The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2011-04-05 CorrespondenceU4-UD-l 1 4 1 Marian Karr From: JJWHITE <jjwhite499@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 9:50 AM To: Council Subject: Response to E-Mail sent to the IC Council from Mary Gantz Dear Iowa City Council Members: The following is in response to an a-mail recently sent to the City Council. In the March 22, 2011 Agenda "correspondence" the a-mail was identified as: 7. Taft Speedway: Bruce and Mary Gantz, Janet Lessner. (Though Janet's name is not on the e- mail.): First, the Council KNOWS that HUD asked the Taft Speedway Levee to be done over, not "re- examined", because it failed to follow HUD procedures. HUD is not just asking the City to "do-over" the application process; it is asking the City to do it right this time and to follow the rules and regulations of HUD! Second, the Council knows that we, the members of Taft Speedway, were not told of the levee when offered our "buy-out" options. I have sent you communication quoting council minutes indicating that the "levee" was a "new ~~ project one for you to consider almost a year after most of us had rebuilt our homes and moved back in. Joel Wilcox has sent off a lengthy letter to council also asking you and City Staff to stop misleading the local press and citizenry into thinking just the opposite as well. Third, we too are concerned about our property values, health welfare and "homes." But we take care of those matters ourselves. Why is it incumbent on the City of Iowa City to have to take care of the developer, development and residents of Idyllwild? From the very start of discussions of mitigation projects, Matt Hayek raised the question of spending City money on a project to protect a private development. (We won't go into the 1992 fiasco and why Idyllwild should have never been allowed to be built in the first place.). I am sure Mr. Hayek and others are concerned about future requests that will come from "other developers" to protect their property, their investments, and therefore the City's tax base, etc etc. Fourth, there are more voices than "nine" who implore the City of Iowa City and its City Staff to follow HUD rules and regulations. James J. White 121 Taft Speedway St. Iowa City, Iowa 52245 319-321-1643 Joel F. Wilcox, Ph.D. 119 Taft Speedway St. Iowa City, Iowa 52245 March 22, 2011 Council Members 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Iowa City Council: ,~, ZOlI ~/~,R 28 ~~!!= 43 lO~~~A1 ~;'TY, !U~'J I am writing to call your attention to a recent statement on the intervention by HUD in the Taft Speedway levee project at the request of Senator Grassley. In the KCRG-News web report on February 25, 2011, the reporter states that "Owners were warned of that possibility [of a levee] when the city first offered federal buyouts for the flood-damaged homes." I assume the source of this information was David Purdy, since he is the city official referenced elsewhere in the article. I had exchanged email with Mr. Purdy in the days just before the December 7 council meeting at which funds for the Taft Speedway project were accepted. The cover memo relating to all three levee projects from Jeff Davidson and David Purdy, dated December 2, states on p. 2: "There are nine homeowners remaining between Taft Speedway and the Iowa River who would be located on the river side of the levee. All of these homeowners were offered buyout funds but declined. At the time they were offered buyout funds they were apprised that the City Council had directed staff to pursue funds for the Taft Speedway No Name Road Levee." I asked Mr. Purdy for the communication that supported this assertion and he sent me a copy of a letter that had been mailed to me and other property owners living in homes on both sides of the river, dated November 20, 2008. This letter announced the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) property acquisition project. I assume that this is the specific language to which Mr. Purdy, by report in the KCRG- News article, and Davidson and Purdy, in the council cover memo, refer in the November 20 letter: "The City Council, at its November 17`h work session, discussed several possible alternatives for reducing the impact of future floods. Along with the submission of this HMGP application, they discussed such things as possibly elevating streets, capping storm sewers, and using temporary or permanent flood barriers. The development of any plan will include many opportunities for public input. While the process is just starting, it should be noted that several of these measures, if part of the final plan, may have an impact on properties eligible for acquisition if the homeowners decide to remain in their home." I will not belabor the fact that of the "many opportunities for public input" envisioned in this letter, there was only one to which I was invited in January 2009, and none when there was any actual prospect of money in hand. What concerns me is the notion that this letter is considered the point of reference for the specific Taft Speedway/No Name Levee. There are a variety of options to which the letter refers, as you can read, a number of which might be completely acceptable me and others who live on Taft Speedway St., assuming they are what we think they might be. There is nothing there even to suggest a levee necessarily, as demountable walls or flood walls are flood barriers, and elevating streets was much discussed with respect to Foster Road. The December 2 statement is literally false, as there was no Taft Speedway/No Name Levee even on the drawing boards, as far as we know, at the time. Even the City Council did not know about it until the July 27, 2009 work session, according to Mr. Davidson's comments at that session. My concern is in how this matter is to be represented by the City going forward. The KCRG article's paraphrase is sufficiently tike the Dec. 2 memo statement that I think a reasonable person would assume it represents the City Council's and city staff's notion of actual facts. I must ask that City staff stop drawing a connection between buyout offers and tacit or implied agreement to the Taft Speedway/No Name Levee. I would also ask the Council explicitly to acknowledge that there is no such connection and that there was no opportunity given for public discussion of the specific Taft Speedway/No Name Levee proposal. It would be accurate to say that Taft Speedway homeowners were told that the City would consider a variety of options for flood mitigation at the time that the HMGP project was announced, but it is not correct to state that any proposal was made for any option at that time, or that it was a levee, or that any promised public discussion of any proposal or application was ever initiated by the City concerning any specific proposal for funds. It is not right to leap from a host of non-specific options to a specific scheme. The fact that "many opportunities for public input" is mentioned in the November 18 letter announcing the HMGP implies that what might have been expected to follow for homeowners who chose to stay in their homes is some participation in the process of determination as to what methodologies might be acceptable among the broad range of property owners, or at least to know what was being actively considered, but what resulted was afully-formed proposal for a levee with a road that would become the major route to the Peninsula in a flood year. Such a conception cannot be pulled in whole or part from the November 20 letter. There was one additional letter that came to us in August 2009, from Dale Helling, to let us know that the City was pursuing a road levee and that the buyout was still available to us. But this was almost a year after the HGMP project was announced, after which many thousands of dollars and r~ny hours had been spent rebuilding. No one intends to take a buyout who rebuilds, and we all ae~ilt. his point ~° ~ °~. appears to be acknowledged by Mr. Hayek in the transcription of the July 27, 200~'vaerk ~sion ( 6: "A couple have elevated, so you know they're not going to go for that [i.e., a bu~tt}~~"). ~ ~.