Loading...
Legislative Correspondence February 22, 2006 VIA Email and 151 Class Mail <<Email>> <<CompleteOFF ICIALName _Address>> Re: HSB 697 - Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP) Dear <<Title>> <<Last>>, I am writing to encourage you to vote no to HSB 697 regarding the adoption of a deferred retirement option plan (DROP) for the Municipal Fire Police Retirement System. This plan as proposed would expand the level of benefits provided under the 411 system. However, there remain a number of concerns with the 411 system that need to be addressed before an expansion of benefits is considered, including a more equitable distribution of contribution rates among participating parties. In fiscal year 2003, the City of Dubuque's contribution to the retirement system for police officers and firefighters went from 17% of wages to 28.21 % of wages in fiscal year 2006. The additional annual cost associated with the increases in the City's contribution to the police officer and firefighter retirement system is $1,210,203. The contribution rate for police officers and firefighters has remained unchanged since Fiscal Year 1997. Their contribution is 9.35% of wages. Any future legislation should first include language that fairly allocates the contribution rates among participating parties while creating a more actuarial sound Municipal Police and Fire Retirement System. Please vote no to HSB 697. Thank you for your continued efforts to works with cities. Sincerely, Michael C. Van Milligen City Manager MCVM:cs Cc: Mayor Roy D. Buol Dubuque City Council Susan Judkins, Director of Governmental Affairs, Iowa League of Cities Barry Lindahl, Corporation Counsel Cindy Steinhauser, Assistant City Manager Dawn Lang, Budget Director Randy Peck, Personnel Manager . The Honorable Pam Jochum House Chamber Iowa Capitol Building Des Moines, IA 50319 The Honorable Steve Lukan House Chamber Iowa Capitol Building Des Moines, IA 50319 The Honorable Pat Murphy House Chamber Iowa Capitol Building Des Moines, IA 50319 The Honorable Ray Zirkelbach House Chamber Iowa Capitol Building Des Moines, IA 50319 The Honorable Thomas Schueller House Chamber Iowa Capitol Building Des Moines, IA 50319 ~ February 22, 2005 VIA E-mail and 1 st Class Mail <<Email>> <<CompleteOFFICIALName _Add ress>> Re: SSB 3179 - Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP) Dear <<Title>> <<Last>>: I am writing to encourage you to vote no to SSB 3179 regarding the adoption of a deferred retirement option plan (DROP) for the Municipal Fire Police Retirement System. This plan as proposed would expand the level of benefits provided under the 411 system. However, there remain a number of concerns with the 411 system that need to be addressed before an expansion of benefits is considered, including a more equitable distribution of contribution rates among participating parties. In fiscal year 2003, the City of Dubuque's contribution to the retirement system for police officers and firefighters went from 17% of wages to 28.21 % of wages in fiscal year 2006. The additional annual cost associated with the increases in the City's contribution to the police officer and firefighter retirement system is $1,210,203. The contribution rate for police officers and firefighters has remained unchanged since Fiscal Year 1997. Their contribution is 9.35% of wages. Any future legislation should first include language that fairly allocates the contribution rates among participating parties while creating a more actuarial sound Municipal Police and Fire Retirement System. - Please vote no to SSB 3179. Thank you for your continued efforts to works with cities. Sincerely, Michael C. Van Milligen City Manager MCVM:cs Cc: Mayor Roy D. Buol Dubuque City Council Susan Judkins, Director of Governmental Affairs, Iowa League of Cities Barry Lindahl, Corporation Counsel Cindy Steinhauser, Assistant City Manager Dawn Lang, Budget Director Randy Peck, Personnel Manager ~ The Honorable Mike Connolly Senate Chamber Iowa Capitol Building Des Moines, IA 50319 The Honorable Tom Hancock Senate Chamber Iowa Capitol Building Des Moines, IA 50319 The Honorable Roger Stewart Senate Chamber Iowa Capitol Building Des Moines, IA 50319 CITY OF DUBUQUE, IOWA CITY COUNCIL MEETING 6:30 P.M. LIBRARY AUDITORIUM MONDAY, MARCH 6, 2006 INVOCATION PROCLAMATIONS Mental Retardation Awareness Month (March 2006) CONSENT ITEMS The consent agenda items are considered to be routine and non-controversial and all consent items will be normally voted upon in a single motion without any separate discussion on a particular item. If you would like to discuss one of the Consent Items, please go to the microphone and be recognized by the Mayor and state the item you would like removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion and consideration. 1. Minutes and Reports Submitted City Council of 2/16, 2/20, and 2/23; Housing Commission Trust Fund Committee of 6/23; Park and Recreation Commission of 2/14; Proofs of publication of City Council Proceedings of February 6,2006 and February 7, 2006 and List of Claims and Summary of Revenues for Month Ending January 31,2006 Suggested Disposition: Receive and File 2. Notice of Claims/Suits Tina Marie Hessel vs City of Dubuque, et al; Suggested Disposition: Receive and File; Refer to Legal for Investigation/Report Corporation Counsel advising that the following claims have been referred to Public Entity Risk Services of Iowa, the agent for the Iowa Communities Assurance Pool: Corporation Counsel recommending settlement of the claim of Randy Seay for property damage and directing the Finance Department to issue payment. February 14, 2006 VIA Email and 1st Class Mail <<Email>> <<CompleteOFF I C IALName _Add ress>> Re: HF 2321 - Eminent Domain Dear <<Title>> <<Last>>, I am writing to encourage you to oppose HF 2321 regarding changes to the requirements when a city is considering the use of eminent domain. This bill proposes a significant number of restrictive requirements that would severely diminishes a city's ability to 1) redevelop older areas of town such as downtowns or 2) expand for large-scale economic development opportunities that provide benefit to the entire community. As you know the city of Dubuque has seen a tremendous revitalization in the downtown and Port of Dubuque Area. Since 2000 over $34 million has been invested in public improvements, $75 million in building rehabilitations, nearly $119 million in new construction and 1,849 new jobs created in downtown and the Port of Dubuque. This is in large part due to the $188 million America's River Project and while the City of Dubuque used eminent domain on only one of the parcels acquired for this project to construct the America's River project, this is a project that would never have happened without the potential to acquire property through eminent domain. The Port of Dubuque area, formerly know as the Ice Harbor, was an old industrial area that at one time had a cold-storage operation, storage of logs and an oil operation all surrounded by a concrete floodwall. Coupled with property owners who showed no interest in making improvements to their property and no interest in negotiating with the City of Dubuque or private developers to sell their property and create a revitalized area. Today this thriving area is home to the America's River Project and is a