Legislative Corr SB 1208_Great Places_TIFI
' THE CITY OF
DuB
Cable Television Division 6~
City Hall Annex -1300 Main Street
Dubuque, Iowa 52001-4732 U
(563) 589-4181 office
(563) 5891299 fax
(563) 589-4193 TDD
catv~cityofdubuque.org
February 19, 2007
Dear Subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to relay a few of the concerns the City of Dubuque
has with Senate Study Bill {SSB)1208 regarding statewide cable television
franchising.
The City of Dubuque does not support any bill or provision which attempts to limit
a local franchising authority's ability to meet the needs of its community. In the
case of cable television franchises, this has long been the domain of local
municipalities. The legitimate needs and interests of residents of one community
often differs from those in another community Local municipalities are best able
to determine the needs and interests of their community. Removing that
authority is not in the best interest of the citizens of Dubuque or any other Iowa
community.
There are three areas of SSB 1208 to which I would like to direct comments
today and compare against the 15-year cable franchise agreement that went into
effect in Dubuque on June 5, 2005:
1 } Gross Revenues. SSB 1208 contains a far narrower definition of gross
revenues than our cable franchise agreement. Under the Dubuque
franchise agreement: Gross Revenues include, by way of illustration and
not limitation, fees for any cable service; installation, disconnection,
reconnection, and change-in-service fees; leased channel fees; late fees
and administrative fees; fees, payments, Launch fees, marketing support,
or other payments or consideration received from programmers for
carriage of programming on the System; revenues from rentals or sales of
Converters or other equipment; studio rental, producfion equipment, and
personnel fees; advertising revenues (including any commissions received
by a third party); barter; revenues from program guides; and revenues
from home shopping and bank-at-home channels. Under SSB 1208, the
City would receive less revenue than it has already negotiated.
2) PEG Support. In addition to a 5% franchise fee, Dubuque's cable
franchise agreement calls for an additional 1.75% of gross revenue for
support for public, educational, and governmental (PEG) facilities and
equipment. In less than two years, this support has provided a
tremendous shot in the arm for our thriving access community. PEG is the
Service People Integrity Responsibility Innovation Teamwork
true local voice in Dubuque television and its support is vital to our
residents.
3) I-Net Support. One of the provisions of the new Dubuque cable franchise
agreement that we are most excited about is our institutional network, or I-
Net. For the first time in the city's history, a fiber-0ptic network now
connects more than 75 public, educational, and non-profit sites allowing
rapid transmission of video, voice, and data. Connected are City
buildings, public schools, parochial schools, universities, the medical
community, and many of our cultural institutions. The possibilities are
endless now that we have these connections. Construction of our I-Net
was completed at the end of December. We lit the first segments of this
community resource just last Friday, February 16. It will provide
tremendous savings to our public schools, network redundancy for our
medical community, critical police and fire communications, just to name a
few uses. SSB 1208 does not appear to have any provisions for I-Net
support, putting in jeopardy something we worked very hard to create.
While SSB 1208 is problematic for people in Iowa on the above issues, there is
much more in this proposed legislation that is cause for concern. Clearly, this is
not a bill for the people. I urge you to weigh carefully the detrimental
consequences of this legislation and craft instead, if a new bill must be crafted at
all, one that does not roll back al! the gains local municipalities have struggled so
hard to obtain on behalf of the people we serve.
I thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Craig Nowac
Cable TV Co rdinator
City of Dubuque
cc: Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager
Teri Goodmann, Assistant City Manager
Bany Lindahl, City Attorney
Randy Gehl, Public Information Officer
City Manager's Office
City Hall
50 West 13'h Street
Dubuque, IA 52001-4864
(563) 589-4110 phone
(563) 589-4149 fax
(563) 690-6678 TDD
ctymgr@cityofdubuque.org
«CompleteOFFICIALName Address»
Dear «Tile» «Last»:
THE CITY OF ,,..
~1
L~~~s ~ ~~
February 23, 2007
The City of Dubuque is very concerned about recently introduced legislation that
threatens the ability of local municipalities to negotiate a cable television franchise
agreement that best meets the needs of their communities. The purpose of this letter is
to expand upon the letter we e-mailed you recently and reiterate a few of the City of
Dubuque's concerns with Senate Study Bill (SSB) 1208, also known as the Qwest / ITA
proposal for statewide cable television franchising.