~ `~~`rJ ~, ~~ =`'~ .` °> c,z I hope that you will see that it is in the best interests of the City not to make any public statements to the effect that Taft Speedway homeowners were apprised of the Taft Speedway/No Name Levee in any way whatsoever at the time that we were offered buyouts. Such statements are at best confused and at worst dishonest and put the City in a bad light. I have to add that statements such as the one cited in the December 2 memo and even the KCRG statement create prejudice against me and my neighbors and suggest that we might have been expected to have forfeited any hopes and aspirations for the future of our property because we had decided against the offer of a buyout, and are, in objecting to the Taft Speedway/No Name Levee project, somehow like persons reneging on a prior agreement. Consider this: we have no objection to Idyllwild's protecting themselves from future flood damage if they will use their own property to do so. If they did so, who would care one way or another when or if anyone on Taft Speedway had been offered a buyout or not? But because the City would make incursions into our property and make inaccessible the road by which we connect to the rest of town in order to protect our Idyllwild neighbors, it apparently becomes necessary, however disconnected and illogical, to find ways to make it as though we actually deserve this kind of treatment. No matter what the scale, this is what a more powerful and wealthier majority always does when they prepare themselves to do an injustice to the weaker, poorer, and fewer. This I fear is the heart of the matter. But my hope is that it is simply a confusion about what happened when, as honest mistakes can always occur. I do not hold the named individuals above at fault, who have always treated me with courtesy and professionalism, because I perceive the confusion to be broader than they. But as confusion begets confusion, as this may be a case in point, and real damage does occur as a result, I look for my position on this either to be publicly acknowledged as correct by the Council or refuted with respect to the facts, events, and documentary evidence that took place between November 2008 and July 2009, namely: • There was no specific warning of the Taft Speedway/No Name Levee, or of a levee, or of any specific plan at the time that the HGMP buyout program was announced in November 2008 The first public announcement that a levee might be explored as a flood barrier occurred as part of a presentation of expert opinion from a study by the Stanley Consultants in January 2009, and included other options, such as demountable walls and Hesco barriers; the Stanley presentation indicated nothing about a levee with a road on it. There was no opportunity for public discussion, as promised in the November 20, 2008 letter, of the Taft Speedway/No Name Levee prior to application for it or through the time that the City Council accepted funds for it on December 7, 2010 N 0 0 r C~ ~'"`.~ -~. ~ ~ ~. ~~~ ~ ~~ ;~e~ --- ~~ W Thank you for reading such a long and tedious letter! I do look forward to a response. Sincerely, ~•~--e-cwG~ ~ Joel F. Wilcox 119 Taft Speedway St. CC: Gregg Hennigan, KCRG-News Joseph Bohlke, IDED Amanda B. Plunkett, HUD ..~.. ~~ _~ "~ "'~ C: i"' ~~ ~~ ti 4 3:a. C~ .'t;• -- W 4 2 Marian Karr From: Jennifer Jordan Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 2:52 PM To: 'wnnhll@gmail.com' Cc: *City Council; Dale Helling; Rick Fosse; Kathryn Johansen Subject: RE: Recycling Attachments: FINAL Recycling flyer - 8 5 x 11 - FINAL.pdf Hello Ms. Holland, Thank you for your email and input. I appreciate your perspective that the current recycling system seems to be working just fine-I personally rather enjoy the sorting we do now. However, we only have a participation rate of about 65% percent in the community and the theory behind changing to the dual stream is that the easier we make it, the more people will recycle. In order to reduce what's going into the landfill, we need more than just the people who are really dedicated to recycling to participate. An education campaign will be a major part of getting people involved and we're working on that now. We're printing new flyers, we have several radio shows lined up, there will be a presentation at the library on April 21 and I'm hoping to work with City Channel 4 to do a program on the new system. If you have other suggestions for outreach and education, I'd love to hear them. Regarding the bins, please do not feel like you have use a second bin. You are welcome to continue using one bin with the dual sort system. Just put the papers/fiber on the bottom of the bin and the plastic and metal on top of that. You can put broken-down cardboard in the bin if it fits or continue to put it underneath if that suits you better. I've attached the flyer for the new program-I hope you find this helpful. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 887-6160 or via email. Thanks again for your input. Sincerely, Jennifer Jordan Recycling Coordinator Iowa City Landfill & Recycling Center 3900 Hebl Avenue SW Iowa City, IA 52246 319-887-6160 Jennifer-iordan(a~iowa-city.org www.icgov.org/environment From: Winifred Holland [mailto:wnnhll@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 7:06 PM To: Council Subject: Recycling Quoting from an article in the March 1Press-Citizen, "City officials are eyeing a new two- or three-sort recycling system as a way to encourage more people to recycle." In my opinion, the current recycling system is just fine. How much trouble can it be to put the newspapers in the bottom of the bin and drop other materials into standing sacks in the bin? I keep the broken-down cardboard in the garage behind the bin and put it beside or under the bin when I take it to the street. Recycling is a chore and time-consuming. My feeling is that those who don't take part are not willing to put forth the effort or just don't realize the importance of it. My suggestion is education. You need to impress upon people that we must all do this. Now would be a good time with the opening of the new recycling center. Please, please do not add another bin. I spent a day and a half reorganizing my small garage to accommodate the recycling bin and the garbage bin that we were issued a couple years ago. Please consider my suggestion. Sincerely, Winifred Holland More recycling options Recycling drop-off sites Iowa City has several recycling drop-off sites located throughout the community for your convenience. The chart below shows what items can be recycled at each site. / ~/ y a° c ;~ i ~~ ,,s~ ,,sa es a4~t 4~ty °°~ ~~'~ qa~ b° ro° a a~'Q ~aq `'4~b o~~ ~~ ~/ East Side Recycling Center ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2401 Scott Blvd. SE Eastdale Plaza ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1st Avenue & Lower Muscatine Hy-Vee ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1201 North Dodge Street Hy-Vee Drug ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 301 N. 1st Avenue Iowa City Landfill & Recycle Center ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3900 Hebl Avenue SW City Carton Recycling ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 E. Benton Street Where to find info on other types of recycling Yard waste