the budget.
Vanderhoef: That's in the budget.
Atkins: That is in the budget.
Vanderhoe£: The plan and the land.
Atkins: We engaged an architect, Ernie, to do some preliminary sketches for us
but the architect can't go on until we locate the land. I'm sorry Kahn's not
here but she and Andy have been shopping that neighborhood trying to
find something. We have a couple of ideas and hopefully we'll have
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #92
something for you in a couple of months. But the actual construction of
the thing, you can't open the door until you have the staff.
Champion: Is there...back to Dee's question with the library. I mean, I know they're
going to need some staff but didn't we at one time talk about they would
find money for staff or was that just temporary. Do you remember that?
They said they could find some money for staff.
Atkins: And I believe that resulted in them getting down to saying we need
funding for three positions. We'll find money in our budget. But Connie,
and ! mean this respectfully, is that yeah you find it...Last year you made
a decision to hire a Kennel Assistant by the reduction of some of our
services and charges and so forth in con-anodities. Well we put the Kennel
Assistant on. Well guess what, service and (can't understand) and charges
are back up. We don't gain ground with that kind of thinking.
Lehman: Right.
Atkins: We need to have a margin in our budget to say I can staff at this level and
sustain it without having to reduce things that we need operationally. And
it's the sustaining of those positions. I also, in my policy when I prepared
the budget, I told myself and staff I don't want a staff on the back of
another employee.
Champion: Right.
Vanderhoef: So don't staff.
Atkins: We're not overstaffed. We, you know, if you were to say to me I want
things that we're not going to do anymore and the political will remain to
say we're not going to do that anymore.
Champion: Like we're not going to pick up trash?
Atkins: Well, I'm thinking...well you remember the debate with the library a
number of years ago is that when the staffing became a problem they
closed it.
Champion: When what?
Atkins: Closed it. They shut it down, the library.
Champion: Oh.
Atkins: When they were short on staff. Well, you can't do that with fire
departments, you can't do that with police departments. I assume we
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #93
could probably do it with some recreation but all that is is we're knocking
off for certain programs.
Kanner: Well, Steve, can you make the case then again for the maintenance
worker. Why this year as opposed to previous years? Why all ora sudden
do we need this maintenance worker 1 for the library?
Atkins: I can't make the case for it they can. They need the maintenance worker.
That was their proposal and I was in keeping with their policy that we
agreed to a couple years ago, one, one and one, every year. And that's
what that budget does, three new positions.
Vanderhoef: And in my eyes, times have changed from when that commitment was
made and now we're having to, if you will, pit certain departments against
each others.
Atkins: Well folks, look at this budget.
Vanderhoefi And safety comes up quicker than...when they put this in there they said
well when we start doing construction it's going to be so much dustier and
so forth and we're going to have to have a lot more cleaning going on just
to maintain.
Atkins: And I don't doubt that it all makes good sense.
Vanderhoef: And is there another way that they can do it with...internally so that we're
not adding a full FTE forever. This only shows the half-time up for the
remainder of this year and then it goes up to a full FTE. So we're talking
another 20...well 32,000 roughly, with benefits.
Atkins: Folks you're going to double the size of the library. It's going to cost more
to heat it. It's going to cost more to clean it. Those are all things we're
going to do.
Vanderhoef: I know. And there...
Atkins: And again being respectful of the library, you build a new fire station got
to staff it, got to heat it, got to turn the lights on, got to buy a fire engine
for it. I mean those are important commitments we make to our
community but the bottom line is they all cost something.
Vanderhoefi And we have to reassess at this point in time.
O'Donnell: (can't hear) Kind of shows why we ought to keep the roads in and support
economic development and increase the tax base.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #94
Vanderhoef: Well that's why I'm willing to take out the 900,000 for the north road.
Lehman: But we don't have enough people to do that and so...
O'Donnell: (can't hear) to do that.
Atkins: lrvin had a question.
Pfab: I think we just found another vote here.
Atkins: All right, five-minute break, or ten-minute break or whatever?
Lehman: Yeah.
(Break)
Atkins: It would have been another...It would have been a million five we would
have had available to us. In fact you would probably be lowering the tax
rate.
Kanner: I got...I got a question. We're figuring the full library, both halves will be
open in 05? After...
Atkins: Okay, now what is today? Today is January 02. All of 02 to build, all of
03 to build, yeah it's into 04. 04.
Kanner: So this...
Atkins: Two years to build.
Karmer: This maintenance worker is not going to come on board til actually 03,
January to July 03...
Lehman: No, July 1st of 02 starts...
Kanner: No, it's a half time. It says the later half...
Lehman: Okay.
Kanner: ...of 03.
Atkins: Right. What I did was I took those and I put them in for halfa year. Now
there's not even a full year in the budget.
Champion: I know.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #95
Atkins: And I told...so we could bump those out. Now you do have a chance
tonight, you could ask a couple of those questions for clarification. You
know they're on at 7:00.
Karmer: So I guess we'll let me just finish my...
Vanderhoef: The question I want is...
Kanner: Let me just finish. My point is that so we're budgeting for a half of year in
03 and then a halfa year in 04 budget.
Vanderhoefi No, full
Kanner: No, no but let me just finish...a half year before the library comes on
board so we have a potential savings if we're thinking of only bringing that
maintenance on board once the full library's open of one year. It makes
it...it seems like it's a lot more but it's only one year.