This bill eliminates a municipality's ability to negotiate for provisions important to its
citizenry in favor of a "one size fits all" philosophy that is contradictory to the purpose of
franchising. A franchise provision vital to one community, such as an institutional
network - or I-Net -may be of little concern to another that places a much higher value
on its public, educational, and governmental (PEG) access community.
Since the current form of SSB 1208 threatens to render existing franchises null and
void, and since our community is not even two years into a 15-year cable franchise
agreement, this is a very timely concern for us. Our major concerns are as follows:
• SSB 1208 eliminates a municipality's ability to negotiate a franchise in the best
interests of its constituents. Competitive video providers are not even required to
first negotiate with the city in which they want to operate. The bill also requires
that a franchise be issued within 15 days after application. Why would a provider
bother to negotiate when they can simply "wait it out" and automatically receive a
franchise?
• SSB 1208 creates an uneven playing field and allows existing franchisees to
renegotiate their agreements if they believe their existing franchise is unfair. If no
agreement is reached, a state franchise is automatically issued. The City of
Dubuque invested significant time and resources to negotiate our current
agreement with Mediacom with the understanding that it would be in effect for 15
years.
• SSB 1208 contains no build-out provisions. Low and moderate income
neighborhoods and small businesses will not be served. Our current franchise
requires services be provided to every residence within the city limits, with
reasonable provisions for new annexations.
SSB 1208 does not address any kind of support for I-Nets. In Dubuque, the
construction of a community-wide I-Net connecting more than 75 government,
educational, healthcare, and non-profit sites was a major focus of our franchise
negotiations. Construction of our I-Net was completed late last year and we
began lighting the fiber in this network less than a week ago. Dubuque's I-Net
promises significant savings, network redundancy, emergency communications,
and traffic signalization for our public and parochial schools, our medical
community, City and County buildings, and many of our cultural institutions. Our
-Net community is jumping at the chance to fully realize the potential of this new
resource. SSB 1208 threatens the future of this venture by failing to support it.
SSB 1208 drastically narrows the definition of gross revenues which are the
source of the franchise fees we collect from video providers. Last year, the City
of Dubuque received more than $570,000 in cable television franchise fees as
compensation for commercial use of the public rights-of-way and administration
of the franchise. Reduction of this revenue source could require the City to curtail
services, raise taxes, or both.
The City of Dubuque welcomes competition and competitive prices in our
telecommunications market. The cable-related needs of each Iowa community are not
the same. No "one size fits all" solution will work for everyone. I urge you to oppose
SSB 1208 in its current form and any legislation that prevents a community from
acquiring a cable television franchise that best meets the needs of its citizens. The City
of Dubuque and other communities are working with the Iowa League of Cities (ILC) to
offer suggestions on how this bill could be modified to best service the citizens of Iowa.
I have attached the ILC's evaluation of SSB 1208. I hope you will review it and oppose
SSB 1208 in its current form.
Thank you for your consideration.