disposal Curbside: www icgov org/yardwaste _ 319.356.5180 At landfill (free, self-haul): www.icgov org/landfill ~ 319.356.5185 Hazardous waste disposal www icgovorg/hazardouswaste ~ 319.356.5185 Composting /Community Compost www icgovorg/landfill ~ 319.356.5185 Appliances or electronic waste • Curbside: www icgov org/garbage ~ 319.356.5180 At landfill (self-haul): www icgovorg/landfill ; 319.356.5185 Furniture • If it's still usable: • www icgovorg/furnitureproject -- 319.887.6160 • If it's no longer usable: Curbside: www icgovorg/garbage _ 319.356.5180 ; At landfill (self-haul): • www icgovorg/landfill ~ 319.356.5185 I - i ~. _ - ~ 'wr~~~Il • ~_ • CITY OF IOWA CITY For more info on recycling, contact the City's Recycling Coordinator at 319.887.6160 www.icgov org/landfill Recycling: Now, it's easier! No mare bays and less sorti~,y/ Changes to the Iowa City recycling program: Bags are gone! You no longer need to use bags to sort your recyclables. Easier sorting! Create two sort piles -one for fiber and paper and another for plastics and metal cans. Stack similar items together, place them in your recycling bin, and take it to the curb for pick-up! Fiber and paper Plastics and cans Items should be clean and dry. Please wash containers to prevent contamination. YoK GaN YeGyG~e t~?65: YoK Gah YeGyG~e t~?65: ^ Newspapers (including ad sections) ^ Plastic jugs and containers (#I-5 and #7) ^ Magazines and catalogs (I oo/slick pages) ^ Cans (no need to remove the paper) ^ Mixed paper (computer paper, envelopes, envelopes / pKt ~oT t~?l5: with windows, file folders, greeting cards, etc.) ; ••• ^ Chipboard (cereal boxes, cardboard egg cartons, ^ Aluminum (no aluminum foil, pie tins, etc.) paper towel tubes, etc.) ^ Wire hangers or miscellaneous metals Cardboard (limit size to 2 ft. x 2 ft.; cardboard (no copper, bronze, etc.) can be placed under your recycle bin at the curb) ^ Also: No plastic bags, wraps, #6 plastic food grade 6Kt /vor this: containers, kids'toys, motor oil bottles, Styrofoam, ... polystyrene, etc. ^ Books (no hardcovers, paperbacks, or phone books) • ^ Liquid cartons or frozen food boxes HUw many recycle bins ? (no milk or juice cartons, wax- orslick-coated frozen food boxes, or anything with food still in it or on it!) • Use one or more bins -whatever works best for you. ^ Also: No carbon paper, facial tissue, paper cups, Extra bins may be purchased from the City for $12 by calling 319.356.5180. You may also buy bins elsewhere paper plates, photographs, napkins, etc. (a City tag is no longer required), but if it's lost or dam- • aged, the City cannot replace it. If it's a City bin, we can. No glass, please! ; Iowa City's curbside recycling program does not accept ; How to stack your recycle bin glass, but there are places that take it locally. Information you no longer need to sort your recyclables in bags. on glass recycling appears on the back of this flyer. Stack similar items together. If using one bin, put news- ; papers on one side, magazines on the other, cardboard • underneath, plastics on top, etc. For two bins, stack fiber For more info and paper in one, and plastics and cans in the other. For more information on recycling, see the back of this flyer, call the Solid Waste office at 319.356.5180, or ; Please note: Iowa City curbside recycling collection visit our website at www.icgov.org/landfill. is limited to single family homes consisting of four units or less. March 22, 2011 The Honorable Matthew J. Hayek Mayor, City of Iowa City City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 ~~~ 201 I ~~~ Z8 ~~ 1! ~ 43 C!~' ~ ~L~~~r~ e 0'~a~ ~ f T `l, ~ ~ ~~`~~ SUBJECT: Contract 08-DRH-210 Iowa City 2nd Monitoring Report -Flood Disaster Recovery Program Dear Mayor Hayek: This letter serves as a report of the monitoring visit to the City of Iowa City on March 10 and 11, 2011. I appreciate the assistance given by Tracy Hightshoe, Doug Ongie, Steve Long from the City, and Tracey Achenbach, Johnson County Housing Trust Fund, and Mary Ann Dennis from The Housing Fellowship. This monitoring visit covered the 2nd Appropriation Disaster Recovery Contract 08-DRH-210. This included a review of only the activities underway or completed which included Labor Standards from the Aniston Village Multi Family Rental Project and one tenant file (activity #875), and Single Family New Production-Round 2 (activities #871 and 872). Also reviewed were the contracts between Iowa City and Building Science Solutions, Inc., and also between the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County (SFNC-Round 2 Administrator). The Small Rental Rehab Program (activity #731) was monitored during the last visit. Those activities not underway and yet to be monitored in the future will be the Single Family New Production -Round 3, Jumpstart Housing Repair (activities 975 and 976), Homeownership Assistance (activities #982 and 981). The 08-DRH-210 contract and amendments have made available to the City of Iowa City $7,022,820. Six amendments have been executed to date. As of this monitoring visit the City has drawn $3,047,822. In review of the General Monitoring Checklist for the City of Iowa City for this 2nd Appropriation Contract, it was determined that nothing has changed since monitoring the first contract in regard to the "general" monitoring items such as Citizen Participation, Financial Management, Procurement, Civil Rights and Acquisition Relocation. The next 4 paragraphs have comments on the "general" monitoring of the Environmental, Contract Management, and Labor Standards Compliance. In review of the Environmental File for the 2nd Appropriation, the Request for Release of funds was July 16, 2009. Also published for the Single Family New Construction Activities for Round 2 (amended) and Round 3 were published and the Request for Release of Funds was dated March 2, 2011. In my review of Contract Management, the City contracted with the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County (a non-profit organization) to administer the Single Family New Production Round 2 project. This project consists of building 37 new homes. The administrative contract was for $92,000 and signed June 10, 2010. The contract had all federal and state regulations listed. I also reviewed the contract for environmental consulting services between Iowa City and Building Science Solution, Inc. of Cedar Rapids, Iowa. The contract was signed June 8, 2010 and the amount shall not exceed $14,800. All federal and state language was included. This contract is for energy audits made to each home. Terry E. Branstad, Governor IOWA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Kim Reynolds, lieutenant Governor Debi V. Durham, Director „ 200 East Grand Avenue, Des Moines, Iowa USA 50309 ~ Phone: 515.725.3000 ~ Fax: 515.725.3010 m vuww.iowalifechanging.com 3~~t~ Page 2 March 22, 2011 201! I~AR 28 ~~ I!; ~3 Federal Labor Standards was reviewed for the Aniston Village p,~~j~~~t~(ne~rlGQr}~~tuction of 22 rental houses). Mary Ann Dennis of The Housing Fellowship was t ~,b~rritpli~r~;~t,~ffi r. Payrolls were submitted weekly. A review of the Selzer-Werderitsch Company payroll #1 an~#9 showed the correct level of pay according to the wage rate issued. A review of Nelson & Sons Plumbing payroll #16 showed the correct level of pay also. No apprentices worked on these houses. Also reviewed was one tenant file from the Aniston Village project. 1062 Chamberlain Drive showed that the tenant income of $47,526 for a family of 6 was low income and therefore an eligible tenant. Employment was verified by 3 paycheck stubs and a 1 year lease was in place. Rent was $775 which is less than the Fair Market Rents for Iowa City. I looked at the following files under Single Family New Production-Round 2 for: *Note-The Development Team for the SFNC-Round 2 is the City Community Development staff, Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County Director, Matt Hoskins of Building Science Solutions. 