Lehman: That's right.
Kanner: Then the question is is it worth cutting back that one year assuming that
we're going to want more maintenance when we have the full large library.
Champion: The logic...my logic behind hit, Steven, is that postpones it until we see
what the state's going to do to it next year. Because if they do another cut
back we won't have any money for anything.
Atkins: Well remember one real important thing, I thought I made this...what
they've done is reduced their funding levels, they've reduced the roll back.
The base is now down here. Even if we had a great year we're only going
to be back where we were anyway. Even if it was a 10% to the good roll
back change next year for two...we haven't gained any ground.
Champion: And what about...
Vanderhoef: For two years.
Atkins: For two years.
Champion: ... and then also commemial property.
Vanderhoef: And we couldn't afford those FTE's...
Atkins: Then.
Vanderhoef: ... ayear ago. So...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #96
Atkins: There you go.
Lehman: So where are we?
Vanderhoef: So we're going to cut the library maintenance worker offofthis budget.
Atkins: Okay.
Lehman: You're moving it out a year.
Vanderhoef: Well I think all FTE's will have to be reconsidered a year from now.
Period.
Champion: That's right.
Vanderhoefi And so I'm not making a commitment...
Champion: Well that's why we're moving them out of here cause then (can't hear)
Vanderhoef: Well I'm not saying I'm moving it out. I'm not making any commitment
that that particular FTE will be put in them a year from now. All I'm
saying is that we will review all FTE's a year from now and that will be
one request. We'll have other requests.
Pfab: I have a question. Is...does the FTE or the worker, is that in a sense
micromanaging the library's budget?
Atkins: Yeah.
Pfab: So, I mean, we have to take a hit, they have to take a hit.
Vanderhoef: That's right.
Pfab: So, let them figure it out.
Atkins: In principal you're not, yeah you're okay with that. I mean, my review of
the library budget is to make sure it's in general accordance with what I
believe to be your interests are, Council policies, whatever. Bottom line,
they have the ability to run their own budget outside of it...not a whole lot
different. They can mn their own budgets. You have a lump sum you
approve.
Champion: Right.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #97
Kanner: I think if we say now that we're not going to fund this half a year position
next year and we put that out there as the status quo. Then Susan comes to
us tonight and makes a case why it should be put back in, which is fine.
And so we hear it tonight and if we're convinced then we change it back.
So I'd be willing to cut it out from this budget.
Atkins: And another thing to keep in mind is you're going to have to have another
meeting.
Lehman: All right, let me...
Atkins: This...remember, I maintain this list for you. After tonight you may have
a difference of opinion at your next meeting an decide whether it's move
out, eliminate or something else.
Lehman: Let me just say this about tonight while we're talking about tonight.
Tonight we have a number of folks scheduled to make presentations every
fifteen minutes and I think they have an expectation that they will appear
at them time that they're scheduled. My understanding is that they're
supposed to have ten minutes to make those presentations. After that we
have five minutes to ask questions and I'm going to try to hold us to those
fifteen minutes. So if there are questions that we have that we have not
got answers to, write them down. But every fifteen minutes I think those
folks have the right to expect the next person to stand up. So we
don't...we are not going to engage those people in a half hours worth of
discussion or questions tonight but we should record questions.
Pfab: I'd strongly support that and I'd almost suggest that you get somebody to
do some timing.
Lehman: I have a watch.
Pfab: No but I mean is that...you have other things to do besides timing.
Lehman: Actually I have nothing else to do but listen and keep track of the time but
I am going...
Pfab: But then I...But if you're going to do it, do it.
Atkins: Always remember you have the ability to call them back as a body, as a
staff, as you see fit. That's your call.
Lehman: The other thing...
Atkins: You've already said you want a separate meeting with them anyway.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #98
Lehman: All right. Thc other thing I would suggest is we bring our calendars
tonight cause I don't think there's any question we're going to have to have
another budget session and we'll try to set that meeting tonight at our
meeting tonight.
Atkins: We're gonna call...we're gonna call, ask that on thc meeting on Tuesday
you call the public hearing. Now remember, when you set the public
hearing you can't go up, you can only go down. So you do in effect fix
numbers. Given what I'm seeing from you, you're not in a whole lot of
mood to go up anyway and I don't think there's a lot of risk but just so you
know that going in.
Lehman: Okay?
Atkins: Okay guys?
Mansfield: Well, I'll have sent numbers to the newspaper on Tuesday during the day.
Atkins: Well that's okay. Yeah, we're okay with that. Yeah.
Kanner: An aside on tonight. How come there are so few organizations
presenting? That's all that wanted to present?
Atkins: No, we got it amended.
Kanner: Oh. This is the after 8:45?
Atkins: Yes.
Champion: Am I going to be...
Atkins: You're now on there til 10.
Kart: Do you recall at the end of budget session last time we had late ones
coming in?
Kanner: Okay.
Karr: This reflects the late ones. I also have an indication there may be some
who don't know yet, may just show up.
O'Donnell: University of Iowa (can't hear)
Champion: I don't think so.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #99
Atkins: I think an important this on...as Ernie points out is stick to the schedule.