gateway for downtown and our community. This is because the city has been able to use such tools as Urban Renewal districts, designation of slum and blight areas and the potential to use eminent domain to bring all interested parties to the table and negotiate. HF 2321, the latest bill on eminent domain, incorporates language that would be onerous for cities trying to develop urban renewal slum and blighted areas such . as the Port of Dubuque or downtown. The largest and most overriding concern in this bill is the language regarding the burden of proof. As proposed, the city of Dubuque would be required to provide "clear and convincing evidence" regarding our burden of proof. This would hold cities to a much higher standard than what is required in a court of law where there must be a "preponderance of evidence." Any changes in the current language is inviting litigation that will take years to resolve and probably kill any project. In addition, there are specific concerns that I would like to raise under each of the following sections: Section 2 and 3 - Includes language that requires that each parcel to be acquired by eminent domain in an urban renewal area must meet the definition of slum or blight. Response: This new requirement would make it very difficult for cities to acquire non-slum and blighted properties along with slum and blighted properties in order to assemble the large tracts needed for construction of large projects. Rarely, when a community adopts an urban renewal district based upon the definition of slum and blight, do all of the parcels of property in the district meet the definition of slum and blight. Section 9 - Requires that the applicant acquiring the parcel post the application for condemnation in a conspicuous place on the property to be condemned. Response: This issue was recently addressed during the 2000 legislative session in response to concerns raised and the current system of mailing and publishing or alternative service adequately meets the needs of property owners and acquiring agencies in a fair and balanced manner. Section 13 - Requires that the compensation commission must deliberate in open session. Response: This issue was recently addressed through changes during the 2000 legislative session. The current provision requires that evidence and testimony be taken in open session but that deliberations may occur in closed session. The Compensation Commission is a commission made up of citizens with backgrounds that contribute to their ability to provide fair and balanced analysis about compensation that should be awarded. This commission, as part of their deliberation, must evaluate the competency and credibility of the property owner and officials of the acquiring agency and any expert appraisal witnesses. To subject the commission to undertake this discussion in a public forum would severely deter qualified persons from serving on the commission in order to avoid uncomfortable situations with the impacted parties. Section 15 - Modifies the language regarding just compensation and an additional payment for loss of existing business or farm operation. Response: This language goes significantly beyond the existing relocation benefit requirements under Chapter 316 of the Code of Iowa and the Uniform Relocation Assistant and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act. These two provisions provide more than adequate compensation to persons whose properties are taken and who must move the business, farm operation or place of residence. Section 19 -If a parcel of property acquired through eminent domain is not used, this language would give the prior owner of the parcel the right to purchase the property back at a price equal to the current appraised value of the real property or the fair market value of the property at the time it was acquired through eminent domain. Response: The proposal does not take into account appreciation in value of the property which may have occurred from the time it was acquired and the time it is offered for sale nor does it fairly compensate the public for its investment. Section 20 - Would allow the prior owner to reacquire the property if the acquiring agency has not, within five years of its acquisition, used the property for the purpose stated in the application and has not offered to sell the property back to the prior owner. Response: This language is particularly onerous for large-scale projects that may take longer than five years to plan, design, finance, acquire property and construct the improvement. There are a number of large scale projects such as the construction of a new bridge, arterials; landfills etc. that take longer than five years. Initial planning for the America's River Project first began in 1995. This language would inhibit cities abilities to acquire and hold onto property until such time as needed for the construction of large scale projects. Based upon the above information, I encourage you to oppose HF 2321 and support efforts to retain a city's ability to use eminent domain for redevelopment of downtowns as well as for large scale economic development projects that benefit the community. Thank you for your continued efforts on behalf of cities. Sincerely, Michael C. Van Milligen City Manager MCVM:cs Cc: Mayor Roy D. Buol Dubuque City Council Susan Judkins, Director of Governmental Affairs, Iowa League of Cities Bill Baum, Greater Dubuque Development Corporation Steward Sandstrom, Dubuque Area Chamber of Commerce Dan LoBianco, Dubuque Main Street Ltd. Barry Lindahl, Corporation Counsel Cindy Steinhauser, Assistant City Manager Dave Heiar, Economic Development Director . The Honorable Mike Connolly Senate Chamber Iowa Capitol Building Des Moines, IA 50319 The Honorable Pam Jochum House Chamber Iowa Capitol Building Des Moines, IA 50319 The Honorable Steve Lukan House Chamber Iowa Capitol Building Des Moines, IA 50319 The Honorable Tom Hancock Senate Chamber Iowa Capitol Building Des Moines, IA 50319 The Honorable Pat Murphy House Chamber Iowa Capitol Building Des Moines, IA 50319 The Honorable Ray Zirkelbach House Chamber Iowa Capitol Building Des Moines, IA 50319 The Honorable Roger Stewart Senate Chamber Iowa Capitol Building Des Moines, IA 50319 The Honorable Thomas Schueller House Chamber Iowa Capitol Building Des Moines, IA 50319 February 20, 2006 VIA Email and 1 sl Class Mail <<Email>> <<CompleteOFFICIALName _Address>> Re: HF 2351 - Eminent Domain Dear <<Title>> <<Last>>, I am writing to encourage you to oppose HF 2351 regarding changes to the requirements when a city is considering the use of eminent domain. This bill proposes a significant number of restrictive requirements that would severely diminishes a city's ability to 1) redevelop older areas of town such as downtowns or 2) expand for large-scale economic development opportunities that provide benefit to the entire community. In order to recognize the impact that current changes included in HF 2351 would have on a community such as Dubuque, it is important to give you a historical perspective on how desperate our situation was and how we have been able to address our economic plight of the 1980's. In 1983 the city of Dubuque was suffering from a number of community issues including: . A blighted downtown area with many vacant storefronts including a first floor vacancy rate of over 30% in 