2341 Willenbrock Circle -This home was built by Peninsula Development from Iowa City. The household buying the house was given a subsidy of $37,500 to buy down their mortgage. The household's application was in the files. SHPO clearance was 5/26/10. The Duplication of Benefits check was dated 7/27/10. They received no other federal money from the disaster. Their household income was verified at $46,873 which puts them in the 86%AMI and therefore meets the Urgent Need national objective. The sale price of the house was $150,000. Builder's Fee was $18,395 which was 12% of the project cost. An occupancy permit was given on 12/14/2010 and the mortgage lien was filed on 12/20/10. 437 Westbury Drive -This home was built by Allen Homes, Inc. The household buying the house was given a $37,500 subsidy to buy down their mortgage. The household's application was in the files. The SHPO clearance was 6/10/10. The Duplication of Benefits check was dated 11/4/10. They received no FEMA money from the disaster. Their household income was verified at $32,842 which puts them in the 60%AMI and therefore meets the national objective of Low and Moderate Income. The sale price of the house was $150,000. Builder's Fee was $10,000 which 7% of the project cost. An Occupancy Permit was granted on 11/12/10 and the mortgage lien was recorded on 11/16/10. 1940 Sherman Drive -This home was built by Dan Dolan Homes. The household buying the house was given a $45,000 subsidy to buy down their mortgage. The household's application was in the files. The SHPO clearance was 10/28/10. The Duplication of Benefits check was dated 10/28/10. They received no FEMA money from the disaster. Their household income was verified at $52,089 which puts them in the 95%AMI and therefore meets the national objective of Urgent Need. The sale price of the house was $180,000. Builder's Fee was $13,000 which 7% of the project cost. An Occupancy Permit was granted on 11/12/10 and the mortgage lien was recorded on 11/1/10. 725 Arch Rock Road -This home was built by Advantage Custom Builders. The household buying the house was given a $45,000 subsidy to buy down their mortgage. The household's application was in the files. The SHPO clearance was 6/10/10. The Duplication of Benefits check was dated 12/8/10. They received no FEMA money from the disaster. Their household income was verified at $56,426 which puts them in the 80%AMI and therefore meets the national objective of Low to Moderate Income. The sale price of the house was $180,000. Builder's Fee was $21,600 which 12% of the project cost. An Occupancy Permit was granted on 12/8/10 and the mortgage lien was Page 3 March 22, 2011 recorded on 12/20/10. Please thank the staff for their time. There were no findings, and documentation to support compliance with all requirements was in the files or has not changed since monitoring the 08-DRH-010 contract. The City continues to administer the Disaster Recovery Program very well. Staff should be commended for their dedication. If you have any questions, please contact me at (515) 725-3066. i erely, Donna Grgurich Project Manager ~~ cc: Steve Long, City of Iowa City Tracy Hightshoe, City of Iowa City File 0 r cz ~''--y -~; --~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ _ ~,;~ N 0 cso x~ ..=~; ,~- c~ ~~ y 9Cy) Marian Karr From: Robert McGrath <mcgrath.robert92@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 6:55 PM To: Council Subject: So How High are Iowa City's Property Taxes, Really? March 29, 2011 To the City Council of Iowa City: I read with interest Mr. Glenn McAllister's March 3 inquiry to City Council (http://www.iowa- cit~r~/weblink/docview aspx~id=1103791&Pa~e=157) and response from Budget Director O'Malley. I have no argument with much of the budget director's reply, but it appears unfortunate that Mr. McAllister did not word his question specifically enough to get his question answered fully and accurately. I was waiting for another City official or Council Member to correct some of the inaccuracies in a followup memo, but since that didn't occur, I'd like to single out some of the comments in that correspondence that bear further discussion and clarification in my layman's opinion. 1. Mr. McAllister asked why taxes are higher in Iowa City than in Coralville. I agree with Mr. O'Malley that comparing Iowa City's taxes to Coralville's is not possible to do accurately because of varying municipal services and size. However, I believe it is completely justifiable to compare Iowa City's taxes to those of other similar-sized Iowa cities, particularly those in the top ten population ranking, to gauge whether they are higher than the norm. Mr. O'Malley, unfortunately, volunteered no information regarding how Iowa City's tax rate compares to other cities of similar size. 2. Mr. McAllister asked if Iowa City had the highest property tax rate in Iowa. Mr. O'Malley responded that "Fortunately Iowa City does not have the highest property tax rate in Iowa" with no further elaboration. That abrupt statement is technically true, but as you will see in the chart below, one also needs to consider what was left unsaid here by the budget director. Iowa City's levy is not the highest (it's actually 3~d highest in Iowa, one penny below #2), but one needs to consider an additional factor when gauging the complete property tax burden, which is the median assessed property valuation in a particular community. Levy + property valuation determines who pays the highest taxes, not just the levy rate alone. Mr. O'Malley made no reference to this in his reply to Mr. McAI lister. 3. Continuing on with Mr. O'Malley's remarks explaining why Iowa City's taxes are higher, he states that Iowa City is "the only city in Johnson County.....to own and operate a municipal airport and a landfill". Again, this is correct, when comparing Iowa City to Coralville. But a student of municipal finance would know that operating a landfill is a profit center for its operator. It is certainly not a drain on a city's finances, as implied by Mr. O'Malley, and is not paid for by the taxpayers but rather by the landfill users. 4. Regarding the Iowa City Airport, other cities in Iowa which have fully functioning, commercial passenger service airports such as Cedar Rapids, Des Moines, and Dubuque, still are able to operate those airports and have a lower tax levy than Iowa City's. Iowa City has a small general aviation/private airport which is operated by a subcontractor, I believe. It is considered an enterprise fund paid for primarily by users, with a relatively small subsidy from the general fund (taxpayers). I couldn't find the exact figure of the subsidy but obviously the small airport is not a significant contributor to the cause for Iowa City's high tax rate. Tax Levy/Effective Tax Comparison There are two cities in Iowa that have a higher levy rate than Iowa City for 2012: • Waterloo has a FY12 levy rate of $18.53, but the average house there has a value over $62,000 less than Iowa City. • Council Bluffs has a levy rate just $.01 over Iowa City's, but the average house there is valued almost $58,000 less than an equivalent average residence in Iowa City. Since the same residence in Iowa City would have a higher assessed value than an equivalent one in Waterloo or Council Bluffs, I contend that Iowa City has the highest EFFECTIVE property tax rate in Iowa. Only the high income city of West Des Moines has a higher median assessed value, but their tax levy is much less ($12.05). I