These people filled out the forms, they made the notice, they did all the
things they were supposed to do. If you want a buy a little time at the end
of the meeting for someone who's hanging around that's up to you all.
Lehman: All right.
Atkins: Okay.
Lehman: Okay.
Atkins: Okay now this is not decided then so it doesn't get a check mark for the
time being. This is not decided.
Kanner: Well I think we might have four votes that it...
Vanderhoef: I think it...
Kanner: ...is decided.
Atkins: Oh, okay.
Lehman: But I...one other thing before we go any farther. When we do...we are
going to schedule another meeting and I would really suggest that each of
us make a list of things that...and I don't...obviously we discussed a lot of
things. And I think as we go farther and farther into this discussion, things
we've discussed earlier may have a different significance than they had
when we discussed them.
Champion: Right.
Lehman: But we need a list of things that we are willing to... not to belabor the
points and argue them but at least reconsider.
Atkins: Well I'll try to summarize what...I mean it's important for us as a staff is
that I need to look at it comprehensively, what you've decided. You're not
finished deciding things yet I know that. And you'll make...I'm sure you'll
motions and amendments at adoption time but that's strictly up to you all.
Champion: Can you answer a real quick question for me? What happens if I'm not
willing to give the airport subsidy, is that 100... ?
Atkins: Well here's the dilemma is that...
Champion: I don't quite understand that.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #100
Atkins: ...they missed their revenue projections significantly.
Champion: Right.
Atkins: But before I answer the question...they're going to appear tonight.
Knowing you want to have a discussion with them in detail I'm not so sure
I would spend a whole lot of time engaging them tonight. They missed it.
I have no policy position that the airport is to be closed down and since the
airport is not to be closed down, I have an obligation to come up with
funding. And the funding in this case comes from one source.
Champion: That's...you answered my question.
Atkins: Okay.
Pfab: Okay, I have one clarification. You said try to get some questions and in
what context are you saying to ask those, not tonight right?
Lehamn: No, tonight we have...the format is that the people presenting will have
ten minutes.
P fab: Right.
Lehman: And then there is a five-minute period, if we have points of clarification or
questions we want to ask...
Pfab: But five minutes, it's over.
Lehman: ...fine. But at the end of the five minutes we're going to have to go on to
the next person. So if there are questions that we didn't get answered...
Pfab: Okay.
Lehman: ...we need to record those questions so we can get those answers on (can't
hear)
Pfab: I just...I wasn't quite sure what you were saying. That's fine. Appreciate
it.
Kauner: Just want to answer Connie's question with anther perspective. What I've
said in the past is I think if we say to them I don't want any subsidy what
so ever...but especially with this we can say we're not going to give you
this and you have to find revenue on your own. They can get revenue
from increased fuel taxes so that the people who are using the planes pay
for it. Increase hanger taxes. They could implement a landing fee, which
they don't have which they're supposed to do.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page # i 01
Champion: (can't hear)
Kanner: They can do all that.
Lehman: We can discuss that with the meeting.
Atkins: Those are the kinds of things...
Kanner: I'm just saying those are the options they have. If we say we're not going
to give this additional amount, then they have to come up with it. So the
onus is not on us to keep it open or shut it down.
Pfab: I really...again we're not micromanaging them. This is...you've got this...
Atkins: I think you've reached the point where...and I normally wouldn't say this
so forgive me, you have to micromanage it this time.
Champion: Yeah.
Pfab: Well or else give it...
Atkins: You had a commitment made to you that those hangers would pay for
themselves. They didn't. You're going to hear that the new Aviation
Commerce Park is going...can help subsidize the airport operations.
Pfab: And we helped them.
Atkins: And I don't agree with that. The hangers, they're separate issues.
Vanderhoef: Absolutely.
Atkins: This one was supposed to get you out of the whole. This one was
supposed to keep you from going into the whole.
Pfab: I think it's...maybe it's like...Steven might be on to something. Hey it's
yours, make it work.
Atkins: Well that's a policy question you guys...
Lehman: That will be a discussion when we meet with them.
Atkins: Okay, this is coming up.
Champion: The other thing...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page # 102
Pfab: Not tonight, just very briefly.
Atkins: Yeah.
Champion: I think we need to think about the airport maybe is how it is managed.
Lehman: Well that's a...
Atkins: Well...
Lehman: ... subject for the meeting.
Kanner: In a point of procedure, do we...then do we need to have Airport
Commission presentation tonight? Can we...we've got a full schedule.
We might want that space for something else. And are we going meet
with them before our final budget?
Atkins: I think... Oh, that's...I don't know whether you'll get around to it final
budget.
Lehman: That'd be tough.
Atkins: You all need to meet with them because I think, you know, we've got it
covered financially. It's the fact of the obligation and the pain we're using,
that we're occurring, to get it covered. I really do think you have to meet
tonight, Steve, because we did promise them. But you can limited it
to...let them here what they have to say then your five minutes tell them
we'll be in touch with them for a special meeting.
Lehman: Right.
Vanderhoefi I don't think we need to even get into questions with them...
Pfab: That's the time for a break. I meant a break.
(Break) (Meeting started before tape)
Vanderhoef: ...unless there's a statement that they make that we have to clarify.
Atkins: We have to clarify. Okay. Okay. Okay. I never heard any more about
that. Is that still...
Champion: I think we got four people...