1985; . A bleak riverfront with dilapidated buildings, abandoned storage tanks and polluted ground; . All but non-existent annexation; . Vacant and abandoned homes; . The average value of a home fell 9% from FY1985 to FY1986 and did not rise again until 1993; . Property tax rate reached $14.58 per thousand in 1987; . An average unemployment rate of 8.9% throughout the 1980's and reaching as high as 14 % in 1983; . A mere 37,600 people were employed in Dubuque in 1983 (52,900 in 2005); and . Dubuque lost 7.8% of its population between 1980 and 1990 Dubuque's economy had become so problematic that our local Chamber of Commerce printed the following quote in their business publication The Dubuque Connection in 1983: "Dubuque's plight is becoming desperate. It suffered more severely during the recent recession, and has for the past three years had the highest unemployment rate of Iowa's SMSA's (largest cities). That unfortunate fact is no surprise to Dubuquers. It has been losing both industry and retail business consistently for the past decade." "Dubuque is losing its people. Recent estimates show 1 0% of the housing stock vacant or available for sale." However, the Dubuque of the 21st Century is a far cry from the Dubuque of the 1980's due in large part to critical economic development tools such as the use of urban renewal and eminent domain. The Dubuque story is one of a grassroots effort where local leaders made bold policy decisions and developed partnerships that have helped to turn our community around. The first initiative by Dubuque leaders involved the expansion of our industrial parks. In the 1980's annexation for the development of industrial parks (or other development for that matter) was basically non-existent. This was reflected in our poor employment figures of only 37,600 people employed in Dubuque and an average unemployment rate of 8.9%. Through the annexation and acquisition of property and a partnership with Dubuque Initiatives, the city of Dubuque now has four industrial parks including: Kerper Industrial Park, Dubuque Industrial Center and most recently Dubuque Industrial Center West and Technology Park. Combined these four industrial parks represent over 1,122 acres of development for local employers to expand and for the recruitment of new employers to Dubuque. To date there are over 28 major employers located in these parks, including Fortune 100 employers such as Mc-Graw Hill, employing over 3,000 employees. The second initiative involved the redevelopment of our Riverfront Area and downtown district and has become a national model for how communities can reinvent themselves and diversify their economic base. That initiative is, of course, the America's River project located at the Port of Dubuque. The Port of Dubuque area, formerly know as the Ice Harbor, was an old industrial area that at one time had a cold-storage operation, storage of logs and an oil operation all surrounded by a concrete floodwall. Coupled with environmental issues and property owners who showed no interest in making improvements to their property and no interest in negotiating with the City of Dubuque or private developers to sell their property to create a revitalized area - this area was destined to remain a blight on our community and the State of Iowa. However, through the use of such tools as Urban Renewal districts, designation of slum and blight areas and the potential to use eminent domain to bring all interested parties to the table and negotiate the city was able to bring about change. Today this thriving area is home to the America's River project and is responsible for our increased tourism and community pride. In 2003 Dubuque County led the state in increased travel expenditures by visitors with an increase in spending of 6.3% over 2002. The total spending in Dubuque County was $186 million; almost a dollar for dollar return on the America's River project investment. In 2005 that figure has now risen to over $201 million. The city has also seen a tremendous revitalization in downtown. Since 2000 over $34 million has been invested in public improvements, $75 million in building rehabilitations, nearly $119 million in new construction and 1,849 new jobs created in downtown and the Port of Dubuque. This is in large part due to the $188 million America's River Project and while the City of Dubuque used eminent domain on only one of the parcels acquired for this project to construct the America's River project, this is a project that would never have happened without the potential to acquire property through eminent domain as provided for in our current laws. Had the latest version of HF 2351 been in place during the past twenty years, the city of Dubuque would have continued on the downward spiral of economic disaster not our current state of significant economic growth. HF 2351, the latest bill on eminent domain, incorporates language that would be onerous for cities trying to develop urban renewal slum and blighted areas such as the Port of Dubuque or downtown. The largest and most overriding concern in this bill is the language regarding the burden of proof. As proposed, the city of Dubuque would be required to provide "clear and convincing evidence" regarding our burden of proof. This would hold cities to a much higher standard than what is required in a court of law where there must be a "preponderance of evidence." Any changes in the current language is inviting litigation that will take years to resolve and probably kill any project. In addition, there are specific concerns that I would like to raise under each of the following sections: Section 2 and 3 - Includes language that requires that 75% of the parcels to be acquired by eminent domain in an urban renewal area must meet the definition of slum or blight. Response: This new requirement would make it very difficult for cities to acquire non-slum and blighted properties along with slum and blighted properties in order to assemble the large tracts needed for construction of large projects. Rarely, when a community adopts an urban renewal district based upon the definition of slum and blight, do all of the parcels of property in the district meet the definition of slum and blight. Section 9 - Requires that the applicant acquiring the parcel post the application for condemnation in a conspicuous place on the property to be condemned. Response: This issue was recently addressed during the 2000 legislative session in response to concerns raised and the current system of mailing and publishing or alternative service adequately meets the needs of property owners and acquiring agencies in a fair and balanced manner. Section 13 - Requires that the compensation commission must deliberate in open session. Response: This issue was recently addressed through changes during the 2000 legislative session. The current provision requires that evidence and testimony be taken in open session but that deliberations may occur in closed session. The Compensation Commission is a commission made up of citizens with backgrounds that contribute to their ability to provide fair and balanced analysis about compensation that should be awarded. This commission, as part of their deliberation, must evaluate the competency and credibility of the property owner and officials of the acquiring agency and any expert appraisal