think it disingenuous of Mr. O'Malley, who clearly has all this knowledge and data at hand, to not include the important median assessed property value factor when he quickly dismissed the idea of Iowa City not having the highest property taxes. He was not answering in the true spirit of Mr. McAlister's inquiry. Now being curious about how Iowa City compares to other major Iowa cities, and knowing I would not find the information in the Iowa City budget or from its staff, I did my own homework and visited each city's websites and budget. Below is a comparison table containing all FY12 budget decisions I compiled from my research. Top Ten Cities in Iowa by Population Listed in Order of Tax Levy Rate (Descending) FY2012 City Property Levy Council budget Median Pop. 2010 8~ Tax/$1000 Increase actions Assessed ranking in valuation from Home Value Iowa - FY12 FY2011? Waterloo $18.53 3.83% Deleted/consolidated $107,900 68,406 (#5) increase upper management positions (Fire Chief & Streets Su t. . Council $17.85 No tax levy Tax levy unchanged $117,221 62,230 (#7) Bluffs increase for 6th consecutive ear Iowa City $17.84 3.6% Cut 1 Police, 1 Fire $175,1001 67,862 (#6) increase osition. #2 in State Sioux City $16.64 No levy or 3~ consecutive year $92,500 82,684 (#4) actual tax of decreasing tax increase levy. Elim. 14 FT (including positions (none in rollback) Police or Fire. 1 in Manager's office). 39 positions were cut in FY11. 7% cut in all operating budgets. Closed branch libra Des $16.58 No levy Tax rate unchanged $120,300 203,433 (#1) Moines increase since FY09. Similar to Iowa City with much state-owned tax exem t ro ert . Davenport $15.53 No levy 19 positions unfilled, $120,100 99,685 (#3) increase with 6 of those by la offs. Cedar $15.22 No levy Tax rate unchanged $135,200 126,326 (#2) Ra ids increase since FY09. W. Des $12.05 No levy Formed Revenue $188,684 56,609 (#10) Moines increase Estimating. Personnel Expenditure & Position Review Teams to improve long range financial tannin Ames $10.84 No levy Similar to Iowa City $168,729 58,965 (#8) increase with much state- owned tax exempt ro ert . Dubu ue $10.45 4.88% No a raise for $130,367 57,637 #9 increase employees in FY12. In FY81, Dubuque had 588.25 employees, FY12 = 549.25 em to ees. As you can see from the chart, only three cities in Iowa raised their tax levy for FY12: Iowa City, Dubuque, and Waterloo. Dubuque's tax levy, however, is the lowest of the top ten Iowa cities at $10.45. I could not locate one city in Iowa that cut Police or Fire in FY12 except for Iowa City. Also to be noted in this discussion is that even if the City Council of Iowa City had directed that there be no increase in the tax levy, the effective rate would still be increased due to the State-mandated increase in the residential rollback factor. The residential rollback factor increases the value that each residence is taxed on from 46.909% to 48.530% (a 3.45% increase). This factor alone increases the tax burden on an Iowa City residential property owner, without any Council action. In addition, I just received in the mail today a new assessment of my house which increased, so tax revenue will be increased in this manner again without Council's overt action. I might mention that the City of Sioux City even compensated for the rollback factor increase in their budget deliberations to keep their effective tax rate truly flat. Attached are comparisons obtained from the City of Dubuque budget which list comparative figures for Iowa cities regarding property taxes and municipal service fees that you may find of interest. When figuring the cost of living in a particular city, it is important to remember municipal utility fees in addition to property taxes. It seems ironic that I found the most insightful comparative information about the Iowa City property taxes and expenses not in Iowa City's but rather in the Dubuque budget. Property Tax Revenue per Capita Fiscal Year 2012 Comparison for Iowa's 10 Largest Cities Rank City Taxes per Capita 10 West Des Moines $997 9 Iowa City $780 8 Council Bluffs $i02 7 Cedar Rapids $659 6 Davenport $587 5 Waterloo $561 4 Des Moines $548 3 Ames $455 2 Sioux City $411 1 Dubuque $359 #1 ranked West Des Moines has a levy $5.79 less per $1000 valuation than Iowa City with a slightly higher median assessed valuation ($13,500 higher). It appears their #1 placement is most likely due to the numerous very large retail and corporate entities in that community churning off disproportionately large property tax revenue compared to other Iowa cities. Iowa City ranks #2 in amount of property tax revenue generated per capita. City Property Tax Rate Comparison Growth/Reduction Trends Over Decade Fiscal Year 2002 -Fiscal Year 2012 City FY 2012 FY 2002 Change FY12 - FY02 Waterloo $18.53 $17.80 4.1% Council Bluffs $17.85 $15.72 13.55% Iowa City $17.84 $14.85 20.13% Sioux City $16.64 $14.41 15.46% Des Moines $16.58 $17.05 -2.75% Davenport $15.53 $14.60 6.37% Cedar Rapids $15.22 $13.04 16.72% West Des Moines $12.05 $10.90 10.55% Ames $10.84 $9.36 15.81 Dubuque $10.45 $10.76 -2.88% The above chart concludes that Iowa City's property tax rates have risen the highest over any other top 10 city in Iowa over the past 10 years. This ranking is for property tax alone; it does not include in that figure the effect of the recent initiation of franchise and sales tax fees to the total tax burden on Iowa Citians. Water Rate Comparison Monthly Water Rate Comparison for Largest Iowa Cities with Water Softening for the Average User City Proposed Rate (FY 12) West Des Moines $29.40 ~owa City $27.4D Cedar Rapids $22.13 Ames $22.73 Council Bluffs $20.74 Des Moines $20.43 Dubuque $18.49 Sanitary Sewer Comparison Sanitary Sewer Rate Comparison for Average User City FY12 Iowa City $36.17 West Des Moines $36.08 Council Bluffs $31.10 Des Moines $29.70 Sioux City $27.04 Davenport $26.47 Dubuque $23.77 Waterloo $22.00 Cedar Rapids $20.77 Ames $20.03 During my review of these ten municipal budgets, I noticed that several of the budgets had a seal that stated they were awarded the "Distinguished Budget Presentation" award. I looked it up and the following cities in Iowa have been given the award: Ames; Ankeny; Bettendorf; Cedar Falls; Davenport; and Dubuque. I believe this is something that Iowa City should set as a goal to achieve. I have looked over the past Iowa City budgets presently posted on the website and the budget format and quality of content has been unchanged for many years. With a new City Manager in place, I think it is a good time to revamp the budget process in Iowa City and make it more informative to the Council and the public it represents. Measureable goals should be included as most other cities do. I encourage the Council to look at other cities budgets and compare them to Iowa City's. Perhaps with higher quality budget information the Council can become more proactive and independent in its budget decision making and cost control. Until then, I would suggest to the Council that they demand more complete and transparent information from staff and not just passively accept the sparse budget information that is presently given to them in their deliberations. Whether intentional or not, this lack of historical and comparative budget data limits the City Council's ability to advocate more effectively on local taxpayer's behalf and make decisions independent of staff's recommendations when appropriate. Thank you. Marian Karr From: Kevin O'Malley Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 2:43 PM To: 'mcgrath.robert92@gmail.com' Cc: *City Council Subject: FW: So How High are Iowa City's Property Taxes, Really? April 1, 2011 Dear Mr. McGrath, Thank you for taking an interest in the