Lehman: Right.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #103
Champion: ...and they need to know that.
Vanderhoef: I think there are four probably that need to...
Champion: To move it up a year.
Vanderhoef: To, yeah.
Kanner: To say it's not in...
Vanderhoef: This budget.
Kanner: ...the budget.
Atkins: 04?
Kanner: Well who's for moving out of this budget?
Champion: I am.
Vanderhoef: I am.
Atkins: Well I got unanimous for that almost. Nope, six to one.
Kanner: Six.
Atkins: Okay. To 04? You're on the...working on 03 right now.
Champion: Right.
Vanderhoef: No.
Atkins: At least 04?
Champion: 04.
Vanderhoef: I would say that it's wide open next year until...
Atkins: Well then...I've got to move it somewhere.
Lehman: Well, you've got a majority for 04 and we can...
Atkins: Pick a date.
Vanderhoefi Okay.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #104
Lehman: ...argue about it again next year.
Atkins: We'll through a question mark next to it that it's...
Lehman: Right.
Atkins: Okay.
Champion: But I think they need to know that (can't hear) made this decision.
Atkins: And this one still has yet to be resolved.
Champion: Yeah.
Atkins: Public power.
Champion: This is another thing that I we should be working on through JCCOG, that
we ought to see if we can't get a joint study out of JCCOG. Because it
seems to me if you're going to do public power the wise way to do it
would be a regional type thing.
Pfab: But there's one problem that I can see, they don't have a franchise that they
are looking at.
Champion: It doesn't make any difference. We don't need a franchise.
Pfab: Well but...if we don't need a franchise then maybe it's not as important but
if we're...if we don't intend to do anything with the franchise then I'd...
Champion: You mean the cont.., you mean the agreement with...
Pfab: Right.
Champion: Well we don't have to have a contract with them.
Pfab: Oh, okay. So if everybody's cool that we're just going to let that ride.
Atkins: Now you may decide that...you mind if I sit down?
Champion: No.
Lehman: Please do.
Atkins: You may decide that, MidAmerica may have a different opinion.
Pfab: So...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #105
O'Donnell: MidAmerican's also...
Atkins: Now I don't know what they want but of course, you know, they have
argued to you they want the fifteen year with the eight year out, I think it's
something like that.
Lehman: Yes.
Atkins: We're hearing discussions, give them a four-year.
Champion: But they won't take that.
Lehman: Well...
Atkins: They've said unequivocally, they wouldn't take that. Dale could help you
out (can't hear)
Helling: In our discussions they haven't really said unequivocally that they
wouldn't take anything...
Atkins: Yep, that's true.
Helling: ...but the feeling is that they probably wouldn't go for anything like four
years. But we haven't asked that question. So really two questions is what
can we negotiate, and that's secondary to if you even believe that we need
a franchise in the short term. If you're not going to pursue the other issue
then of course we go for the long term but that decision could be made
down the road.
Atkins: Can I ask you a JCCOG question, Connie? Was your thinking that that's
for form to discuss this?
Champion: I'm asking you, is it the form?
Atkins: Well, you know, if we're going to do this thing it would seem that
University Heights and Coralville would be obvious players because
they're part of the urban area, maybe even North Liberty. I don't know
who their power provider is, whether it's...
Pfab: REC and (can't hear)
Atkins: Yeah, well we have a little REC ourselves in the south part of town.
Pfab: Right so...but...MidAmerica and REC.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #106
Atkins: I think there's some expectation that Council is going to at least come
down on a position of we're going to study the options. Now I don't know
what that means as far as money. Do we study them independent of the
other cities?
Champion: Well that's my question.
Atkins: And I don't know the answer...and I think that's...you kind of need to
bang that around to figure that out.
Pfab: My point is if we're going to talk signing a franchise then I'm not so sure
we want to bring in JCCOG. If we are not compelled, we don't feel we
have to sign a franchise then JCCOG is a good player, I believe.
O'Donnell: MidAmerican...didn't when...was it Terry Smith?
Atkins: Terry Smith, yeah.
O'Donnell: When he came here didn't they say the MidAmerica is proposing putting
like 15/20 million dollars improvement into our system? This contract
that we do or do not sign is going to directly effect that.
Lehman: Well I think...
O'Donnell: I think what we're asked to do right now is come up with a dollar figure
for a feasibility study.
Lehman: I...
Pfab: So are you saying this is...this may be more of an Iowa City issue than it
is a JCCOG...is that what...
O'Donnell: I think it is.
Pfab: Okay. I'm...let's...
Atkins: Why would we want to create somewhat of an island and not involve
Coralville? I mean it's clear they've got a lot of development going on and
they certainly have the population base.
Lehman: Well for budgetary discussions, whether or not we include Coralville and
University Heights and for that matter the University of Iowa. I don't
know that they couldn't be. I think for budgetary discussions we need to
decide whether or not we want to set aside an amount of money to be used
for a preliminary sort of discussion whether that be on our own or with
any combination of people.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page # 107
Pfab: Okay, I think that's good.
Lehman: And that discussion's going to have to be made after budget when we can
have a work session, I hope, devoted to nothing but the power issue and
decide just how we want to move forward with it. But I guess the question
is do we want to put a line item in the budget for a preliminary study. And
if we do want to put an mount in, how do we arrive at that mount?
