HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-02-23 Info Packet
~,', C11 - :'1 ,," ,>tJ. "it~I' ", . ,,' ";' :,', ',':'
:" ;',:,'/.-J', ::,- ':, ,,'.,:',: 0':,7'1: 'I,..;. ,/,.; ': . :, :, \,... " ,':.'
. d ._. __.. _ 'W'nLL:,~
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 5. 1993
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
RE: Materi~l Sent to Council Only
Copy of 1 etter from Mayor Courtney to Mayor Wilkey of Lone Tree 375
regarding a meeting date regarding the Iowa City Water Resources
Study.
I
Memoranda from the City Manager:
a. Pending Development Issues ~~
b. Breakfast with the Governor 7
c. 1992 Summary
Copy of letter from the City Manager to Ed Flaherty in reply to his d79
letter regarding Iowa City's groundwater investigation'efforts.
Memorandum from the Assistant City Manager regarding Cable TV ~D
Franchise renewal.
Memorandum from the City Clerk regarding the codification project. 3'i?/
Memorandum from the Communjty Development Coordinator regarding the ~~~
Press-Citizen Affordable Housing Project.
Copy of letter from the Iowa City Community School District to Chief .3%3
Winkelhake regarding a donation.
Copy of news release regarding taste and odor in Iowa City water. 3~
Agenda for the February 4, 1993, meeting of the Johnson County Board ,,5'5
of Supervisors.
Distributed at 2/9/93 Joint meeting between City Council & Airport Comm:
Summary of Iowa City Airport Feasibility Study. ,:?~"
Copy of Airport Relocation Feasibility Study (final). 387
'"
.. (11= '.-- ,,-'- - --.. ...~...- .........,-~-..........,.---' ... - - "-r- ~_.,- .. .......,.. - ... ...........--
':'" ' .; c;i',.' :"'1 ;,' " : li,', , "'1" ",', " :" :~, , ,<. ::, .',....' .'
~.... ,:'t~J'.."~~"~,":",'", <;~Pl'" ..";.....1.' ':' -". ,",',"', I,' . ;',.:....
~&...
CITY OF IOWA CITY
February 2, 1993
Timothy D. Wilkey, Mayor
City of Lone Tree
City Hall
Lone Tree, IA 52755
Dear Mayor Wilkey:
This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated January 28 concerning the proposed
panel/forum to discuss issues associated with the Iowa City Water Resources Study. On
Monday, February', at my request, City Manager Stephen Atkins called your offices to let
you know that the proposed meeting date of Febru8ry 22 conflicts with a scheduled City
Council meeting. While we would be interested in participating in the discussions that you
have scheduled, the meeting date of February 22 will not work out because of the City
Council's schedule for that week. If you would like to select another date, please let me
know.
I
Sincerely,
4l~
Mayor
cc: City Council
City Manager
tp'-'
.10 EAST WASIlINOTOH STREET. IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240.1126. (Jill )56.5000' FAX (Jltl J5'.500,9
,
i
,
I
,
,
3?S
...... . .oP
~~
i.
,
~....... -..,.,.-:.--- ...- -----
- .. ...---~. ~- -.. .,......------....."........ ,--
.....--v.... .,.. - '1'"""""",........- _~._-..... ..~
:'':',,':t7t ',:, ":;',;1',":: ~',':': ::~L'. ":'" ,':,'::, ,",~>
" ".:,f, ,'~ .."".L'21, ",',JG-:. /',', ." "J,' ,
";'. '~ ,., ,'~. .. \1 '.'" \". _ "",'
"
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 2, 1993
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
RE: Pending Development Issues
An application submitted by Iowa Realty Company to rezone a
3D-acre parcel located west of Sycamore Street and immediately
north of the corporate limits from ID-RS to Rs-a.
An application submitted by Southgate Development, Inc., for
preliminary and final planned housing development plan approval
for an 1.a acre tract of land located on the south side of West
aenton Street to allow construction of 14 dwelling units on the
RS-a zoned parcel. .
I
~
37(g
I
~ - ...-'- - - "~T ........,.-- -----r, -y -"""'
~',,: ',:."'il ',:/l, ,:~: .,-:'ifl:,'",, ":', ,.'.. ,,':, ,>>,\
,'," '~",,~,... " \"ll.,...~' ,~.,,:~ ' . , ",. , :.: '...
.', ..' . r '.' \ . ''',
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 5, 1993
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
RE: Breakfast with 'the Governor
Bob Quick of the Chamber of Commerce has asked that you mark your
calendar for a breakfast with Governor Branstad on March 11, 1993,
at 7:30 A.M. Invitations will be sent out later giving complete
information, including location.
31
~ f1F'-- v-.--
.. ...-.........-....-....., }-~ .....---r-
:,. ::' ',t~"'" <;,/' ,';>:Lj, :ti):':": . ,:' ,,', ,,-', ',: : ':..\
..". '{ I' "J , I, ""f.rm,"'" :"TI' I ~ , " J\ I ','
:' - '__::.,......:'" ,", :N .1,' 'I', _ \\; ':', ''':. .,,:" ',' . '. :;. ,', '
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Data: February 4, 1993
To: City Council
From: City Manager
Re: 1992 Summary
Attachad is a brief summary of the legislative activities underta~en by the City Council during
calendar year 1992. This represents a selection of the most significant issues and is not a
complete accounting of all Council activities.
,
cc: Department Directors
Attachment
~11Ull1Tl11'/
,
I
3?r
....~.... ..'-
,..-...-- ~'I ~,-.-". ,.......,. - '--r-
-", '''flI....' ',', ',,' 'W":" ,..,;5i"""'.:' " ,,' ,,'::, '''',' ,,:',
, " . " I " '
, , ~ "., " '" I ., . . \, " . _ , ,
..' " '" I. 't 'I "","",,'
',: I' '- I".." . I' 'I'" 1,1'",','. .
. , ~, . , '", ~ -, " ,,' , ,', '
. " "'''' 'I' ," ~. I' ~. ~_, " J ,
I , I ','" ' " " '. '. " \ ,'''':.
1
SUMMARY OF 1992 ACTIVITIES
1. Approved the Community Builder Plan which will provide Iowa City with bonus points
when applying for a variety of state financial assistance programs.
2. Purchased vacant property for $8,500 at 1830 I Street for a future low- moderate Income
household. A home, formeriy located In the 300 block of Madison Street was donated by
the University, moved onto the site, and rehabilitated.
3. Approved an agreement with Neumann Monson Architects for $275,000, to design the four
level Chauncey Swan parking facility. Council also approved the sale of parking revenue
bonds to finance the construction of the ramp.
4. Approved a cooperation agreement with the Federal Department of Housing and Urban
Development to assure our continued support for housing programs specifically the family
self-sufficiency program.
5. As a part of the Americans with Disabilities Act, approved a paratransit plan on behalf of
Iowa City Transit and the JCCOG Board of Directors.
I
6. Approved the Near South Side Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan. This plan included
a new fee system for payment in lieu of on-site parking, new zoning district of CB-5
(Central Business Support) and a PRM zone, to replace RM.144.
7. The Counclf enacted a new ordinance requiring certain educational materials and other
related policies to all those who sell and/or distribute cigarettes.
8. The landflli was the site of an experimental program whereby poplar trees were planted
In the landfill cover In order to reduce erosion and reduce Infiltration, thereby controlling
leachate formation. The trees wlli Ultimately serve as a border to provide a wind break,
visual and noise barriers, as well as the general aesthetics for the landllll area,
9. The City formally adopted the polley encouraging the acquisition of vacant lots for
expanding affordable housing opportunities In Iowa City. Housing units slated for
3?~
fF- --- y-.---
.. .. .........-..wt....,...,---.....-Ir---' ...... - - . - r- - - .,..
.. "T-'"
::,< '-::- ': ',.', , ': ': ~(::'l11 ',:"",", "," ,;,' :,",,';-
:, '" J,I '.,-t ,'" [71' in, ' ," ,
:. ",:>\.r,~J\:: -:>\\ ';; t. '> ,''';\ ... I .. ,',~. \ 0,< " ,I , .:,' ;' _ ,~'.', ~"
^
2
demolition were to be considered for relocation to these lots. Homes could then be sold
to eligible famllles in accordance with Council polley guidelines.
10. Under the 1992 malntenance and repair project for the Capitol and Dubuque street
parking ramps, the deck surfaces and expansion Joints, Installation of additional
waterproofing membrane, and a concrete penetrating sealer was applied to these parking
ramps at a cost of $275,000.
11. The Council also approved the construction of storm sewer projects near Park Road and
Ridge Street. ,These projects had a total cost of $440,000.
12. The Council authorized the execution of an agreement between Camlros Limited to
perform a study for a proposed cultural/conference center In downtown Iowa City. The
$45,000 study and the use of a citizens' art committee was Intended to determine the
feasibility of such a project.
13. Plum Street was completely reconstructed during 1992 at a cost of $124,000.
14. The City Council also authorized during 1992 a consultant study with Svendsen. Tyler Inc.
for a comprehensive historic preservation plan.
I i
,
15. Applied for an additional 25 units of public housing under the Section 8 certification and I
,
I
voucher program spon~ored by the Federal Department of Housing and Urban I
Development. I
I
,
16. The City Council authorized proceeding with the construction of right tum lanes on I
I
Highway 6 at Gilbert and the construction of left and right tum lanes on Highway i
6 at Lakesldellndustrlal Park Road.
,
,
,
,
17. A contract was awarded for the painting and other repairs/renovation of the North Dodge
Street water reservoir at a cost of $190,000.
18. The Council approved amendments to the Zoning Ordinance which established new
particulate matter emission requirements.
~?8
~-- f'F ~. y---
- "..----. ~-- .... r ..,....------..~,...... , - --.. ... -........ ---.,.-: ---- __
:-:",~:,";f;I':; ,',':,,:1',,' ;:,',;:'~t::'..,; :~~I- :>' :.',' <;,". :'" ~. >:::,~:
.' \ ..' I .. ~01 ... , ,.',. , _,
.:","..:\ ..-..=! .': ~" ':~':'I:' ' ',: 'J! ....', '_;1' {.. I .' " " . , ! " .'
3
19. The City continued its work In the renovation of the Civic Center. The renovation work
also Involved asbestos abatement as well as the construction/remodeling of offices for the
City Attorney, Department of Housing and Inspection Services, and Document Services
DIvision of the Department of Finance.
20. A contract was awarded to the Conlon Construction Company of Dubuque, Iowa for $2.9
million to construct the new Chauncey Swan parking ramp on Washington directly across
from the Civic Center.
21. Council proceeded with the adoption of a historic preservation plan and incorporated that
plan Into the City's Comprehensive Plan.
22. At a referendum In November, the public approved an Increase in the hotel/motel tax from
5% to 7%. The distribution of the monies remain substantially the same as in the past.
23. Stormwater management areas in and around Hickory Hili Park were designated as park
land and now under the direction of the Department of Public Works/Parks and Recreation
Commission for management and maintenance responsibilities. Its use as a stormwater
management area will remain.
I 24. The City Council and County entered into extensive discussions on a revision to the library J
i
agreement in order to provide library services to non-Iowa City residents, I
I
25. The historic preservation and housing rehabilitation interests of our community combined I
,
with a City financed salvage storage building to be constructed adjacent to the Iowa City I
,
Municipal Airport. This will serve as a storage facility for the materials taken from !
demolition projects and other potential housing rehab initiatives.
\ 26. A portion of Dubuque Road was closed following an extensive development agreement
I with the ACT company in order for them to proceed with the construction of new campus
buildings and other related facilities.
27. Council approved a development proposal concerning the 48 un lis of rental housing to be
developed as Villa Garden Apartments by Robert Burns. The City assisted in this project
by the creation of a tax incremental financing district.
378
........- y-'--
- ~ ....--,.---r-}- -r ~----..-...,.--......... .,.-
.. ' T- ...--...........-- ....- ....
, "'-:' '" '.. ,:' ,,' '8'''' ',',' ,:,-;-:-;--::C;7~:'.
. 'I I " , .'
..L,.' ~,,'; 1;"1';-':"',<',1.
, ..:, 1iIfI"~'7'~LI:':);'r '" ~" ,''':,
.\ "~dW:'>' "~j,j",,\,,"'~i~' \' :" -". ~"'"
4
28. The University proposed th'e vacatfon of porUons of Capitol, Bloomington and Davenport I
streets In the area of the new pappaJon Business College Building. The purpose of this I
,
project was to create a pedestrian mall area In and around the new academic building. I
29. The Council authorized the refinancing of $4.87 million In general obligation debt as well
as refinancing $1.190 million In parking revenue bonds.
30. The Department of Finance was again presented the dlsUngulshed budget award by the
Govemment Finance Oftlcers Association. This award was received In March.
31. The Evans Street bridge repair project was Initiated and concluded wllh constructfon being
undertaken by Wolf Construction at a cost of $152,000.
32. The City proceeded with the design and received approval for the new south Sycamore
sanllary trunk sewer at a cost of $600,000. This project will be part of a tap.on fee
financing plan.
33. In March, the City Council approved a grant appllcatfon to the state Department of
TransportaUon for $650,000 to assist in financing the $1.25 million reconstrucUon of the
I Melrose Avenue bridge.
34. The City Council directed the Waters Consultfng Group to undertake a comprehensive
, classlflcaUon study for all City execuUve, admlnlstratfve and confidential employees.
35. The Housing RehabllltaUon Office, In conjunctfon wllh the Friends of Historic PreservaUon,
undertook a project to move, rehabilitate and sell to a CDBG.ellglble low or moderate
Income family a house currentfy situated at 703 Bowery. The City purchased the lot at
451 Rundell Street and the house was moved, rehabilitated, and sold In accordance wllh
the direction provided by the City Council.
36. Approved amendment to zoning ordinance and thereby created the opportunity for
General Mills to open their new plant In the BDllndustrlal Park.
mgllbudgollaCtvy92,sum
378
-
Iil&.U-'.~
-.........~~~~1W.IIHI ''filii. .k'tfUJlff:tI1~(~-'"Ll.W'ilJl'I.r~_._~_~____
~....... ,rF ,-- ".-.-
.......,
.. ... ~~........,. ~----....-r--~-y - -
>" ,:<t;J:':" '"',,,'::,tii, :":0". ";.' ",", :',:~, . <"
f ,f 1 .} 'ETl' ~, ,..' ,I..' , ",' '
. .,,,........ \.. '0 ',: ", ,~\,'''' 'i\ :<';, . " ,- '\ ' ,.' . ' ." '. ~ 0 ; { . .... , " ;:/,
5
02.02.93
The following development activity occurred:
OPDH (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL):
1. Rochester Hills Condos. 32 Unlls - north of Rochester Avenue, east of St. Thomas Court.
2. Wellington Condos - 20 units. part of Village Green, Part XII on Village Road extended.
3. Washington Square Condos . 16 units . north of Washington Street, west of Scott
Boulevard.
REZONINGS
Rezoning of the North side RM-145 zone 10 PRM (east of Clinton, west of Dubuque, south
of Davenport, north of Jefferson).
Rezoning of the west side RM.145 zone to PRM (Uncoln and Valley avenues).
Rezoning of Ihe A.D.S. site on Sheridan from 1-1 to RS-8,
Annexation and rezoning of 7.08 acres east of Scott Boulevard and north of Court Street.
1992 Subdivision Acreaae Lois
Hunlers Run, Part 7 8.33 acres 20 lots
West Side Park (resubdlvlslon Lois 25.32) 10.45 acres 64 lots
Ty'n Cae, Part II 1101
Mt. Prospect, Part V 7.6 acres 2510ls
Willow Creek 6.15 acres 2010ls
Village Green, Part XII 15.16 acres 24 lots
Hickory Hili Ridge ' 8.05 acres 1610ls
Park West Subdivision, Part 1 9.48 acres 2310ls
Walnut Ridge, Part 3 19.59 acres 1310ls
84.81 acres 206 lols
mgilbudgallaC\Vy92,5um
-
- -
ll:l "'1 un IIII'I.LIlI....
- ._~
3?8
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
!
!
!
I
.
,
i
i
~
,
,
(
-,
I
i
- -- Wo- ..~..- ........1---.....-r "-Y - - --.r- -. ,.~
.. --......----y-'~
~:: '.. 't',;,' ,:,>,.'" "',: ~~., 'i --,"," ,,' " ,:' :';", :..::.~. , :,';
'ill' ''I' " - "t2:> 'It' " " '..,
-}:,:' ,', [ ':' ':' ~'" !. )' J~:71'..: :, ,.' ", .....,.. .,.." ,It' . : .:.
., "" ',' ", ". :.y...... . ,.... .'" ". . ,
. \. 7-: ~ ,
APPOINTMENTS MADE TO BOARDS/COMMISSIONS DURING 1992
Board/Commission
Airport Commission
,Airport Commission
Airport Zoning Board of Adjustment
Animal Control Advisory Board
Board of Adjustment
Board of Adjustment
Board of Adjustment
Board of Appeals
Board of Appeals
Board of Appeals
Board nf Electrical Examiners & Appeals
Board of Electrical Examiners & Appeals
Board of Examiners of Plumbers
Board of Library Trustees
Broadband Telecommunications Commission
'Broadband Telecommunications Commission
Broadband Telecommunications Commission
Civil Service Commission
Committee on Community Needs
Committee on Community Needs
Committee on Community Needs
Committee on Community Needs
Committee on Community Needs
Committee on Community Needs
Design Review Committee
Design Review Committee
Historic Preservation Commission
Historic Preservation Commission
Historic, Preservation Commission
Housing Commission
Housing Commission
Housing Commission
Housing Commission
- Human Rights Commission
Human Rights Commission
Human Rights Commission
Human Rights Commission
Mayor's Youth Employment Board
Mayor's Youth Employment Board
Mayor's Youth Employment Board
Mayor's Youth Employment Board
Mayor's Youth Employment Board
Mayor's Youth Employment Board
Parks and Recreation Commission
Parks and Recreation Commission
Parks and Recreation Commission
Parks and Recreation Commission
Planning and Zoning Commission
Planning and Zoning Commission
Riverfront and Natural Areas Commission
Riverfront and Natural Areas Commission
Name
Richard Blum (reappointment)
Howard Horan
Scott Reynolds
Janice Becker (reappointment)
Rich Vogelzang
Larry Baker
Barbara Ludke
John Roffman (reappointment)
John Staska
Velma Tribble
Michael Dean Homewood
John Robinson
Jane Hagedorn (reappointment)
Cha r 1 es T. Traw
Trey Stevens (reappointment)
Cordell Jepsen (reappointment)
Roger Christian (reappointment)
Michael W. Kennedy (reappointment)
Susan Feeney
Rusty Martin
Bruno Pigott
Grace Cooper (reapPointment)
Mary Ann Dennis (reappointment)
Linda Murray (reappointment)
Gordana Avramovic Pavlovic
Clara Swan
Jay Semel (reappointment)
Kevin Hanick (reappointment)
Kay Irelan
Roger Reilly (reappointment)
, Benjamin Moore (reappointment)
John McMahon (reappointment)
Charles Eastham
patricia Harvey
Dorothy Paul (reappointment)
Ann Shires
Ken Gatlin
Dave Jacoby (reappointment)
Loren Forbes (reappointment)
Kurt Kastendick
Julie Pulkrabek
Sheil a Creth
Rosalyn Green
Debora L i dde 11
Matthew Pacha
Jennifer 01 son
Tom Bender
Kyran Cook (reappointment)
George Starr
Karen Mumford
Richard Hoppin
378
....... ..,. ..-- ..
-
a
:,' '''f~El'' · '~;"I'. ,,': G,'".; I ''', ",' "" ", ':':',J,'-'." ;:',' " ,",'.
.',";;..[ :':"'~ "N.:}' ~:.71" '.:':,.." : ~' ':>.....',.: :'",:~:.'~
. "1, J "t I ' j : ~....."\" I I " " .
Board/Commission Appointments (continued)
Board/Commission
Senior Center Commission
Senior Center Commission
Name
Harold Engen
Patrick Peters
Approved appointments to Boards/Commission as recommended by the Johnson
County Board of Supervisors and City of Coralville:
Riverfront and Natural Areas Commission
Riverfront and Natural Areas Commission
Riverfront and Natural Areas Commission
I
Steven Ford (Coralville)
Jan Hubel (reappointment - County)
Barbara Hinkel (County)
378
,I'
;.
I
y-.-~
... ~ -.-'" -...., ~- -". ..,...,.---- ~.-r-....... ,.......
..... -...... -- ".....-. ---- --~-
~,;',': .r,:.... ,'.~,.,:'..:~ .,:~....:'.' :<\:.~l,. ",'. "~fl,"'.q~..~'. :,~;..' "',,'~
',' 1,1.1. , 'i)~ , I,'" .
:":':' J1L,., ,~j,:,.:: ~~ '.' ,)Z;",; '.' , ;, ,>: ,'. '>
"
February 4, 1993
~:&..
CITY OF IOWA CITY
-
Ed Flaherty
2601 Friendship St.
Iowa City, IA 52245
Dear Ed:
The issue of potential land restrictions continues to be one of the major concerns related to
the City's groundwater investigation efforts. It is disappointing to me that those opposed to
the project do not state unequivocally those concerns. This issue of saying we cannot have
their water is unfortunate when the real issue is agricultural regulation by the DNR.
The wellhead protection has been construed to focus on the most extreme and severe land
use regulations. The intent of the program is to manage potential contamination sources to
our state's groundwater, which is the law of the State of Iowa. No one can knowingly pollute
the groundwater. Now whether the DNR has effectively fulfilled the responsibility in
managing that state policy is certainly another question.
Because the wellhead protection program is voluntary, restriction zones and activities can be
created by local authorities. We recently sent to the Johnson County Board of Supervisors
two examples of where county boards included wellhead protection in their planning and
zoning ordinances. Neither used the 1,000 foot to one-half mile recommendations of the
DNR, and neither severely restricted normal farm activities.
The buried channel option in the comprehensive weter plan was based on seven protection
wells, not 20. I feel confident that there is no intention, nor would the City consider pursuit
of a project that involves acquiring almost 20 squara miles of farm land.
We, too, are concerned with minimizing potential impact on the Johnson County agricultural
industry. Just as I'm sure you can appreciate, I am concerned about the potential impact on
the Iowa City citizen to finance up to $30+/- million in water.related capital projects.
However, it is difficult to address these concerns when so much erroneous information is
taken quickly as a fact.
I must admit to you in all candor that I am disappointed you have chosen to take a position
without benefit of the formal study process. It would seem that only when the review of the
amount and quality of wat&r that might be available could you decide whether the issues at
hand would, in fact, generate economic loss to farmers. Only with factual information can
any such assessments be made.
.'0 EAST WASIIINOTON STRUT' IOWA CITY, IOWA )2240.1126 'lll9) l".sOOO. FAX 1)1t) H6.S0ot
37'
'W'!...- -- -,e- -
I
I
I
I
y---
- ... .-....~.~- .....". .,....----..~~ ,.-
- . "'" --
.......-~ - --.- --~---- ....-, .'-
,
::~: (',',;., "":'1 ,," ''=<'' ".' :13-:: ':',: :, ',": ":,:," ,::~:'
:,:,""':,r~, ',',..,::~;-,',<'''::,~=l,::'':',ZJ ;:' "" ':, .,'" \ _ '" .".,: ....:'.: ','.-
" Ed Flaherty
February 4, 1993
Page 2
As I have statad publicly on a numbar of occasions, agricultural rastrictions are likely.
However, as you well know under the requirements of the laws of the State of Iowa, we
would hope that farm practicas could be altered to protect Iowa's groundwater. Just as a
business or industry cannot foul our air, farming practices cannot foul our groundwater whic.h
is available to 811 Iowa citizens. The' fact that our current water supply is clearly being
severely affected by agricultural runoff, I am sure you can appreciate my concern about the
application of farm chemicals.
Our intention all along has been to create an effective dialogue based upon the sharing of
accurate information in order to address the concerns that h,ave been raised. We will continue
to make that effort.
Sincerely,
~
Stephen J. Atkins
City Manager
cc: City Council
Ed Moreno
Chuck Schmadeke
~1"i/lIf1y,dt2
./
37'
_....'::..
11..~_...~'.n~..~.w',.nL!::I~.~~
1. JJ.lII 111fll11
lL1_.h.li .11':'0. IU'IIl'1It
-
I
--r-
< ,'.'...:, ~ :, ':, -~', ':t'2f i ,,: ~o:":",:< I, :,' ,'::,'
. "L ' . '/ J' ,c.:" ';TI "" "
:':: ',:.,r, "'" [, ~, : : ':JlJ. ':"'; " :': '\', " ~ ':, ", '. ,; , 'I
.'
RECEIVED FEB 1 - 1993
J
2601 Friendship St,
Iowa City, IA. 52245
January 31, 1993
City Manager Steve Atkins
Civic Center
410 E. Washington
Iowa City. IA. 52240
Dear Steve:
The City of Iowa City wishes to attain, through purchase or condem-
nation, sites for five monitoring wells south of Iowa City for the
PU1"pOSe of determining whether Iowa City's water SUpply can be
provided via pipeline from approximately twenty wells drilled into
the "buried channel" aquifer. Farm owners and their neighbors are
Undel"standably disturbed, What might happen to their own watel"
supply is one concern, What may be a larger concern is how are they
to make a living if their crop and liVestock practices al'e severely
l"estricted if their land falls into a half-mile radius of one of the
Pl"oposed prOduction wells.
I
I
I
'.
j
,
~
.~
!
The reason the city is lOOking to get its water supply out of wells
located roughly between Hills and Lone Tree is that it projects
initial costs of that option as sixteen million dollars compared to a
projected cost of twenty-five to thirty-five million dollars fOl" a new
surface water treatment plant inside the city limits. Have the cost
prOjections of the "buried channel" option included the losses farmers
will incur if the project is completed? The answer is no! If in fact
you had determined what those costs might be and had committed to the
prinCiple that the city would fairly compensate for those losses. I
believe you would have eliminated the "buried channel" option as too
expensive,
What might we be talking about here in terms of losses? If it takes
twenty wells to meet the demand and if those wells are spaced a mile
apart. than there are twenty sections of farmland that fall within the
.potential well head protection areas. What might the value be of the
livestock faci I ities on those twenty sections that may have to be
abandoned? What economic losses will befall the farm operators of
those 12.800 acres if they cannot use pesticides and ferti I izers tha t
other farmers are allowed to use?
I urge you to consider these questions. Agl"iculture in Johnson County
is a one hUndred million dollar per year industl~v, fl71at .would a loss
of economic activity on this vast, fertile land mass mean for its
owners. the level of economic activity in the county. and the tax base
for several school districts and the county? Please reconsider your
direction,
~Cel"eIV yours,
Ed~
3"
--.
~.l:I"II::iIIl!1I.L.L
--
~ !HUIT ntJ 1 mUltI
oI.d1J
~, ~ ~ - "...... -
--.,
J'. .~: ~"'\',.' . i., " _:,,' '--t:' "'~ :..... ..:.': ,'~ J,
',' ~ ',' , " 'LI:> 'b,' , ,," " .
:\;' ,.:~,,:'->:' ,:~/>,':'~Z(, ':;.3," ""',<" "','::, <,
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 3. '993
Re: Cable TV Franchise Renewal
To: City Council
From: Assistant City Manager
We continue to progress through' the formal refranchising process. The Consumer Market
Analysis, the Technical Audit, and the Needs Assessment Survey are complete, including a
special effort to identify the needs of the local access channel programmers (PA TV, Iowa City
Community School District/Kirkwood, Public Library, University of Iowa, and Local
Government Access). You have received summary information on each of these, and the
complete reports and relevant documents are available if you wish to review any of them in
greater detail. The City Attorney is working with our consultants, Rice-Williams Associates,
and their legal counsel regarding needed research, ordinance revisions, and other refranchising
issues of a legal nature.
Based on the process to date, we are preparing a Request for Proposals, the first draft of
which we expect from Rice.Williams in early February. The remainder of the schedule for
completion of the formal process is as follows:
Early March, 1993. Revise RFP utilizing input from access channel programmers, Broadband
Telecommunications Commission and staff, etc.
I
Early March to April 1 , 1993. Public hearing by Broadband Telecommunications Commission
(currently scheduled for March 17, '993). Additional public hearings by the Commission or
City Council could be held during this time.
April 1 to June 1, 1993 . RFP sent to TCI which has 60 days to respond.
June 1 to July 1, 1993 . Evaluation of TCI's proposal by the City.
July 1 to September 1, 1993 . 60-day negotiating period between the City and TCI.
October 1, 1993' City gives preliminary assessment of renewal or denial, and holds additional
public hearings as required. Assuming a renewal posture on the part of the City, the franchise
agreement should be finalized soon after this date. If the City's posture is one of denial, it is
anticipated thet we would being preperation for litigation.
A new franchise may take effect any time after the City and the cable company agree. It
would not be necessary that the effective date be delayed until the expiration of the current
franchise in April, 1994.
Please give me a cell if you have any questions or would like further information.
cc: City Manager
Drew Shaffer
Broadband Telecommunications Commission
bt"'a'WIllW
3~O
.....,
f1i!""'~ y-'--
- ~ .....-...,~- -II' ..,....,.------.---r---.......-,.- .... ....-..,..-- ".....-'-".......--..... .~
~,>:,i':..:':', :', ':>:/' .', (,bl"", itJ", " " ,",.':, ",' :", ;", .....:",..., ":':
.~ :,' ..;:, '~'i, . : . "~I '-7. ~ .',: . :~~. ' ,', :'.3 'I' ,':' ..-,v.. .'.." ,; ~ _ ''''"
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 3, 1993
To: All Department Heads
From: Marian K. Karr, CIIy Clerk
Allached Is what we hope Is the final staging for our codification project. Adhering to the
schedule should put the printed code books In our hands by mid-December of 1993. Thanks for
your cooperationl
Stage New Code TItle Date Irom Sterling Date City Returns
, & SubJeel to City to Sterling
I Charter
, 1- Administration March 1, 1993 April 1, 1993
i 5 - Business & Ucense
I 4- Alcoholic Beverages
I
I 2 11. Municipal Ubrary
! 12- Parks & Recreation April 1 , 1993 May 1, 1993
I 15. Airports and Aviation
I
i 3 6- Public Heahh & Safety
I 7. Fire Prevention & Protection May 1, 1993 June 1;1993
i
.
i 4 8 - , Pollee Regulations
I i 9- Motor Vehicles & Traffic June 1, 1993 July 1, 1993
"
.
i 5 3 - Finance, Taxation & Revenue
, I
~ 2 - Human Rights July 1, 1993 August 1, 1993 I
\
i 6 13. Utilities August 1, 1993 September 1,
1993 I
7 10. Public Ways & Property I
14. Franchises September 1, 1993 October 1, 1993 I
I
8 16. Unified Development Codo I
I
- Land control ,
- Building & Housing October 1, 1993 November 1, 1993 I
. Zoning
,
. Land Subdivisions
- Flood Control
3. Fees, Charges, Rates & Fines
Ip2.3
co: City Council
City Manager
City Attomey
3S
-~~.- .~-- Y-"--.-
I
I
,
,
,.
,
I
.. ~ ..---~.~- ....". .,...,-----~---.---.,-~ -,--
.. _...~--...,.....--.-.........- --
,
, ,'" ',' , J(' , , ' ..' . .
. - " . ',' - , "'1' '" , ' ,
'. ( , , _ ~' '. '. J I .' ' ." " '", '
" .L " , , ":/' I ' LS: ,l ' " " . " ,,'.
~, ,'\:: .~.L), .~ /"'~l ':'=- ';' :,'~ ,.~~:~ ',,' I'" ~:;,'__: J:'~" <:.' 1 :,1" .:~', " :': ' ~:: ;'" " ',~:,~
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
I
Date:
February 4, 1993
~~~
To: Stephen J. Atkins, City Managar
From: rtt Marianne Milkman, Community Development Coordinator
Re: Iowa City Press Citizen Affordable Housing Project - Status Report
To date, the Citizen Building Limited Partnership has received a commitment for $400,000 in
HOME funding, a $15,000 grant from the low8 Finance Authority, and the City's agreement
to tax exemption for the property for ten years. The missing piece in the financing of the 66-
unit affordable rental housing project is the Low Incoma Housing Tax Credit (L1HTC).
In the past, this tax credit has been axtended annually by Congress and the Presidant.
However, last November, President Bush vetoed the tax bill which included the extension of
the L1HTC. It is my understanding that both Congress and the new administration is
interested in reactivating the tax credit, but how and when this is likely to happen is not clear.
We may have a better idea after the President's address to Congress later this month. Until
the L1HTC is reactivated, the Citizen Building project is on hold.
nl\citiun
38~
/:
"
I
I
!
I
!
i
I
I
I
,., -- ,,-.--
. .........--" ~-- ....--.----, -- - . - ...-
--,,. .. .. ' --,-
..... ~.....- ....--
':;":'"f''':'l':';''-:-''' "';'~"""""'I't=l';" '".'. ,', .,..." ", ',:,,!,:"'"
. I, '/' ' " . "
. .. " " " ' I .."" '," ,,\'0
:",:,;,,~,":. I.':,.....::.:. '.oI;~;.I:::,t\ r\:' ,'...' ".' ". ',","','?'" ~~I"-"'::"
IOWA CITY COMMUNITY
SCHOOL DISTRICT
Balbm Grobe. Ph.D.
Superintendelll
SO') S, Dubuque Street
Iowa City, Iowa S2240
(319) 339-6800
/
II
January 20, 1993
fi/
,",'1 \ \'
1/
~ "
''f
, !L
\\"C~'
, ~ I-l
l" [l (',
\ '\) . \.l,'-
, \ I it. l' ~l'~
\ \ ' ( ..
\ \) .
.; .' I'
. . .\,}J\'
\ : I,
0'
/, ,
, '
,',
I ~
,v
,-
Chief RJ. Winkelhake
Iowa City Police Department
410 E. Washington
Iowa City, 11\ 52240
Dear Chief RJ. Winkelhake: ,/
\. ..... /
. ------
On behalf of Iowa City Community School District science teachers I want to
say thank you for 'your agency's role in putting eight triple beam balances
Into the hands of kids. for use in their s~lence classes. The equipment was
much needed and Is presently in classrooms being used. The balances are
being used In our elementary science program.
It seems appropriate that this donation by the Johnson County Multl'Agency
Drug Task Force took place the day following the first of three D.A.RE.
graduations for Iowa City Community School District 5th and 6th grade
students.
Thanks again for thinking of our students.
Sincerely,
;,...1
t&f~
.j/l.ht bdduf.h ~
~~ ~~~
-6 Su 00 Is
~
Bill Dutton
Director of Instruction
~
3B3 '
",
I
I
!
1
!
i
I
!
I
.
C
,
1
~, 'tll- ."'.;:,'. ;~''o;..~I' ,':er::' ':,;. ,,:,',; ',:':',:,~,
",,;1 ~'i- ,', .., .,' l . .' \.ir--:l " .,' '.', I, ,. : " r'
: :. . ",' .:', ';~, :.:;0" ' ,'~~. . ~, '.. \". ,,' . " .' ~ '. . \
IOWA CITY WATER DIVISION
February 4, 1993
PRESS RELEASE
~4
CITY OF IOWA CITY
TASTE & ODOR IN IOWA CITY WATER
Contact Person:
Ed Moreno
Acting Water Supel"intendent
356-5160
The recent warm temperatures have caused a Ivinter tr,al'f of the snOlv
and ice on and along the Iowl Rivel". This has caused runoff and
1eaclling of vegetative and other matter from the Iowa River
watershed wh i ch has caused the Iowa R i vel" to deter i orate in
qua 1 i ty. The U. S. Army Corps of Eng i neers has a 1 so begun the
dralvdol'/n of the Coralville Resel"voi,-.
Th,is has caused an increase in taste and odor of the City's
drinking water. This is a common situation with the Iowa RlVer
that usually Occurs in the spring when the Coralvi 11e Reservoir
thaws and is drawn down for flood protection.
Iowa City obtains most 'of its drinking water from the Iowa River,
Adjustments have been made at tl',e treatment plant to minimize the
tastes and odors.
The primary concern by our customers has been with the chlol"inous
taste and odor of the watel".
Chlorine dioxide is being used at the beginning of the treatment
process. This began on February 2.
Silurian aquifer water is also being mixed with the river water.
The chlorine dosage has been increased to insure bactel"ia1 safety.
We want to assure you, the water IS safe to drink.
It is possible to make it more palatable by plaCing a container in
the refrigerator for several houl"s. This allows the ch10rinous
odor to dissipate.
If you have any QUestlons 01" :omments, please feel free tc call the
Iowa City Water Division at 356-5160.
c:\wP\publicre\pressodo,93
410 EAST WASIIINOTON STREET. IOWA CITY, IOWA
Ill"""6' 1119' ''',1000. FAX 1'191 "6'100'381:
';'::,,:L~t. ,>,;",' .', L:'.',,: ,; ~ ',', ",,':', /,'.'
, : 'r"" , " [1' It-l-' ','" , ' ,
. :,,' ',.'"'' ':r .: ~ '..,': ~~,',". .',,..,;.. \ ". .... 't'::, : ,"", .: "
,II ') ,
,^: \'\\'\'\'\ ~ ~ ,L
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Patricia A. Meade, Chairperson
loe Balkcom
Charles D. Duffy
Stephen P. Lacina
Detty Ockenfcls
February 4, 1993
FORMAL MEETING
Agenda
l.:l
0 (.oJ
....r. -rr
~..: ...:: I'T1 ~
."-~ C? ~ ~
~-< I r.~
W ~."aI
_:-,
,'-' ;:-, "
;,, . ,
_r-l ,
a~.~ ..
-
: .. ..
.'
;:.. (J1
-01
1. Call to order 9:00 a.m.
2. Action re; elallns
3. Action re: minutes
4. Action re; payroll authorizations
,~. Business from the Assistant Zoning Administrator.
I
a) Motion setting public hearing for John Meade1s conditional use
.
permit.
b) Other
6. Business from the County Auditor.
,a) Action re;
b) Action rc:
e) Other
,
permits
reports
7. Business from the County Attorney.
a) Report rc: other items.,
"',...
'.
..........i
!
i
I
!
I
,
I
I
I
i
I
i
\
i
913 SOUTH DUBUQUI! ST., P.O. BOX 1350 IOWA em', IOWA 52244-1350
TilL: (319) 356-6000 FAX: (319) 35~086
385
I
...... ~--
I
~" ':'~"m,;"":",,:~;::,,,,'.rk" ,'-:::;,,', " ' "'",~ '"':','
.' ,,":: .' '..- .' ~ , ,J'0l ' . . . -, . I '.
", ." .::::. 'I, N _, . ~., ," \' _: . .' ',:". ,.'
. ..--'0-
----.--~--......t,...d...,....:_..:..!..!..:...:.._:'.2 ..:..~:!:,~~., ".'. .
...--..
-.,.. ._~.-...i_~
Agendll 2-4-93 ])agc 2
.,"", .
'-"-""
8. Business from the Board of Supervjsor~.
a) Action re: client #'s A244 and A24S: contract for out-or-county
, placement at North Iowa Transition Ccnter, Inc.
h) Other
9. Adjourn to Informal meeting.'
a) Discllssion re: budgcts.
10. Inquiries and reports from the public.
11. Adjournment.
3f5
j
j
I
i
,
I
I
,
I
I
I
;
/"
'-
~--
y---
.. '--_~1 ~- - r ..,....,~y--..,....-......
,--
.
..~--- .".....-.-,....
\.<;:~., ,:' ".':':,..".' ,"':'i:H"'<', :'~"':'?";l::., :.', ..:;::.' ,~,;,':,' ,( ,,:~"
~'., ".\.I'I'~ '.'. ,.W~ ,,"r., ','. ,f,."
.r.,\:l"; J'.',( ,I".. ',..;", ~'.':~',~ ,,'::.,' "~',', . ,:"/:,,' '.<"'H':'~L;-'
,""/", I"" ,,, .,,,,,-,,...,.)0,, "",...' '. ,,' ','
\":""1, ,\..'. ,I',:rl..,':"~''f'':''":"'''''~'~ ,:~ ,'. . ',":''''" ,',-,'. ,._~.,'.
,
..
....:
'..
"~/,.
..
'" ;''",:-;' ~~.'
AIRPORT RELOCATION FEASIBILITY STUDY
3r(,
~...... fI6I - ...-.-----
- ... ~.~- .-~
---.. r .f'.... __ - - "-.- -. ,-
, .' -... ----....--- .. -
':",,:f'llil"": , ' 'r;/: ,',. ;,~'''"", ":,~- <:': :",' '''.'''"
",' .,.\ t'.', . \' ", . I
0- ".' 'Ii ,"", ,.' .:' '-' - ,,-" ','
I' .',\ 't"f.- ~ .:>~.F, I "",,' "\.
. ,) _ ," \' .' ," ," . " "
IOWA CITY AIRPORT
RElOCATION FEASIBILITY STUDY
SUMMARY
Iowa City Municipal Airport is one of the
busiest general aviation airports in the state
of Iowa. It is used regularly by a full range
of general aviation aircraft including single
and twin.engine, turboprop, and business
jet aircraft. In operation for 75 years, it is
also one of the oldest airports in the state.
With aging facilities that will require major
repair or replacement in the near future it
has become evident that a major
investment will be required to maintain an
operable airport. Because of the problems
the airport has faced with development
encroachment, pending lawsuits, and costs
associated with meeting airport safety
design standards, the decision was made by
the Airport Commission and the City
Council to evaluate options before
proceeding with further major investments
at the current site.
I
The Relocation Feasibility Study was
undertaken to evaluate these potential
options. The study involved the following
analyses:
Examination of existing and future
general aviation demand.
Determination of airport facility
requirements.
Evaluation of potential new airport
sites.
Evaluation of current airport site
options.
. Evaiuation of the costs and benefits
associated with the alternatives.
The decision to either retain the existing
airport or to relocate to a new site must
consider economic, social, environmental,
and operational factors discussed
previously. Considering all these factors, it
becomes immediately evident that a
significant expansion of the existing airport
site is not practical. As represented by
Options 2 and 3, a significant expansion of
the existing site would be the most
expensive to develop. In addition, the
environmental impacts would be the
highest of the alternatives. Further
development of a runway in either the
north-south or the northwest-southeast
orientations proposed by these options
would serve to magnify the incompatibilities
with the c1ose.in residential neighborhoods
to the north. Therefore, if a commitment is
to be made to an investment in a significant
expansion, it should be undertaken at a
new site with room.to provide for precision
approaches and better land use
compatibility.
Based upon all the constraints described for
the existing airport site, there are two
options which can be considered. A choice
must be made between developing a new
site at aircraft Approach Category C and D
standards or maintaining the existing airport
site at Approach Category A and B
standards. Based upon the site analysis of
the previous chapter, Site 1 would be the
recommended new site. A new site has the
potential to offer the full capabilities
necessary for general aviation and would
1
3r"
"
"jIIl!'""'- ......-' - -
- .......... ~.~~- -~ ..,.....---- ...-y-..,.....,.~ ...... ~ - ".....-' .,...~~--.... .~
~",:'t~" ..: ". "'~'" " ft.}' ,: " ,,:" ,...,
~,', . ! 'I .':/ !' \ . ~ '. ' . , .: . " . .'. . .. . . r' '"
::>' ,,":" :,' '.~,,:.;:> ',~,::. ;, '":''' . "'" ~ <' ,',,:'
meet all the communities general aviation
needs well into the next century. A new
airport site would include adequate runway
design for all general aviation business jets,
full control of safety areas and runway
protection zones, clear approaches, and the
potential to accommodate a precision
instrument approach. The existing airport
cannot offer any of these advantages.
From a development cost standpoint, it has
been determined that a new site would be
less expensive to develop than developing
the existing airport to Category C and D
standards. However, the existing airport
costs are significantly reduced if planned
and maintained at Category A and B
standards. Still, there are costs associated
with maintaining current safety standards
and improving the functional efficiency of
the existing airport. When considered
against the potential salvage or resale value
of the existing airport site, the net costs of
a new airport meeting all general aviation
standards would be comparable to
maintaining a less capable existing airport
that will continue to face pressure from
surrounding development.
When considered from the standpoint of
local costs, both Option 1 and Site 1 offer
advantages over ignoring the issue,
foregoing federal funding, and "doing
nothing". If the airport remained as is, it
would not meet current FAA design
standards. The City is bound by FAA grant
assurances from previous federal grants, that
"it will suitably operate and maintain the
airport and all facilities thereof or
connected therewith". If a decision were
made to forego current FAA design
standards and further federal funding, the
City would still be bound to maintain an
operable airport. In recent years nearly
$900,000 has been spent in stopgap repair
of existing airfield pavements which are
long past their design life. Fortunately,
federal funding provided 90 percent of this
cost. Additional pavement repairs will be
necessary within the next five years to
ensure an operable airport. In addition, the
existing airfield lighting system is old and in
need of replacement. These pavement and
lighting repairs are estimated to cost over
$2.1 million if done in the near future,
more if they are allowed to continue to
deteriorate. These are eligible for federal
funding and are considered in the Option
1 cost estimates. The local matching share
of Option 1 is estimated to be $1.09
million. If a decision is made to do nothing
and forego federal funding, the entire $2.1
million in pavement and lighting repair
costs to keep the airport operable would be
borne by the City.
The local costs for development of Site 1
are estimated at approximately $3.5 million
dollars, As indicated earlier, the resale of
the existing site could be applied to the
replacement costs. Resale of property
acquired with FAA funds (approximately 50
acres) would have to be appropriated to
federally eligible projects. The remainder
of the property sale could be applied to the
local matching share. This would comprise
over $4.5 million of the estimated property
value, essentially permitting the airport to
be relocated at no net cost.
An economic development advantage to
the existing airport site is that improvements
could be funded more gradually. A new
airport site will take a commitment of funds
to acquire land and construct the new
airport while the existing airport remains in
operation. Virtually all the development
costs would be committed within a three to
five year period. Only after the new facility
was completed could the existing airport be
closed and resold. Development at the
existing site could be staged over a longer
period of Lime. Safety issues would receive
the highest priority. Efficiency
2
3~'
-
.......-... L.lIl/ItllWl.f-'fII.lll.~ifiotIIII'M.l1WlI.!lIl!I'lil.llIIllHII~ JJ~~ _
~.... tIF - V-.-----
.. . .-----.~--...... .,........ - - T_r- __',.--
--. ~ -..,.. ---..---~~-..... ,-
,
'~'",,: ~I"'" ,,:,: 'lli:'" :(}, "" " ",' ,:"
::\,;':(.f:, :::("<:;:,,::Il:(::.':j...;' <" ::': ;,:'.' :",' ,:,'~
improvements such as taxiways and the
maintenance of the third runway could be
delayed.
From an environmental standpoint, Option
1 is the closest to maintaining the status
quo. The two runways which overfiy the
close-in residential developments to the
north would not be expanded, and would
actually be reduced slightly in capabilities
(Runway 12-30 would be shortened, and
Runway 17-35 would have its south
threshold displaced). Runway 6-24 would
be maintained to serve the turbine-
powered aircraft within Approach Category
A and B. Of the three available runways,
this runway best minimizes overnights over
residential areas. While a pavement
extension would be added to the southwest
end, it would simply replace what must be
displaced on the northeast end. It would
also serve to place aircraft taking off to the
northeast higher over residential areas than
is currently experienced.
I
A new airport site always stirs emotions
because it involves a change in the status
quo. Residences and farmsteads must be
relocated for the facility. The property is
removed from the tax rolls, impacting the
local school district and township revenues
to a certain degree. While resale of the
existing airport would offset the net tax loss,
it could potentially involve a shift in
revenues between school districts and
townships. While the tax revenues lost are
a fraction of one percent of the available
revenues, it is still an impact to be
considered. Development of a new site
would require the preparation and approval
of an environmental assessment and master
plan to gain final site approval by the FAA.
This would include a public and agency
review process to ensure that all potential
impacts are addressed.
The evaluation comes down to whether or
not the community can get by with
essentially safety improvements to its
existing airport. The users survey indicated
that activity at Iowa City Municipal Airport
has a strong component of business use (57
percent). Nationally, business use of
turbine-powered aircraft is on the rise. This
was reflected in the surveys which
indicated that over half of those considering
an upgrade in aircraft would likely convert
to turbine-powered aircraft.
Iowa City Municipal Airport has a strong
existing use by turbine-powered aircraft.
There are presently five turboprop aircraft
based on the airport. It is estimated that
there are over 2600 annual operations by
turboprops and approximately 700 annual
operations by business jets. These totals
could potentially increase to as many as
5,BOO turboprop and 2,700 business jets by
the end of the planning period. The level
of business jet activity, both now and in the
future, would make the airport eligible for
FAA funding for a 5,600 foot-long runway.
If the existing airport were maintained at
Category A and B standards, with no
increase in the effective runway length, the
airport would still be capable of
accommodating all of the turboprops and a
least that portion of the business jets that
fall within approach Category B. According
to National Business Aircraft Association
(NBAA) membership statistics, approxi-
mately 40 percent of the business jets in
the United States are within Approach
Category B,
The survey respondents using business jets
who indicated that the existing airport
runway lengths were sufficient utilize
Cessna Citations or Falcon jets which are
Category B aircraft. As an example, one of
3
~lD
~ - ",..-,--
_ r ....-.....-_.--._ ....._ .......,______..-...____ ,_
--, ,. ...,.. ' -- ~ - --. ...... T - ..
>;"f~"'~;"(';'I,.",':,t2:~,: :'I:tJ1,' i" ':,':, <,':' " ,::
.: ":"i\~~< ....,. Jl;hr'-:I;'-'.",~;:L' "',,IlJ:.'.I,. ,"','.: .",' ,',.,:. \...:,
,
the city's major employers, United
Technologies, has a business jet fleet that
includes both a Citation as well as Category
C business jets. Only the Citation is used
to visit the Iowa City plant because of the
airport's limitations.
Based upon the business jet fleet mix,
staying at the existing airport could
potentially affect approximately 1,000 to
1,600 business jet operations by the end of
the planning period. The choices to airport
users would be 1) utilize a Category B
aircraft (such as United Technologies and
others have done); 2) operate into Cedar
Rapids and drive to Iowa City (twenty to
thirty minutes depending upon the location
in Iowa City); or 3) do not do business in
Iowa City.
I
Follow-up telephone discussions with
several of the business jet users indicated
that most could get by with the present
runways available. However, they also
indicated that any less capabilities could
potentially impact their business operation.
As one respondent indicated, 'our plant is
in Iowa City, not Cedar Rapids'.
One of the main attributes of the existing
airport is its convenience. This was evident
in the surveys with several respondents
commenting on the prime location. Even
\
NET LOCAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS
(Millions)
the fixed base operator at the airport has
maintained a strong preference to remain at
the existing airport site.
Thus, it can be concluded that while the
community can get by with the existing
airport location, unless it is prepared to
pursue Options 2 or 3, existing and future
airport users will have to adapt to the
reduced capabilities of Option 1. For those
who cannot, the option will be to commute
to and from the Cedar Rapids Airport or
simply not serve Iowa City. In addition, it
must also be realized that the community
will forego the potential for a precision
instrument approach in the future.
Similarly, the existing airport will continue
to face development pressure from urban
encroachment. If the decision is made to
stay at the existing airport, the next step
would be to prepare a new Master Plan
that would set priorities for enhancing
safety and improving operational efficiency.
However, electing to stay at the current site
is not without cost, and does not guarantee
that the issue of relocation will not
resurface within ten to twenty years. It is
likely that continued development pressures
will force the issue again in the future. At
that time, the difference will be even fewer
opportunities to choose from and higher
development costs.
;tV@.:~..~:~,w.""'m:~;i1'."..:~tIT'."'.'f.'~W'M. .'~)>>.,.<~"r' .~'";;)1:q.~'i0':~.':"'.:':>':.'::~~:/~'~.;~"l;::;r{.::v:p.\:;.;).:;.'.~":~.>;;'\'~.:;.~\.l.;t.T.:t.':.::::,.r::t~:~,:~,.'~~\r{."".~:'.?,~.':~l'i."':b'. B. "
. "4D' 17', "'Tu N/'!!.@'!..r}w1'ODJIONA1Y'VN1ilYhwhkSITE,,'IHw..\iip,
I:\\(~,.,J?>'i:' ;>, V:{~;..}jJU(~>>,"t.~~~.J$ ~.KA#~:~::...,:.g."".i,;.,..,.,(,,,,:,,<,,,:;:::/,:,l.i'::\\ ::;':;~~.~<"~~~>';:,:k';':':;"'.w'!::JbK~(;'i::::. &0
\ T o~,1 Cost $2.1 $10.9 $15.7
FAA Assisl.1nce $0.0 $9.6 $12.5
I Remaining Cost $2.1 $1.1 $3.2
Existing Site Proceeds ($0.0) ($0.0) ($5.9)
Net Local
Development Costs $2.1 $1.1 $0.0
4
3rft;
.....,
\
IfP - ,..-. --...---
.. .. .---~.~- ...../r ..,....-----..---,---.......,-- ... ~~- ....
~}:: ,'" 0'" ''''~;;t''.': ',' :'t"\" :"'(,~l' ,,':.' :'.".>', " '<:." '-,,::,,'
.. ,'. ",.,\1',. I" m~ ,.-,. ". ',' ,',. ,'".1 '
.: -t ~ ", I; ;.:C, '~I".'l':">:- :.~;\. '1\, '.,\'" .' ':,<" '" "" ""," ": ... :' '1.1 J
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION RELATED TO THE ANALYSIS OF
This aIlemative would involve making no changes to tile
airfield and its present safety clearances. Since
assurances from previous FAA grants require tile airpon
to remain fully operable, only repairs necessary to do so
would be undelt1ken.
o No propeny acquisition or relocations.
o Only construction costs are pavement and
lighting repairs.
o Maintains nonprecision approaches to Runways
35,30. and 24.
o No fannland impacts.
" NEGATIVE-FACTORS'::' ,
o Little chance for funller federal grant assistance
because airpon would not meet current FAA design
standards..
o Residential development, bowling alley. and motel
remain in runway protection zones.
o Major pavement maintenance and airfield lighting
replacement will still be necessary in the shon tenn.
o Accident potential not reduced.
o No potential for precision instrument approach.
o RUNWAY LENGTHS: Runway 6.24: 4.355 feet
Runway 17-35: 3.875 feet
Runway 12-30: 3.900 feel
o COST ESTIMATES: $2,100.000
o LAND ACQUISITION: None
o RUNWAY INSTRUMENTATION: Runway 6.24: Visual/Nonpreelsion > 3/4 Mile
Runway 17.35: Visual/Nonprecision > 3/4 Mile
Rnnway 12-30: Visual/Nonprecision > 3/4 Mile
~
a
DO NanliNG OIYI'ION
3i~
..........
......,
....' ,,',..:; . I ,.' '\' -:',: .1'iS'1 '.,' 'I ::',':'~' :,,',.'-," ..~. .":" :,,\
, 'f}" 'I 'J \ L~ "1 " " " ",'
:!"'~J.;;,t::. ::,(;:; ': '!~~~':"'I;: :: '," . ;:~,' '::,' ":, .:;:,
\
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION RELATED TO THE ANALYSIS OF
. .
This alternative is design cd to mcctminimum safety
standards while maintaining currcnt runway lengths,
Runway 6.24 would be displaced 520 feel on ellSt end and
extcndcd 465 feci on ~le west cnd. Runway 17.35 would
be displaced 200 fect on SOU~l cnd. Runway 12.30 would
be reduced 475 fcct on ~IC sou~least cnd.
a Improves safcty of existing runway syslem.
a Mects FAA standards for Catcgory B aircraft.
a Minimizes property acquisition.
a Minimizes ncw construction.
a Maintains nonprecision approaches to Runways 35.
30 and 24.
a Minimal farmland impacts.
a Will limit ~le capability to acconunodalc business jets.
a Land use incompatibilities still cxistto nor~1.
a No room for any further expansion, if needed.
a Precision approach not possible due to clearance
requirements over surrounding tcrrain. roads and
land development.
a EFFECfIVE RUNWAY LENGTHS: Runway 6.24: 4,300 feet
Runway 17.35: 3.675 fect
Runway 12.30: 3,425 fect
a COST ESTIMATES: $10,917.000
o PROPERTY ACQUISITION: Fee Simple. 25 acres (one pennanent residence, 38 mobile homcs,
bowling allcy. mOlel)
Avigation Easement. 35 acres
k
lit;
o RUNWAY INSTRUMEN'li\TION: Runway 6-24: Visual/Nonprceision > 3/4 Mile
Rnnway 17.35: Visual/Nonprccision > 3/4 Mile
Rnnway 12.30: Visual/Nonprccision > 3/4 Mile
OM'tON 1 SUMMARY
3KfJ
......'---
.. .. ...---~'~- ....". .,......--------...,.....,...--...,...,.- - .... ~ ---."........-......... ------.... ..~
" ,', ::'~. ill':' : ',,',,:, 'I." : ;.t7j' ',,', ;i'~"'" ,'." :", ',', ,"" ':',' " , ,'" , ,:
I:", "l' :1' ,"J ". ,:' .' t .,. .'..: "
:,-:;\., :(:'.;. ,:~~':. .f'," "~.\' ':,' ;\~_\\ '<'~" ,~:".,-. '\: ','. >":."
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION RELATED TO THE ANALYSIS OF
. I .
This alternative attempts to provide Approach Category C
and D slandards on dlC existing airport site be developing a
5.600 nordl.south runway cast of Runway 17-35 and
converting die existing runway into a parallel taxiway.
Runway 6.24 would be displaced 520 feet on cast end.
Runway 12-30 would be reduced 475 fcet on soudlCa5t end.
o Simplest way to extend existing runway system.
o Most functional layout on existing site.
o Meets FAA standards for Category C and D aircraft.
o Maintains nonprecision approach to
Runways 35, 30 and 24.
: " 'NEGATIVE FACTORS, "
o Potentially increases land use incompatibilities
to die north.
o County fairgrounds must be relocated.
o Substantial eardlwork needed to fill in previous
quarry site. '
o Impacts wedands.
o Precision approach not possible due to clearance
requirements over surrounding terrain, roads and
land development.
o EFFECfIVE RUNWAY LENGTHS: Runway 17-35: 5,600 feci
Runway 6.24: 4,300 feci
Runway 12.30: 3,425 feet
o COST ESTIMATES: $19.060,000
o PROPERTY ACQUISITION: Fcc Simple. 104 acres (two pcnnanenlresidences, 12 mobile homes,
motel, bowling alley, fairgrounds)
Avigation Easement. 4 acres
J
-'J._
"ii,
o RUNWAY INSTRUMENTATION: Runway 17.35: Visual/Nonprecision > 3/4 Mile
Runway 6-24: Visual/Nonprecision > 3/4 Mile
Runway 12.30: Visual/Nonprecision > 3/4 Mile
"'\
OPTION 2 SUMMARY
3~~
-__r-__ -;It""'- ",..- ---
......
.. .. ..--.~.~- -., .,..,----.....---- ,-
--, ~ ..,., - ' --- - .,. .....". - ...--'-- ------.-----....- ..~-
~;;:\~"::f;(.:,"f;;':,/:,../:FI',";'4'1" .:<: ',') i :',': :,/ :,:,~', >.\
.l'.J"...(~,t,., .'\~;-,,'.:' '~'.\'...".. ,:,..,J~~ ;;" ,..' ,< -:,L \':..;-,:',:
\
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION RELATED TO THE ANALYSIS OF
.. .
.
This alternative attempts to provide Approach Category
C and D standards with a new runway oriented
north/northwest-south/soutlleast and 5,600 feet long.
Runway 6-24 would be displaced 520 feet on the cast
and Runways 17-35 and 12-30 would be closed
o Providcs a two-runway configumtion tlmt will
meet wind covemge requirements.
o Maintains nonprecision approach to Runways 24.
Nonprecision approach to new Runway 33.
o Shifts land use incompatibility problcms to new
areas north of tlle airport.
o Requires substantial fill in previous quarry site.
o Largest amount of land acquisition at existing site.
o Precision approach not possible due to clearance
requirements over surrounding terrain, roads and
land development
o Inefficient site layout for existing and future
landside development
o Impacts wetlands.
o EFFEcrIVE RUNWAY LENGTHS: New Runway 15-33: 5,600 feet
Runway 6-24: 4,300 feet
o COST ESTIMATES: $18,396,000
o PROPERTY ACQUISITION: Fcc Simple - 158 acres (3 pemlUnent residences. 12 mobile homes,
motel, fairgrounds)
o RUNWAY INSTRUMENTATION: Runway 15-33: Visual/Nonprecision > 3/4 Mile
Runway 6-24: Visual/Nonprecision > 3/4 Mile
OIYJ'lON 3 SUMMARY
38~
~..... - ~ - y-.----
......
.. .. ..---~,~- ......., - - ._~ --
-....... , ....... - - ,.-.
~~,::~::-:,,:::'Lll~~':, .:.. :i;:';/ " . ~"rl' ,-:';{"j """,:'.:;' :.\ ','.::::, <:,' " >::!.
.,~ -:', J ~4{! .': ~I ,;;;,,1 ';.1 \;''',:.. ." il':J ',' ,.",' ~~l ',' ',I' "",:,.'''' ,~ "
1 . ,\,'" ',. ' .
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION RELATED TO THE ANALYSIS OF
Located adjacent to the southeastern city limits of Iowa
City. immediately south and west of U.S. Highway 6 in
Sections 30 and 31 of SCOll Township and Section 36 of
East Lucas Township. Primary runway 5,600 feet long
designed to Approach Category C and D standards. widl
capability for a precision approach from the south.
Crosswind runway 3.900 feet long designed to Category
A and B standards. This alternative was evaluated
because it could fully meet design standards and dIe long
term general aviation needs of the community.
, .. .. POSITIVE FACTORS ,,' :, ,
o Meets all general aviation design standards.
o Precision approach capability.
o Adjacent to Industrial Park and convenient to city.
o Excellent access and highway visibility.
o Lowest grading and site development costs.
o Best functional layout.
o Lowest impact to prime farmland of new sites.
o Same school district as existing site.
i
I
i
,- I
It.....
~' I
fi] I
I
(' I
'.. I
r--- I
I
I
I
L---
.:~
,
.'
\
o Wedands area west of airport.
o Most residential relocation of alternative sites
(8 residencos).
o Alternative site closest to residential areas.
, ' . . ,.: . SUMMARY OF, SPECIFIC INFORMATION " . .'.., .:' : .:"
o EFFECTIVE RUNWAY LENGTHS: Primary - 5,600 feet
Crosswind. 3,900 feet
o COST ESTIMATES: 515,682,000
o PROPERTY ACQUISITION: Fee Simple. 640 acres (8 residences)
o ULTIMATE RUNWAY INSTRUMENTATION: Primary. PrecisionlNonprecisioll
Crosswind. NOllprccision > 3/4 Milc/Visual
_L
~
~
o TOTAL PROPERTY TAXES: $23,444
o SCHOOL DlSTRlCI'TAXES: Iowa City $12,328 (0.057% ofasscsscd valuation)
SITE I SUMMARY
3g~
-..,
\
\", ",,@-. ":/;1' "'~~I'" :,' ':~; , ,", ,;' ':':';:'::;' "", .',:\
..' I \,._,.1" ,..I < I~ ,. .' ,'..... ..
~,;,. ':. c',I.,.:~ I' 'J :.~, ',:' i" - ,:,' '";,,,,''', ~'~'.',~'
H.,'\:- J" ~ /1,/ ' ,.,1,";' ,tC. '" .' . J ,- . _ ,.1
,," ," , . . ,--, . ,'. ..' I . " . . ~ .'
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION RELATED TO THE ANALYSIS OF
LocalCd approximately four miles cast of Iowa City.
immediately south of V,S. Highway 6 in Sections 34 and
35 of Seoll Township aod Sections 3 and 10 of Lincolo
Towoship. Primary ruoway 5,600 feet long designed to
Approach Category C aod D standards widl a precision
approach from the south crosswind runway 3,900 feet
loog designed to Approach Category A and B standards.
TIlis alternative was evaluated because it could fully meet
design standards and serve die long term general aviatioo
needs of dIe community.
o Meets all general aviation design staodards.
o Precision approach capability.
o Adjaccntto Highway 6 with reasonable visibility.
o Least residential relocation.
o Most distance from residential concentrations.
o Furtller from city.
o Less funclionallayout tllan Site I.
o Highest overall cost of alternative sites.
o Witllin outlying school district.
o Creates impact to prime fannland.
o EFFECTIVE RUNWAY LENGTHS: Primary. 5,600 feet
Crosswind. 3,900 feet
o COST ESTIMATES: $16,591,000
o PROPERTY ACQUISITION: Fcc Simple. 710 acres (3 residences)
fi
_ .ii,_
o ULTIMATE RUNWAY INSTRUMENTATION: Primary. Precision/Nonprecisinn > 3/4 Miie
Crosswind. Nonprecision > 3/4 Miie/Visllal
IJ TaI'AL PROPERTY TAXES: $lH,H42
IJ SCHOOL D1STRICI' TAXES: Lone Tree $9,14(, (1.17% of assessed valllalinn)
SITE 2 SUMMARY
3g"
"'~::'::;0. J ',,';' \ ~\-': :'>"',,'" f.~.': ,~,,":;,'i\::,,"'~!:I\
".' ",t ' "..'1:,1" ""I, ,,,,ill,,, ," ',,',"', ,':,,':,
.~, :-.', '1'1 ~~:,'.' ;,~, ~~~;. ;':: i '.:1::'\ '"'-l~ """~:\ ~ ~ '.' \':' '\". '.: ~. ,'\."\' . '. ."..,";.<:>
\
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION RELATED TO THE ANALYSIS OF
Located approximately four miles cast of Iowa City, west
of American Lcgion Road and onc milc north of
Highway 6 in Scclions 22. 23. 26. 27 of Scou Township.