City of Iowa City's budget process. I am hearten that you have no argument with much of my reply to Mr. Glenn McAllister's question on property taxes, I am also dismayed that you feel my comments were disingenuous. I have worked here at the City of Iowa City for 26 years and the last 12 years as Director of Finance. For the past 26 years the financial statements of the City of Iowa City have received the Governmental Finance Officers Association's (GFOA) Certificate of Achievement in Excellence in Financial Reporting on our audited financial statements. The citizens of Iowa City and the public are always welcome to review, discuss, and examine any and all financial transactions. As to the tables you provided in your email, the `Property Tax Revenue per Capita' and the `Water Rate Comparison' you copied from the City of Dubuque's budget are correct however, the 'Sanitary Sewer Comparison' has incorrect dollar values and city rankings. The table entitled 'Top Ten Cities in Iowa by Population Listed in Order of Tax Levy Rate (Descending) FY2012' which I believe you may have constructed has a mistake. The City of Iowa City's Levy increase from FY2011 is .48% not the 3.6% increase you depicted. Also, there other utility and franchise fee comparisons included in the City of Dubuque's budget where the City of Iowa City was in the middle of the rankings. My assumption is that those table ommissions in your email do not support or provide emphasis to your comments. Budgets are not just about property taxes but all exactions from the public including utility taxes, gaming taxes, franchise fees, hotel/motel taxes, local option sales taxes, and other city revenues. To focus on one aspect of taxation to the exclusion of all sources do not present an accurate view of city finances. As to your comment on the GFOA's award of Distinguish Budget Presentation, in 1984 the City of Iowa City was one of the original nineteen cities nationwide to receive the award. The City continued to receive the award until 1992. The previous City Manager and previous Finance Director decided not to pursue the award. The new City Manager would like to pursue that achievement again and is working with the City Council to develop the required goals and performance measures. I appreciate the time and effort that you spent in reviewing city finances and would invite you to discuss further concerns. Regards, Kevin Kevin O'Malley Director of Finance City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 kevi n-o'mal ley@ iowa-city. org 319.356.5053 fax 319.341.4008 From: Robert McGrath [mailto:mcgrath.robert92@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 6:55 PM To: Council Subject: So How High are Iowa City's Property Taxes, Really? March 29, 2011 To the City Council of Iowa City: I read with interest Mr. Glenn McAllister's March 3 inquiry to City Council (http://www.iowa- city o~/weblink/docview.aspx?id=1103791&Pa~e=157) and response from Budget Director O'Malley. I have no argument with much of the budget director's reply, but it appears unfortunate that Mr. McAllister did not word his question specifically enough to get his question answered fully and accurately. I was waiting for another City official or Council Member to correct some of the inaccuracies in a followup memo, but since that didn't occur, I'd like to single out some of the comments in that correspondence that bear further discussion and clarification in my layman's opinion. 1. Mr. McAllister asked why taxes are higher in Iowa City than in Coralville. I agree with Mr. O'Malley that comparing Iowa City's taxes to Coralville's is not possible to do accurately because of varying municipal services and size. However, I believe it is completely justifiable to compare Iowa City's taxes to those of other similar-sized Iowa cities, particularly those in the top ten population ranking, to gauge whether they are higher than the norm. Mr. O'Malley, unfortunately, volunteered no information regarding how Iowa City's tax rate compares to other cities of similar size. 2. Mr. McAllister asked if Iowa City had the highest property tax rate in Iowa. Mr. O'Malley responded that "Fortunately Iowa City does not have the highest property tax rate in Iowa" with no further elaboration. That abrupt statement is technically true, but as you will see in the chart below, one also needs to consider what was left unsaid here by the budget director. Iowa City's levy is not the highest (it's actually 3~d highest in Iowa, one penny below #2), but one needs to consider an additional factor when gauging the complete property tax burden, which is the median assessed property valuation in a particular community. Levy + property valuation determines who pays the highest taxes, not just the levy rate alone. Mr. O'Malley made no reference to this in his reply to Mr. McAllister. 3. Continuing on with Mr. O'Malley's remarks explaining why Iowa City's taxes are higher, he states that Iowa City is "the only city in Johnson County.....to own and operate a municipal airport and a landfill". Again, this is correct, when comparing Iowa City to Coralville. But a student of municipal finance would know that operating a landfill is a profit center for its operator. It is certainly not a drain on a city's finances, as implied by Mr. O'Malley, and is not paid for by the taxpayers but rather by the landfill users. 4. Regarding the Iowa City Airport, other cities in Iowa which have fully functioning, commercial passenger service airports such as Cedar Rapids, Des Moines, and Dubuque, still are able to operate those airports and have a lower tax levy than Iowa City's. Iowa City has a small general aviation/private airport which is operated by a subcontractor, I believe. It is considered an enterprise fund paid for primarily by users, with a relatively small subsidy from the general fund 2 (taxpayers). I couldn't find the exact figure of the subsidy but obviously the small airport is not a significant contributor to the cause for Iowa City's high tax rate. Tax Levy/Effective Tax Comparison There are two cities in Iowa that have a higher levy rate than Iowa City for 2012: Waterloo has a FY12 levy rate of $18.53, but the average house there has a value over $62,000 less than Iowa City. • Council Bluffs has a levy rate just $.01 over Iowa City's, but the average house there is valued almost $58,000 less than an equivalent average residence in Iowa City. Since the same residence in Iowa City would have a higher assessed value than an equivalent one in Waterloo or Council Bluffs, I contend that Iowa City has the highest EFFECTIVE property tax rate in Iowa. Only the high income city of West Des Moines has a higher median assessed value, but their tax levy is much less ($12.05). I think it disingenuous of Mr. O'Malley, who clearly has all this knowledge and data at hand, to not include the important median assessed property value factor when he quickly dismissed the idea of Iowa City not having the highest property taxes. He was not answering in the true spirit of Mr. McAlister's inquiry. Now being curious about how Iowa City compares to other major Iowa cities, and knowing I would not find the information in the Iowa City budget or from its staff, I did my own homework and visited each city's websites and budget. Below is a comparison table containing all FY12 budget decisions I compiled from my research. Top Ten Cities in Iowa by Population Listed in Order of Tax Levy Rate (Descending) FY2012 City Property Levy Council budget Median Pop. 2010 8~ Taxl$1000 Increase actions Assessed ranking in valuation from Home Value Iowa - FY12 FY2011? Waterloo $18.53 3.83% Deleted/consolidated $107,900 68,406 (#5) increase upper management positions (Fire Chief & Streets Su t. . Council $17.85 No tax levy Tax levy unchanged $117,221 62,230 (#7) Bluffs increase for 6th consecutive ear Iowa City $17.84 3.6% Cut 1 Police, 1 Fire $175,1001 67,862 (#6) increase osition. #2 in State Sioux City $16.64 No levy or 3~ consecutive year $92,500 82,684 (#4) actual tax of decreasing tax increase levy. Elim. 14 FT (including positions (none in rollback) Police or Fire. 1 in Manager's office). 