Vanderhoefi My understanding ~vas was in the neighborhood of a half million dollars.
Lehman: That's not preliminary.
Pfab: No.
O'Donnell: I heard 25,000 to a half a million.
Helling: I had a discussion with Bob Lathem (sp?) who came a bit early, I don't
know if you recall, and just tried to flame it in general terms to get a
preliminary study that would give you some idea of the magnitude of the
project. In other words, looking at the value or potential value that you'd
have to buy out from MidAmerican so forth but also then to try to
extrapolate from that based on that amount and payback time what you
may have to do with some of the rates. And he said that, and this is a
rough estimate but I was asking him specifically our budget amount and
he said 50,000. Now it could be more, it could be less depending on the
detail that you want when you put the RFP together for that preliminary
feasibility study. But a round number is 50,000.
Atkins: Now the question...and the questions we ask will have a bearing upon
what he studies for us. I mean I'm under the understanding right now that
the only thing you're thinking about might be the acquisition of the
distribution system. We're not talking about...
Champion: Right.
Atkins: ...production of power, just the distribution system. But that does imply
we would have to create some sort of bureaucracy to buy power.
Lehman: Right.
Pfab: Yeah.
Atkins: I mean we purchase it from somebody else...
P fab: Enron.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #108
Atkins: ...but we're...don't even say that. But my understanding...
Pfab: But that's the real world.
Atkins: My understanding is that that's what you're thinking about is the purchase
of the distribution system.
Lehman: Now do we want to put a line item in there for 50,000?
Champion: No.
Pfab: I'd support a line item, I'm not sure of the amount.
Champion: 50,000...
Vanderhoef: I can't see it this year, I'm sorry. In other budget years information is good
but $50,000 for information without having any.., anything out there that
says that we have another nickel to go forward even after we get the
information. In this kind ora budget situation that we're in right now and
it doesn't appear that it's going to change next year. And this information
only is good for a certain length of time too so unless I can see a projected
area of tying in dollars available to go forward with the full blow study
and so forth, I think this is just throwing money out the window.
Pfab: What...okay...how do you...how are you going to respond to a franchise?
Are you saying we'll go ahead and sign a franchise or are you saying we
won't?
Vanderhoef: I think we can talk to MidAmerica and see if they're interested. I heard
them say yes they want fifteen years, I don't think we need to do a fifteen
year one. And...
Pfab: But if you don't have another alternative and they say we want a fifteen
year or we want a ten year...
O'Dormell: They have to supply you.
Pfab: Pardon?
Vanderhoef: Yeah.
O'Donnell: They have to supply you.
Vanderhoef: They have to supply it so...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #109
Pfab: So we're willing to say if you want that we're not ready to sign. Is that
what you're saying?
O'Donnell: I'm saying that they have to supply us.
Pfab: But I'm saying...I'm trying to figure out something. If it comes down to
whether we don't go ahead with the study is that going to force us to sign
and franchise agreement we do not wish to sign?
Lehman: We don't have to sign anything, period.
Vanderhoef: No.
Pfab: Okay, all right...and that's...
Lehman: Steven?
Pfab: I'm a lot less concerned. But if the alternative is to sign a franchise
agreement that we don't want to sign then I'm not...then I want a line item.
Champion: What if...I guess that probably wouldn't help them but I'm trying to think
if we did a study that's going to take so long, this is going to take so long,
that's going to take so long. What reasonable amount of time would it be
before we could have our own department buying power? I mean that's
got to take a long time.
Atkins: Well this is a five or six year decision without too much trouble.
Pfab: So that's why...
Champion: So, I mean, maybe even eight. I mean, what if we had a contract for eight
years, would they be willing to sign an eight-year contract?
Helling: and that's what we'd have to discuss with them once you make a decision.
Champion: I mean, when I think of all the complexities of this and yeah there are
people out there doing it but you know what, they did it a long time ago.
O'Donnell: When it was affordable.
Champion: When it was affordable. I have a hard time putting 50,000 into a budget
we don't have any more for (can't hear)
Pfab: I...
Kanner: Irvin, could I speak?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #110
Pfab: Okay, go ahead.
Kanner: Just to preface my remarks, I think most of you know I've been a big
supporter of municipal electric and have invited people to talk with some
of the folks that are involved with that. Connie, to address your remarks, I
think eventually we should try to get Coralville and other organizations
involved. I think though like the alcohol and the cigarette issue, we want
those folks involved but we have to do what's right for Iowa City first. So
I think we think in terms of us and then we reach out to other
communities. And the folks involved with organizations that are
promoting the idea of municipal electric are reaching out to other
communities. And so I think that's happening. I think that if we're talking
about a study we're going to see if the study shows significant savings for
our community members and that it will also have other elements that if
we'd tike to put environmental elements perhaps. And we're going to...the
study will show that all adds up to the same or better service plus a cost
savings. And so if then we think about it, that if we're going to do the
study and it becomes favorable that we'll implement it perhaps. We'll
think about...we'll put it to the citizens for a vote and then we'll go
through the process of three or four years that it takes to implement that.