Primary runway 5,600 feet long designed to Category C
and D standards with a precision approach from the
south. Crosswind runway 3,900 feel long designed to
Category A and B standards. This alternative was
evaluated because it could fully meet design standards
and serve the long term general aviation needs of ule
community.
o Meets all general aviation design standards.
o Precision approach capability.
o Lowest acquisition costs.
o Distant from residential areas.
o Further from ule city.
o Low visibility from highway.
o Requires two road closures.
o Highest construction costs.
o Least funclionallayoul.
o Greater impact to prime fannland.
o EFFEClIVE RUNWAY LENGTHS: Primary" 5,600 feet
Crosswind. 3,900 feet
o COST ESTIMATES: $15,570.000
o PROPERTY ACQUISITION: Fee Simple" 740 acres (5 residences)
~
3
o U[;l'lMATE RUNWAY INSTRUMENTATION: Primary. Precision/Nonprecision > 3/4 Mile
Crosswind" Nonprecision > 3/4 Mile,IVisual
o TarAL PROPERTYTAXES: SIR,95R
o SCHOOL DISTRICr TAXES: West Branch S I 0,Ro6 (0.66% or assessed valnation)
OI'l'ION 3 SUMMAUY
3~~
.....,
~
-
T""'-
... ~..~-......r ,..,.
- - '-.,-
_.~...:
(:':. " ...., , , ", :', ,~:~ ,'.:....f4> ':: .:' \', " ,">,,:': \'-',,: ~l
.1",',~;;li':':':II"..,:t"/:" : ." '.', ',"'i"""""
~\ ;,,\,~J~',,;~';I,_'\':,\' ":" ,:.: ,l, )11' '.,,', . ,'. i"f.. \: ~", , : '."<'., :', \ " '", . '::.:'
;","'.
[' ,
(", __'" 1-
, ';h, ~,;'
l., '\-;"
l. .j'
";\ \".,;;!,..
..-/,'
"','.j"
..
"('
. ,
\ >:,L "\1!,.\
,.,. .'
.. '
',';
"
, ,
:",
AIRPORT RELOCATION FEASIBILITY STUDY
D'
3f7
- ..."..-....- fIfI..'-' ".-.---- .... ~.~-.....r .,...,---"-~-"",,,~ -
\
I
i
n
:..1
I .1
'I I
.J
.',.
.Il
II
IJ-
I 1
'"L';:'t<'"i'I'~'';~/''' obi::: ,'. '<', '..:"',' : ,,::.',
~::,', .'JI:':'\' ,~, ,l~'.~'. '''':~'''7.. . '\PI '''' ..\,- I .,:, >: '.' '.',~'
:J
1""1
II
n
J
IOWA CITY AIRPORT
.... -,.,. _ r-...-.......~...--_-.... .'~
i
RELOCATION FEASIBILITY STUDY
l
_J
...,
,
I
PREPARED FOR THE
o
o
o
IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION
CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA
BY
'l
i
.J
COFFMAN ASSOCIATES,INC.
In Association With
HOWARD R. GREEN COMPANY
-1
, '
.J
iJ
,"'1
IJ
u
!1
, I
-
!
i
I
I
I
I
l
,
I
(
.~
"
:i
"
;
}
Ii
..
I!
,
:;
,
j
I
I
,
,
1
I ,
1
I
I
,
3~7:
,/
-...,
IIJ
II'"
, LJ
I
I
! :'"'1
i ill
I....J
I ["'
, I
! \
I ..
I
I
I "1
I,
!I..i
~;:i.:\':';i~tj,I;), :,:i,I"'..~:".'.::.i~/,;:, '~lli'.:',(.',::'::-- ,:",:;.:,,;')/:' \,.:>::.,"
..". ,,;.J~t.'. ',,"i:"':,~,,:'" ",>:"" " ,Jl.J" : " ". ,', , '. '. "':~". ,,:' ::',"
,..
, '
I, ,
...,
, ,
...
, I
Ii
, I
{i
II
n
r';
,I
n
l'~
,j
U
I [
...
TABLE OF CONTENTS
i I
'--'
I.
1
, ,
'..
3r1
~ "- . ..,.--
I
In
I
In
I
In
I
in
I
1
,
-.J
, I
~
: i
oJ
-- . -..-.....-.
',: , ':t'~7r ' ,.;,/ i, ::~/'-; p::;:-:y, '>" ',:', '':''',:: ,.'i:":,,
:'; ,.,; !.:.(':: ~,::',,' :.:,,.: ,~::..:' <, ..l, ' ; ,: '" ''':-'. ; ":' ';,:
ONTENTS
R
Ii
IOWA CllY AIRPORT
RELOCATION FEASlBlLllY STUDY
fJ
:l
'j
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter One
INVENTORY
-
GENERAL AVIATION BACKGROUND. . . '" . . .... . . . . .. . .. . . ., . . .. 1-2
AIRPORT SETTING .......................................... 1-2
locale ................................................ 1..3
Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 1..3
Airport History. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1..4
AIR TRAFFIC ACTIVITY ....................................... 1-4
AIRSPACE STRUCTURE ....................................... 1-5
Iowa City Area Airspace Structure ...'.......................... 1.6
EXISTING AIRPORT FACILITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 1-8
Airfield Facilities .......... to . . . . .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. . . to 1..8
Landside Facilities ....................................... 1-11
Support Facilities .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . I . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1-12
SOCIOECONOMIC PROFILE........ ....................... ... 1-13
Population . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . I I . I . . . I I I . I I . . . . I . . . . . .. 1-13
Economy.. I.. '" . .. I..... I.. ......... .... "' .... I...... 1-14
Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . I . . . . . . . . . . I . . . I . I . . . . .. 1-16
Off-Airport Land Use ................. I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1-16
AIRPORT USERS SURVEY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1-17
CONCLUSIONS . I . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . I .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1..18
...
317
t',
"
;,~
';i
)}
"
."
... ~ - ....
\
!
I
!
"
~
"
;
[:
I,
:'~
"
~
:i
~
/,
.'
1-
~
~
I,
I
. '
'~',:f'~I, '(I' '/;,' 'iCJ~": ,.,','."...,":,'.\<"
:' ',':'lJ,,';.' :: (::.. ". .': :..,'_ OJ. .,'.. .~f'\' :"." .:, ,I. ..\ \.".',
Chapter Two
AVIATION DEMAND FORECASTS
FORECASTING APPROACH. .. . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . '" 2-1
NATIONAL AND REGIONAL
GENERAL AVIATION TRENDS ................................. 2-2
DEFINITION OF AIRPORT SERVICE .............................. 2-4
GENERAL AVIATION ACTIVITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-4
Registered Aircraft Forecasts ................................. 2-5
Based Aircraft Forecasts .................................... 2-7
Based Aircraft Fleet Mix ................................... 2-11
Aircraft Operations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 2..12
Operational Fleet Mix .................................... 2-14
MILITARY ACTIVITY. . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . " . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. 2-14
PEAKING CHARACTERISTICS. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . " 2-15
ANNUAL INSTRUMENT APPROACHES.. . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. 2-16
FORECAST SUMMARY. ............. .................... ..... 2-17
Chapter Three
FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
AIRFIELD REQUIREMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3-1
Runways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3..4
Taxiways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3~8
Navigational Aids And lighting ............................... 3-9
LANDSIDE FACILITIES .... .. .. . . .. ... .. . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. ... 3-11
General Aviation Terminal Facilities. . . .. . . . . . " . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. 3-11
AVIATION SUPPORT FACILITIES ............................... 3-15
Airport Access And Vehicle Parking. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. .... . . . .. 3-15
Fuel Storage ........................................... 3-15
SUMMARY. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. . . .. .. . " 3-16
Chapter Four
AIRPORT SITE ANALYSIS
"DO NOTHING" ALTERNATIVE. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4-1
SERVICE FROM ANOTHER AIRPORT ............................. 4.4
Full Transfer Of Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4..4
Partial Transfer Of General Aviation Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.6
DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW AIRPORT SITE ......................... 4-8
I I
3%7 .J
,-,
I,
;,,;
';,I,(
'I
II
ril
Ii
"1
I
,I
~"1
I,
I I
...'
r
/.
....
, ,
I
L.i
I"
I'
,;
I"!
U
I'"l
II
n
1'1
n
'I
L,.
l
-,
~
,
J
I
'\
~
!9
Ll
l1
8
I J
'1
, I
..J
-1
,
J
,'1
'-I
iJ
.""j
I
.J
1"-1
i
..J
J
'. , .. .....'.' ~
..... -
.. ...........'. -.- 1'~ ....". ., -y - - . - or- -.
:.......,...:-'...,.. ';, :,', , " ,::",,' , ""~'- ' · ',': '" '; ,:': .'.
I, '0 "'11' "I' ': ' ,,' ,,,,', "
~:.'J ~...'~J'-":<~ ';'.','1..: :,,',,"'. <;,:'",'
.' '.' .,.' ,.. j ,t.., \. i r",' . _' . , . ,,,
- , 'l" .
Chapter Four (Continued)
Establishment Of Potential Airport Siting Area ......... . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.8
Identification Of Candidate Sites .......... . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . " 4.8
Site Analysis ......................,..................... 4.9
Evaluation Of Candidate Sites ................ . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. 4-11
'Development Costs ...................................... 4-23
Conclusions. . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . .. 4-24
Chapter Five
RELOCA liON FEASlBlLllY
DEVELOPMENT CAPABILITIES
OF THE EXISTING AIRPORT.. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. ... . . . . . . . .. 5-1
Aircraft Performance And Runway Orientation .................... 5-2
FAA Safety And Design Standards ............................. 5-4
DEVElOPMENT OPTIONS
A TTHE EXISTING SITE ......................... . . . . . .. . . . . . .. 5-8
Option 1 - Reduce To Category A And B Standards ................ 5.8
Option 2 - Extend Runway 17-35 ............................. 5-9
Option 3 - Construct New Runway Alignment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5-9
Site Analysis Criteria . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , .. 5-9
DEVELOPMENT COSTS. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. 5-18
RE-USE POTENTIAL
OF THE EXISTING SITE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '" 5-19
Area Comprehensive Planning And Zoning. . . . . . . . . . .. " '" . .. " 5-19
Constraints To Development . . . . . . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5-20
land Values ........................................... 5..21
Absorption Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.22
Summary Of Re-Use Scenario ..................... . . . . . . . . .. 5-23
COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 5-24
Site Cost Comparisons .................................... 5.24
Community Impacts ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5-27
SUMMARY ............................................... 5.28
I
1
i
i
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
!
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
i
EXHIBITS
1A VICINITY MAP ................................. After page 1-3
1 B AIRSPACE COMPONENTS ......................... After page 1-5
1 C IOWA CITY AIRSPACE .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. '" After page 1-6
10 AIRFIELD FACILITIES . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. . .. .. .. '" After page 1-9
3r1
/
,...'
......
", " o.! ":"" J' '<,;:~-".,' ':;t--:,: " '~:.. ,'.. ::,,::', ::.,'
" " "I , 'I ' " , "
';:'~'" fl "', : ',,', :: :'1 ',' :.: " " : ',.' ;',
",' , '......\.. ,I ! _ '~\ ..... ~.. . ,
EXHIBITS (Continued)
1 E LANDSIDE FACILITIES ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. After page 1-11
1 F GENERALIZED EXISTING
lAND USE. . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. After page 1-16
2A PERCENT BY AIRCRAFT TYPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. On page 2-3
2B GENERAL SERVICE AREAS ......................... After page 2-4
2C BASED AIRCRAFT FORECAST. . . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . .. After page 2-11
2D OPERATIONS FORECAST SUMMARY ................ After page 2-17
3A WINDROSE................................... After page 3-5
3B AIRFIELD FACILITY REQUIREMENTS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. After page 3-16
3C LANDSIDE FACILITY REQUIREMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. After page 3-16
4A AIRPORT SITING AREA ........................... After page 4-8
4B CANDIDATE AIRPORT SITES ....................... After page 4-9
4C SITE 1 ...................................... After page 4.12
4D SITE2 ...................................... After page 4-12
4E SITE 3 ...................................... After page 4-13
SA USABLE RUNWAY lENGTHS WITHOUT USING
"DECLARED DISTANCES CONCEPT' . . ... . . . . . . . . . .. After page 5-5
sB RUNWAY lENGTHS USING 'DECLARED DISTANCES
\
CONCEPP .. . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. After page 5.7
sC IOWA CITY MUNICIPAL AIRPORT, OPTION 1 ......... After page 5.8
sD IOWA CITY MUNICIPAL AIRPORT, OPTION 2 ........ After page 5-10
sE IOWA CITY MUNICIPAL AIRPORT, OPTION 3 ........ After page 5-10
SF IOWA CITY MUNICIPAL AIRPORT, OBSTRUCTION
CHART EXCERPT, RUNWAY 17-35 . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. After page 5-14
sG IOWA CITY MUNICIPAL AIRPORT, OBSTRUCTION
CHART EXCERPT, RUNWAYS 6-24 & 12-30 ......... After page 5-14
sH IOWA CITY MUNICIPAL AIRPORT, OPTION 1
YEAR 2012 NOISE CONTOURS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. After page 5-16
sJ IOWA CITY MUNICIPAL AIRPORT, OPTION 2
YEAR 2012 NOISE CONTOURS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. After page 5-16
sK IOWA CITY MUNICIPAL AIRPORT, OPTION 3
YEAR 2012 NOISE CONTOURS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. After page 5-16
sl 1989 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SOUTH &
SOUTHWEST AREAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. After page 5-20
3g7~
....,
i'
,
,.,1
~1
, t
i I
~'l
; I
~!
~ ,,!
~
,
, '
L
I"
-
.
-.""
--
.,., - y-. .
, ----r--..';'
. ............ ....,,- r-r y....... ,
,.~ .,.. -T-
.... , ....,....-- -...... r~
i
,., 'CT """1 'C, ",' ,,/,' ,,".', ',,' ': ,.,",.",:.:
':<-,,::C.:.\',,', .':, (. :....'::ILJ ,;,,' ,":- .":;, .' ":", :,', ';""
i:
!di
(
!~
;1B
I
In
n
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - AIRPORT RELOCATION FEASIBILlll' STUDY SURVEY RESULTS
APPENDIX B - PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCY RESPONSES
I"l
"j
,l
J I
,
I
l I
I
I J I
,l l
'I I
... ,
I
"" ! !
U l I
, I
I I
i ,
rt , i
,
~ ,
1<1 I I
I
0 i
I I
I
J I
I
'...,
I
...J
"' ,
J
"I i
i
~ I
"I I
:j I
I
I
i
, I
.J
"
!
-'
1 3f7
,
'..J
APPENDIX C - PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCY RESPONSES
(EXISTING AIRPORT SITE)
fC' -- ..........-
. ... ...........~..-......,--...r '-y - - ...~ .-. ,-
.. ........-...
",.' 'L~I ,', ",,: I ~ : 'CI ." :tr .,., ,,; .,<~ : ',,:, ,."
.,':' f../'f',.;\, {',;: :1.71:," "l.~;.''''', '.,"." .;'" .~ ":>
. ........ ,'............ ,~." . \ . " ~
'" ., t.. , _ '.
I
'-
3~7
"
,
-..o:r---~- y- --
--
\ n
'I i
~.
I'
, I'
I...
"
i
il..
.. .. ..--~' ~- .... r .,....-----..--...,-.......... ,........
-.. ........-.- 'r'""~ ___ __~- .....
,-
>,:~':". ',';","',:' -'. "'fd'-"'" ,',,;. .','." ':',:.... ':,
, ", ,t : ' </'1" "[}j",,, " '," " i' J' , '"
~1,...;:;,'[: 7" ;~::.' .~;I]](.',,'..; "....':',' '~',. ,"', :.':........,
.."~ [,.\ I,", J, ~'" ,~ .\..j . .
" " i ,',:1 ", "I, . " I' ., . ."
,..
i
1,\
~
I
II
~
I,
! I
r
I:
-
,
I'
, '
I.
,~
i
I,
I ~
Ii
fl
1 i
I"
IC~
I
U
(';'
,I
I
J
1'1
i;'
, 1
I:
. ,
-
_L
Chapter One
INVENTORY
I'?
, I
-
I ~
\..,1
u
u
~7
_,.N~~___"
-,
<.~'>;'''';'';,''..,'.I :'1,':.".'1,', .:~\ ..,",' ",.'~ ,.,'n".'\", ,"~l
:1" .[:1.,-. 'I::'" :,121 ',I ..', , "", """.,.!, ".
}}'.:':'.:,J~J.":~"'" ,,~,r':~n':_::;~\ :J4t.! . ,');'j'"'' ", ,,'. ',',', '; .~': .'::". ." . ...+>>,
,"'"I
I I
i
, .
, ,
, r~
:L
I- I
,
,; I:
'1
,I
:'J
1
1"1
! I
. I
I n
i I
I I..
I I'
I
I I
I
I L
\ I L
,
I'
]
[
! !
'-"
I'
i
I
L
I'
I
I
, I
....
, ,
i I
....
, I
~-.I
3~' :J
~.
,
; i
'i
,I
...
, I
, ,
,j
...,
I
"..,
'.,
..1
1
I
..,
-.
,j
:J
"'I
~.J
\
I
,
.J
"I
,
...J
i
I
I
I
1--
I ...J
I
I
I
I ..J
"....' -
~
~~" ,.~, 'f!- .',: " :';>.,. ,.,",'; L7~,: ~'::;:P':'':' :::. ,;" ;,~:::':,:.,' :<':,:;'
'\ f ,."" 17JI, ( )\1 " "'. . , \'. , . ,
"':~I" ~,\'\,"~l,:,::.:.'. ,.~,,' "~\' " .. .,
~.
...,
,
,
, .
~-
: --
Chapter One
INVENTORY
The Iowa City Airport Relocation Feasibility
Study is a systematic evaluation of the
general aviation needs of the Iowa City/
Johnson County area, with the goal of
determining how to best accommodate
these needs in an environmentally and
fiscally responsible manner. The Relocation
Feasibility Study will provide analysis and
recommendations from which local
authorities may take action either to
continue at the existing Iowa City Municipal
Airport or relocate to another site.
The Airport Relocation Feasibility Study
required the collection and evaluation of
information relating to the existing airport
and the surrounding area. This information
included:
~ Physical inventories and descriptions of
facilities and services now provided at
the airport.
~ Background information pertaining to
the Iowa City area and a description of
Iowa Oty Nrport
Re/ocaUon Feasibility Study
development which has taken place on
and around the airport recently.
~ Population and socioeconomic
information which are likely to have an
impact on the demand for general
aviation in the Iowa City vicinity.
~ A comprehensive review of the existing
regional plans and studies which will
provide an, indication of future
development in the Iowa City vicinity
and which will be used to identify a
potential airport siting area.
An inventory of existing conditions is
important to this study since the findings
and assumptions made in this plan are
dependent on the information collected
concerning conditions on and around the
airport and the community. This necessary
information was obtained through on-site
investigations of the airport and the Iowa
City area, and interviews with airport
management and representatives of johns on
1-1
317
\
jIF - y-.--
.. .. .---......,-..-."...-r
~:,,:,,':f]'- . :":':;~:/:' : ::c:(~: .':',e,',",.<.. ,;',: , ' ':' ,:' ',: ,":::-:
I,' .f:: ,11":',1.",.,\, 1'7]:., II.g ..', ' ,."'1', " '., ^
:,: ',", .:.': 'Y:.:- ( :. ;"~' :"":,!~~'\:I '. ,l ,:.. ,-1\ ~', ' ,,' : ' ':. J
County and the City of Iowa City.
Information was also obtained from
available documents and studies concerning
the Iowa City/Johnson County area and the
airport environs.
GENERAL
AVIATION BACKGROUND
As stated previously, the role of the Iowa
City Municipal Airport is to serve the
general aviation transport needs of the Iowa
City/Johnson County area. General aviation
includes every type of civil flying other than
the certificated air carriers, and as such, the
system is characterized by a relatively low
profile. Most of the general public enjoys
the benefits of the system while many
remain unaware of its existence. Business
persons flying to meetings, plant visits or
new site inspections; emergencies such as
a doctor rushing a badly burned child to a
distant hospital or the transport of an organ
slated for transplant; intercity passengers
flying between communities not served by
major airlines; a local industry shipping and
receiving products by air charter services; a
contractor shipping a needed part for a
stalled earthmover; a farmer spraying or
seeding his crops; a rancher receiving cattle
serum; and private pilots avoiding fuel and
traffic problems by minimizing travel times
while on vacation.. this is general aviation.
General aviation is the largest, and in many
ways, the most significant element of the
national air transportation system. The
United States active general aviation aircraft
constitutes 97 percent of all civil aircraft in
use today. Further, general aviation airports
comprise approximately 90 percent of all
public-use airports nationwide. Thus,
general aviation is definitely a major
contributor to the national air transportation
system.
_.~~.
-
General aviation is an important component
of both the aviation industry and our
national economy. It provides a diverse
range of aviation services that commercial
aviation cannot or will not provide, while
the production and sale of general aviation
aircraft, avionics, and other equipment,
along with the provision of support services
such as flight schools, fixed base operators,
finance, and insurance, make the general
aviation industry an important contributor
to the nation's economy.
It is, therefore, no coincidence that general
aviation has contributed to the socio-
economic phenomenon that has seen
American industry move away from the
larger metropolitan areas to smaller
communities. While certainly not the only
factor, a community's airport facilities can
be a primary consideration when industries
evaluate a potential site location. The
movement toward greater use of the more
sophisticated turbine-engine aircraft for
business and corporate purposes stresses
the importance for smaller communities to
provide the airport facilities needed to
accommodate these aircraft. By so doing,
the economic attractiveness of communities
such as Iowa City is further enhanced.
AIRPORT SElTING
The Iowa City Municipal Airport is included
in the National Plan of Integrated Airport
Systems (NPIAS). The NPIAS is an FAA
report to the United States Congress which
reviews and makes recommendations on
the condition of the national airport system
and identifies the needs of the system to
meet future demands. Included in the
NPIAS is information on almost 3,700
airports (both existing and proposed) which
are important to the national air transport-
'1-2
3~1j
MfMlIl!!Ul!!l..l_1:M.: 1 LL -Llt:BIWt!f!Utllllllflll .-'!!l!
,",'
~
.-'.
I
...,
l._,
- I
'-'
/"1
! i
'-'
/,
, I
-
"I
'-
.....
~ -- ~ .....'-
...
-
-,
,
,
,
"'
i
1,)
.
, ,
....1
~
i
i
-.
t
...l
-.
, ,
,
<..i
,.."
'..J
!"1
U
kt
, I
",j
\
'''1
t
J
,-
,
,
, ;
...,
,
-'
,--,
,
, .
, ,
'-'
-'
,
~
. .. ------.- ~--- -,....~, - - ...~
- - -....- .. .......
..~"'T- ...-
-- ,.-----
; .: n')' :, I "dl""~~l; "" .,,' ::, ,;, ':,
<<;,).2': ;(:,:::/:::',I::!,i ,"~~'<,' .',:~ <::,.,".......','y.;.,,'
ation system. The NPIAS also identifies the
role of each airport and provides an
estimated cost of development to assure the
airport's continued viability to play its
individual role in the success of the national
airport system.
The Iowa City Municipal Airport is
identified in the NPIAS as a general aviation
transport type airport. General aviation
transport type airports are intended to
accommodate the larger, more sophisticated
component of the general aviation neet
mix, such as business jets or other turbine-
powered aircraft which have approach
speeds of greater than 121 knots and weigh
up to 75,000 pounds. These types of
aircraft are being used in increasing
numbers to service the growing market of
general aviation passenger and freight
transport.
While the nearby Cedar Rapids Municipal
Airport meets the commercial airline service
needs of the Iowa City area, as well as
most of eastern Iowa, it cannot as efficiently
and conveniently meet the general aviation
needs of locales outside the immediate
Cedar Rapids metropolitan area. Therefore,
the Iowa City Municipal Airport, serving as
a general aviation transport type airport, is
more capable of accommodating the wide
range of general aviation needs in the Iowa
City area due to its convenience, smaller
scale of operations, and ability to
accommodate a more flexible schedule.
Thus, an airport in Iowa City does not and
will not compete with the services that the
Cedar Rapids Municipal Airport is designed
to provide on a regional basis.
Table 1A compares the existing runway
lengths of Iowa City Municipal Airport to
other general aviation transport airports in
the state of Iowa. As shown in this table,
Iowa City Municipal Airport has the shortest
runway length and is the least adequate for
providing transport level service in the state
of Iowa.
TADlE lA
Iowa Tra"'flO'lAirports
iIJl"""lllfll~l~f' t"'~i4It'~"
"g.""""..I!Y",,,, ,,,...PIL,,,,,,n,,,.JIJ1,,.,,,K,,,,..,&Yl.I.J.,,
Ames 47,196 5,700
Clinlon 29,201 5,204
Creslon 7,911 4,910
Davenport 95,333 4,801
Denison 6,604 5,000
ElthelVille 6,720 4,797
Foresl City 4,430 5,000
IOWA CIlY 59,738 4,355
Marshal~own 25,170 5,005
Muscatine 22,881 4,700
Newton 14,789 5,600
Ottumwa 24,488 6,499
Source: 1991 Iowa Aviation Syslem Plan, Iowa
Department of Transportation; 1990 U.S.
Census.
LOCALE
The Iowa City Municipal Airport is
comprised of approximately 450 acres and
is owned and operated by the City of Iowa
City. It is located in the southwestern
portion of the Iowa City area, approxi-
mately two miles south of the Iowa City
Central Business District and the University
of Iowa campus. Access to the airport is
provided by Riverside Drive, a major
arterial which provides access through the
Iowa City/Coralville area. Further, the
airport's proximity to Interstates 80 and 380
and U.S. Highway 218 provides good
access for airport users in the Johnson
County area. Exhibit 1A depicts the
location of the Iowa City Municipal Airport
in its regional setting.
CLIMATE
Weather conditions play an important role
in the planning and development of an
'1-3
317
--
-- -------.----.. ....... .. --- ,-- -..
...... w- - ... -.
~';,',' ,:~. ,::.',.',',!.':" :(..;,~-""!':"::I~' ' :, "" ;",<, :",.> ;;"">;<
',"" "~ "" ,./ 'I ' " " ' " " , " "" " ': : ',.',
~1':<;\,:,~l:, ~'::-:',::~;::L~:~:.;;':..~,~;""-"~,,, ,:":\." '. I',. ,'\ : ',,\" :'., -"':.::'!~
~
~
<
~
>
~
NOj""
o
I
"
,
,
r,CA!.1: I~' I,lllC:l
"
I
~..~ _'''~'''''~~'~'~'~'~__''_'_ll'''_''''''~'''''''''''"'"'_
",
\
,-I
,
,,'.
" I
'I
, I
j
:-1
. ,
,>',
'.1
I'
Ii
t:'l
Ii
1\
, I
I",
lal
1\
:.",j
'\
t
....J
-.
,
"
..,
I
,
...J
-.J
-
-..., ~
. ...--'. ......,.~-....... ,,-.- - - ---r-
... ,~- -.....
-. .,--
. ...,.-
>" /t'71'" ':;":/":';~'(} ::C),',,'..:<:, ':,,:, " '>.~
. .,-," . ,~1, ""I~ "".m. ,"" ,\
:<,,',"~t'':;'::''''.:~, :,..',", ""~"'. ','.1,."..." .,.' '.~' :.... r.,.',
,..
, I
...
, \
airport. Temperature is an important factor
in determining runway length and wind
speed is used to evaluate the optimum run-
way orientation. Additionally, the percent of
time visibility is impaired due to cloud
coverage is a major factor in determining
the need for navigational aids and lighting.
'"'I
"
'i
...
,
\
\ I
....,
Annual precipitation in Iowa City averages
33.7 inches per year, approximately 70
percent of which falls from April through
September, which includes the growing
season for most crops. The average annual
temperature for Iowa City is 49.7 degrees.
In summer, the average temperature is 72.7
degrees, with an average daily maximum
temperature of 85 degrees. In winter, the
average temperature is 24.3 degrees, with
an average daily minimum temperature of
15 degrees. Cold fronts are accompanied
by strong northwesterly winds with snow
storms occurring as early as November and
as late as April. Total snowfall typically
averages 30.2 inches per year. Pre-
dominant winds are from the northwest.
AIRPORT HISTORY
The Iowa City Municipal Airport has had a
rich aviation history spanning nearly 75
years. In 1918, Iowa City was designated
as a refueling airfield for the trans-
continental airmail flights. It was the only
scheduled stop on the section of the mail
route between Chicago and Omaha. In the
1920's Boeing Air Transport Company (later
to become United Airlines) built a hangar at
what is the current site of the airport and in
1930 signed a 50-year contract with the
City of Iowa City to maintain the hangar
and two runways.
"
The importance of the Iowa City Municipal
Airport increased in the 1940's. Except for
a few later extensions, the runways
currently in use at the airport were
constructed in 1940 and 1941 when the
airport was used for a civilian Navy Pre-
flight School (1939-1944). The Iowa City
Airport Commission, which is responsible
for airport operations, was established by
the Iowa City Council in the 1940's.
United Airlines provided commercial air
carrier service to the airport until 1959,
when they were replaced by Ozark Airlines.
The last commercial air carrier flight by
Ozark Airlines was in 1972. Following the
cessation of commercial service to the Iowa
City Municipal Airport, the airport focused
its future on providing service to the
general aviation community.
Today, Iowa City is the second busiest
general aviation airport in the State. In
1988, there were an estimated 26,400
annual aircraft operations at the airport.
Many local businesses and potential
businesses utilize the airport on a daily
basis, as well as frequent medical flight
operations including patient transfers and
donor-organ transportation.
AIR TRAFFIC ACTIVITY
Iowa City Municipal Airport currently has
53 based aircraft. Since Iowa City
Municipal Airport has no air traffic control
tower, there is no regular count of airport
operations. However, in 1987 and 1988,
the Iowa Department of Transportation
conducted a count of aircraft activity at
Iowa City Municipal Airport and estimated
26,400 annual airport operations. The
summary of estimated operations as a result
of this count program is depicted in Table
1B.
Overall, aircraft activity at Iowa City
Municipal Airport was highest on Sundays,
with Friday and Saturday being the second
1-4
3t7
--..
v_a U' I,''-Ill.
1,
"
~ ~ - ..-.---------.----..~..- ......,.,.-----.--r
\
',;,' ""- ,:, <,':':':~~, '\ ....".." ",' ,:,::\, '<,:'
- . :"JD, ... i ,I, " " It", ' ',".. "
.:.,;.._.r~1' " )'~:,~:'. :,:-'\:.'.,~,':'..,I:J~~.\, '1'.," ., .::" ,,",',.~' .:..:_~
,
i
I
j
,
I
.
I
l
I
<,
,~
and third busiest days of the week,
respectively. Aircraft activity on an hourly
distribution was highest between the hours
of 2:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. Also, as shown
TABLE 1B
Summary Of Estimated Operations
Iowa City Municipal Airport
IOWA CllY ESTIMATED
ANNUAL OPERATIONS
General Aviation
Local
Itinerant
Total General Aviation
5,000
18,000
23,000
Air Taxi
Military
3,000
400
Total Operations
26,400
in the table, single-engine aircraft
accounted for 84.4 percent of all estimated
operations at the Iowa City Municipal
Airport.
BY AIRCRAFT lYPE · (Percent)
Fixed Wing Fleet
Single-Engine
Multi-Engine
Jet
84.4
13.9
1.7
.
Does not include rotorcraft
operations as it is usually not
possible to differentiate between
rotorcraft arrivals, departures,
hovering, and ground operations
using the RENS aircraft activity
counter.
(Measurement! performed for four two.week periods In
October 1907, January 1900, April 1900, and July 1900.)
Source: 1990 FAA 5010 Form, Airport Master Record; Iowa Automated Aircraft Activity Counting, 1987.
1988, Iowa Department of Transportation, January 1969.
Compared to other general aviation
transport airports in Iowa, the Iowa City
Municipal Airport was the second busiest
airport in the state. Only Ames Municipal
Airport was busier, with an estimated
50,370 annual operations. Other general
aviation transport airports in southeastern
Iowa Include Davenport Municipal Airport,
the third busiest airport in the state, with
26,354 annual operations, and Muscatine
Municipal Airport with 12,328 annual
operations.
AIRSPACE STRUCTURE
Navigable airspace within the United States
is divided into two broad categories:
uncontrolled and controlled. Within each
of these airspace categories, various
limitations apply to the use of airspace.
Exhibit 1 B provides a general overview of
navigable airspace and its divisions.
Uncontrolled airspace is that portion of
airspace over which air traffic control has
1-5
, ,
I
~'7 J
-
,
, :
. <
'I
, ,
~ -~
~~,'
i
,
"
'-j
..,
i-;
'-.
,-
i
, .
~
r-,
t
,
\,.-
"
,
i
~
.".J
-
s
".. ~
~
, , ~
>
~
'....
: I
, ~'.~
, ,
"i
~ rl4~~
,
AIRCRAFT
CONTINENTAL TRANSPONDER
-, CONTROL WITH 4096 CODES
, AREA JET AND MODE C
ROUTES POSITIVE REQUIRED
CONTROL
, ' AREA
i
,J
~~ 1 ~M~' M~l
, i
"-,,
,"~I 14,~~~' M~l
,
, ,
'.'
'"I 1 ~,~~~I M~l
,
"
..J
\
')
,
,
..
". FEDERAL
. ,
, AIRWAYS
~
- JI~~~I AGl
-11~~~' AGl
l~~' AGl
J_
-~"'
--~
..J
-----
- ~~._-----------_._---
---~--_._-
yo-"-
.. .. .--~.-~-....... ..,...,~
t.:.:':' ;''';'';''':'''1'' ;~... :"."",'1'::" ,:"", :;"<,,'.:\
, ,. .. tj', "', i' \ ' " \ I . , ;l , ".' ",': " ",,' .. -::,
,1' . r , .' - ~ ,~ I '. :~ ,J v' ',' , . \ ,,' " ' ~, .'
. .,,'~ ~.' 1.-:.... ',' )~l,,~' '\, I.~ . -.~ "I ,J!., '" '.
. '. ". ' I," .' " , '\
3f?
~......- ~- -- ...-.---
\
- ... ....--------.~-.--r ~ ...... - - .-r- --~,........ .. ..
~, ':f7"': ~'"I' "-'.:(:1 ,,' ',..:,:....~: ",'," l.' ..::, ':," :, ....',
,', .. f' ;; ,.1 , ~:7'1' 'it(,iJ. " """ '
.,' J.~I~:., ~\.:..:.""~ll..';" ,'l~;,' :.\ \ "'. '.,.,...,.......{:..~
neither the authority or the responsibility to
exercise any control over air traffic. Aircraft
flights in uncontrolled airspace are generally
unrestricted as long as the pilot meets his
responsibility to see and avoid other
aircraft. Additionally, minimum weather
conditions and distance requirements also
apply in uncontrolled airspace during VFR
(Visual Flight Rules) conditions. During IFR
(Instrument Flight Rules) conditions,
additional altitude and flight level
requirements apply.
i
J
!
,
I
I
I
I
I
!
,
.
,
!
Controlled airspace consists of those areas
designated as positive control areas,
continental control areas, control areas,
control zones, terminal control areas,
Airport Radar Service Area (ARSA), Terminal
Radar Service Area (TRSA), and transition
areas within which some or all aircraft may
be subject to air traffic control. Ground,to-
air communications, navigation aids, and air
traffic services are used to promote the
safe, efficient, and systematic flow of air
traffic in controlled airspace. Portions of
the various airspace components depicted
in Exhibit 1 B are contained within the
specific airspace structure for the Iowa City
Area, as shown in Exhibit 1C and discussed
below.
IOWA CllY AREA
AIRSPACE STRUCTURE
An analysis of airspace is necessary in
determining the operations' interaction
among the various facets of airspace such
as airways, instrument and visual flight
rules, controlled airspace, and airport traffic
areas. Exhibit 1 C depicts the existing
airspace structure in the Iowa City area.
As shown in Exhibit 1 C, Iowa City
Municipal Airport (identified by the FAA
three letter designation lOW) lies just
outside of the Cedar Rapids Airport Radar
Service Area (ARSA). The Cedar Rapids
ARSA consists of two circles, both centered
on the Cedar Rapids Municipal Airport.
The inner circle has a diameter of 10
nautical miles. Controlled airspace within
this inner circle extends from the surface up
to 4,900 feet above mean sea level (MSl).
The outer circle has a diameter of 20
nautical miles. Controlled airspace within
this outer ring begins at a height of 2,100
feet MSl and extends to the same 4,900
foot MSl cap as the inner circle. AIIIFR
and participating VFR aircraft operating
within this ARSA are under the control of
the Cedar Rapids Municipal Airport
Approach/Departure Control Facility, which
operates from 5:00 a.m. to 11 :30 p.m.
During the hours of 11 :30 p.m. to 5:00
a.m., approach control is provided by
Chicago Center. Air traffic control services
provided by the Approach/Departure
Control Facility include radar vectoring,
sequencing and separation of all IFR
aircraft, and traffic advisories for all aircraft.
Further, because Iowa City Municipal
Airport does not have an air traffic control
tower, the Cedar Rapids approach control
facility provides air traffic services to alllFR
and participating VFR aircraft operating at
Iowa City Municipal Airport.
In addition to the Cedar Rapids ARSA, the
airspace within the vicinity of the Iowa City
Municipal Airport is contained in a
transition area within which the limits of
controlled airspace extend upward from
700 feet AGl to the base of the Continental
Control Area, or 14,500 feet mean sea level
(MSl). This transition area is designated for
areas around airports with approved
instrument approaches. Outside of this
area is a second transition surface which
extends from 1,200 feet AGl upward to
14,500 MSl. This outer transition area is
designated for areas within the airway route
structure.
Within portions of the Cedar Rapids ARSA,
the transition areas, and the Continental
J.6
387,,-
....,
.....
. I
~.';
.....
: ,
,......
-
....
...... ~ -- v-~-----.-..........-,
".
I
IS
S
tit ~
' I
I ~
"
~
""
,
II
li~
i
II
:'
I
,
...
, '
,-'I
l
I
,.j
l
,
,-,1
i<,;;.\
: 1
f..f
I'~
,
, ,
I.j
, '"1
:.,.J
\ ,nl
!
-
..,
,
,
~
~
"J
,
~
....
'-,
--
~:',"':':"" '..~;...,: "el....,',...'.. , ,,:,.;',','. : ";':,'
"./" . ..'._'., "
""J' :.! ~_~ "'1" ",.'", ',',':,
.\.."~.~,.",.._."."",.,,,., '".'
", \( ., J .' \
f...
30
V172~
Clarence
f...
hr;;
Willianuburg
Wi!~
1l'!1JV6.8
KALONA 0 2J Kalanl
Wellmlne.
SIG,NOR
o
MURPHV@
f...
. Keola
'\J
9
f...f...
1
'"
I
10
I
GCAlE IN STATUTE MILES
LEGEND
~ Hard Sur'ocod Runways ~I Non.Dlrectionol Radio Boccon
Greater Ihon 6000 Foot
V) VORTAC
0 Hard Surloood Runwnys 1 J
Obstruction 1000 Fool nnd Highor AGL NOf/T1I
0 Othor lI,.n Hard Surlncod Runwnys I II
@ /!i.t:. Obstruction Balow 1000 FootAGL a
Privata AirpMs *
,- Obstruction with High.lntonsity Ught .......--
. .. Airport Radar Sorvico Arca ARSA . hi!'.
l11lOAGl Tronsition Arca: Floor 1200' AGL - ---
...... Control Zona --.
lllOAGl TIDnsition Aron: Floor 700' AGL --.......--
........ Victor Airways
'-
3r7
.".....------~-.-'---..--........--.- .......,.-...-tr ,.".. - - '-,"F" --~,- .........,..-.. ................
I
".'. .' ,"..' ". . '-. , ,'.. ". . " '.'" .
. _."" _. "~,. ' ,,,, 1""'00'"
: ',"f',>' "';" ' ,,,:: ,,'" :.:," ':, '....'," ":,:'.,
~. " 1" I" ' . L ., \ ,I..' (. .. . \ .
""""""~~'",,"'.,
-" IN-"Jt..",,,, ":"'-''-':'''''''''~'
. .' \., ,I . .. " l: .-' "_,> " "
Control Area, numerous Federal Airways
and Jet Routes exist which provide a means
of radio navigation that is used by almost
all aircraft. Federal Airways are often
referred to as 'highways in the sky', or
'Victor' Airways, and are used primarily by
general aviation aircraft. Federal airways
begin at 1,200 feet AGl and extend
upward to, but not including, 18,000 feet
MSl and are four or more nautical miles on
each side of the airway centerline. Federal
Airways within the vicinity of Iowa City
Municipal Airport are shown on Exhibit 1C.
Above the Federal Airways within the
Continental Control Area are Jet Routes.
These airways are reserved for use by
aircraft between an altitude of 18,000 feet
MSl and Flight level 450 (45,000 feet
MSl) and include the area within 14
nautical miles on each side of the route
centerline.
Although there is no air traffic control tower
on the airport, the unicom frequency of
122.8 is used in the airport vicinity to
contact other aircraft as well as the fixed
base operator (FBO). Traffic patterns
consist of standard left hand turns for all
runways at Iowa City Municipal Airport.
However, due to noise sensitive land use
located to the north and northwest of the
airport, Runway 24 is identified as the
preferential runway when winds and safety
considerations are not a factor.
Additionally, when landing on Runways 12
or 17, pilots are cautioned to maintain
sufficient or safe altitude on left base or
straight-in for noise abatement. Similarly,
for noise abatement purposes, departures
on Runways 30 and 35 are advised to
make a left turn out as soon as possible
after take-off.
Public use airports within 20 nautical miles
of the Iowa Cily Municipal Airport (lOW)
are described below.
Cedar Rapids Municipal Nrport - located
16 nautical miles northwest of Iowa City,
this airport serves as the area's commercial
service airport. Owned and operated by
the City of Cedar Rapids, this facility has
two paved runways, a primary runway
measuring 8,600 feet by 150 feet, and a
crosswind runway measuring 5,4S0 feet by
150 feet. The primary runway is equipped
with precision instrument landing systems
(ILS) approaches to both ends. Both
runways have pavement strengths to
accommodate dual wheel aircraft weighing
up to 174,000 pounds.
In 1991, 384,529 passengers boarded
airlines at Cedar Rapids Municipal Airport.
The air traffic control tower recorded
73,944 aircraft operations at the airport in
1991. There were 142 general aviation
aircraft based at the airport in 1991.
Mathews Memorial Nrport - located 19
nautical miles northeast of Iowa City near
Tipton, Iowa, this facility has a concrete
3,000 foot by 60 foot primary runway and
provides service for general aviation aircraft.
The airport is owned and operated by the
City of Tipton and had seven based aircraft
in 1991.
Creen Caslle Nrport - Located 10 nautical
miles northwest of Iowa City, this privately
owned facility has one paved runway
measuring approximately 4,000 feet long
and serves general aviation aircraft. The
airport has approximately 15 based aircraft.
Amana Ntport - This private airport is
located 17 nautical miles northwest of Iowa
Cily and has one 2,800-foot long turf
runway. There were six based aircraft and
1,600 general aviation aircraft operations at
this airport in 1991.
/(,1/0na Ntpark - This private airport is
localed 12 nautical miles southwest of Iowa
1-7
317-
-,
, '
.-,
~
.. i
\_:
, I
...",
1-.,
~
"
r~
rl!
\"
"
f'!
1\
F'
Ii
;i
"I
....
,
,
Ii
..,
I
,.I
I
I ,-
, I
,.,
:11
I.~
I'"
,
I,j
1"'
,J
\ ''I
I
I
-
,
,
I
,...;
,
i
'...
I
I
I
_.
I'
, I
I
...
..,
, ,
I 'J
I
I ,
1
,
I ...I
i
!
i , !
I.l
:':, , : t ;)"':.'\",' ',,' ; L'Z' ;';" ~!t'Z:'" , ,', /','
.i, ;';.~ Jl.J .. ., ':~I":".'i:T \": 1~;:0, ' ;3~3: .: " ) " ',,';. ,;: ! '. ,,', ':", ,:.',
City and has one 1,800-foot long turf
runway. There was one based aircraft and
512 general aviation aircraft operations at
this airport in 1991.
There are also three restricted airports in
the Iowa City/Johnson County vicinity
which are identified for private use only.
These airports are described below.
Bartlett Airport - located 12 nautical miles
northeast of Iowa City, this airport has one
turf runway measuring approximately 2,500
feet long.
Picayune Field - located 5 nautical miles
northeast of Iowa City, this airport has one
turf runway measuring approximately 1,800
feet long.
Murphy AirpOrt - located 19 nautical miles
southwest of Iowa City, this airport has one
turf runway measuring approximately 2,200
feet long.
EXISTING AIRPORT FACILITIES
Airport facilities are classified as either
airs ide or landside. Airside facilities are
those that are directly associated with
aircraft operations. Runways and taxiways,
navigational aids, and airport lighting are
examples of airside facilities. landside
facilities primarily consist of terminal
buildings, hangars, aircraft parking apron,
fuel storage, and auto parking.
AIRFiElD FACILITIES
Airfield facilities include runways and
taxiways, navigational aids, and airport
lighting. A layout of existing airfield
facilities at Iowa City Municipal Airport is
.~~.- ~
-
provided in Exhibit 10 and summarized in
Table 1C.
Runways And Taxiways
The Iowa City Municipal Airport is
equipped with three runways. Runway 6-
24, the primary runway, has a width of 150
feet and a length of 4,355 feet and is
oriented in a northeast-southwest direction.
It has a concrete surface, with a load
bearing strength of 25,000 pounds single
wheel loading (SWl) and 45,000 pounds
double wheel loading (DWl). Runway 6-
24 has an effective runway gradient of 0.41
percent. This runway is served by an
access taxiway, 50 feet wide, which serves
the Runway 24 end only.
Runway 12-30, with a northwest-southeast
orientation, has a width of 150 feet and a
length of 3,900 feet. It has a concrete
surface with a load bearing strength of
25,000 pounds SWl and 45,000 pounds
DWL. Runway 12-30 has an effective
runway gradient of 0.33 percent. This
runway is served by an access taxiway, 50
feet wide, which serves the Runway 30 end
only.
Runway 17-35, oriented in a north-south
direction, has a width of 150 feet and a
length of 3,875 feet. It has a concrete
surface with a load bearing strength of
25,000 pounds SWl and 45,000 pounds
DWL. Runway '17-35 has an effective
runway gradient of 0.D3 percent. This
runway is served by an access taxiway, 50
feet wide, which serves the Runway 17 end
only.
The existing taxiway system as shown in
Exhibit 1 D provides limited access to the
landside facilities located on the east side
1.8
3i7
\
"....-'--
- ~ .---..' ~- ......". .,..,.------.~......,.~ -... ... -",. -- y-.- ~.. -- -
"":'L0~"" ';"1'" j;::( ',,':I:lSl', ",'.', :,:,', '~~...'
~',",',I",': ".~': ,", ~', ~Fl' 'J71.: .,"". . .~,", J :';::- :.:.",'
" I, " . ,\ ," . .1,....,. ~ -~ 1 ....--.; - .,' I ",1 ..J .,1
of the airport. As shown in this exhibit,
direct access to the terminal area is
provided for Runways 24, 30, and 17,
while access from the other three runway
ends is achieved only by taxiing down the
runway itself. There are presently no
taxiway lights, although renective taxiway
delineators line the taxiways.
TABLE 1C
Runway Data
Iowa City Municipal Airport
RUNWAYS
..2.. 24 17 35 11 30
length (ft.) 4,355 3,875 3,900
Width (ft.) 150 150 150
Surface Material Concrete Concrete Concrete
Effective Runway Gradient (%) .41 .03 .33
load Bearing Capacity
by Gear Type
Single Wheel Loading (Ibs.) 25,000 25,000 25,000
Dual Wheel Loading (Ibs.) 45,000 45,000 45,000
Approach Slope 34:1 34:1 20:1 34:1 20:1 34:1
Approach Aids
RNAV NO YES NO NO NO NO
NDB NO NO NO NO NO YES
VOR NO NO NO YES NO NO
VASI-4 NO NO YES YES NO NO
PAPI YES YES NO NO NO NO
REll NO NO NO YES NO NO
Lighting MIRl MIRL MIRL
Marking NPI NPI NPI
Taxiway Access Access Access
Navigational Aids
Enroute Navigational Aids: Enroute
navigational aids (navaids) are established
for the purpose of accurate enroute air
navigation. These use ground based
transmitting facilities and on-board receiving
instruments.
Ground-based electronic navigational aids
that are located on or near the Iowa City
Municipal Airport may be functionally
classified as enroute navigational aids,
terminal area navigational aids and landing
aids.
1-9
387
'i
,
, I
I.... I
, ,
I I I
,.... I
,
, I
!'"'
I
;,)
-
!
-
, !
;..,
""'
"
"
I-
ii
~I
~'t ~
II
."l'j
r:
, ,
....
t"j
'-'
C,;
'-
,~
,~:; ~;"'-~'~l:'" ',,:> ~";,;..;i',~' (.....;..~~J: .",,:,' <'.::, .,::';:,:;:';:Y;~i;~'i'\
"'. .,"t' ", ' ,/,.""" ""',, "",.1 ',',' , '...'i.' " , ' ,< ',"
..~ . "', ."', ., t. .. , ,.' "'~" . ' . , . ... ." . ~,,, "
t.i)'~\i'" ;:-l\'.: ,~.~", \;'t'\~c.\, ~ _\.~, {"., "'P' I', ,'; ::'. '.,~ :!'~""\~"~;:/
'.:.:.....\f~" !.~~~:~~I..~,~';.i,\."li'I..."r '.''., ': 'i"" . _:. ":'~, .
~',
M ,'t.. - """i"~ ,', ,: . I
~ .\i:( '~~l. ;'~i" ,}\ -:~~ '\"
~ {;'If '~'~'\,';::if ': .
6 ~:..t~~ ':';::,:\"~,r'l:';~:~'i
'i1.,;jt,;\?);.J'::'?.': .;
i "'t~~ '\.~ 3'1 r_'~_, , .
~ ,-(.~1~; .~Il,)..~ ;;~'.'~
~ Ilfl~.i ~ ..' =-", ~..
N i.r [, I,:;..;;: '(;. f!-, "
Cl 'I'\'~' j l r..j "- '1, J" ":,
')4 ;,',~'h"', ' '. '. I
t ~1:\, ;"; :;:\l., ,:.-, .. ,.'
",...N'~.I1~"lt:i"1 I
. \1: t. ~ ',' ;. t ,-'. 4 'f', . ,.
,i)~;';\\\~)'i.;~/";:~." "
r' .' ,-} . 1,,~ .. . ,',\
'/iJ:):'A~, i,,~:
j.,.ir~;~~'{1i
,'hi:~ /;\-i,:.r;
,':;[f,,1'{~~"i;
~"i'i.:IJ./t), '
,.'.~\j.:)11' :" ,'.
,~1" ~,.;,
'.oj'! ,';' ''';~:''
j~,\'~ to !.I Ii ~\"
:'~iJ.t~)' :;'~'"
",r.J
il:" . ','"
l,.;'>,^;, "~,
I'" '.,.. ,.-: ",
'~,...;.;;o , "
, ,\
".l\\ 1 'I'I...!',
".' ,'!,R
~ I". ,....-.
...<i Jr ~f;. . 'F '[: ,,n
, . If.. '}'~", '-.' .' !. ':
;i,':;';.\ ....~l.~.._ b~\ , .
f ~'~:~,llS\ .;,':~iit~'~~~~'~'.~'r~
' ''''',,\J;~'j,. ,r!:f r f"',J 'f.. ~ t, 'n;
I, ',,~}\'} ,..~fl\:""\ P~';:'J"~"':~
.Uy.."",'.. ,., '1' ' '.'~'. .'
1."";,li:'r,>\i,:,'Orw'
. I ~.~ 'I '.' " ,>:..:~~; -"".;,-J;41~~,:~(~~)1'; :t
.J ' :!i/. ,I), ~',) ,:fl.i~
~"':'--,. ,1:'~!~:,~::, ,Ii ,dii!.JJ!$
\',:;;"I~ ~"\'\~'%{iJ~'
I(:':"",.~,,".".r"!;.;li\i
"" '." I ",' ",,\,; b,," "
,j . J.... M>..,'lb"'~ '~~'I.',
"'. \,), ' \ I' 11 .'.,,)~~,~~t;;':;;
- - \ <i";", '!J;!i~'W"~
' " ~:N\'~, t ':"~~'~:'r~1 :J'-:.....'i::.:fi~fli'~...,,~*;
\'....- '\""" '.,' "1"r(W;r,~
,,~J..i' ,;,.{', , 1!"""j)4'tri"'~'!:',,
I' -.r ,,'I -,,'I ~ j >-- , . '\" ""fi~11~'~ ".~
t'j!ll\;\.p "." "0'0' Jk'~!{j I
\. t"1.1'1~ : i~'.' }~~ '>"~?~M"~ 'f
",." .~, ~ h,.;.:>\~1 'I.. jJ~~1:,__,:\ ~{,
. . :-~~~r,,\ \\~;,; , I?P'l>1il~,~~,
.' ~ J, "(',J, " i%~-~' ,,: '; ,u
"',,0, V.',~ ~\' .;~,. Mil! ,,'
I , I" '~)c~' ontiol1al ,';
'.'::~l "I. 'l : ,,;'f~\'ij~,~~~r~. ..j
, ," ~~{",~
:.~~,r:~f~g~,
.... =:-1 '--:~~,': I'
,..~, 'I ~~
J.9a 'o'^ '_ J,~ .~1t \"'~lt'\. II, w.
, ~ pron - / ", t:~on- '" .,.~~rp'hl , ';)< "
.x /. I I .r\\ '\::: ''.', r ' r" "Jt'
on rOJmlnal, . ' ")" $.'\," '~i' ,1,1;
'~I Building I~kf."~":~'~ I "i!:\I'I'~' '.,:;, :.;r
'. . '~~":';~71.' '\~".\ ':'(.~;;,
. " "" i' ..... .j!ty, ""
' " ty..:t'J I' I I 'l;.f. ,'~ \. r _$
I Conventional I ill 'j "1~1!~,1,l;: " oM
""~~~:';t~rllf" ;~~~1I1
"'.,'..,;",>,' "it 'I r'J'~:;":~:
". ..,~ " .,.t," I' ","
~, .,'~';"~ ";'l,!<" ',' ;;g,':'('~'\~
., ~ " \ . I ',:\'i,'.' .~: r:~~~;}".':,>:.~~'~rf;-f'~::1 tl(':"~~,;:.l ,f .' ;~~1(
, , ., . '.:':: '"",,;,,i'Y'if;"::~t,~:~'}lt.:~ I ' ,J""!" ""."'l'" r!;:~
.,.'..',,'.',.,:,'.,',:..,. ...,.":;,.'",."..,'. ..,.,';,..."..'.., '"...:!."I,."",. "":"'. ~:' '~..,.;",',::"'.,.'."\.'..;.,'."....;",..:,.~,.,'( .'..',:.".'.,1' I ,~r~' :'~' , ' . '. . ' , .' \<' .-.' :'. ..:' -, ", : :('~ll"'~;\ )r,,'.. ,\" I' .'. , ' .I!J',
':, '\ ,:;:1-,.' ",,; ::S/~\;t~<'yJ~;::i:.:~:~:' ';':':.~;.~~~./ J il..' ,I r., "" . ;:~6!' ~.'}.~;~
"\il ., '.' '.,~;:~ <',J;,r~I{' " i-i. ,',f . - ~~"!'~ 'i' :01,.\ !""'l ':~
.'. """tl",;';:"".,CI,''I I~';'.l';t""" ',:, :\~f"I>:~' ,.,~. ';!<&" ~~1,'j7:,;'? ;\:.~ ",,'f:,"'"
......,;. ~.. . \.'\ '; ..! "j k', \~:r:., ~~,. ,i" '10.' ('.... ":l' I.!
" 'f"'f' ....',! I,:,: ,)~: 'VO' :" "~i ' 1,1., /:., 1:';:- :'" ( "J~' 't~n}r.
\1'(: ~.! I:~ i.,,,;,,,, ~" r i\1,~l~ ttl'4!
.. "1 11:::1 /. ili rJ~' ": ~~)'J~; !.~ : ~ffJi;,,;~
'" .. ""~ J' i' ."l':~"'~/'I;}
~ r'- . :::~ ".~ ...'h: ' , , ;, .:..~ '~.' (!l;;;,.. '1:,
....:"'.."......, ...:.r ^" 1"..1", '''':I:(l,.;?i.W~'''
IM.I'.... - -,'_; . '(" ("' t!~'~(, :'I~" ~'~p, '.I~ ~'
I' ".' ',. ..'" "I " \ ~t~ ~'~\l~J. .... '~"
'r':';":'":,,,. rl,~ "~'I "', ;':'\\1 l r t<~;~I':~'C.,t';.I;l:-'!;r..."'~,
',.,~ \.. I' l\i "'1'... I I I l.~((I~,~;l , :t~~.. ...I'f"'/" l ~
/','~I,,!, ;''''1\',',:.: .I"'" ~'~;J.I~.~\ ll~'.I...::--,~"'\1rl~lI.'.\i1,\
"\"'~')'<"I( ~"."";,~' / ,"d;-:/t''1 I!'''''''~t-~, ~fJt
. '." '." ,,"':,' ,"".IH",." ";",,) .\~'~'
I "i,';' I; I,' ''':~,I' I f II, ~f"~'l'\'~l'.~~'''>#t i -1~,."" i!. '"
,-', ':'~" .,' ':':,,; 'I '~~:;!;l';~,\ll.~V~ ~~I '\lJ),-~^\'.l:.:.J ~,~,;,~Ii
"\. ",\'.~ " '(l.~J'II'A\ ,..,,~ h
' ""1 "I., '"t;' ~IJ' ~.\...... ll'ol:\, 1/ '~"<.~ l!. '"
..:.;,';:' , l,,' "'.', "y\,., I '(\!~\i'~i~I'i ;v.iI,~;I.,J~1 'I",../.'l- _lqg;
";,~\;;, ,~.'~J. " .L",'J,"I"'I(~"~t,.:..,:~ d~
\'1'1""",:>:;:,.":,, ::'", ", ~ I 1;':I'Xi ':;':,:",,;U:I ... I I-'"l
',:."I:"'::~,:;,:,:.,,.,'~:"",,~,"',:','j....:,,':':,:,',';: """,:\".'..:~;.,:,:::;~,:.,I' .:' . :.}, :~\" i::,\\.V??::;;i:!';3':'?;>' ,/'ji ~ _~ _ _ ~I
......... . , ~:' "~:.~(']}':t}~~. ~..t',::,'.;j' ',','(1_
'J' I .' "2000' I' ,:i;' ':-i 'f,' t'll c'I,l~I;'~'-' '~'b:. ,;.[ ,~. -~'j I
;d;';',' (0 1000 , ' I , _ ' , '., " . ,j .': . I'.. \: ;." I.'t~; ~\ 'I _
:^:(:""" ~' :,':r',\ ,.j,:'t>"~~J\'I.t::'~\1'1'''\\\~,,_ '__1'
:1',\ ( , ,,' "II "~l _ 1.1!1, ",J:I' r t, ;''::' ~
~ ll, ',1,' ',I ,', , '/ .... j I .v~ _ __ \ .
<',~I:l "'.,I,<,a.c"L!NI'EI!T ""l'j"\h'''~~\'',.' ',\.,/ II' ~,
' ", ,I. ',:',..:J.J..; ,'.,', ',';~ j'I'.", Ii. 'I' f . J' ,I, \) ," I )
'-'. . ~. . .""~ ,~.:,.,:~'f,L>!,~< \';.'- ",_;-~~~:' ~ .... :',X4,,~.. .1
(.... . ",,' "": ,,- ...'. ."
,:>.. ExhihillD ~l
AIRFIELD FACILITIES '1:"387
t.
;"\
i ,; I.,. .:' ;i~i::,:;.!; iX;i:)';i~tt1f.i))" '
. " ';~'l' :..-r:" ,t,"f/ ,,~.'.;~.~,;:rJ.tl3J':-,.1
\"'::';,~' ):.;, ;;:j,!t.;~i:~;;j.,r.;t;i~~;1;::~'"",
"-','.. "'-'" 'II! '{.,-i,':", ".,"
! :i.:~:,;'/:' " ; : . ,,'" "(":~}";~:~I:~~f~?~f::~;'l~'-:i(~)~~'~;
\1
,^.
.
'.
.',l
"
:'
r;-:-ProporIY lln.-:-
'/
I
I
I
'H
:-- .-
,,:,,;
),',',.
\'<::';
.)
,
r--~
to'
.10100 jVA~I'
.c.o(\ . ~
<,,\<fl . .
.'l~-J j u Ma.!(l!cnanco I
,oJ a 'Hangar~
() .,
-'.'i-' .
.'
:,:,-'.
';.
1.1
i::.::.'"
~...". '~
\~ . "f'
I.~ '
,li'\",.:,
g;::i"'::/:
:t},~,-'..'
'it.;t.'i~',
.~~!.~"t'r
~'P'fJ. "
Ij"'_ \1'
',~~',
..- '''';\::.i;.' ,:~!:
.,,:1,'.:.:.,:'::-
'"
, ,
, ,
'.'1"
:,1
j'J
~ ',.I
II
<1>\'1<>0_....
,
"",' 't71 ,: "'-'-I'~"~~-':- I:EI ',':' " ,: :.,,':, ,>"
""', -"--,/,,, "II ,"' .,:, .
~-;-_~~r, ',', 'I;': ,..,.'>::.,~~ ~ I. ',I \ ~.:: ,,":/ " . ~ . ," ::..
~
: '
\'-',
I.,.'
,-,
w
.-
,
I
L
,
I..,
I'~. I
,
L-
I
r I
, I
I'
,
I I
'-
I
L1'
I
,
"-
r-.
3S? .--.' /r
"'''',-,C..i-',
,I
I".
v-'
II
U
I'"
, J
~ ,.;
\
'el
....
~
,
, !
_I
I
I :1
I '...
I .,
,
,
...
I
, '
1
-
-'
'-
, ,
-
~-':'r''''~,' _'"~~-"":'-+4.!(":' : '.', :-', .: ',;,~..:,
_~:,>":"L:;: ",,',: '.',',", ", ,,' ;:"[7l~-:--'-:-~'~-:--:
. " J:' , ' ~I 1 ~ .", , "
. : ", ~'. ......, ' ,; ". " I'''' \. I ,
....
,
, '
, ,
I.
A VORTAC or VOR/DME incorporates a
navigation course guidance signal (VOR)
and distance measuring equipment (DME)
function into a single channelized
VHF/UHF system. Operating in
conjunction with the ground station, a
properly equipped aircraft is able to
translate the VORT AC signals into a visual
display of both azimuth and distance.
Because of the high frequencies involved,
the VORT AC is constrained to line-of-sight
distances.
....
I
, I
"
, ,
i
-,
..1
..,
I
I
1.1
The Iowa City VORT AC, which services the
Iowa City Municipal Airport, is located 7.5
nautical miles southwest of the airport. It
operates on the frequency 116.2 MHz and
is identified by the three letter morse code
identifier lOW. It is used for both enroute
navigation and approach course guidance
into Iowa City Municipal Airport. Several
Federal Airways, shown on Exhibit 1 C, are
defined from the Iowa City VORTAC. Co-
located with the Iowa City VORTAC is
Distance Measuring Equipment (DME)
which furnishes distance information while
enroute or on approach. The DME
operates in the UHF radio spectrum and is
assigned Channel 109. There is a
published VOR instrument approach to
Runway 35 utilizing the Iowa City
VORTAC.
The Iowa City VORTAC is also utilized for
a published non-precision Area Navigation
(RNAVl Approach to Runway 24. An
RNA V approach uses on-board computers
to set up waypoints at any location within
the reception range of the VORT AC. The
waypoints are defined in terms of
latitude/longitude coordinates.
Another navigational aid providing guidance
to the Iowa City Municipal Airport is the
Hawkeye NDB (nondirectional radio
beacon) which is located on the airport.
This radio beacon transmits non directional
signals whereby the pilot of an aircraft
properly equipped can determine his
bearing and 'home' on the station. The
radio beacon transmits a continuous three-
letter identification in morse code. For the
Hawkeye NDB, this code is the three letter
identifier UOc. There is a published
instrument approach to Runway 30 and a
published instrument approach to the
airport itself utilizing the Hawkeye NDB.
Terminal Area Navigation and landing Aids:
Iowa City Municipal Airport has a number
of navigation aids on the airfield that assist
in landing and take-off operations. Runway
17-35 is equipped with visual approach
slope indicators (VASI). VASI is a system of
lights located near the runway end which
provides visual descent guidance
information during an approach to the
runway in relatively good weather
conditions. These lights are visible from 3
to 5 miles during the day and up to 20
miles or more at night. The visual glide
path of the VASI provides safe obstruction
clearance within plus or minus 10 degrees
of the extended runway centerline and to 4
nautical miles from the runway threshold.