witnesses. To subject the commission to undertake this discussion in a public forum would severely deter qualified persons from serving on the commission in order to avoid uncomfortable situations with the impacted parties. Section 15 - Modifies the language regarding just compensation and an additional payment for loss of existing business or farm operation. Response: This language goes significantly beyond the existing relocation benefit requirements under Chapter 316 of the Code of Iowa and the Uniform Relocation Assistant and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act. These two provisions provide more than adequate compensation to persons whose properties are taken and who must move the business, farm operation or place of residence. Section 19 -If a parcel of property acquired through eminent domain is not used, this language would give the prior owner of the parcel the right to purchase the property back at a price equal to the current appraised value of the real property or the fair market value of the property at the time it was acquired through eminent domain. Response: The proposal does not take into account appreciation in value of the property which may have occurred from the time it was acquired and the time it is offered for sale nor does it fairly compensate the public for its investment. Section 20 - Would allow the prior owner to reacquire the property if the acquiring agency has not, within five years of its acquisition, used the property for the purpose stated in the application and has not offered to sell the property back to the prior owner. Response: This language is particularly onerous for large-scale projects that may take longer than five years to plan, design, finance, acquire property and construct the improvement. There are a number of large scale projects such as the construction of a new bridge, arterials; landfills etc. that take longer than five years. Initial planning for the America's River Project first began in 1995. This language would inhibit cities abilities to acquire and hold onto property until such time as needed for the construction of large scale projects. Based upon the above information, I encourage you to oppose HF 2351 and other similar bills that would restrict the use of eminent domain and support efforts to retain a city's ability to use eminent domain for redevelopment of downtowns as well as for large scale economic development projects that benefit the community. Thank you for your continued efforts on behalf of cities. Sincerely, Michael C. Van Milligen City Manager MCVM:cs Cc: Mayor Roy D. Buol Dubuque City Council Susan Judkins, Director of Governmental Affairs, Iowa League of Cities Bill Baum, Greater Dubuque Development Corporation Steward Sandstrom, Dubuque Area Chamber of Commerce Dan LoBianco, Dubuque Main Street Ltd. Barry Lindahl, Corporation Counsel Cindy Steinhauser, Assistant City Manager Dave Heiar, Economic Development Director The Honorable Mike Connolly Senate Chamber Iowa Capitol Building Des Moines, IA 50319 The Honorable Tom Hancock Senate Chamber Iowa Capitol Building Des Moines, IA 50319 The Honorable Roger Stewart Senate Chamber Iowa Capitol Building Des Moines, IA 50319 The Honorable Nancy Boettger The Honorable Joe Bolkcom The Honorable Bob Brunkhorst Senate Judiciary Committee Ways & Means Committee Senate Judiciary Committee Senate Chamber Senate Chamber Senate Chamber Iowa State Capital Iowa State Capital Iowa State Capital Des Moines, IA 520319 Des Moines, IA 520319 Des Moines, IA 520319 The Honorable Jeff Danielson The Honorable William Dotzler The Honorable Robert Dvorsky Ways & Means Committee Ways & Means Committee Senate Judiciary Committee Senate Chamber Senate Chamber Senate Chamber Iowa State Capital Iowa State Capital Iowa State Capital Des Moines, IA 520319 Des Moines, IA 520319 Des Moines, IA 520319 The Honorable Gene Fraise The Honorable James Hahn The Honorable Wally Horn Senate Judiciary Committee Ways & Means Committee Senate Judiciary Committee Senate Chamber Senate Chamber Senate Chamber Iowa State Capital Iowa State Capital Iowa State Capital Des Moines, IA 520319 Des Moines, IA 520319 Des Moines, IA 520319 The Honorable Hubert Houser The Honorable Keith Kreiman The Honorable Charles Larson Local Gov't Committee Senate Judiciary Committee Senate Judiciary Committee Senate Chamber Senate Chamber Senate Chamber Iowa State Capital Iowa State Capital Iowa State Capital Des Moines, IA 520319 Des Moines, IA 520319 Des Moines, IA 520319 The Honorable Mary Lundby The Honorable Matt McCoy The Honorable Larry McKibben Local Gov't Committee Local Gov't Committee Senate Judiciary Committee Senate Chamber Senate Chamber Senate Chamber Iowa State Capital Iowa State Capital Iowa State Capital Des Moines, IA 520319 Des Moines, IA 520319 Des Moines, IA 520319 The Honorable Paul McKinley The Honorable David Miller The Honorable Dave Mulder Ways & Means Committee Senate Judiciary Committee Local Gov't Committee Senate Chamber Senate Chamber Senate Chamber Iowa State Capital Iowa State Capital Iowa State Capital Des Moines, IA 520319 Des Moines, IA 520319 Des Moines, IA 520319 The Honorable John Putney The Honorable Herman The Honorable Tom Rielly Local Gov't Committee Quirmbach Local Gov't Committee Senate Chamber Senate Judiciary Committee Senate Chamber Iowa State Capital Senate Chamber Iowa State Capital Des Moines, IA 520319 Iowa State Capital Des Moines, IA 520319 n",,, Mnin",,, IA li?()::\1q The Honorable Brian Schoenjahn Senate Judiciary Committee Senate Chamber Iowa State Capital Des Moines, IA 520319 The Honorable Maggie Tinsman Senate Judiciary Committee Senate Chamber Iowa State Capital Des Moines, IA 520319 The Honorable Ron Wieck Ways & Means Committee Senate Chamber Iowa State Capital Des Moines, IA 520319 The Honorable Joe Seng Ways & Means Committee Senate Chamber Iowa State Capital Des Moines, IA 520319 The Honorable Pat Ward Senate Judiciary Committee Senate Chamber Iowa State Capital Des Moines, IA 520319 The Honorable Doug Shull Local Gov't Committee Senate Chamber Iowa State Capital Des Moines, IA 520319 The Honorable Steve Warnstadt Senate Judiciary Committee Senate Chamber Iowa State Capital Des Moines, IA 520319 The Honorable Brad Zaun Senate Judiciary Committee Senate Chamber Iowa State Capital Des Moines, IA 520319 The Honorable Mark Zieman Ways & Means Committee Senate Chamber Iowa State Capital Des Moines, IA 520319 February 20, 2006 VIA Email and 1st Class Mail <<Email>> <<CompleteOFFIC IALName _Add ress>> Re: HF 2351 - Eminent Domain Dear <<Title>> <<Lash>, I have written to members of the Senate with the following information encouraging opposition to HF 2351 regarding changes to the requirements when a city is considering the use of eminent domain. This bill proposes a significant number of restrictive requirements that would severely diminishes a city's ability to 1) redevelop older areas of town such as downtowns or 2) expand for large- scale economic development opportunities that provide benefit to the entire community. In order to recognize the impact that current changes included in HF 2351 would have on a community such as Dubuque, it is important to give you a historical perspective on how desperate our situation was and how we have been able to address our economic plight of the 1980's. In 1983 the city of Dubuque was