MCVM:rg
Attachment
Sincerely,
/~~
Michael C. Van Milligen
City Manager
City of Dubuque
Service People Integrity
Responsibility Innovation Teamwork
LEAGUE OF CITIES EVAL,UAT E CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISING tm
IOWA roviders opera g
QWEST / ITA FROPOSAL FOR STATEWI of cities to franchise cable teleovi os 1 and is offering its
attempt to legislatively reduce the authority west 1 ITA pr P
e of Cities remains in opposition to any roblems associated with the various elements of the Q
The Iowa Leagu a is herein expressing its view of the p
within cities. The Leagu west /ITA ro osai Lea ue osition aired to
position on each of those elements. t Competitive provider should be req
Problems resented b
Comp rovider does not have to attemp s comp
west /ITA ro osal etitive p apply to city for franchise. If franchise n etitive
obtain franchise and can immediately negotiated with city wtin 120 day ,
pro osal elements Competitive provider may negotiation with city 1 fot franchise from
Procedure for or from Secretary of State, but not obtain certificate of franchise authoritya a not provider could then app y Ci would be
issuance of new from city otiate with city. Certificate of State. Certificate of authority Iowa Utilities Board (IUB)• h' terms
required to first neg to be issued Secy
franchise to franchise) address local needs and will be less allowed to have input to NB we er ~IUB
competitive of franchise authority ~ lication. of franchise issued by IUB,
within 15 days after app burdensome than incumbent's existing
would be required to issue franchise within 60
provider franchise' da s All incumbent providers should be
notified (by city or IUB) that a new franchise
The Secretary of State's office does not have y roved for a competitive provider
staff with the necessary regulatory experience
osed by has been app of that franchise. A
and expertise to deal with the issues p and should receive a copy etitive
new franchise approved for a comp
the issuance of cable franchise to a anon of o into effect for 60 days
competitive provider, and the integ provider would not g
such new service with the cable services after such noticerov'der~s franchise hould
rovided b the incumbente the i~~tunbent An thcumbent p Tres. However, if an
This process will encourag franchise remain in effect until it exp
incumbent provider believes that a franc etitive
provider to seek to have its existing rovision a ci or by the IUB to a comp
Incumbent Incumbent provider's franchise remains in declared null and void. As such, this p hts of issued by ty neutrah or
> effect until terminates, unless incumbent contractual rig rovider is not competitively
provider s remedy re uests city to renegotiate; if incumbent and interferes with existing titively
if franchise issued q cities. This process is baclcward• It should believes that it has been compe
etitive city can't renegotiate the franchise w/in 60 not result in conforming an ~ncmnbent disadvantaged by the terms of such franchise, it
to comp days, the incumbent can then file a s after receiving notice of
provider is not m which terms
modification request, identify S rovider's franchise to a new franchise issuance of a competitive franchise within
competitively approved for a competitive provider. Rather, it should have 30 day revision of
neutral. are materially different from a certifetang f P which to appeal to the Ii.JB, seeking
franchise authority issued to a comp franchise should result in the franchise issued to the new etitive provider's
how existing competitive provider being conformed to the the terms of the comp
provider, and indicating has 120 franchise. rovider would have
incumbent's existing franchise. The inc~bent p
terms have to be modified. The city burden of showing that the terms of
days to grant the requested modification. If
city doesn't consent to modifications Upon expiration of an incumbent provider's competitive provider's franchise havet
incumbent provider ,the obtain franchise competitively neutral, or that they
requested by of State, but is not ed the incuunbent provider. The
existing from city or from Secretary In all disadvantag to the
franchise becomesn all ly to 5ecy of franchise, incumbent ma etitive provider would be a party
rovider ca PP required to first negotiate with city comp
the incumbent p rovider seeking a franchise should proceedings before the UIB.
State for a certificatc of franchise authority. cases, a p
first be required to negotiate with the city.
Franchise terms Secy of State would issue a "certaf sufficient detalrin Qwest s proposalll In
tn providers the IUB should be requrredtoo
and provisions franchise
franchise authority", rather than
provisions and
reement with terms
a m
ou
all cases, there should be a franchise document
h
f b
de eemen w th deta led termsoand provisions
r
a
,
g
requirements as is the case with city approved ot
that defines the rights and obligations o
n
itt g
consistent with statutory requirements. An
franchises. Certificate of franchise authority e
the city and the franchisee. Without a wr
the city and the fran
ument
d i
b
l
s
or f i
on
would presumably be issued subject to all ,
oc
eneral statuto
ve to attempt to apply very g ry
h ty
A c
franchise.
model
th the
si ten
c
t
i
t
requirements of the statute. a
visions to define their rights and obligations en
s
roved franchise would have to be cons
app
i
pro
with respect to payment of a franchise fee,
f ons
with model franchise, but certain provis
otiable (e.g. franchise period,
ld be ne
deployment of provider's system, provision o
support of PEG channels
rvice to residents
s g
wou
deployment period, PEG support, I-NET
,
e
and institutional networks support).
tion of
D
Incumbent's franchise would be in effect until I-NETS ,etc.