39 positions were cut in FY11. 7% cut in all operating budgets. Closed branch libra Des $16.58 No levy Tax rate unchanged $120,300 203,433 (#1) Moines increase since FY09. Similar to Iowa City with much state-owned tax exem t ro ert . Davenport $15.53 No levy 19 positions unfilled, $120,100 99,685 (#3) increase with 6 of those by la offs. Cedar $15.22 No levy Tax rate unchanged $135,200 126,326 (#2) Ra ids increase since FY09. W. Des $12.05 No Formed Revenue $188,684 56,609 (#10) Moines levy increase Estimating. Personnel Expenditure & Position Review Teams to improve long range financial tannin Ames $10.84 No levy Similar to Iowa City $168,729 58,965 (#8) increase with much state- owned tax exempt ro ert . Dubuque $10.45 4.88% No pay raise for $130,367 57,637 (#9) increase employees in FY12. In FY81, Dubuque had 588.25 employees, FY12 = 549.25 em to ees. As you can see from the chart, only three cities in Iowa raised their tax levy for FY12: Iowa City, Dubuque, and Waterloo. Dubuque's tax levy, however, is the lowest of the top ten Iowa cities at $10.45. I could not locate one city in Iowa that cut Police or Fire in FY12 except for Iowa City. Also to be noted in this discussion is that even if the City Council of Iowa City had directed that there be no increase in the tax levy, the effective rate would still be increased due to the State-mandated increase in the residential rollback factor. The residential rollback factor increases the value that each residence is taxed on from 46.909% to 48.530% (a 3.45% increase). This factor alone increases the tax burden on an Iowa City residential property owner, without any Council action. In addition, I just received in the mail today a new assessment of my house which increased, so tax revenue will be increased in this manner again without Council's overt action. I might mention that the City of Sioux City even compensated for the rollback factor increase in their budget deliberations to keep their effective tax rate truly flat. Attached are comparisons obtained from the City of Dubuque budget which list comparative figures for Iowa cities regarding property taxes and municipal service fees that you may find of interest. When figuring the cost of living in a particular city, it is important to remember municipal utility fees in addition to property taxes. It seems ironic that I found the most insightful comparative information about the Iowa City property taxes and expenses not in Iowa City's but rather in the Dubuque budget. Property Tax Revenue per Capita Fiscal Year 2012 Comparison for Iowa's 10 Largest Cities Rank City Taxes per Capita 10 West Des Moines $997 9 Iowa City , - $780 8 Council Bluffs $702 7 Cedar Rapids $659 6 Davenport $587 5 Waterloo $561 4 Des Moines $548 3 Ames $455 2 Sioux City $411 1 Dubuque $359 4 #1 ranked West Des Moines has a levy $5.79 less per $1000 valuation than Iowa City with a slightly higher median assessed valuation ($13,500 higher). It appears their #1 placement is most likely due to the numerous very large retail and corporate entities in that community churning off disproportionately large property tax revenue compared to other Iowa cities. Iowa City ranks #2 in amount of property tax revenue generated per capita. City Property Tax Rate Comparison Growth/Reduction Trends Over Decade Fiscal Year 2002 -Fiscal Year 2012 City FY 2012 FY 2002 Change FY12 - FY02 Waterloo $18.53 $17.80 4.1% Council Bluffs $17.85 $15.72 13.55% Iowa City $17.84 $14.85 20.13% Sioux City $16.64 $14.41 15.46% Des Moines $16.58 $17.05 -2.75% Davenport $15.53 $14.60 6.37% Cedar Rapids $15.22 $13.04 16.72% West Des Moines $12.05 $10.90 10.55% Ames $10.84 $9.36 15.81% Dubuque $10.45 $10.76 -2.88% The above chart concludes that Iowa City's property tax rates have risen the highest over any other top 10 city in Iowa over the past 10 years. This ranking is for property tax alone; it does not include in that figure the effect of the recent initiation of franchise and sales tax fees to the total tax burden on Iowa Citians. Water Rate Comparison Monthly Water Rate Comparison for Largest Iowa Cities with Water Softening for the Average User City Proposed Rate (FY 12) West Des Moines $29.40 Iowa City, ~ $27.40. ; ` Cedar Rapids $22.73 Ames $22.73 Council Bluffs $20.74 Des Moines $20.43 Dubuque $18.49 Sanitary Sewer Comparison Sanitary Sewer Rate Comparison for Average User City FY12 Iowa City $36:17 West Des Moines $36.08 Council Bluffs $31.10 Des Moines $29.70 Sioux City $27.04 Davenport $26.47 Dubuque $23.77 Waterloo $22.00 Cedar Rapids $20.77 Ames $20.03 During my review of these ten municipal budgets, I noticed that several of the budgets had a seal that stated they were awarded the "Distinguished Budget Presentation" award. I looked it up and the following cities in Iowa have been given the award: Ames; Ankeny; Bettendorf; Cedar Falls; Davenport; and Dubuque. I believe this is something that Iowa City should set as a goal to achieve. I have looked over the past Iowa City budgets presently posted on the website and the budget format and quality of content has been unchanged for many years. With a new City Manager in place, I think it is a good time to revamp the budget process in Iowa City and make it more informative to the Council and the public it represents. Measureable goals should be included as most other cities do. I encourage the Council to look at other cities budgets and compare them to Iowa City's. Perhaps with higher quality budget information the Council can become more proactive and independent in its budget decision making and cost control. Until then, I would suggest to the Council that they demand more complete and transparent information from staff and not just passively accept the sparse budget information that is presently given to them in their deliberations. Whether intentional or not, this lack of historical and comparative budget data limits the City Council's ability to advocate more effectively on local taxpayer's behalf and make decisions independent of staffs recommendations when appropriate. Thank you. ~I 9 Cs) Honorable Council, During my tenure as UISG City Council Liaison, I have received much negative feedback from UI students about the high cost of fines associated with alcohol related citations, especially the penalty for a violation of the recently passed 21-only ordinance. The penalty for being underage in a bar after 10:00 P.M. is $500, which becomes $735 after customary processing charges are added. It is important to note that violations of this law do not occur in isolation. Commonly, students are cited for violation of the 21-only ordinance and at the same time receive a citation for possession of alcohol under the legal age (PAULA). A student charged with PAULA o ubject to a $200 fine--$315 with customary processing charges. As a result, an underage stunt caug~it possessing alcohol in a bar after 10:00 P.M. is subject to fines totaling $1,065. ~~ A Financially Vulnerable Class: --~~ ~~ ~ As a class of people, college students are financially vulnerable, often living on fixed ini~rs arm incurring a great deal of debt in an effort to gain an education and a better future. Ac~,grding t~The Gazette, UI students graduating with student loan debt in 2009 had an average debt of $22,68~E? Furthermore, a college student graduating