Des Moines City Councilors voted Dec. 22 to direct City Manager Scott Sanders to negotiate terms with the Des Moines Area Regional Transit Authority (DART) over how a newly adopted franchise fee would be allocated.

The council’s action asks the manager to pursue a framework that would give 70% of franchise-fee proceeds to DART and reserve 30% for the city to use for local priorities, a proposal several councilors described as a compromise. “Seventy percent is probably a good compromise, and I’m willing to take that,” Councilmember Coleman said, adding the retained 30% could be used to “fund the police and fire improvements that we need.”

Supporters framed the split as a way to meet short-term transit obligations while freeing local revenue to address public safety and capital needs. Manager Sanders told the council the direction is not final: it authorizes negotiators to pursue the terms and return with agreed numbers. “This is not the final answer. This is directing me to use these terms and go negotiate with DART as best I can for the priorities of Des Moines City Council,” Sanders said.

Opponents and cautious members warned that shifting parts of the franchise-fee allocation could strain regional relationships and reduce DART service if suburban partners opt out. “This is a regional system,” Councilmember 4 said. “I am very fearful that we lose some of our regional partners in this system.” Councilmember 3 urged keeping “service front and center,” noting that some communities have already reduced service and that abrupt funding changes could worsen reliability.

Councilmembers also debated whether the city can both lower the DART levy for Des Moines property owners and simultaneously redirect equivalent funds into general-city uses without a property tax increase. City staff explained the mechanics: if the DART levy is reduced only for Des Moines taxpayers, maintaining equivalent general-fund spending would require a separate local tax decision.

Public comment included residents urging transparency about the impact on riders. Councilmembers repeatedly emphasized that the vote was to authorize negotiation and further discussion, not a final reallocation. The motion passed on a roll call after discussion; the manager will return with negotiated terms for council review and possible future action.