Q
sumabl
rP
hi
o r
t
of limit d duration. rThe model franchhseuld be
ura
franchise it expires, but is subject to right of
otiation; if city refuses requested
rene y,
re
se.
a franc
on
ec fic dura
P
they are seeking to obtain "perpetual
t' a Bement should sugget 10 years as the
~'
ld
t
g
modification, franchise could be rendered nu{I s
franchises", similar to those which Qwes
decessor received from the State for franchise of
have dis reton toto negotiat a
i
and void and incumbent provider could
after obtain certificate of franchise
r
th pre
telephone service in 1897. A perpetual ts
shorter or longer duration, depending on
mg on the
u
e
e
authority from Secy of State for indeterminate
rovider can obtain
etitive
C
i
d franchise cedes virtual ownership of public
property to a private entity without if any required by the
period oof ime
P
the investment made by it
recou
t
hi
p
omp
.
per
o
certificate of franchise authority from Secy of consideration. In this age of free competition,
no entity should be given a perpetual franchise. p
o
see
franc
to deploy its system.
State for indeterminate period. The duration of a franchise should be limited to
the reasonable period of time necessary for the
provider to recoup the investment required to
deploy its system, after making a reasonable
Authorization of
Upon expiration of incumbent provider's rofit.
Qwest / ITA proposal does not authorize a
ge
Based on federal authorization of cable
ss
~
i
s
franchise fee a
franchise, incumbent is reg Cities will continue to face chalenges to ,
fiable c
studies of ver
revenues and city
expressed as a oss
ercent of
franchise fee equal to the p g
n
i
l
%l
o
specified
f revenue assessednimmY de taloy derrrequired to
Corp p
termination and money `proving up" their
a pending time s
revenues
of gross
fee of up to 5
franchise
Cities should have blanket authority
justified
percentage o
"gross revenues" .
pay a franchise fee -percent not specified. in court challenges. .
to impose a franchise fee of up to a 5% without
having to in each case justify the fee in terms of
costs actually incurred by the city; except that a
new competitive provider should not be
charged a franchise fee exceeding that paid by
an incumbent rovider.
"Gross
ro osal def~eS ical
The Qwest 1 ITA P o ly than ~
Definition of revenue' more Harr chise
"gross revenues" ~cumbent cable television fran
for purposes of
calculating the
I franchise fee
a city may, at its
ro osal, ear,
Under Q.Nest 1 ITA P P once per y
Audit of franchise d not more than erfornl a
expense an
ents rovider's calculation of
fee paYm request the state auditor to p
reasonabhise fee°f a p
the fran
~° oss revenue" should be at least I
Definition of gr is defined ~ existing
as broad as that terns bent
uicum
franchise agreements with
If narrower definition franc hises
providers. statute applies to new rovider
revenue iTS etitive providers, new p
issued to comp chise fee than the Cage over
would pay less fran fair advan
• cumbent and willhave un
be ufre cities to P chiSee ha
unfair to req where the fran chise
instances, p~t'cularly a ent of fran
shortchanged the city sii P la amount.
fees b more than a minim
services,
11 roviders of cable or vi eO
oved or state issued
dude a
chise legislation should m than has
Cable fran « ross reveHowever, the
broader definition o we t !ITA.
been proposed b u grevenues" in a franchise
definition of ~ etitive provider sho eedra nttlie
issued to a comp franchise agr
same as in the existinrovider.
with the incumbent p
city should be abnot mor L~han
in A franchising to ensure
bent. chising cites (no`N franchisee's business records,
the incum ear to the extent necessary
This would restrict all fS alone) to use of the once per Y aired franchise fee,
over 300 withMediacom payment of the Teq chisee's
records of cablop nr ate review of the fran of revenue
State Auditor to review ine if app including to sign portions
video fralichisees to dete aid .There is no methodology ices. If audit shows
from bundled serv o the franchisee
franchise fees have been p ent of more than 5 l°, audit
assuuance the State Auditor has the resources ° underpaYlT1 a cued to reimburse city experts
provide this service. Private audit firms are should be q
ed to handle this function. erase of engaging
tter equipp ay audit costs in all s costs, including exp
cites not
ose that franchismSi
e A P der city aPPr sere
whether ~ abed to comp
should be req cified
a spe
h
Mandatory v
ro
(west I ITA P p • comp
ufre a new
be allowed to req chise (certificate of
te to
fr
n in
franchise, stems wit
re uirement, the
build-out °f ee Absent such a q
herry Pick
u
"
deployment or
build-out a
der a
Sect' of Sta
provider use issued by
franchise authors an)datory build-out c
period of t
n • rovider will
etitive p ex ect to
new comp
hbOfhoods where it can P
other
iequirement comply with a m
Proposal does not includewould
hich g
those nei ice and leave
arket its serv Bven ils fr1e
ice
ent.