And I would say we're not...I would hope we're not at the point now
where we're going to say lets reject a possible study out of hand. I think
that we talk about this...we talk about the franchise agreement after the
budget and then we talk about a possible study. And the study itself, I
think we could find money if we need be...if we need to. And if we think
that we're going to do it if it looks favorable, eventually down the road we
put those costs into the capital cost of any bonds we float. By state law
you're allowed to do that. And that's also figured into the study of the
cost. And just to separate out other costs, people have been throwing
around cost of 500,000, other cities incurred costs because they did a
study, it looked favorable and then they went to court. And those are the
additional costs and that's a real risk for us too and that's something we
have to decide when we want to put out the money for the funds for a
possibly study. So I would say lets think about maybe not putting the
budget and we talk about it down the road when we have more chance to
digest information. Talk perhaps some tours of some of the other
municipal power plants and facilities. And then perhaps in June or July
we talk about the idea of do we want to do a study, do we want to put 50
to $100,000 into a study. And I think we can go into our reserve funds if
we have to. And I don't think it's that much and if it looks favorable then
we recover those funds at a future date if we do implement a system that's
municipal. But I think let's hold off til July til we make a final decision on
doing a study.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #111
Lehman: That... Steven, if I heard you correctly, you're not recommending that we
put a line item in the budget, that we're...we're going to have this work
session hopefully in March or shortly after. We need to sit down...
Atkins: Well you need...you need to have it reasonable soon because you've got
to...
Lehman: We've told the public that we will talk about this and I think that
MidAmerican Energy has a right to expect some sort of action from us.
And I think the public also has a right to expect something from us.
We've had three presentations to our...to the Council. We need a work
session devoted to this and decide what direction we're going to go. And
if I hear you right, if we decide at this meeting in March or subsequent
meetings that we want to move forward with some sort of a preliminary
study, which my guess would be we'd start that way, that we can move
forward and if necessary...and you're going to hate this Steve, but it
comes...it would be a contingency item rather than a budget item. Okay,
time out. I'm sorry.
Atkins: No.
O'Donnell: No, that's a cross.
Atkins: That's a cross. You do that to vampires.
Lehman: All right. Well, we do have to... I think we have to have this discussion.
Champion: Oh we do.
Atkins: Yeah, you do.
Lehman: But I also think that we have to be prepared to...
Atkins: A couple things.
Lehman: Go ahead.
Atkins: Couple things. One is you're right. Taking it from the contingency is a big
hit and I don't like to do that. You expected that answer. Doing it a little
later in the year is better for us because we're getting close to closing out
the books and we're going to know what our financial position is as far as
our cash position. Cause right now everything is an estimate so bumping
it up as Steven had suggested is not a problem. In fact it does improve it.
You're probably right, if you show a line item then the community
expectation is going to be something. I mean, if it's too high then you
frittered, if it's too Iow...you know we just create getting people fussing
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #112
and anger over the cost of the study when that's...the real issue here is are
we interested in determining whether a municipal electric utility is
something we'd like to pursue.
Champion: Oh I think...
Atkins: And to do that we've got to have a reasonably decent study and weYe
going to have to spend thc money. And later in the year, fiscal year, is
better for us.
Lehman: Well is there agreement that we do it the way Steven suggest?
Champion: Oh I think...
Lehman: We'll have the meeting, we'll talk about it, we'll move as things progress
naturally along.
Wilbum: Yes.
Lehman: All right.
Pfab: I just have one question. Will it be a problem to come up with the funds to
do this as a contingency?
Atkins: Sure.
Pfab: It's...
Atkins: I will be.
Pfab: It'll be a problem?
Atkins: Sure.
Pfab: So, may...what kind of a commitment are we saying that we want to at
least look at it. Should we maybe put in a line item, 25,000, 50,000?
Aktins: No, we didn't put anything in. I think you've made a clear policy
conclusion as collectively that you're willing to study this.
Pfab: Okay.
Atkins: And folks if you're willing to study it you got to put up a couple of bucks.
It's just a matter how we package it all together.
Lehman: So your comfortable with the way Steven has suggested this?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #113
Aktins: I'm fine with it. No, I think that buys us a little time.
Lehman: I'm comfortable with that. Is everybody else comfortable?
Atkins: (can't hear)
Pfab: I'm have no problem.
Lehman: All right, we've done.
Atkins: Okay. Well, you want to do a couple more on the list?
Champion: Uh-huh.
Atkins: Uh-huh or (sp?)
Champion: Yeah, lets...
Kanner: Why don't we do Coralville's for a little change of pace here? What have
we go them?
Lehman: Steve, I have one question before you go any further.
Aktins: Yes.
Lehman: Is it possible if we do this bridge across the dam in Coralville that we can
hook up to their waterfront area that is part of the TIF and extend that
across the bridge and have them pay...have them pay for our bridge...
Pfab: We just bolt the bridge...bolt the bridge tight so it's continuous.
Lehman: ...and perhaps collect some of the TIF as well? Is that a...I mean, they've
jury mandered down the interstate why not across the bridge? Now we
could go up under the interstate...
Atkins: I want it noted that the Mayor said jury mandered, I did not say that.
Thank you very much.
Lehman: ...and do Waterworks Park. Waterworks could be completed with their
TIF.
Vanderhoef: At the same time we can rrm all the deer across the bridge so that they can
be shot in Coralville...
Pfab: With a bow and arrow.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #114
Atkins: well you know you're planning on having another meeting. You're getting
a little strange now.