Precision approach path indicators (PAPI)
are installed on Runway 6-24. PAPI uses
lights which are similar to VASI but are
installed in a single row of either two or
four light units. These systems have an
effective visual range of about 5 miles
during the day and up to 20 miles at night.
Airport lighting
A variety of lighting aids are available at the
Iowa City Municipal Airport to facilitate
identification, approach, landing, and
taxiing operations at night and in adverse
weather conditions.
1-10
.3g7
\
~~ - .".-.-
.. .. ..----..~- .......~ ~-------.-..---- ,-
-....... ,. "',. ~ ~-- - .. -... ~------.--
':, :., '~I" ::.:..i;.1 ',,:~ ~,')", ;,..;.,.,: ,.', ~ " .,':\ ,::L' ,\
. . t .' ,-at 't' I . "II' ' ' ,,' ' ,,' , " ',..
~,.':'.,,:,~ . :;,,1-',1', ' , ,'j . '~. ,"','," \ "",,\ ,:',~ ".'
" . 1 ~ . . J -' '., \ . ,. :". , . .'
J, ~,'" J~,.. "f'~'" ,!",,":.\C, .. ", .1,'" ". :~)
:,
The location and presence of an airport at
night is universally indicated by an airport
beacon. At Iowa City Municipal Airport, a
rotating airport beacon is located on the
east side of the terminal building. It is
equipped with an optical system that
projects two beams of light, one green and
one white, to identify a lighted land airport.
Runway end identifier lights (REll) are
provided on Runway 35. These lights
provide additional delineation of the
runway threshold. They consist of a pair of
synchronized flashing lights, each located
laterally on either side of the runway
threshold. All runways are equipped with
runway threshold lights. These lights mark
the ends of the runway and emit a red light
toward the runway to indicate the end of
the runway to a departing aircraft and emit
a green light outward from the runway end
to indicate the threshold to landing aircraft.
All runways are equipped with Medium
Intensity Runway lights (MIRl).
LANDSIDE FACILITIES
In addition to the airfield facilities just
described, general aviation landside
facilities are essential to the daily operation
of Iowa City Municipal Airport. These
facilities include the airport terminal,
hangars, aircraft parking aprons, fuel
storage, and automobile parking. landside
facilities for the Iowa City Municipal Airport
are located along the east side of the
airport and are depicted in Exhibit 1 E.
Airport Terminal
General aviation terminal facilities are
provided by the local fixed base operator
(FIlO) and are located in the terminal
building. Iowa City Flying Service provides
a full range of aviation services at the Iowa
City Municipal Airport. Approximately
5,400 square feet is set aside for
administrative and general aviation terminal
area facilities, which include a pilot's
lounge, pilot services, and avionics shop.
Other services offered by the FBO are
aircraft storage, fuel service, major and
minor general aviation aircraft maintenance,
chartering, night instruction, aircraft rental
and sales, cargo handling, and air
ambulance. Iowa City Flying Service
operates dawn to dusk, seven days a week.
Hangars
Both conventional and T-hangar facilities
are available at Iowa City Municipal
Airport. There are a total of 30 T-hangars,
three 1 O-unit buildings, which are leased by
the FBO. The Airport Manager's office and
maintenance facilities are located in the
space at the end of the two conventional
hangars on the south side of the terminal
area. In addition, there is an 8,250 square
foot building which is used by the FBO for
aircraft maintenance and an 8,000 square
foot conventional hangar which is used for
aircraft storage. Both of these buildings are
also leased by the FBO. Two other
conventional hangars are also located in the
terminal area for the storage of corporate
aircraft. One is a 5,600 square foot
building with three aircraft positions; the
other is a 7,610 square foot building with
four aircraft positions.
Aircraft Parking Apron
Aircraft parking facilities are located west of
the terminal building. The transient tie-
down apron located on the west side of the
taxiway measures approximately 5,500
square yards and has 16 paved tie-downs.
In addition to this transient parking apron,
there is a smaller apron on the east side of
1-11
-
,
,-.
,
, '
"11
, I
..;.;,
, I
II
1'<';1
i I
;..~l
~
I, I
, '
""."
L
'._~
,-'
-'
...
. ,
381 -'
...
, i
! i
'i
I j
I
"~
, ,
ij
n
!~~
l q
.,
~ i~
i I~
I
".
II
Il
n
,,of
\ :~'~
, I
'....i
'.'1
"-
''')
''''
i'^l
, "
, I
~"
!
'J
..,
,
i
'~
i '~
I
,
'...
I
I
.....
\: '. :'0-; .:,:ZJ ", l7"/:' ,,': ;::, ,: ,:: " ': ,,': ;':, :..'; ",,',
~,,:, [ ''',,' I;, i',:' [' , .~, : ':.. ","'. '.: ~
" -1-:""""-"\"'"' ./,. ",'
. - ..- I ' '. .' :
r-,
I
,
~
""1 ~
w
! ~
, ,
~
;-\
Conventional
Hangar
Terminal
Building
Wind /JJ
Cone Y
Underground
Fuel
Tanks
Maintenance
Hangar
Aircraft
Parking
Apron
:D
<'
ro
""
CIl
0:
ro
o
""
<'
ro
Airport Access
Drive
Airport
Beacon
T Lighted
Wind Tee
Conventional
Hangar
'"
I
GCALI!INFEET
T "1'"
_t
I I
--~~--
.... ;\<<'~
Th
Exhihil IE '\\
'~,
LANDSIDE FACILITIES "
317
i
-- ~ -- .......'-
. .. .-----.........,--.....v ~ -y - - '-r- -_.,.~ ... ...."T - ... .
'-;' "f~" ,~,;;i.' ,"'\t'~/' :,~-..;.' , '" .',.', ': "
- ':'.- ""'. '; "",' ',',.', ,', ''-'t~ '" ",,'.' 'c :',' , , ,':.
.: .,-:,':.-~. """:~I;}':'" ;,.;.., '. !~;\ ' . '-,',' ,'" '.....: " '. ',:<
the taxiway adjoining the terminal building
measuring approximately 1,600 square
yards which is also used for aircraft parking.
Additionally, there are approximately 20
grass tie-downs located adjacent to the
paved apron.
Fuel Storage
Fuel storage is owned by the Iowa City
Flying Service. The fueling facilities are
located to the north of the terminal
building. Three underground tanks provide
storage of aviation fuel: one 8,000 gallon
100ll Avgas tank and two jet A tanks (one
5,000 gallon tank and one 4,000 gallon
tank). In addition, the FBO has two
gasoline refueling trucks, one 560 gallon
Avgas truck, and one 560 gallon jet A truck.
\
Also, Hansen-Lind-Meyer, an Iowa City
corporation which hangars their corporate
aircraft at Iowa City Municipal Airport in
one of the corporate hangars, has their own
10,000 gallon underground jet A tank. This
tank is located between the two corporate
hangars.
Automobile Parking
Public automobile parking lots are located
north and east of the terminal building.
These parking lots have the capacity to
accommodate approximately 45
automobiles. Additional parking spaces are
located southeast of the terminal building
near the corporate hangar area. Access to
the airport and the parking lot is from the
airport entrance drive which connects to
Riverside Drive on the east side of the
airport.
_.~._~~.~. ~.--- I.Illl.
._'~*-1lI11l1
SUPPORT FACILITIES
In addition to the airside and landside
facilities, there are several other facilities
which provide support to the operation of
the airport. These include aircraft rescue
and firefighting (ARFF) services and utilities.
Aircraft Rescue and
Firefighting Services
ARFF services for the airport are provided
by the Iowa City Fire Department. The
closest fire station is located at 301 Emerald
Street, which is located approximately 2.5
miles (by road) northwest of the airport.
This facility has one 750 gallon pumper
with 30 gallons of AFFF foam to provide
ARFF services to the airport. This station is
supported by other Iowa City Fire Stations
which use standard fire fighting equipment.
In addition, mutual aid services are
provided throughout Johnson County.
Utilities
The availability and capacity of utilities
serving the airport are important factors in
determining the development potential of
the airport property, as well as the land
immediately adjacent to the facility. Of
primary concern in the inventory
investigation is the availability of water,
sewer, electricity, and gas sources. Public
water and sanitary sewer service is provided
to the airport by the City of Iowa City.
Electric and natural gas service is provided
to the airport by Iowa-Illinois Gas and
Electric.
1-12
387
lIInftIU!!t u-
~~'J~~
,~
,
\,.:
r"',
: ,
",{
n
rl
V-l
,I I
11
t'!
'I
"./
'I
"I
Ii
J
..,.,.:
I'
.J
I
..)
\
fIJl - - ....-.---
,...
,
, ,
....,
,
, i
'i
I
...
Ii
, i
't
~
I
'I
I
i ,"',
jU
,
,
I f.~
~ 1';
ili
~
~ I,~
/0 ill
ili
~ 0..:
1'1
lil
1'1,\
\.J
u
I~;.
,J
'~1
, .
Ii
'~I
'"I
I
'""
h.~
\
,
....
,\
, ,
, ,
,
.-
!'
-
~
i
...;
. ..~..-~---."...-~-,...... - - .-,. -- ,-
9 ...,.-..........
I
;. " .,';..c.. , ',' '. , .
.' ;"0- 0', .':~l ""1'""1" " [t' , ,: ,,",i,', ,,'
;_;'1,:':'[ ," ~,~i~",' ,'r> ',' '::4': """:,".,", ;',."",' ...'.(
. ,',. ,'- '~'I'<T"-"':"'.' ,. ,'-' ." ,
.' "., . '-,;-::" \' '. .,'
SOCIOECONOMIC PROFILE
A variety of historical and forecast
socioeconomic information related to the
Iowa City/Johnson County area has been
collected for use in various elements of the
master plan. This combined information is
essential to determining air transportation
service level requirements, as well as
forecasting the number of based aircraft
and operations at Iowa City Municipal
Airport. These forecasts are normally keyed
to the economic strength of the region and
its ability to sustain a strong economic base
over an extended period of time. This type
of data provides valuable insights into the
trends and character of the community.
In addition to socioeconomic characteristics,
other characteristics of the region are
important in assessing the development
potential of the airport. Characteristics,
such as the existing transportation network
of the region and off-airport land use, were
also collected for use in the master
planning process.
POPULATION
Iowa City, the county seat of Johnson
County, and home to the University of
Iowa, had a reported 1990 population of
59,738. According to the 1990 U.s.
Census, the Johnson County area is one of
the fastest growing areas in the State, with
a reported population of 96,119. For both
of these jurisdictions, there has been a
steady increase in population over the past
20 years and this growth is projected to
continue through the planning period.
Table 10 shows historical and projected
population figures for Iowa City and
Johnson County and compares historical
population growth to the state of Iowa,
which has ultimately lost population. Since
1980, Iowa City's population has grown
18.27 percent while Johnson County's
population has risen 16.1 percent.
TABLE 10
Popul.tion Trends
STATE OF
IOWA CITY JOHNSON COUNTY IOWA
>N"ri~tGdent "Student,.,.", J o~lI NOI1,SllJd,,~t Student' ,'.', iTo~lI <Total"..,
>Npulation/' Populat1"~ POplJlatio~ PoplJl~U6n '" " Popul~lIon .popiJlailon POpulation
HISTORICAL
1970 N/A N/A 46,650 N/A N/A 72,127 2,630,760
1960 N/A N/A 50,506 N/A N/A 62,600 2,913,190
1990 N/A N/A 59,736 N/A N/A 96,119 2,776,755
PROJECTED
1995 41,600 19,600 61,400 77,600 21,300 96,900 NJA
2000 44,900 21,000 65,900 62,400 22,600 105,000 2,965,000
2005 46,liOO 20,400 69,000 67,600 22,000 109,600 N/A
2010 52,500 20,400 72,900 93,000 22,000 115,000 N/A
Source: Iowa Department 01 Economic Development; City of Iowa City Planning Depaltment.
-,~ ,~ - ~ ~._~
'1-13
387
.11II_
lIilWiIIW'lIlIl _y!
&rIy...... l.UI1III'_______~~__
..........-..--
,
~- -
v-'~
.. .. .~.- ...... ~-- -.....-,---.,..... - ~ . - r-
-. ,.....
.
.
".', """!'",' ',,'-': '..'~.'.. ,&}".',:\.. '.", :":":'::, ::::'
, ' '" ,:!I". '. " , "',' """"
..:,,<hl-);"J";,', ",l/:":';"'I".'.' ':' ,"'" ,:-" ....
,'I,.,~ "1/,' .
ECONOMY
2.6 percent per year from 1981 through
1987. The largest gains in employment
have occurred in government, retail/
wholesale, and the service industry, while
manufacturing, construction, and
transportation/utilities sectors have shown
smaller gains. The largest employment
sector in the Iowa City/Johnson County area
is state government which includes the
19,000 persons employed by the University
of Iowa, the area's largest employer. The
service industry and the retail trade industry
are the second and third largest
employment sectors in the Iowa
City/Johnson County area, respectively.
Statistics shown in Table 1 E indicate the
distribution of the civilian labor force for
1980, 1986, and 1992.
,
"
~
,i
Socioeconomic variables which influence
the economy of a region, such as
employment levels and per capita income,
typically follow the trend established by
population growth or decline in a region.
That is, as population increases, so do
employment levels. Similarly, as population
decreases, so do employment levels.
Employment
Iowa City is noted for having a highly
productive and well educated labor force.
Total employment in the Iowa City/Johnson
County area has increased approximately
TAlllE1E
CMI~n l.boe rot'"
low. CilylJo/lnson County
I'lace 0/ Wotlc Employment Data 1,2
Qn Ihous.1nds)
ilillR4~~lrJ. 00'[..' i\W"%~.W'\\1
~..~W~%l' '~W$1J .~ .' .-. " '41~ .
~:>>.*.~.\,-.,._..,.. ,.._,::>>~ \&W%l~,th,'1 W
TObI Employmenl. NonoS,lcultural 43.0 49.4 57.3
Manuf,cturlnS 3.3 3.7 4.7
Durable Good. 0.0 0.0 1.6
Nondurable Good. 2.S 3.0 3.2
Nonmanuracturlns 39.7 4S.6 Sl.0
Consuuctlon and Mining' 1.6 1.4 N/A
Transport,Uon.Communlcallon,Public Utilllles 1.0 1.1 1.5
Wholesale and Rel.lll Trade 7.9 9,4 11.0
Wholesale Trade 1.0 1.1 1.3
Rct,IITrade G,O 0.3 9.7
f1nancc,lnJurancc, & Rcal Estatc 1.1 1.4 1.4
SCIVlces G.3 7.7 10.4
Govcrnment 21.0 24.7 26,7
feder,1 1.4 I.S 1,7
SI,le 10,0 20.7 22.0
local 2,4 2.S 3.0
1. NonoS,lcultural w,se and sal.1)' (except domesllcilles) by pl"e of work.
2. PI"e of Residence Concept. method by which an Indh<ldual, unemployed or employed, " counted In the orca where he/she
works regardless of the arca where helshc lives.
PI"e of Work Concepl . method by which an employed Individual" counled In the or" where he/she WOlks "Sordl", 01
the arca where helshc lives.
3. Mlnlns employmenl " shown only In 101,1 nonosrlcultural and nonmanuf"lUflns 1oI,ls prlOllo 190.1.
4. lanual)' th,ouSh rebru,l)'.
NOn: Det,i1 m,y nol ,dd to 101,1 due 10 roundlns.
Source: low, Deportmenl of Employment Services, l,bo, M"ketlnfOlm,lIon Unilln coopmUon with the U,S. Oep"l",ent of
l,bor, IIl1re," of l,bor 5t,lIsllcs,
1.14
381
""
,-.
, '
,-,
c
,...,
,
, ,
.-.
....,
U
n
, ,
j,.;;
,."
Ii i
f~.j
~'"
l_l
':'"
: ,
:-..,
, ,
-
-
----
.d8II1fi.1t.
1tIIlL\1~1IIW 1 ________________~____.~__~__~_
- ---
...-;r-...... - f'F - . y-.----
.....
,-
I:
\ I
""I
""
I I
,
-
.. .. .--~.~- .....~ ...,------~---- -
---., r ...,... ' --'" , - ..... ~ - -.....--.--........ -..----
,\' , t~",' ";'~l '",' "t-:-; .'.. ';":",' , ,," , " : ,:: ,
.'.' .1 ...~..,. ,I., .,. ..,
::-''',.,~:~')4':" J~ ,~.' "," ','. ". :,:..:.',: ,":: '.:',:,
_" I' .>' . '..
Many nationally-known companies are
located in the Iowa City area. Among them
are Procter & Gamble Manufacturing
Company, Oral B laboratories, Moore
Business Forms, American College Testing
TABLE 1F
MajorEm~~
klwa City Area
(ACT), H.P. Smith Paper Company,
National Computer Systems, H,J. Heinz
Company, and Rockwell International.
Table 1 F depicts major employers in the
Iowa City area.
'>>:<<,"'!!I-.>>",..".:;:..-...,.;,.,',x,., '.'. .:;::,;;..'.\';.:'\"-.........-..''':,;;'...''''...'''.-.......'','}I.....,....,....,>><--'-,.""'.,,,.,..,""'-' ...,....;:y,',',\...,,~"'.,:.,...,.:.-...,,'-..:,-.;.:,",'I....:~"......,..;::.....,,~...-,.......,..'..:,,;."'.>>, -::<,' ....."'.:.,-',"..,;"'l:,.:~~i.,I.........'''-'>>>>:}I.i .,..-...-....
~.~~~,:,;<~ 'J;:";'O:;'Nii-~:';,;. M ~,~.:.!~{{.~"<<~"~~:'t.-4#%:; i:i:~~O.;;;~:i:t:~~'>>:;;:;~:,<~,.,f::Z::t~;,~,:~~t::::::}:'l< A.<< ttm-:>>>>:til&.~.r<<:=tit'"~.: :I:':,;rx",,:~-:'i:~~,=,"~:";' ',"'..w~.;:::', c<.~~~
'Na ' ,L..@" '<,"&><'~ ,,....1M,,\..,,..,' ,"'.."..,1""'1,&) i (oau""Sc~;lce".. ....:'~",<il%'*""'ll1,', "''''1':1m '10 '....', , '"
%;~.,:,:_._.,:.".:r4~%..-_.}~%@:.:\f~%<";<x0Y:.wBfum~~'\&I:h: :~R.:,:.,.:.,,:.:.~:l(.;.,:.:.v,..,,:...-.:.~:~.-:.@W0h4~.':m< ::,dm;rw:.:",.p'".,.;~.,,;,,~1IW~
University of 10waIU of I Hospitals and Clinics
United Technologies Automotive
American College Testing
Procter & Gamble Mfg. Co.
National Computer Systems
Oral B laboratories
Moore Business Forms
Pioneer TeleTechnologles
Hansen Und Meyer
H.P. Smith Paper Co.
Education and Health Care
Automotive Padded Products
Educational Programs!SelVlces
Health and Beauty Care
Computer SelVlces
Brushes
Business Forms
Telecommunications
Architectural SelVlces
Release Paper and Film
19,000
1,020
810
700
620
400
277
250
184
132
I
Source: Iowa Department or Economic Development
Note: Excludes local school districts, city and county governments.
Unemployment in the Iowa City area is
consistently low, averaging 1.6 percent in
1990. Iowa City usually has one of the
lowest unemployment rates in the state and
often one of the lowest rates for
metropolitan areas in the United States.
The low unemployment rate is consistent
with the highly educated and skilled
workforce. That is, if employment is not
available locally, these people can and do
compete successfully for jobs elsewhere.
Table 1G compares the Iowa City/Johnson
County unemployment rate with the state
unemployment rate for the years 1980 to
1991.
'I .~ . ~-~ ..~~-,.
TABLE lG
Uncmploymcrt D.L1
'Iowa aynohnson Courty
Iowa C~I
Johnson County
Year Unemployment Rate
1960 3.5%
1961 4.7%
1962 4.2%
1963 3.5%
1964 2.4%
1965 3.1%
1966 2,6%
1967 2.0%
1966 1.6%
1969 1.5%
1990 1.6%
1991 1.6%
St.1te of Iowa
Unemployment
Rate
5.7%
6.9%
6.5%
6.1%
7.0%
7.9%
7.01b
5.5%
4.5%
4.3%
4.2%
4.6%
Source: Iowa's Counlles: Selected Populallon
Trends, Vital Stallstlcs, and Socioeconomic
D.lt.1; Iowa Der.1Ilment of Employment
SClvlces
1-15
387
.__.._ ~____U_J'~I ~ .lAIlJII"
d._
JI#MUM
~..-- fill - ".......----
- .. ...---~......,,- ..... II"" .,...... - -
': ",:' .~'" . '~I '.'. 't':"',: "S'''' ::: : "', ,: . ',: ',".
.~,~'::L ': "I'~ ,:: ' '.; i ',.' " :. ..-: "',.;,,',
.,..\...,~, "\~'''. .~_ ,lll'lliP_'l \ '.' ...,....,
' . . ' "e,. ~ .' '. ,~
;
Income
Table 1H compares the 1970, 1980, and
1990 per capita income in Johnson County
to the state and national averages for the
same years. As shown in this table,
Johnson County per capita income was
historically higher than both the state and
national average. In 1990, Johnson County
ranked 15th out of 99 counties in the state.
TABLE 1H
Per Captllnoome
JoIwon Cotnty
Average Per Capita Income
1970 1960 1990
Johnson County $3,007 $7,627 $12,492
Stale of Iowa $2,694 $7,136 $11,200
Un~ed Stales NJA $7,296 $12,313
Source: Iowa Department of Economic Rerearch;
CACI's Sourcebook of County
Demographics; U.S. Census Bureau
TRANSPORTATION
\
The transportation system in Johnson
County is relatively well developed.
Several state and U.S. highways, as well as
local roads, connect rural areas to Iowa
City. In addition, two major expressways
cross through Johnson County. Interstate
80, a major east-west transportation artery
for the entire country, fringes the northern
edge of Iowa City. Interstate 380,
connecting to U.S. Highway 218, traverses
Johnson County on the west side of Iowa
City. 1-380 currently originates near Iowa
City and extends northward through Cedar
Rapids to Waterloo. Ultimately, this north-
south roadway corridor is anticipated to be
a segment of an expressway system
extending from Minneapolis/St. Paul to New
Orleans when completely extended.
..
.. . "-..._- -_._~
- ._--
locally, U.S. 6 and Highway 218 provide
direct routes to neighboring communities.
The area offers a network of three public
transportation systems: Iowa City Transit,
Coralville Transit, and the University of
Iowa's free intra-campus bus service,
Cambus. In addition, Greyhound-Trailways
provides daily bus service to many parts of
the nation. A number of motor freight
carriers and the Iowa Railway and Crandic
line freight trains provide ground cargo
services to the Iowa City area.
OFF-AIRPORT LAND USE
The existing land use pattern in the vicinity
of the Iowa City Municipal Airport is
reflective of a growing urban community.
To the north and northwest of the airport
are single-family residential subdivisions
with permitted urban densities of five to
eight dwelling units per acre. Commercial
and industrial uses pre-dominantly line the
Iowa River and Riverside Drive, although a
mobile home park lies to the southeast of
the airport along the river. Agricultural uses
lie to the south and southwest of the airport
in the unincorporated county.
The Future Land Use Plan for this area, as
contained in the Iowa City Comprehensive
Plan, anticipates future industrial growth
adjacent to the airport on the north and
northwest, lying south of State Highway 1
with continued residential growth north of
the highway.
Exhibit 1 F depicts existing land use within
the vicinity of Iowa City Municipal Airport.
As shown in this exhibit, existing residential
and commercial development adjoins the
Iowa City Municipal Airport in all directions
except to the southwest. Encroachment of
urban development around the existing
airport has made it increasingly difficult for
1-16
387
_ .L ...1'l.1lfftltl1l!1f~:rtu
..IIJft-III'1WDML__________
,......
......,
, ,
....
;1
,~'1
~
,
"-'
~-,
,.1
I,
,
.....
, ,
r
'I.,J
, ,
,
, ,
,~
...
i
-'
,~
-..,
~ ~ -- ".-.-
".
,1
II
i I
'l~
I.j
I,"
"
\ Ll
I:;
r~
j)
t~
\,
t ~\
I
I (
.. "~"'-~--""-r-
':';:':;:~" ,:':'.'1:,'1, <:'~/:": :";tti " :::'" '.'" ,;. ",,\
;'\':~:~,~~'J:~ J'~L~..,::~;I~i~:\'::J.,',' :\:, ::'H, .', ,'" ",: ,~~": ;;' '<:..- _.';' \/f'
"'" .'.... ,~...'~..._~ ....:'\II~ " 'I ,', ,- " .,,'
_' i ' ,'.', ',,\ :,"
f~
r~
I
13
I
,~
',~
10
"
( - - - Airport Property Line
" F~;:3i CommerciaVlndustrial
1
Il
~
'-
"
,,\
,,,
"
.,'V(
".
Public/Institutional
Residential (All Types)
.L......J 0\;-"1
2000
I
flCALE I~j FE E T
J
...-.. -
:":':'1 ,,,' V\_
1\ I\.
387
". f-" '. "iliJ....'" 't-' " ,.... ," " ," . ", , '
.', ": ,:: ',,:, ,."'.:", ',r' ',8' " ..' ", " ':",:....
::'.:.\.,:~.....~' ; :\~.',;A: '.',~,.' ~~.: :': ,:~:" .," 1,'_
~
,...,
,
i.
r,
.-'
,
, ,
I
c-,
, ,
I.:
r,
L:
I:
I
~ I
c.: I
01
dl
rl
L..i
\ r",
I
~_:
r"
I'
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
Lr
.....
L.
\
i
,
L.:
r
,..J
I
I'
, ,
...
;1
387 .J
I
I
I
I
i
,
,
i
I
,
,
1
;
I
I,
'l
I
,__J
-,
, \
;,1
\,1'1
:.l
/::'"
, ,
, i
I""
1,01
i I
\';<
>,
,
J
,-'
I
\
-.
'1
'""
:1,
,
-
- ,
, '
-
-...;
-
, \
"
, ,
-
-- .. .-~-.---~
"'''~-:'''l ':",',,.- " ,..;; "8" ," :" .- ,',:', :,,",
",' ,. ,..~, , )1 '. ;'., \ "
.,": :' tTI"",!.; ;:,' " ,HI, "'j ,:~,'." : " ,:<' ::~',
.:-, "",J~J'i. ' '.~'J": ..~ ,.' _ I " :. ',', ;, " l ;'
1'41
I,
r~
, '.~
the Iowa City Municipal Airport to meet the
continued demand for adequate general
aviation airport facilities. Additionally, the
growth of urban development around the
airport has raised concerns of incompati.
bility with airport operations due to noise
impacts and the safety of airport operations
due to obstructions to navigable airspace.
~
Il
f'~
I,
''1
\ ,
'f
AIRPORT USERS SURVEY
-.
I
.1
In order to assess the future needs and
direction for public airport facilities in the
Iowa City/Johnson County area, an airport
users survey was conducted. The survey
was mailed to 93 registered aircraft owners
in Johnson and Iowa Counties and 88
major employers in the Iowa City/Johnson
County area. Of the 181 total surveys
mailed, 90 were returned for a 50 percent
response rate. Of the 90 returned
responses, 46 were received from the 93
aircraft owners surveyed (a response rate of
49.5 percent) and 44 were received from
the 88 employers surveyed (a response rate
of 50 percent). Therefore, each segment of
the surveyed users was well represented in
the analysis of the survey results.
Of the 90 survey responses received, 64
owned one or more aircraft either for
personal or business use. Of those, 37
owners or businesses based their aircraft at
Iowa City Municipal Airport. The remaining
27 based their aircraft at other airports,
including area airports such as Cedar
Rapids, Green Castle, Amana, Muscatine,
and Picayune Field. Of these 64 responses,
68.8 percent owned single.engine aircraft,
14.1 percent owned twin.engine aircraft,
9.3 percent owned turboprop aircraft, 4.7
percent owned jet aircraft, and 3.1 percent
owned rotorcraft aircraft.
- -'.---.--
L .-..----- --. ..
The remaining 26 survey responses were
from Iowa City/Johnson County businesses
who did not own aircraft, but either rent or
charter aircraft themselves or have clients
who utilize aircraft in their business
dealings. Aircraft types so utilized were:
single.engine aircraft, 8.5%; twin-engine
aircraft, 38.8%; turboprop aircraft, 14.4%;
jet aircraft, 36.8%; and, rotorcraft, 1.5%.
These figures attest to the growing use of
turbine-powered aircraft by the general
aviation business community. As shown in
these survey results, turbine-powered
aircraft comprise 51.2 percent of aircraft
utilized by Iowa CitY/Johnson County area
businesses who either charter aircraft
themselves or have clients who utilize
aircraft Over 36 percent of the businesses
responding use business jet aircraft in some
capacity in their operations.
Further, 62.2% of all survey respondents
indicated that they currently use the Iowa
City Municipal Airport to transport
employees, customers, parts and/or
products for their business. This includes
the use of the airport by the University of
Iowa for transporting patients, medical
supplies and donor organs, and prospective
student athletes.
The majority of responses (94.5%) indicated
that the present runway lengths at Iowa
City Municipal Airport do not presently
restrict their use of the airport. However,
several responses did indicate that an
extension of the current runway system to
provide a 5,000 to 6,000 foot runway
would enable them to fly other corporate
aircraft into the Iowa City Municipal
Airport.
Two businesses currently basing aircraft at
Iowa City Municipal Airport indicated that
the available runway length was limiting
'1.17
3r1
~~ ~
"'DiII"~J i II' J
a..
- - ...----T~--........-r ,__ _ _ '0-..'
...... ,., - ",-.- -- - ~..., ,. .
.:. :'-:-""-t'7/" , " :U' , , '.;, ,', " ;~~l >: " :, ,,>~,:' A',',}' ,', ',~'
", . '.: :' ,', -', ,./..-, ' ... , .. , ,tl:, .~'., ~ ,"~', '\':.,'" \ :';:',
~ . , ~ ".'~.. J "1"~ I"""'...., ~ " " .r..". .. ,t
." I '1-' \ .
~
, ,
"
,
....
, '
,
I
....
1-18 J'
387 I
, ,
-
F"
I !.
r
I j
,...
!
I'
..
, I
I .
....
!
I I
r~
" ;
,
"/
I,
II .. ~
,.."
.j!
\H
I,;'
Ii
/,
Ii
\ It
I,
l~ jc
l: ~:; M
+M
:(0 :~~:
,<<:^,
9%
1\
\d
,I',
h"
1 .
,
,
..
, I
,
,
l.
1 \
\.0
.....
~":-,,.;t'~""" :'::';~I''''~/'''' i"J."" ""~ ,:-":;'..;,,,,':,,:/,
.~~r:, '_',' :; ': .': ~,~' ,.,',:='{ ;",1 . :1,:, "\.,\ \, '.~;: ': '::, \I;i,:'" ~':'..
...l..,~.",. t~ ";'~~r.~~' ~~\~,,17" ",tll,.\., I. '." 'I: "~:,,,J,')
Chapter Two
AVIATION DEMAND FORECASTS
3&7
'-,
iIW - ...,- -----
- .. ~...~-.......". ,..".~..._,- -.,- -. ~ T - .,.. ................ - ....-
'" '~"~:" ',;...',,' ,','," ,....'., ',' " :::: '..':..:" BJ" ';
. ','.. " ";'""')'''' ',' .'7) , ' .." .,
~:~ \,'''~ " 'J\:/, t, "I ~- .' , ' ;, ~,. , " ,
" . " .,"1 'I'" q . . '" . 'I \ ", - ,\-,. ,\,1
,',.,,} .,;.\,,,I..:.:!{,,,,,\.J.., .,W, " "'.. .".."..,';.... ,,',
" " .." '. .'1.""'" h ,,' -', \' t " "," r, " "'~'
r--
I,
,.-
.....,
t'~~
,.~~
I;
, /
i n
! , ,
oj
I
i H
i
, ;,~I
I
,
i
.
I ,'I
I
I ,
r'",
: ~l
I
\ i I
,',I
/. ~
I
I".
i ,
l,tt
i I
\,)
I'f
,
',....
,-'
~
, ,
I
'.I
,.... --- ...-.-
. ...................- .......~--~
.".' ,;,.;, ','it.: ""," ' :[,' ".", " ',,'''.' ,"" ',,'.' ,,:',
,..;:".,:',',"[J",::'j!!;,<;?:.., :':""','1' ,.'" , , i".':,:-,,'::>
. " . r,: . . \ _ , ,~,t " _ 1_., ,.. . ' ""
. " ,. ,i l"" I' ~ ,,,' . ".' "'j I '.' ,,'..
~
-
,-
Il
l~~l'
III
,-'"
, I
..1'
Chapter Two
AVIATION DEMAND FORECASTS
To establish the physical planning criteria
required for an airport, the present and
future aviation needs of the community
must be examined. Aviation demand
forecasts will serve as the basis for planning
the aviation lacilities required to meet the
general aviation needs of the Iowa City/
Johnson County area over the next twenty
years. The forecasts will be used to analyze
the future needs of the airfield and lands ide
facilities.
Forecasting any lype of future activity is as
much an art as it Is a science. Regardless
of the methodology used, assumptions must
be made about how activities might change
In the future. The objective of the forecast
process Is to develop estimates :of the
degree of these changes so that their
Impacts may be determined. Plans and
preparations may then be made to
accommodate them smoothly and cost-
effectively. The primary point to remember
about forecasts Is that they serve only as
guidelines for facility and financial planning.
Iowa Oty Aitport
Relocation Feasibility Study
Aviation activity is affected by many
external Influences, as well as by the
aircraft and facilities available. The
spectrum of change since the first powered
flight is almost beyond comprehension, as
aviation has become the most dynamic
form of transportation in the world.
Because it Is dynamic, changes and major
technological breakthroughs have resulted
in erratic growth patterns. More recentiy
regulatory and economic actions have
created very significant impacts upon
activity patterns at most airports.
The following sections will discuss the
historic trends in aviation both locally and
on a national level. These trends will be
examined along with outside influences that
may affect future trends to develop the
rationale for the selection of planning
forecasts.
FORECASTING APPROACH
The development of aviation demand
forecasts proceeds through both analytical
2-1
3g7
- III'!,.-.....- ~-- ..--. - -
......
- ..---- ~.~~-- -~ ...........--- ....--
, _ r -- - .,. -' ... .....,.. - ....... - ........~- - __ ..~
: ~,::'rl'<' ,'rt.! ~~,,},":lJ ,",:, ".' ~ ':,,: "~','<-:;;',
~~, I, ",':,~~.\f~ "'.~,,~~"'. I, ~\l ~ . :' ',7] \,::." >':" .. :~' :'~ ,::':,':,' . I,.' : -,;,:.,:.
,
\
and judgmental processes. Past trends in
activity are normally examined in order to
give an indication of what may be expected
in the future. However, the judgement of
the forecast analyst, based upon
professional experience, knowledge of the
aviation industry, and the local situation is
important in the final subjective
determination of the preferred forecast.
The assessment of historic trends requires
the collection of data on aviation indicators
at both the local and national level.
Among these are purely aviation-related
factors, such as historical operations and
based aircraft, as well as more general
socioeconomic indicators relating to
population, employment, and income. The
comparison of relationships between these
various indicators provides the initial step in
the development of realistic forecasts of
aviation demand. As part of the analytical
process, past trends in the various aviation
demand elements are extended into the
future by a variety of techniques, and with
a variety of assumptions. Trend lines
developed through the use of various
analytical procedures are called projections.
After preparing a number of such
projections, the analyst is able to identify a
range of growth within which the true trend
will probably lie.
The second phase of demand forecasting
requires experienced professional
Judgement. At this stage, a number of
intangible factors must be considered,
including potential changes in the business
climate, pertinent state-of-the-art advances
in aviation, the impact of new facilities to
induce growth, and the planning policies
and objectives of the airport owner.
Since so many factors can playa part in the
direction that future demand may take, it
must be remembered that a forecast is still
only a general prediction of what can be
--
---.<\. -
anticipated to occur. Therefore, long-range
planning must build in some flexibility to
respond to actual activity.
For instance, should a forecast prove
conservative, enough flexibility should be
provided in the plan so that facilities do not
become greatly overcrowded within the
planning period. On the other hand,
should a forecast prove to be overly
optimistic, facilities should not become an
economic burden to the airport because of
revenue shortfalls. Year-to-year variation
from the preferred forecast should be
expected and anticipated. long-term
commitments (such as revenue bonding)
should not be made on short-term upturns
in activity when historical activity generally
indicates these cycles are moderated by
subsequent declines in activity. Similarly,
short-term downturns should not be taken
to mean that activity will not eventually
rebound.
The general business environment can have
a marked impact on aviation activity. In
relatively small communities, for example,
the addition or elimination of a single
industry can substantially alter the level and
nature of aviation demand. Statistical
techniques used to develop forecasts
cannot take such deviations into account,
because it is usually impossible to predict
their occurrence from an analysis of past
trends.
NATIONAL AND
REGIONAL GENERAL
AVIATION TRENDS
General aviation activity in the United
States has not followed the national
economic growth trend in the past decade.
In most cases, those elements that make up
general aviation activity (aircraft, pilots,
2-2
A ~'''.l'Il!:IllI; ,
""NIll'lI1~!Im!/U LU ~ UJlJJl lIiltlU."
I
381'
r'
r-
~
"I I
1"'"
.-.:
-
, '
,
..,
/.'-
\ -.'
...:
, .
\'
r',
, '
"
~
~......-'. ,.,~ - .-.----
r~
I
J:ll
I
f~
I l
,
r~
I ~
,",
, ;'
I I
i I....,
,
.-
,
,
,I
.-.
!
,
",
(\ ,
,:
kl
1,-\
,
I~;
, \
, ;
,...,
\
'"
,)
/".
I
\<,1
I .
kt
1 \
I I
,,,,
I ,
,
~.
I
,
, ,...
i
..J
,
\
-'
- ..--'" --........,- ..- r .,.... ----. . --..,......... ,---
... ........ - ..- - ---..~- -..- ....
',. "0':"':""~~I: "";~"I"""'ilDl' .. ',: ",":, ,',,:,,:',,<:;'"
_1,',1' !l"'-:'.I~'~, .,r ',' "" .~'~'71" ';' " ,\'~ ,":,,"; ::'
! ~ ,., ,- ~ . . I "'""",.' ,". ,
., 't"l ''--',.~),I:' I." ' I.' ',' ',."
operations, and flying hours) have all been
relatively stagnant or have declined.
Historically, the economic cycle of the
general aviation industry closely paralleled
that of the national economy. Theories
abound as to why the decline in sales and
pilots has not responded to recent
economic growth. Some cite high aircraft
costs, which have continued to Increase
even during periods of relatively modest
inflation. Others cite high operating costs
and interest rates, the changes in the tax
law, most recently the imposition of the
'luxury' tax, and increased product liability
costs. In addition, the deregulation of the
U.s. commercial airline industry has also
affected general aviation by providing
Increased service and better connections by
air carriers and regional commuters. This
has likely reduced the desirability of using
private general aviation aircraft when
planning business, or pleasure trips. It
appears safe to say that the combination of
these factors is surely responsible, and the
negative impact of all of these factors has
outweighed the positive effects of a growing
economy.
On the positive side, use of general aviation
aircraft by business has increased. As a
result, the character of the general aviation
fleet continues to change. The more
expensive and sophisticated turbine-
powered component of the fixed-wing fleet
is expected to grow much faster than piston
aircraft between 1991 and 2003. Based
upon FAA forecasts, turbine-powered
aircraft are projected to increase at an
annual rate of approximately 2.6 percen~
while the number of piston engine aircraft
(both single and multi-engine) are to
increase at an annual rate of approximately
0.2 percent. Exhibit 2A graphically depicts
the changing make-up of the active general
aviation aircraft fleet forecast as forecast by
the Federal Aviation Administration.
PERCENT BY AIRCRAFT TYPE
, Single Engine Pislon
',' 77.8% '
"'~~~'
'>'!'e,'" " ", I
'_": ~"."l, . '..', .. .
",,:II''?>',.... ,4
" ,'Y""";\,:>-,,, I'
. :';'"':":"~"'~'i:~,(~~~'
, "',.,'ij",...,'
, . '.~.,,"~;,-;l...~
"a
' '1II!!!!:Ii
1991
Other 3.3%
Rotorcrafl
3.5%
Turbojet
2.0%
Turboprop
2.6%
Multi Engine Piston
10.7%
. ,'. Single Engine PiSloO
, ",,74,6%. '
~' '~~
. '..>~"~j
, :,' ' ';';:&;",\, ""141
I ,...:.i,>)""'"
, ~,)' .~,~, .<".
\>i:\,,;:<:\,:."';' '
',,' ,w;i.I':':~j/,.:iII~
, _I'
200~
Other 4.2%
Rotorcraft
4.8%
TurboJel
2.5%
Turboprop
3.6%
Multi Engine Piston
10.3%
Exhibit 2A
PERCENT BY AlRCRAFrTYPE
2-3
3t7
~--~- y-'-
... .. .----~..~- ........ .,....,---..-~-....... ,. ~ .. ... -... --....--- ----- --~-
'"",~w...: .:.'.:~(,' ','::r I ' ':fj';' " :.' :, ~...".::'~"
, ' . '. 1m ',' ,",' ,I ' , , " ...',
:',,:.. C ,,' :'~; ',' ",'.,: ", ~ '..~ ,'\~' . ',:. ., " ","
\
Using a forecast model which accounts for
many of the preceding factors, the FAA has
developed national projections for general
aviation which are published in FAA
Aviation Forecasts-Fiscal Years 1992-2003.
These forecasts project the active general
aviation fleet to grow slowly (averaging
approximately O.S percent annually) over
the 12-year planning period, with the
increase being driven primarily by greater
business use of general aviation. This
forecast results in an increase from 212,200
aircraft in 1991 to 225,500 in the year
2003. Active general aviation aircraft in the
four-state Central Region (Iowa, Missouri,
Kansas, and Nebraska) has fluctuated over
the past six years. FAA Aviation Forecasts
project active aircraft in the Central Region
to decrease from 11,800 in 1991 to 11,500
in 1994, and then increase to 12,200 by
the year 2003.
This projected growth parallels the overall
outlook for the economy which forecasts a
slow growth in 1992 and 1993, changing to
a more moderate growth rate during the
years 1993 through 2003. Assuming there
is no major disruption to the price and
availability of oil, inflation is projected to
remain moderate through the year 2003.
The projected growth of aviation is
consistent with these national short-term
and long-term economic growth forecasts.
DEFINITION OF
AIRPORT SERVICE
The initial step in determining aviation
demand is to define the geographical area
served by the airport. The primary factors
considered in this determination are the
location of surrounding airports, a
comparison of facilities, and the relative
convenience of the airports to the public.
Exhibit 28 depicts the general geographical
area and the location of other airports
included in the National Plan of Integrated
Airport Systems (NPIAS). The closest NPIAS
airports outside of Iowa City are located to
the north at Cedar Rapids, to the west at
Grinnell, to the south at Washington, to the
southeast at Muscatine, and to the east at
Tipton. All these airports affect the Iowa
City service area for small propellor-driven
aircraft. Thus, the propellor aircraft service
area of the Iowa City Municipal Airport is
comprised primarily of Johnson County.
Some portions of north Johnson County lie
within the Cedar Rapids service area. The
service area does extend into the southern
half of Iowa County because the next
closest airport west is at Grinnell.
In evaluating the business jet service area,
the airports at Tipton, Washington, and
Grinnell are no longer a factor. The closest
business jet, or transport category, airports
are at Cedar Rapids to the north, Newton
to the west, Ottumwa to the southwest,
Muscatine to the southeast, and Davenport
to the east. The result is an area that
expands primarily to the southwest and
slightly to the northeast.
GENERAL AVIATION ACTIVITY
General aviation is defined as that portion
of civil aviation which encompasses all
facets of aviation except commercial
operations. As discussed previously,
general aviation activity comprises the vast
majority of aircraft operations at Iowa City
Municipal Airport. To determine the types
of facilities that should be planned to
accommodate general aviation activity at
Iowa City Municipal Airport, certain
elements of this activity must be forecast.
These indicators of general aviation demand
include:
2-4
,..
.~
.
r"
"
/',
,~
'.-
,~ )
, ,
\/
r.
\-
-
--
3i?J
........_u._.__
~._-- .- -._- ~ ~- ~- .1.-
""\I'"~lIidIfIlfJI ~.. bll'N
*--
......
f~
F I
~
f!
')
,
tV
:J
r~
Ii
11
\ ~
n
Ii
II
1'.
I
II
I,d
, !
1-4
"i
,..,.
,.,
I
i
,-,
\
--)
I
'....,
,_d
,
,
I
.-J
, .
I
~...
, ,
, i
."
i I
,
'-
. ,
\
,~
T"""'-
.. ...~.~-.....r T-r-
...~ _....-,.~
-- "T-"'--
';:: ,',: ~7) , '>;!~f.; . '~:;"I ' ,: ;...,': '. ....; " ,~': ': ..-: ,::' '.'
,::>:":'r~F:'", ',\:,~;::" :~.::,::,' ;,:,":-l' " :::, :',' ,", ,~<
I
I
1 GRUNDY
DIN .J
I r-
_L_...j
Marshalltown I
~ I
JACK
IMRSll4ll I
----1-
I
30
"riplonL"\ _
I {corr
Davenport ~
_ L.,
Oskaloosa .
ARJDN I
1 IMIl4SIV1 1
r- --,--.---1----1- 218
Ouumwa
I MONROE A I JEFFERSON I
34 F.airfi~r
L _ _ _ _1_ ~AREl~ _ L _ _,_ M.:rieasant.
I APPANOOSE I 63 I VAN BUREN I, _ _ J ,
I 1 DAVIS I 1 lEE Bur~o.nl'
LEGEND
. Ulllily (small propellor.capable)
~ Transport (busIness Jet-capable)
lml Small Propellor.Alrcraft Service Area
1~1i""1 Business Jet Service Area
'.:<-: ,,~
,( :;~-
d,,>:
T' I
"
[
BCAU!INMllEB
r
;~~ )
W::J
,-,
Exhibit 28
GENERAL SERVICE AREAS
IOWA CITY MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
3t?
'fIIlI'""- ....-' --
- .. ..-----,,~- r-r ~ - - .---- .-- ,~
, . r - ... ~ T- ..
....,
~::,,:.,,'t'-::t,:,.'.,:m""'~;'I""':'t2I"":-:,,: ," " ';, ":"",,'
.;1,' .. 1"" - '. I , /." ",' I" r ,) '.:'" :. J ' " " '~. "
. J . 'If,: ',~ ': , .' ~ I I i _/', '. ." , 'r
',I""........'. \ '~"', " ,1 -, ':~~ 1 '" -,' .' .:: ' ' '. I "~'J;
r'"
r'"
. Based Aircraft REGISTERED AIRCRAFT FORECASTS
. Aircraft Fleet Mix
. Annual Aircraft Operations Historical records of aircraft ownership in ,...,
Johnson County were obtained from the
The number of based aircraft is one of the Census of u.s. Ovil Aircraft Table 2A
most basic indicators of general aviation presents the Johnson County aircraft
demand. By first developing a forecast of registrations since 1977 and compares them
based aircraft, the growth of the other with active aircraft in the FAA Central
indicators can be projected based upon this Region. The number of registered aircraft ,~
growth and other factors characteristic of in Johnson County has grown over the past
the area the airport serves. The number of fifteen years from 88 in 1977 to 104 in
aircraft based at the airport is somewhat 1991. Registered aircraft reached a high of .-
dependent upon the nature and magnitude 118 in 1984 and 1985. When viewing this
of aircraft ownership in the service area. number in terms of the market share of the
Therefore, the process of developing Central Region registered aircraft, Johnson
forecasts begins with a review of historical County has risen from 0.66 percent of the
aircraft registrations. Within the Iowa City Central Region market in 1977 to constitute
service area, this demand is centered 0.88 percent of the market in 1991.
primarily on Johnson County. ...
f:'"
,~
TABLE 2A
Registered Aircraft M
Johnson County, Iowa ,-
if
r'
, ,
\ ~
1977 0.66 f:.l
1978 N/A ! i
i
1979 N/A \- i
1980 0.72 r"" I
1981 N/A ;", I
1982 N/A
i
1983 0.84 I
1984 0.91
1985 0.90 !
1986 0.94
1987 0.82 ,
,.-.
1988 0.83
1989 0.B8 ,
1990 0.93 -, I
1991 0.88 I
I
Source: FAA's Aviation Forecasts - Fiscal Years 1992-2003; U.S. Census of Civil Aircraft. ~ I
,
I
.."
2-5
317 J",
~-- .",- - y--
.....
--
-.
'..
! t
,
, ,
:'""
'I
-.'
,
, -'
'-t
, ,
: I
I.""
).. ~
i
II',"
I.'
I i
",'
",
i
,...!
, ,
I
',.
!,
',j
I,
,
~,
, .
,.
, ,
, ,
"
, ,
,
, ,
....
.. .....-----.. ~-- ......- r' , -.... - '----.-..
".j' "j'"'' ..,.l,,,....:: ::. '. ":~' ," .".,'~' ",:, :~~_~.;"'I\
~'" ,<~ "'-"1 "","',
~./'.t, d, <', ;',r,. ~'.J",;,~I t ~_ ~,: '. :"r.:'<,:~:'.:','
.'," I' .'\\r~' "".. ,.,... -, ',' ,. "
. , " ,- , ""',, ' " , " \ \ .. , J ,. ' -'
In order to accurately forecast based aircraft
for the Iowa City Municipal Airport, the
demand within the local service area, or
the registered aircraft market, must first be
projected. A trend line projection and
statistical regression tests were analyzed in
an attempt to establish a significant
correlation upon which to project Johnson
County registered aircraft through the
planning period.
."
A trend line, or time series, forecast was
analyzed, based on historical data from
1977 to 1991. Historical data within this
time period provided a correlation
coefficient of 0.49. The correlation
coefficient (Pearson's 'r') measures
association between the changes in the
dependent variable (the number of
registered aircraft) and the independent
variable (the year). An 'r' value greater
than 0.90 indicates a reasonable
TABLE 2B
Statistical Regression Analyses
Registered Aircraft Projections
relationship between variables. Therefore,
the independent variable can be
considered a reliable basis upon which to
project the dependent variable. In this
case, the correlation coefficient (0.49) was
too low to be considered a dependable
variable for use in projecting registered
aircraft through the planning period.
Several statistical regression tests were also
examined comparing Johnson County
registered aircraft with local socioeconomic
factors such as population and employment
levels. Also factored into the analyses were
the number of active aircraft in the Central
Region. Again, in each test, the correlation
coefficient failed to provide a reasonable
relationship upon which to forecast
registered aircraft. Table 2B summarizes
the statistical regression tests which were
examined and identifies the correlation
coefficient which yielded from each test.
, ""';,I!l~e"qg
Ml1llii.fu,*~_
,'o~ 1a.t\IL': '
Year None 0.49
1977-1991
Year Central Region 0.52
1977-1991 Active Aircraft
Central Region Iowa City MSA 0.52
Active Aircraft Per Capita Income
Central Region Iowa City MSA 0.36
Active Aircraft Population
Central Region Iowa City MSA 0.12
Active Aircraft Employment
2.6
.3i7
... _ \ Wf'ffllJ'W<"J, ....1~ il.1I n
~ - ..-..--
....
)~': .':"u-';" /'tl""":,,,,:+,_ ' 't-". .:', " ',,"', '""",, ,'~;,,",
: '" , ,', I"'" , t',",. " I ' ,,' ,: "" " " " . I ',',
" (. ,',' " I \1 , ','" I, ': ,',
.' ,,'\ ,_,'" ':~,\'.. \~",' ,'1.,\,:"",:\,.,., ,', :', ":', ,
A market share analysis was also performed.
This is a popular and appropriate method
of projecting registered aircraft since good
regional statistics are available for
comparisons. Therefore, a projection of
Johnson County registered aircraft has been
developed using market share projections of
the FAA Central Region Active Aircraft.
Using the information contained in Table
2A, an average market share of 0.88
percent over the past eight years (1984-
1991) was derived. Projections for the
number of registered aircraft in Johnson
County were determined by applying this
TABLE 2C
Registered Aircraft Projections
Johnson County, Iowa
average percent to the forecast number of
active aircraft in the Central Region. Table
2C presents a forecast of registered aircraft
for Johnson County based upon a slowly
increasing share-of-the.market. A total of
104 registered aircraft in 1991 is projected
to increase to 119 by the end of the
planning period to account for 0.91 percent
of the active aircraft in the Central Region.
The resultant 0.91 percent market share
projected by the end of the planning period
is equal to the 1984 market share, the
beginning of the eight year period from
which the average market share was
derived.
\
1991
FORECAST
'1997
2002
2012
11,700
12,100
13,1001
104
109
119
.89
.90
.91
Note: 1. Year 2012 extrapolated by Coffman Associates.
Source: FAA's Aviation Forecasts - Fiscal Years 1992-2003; U.S. Census of Civil Aircraft.
BASED AIRCRAFT FORECASTS
The single most Important factor in the
development of aviation activity forecasts at
a general aviation airport is the number of
based aircraft. Having established
registered aircraft In Johnson County as the
primary market for based aircraft at Iowa
City Municipal Airport, a separate analysis
process can be undertaken to project based
aircraft forecasts through the planning
period. Presently, the number of based
aircraft at Iowa City Municipal Airport is 53.
Forecasts of based aircraft begin with an
examination of available historical data and
determination of past growth trends.
Historical information on based aircraft was
obtained from past FAA 5010 Forms. The
5010 Form is a master record used In an
effort to keep up,to-date information about
an airport. At most airports this form is the
2-7
3g1
r
,-
-
, ,
.-.
, '
, -
'"'
II
1-''"(
I
,:.,
t.:
'~f
, I
'-~.
,..-,
I,
..
, :
t_J
"
" I
.~
, ,
[._'
.~
. '
...
.~
- ",..-'-
.. ...-....~.. ~- - If" .,....------- -'---r-'---""" ....~. .. ... --...,.----.....--- ......... _"
":'~ " :0;'<':":~'" '.:,:~i::': :;:'1':' ":'0" " , ':', , ',:,' "'::'
~, . '." _.,' . "", \ ,. ':', ' ~ " ,,' , . ( ,", :. I ,
.(,' ,'" '....'t..!" .I~.", \'. " '",' , " . ..
. . ,,", ",-,." - ' 1""'\" .' .'
best means available of obtaining a reason-
able picture of the airport's past growth
trends. Historical data from this source was
sparse due to the lack of 5010 Forms from
FAA records. However, Table 2D depicts
TABLE 2D
Based Aircraft
Iowa Oty Municipal Airport
historical information on based aircraft at
Iowa City Municipal Airport as it was
available and compares it to the number of
registered aircraft in Johnson County.
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
19B8
1989
1990
1991
88
N/A
N/A
101
N/A
N/A
108
118
118
116
107
109
107
111
104
59
N/A
N/A
64
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
52
52
51
53
53
53
67.0
N/A
N/A
63.4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
44.8
48.6
46.8
49.5
47.7
51.0
Notes: 1. FAA three-letter designation for Iowa City Municipal Airport.
Source: FAA 5010 Forms, Airport Master Records; U.S. Census of Civil Aircraft.
As shown in this table, based aircraft as a
percent of the Johnson County registered
aircraft market was at its highest point in
1977 capturing 67 percent of the market.
Based aircraft as a percent of the county
market dropped to a low of 45 percent by
1986. Since that time, the based aircraft as
a percent of Johnson County registered
aircraft has risen back to 51 percent.
To assess the potential for based aircraft at
Iowa City Municipal Airport through the
planning period, the results of the local
users survey (as summarized in Chapter
One and Appendix N were examined. Of
the 90 survey responses received, 27 were
aircraft owners who based their aircraft at
other area airports including Cedar Rapids,
Green Castle, Amana, and Picayune Field.
The cumulative Information from those
survey responses indicate that if airport
facilities are enhanced (i.e., more hangar
space, installation of a precision approach),
the likelihood of utilizing Iowa City
2.8
3g7
-
.-;,.-.... ~ -- ....--.
"
- -... --- ~............,..-~-~ ..---tr ~-- .-.,. ~,.~ ... -.."........- .. .......-.. -............... ....
'~:"':";:'ffiI"""C":'.::!I::"'i:3ii ",Q:.-.":,. ",,<,',,'.,,;\
~: 'I. '." {, ~'., II~\""\I ': I \: ': ..j ,.' :,1 . . ~ ;.. .:,.'. .:', ; ,., '.
. .. , .', \ L, '.,'.. '~ ,_ ._ ,1 '. .
, ..', '.... _ ." _ ' rE.. , , "'. ',," "
.. .\, . . I' I_ ,- . .' " ,\ " .' ' .' '. .. ./'
\
Municipal Airport as a base is also
enhanced. A conservative estimate based
upon the survey responses would be to
assert that at least 12 aircraft, now at other
airports in the area, would potentially base
at Iowa City Municipal Airport at some time
through the planning period. Nine of these
aircraft are currently based at private
airports in the area. This potential is further
supported by the fact that there is no
guarantee that the private airports will
remain open to the public through the
planning period. Private airports face many
problems that affect their abilities to remain
in operation. Although the number of
landing areas in the United States increases
each year, the number open to the public
is decreasing. More and more privately-
owned airports are being closed to the
public each year for reasons such as
incompatible land use encroachment,
insurance costs, and liability considerations,
as well as a changeover in property
ownership. In 1970, there were 7,084
public-use airports in the United States. By
1980, public-use airports had decreased to
6,519. Between 1980 and 1990, this
number declined an alarming 921, or 14
percent, to 5,59B airports. Therefore, it
should not be assumed that the private
airports will remain open.
Together In evaluating those aircraft which
are currently based at other airports in the
area as potential based aircraft demand at
Iowa City Municipal Airport, a market share
analysis, was performed to identify potential
demand. This analysis was based upon
capturing an increasing percentage of those
aircraft which are registered in Johnson
County, some of which may be included in
the previous examination of survey
responses. Therefore, it should be noted
that the market share analysis as presented
herein considers this potential market
capture of 12 aircraft which were identified
as potential based aircraft through the
planning period.
Based upon the historical trend as shown in
Table 2D and the projection of Johnson
County registered aircraft as shown in Table
2C, based aircraft for Iowa City Municipal
Airport were projected using market share
analysis. A forecast envelope was
developed utilizing the market share
technique supplemented by the results of
the local user's survey. This envelope
provides a high and low range for based
aircraft at Iowa City Municipal Airport from
which a preferred forecast can be selected.
Utilizing this information, four scenarios of
based aircraft forecasts were developed and
are depicted in Table 2E and Exhibit 2B.
For comparison purposes, the based aircraft
forecast for Iowa City Municipal Airport, as
prepared by the Iowa Department of
Transportation and contained within the
1991 Iowa Aviation System Plan, is also
depicted on Exhibit 2B.
The most pessimistic scenario would be that
based aircraft, as a percent of the Johnson
County registered aircraft market, would
continue to fluctuate slightly, ultimately
declining through the planning period as
recent historical data has suggested. This
scenario, identified as Declining Market
Share, projects based aircraft at Iowa City
Municipal Airport would decline to 42
percent of the market share, a level which
is slightly lower than the 1986 level. This
projects based aircraft levels to remain
relatively flat through the planning period,
decreasing from 53 in 1991 to 50 by the
year 2012. This projection is not unlike the
historical trend at the Iowa City Municipal
Airport as depicted in Table 2D.
The second scenario assumes that the
market share has reached its lowest level
and will remain relatively static through the
2-9
387
-..... ..---.-."
-d. ----<l._._~" lJ~1.U~1 \lNIIN.II'IIW~ll.auJl!lBl\MI:'D!llnJ6tUHlltl
,
, ,
,~,
II
I...
I;..'
, ,
."
I
-
. ,
~.
i' .
~ ,
,'-'
\...0
,., I
','
>."
. ,
-
-
~"
\
fF -~ V'"'~
,>~
,
r..
i.
i
1 '~
,-
,)
''"''\
!d
i i
i
I
I ,.
I Lj
i WI
I
i "
!
i q
!)
I:
I'~'
h
II
II"
~ ....,
i I
,.,.
/"1
i
i I
',J
I ~
, i
\,..1
l' .~.
I
I'
p,/
I)
I ~
I
i
I "
i
i l'"
I
I I
!
~,~
I'
,
...
.. ...........-T~--"......-r-'~ - - --.r- --,.- --. ~......- ....
~, t:0' ":'"'' ,,,. .' ..,. ,..:.,' , . ::'Frl-'" :' " ',.. '" , ,:, .,......, ,,',
'~"" ,'~',','~... _...\'.:~,' ,',,:~ ,~. ""''' . .,,: ,::. .'. ,:.
., ',' , ,."" 'I ,r "..' , , , '. , ",'
.:.::,', ,;\'.:',:~>".,::_',~" .>....',',: ';,' ,'.,:', ....,: ", .,',:
planning period. The Static Market Share
projection was based upon maintaining a
constant 51 percent of the Johnson County
registered aircraft market. This results in a
slightly higher projection of 61 based
aircraft by the year 2012. However, like
the Declining Market Share scenario, this
projection also depicts a relatively flat level
of based aircraft through the planning
period and represents very little growth.
TABLE 2E
Based Aircraft Forecast Summary
Iowa Oty Municipal Airport
Johnson County
Registered Aircraft 104 104 109 119
Declining Market Share
Percent 50.9 48 46 42
Based Aircraft 53 50 50 50
Static Market Share
Percent 50.9 51 51 51
Based Aircraft 53 53 56 61
Increasing Market Share
Percent 50.9 55 58 64
Based Aircraft 53 57 63 76
Short-Term Increasing
Market Share
Percent 50.9 62 67 70
Based Aircraft 53 65 73 83
Note: Planning Forecast Is identified by BOLD typeface.
A more realistic projection would be that
based aircraft would capture an Increasing
share of the Johnson County registered
aircraft market. This scenario is supported
by the results of the survey which provided
an Indication that aircraft which are based
at other area airports would consider an
Iowa City base If airport improvements
were made. In this scenario, not only is it
assumed that those twelve aircraft would
shift their base airport to Iowa City
Municipal Airport at some time during the
planning period, but It Is also assumed that
Iowa City Municipal Airport would capture
approximately 67 percent of the newly
registered aircraft in the county. That is,
the registered aircraft market in Johnson
County is projected to increase by 16
aircraft through the planning period. Of
those 16, it Is projected under this
Increasing Market Share scenario that 11
aircraft will base at Iowa City Municipal
2-10
3g?
-.
,,'..--
J"'~'
llmllllMltt'fllWM
--'
-~
fIIl1 - ..,-.-----
.. .. ...---~.~-........ ,...-----.
, .. ....,---.....--,.-......
!.:::.,,::,0.....:.i:~("':::,q..::' :':t}' ''',': ,..... ".. ,::', ",' ':",:.',\
..-'" ,',J:. :' ,I~'j / l'(-~ .~j ,'t .",,",; ~. ,,'
'" .,' ,~~". >, 0',1 i ' ,', ' '
, "", ,.:.... \ it /.' ' ,.,' "~I
_ ' Ii' ,',', ,\ '" 1
~irpo~. These two elements together result should be recognized that the achievement r'
In an Increase of 23 based aircraft through of the forecast remains sensitive to events ' '
the planning period. In terms of market and occurrences which cannot be assured
share percentage, this scenario increases or controlled. Therefore, the actual results -
based aircraft to 64 percent, a level which achieved may vary from the preferred Ii
is slightly lower than the 1977 level of 67 forecast. As such, flexibility within the high ...,
percent. and low range forecasts should be planned. I
\ I
I
The final scenario is the most optimistic of I
/<i>l/ I
all projections and is based upon the BASED AIRCRAFT flEET MIX .' i
premise that based aircraft at other area ' I I
airports would transfer their base to Iowa The general aviation aircraft fleet mix S':;'1
City Municipal Airport early in the planning expected to use the airport must be known
period. This would be predicated upon the in order to properly size airport facilities. A
assumption that private area airports would total of 53 aircraft curren~y based at Iowa ~
close by the year 2002. This, then, would City Municipal Airport is comprised of 42
include the twelve based aircraft identified single.engine aircraft, 5 multi-engine 1'-, I
through the survey results together with aircraft, 5 turboprop aircraft, and one .~ ,
capturing 100 percent of the newly helicopter.
registered aircraft in Johnson County. This '.J
Short-Term Increasing Market Share The existing mix of based aircraft was ..: I
projection assumes that major growth in compared to existing and forecast U.S. fleet
based aircraft will occur within the first 10 trends and a projection was developed for ,-.,
years of the planning period and will level the airport's mix. The overall trend is .-,
off at 70 percent of the registered aircraft towa~d~ a higher percentage of larger, more I
market by the year 2002, a level which is sophisticated aircraft. The U.S. trend in "
equal to the 1977 level. This scenario aircraft mix, as presented in FAA's Aviation
I results in a projection of 80 based aircraft Forecasts - Fiscal Years 1992-2003,
\ I ,
I by the year 2012, an increase of 30 aircraft forecasts single.engine piston aircraft to .-
j through the planning period. remain almost constant over the FAA 12- ,-'
year forecast period, increasing from : \
I The Increasing Market Share projection of 165,073 in 1991 to 168,300 in 2003. The 1:-- I
I i
future based aircraft was selected as the number of multi-engine piston aircraft is I
planning forecast for the Airport Relocation forecast to increase slightly from 22 700 in i
Feasibility Study and is illustrated in Exhibit 1991 to 23,200 in 2003, an average'annual v
2C. This forecast represents a based increase of 0.2 percent. Turbine-powered I
aircraft annual growth rate of approximately aircraft is expected to increase from 10008
in 1991 to 13,700 in 2003, an an'nual ,
1.5 percent during the planning period and I
\ lies mid-range In the forecast envelope. growth rate of approximately 2.6 percent.