reglsuem uirements w
build-out req chj$ee under
statutory
able to fran
i .billy m
without serv
. etitive
neighborhoods the comp
hbO1hoods,
r service
f
c
ise appl
be otherw chise.
issued frail
t e
selected net ght be tempted to of
g
e~~
provider mi a certau' percenta
e
sta ~
rt
penetration °f en e{use to invest in
s
.
homes, and th to reach all home
sary
facilities neces
elude a that I
chise legislation should in
Cable frai' , chise be
"default build-eS ~~e~°ate i sued ~ as~~ °lo
new franchise a to at chise
required to provide servone year after fran
of city residents within residents
(b) to at least 70°ci°ise issuan0e' and
issuance;
within two yew's after frail within three Years
(c} to 100°1° of city residents cities
However,
otiate a sc~5et build-
after franchise issuance
should oa in a city aPPT°ved fran
out p
l . Under Qwest I ITA proposal, if an ci for I
a franchising tY
t
Support for -
1, public,
d o
incumbent pays a fee
ort any subsequent holder of ort fee
PEG supp a the PEG supp
t
educational an
governmen~l P Y
issued franchise mus
the same rate. etitive
camp
i
PEG) channels
( at
ty,
s of request by c
Wlin 180 day
ate sufficient capac~h' on
i
and H
provider must des
g rovision of a
its network to allow the P els that the
of PEG charm
b
d
2. institutional er
rovide
comparable mm~
umbent provider has activated and p
o such
If
i
networks
{I--NETS) n
nc
ceder a franchise agreement.
nnels are active, a city over 50,000
hannels, and a
h
c
a
population may request 3PEG c
under 50,000 population may request 2
city
PEG channels.
Qwest /ITA proposal ort of I-NETS•s
2
,
monetary or in-kind supp
l , Under some existing franchises, the
rovider is required to provide both
incumbent p els and
in-kind support {dedicated charm els, as
associated bandwidth) for PEG charm o erate
ui and P
well as monetary supp°~ t0 eq pro osal
such channels. The Qwest / iTA p P
would only require the competitive provider to
provide monetary support if the incumbent was
monetary supp°rt~ and would allow
providing uest PEG channels
the franchising city tO Leq rovided by the
comparable in number to those p
incumbent Provider.
1. Cable franchise legislation snou-u ui~•»--
"default" PEG support requirements which
should be included ul state issued franchises
e competitive provider to provide 3 PEG
channels or the Largest number of PEG
channels provided by any cable operator
providing service in the franchised area as of
the statutory effective date and the greater of:
3°l0 of gross revenues or the greatest value, on a
ants and
per subscriber basis, of all monetary gr
in-kind services or facilitie a or in the franchise
rovided by any cable op
P the calendar year Preceding the
area in mmg
statutory effective date; PEG program
available to all subscribers, etc.)•
2 Many franchising cities have developed I
institutional networks (I-NETs), using
broadband capacity available through the
~cumbent cable provider. These I-NETS
critical city
support the provision of many
functions -police and fire communications;
remote monitoring and control of traffian~s n~o1
systems, sewer and water treatment ex anding.
etc.), and such uses are continual) ~c~nbent
It would be unfair to requort f i NETs.
providers to provide supp
d
2, Cable franchise legislation should include
"default" 1-NET support requirements which
should be included in state issued franchises
(e,g, competitive provider to provide I-NET
facilities and services to city equivalent in
utility to those provided by mcumbent
I franchisee).
3. Cities should not b°e~ from ad o°np taiiung
etitive
PEG and I ~T supp
provider whit t re eives from rts ~0~be t
l.IE,T suppo ci is already
provider. If a franchising ~' ort from its
receiving sufficient PEG suPu es additional I-
~cumbent provider, but req otiate
NET support it should be allowed to neg
with the competitive provider to obtain the
additional I-NET support in lieu of PEG
support. ~_.
3 The Qwest 1 ITA prop°sal does not affor
franchising cities sufficient flexorth~ m both
obtaining PEG and t Np'T supp etitive
the incumbent provider and a new comp
provider.