Lehman: I'm working on this.
Atkins: Do you want to end it now?
Champion: You think maybe we need to end it now?
Atkins: Yeah.
Pfab: I think the strangeness is getting a little...is overwhelming.
Atkins: Yeah, there you go.
Vanderhoefi Help me out though since you've got that list up there. The deer, did we
have any update...word then on the recommendation from White Buffalo?
Atkins: White Buffalo's recommendation is that if you're going to have the kill
you should do it every year.
Vanderhoef: Right, but...
Atkins: That's a general recommendation.
Vanderhoefi But since you had suggested every other year...
Atkins: Yep.
Vanderhoef: ... I had asked at a previous meeting whether...was this the year, was 03
the year that we should...you put it in the budget this year.
Atkins: It's in the upcoming year, skip 04 and then 05.
Vanderhoef: And I...my question was shall we skip 03 and then go 04, 06?
Atkins: I'm sorry, Dee, I didn't get that but I'll get that. We'll talk about (can't
hear)
Pfab: I think that's a good idea because that maybe...
Vanderheof: That's one of them that I would...
Pfab: Some of the smart deer will have wondered off.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #1 I5
Atkins: The smart deer will have wondered off...
Lehman: And all the others will have reproduced.
Vanderhoef: No.
Atkins: I will call Tony.
Vanderhoef: Or they will have run out into the road.
Atkins: Yeah, I'll call Tony on that.
Champion: The other thing is that by putting it...there are groups working on birth
control for deer so every year you hope there's going to be something
that's safe and...
Atkins: Yep. Okay.
Lehman: All right.
Pfab: And some of them might even wonder over in to Coralville and get shot
with a bow and arrow.
Atkins: See, you guys are now...this is your fault, you brought up Coralville.
Kanner: If they go over the...yeah, the bridge.
Atkins: This is your fault.
Vanderhoef: (can't hear)
Pfab: They probably could run down along the interstate even, we wouldn't
object.
Atkins: You want to do any of these, you want to wait and pick up another
meeting.
0'Donnell: Let's go to another meeting, I'm done.
Vanderhoef: Let's...
Pfab: Yeah, let's...
Atkins: Okay, with another meeting?
Lehman: I guess (can't hear).
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #116
Atkins: Okay, bring your calendars tonight. Are we all set for the stuff?. Okay,
and I'll try to get the answers for those short questions quickly.
O'Donnell: 6:30 tonight?
Aktins: 6:30 here.
Vanderhoef: How soon are we going to have that other meeting cause I had something I
really needed to run past Council so that we could get moving on human
services?
Lehman: Do it while we're still here.
Vanderhoef: Okay.
O'Donnell: As long as it doesn't take very long.
Vanderhoef: Well...
Kanner: The pressures on, huh.
Vanderhoef: The pressures on.
Lehman: You have five minutes.
Vanderhoef: The question that I pose is, this is for human services, what if the City
helped fund Human Services through assistance with their utility needs
rather than with cash dollars from our general fund?
Wilbum: I'm going to back out of this discussion.
Vanderhoefi Oh, I'm sorry Ross, I didn't give you a heads up.
Wilbum: That's all right.
Champion: Explain that to me, Dee.
Vanderhoef: Okay. My thinking is right now, I looked up the total here and in 02 the
general fund for human service agencies is $361,900. The requests that
we have for this next year are 455,564, so we're approaching a halfa
million dollars for human service funding. And then on top of that we
always reserve 105,000 out of our CDBG monies that go to aid to
agencies. So I'm trying to look at the needs of the human service agencies
and how we can assist them with their needs. And when I looked at their
budgets, eleven...I believe it's eleven out of the fifteen use City services in
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page # 117
the way of water and sewer. And the possibility would be that we could
give them...work out with staff a way to give them equivalent of 30 to
$35,000 of their utility needs that would come out of enterprise funds
rather than out of general funds. It would be the same kind of dollars for
these folks, it would just be that it would come in support of their utilities.
And I double checked through each of their budgets and when they show
columns that City funding is used for various programming a good
number of them use a lot of it just for general overhead which includes
those kinds of utilities. And I won't say that this is in place of...let me
rephrase because the rest of my thinking on human services...as we have
decreasing general fund dollars, the request this year has gone up almost
$100,000. We can't afford it. Much as we'd like to, we can't afford it. So
I would like to cap the total dollars for human service agencies at
$360,000 and of that I would like to move $35,000 into utility funding.
The rest of it would be just the regular general fund monies as we always
do.
Champion: It's well worth thinking about.
Pfab: I have a question for you, Dee. Is there...so what you're saying is
basically reduce their requests by 100,0007
Vanderhoefi I'm saying keep it what we have paid in previous year.
Pfab: But reducing their requests by 100,0007
Vanderhoefi Well we always reduce their request.
Pfab: All right. Okay.
Vanderhoefi So that isn't' the consideration. I was just showing what happens every
single year in that they make requests far more than the growth of our
general fund.
Pfab: Okay. All right, I'm not sure if I understand...by going to an enterprise
fund we're going to preserve...we're going to not take out of the general
fund and what else does that do?
Vanderhoef: What it does is takes out of the water fund and the sewer fund.
Pfab: Okay. All right. My point would be, if we do it that way then I think we
should give them a nominal increase rather than just...