This mid-range forecast was selected as the
~Iannlng forecast because it represents a The airport user surveys have revealed that . "
I ased aircraft level that remains relatively several have plans to eventually acquire
conservative in the short.term, but turboprop and/or business jet aircraft if ,
addresses the potential recapture of the adequate facilities can be provided In Iowa - I
i
local market share over the long-term. City. Therefore, the based aircraft fleet mix I
forecasts depicted in Table 2F also take this I
I
While the planning forecast represents the into account. -. I
I
mid-range of the forecast envelope, it I
'.-
2-11
387
- ~ -..---
_. -_..~. -~-
~ -.. ~-
~...- -
II lM~IUoMl!lMr..
,....- ~ - . ,,-.----
AI !
lit
" .
~
-,
"
, j
,"
if
"
;;\
I ...
I'
I II
1
,
! I"'"
1
II
I i'i
'J
I ,,'
, ,
I (
i ~~
I'i
I "_J
I
I I'
I
I W
i
I
I I ~\
i I
! .,~
,
I,:
I,
...\
I'
\.~
. .. ~.~-.....r ,-.... - - .--y- -. ,.-
-... ...........--...
';'" "::'~;l",;',:;!t, " :i~I,' : -',~ :', ' ,: :,.':' " ,::':
::,.',:::..'\,f.;J':,.,'-, :1.,,';";":. '..'.~, " "~I,"~"ii ' 0" ,: ",,', ",' \ "::
120
20
......
n
I, l-
II u..
1: ~
0
~ 60
-
I ~\ -(
1\ 0
w
II ~
1-1 fXI
\ 40
I..~
J I'
,~
100
80
..
....
76
..
....
..
~~
~
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
~~
63 ~~
~
..........
...
-----
LEGEND
Johruon County Registered Nlerott
................ 1991 Iowa Avlaffon Syltem Plan
Based Nle/att Forecast
- - - DeeRnlng Mal1<et Share
I . ... . I -- sta"c Markot Sharo
. - - - - Inerea~ng Market Share
- - - - - - Short.Term Ine/ea~ng Mal1<et Shore
1984
1991 1997 2002 2007 2012
YEAR
Exhibit 2C
BASED AJRCRAFJ' FORECAST
387
-..;r--- ~ - ",..-'-
.. r ~.-~-- ""-r---
~:";',t1I~"<"".):!F ":'.':'l'tj":'" ':~,.';,~,,: . .', ,..,:'
: "" . " . "', .'" 'I ' " . " '. , ',",,'" ' , ,'"
'" .- \ "\ ::,1 ".. ',(, '," t., ' ". '
.' .'.\ '_1',\ ,,_~""_',~ (,," ,.', , .'
TABLE 2F
General Aviation Based Aircraft Fleet Mix
Iowa City Municipal Airport
T otal~:~~~~\\'e~t~';~~tl&~~~f.!~lts!~~"'~:.ufgrrm"ll
,.Ltt."""'",JUilg..,."",A.h<A" JillLlli.,iJl"",[,..,.&1&h.jiM,%
Year Based Aircraft Single
Actual
1991 53 42
FORECAST
1997
2002
2012
57
63
76
43
46
53
Multi
Turboprop
jet
Rotorcraft
5
5
o
1
5
6
8
6
7
9
2
3
4
1
1
2
Source: Historical data from FAA 5010 Forms, Airport Master Records.
AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS
\
Aircraft operations are not accurately
counted at Iowa City Municipal Airport
because of the lack of an air traffic control
tower. However, the Iowa Department of
Transportation has developed a reasonable
estimate of operational levels based upon
activity counts performed over a one.year
period. Therefore, operational data as
estimated by the Iowa Department of
Transportation in their publication
Automated Aircraft Activity Counting, 1987-
1988 was used as the basis for evaluating
current general aviation aircraft operations
and developing forecasts through the
planning period. Data contained within
this document estimated average annual
general aviation operations at Iowa City
Municipal Airport at 26,400 for Fall 1987
through the Summer of 1988. This total
does not include helicopter operations.
An estimate of 1991 operational levels was
then derived through an evaluation of
aviation fuel flowage on the airport
between 1987-88 and 1991. During the
one year counting period, approximately
208;500 gallons of fuel was pumped at the
airport. This included 136,600 gallons of
avgas (used by piston-driven aircraft) and
71,900 gallons of jetA (used by turboprops
and business jets). In 1991, a total of
206,100 gallons of aviation fuel was
pumped. This figure excludes 38,350
gallons sold to fuel University of Iowa
Hospital helicopters while the fuel system at
the hospital was out of service due to
construction. The use of avgas declined to
106,300 gallons while jet A consumption
increased to 99,800 gallons. Thus, it is
reasonable to derive from the fuel sales
data that operations by piston aircraft have
decreased while operations by turbine-
powered aircraft have increased since the
counting period.
The activity count also separated single-
engine from multi-engine and jet aircraft.
Single.engine aircraft comprised B4.4
percent, multi-engine 13.9 percent, and jets
1.7 percent. Aircraft using avgas are
comprised of the single.engine and that
portion of the multi-engine aircraft that are
piston.driven. Aircraft using Jet A are
comprised of the jet aircraft and that
portion of the multi.engine aircraft that are
turbine-powered. Splitting the multi-engine
operations between piston and turbine
aircraft, operations in 1987-88 were
estimated at 24,000 by piston aircraft and
2,400 by turbine aircraft. Fuel flowage
2.12
387
I'"
I
{14
!
I:
"4
\ I
....
I,
,
II
~~
"
- ,
I
I
I
\..1
,',
..
.:?
r
':
,,,.
\:"
'-'
'r
1...'
0...1
....'
I;'
"
.....,
\
-
* __ "....---~..---...---..-....-T....... ~ _ ....." ,....... _ _ . _~ _. ,._
- ""T
."
, ,
;j
n
;'f
...
"
! i
}.1
Ii
i!
, r"l,
f
i '~i-I
i
,
! I:,
i
i
i '1\
I tJ
! II
I,
t.,
l,~
. I
If'!
,.
,',
, ,
, !
, .
.',
If
, I
l~~
,.
" ,
I,)
I ~
\ !
-
"\
i ,
'.~
, \
, '
.',
j "
I
'j
',: "'f'~""" '~I':" ,....,,", "",-,:,,~ ';.'..',' "'...., ';'" ',,',
..::", .: .... ,: :,.r"~I"',' .:':~,,' ~:,;.,,: ";";':,. '. " -'.';,'\',~.' \ :'.. .':
.. ,'" , '. ' "", ,,' ' I, ,'., " , ",' "" '..
.".'.}".~~,',,, 'l~' ~~. ,,',1('''.'" , " ",". '. '.
...
I
: \,
...,'
i i
subsequently averaged 5.7 gallons per
piston aircraft operation and 30 gallons per
turbine operation. Applying these ratios to
the 1991 fuel flowage results in an estimate
of 18,650 piston operations and 3,350
turbine operations for a total of 22,000
annual general aviation operations. Table
2G depicts the estimate of 1991
comparisons in relation to the 1987-88
activity count.
t-'
TABLE 2G
Eltim;te 011991 General Albion Oper.&ns
Iowa ay Municipal Alrpolt
1" """'1',""',", ',"'1""'='''",""''*,,
,jgllit"0 ,: '"r'llti';\j
""W""" "m R , .rn.~,!&1\'i.
Fuel Flowage'
Avgas (gallons)
Jet A (gallons)
Total
136,600
71.900
208,500
106,300
99.800
206,100
Gallons per operation'
Pi~on Nrcra~
Turbine Nrcraft
Annual Operations'
Pi~on Alrcralt
Turbine Aircra~
Subtotal
Helicopter
Total GA Operations
5.7
30.0
5.7
30.0
24,000
2.400
26,400
-22Q
26,900
18,650
3.350
22,000
-29Q
22,500
, Iowa City Municipal Alrpo~ Commission re<:ords,
(Excludes fuel sold to Unlvenlty Hospital
helicopter! in 1991.)
, Derived from ratio 01 1987.88 fuel 1I0wage to
Iowa DOT operations count
, 1987.88 from Iowa DOT operations count
1991 derived from gallons per operation ratio.
The 1987-88 activity count did not include
helicopter operations. Therefore, an
estimate of general aviation helicopter
operations must be added to these totals.
This estimate was prepared based upon
survey responses. While there are
significant helicopter operations in the Iowa
City area associated primarily with the
University hospital and other hospitals, most
of these are occurring at heliports at the
hospitals. There is one based helicopter at
Iowa City Municipal Airport, as well as
some transient helicopter operations.
Therefore, general aviation helicopter
operations at Iowa City Municipal Airport
were estimated at 500 annually for a total
general aviation operations estimate of
22,500 for 1991 (excluding University
Hospital helicopters that had to refuel at
the airport in 1991).
The ratio of annual operations per based
aircraft at general aviation airports varies
between 300 to 1,000 operations. This
level varies with locale and can vary from
year to year due to the local economic
situation. Based upon the 1991 operations,
the operations per based aircraft at Iowa
City Municipal Airport was estimated at 425
for 1991.
While FAA forecasts for active general
aviation aircraft indicate only a 6.2 percent
increase over the next twelve years, general
aviation hours flown are forecast to increase
by 15 percent over the next twelve years.
General aviation operations at the 400
airports with FAA air traffic control services
are forecast to increase 21 percent over the
next twelve years.
Therefore, aircraft operations as a ratio of
based aircraft can be expected to increase
in the future. At Iowa City Municipal
Airport, this translates to an annual Increase
of four operations per based aircraft per
year. This projects to 450 operations per
based aircraft in 1997; 470 in 2002; and
510 in 2012. Table 2H presents the
general aviation operation forecasts for
Iowa City Municipal Airport.
There are two types of general aviation
operations at an airport: local and itinerant.
A local operation is a take-off or landing
performed by an aircraft that will operate in
the local traffic pattern within sight of the
airport, or which will execute simulated
approaches or touch-and-go operations at
the airport. Itinerant operations Include all
arrivals and departures other than local.
2-13
3a7
\
~ "':'~""'>:"~.l 'I~'- . ..~'.._'., .'.,~:" ~I ',:, '~";'
, t"l' ,'<, .~"" "",..1, ltl" ,'"",' , '0'
, J 1-'" " . "
~. , . "" I . . , . , , !'.. . ,
.~ :'~:~~.~'. ,'.:. ".~:.. :;;~':\"": I" '.:: ' ",:, .,',,\ -'.- <.1,)
Generally, local operations are
characterized as training operations, while
itinerant operations are those aircraft with a
specific destination away from the airport.
TABLE 2H
Forecast of General Aviation Annual Operations
Iowa City Municipal Airport
Typically, itinerant operations increase with
business and industry use since business
aircraft are used primarily to carry people
from one location to another.
1997 57 5,200
2002 63 6,000
2012 76 7,800
I. Includes air taxi operations.
Based upon information contained in the
1990 FAA 5010 Form, itinerant general
aviation operations (including air taxi
operations) at Iowa City Municipal Airport
comprise approximately 80 percent of the
total general aviation operations at the
airport. This ratio was forecast to remain
relatively constant through the planning
period. Table 2H shows the forecast for
local, itinerant, and total general aviation
operations at Iowa City Municipal Airport.
OPERATIONAL FLEET MIX
The operational aircraft fleet mix expected
to utilize the airport is necessary to assist in
planning appropriate airfield facilities, as
well as for calculating noise contours. The
operational fleet mix Is influenced by the
based aircraft fleet mix projected earlier,
but they do not always exactly coincide.
For instance, the Iowa DOT activity count
indicated that 1.7 percent of the airport's
operations are by business jet aircraft, yet
........
"" ';-1";
Ub sF,
L,~,,,,_rn '.
425
20,800
24,000
31,200
26,000
30,000
39,000
450
470
510
no jets have been based at Iowa City
Municipal Airport.
The present operational fleet mix was
derived from the 1987-88 activity count
program, the change in aviation fuel
flowage since that time, and the projected
utilization of different aircraft types. The
fuel flowage analysis indicated that piston
aircraft operations have decreased since
1987-88, but turbine aircraft operations
have increased significantly since that time.
As indicated earlier, the national trend in
general aviation aircraft is towards larger,
more sophisticated aircraft. The aircraft use
survey also indicated that Iowa City could
expect more use by turboprop and business
jet aircraft in the future. Table 2) outlines
the aircraft operational fleet mix throughout
the planning period.
MIUT ARY ACTIVllY
Military operations also comprise a smali
portion of the operations at Iowa City
2-14
317 "
(- ~
, .
r-
..:.
r
"I
.~
"
,~
I
II
,...
I
..;
,','1
\
":.'1
r'
',..
."
r
'.'
/.-.
:..'
'-
-l
~I
..,
....... ~~ - .,,--- - . ... .......-.-~--...-r '-y - - ~--~,- ... .... T - ..-
\
'..;
i Ii
I r",
Ii!.
I)}
I
I
! :~,
ii,
I ,.
I
'"
1 '
l!
(t,
I ,~
11\
Ii
[1
.,
':\
, '
I
''-,~
"
j'l
, ,
~"
-
"
, .
,i I
.....
!\
, I
, I
"'
II.'
..
'\
, ,
'"
, :
I
I
,
I
, "
: ;
~J
., , .'.:...' ,'",,,i;,' , :..;.," '. g:"" , ,,' ,: '" , ." , , '
; ':. ',. ~ ' .~ I, '! ,,' , ":', ',;: ,~
" '~, "" " , ,', I, . .
'" r::'l" I~." I .', , , , ' ." ",'
....~~.,'4f._. ~~,..,.~~,. ,:'.1,..', ' , '.~ " '.., J' \".':
""
I)
"
r'"
"'1
I,
,\
Municipal Airport. The 1990 FAA 5010
Form has estimated military operations at
400 annually. These are essentially
helicopter operations, so they were not
included In the 1987-88 aircraft activity
count While activity is dependent upon
future requirements of the Department of
Defense, there is no indication that
operations at Iowa City Municipal Airport
will change dramatically In the future.
Therefore, military operations were forecast
to remain at 400 annually.
Actual
1991
FORECA5T
1997
2002
2012
72.0%
11.0%
69.0
67.0
65.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
PEAKING CHARACTERISTICS
Many airport facility needs are related to
the levels of activity during peak periods.
The periods that will be used in developing
facility requirements for this Master Plan
include peak month, average day of the
peak month (design day), busy day, and
design hour operations. These are
described as follows:
~ Peak Month - The calendar month when
peak aircraft operations occur.
~ Design Day - Defined as the average day
within the peak month. This indicator is
easily derived by dividing the peak
month operations by the number of days
In the month.
· Busy Day - Defined as the busy day of a
typical week In the peak month. This
descriptor is used primarily for planning
general aviation ramp space.
12.0%
3.0%
2.0%
13.0
14.0
15.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
· Design Hour - Defined as the peak hour
within the peak day. This descriptor is
used particularly in airfield demand/
capacity analysis, as well as for terminal
building and access road requirements.
It is important to note that only the peak
month is an absolute peak within a given
year. All the others will be exceeded at
various times during the year. However,
they do represent reasonable planning
standards that can be applied without
overbuilding or being too restrictive.
The peak month for general aviation activity
is typically between 10 and 14 percent of
the airport's total general aviation
operations. Fuel sales data over the past
five years was analyzed to estimate the
peak month percentage at Iowa City
Municipal Airport. While the month of the
year varied from June, July, August, and
October, the peak month was found to
average 12 percent of the annual total.
2-15
3i7
..... .,., -- Y""'" -
-" :~,. ':'" ",";' .;,..... ,', " ',;
)':.':L ,:':' :'t'~,:', :):':1 ,{,. , ", '.' "., "', '.. ,',;,
.: ,:/f: ."~':1~:" ."BJtw 'It..,..:.:. \ :, '.,',":;:'.,' '., ',',
According to the Iowa DOT aircraft activity
counting program, typical busy days usually
account for 20 percent of the weekly
operations. This is 40 percent greater than
the average daily operations, during the
peak month. Peak hour operations were
estimated at 20 percent of the daily
operations. Table 2K presents the general
aviation peak operations forecast for Iowa
City Municipal Airport.
,
....
~
,'-
,
TABLE 2K
General Aviation Peak Operations
Iowa City Municipal Airport ".
FORECAST ~
.1~A.Ili!III"",: ilia '..."i,:l'1t~. '..
'm.tl;l'.&'0>."....'=::,,:;.:-:-,,'i>>,@i\,: - "".,.,>>>:~...~",i;.,:,,:..\t,~.,;: ,'~ .. ,"","': :.::::: d:gY:l~
Annual Operations
Peak Month
Design Day
Busy Day
Design Hour
22,500
2,700
90
124
18
ANNUAL
INSTRUMENT APPROACHES
\
Forecasts of Annual Instrument Approaches
(AlA) provide guidance in determining an
airport's requirements for navigational aid
facilities. An instrument approach is
defined by the FAA as 'an approach to an
airport, with intent to land by an aircraft in
accordance with an Instrument Flight Rule
(IFR) flight plan, when visibility is less than
three miles and/or when the ceiling is at or
below the minimum initial approach
altitude.'
Data on actual instrument approaches for
Iowa City Municipal Airport was obtained
from the Cedar Rapids Approach/Departure
Control Facility. The number of Instrument
approaches can vary from year.to-year
depending upon weather conditions. Over
the past several years, AlA's have averaged
440 annually at Iowa City Municipal
Airport. This equates to approximately 2.4
percent of the annual itinerant general
aviation operations. This was compared to
26,000
3,100
103
144
21
30,000
3,600
120
168
24
39,000
4,700
155
330
31
general aviation instrument approach to
itinerant operations percentages at the five
airports in the state that have air traffic
control towers (Cedar Rapids, Des Moines,
Dubuque, Sioux City, and Waterloo). The
percentage for general aviation aircraft at
these airports has averaged 3.8 percent.
The higher percentage at the towered
airports can be partially attributed to a
higher percentage mix of aircraft that have
instrument landing capability. However,
the main reason is the ability to land in
lower weather minimums because of the
availability of a precision instrument landing
system (ILS).
If a precision approach could be made
available at Iowa City, the number of AlA's
could be expected to grow to a higher
percentage of the itinerant operations. As
a result, the percentage of AlA's to itinerant
operations at Iowa City Municipal Airport
were projected to increase gradually to 3.8
percent over the planning period. Table 2L
depicts the forecast of AlA's.
2-16
387",
("',
\'-.'
\'
\
t-.,
,....
I,
I
",
.'1
\OJ
fl
,
H,'
"
,~
, ,
~_....'
,-'
.
-
.~
\
1lI"""~ ",..-'~'-
..
!
, ,
,I.'"
j,
,
','
r"
"
,
1
,.
n
;-1
'I
~,
I
'.l
I :\
IH
1 !/~
, "
j .J)
,
! r~J
' I'
\ "
I
! 1~1
In
u
i}
,~
,1
"I'll
,
1..1
, :
, ,
~.
I'
H
'1'\
'I
1/,
.,1
1\
"'\:
'-
, I
'\
"
''';
- ...... --'.....,..-}- -.- ~--- .---r-........... ,.~
--... ..... T - ...--- ..,....~- -........- ,..
,
i,,,. 't~/":" ,,;,~... ':"'64....;:.' :",', ':"',:,', .'."" .;"':'j,:,'
',<' " ,J. t ": .~. ." "" , \ .
~. ," ',. j \ I. l " . \ ,J . _ . , '
J >.,.:t~':: .\:;.~'~c_: :"~:'~"'\~\'-:~"""I.' " .. " '.' ""J
'j
TABLE 2l
Annual Instrument Approaches
Iowa Oty Municipal Airport
T otalltinerant Operations
Annual Instrument Approaches
Percent of Total
Itinerant Operations
FORECAST SUMMARY
This chapter has determined the various
aviation demand levels to be anticipated
over the planning period. The next step in
the master planning process is to assess the
capacity of the existing airport facilities and
TABLE 2M
Aviation Forecast Summary
Iowa Oty Municipal Airport
FORECAST
P*, "'~j~~l fytmmZl~ :q~2"".:", .~,"
@fkl..:~>J.Mi ,%WJ.1i!)%~~ Wll,wb>:<*~ ...... .*Wt~
18,400 21,200 24,400 31,600
440
640
850
1,200
2.4
3.0
3.5
3.8
determine the facilities that will be
necessary to meet the projected demand.
This will be examined in detail in the
following chapter. Exhibit 2D and Table
2M provide a summary of the aviation
forecasts for Iowa City Municipal Airport.
Based Aircraft
Annual Operations
General Aviation
Local
Itinerant
Total General Aviation
Military
Total Aircraft Operations
Annual Instrument Approaches
4,SOO
18.000
22;500
~
22,900
440
2-17
53
57
63
76
,~'"
5,200
20.800
26,000
~
26,400
640
6,000
24.000
30,000
~
30,400
850
7,800
31.200
39,000
~
37,400
1,200
3B7
-...;r---~'"""j1!""-~ ",..-'-
.. ....-----...~-....... "'-Y - "'--r-- _- '1- -.. ~ ..,..- .......-
,0 ';t~I''''':''~#''4-I'':'':''':'','~I'o ,',:, ',': .....,,'.., ....,,',
~':".' ': :. I~ " ~ ';., ~': 1 ,: ::~~: :-. ',~'. I":~ ~ ' ,t::'
'.' "',,', .. lf~" " ," , , ", '.
.1 ':'.;:.;........,;r, :': :~,~,~ . :~:,' ,~~~ '; ',_.:. a::.., ..: , I",", . ", I,"'.':'
~
~
~
~
~
60,000
50,000
40,000
CI)
Z
0
-
I-
~
w
D. 30,000
0
-I
<(
:;)
Z
Z
\ <(
20,000
10,000
1991
LEGEND
TololOperotlons
Generol AVlotlon I<<nelont
Ht'11fi'lnWl1~
_ GenelolAVlotlon Locol
Mllltory
39AOO
YEAR
Exhibil2D .
OPERATIONS FORECAST SUMMARY
IOWA CITY MUNICIPAL AIRPORT 38'7 ~
.*_.~.~_.~~~.. _~~_,"..~~m___ _. ._
~-".-I
till
nnlll 1Im_ R
~-
,
,,-
,
, )
..'
r"
('j
,,'
1'-'
r'.:'
I,
,..J
~~ .
'--
I'
',,'
/"
l-J
, ,
i'
~
, '
, .
~
...
,
I~I
, '
,
,~
r.
~
,
I,,'
"-
-
I,
I;i
-
I
; ,
iI.'
/'"
, I
I.
("1
i ;
"
~,
i
1_'
"
J~
u
(;
; 1"
, , .
:1 "
~
.,
i l~,
,
\ ,
I 1"
,I
I "~
'1
! I..'
"
:~f
I.i,
i ,..I
f;'
...
I'
!
""
I I
i
"'"
I'
,
~,
U
--- ."..-.~----
. ..~-..-~-- .....-r---'........ - - '-r- -- ,-
..~.".-...
<c' itll'- :!')';'~l,: '::';ffl"';""\ "~~, ",:.'>, ,>: ':':.':>'::">"';~:
~:',I' :":'<~'J,'~,'r. ',~:~ ,~ '.' .;,:,.,.,"'.,....,.-'.,:...,
,1';",' 'i,'" :~"..,. Jl.~, ',' ":W! '.'. \.. ".',' .... l,' ,,'j'.
. .' ' >'. . t . ",' .-. ~~ ,'. " ';'" '\ . '. , , '1 . '. " _ _ _..
Chapter Three
FACILITY ~EQUlREMENTS
387
......
.~ .........~...... II"""" r 1....... - . - r-- _ - , l.P"
~:";"}~ffI"':' ,: ;;:'l."'>~-"'::::H' '.','",.' '-:.' ,~, :',:: "',i':":,:::>
"~,'.\" ." ~ '/ I ' 1\ A" 'I '.,~',"
,\, ',' ','. ,I'l"'" '. . , ' . ,.' "". ,,,'
, , .. I,.. "" .
"/'('~1 "")'--""'~'!""r'" , . .,",. ,J
. \ '" ~ ,." I j . .'. \'. . ' .,,' . , ~
\
:1
I<l
;,
!"
",I'
"
r',
I
.11
....
, :
,1
'1
I:
....~
I
,.
r ~,
I
",1
" i
L.
"
L.
I
.
L
,"\
!' ,
U
\ '
l.i
, 1
r i
['t.j
II
I:
...J
, I
,,)
:J
!I
~I
387 :j
F
F
R
r~
I~
:'
f~,
;1,
r,~,
I~
I~
~
\
I~
Iii
!
, Ij
l~
l~
I~
Ii
n
I;
\)
l;
I,
I
\..
t-
-,r-, -..-~...............~
,.,0:, .~" -;. ,fii;.. ' '.~_;' ., ,', ~ ". ';', " ': . "j:)J ,,'. .,:'
,', em' ":C;l', 'QI..' "L:' " '..
",: ,oj: -,' ,:.,'.~: '.~:'.:, : )?1" 'r.~>:9.'. . :', "',.., ~\':. . :,""
I t. .'r " . "11..-..;J1' ..........,.: : . ........ ,". ~ ; " , '.' . " , '. \: _
. "", ,." ~_ ~ {' '," '. _" ' , j I . " . , ,
-
~
-
Chapter Three
FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
To properly plan for a general aviation
airport for the Iowa City/Johnson County
area, it is necessary to translate forecast
aviation demand into the specific types and
quantities of facilities that can adequately
serve this identified demand. This chapter
uses established planning criteria and the
results of a demand/capacity analysis to
determine the airside (i.e., runways,
taxiways, navigational aids, marking and
lighting), and landslde (i.e., hangars,
terminal building, aircraft parking apron,
fueling, automobile parking and access)
facility requirements.
The objective of this effort is to identify, in
general terms, the adequacy of the existing
airP9rt facilities, outline what new facilities
may be needed, and when these may be
needed to accommodate forecast demands.
AIRFIELD REQUIREMENTS
Airfield requirements include the needs for
those facilities related to the arrival and
Iowa Oty Airport
RelOCiltion Feasibility Study
departure of aircraft These facilities are
comprised of the following items:
~ Runways
~ Tax/ways
~ Navigational Aids
~ lighting and Marking
The selection of the appropriate FAA design
standards for the development of the
airfield facilities is based primarily upon the
characteristics of the aircraft which are
expected to use the airport. The most
critical characteristics are the approach
speed and the size of the critical design
airaaft anticipated to use the airport now
or in the future. The planning for future
aircraft use is particularly important because
design standards are used to plan
separation distances between facilities that
could be extremely costly to relocate at a
later date.
The Federal Aviation Administration has
established criteria for use in the sizing and
design of airfield facilities. These standards
3-1
3B?
- ---r"--~- "-;tr'"--- ".-.-......-
... ~.-.........,~-......_*" ~-----.~.......,.-
...-W'" ""'9' - ....--- ~~- __ .~
, ,
~, ':'f"~l""" ';~.':'J~";' ;""':j'{2:i'{.,: : ,:',' >,..., ,:",':, <.:\
.':1. . t ',,'.',: 1m"'1',.."1 ''I .". : f?]: ',' ", ,/ ..,. '..,'.;',~
,I, '1. . ,-..~" ....~ ~~.,' '{ ,', '. r
. ,'~',~. "'l"~ ", -; 4 '\ , ,', ".
include criteria relating to the size of an
aircraft as well as the performance and
speed of an aircraft. According to Federal
Aviation Administration Advisory Circular
150/5300-13, Airport Design, an aircraft's
approach category is based upon 1.3 times
their stall speed in their landing
configuration at the particular aircraft's
maximum certificated weight. The five
approach categories used in airport
planning are as follows:
Category A: Speed less than 91 knots.
Category B: Speed 91 knots or more, but
less than 121 knots.
Category C: Speed 121 knots or more, but
less than 141 knots.
Category D: Speed 141 knots or more, but
less than 166 knots.
Category E: Speed 166 knots or more.
\
The second basic design criteria relates to
the size of an airplane. The Airplane
Design Group (ADG) is based upon
wingspan. The six groups are as follows:
Group I: Up to but not including 49 feet.
Group II: 49 feet up to but not including
79 feet.
Group III: 79 feet up to but not including
118 feet.
Group IV: 118 feet up to but not
Including 171 feet.
Group V: 171 feet up to but not
Including 214 feet.
Group VI: 214 feet up to but not
including 262 feet.
FAA AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design,
identifies a coding system which is used to
relate airport design criteria to the
operational and physical characteristics of
the airplanes intended to operate at the
airport. This code, called the Airport
Reference Code, has two components: the
first component, depicted by a letter, is the
aircraft approach category and relates to
aircraft approach speed (operational
characteristic); the second componen~
depicted by a Roman numeral, Is the
airplane design group and relates to
airplane wingspan (physical characteristic).
Generally, aircraft approach speed applies
to runways and runway-related facilities,
while airplane wingspan primarily relates to
separation criteria involving taxiways and
taxilanes. In order to determine facility
requirements for the design of an airport,
the Airport Reference Code (ARO should
first be determined, and then the airport
design criteria as contained within FAA AC
150/5300-13 can be applied.
The FAA advises designing all airport
elements to meet the requirements of the
most demanding ARC. Based upon the
aircraft types which are currently operating
at Iowa City Municipal Airport and those In
the forecast fleet mix, Approach Category C
and ADG II specifications (Airport
Reference Code C-II) should be used to
design Iowa City Municipal Airport to meet
future demands. As indicated in the earlier
chapters, Iowa City Municipal Airport is
already utilized on a regular basis by
corporate turboprop aircraft and business
jets. These turbine aircraft include such
aircraft as the Beech Super King Air 200;
Cessna Citation models I, II, and III; Falcon
50/900; and Learjet models 25 and 55.
Table 3A provides a listing of typical aircraft
that frequent Iowa City Municipal Airport
Including the approach speed, wingspan,
maximum take-off weight, and Airport
3-2
387 J
l
1
I
i
I
, i
~
,
I
, ,
'1
J
-,
i
,
, ,
-,
,
i
..J
'1
I
..J
'1
i
J
..
..
~
\,
\
~
i
j
-
i
I
I
, i
,<,'j
..,
i
~-j
...,
..J
,,,,,
:]
-1
-
]
-'
-I
I
...J
j
-
,
:
!
-
,
...
,
:. "'Lill",',Zt', ' :iifD"~I:'I': . '~,'::" ,,"'",;:, :,,:,~.
':-'1 '::rtJ':,,;:i:\~,>>~w",;,':;. "'."':"":".',/':,;:: :,.,:.:
r
i i
...
,
, I
Reference Code. In addition, the survey
responses indicated a potential for use by
other business jets such as the Canadair
Challenger, learjet 35, and the Gulfstream
IV if adequate airport facilities would
become available. Therefore, the mixture
of these forecasted aircraft types combined
with the existing aircraft fleet mix can be
accommodated by maintaining airport
design standards to ARC D-II specifications.
Single-Engine Piston
Cessna 150
Beech Bonanza
55
75
Twin-Engine Piston
Beech Baron
Cessna 402
Piper Navajo
Cessna 421
Turboprop
Piper Cheyenne
Beech Klng.Alr Bloo
Super Klng.Alr
Cessna 441
Mltsublshl MU-2
101
95
100
96
110
111
103
100
119
Corporate Jets
Cessna Cllatlon I
Cessna Cllatlon II
Cessna Cllatlon '"
LearJet 25
LearJet SS
Falcon 10
Falcon 20
Me 800
Israeli Westwlnd
Potential Users
Learlet 3S
Canadalr Challenger
Falcon 900
Gulfstream IV
108
108
114
137
128
104
107
12S
127
143
125
100
145
Iowa City Municipal Airport is currently
classified in the National Plan of Integrated
Airport Systems (NPIAS) as a general
aviation transport type airport. Such
airports are designed for business jets and
32.7
37.8
A-I
A-I
1,600
3,850
37.8
39.8
40.7
41.7
B-1
B.I
B-1
B.I
6,200
6,300
6,200
7,450
47.7
45.8
54.5
49.3
39.2
B-1
B.I
B-II
B-II
B.I
12,050
11,800
12,500
9,925
10,800
47.1
51.7
53.5
35.6
43.7
42.9
53.5
51.4
44.8
B-1
B-II
B-II
C-I
C-I
B.I
B-II
C.II
C-I
11,850
13,300
22,000
15,000
21,SOO
18,740
28,660
23,350
23,300
39.5
61.8
63.4
77.8
D-I
C-II
B.II
0-11
18,300
41,250
45,SOO
71,780
transport type aircraft. The airfield facility
requirements outlined in this chapter
correspond to the design standards
described in FAA's Advisory Circular
150/S300-13, Airport Design.
3-3
3g7
- -..o::r- --III!""-V-, - -
......
- r ._--....~_ -IT ...,.....~.-...,.--....... ,._
... _.". _- .....' ____ _r _....- ....-
!
:1>"fiI'~",,:','la"~ :';BI~':::'ltI"',:?, ; , '";,\:,',,,\
"" f ',' I"'" 'I ' j " ',',,"
'. '."1,,, ~> -' \#",.", :,,;~ '. !" :';. ',. , \~ " " ".:::.' ..: ,'r': ': ~:.I j
The following airfield facilities are outlined
to describe the scope of facilities that
would be necessary to accommodate the
airport's role throughout the planning
period.
RUNWAYS
The adequacy of the existing runway system
at Iowa City Municipal Airport has been
analyzed from a number of perspectives
including airfield capacity, runway
orientation, runway length, and pavement
strength. From this information,
requirements for runway improvements
were determined for the airport.
Airfield Capacity
\
A demand/capacity analysis measures the
capacity of the airfield facilities (i.e.,
runways and taxiways) in order to identify
and plan for additional development needs.
The capacity of the airport's runway system
to meet future operational demand can be
determined without detailed analysis.
Annual capacity of a single primary runway
configuration normally exceeds 150,000
operations with a suitable parallel taxiway
available.
Since the forecasts for Iowa City Municipal
Airport indicate the activity throughout the
planning period will remain well below
100,000 operations, the capacity of the
existing runway-taxiway system will not be
reached. Therefore, the facility
requirements analysis will concentrate on
developing the appropriate facilities to
Improve safety and service considerations
rather than demand variations.
Runway Orientation
The Iowa City Municipal Airport is currently
equipped with three runways. The primary
runway, Runway 6-24, is 4,355 feet long by
150 feet wide and is oriented in a
northeast-southwest direction. Runway 12-
30 is 3,900 feet long by 150 feet wide and
is oriented in a northwest-southeast
direction. Runway 17-35 is 3,875 feet long
by 150 feet wide and is oriented in a
north.south direction.
Ideally, the primary runway at an airport
should be oriented as close as practical in
the' direction of the predominant winds to
maximize the runway's usage. This
minimizes the percent of time that a
crosswind could make the preferred runway
inoperable.
Federal Aviation Administration Advisory
Circular 150/5300-13, Design Standards,
recommends that a crosswind runway
should be made available when the primary
runway orientation provides less than 95
percent wind coverage for any aircraft
forecast to use the airport on a regular
basis. The 9S percent wind coverage is
computed on the basis of the crosswind not
exceeding 10.5 knots (12 mlles-per-hour
[mph)) for Airport Reference Codes A-I and
B-li 13 knots (1 S mph) for Airport
Reference Codes A-II and B.lli 16 knots
(18 mph) for Airport Reference Codes A-III
and B-III, plus C-I through D-lIli and 20
knots (24 mph) for Airport Reference Codes
A-IV through D-VI.
A crosswind analysis was prepared as part
of this master plan. Included In this
analysis was an evaluation of the wind
coverage for the existing airport site and
3-4
387
,_, I
,.,
."'!
"
.-.
, ,
..~...-- ~ - ~'-- - -- .----..~..-
....,
...
,
I
, i
"'1
!
...,
-
!
...,
-.
i
J
-.
I
, ,
~ ' I
fl
I
I.,.,t
1-1
II
I'll
\
IJ
I
I
I',
, '-I
J
.."
.._,
, '
, -
I
I
I
I ,--,
...
f ,: 't'm" ',' :~I; 'l~";'; ,:-:!~' ': ~ :,::" <'" :::" . ',,'
..' ~ 'f ,. I", , ',,' t';
,'...." ,,\, ,N.,'I",' ,.-"',' ,I)' ; , ',_', ,
.' .,' ".-., \I~"."'i"''''-='' .1,,,..,' '.' . ".'.
".J, , '" \ . ," .'
...
,
..,
also a general wind analysis to determine
the point where wind coverage would be
maximized for a single runway orientation.
The latter will be used in subsequent
evaluations of alternative airport sites. The
most current published National Weather
Service wind data available for this area is
from the Cedar Rapids Airport. This data
was used for the crosswind analysis
contained herein. Wind data for all-
weather conditions is represented on the
windrose, Exhibit 3A, in terms of the
percentage of time winds of different
velocities blow from various directions.
Analysis of the all-weather windrose
revealed that aircraft can operate on any of
the three existing runways and obtain the
necessary 95 percent coverage for 18 mph
crosswinds. Runway 12-30 has the best
wind coverage of any of the three available
runways with 94.95 percent at 15 mph and
89.8 percent at 12 mph. Any combination
of two runways provides at least 95 percent
coverage at 15 mph. However, Runway
17-35 and Runway 12-30 is the only two-
runway combination that provides 95
percent wind coverage at 12 mph.
Runway 6-24 is the longest runway
available, and is the runway best oriented
to minimize overflights of residential areas,
and has the best potential for future
approach protection. Combinations of
Runway 6-24 with either Runway 17-35 or
Runway 12-30 do not provide 95 percent
wind coverage at 12 mph. In addition,
Runway 12-30 has the least potential for
providing adequate design standards for A-
Il and B-II aircraft. This wind analysis is
present in Exhibit 3A.
It should be noted that generally the
Federal Aviation Administration will only
fund the development and maintenance of
those runways that are necessary to provide
the required wind coverage and airfield
capacity needed for the safe and efficient
operation of the airport. Typically, this can
be accommodated in the proper orientation
of a two-runway system for most general
aviation airports. However, based upon the
above crosswind analysis, it appears that
the existing three-runway system may be
justified in order to accommodate the
general aviation needs of the Iowa City
Municipal Airport. As such, the
maintenance of the third runway at the
existing Iowa City Municipal Airport could
be eligible for FAA funding assistance.
Further, using the wind data presented in
Exhibit 3A, a general analysis of wind
coverage was made to determine the point
at which the wind coverage for a single
runway orientation would be maximized.
Wind coverage for each ten degree interval
on the wind rose was calculated. As shown
in Table 3B, a runway with a true bearing
140 degrees will achieve the maximum
wind coverage. Only the 15 and 18 mph
crosswind achieves the required 95 percent
wind coverage. Therefore, from this
analysis, an airport to serve the general
aviation needs of the Iowa City/Johnson
County area will require both a primary
runway and a crosswind runway. Unlike at
the existing Iowa City Municipal Airport,
further evaluation of wind coverage verifies
that the proper orientation of a two-runway
system will achieve the required 95 percent
wind coverage of the 12, 15, and 18 mph
crosswinds.
Runway length
The determination of runway length
requirements for the airport are based on
four primary factors:
. Critical aircraft type expected to use the
airport.
3-5
387
\
.....
"" --
".....__---..---..~....-l.......~- ...... ~ _ _ ._,.
-- ,-
..............- ...
";;.' :",: 't'[lI'-':: "J~l " :: i:~;' \ ',', ;1.....' ,,; ,',' " :, . ': ~:: :. ",. <'"
.,1 " I~ "~I "1'" ,0' , ' .',
),: r,;'~ ~_/:~ .,>i;d', ~<\~ ~/}" >__.,. .: I' . .~ :' '.~ ,\' ,':' i: , '.,,, ,
~
~
~
~
~
ZOk1/0"
llllOlOrs
13 kNOrs
IMkHOTS
Lf
.
5
190 160
SOURCE,
NOAA National CllmaUc Cenler
Asheville. Norlh Cerollne
DATA STATION,
Cedar Rapids Ilunlclpe! AIrporl
Ceder Rapids, Iowa
OBSERVATIONS,
86,028 ObserveUons
1980 - 1991
35
lo.DDf013
.."""
..",."
fO',IO"
J/AGNETIC VARIANCE
/. 43' Eas! (November /992)
ALL WEATHER WIND COVERAGE
RUNWAY
Runwa 6-24
Runwa /2-30
Runwa /7-35
Runwa . 6-24 .t /2-30 ComMnsd
Runwa s 6-24 .t /7-35 Combillfd
Runwa s /2-30 .t 17-35 Combillfd
All Runwa . Combinsd
18 Knots
96.44%
98.74%
96.70%
99.58%
99.237.
99.757.
99.997.
10.5 Knots
8/.00"
89.80"
85.22"
94.78"
93.67"
97.32"
99.79"
E~hibil3A
WINDROSE
387
"'JII!r-......- ~ - .-.----
'"
I~Q
:.J
r"
, I
;~J
\
J
-
i
-:
,
....:
"'I
I
,
..,
i
,
-
I
-
I
,
-
.. r ..........-........,_~
: :;' ~',,< ',::....<,.,";,~': '. , >,:, 1 : ,,', ,",: 0,>' ..:. """:':,"
. " "~. I ' '.. '" , '.., . , ",
I," '.. t , ,.1"". , " , '" , '. " " '" ''', '
", ":,~r~I.:"",,,~~~, ,'1'"... I". ',' .,' " '. , .,
r
Ii
...
: j
~ Mean maximum daily temperature of the
hottest month.
i
;
-
I
I
"
TABLE 3B
Wind Coverage Analysis
AI/Weather Conditions
Runway
True Bearing
Orientation
I
",j
-
I
,
I
,..,
J
1
l,~j
10'-190'
20'-200'
30'-210'
40'-220'
50'-230'
60'-240'
70'-250'
80'-260'
90'-270'
100'-280'
110'-290'
120'-300'
130'-310'
140'-320'
150' -330'
160'-340'
170' -350'
180'-360'
83.95
82.55
81.27
80.16
79.58
79.82
80.88
82.55
84.49
86.26
87.83
89.25
90.31
90.77
90.32
89.00
87.31
85.56
~ Runway gradient.
~ Airport elevation.
PERCENT WIND COVERAGE
90.34
89.20
88.41
87.96
87.82
88.09
88.88
90.08
91.39
92.61
93.71
94.62
95.21
95.35
95.05
94.26
93.05
91.69
"" ,,'" 0&!R'*
, ll1i\lM&
96.19
95.65
95.32
95.27
95.44
95.83
96.39
96.97
97.53
98.04
98.43
98.67
98.78
98.71
98.49
98.12
97.54
96.84
Source: NOM, Asheville, North Carolina; Data Station: Cedar Rapids, Iowa; 72,545
Observations, 1980-1991.
An analysis of the existing and future fleet
mix Indicates that the critical aircraft to be
operating from Iowa City Municipal Airport
are, and will continue to be, business jets.
Within the business jet category, aircraft
range from the Cessna Citation I with
minimal runway length requirements to the
LearJet Models 25 and 55; and the
Grumman Gulfstream IV, requiring longer
runway lengths. These aircraft types are
typically greater than 12,500 pounds
maximum take-off weight and are therefore
classified as large airplanes.
Aircraft operating characteristics are affected
by three primary factors. They are the
mean maximum temperature of the hottest
month, the airport's elevation, and the
gradient of the runway. The mean
maximum daily temperature of the hottest
month for Iowa City, Iowa is 86.1 degrees
Fahrenheit. The airport elevation is 668
3-6
387
-...:-r-~ "11&'- - y-'---
....."
- . ...--......,--.-.....- .....~.------ ,-
-.,. ..,.. ' --- - .. ~~---'..........-----~--
-""'trn,;io ':.~i"''''~:''''rA-''~I': "':',:''', "", ,,'
./,: "f, ;"'''''~~:'>I ''-:':',')'~, ,," :", ;".".',:'" ,,:,;'.'
" ,."'t }"",.,:~,:,~:",~t_:" '1,8,:, ,:".',: ",:"', ,",:..,
~ " ~.' 'I'. ., , ," . '.
\
feet MSL The effective runway gradient for
Runway 6-24 is 0.28 percent.
Table 3C outlines the runway length
requirements for various categories of
aircraft. At the present time, the airport's
largest runway (Runway 6-24 at 4,355 feet)
is only capable of fully accommodating the
needs of small aircraft (those weighing less
than 12,500 pounds). This length is fully
capable of accommodating nearly all
private individual flyers and some small
corporate-class aircraft. However, this
runway length is limited in adequately
accommodating the present demand being
placed upon the airport by business jet
users. Despite the runway length
limitations, the airport is experiencing nearly
700 operations by business jets annually.
At least two local businesses have indicated
that the available runway length limits their
ability to upgrade the aircraft they currently
base at Iowa City Municipal Airport. Five
others indicated that the limitations affect
the ability for their corporation's aircraft to
fly into Iowa City. Six businesses rent or
charter business jets, while 13 indicated
that they have clients or suppliers who
utilize business jets in dealings with the
local business.
TABLE 3C
Runway length Requirements
Iowa City Municipal Nrport
\
Airport elevation ........................................................ 668 reet
Mean daily maximum temperature of the hottest month .......................... 86.10' f
Maximum difference In runway centerline elevation ................................ 13 feet
length of haul for airplanes of more than 60,000 pounds .......................... 500 miles
'. ',' ,"mrn"~, " ~"''''',IBJI'' ", ",. 'Ill' , ~"', "= '11" =""",,",'" """""",'161' .,"'h'..',''''~'''~,.,'''>' ',-,
R" ,,>, tln> ,... " ,"'", """"""""'4'" w"lB!'~"w'"w"" ,"',' ,
"1\ ,Yi ' j ," . of, f' lD131C " ,
" . '<<_Y,>jW': ',",,' ~'~:"'~_-l->>I<<' ',,,,,l<=,.,-,', ,,,"""" ,~gmm:S1.tl~w. "",~-,.:""<<.:">".,,,,.- .
Small airplanes with approach speeds of less than 30 knots .......................... 300 feet
Small airplanes with approach speeds of less than 50 knots ........,................. 900 feet
Small airplanes with less than 10 passenger seats
75 percent of these small airplanes . .. . .. .. .. . .. . .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. . .. .. .. 2,700 feet
95 percent 01 these small aIrplanes .............. ...... ......... .... ...... 3,200reet
100 percent of these small airplanes.. . .. . . .. . .. . .. .... ... . . .. . . ... . ...... 3,900 reet
Small airplanes with 10 or more passenger seats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4,300 feet
large airplanes 0( 60,000 pounds or less
75 percent of these large airplanes at 60 percent useful load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5,500 feet
75 percent of these large airplanes at 90 percent useful load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7,000 feet
100 percent 0( these large airplanes at 60 percent useful load .. .. . .. .. ..... . .. ... 5,600 feet
100 percent of these large airplanes at 90 percent useful load . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8,400 feet
REFERENCE: AC 150/S325.4A, RUNWAY lENGTH REQUIREMENTS FOR AIRPORT DESIGN.
Note: Small airplane Is an airplane of 12,500 pounds or less maximum take.off welghL
large airplane Is an airplane of more than 12,500 pounds maximum take.off
welghL
3-7
387
-
..
.- ..,..----..~MtYIIJfIlMllWl11L L I~
""'
-
...,
I
,
I
...,
,
i
,
,
..I
-
,
I
""
-
i
I
...,
I
",I
r.'lq
'I
\"
'''1
I.d
\
p.,
j
I "~
I
-~1
J
...,
I
-
I
!
,
-
'I
,
,
,
-
,
...
'r" -
- ..........~, -.. ~.~ ....~ ,----.. - ~ '-r--
- ...
-- ,-
." ", 't';"," , "'~l" ' H' '. . PI....., ,'..' " .;, r:, .. '".',
..,:.,' ,'. :r~ .::-. '-.....:.; "I , '~~ " ",,",- '.' " , :-' ;' ~ " ";'
\ " . I I" (~ '" I . r' . , . .,' ~
...\::',.......,1.. '~~,<"',:"iti' :.~.,I\;: " '.',".. ,:."~..<!
Based upon this existing and potential use,
the airport could best serve the general
aviation needs of the community with a
runway length designed to accommodate at
least 75 percent of the large general
aviation aircraft of 60,000 pounds or less at
60 percent useful load. At the temperature
and elevation in the Iowa City area, a
runway length of 5,500 feet would be
required for the primary runway.
Ultimate plans for the airport should
consider a runway capable of
accommodating 1 00 percent of the general
aviation aircraft at 60 percent useful load.
A runway length of 5,600 feet would be
necessary according to Table 3C. Because
only 100 additional feet is involved, it is
recommended that the additional length be
included in the initial development project.
Further, the primary runway should be 100
feet in width to conform to 0-11 design
standards.
The crosswind analysis of the existing Iowa
City Municipal Airport indicates that one
crosswind runway should be designed to
accommodate B-II aircraft, while a second
crosswind runway may be needed to
accommodate B-1 aircraft. B-j and B-II
aircraft primarily fall into the small airplane
range, weighing less than 12,500 pounds.
Table 3C recommends a runway length of
3,900 feet to accommodate 100 percent of
small airplanes with less than 10 passenger
seats which is suitable for the B-II design
category. For the B-1 category of the
second crosswind runway, a runway length
of 3,200 feet to accommodate 95 percent
of small airplanes with less than 10
passenger seats will be adequate through
the planning period. Additionally, the B-II
crosswind runway should be 75 feet in
width while the B-j crosswind runway
should be 60 feet in width to conform to
FAA design standards.
It should be noted, however, that if an
alternate airport site were planned to
accommodate the general aviation needs of
the Iowa City/Johnson County area, a two-
runway system with the proper wind
orientation would be adequate. In a two-
runway system, a primary runway with an
ultimate length of 5,600 feet and a
crosswind runway with an ultimate length
of 3,900 feet is recommended.
Pavement Strength
All existing runways at Iowa City Municipal
Airport have a pavement strength of 25,000
pounds Single Wheel load (SWl) and
45,000 pounds Dual Wheel load (OWL).
Typically, 12,500 pounds SWL is adequate
for crosswind runways which will
accommodate small airplanes of 12,500
pounds or less, such as B-1 and B-II aircraft.
Therefore, the existing pavement strength is
adequate for the crosswind runways
through the planning period. However, this
pavement strength is not adequate for the
primary runway. Because the primary
runway should be designed to ultimately
accommodate 0-11 aircraft, such as the
Grumman Gulfstream IV with a maximum
weight of 71,780 OWL, the pavement
strengths of the primary runway should be
upgraded to 30,000 SWl and 70,000
OWL.
TAXIWAYS
Taxiways are constructed primarily to
facilitate aircraft movements to and from
the runway system. Some taxiways are
necessary simply to provide access between
the aprons and runways, whereas other
taxiways become necessary as activity
increases at an airport to provide safe and
efficient use of the airfield. As runway
3-8
3~7
\
y-'--
- ~..... .....~- -". ,......------........,.......,- .......... ---..........- ---.. -
~.:I ~', .....'.: >'.>- ,',::' :.....' I fA' , , . ,.' ',r ':':-" .,:', ".:"
. . -," .~i;;t . " " ' . ,,' , "
-, ' ;,- , .".':.' 11\ l::. ,I ".. ' " '. . ':. t' . '. :
.' ,:Jlfl, " \I~, -,' ,tl" ";, . ",; '.:'.'
traffic increases, the capacity of the taxiway
system may become the limiting operational
factor. The taxiway system should provide
for free movement to and from the runway,
terminal/cargo, and parking areas. It is
desirable to maintain a smooth flow with a
minimum number of points requiring a
change in the airplane's taxiing speed.
The existing taxiway system at Iowa City
Municipal Airport provides only limited
access between airfield and lands ide
facilities. Runway 6-24 has an access
taxiway, 50 feet wide, which serves the
Runway 24 end only. Similarly, Runway
12-30 has an access taxiway, 50 feet wide,
which serves the Runway 30 end only and
Runway 17-35 has an access taxiway, 50
feet wide, which serves the Runway 17 end
only.
The required separation between the
primary runway and a parallel taxiway
should be 400 feet in order to meet the
criteria established by FAA Advisory
Circular 150/5300-13 for runways
accommodating D-II aircraft. The required
separation between the crosswind runways
and a parallel taxiway should be at least
240 feet in order to meet the criteria for
runways accommodating B-II aircraft or 225
feet in order to meet the criteria for
runways accommodating B-1 aircraft.
Given the type and level of air traffic
projected for Iowa City Municipal Airport
through the planning period, all runways
should have full length parallel taxiways
and connecting transverse taxiways
between the runways and parallel taxiways.
The recommended width of the taxiways
for the primary runway and the B.II
crosswind runway Is 3S feet, with 10 foot
shoulders. The recommended width of the
taxiway for the B-1 crosswind runway is 25
feet, with 10 foot shoulders. Taxiways
should generally be designed to meet the
same strength as the runway.
NAVIGATiONAL AIDS AND LIGHTiNG
Navigational aids provide two primary
services to airport operations - precision
guidance to a specific runway and/or non-
precision guidance to a runway or the
airport itself. The basic difference between
a precision and a non-precision navigational
aid is that the former provides electronic
descent, alignment, and position guidance;
while the non-precision navigational aid
provides only alignment and position
location information. The necessity of such
equipment is usually determined by design
standards predicated on safety
considerations and operational needs. The
type, purpose, and volume of aviation
activity expected to use the airport are
factors In the determination of the airport's
eligibility for navigational aids.
Currently, Iowa City Municipal Airport has
four published non-precision approaches:
a VOR approach to Runway 35, utilizing
the Iowa City VORTAC; an NDB approach
to Runway 30, utilizing the Hawkeye NDB
which is located on the airport; and an
RNAV approach to Runway 24, utilizing the
Iowa City VORT AC. Additionally, a circling
approach is available to the airport itself
utilizing the Hawkeye NDB. All other
runways have visual approaches.
The best minimums available at Iowa City
Municipal Airport are 500 foot cloud
ceilings and one mile visibility for Category
A and B aircraft and 500 foot ceilings and
11/4 mile visibility for Category C aircraft.
By comparison, instrumentation available at
Ames Municipal Airport provides for
landings down to a minimum of 400 feet
and 3/4 mile. Airports with precision
instrument landing systems (ILS), such as Is
available at Cedar Rapids Municipal
Airport, have minimums of 200 feet and
1/2 mile.
3-9
387 :.,
.....,
....... f'F - .... -
- ........~. ......}-- .-
1~1
1,/
'''1
I,
.."1
!']
.,
\
!"'I
,J
-1
~
"I
I
.J
"
,
i
, ,
~
...
~.., ',,'itl....:.;,;~:.: ,.,~" , '>~,...",: ", ,:"',,:, "r,<.":,
- .., ..". .\ j ~ l. _' "'. . ,., '"
' . ,I ," I ~' , \ I '. ,I ,., I . . ,'_. .
:~ ',~")' ,!('~ .~~,:r'., '."1 . '......\' '. . , . , . .,
I"
,
I'
Ii
:i
"
For long-range planning purposes, a
precision approach should be considered
for the Iowa City Airport. An ILS was the
improvement identified most often by the
survey respondents. An ILS would permit
the airport to remain open down to 200-
foot cloud ceilings and one-half mile
visibility. An IlS at the Iowa City Airport
would reduce the need to divert to Cedar
Rapids Municipal Airport when weather
minimums are too low for the existing non-
precision approaches. As an interim
measure, navigational aid improvements,
such as a localizer, should be considered to
lower the minimums similar to those at
Ames Municipal Airport. A localizer is the
initial piece of instrumentation integral to
developing a fullllS approach.
Visual glide path indicators (GVGI) are
systems of lights located at the side of the
runway which provide visual descent
guidance information during an approach to
the runway. There are currently GVGI
systems on four approaches at Iowa City
Municipal Airport. Approaches to Runways
17 and 35 are equipped with visual
approach slope indicators (V ASI-4).
Precision approach path indicators (PAPI),
which are similar to VASI's, are installed on
Runway 6-24. Similar approach lighting
systems should be planned for all runway
approaches.
Runway identification lighting provides the
pilot with a rapid and positive identification
of the runway end. The most basic system
involves runway, end identifier lights
(REIL's). REll's should be considered for all
lighted runways not planned for a more
sophisticated approach light system. To
assist in obtaining the lowest instrument
approach minimums possible, an approach
lighting system should be planned for the
runway with the best instrument approach.
A medium intensity approach light system
(MALS) should accompany non-precision
navigational aid improvements. If and
~
I
, I
'"1
i
I
i
,-
i
,j
-
I
I
.,
~.
I
J
"j
1'1
when a full IlS is installed, runway
alignment indicator lights could be added
to this system to provide a full MALSR
approach light system.
All runways are equipped with medium
intensity runway lighting (MIRl). This is
adequate through the planning period.
Runway marking should remain non-
precision on all runways until such time
when a precision approach is installed on
the primary Runway 6-24. At such time,
then, the runway marking should be
upgraded to precision marking.
Taxiway edge lighting should be ultimately
planned for all taxiways. They provide
maximum utilization of the airport and
reduce potential for accidents. However,
taxiway edge delineators are an effective
and less expensive means of delineating the
taxiway edge at night and may be used in
lieu of a taxiway lighting system on an
interim basis.
The airport also presently has a wind tee
which provides pilots with information
about wind and runway usage. In addition,
an airport beacon assists in identi~ing the
airport from the air at night. Each of these
facilities should be maintained in the future.
Air Traffic Control Towers (ATCD have
been established at many airports to
provide for a safe, orderly, and expeditious
flow of traffic in the vicinity of the airport.
An airport must meet certain criteria to
qualify for an FAA-operated tower. The
long-range forecasts for Iowa City Municipal
Airport do not indicate sufficient
operational activity to qualify for an FAA
tower during the planning period.
Information on current weather conditions
is also important to the pilot. Automated
weather reporting stations such as AWOS
and ASOS are available that provide this
information. It is recommended that such
3-10
387
.....,
\
,., - ...-'-----
.. ... ~..-~--....-,
~r"':f':I;:';~~~I:":~';:":"",,<,,:,,::,' ",',.~ "(' , ,:'
.,' ", ' I~'" ., 'ILk, "'. '.
.:: ,",\ \.~,,:~ :'~,~;. ',' ,~I' ';: "":'iL' : :'1 :',", ~""", ":,:' "~':
a system be included in the planning of an
airport at Iowa City.
LANDSIDE FACILITIES
landside facilities are those necessary for
handling of aircraft, passengers, and cargo
while on the ground. These facilities
provide the essential interface between the
air and ground transportation modes.
These areas will be subdivided into two
parts: general aviation facilities and support
facilities. The capacities of the various
components of each area were examined in
relation to projected demand to identify
future landside facility needs.
GENERAL AVIATION
TERMINAL FACILITIES
The purpose of this section is to determine
the space requirements during the planning
period for the following types of facilities
normally associated with general aviation
terminal areas:
~ Hangars
~ Aircraft Parking Apron
~ General Aviation Terminal
Hangars
The demand for hangar facilities depends
on the number and types of aircraft
expected to be based at the airport. Actual
percentages of based aircraft desiring
hangar space will vary across the country as
a function of local climate conditions,
airport security, and owner preferences.
The percentage of based aircraft that is
hangared normally ranges from approxi-
mately 30 percent in states with moderate
climates to over 80 percent in states subject
to extreme weather conditions.
."
Weather is not the only factor that
influences the demand for hangar storage.
The trend in based general aviation aircraft,
whether single- or multi-engine, is in larger,
more sophisticated and more expensive
aircraft. Owners of these types of aircraft
normally desire hangar space to protect
their investment.
Based upon an analysis of existing aircraft
storage at Iowa City Municipal Airport and
other similar general aviation facilities,
percentages representing hangar require-
ments for the various types of general
aviation aircraft have been calculated.
Approximately 75 to 80 percent of those
owning single-engine aircraft, 100 percent
of those owning multi.engine aircraf~ and
100 percent of those owning turbine or
rotary aircraft would desire hangar space.
Based on these assumptions, the percent-
ages were applied to the fleet mix forecasts
to determine the projected number of
aircraft requiring hangar space in 1992,
1997,2002, and 2012.
Of the aircraft to be stored in hangars, it is
necessary to determine what percentages of
these aircraft would utilize conventional-
type hangars as opposed to individual T-
hangars. General aviation airports have
been experiencing an increasing trend
towards T-hangars. Not only are T.hangars
less expensive to construct, but they
provide the aircraft owner more privacy
and greater ease in obtaining access to the
aircraft. The principal uses of conventional
hangars at general aviation airports are for
large aircraft storage, storage during
maintenance, and for housing fixed base
activities.
The final step in the process of determining
hangar requirements involves estimating the
area necessary to accommodate the
required hangar space. A planning
standard of 1,000 square feet per based
aircraft stored in T-hangars was used.
3-11
3K7
W~~ -1IllIIII- -lMIlIlI ut --11'II. '1IIlBWI~~.Ml'fm
,.,j
~
-,
,~
~
-
~...... ~F _ - ...-'~--
......
,- --- .......,. -- ..-,~
- .. ~.-~- ....". .,...,---..--.,.- ---
/,,',':'0.,.;i.'- ,'/~'l','_::~' < ,,-,' .. ' ,~- ',: :':' :,:'<
~,~ ' ",... ,I~ '," I " ' , , ' ,', '
. , ' ", ,I I, ,_, ,', """".
'.' , '"" '. I "_""',
.' ",I, ,_:,\I~" _ '1,..1., 1"4'\:' ',"" _ "~'.
' ]., ~ , " .,,~ ,
,-
Planning figures for conventional hangars addition, the single-engine requiring hangar I
indicate an area of 1,200 square feet for space that were not allocated to T -hangars I
piston and rotary aircraft and 2,500 square would be stored in conventional hangars.
feet for turbine aircraft. These figures were Further, an area up to 15 percent of the I
- applied to the aircraft to be hangared In total hangar space on the airport should be I
, conventional and T-hangars to determine allocated for maintenance shop facilities. It
,
, the area to be devoted to hangar facility is also assumed that this maintenance area I
,/ I
requirements through the planning period. would be housed in conventional hangar ,
- It was assumed that 100 percent of multi- space. Table 3D compares the existing
, engine, turbine, and rotary aircraft would hangar availability to the future hangar
' ,
be housed in conventional hangars. In requirements.
~
"j
~tol TABLE 3D
, I Hangar And Hangar Apron Requirements
H
Iowa Oty Municipal Airport
i\:\ .~6liw~ly<<t'li'I.". fI~.
I,
, , 11,'"'...."",,,,..',,,,,$ "'1""~"jji,, 1"""",'1 " " "",., ,~,.Jt*, ",
i-.
Based Aircraft
~;I Single-Engine 42 43 46 53
I:
II Multi-Engine 5 S 6 8
Turboprop 5 6 7 9
1": Jet 0 2 3 4
"I Rotorcraft ...1 ...1 ...1 ..I
Total 53 S7 63 76
lei
, I Aircraft to be Hangared ·
I '....
Single-Engine 31 33 36 42
I " ~ Multi-Engine 5 5 6 8
:j Turboprop 5 6 7 9
Jet 0 2 3 4
Rotorcraft ...1 ...1 ...1 ..I
Total 42 47 53 65
Conventional Hangar Positions 13 12 14 17 23
J T-Hangar Positions 30 30 33 36 42
Conventional Hangar Area (s.f.) 29,460 28,500 36,200 43,800 57,SOO
'. Aircraft Storage 21,210 20,900 27,200 33,400 44,500
,
Aircraft Maintenance 8,250 7,600 9,000 10,400 13,000
T-Hangar Area (s.f.) 29,700 30,000 33,000 36,000 42,000
- Total Hangar (s.f.) 59,160 58,500 69,200 79,800 99,500
. Future percentages of aircraft to be hangared: single.engine piston, 75% to 80%;
multi-engine piston, 100%; turboprop, jet, and rotorcra(t, 100%.
, ,
, ,
-
3-12
387
-
~.....- ."., - -- - .".-.-------
- .. .....---~. ~- r- r, - - ~.......
-~,. ....... , ,----
.. ~~----.....---...........
, ,- , _: ,....".." '8" " " ' , ,', ,. '.
, ":7i,.I", , , , ' , ., ,
::.~'.':tZl,::: ::i!,t. .,~r' j ';:..',,:' ',":,...".' /:':.
Existing hangar space at Iowa City
Municipal Airport consists of 30 T-hangars
positions and thirteen conventional hangar
positions. From the analysis in Table 3D,
there is a need for additional T -hangar
positions early in the planning period. In
fact, the surveys indicated that several
additional aircraft would move to Iowa City
Municipal Airport if hangar space were
available. By the year 2012, it is projected
that at least 12 additional units will be
needed. This could be accommodated
with the construction of one 12-unit T-
hangar building mid-way through the
planning period. Additional conventional
hangar space will also be needed mid-way
through the planning period for aircraft
storage and aircraft maintenance.
Aircraft Parking Apron
\
A parking apron should be provided for at
least the number of locally-based aircraft
that are not stored in hangars, as well as
transient aircraft. As discussed in the
previous section, it was assumed that 25
percent of all single-engine based aircraft
(decreasing to 20 percent by the end of the
planning period) would be stored full-time
on the ramp. Therefore, the parking apron
should be calculated on 25 percent of
locally-based aircraft (decreasing to 20
percent by the end of the planning period)
plus the number of itinerant aircraft that
can be expected to use tie-down spaces
through the planning period.