today faces a bleakjob market, making it all the more difficult for the student to pay off the ever-increasing debt load associated with getting a college education.2 As the fees for underage, alcohol-related citations currently exist, a college student is subject to fines in excess of $1,000 for a single error in judgment (i.e. drinking in a bar after 10:00 P.M.). A fine of this amount creates a great hardship fora vulnerable, financially constrained population. For some, it could even result in an early exit from the university, an unintended consequence of the law that is quite troubling. Penalties-A Need for Proportionality, Uniformity: Law enforcement is necessary to an orderly society. A person who breaks the law should be penalized. However, in determining how much (and what) punishment should be imposed, the purpose of the law and the goal of the punishment should be considered. Binge drinking, particularly among underage students, is an undisputed problem in our city. Thus, the City of Iowa City's efforts to prevent and reduce binge drinking rates among this population are laudable. One route the City took to confront this issue was the implementation of the law discussed above; the fines mandated by the law are intended to add teeth to and further the goals of the law. Punishments for violations of the law have generally been justified in the following ways: (1) general deterrence, (2) individual deterrence, and (3) reform.3 The first two rationales involve the idea of deterrence, meaning that a punishment should deter both the current offender and future offenders 1 "Average student debt down at UI, ISU, UNI"The Gazette, Heldt, Diane, (June 3, 2010) 2 "Average College Debt Rose to $24,000 in 2009" New York Times, Lewin, Tamar (October 21, 2010) 3 Punishment, Greenawalt, Kent, 3 Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice 1282 (2d Edition 2002), 1286-1287. alcohol-$50, etc.6 It is hard to believe that being in a bar after 10:00 P.M. warrants several times the punishment ascribed to these offences. Some may argue that a reduction of the 21 ordinance fine would have the negative consequence of sending a "mixed message" to students and the community at large--meaning that the Council is saying that underage drinking is a problem in the City, but, at the same time, lowering the fines for an alcohol offense. However, it is important that the Council consider the goals of the law and what is required to effectuate that law. It is also important for the Council to protect a vulnerable class of citizens from undue and unnecessary hardship. Lowering the fee would have the dual effect of maintaining a responsible alcohol policy while at the same time protecting college students from undue economic hardship. Furthermore, the change could improve the perception that students have of their city. Lowering the fine to a reasonable level would not encourage underage bar attendance. Instead, it would be a signal to underage citizens of Iowa City that their government is responsive to their concerns. Proposed Change: For the aforementioned reasons, common sense and fairness demand a change to the 21-only penalty structure. I propose five alternatives to current Iowa City policy that will help to fix this problem: (1) Lower the $500 fine to be consistent with other communities and other Iowa City criminal penalties. (2) Establish a graduated fine (i.e. a fine that increases upon consecutive violations). (3) Offer community service as an alternative to the monetary fine. (4) Change the penalty from a scheduled fee to an unscheduled fee, which would leave the punishment up to the court to determine on a case by case basis in order to make punishment more appropriate. (5) Require bars to vocally announce when underage patrons are legally required to leave (10:00 P.M.). In its current form, the law places an undue and unnecessarily harsh burden on a vulnerable population. This burden is unnecessary because a lower fine would accomplish the same deterrent/reform effects, and it is undue because it is inconsistent with other code provisions and related fines. While I support efforts to curb the binge drinking in Iowa City, it is unfair for students to be charged excessive fines for entering a bar. The penalty must be made to match the crime. N ca c~ Sincerely, , ~~ ~ ,,,,.._ =~' --f ~~ Elliot Higgins `~~~ --~ t-a ca -- ®'° ~~ ~ ._ ~ a. -,,, 6 Iowa City Code 3-4-9 -•~'"` ~ "~ cn from acting in a certain way. The third rationale is the idea that punishment can help to reform the offender so that he will realize the wrong in his ways and will be less likely to repeat the offense. Another consideration in determining the appropriateness of a penalty has to do with the goal of uniformity of sentencing/penalties. Uniformity provides notice and a level of fairness to the citizenry. 21-Only Ordinance Penalty Unnecessarily High, Disproportionate: Considering the above factors and the goals of the 21-only ordinance, it becomes clear that the penalty imposed by the ordinance is unnecessarily high and has led to the undesirable consequence of creating an abnormally large, undue financial burden for a vulnerable class of people. As for the goal of deterrence, a lesser penalty could still be effective without these undesirable consequences. As noted above, university students have limited resources and are often in debt. If the fine is reduced, lawbreakers would still face a substantial penalty relative to their financial situation. A significantly lesser penalty would suffice to maintain a deterrent effect for the majority of the student population. This is particularly true given the fact that most students who choose to illegally venture to downtown bars rarely come to this decision based on a rational calibration of alcohol fine amounts. Instead, decisions to head downtown are often rash and not well thought out. With regard to the goal of reform, a lesser penalty would be just as effective. A student would surely learn a lesson and think twice before violating the 21-only ordinance after being tagged with a still significant, but lesser fine. The lesser fine would serve the purpose of alerting the student to a potential alcohol problem. For the aforementioned reasons, common sense dictates that a lesser penalty could accomplish the goal of the law while no longer unduly injuring a young person who makes a single error in judgment. As noted above, in addition to the goals of deterrence and reform, it is desirable that penalties be uniform throughout the state and within a city. With regard to the 21-only ordinance, relative to other municipalities and different Iowa City fines, the penalty for being in a bar underage is disproportionate. In most municipalities in Iowa, it is legal for a person under the age of 21 to be in an establishment with a liquor license at any time. Where it is illegal, however, the fine for being in a bar is significantly less than the amount required by the Iowa City 21-only ordinance. For example, in Ames, the penalty for being in a bar underage is $100 for the first infraction and $200 for the second.4 In Dubuque, the penalty for being in a bar underage is an unscheduled fees meaning that it is determined by the Court. In addition to the revelations of this comparison to penalties required by other municipalities, a comparison of the 21-only ordinance fine to other Iowa City penalties for criminal infractions demonstrates an unusually large disparity. To illustrate this point, here is a list of infractions and their associated penalties: public urination-$50, releasing or molesting animals-$25, open container of N 0 c c~ FJ ~ w,# a Ames Municipal Code 17.16 `~~~ w ~. 5 Dubuque Code 4-2A-7 ~~ ~ -~- ..-. w ut