suffering from a number of community issues including: . A blighted downtown area with many vacant storefronts including a first floor vacancy rate of over 30% in 1985; . A bleak riverfront with dilapidated buildings, abandoned storage tanks and polluted ground; . All but non-existent annexation; . Vacant and abandoned homes; . The average value of a home fell 9% from FY1985 to FY1986 and did not rise again until 1993; . Property tax rate reached $14.58 per thousand in 1987; . An average unemployment rate of 8.9% throughout the 1980's and reaching as high as 14 % in 1983; . A mere 37,600 people were employed in Dubuque in 1983 (52,900 in 2005); and . Dubuque lost 7.8% of its population between 1980 and 1990 Dubuque's economy had become so problematic that our local Chamber of Commerce printed the following quote in their business publication The Dubuque Connection in 1983: "Dubuque's plight is becoming desperate. It suffered more severely during the recent recession, and has for the past three years had the highest unemployment rate of Iowa's SMSA's (largest cities). That unfortunate fact is no surprise to Dubuquers. It has been losing both industry and retail business consistently for the past decade." "Dubuque is losing its people. Recent estimates show 1 0% of the housing stock vacant or available for sale." However, the Dubuque of the 21st Century is a far cry from the Dubuque of the 1980's due in large part to critical economic development tools such as the use of urban renewal and eminent domain. The Dubuque story is one of a grassroots effort where local leaders made bold policy decisions and developed partnerships that have helped to turn our community around. The first initiative by Dubuque leaders involved the expansion of our industrial parks. In the 1980's annexation for the development of industrial parks (or other development for that matter) was basically non-existent. This was reflected in our poor employment figures of only 37,600 people employed in Dubuque and an average unemployment rate of 8.9%. Through the annexation and acquisition of property and a partnership with Dubuque Initiatives, the city of Dubuque now has four industrial parks including: Kerper Industrial Park, Dubuque Industrial Center and most recently Dubuque Industrial Center West and Technology Park. Combined these four industrial parks represent over 1,122 acres of development for local employers to expand and for the recruitment of new employers to Dubuque. To date there are over 28 major employers located in these parks, including Fortune 100 employers such as Mc-Graw Hill, employing over 3,000 employees. The second initiative involved the redevelopment of our Riverfront Area and downtown district and has become a national model for how communities can reinvent themselves and diversify their economic base. That initiative is, of course, the America's River project located at the Port of Dubuque. The Port of Dubuque area, formerly know as the Ice Harbor, was an old industrial area that at one time had a cold-storage operation, storage of logs and an oil operation all surrounded by a concrete f1oodwall. Coupled with environmental issues and property owners who showed no interest in making improvements to their properly and no interest in negotiating with the City of Dubuque or private developers to sell their property to create a revitalized area - this area was destined to remain a blight on our community and the State of Iowa. However, through the use of such tools as Urban Renewal districts, designation of slum and blight areas and the potential to use eminent domain to bring all interested parties to the table and negotiate the city was able to bring about change. Today this thriving area is home to the America's River project and is responsible for our increased tourism and community pride. In 2003 Dubuque County led the state in increased travel expenditures by visitors with an increase in spending of 6.3% over 2002. The total spending in Dubuque County was $186 million; almost a dollar for dollar return on the America's River project investment. In 2005 that figure has now risen to over $201 million. The city has also seen a tremendous revitalization in downtown. Since 2000 over $34 million has been invested in public improvements, $75 million in building rehabilitations, nearly $119 million in new construction and 1,849 new jobs created in downtown and the Port of Dubuque. This is in large part due to the $188 million America's River Project and while the City of Dubuque used eminent domain on only one of the parcels acquired for this project to construct the America's River project, this is a project that would never have happened without the potential to acquire property through eminent domain as provided for in our current laws. Had the latest version of HF 2351 been in place during the past twenty years, the city of Dubuque would have continued on the downward spiral of economic disaster not our current state of significant economic growth. HF 2351, the latest bill on eminent domain, incorporates language that would be onerous for cities trying to develop urban renewal slum and blighted areas such as the Port of Dubuque or downtown. The largest and most overriding concern in this bill is the language regarding the burden of proof. As proposed, the city of Dubuque would be required to provide "clear and convincing evidence" regarding our burden of proof. This would hold cities to a much higher standard than what is required in a court of law where there must be a "preponderance of evidence." Any changes in the current language is inviting litigation that will take years to resolve and probably kill any project. In addition, there are specific concerns that I would like to raise under each of the following sections: Section 2 and 3 - Includes language that requires that 75% of the parcels to be acquired by eminent domain in an urban renewal area must meet the definition of slum or blight. Response: This new requirement would make it very difficult for cities to acquire non-slum and blighted properties along with slum and blighted properties in order to assemble the large tracts needed for construction of large projects. Rarely, when a community adopts an urban renewal district based upon the definition of slum and blight, do all of the parcels of property in the district meet the definition of slum and blight. Section 9 - Requires that the applicant acquiring the parcel post the application for condemnation in a conspicuous place on the property to be condemned. Response: This issue was recently addressed during the 2000 legislative session in response to concerns raised and the current system of mailing and publishing or alternative service adequately meets the needs of property owners and acquiring agencies in a fair and balanced manner. Section 13 - Requires that the compensation commission must deliberate in open session. Response: This issue was recently addressed through changes during the 2000 legislative session. The current provision requires that evidence and testimony be taken in open session but that deliberations may occur in closed session. The Compensation Commission is a commission made up of citizens with backgrounds that contribute to their ability to provide fair and balanced analysis about compensation that should be awarded. This commission, as