There are presently 36 tie-down spaces at
Iowa City Municipal Airport. Sixteen paved
spaces are located on the existing 5,500
square yard apron located west of the
terminal building on the west side of the
taxiway. In addition to this parking apron,
there is a smaller apron on the east side of
the taxiway adjoining the terminal building
measuring approximately 1,600 square
yards which is also used for aircraft parking.
Additionally, there are approximately 20
grass tie-down spaces located adjacent to
this apron.
FAA Advisory Circular 150!5300-13A
suggests a methodology by which transient
apron requirements can be determined
from knowledge of busy-day operations. At
Iowa City Municipal Airport, the number of
itinerant spaces required was determined to
be approximately 17.5 percent of the busy-
day itinerant operations. FAA planning
criterion for tie-down spacings suggests that
670 square yards per aircraft be applied to
the number of itinerant spaces to determine
future transient apron requirements. The
area needed for parking locally-based
aircraft is smaller per aircraft than for
itinerant aircraft due to knowledge of the
specific type of based airplanes and closer
clearance allowed between airplanes.
Therefore, the FAA planning criterion of
570 square yards per aircraft was applied to
the number of based aircraft spaces to
determine future apron requirements. The
results of this analysis are presented In
Table 3E. As shown in this table, the
existing apron area is significantly
undersized, and based upon the FAA sizing
criteria for tie-down spaces, a substantial
expansion of the existing ramp will be
required early in the planning period.
General Aviation Terminal
A general aviation terminal building has
several functions which Includes providing
space for passenger waiting, pilot'S lounge
and flight planning, concessions,
management, storage, and various other
needs. This space Is not necessarily limited
to a single, separate terminal building but
also Includes the space offered by fixed
base operators for these functions and
services.
3-13
Jf?
~
-
.,. fir; - - .....-.-
pl
I
'"
I ,
I'"
, I
,
, I
..
I
.1
,-
I
I
"
-
I
.,
-
I
J
....
I
;.j
:1
~~'l
f-'l
I I
1.../
~"1
~
\
-I
I
,
!
-
.,
f
..,J
"
I
I
,
-.
il
,
.J
I
-
, I
...
, I
I
...
.. ... ~..~-- ......-r,-y - -
, '
',','n.', -;.,..;..,'., .:~").' :., :B"-"'" . ,.". ',',.'.,' ".'1'."
. " , ,,::'-'1 .', .. " "'. 1"\, ..
.,'iA~l,,"',I~;'~:"~,";,i .:.,':,'" .,;'; ",I',.;:.
. .,,)~'. "'\"~~'. ,'1 I".", "
The methodology used in estimating general
aviation terminal facility needs was based
on the number of airport users expected to
utilize general aviation facilities during the
design hour and FAA guidelines. A
planning average of 2.1 passengers per
flight increasing to 2,5 passengers per flight
by the end of the planning period was
multiplied by the number of design hour
itinerant operations to determine design
hour itinerant passengers.
TABLE 3E
Aircraft Parking Apron Requirements
Iowa Oty Municipal Airport
local Ramp Requirements
Based Aircraft Positions 11 10 10 11
Apron Area (s. y.) 6,300 5,700 5,700 6,300
Itinerant Ramp Requirements
Busy Day Itinerant Operations , 99 115 134 176
Itinerant Aircraft Positions 17 20 23 31
Apron Area (s. y.) 11,400 13,400 15,400 20,800
Total Positions 36' 28 30 33 42
Total Apron Area (s.y.) 7,1002 17,000 19,100 21,100 27,100
Notes: 1 Includes 20 grass tie-downs. 2 Paved apron area only.
Space requirements were then based upon
providing 60 square feet per design hour
itinerant passenger. At Iowa City Municipal
Airport, general aviation terminal services
are located in the terminal building. Table
3F outlines the general space requirements
for general aviation terminal services at
Iowa City Municipal Airport through the
planning period. As shown in the table, the
existing general aviation terminal facilities
are adequate through the planning period.
TABLE 3F
General Aviation Terminal Area Requirements
Iowa City Municipal Airport
Design Hour Itinerant Passengers
General Aviation Terminal
Building Space (sJ.)
l}M~~r~lrit1 R%\f~W*1I,'S971 "t~OWl%\$201'2'1
Im,,,,,w,,,J,A d#kl21#iN , il"",^'1%,' tht~6A, It",,,:1
'n'"' 'W",,!ir.l'm"^'
:< "~:1. X".:-:.~~W~::::.~
+,I;*"..$;, '~'1,' ffi
t<thY4h~t'tllt
30
37
44
62
5,400 1,800 2,200 2,600 3,700
3-14
387
.-
_._u,_
1I..IM"IrIj,~f'JjJ!I:Illlalilf.lad~~lJ!JWIM- --~~_________ _____
..-~
\
'iff'- - ...-'-
.. .. ..----.....~- ....~ .,.....------ ..~...... .,-
.._....~_ ...---~~-_.............-..r..
> '.' '';':, 'I"'~l '~-' " "t....,'. ,:', " '''"'" ,'" '
:.:" ,L;':l,:' , '." 'i~::'I~:' ',1 :, '" :") ;' .;~. ~-':'~:'r;' J" ',:",
.' '''' "~~<:' .;'!:.,~~(:. '~ .:::>....~ Ii',' ',' :" ( ,':, ,;: ,-
AVIATION SUPPORT FACILITIES
Various facilities that do not logically fall
within classifications of airfield or general
aviation landside facilities have been
identified for inclusion in this Master Plan.
Facilities examined in this section include:
~ Airport Access and Vehicle Parking
~ Fuel Storage
AIRPORT ACCESS
AND VEHICLE PARKING
Major highway access to the Iowa City area
is provided by Interstates 80 and 380 and
U.S. Highway 218. The Iowa City
Municipal Airport can be accessed most
directly from U.S. Highways 218 and 6
which connect to Riverside Drive, a two-
lane roadway, which runs along the east
side of the airport. Riverside Drive is a
major arterial which provides access to the
Iowa City Central Business District and the
University of Iowa Campus, located
approximately two miles to the north. To
the south, Riverside Drive turns into Old
Highway 218 and connects to U.S. High-
TABLE 3G
Automobile Parking Requirements
Iowa City Municipal Airport
way 218 via an interchange approxi-
mately 2 miles south of the airport entrance
drive. This access roadway system to Iowa
City Municipal Airport provides for
adequate roadway capacity through the
planning period.
The requirements for public vehicle parking
may be determined as a function of the
design hour passengers. Using a planning
standard of 1.3 spaces per design hour
passenger, the needed number of
automobile parking spaces can be
determined. This number multiplied by a
standard of 315 square feet per parking
space will yield the area needed for
automobile parking at Iowa City Municipal
Airport. Automobile parking requirements
through the planning period are depicted in
Table 3G. As shown in this table, 36
additional automobile parking spaces will
be needed by the end of the planning
period. However, approximately 30
additional automobile parking spaces are
located to the north of the corporate
hangars. If this area was opened up to
public vehicle parking, there would be
adequate automobile parking spaces
available until late in the planning period.
Design Hour Itinerant Passengers
Auto Parking Spaces
Auto Parking Area (sJ.)
~$N*10glll'1~'I':W %'\\,W',4@tf{0W$A"11I'@#A\?A'&ft
~~9!N",9,*>'<<~H Wkl",.2A1t i14~!lQg,1 w",@,l:i_
30 37 44 62
39 48 57 81
12,300 15,100 18,000 25,SOO
NOTE: 1 Does not include auto parking area located north of the corporate hangars.
FUEL STORAGE
Aviation fuel storage at Iowa City Municipal
Airport Is located underground to the north
_..~. __......... ~..___..M
of the terminal building. The existing fuel
storage capacity at the airport consists of
three tanks: one 8,000 gallon 1 OOll Avgas
tank and two Jet A tanks (one 5,000 gallon
3-15
387
,uA__ .....~.r
II U~M1.~
~
,
~
.- !
,.',
- ,
'-
\
-, - ......". - ... ---, --
......-- -... ...--~T....... "-~-'---r .... - - ~-,- -__ ,.~ _ ~
~ - ~ ... ' '.
, F'
! I ~
I
I;;
i ,j
I
I r~
, .
! 1'1
,...
,
;
,/
.,
;
I
-,
I
.i
"'"
; I
;,.j
,,' .~ , . ',' _',' I ..",.t>-~~.:. ""-)"~f\.~, ' -:- ...
"~ " ,....' "~.... ',~_&I,r', ":"j' ',-;r.: .",. : .' " \,.- . \
''',., "f"I:" ,'. ',,' ~\)i'''''I' ," ',',.: ',...'"
.' ,. ',' ..' , . ''"I .." . I ': .~I l ~'. . . " . ; I'
" ".\..~, "~i:1!!'Y'''''''~ ~".;,
! " L ". I, ,~..:,.,~ . .'. .,~. '.,'. \'. ' .
. .._....:,'.t-i'~,.__,......_~:'. ',I'." , '"..,,,
'">". "" "'l7.', ,". _ " .. :. '.
rot
Il
tank and one 4,000 gallon tank), totalling
9,000 gallons. The fuel storage facilities are
owned by the City of Iowa City but leased
to and operated by the fixed base operator.
The fixed base operator also has two 560
gallon refueling trucks, one for Avgas and
one for jet A fuel. In addition, Hansen-
lind-Meyer, an Iowa City corporation
which hangars their corporate aircraft at
Iowa City Municipal Airport has their own
10,000 gallon underground jetA tank. This
tank is located between the two corporate
hangars but is not included in this analysis
of fuel storage requirements because it
serves a single user.
An examination of fuel sales at Iowa City
Municipal Airport over the past six years
reflects an increase in the consumption of
jet A and a decrease in Avgas usage. In
;~'1
,,,' TABLE 3H
Fuel Storage Requirements
,-/ Iowa Oty Municipal AIrport
, I
..,
ll'
: i
....
'0.;.<1
I
I
'-
-,
,
!
-
'I
!
-
"1
, ,
....
Annual Operations
Average Monthly Operations
Avgas Storage
Average Monthly Piston Operations
Gallons Per Operation
Monthly Fuel Usage
Avgas Storage Requirements (gal.)
Jet A Storage
Average Monthly Turbine Operations
Gallons Per Operation
Monthly Fuel Usage
Jet A Storage Requirements (gal.)
SUMMARY
The Intent of this chapter has been to
outline the facilities required to meet
general aviation demands projected for
Iowa City Municipal Airport through the
year 2012. A summary of the airfield,
airline terminal, and general aviation facility
1991, jetA fuel comprised 46 percent of all
fuel pumped at the airport, increasing from
25 percent in 1986. It is projected that this
trend will continue through the planning
period with the forecasted increase of
turbine aircraft in the airport's operational
fleet mix.
The analysis of aircraft operations and fuel
consumption at Iowa City Municipal Airport
revealed that Avgas is used at a rate of
approximately 5.7 gallons per piston aircraft
operation. jetA fuel consumption averages
21 gallons per turbine aircraft operation.
Fuel storage requirements are depicted on
Table 3H and were based upon maintain-
ing a two week supply of fuel during an
average month. As shown in this table, fuel
storage capacity should be adequate until
near the end of the planning period.
22,500
1,900
39,000
3,300
1,620 1,800
5.7 5.7
9,200 10,200
4,300 4,800
2,000
5.7
11,400
5,300
2,570
5.7
14,600
6,900
9,000
280 400
30 30
8,400 12,000
4,200 6,000
730
30
21,900
11,000
500
30
15,000
7,500
requirements is presented on Exhibits 3B
and 3C.
These facility requirements will be used in
the following chapters to evaluate the
options available for meeting Iowa City's
general aviation needs in the future.
3-16
3fl
_"__~_'___'_~"_""~M _ _~._._,._... ___,~~--
-
~_Il4OIlH L. J .1.~ILI'InL.I~rN
. --,.-- -fir' ~ ....-' - -
--
.. ~.......~. ..~}- -.. 'T"'" ---. ~...---r-......... .,.-
wr .... -..", ---- ...--- __ _
~,,", '~,;;,," ,'~",,: ''-,(:j,,.'.' ',:~I:' :'l .... ':',' "~.:",,:'. ;"'::.."..::::,'
':rl,l "'I~ ' '{:7f " II~'" ," ,', ,', ,.
,!,,'-~':.:':I~;.';:. )~jY:'.'.'\~,>,~ \':~'!I" -:'.1,. ':f(';" ''-:',,;-,::::
~
~
~
~
RUNWAYS
, "
'AVA,I[ABlE, .SHORTrERM . ULTiMATE .
Runway 6-24
4)55' X 150'
25.000 # SWL
45,000 # OWL
Primary Runway
5,500' X 100'
30,000 # SWL
70,000 # OWL
Primary Runw!!,
5,600' X 100'
30.000 # SWL
70,000 # OWL
Runway 12-30 Crosswind Runway Crosswind Runway
3.900' X 150' 3.900' X 75' 3,900' X 75'
25,000 # SWL 12.500 # SWL Minimum 12,500 # SWL Minimum
45,000 # OWL
Runway 17-35 Crosswind Runway' Crosswind Runway'
3,875' X ISO' 3,200' X 60' 3.200' X 60'
25.000 # SWL 12,500 # SWL Minimum 12.500 # SWL Minimum
45.000 # OWL
Runway 6-24 Primary Runway Primary Runway
A=Taxiway Full Parallel Full Parallel
50' Wide 35'Wide 35' Wide
Runway 12-30 Crosswind Runway Crosswind Runway
Aecess Taxiway Panial Parallel Full Parallel
50' Wide 35'Wide 35' Wide
Runwaf 1~-35 Crosswind Runway' Crosswind Runway'
Aecess aXlway Partial Parallel --ruJ1 Parallel
50' Wide 25' Wide 25' Wide
NAVIGATIONALAIDS Runway 6-24 Primary Runway Primary Runway
PAPI GVGl GVGl
RNAV-24 Non-Precision Approach Precision Approaeh
Runway 12-30 Crosswind Runway Crosswind Runway
NOH. 30 GVGl GVGl
Non-Precision Approach Non-Precision Approach
Runway 17-35 Crosswind Runway' Crosswind Runway'
VASI-4 GVGI GVGI
\ VOR- 35 Visual Approach Visual Approach
Ahport Beacon Airport Beacon Airport Beacon
Runway 6-24 Primarv Runway Primarv Runway
Non-Precision Marking MALS MALSR
MIRL Non-Precision Marking Precision Marking
MIRL MIRL
Runway 12-30 Crosswind Runway Crosswind Runway
Non,Precision Marking REIL RElL
MIRL Non-Precision Marking Non-Precision Marking
MIRL MIRL
Runway 17-35 Crosswind Runway' Crosswind Runway'
REIL-35 REIL REIL
Non-Prccislon Marking Visual Marking Visual Marking
MIRL MIRL MIRL
· Second crosswind runway required only for existing airport silc.
Exhibil3B "
AIRFIELD FACILITY REQUIREMENTS '
18~
~.'.'~" -~-~.~.
..A"_"~~' ._.~ __._._ ._h__.'_'~__~_
-IPi:T'f'
.- ~,,,,J.~ I... !1jI'VNJJOII
~
~
,..,...--- ~ - ......~
!
f4
I!
.. ~
i, ~
~
. ...~..-~--............--, -y - - '-r- ---,.--- ....-......"..-...
~. ; "t/- ..' ,~*l. ,:~...." " ',.RI.... : ::',",,:'.:' ~:,;'-'" '-.'
~~;_1, '.'-.....~,:.':,".,~ I:':;; >,,' r.......,.,., """::1::"
. ...." I _'-"':\~~l:";':"~~' ..........,' ,'.,' '" ,'",
" · AVAILABLE" 11991) 1997/2002120,12
Aircraft Positions 43 42 47 53 65
Conventional
- Hangars 13 12 14 17 23
T-Hangars 30 30 33 36 42
-
- Local Ramp
, Positions 36 II 10 10 II
I
',.1 Itinerant Ramp
Positions . 17 20 23 31
1 Total Area
1 (square yards) 7.100 17.000 19.100 21.100 27.100
.1
· Ineluded in Local Ramp I
i....~ Positions.
, \
I'-'J FUELSTORAGE ,
AVGAS !
1,;"\ (gallons) 8.000 4.300 4,800 5.300 6,900
, ;
, I JelA
1..1 (gallons) 9.000 4,200 6.000 7.500 11 ,000
ikt Tot.l
1 I (g.lIons) 17.000 8,500 10.800 12,800 17,900
l~f
l.';;~ GENERALA VlATION
J TERMINAL
TOI.1 Are.
.-) (square feet) 5,400 1,800 2,200 2,600 3.700
iJ
0'41
,I
-
.., AUlo Parking
, I
j Sp.ces 45 39 48 57 81
Tot.l Are.
I (square feet) 17,000 12,300 15,100 18.000 25.500
I
,
...
1'1
. k
i
-
,ffI
;,.,.,
--
-'
'.,-.
7~
Exhibit 3C ~,
, LANDS IDE FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
...
\
~ - -".-.
"
~;:,\ t-:"'~"~"':Z1 :"",~-~ "":'H" --~ ,:'7'.,'. .' .' .'.. >.'
, ' '. ,'\" j . 1\ '.., .,1 I
. ", ,. . ~ , I .
. . ,: ,.......~' }I~."...~......, . 1-'" ~ ,'. f' ".,' , .: .
.", ". \ " .
3f1~
i:
i ~
.-'
...,
, ,
i
, I
\.-.
4' :
, ,
1_:
~
, ,
, ,
U
,i
I'
I I
~,
~
I'
I:
L..j
i'
,
,-
,
I
, '
"
;-,
, I
\J
1'"
, I
'-'
,..~,
~ i
'-
...,
'-'
i
: I
~
, ,
I I
LJ
I'
I
U
-~,
\
\i
fj.'
;'
,;
;;
~'
i il
! L.
~
i
f I'~
j A
I
,
1 /1
! I,.
"
W
'U'
I
,
i
iU
I
,
,
I II
I I
I
; ,
I,
I,
-
I'
I'
."
.,..':,', "'''-:<~''',; ....),",'.:......',;"".." .',', ,::::''''',,;''::':~'~:::\
.' i'tRI., ",,7:,.1 .,~., 'I~ " ., '. ,"
.:.~ ','" "".", '-~,', ""I .. ',' ','.'" ,:," ':'.' '.... "
.' " ",' ,I'~'}" ',' /", ' '. ',', ',' ,.,.....
;'L.l..{ I l/\,~',)~~;...<;\~:." I~'I '. . , II
i
Ii.
II
n
i i
-
, '
, I
i,
it
I,
I'
, j
"
I'
\ j
,..
; ~
Ii
'"
Ii
U
fi
_t
Chapter Four
AIRPORT SITE ANALYSIS
3K7
.......
\
~ ---~ y---
i
I
r
i
I
i
,;
.
r -.r---'-~---""--r-
'~'}>"'f'f!il""':'" ";':iZJiiiii';- "~'~,....,,..: "j't]' ',': .: ., \""'" ,: ,:'. , ),
'( -.. ,., " ,.. ,'" .,",
.< f, "t" I .", 'I" " ", , . ,.. q -..
~r~":~j\ :;d'(",;\'I':";'J~:'-~)i ';'::, '~":". '., '.:,~',:.\..';:,:.::".
, ,\1\\ _',' ~I~ ;."." \~.- ~, \.: "1. \ -. -:, , ,: t, '. 'p,' .~
387
, i
~
I,'
,"'"
i ,
, I
....,
I
i:
',_I
i'
r
i
r-'
r't
I,
""
i)
..
, ,
! t
~.I
r!
'-'
, ,
!
L.,
I'
,
! ,
~
! ~
i
.....
, I
, ,
: I
-
-
~
-
....
'IIl""" -
. .... -- ~. ..-. ~- ....". ~ ...... - - . - r- --...-,- W'.... .".. - ...- ------
j:~ ~.',: ..'J.',:' ":<..:~" ",' ". ~-i.".,. : ~/"""" . ." .",' ': .',: ~\.:.':~' .,~.;~:\
'_', 'l~ ,x ;11 "',' ,. ,'.
... . ~" . " I ,. "' ". " " I '. " . . _ '. '~'. . ',I '
.I"";,:,....fa,,,..',.)~:-:,:.>....\, ,:~',l":..,, ,;./.. :,.\ ,: "',:, ,~.
Chapter Four
AIRPORT SITE ANALYSIS
Airport facilities needed to meet existing
and anticipated general aviation demand in
the Iowa Oty/Johnson County area were
identified in the previous chapter. These
facility requirements set the basic
parameters for the remaining phases of the
Airport Relocation Feasibility Study. The
next step in the planning process Is to
evaluate the various ways those facilities
can be provided.
The possible combinations of alternatives
can be endless, therefore it Is Important to
attempt to focus upon those alternatives
that have the greatest potential for
Implementation. In considering general
aviation airport needs In the Iowa City area,
the range of 'alternatives can be classified
into four basic categories:
~ Do Notlling
~ Service from Another Existing Airport
~ Develop a New Airport
~ Develop the Existing Airport Site
Iowa Qty Airport
Relocation Feasibility Study
This chapter will concentrate on the first
three categories of alternatives. They each
represent options that could preclude
further development at the existing airport
site. The next chapter will follow with an
examination of options for development at
the existing Iowa City Municipal Airport
The most practical options can then be
compared to determine the most prudent
and feasible direction to take.
'00 NOTHING' ALTERNATIVE
As a first step in the analysis of alternatives,
it is necessary to consider the consequences
of no future development at the Iowa City
Municipal Airport. This 'do nothing' or
'maintain the status quo' alternative simply
maintains tile existing airport In its present
condition with no additional Improvements
otller than routine maintenance funded
entirely by the City. On the surface, it
would appear that this alternative would
4-1
387
.....,
\
r-- y-.-----
- .. --....-~,~- -- .,......~-...--- ,-
- ---, ~ ..,... ' -- - ...... ...,. - y- ..........-,.- - .....--.,.. -
~'. '-/ ,',":' ,,';';;,",.' B '.', ,,', ",',. ,
.;, [I . ",'7.'1 "~ " ' , ,,' '.,
.~.,.,~',[ .~~':".i~,' ,"'1 J"'~"I . ,': " . 1",:':,1'" ';. "',":,
. , . ,~, .~. " , . ,
. .' ) _ ',,'e'i '_ - 1\ " '. {, ,: ....
have the least impact because nothing new
would be created. However, the
underlying concern is that this alternative
simply ignores the basic problems
associated with Iowa City Municipal Airport
today.
The primary reason for the initiation of this
Airport Relocation Feasibility Study was the
development and encroachment problems
currently experienced at Iowa City
Municipal Airport. These problems are
focused primarily on two aspects: airport
safety and design standards, and
surrounding development encroachment.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
has established basic airport design
standards for the safe and efficient
operation of airports supported by federal
airport Improvement grants. The standards
are outlined in FAA Advisory Circular
1 SO/5300-13, Airport Design. These design
standards are affected by the approach
speeds, wingspans, and weight of the most
demanding aircraft. To meet business jet
standards, the airport should be designed to
Airport Reference Code D-II. This includes
aircraft with approach speeds of less than
166 knots and wingspans of less than 79
feet. It should be pointed out that this
category of design is the standard for both
existing and future general aviation users.
The use of D-II standards will continue to
preclude commercial jet operations at Iowa
City.
Table 4A compares the runway design
standards to the existing conditions at Iowa
City Municipal Airport. The current runway
length is not the most significant design
factor. Of greater concern is the inability of
the current facilities to meet design
standards for the runway safety area (RSA)
and the runway object free area (OFA).
According to AC 150/5300-13, the runway
safety area is defined as the surface
surrounding the runway prepared or
......... __ ..M~__."_~_
suitable for reducing the risk of damage to
airplanes in the event of an undershoot,
overshoot, or excursion from the runway.
The object free area is defined as a 'two-
dimensional area surrounding runways,
taxiways, and taxilanes which should be
clear of objects except for those whose
location is fixed by airport operational
functions' (i.e. lights and navigational aids).
As indicated in Table 4A, the RSA should
extend at least 1000 feet beyond the
runway end, but currently is limited to as
little as 250 feet. The object free area is
only 650 feet wide compared to the 800
foot design standard. The length beyond
the OFA should also be 1,000 feet, but
only 50 feet is available. Thus, the airport
is not meeting current safety standards and
design standards. To continue to simply
ignore these standards by doing nothing,
could potentially result in future FAA
compliance violations, as well as liability
ramifications to the City.
As part of its Airport Improvement Program
(AlP) which provides aid for development
and safety improvements at airports, the
FAA has established airport compliance
requirements that are outlined in FAA
Order 5190.6A. The compliance
requirements are designed to protect the
federal investment in airport facilities,
through binding commitments designed to
assure the public interest is served. Iowa
City Municipal Airport has received federal
funds for airport improvements and is
bound through contractual grant assurances
to meet FAA compliance requirements. A
key part of these compliance requirements
is conformance to FAA criteria and
standards.
Another key area of concern with the status
quo is the encroachment of Incompatible
development around the airport. The Iowa
City Municipal Airport began as an 88-acre
site in 1920 and has been expanded over
4.2
3g7
;;r-.....- ~ - - 'y-'----
.....,
A'
I
11
..,
,
, I
, ~
I
,
I
,
'."J
..,
.,.,
..,
,
;
_.1
-:
I I
i ..~j
I
I ....
I
I
',"_.4
\'~i
1
U
I t";"l
iJ
H
, \
I,;.'
\ ,-\
I I
I,
..,
,
,
I
,
'"
....
; ."oJ
,
I I
, '-
i
\
-
;
.....
I I
...
, I
III'J
... .. -...-----.-~--....V "...... ------........,-~~ ... ~ ~ - ...--- .............- - .......~ ,.~--
~.:. ~'" ,~. '_\, .)......,~' ~ ',1,. ,. ~.~'",
..H ',,","" ~' "U ',," ',' , ,,'.
~1, q, "r~."'~f ~:,:. ,1f,,;-:'... '~)'i ~ ';;:71 ' " ".;' -: '.',' . ,':
I ,"~~ '_" '~...... ",.,~ .. -
t., l,' "J" .. '".,' " -e', r' :
the years to its present size of 450 acres.
While the airport site began as a remote
rural location, today it sits In the
southwestern portion of a very urbanized
area and is severely impacted by the
location of residential development to the
north and west, particularly within the
approaches to Runways 6, 12, and 17.
There is little doubt that the airport site pre-
dated the development of these residential
subdivisions. Nonetheless, the airport has
become the target of many lawsuits over
the years. At the present time there are five
pending lawsuits with alleged damages
claims totalling $2,496,SOO.
TABLE 4A
Runway Design Standards
Iowa Oty Municipal Airport
PRIMARY RUNWAY
11.~11Iill.JI'.'*.'
t, ,~< ",~,'m ,~,~ ",.,9,>>" "<<,:0:",,, *'''~'' ",,,,,~m,~I,
Runway
Length (feet) 4,355 5,600 3,875 3,900
Width (feet) 150 100 150 75
Strength (pounds)
Single wheel loading 25,000 30,000 25,000 12,500
Dual wheel loading 45,000 70,000 45,000 NR
Safety Area (feet)
Width 500 500 150 150
Length Beyond End 250 1,000 300 300
Object Free Area (feet)
Width 650 800 500 500
Length Beyond End 50 1,000 325 600
Runway Centerline To:
Parallel Taxiway Centerline (feet) 200 300" 700 240
Hold Line (feet) 175 250 175 200
Aircraft Parking Limit (feet) 400 400. 425 250
NR: No Requirement
· Nonpreclsion approach standards. Standards for a precision approach 100 feet
greater.
Boldface type indicates that standard is not currently being met.
To continue with the status quo will
provide no improvement of this present
situation, and the current problems will
only continue to manifest themselves if not
addressed. Doing nothing would also
deprive the airport of future federal
funding, placing a significant financial
burden on the local community. Therefore,
in the interest of enhancing safety and
compatibility, the 'do nothing' alternative
cannot be considered to be a prudent or
financially feasible alternative.
4-3
387
\
....- -
- .........~. ....,. - ........ r '" --,. - - . - r-- ._.,.~ ... ... T - ..
",:,,':,;t'll' : ':~l:':'::~~':'t'~",:, "~",:-:,, ,'..\
~. ' .~...,,'" , " ..'. '.'
, . t' , ," . "J \ ~) , . '., .. " ,\ " . t. . ." :
':,' ,!,,~":',' ".-4,.'" :,,', " ',' 1_:, ,', ,." , ':",,', :,:.: :',:'
SERVICE FROMANOTHERAIRPORT
This alternative can be looked at from
several perspectives. One involves closing
the existing airport and thereby forcing all
existing general aviation demand to utilize
other airports. The others involve limiting
the capabilities of the airport to varying
degrees, thereby forcing a portion of the
local demand to utilize other facilities.
Thus, the first aspect to look at is why even
have a general aviation airport.
FUll TRANSFER OF SERVICES
One issue often raised in this type of
discussion is the need for a general aviation
airport. Everyone is aware of the
contribution of highways to the
transportation system because almost
everyone is travels by car or similar form of
roadway transportation. However, the fact
that general aviation is a key element in the
transportation network is not publicized as
well. While the airlines have done a good
job of letting the public know the
importance of scheduled service at major
airports, the public is usually unaware of
the benefits derived from the general
aviation industry.
The following quote from the Aircraft
Owners and Pilots Association highlights
this problem:
'More and more people are questioning
the need for airports, especially general '
aviation airports. All too often, people
not involved in aviation see only negative
aspects of the airport--the problems they
feel the airport brings to them personally.
Others are not particularly concerned
about, or bothered by the airport, but
believe that it is an unnecessary facility,
often maintained at public expense for
the benefit of the few rich folks who can
afford the dubious joys of flying.'
While this may be a common attitude
toward general aviation, it is often an
attitude born out of ignorance of the
industry itself and its many positive impacts.
By definition, general aviation is that
segment of aviation which consists of all
flying except that done by the airlines and
the military. It is, far and away, the largest
segment of aviation in the United States,
encompassing a fleet of aircraft totaling
more than 212,000. This equates to
approximately 97 percent of all civilian
aircraft in the United States Of all general
aviation operations, only ten percent are
purely recreational, with the remaining 90%
being operations for personal or business
transportation.
Because of the myriad of activities, because
of the individual utilization, and because of
the random routes of personal air
transportation, it is difficult to assess the
total economic impact of general aviation.
It certainly is safe to say, however, that
each time an aircraft flies somewhere,
people aboard are spending money in a
community other than their own. People
are purchasing fuel for airplanes, renting
automobiles, staying in hotels, eating in
restaurants, entertaining, etc. This social
and economic exchange is bringing benefits
to all people whether or not they personally
use airplanes or airports. Based upon an
economic benefit analysis prepared for the
Commonwealth of Virginia, it was
concluded that each dollar spent by
aviation and/or aviation-dependent
businesses generates an additional $1.S2 In
economic activity.
However, what really makes general
aviation a national resource is the public'S
need for the services of general aviation.
General aviation serves a wide variety of
public needs and clearly is in the public
interest providing services such as: pipeline
patrol, law enforcement, transporting blood
4-4
J87
-
,-
~
~
~~....... - ,., - -,,--.~--
.......
..1
i.
I
,r
IlSl
i:
I:
II
Ii
l.i
-
, '
,
I
..,
-,
I
"n"
ii
, ,
/."1
'~1.\
Ii
\'1
,""
I'
I,)
\
r""l
,
I
'-,
, '
ioJ
-
--
- ...-.... -"....-r}- ....... r 'T""" ----- .. ...~ -..... ,.-
... ~-.....,.- ...--'-~-~-..- .-
~ "'i;,'.'.. .',(;m:', ',~>,::;;,', ,':(.'~.,':,: .:>':.~
>',.':,1';;" :':': ':\1,;;::-:' :JZJ",:' ,,~"";; ':.' , .,,'::"'.: .;~,
and human organs, medical evacuation,
map and chart information (aerial
photography), prospecting with airplanes,
agricultural uses, (transporting of products
and crop dusting), public services (transport
of canceled checks, mail freight, and
overnight cargo).
The airport users survey conducted with
this study bears out similar facts for the
Iowa City area. Over 35 percent of the
aircraft registered in Johnson County are
registered to corporations. The survey
responses indicated that 57 percent of the
aircraft usage was for business purposes.
Many local businesses make use of the
general aviation services at Iowa City
Municipal Airport, including two of the
area's largest employers, the University of
Iowa and United Technologies. At leastten
other firms employing over 100 persons in
the Iowa City area make use of the local
airport on a regular basis. In addition
numerous smaller businesses use general
aviation transportation regularly, as well as
outside interests doing business with local
companies.
The major advantages offered by general
aviation include the ability for businesses to
set and control their own time schedules.
Savings provided by the use of corporate
aircraft is related to time saved avoiding
airline schedules, and flying directly into
smaller communities that may not have
commercial air service. Even if the
alternative choice is an airport just twenty
miles further away, round-trip, time savings
of one hour can be realized. While this
may not seem significant as a one time
occurrence, it is equivalent to over ten
percent of an employee's productive time
for that day. Based upon regular
occurrences, the impact becomes
cumulative and equates to a significant
impact to productivity and subsequent
overhead.
With over 50 based aircraft and 23,000
annual aircraft operations, it is apparent
that Iowa City Municipal Airport is fulfilling
a public need. To simply close the airport
would have a significant impact upon its
users as well as businesses such as the fixed
base operator that derive their economic
well-being from serving the aviation needs
of the community.
The airport most often mentioned as the
logical facility for the relocation of activity
from the Iowa City Municipal Airport is the
Cedar Rapids Municipal Airport. However,
the most critical factor to be considered
when evaluating the option of transferring
aviation demand from Iowa City Municipal
Airport to Cedar Rapids Municipal Airport
is travel-time and accessibility. While travel
time to Cedar Rapids Municipal Airport
from the Iowa City Central Business District
is approximately 30 minutes, this time
could be a deciding factor for aviation users
when considering a preference between the
two municipalities. This could be an
especially important factor for businesses
who regularly utilize general aviation as part
of their operations.
The importance of this accessibility is
currently being demonstrated on the north
side of Cedar Rapids where the City of
Marion is currently undertaking an airport
site selection study to develop a new
general aviation airport. There is no
question that Cedar Rapids Municipal
Airport can and should continue to serve
the commercial airline needs in eastern
Iowa. However, general aviation needs for
the surrounding outlying communities are
more effectively served by general aviation
facilities in closer proximity to the local
demand.
Full relocation of the general aviation
activity presently occurring at Iowa City
Municipal Airport to another area airports
does not appear to be feasible. The
/1-5
38'
.&. --
__..lI'flJ1t....ltlIo. .Llcl~!!,U.>.olltll~!lI!IMIltmlHIIIIII~I.a",..a.IllW...~~_~______~~___~~_
\
twtM --...",-.--
. ...~..-....... a-- ....-----" __ - - -.....r-- _~ ,-
r .. .. -----. ......".- ....----.....'~
',' Rt'~l' ~''''''I ~:; " , ,'"':'1" .' : , , , '
.,:. ',~ -'..... ':..~:,:. I.,' '~"'. '.. . ,'.' . .:., ,,-:
, , 'l ,. ., ,', Jf... , '.' "
; :".,'.~.:~: ';~'.:'.''','.~,: :.i~~\ " ...', .' ,'::" <"':J'
general aviation airports closest to the Iowa
City metropolitan area include Mathews
Memorial Airport, located approximately 19
nautical miles to the northeast at Tipton,
Green Castle Airport, located approximately
1 0 nautical miles to the northwest, Amana
Airport, located approximately 17 nautical
miles to the northwest, and Kalona Airpark,
located approximately 12 nautical miles to
the southwest. Of these four airports, only
Mathews Memorial Airport is a public-
owned public use airport. The other three
airports are privately-owned public use
airports. Each of these airports consist of
smaller general aviation facilities which
would require significant upgrades and
improvements.
Such upgrades and improvements would
cost as much as or more than the costs
anticipated with' the development of
improvements for the Iowa City Municipal
Airport. Further, because privately-owned
airports are not eligible for federal funds for
the construction of needed improvements,
it is highly unlikely that any of the nearby
privately-owned airports would be able to
accommodate the existing and projected
demand from Iowa City Municipal Airport
through the planning period. An added
concern is that more and more privately-
owned airports are being closed to the
public each year for reasons such as
incompatible land use encroachment,
insurance costs, and liability considerations
as well as a changeover in property
ownership.
Additionally, these alternate airports are not
as readily accessible to the Iowa City
businesses and industry as is the Iowa City
Municipal Airport and are therefore less
capable of serving the general aviation
market identified for the Iowa City
Municipal Airport. As such, the commuting
costs for the private and business users of
the airport would be increased.
_._~.
-~~.-.~.__...
Also to be considered in closing the airport
with no replacement are the commitments
made by the City of Iowa City in the form,
of assurances to the Federal Aviation
Administration and leases to airport
businesses. over the years improvements at
the airport have been developed in part
with the assistance of federal grants through
the Airport Improvement Program. In
accepting federal funds, the City has agreed
to maintain the airport for twenty years. In
addition the airport has aviation-related
leases extending at least through the year
2001. If the airport were to close and no
replacement provided, agreements would
be necessary to buy-out both the FAA
assurances and the tenant leases.
In summary to completely transfer aviation
services to another existing airport and
close the Iowa City Municipal Airport is not
in the best interests of the community.
The following discusses the potential for
partial transfer of services.
PARTIAL TRANSFER OF
GENERAL AVIATION SERVICES
This alternative would involve limiting the
design and service available at Iowa City
Municipal Airport to less than required to
fully meet current demands. Aircraft
requiring a higher level of airport would be
forced to utilize the Cedar Rapids
Municipal Airport.
According to the 1990 census Iowa City is
the sixth largest city in the state of Iowa.
However when compared to the other
nineteen largest cities in the state, Iowa City
has the least runway length available.
Table 4B demonstrates this comparison. Of
the others, only Muscatine and Davenport
have less than 5,000 feet of runway length.
Both airport sponsors have applied for AlP
funds to extend their runways to 5,500 feet.
4.6
-
~
I','
~.q
,_J
r"l
.",
.-
I'
,
:-.
.'
,
('
,
, ,
...
, I
,.;
II
387J
___om_ ~ ~~.'_"llf" l~lII!lAl.I"'l\lllfIlIlJI\
,..
I'
i . I
,
,
I
I' ~
i:
I '
I _
I '
I
..)
-
-,
-
i ,--,
I -
,
r.....
\ :
,.J
14
II
LJ
~,.I
I I
, ,
,~
\ '.-
,
,
-
..,
-
f--l
I
, ,
...
:,\
,
,
-
~
"", ::'f.-:'>.:./....I' ':tM\;'::g.... ' ':,. I'" ,: ", ',:: :;,:,
... "\J' ~ '" . ",', ~,' ....
'. ,'., I, J'<' . ,,' " ' " . " I .
...,:'J..........,. ,.t~::,: ~ " .', ,'" '''', .',.
TABLE 4B
General Aviation facilities
SelVing Iowa's Twenty Largest Cities
[~II~i1[llql~iilltlITh~;I; :m1w191e4~,9!~\J~9nl
1. Des Moines
2. Cedar Rapids
3. Davenport
4. Sioux City
S. Water/oo
6. Iowa City
7. Dubuque
8. Council Bluffs
9. Ames
10. Cedar Falls
11. West Des Moines
12. Clinton
13. Mason City
14. Bettendorf
1 S. Burlington
16. Fort Dodge
17. Marshalltown
1 B. Ottumwa
19. Urbandale
20. Muscatlne
193,107
108,751
95,333
80,505
66,467
59,73B
54,546
54,315
47,198
34,29B
31,702
29,201
29,040
28,132
27,200
25,894
25,178
24,48B
23,500
22,681
Noles:
Kt.~~I:I~;Rqb!~ylt~~~i
Des Moines International
Cedars Rapids Municipal
Davenport Municipal
Sioux Gateway
Water/oo Municipal
Iowa City Municipal
Dubuque Regional
Omaha Eppley Airfield 1
Ames Municipal
Water/oo Municipal 2
Des Moines International J
Clinton Municipal
Mason City Municipal
Davenport Municipal ·
Burlington Municipal
Fort Dodge Regional
Marshalltown Municipal
Otlumwa Industrial
Des Moines International J
Muscatlne Municipal
9,001
8,600
4,801
8,999
8,401
4,355
6,496
B,5oo
5,700
8,401
9,001
5,204
6,501
4,800
6,702
6,547
5,005
6,499
9,001
4,700
Suburb 01 Omaha, also selVed by Council Bluffs Municipal Airport with 4,1 oo.Ioot runway.
2 City Is directly adjacent to Waterloo Municipal Alrpor,t
J Suburbs 01 Des Moines.
, City Is located adjacent to Davenport
Iowa City is the only major community in
the state that does not have airport facilities
that can fully accommodate business jets.
Thus, the level of general aviation facilities
provided at Iowa City is lagging well behind
those available to the other major
communities in the state. The airport user
surveys and the actual activity at the airport
indicate that the Iowa City area generates
enough general aviation jet activity to
support a facility designed to business jet
standards. Without an adequate facility,
the businesses utilizing business jets for
transportation to and from the Iowa City
area will continue to face limitations on use
of the existing facility or divert to Cedar
Rapids.
In the interests of present businesses that
rely on business jets in their operations, as
well as to enhance the Iowa City area
economic development opportunities in
comparison to the other major communities
in the state, the community would be best
served by maximizing its local general
aviation capabilities, The level of service to
be provided will need to be weighed
against the costs and benefits of providing
the necessary facilities either at the existing
site or at a new local site.
4-7
3~7
~......- ",- - - y-'--
......
\
.. ... ...............'I"~-- ....-.r---~... - - --r- _~,-~ -. ......,. - ..
'~>. '''f,w.;,' "''':'~l ,,- f-j"-;', '::'H;', - ',', , " - ,,': ,', " '"
.,',: ",' )',: ",:' ~_, l"'~',,';' I." "~f ""'" :': ( -.' :,;,,' " ,':,1;.
, ,,\ l'.l ., '1 - ". ' . <.
.:', "~,'. \':':l':.~;.,,' .' ,~", ,:.\\;- . ,'':' ,:,".' .
DEVELOPMENT OF
A NEW AIRPORT SITE
The next option to be considered is the
potential for development of a new airport
site. There are several factors that will
affect the potential for relocating the
airport Before these factors can be
compared to the other alternatives, a very
basic question must be answered. Are
there any viable airport sites within
reasonable proximity to the Iowa City area.
The remainder of this chapter will be
devoted to an airport site search and
analysis of potential sites.
ESTABLISHMENT OF POTENTIAL
AIRPORT SITING AREA
Several factors important to the proper
location of an airport must be considered in
initially defining an airport siting area. An
ideal site for the development of the Iowa
City Municipal Airport would be one that
would provide maximum benefit to the
Iowa City/Johnson County community and
would be conveniently located for the
majority of users, without negatively
impacting the surrounding environs. It
stands to reason, if an airport is to survive
and provide maximum service to the area,
it should be located in reasonable proximity
to the population and business centers it is
to serve. For the Iowa City Municipal
Airport, this is primarily the metropolitan
area of Iowa City.
Therefore, the airport siting area was
established based upon reasonable travel
distance from the central business district
(CBD), the city's industrial parks, the office
and research parks, and the University of
Iowa. Exhibit 4A depicts the general siting
area based upon the area within a ten mile
radius of all these key locations. This will
ensure driving times of fifteen minutes or
less to the airport.
IDENTIFICATION OF
CANDIDATE SITES
Once the general area in which the airport
should be located is defined, the next step
is to identify specific areas or sites that
could accommodate an airport. The goal is
to identify sites within the siting area that
deserve a closer look as a part of the next
step of the process.
The initial criteria for identifying potential
sites involved an examination of constraints
within the siting area. Exhibit 4B identifies
areas within the siting area where either
environmental or physical constraints would
impact the viability of the airport.
The siting area includes several
environmental and physical features that
immediately eliminate some land areas from
consideration. A key constraint is the
topography of the Iowa City area,
particularly west and north of the city.
Virtually all of the siting area north of
Interstate 80 can be eliminated immediately
because of the steep terrain and the
presence of the Coralville Reservoir. South
of the interstate, the rolling topography,
combined with the wetlands and
floodplains of the Iowa River and its
tributaries minimizes the number of sites
suitable for airport development.
Johnson County is principally drained by
two rivers that flow south and eastward
through the county. The Cedar River enters
only the north.easternmost portion of the
county, and includes very little of the siting
area within its drainage area. The Iowa
River is the principal watercourse through
the county. Together with its tributaries, it
drains 95 percent of the county. The Iowa
River enters the county from the northwest
and flows eastward until midway across the
northern half of the county where it turns
south. A U.s. Army Corps of Engineers
dam on the Iowa River just north of Iowa
4.8
3f7
r
,
r-
'-
,..\
1..;1
'''j
I'
~"
~
-~.
.......
'"'
.,.,
-'
v-~
.
... ~T~-- ....-r---, -y
- -
'--r- .-- ~"-....
"'''Y-- ...
<'.';,. tll','" ~....: "f.fl'-""~I'~;';':'" ,,"'" :"',:':.". ~ "", \
. ~, . ) '. .'. . \. , " ",' ': . r"
-" " . ... ' t" . ,> f ," I I . I, ' , ," '. .
."." -:. \ . . "', "~ , ' ;. . '. ' " . " "
" ,,'" J " I ",.', \ I " " , ' . . ~. , . , .' '.;;.' I
',J.:,'" :", l;'; ,\ '/\ nil": .:,' :,! . ':.'" ,','.,,' . - _" '.' ','" ,.' ':.'
"./."\. ,.,~,'" ',WIIIf"" 'r \~I '. II....., . ',.! ,"', ,., ,j, ",'
r R" ., " " "." . ' (.
~'-.l
I~
11
~
~
~
~
, ,
'.!01',.'...l'li!~'! '; 'l..:, ~j..'il~ ,\,~;{,"j".I1""-h' :~~~.;..m,B"I~'
, II ~ r.1 N i,' ~!/ j.' I' J '/~~"'~"I ')J'J; '1.;: ~ '. ,~, ..i;;';' i I;~'j:" 'I, '7l
.......W1l 1 "I' , t 'in l;oj,: f w . ~~: . ~~;,. f-.....
! "T'" "'l'Ir"~,-..\...;L. -,", is'!G, 'it:l'ft.'I'!':',""
.S~~~ 1..:.a~i~1\.:.J-==~:" ~.~tJJ~~,~i ~..~'~iiD: .~ ~!'Ir.(,u-.\IGgi ,~ t~~;~".i ~:: " '.....! 'I~~
I'~ ," I' I .., 'j\~:~~~"..... ,A'.. 1;'~. . ,"" ,.".."
l""'\~ "__.il" I 11, ~'. UIlo.,' ocr, {"t-,'f ..1.....' ....I ......,......l~'
\.~ iil.in~_.!,)'~.' II~"~~' "/1:' 1 It....
~...:,~.L~.....l...",L......"....1 " '1 .:C.\i!".Rl"...~,
I /I~" 'i -oq~ . ... r ! ..L ~/1 "
t"'\, ' .:;,; I" II l.re ~1;t3F: 1. I' . I .....J.. ..J.. ..
. ',' ...; I'" ,.....~..:rr~: i;t'~"i"'''''~: . ~ ~", ..' . ..';i,J J~' . ~ ..:, j i' I.d. ! 'i ' j : ~
:.... D I ~ (p.!'I I ,- I : ' 1 D: '1\ I . __h ~'!'f' ........-...- "~_I"
., t 't !, -i_rhO:".!,:\: : b.' '"" 'lo' ....", . 13: : :
];! Iler:."I-;J:--Ch1''',out'::ll J ! I '"I I~'~ ;t:-. hi , v ': "I ~"ej~'
J~..+'~JII'lIr-1 ~t._... _~ I).. 11,5,0 ~~r-n: ~ I '. I ~~~'" I.', II Ii :1,,",
: '\ I 'II ',J'~ r. g ': ~.."'~ 1..1, I t I ' :'j~ .._.t--~~JJ -.. "':'~'~ ~i?:'....
:~n ......... w ,,~. ..........' '" f.,1' IN C ~ f_b I, 'T If ,I, i ' r"'''
~i\I" 'f 0' 8 ' 1'.r,,:1 /A r: 1,;', ..... ~ 8~. . ';," ...~ ,: r
..; 'f\'" . W.../HI-.... '. ,II; 1 ,."'~.~ &:s:': ,:!;;: ~I'" 1,. . ,,/,:, "A ~
\1. ,~.ri\ . .! il' "~'I' ,:; . ....l. .....ij;.... I'~' -"
...... '00'" .. """""'li~... 1 ...., , '!'!',:. I.,
I I I ""'om~ It" o. '1~ ...,....:..~'.,....' ~lj ~ I' I ' _
~ 1 . :....3-1. , , '/, if" I: r, N\\\~~J. \. rl~ 11-.. (If..... ..li.f.:r' ~ .....
""01~'''' ....... ~- , ,",' I A-..' ;~ I. r:...e..
! 1':;1 ,...,~ I Ill, ;... . f; It / ..~' ~l..~.. n.~. ..... '~/l1 'b ::.:'
I' .~, ....,. CL \ '..... / V.Jfl~~'~\7 . ',.1.1' .
I t I I C.k f ~~ '/ Jo.lt.., leV.
.....1..1. I l'i I I lIlli' I;I~ '// I~~~\\ ,\,- . too..
. ~ . I If .. .\ ,~,\ / /1 ,\ ,~~\\ ~~~~~ ,,,, ...:..~. ',I ~
lIB'i ;.f f-itj . I I . I! I I . . 1l'~\~~ \\\\~\ \~~\~~\~\'''''''I_' ...JI1-.u .....
I . _...1 -. I. "",I" ~ I]\~\~\~\~\' :\' ,,\\~\\\~\~~ I I ~ I 1m' ,
'H A I ~ '6! ..1. II;'! ~ ~ 1ft I " ~\\~\\ ,\~\\~\\~ ..... ~....+..-.. }n...~. a:l!.
. N , I u~ 0 Plo, '!' ,a \'~\ ~\~\\ \ .,\\\\\\ . . :.. I . -
: -: I' " i" II l;~lfn; "~~~f' ~"F';~.:1 ~\\\' ~\~\\ \ ~.~;.: 1 C 0 'T: T' .
.. _.ii': I ",.b1" ~Mj ft l~ "\ \\~\~~\ S; ~ ....~ , II
I II . !.~I I~ 00..... . ../ill \ \\~~\\ ..... I"'"
. ',' .-d' I' , 11. I . .Ji\i Jt I ~:;tll? I ,,','~ . I IIi I .. ~ /-",; ... ',I.,! ~.
.... ....i..g.. ..... ......1. ~' ~! 'I : I ....ci'i'. '1'0.' :"":'1'
. . 'I ... ........ ~S 1 ~ .J
-.....,..' U l~. I I J: J I r I :,X! I . ~ .. Cjj fA'S'~ ..l!Jj......,...\\'~....i'
1 r I ~::f , ,II G;I~ . d. " ~1,.s..1 II ~ II l'i I ill .'~
'~ I ' · s I .: I
I IJ-!..:.~ I 1~lllj.I\..Ir:"_ r'~,,," '(..!Irr'''' ~
~..;..l...,; ,'., ~-:;,o(._~:~,~:. 'I,:~..:' .~.I~.C, .'! 'l~.l 'I ,"i..~,
- . ~. I \.~; D '!"I<jr Ilr.~ ' , ,"" .!I!II' .~ II . tFs" , , ,I I!,
'.flo" "", I -;:rr~ i "l!.F. t s ^ N I '
. WI"'" I ....... .L..... .J. "'~!n.. _._ '"I' "'~,""
II S." J I "'T " ,...... 6" .m :o..t, . .. ._ "
I '''. . h' 11". , ~'i ;r -......
I {:.J' ifill. II ~ .t I ""'~ ,., /I I w '1J~
...:a, ' . ..~ .....' .- " I . It II 1"
'j::vltrt"! , t:I ",~, '1 .... .. !Ii.i" : '" . ",~"..." .....
. . ! I I ..., f ~ ~-Il U li:l II t~ J II! I ~ tr :. 1I", /I. "J'ioOl;"jj
. ~ ~ ,".:r.r I I, .' .;. i ' /I
. I, ",ll r" -, J L if,' ...~.....'I..,~~;:.U, I . .i~ 'll_"""'''' b....' I ~ t , I:
-_''''1 I I,',,J! I. ~~ ~.-l-" t P . II. I .
II IASHlIIClOlfCCUIIlY 110611 N 6i ~ ""1, I
~' ,: i. I 'I.'
~ .'@
~""~;.,~., "~ " 'I'
'u~ .: ,,~ "oj! .. . " .
: r: R 'HI! 0 N T
~,. ~ 'J !. I, It i ,: I~~
"~.~',,i'II',
'Xr~"~~' -" ~----
),r,;;;: : -.
;'IJ/
....
,~
-
.....,
.l.
~~
NOm
I
IOUI
~..;.:.
.
~
SCALE IH l.IlllS
-- ,~
. 'x:?
.... fu~:';
Exhihil4A W(
AIRPORT SITING AREA ~\'.P)(
387
_.....'w~ _~,~~.~ ... _,"'_ ..,_.~,.~"'..._.._.....,...__ ,~~."".....",._,,,,,,,
.~611
I -;....MlR\..:M'fL.~' JJIN'lIJM>>I,rtJ~;f~ldT1
- v-.-
. .. ...----..-~-- ....-r-.-' -y - .-.,.-....
0,,'; , -\ ".:;m '.' ':6;:'.' ~lJ; :.' ","'"-', :':""""::"'.:
,:.,;::-:,..[1 :':.J~.l:~",Fl' ..:1."1 ? . J, ....: .~~.' ',,',:
'. "', " ~ _. ,.~ ,1, ~.~..I" , ',.' _'" ~.\.
City forms the Coralville Reservoir. The
river then continues southward, dissecting
the city of Iowa City. It continues in a
southward flow until exiting the
southernmost reaches of Johnson County.
The Iowa River and its tributaries form
many of the environmental constraints
outlined on Exhibit 46. The floodplains are
highlighted as areas to avoid with any new
airport site. In addition, the river is
associated with many wetlands areas south
of the city that should also be avoided with
any new airport construction.
Residential concentrations should also be
avoided. This would include any rural
residential subdivisions as well as the
developed areas of the cities of Iowa City,
Coralville, and Hills, all of which lie within
the airport siting area. The location of
these urban areas as well as several rural
concentrations of residential development
are included in the environmental
constraints as depicted on Exhibit 46.
Physical constraints within the siting area
include several high voltage overhead
power lines, tall towers, rail lines, and
major paved roadways. Also marked are
major gas pipelines running through the
siting area. While these physical constraints
may not necessarily preclude a site, they
will have an effect on development costs
because they could require higher than
normal costs for relocation. These physical
constraints areas are also identified on
Exhibit 46.
Accessibility is important if an airport is to
be an economic asset to the community.
The principal roadways through the siting
area are U.S. Highway 6, State Highway 1,
U.S. Highway 218, Old Highway 218, and
Interstate 80. The best sites should be
within reasonable proximity to one of these
main trafficways. Ideally, the candidate
sites should be located no more than one
mile off a paved roadway. This minimizes
the amount of road that would need to be
paved to provide access to the facility.
As is evident from Exhibit 46, large portions
of the general siting area are affected by
environmental and physical constraints. As
a consequence, the remaining available
siting area is significantly reduced. Through
office evaluations and field verifications,
three candidate sites were found within the
siting area. These sites are depicted on
Exhibit 46. Each site has the capability to
accommodate a 5,600 foot-long primary
runway with a precision instrument
approach and a 3,900 foot-long crosswind
runway.
The three sites are located as follows:
SITE 1 - This site is located adjacent to the
southeastern city limits of Iowa City,
immediately south of U.S. Highway 6 in
Sections 30 and 31, Township 79 North,
Range 5 West.
SITE 2 . This site is located approximately
four miles east of Iowa City, immediately
south of U.S. Highway 6 in Sections 34 and
35, Township 79 North, Range 5 West, and
Sections 3 and 10, Township 78 North,
Range 5 West.
SITE 3 . This site is located approximately
four miles east of Iowa City north of u.s.
Highway 6 in Sections 22, 23, 26, and 27,
Township 79 North, Range 5 West.
SITE ANALYSIS CRITERIA
As noted earlier, in order to determine the
viability of a site for an airport, a variety of
factors must be taken under consideration.
The following have been developed as
criteria upon which to gauge advantages
and disadvantages of each site. In this
manner, an orderly review process is
4-9
387
.-
....
. .
~
. ,
,
~
,
\..:
.
~,
r,
, .
-
I"'
~
"'j
~
'-,---- "";11"'"- .....-
'-,
',.
,
, (
'.
----- . ---r-........ ,-
. ........ ~. ..........-)-- - Ir "T"'"
... ..... --- ...--' --- -- --....- ,,~
~ ..
./~l'~
,(:', ,( '.....', '~'Ia:"~ >:..,..../'f '. <. .:" ::i,.~,...:;.;;;;\:;.':::..'::.;';.:.\
II, . 1 ti' . . ". ,1 ,.. ..tffj'..., .l. , ,.. \ . "". ,... .,
>."".' .':. :." '11:!I':\1',' ;.1.; ;';" :....,. .:'.. ::..,..':. ',' ,.,.;....:.,. ''':::,,: ....'.:."
~ '/'\' '!:":--..3()~""-' '.; ]''''','',~~\'.r..'- ',,~" .'~;, I,' ": .\, ',I, .'" .'
~"",\i,~ '~~;"~"'t;Ill'"!"';~!'-~'1, _' \.' . i '
I
. ( ,":"
. .
II' '\
it Il
...........,....n(."i't'!WIr'!IJ!1~I>t>~"
....~.....-''''._-',..,.......'_.1':1~''''.,..... -~... .~,...~"...."'.......',..~,..."". .M___.,.,.r'!l',.....~~r"!1~'lll<l'ow~_.....r_....._
- ... ---- --- -""
.~ .. -..".
,
.... "[1......: ':',,~., '. :'l1>"':'j"S":- . ',," :<~'.,>.:-r: ,........,>
).....~"[ '>":;i'~>:::.:t7]"; ''''',. ';':'::'.':;-~".-:~ i.; .;,-. ;:" .... <>. '~.;
~'I'.'.li"-f\; ). ~~I Jt~i 'r'; "'~' " I' . '\,' , ",.' .J
Exhibil4B
CANDIDATE AIRPORT SITES
LEGEND
· · · I Siting Area Boundary
I- Candidale Airport Sites
~~'Il Environmental Constraints:
Wetlands, Wildlife Refuges,
Residential Concenlrallons
. Physical Conslraints:
Topographic Incompatibility,
Major Power Transmission
Lines
_L
,""'"
I
3'87
\
,
,
,
11"1
, ,
i '
I "
....
I':'
I i,l
i'l
\,
,J
I
I ""
,J
,',: ,,:'t~/'" ,,:~l ': ' ':'Fi';';~: ';~.... ",: ,', :"',: ',';~ '" :',' ,:,
., '"', ~ . j , "J"
.... "~ ", I ... ,', . . ~ , . " ," . .
.', :';-~,''''''''l''~' "\~r't <.,( ,~. :", ~ \:,;.' .' " . I, ,,', i. _ ':-. ~.'..
, I
,
....
I ( I
: I
:~I
I
, ,
',I
,..,
,
. ,
',I
.-,
, I
. ,
'''I
'1
!:"I
i/
!",
"j
,
-
....
-,
, ,
, i
, '
,"
established to eliminate those sites that
cannot effectively meet the siting criteria,
Engineering Factors
Engineering factors are those which relate
directly to the construction, operation, and
maintenance of the airport. The categories
considered under engineering factors
include:
. PROXIMITY AND ACCESS
Ground travel time is a significant factor in
evaluating the convenience of an airport
site. The airport should be located so that
it is convenient to the greatest number of
users and potential users. The location in
relation to industry should receive high
attention with this factor. The airport
should be located so that it is provided
with good access from a major roadway.
Preferably, the airport should be located
adjacent to and visible from a major
highway route.
. PROPERTY ACQUISITION
This factor examines the magnitude of
property to be acquired for each candidate
site. The airfield layout, the size and shape
of existing parcel ownership, and other
impacts to neighboring parcels can affect
the amount of property necessary to be
acquired. Also included for consideration
under this category will be residence
acquisition.
. EARTHWORK AND DRAINAGE
This factor involves a preliminary evaluation
of each site as it relates to earthwork,
grading, and drainage. The site topography
will dictate the amount of earthwork
required. Site ratings under this category
will reliect the amount of earthwork
required for development of each site, as
well as any significant drainage features that
may be required or altered.
. SITE LAYOUT AND DESIGN
Each potential site must be evaluated on its
ability to physically accommodate the
ultimate basic airport without major
modifications to design standards. This
includes consideration of runway
orientation for wind coverage, site
limitations that could require modifications
now, or that could constrain future
development if future demand exceeds
forecasts or if design standards change in
the future.
In addition to meeting design standards, the
site must be capable of being designed in a
manner that is functionally efficient.
Factors to be considered include, adequate
space and depth for design of efficient
landside aviation facilities, the location of
the landside aviation facilities in relation to
the airfield layout, traffic flow on the
runway-taxiway system, and the ability to
stage development in a logical manner.
. AIRSPACE, OBSTRUCTIONS, AND
NAVIGATIONAL CONDITIONS
An analysis of the relationship with the
airspace requirements for the existing
airports is essential. In evaluating the
airspace for a new airport, the most rigid
criteria that may be applicable to the
ultimate development of the airport should
be applied. In this case, the airspace
requirements necessary to accommodate
general aviation business jets and a
precision instrument approach should be
used,
4-10
3i7:
I
I
I
I
!
I
j
\
~ ("'. :1:' ~', ' : ,'~\~ . ,. r 'r:-/,:.;;i ~t'j" ': \', :~. ,. " ":,,~" ,": ,:' ";)
, ." ,co.I, . I I ,. "'" "
. '. ,t,l" "l~'" ",", ',' ,j '", \' , , ,,' ,," , ' ....
-:",':",.....,,<" .,.j~:::. ,;\1 ~ ':' ;,l'W"" \ ,:.' '. ,"~' ::"','" \.
It is also necessary to review the envelope
area of each site for the presence or
absence of potential obstructions to aircraft
activity, Certain obstructions may be
considered immovable or too expensive to
move when other options are available (e.g,
large land forms, major power lines, towers,
etc.). Others such as smaller power lines,
trees, buildings, and roads impose a cost of
removal or relocation that must be
considered.
Environmental Factors
Factors considered as environmental.related
are those that affect the surrounding area,
or environs, thus having an impact on the
existing conditions within the community.
Criteria considered under the
environmental include the following
categories:
. PRIME AGRICULTURAL LAND
Encroachment of urban development in the
past has made prime agricultural land a
valuable resource that must be conserved.
Therefore, consideration must be given to
the impacts that airport development will
have on land considered most capable of
producing high yields or possessing the
special characteristics required for a unique
type of crop.
. SOCIAL IMPACTS
Each site must be evaluated for its potential
impact upon social factors within the
community. This includes the relocation of
residents and/or businesses necessitated for
the development of the airport site. Each
site must also be evaluated for how it might
influence area development plans in the
future. Also included within this factor is
the relocation or closing of roads and
similar disruptions that might be unique to
any site,
. NOISE/COMPATIBLE LAND USE
The potential for noise impacts should
always be considered for any airport site,
Along with noise impacts is the
compatibility of surrounding land uses with
the development of the airport. Noise
contours were developed for each site and
compared to land use in the area. Besides
existing land uses, consideration must be
given to future land uses proposed in the
city and county comprehensive plans.
. ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS
This category evaluates the potential
impacts on the natural and historic
environment. Potential impacts to
wetlands, groundwater, biotic communities,
endangered species, cultural resource areas,
and public use areas are included under
this category.
. PHYSICAL IMPACTS
Potential physical impacts related to
physical factors of construction, flood
hazard, light emissions, and affect on
energy supply or other natural resources,
EVALUATION OF CANDIDATE SITES
As previously mentioned, a preliminary map
study was conducted to identify possible
land areas that might meet the site selection
criteria, This effort resulted in the selection
of three candidate sites for further
evaluation,
The next step is to evaluate the candidate
sites using a site rating analysis to determine
4.11
, I
387 ~
I:
,.
-
: I
. ,
\.,.
...,
. I
"j
"'I
;.J
r'
,
'.'
,',
'-,
, ,
-'1
I,
I:
.....
1....,
, .
,
~
,"',
,
-
, ,
I
,
,-
; ,
,
,..J
~... 'lIr'"~ y-' --
I
i i
--
I
."J
.,
,
....i
."
,
, ,
.....
'J'
, '
..,J
- ... .---........~- .....". ~------..-r- -- ,-
.. ~~--.........-:-
j
"': : 'f7," ,'~:.oel ',: ~~/'" ,;, ',; ", , '::: <';,', ",,:, /" ',,>,';:
. " 'I~'''' .. ,',', ',"
:. .'~, ~~'':.<. :,~:::.. ,:_ ~Il;.. " -~'I' :-:- \.~ I, ..". ."" ",' ,:' ',.."
r
Ii
,...