4
A roposal, competitive
chises would
Under Qwest 11T P issued fran iicable state
ent of providers under stat; with all app
Managem ces and regulations
ht of- be required t0 comp y f a ublic
public ng d municipal ordu'an anon o P
way (PROW) regs~d fgvaY {n the delivery of the cable or
right ° ice.
video serv
roposal does not address
overnmcnt buildings by
Qwest ! 1T A p or new
Connections to connection Abe t providers
government either Lifi a providers.
buildings compe
of ~
Enforcem
statutory and
fr'ar1e111Se
requirements
applicablev deo
cable and oviders
service p
-~ ri~
oral reg~dnQt broad
~e Qwest ! ITe en authority
of-`uay m~'aglicit enough.
enough °r exp
shauld provide that
ice providers are
Cable franehj$e leg~station
all cable and video°st ty of the franchising city
e auth hts-of-way,
man g
subject;at the uSe of city rig a ement
pursuant to any right-of-way to the franchise
the da ur~t to such
ordinance in effect on ended.
was approved Hier afte ad pted or am
ordinances as r°vide that
islation should P would be
Cable franchise leg ice prov~dee one s u ice
chises, d video serv
all cable an rovide, without charg 'ice an
current cable tele feed t P ovide required t° P for basic cable serv broadband
Under many rovider has ~ ectivity to outlet, activated cess at no less than ublic
the incumbent P broadband cone • intemet ac
s, including basic and all fire stations, P ies, and
cablanety of g° ~rnn-ental building bons, speed, to any stations, Public librar
schools, police sta olive for city or othefrranchise
a ublic ections schools, p , s used
fire stations, P eta These cone of city other building oses within the
public hbrarieS, of a var~etY ld be enrol Pure
ce ~e provision [t woo governor
enhan are now relied bent providers to area•
$ervices and wire only in°um airing new
unfair to rea ect~ons. Rea ovide such
ch corm to also P
prove et ti e providers ceded back-uP in
comp ~rould provide n storm) wh'ch
connectivity ergenay event
the event of an ele s stem.
.- __t,1ar1 the cab
not address
osaldoes francbise
Qw~t t IT A prop tutory a°cable and video
enforcement °f sta
ents appbcable to
regnirem
I service pro~`ders•
islation sh°uld provi ha~at
Cable franchise leg or the IIJ$ would
1 A franchising city h day of
the right: 1 er
ose a civil Pena ty f °r ~ $10 AO p
(a) To imP~ in„ount not to ex~,,here the
default in ed by provideC,
ed the default upon notice•
subscriber sere finding °f a
applicant cur ~chise uP° aaafter notice
(b) To revoke th ghat is not cure
willfulviolati~,ty for ahe ~ ~ shouldhave
and an op~ ismg C1ty or thetion against the
p, fran
2• to bring a evil ac event
authority court of cO~or for an order
franchisee f~damages, an
jurisdiction rectify the appropriate
directing the PrO oato provide oth
noncompliance
relief
The Honorable Pat Murphy
Speaker of the House
Iowa State Representative
155 N. Grandview Avenue
Dubuque, IA 52001
The Honorable Tom Hancock
Iowa State Senator
310 E Main Street
Epworth, IA, 52045
The Honorable Pam Jochum
Iowa State Representative
2368 Jackson
Dubuque, IA 52001
The Honorable Steven Lukan
Iowa State Representative
7365 Columbus Street
New Vienna IA 52065
The Honorable Mike Connolly
Iowa State Senator
2600 Renaissance Dr #3
Dubuque, IA 52001
The Honorable Roger Stewart
Iowa State Senator
3936 317 Avenue
Preston, IA 52069
The Honorable Thomas Schueller
Iowa State Representative
503 W. Platt Street
Maquoketa, IA 52060
The Honorable Ray Zirkelbach
Iowa State Representative
637 W. First Street
Monticello, IA 52310
February 22, 2007
«CompleteOFFICIALName Address»
Dear «Title» «Last»,
In November 2006 the City of Dubuque was designated an Iowa Great Place by
the Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs. Included in our application was a request
for $900,000 in funding to go toward our Envision 2010 projects. This $900,000
in funding will leverage over $11 million in additional funding for the Envision
2010 projects which includes funding for expansion of our 26-mile hike/bike trail
system, including bi-lingual signage for a portion of the city trail system. As you
know, this trail system weaves throughout the City of Dubuque, including such
areas as Heron Pond Wetlands and the Port of Dubuque (home of the $188
million America's River Phase I and soon underway the nearly $200 million
America's River Phase II). The trail system also traverses through the Mines of
Spain and runs north to connect to Heritage Trail in Dubuque County.