Vanderhoef: No, I'm...
Lehman: Well that's another issue.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #118
Vanderhoefi That's a whole different thing.
Pfab: But by putting...
Vandehoef: This is to...this is not in addition to, this is part of the whole package
because the whole point is is to reduce the hit on the general fund. And if
you say give a nominal increase then you're going right back in and saying
okay you're adding back into the general fund.
Pfab: No, no. Give them a larger...an increase in the enterprise fund. Make the
increase...
Vanderhoefi I'm looking at what their usage is right now and so that's why I'm saying
35,000 out of utilities and whatever, 360 minus 35...
Pfab: Will there be increases in...
Lehman: 325.
Vanderhoef: 325 out of the general fund.
Pfab: Will there be increases in their utility cost this year?
Champion: We don't know.
Lehman: What difference does that make?
Pfab: Well then I think then...
Vanderhoef: Well but they will get some general fund monies.
Pfab: But what I'm going to say, if there's an overall percentage increase, let's
say 3%...let's say their utilities will go up 3% then I would say what they
had last year and add 3% to it. And then out of the enterprise fund that's
fine.
Lehman: Well we'll get to that discussion (can't hear)
Kanner: Wait I have...
Vanderhoef: Question?
Kanner: Question. One...a few questions. One, you're saying keep the CDBG at
105,0007
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #119
Vanderhoef: Uh-huh.
Kanner: Okay. Two, we subsidize our utility program, don't we, out of general
fund.
Atkins: No.
Kanner: So that means other people paying...other customers are paying for it so
this would be an additional charge to make up for that 40,000. So to
spread out over...
Atkins: We have certain low-income policies that people are eligible for.
Vanderhoef: So...
Atkins: It appears that Dee's suggestion is that a human service agency that pays
$1,000 a year in water and sewer, some percentage or some number you
would work out in the form of an ordinance, that as long as you remain a
human service agency at this particular address, we will provide you a...
Pfab: Discount.
Atkins: 25% discount or something like that. Not unlike what we do for low
income.
Vanderhoef: And we could cap that at 35,000.
Kanner: I (can't understand). I just want to clarify. So the low-income program is
being subsidized by other utility users?
Vanderhoef: Yes.
Atkins: You and I pay for that, right.
Kanner: So that's...
Vanderhoef: So would this.
Kanner: So this would be the same thing. So my question is...
Atkins: The principal would be the same. Yeah, okay.
Kanner: Certainly there's...it's a...we have more flexibility with using enterprise
funds as opposed to enterprise funds. The question is which is a more
regressive tax or fee that you increase utility cost for everyone else or you
slightly increase perhaps the property tax to pay for this subsidy.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #120
Champion: We're already...we're already taxing...
Kanner: Not increase but in effect you're taking it from our general fund which
comes from property tax as opposed to water. When someone pays their
water bill is that a more regressive tax ora sort then our property taxes
where our general fees come? And so that's just one factor to consider
verses the flexibility that we achieve with what you're proposing. So I'm
open to discussion on it but I just want to throw those things in to the
hopper of the discussion when we have this.
Champion: The other...yeah, that's a good...that's really a good point. The other
thing is, because our general fund is so stretched this might be a good way
this year to help our general fund for the next fiscal year or whatever it is
and yet keep these human services agencies funded. That's the reason I
like it because we certainly don't have money in our general fund. I hate
to cut back their budget.
(End of side one, 02-15)
Pfab: Let me ask you this, Dee. You're asking this on a one-time basis at this...
Vanderhoef: No, I'm not. I think this makes sense to me. And we'll have more
discussion...
Pfab: Okay.
Vanderhoef: And I'll certainly listen to your thoughts on it but it just makes sense to me
that we can not continue to grow this fund when we don't grow as much as
that in our general fund. And we certainly are giving our share in all of
this. And I still truly do see opportunities within the system for some
consolidation of services that could decrease some of the requests.
Pfab: Okay, my point...the point I wanted to make with you, Dee, is this. If on
a one time basis I would not spend a lot of time thinking about it but if
you're looking at this as an on-going thing then I would want to spend
some more time on it.
Lehman: Irvin, it...literally it is a one time consideration because every year we will
reaffirm it or whatever. It would set a precedent that my suspicion would
be we would definitely look at again next year.
Pfab: Okay, but...if it was a one-time thing it'd be a lot simpler.
Lehman: But it's they're all one-time things.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.
January 29, 2002 Special Budget Work Session Page #121
Champion: Everything's one time.
Vanderhoef: Well, why I wanted this out on the table quickly is we've got to...
(everyone talking)
Vanderhoef: lrvin, I have to put together the dollar amounts and until we know which
way we're going to go there isn't any point in us doing this.
?: (can't hear)
Vanderhoef: I said the reason that I wanted to get this out is that Irvin and I can not
bring a recommendation to you of dollar amounts for each agency until we
know whether they're getting utility assistance and GO or how it's going to
work.
Lehman: Although the dollar amounts wouldn't change. If you put a cap on it as
you suggest, whether or not it went as a cash subsidy or it came as (can't
hear) utility it would...the total would still be the same.
Vanderhoef: Yeah, if you agreed to the cap of 360.
Lehman: Okay.
Atkins: See you tonight.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City budget
work session of January 29, 2002.