I
'I
each sites overall potential. The
engineering and environmental factors were
used to give each site a single number
rating indicating the degree to which the
site was capable of meeting the criteria
discussed in the preceding section. The
rating values outlined below were
developed so that some penalty would be
given to sites that do not meet criteria, with
a greater penalty given to sites that are
totally unsatisfactory. Sites that exceeded
or enhanced the criteria were given a
bonus, while sites that best met the criteria
were given an additional bonus. Five rating
values were assigned as described below:
r-;
. ,
"'1
, I
""\
:.!
\
,..,
i
,
,,,'l
l
:>"J
."\
, I
".j
0- UNACCEPTABLE: The site fails to meet
the criteria; or would require major changes
to achieve acceptable conditions,
,0)
".
2 - INADEQUATE: The site includes
factors that do not meet the criteria as well
as should be expected; or, will require
some changes to achieve acceptable
conditions.
'l
~
.-
'J
:J
5 - ACCEPTABLE: The site satisfactorily
meets the criteria.
"'\
,
8 - ADEQUATE: The site is fully sufficient
to properly meet the criteria; and, in fact,
includes some advantages in meeting the
criteria.
"\
I
,
10 - SUPERIOR: The site fully meets the
criteria and includes major advantages
beyond what could normally be expected.
The following subsections discuss the rating
analysis, first based upon the engineering
criteria, then based upon the environmental
criteria.
Engineering Factors
. PROXIMITY AND ACCESS
. Site 1 (Exhibit 40
Site 1 is located directly adjacent to the
southeast corporate limits of Iowa City.
This places it the closest to the city of any
of the three candidate sites. The site is also
immediately southeast of the B.O.l.
Industrial Park, placing it in excellent
proximity to potential users, In the long
range, it would be possible to extend city
water and sewer utilities to this site.
Access would be excellent with a short
airport access road from Highway 6,
Highway 6 extends across the southern
portion of the city and intersects with U.S.
Highway 218 on the west side of the city.
An airport on this site would be highly
visible from the highway. While it would
be extremely difficult to find any site to be
as accessible as the present airport, Site 1 is
next best and is without the constraints
created by urban development around the
existing airport.
Site Rating: 10
i
,
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
!
. Site 2 (Exhibit 40)
Site 2 is located approximately 3.5 miles
further east of Iowa City than Site 1.
Highway 6 runs directly adjacent to the
north side of the Site 2. The airport could
also be reached from the city via paved
County Road F46 (American Legion Road).
Although the site would be visible from the
Highway 6, the terminal area would be
located farther south along a gravel road
and would not be as visible from the
highway.
4.12
387
-- ._--.........-
......... fWJ" ...
--.. ...-............--...-......,.---~
<'" - "', ...;.' <..;." ,', "':<,, ' ' , '" ,.' . -:\
" ...", ,~-, .. "", ',.'-1. " ..", , ,,' , "
' , '" 'f' "'l~ ' , , " ".
..'.,L :" .", I; :, ',' - 'G> ",,", ,:' ,;" ". '.:
I:.. .~ ..'.f::: .;'" ~.. .': ."11 ,~'I \,,~ "I.;' '. t '.
PROPERTY ACQUISITION
FEE SIMPLE 640 Ac,
RESIDENCES 8 I
""1 I
,
,
-55- DNL Noise Contour ,
I
. Residential Area
- I
\ ' ,
r:J Individual Residence ,I I
"1 I
I
I , I
I \ ' I
!
i
I J,;!
i , I
!
I I-I I
!.I j
/"-1
!
,
.' !
r'.
, '
I
,
I
'-
""I
1.,1
,
j.:"
, I
..-I
,i I
,I
,
I
~,..t
I
d
; ,
I
..
......
\
ill' -y-' -
,~
, ~
~
,... t
~
~
..,
. ,
I
:-r
;
~:
-
.:
j.',
,
.,
'.'1
"I i
,
".'1
f"'t
I
,'.".1
,,~'\
I
,
--'
,
~.;
'"!
I
~,
, ,
I
~
~,
'""
-
';. '" ,'Iil....;,::;>':;,(X:i;I.;..~':~,::r."'I~/'.;' H.... ,,:'. ..',' "," ',', :'" ,,',',
'. ,', ~" , ' , , . .! \.. ' . ' - ' ," .
j, ~ _ ' I , .,.... ",1:.;." '. .' , ..'. . . . , \'.
.' ': "': _ i",- , i.,'...... , '" ',' ". "
", ."c J ,_, :'I-"'i;!' I " . !~1- -..' ,'. ,', ' .''',' ",'
....,._."':. :;,:::'.~,~_,:,.;/'L",c,'.~' ',:",ilW-. \' .:. ", I,: ," ,': .,.'.',1
1fe'(~~~)),;!)! ~ ~WI1~~) 2tl'\,,\:) PROPERTY ACQUISITION '
~~~U//~ ~~ ('('~iL~ ~Jmt 7'<~,
~ ,~ -., ;LAND ~""-/' l '" FEE SIMPLE 710 Ac,
~':"~~Y ~ ..~~t ~..\ ~~ i{ ~~ RESIDENCES 3
, ,~~t% lei Vcr ,ij).~J\it:.j ~'b~""~' ~ -55- DNLNoiseConlour
) )/'t!'1 '. (~''b~ -q I )j '" ^ I L
~ )V tr ~ i I / ~ '" _, [:] Individual Residence .
V'()V/!t:'~ \\ ~,I /1"': \ i". ))~~r;.( Vi~"' \i~ 'It\~l
';@" ....;1...::--"/' IV) Ii\..: ,~~/<' YJr)u
-~ ~11111l, {(1 :::-ii;~'-co r'(~1 10\.~';J::"c:/11 ~ ~~ "
I V1 t.;, I VI(~ -"'~~'~~~ '7 I. l'> ,,,. Jfi.l I G a
~ I vV' V :;- 'v.i ~ l\~ I I I
'I 7J /" "" II I..... I I,'
. 1$/ Ill;j ,,{. Ii. rwv '"
13: ~ '/(~ t'5I"""j1 \ I~:S:;~~' ,'I' "<~
il r \~ )~._1- ~ ) . "h~~~ I ~
~' 'I ~ r;~;""--: '",I I 7~)" .\
'.! -----~ ~ --?(!\) " ~ iii - , . r(\~~ 1\~
~~ " ,,;J~)i 01; 11' v '? :"'\' l~~l\ ~~
I~ ~...'{~\V( ',5!.)~ ,I I J~~I;') ~1~ !:r~'~t~~;/=~ ~
t ~1\\ .\ ,..,)1 'ob I ~4. (j.r:11 ~\x \~~ 7Ir c'
- ) ,j) .,.<:~ ,'1 --- I ,( ~')-:.'r:1~Rd~LEAI~p6R'r1C.~
G\\~J]t I~)II I 55 ,,~ II !ROPERTY LINE ~) ~1
I I <" . I iCll\~~\~' 1~~'-1~/\.
r' _ __~_)i _ ___~ 60?l~ ~~}~, t Ilf ~ ~0 ~
~~ TERMINAL AREA I 1ft-- ~r~\~ I.,\\~ ':59
~ ,~~~~ ~ I 65' r t:~/~'-1'~~> J~1 r-
I ~'~ ~ II I" i CZ \\\ ':\ ~ \(t~ \:j
j..I) I ~,; .),,'>::5( \ ~ ~~ (1.::.2 Q::y-,..~o.-l:l
'" (I. rr.~~~"\' ",', ~ .",\ -:J:JJiL, ~ '\.. (
I ' ,< .,~~<\ N N ~~:tfi<'3~\"I~:(
t I .._~! -G ,~~, I\. ~ ~\J~\ t~-~~ J.~~~~
1(~ !) iL~\f'~: ~i_J~"~\~{~[51IV((l~-~ ~}
iV. .I.~_ )l~)>),\o"'~'. ~ \\;~"'I ~
I ~ \n~9 -s{ P~;'R Iii l~\~~' -;.,.:.'i-.:..
1 !!( l' :i'" ;:,T~~t5'~;,tn;~~' ~-=~~~
"''''"'''' J/ '-LI ~ '" '...'r ''''""' }I . ~'Q -:.!\""'lQ~.'.IX'
/'/ 1111'l (\ i\'i-' I'."...JW/'_' ..... '~~'I
Exhibil4D ~h ~
51TE2 '"
387
~
I
~"l'" '..~':.'.,;..;i.',,', '-+'I'~ ~"t" ('.\ ,.' :",',,' ',....
, .' ,. ,...:~"." ."'" '." .', .,' ,'.' . !l'
:\ ':,.,: hl-:,);r:;';".~\ .I' : '\". ,>:'-', ',' ".;,,:, .,'<:'
The development of Site 2 would require
access along approximately one-half mile of
gravel road to the terminal area. This road
would need to be paved to properly
provide access for the level of use the
airport would expect. Although not as
good as Site 1, the access and proximity of
Site 2 is still rated as adequate.
Site Rating: 8
. Site 3 (Exhibit 4E)
Site 3 is located approximately four miles
from the corporate limits of Iowa City.
Access would be primarily from County
Road F46. The site is over one mile from
Highway 6 and would not be readily visible
from this highway. Access from the south
industrial parks would likely be via
Highway 6 with a short back track on
American Legion Road.
Access into the airport terminal area would
need to be extended from American Legion
Road east along a half-mile segment of
gravel road. Although Site 3 is within
reasonable distance of the community,
without the visibility and direct access from
a major highway, the site was rated as
acceptable.
Site Rating: 5
. PROPERTY ACQUISITION
. Site 1
Proposed land acquisition for Site 1 is
depicted on Exhibit 4C. The property lines
proposed on each site are preliminary, and
would be subject to further analysis and
landowner negotiations before being
finalized if a new site is selected. Site 1
would be expected to involve the fee
simple acquisition of approximately 640
acres. This is the smallest acreage
anticipated on the three sites. However,
the site includes eight residences that
would need to be acquired and relocated
as well as buildings on three farmsteads. In
addition, the proximity to Iowa City and the
level terrain of the site will make the
property values at Site 1 higher than those
on the other sites.
The amount of acreage involved is typical
of a site for a business jet airport with
precision instrument landing capabilities
(600 to 800 acres), While the residential
acquisition is the most of the three sites it is
not considered excessive for the amount of
property necessary to accommodate an
airport. Therefore, Site 1 was rated as
acceptable for property acquisition.
Site Rating: 5
. Site 2
Property acquisition for Site 2 is depicted
on Exhibit 4D, and would involve
approximately 710 acres fee simple.
Residential acquisition and relocation would
involve three residences. All three
residences are farmsteads with several other
buildings that would also need to be
acquired. Two include major livestock
feeding operations. Land values on Site 2
are anticipated to be less on Site 2 than on
Site 1. However, cost for acquiring
improvements could be higher.
Site Rating: 5
. Site 3
Properly acquisition for Site 3 is depicted
on Exhibit 4E. This site would involve the
most acreage of any site at 740 acres.
There would be five residences including
four farmsteads to be acquired. Land
4-13
3rt .J
~
,
, ,
\:
"
(.
,
, i
"\'1
, I
..,
I
,)
,.,
,
I."
r'
,.
v
-..1
, I
,
, ,
~,
; I
, '
It,,:,1
J
I
d
i I
~..- ifF - .".....------
~.
.,.........-.~ -...... ,.-
- . -.------. ~- .... r .,..... ~
.. .... -...,.- --- "....-.- --- -~-..... .~
y, ~~"'; .. ":"',:' ::(~: ',' :/;;/:, ,>~:fi' ,,:;:,:',':: ,",~:":'~>~,,:':,>':~ ',::,;:1;)
,,' , ,fJJ\:., .\I~:,.,:., ",i _, "'\"_. ,'., ',I" ' " \': " '" " :'
.; ...,!,U:'t!.,!"~:",,, " _'_ ,_, "
""
-
@~ ~U, ~~v "11 ~
~ ~ ,,~ ~l~~, , PROPERTY ACQUISITION
I~ _ ,"d";,_' ,:~~"-~ " ~ FEE SIMPLE 740 Ac,
~~ . ~'~r-i\ ~ RESIDENCES 5
=>> . ;;::~.~
J/t 11 y '~ -55_ DNL Noise Contour
. ~ 'r, 1;:<.' "
~.",.,- 1l \. 5 ___ .
I~ '6'''''''' . :1J ~ Residential Area
.~ Q;ik ~\( ';:L_, .~~, G Individual Residence
-- ~,'\ ~ \\ ~. U' ~ r'--'" ~
~b ~~~\ ~ ~ ,.......""", \., ~ ......
' ~AP~ ~ G::S- -?J ~' \i -,.) )~ '" '\, ~ ~
'? ,\ Il<h .." rn . ~ " ,
~'~~~~~ ~K';I~~~ ,
'~~1fr~ IN. ~~
I ~ """"""" I~\, - ~' , h --_
Area~' I\. ,...; ~ J~ '
., ~,\~ e.. _ ")Ib,.~ ' ~
~ 0;, '~,~ ~, '.~<<r~~ !M'o
~ k1 ~~I --," \\\\11~1~ ~~I\V~C ~~-yI?l Q ,~~
I '(f).' "v ~ ~ i):",~ _~;J 'PROBABLE AIRPORT~( ~
o;~ 0: hI ,'^~h ., ))~, ~Ol,EIl1,'( !lP'" 'M
' ;'t....'- 81ti .\,,{?l " ~,\~ I/o 1"")
, ~ ' '\. \~ ~~~ . ~ljl
~1~' ffjJ(j l. ~" '~I " ~ b
.:: ., IJ r:l. 5, \:\...'7/ r::.
1~5<lil\ "~''"' \\\, 1\ r!4 f ,,~'-~ '\-l~)
~~ '~I?-' \ t 1 ~ ~" ,,-II:.~ ! \( 'f!!:.
PJ~;J~t~ri\~"~ ~~~!~~'\~
'~V!,V f&~ ,\:~~ l< W I~ "" ,~~
<:;:'~\,)t / /()~~,j\ )J I \\',-..-:J ", 1/", l~~M:""~'~ ~;''''
"ILI:;;:J C,l",' , '-. / TI ~" ~ )
~'L/- NO rJ/' ~ \ '. ..", ~,r{ tV
~.b?~1i"'~''''~r~~~ ~:J;@
~R 11'\'c:%~~~~Kn\I{' la~<.. (PI '? ti1r\C~
I '. ,,~~...., I "'\}.ji\ " L_ C,_ ~~~ \~ "" c
t ~rl ill'" ~~~Jy'~1 '':-
;- ~' I~-...,- 'l-J.... I,
~\l~" 'f~. i i(l~ -\S?J1""P5fi 'Ie ,I.
~.r ,= ,,,1' - "_ ". ~';''"'%' ",
- . i I . ,Q ).:I:Y/1 . ,";"
I/OnTH 1 ~ 'r I r, I G ~ ~ - ,) ~ 'i 1_ 0 \5*
I 1 /\'1\", ~!'::> ICj~1 I ". -~Ij I I C _ -_
o = 'OOJ if } I 1\ Jib'. I l:'
~ I I I 4 . i '", --;;,jtoo~l\
',46. ""_~'-".
OC'lEI""" ''C11' ~ (\!~\,~ ~ :51Q( ..' ,
.. /'-.1, , ~ I r-') t '1 _ __;;,; < ..
Exhibit ~E .e>
,: ~
~
'" Ii
~
~
-,
"
'"''
Ij
,,"\
",
,
....;
'"'.
. i
,
--
-,
,..'.
; ,
,
~
SITE 3
3B7
I
".-. --
- ~...- -- ~ ~ -..,,- - If' .,..... ----- ..~.......... ,-
...--..........~--
i
-... ....~-
,".. 't['... ': '~I ""'..;, ' 'fj' ,.', .:, ;,' , " ",' ',':"
~'"",. ,-'..~':"..,~I'. ': ,-I ,'.' I'",,:': . ,"':',.', ~", ,,>'..~I.
, ." , " 'I"" ,j, ,," "
'. ":""" .:- >'J~<.~ '. \. ...:' . .:' '~'~.". .:. ': ; ::',:'
values on Site 3 are anticipated to be
comparable to Site 2, but less than at Site
1. Overall, acquisition costs are anticipated
to be the lowest of the four sites.
Site Rating: 5
. EARTHWORK AND DRAINAGE
. Site 1
As indicated by the topographic contours
on the exhibit, Site 1 is situated on
relatively flat terrain with minimal relief
across the site. Elevations range only
between 676 feet above mean sea level
(MSLl and 665 feet MSL within the areas
that would require grading. Approximately
350,000 cubic yards of balanced earthwork
would be required to develop this site.
This would be the least earthwork of any
site. This amount of earthwork is relatively
small for developing an airport facility of
this size.
Drainage on the site flows primarily to the
south and to the east. The site is located
on high ground between Snyder Creek and
one of its tributaries. Snyder Creek flows
east-to-west along the south side of the site.
The tributary flows north-to-south
approximately one-half mile west of Site 1.
The upper reaches of this tributary extend
to the northeast across the northern portion
of the site.
Site Rating: 10
. Site 2
Site 2 would require approximately
475,000 cubic yards of earthwork. The site
has approximately 30 feet of relief over the
areas that would be graded ranging from
760 feet MSL to 730 feet MSL. While
more than estimated for Site 1 this is still a
reasonable grading quantity for two
runways and a terminal area.
Site 2 lies on a ridge between Big Slough
Creek and one of its tributaries. Big Slough
Creek is runs north to south on the west
side of Site 2, then turns to the southeast at
the southernmost end of the site. The Big
Slough tributary flows to the southeast from
the east side of the site. As a result drainage
is primarily to the east, west and south off
the ridge line.
Site Rating: 8
. Site 3
Site 3 is also located on a ridge line. Relief
across the site ranges from 785 feet MSL to
750 feet MSL. Earthwork requirements
would be the highest of the three sites at
approximately 500,000 cubic yards.
However, this is still reasonable for this
level of airport development.
Site 3 drains in virtually all directions,
although most drainage will flow primarily
into two tributaries on the east and west
sides of the site. Both tributaries flow to
the southeast where they converge
southeast of Site 3.
Site Rating: 8
. DESIGN STANDARDS
Wind data available from the National
Weather Service station in Cedar Rapids
was used to examine wind coverage for the
candidate sites. It was determined that the
primary runway orientation at each site
would provide greater than 96 percent
wind coverage for wind component in
excess of 18 miles per hour (mphl. Thus,
the single runway would be adequate for
wind coverage requirements for business
4-14
; I
387 ,J
.[
,
, ,
(-I
, I
. .
Co(
. I
I'
'4
,I
!"1
,
I'''!
,..,
I
,
I
, ,
,-
C"
,
r.
,
~ ....
,~
I. ;
:...:
f'"
\,
,~
II.!
, ,
'....J
,"1
;,1
II
tl
'I
d
'-.0:'-- .tr""~ ....-' ~ ~
.....,
f"l
I ~
Iii
i ~
r,
I.j
1"1
I;
Lj
.~
. ,
i:
I)
~.
;
,
"i
-
j I
. ,
".
'..\
I!
, ,
",
;'"'j
i
J
"
. I
,.j
:"\
:..1
\
"
"I.j
I
l-i
,...~,\
! ~
~)
,.
I I
'"
i'\
' ,
I!.'
II
....
, '
,
,
-J
"
, I
. I
-
,
, '
...
- ....... -"-"~}-- ......... ,......------ ...~ ~,.~ ....... T - ..,.-- -.....--- -....- ....
J,' ':f~l"':"'"'~''''''' :~/:" '''''','' , .: ",',<". '.,:',',
'- . , . ~ ;; . , , . . \. :" , ,:' .' ' t".
. \,1 '. I . ,.I '/" '\, . . , '. I ~.'
:"";...,,.~/::-"I\~,\ .:~\.~"-', ',~,_\ ..........,. :',~\~'.' ","'J"
jets, At 15 mph none of the primary
runway orientations provided the desirable
95 percent wind coverage. Therefore, each
site requires a crosswind designed for use
by small propeller aircraft. The combined
wind coverage of the primary and
crosswind runways would provide adequate
wind coverage at both 12 and 15 mph. The
primary runway orientation for Site 3
provides slightly better wind coverage than
the other two sites. The two runway
coverage of Site 2 is just slightly better than
that of Sites 1 and 3. Therefore, all three
sites will meet wind coverage standards
with two runways, and no site has
significantly better wind coverage than the
other two sites, Other design standard
considerations are discussed below.
. Site 1
The layout of Site 1 is depicted on Exhibit
4C. The primary runway alignment is
approximately five degrees west of true
north. This permits the 5,600 foot runway
and its object free area (OFA) to fit within
the confines of Highway 6 on the north and
Snyder Creek on the south, The crosswind
runway is on a straight east-west alignment.
However, with the level terrain available
the placement of the crosswind runway
does have some flexibility and could be
oriented more northeast-southwest if found
to be more desirable. There is a two-inch
gas pipeline along the east-west gravel road
through the site. While the road would be
closed, the pipeline would need to be
relocated.
The site layout depicts ultimate
development for the airport through the
planning period. The terminal area is
located in the northeast quadrant of the
airfield which offers ample room for
expansion to meet long term needs, Access
to the terminal area is directly from
Highway 6. The terminal area is located
~~-,_.
~" ----.
very well in relation to taxi access, and is
positioned near midfield on both runways,
A precision approach is provided for from
the south, with non-precision approaches
planned for all other runway ends. There
is virtually no problem meeting all design
standards at this site.
Although it is planned that each of the
candidate sites would utilize on-site water
and wastewater facilities, Site 1 is the only
site that could potentially have water and
sewer extended to it in the future.
Site Rating: 10
. Site 2
As depicted on Exhibit 4D, Site 2 features
a primary runway oriented true north and
an east-west crosswind. These orientations
are dictated primarily by the topography of
the site. Flexibility for adjusting the
locations of the runway-taxiway system is
very limited on this site.
There are two pipelines traversing this site.
Mid-America maintains a ten-inch pipeline
which runs north-south though the site.
The runway and taxiway system is designed
to avoid crossing this pipeline, as the
airfield would be located east of the
pipeline, However, the terminal area
would be located west of the pipeline, so
taxiway access points would need to cross
the line. Preliminary discussions with the
pipeline company indicated that this would
be acceptable. Since the pipeline is
approximately 30 inches below the surface,
portion of it may need to be lowered for
airfield grading. Enron maintains a pipeline
that runs east-west along the section line
between Sections 2 and 35 and Sections 3
and 34. This pipeline crosses directly
beneath the proposed primary north.south
runway, Preliminary discussions indicate
4,'15
337
-,
.... ,., - .".... - -
~,;,:,' :"0-'" ",!J : ;;t"'->tj-:' :" - '" ".,....: ,,':.:,
" ,,[ ",' I,..'" ',' ", ,I ' ' , ,', ' ,'....
.'-' ,', ", I~:'/:\!-'~:'\" .~,\' ~', /': . .'\.' .,":' /,' :, ""~L <' " .~:'
that this pipeline could be encased where
it crosses the runway,
From a functional standpoint, the ideal
terminal area location for this airfield layout
would be in the southwest quadrant.
However, that side of the airfield is not
readily accessible to roadways and would
require more earthwork. A terminal
location in the northeast quadrant would
be readily accessible from Highway 6 and
require less earthwork. However, the
northeast site is not as functional in relation
to the airfield as it fronts only the crosswind
runway. Thus, taxi distances would be
maximized for use of the primary runway
and bottlenecks would occur when the
airport is in a north traffic flow condition,
I
As a result, the terminal area is planned for
the west side of the airfield. This will
provide for access to the midfield area
along the primary runway. The crosswind
runway is not as easily accessed as in the
layout for Site 1, and could create some
congestion when in a west flow situation.
However, there will be no problems with
the use of the primary runway.
Access to the terminal area would be via
one-half mile of gravel road extending from
Highway 6. The f1ightline would be able to
expand along the f1ightline of the primary
runway, but would be somewhat limited in
depth.
As with Site 1, the precision approach
would be planned from the south. All
other approaches are indicated as non-
precision approaches. The site is capable
of meeting the FAA's design standards.
Sire Rating: 5
. Site 3
Site 3 features a primary runway oriented
18 degrees west of true north, and a
crosswind runway oriented 76 degrees east
of true north, As indicated on Exhibit 4E,
the topography drops off rather rapidly
from this site. This limits the flexibility of
adjusting the layout to other orientations.
There is a pipeline that crosses the south
approach to the primary, but would not be
affected by any runway construction. Two
gravel roads would need to be closed to
accommodate this site.
Topography and accessibility limit the
options available for the terminal area, The
proposed terminal area site is on the west
side of the primary runway near the south
end. This provides reasonable access to
the primary runway, but long taxis would
be required to utilize the crosswind
runway. In addition, there would be high
potential for congestion along the taxiway
between the terminal area and the
crosswind runway.
As with the other sites, the precision
instrument approach would be planned
from the south, and all other approaches
could be planned to be non precision
standards. This site can also meet all FAA
design standards without modifications.
Site Rating: 2
. AIRSPACE AND OBSTRUCTIONS
None of the sites are close enough to any
existing airports (other than Iowa City
Municipal Airport which would close if a
new site were developed) to create any
airspace conflicts for visual or instrument
flight conditions. None of the sites would
~-'16
...,
~.
i
~
\,.,
,-
t-,
. '
,-
w
..j
Iii
;,1
5';,
. I I
.,1
1.'
,
,..J
/..1
,
"..
,....,
,
I
t ..
..,;
, ,
I
...
\,
".1
:3g7 J
.,., -. y-'-
,
\
iJ
"~1
,
lJ
lot
\ -'I
:".
i,l
l~
, !
,
U
. \
,
-'
, I
i~
, ,
,
, !
...
- ... ......-.~-- """-r
\ ::tj"':" "":m',;-;/,,,:;dr '",,",,:,.,' .'. ""...,,\ ;,:,'
~, . 'I""" I' " o!.r~l" .' : I ", + '.'
.:~:". ~':'.,J\.\~.:,:~' "".~', 'j';,i'.""': .... "., ;:',.
....
Ii
,
....
, !
, ,
I
conflict with any existing high voltage
powerlines, Each site would require the
burial of some smaller powerlines located
along roadways within the runway
protection zones.
, ,
; j
.~
, ,
I
.,
As indicated on Exhibit 4C, there are five
towers located approximately one mile
southwest of Site 1. The towers reach an
elevation of 783 feet above mean sea level
(MSL). This would be approximately 110
feet above the airport elevation. According
to Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77,
Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, the
tower elevations would still be 40 feet
below the maximum allowable elevation for
their location. Thus, the towers would not
create an obstruction for aircraft utilizing
the airport.
~.
!
:!
",
r....'.
, I
, ,
:"1
i"\
, ,
1"1
1-]
,.
Therefore, none of the new sites would be
faced with any significant airspace conflicts
dr obstructions.
1""1
, I
'~l
Site Ratings: 8 (all siles)
J
Environmental Factors
,-'\
I
. PRIME AGRICULTURAL LAND
Each site was evaluated utilizing the U.S.
Department of Agriculture Farmland
Conversion Rating Form AD 1006.
Information was provided to the Soil
Conservation Service (SC5) sub.area office
who then completed Parts II and IV of the
rating form. The site assessment criteria
(Part VI) was then completed in accordance
with criteria explained in 7 CFR 658,5(b)
Farmland Protection Policy. The completed
form is included in Appendix B,
According to CFR 658.4, the site with the
lowest score would have the least impact
on farmland. Sites receiving scores over
160 should be given higher levels of
consideration for protection, Site 1
received the lowest score of the three sites
with a score of 162. Sites 2 and 3 received
significantly higher scores of 204 and 203
respectively. Site 1 received lower scores
primarily because of its proximity to urban
development. As a result, Site 1 was
ranked as acceptable and Sites 2 and 3
were ranked as inadequate.
Site Ratings: Sile 1-(5); Sile 2-(2); Site 3-(2)
. SOCIAL IMPACTS
The principal social impacts to be
considered are associated with relocation or
other community disruption which may be
caused by site development. Any
acquisition and relocation of residences
would be required to be accomplished in
accordance with the Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 and Part
25 of the Secretary ofT ransportation (OST)
Regulations. These regulations mandate.
certain relocation assistance services be
made available and guarantee those
relocated of comparable and decent
substitute housing. They also provide for
business relocation, replacement, and loss
of income, The Act also requires that the
owner of any affected farming operation be
offered assistance in finding a location for
re-establishment of the lost business. As
with the present Iowa City Municipal
Airport, areas not used directly for airport
operations would be farmed. The
displaced property owners would be
afforded every opportunity to bid on the
farm lease.
. Site 1
Eight residences would be relocated for the
development of Site 1. Approximately half
of these are associated with farmsteads,
This site would involve the most residential
relocation of any of the sites,
4.'17
337
y-. -
.. . '5! --." "'""""II ,...- ......
.,...... - -
"
:,""'.m..." .',:,,,",;' ..'-':.:'"....,: :". .:,.." .',;
. " ' , )".,1, ' ' , ' , .-
~,~ ",' 'j\ ':, ~. ....,. :,' "',j' t" . '.:,;',' :>. .. ,:1..
. ',' " ," ,I";,,;!,, 1,1:;:1:, " tl ", ,.".." " . ,.' ,':..
. ~-."_. .J, l' _, \ 'l '",:." J.' \ . .
A half-mile section of an east-west dirt road
(Osage Street) located along the section line
between Sections 30 and 31 would need to
be closed for primary runway development.
This is a low maintenance road primarily
providing access for one residence,
However, this residence would be
relocated for the airport development.
Another social consideration is property
removed from the tax roles. Site 1 is
located primarily within Scott Township and
the Iowa City School District, with small
portions located within East Lucas Township
and the Lone Tree School District. Based
upon present assessed valuations and
county, township, and school district tax
levies, the total property taxes being paid
on the property to be acquired was
estimated at $23,444 annually. If the
existing airport site were converted to
private ownership, the net tax loss would
be minimized if not totally negated. Since
Site 1 is in the same (Iowa City) school
district as the existing airport, the school
district would feel no impact.
\
Site Rating: 5
. Site 2
Four residences would be relocated with
the development of Site 2, and all are
associated with farmsteads. No roads
would need to be relocated for
development at this site. However, a half
mile section of roadway on the west side of
the site would need to be paved for access
to the airport. This site would have the
least potential for social impacts of the
three sites.
Site 2 is located primarily within Lincoln
Township and the Lone Tree School District
with a small portion in Scott Township and
the Iowa City School District. Property
taxes presently being paid on this site were
.~. ---~
estimated at $18,482 annually. Since Site
2 is in a different school district than the
existing airport, the impact on the school
district would be $9,146 annually.
Site Rating: 5
. Site 3
Five residences would be relocated with
the development of Site 3, and most are
farmsteads. In addition, two gravel roads
would be affected by airport development.
A full mile segment of the north-south road
(White Avenue) located between Sections
22 and 23 would need to be closed.
Residences and farmland along this road
would also be acquired. The other section
is a half-mile segment of east-west gravel
road (42Oth Street) between Sections 22
and 27 and Sections 23 and 26. While
two residences along this road would be
acquired, a third would not. This could
limit the access options to the remaining
residence as well as other area east of the
proposed airport site.
Site 3 is located in Scott Township and the
West Branch School District. Property taxes.
presently being paid on this site were
$18,958. Since Site 3 is in a different
school district than the existing airport, the
impact on the school district would be
$10,866 annually.
Site Rating: 2
. NOISE AND COMPATIBLE LAND USE
A noise contour analysis was prepared for
each of the sites to determine the potential
for noise impacts, The basic methodology
employed to define aircraft noise levels
involves the extensive use of a
mathematical model for aircraft noise
prediction. The day-night average sound
4-'18
,...
~.
"
r
\ '
, ,
.-.
t~
I
t...,
t"""
i'l
:..1
r,
I'
!-...:
v
i
I
I
I
I
I
,
!
I
,
I
,
,
i
,
i
,
I
I
I
I"',
!
,..,I
, I
,.,i
II
,
,"i
tl
d
i I
387 J
"
II
,..
, i
. ,
.
I
;~1
, .
,
"'1
, :
."
~,
....
,-
: -:
"'I
(",
1.,'
n
, ,
'.'
1;"\
, i
,,,1
I
In
I ...
,
'-',
,J
.-.1
J
,,~
j
,~.
; \
~rl '
I'
i
, i
-
..J
, :
,
, ,
...
- r .-_~.~_ .....r ~______....,...."..---...... ,~
... ~ ~ -.,..----..........,
,
';, . .:t]-' :"2:*; . 'i'H- ,"", /1'" : ,'~ ,.':', . ,"', "". ',':
~~ ,,' ",.,,,,,~:~ l",~, .,J~::"" "".":',',,". "'.:
:. '." ,'" ..1"...;4;. ,..>...~ ~\ '. .,:.', . '.", . J" F
. " \, \,. ,1 ." , '0,' , .
level (DNL) is used in this study to assess
aircraft noise, DNL is the metric currently
accepted by the FAA, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), and the
Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) as an appropriate
measure of cumulative noise exposure.
Federally-funded airport noise studies use
DNL as the primary metric.
DNL is defined as the average A-weighted
sound level as measured in decibels during
a 24-hour period; a 10 decibel (dB) penalty
is applied to noise events at night (10:00
p.m. to 7:00 a.m.), DNL is a summation
metric which allows objective analysis and
can describe noise exposure compre-
hensively over a large area.
Computer input files were prepared for
year 2012 forecasted operations for each
airport site. Contours representing DNL 55,
60, and 65 were requested. The computer
output is in the form of either an electronic
or paper copy printout of coordinates for
each point of equal DNL value. The
resulting contours are depicted on the
airport site exhibits (4C, 4D, and 4E).
The noise levels associated with general
aviation airports do not carry sufficient
energy to cause structural or physical
damage. The psychological impact of
aircraft noise is the basis of most problems.
Certain kinds of noises or sounds directly
affect feelings and attitudes primarily by
virtue of the information conveyed. These
direct influences are of prime importance
when considering problems of noise
annoyance. The sound of approaching
aircraft, may elicit fear of the possibility of
a crash, and this fear appears to be a factor
motivating complaints of annoyance in
neighborhoods.
While the severity of aircraft noise remains
a subjective issue, certain objective
standards have been formulated with regard
to acceptable noise exposure standards. In
general, noise levels over 65 DNL are
considered significant in a residential
setting, Because ambient level of noise in
residential areas is typically around 55
DNL, contours down to that level have
been depicted.
As indicated by the exhibits the significant
65 DN L contour does not reach beyond
the proposed airport boundaries on any
site. Even the 55 DNL will not impact any
residences. The rural settings around Sites
2 and 3 provide for highly compatible land
uses,
Because Site 1 is closer to the city, there
are also residential areas in closer proximity.
These include a trailer parks to the north,
northwest and southeast. The trailer park
to the north is approximately one mile
north of the primary runway. Still it is not
even within the 55 DNL contour and is far
more impacted by noise from the adjacent
railroad than it would be by noise from an
airport at Site 1, Other uses in the vicinity
of Site 1 include agricultural and industrial
uses. Both are very compatible with airport
operations.
In addition, there have been plans
proposed to annex property east of Site 1
for residential development. As a result,
Site 1 was rated slightly lower than the
other two sites for this factor.
Site Ratings: Site 1-(5); Site 2-(8); Site 3-(8)
. ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS
Several state and federal agencies were
contacted and asked to comment on
potential environmental impacts regarding
the three candidate sites. These included
the State Historic Preservation Officer
(SHPO), the Iowa Department of Natural
Resources (DNR), the u.s. Fish and Wildlife
4-'19
3g7
''''''!''-.... ...,.,..- ......-.--
- ~ ...---.....~~- -fr ~----- ._~ ......."..............,.-..... ~ - ""---, .,.,.,~- -~~-
",' ... """':"1 ' ttl":'" '..".~I.' .. ,,'..: " . '
..:,C~.. '. ,:" ...~~, I;' .:",..~ ":"',", '.: '.~',:-'
. , "f'," "I., , ..,' , "
.', ",q",fj".. '",I,.:..!,''''' ,_,' 'Ie> "'." " " ,'"'' ".' , ' ,
., . , fl. '.'
Service (USFWS), and the u.s. Army Corps
of Engineers.
The SHPO indicated that there is potential
for cultural resources in the siting area.
They recommended that an archeological
survey be conducted prior to any
disturbance activities. If a new site should
prove feasible from all other aspects, then
a cultural resources survey should be
conducted as part of the environmental
assessment that would be required by the
FAA prior to site approval. Written
correspondence from the SHPO is provided
in Appendix B.
I
Written correspondence received from the
Iowa DNR indicated that only Site 1 had
the potential for ecological impacts. The
Director of the agency indicated that an
817 acre area directly west of the proposed
site has been submitted to the DNR for
acquisition under the Resources
Enhancement and Protection (REAP)
program. The area is indicated on Exhibit
4C as well as in the DNR correspondence
in Appendix B. The site would encompass
510 acres of wetland and 307 acres of
uplands including 15 acres of virgin prairie.
If acquired, the area would be managed for
upland game and waterfowl production and
harvest.
A wildlife biologist for the DNR indicated
that there is currently 154 acres listed as
protected wetlands east of Site 1. In recent
years, over 1,500 ducks as well as
numerous songbirds and shorebirds have
been using the wetlands.
The wildlife biologist and the Corps of
Engineers indicated that smaller wetlands
also exist within Site 1. This was also
confirmed by a telephone conversation with
USFWS personnel. However, a review of
the wetlands mapping provided by the
DNR biologist, indicates that these wetlands
are located primarily along Snyder Creek at
the southernmost end of the site. The
proposed layout is designed to avoid
construction that would create any fill in
the vicinity of the creek. In addition, the
other small wetland on the site is located
such that it would not be impacted by the
proposed construction.
As a result of this information, Site 1 was
rated as inadequate for ecological impacts,
while Sites 2 and 3 were rated as adequate.
Site Ratings: Site 1-(2); Site 2-(8); Site 3-(8)
. PHYSICAL IMPACTS
. Site 1
Site 1 does not impact any floodplains nor
will it create any flood hazards. The site
layout is designed to avoid any disturbance
or alteration to Snyder Creek located in the
southern portions of the site. Light
emission impacts will also be minimal due
to the sparse population in close proximity
to the ends of the runways. Dust and
erosion control mandated by FAA
construction specifications will also
minimize the potential for construction
impacts.
Natural resources and energy supplies are
not expected to be depleted to any
significant degree as a result of construction
and operation of an airport at this location.
In fact the fuel utilized for ground travel to
the airport will be less than for the other
two sites which are located further from the
city.
Site Rating: 8
. Site 2
Site 2 also will not affect any floodplains or
create any flood hazards as it is located on
4-20
317~'
~
-
,~
, '
, ,
""'
, i
'"'
, ,
"
r,
i_'
~
,
'-
r
,... i
,
~
r'~l
i._1
""1
'-"'
I'
, ,
,
-
, ,
-
,
i
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
,
I
I
,
~..... ~F _ ....-.--
~
, '
,~
,
-.
,
,
.;
-,'
\ I
,
, '
....
"
, \
, "
~, ,\
~
,
,
,i
("~
, I
I'
"'
r,
, i
\,j
"\
1
J
I'"
Ii
It"
u
I
'-I"
,J
:..,
,
U
".1
,".1
, \
i!
....
1\
, I
-
;..J
.;
,
-
, ,
,
'I
...
.. ... "-_-~1~_ .......r ..,..,.------.--..,.--.....- ,-
- ...-..". - .-' ..,..,.........~ - .,....,..---....
\
~,' ~"t'~I: "'. ';loiY , "'ttl- i ":"fd"':" ':" ,,"'.,,:'.' " "',:",', .','...,'~ ,:
:.:', \~,,, ~r :i-i' '~..~, ,,:.' l~ 1', ".) :, '., . ',''', .', ;' :: ".': >
. '>'........,:... ".'.~~:;""\~""'-:"i,"'"'' ,\:1' :', ~.: ",' 1,.~.:,
"
a ridge. This high elevation combined with
only scattered residences in the area
minimizes the potential for light emission
impacts, Natural resources and energy
supplies are not expected to be depleted
to any significant degree by the
construction and operation of an airport at
this site,
This would increase ground transportation
fuel usage in comparison to Site 1 of the
existing Iowa City Municipal Airport.
Site Rating: 8
Site Rating: 8
Site Rating Summary
Table 4C summarizes the results of the site
rating analysis, With a maximum possible
score of 1 DO, a total score below 50
indicates that the site has several problems
that could be difficult to overcome. A
score between 50 and 64 indicates that the
site is marginally acceptable for airport
development. A score between 65 and 79
indicates that the site has reasonable
potential for further consideration, A score
of 80 or above indicates the site has a
number of distinct advantages and would
be an excellent location for development as
an airport.
. Site 3
The location of Site 3 on a ridge line will
keep the facility from impacting any
floodplains or creating a flood hazard. As
with Site 2, the elevation and the limited
residential development around the airport
would preclude any significant problems
with light emissions. Site 3 does not have
any significant impact on natural resources
or energy supplies, although both Sites 2
and 3 are slightly farther from the city.
TABLE 4C
Site Rating Analysis
SITE 1
SITE 2
SITE 3
"'~''''''''%t<<''!N~1J. M ".w"!,"".' t.'"%"."~'. .'...'.'.".;Mm.....' ..K1'B..'~..!'\.;<.'\'.;.;."1lli.. "'.'"....'."...."'." ",,,,,,,.,.p". '.""."%.'''.' 'M,~. _...m.""....". .%..'.isF.."~..m'\%R%i"'"
~~~E':l,::.'$..'w~~I^1-W('cw..:atj';>>i:>%-. ,'"0"i!l:l:....~~:" -k.h:~t<: ,:::::;f<';*tt&>;;~~l6.<<~:,,-::-i<): j::',:::::"::(-';:}~k:::%-X<;~N.~;.:.;;:;:::;W&~:S:f.+i~m~f~~,<,<<..>:'~',;.",' ~;;:::,,'X;h~.M: ,,::0@"";::::: <<:,~'l
N 'n neer n '~r;ac ors'~ x'." " <<4~. ~,:::~<<F- 0tfk~At:=.x' "~i'N:;..:'..:#.<< +."t.:;::r:b>>:-;,:.'ffi~<x%~~~lRl~, {~:$.\;~$t1;:l;:::~:.;.:.;. l"'~@' ,.'0: ~", f~
~'_'_"'_'" """_",,,,'_,',w_ "",<""""W'_""<'_";<';':'::;~'" ~k1;t. ...::J;1;~,'f~i1>>_::;'~N(::1;'~::::.xJt~<":':NX1;:~Nt.$h.,;x)'<<,;:K;:1;<.:::t:,;:y_.::;:::>>",,:,;~W,,.;,::::;:.;,t<<:N~x.:.;,~~.. ,y::::.,<>>~K.JJ::t:::"".~iJKl!.
1. Proximity and Access 10 8 5
2. Property Acquisition 5 5 5
3. Earthwork and Drainage 10 8 8
4. Site, Layout, and Design 10 5 2
5. Airspace and Obstructions 1! Jl 1!
Subtotal 43 34 28
1. Prime Agricultural Land 5 2 2
2. Social Impacts 5 5 2
3. Noise/Compatible Land Use 5 8 8
4. Ecological Impacts 2 8 8
5. Physical I mpacts 1! Jl Jl
Subtotal 25 31 28
RATING TOTALS 68 65 56
RATING LEGEND
10 - SUPERIOR 5 - ACCEPTABLE 0- UNACCEPTABLE
8 - ADEQUATE 2 -INADEQUATE
4-21
3g?
,
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'lr' ,
.. ".. -- ~. ....,.,. -- .... r
"...... - - ....,..- --- ,,-
WI' ~-
~~; ;",;t.3"",}~'i",:,tFI";' ""~' ,',,-,:,' '-'/ ,'.":':':"
~. ,~,. ".,' \,' . . , ,
Or " , , ' I.. I . " " \ r " ," ~, ". .
"', :" :" ,: ',\,I~~"{j; ..'1,' '~". '<" ,... : ",:,',- . ;. ,: '.r , '1\ ',':: ~'. '> ~ ,',
All three candidate sites scored above 50 in
the analysis, although no site scored above
80, Site 1 scored highest at 68 and shows
enough potential to be considered further.
Site 2 scored 6S, thus showing adequate
potential for further consideration. Site 3
received a total score of only 56, This
indicates there are few advantages to this
site, and that the site shows only marginal
potential for further consideration.
Further examination of the ratings reveals
several other characteristics of each of the
sites. These are summarized below.
. Site 1
Site 1 received very high ratings for the
engineering factors associated with airport
development. The proximity to the city,
and particularly the south side industrial
districts is excellent and nearly comparable
to that of the existing airport (without the
encroachment of other uses that currently
constrain Iowa City Municipal Airport).
Access and visibility of the site is excellent
from Highway 6. Earthwork is less than for
the other sites, and a very functional airport
layout can be obtained on this site.
Property acquisition cost would be slightly
higher than the other sites even though Site
1 involves the least total acreage, This is
because of anticipate higher land values as
well as a few more residences that would
need to be acquired and relocated,
The environmental rating for Site 1 was not
as strong as the engineering rating. The key
problem area is associated with the wetland
area located east of the proposed site.
While the impact on the wetlands
themselves would be minimal, the potential
for the development of a wildlife area does
create some concern for the amount of
waterfowl that would be in the vicinity,
. Site 2
Site 2 received sound ratings for
engineering factors. The airport layout is
not as ideal as at Site 1, primarily because
of the location of the crosswind runway in
relation to the terminal area. The airport
would be visible and accessible off
Highway 6, and earthwork quantities are
not excessive for this level of airport.
This site also received the highest overall
environmental rating for the three sites,
with adequate ratings for four of the five
categories. The only low rating received
was for prime agricultural land. The high
point total on the Farmland Conversion
Rating resulted in an inadequate ranking for
this factor.
. Site 3
Site 3 received the lowest overall rating of
the three sites, primarily because it received
inadequate ratings for three separate
factors. The site is also the poorest in
relation to access to a major highway and
proximity to population and industry. The
site layout and design received an
inadequate rating because the location of
the terminal area in relation to the airfield.
Site 3 also received inadequate ratings for
prime agricultural land and social impacts.
The site would have a high impact
according to the Farmland Conversion
Rating. The site would also have the
highest impact on the rural road system as
two sections of gravel road would need to
be relocated. Although one section could
be relocated, it would still increase travel
distances for the users.
4-22
387 -,
'""
/-
r.
-.
, I
~""'
, ,
t,./
,.....
i.__'
r
,~
r
,
i
- !
I",
v
I,
,
-,
,
.....
..-- - WI .. -.----...- _ .1.--- ......-.,-.,.__ _
~..... jIIIl:- ...' - ' . , ~ .
-
, ,
!'
"';
.,
, I
,I
j'P'li
\.1
,"l
, I
~"I
I ;"
I iJ
,''1
:,j
:1
,..It
I
I"',
I
;-1
".1
I
W
I..'
,
, ,
, I
-
,
\
",,'
I I
, i
, '
,d
, "
,
,
""
"
l...
I,i
I
I.,
'-,-- -- ,.-
.. ...~-... ------
:', "~~:' ',': :~I' "'R~'~' ':a:,': '",' "':::'::" >', ',:,""',;','.,
., ~ H' 'I"-! ,,' , ';71 """ ' " ',', ,
":.' ,~:- "', '-,.~','( ,'.~~:.,:. '~~'-:1, \". ' '" I, ','.'. ." '.' "I ':.':1,
R
I ~
"
"
DEVElOPMENT COSTS
"',
,
, i
'II
Development cost for all three sites are
presented in Table 4D. These estimates
include costs for complete airfield
development as well as the replacement or
relocation costs for terminal facilities at least
'1
, ,
,"
TABLE 4D
Estimated Development Costs
Candidate Airport Sites
equivalent to those available at Iowa City
Municipal Airport. Development costs are
based upon 1992 dollars and include an
additional 27 percent for engineering,
project inspection and administration, and
contingencies.
IWMM1ft~s';'t~m~fE:~Mj'~AWtWtM WW,~~tWS:'rnt1"I\~1P~.':~W4ff ^1Iil$>.:-":WkWN~~m0tFW~RtW%
""'W,,,,",>> ",'.t,,,-',,,,,,, """" 'i, ',E',,,~,,,, ~ , ' m'''~I,.E,.,(J"",~ <,'
w,.,~-.y":_~"'. ',", :::~;.'.", ,.~ '" ''.,,' -"';c;' ".,'X' ,. '~, ' ~ ..'\J.... ""~">>" :!.;
'$:.-.x:;;"v:"w,,,..Jfl.,,,,...,x,,>:-;~_,.:..,.,,,~~_ "tJ.>""2 ~"'.., "'A',",,'''' " .WID; ); ;~>:=:" :':!,.,v......,..,y..v,.,"',<-:".m,.U~,
.,N':;. .,~,."_~,._,_....,w.w,....,__.,,,_,',..v_v,_.,' -..~1~titm.,vm. 'A-=,'~V,.._ '. m_. ._ mf.:'.......,.~'m....%., WN. ""_':~'" _N.,<<
Property Acquisition $4,646,000 $4,950,000 $4,192,000
Perimeter Fencing 82,000 84,000 98,000
Site Preparation 1,867,000 2,262,000 2,070,000
Airside Pavement 5,343,000 5,343,000 5,343,000
Airfield lighting and Marking 697,000 697,000 697,000
Off-Airport Access Upgrade 0 208,000 123,000
Conventional Hangars 774,000 774,000 774,000
T-Hangars 381,000 381,000 381,000
Hangar Access 363,000 363,000 363,000
Terminal Building 235,000 235,000 235,000
Aircraft Apron 778,000 778,000 778,000
On-Airport Access and Parking 220,000 220,000 220,000
Fuel Storage 80,000 80,000 80,000
Utilities 216,000 216,000 216,000
TOTAL COST $15,682,000 $16,591,000 $15,570,000
From the table, it is apparent that the cost
of developing a new site to current FAA
design standards will be on the order of
$15.5-$16.5 million dollars, Development
cost for each of the three sites varied by
less than $300,000 dollars. Site 3 had the
lowest estimated development costs
because of property acquisition costs that
were lower than Site 1, and site preparation
costs that were lower than Site 2. Site 1
acquisition costs were higher because of
higher land values and slightly more
residential relocation. Site 2 site
preparation costs were higher because of
additional costs associated with pipeline
relocation. It should be noted, however,
that Site 3 will require the closing of lwo
gravel roads. If one of these roads would
need to be relocated instead of closed to
mitigate impacts, Site 3 costs would
increase.
This new site cost information will be
utilized in the feasibility analysis of the next
chapter. That chapter will first examine
development options at Iowa City
Municipal Airport then compare the most
viable options to the costs and benefits of
relocating to a new site.
4-23
3"
.,..... ..~
......
I
7,:",,"'t'[l-':" ,'~~l./' ;'tB;";' ,~ 'fj" ~'\"" , ~",,':," ""',,':'
. ,'" I~ ',' , ,) , '" "
.:.\r:~ ",...,:4.;...;.......;,....', .> .,'. ',,"e"',~~.::'
I
I
I
I
I
I
;
I
1
CONCLUSIONS
The site analysis indicates that any of the
three sites could be developed as a location
for an airport, Site 1 rated significantly
higher than the other two sites for
engineering factors, but rated slightly lower
for environmental factors. From a
development cost standpoint, Sites 1 and 3
would be very comparable while Site 2
would be more expensive.
ij
\
~
~
1
~
~
,
~
Site 1 is an outstanding site on the basis of
function, development costs, and
accessibility. The site is directly adjacent to
the City and could be annexed. This
would permit the City to better control
compatibility and services in the future. In
addition, Site 1 is located within the same
school district as the existing airport.
Therefore, the loss of the new site from
property tax roles could be directly offset if
the existing airport site were sold and
returned to the tax rolls.
Proximity to the City also raises concerns
for urban encroachment. The
recommended property acquisitions
associated with Site 1 would provide much
more protection than is available at the
existing airport. The south approach of the
primary runway would be over land that
will likely remain in agricultural production.
The north approach would be protected by
industrial development. The closest
residential development on the north
approach would be a mile north of the
runway on the other side of the railroad
tracks. While residential development can
be anticipated to move closer to the site
from the west, it will not be directly under
an approach. By maintaining night patterns
to the west of the airport, these residential
areas can be avoided. Therefore, if it is
determined that a new site should be
selected, Site 1 is recommended as the first
choice.
4.24
~,
~
!
,-
\... ,
r
,
l"
....
I
, ,
\,.,
-
,: I
,
, '
...
r
,
,1
\-,:
i I
l..;,
n
, ,
,
,...,
, '/
, 1
~
1""
~ '
~1
,-,
I
..J
f'.
,
I,~
.'- L
I
-
,
,
,
'! i
: ,
-
" ,
" '
, I
....
I'
....
, I
3fl,)~
"
-
#F - .."..------------ .----...............-Tn.....,,. - .....".
~~);;:.~;';f~l' :.,::)l~:j;., :<tII'"":! ',',' :,,71,',:~,' "~:,,' :"~,:, ,~,",\~,,'::::.';:' ",>,:"
," .' "'I~''I ), - ~.,' " "" . e_" \ "
.:.:,(~.'~:l~;.:;'~\;~,~::,<': __ " 'i,',:..;..... ." . _. "I.:" ""
~
r
,
'_1
,..
I, ,
I j
r
~..
f4 i
,
I
, I
'IU I
,
Y" I
I
i; I
I
f' ,
11
[1
" n
I ~ n
U
,
, ',1
,
(. I.
, f~
'I;
, t
, ,
i:
,
,~
, '
I I
...J
\.;
I
11~
.i"f
(....'
t!
Chapter Five
RELOCATION FEASIBILITY
1 \
I
\.j
II
,
tJ
3g7
'.
\
1",1' ,,:;.;:M ;;' ,:, :. ;I.':~/ ~.'...;.; ~ 8" ~r\\:", ,:':" '\.',', ',:' " '-., '/', ,,: ",:\
" " ' ^ .~~ .' I '_', 1''''1.'' ,,0' I ,-,"
..;',"':' .~"".:~_'_. .....-~~}~t.. ::':,,: ::'~":','<'" ,.....,.t ',::":,,,::<,," ',':";'.
",';, Jifll""i.-"I~\,; ".:~L ')" : c, ',," , ,',,' ,', ',', '..,,'.>'
r
r'
','
j ..
\
!
, I
~
L
~
, ,
I, i
1"1
, ,
~ I
''''1
,
;~ :
"
,~
t r
L
~'
,'. t
,
l)
I'
U
~,'
II
II
(l
~ I
d
'il
~l
~',
1-:
.
,'[
~
387 D;!
~.......- ~ - ~-----
.....,
. ,
",
,-
,
,
\
I :,'~
! Ii
i
I
I "',
1;1
i L.
I
I "
i' ,
, ,
i ,."
.'
1"1
I I
, .,
',\
~.
i '''\
I' "
"
I ~
1--
I
! "
~
-
, ,
i
'oj
.. .. ..-.....----...~- --r ,....... - - '''r- ._~ ,.~
... - ...,..-..........
!i! ..' ~.~ ".':, '.:: ...i." . (ffi-' r ~ "~(. ',:,: ':,: "~(~',".,' " ..'I....;.~:'
. " '.1- ,.::.~.'Ir . \.'", ,.", '","';, " ,'J,' \
~. I" l', ~,. ',I, " i'" ':' ~., " ':, '", ,,"'-,
,'.':,' f~.L"",\~~" ,&"" '1,,,,. ,,' ';," ',:,,',' ,:'
I'e
i
reJ
1:'
I<.~
,
r~
,
,. ~
Chapter Five
RELOCA liON FEASlBlLllY
,
The previous chapter presented an analysis
of alternative sites which could
accommodate a replacement general
aviation facility for Iowa City. The search
was conducted for consideration of options
to compare to development options at the
existing Iowa City Municipal Airport site. An
analysis of the area surrounding the Iowa
City area concluded that three sites exist
which could potentially meet FAA airport
planning and design criteria.
In this chapter, the abilities and limitations
of the existing Iowa City Municipal Airport
site to provide a facility able to safely
accommodate forecast aircraft activity is first
analyzed. Then, after discussing
development options for the existing site, a
rating and comparison of the options is
presented, Following an analysis of the
reuse potential of the existing site, a
comparison 01 retaining and improving the
existing facility versus relocating the airport
to a new site is examined.
Iowa Oty Airport
Relocation Feasibility Study
DEVELOPMENT CAPABILITIES
OF THE EXISTING AIRPORT
This Airport Relocation Feasibility Study was
conducted because of conflicts arising from
the impacts of development near the Iowa
Municipal City Airport. When initially
constructed, the airport's location on the
outer edges of the city provided ample
separation between aircraft operations and
the city's population. As land surrounding
the inner city developed, land use
development pressures resulted in growth
towards the airport site. Today, the airport
is boxed in by urban development on three
sides, and significant topographic constraints
on the other side.
The growth of the Iowa City area has
resulted in incompatible land uses and
obstructions being developed in aircraft
approach paths, and otherwise close
proximity to the airport. Trees, fences,
roads, structures, antennae and terrain now
5-1
387
_' ">~7J,>'~:'" ,itl' ::'l~("'; :-.'",' ,
, , r"u:"; I"'" ;7/ . t:'J ' ' ",.' ", .'
. "". ~.' .;,:~;": :ltl.;1 :....~..,.'.... -.~ "," '. ,,:.'> ":., ,.,:
"
cause varying degrees of encroachment into
the airspace around the facility, These
obstacles limit the ability of the Iowa City
Municipal Airport to accommodate existing
aircraft operations, and to comply with
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
airport design standards.
The following discussions are provided to
analyze the existing airport site'S abilities to
accommodate current and forecast aircraft
operations. Included is information
regarding aircraft performance, runway
orientation, and pertinent FAA airport
design standards which directly affect the
capabilities of the existing airport site.
AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE
AND RUNWAY ORIENTATION
\
Powered aircraft achieve flight by creating
lift which results from pressure changes
over their wing surfaces when they
accelerate through oncoming wind. As a
rule, the greater the power produced from
the aircraft's engine, the greater the
acceleration and lift potential. Although an
aircraft can create lift by using wind which
arrives over the wing surfaces at almost any
relative direction, the most efficient
production of lift occurs when the
oncoming wind is coming from the exactly
opposite direction of the accelerating
airplane (headwind).
The other wind component affecting flight
is wind that is perpendicular to the line of
flight. Referred to as the crosswind
component, this wind not only can affect
the ability of the aircraft's wings to create
lift, but also the stability of the aircraft
when landing and taking off. Each aircraft
is certified for flight with a maximum
crosswind component capability for the
landing phase of flight. The larger the
aircraft, the more tolerant it is of stronger
crosswind speeds,
Since aircraft rely most heavily on the
principles of lift and stability during takeoff
and landing (when aircraft speeds are at
their slowest), a runway provides the
greatest margin of flight safety when it is
oriented into the most.frequently prevailing
wind direction. If the costs of runway
construction were inexpensive, large,
circular pavements might be provided at
airports so that aircraft could always take
off and land directly into the oncoming
wind, However, construction and
maintenance costs of airfield pavements are
not inexpensive. Therefore, runways must
be planned and constructed to provide the
most effective use of public expenditures
while affording the greatest amount of wind
coverage to aircraft operators.
In promoting air safety for all sizes and
capabilities of aircraft, FAA criteria
recommends that the main runway at an
airport be oriented to provide sufficient
operational wind coverage for each
category of aircraft at least 95 percent of
the time. When this is not possible,
crosswind runways should be planned.
The 95 percent coverage is considered
acceptable for crosswind components of 12
miles per hour (mph) for small general
aviation aircraft (aircraft reference code
(ARC) A.I and B.I), 15 mph for larger single
and twin engine aircraft (ARC A-II and B.II),
18 mph for business jets and smaller
passenger jets (ARC A-III, B.\II and C.I
through 0.111), and 24 mph for the largest
passenger aircraft (ARC A.IV through D-VI).
As is obvious from these standards, smaller
and slower aircraft are affected the most by
the crosswind component. That is why an
analysis of local wind conditions is
particularly important in orienting runways
at general aviation airports.
~
.:..
, '
...
, ,
.'.
I
,I
1'''1
./ I
j,j
,1-'
I'
t..
(-
, '
,
'--~
-,
-,
',,)
"
I
-
I,
.-,
5.2
I
I
381 1,1
~..... fIF ,..,..- ."....-------.-.-...~-T"~- .....". , -r - - .-.r- _"4iI
,.....\
,
,
,\
r""
I
\.'"1
I"~,
\
..1
:'i
J
....
: II
~.,
I ;"1
',~,.
"
,
"
.I
"I
I
.;
\
;
,
! ,
'...
"
I
,.1
,
, I
, ,
,~
'::' "flI-:': r.;:~i ': ~,..;.'" . ,,' .'1' ' :,' · ,',,' :'" , ..,",
", "Ij",! " ,J, , , "
~. -,': ,,'.-'.t,~,:,.',~,\,"":-"''j"'~''l .',,' , ':"~' ::",.1:..::.,...
r'"
, '
,.\
I"
,,'
': ~{
Wind observations collected from the
Cedar Rapids Municipal Airport are
presented in Table 5A The table
summarizes wind coverages at ten degree
intervals of runway configuration for
different aircraft categories at the Iowa City
Airport.
.~
1\'
; i
'1
:1
"
TABLE 5A
Wind Coverage Analysis (All-Weather Conditions)
Runway PERCENT WIND COVERAGE
True Bearing
rn#wJ.@W?1\Tg{%l1pit'fu7Mt At4~v;}:m~t::::{@~..<:..\'i::~lif~~:;:"%~t~~:x;':{ &tlllij*81Inffilltl?YW
Orientation 0"....]~.~w1'5.:~MnBl.$.. ~I'*M.
h,,%Bw;1Q e t+Yff ili4$J"l~%lli' :,. ')' ~ ""1 ...Nt~~k wr t1~' l'; . f::>>""WWI
#~\:::~:.~""",:.:;~>>i;.,:,~.::x:;,:"t,k.?f::;:.t:.t %t .,:'. .~'$'#~'<< >>>>>>,,,,,., .-\4: ~~;::;:'c~~~~* " ~X@, :&.b~;:;.;.:.;t1<;;:,':::::;;'&.\':~)':V;""..-:-:
u.y_w._.V. "',,, N.' ..v. _'", ....w..
10'.190' 83.95 90.34 96.19
20'.200' 82.55 89.20 95.65
30'.210' 81.27 88.41 95.32
40'.220' 80.16 87.96 95.27
50'.230' 79.58 87.82 95.44
60'.240' 79.82 88,09 95.83
70'.250' 80,88 88,88 96.39
80'.260' 82.55 90.08 96.97
90'-270' 84.49 91.39 97.53
100'.280' 86.26 92.61 98.04
110'.290' 87.83 93.71 98.43
120' .300' 89.25 94.62 98.67
130'.310' 90.31 95.21 98.78
140'.320' 90.77 95.35 98.71
150'.330' 90.32 95.05 98.49
160'.340' 89.00 94.26 98.12
170'.350' 87.31 93.05 97.54
180'.360' 85.56 91.69 96.84
Source: NOM, Asheville, North Carolina; Data Station: Cedar Rapids, Iowa; 72,545
Observations, 1980.1991.
-'
,
-
Analysis of Table 5A shows that any runway
orientation can achieve greater than 95
percent coverage for 18 mph and above.
A runway oriented with a relative bearing
of 140' .320' (northwest.southeast) would
obtain the best wind coverage for an
individual runway for 12 mph and 15 mph
crosswind components. Additional
computerized wind analysis for the present
runway system at Iowa City Municipal
Airport is depicted in Table 5B. No single
orientation achieves 95 percent wind
coverage at 12 mph and 15 mph although
Runway 12-30 is very close for 15 mph.
While any two.runway configuration
provides 15 mph coverage, only the
combination of Runways 12-30 and 17.35
will provide adequate coverage at 12 mph.
Unfortunately, Runway 12.30 is the most
constrained of the three runways. There.
fore, it may be necessary to maintain all
three runways to meet the wind coverage
standards,
, j
:;~
"
5.3
387
'...;
~ _.~._...._-~._ ____.___..._.u _w_ _lIr--.o J/IltJ!
- L If!~J"ll UI.ftI._
I
i
I
,
,
I
j
,
':..::~ :~t'11: ': ::7:'1,;: . :'~:;':'; ".,'.:;.Zt", , , " ,': .,.':, ,,',..'. ,:, ,: ,'"
" ' , I~' "'., "',0' ,', , , ' "
,\ ..' ," ',., ,':)': .'" "'.' '~' I) < \, .,': '. ,.; I.. .1
", ,"-'=:l ,_ ,;~ ,. ~l~.." . . " , ',' I
.., . '", ". ,- \ f' '," . ' "
TABLE 5B
Current Wind Coverage
Iowa City Municipal Airport
PERCENT WIND COVERAGE
''''-....'''':;.;:;;f'.X<<''l>>>'&".<.;.~...~>>.,~:,...;."..,- "'<:0;:'I-"-~'';':''-'~';'lli.-.;.-.;w:::;:,.,;.;:;t:l';;''~~>>;; ':'''~'''~'W:''>>:;'l>>''^'''''>.')>>'''''>>xM'N';
,>':;:::",<'<';;":';:''''-'>>'''',' ',,_N, ,','~'~'~'~H~~t ;:,",x, :~;:;.::<< "~":::::."''itW'-' :'-~"':'<<~ .;:::;::*.1": :":r<<~','"{};.#?~~'''i,;:-(~>>>:.w~tt.~''>:'1(<
tlV,'j1\121MQ ,Y;!ilif/ Mii' l~;~"MQliV"""/i RdW;"1'81'~HliIi'l&%l!