I am writing to request your support of additional FY 2008 Federal Funding for
the trail development as part of the City of Dubuque's Iowa Great Places
designation. Thank you for your continued efforts on behalf of cities in Iowa.
Please feel free to contact me at 563-589-4110 if you have any questions or
would like additional information about this or the other exciting projects
happening in Dubuque. Thank you for your continued support for Iowa's
transportation system.
Sincerely,
Michael C. Van Milligen
City Manager
MCVM:cs
cc: Mayor Roy D. Buol
City Council Members
Barry Lindahl, City Attorney
Cindy Steinhauser, Assistant City Manager
Teri Goodmann, Assistant City Manager
Senator Tom Harkin
United States Senate
731 Hart Building
Washington, DC 20510
Congressman Bruce Braley
1408 Longworth House Office
Building
Washington, DC 20515
Senator Charles Grassley
United States Senate
135 Hart Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-1501
City Manager's Office
City Hall
50 West 13~^ Street
Dubuque, IA 52001-4864
(563) 5891I110 phone
(563)589-4149 fax
(563) 690-6678 TDD
ctymgr~)cityofdubuque.org
THE CITY OF
L~~B f _ ~
February 28, 2007
«CompleteOFFICIALName_Address»
Re: TIF and Instructional Support Levy
Dear «Title» «Last»:
wanted to write you with my input concerning legislation affecting Tax Increment
Financing and the Instructional Support Levy.
Please consider three issues related to the removal of the Instructional Support Levy
from Tax Increment Financing revenues.
The City has great difficulty creating incentives for redevelopment of slum and blight
areas. Two cases in point are downtown Dubuque and the former Dubuque Pack site.
TIF is an important incentive to clear up slum and blight.
The TIF districts in Dubuque will receive $113,539 less in revenues if the Instructional
Support Levy is removed. Of that amount, $52,923 will come from slum and blight
districts. Economic development districts account for $60,616. Please consider
exempting slum and blight districts from this legislation.
The City also has obligations related to the existing revenue stream of TIF districts.
Please consider existing revenue streams already obligated through the issuance of
debt or through development agreements with businesses.
While the City does not support this legislation, if it does pass these changes will
minimize the negative impact on the Ciry's economic development and redevelopment
efforts.
Sincerely,
/7~
Michael C. Van Milligen
City Manager
City of Dubuque
«Title» «First» « First»cLast»
February 28, 2007
Page 2
MCVM:jh
cc: Mayor Roy Buol
Dubuque City Council
Molly Grover, President & CEO, Dubuque Area Chamber of Commerce
Rick Dickinson, Executive Director & COO, Greater Dubuque Development Corp.
Barry Lindahl, City Attorney
Cindy Steinhauser, Assistant City Manager
Teri Goodmann, Assistant City Manager
David Heiar, Economic Development Director
Susan Judkins, Director of Government Affairs, Iowa League of Cities
Brendan Houlihan, Interim Director of Government Affairs, Dubuque Area
Chamber of Commerce
Service People Integrity Responsibility Innovation Teamwork
The Honorable Pat Murphy The Honorable Mike Connolly
Speaker of the House Iowa State Senator
Iowa State Representative 2600 Renaissance Dr #3
155 N. Grandview Avenue Dubuque, IA 52001
Dubuque, IA 52001
The Honorable Tom Hancock The Honorable Roger Stewart
Iowa State Senator Iowa State Senator
310 E Main Street 3936 317 Avenue
Epworth, IA, 52045 Preston, IA 52069
The Honorable Pam Jochum The Honorable Thomas Schueller
Iowa State Representative Iowa State Representative
2368 Jackson 503 W. Platt Street
Dubuque, IA 52001 Maquoketa, IA 52060
The Honorable Steven Lukan The Honorable Ray Zirkelbach
Iowa State Representative Iowa State Representative
7365 Columbus Street 637 W. First Street
New Vienna IA 52065 Monticello, IA 52310