part of their deliberation, must evaluate the competency and credibility of the property owner and officials of the acquiring agency and any expert appraisal witnesses. To subject the commission to undertake this discussion in a public forum would severely deter qualified persons from serving on the commission in order to avoid uncomfortable situations with the impacted parties. Section 15 - Modifies the language regarding just compensation and an additional payment for loss of existing business or farm operation. Response: This language goes significantly beyond the existing relocation benefit requirements under Chapter 316 of the Code of Iowa and the Uniform Relocation Assistant and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act. These two provisions provide more than adequate compensation to persons whose properties are taken and who must move the business, farm operation or place of residence. Section 19 -If a parcel of property acquired through eminent domain is not used, this language would give the prior owner of the parcel the right to purchase the property back at a price equal to the current appraised value of the real property or the fair market value of the property at the time it was acquired through eminent domain. Response: The proposal does not take into account appreciation in value of the property which may have occurred from the time it was acquired and the time it is offered for sale nor does it fairly compensate the public for its investment. Section 20 - Would allow the prior owner to reacquire the property if the acquiring agency has not, within five years of its acquisition, used the property for the purpose stated in the application and has not offered to sell the property back to the prior owner. Response: This language is particularly onerous for large-scale projects that may take longer than five years to plan, design, finance, acquire property and construct the improvement. There are a number of large scale projects such as the construction of a new bridge, arterials; landfills etc. that take longer than five years. Initial planning for the America's River Project first began in 1995. This language would inhibit cities abilities to acquire and hold onto property until such time as needed for the construction of large scale projects. Based upon the above information, I am encouraging members of the Senate to oppose HF 2351 and other similar bills that would restrict the use of eminent domain and support efforts to retain a city's ability to use eminent domain for redevelopment of downtowns as well as for large scale economic development projects that benefit the community. Thank you for your continued efforts on behalf of cities. Sincerely, Michael C. Van Milligen City Manager MCVM:cs Cc: Mayor Roy D. Buol Dubuque City Council Susan Judkins, Director of Governmental Affairs, Iowa League of Cities Bill Baum, Greater Dubuque Development Corporation Steward Sandstrom, Dubuque Area Chamber of Commerce Dan LoBianco, Dubuque Main Street Ltd. Barry Lindahl, Corporation Counsel Cindy Steinhauser, Assistant City Manager Dave Heiar, Economic Development Director . The Honorable Pam Jochum House Chamber Iowa Capitol Building Des Moines, IA 50319 The Honorable Steve Lukan House Chamber Iowa Capitol Building Des Moines, IA 50319 The Honorable Pat Murphy House Chamber Iowa Capitol Building Des Moines, IA 50319 The Honorable Ray Zirkelbach House Chamber Iowa Capitol Building Des Moines, IA 50319 The Honorable Thomas Schueller House Chamber Iowa Capitol Building Des Moines, IA 50319 February 17, 2006 VIA Email and 1st Class Mail <<Email>> <<CompleteOFFIC IALName _Add ress>> Re: HF 2351 - Eminent Domain Dear <<Title>> <<Last>>, I am writing to thank you for your efforts and vote to oppose HF 2351 regarding the use of eminent domain. As you know, this bill proposes a significant number of restrictive requirements that would severely diminish a city's ability to redevelop older areas of town such as downtowns. They would also impact a city's ability to expand for large-scale economic development opportunities that provide benefit to the entire community. In order to recognize the impact that current changes included in HF 2351 would have on a community such as Dubuque, it is important to give you a historical perspective on how desperate our situation was and how we have been able to address our economic plight of the 1980's. In 1983 the city of Dubuque was suffering from a number of community issues including: . A blighted downtown area with many vacant storefronts including a first floor vacancy rate of over 30% in 1985; . A bleak riverfront with dilapidated buildings, abandoned storage tanks and polluted ground; . All but non-existent annexation; . Vacant and abandoned homes; . The average value of a home fell 9% from FY1985 to FY1986 and did not rise again until 1993; . Property tax rate reached $14.58 per thousand in 1987; . An average unemployment rate of 8.9% throughout the 1980's and reaching as high as 14 % in 1983; . A mere 37,600 people were employed in Dubuque in 1983 (52,900 in 2005); and . Dubuque lost 7.8% of its population between 1980 and 1990 Dubuque's economy had become so problematic that our local Chamber of Commerce printed the following quote in their business publication The Dubuque Connection in 1983: "Dubuque's plight is becoming desperate. It suffered more severely during the recent recession, and has for the past three years had the highest unemployment rate of Iowa's SMSA's (largest cities). That unfortunate fact is no surprise to Dubuquers. It has been losing both industry and retail business consistently for the past decade." "Dubuque is losing its people. Recent estimates show 1 0% of the housing stock vacant or available for sale." However, the Dubuque of the 21st Century is a far cry from the Dubuque of the 1980's due in large part to critical economic development tools such as the use of urban renewal and eminent domain. The Dubuque story is one of a grassroots effort where local leaders made bold policy decisions and developed partnerships that have helped to turn our community around. The first initiative by Dubuque leaders involved the expansion of our industrial parks. In the 1980's annexation for the development of industrial parks (or other development for that matter) was basically non-existent. This was reflected in our poor employment figures of only 37,600 people employed in Dubuque and an average unemployment rate of 8.9%. Through the annexation and acquisition of property and a partnership with Dubuque Initiatives, the city of Dubuque now has four industrial parks including: Kerper Industrial Park, Dubuque Industrial Center and most recently Dubuque Industrial Center West and Technology Park. Combined these four industrial parks represent over 1,122 acres of development for local employers to expand and for the recruitment of new employers to Dubuque. To date there are over 28 major employers located in these parks, including Fortune 100 employers such as Mc-Graw Hill, employing over 3000 employees. The second initiative involved the redevelopment of our Riverfront Area and downtown district and has become a national model for how communities can reinvent themselves and diversify their economic base. That initiative is, of course, the America's River project located at the Port of Dubuque. The