~d::::,,";::{!'i~,~>>.'z:;,;<<Af..-:i.,:,"@;~"t;.:::i,~ ::i,'::(..;~w"AMf:,~;;:,.;.h\,ktf%if'+t ~\f*:~*$~>>:y,;,<-~,JJ:;>.hA~~:~m:~
Single Runway
Runway 6-24 80,88 88,88 96.3 9
Runway 12-30 89.80 94,95 98.74
Runway 17-35 85.22 91.41 96.70
Two Runways
Runway 6-24 and 12-30 94.78 98.25 99.58
Runway 6-24 and 17-35 93.67 97.55 99.23
Runway 17-35 and 12-30 97.32 99.10 99.75
All Runways 99.79 99.96 99.99
Source: NOM, Asheville, North Carolina; Data Station: Cedar Rapids, Iowa; 72,545
Observations, 1980-1991.
FM SAFElY AND DESIGN STANDARDS
An airport should be designed to
accommodate the safe transport of people
utilizing aircraft to get from one location to
another. Towards providing a safe facility,
FM standards recommend designing an
airport's facilities to accommodate the most
demanding aircraft which use the facility on
a regular basis.
The term 'most demanding" refers to a
specific aircraft's need for a runway length,
width, strength, and clearance standards
that will allow it to safely land and take off
from the airport. The most critical FM
design elements of an airport that relate to
the safe operation of aircraft include:
. Runway Lengths
. Runway Safety and Object-Free Areas
. Runway Protection Zones
Runway Length
The length of a runway should provide
ample opportunity for the design aircraft to
accelerate on the runway to takeoff speed,
then, if the pilot decides to abort the
takeoff, safely stop before the end of the
runway (accelerate-stop distance). Aircraft
performance manuals, which pilots use to
calculate accelerate-stop distances, take into
account conditions at the airport being
used. Inputs into calculating accelerate-
stop distances include pavement condition
(wet or dry), atmospheric conditions (such
as temperature and wind speed), and
runway gradient.
As calculated in the facility requirements
chapter, the runway length needed to
accommodate the accelerate-stop distance
and other margins of safety for ARC C-II or
D-II aircraft is 5,500 - 5,600 feet. Only the
5-4
3flq,j
..,
- I
,~
,
.
, '
",,\
1,1
~1
, ,
,...,
;'
j"!
,
\..-),
j,'
i'
;,1
II
"I
/1
.)
1\
.1
II
Ii
1'1
r
I
tj
,.
,.,- - - ,,-.----.
-'\
! ,j:
I
n
Lj
I
I 1-<'
IiI'
}l
I )'j
I "
I
I "\
i J
, ,
: I
~~l
'.
,I
,0
, 'I
-
; ,
'\
....
I \
':' ,"'L"":"'" :"~m', ,.ct,',,,.' :,< ' .,',':'~' '~"':':" ,';;
:,':~ ,riJ:',:,,: );i:,,',":i71,:''';,' ;~:J :':,: ::' ".""':: ",':: ,"':':,'~' :;:
""'
,
"
to.
primary runway would need to be this long
because a single runway provides adequate
wind coverage for Category C and D
aircraft. Additionally, one crosswind
runway should maintain a length of 3,900
feet to accommodate ARC A-II and B-II.
Finally, if orientations dictate the need, a
second crosswind runway should be
maintained at 3,200 feet (to accommodate
ARC A-liB-I).
: I
,~
I
1,1
"
..,
,'I
...~
,
, ,
~1
The existing physical lengths of pavement
are 4,355 feet on primary Runway 6-24,
4,300 feet on crosswind Runway 17-35,
and 3,900 feet on crosswind Runway 12-
30, Therefore, no runway at the existing
airport site is currently of sufficient length to
regularly accommodate ARC C-II or D-II
aircraft.
I,
")
! ,
\"'1'
,/
Runway Safety and Object-Free Areas
Besides runway length, there are critical
grading and clearance areas surrounding
the runway which are needed to provide
margins of safety for aircraft during landings
and takeoffs.
.,
The runway safety area (RSA) is defined as
the ground surface surrounding the runway
prepared or suitable for reducing the risk of
damage to airplanes in the event of an
undershoot, overshoot, or excursion from
the runway. The object free area (OFA) is
defined as a two.dimensional ground area
surrounding runways, taxiways, and
taxilanes which is clear of objects except for
objects fixed by runway operational
purposes.
The FAA dimensional standards for the
safety area and object free area are set by
the aircraft reference code of the design
aircraft for the runway. Essentially, higher
performance aircraft require larger safely
areas and object free areas, According to
FAA design standards, it is imperative that
the RSA and OFA be provided.
.'
"
'I
."
In the situation where the RSA or OFA
standards cannot be fully achieved beyond
physical end of the runway, the FAA
requires a relocation or displacement of the
landing threshold. The amount of
relocation is determined by the amount of
deficiency in providing the required length
of RSA or OFA. Table 4A listed FAA design
criteria for critical features on the airport
associated with the design aircraft for the
primary and crosswind runways, including
runway and taxiway widths, RSA and OFA
dimensions, and other separation criteria.
The table also compares them to what is
currently available.
Since runway safety area and object-free
area standards are not presently being met
on the existing runways, FAA requirements
would indicate that not all existing runway
pavements can be considered as usable for
landings or takeoffs. Exhibit SA is provided
to assist in understanding how usable
runway lengths are affected at the Iowa
City Municipal Airport. This exhibit
indicates that for Category A and B aircraft
(essentially propeller aircraft), the distances
between the thresholds of each runway
need to be reduced. If this is accounted
for, the usable length of primary Runway 6-
24 would be 3,830 feet, the usable length
of crosswind Runway 17-35 would be
3,575 feet, and the usable length of
crosswind Runway 12-30 would be 3,510
feet.
In order to obtain the required RSA and
OFA dimensions for Category C and D
aircraft (most business jet aircraft), the
usable lengths of each runway are reduced
to 3,280 feet for primary Runway 6.24,
3,100 feet for Runway 17-35, and 2,380
feet for Runway 12-30. Therefore, if more
land is not acquired and objects removed
to provide the required RSA and OFA
standards, there will be a reduction in
available pavement belween thresholds. In
this scenario, none of the runways would
be long enough to accommodate either
5-5
317
~ ~. V-'-
\
.,
~
l
, ,
~. I
I I :
I
'"
.4 I i
.... I
~
; \
I.-I'
"'1
i,
\
r',
,
.... -, - ~ . -,r-- ~.. - ,-
.. "~"-~-... ........
.. ..........- ..-,
',,'~, ',,:,- "(:1 ""f)' ~/, ',': "..:<, :.>
." L'l .!R, ~0'" "J:"J ' '"
:~:'~'>,'~.~::.)i~~I~ '^~l',..j , ':J .~~ .... _ "', ".'. ",' ,,',
f u
~
~
~
,
,
[
~
.
\
I
.....\
.....
.............. ...........1
( (......
\ \ .l
o:r \ \ ~~~~ )
\ \..~/.......
\.......
/',
,
,
1', ,
", )
'< /')
, " 1/
, ',< I
'V./ ~
r--,
L__J
Category A & B Object Free
Area/Thrashcld
Calagory C & 0 Object Frae
Aree/Threshold
r "l
, I
I,.. , I
II I,
I I
': I,
LL.._-1J
[J
0
R
T
H
I
0 1000 2000
I ~ I
SCALE IN FEET
35
RUNWAY EXISTING RUNWAY
LENGTHS
RUNWAY AVAILABLE
BETWEEN TH~ESHOLDS
Category A & B Category C & 0
3,830' 3,280'
3,575' 3,100'
3,510' 2,380'
6-24 4,355'
17-35 4,300'
12-30 3,900'
{'"-o
I.-I i
!
(' I
I
,
\:: I
,
,
.'. !
,'. J i
" i
:-"
,
, "
, )
-.
,-
(-.
I
i
'v
"u
j
1.,1
"
~ - :
,
-
,'-I
:-.J
J"l !
, , i
I,,, I
I
'I
I,d I
I
i
~ I
Exhibil5A ~II
USADLE RUNWAY LENGTHS WITHOUT USING
"DECLARED DISTANCES CONCEPT' , ,
.3f7rfJ
"
, , ,', " :,~
,; h' 'ill " ~.... " ~-'" '~..... ' ,", , ' ',: '" '
...l. ~ t - ~ ~ J i. .' ". \, '... .
~~~.\\~.': .'\' I~'~',,;,: ,I .,~..~ '.:'; ':",,:-.",'::', . .'.<. 'I,,'..""
t . . "~.-: "I.. """"....,. ,r .". ~
r' I....... ;', ,j",.; I:; ,l" .' i . ,".
r;l
!!
~"
I ARC B-II, C-II or D-II, and would only be strongly recommended by the FAA, there
II I
long enough to accommodate aircraft may be instances where an avigation
within ARC A-I/B-I (small single-, and twin- easement is acceptable. An avigation
..\ I
I engine aircraft). easement provides the right-of-way or air
" rights for aircraft to operate at low altitude
I
over the property. The easement restricts I
,.. I
Ii Runway Protection Zones heights and the types of improvements that
can be developed on the property. In two
... Another integral component of FAA airport cases, the approach to Runway 6 and the
1'1 design standards relates to the provision of approach to Runway 12, an avigation
' I runway protection zones (RPZ's). The easement has been acquired in the RPZ.
,.., runway protection zone is defined as an To maintain the runway thresholds in their
: : area off the runway end (formerly, the clear current locations, additional control of the
zone) used to enhance the protection of RPZ must be acquired on Runways 17, 35,
people and property on the ground. As 24, and 30. In all of these instances, there
aircraft operate in three dimensions, the is development within the RPZ. If this is ,
I
runway protection zone provides for safe not acquired, then the runway thresholds
aircraft approach and departure paths will need to be relocated to avoid the i
'( within close proximity to the runway. property.
;
~f..f;
/
FAA design standards suggest that RPZ's This has already been done on Runway 17
,""'i should also be located on airport-owned or where the threshold was moved 425 feet
' i
.;~ controlled property. In this way, aircraft south down the runway. This was
are guaranteed a clearance of 50 feet mandated because a commercial
'"') above any natural or man-made obstacle development with residential apartments on
I,) located within the critical approach and the second floor was constructed within the
departure areas to the runway. RPZ.
"I
p
\ -'.'1 The size of the RPZ is governed by the type ,
,
.. of approach available to a specific runway. Declared Distances ,
;
,- The three types of approaches are called I
r visual, non precision instrument (NPl), and At airports facing site constraints, the FAA I
/ I
precision instrument (PI). A visual approach does permit the application of declared
',.:i provides no navigational aid for horizontal distances. Declared distances are defined I
! or vertical guidance to the airport for an as the distances the airport owner declares
,)
aircraft; a non precision approach provides available and suitable for satisfying the !
,'I horizontal guidance towards the airport airplane'S takeoff and landing distance
with the use of a navigational aid (such as requirements. The declared distances are
~,,~
a VOR, NDS, LOC, etc.), and therefore defined as follows:
, ~, accommodates aircraft flight in inclement
; j weather; a precision approach provides the . Takeoff run available (TORA) - the
,~
most current technological means of safely runway length declared available and
" and accurately guiding an aircraft in low suitable for the ground run of an airplane
, ) cloud and/or visibility conditions to the taking ofr.
~
runway. . Takeoff distance available (TODA) - the
' '
,J At Iowa City Municipal Airport, there are TORA plus the length of any remaining
no RPZ's that are fully within airport-owned runway and/or c1earway beyond the end
' , properly for any of the runways. While fee of the TORA.
l; simple ownership of the entire RPZ is
1\ 5-6 317
'j
k
I
~ - - .-__----------.----r-.....-..- ......,.r- .....r-, -y .- - '-.,- ..,.- ... ~ T
),c,', " 'flI- "",':'t; ,:~... ';' '14":" ,':', ,', , ,,', " ",'" "", ;.;
~I.. "., "","~_ .'.'.,:'1 ! I,"j ','., '" I, ',1 ,'JI,. ,-: v',,',
Y', .., I - ~ ., ,0.'. . ~ ", ~ . " '". I ,
. ,-'\ t. :~ '< ' . \~,: ..'~ .~~~,. r.,.,..... '\ "., ."",' . r . .:
I'
. Accelerate-stopdistance available (ASDA)
- the runway length declare available and
suitable for the acceleration and
deceleration of an airplane aborting
takeoff.
. Landing distance available (LOA) - the
runway length declared available and
suitable for a landing airplane.
"
Declared distance calculations determine
available takeoff and landing distances for
aircraft, while acknowledging the physical
constraints in providing standard RSA, OFA
and RPZ dimensions.
Exhibit 5B illustrates effective runway
lengths at the existing airport site using
declared distances. As shown, even with
the use of declared distances, for Category
A and B aircraft, the best usable landing
distance available (LDA) for Runway 6-24 is
3,830 feeti for Runway 17-35 no 4,200
feeti and for Runway 12-30 .-. 3,900 feet.
For Category C and D, the best LDA for
Runway 6-24 is reduced to 3,520 feeti for
Runway 17-35 --- 3,800 feeti and for
Runway 12-30 no 3,360 feet.
lNlt5C
....Clly""'"
"""'Y1"Tlh~
.":.:'~:':;:';(~~r.:'
->:::;oQOdUed OUurul":
'-;".":::':."":':.'
\"RuriWlylC:l1gth'" C\r;Ml<.~T.60'
, o..~ " Uo~, " Uolk
,. SUM,ud>: : '>:(~h':.:. . Lrngth'.:
'Ph~":,
.> P.Mmeob
:":','.lenh1h"\::
6 4,355'
5,GOO' 3,830' 3,430'
'4 4,]55'
5,<<1Y J,aJO' 3,4]0'
17 4,300'
],900' 3,575' 3,015'
3,575' 3,015' 3,875' 4,]00' "",200' 4,700' ],675' 4,300' 3,000' 3,000'
35
4,300'
J,!lOO'
For Category A and B aircraft, the critical
accelerate-stop distance available (ASDA)
for each runway is as follows:
. Runway 6 - 3,830 feet
. Runway 24 - 4,355 feet
. Runway 17 - 4,000 feet
. Runway 35 - 4,200 feet
. Runway 12 - 3,900 feet
. Runway 30 - 3,510 feet
For Category C and D aircraft, ASDA is
further reduced as follows:
. Runway 6 - 3,405 feet
. Runway 24 - 4,230 feet
. Runway 17 - 3,600 feet
. Runway 35 - 3,800 feet
. Runway 12 - 3,360 feet
. Runway 30 - 2,920 feet
Table 5C lists ru nway lengths that are
needed to accommodate the design aircraft,
and calculates usable lengths with and
without declared distances. For the existing
site, runway lengths with and without using
declared distances do not accommodate all
oJ the takeoff and landing requirements of
the design aircraft of the facility.
3,645' 4,355'
3,030'
3,030'
3,6045'
4,355'
3,405' 3.405'
4,]55' 4,355'
955'
3,645'
",]55'
4,355'
4,130' 3,520'
4,100' 4,300'
4,100'
",lXXI'
].575'
4,300'
J,GOO' 3,115'
lO
J,OlO'
3,510'
3,510' 2,300' J,05' J,9OO' J,9OO' 3,900' ],05' l,roJ' J,]OO' ],]60'
],JllIl' 3,000' J,9OO' 3,510' 3,005' 3,900' J,9OO' 2,920' 2,445'
II
J,OlO'
3,100'
3,200'
. MM\f71l
IORA . hloolf Run Av~iIJI~c
TODIl. hh'Olf Di!L1llCll AvailJbIc
NiOA . ^<<:clmt1l510fl ()ill~llCll AVJil.ll,lc
lOll htMling oi!l.Inctl ^v~il~lk
5.7
, I
387\:1
,~
,...,
,-
, \
\-~
.::.,
\
"
~'1
tI
1"1
, I
,I
f"l
I
,1-\
,
~'..1...,
,
,-
:
I"',
:;:' I
,'''-'
I
I
i
I
I
i
i
I
,
!
j
I
I
,
,
,
-"
','
I' ,
,l!
I
'I.,~'
, ,
~.i
i
, I
~!I
i,
...
II ~
' , I
n m I
~
I ~ ,
, J.; ~
I
,
~.
'.1
,il
'''"'I
" I
,.,
,;
)
Co,)
~II\
L,
:'"
,
:.J
''I
U
,.~
I'
J
D
:1
I ~,
~,
J
I ,J
{1
I'
Llt
,r,
,
: I
\",
~I
. '
....;
, ,
!
'J
, .
,
I
-
I I,
,
, ,
,"]
....' :," "ill.... ,"," "',*l'c:~~' ,,\,..., '," ',' " ,'-1 " ," .;
~.I<'," :.'..'..'..:~ .... "'""';'.':"""'~""" '_:".
. -I ""..\. '.1 I', , '.' "",_
'-' ':"'.,1 .',;,'",:-\,~";,;.'''.':l'.w, :."'1':"":: ',., "... ,'. ',';.-" \ ',", "'~.'
....'\
....
,/ ......1
( ~~
(~
\ \ J
",\ \ ~/ )
\ \.0...............
....
\--....
o
R
T
H
I
o
~
Lf
.1:=--
I
I r----1
II
I:
L'-
/',
,
,
/', ,
", )
< /')
" / I
" I
, 'I 1
" '<.. I
"" ~
r--,
L__J
Category A & B Object Free
Araa/Threahold
Category C & 0 Objacl Frea
Area/Threahold
[J
r I
I ,
,,.. , I
': I,
II i,
L' I
'--_..JJ
35
lODD
1
SCALE IN FEET
2000
I
DECLARED
DISTANCES
ACCELERATE
STOP DISTANCE
AVAILABLE
(ASDA)
LANDING
DISTANCE
AVAILABLE
(LOA)
Category A & B
RUNWAY
6/24 17/35 12/30
Category C & 0
RUNWAY
6/24 17/35 12/30
Exhibil58
RUNWAY LENGTHS USING
"DECLARED DISTANCES CONCEPT'
\
\
I
I
:.
,,:,;::,
".l,\....
0. ~~:
.......
, "
387
~:;' t' 7/';'" :",~- ,: "";.0,,,,:.,... ,,', '; ," ,.;,' .', :," ",
\. .. Ii ! I ," . J". . ,'"''
:,::',~, ~},' ,;\1,;;./..<', ,~" I,jtZl",,: '~,':'. ',.,', ',.,,~,' ': :-:.
, , f. . '. ,..' . \. ;. ' I , .' . -,. '. ~ .
Depending upon other operational charac-
teristics such as high outside air
temperatures, heavier aircraft weight
configurations, varying degrees of pilot
expertise, and wet runway pavement
conditions, these runway lengths may be
considered inadequate in accommodating
all but the smallest aircraft currently using
the airport on a regular basis,
In summary, the Iowa City Municipal
Airport site has many constraints which
restrict its ability to meet FAA standards for
the types of aircraft that use the airport on
a regular basis. Specifically, the existing
airport site cannot provide runway lengths,
RSA, OFA and RPZ dimensions applicable
to the design aircraft.
DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
AT THE EXISTING SITE
\
In the previous chapter, an evaluation of
three development alternatives for the
existing site was conducted. These
alternatives included a 'do nothing"
scenario, closure of the airport, limiting the
types of aircraft at Iowa City, and
development of a new airport site. In this
section, three options for improvement of
the existing site are presented.
The three improvement options were
formulated from an examination of
potential means of accommodating the
current and forecast aircraft usage, in
compliance with FAA design standards.
These alternatives are outlined below, then
reviewed utilizing the site analysis criteria
from the last chapter.
OPTION 1 - REDUCE TO CATEGORY A
AND B STANDARDS
This alternative examines the option of
retaining an airport at Approach Category B
standards, This would mean that the
airport would not be improved to meet the
design standards for business jet aircraft in
Approach Category C and D which
presently use the airport. Typical aircraft
within each approach category were
outlined earlier in Table 3A.
Exhibit 5C depicts the resultant layout for
the airport. Under this option, Runway 6-
24 would be developed to maintain a
runway length of 4,300 feet as per Table
3C. This would meet the runway length
requirements for the propeller aircraft and
the business jets (Cessna Citation and
Falcon series) that are within Approach
Category B, Runway 17-35 would be
designed to serve as a crosswind for small
aircraft (weighing less than 12,500 pounds)
in Airplane Design Group II. This requires
a 3,900-foot length, Runway 12-30 would
be limited to small airplanes in Design
Group I. This would require a 3,200-foot
length.
To accommodate the runway safety area
and object free area, the east end of
Runway 6-24 would need to be displaced
approximately 520 feet to the west. The
portion of runway behind a displaced
threshold would be available for takeoff on
Runway 24, but would not be available for
landing. On the west end, the runway
would be extended 465 feet. However,
the landing threshold would be maintained
in its present location on Runway 6. By
applying declared distances, operations to
the east on Runway 6 would have an
accelerate-stop distance (ASDA) for takeoff
of at least 4,300 feet. However, the
landing distance available (LOA) would still
be limited to 3,830 feet.
Because of its present length of 3,875 feet,
Runway 17.35 would be maintained
essentially as is. The north threshold has
already been relocated 425 feet south. The
soulh threshold would need to be
,....
,-,
...
\
, '
r
, ,
"~1
....,
\.
"
',,'"
,-,
I
"
.....
"
I, ,
...'
"
l_~
,
~
.....
, ;
~"i
, ,
:..
5.8
; I
387 ~t
~
" ,
i
"'1
/.
.,.1' .
.........1
""
I
,
,..
I -,
I ;i
J
,
J
'i
~"IJ'
,'\
',',
J
'-J'
, 1
I,
i:
,
-'
, ,
" !
...
I'
....;
':,':, '-: \: ,;41,' '~::""/,~"';",~", ,~" ',,>-:-: ""'.'::';'
.~ l . " E,' " . I ~ I '~1 ,\ { I
" J. '\ (
""")ZL..,I~,, ..'\" .,1.,"" "', ' ",
,...,
'.- ~
: ~
~
~
,
, 1
'"
-
!
~. ~
1
,',I
,~
,
~
I
..,
,-
, "
,
~ "
f'. \
N
-""'ID
I
IOWA
~'..;. '.t:':'t' < ,;!{.:",,'itL::-::ir}:': " ., ,'~"'::.,f'
:::,,)j,.~,,'~ ,'.:.;4J:; ~J,..,('<', ,.'. ,.:;. ,'~ "":'~",:
1-4 \~
r--..
(\J
'<'
LEGEND
-..- Existing Property Line
2'i'Di'2 Ultimete Property Line
~ Existing Eesement
U [mm:J Ultimate Easement
- - - - Ultimate Pavement
()
+.ORT"_
o
I
1000
I
SCALE IN FEET
o
Exhibit 5C
IOWA CITY MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
OPTION I
" ,..,..,
2000
I
r
I
,
!
~:
.:1
~ I
ii
il
p
11
"
:,
i
I
,
, :
..... f51 - .......--..
\
r...,
, i
Ihl
I
I
..,
~.
..I
;"\
L)
,"1
U
r"l
i ,
, ,
.J
('I
: ,
\
, 'Ii
,,'
"
I"~
.j
I
....;,
'-'';
i\
,j
I
: I
-
f'1
,-'
,
, ,
-
"
I
,\
-,
-,', ,:-'t::;":" ":,;3,: ;'1,7/,,"; ,,;', :',' ':", ,-::-' ,; ,<
: i:':.l.~t<,;, ,~l4J:," ",J~~ ", ,;,;" '. I " : " ,,'.. .~', ': ": ":'
'"
I,
,10
, ,
displaced approximately 200 feet to the
north to maintain the object free area on
airport property. The primary concern with
the runway would be acquiring control of
the runway protection zones and removing
existing obstructions.
, '
1.-.'
"
:'"
Runway 12-30 would be reduced in length
by 475 feet on the southeast end resulting
in a total length of 3,425 feet. This
shortening would bring more of the RPZ
onto airport property and reduce the
amount of acquisition necessary, Because
of the incompatible development potential
on the northwest end, this option would
recommend ultimate fee simple control of
the RPZ off the northwest end.
OPTION 2 - EXTEND RUNWAY 17-35
Exhibit 50 depicts an alternative that would
extend the Runway 17-35 orientation to the
south to obtain the design length of 5,600
feet. However, to obtain adequate sideline
clearances from South Riverside Drive, the
runway would be shifted to the west 400
feet and the existing runway converted to a
parallel taxiway. This runway would be
designed to Approach Category C and 0
standards. To provide clearance over rising
terrain to the south, the south threshold
would be displaced 500 feet north.
Runway 6-24 would become a crosswind
runway and maintained at its existing
length. However, the east threshold would
still need to be displaced 520 feet to the
west. Runway 12.30 would still be needed
for wind coverage and would be developed
similar to that proposed in Option 1.
OPTION 3 -CONSTRUCT NEW RUNWAY
ALIGNMENT
As depicted on Exhibit 5E, this alternative
considers the development of a 5,600-foot
runway in a new alignment on the existing
airport site. As previously presented, a
northwest-southeast orientation can achieve
the best wind coverages, The present
northwest-southeast runway orientation
(Runway 12-30) is constrained from any
significant extension. However, a rotated
different alignment located further to the
west could be developed.
Under this option, Runway 6-24 could be
maintained as the only crosswind runway as
it would provide sufficient additional wind
coverage to meet design standards.
Runway 6-24 would be maintained as
illustrated in Option 2, with the east
threshold displaced 520 feet.
These three options provided the basis for
further analysis. They were considered
representative of possible alternatives for
improvement of the airport in accordance
with facility requirements for the twenty-
year planning period, and with FAA airport
design criteria.
SITE ANALYSIS CRITERIA
In order to be able to directly compare
each option on the existing site with
alternative sites, the ranking system used in
Chapter Four was utilized. Engineering and
environmental factors were again used to
give each option a single number rating
indicating the degree to which the option
was impacted by the category being rated.
Similar to the analysis provided in Chapter
Four, rating values were assigned as
follows:
o - UNACCEPTABLE: The option fails to
meet the criteria; or would require major
changes to achieve acceptable conditions.
2 - INADEQUATE: The option includes
factors that do not meet the criteria as well
as should be expected; or, will require
5.9
387
\
.....
fISIF'-- - ~'- - - .. _.___1"-..rr}---...-r----' ... - - '-r- -- ,.......
... .... T ,....--.--..
,
':~" :t'rn-"""':~"":"'t7/",>~t~' ..,. ;'..:." ,'.,', ,,:-':',
" '. .'..' .~ <" I, ...' "
-, " ".,' l ~ . I ,. _ ' , " l , ., - , , .,
.~~". t", '~Il ..' .: ' ',; ~')Q~" ," .... ,-', ",.r,
, """ ~~, ~, I' ". ,~- I .., ".'.
some changes to achieve acceptable
conditions,
5 - ACCEPTABLE: The option satisfactorily
meets the criteria.
;.'
8 - ADEQUATE: The option is fully
sufficient to properly meet the criteria; and,
in fact, includes some advantages in
meeting the criteria.
10 - SU PERIOR: The option fully meets
the criteria and includes major advantages
beyond what could normally be expected.
Engineering Factors
. PROXIMITY AND ACCESS
While ground travel time is a significant
factor in evaluating the convenience of a
new airport site, each alternative
development option at the existing airport
site was rated as 'superior' (rating = 10)
due to the facility's superior proximity to
Iowa City.
Option Rating: 10 (all three options)
. PROPERTY ACQUISITION
This factor examined the magnitude of
property to be acquired for each
development option on the existing site. A
high rating indicated a lesser amount of
property needing to be acquired, whereas
lower ratings indicated that the amount of
land acquisition would be more significant.
Airfield layout, size and shape of existing
ownership, and impacts to neighboring
parcels affected the amount of property to
be acquired. The three development
options were analyzed as follows:
. Option 1
Because this alternative minimizes
development at the expense of meeting
Approach Category C and D design
standards, the acreage to be acquired is
also minimized. Approximately 25 acres
would be acquired fee simple along with
35 acres of avigation easement. This would
provide sufficient control of the runway
protection zones. In addition, it includes
acquisition of approximately three acres of
property along Riverside Drive directly
north of Runway 6. This will be required
to meet property line set back requirements
of 500 feet from the runway.
While the acreage is relatively small, there
is considerable development on portions of
this property, The relocation would include
a motel, bowling alley, one single family
residence, and approximately 38 mobile
homes. Therefore, acquisition and
relocation costs will be high. Acquisition
costs for this option are estimated at over
$5.5 million dollars. Since this is slightly
higher than acquisition costs for a new
airport site, Option 1 was given an
acceptable rating.
Option Rating: 5
. Option 2
Property acquisition for Option 2 would
consist of approximately 104 acres, plus
four acres of avigation easements,
Acquisition would affect the previously
active quarry site, the county fairgrounds,
the bowling alley, two single-family
residences, a motel, and twelve mobile
homes. Land acquisition and relocation
costs for Option 2 were estimated at $7.9
million dollars. Because of the higher costs,
the impacts of land acquisition for this
option warrant an "inadequate" rating.
Option Rating: 2
-"
\ ,
I'
\'/
-
, \
''''
, I
\1
~.
1"1
,-
':.
v
,-',
!
ro.
t.~,
I;
i.,J
I"
, ,
,<~
,,'
h
t-.
....:
,
-
"
..,
"
..J
I
"
387 '(\
5-10
.
.....,
i....
I
\.:;
,....
I:)
I [I
~ '2
!
t "I
~ I r
: ~
I
I :'1
I !,~)
\
,.,
':1
1\,
: I
,-'
I..,
J
, ,'\'
I I r
\ ,,/
I 0
,
, ,
,~
, .
,
-
, 1
-
':,;, 'L~I :.,;;51 ",.lT/:', >,:):f, ',' ,,~ ',,:; >,: ',,J : '.::.' <:'
:':' ','(:: ,,":)]J,:,,:..J~,,:-'.',;,D':', ',','.:' ': "','
-
i
- I
: ~
;
, ,
:..i
r
\
I'
N
....
I
';.!;
-
,
,
...,
, :'
j
i'\
I')
L,\>
,
,
~""\'-l" ,:<i1....:,.: f'~ "'8: .. '.':: ' ',..~' ..- '" ".,,',"-',
.' L, ," , ' " ,,' , , " ',' " ":';,
.', , ~...' " '~~-':'r "J...-.;,l. ",', ~4 ~,' ,':, .,' ':", .' ; 1:'.""
~ \'::::.::;::'::--~
I'
C\J
~
\)
()
z
~
LEGEND
---- Existing Properly Line
2:2:L'ii;Z UltlmBte Properly Line
~ ExiBtlng Eesement
~ UltlmBte Eesement
- - - - UltlmBle Pavement
+.ORT._
0 1000 2000
r ~ I
SCALE IN FEET
Exhibil5D
IOWA CITY MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
OPTION 2
387
'I'
I'
"
ji
.1:
i:
"
\I
'I
I:
II
/;
Ii
II
,
ii
,
I
:1
,/
: (
: !
!I
i
,
I
,
f'il
, l~
N
ii f~
",',i m
J ~,
~ ~
hi
',:1
:,', l'~
",,\ ~
:i I.
:' -:J
~ i ".'
!.,
~J [I
!.:, 'p.,
.. "
~j ',I
In
I,j
i! I'
,
"
i,
t,: 1\1
I ;, ,11
ii
:' 11
;', 'I
:, \,.J
~: ,;( r
f;
~
~ I ~
\ I L~
I I II
'I
'...
, ,
I)
I lot
i "
, "
j 1,1
I 'J
I
",'L":""""':!l "fi,,' :,,(31:,0, ',' <'~": ',::,:. ,-..':'
:-',' :'.,~/-:'~#:! >,I~ ,;,',:,..J, " ,',,' '1::' , "",'
-
,
i ,
..
, '
Ii
\~......
f'.
N
r~1
fl
IA
~'
: I
"
. ,
....
-~..... - iF - - ...-'---
. ...~...-....,.,-.....
,
, ,
t' .. ~~...:,' ':'1' ,... -~\ ..." -:- ,.: ffl"'~ '.. " ".' I ,,'.: ,~' ,";..,)' ,,<.'
.. "tJ'..' 'ffl' ',l,,/ ," "'. , , , ',,'
~I ,','. " ;.. ',.J "'I' ::,r" - ( 't '. "',' , , " ; ',I, :' ',.' \ ,,~.
"", , "_II. 'I ...... j-,...... '. _ ~,
., ,",\ 'J,':' II" ",' . I "' ,
..... \.'--"-:::--
'"
C\J
c
- '''''8
...J
<(
a...
~
LEGEND
-..- Existing Property Line
2;'EEEil:. Ultimate Property Line
~ Existing Easement
~ UlIimate Easement
- - - - Ultlmete Pavemsnt
+'ORTtI-
o
I
1000 2000
I I
SCALE IN FEET
Exhibil5E
IOWA CITY MUNICIPAL AIRPORT ~ (J"')
omON 3 ;)0 '
, ,
,
I
, I
". i
: i
" I
; I
: !
'{ !
, ,
, I
! j
I
\
...... fF .~ - ..,,-.-------.---..-~...-
'.',"t'[J-'..' '~tI..":'t'~/"':' ,-,:", ,',"", " ..:,' ;',.' ,;~',,',
-" " . " , ,/ \ " , , " , "
:,: ,\,.' ,~' ::':":~:"~':'.;...;...': ..,'':-:,. " ,'. :'.:'"...',.:".:'.....,
,
,',
C.
t ~
U
n
I
'i
'I
;:,
h
t.l
;'i
11
!'"
:ij
~1
fI
~;~
}':;
t~
{j
~j
1'"
11
\'.,
(1
N
(j
J.j
ill
iJ
!ri
fl
~,
~l.
r,
, ~
I
~
~l
;;;
'~l
I
~
',p,
1:1
" ;~.'
\J
)il
\,:1
~'i
'I
!)
lJ
iil,
tl
J"
1
'.!.~
rJ
(:j
~l
i
~,
il
\'1
ii'
1,
n
{:rj'
"
"
,'..'
q
,1}
,"
;"1
}:1
"
L:
,:
\.'
"
"
:!~ i
I
I"~ i
I
i i I
1.:11
i
i
J! J
:1 )
I
ni
,:, i
.'" I
!
:~
,
,
'~,
:':
i
l.
r:
I
L
r'
,
L
,...
I
r._
r:
,
L
r
1 "
L
,
I
,
,
~
....
I'
i!
'-
I'
I,
...
L:-
397 ~
~ ""!"- -- '",..~ v-' --
-
,
I
.-.,
l
:,1
'1
...,
I
I
'"..J
'1
, I
:,~
I 'l
: '-~
;"'1
.J
I
'-'
, ,
j
, ,
-!
~
,
-i
!"j
I
I'"
d
'I
J
, ,
,
.)
,
I
,
..
, I
, I
:.J
- r ..-_--.,.~- -r .,.....~.--y-'....,.... .,_
... ... "Y" - "'--': ................- - .....- . ..~
>-:", :'f7t-;'.,:.,:: :;;3\; .,':<ta";'I',~' 'tzj"'" :: ','~:: :""',>>,;::~:' .',.;~:'.:"
-' f,~.'..." I'., ',' } '. . '. .., """ ,I' \'
'.' I -t~",\, "~',"." .' "', "I ',','. ,. ". ~.: ,\
. Option 3
Property acquisition for Option 3 involved
the most acreage of the three options (158
acres fee simple). There would be a
portion of a farmstead that would need to
be acquired. Other acquisition and
relocation would include the county
fairgrounds, three single family residences,
twelve mobile homes, and the motel.
Acquisition and relocation costs of $8.1
million dollars would be the highest of all
options and alternative sites. Therefore, the
impacts of land acquisition was considered
"inadequate' for rating purposes.
Option Rating: 2
. EARTHWORK, GRADING AND
DRAINAGE
This factor involves a preliminary evaluation
of each option as it relates to earthwork,
grading, and drainage. Option ratings
under this category reflect the amount of
earthwork required for development of
each option, as well as any significant
drainage features that may be required or
altered.
. Optioll1
Since Option 1 assumes only one 465-foot
extension and use of the existing runways,
it would require the least amount of
earthwork of any option, and receives the
highest rating, Drainage on the existing site
flows primarily to the north and to the east.
The site's location within the Iowa River
floodplain is discussed later. However,
each option on the existing airport site will
require the addition of fill material to bring
new structures to a level of one foot above
the floodplain elevation.
Option Rating: 10
_. M~"~
-..- ~al
~_._~
. Option 2
Option 2 would require approximately
1,250,000 cubic yards of earthwork, due
primarily to the work that would need to
be done in filiing in and near the previous
quarry site. This amount of earthwork is
considered an excessive quantity of
earthwork for the amount of benefit
brought about by a 1,300-foot extension to
Runway 17-35. Therefore, earthwork,
grading and drainage for this option is
considered inadequate for rating purposes,
Option Rating: 2
. Option 3
Option 3 locates the proposed new runway
to the west of the existing airport property
boundary, Relief across the site remains at
approximately 660 feet MSL. Earthwork
requirements have been estimated at
approximately 1,000,000 cubic yards.
While slightly less than Option 2, it is still
significantly more earthwork than would be
required at a new airport site, Therefore,
Option 3 was rated as inadequate for this
factor.
Option Rating: 2
. SITE LAYOUT AND DESIGN
STANDARDS
Each development option on the existing
site was evaluated for its ability to
physically accommodate ultimate basic
airport elements without modifications to
FAA airport design standards. In addition
to meeting design standards, the options
were developed to provide a functionally
efficient facility. Factors include the
location of the landside aviation facilities in
relation to the airfield layout, traffic flow on
5-11
3&7
tuB ll!llll J.llllt_.ms~ I o,'t.MI.MM
I
.
.....
::~,.,,,,:t'tl-',,:': ,'ff5J:<"'l~/,: <en:: ~,,', ~':,' ~,',-:, ,"~;<,',,~,:,~
. " '. , .m. . "r ,; I: rn , " . 1 ..
::.'" . ,,\:~~, "~' I -\ . .J
I.
the runway.taxiway system, and the ability
to stage development in a logical manner.
. Option 1
i:
The general layout of this option maintains
and improves upon the functional
efficiencies of the current airport site. The
three runways provide adequate wind
coverage, although a more efficient runway
layout could provide adequate wind
coverage with just two runways. The
terminal facilities are located to take
advantage of the layout with parallel
taxiways planned to provide access to two
of the three runways. The three runways
do limit the space available for apron and
hangar development in the terminal area,
thereby minimizing fiexibility. In addition,
the proximity of the old United hangar will
require its relocation to meet FM
requirements for building clearances.
\
The most critical deficiency of Option 1
relating to this rating factor is that it does
not meet the design standards for the type
of aircraft that currently use the airport.
Adequate runway lengths and clearance
standards cannot be maintained to serve
Approach Category C and D aircraft.
In addition, Option 1 does not provide
sufficient clearances necessary for the
potential future installation of a precision
instrument landing system. Because it does
not meet the applicable design standards,
Option 1 received an unacceptable rating
for this factor.
Option Rating: 0
. Option 2
Similar to the rating analysis of Option 1,
there are positives and negatives to this
alternative. Option 2 development leaves
the three. runway system intact to provide
the necessary wind coverages, and
proposes to extend the Runway 17.35
orientation across the quarry site pond in
order to obtain the 5,600.foot long runway.
As with Option 1, the terminal facilities
would remain in the current location and
would have excellent access to the primary
and crosswind runways. However, the
amount of area available for additional
hangar and apron development would be
limited by the three. runway configuration.
The proximity of the old United hangar
near Runway 6 will require its removal
under this option,
This option would not be capable of
accommodating a precision instrument
approach due to surrounding terrain. In
fact, even non precision and visual approach
slope clearances will require the threshold
on the south end of Runway 17.35 to be
displaced 500 feet. As a result, this option
was rated as adequate.
Option Rating: 5
. Option 3
Option 3 features a new primary runway
oriented 30 degrees west of true north, and
the utilization of existing Runway 6-24 as
the crosswind runway. Constructing the
new, 5,600.foot runway would provide the
length capable of accommodating the
design aircraft. Also, the two-runway
configuration would provide the 95 percent
crosswind component coverage for each
category of the existing fieet mix at the
Iowa City Municipal Airport.
Because the new primary runway would be
shifted well to the west, Option 1 does not
provide a functionally efficient layout with
regards to the existing terminal area
development. This layout would result in
5.12
, I
38? r~
,
,..
, ,
,.,
",
i
,
..",
,',
~-,
,.,j
, ,
, I
,.,
II
, '
I'"A
1.1
~...
, ,
,
v
~
...."
I
I
J
I
-
~'" :',"7:":'~:I,..r...'..,::"',,:~.;. :,t~l:" '.,'" ,. ,J,,;.:. -<'
"t'" .~" 'I' I '..' , .. '.. , "
~ . ": " ,. . " , ')" . '. :
' " 1" l' .,., . \ .
1'1. .j",......,,;,' ,:\..~,.:..:.. '~il-I,.. ': ':"-"'\' : ~ " , .,. '..' : . ,', "..
~
,,.
Ii
i i
extremely long taxis and bottlenecks for
taxiing aircraft attempting to access the new
runway. This could be corrected by
relocating all terminal facilities farther west
which would further increase development
costs.
...
: I
i.,
i
,I
Additionally, a precision instrument
approach (llS) could not be obtained with
Option 3 due to the inability of the existing
site to provide required horizontal and
vertical clearances. Thus, all approaches
would be planned to nonprecision
standards. The minimal functional
efficiency of this layout resulted in an
inadequate rating for this factor.
-,
I
~
.J
l
l...1
OpUon Rating: 2
11
I...
AIRSPACE, OBSTRUCTIONS, AND
NAVIGATIONAL CONDITIONS
n
I",
An analysis of the relationship between
operations to and from the existing airport
with area visual and instrument airspace
indicates that none of the options present
conflicts for VFR or IFR traffic. The
capacity of the existing airport's three.
runway configuration exceeds the amount
of annual operational demands, and the
Iowa City Airport is not close enough to
other existing airports to create any airspace
conflicts in visual or instrument flight
conditions.
J
-,
1
i
-'
-,
!
It is also necessary to review the
surrounding area for potential obstructions
to aircraft activity. Certain obstructions may
be considered immovable or too expensive
to move when other options are available
(e,g. large land forms, major power lines,
towers, etc.). Others such as smaller power
lines, trees, buildings, and roads impose a
cost of removal or relocation that must be
considered.
Exhibits SF and SG are excerpts from the
most recent Iowa City Municipal Airport
Obstruction Chart (OC), Analysis of the
OC chart indicates numerous obstructions
on the existing airport site, and within the
approach paths to each runway which
might affect each option being considered.
The obstruction problems associated with
this site are primarily the result of rising
terrain on three sides. Light and telephone
poles, trees, roads and natural ground
obstructions provide obstacles to safe
navigation of aircraft. These obstructions
will need to be considered for removal
and/or relocation if the existing airport site
is to continue to be a viable facility.
The analysis of facility requirements over
the twenty.year planning period indicated
the need to plan for, and maintain the
amount of land necessary to meet FAA
standards for installation of a future
instrument landing system (llS) precision
approach. However, due to the inability to
provide all of the required object, terrain
and airspace clearance requirements on
airport property and within the approach
paths to the runway, the existing Iowa City
. Municipal Airport site cannot achieve a
precision approach.
As a result, the existing airport will continue
to be limited to non precision approaches.
Virtually, every approach has some
obstruction that will need to be dealt with
to meet FAA standards. While c1ose.in
conflicts are recommended for acquisition
and removal, structures further out may be
lighted, but will remain as obstructions,
In several areas, trees will need to be
removed or continually topped to maintain
adequate clearances, Because of the
nature, number, and type of obstructions, it
will be difficult and extremely expensive to
remove all of them. Options 1 and 2 were
5-13
3rT
I
~ - y-'-
- ... ..----...~- ""'-r
>/~: :'tl\ '"" ,:,(~L:,::;;/, I:, ,":; I <~' ,': ~,': ,', r ,0,' ,; :;~:,:;'
. "\I~.~ ,~ ~lo~,;\' .: ",1 ~' 1\' ,.,'....' ." " ,:,,~. "r.1 I,' ", /
, '>.'" ". . ) !'.~"" ,'1, , . '_ ... .-17':".' ",:",: - >
rated as inadequate, It was also found that
the new runway orientation of Option 3
would still have similar obstruction
problems north of the airport, Therefore,
Option 3 was also rated as inadequate,
Option Rating: 2 (all options)
Environmental Factors
The successful blending of airport
improvements with the goals of
environmental protection and enhancement
depends upon how well potential conflicts
are identified. The overriding concern
regarding environmental quality relates to
the need to preserve valuable resources
which cannot be readily replaced within
acceptable time frames.
Specific to the Iowa City Airport, two
primary areas of environmental concern can
be identified. The existing site is located in
the 1 DO-year regulatory floodplain of the
Iowa River and lies adjacent to the Willow
Creek tributary. Also, parcels adjacent to
the west and southwest of the existing
airport boundary are in agricultural
production, The following paragraphs
identify specific potential impacts of
development of the three options at the
existing site.
. PRIME AGRICULTURAL LAND
Encroachment of urban development in the
past has made prime agricultural land a
valuable resource that must be conserved.
Therefore, consideration must be given to
the impacts that airport development will
have on land considered most capable of
producing high yields or possessing the
special characteristics required for a unique
type of crop.
Similar to the site evaluations performed in
Chapter Four, each option at the existing
site was evaluated utilizing the U,S.
Department of, Agriculture Farmland
Conversion Rating Form AD 1006.lnforma-
tion was provided to the Soil Conservation
Service (SCS) sub-area office. The site
assessment criteria (Part VI) was completed
in accordance with criteria explained in 7
CFR 658.5(b) Farmland Protection Policy.
The completed form was included in
Appendix B.
A similar process was utilized for the
existing site. Preliminary investigations of
farmland in the area indicate that Option 1
would have the least impact and Options 2
and 3 would have the most impact to
agricultural land because of more significant
construction. Still, the impacts are
anticipated to be significantly less than for
any of the potential new sites. The SCS
reviewed the three options on the existing
site and stated that Option 3 impacted
farmland. Even so, the total rating for
Option 3 was 137.5 which is below the
160 point threshold of significance.
Therefore, Option 1 was rated as superior
for this factor and Option 2 and 3 were
related as adequate.
Option Ratings: Option 1: 10; Option 2: 8;
Option 3: 8,
. SOCIAL IMPACTS
Social factors include relocation of residents
and/or businesses necessitated by
development of the airport. Each option
must also be evaluated for how it might
influence area development plans in the
future, and whether relocation or closing of
roads or similar disruptions might cause
disruptions in community life style.
5-14
-,
,
~-'
_,
,..,
-
""
""
, I
387")
. .... -- '.
':: 't'';',. :,":~'" >' '.'..l"'.~t:,': ,,' "::. ,,'.': "',:"
. ! ,', : '0 ';/' , :, 1 ~ ~ . ", ,." ."._' ",'
',':' " " l "", "'"I....,,.~,.., . '. ",,'
.:,I~..,:... ~:. ',:,:\~~,;,"l..'l". .~. ..i~~l""';';' , :'. ~;:",' ,',....,. .'::'~
~
j 4/..... ([IV
j
......... --
lO'
.......... <D
..... .....t.....
.-
.....' <D <D
....
,'" U6U (I.6SI
.....~~(j)
'"
''''' "" 'OCO lOCO .... 'OCO .... 0
0 .... .... '"" 'oco
..--
__-""fnteftftl
_-- '712
- '
--
--
--
--
--
\
.,;\
if
HOITII
=+'
,
-NO/ITH
Nollo Scalo
.'
EXHIBITS SF & 50 ILLUSTRATE EXISTING OBJECT PENETRATIONS
INTO THE NORMAL APPROACH AND DEPARTURE PATHS OF
AIRCRAFT USING THE IOWA CITY MUNICIPAL AIRPORT,
Sourco: 1090 Notional DooM Sorvlco (NOS)
U. S, Dopartmonl of Commorco '
II
','
nUl
~~(!)
-
.
,,,,..
i~ -p
;.~,;" ,1 t. t:
1,;... .....(!)~1
III
I
S6:1
... ~. - - .......--~--..--"
"" ~";",',,\,:-': ;,;,' ",' '.M...." ,::' ',:,' ,','
" 'Vi'I' ,:2:1 . "r I ' " "', "
: j ";;:.r, ',','~4f,',:>:;,-:" ':l.; ,'.' ,; . .,' ',',',,>', ,';:..:
p
,..,
@ @t~-
~-- -
~. I
,..,/
,..,/
"
@ I
~\-j
,..
, -c
//~\
",,@@ ~ @
\!!I. I II II .-
"
It ;.-__
--1 -
,..
-
'"
.....
,...
-
-
,....
"...
,....
U1l
...2
/1 \
,
II \
ShdM
OLWlll~l OlS@Utl
MBudd." 'll _S-
169 ,
Qa'~.
..J OWrtd~SlIlldlllIA,u
alA"'IM,
ro"'1~1 -4:-
:+
,
-HOIIm
Nollo Scale
;~ , ~, I
_1..,_
\
EXHIBITS 5F & 5G IlLUSTRATE EXISTING OBJECT PENETRATIONS
INTO THE NORMAL APPROACH AND DEPARTURE PATHS OF
AIRCRAFT USING THE IOWA CITY MUNICIPAL AIRPORT.
Source: 1090 NolionoJ Oconn Sorvlco (NOS)
U, S, Departmont 0' Commerce'
"
Exhibil5F :'
IOWA CIlY MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
OBSTRUCTION CHARTEXCERPT
RUNWAY 17.35
387
"
-
, I
, ,
i
,
...I
-
.J
I
,
',..,
]
i J
Ii
I
I:~J
[l
['"
J
0
I -,
I
-J
J
J
\ i U
J
J
'I
!
-
, I
, I
, ,
...
0 , ,0 i'
--.... , /
t--.... ....f (j)
LUt "
.... II"?'" "\
.... I"~ @
, 10
...... Il, ,..-
... ......... ~, -,,. - ~.. '-y - -
>,;L1L' "",;in,':' :,:,,'/, ':,LL" ,:',:. ",:": ,', .':,:,.;:
:' 'J'"' tJt" ~''.'''# : ,",I ..', .1Q I ~'. ." '. . ,'~ .'. ,'.
~
~ .oo
~
~ ..!J.!.. (j)
--
.....
,,,
'00
."
,??oo
,..
...
,..
'..
...
,
-t,.-
"-
--
--
--
~ '"
\\
.
\\
lIu
III
o
_.Po-
--
NOlloScale
1\
'\.
\
(t.1S1
I",
II
\
< "
-~~ (i)
/ 111I
III
'00
.00
II
@
.J!l.
-'"
'00
."
""
...
,..
'IU
It
I
...
."
"
II II 10
"
)Il~
,..--'"
...
,
..
'00
....
...
,..
\ ~\ g ~
\
--'-'
Nollo Scalo
-
......'
',' '~', :'fll- ',;:' .';f:/";" " '~I"" ' .,,:C:;\,,' "eO':, ,:~:: :','
~ .' "','1 \ ( I -I~:.'" " , ~I . ( .
J', .. I .:'.;,! r~~,~ ' ~'>}'."" ,.......... ,,: .'" '",:' .....,. .', ,'...
Sourco: 1990 National Oceon Sol'Aco (NOS)
l' ." u, S, Department of Commerco
." I
.
l @
@ J>
...-
(.UI U,,, ?'~
u\ u,~ I ."
II. "
. ,,,
.... ... .too
.m ~
,. '"
\\
.
\\
~
\
\
'"
I
t
I
NofloScale
...
,,,
"
II I' ~ ~...
"
(tlSI
U. I
.-'...
,.,
.
..
,..
....
....
,too
t
r
Exhibil5G
IOWA CITY MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
ODSTRUCTIONCIIART EXCERPT
RUNWAYS 6.24 & 12.30'
387
: I
:'11
, ,
, !
;
, ,
i
I
i
I ,1
I''';
I I"!
, ,J
11:1
I
I []
!J
[,-I
, -
,
I
J
-"
I
,J
...:
,
,
J
, 'I
J
-
:.:~>::'~f;l: ",:);ti~','~ ';:/';1': ',')'>',' ,':' '.' '; "', ,': ;' ,',:~>," ,,>:','
.", "'~ '1il. ;,.', ,lim,;, j' :,1" ",,'~r,I.' . n,' .',.', ,." ','
- ,. "", I.... . . '
r
11
F~
I'
. Option 1
~
I!
I'
One single-family residence and
approximately 38 mobile homes should be
relocated from protection zones and
runway clearance areas under this option,
In addition, the motel complex along
Riverside Drive just north of Runway 6, as
well as the bowling alley near the south
end of Runway 17-35, should be relocated.
Because this alternative would have a
significant level of residential relocation
impacts associated with it, Option 1 was
rated as inadequate for this factor.
...
II
il
i
,
.,
]
Option Rating: 2
. Option 2
Option 2 would require slightly less
residential relocation with 12 mobile homes
and two single-family residences affected,
In addition, the motel complex and bowling
alley would require relocation. The greatest
potential social impact of this option would
be the need to relocate the county
fairgrounds from the Runway 35 runway
protection zone. Therefore, this option was
rated as inadequate for this factor.
Option Rating: 2
. Option 3
Option 3 would require virtually the same
relocations as Option 2, with the exception
of the bowling alley. The closing of
Runway 17-35 would preclude the
obstruction problems associated with the
bowling alley. In addition, the alternative
would require the relocation of two
farmsteads. Given the level or relocations
required, including the county fairgrounds,
Option 3 also received an inadequate
rating for this factor.
. NOISE/COMPATIBLE LAND USE
The potential for noise impacts associated
with each option was considered for the
Iowa City Municipal Airport, Along with
noise impacts, the compatibility of
surrounding land uses with the develop-
ment of each option was investigated.
Noise contours were developed for each
option and compared to existing and
proposed land uses in the area.
The basic methodology employed to define
aircraft noise levels was explained in
Chapter Four. Computer input files were
prepared for year 2012 forecasted
operations for each airport development
option, Contours representing DNL 55, 60,
and 65 were generated by the computer.
Option 1, 2, and 3 noise contour maps are
depicted on Exhibits 5H, 5J, and 5K,
respectively. As indicated on the exhibits,
the 65 DNL contour does not reach
beyond existing or proposed airport
boundaries on any option. However, some
of the lower levels depicted will extend to
major existing residential areas.
While it can be concluded that none of the
three options will produce significant noise
levels at the existing airport site within the
twenty-year planning period, land use
development pressures have not helped to
keep the areas around the airport as
compatible as possible. The primary
concerns are to the north and northwest
where major residential development is
located well within one-half mile of their
runway end directly under the approaches
of Runway 17 and Runway 12. This area
would still be close to the north end of the
runway proposed by Option 3. Not only is
this development close. in, but it is also
located on rising terrain, Option 1 offers
the best compatibility of the three options,
because the longest runway is oriented
northeast.southwest. This orientation is
5-15
387
-.....~.,.--..... .......--- ...-'-~
"
- ~........ -..., ..........,..-,- - r .,..... --- ~""'-- -..- ,-
, ....- ... ......". - ...--- .......,..~- - ....- . ..~--
~.,.: ,::t;i,;'~: :'.')z, ", ':;/"'">', :..:~~/:'; < ',':',",,:',:, ".,',:,,;'<' ',::."
. '., '. J r, ,,~II, ,- ',1'.. ..,,' ~,' .,," , '. , ,'",'
, .., . .~,q' ,', ,1. ~ I . . . ,.' . ' ,.,', \ . " ~ , ,,'
more effective in minimizing overflights of
close-in residential areas,
These incompatible land uses serve to
lessen the long-term viability of the existing
airport site. This is particularly true for any
significant expansion. Even though the 65
DNL noise contour does not encroach
upon residential areas of the city, individual
noise produced by aircraft can be
disturbing to some. As such, noise
complaints may become more prevalent in
the future --- not because of substantial
increases in aircraft activity, but because of
more people living under the approach/
departure path of the runway. Therefore,
Option 1 was rated as acceptable, while
the other options were considered
"inadequate', due to their failure to alleviate
existing incompatibilities.
Option Ratings: Option 1:5, Options 2 and
3:2
. ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS
\
This category evaluates the potential
impacts on the natural and historic
environment. Potential impacts to
wetlands, groundwater, biotic communities,
endangered species, cultural resource areas,
and public use areas are included under
this category. Several state and federal
agencies were contacted and asked to
comment on potential environmental
impacts regarding the three development
options on the existing airport site,
These included the State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO), the Iowa
Department of Natural Resources (DNRl,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS),
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. As
of this writing, only the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers has responded to the request for
-------
.---
-
,...
input. They indicated that Options 2 and
3 appear to encroach upon potential
regulated wetlands to the south and west of
existing Runway 17-35.
In addition to specific wetland impacts,
almost the entire site lies within the 100-
year floodplains of the Iowa River and
Willow Creek, As a result, it can be
expected that there are potential impacts to
biotic communities and groundwater
quality. However, since Option 1 does not
propose major modifications to existing
airfield and landside layouts, it was
considered 'adequate' for rating purposes.
Options 2 and 3 will directly impact Willow
Creek as well as require the filling of the
old quarry pit south of the airport.
Therefore, they were rated as inadequate.
Option Ratings: Option 1: 8; Options 2
and 3: 2
. PHYSICAL IMPACTS
Potential physical impacts are related to
physical factors of construction, flood
hazard, light emissions, and effects on
energy supply or other natural resources.
Currently, the majority of the existing
airport site (90 percent) lies within the 100-
year regulatory floodplain of the Iowa River.
As such, structures must be built by filling
to a level which is one foot above the
regulatory floodplain elevation at its
location.
This can be expected to substantially
increase the costs of construction on the
existing airport site. Airfield pavements may
also be more costly to construct due to the
difficulties in providing adequate drainage
away from the pavements. Each option will
be affected by the proximity of the
floodplain on the properly. However,
Option 3 might accrue the least impact
5-16
387 d
__MI_I
- IMM .. MMl/ll!ftlIlll!l:qlit
-
,.:
-
:-
i' i
,
i
,
,
I.",
, '
L..j
"
;,j
"I
t,j
~ l
I
"j
..
u:
~j
---
....,
IIF --
I I . '.~
.....----' --.. "'~T ....}_
-~
,---
- -
'-r-
-- ,.-
~
~~~.-
~(" "0' ',:;:,~,;~..:,~ ';;;",' ',' :"j'8:." ::, :,:,' ":::",, >".-::" ,<:
.., . . ~ , ,..r ',i ' 1 '> ,~\, . t . "
~ . "..\; ".; " ,'; :',' : . J . ,,',' '," ' '.., ,,~.: l,. .':'.' " ,~
.' "., 1 ..r ,~, '~\"" ' ,~ ',"\,., , .'
, . ., ,I, . ~ "".... J', ... . ,'. .. ' '. , . . > ,., ,
' . ".
~....
.",
, ,
I-I
1-,
I- ~
I..J
hI
\
)
LEGEND '1,.{
DNL Nolso Conlour
Proposed Airport Properly LInD
Existing Airport Property LInD
C~~,:J CommorcioVlndustriol
',1 Public/lnslilulionol
,
\
\
\. f':"~r;'r/-
'..../."..,11,;
. -"n,~~ ~
j
-~ I'
\ i,
,~i
I
, I
, 'ji't1l"
. . "\- I
, I': ,~
'-~'r
!
\
1.1""1",,1.1:
P"lk
"
i.IS',
~'.
l;f
, ,
'.,
(,
"
"
,
,
^'-
Rosidonlinl (All Typos)
.., "l..J 1/\.1'-,
9CAlI", T ,~
C~"'i ,v' ,,"'~;-\.~
c:j.' (\ f\..
'\,
\
/. f..........
"
,J / :'
,"
! ,\ .' i I~, .
I .\ / "
I ''''-. <'~" ""~
, ~ - "
! t..I~' I. . P"
..- -.: _'c,. ",,<'" -.." rib..
Exhibil5H I,
IOWA CITY MUNICIPAL AIRPORT '1,
OPTION 1 . YEAR 2012 NOISE CONTOURS
-
_"".....,'H..~...~...~""'h...,.~~..~.__.~..k~.~..~
-
- """
--,
\
'",., ~" """.'~' ,:', "',.."-,""9'\=-"~;:~7,;.:"",,.,;',
".,t ""'''' "-21 '1 '. , ',' ',"''',',,,
'l<~::);l: '\~. ~;',~ ;:< :,!..~ l>'I'~', ..;~:.::. 'j ~~ '::.....~~',,~.,~, ,I~,,, '-:.::......:(
", ,'~\'. 1"'.,J' '~.;';~ _",:'I I I'" ". "J.. .'
.. , .,"'"
-
1''-''
Ie..!
, t
1;1
I j
II
11
!l
IJ
IJ
i~
: ~
I
Il
II
I-'j
'~'l
\-"
I'V
317
~....,.. ~".. --.f....... ~~..~.".- lrrM'lliV"'''' ..h....'
...
,
-':" 'm:r"""'~""''''\''~'''''''''JCl'~'''''' "'0,',:,:,,;,', :,"',,\;',:,
~:;, ,:';; .: ,: .' i't ,'. .I,i';i ','. r ' ." . " '.'~' ',; . ,,' '> ': ,- ,~.
./. ~I ',", '. ,'J. I, ""I~....., f f " I,'".' '. \ ',r',
.: r':";"~ t.,;:,~ ,:7~1~~~';;":/!~~'~ .;::,~, (':, 'I ," '".:-\ ", ";'. ~.',;":: <:';j
I~
!
IJ
I
fl
i
I~
14
I
!1
, ,
, ,
1'.1
,
, ,
I..t
, ,
,.,
, ,
;-"
11
;-,
, ,
I''''
. ,
,-"f
, I
,.,
r - ..
3g7
--'
....,
......_---..-..--........ ~.~......,.-- ....~
fF .- - ..
i r~
, ,
I I
I
I Ii
, j
I
) ;"1
i ;1
I'J
\,
ie.
~)
J
'-,
u
,'-I
-
")
I
-
I'
, ,
,
...
,,'
i
-l
..J
, ,
I
,
-
. , '." '. t..
,.,.. -' ".,i;,.. ,..:.,' ;,' ;'"1''' " ':.'"',,.",. ",
"," L "" ."ill, ,,, ':','(;.,,", " :,/, ,: '..' ' , ;', : " " , , ..,', .'"
~\",.'_,".r~~~.~".~: \~~.>...,' .'~;<';',..i\,>~",',\, ,\,:,' .,-: . '.-:, :>'<'~:.
w'''~r$;:>>::'''&%'<i~fb~~i;-:;.::::~~\~[rl~~w:<:~'':~1&'>>&t:f:,tt''''::';:~:~:~'*'''W~M'KWj:4~W>>'~!4G~'~W''''ii}:>>':"':<~. :~'-'<>>>>~<<~\\1:~~<y<':w':~>>W.~;'($fWt*}.>>'<k%~W.' .:t',~
~i't;j~;::'~'.f~~$7M<"<<~ ,- ;l~lt:rthWNtl%t:h1*1tw>>~~r'~~W<1~Nti~IWt*>;,~0k%;~r}..':'ij,ff!. $*,K~~$:~V.%)~;~~:.!>ihb' ~1'~k,~4'Kwth::::*<, ..}:~
K~,'6I!'~,~_'6'J,:~,~}'1~?~N@-<=:A~.i;:lWm~;,<z~;~m*~<~t;:<~~{:Ay.PiK~:;:::""'':%~>;,~,<i~>>~~(;:i:>~i,~@~,~,:n:;::;m '~>'<>>~~"%~::,=,@h~:~&~::<:~ ~hi'i\:t~~,'~~:i%)W:<<<.,..:';$
fl
j
(II
II
because of the new runway's location
closer to the beginning of an increase in
elevation at the west end of the existing
airport site,
1
,
._,'
Additionally, light emissions at the existing
site could impact surrounding residential
development. Runway end identifier lights
(REIL), precision approach path indicators
(PAP I), and the airport's rotating beacon are
light sources which may cause annoyances
to the concentrations of residential areas
northwest of the airport site. While
shielding efforts typically eliminate most
light emission impacts, the rising terrain
north of the airport could make those
efforts less effective.
-,
,
.J
,~
, I
U
While light emission impacts are difficult to
quantify, they are not anticipated to be
worse with anyone option, Therefore, the
rating of each option is not affected by
these potential impacts. Other than
floodplain and light emission impacts, the
existing site does not present unacceptable
TABLE so
opion RalingAnaIysls
physical constraints regarding construction,
energy supply or other natural resources.
OpUon RaUngs: 5 (all opUons)
Option Rating Summary
Table 5D summarizes the results of the
option rating analysis. As with the analysis
of the alternative sites, a maximum possible
score is 100. A total score below 50
indicates that the option has several
problems that could be difficult to
overcome, whereas a score between 50
and 64 indicates that the option is
marginally acceptable for airport
development. A score between 65 and 79
indicates that the option has reasonable
potential for further consideration, and a
score of 80 or above indicates the option
has a number of distinct advantages and
would be an excellent location for
development as an airport.