Port of Dubuque area, formerly know as the Ice Harbor, was an old industrial area that at one time had a cold-storage operation, storage of logs and an oil operation all surrounded by a concrete floodwall. Coupled with environmental issues and property owners who showed no interest in making improvements to their property and no interest in negotiating with the City of Dubuque or private developers to sell their property to create a revitalized area - this area was destined to remain a blight on our community and the State of Iowa. However, through the use of such tools as Urban Renewal districts, designation of slum and blight areas and the potential to use eminent domain to bring all interested parties to the table and negotiate the city was able to bring about change. Today this thriving area is home to the America's River project and is responsible for our increased tourism and community pride. In 2003 Dubuque County led the state in increased travel expenditures by visitors with an increase in spending of 6.3% over 2002. The total spending in Dubuque County was $186 million; almost a dollar for dollar return on the America's River project investment. In 2005 that figure has now risen to over $201 million. The city has also seen a tremendous revitalization in downtown. Since 2000 over $34 million has been invested in public improvements, $75 million in building rehabilitations, nearly $119 million in new construction and 1,849 new jobs created in downtown and the Port of Dubuque. This is in large part due to the $188 million America's River Project and while the City of Dubuque used eminent domain on only one of the parcels acquired for this project to construct the America's River project, this is a project that would never have happened without the potential to acquire property through eminent domain as provided for in our current laws. Had the latest version of HF 2351 been in place during the past twenty years, the city of Dubuque would have continued on the downward spiral of economic disaster not our current state of significant economic growth. As is best summarized in a 2002 Des Moines Register Editorial: "Few Iowa cities were hit harder in the 80s, few have a better outlook now... The Dubuque story might offer lessons for every Iowa city." Once again I thank you for your votes to oppose HF 2351 and support efforts to retain a city's ability to use eminent domain for redevelopment of downtowns as well as for large scale economic development projects that benefit the community and State of Iowa. Sincerely, Michael C. Van Milligen City Manager MCVM:cs Cc: Mayor Roy D. Buol Dubuque City Council Susan Judkins, Director of Governmental Affairs, Iowa League of Cities Bill Baum, Greater Dubuque Development Corporation Steward Sandstrom, Dubuque Area Chamber of Commerce Dan LoBianco, Dubuque Main Street Ltd. Barry Lindahl, Corporation Counsel Cindy Steinhauser, Assistant City Manager Dave Heiar, Economic Development Director The Honorable Pam Jochum House Chamber Iowa Capitol Building Des Moines, IA 50319 The Honorable Walt Tomenga House Chamber Iowa Capital Building Des Moines, IA 50319 The Honorable Pat Murphy House Chamber Iowa Capitol Building Des Moines, IA 50319 The Honorable Rick Olson House Chamber Iowa Capitol Building Des Moines, IA 50319 February 20, 2006 VIA Email and 1 sl Class Mail <<Email>> <<CompleteOFF I C IALName _Address>> Re: HSB 530 - Withholding Tax Credits for Economic Development Dear <<Title>> <<Last>>, I am writing to encourage you to support HSB 530 regarding the use of withholding tax credits for job creation in Urban Renewal districts and to include an amendment for counties with populations between 81,000 to 95,000. This bill, as proposed, would provide a three percent credit of gross wages for every new job created to assist in funding economic development projects in urban renewal districts. While the original bill provided for two pilot projects, one for the largest city located in a county with a population of 95,000 - 110,000 and one in county with population between 81,000 - 88,500. However, based upon the 2000 U.S. Census data, the population of Dubuque County is 89,143 and therefore we would not be eligible to apply for the credits. In order to provide greater opportunity for economic expansion, the State of Iowa must continue to offer flexible and creative incentives that help to attract new employers. The withholding tax credit that would be created with HSB 530 is just such an incentive. In addition, because HSB 530 focuses on urban renewal areas which are often located in downtown, this bill helps further downtown revitalization and smart growth principles Once again I encourage you to support HSB 530, including an amendment to expand the number of pilot projects and to include counties with a population between 81,000 to 95,000 to promote economic development in urban renewal areas. Sincerely, Michael C. Van Milligen City Manager MCVM:cs Cc: Mayor Roy D. Buol Dubuque City Council Susan Judkins, Director of Governmental Affairs, Iowa League of Cities Steward Sandstrom, Dubuque Area Chamber of Commerce Dan LoBianco, Dubuque Main Street Ltd. Barry Lindahl, Corporation Counsel Cindy Steinhauser, Assistant City Manager Dave Heiar, Economic Development Director The Honorable Mike Connolly Senate Chamber Iowa Capitol Building Des Moines, IA 50319 The Honorable Pam Jochum House Chamber Iowa Capitol Building Des Moines, IA 50319 The Honorable Steve Lukan House Chamber Iowa Capitol Building Des Moines, IA 50319 The Honorable Tom Hancock Senate Chamber Iowa Capitol Building Des Moines, IA 50319 The Honorable Roger Stewart Senate Chamber Iowa Capitol Building Des Moines, IA 50319 The Honorable Pat Murphy House Chamber Iowa Capitol Building Des Moines, IA 50319 The Honorable Thomas Schueller House Chamber Iowa Capitol Building Des Moines, IA 50319 The Honorable Ray Zirkelbach House Chamber Iowa Capitol Building Des Moines, IA 50319 February 14, 2006 VIA Email and 1st Class Mail <<Email>> <<CompleteOFFICIALName _Address>> Re: Franchise Fees Dear <<Title>> <<Last>>, I am writing to encourage you to support an amendment to Iowa Code ~ 364.2 to clarify a city's authority to charge a franchise fee to a utility based on the gross revenue from the sale of the utility's product. Iowa Code ~ 364.2 authorizes a city to grant a franchise for certain utilities and to charge a franchise fee for such utilities. However, the Iowa Code does not elaborate on the nature of the franchise fee that may be charged. A number of Iowa cities charge a franchise fee based on a percentage of the gross revenue from the sale of gas and electricity by the utility. The city of Dubuque charges a franchise fee of 2% on the gross receipts from the sale of gas and electricity. The gas and electric utilities charge the franchise fees to their customers. However, for sales tax-exempt properties located in the City of Dubuque, no franchise fee is charged by Aquila to gas utility customers. In the case of electric utility, Alliant Energy charges the franchise fee and the City of Dubuque provides reimbursement to the sales tax-exempt properties in the amount of the franchise fee paid. The city of Dubuque first implemented the franchise fees for gas and electricity in October, 2003 partially to replace state revenue to cities that was eliminated during the 2003 legislative session. For Fiscal Year 2006 (July 1, 2006-June 30, 2007), the city of Dubuque anticipates approximately $1.5 million in franchise fees. To make up for the loss of this franchise fee revenue would require a property tax increase of approximately 10% for city of Dubuque taxpayers. I encourage you to support an amendment to Iowa Code S 362.2 to clarify a city's authority to charge a franchise fee to a utility based on the gross revenue from the sale of the utility's product and that utility franchise fees that have been collected by Iowa cities under franchise agreements are and were legal. Sincerely, Michael C. Van Milligen City Manager MCVM:cms Cc: Mayor Roy D. Buol Dubuque City Council Susan Judkins, Director of Governmental Affairs, Iowa League of Cities Barry Lindahl, Corporation Counsel Cindy Steinhauser, Assistant City Manager . The Honorable Mike Connolly Senate Chamber Iowa Capitol Building Des Moines, IA 50319 The Honorable Pam Jochum House Chamber Iowa Capitol Building Des Moines, IA 50319 The Honorable Steve Lukan House Chamber Iowa Capitol Building Des Moines, IA 50319 The Honorable Tom Hancock Senate Chamber Iowa Capitol Building Des Moines, IA 50319 The Honorable Roger Stewart Senate Chamber Iowa Capitol Building Des Moines, IA 50319 The Honorable Pat Murphy House Chamber Iowa Capitol Building Des Moines, IA 50319 The Honorable Thomas Schueller House Chamber Iowa Capitol Building Des Moines, IA 50319 The Honorable Ray Zirkelbach House Chamber Iowa Capitol Building Des Moines, IA 50319 February 28, 2006 : VIA E-mail and 151 Class Mail <<Email>> <<CompleteOFFICIALName _Add ress>> Re: SSB 3146 - State Communication Franchise Dear <<Title>> <<Last>>: I am writing to encourage you to oppose SSB 3146 which establishes a State Communication franchise. This bill, as proposed, would eliminate all existing municipal franchise agreements and replace them with a State Franchise Agreement. This bill creates bad public policy and its language includes a number of issues that raise concerns over the ability to protect consumers, and maintain competition. SSB 3146 would eliminate a local municipality's ability to protect consumers, address citizen concerns and it conflicts with the concept of home rule. Congress has recognized that municipalities are best suited to deal with consumer protection, ascertain and promote a community's communications needs, protect and manage their rights-of-ways, and ensure that cable TV services would be available to all citizens. Current Federal law gives municipalities the responsibilities to enforce the FCC's Customer Service Standards. Theses Standards establish requirements regarding office hours and telephone availability; installations, outages, and service calls; billing practices; and the minimum information a cable company must provide subscribers. Under HSB 670, these FCC Standards would not be enforceable. In addition, to eliminating almost all municipality regulatory authority, SSB 3146 would also create a separate and distinct category of video service provider. This category, designed specifically for new telecommunications providers, does note hold telecommunication providers to the same level of obligations of existing cable TV providers. Current Franchise Agreements allow municipalities to receive compensation for the use of the public rights-of-way through franchise fees. However, in SSB 3146, February 28, 2006 Page 2 the definition of gross revenues has been written so non-subscriber revenue such as advertising is not subject to franchise fees for the telecommunication providers, which is inconsistent with existing cable franchise agreements. I encourage you to oppose SSB 3146 and allow municipalities to continue to implement policies that best serve the needs of our citizens. Sincerely, Michael C. Van Milligen City Manager MCVM:cs cc: Mayor Roy D. Buol Dubuque City Council Susan Judkins, Director of Governmental Affairs, Iowa League of Cities Barry Lindahl, Corporation Counsel Cindy Steinhauser, Assistant City Manager Dave Heiar, Economic Development Director Randy Gehl, Public Information Officer The Honorable Mike Connolly Senate Chamber Iowa Capitol Building Des Moines, IA 50319 The Honorable Tom Hancock Senate Chamber Iowa Capitol Building Des Moines, IA 50319 The Honorable Roger Stewart Senate Chamber Iowa Capitol Building Des Moines, IA 50319 February 28 2006 VIA Email and 151 Class Mail <<Email>) <<CompleteOFFIC IALName _Add ress)) Re: HSB 670 - State Communication Franchise Dear <<Title)) <<Last>>, I am writing to encourage you to oppose HSB 670 which establishes a State Communication franchise. This bill, as proposed, would eliminate any existing municipal franchise agreements and replace them with a State Franchise Agreement. Included in the bill's language are a number of issues that raise concerns over the ability to protect consumers and maintain competition. HSB 670 would create bad public policy and eliminate local municipalities' ability to protect consumers, address citizen concerns and it would conflict with the concept of home rule. Congress has recognized that municipalities are best suited to deal with consumer protection, ascertain and promote a community's communications needs, protect and manage their rights-of-ways, and ensure that cable TV services are available to all citizens. Current Federal law gives municipalities the responsibility to enforce the FCC's Customer Service Standards. Theses Standards establish requirements regarding office hours and telephone availability; installations, outages, and service calls; billing practices; and the minimum information a cable company must provide subscribers. Under HSB 670, these FCC Standards would not be enforceable. In addition to eliminating almost all municipality regulatory authority, HSB 670 would also create a separate and distinct category of video service provider. This category, designed specifically for new telecommunications providers, does note hold telecommunication providers to the same level of obligations of existing cable TV providers. Current Franchise Agreements allow municipalities to receive compensation for the use of the public rights-of-way through franchise fees. However, in HSB 670, the February 28, 2006 Page 2 definition of gross revenues has been written so non-subscriber revenue such as advertising is not subject to franchise fees for the telecommunication providers, which is inconsistent with existing cable franchise agreements. I encourage you to oppose HSB 670 and allow municipalities to continue to implement policies that best serve the needs of our citizens. Sincerely, Michael C. Van Milligen City Manager MCVM:cs cc Mayor Roy D. Buol Dubuque City Council Susan Judkins, Director of Governmental Affairs, Iowa League of Cities Barry Lindahl, Corporation Counsel Cindy Steinhauser, Assistant City Manager Dave Heiar, Economic Development Director Randy Gehl, Public Information Officer The Honorable Pam Jochum House Chamber Iowa Capitol Building Des Moines, IA 50319 The Honorable Pat Murphy House Chamber Iowa Capitol Building Des Moines, IA 50319 The Honorable Thomas Schueller House Chamber Iowa Capitol Building Des Moines, IA 50319 The Honorable Steve Lukan House Chamber Iowa Capitol Building Des Moines, IA 50319 The Honorable Ray Zirkelbach House Chamber Iowa Capitol Building Des Moines, IA 50319