OPTION 1
OPTION 2
OPTION 3
1, Proximity and Aceell 10 10 10
2, Property Acqulslllon S 2 2
3, E.rthwork ,nd Droln,ge 10 2 2
4, Sile, l.yout, .nd Design 0 S 2
S, AllSpoce .nd Obslructlon. 1 1 1
Subtol,1 27 21 16
\1IIi111(~WmW.lfflttR'lfltlt\!K*iiliitl11%tjllltln?$iiW8M}fw\1tijl%*%41;W!;mJBt*RQ'111;\1,lITfglllil;~~tllW
1, PrlmeAg,lculluroll,nd
2, Soci,llmp'cts
3, NohclComp,lIble l.nd Use
4, Ecologlcollmp.cts
S, Physlcollmp,cts
Sublul.1l
RATING TOTALS
RATING I ECorNI)
10 . SUPERIOR
II. ADrQUATE
s . ACCEPrAUIE
2.INADEQUATE
-. _.~.-
__ ._.~__ _ b............
10
2
S
II
1
30
6
2
2
2
1
19
o
2
2
2
1
19
57
40
37
o . UNACCEPTAUlE
5.17
3g7
.,,~,",--'
~-
. Imfl
I
-,.:- - - ..,-.--
.. "~"'~--""'r ,."..--
J', .' -f' . :".;-' '.--';":", :~t, '.', / .,' . -, ',,; '""I,',.U
'''"t'l'''''&:/ ",-(;;,,1 'G~" '" ,'" ..." "',
.\ l' .. \ I . . 't .' '}" I , .' " ,
.-:,:. -...:::'.', ..~ ",'I ~': ,..',1', ~::'. \ r , .',." ". :'.,'
Only Option 1 scored above 50 in the
analysis, thus indicating the potential
difficulties in providing acceptable
alternatives at the existing airport site.
Although Option 1 scored above 50, the
major drawback to this alternative is its
inability to provide the facility necessary to
accommodate the range of aircraft that
presently use the airport. Option 2
deficiencies are found in the amount of
engineering costs and environmental
impacts that could be associated with
lengthening of Runway 17-35 into the
quarry pond. The inefficiencies of site
design between the existing building area
and the new runway complex, combined
with environmental and social impacts,
make Option 3 less desirable.
DEVELOPMENT COSTS
Development costs for all three alternative
options are presented in Table 5E. These
estimates were developed from improve-
ments represented in each alternative. The
estimates include costs for land acquisition,
perimeter fencing, airfield development
such as runways, taxiways and apron, and
hangar replacement costs. Also included in
the estimates are the costs associated with
airfield lighting and additional navigational
aids, and site preparation (including
obstruction removals).
The quantities of airfield and lands ide
facilities covered by the cost estimates are
in conformance with those improvements
identified in the facility requirements
chapter. Development costs are based
upon 1992 dollars and include an
additional 27 percent for engineering,
project inspection and administration, and
contingencies,
TABLE 5E
Estimated Development Costs
Existing Airport Site (Options 1-3)
::::$'.~~~:'>>;,':w,:fl:-~,:i:,v;.j';'>.1'.'; ,t::::>>"'tP.i,"'%.t ~';i",-.~;,;.~: ''''''''~:('''if~''''':~''~';''.'',':{;i;.~'''':-;<;;~~~ :1" ","',f:'\::::::-:~f,;i"~~~";;~"l'ill" "'''''I'"'','::I',~'~, ';
~ilfhM:-biw"''''::Wi'~:::'':~~'I'>M':1-;~WgJ'i,(v.~~'t.-'I'~t~.r-:'':::::~ W;~f *t%<j'iS,"f."<<'<w:?'t-'i, ,'~ ~ .
"'4.'1I!i"" 0 '1",,,' %"""H tio'2,,"'h""~%.w!to ']"'"
MfficJ&."RYLO#dW @! ,'W"i:iio<RR",.OL"',;"JiWl d4m""R",,,,uITt,.l
land Acquisition $5,566,000 $7,874,000 $8,127,000
Fencing 57,000 84,000 72,000
Site Preparation 1,108,000 5,179,000 4,450,000
Airside Pavement 2,766,000 4,324,000 4,195,000
lighting and Marking 620,000 699,000 634,000
Aircraft Apron 470,000 508,000 588,000
Hangar Replacement 330,000 330,000 330,000
TOTAL COST $10,917,000 $19,060,000 $18,396,000
From the table, Option 1 provides the least
cost for maintaining and improving the
existing airport. It had the lowest total
estimated development costs due to lower
land acquisition, site preparation and
airfield pavement costs. However, it must
be remembered that this alternative does
not meet the design standards for certain
aircraft that regularly use the airport now.
The costs associated with Option 2 were
estimated to be the highest due to site
5.18
'I
327 .J
,..,
,-
,'"
..,
,-,
i:
,,,I
I"
;.j
,.,>-,'
I
tl'l
'-'-1
,
,.,
1'''\
,
,-,
('-'
...J
, ,
..J
, 1
...J'
......
..... ~. - y-.-
. ... .............-...-~--.-........-r-
;n
"
(
r.
[ It
, IIi
l
j
!
I f~
I II
I
\u
I ..;
I
I "
I '
, ,
-
~ '(tfl"'; .!!,;0, "':'1' , 'fI....'" ," ,,' ,,',. ,
-,: , 1 !71, " "i~', :"~:J ':, '.':' :- ,,';':>;; ,':
",.' , _!"'~' __. , . ,'I'. 1,,\
, , ,~ ,..,,~., ;' ,~.. \, l' , ..' ~ . ,.' i"',.,
""'
, ,
, f
-
, I
, i
,
preparation and paving costs. Option 3
costs, although less than Option 2, were
significantly higher than Option 1 estimates
because of land acquisition, site preparation
and airfield pavement costs, These
development cost estimates will be utilized
later in this chapter as a basis for
determining the costs and benefits of
retaining the existing facility versus
relocating to a new site.
'1
I
.,-.,
,...,
,
, '
i.1
"'"
: i
j,j
RE-USE POTENTIAL
OF THE EXISTING SITE
1'.;..1
" ;
Ij
In comparing the options of maintaining or
replacing any existing facility, the factor of
the salvage value of the existing facility
must be considered. The same is true for
airports. If an existing airport is closed, the
potential value created by its re-use must
be considered.
I"!
:J
The approach used to determine a
reasonable re-use potential primarily
consists of determining the "highest and
best use' of the airport property, and
estimating the rate at which the parcel call
be absorbed into the local market. The
term "highest and best use" is used in real
estate and land use professions to attempt
to classify the most feasible use for a parcel
of land. In the real estate industry, the
term often reflects a determination of the
most reasonable and probable value that
can be expected on the parcel. In the land
use planning profession, the term typically
refers to the reasonable and proper role of
a parcel in achieving compatible land use
with adjacent parcels. In either case, the
determination of highest and best use is
made after considering area comprehensive
planning and zoning, specific site
;"1
, I
....
J
'"
,
,
-
, ,
,
,j
-
, !
constraints to development, and potential
land values that could be obtained,
AREA COMPREHENSIVE
PLANNING AND ZONING
The existing Iowa City Municipal Airport
site comprises approximately 450 acres and
is surrounded by commercial and industrial
development on the north, east and south,
and farmland on the west. Beyond the
adjacent land uses, u.s. Highway 1
traverses east-west through the area,
Riverside Drive provides north-south access
to and from the inner Iowa City area.
Recently-completed u.s. Highway 218,
located west of the airport site, traverses
southeast-northwest. Just to the east of
Riverside Drive lies the Iowa River, which
flows in a north-south direction through the
Iowa City area"
The airport site is located within the
designated South and Southwest Areas of
the 1989 Iowa City Comprehensive Plan.
The comprehensive plan suggests that
property immediately adjacent to the
airport site, along U.S. Highway 1 from the
northwest to the southeast, should contain
a mixture of industrial, general commercial
and intensive commercial areas (Exhibit Sl).
Existing zoning and land use on adjacent
parcels are in general conformance with
these comprehensive plan designations.
Therefore, from a comprehensive planning
and adjacent zoning perspective, a
combination of community commercial and
industrial development is considered to be
the site's highest and best use. However,
prior to making a final determination of the
highest and best use for the airport site,
5-19
387
\
.----. ....... '
,J' .,..", .,",Jiji. _ " :'.";' <, . ',' :'" ',.'., _,I, " ..:'
"/t'" ~",'" ,I' i~l .,,;,' ,"
..~ "",; /. ,', ':,' l :, 1 ,.~: " 'r ". '. .' ',' ' "'~'~:" ' " "': "
.~ :~......"r!~_., ,11""':-1,>".,1.,' .' '.,'\",,',
, , , ," " " . I ,,',' .
constraints to development, and potential
land values must be considered,
CONSTRAINTS TO DEVELOPMENT
The development of any site must take into
account the physical features of the land
being developed. On a physically
unconstrained parcel, use of nearly the
entire site for land use development may
be possible. In such a scenario, develop-
ment could consist of the primary use
(residential, commercial, etc.) and support
facilities such as roadways and utilities.
However, many parcels lack the ideal
physical qualities that would accommodate
perfect drainage of water runoff, optimal
grades for roads and utility systems, and
level sites for structural development.
Instead, most parcels of considerable size,
such as the existing airport site, have
topographic and other physical features. To
some degree, these features constrain the
use of the land. In these instances, not all
of the land can be used for development.
There are several potential constraints to
the re-development of the existing airport
site. First, it is estimated that nearly 90
percent of the airport site lies within the
100-year floodplains of the Iowa River and
Willow Creek. Only the area closest to
Riverside Drive is indicated to be outside
the 100-year floodplain. Iowa City's
Floodplain Overlay Zoning regulations for
residential developments require the filling
of a building site to a ground level which is
at least one foot above floodplain elevation.
For nonresidential developments, it is
acceptable to construct a building in a
flood-proof manner.
Federal Housing Administration (FHA)
guidelines discourage the development of
homes in the floodplain by requiring flood
insurance, which is an extra cost to the
homeowner. Also, the idea of being within
a flood hazard area does not appeal to
many homeowners, due to the potential for
losing their possessions during periods of
high water. Due to these noodplain issues,
the likelihood of the airport site being
developed for strictly residential uses
appears greatly diminished.
Construction materials for office and
industrial buildings often consist of steel,
glass and masonry, compared to the brick
and wood used in residential construction.
Also, basements in residential units typically
bear the brunt of flooding due to their
location below the ground level. Office
and industrial buildings do not typically
have basements, and therefore are not
prone to the same degree of nooding as
residential developments.
A predominantly flat parcel such as the
existing airport site presents other problems
in the form of poor drainage and difficult
construction of utility systems. These
inadequacies result in stagnant water which
worsen icing problems on paved surfaces
during the winter, and flooding during
spring rains and summer thunderstorms.
~
, ,
'"
Therefore, floodplain development
restrictions, applied to approximately 400
acres of the 450 acre site, will add
substantial costs to any development
option, and will significantly reduce the
amount of land that is available for
development.
The next limiting factor on the existing
airport site is in regards to inadequate
vehicular access. The only existing access
to the airport is from Riverside Drive. If the
airport site was redeveloped, additional
access could be provided from Ruppert
Road, Dane Road, and Ernest Street.
However, to serve the amount of
development which might take place on
450 acres (notwithstanding the floodplain
issues), these access roads would need to
-
, ,
~,
, ,
,..j
5-20
38' ~)
..', .' ,"- ' ' ..: ,: ;......,.,,: ::r....;.,.: ,,; ":,:'.':,',:';::\',:<::i:":;'
" ' " "~J' .'",,',J ""'m'''.,', " ""'"
"'!'" "',,",~ '..' ;>;,'~" " ';..,', " '" ',,"
'" ,(,t ...","", '\"",j7'::;" ,"_. ,..,'".. _',' ,,' ""
'~;':':\'~j[ ,~':. :!,;-';It /,-,,~'(}~:'~.,,~'l'~,~ ".."1' '_ f'
.~. '" ,~/. ""; ..
,-,
l_.~
..I
, ,
.,
'I
I')
1'/
Ii
11
(, ---
~
"\.,
~1
"..d
~ i " ,
LEGEND
Airport Property Line
CommerciaVlnduslrial
Publicllnslilutional
Residential (All Types)
2000
4 ~
!leAL!: IN FEET
.t "1",.
'I .'
, .:,
,"
T~
"I'''
d
j87
--.
,
~~....... . ~ - ..-.~---
- .. .---~.~- ....". ,..,.-----....--.,.---.......,.. .. ~....---..,.--------,,-.
":, ': 'f71:"" '~.1!",;',:,' ,~..;. ,'" -;" '.' ," ',,: ' ' ,',' c,' >" c,"
-, ,( , "i::;1'" 'l~l ' l"'~ " , "', '"
.\ " '~,,~ I",' ',-.,,~::~, 1'"~,,i~~'\ '!. ~f:t :'.':' ~- _ .,..".:.~ ,":, .'.',~ '. :,;",J:.,'.':
,..
I:
II
....
i:
,
, '
.
,~
I
,
,-,
-
,
, :
..,
, ,
,
,
.....,
~
1 I
d
n
i'j
H
II
n
I"
n
,,'
1'1
U
o
:..1
I,
...l
'-l
~
i : I
'-
, ,
~
be improved to avoid traffic congestion
within, and surrounding the development.
Automobile traffic congestion results from
an inadequate number or capacity of access
points leading into and out of a
development. It can also be caused by a
large volume of traffic generated by
development. In such cases, auto traffic
empties onto inadequate-capacity roadways
adjacent to the development. Based on
local modifications to International Traffic
Engineering (lTE) vehicle trip generation
standards, full development of the existing
airport site (without consideration of
floodplain development restrictions) could
generate at least 25,200 trips per day (7.0
residential trips per day per household), If
nonresidential development occurred,
higher amounts of vehicle trips could be
generated. With the U.S. Highway 6 and
Riverside Drive intersection currently
experiencing approximately 20,000 vehicles
per day, additional access and roadway
improve-ments to these roads will need to
be provided.
A final site constraint relates to
environmental factors. land within the
1 OO-year floodplain can provide habitat for
species of flowers and wildlife, and usually
contain wetlands. land that is to be
developed, and which contains some of
these limiting features, may be affected by
rigid environmental regulations which
discourage, inhibit, or disallow development
in these areas. Consistent with previous
correspondence from state and federal
environmental-related agencies, it is
believed that the existing airport site would
be limited, to some degree, by
environmental regulations.
Environmental limitations, as well as
floodplain and auto access concerns will
increase development costs of the site,
resulting in a decrease in the financial
return on investment of the purchase and
development of the land. With these
limitations, the highest and best use of the
property is further questioned. The
floodplain limitations present a substantial
hurdle in assuming that the existing airport
site can be developed as intensely as some
of the adjacent parcels. It is possible that
floodplain and other environmental
regulations will significantly diminish the
ability of the airport site to achieve an
acceptable level of development.
In regards to access constraints, limitations
of the existing roadways may require
significant capacity-type improvements
(additional lanes, restricted access, etc.), or
have substantial impact on the amount of
development that could occur. If
floodplain and access constraints require
scaling down of the amount of develop-
ment that could take pla~e on the existing
airport site, the highest and best use may
prove to be commercial and industrial uses
on approximately 100 acres adjacent 'to
Riverside Drive near the existing airport
entrance, and farmland on the remaining
350 acres.
LAND VALUES
An assessment of land values in the vicinity
of the airport was conducted to provide
insights into possible land development
scenarios. For purposes of this analysis,
land values for commercial and industrial
land, as well as farmland, were obtained
through recent sales and appraisals adjacent
to or near the airport.
The analysis indicated a value along
Riverside Drive of approximately $1.60 per
square foot ($ 70,OOO/acre). Adjacent to
U.S. Highway 1, land values are higher
than those along Riverside Drive .n
approximately $2.30 per square foot
5.21
387
,
.....
::." ;';t1;"~"~:~~~':"" . ':;;:i ':"'.I~l':"" ',' '.'"., .,', ',' ":.,:;'; ,'...,'<.'
" ''-''.', . -'T"" ,'. ' '., ,\ " "
.. '" \ ".".J < ..:.-1-"': ' . '-. t' I., ". '. .'. l
'\''';"'i, ,:.t .,~~,I,~,..-..,~~,. '~"".. ,""""', ': '.',,'
($100,OOO/acre), Farmland prices indicate Actual land value of the existing airport
an approximate value of $2,500/acre. property will likely fall between the two I
Equating these land values to the existing values calculated above, depending upon -,
airport site yields the following assumptions: the ultimate scenario developed. One i
relationship between development and land ' I I
' land east of Runway 17-35 (200 acres value provides that, as the density of i
x $70,OOO/acre) = $14 million; allowable land development increases, so ' I
land north of Runway 6-24 (100 acres does the value of the property. Also, as the I
x $100,OOO/acre) = $10 million; price of land increases, the viability of ,.... I
land south and west of the intersection developing residential units decreases I
of Runway 17-35 and Runway 6-24 (depending on allowable densities). Thus, "
(150 acres x $2,500/acre) = $375,000. residential and farmland uses on the ~1
existing airport property will command a ' ,
The total value of land at the existing lower selling price than more intensive \.1
airport site would be approximately $24.4 commercial and industrial development. -,
million if the land could be used similar to i,'
adjacent land uses. This equates to an Regarding the determination of highest and ,
average price of $54,222/acre ($1.24 per best use, the limiting factors will likely ...,
square foot). combine to reduce the total value and re- I
use potential of the existing airport site. ' ,
Since location is considered a prime factor While comprehensive planning and zoning
in determining value, it must be assumed favors industrial and commercial uses on
that the airport's location within the 100- the majority of airport property, a mixture
year floodplain will substantially diminish its of farmland on 350 acres and industrial and
value. Therefore, it is not likely that land commercial on the remaining 1 00 acres will
values will achieve the $24 million level likely comprise the highest and best use. ,~
due to floodplain regulations which may r"
preclude significant development of the , ,
i ,
majority of the site. Rather, the value of ABSORPTION POTENTIAL \...
I the existing airport property is likely to be ".
substantially lower. In a scenario where land use development trends in the Iowa " '
, I
only land outside of the 100-year City area have followed the availability of '\"1
floodplain is considered valuable, total land urban services, such as water, sewer, streets ~ -I
values on the airport site might yield the and other infrastructure. These trends have ' I
following: been supported by policies in the compre- ..1
hensive plan which 'discourage Intense / I
Developable land adjacent to Riverside development that cannot be adequately t.;
Drive (100 acres x $50,OOO/acre) = $5 served by existing or proposed city services
million; and facilities." II
' Remainder of airport property (350 ,
acres x $2,500/acre) = $875,000. Of the approximate 14,000 acres of land lcol
within the corporate limits of Iowa City, , I
The total value of land with Ule scenario of about 4,450 acres remains undeveloped. d
obtaining farmland values for floodplain The city comprehensive plan states that
land would be approximately $5.9 million. almost 4,120 acres (92 percent) of the ; I
This equates to an average price of undeveloped land is capable of being
$13,lll/acre ($.30 per square foot), provided with gravity-flow type sewer ...
, ,
hJ
5-22 ' I
, ,
:3K"l J
- ,., -v-' -
\
"'1
...
!
,
,>j
~.
I
..,
,
..,HI
....
i
~ , I
ri
I-i
II-!
II :::
u
,i
H
I;
r-o.'_f
''';1
, '
i I
.,:,,1
.,,\
, I
, 1
..,
I"
i
,
..J
....
, "
, "
'-
, ,
..-.,. "II; -- ~
. " I .
~.,~ ';",", \. ,.,:,~' 'IFlI' ",.,-.:. .',:.'
.. (fj' ' 'fA' 'd I ' , " " .. ,
.... ':\, I :' '~. ' I,'r . , '.' ,.. .." , I " "', ". 1:-' I'. ,:\"
:' '-' ..'" "_'" J~: ' t _'" _ ' , '" " ',' "
' r , ~, .' '., .' , , . I
...
I
'.J
...
I!
, I
services (the provIsion of wastewater
(acilities by the use of lift stations is
specifically discouraged). The expected mix
of land uses within the undeveloped area
of the city is 73 percent residential, 21
percent commercial, and 6 percent
industrial, at the point where currently
zoned land is built out.
...
. \
The existing airport site (450 acres)
comprises 3.2 percent of the total land area
within the corporate limits of Iowa City.
The introduction of 450 acres of intensive
development into the local land use market
could create an overabundance of
commercial and/or industrial land which
could have an adverse effect on area land
values. Therefore, existing absorption rates
were analyzed.
Within portions of Iowa City, approximately
65 acres were absorbed during the nine
years between 1980 and 1988 (7.22
acres/year). Additionally, the Business
Development Incorporated (BDI) subdivi.
sion has experienced a recent absorption
rate history of nearly 10 acres per year.
Applied to the airport parcel, 100 acres of
industrial land would theoretically add an
additional ten.to.thirteen-year supply to the
City'S inventory.
For residential development, Iowa City's
Comprehensive Plans of 1983 and 1989
projected the population to grow between
100 and 500 persons per year. Except for
pockets of residential development at
higher densities, the Iowa City
Comprehensive Plan for the South and
Southwest Areas of the city dictates that
residential density in the vicinity of the
airport should be between two.to.eight
dwelling units per acre (DU/acre). This
would yield a possible development of 900
to 3,600 dwelling units, which translates
into an estimated population between
2,500 and 10,000 people (based on a ratio
of 2.7 persons per household). Assuming
an absorption rate of 500 persons per year,
the airport site would create an additional
five.to.20 year supply of residential land.
At an absorption rate of 100 persons per
year, a nine.to.36 year supply of residential
development would occur.
Regarding commercial development, the
City's supply of zoned commercial land is
1,827 acres, of which over half (998 acres)
is currently vacant. However, 'office and
research park" zoned land comprises over
810 acres of the vacant land. Absorption
rates for commercial development in the
Iowa City area are better for retail and
service establishments because of the high
need for these facilities by the student
population at the University of Iowa,
Therefore, absorption of commercially
zoned land on airport property will likely
achieve more positive results if tailored to
retail and service stores.
I
I
I
I
I
SUMMARY OF RE.USE SCENARIO
As described in the analysis above, the
highest and best use of the airport property
may be a combination of commercial and
industrial uses and farmland. Should
floodplain, access and environmental issues
be resolved, a more intense land
development scenario might be expected.
land values will vary on the airport site
based on ultimate requirements and
restrictions of floodplain overlay zoning
ordinances; however, sale of the airport
property should command a value between
$5.9 . $24.4 million.
Depending upon the ultimate build out
possible on the airport site, a supply of 900
. 3,600 units of residential development
could be developed, and could be
absorbed in approximately 5.20 years.
Industrial development, depending on the
amount constructed, could create a thirteen
year supply, which could be absorbed at
the rate of approximately 7.8 acres per
5.23
387
I
-,.:p ,_ .....-._--- _m., r~...-'l'l....., 1---......-~
--;,. .......'~.l:j~:~......,~I,..I._#\f.,.. .' ',1\
:, (, tll' ,I, "'*/ ...,,',. C" '9'" . , " ,"",',,' '
. .' , 1 " I"'''' ,,' , , '.' "
.' : ':'" ,:, .':,.~:....~;:,_:., '.""";'.';:, ':; 7"':.'.'" 'j.' :.:.. ,',> ~" '.'_
year, Commercial and industrial zoned
development offers the greatest potential
for absorption, based on the retail and
service needs of the community,
COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS
The economics of an airport reach beyond
a simple balance sheet of revenues and
expenditures. Since businesses often
choose to locate near transportation
centers, the presence of an airport can
provide a substantial benefit to the
community it serves. Similar to the
locational advantages of waterways and
railroads of the past, airports now are
considered attractors of economic
development opportunities.
Studies show that two out of every three
Fortune 500 companies use private aircraft
in their business to transport goods, mail,
materials and personnel. Companies that
operate general aviation aircraft consistently
record net income of sales approximately
50 percent greater than companies not
using such aircraft. Therefore, adequate
general aviation facilities, properly
promoted and funded, are necessary to
ensure that a region fully participates in the
modern economy.
There are different types of analyses that
can be done to study the pros and cons of
keeping the Iowa City Municipal Airport in
its present location versus relocating to a
new site. Three of the more common types
of studies include 'fiscal impact analysis",
"cost.effectiveness analysis', and 'cost-
benefit analysis'. A fiscal impact analysis
provides a narrow study of the net local
public costs and revenues of a proposal. A
cost.effectiveness study only considers the
least cost scenario of a proposal.
The broadest of financial impact analyses is
provided by a cost-benefit study. This type
of analysis compares tangible and intangible
economic benefits and cost comparisons
between proposals. Applied to this Airport
Relocation Feasibility Study, this section
presents the cost-benefit analysis of
maintaining and improving the existing
airport site versus relocating the airport to a
new location. First, the analysis presents a
direct cost comparison between the site
alternatives. Then, overall effects on the
community by implementation of either
alternative is presented.
SITE COST COMPARISONS
The elements used to compare costs
between the existing site and an alternative
site include land acquisition and airport
development costs, and the effects of each
alternative on the community. Also, the re-
use potential of the existing site, as well as
the salvage value of existing improvements
must be factored into the cost comparison
to present a total cost.benefit analysis.
Site.Related Development Costs
Table SF presents a comparison of land
acquisition and site development costs
extracted from Table 4D and 5E. As
indicated, land acquisition and airport
development costs on the existing site total
approximately $11 million, compared to
$15.7 million on an alternative site (Site 1).
TABLE 5F
~e lJcyelopment Cost Comparison
j@tfah~\N%*: MM~lr@f.~Nt@f
,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,18",y ,~q,~m.~!lif*
iMtR$.!~~}\WtE @aml~K~J&lWj
land Acquisition
Cosll
$5,566,000 $4,646,000
Development Cosll $5,351,000 $11,010,000
TOTAL COSTS $10,917,000 $15,602,000
5-24
;:;g7 ~j
, ,
, ,
..,
l
;.1
'"I
,~
~
, I
,,.I
II
,
,.,
I
~j
I,
I
r.q
, I
, i
: ,...1
-v-. -
.----V.......--...........,.-.......-,..--..r--__,-_ ... -..".- ...-
. . , ,. "
r,: ('tll " 'i!t"':;{:I' . ;t""'r '. ,;'.., '.' " ,
:;::,<'-"Q/;;', ',t14J:.',~,::"~E!: "/iq: ":"'::"'\ '; ':~( :,,"',, ,,' :;,
,..
,
, I
,~
, i
1""
,
, ,
'1
"
.-,
:.,i
J
1
, ,
,,'
f"
11
Ii'
, 1
".j
1'1
1..1
'-':
....
0)
,
',.,J
"'j
, ,
-
"
,
, ,
-
-J
,
-
, ,
'-
, ,
,
, '
-
The United States Congress has long
recognized the need to develop and
maintain a system of aviation facilities
across the nation for the purpose of
national defense and promotion of
interstate commerce. Various grants-in-aid
programs to public airports have been
established over the years for this purpose,
The current program is the "Airport and
Airway Safety, Capacity, Noise Improve-
ment and Intermodal Transportation Act of
1992', At the present time, this program
will contribute approximately $2.05 billion
to airport improvement projects during
fiscal year 1993,
The source for these funds is the Aviation
Trust Fund. This trust fund is the
depository for federal aviation taxes such as
those on airline tickets, aviation fuel,
lubricants, tires and tubes, aircraft
registrations, and other aviation-related fees.
Many improvements on airports are eligible
for FAA funding assistance. However, a
system has been set up to distribute these
funds so that projects of highest importance
to the safe movement of aircraft are given
priority. Therefore, at general aviation
airports, the priority of funding usually
decreases as the project gets further away
from the runway.
Current funding levels provide enough
monies for the FAA to typically participate
in 90 percent of eligible project costs.
Eligible projects typically include land
acquisition, runways, taxiways, and aircraft
parking apron. FAA ineligible costs are
costs that will need to be borne by either
local or private sources.
FAA ineligible costs at a new site would
likely include the costs of access upgrades,
utilities, and buildings. However, costs for
buildings and utilities will likely be
amortized through rents and charges to the
building tenants.
Existing Site Re-use Factor
Table 5G compares the net development
costs of the three existing site options and
the three alternative sites. Based upon
acquisition and construction costs, it is
evident from the table that a new site
would be less expensive to construct than
to expand the existing site to meet
Approach Category C and D standards.
However, if the existing site were limited to
Category A and B standards, the
development costs at the existing site would
be lower.
The potential re-use value of existing airport
property must be considered when
evaluating the net costs of developing a
new site. Based on previous analysis, the
potential resale was conservatively
estimated at $5.9 million. If a new airport
were to be constructed, the FAA would
require that the net proceeds from the sale
of the existing airport be put into the new
site development. As a result, the
additional costs for developing a new site
would be just under $10 million compared
to costs of $11 million to maintain the
existing airport at lesser standards. These
costs being relatively equal, the decision to
remain on the existing site versus relocating
to a new site begins to focus on economic
benefit and land use compatibility factors.
The resale value of the existing site should
provide significant relief to the financial
resources necessary to move to a new site.
5.25
381
~ - - ...-.----
- r ...----.----n-.....V '"\ -r - - --r-
... - ---..,. -
.. .......... --.------....- .'~
-- ..---
.,.':, "f'~-'" ;,:;~-:;.:: ::.~:~';"':: ,"'",',' ',,~', "..:,-.:,':.:" ;." ,;':" " '.,',',
\ . ( .. I" . .,~ ' , ' "., .,'
. . " I, ",I "". ,'. .', ,.; ". ,,".,
\: ' ,.' , 'l.l '" . " " ,'I.,' "
, ,',' '>_ ,'.:, 1~1;-~.',... '.!'-'"' ~ '.'i~ '_,' ".. ";., ' !' ,", ".~'
TNllE SG
law. City Munldp"1 A1q>ort
N<l1lcvclopmcrt Costs (Al1~)
EX~TING SITE
f['f%?iN:%'f\'?1 ~tf%SfW~;R~~bt '~WW~,\&,%WfW& ttUW,:'SMW~,W~::;:M HIHik,'.ilitPM+W; Wt*~ ?mWWMM
lBJOPDON 1"" ,'".O.TIO". il', .,.. ""DOW'." lB.,,",'"'"I'.",','''''.., ,>;"i., ".."""lB"'i, """"''''.,., '"
:H~;"..\,~:"....,.,::;,.A;>>~ *~~;,. J~",..._l;X"_t_,~"::>~*,v.~~_,,...,<</~~~~ m<f~;'-='<"Z:>>W_.,"WN~,$.(~ t-<<~,;:::~t:;;:~::::::>:f~: 'i>ii:.':' ,~f<tv~h~~};:<;;,..
AlTERNATIVE SITE
Total
Development
COlts 510,917,000 519,060,000 518,396,000 515,656,000 516,591,000 515,544,000
Proceeds from
Salco!
EllIsUng S~e 50 50 50 55,075,000 55,875,000 55,875,000
Net
Development COlU 518,917,000 519,060,000 518,396,000 59,781,000 510,716,000 59,669,000
Economic Benefits To The Community
Revenues generated from operations at
general aviation airports often do not meet
the required annual expenditures to
maintain the facility in good condition
without additional funding from the
governing entity. As such, general aviation
airports are often criticized for not
operating at a profit, and causing a drain on
local taxpayers.
Additionally, land upon which a public
aviation facility is located is not subject to
property tax requirements. This is the case
with the existing Iowa City Municipal
Airport. The potential re-use of the existing
airport property for other than public
purposes would introduce a moderately
significant addition to the city's tax rolls.
If the existing site were sold and
redeveloped, it would be placed on the tax
rolls. The construction of commercial or
industrial buildings would raise the assessed
valuation and potentially reduce individual
residential property tax liabilities through a
reduction in mill levies. While it is true that
a new site would remove property from tax
liability, the existing site's close-in location,
when developed, would command a higher
value for property tax purposes than a more
remote site.
__ _'_M" ~ _~
However, when airports are perceived in
this limited way, their role in attracting
business and facilitating spending in the
community is overlooked. It is true that an
airport should be operated to obtain at
least a break-even point; however, there
are limits to the amount of revenue that can
be obtained from airport users in meeting
operating expenses and necessary capital
costs for airport improvements. An analysis
of direct and indirect impacts of airport
development provides some insights into
the amount of economic activity generated
by the presence of an airport,
The direct impacts of an airport include
wages and salaries of airport employees
and tenants, and monies paid to those who
are directly involved in the operation,
maintenance, services and products on the
airport. While the Airport Commission has
just one full-time and one part-time
employee, there are approximately 15 other
persons employed full-time by private
aviation-related services located on the
airport. Their salaries and wages induce a
secondary impact, which relates to the
housing, c1othin& food and other goods
and services purchased by airport and
aviation business-related personnel. The
total of direct and secondary impacts is
called the primary impact.
5-26
I
3V7 rl
i'
, ,
~,
;_i
1~1
, ,
, I
I.,
,,,'
,
,.~
",
,-
".)
, ,
...
; ,
,
,'/':1
-~.- -- nl1r"" - v-' --
...,
..,
~
:
,'..,
I
,,,.f
'1
,
1.:-:
1,<;'\
/,
\)
1'\
, ,
1'1
"I
, '
kl
I
k\
'J
,.,
..~
, I
,
.-
'"
i
, '
-
"
,
~
;-'
-
, ,
,~
, I
-
_ r .......__~~_ _.- ..,.....~.--,--........ ,_
. ~...,.. - .......-- .......,.. --~--......- ..~
:',i,~ t/:'" ,: "!I"; , , " '*'~" ,,':""1' ',' , " ,'" ''';''': :,;..
..\I.'~""" '/""',f," I': I" '/'i ~: '",: " : : ':: "" . ., -', . ',,:
':"":':' ,''''..':0.1 ...,','.,~.... :,~C:t,\,' ~ ,'. ':,1,'" .'.".'_,
" L , ',n' ,
,..
I
, ,
...
,-;
Indirect impacts to economic activity
associated with an airport include the
expenditures at restaurants, hotels, events
and attractions made by visitors arriving by
air. A final input into the economic benefit
of an airport is known as the "multiplier"
effect. In this category, the res pending of
successive rounds of dollars in the
community is quantified.
"
Even with this scientific method of
calculating total economic impact, it is
frequently not possible to exactly quantify
the amount of direct, secondary, and
indirect benefits to each community. This
is because an airport is only an interim
destination for many users, and thus the
geographical area in which economic
activity occurs as a result of the airport is
not easily defined.
Aviation industry studies on economic
impacts at general aviation airports can be
examined to offer a representative summary
of total economic impact to the community.
A study prepared by Coffman Associates in
1985 evaluated the economic impact of
airports in the Kansas City metropolitan
area. An evaluation was prepared
regarding direct economic impact per
aircraft operation. The study found that at
airports where activity was limited to small
single and twin-engine piston aircraft, the
direct impact averaged less than $30 per
operation. At airports that could better
serve corporate and business jet aircraft, the
direct impact averaged $60 to $120 per
operation. Con-side ring the extent of
charter activity at Iowa City Municipal
Airport, this would be a very conservative
figure. Based upon an impact of $70 per
operation, the direct economic impact
would currently be $1.6 million,
A 1982 study prepared by the Iowa
Department of Transportation estimated
that indirect expenditures at $50 per
transient passenger night. This would be
extremely conservative today as economic
impact studies performed for other general
aviation airports have indicated impacts
between $200 and $500 per passenger
night. Using a more conservative figure of
$100 per passenger night, the indirect
economic impact would be at least
$540,000 annually at Iowa City. Therefore,
total direct and indirect economic impact of
the Iowa City Municipal Airport is at least
$2.1 million annually. Again, this does not
measure the unquantifiable impacts related
to air service accessibility and convenience
provided by the airport.
It should be noted that expenditures
associated with additional corporate jet
activity would be higher. This is due to
higher average passenger loads per flight,
and the additional expenditures associated
with business activities in the community.
Therefore, the total annual economic
benefit to a community will be greater at an
airport that can accommodate business jet
aircraft.
The common multiplier effect for general
aviation airports can be expressed in terms
of dollars or percentage. It has been
estimated nationally that each dollar spent
in the community results in $1.50 to $2.00
being respent in the local economy. This
means that the initial receiver of money
spends that income elsewhere, and that this
cycle occurs several times before the
amount of money being recycled becomes
negligible.
COMMUNllY IMPACTS
There are several positive factors related to
operating a general aviation airport within
a community. For example, general
aviation airports tend to provide attraction
for some businesses in the way they
operate. These businesses require high
speed transport to remote locations, time
and cost savings over other modes of travel,
and scheduling flexibility in travei
5-27
3g7
~... ~~ - - ......-
.. "'~T .....,.~--....r-
~.,.(tI-';' "'ffl"""~~':"""4-:" ,: .,' ,,'.(~:
w ,',' ',' .,'f . "', f. 1',,: ~'.-' 'co ',: '~~,. - .'::
~ ' ' . ~ , It ',,, l,; " ,. " . , . \ '.' . f
.' .il,.., ""~i ,..,:;..:i' ""'~'\.' .:' , ,r,', ,"
arrangements, In addition, these businesses
require the reliability, privacy and safety
that general aviation travel offers.
The provision of a facility which can speed
the process of care and treatment in
emergency medical situations is another
desirable quality of general aviation
airports. Additionally, general aviation
airports ease connections to cities which
provide scheduled airline service, and offer
future pilots the opportunity to pursue their
career.
In our competitive society, the Iowa City
Airport provides substantial time and cost
savings over the one-hour round trip drive
to Cedar Rapids. Productivity of area
businesses and individuals who use the
facility depends upon the continuation of
an Iowa City airport. Without any facility,
travel and time cost factors could rise to a
point where area businesses could not
compete with communities that do provide
an airport. While the existing site provides
the most convenience to users desiring
quick access to the inner city area, the
alternative sites under consideration provide
acceptable travel times to the community.
Regarding negative factors of an airport,
noise and safety concerns are predominant.
The perceived negative impacts of noise
and safety would be alleviated at a more
distant location than the existing airport site.
The impact of the proximity of the existing
airport to the community has also been felt
in a series of legal cases brought against the
airport. Currently, there are five separate
cases pending, which if all were lost, would
cost the City $2.5 million dollars in
damages. The good news is that a similar
court case tried earlier has recently been
upheld in the Iowa Supreme Court in the
City's and airport's favor.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Iowa City Municipal Airport has served the
Iowa City community for several decades,
The current site has provided a general
aviation airport to its citizens and businesses
as an integral part of the community.
However, the facility is the subject of this
relocation feasibility study due to continuing
land development encroachment, problems
with compliance with FAA airport design
criteria, and the inability to expand runways
and instrument approach systems to fully
serve general aviation aircraft that are using
the facility. The decision to either retain
the existing airport or to relocate to a new
site must consider economic, social,
environmental, and operational factors
discussed previously.
Considering all these factors, it becomes
immediately evident that a significant
expansion of the existing airport site is not
practical. As represented by Options 2 and
3, a significant expansion of the existing site
would be the most expensive to develop.
In addition, the environmental impacts
would be the highest of the alternatives.
Further development of a runway in either
the north.south or the northwest-southeast
orientations proposed by these options
would serve to magnify the incompatibilities
with the close-in residential neighborhoods
to the north. Therefore, if a commitment is
to be made to an investment in a significant
expansion, it should be undertaken at a
new site with room to provide for precision
approaches and better land use
compatibility,
Based upon all the constraints described for
the existing airport site, there are two
options which can be considered. A choice
must be made between developing a new
site at aircraft Approach Category C and D
standards or maintaining the existing airport
""'
,
, I
-
. ,
''''
, I
.,',
f I
:'1
rJ..:1
....J
!-I
'-'
i,
....'
-"
. ,
~.,j
i \
I
t.~D
I
d
317 ~:l
5-28
\
,
I
i ~.
i :
i: t
, '.j
I
,
i H,
,
I','r-
i
,
1
I ~,l
I II
,
I i'~
Iii
i
I ~. ~
! ...
! ,I
,
I
'...;
.. ..~.........,- r--r ,-....... - - --r-
... ....-.......
-. ,.~
.. .......,.-
",_, ,.,"~',:., ,i;o;."." :....',' ""','. ", ' ,:', ' )',": ,'.',
" ,'(. , ..j , ". "',',' ." , . ,I
.., r. ~". 'r h" " :j i ;,' '} '.,'", " ~. L ,\. " . . . '.II
.'~ ",}, '\>"/;~~'/;"" ,~~,.."c,:~;" ',' "~I "',:, ','" ,',~'
~I
I
I ~
f<
, J
-
, :
'""1
~
:
, ,
-'
, I
I
...
-'
-
-
site at Approach Category A and B
standards, Based upon the site analysis of
the previous chapter, Site 1 would be the
recommended new site. A new site has the
potential to offer the full capabilities
necessary for general aviation and would
meet all the communities general aviation
needs well into the next century. A new
airport dte would include adequate runway
design for all general aviation business jets,
full control of safety areas and runway
protection zones, clear approaches, and the
potential to accommodate a precision
instrument approach. The existing airport
cannot offer any of these advantages.
From a development cost standpoint, it has
been determined that a new site would be
less expensive to develop than developing
the existing airport to Category C and D
standards. However, the existing airport
costs are significantly reduced if planned
and maintained at Category A and B
standards. Still, there are costs associated
with maintaining current safety standards
and improving the functional efficiency of
the existing airport. When considered
against the potential salvage or resale value
of the existing airport site, the net costs of
a new airport meeting all general aviation
standards would be comparable to
maintaining a less capable existing airport
that will continue to face pressure from
surrounding dev~lopment.
When considered from the standpoint of
local costs, both Option 1 and Site 1 offer
advantages over ignoring the issue,
foregoing federal funding, and 'doing
nothing'. If the airport remained as is, it
would not meet current FAA design
standards. The City is bound by FAA grant
assurances from previous federal grants, that
'it will suitably operate and maintain the
airport and all facilities thereof or
connected therewith'. If a decision were
made to forego current FAA design
standards and further federal funding, the
City would still be bound to maintain an
operable airport. In recent years nearly
$900,000 has been spent in stopgap repair
of existing airfield pavements which are
long past their design life. Fortunately,
federal funding provided 90 percent of this
cost. Additional pavement repairs will be
necessary within the next five years to
ensure an operable airport. In addition, the
existing airfield lighting system is old and in
need of replacement. These pavement and
lighting repairs are estimated to cost over
$2.1 million if done In the near future,
more if they are allowed to continue to
deteriorate. These are eligible for federal
funding and are considered in the Option
1 cost estimates. The local matching share
of Option 1 is estimated to be $1.09
million. If a decision is made to do nothing
and forego federal funding, the entire $2.1
million in pavement and lighting repair
costs to keep the airport operable would be
borne by the City,
The local costs for development of Site 1
are estimated at approximately $3.5 million
dollars. As indicated earlier, the resale of
the existing site could be applied to the
replacement costs. Resale of property
acquired with FAA funds (approximately 50
acres) would have to be appropriated to
federally eligible projects. The remainder
of the property sale could be applied to the
local matching share. This would comprise
over $4.5 million of the estimated property
value, essentially permilling the airport to
be relocated at no net cost
An economic development advantage to
the existing airport site is that improvements
could be funded more gradually. A new
airport site will take a commitment of funds
to acquire land and construct the new
airport while the existing airport remains in
operation. Virtually all the development
costs would be committed within a three to
five year period. Only after the new facility
was completed could the existing airport be
closed and resold. Development at the
existing site could be staged over a longer
5-29
387
~..._....,._ __._..___..._...... 1 _
.1 I!l!Ij,\I'II,,(fUltmw
~.~
....,
I
--- -. .. ............-..-~ a-- --.--r-, __ - . - r- ..".... ,..........
~ - y-. . . r ..
.. "''T- ..~--.-
"','.' '~. :'. ;." .;: ~:'-l">":l""': ',~"'~'.::':- ,.~..,::",":,:'~'l:'
?L 1"",2:) ,;2] J.G.:, " '.. "
:J':,;;',rL,"~;:":)~\':'!,~.>:~~a ,:,:: ' : ,: ','<':..' (:,', "',.,::,',
period of time. Safety issues would receive
the highest priority. Efficiency
improvements such as taxiways and the
maintenance of the third runway could be
delayed.
From an environmental standpoint, Option
1 is the closest to maintaining the status
quo. The two runways which overfly the
close-in residential developments to the
north would not be expanded, and would
actually be reduced slightly in capabilities
(Runway 12-30 would be shortened, and
Runway 17-35 would have its south
threshold displaced). Runway 6-24 would
be maintained to serve the turbine-
powered aircraft within Approach Category
A and B. Of the three available runways,
this runway best minimizes overflights over
residential areas. While a pavement
extension would be added to the southwest
end, it would simply replace what must be
displaced on the northeast end. It would
also serve to place aircraft taking off to the
northeast higher over residential areas than
Is currently experienced.
A new airport site always stirs emotions
because it involves a change in the status
quo. Residences and farmsteads must be
relocated for the facility. The property is
removed from the tax rolls, impacting the
local school district and township revenues
to a certain degree. While resale of the
existing airport would offset the net tax loss,
it could potentially involve a shift in
revenues between school districts and
townships. While the tax revenues lost are
a fraction of one percent of the available
revenues, it is still an impact to be
considered. Development of a new site
would require the preparation and approval
of an environmental assessment and master
plan to gain final site approval by the FAA.
This would include a public and agency
review process to ensure that all potential
Impacts are addressed.
~_..u~ __ _...._. _._.__ _,~_._~_ 'w.--~ ......
The evaluation comes down to whether or
not the community can get by with
essentially safety improvements to its
existing airport. The users survey indicated
that activity at Iowa City Municipal Airport
has a strong component of business use (57
percent). Nationally, business use of
turbine-powered aircraft is on the rise. This
was reflected in the surveys which
indicated that over half of those considering
an upgrade in aircraft would likely convert
to turbine-powered aircraft.
Iowa City Municipal Airport has a strong
existing use by turbine-powered aircraft.
There are presently five turboprop aircraft
based on the airport. It is estimated that
there are over 2600 annual operations by
turboprops and approximately 700 annual
operations by business jets. These totals
could potentially increase to as many as
5,800 turboprop and 2,700 business jets by
the end of the planning period. The level
of business jet activity, both now and in the
future, would make the airport eligible for
FAA funding for a 5,600 foot-long runway.
If the existing airport were maintained at
Category A and B standards, with no
increase in the effective runway length, the
airport would still be capable of
accommodating all of the turboprops and a
least that portion of the business jets that
fall within approach Category B. According
to National Business Aircraft Association
(NBAA) membership statistics, approxi-
mately 40 percent of the business jets in
the United States are within Approach
Category B.
The survey respondents using business jets
who indicated that the existing airport
runway lengths were sufficient utilize
Cessna Citations or Falcon jets. As
indicated earlier on Table 31\ these are
Category B aircraft. As an example, one of
the city's major employers, United
5-30
317 ~I
'Y.I.uI{'ftl""g...~
,~
, '
:._-' ,
'-,
I,
i....l,
f"
, ,
~,
"
, ,
,
~
....
I
-'
, ,
-,.z- - y-' ----
- .. .----...~-..../r ,-..- - - ......,-
-- ,.--
... "'"-,..- .........,..-- -...
~'>('(I" )'1I(~,:. ,':i2r :'j.s:,",:,,' ::,:. ,~',':, ':":',:,>,,'" ;',~,:\
:~""[ ,', ',uTI, ,.)..:B .,to,.., ,- :' ,'. .' . "~,.;'
'. ':,''''' "'~ " "'. - ',.'" , . ,!
1
, ""
,-- Technologies, has a business jet fleet that maintained a strong preference to remain at
1
, , includes both a Citation as well as Category the existing airport site. I
C business jets. Only the Citation is used
~ to visit the Iowa City plant because of the Thus, it can be concluded that while the I
airport's limitations. community can get by with the existing
airport location, unless it is prepared to
""" , Based upon the business jet fleet mix, pursue Options 2 or 3, existing and future
1
" staying at the existing airport could airport users will have to adapt to the
i potentially affect approximately 1,000 to reduced capabilities of Option 1. For those
1,600 business jet operations by the end of who canno~ the option will be to commute
, i
, ',I the planning period. The choices to airport to and from the Cedar Rapids Airport or
, '" users would be 1) utilize a Category B simply not serve Iowa City. In addition, it
i. j aircraft (such as United Technologies and must also be realized that the community
I ,
I <..j others have done); 2) operate into Cedar will forego the potential for a precision
1'~l Rapids and drive to Iowa City (twenty to instrument approach In the future.
, I thirty minutes depending upon the location Similarly, the existing airport will continue
Il.j in Iowa City); or 3) do not do business in to face development pressure from urban
I
J Iowa City. encroachment. If the decision is made to
,
iH stay at the existing airport, the next step
1 ,i
" Ij Follow-up telephone discussions with would be to prepare a new Master Plan
j several of the business jet users indicated that would set priorities for enhancing
tq
that most could get by with the present safety and Improving operational efficiency.
I 1,1 runways available. However, they also
I indicated that any less capabilities could However, electing to stay at the current site
I
I' potentially Impact their business operation. is not without cos~ and does not guarantee
Ii As one respondent indicated, 'our plant is that the Issue of relocation will not
1"1 in Iowa City, not Cedar Rapids'. resurface within ten to twenty years. It Is
: ~ likely that continued development pressures
I I..J One of the main attributes of the existing will force the Issue again in the future. At
I airport is its convenience. This was evident that time, the difference will be even fewer
,
, ,---, in the surveys with several respondents opportunities to choose from and higher
-, commenting on the prime location. Even development costs.
" i the fixed base operator at the airport has
,J
, .-"
,
, I
I '..J
I.!
;
, I
-
, ,
i
~
,~
, !
5-31
Jl7
...
" , ,f" " . ,.., , '
'-::,(' :t'~'" "':t/- , <9-' · ~l':' ".. '."',','"',, ,', ,-"
_ , " 'i ",,. .1,,",. " .' -,
.. ..:'.~.'., ~~'/.. ,'1;.......: I '~'4,' ',"'-, ',. ," , ': . . ',::
",
I,
",
I
~
,I
I
!
"
t
I.
I,
{;
317
,.... I
I' , i
Ii
" I
!
,
r, j
1: I
i.-I!
,-I
, ' I
, I
, I
~
,
, ,
:_~'
!' I
{} I
~I
11 !
'I'
w 1
i
,
rl J
I;
1_< I
,
~.
,
'-.)
I ,.~
I'
: '
r,
\: I
WI
I
;
n:
\,,/ ~
j
i
i
1
1
I
,
H
II
...
I
I
:i
I:' i
Ui
,
i
("I j
1'1
u
--I
i'l
I~ i
i
-", I
i; I
."
,"
. ,
i J
W
i I
~
'I
U
......,
n
r;
,[-
J
~ J~
\'
:; r,
I:
\ !'\
~ ,.
~ ~J
;
lit
IU
it
il
~.
. I:
, I
: t_
, ,
I'
l.I
, I
, i
-
: ,~
! 'i
I..i
, :
/ '
'-'
~~:""",~:,:",' "'",,,/iii': ,,', ,..:.. ."8' ': ':.",' ,";', ,"'...\, ',," , >,,'\
" (i t, .ill, ;~Jz:J,} i, , j , .. I, .' " ..' " ' .'
r:",J' ;:-:,:,)~;~:,;:*,':'i >..,':"':,: ':. ,',',', !,,':",,'
,...,
i
: i
, ,
-
, ,
, ,
, ,
~
I,
II
""
, I
I J
r
Ii
, Appendix A
AIRPORT RELOCATION FEASIBILITY
STUDY SURVEY RESULTS
387
'-,
I
i
I
,
!
i
,
!
"':!, '@' '';" ~" ",' ',' ... , : -, "', '., ',,' ',' '"
~;, C" '. 'J\ ,. ,,/ " 1 " , ., ,,1, " ~ It'. .' I
.:~;~,,: ~~'.. .:,~i. l',"':':"';'~ II.,:._.<~, ; ,..'. ':' .J~ " :' "; ':',' , 0'> '.-"::,
,.::-,;.",f j,::""~_"",..:;,.ZI,-,,, B", ", "", , "",':h"
. . "., L~"'j' , ", I' . , , " '", '
,~
i,
-,
~
"1
tI
rj
1
fl
t!1
;'j
'"
, i
~,.j
i
.
L
I
,-
L ~
, ,
I
,J
i'1
J
'I
, ,
.,J
'I
,
3'7 ..J
~...- . ,., -- ".......-----
I ~-
, ,'1
, ,
."
.. .. ..,...------" ~- ....". ..,.....----- . ~....... .,.-
... .... -",. ----~-
;
In order to assess the future needs and direction for public airport facilities in the Iowa
City/Johnson County area, an airport relocation feasibility study survey was conducted. The
survey was mailed to 93 registered aircraft owners in Johnson and Iowa Counties and 88 major
employers in the Iowa City/Johnson County area. Of the 181 total surveys mailed, 90 were
returned for a 50 percent response rate.
In addition to the local users survey, a transient aircraft survey was made available to the
transient aircraft public in the fixed base operator facilities. Fifteen surveys were returned and
are also summarized in this appendix.
The following pages provide a summary of these survey results. All individual replies were kept
confidential.
"'~t~l"" !~"", ,/;JiJ~"';(I:- :"'~":,,,,,,;,,;"',,,,:i""<
. ",,' , , , . [71 ,I,. , , " '" "" .
.'1'," <.~:I.. "'::~~.::I', :il,." '. ',')1....... \,', :'." ", ,I:. 1\ ' " "..'
~
: i
"
...,
i
I
Appendix A
AIRPORT RElOCA T/ON FEASIB/lIlY STUDY
SURVEY RESULTS
:;
-
i
-
,
,
.,)
...,
, I
[,
,...
i I
"1
RESUlTS OF THE LOCAL USERS SURVEY
i'1
IJ . This completed survey represents the responses of:
1':lI
~,
1-.
Individual aircraft owner, . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . .
Business or Institution .. I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
"~ . Please indicate each aircraft owned, base airport, and estimated
[J average annual operations at Iowa City Municipal Airport ({OW,)?
I
:J
r....t
1
J
',,1
I
.~
,..,
,
, '
-'
:1
1 i
,
,..
...J
II
,
II.,.
I
I ':
, '
I ...
Aircraft Type
Single-engine Piston . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Twin..engine Piston .................................
Turboprop .......................................
Jet. I........ .... ........ .. .................... .
Rotorcraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Base Airport
Iowa City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cedar Rapids .....................................
Green Castle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Amana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Picayune Field ....................................
Muscatine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Private Home Airstrips ...............................
Out"of"state ......................................
A.1
46 51 %
44 49%
44 68.8%
9 14.1%
6 9.3%
3 4.7%
2 3.1%
37 57.8%
10 15.6%
7 10.9%
2 3.1%
1 1.6%
1 1.6%
3 4.7%
3 4.7%
~1
....
,., - ...... -
. ..-
.....
,,' ','" ,.;, """ ", ':"1 : :' ,',,;; ,'.:,:',~ : ,'....<
t/- '~" ~" '" " ,'. ,',' "
../ " , , I , , '. "
~ ,"-,' . " ,,\ i \'. 'I ' ,',' \' ',,'.' . ')' , ' ,I' ". ',' ' : ',..,
I ,- '~, .', "I " , 'II,~. ,.' I' " . '\
..'c" , ,/~,. l..~. . . \ " . .
..,
,
: ,
, !
-,
i RESULTS OF THE LOCAL USERS SURVEY
(Continued) I
. ...
I I
,
't'1
. Is the purchase of any additional or larger aircraft being seriously
contemplated? If yes, please indicate what type. ''''1
, ,
,
. I
NO................,........................... . 79 87.8%
Yes 11 12,2% ...
.............................. ..... ......... I
Type: Single-engine piston .....,........., .. . . 4 36.4% l'"
Twin-engine piston .. .. . . . . . , . . , .. . . .. . . 1 9.1%
Turboprop '0 ............ ........ .... 2 18.2% n
Jet 4 36.3% i
'" ..... ........................ h.\
Rotorcraft "0 ................ ........ 0 0.0%
,-,
: ,
. Please indicate the percentage of use of your aircraft for: : I
~
Business .. . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N/A 57% r:
Personal ......, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N/A 43% ,.,
. Do the present runway lengths at Iowa City Municipal Airport .-
: '
restrict your use of the airport? If yes, how much length is ,,_
required?
/-
No.............,.............................. . 85 94.5% ~
Yes ........................ ............ ........ 5 5.5%
Runway length: ........ ..... 5,000 to 6,000 feet i
What, if any, other types of improvements do you consider ~ I I
. ,
,
necessary for an Iowa City Airport to meet your general aviation '-' !
I needs? , , I i
:
~...i ,
i
Instrument Landing System ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 28.5% I
I'"! ,
Additional T-hangars ................................ 7 14.3% ' , I
' ,
Weather Reporting System ............................ 7 14.3% ~
Competitive Fixed Base Operator Services ................. 7 14.3% "'1
Resurfacing of Runways and Taxiways .................... 3 6.2% ' ,
\ i
lower Hangar Storage Costs ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 6.2% ,
I
I
Cleaner, Upgraded Building Facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4.1% '''. j
New Location 2 4.1% ,
......... ........ ..... ....... ........ , , I
Sale of Automotive Gas " ...... .... '" ..... .......... 1 2.0% ,
I Air Traffic Control Tower 1 2.0% I
... .... .............. ........ ,
More Ramp Space. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2.0% I
I
More Runway length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2.0% " 1
I I
I
I
, I
I
...:
A-2 .\1
3r1 ,.J
...
11
! J
-
, !
i
;'l
,'"1
I
;-
I
I
:.j
i "I
lu
i
I ;~l
,.,
'I
1,;
~
I I b
1 II
Ili~
I ·
,
i q,
! L.
I"!
\ 1.1
D
:'i
'....
,,'
I
"'"
'.-,
I
; ,
i....
u
I
~
'I
, "
1...1
, ,
, ; \
...
~"':'~;f.'~,' :4...." ,: Li"Z"" ' ':, :,' ,,:,', /' '., ,,", ':'
~: :', :'," l ,.;. I~~>" 'f'-':~> ' :-.' \~.," \:>.....; " ,',' .
", ,,""'......;..";l._ .,.:~ ,"_'." ' I"~
. . ,I J,' 'I ,f l' ," ..' . ,
RESULTS OF THE LOCAL USERS SURVEY
(Continued)
The following questions were asked of business/institutional
respondents only.
. What do you typically transport through the Iowa City Airport?
Employees .......,. .............. ................ 28 50%
Customers .., ...........0.................... .... 15 27%
Parts!T ools ... ..... ......... ...... .......... ...... 8 14%
Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 9%
. If you rent or charter aircraft, what type of aircraft do you typically
use?
Single-engine Piston I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 12.9%
Twin-engine Piston .. ......... ...................... 15 48.4%
Turboprop ....................................... 5 16.2%
'Business Jet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 19.3%
Helicopter ... ................................ .... 1 3.2%
. if you are an Iowa City area firm, do you have clients or suppliers
that regularly use general aviation aircraft in their dealings with
you?
Virtually none use general aviation ...................... 14 35.0%
One to ten time per year ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 47.5%
One to five times per month. . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . , , . , . . . . . . . 5 12.5%
Twice a week or more . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . 2 5.0%
. What type of aircraft do your clients or suppliers utilize?
Single"engine Piston. . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . , . . , . . , . . . . . . . 1 4.1%
Twin-engine Piston ...... ............ ...,..,..... ... 7 29.2%
Turboprop ....................................... 3 12.5%
Business Jet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 54,2%
Helicopter ......... ..,.......... .......... " ..... 0 0.0%
. Miscellaneous comments
Leave airport in its present location ...,.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . 11 N/A
New Fixed Base Operator I......,.,.......,.......... 5 N/A
The current three runway system is excellent; current airport is the
best general aviation airport in the state. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 N/A
The present airport is too close to populated areas; airport should
be moved for safety and noise abatement reasons .......... 2 N/A
Opposed to pure jet traffic . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . , . . , . 1 N/A
A-3
387
. ...........'. ......,1-~ ..../T , --.. - ~ '-..,,- .--,.- ... ......".
~I':" ~t.':""~9J~"'~~~"." "":,,:<13,:' ': ',:,,' "(~/"':"':<\'':'' 1
.' CL,l '. ,,:k1 :8" " ' ,", "
..,;':'" f..J.'.,. ,~~~~!',,:' :'~;:21: "''''':,', : '\ ~. ',,",',' l.""
.....-r- __ '
,
.....,
.,.,~ .,,-.---
-
\, . I
II
....
1',1
, ,
il
1"':
: 1
i " ~!
...,
;,1
:"1
11'
I",}
'"')
i \
..,;
I 0
I
n
11.\
t lel
j\\
.1
i d
i ("
'I
I
''.j
I
1'\
I...'
",I!,
U
[j
'..1
: I
'-
U
,...,
, ,
'...i
II
U
II
, I
....
- ... .---~.~- ....r .,.". - - "-,r- -- ,.-
- . ..,.'-
... ~ --.- -.-"""---
\
. . .', "
".... I "...."\, .'~ti.. '.: ,,' " "H' \ '.' ':' , ". ,', : " ,.' '1":.<
' /" ""'-"-, '" '" , I . /, , "
: ..~ t.."" .)fJ.-~,~' . ': '",' ",', . ",',. ",
.,':.f~';~-.;'.:ol~'::','o;i'~_,":";~",I,,':'" .<,' , '
RESULTS OF THE TRANSIENT AIRCRAFT SURVEY
(Continued)
. What, if any, other types of improvements do you consider
necessary for an Iowa City Airport to meet your general aviation
needs?
Instrument landing System .....,................,..... 8 26.7%
Weather Reporting System ............................ 5 16.7%
Restaurant .............................,.,....... 1 3.3%
Building Maintenance .......................,...,... 1 3.3%
Stop Urban Encroachment ............................ 1 3.3%
Additional Taxiways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 6.7%
. Do you regularly use the Iowa City Municipal Airport?
Seldom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 6.7%
One to ten times per year ...................,........ 19 63.3%
One to five times per month. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 30.0%
Twice a week or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0.0%
A-S
]l7
i
I I
,
I I
!
,
"l 1
,
::j
;,
1)
,
I i
,
,
~i
\
I
i i
i !
,
I
j ,
i I
I i
I I
I
"~'~.."~"; ':"~"-;".,:,. '.",.'~ .,'''. , ,:~" ':,',', ,.,:"....
(L I .' ,LI 1t.:::.. " I""
~-: :,CJ,,<, ,:~':.:,:'~,?1'" '~::'"i" ,'. ,:".:",,'/ :','
3i7 oJ
r,
l'
, '
,..,
t:
, '
,.j
11':
II
f'j
\
rl
J.",)
: ;!
t
!'l
I
.,.,j
,
1
~I
! I
L.i
i
I
r.' ,
..., I
. '
\.: I
..... "
\
L, I
I
I
!i 1
I,.J I
,
:,
f" ,
: i
~ I
r~ I
I,
I
/""-,
,
i...~,
(.;
,',
,
v
I".'
~ I
w
"
, ,
:.,;
'I
,
('"I
,
, ,
i
1.:.,1"-'
II'
: . I
1\
/\ '
j,,:
, ,
, ,
, ,
( ,
I,
, ,
: ,
1 i
,.I
: '
'~
,.....;
',;::' el'; " : :~""': <..~': '-")'tJj" 'i':' '''-:-:,'~':,;',';<.,::, ",," :,~::!;: ,~:,:\
I.'r....;:~ ',' ':~ :11 " . ,\.:, :' ,.', _ ~""', ,,\',..:'
... \ . I..' 'I , \ j \ { , , " '.' " ~ ' : . , \" . I
'!i..:::~~" ,I~"':...<'/:~...,rl /.:.., '.~\ '~l'/:,', ',', ,1\... . I '." ,,' r };' :",.)
0>/
I
,
t
,'"
l
,
, I
i ".'1
"
I:.
I,
,"'I
i i
I""
1 ~!
, ,
j j
,-
j'
,
, ,
II
'i'1
Li
n
'l:~
'jl
!,.
.! ,
t...;
'f
r,
l~
Appendix B
PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL
AGENCY RESPONSES
i-i
; I
-
'...;
387
....... f51 -- ,,-.- - --... .... ~...~--....--,,--, ....... - - .
r;
I ;
...
, '
U
'\
, ,
i,,J
"I
,
,__J
~
-
:.....
, ,
I
,j
-.,
I
,..j
'....
I, '
I I
I~-J
\ n
':,1
("
"
l ~j
,
1 r'
\1
I 'I
I'i
, ,
....
,.:.
J
;"/
""
"1
...J
'~.l
I
.J
,',
, \
j
'I
, t
..i
I
-
""'(,~7., ': <3: ,Li':' :J~l' ,:',. ", '~..;: ,::' ",;,"
:'> .til" .... "~If~,l., .i-71.:\ ~:':'.': ,'~...', '..'.. ':'.:,' '" ' '-,'.
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
SOIL
CONSERVATION
SERVICE
SUB-AREA OFFICE
109 Lake Park Blvd.
Muscatine, IA. 52748
SUBJECT: FPPA Request Date: Sept. 29, 1992
Iowa City Airport Feasibility Study
To: Lisa R. Beeman
Coffman Associates
1300 East 104th Street
Kansas City, Mo. 64131
Dear Ms. Beeman
The request for completion of the AD-1006 form for the
project identified above has been referred to this office.
The AD-1006 has been completed for the site. I am returning
the AD-1006 for your completion of the form, When you have
completed your portion of the form please send me my copy of
the form for my file. I need to now which site is selected
for my report to Washington.
Please let me know if you have any questions or need further
information.
,Jh~ 11/zdc.7
Lonnie R. Miller
Area Resource Soil Scientist
cc: SCS Field Office, Iowa City
n.,
387
,
,
i
i
i
I
,
\
fIF -- y-'-------
.. ~.-~--.....", .,........ -
'-r- .."J1'fT ,~
... .....".- ...
c" ," '@"ffl-';" I ~", , :m";"" . :, ,';,'" :~.." ",; ': ',>
' ,. -. , " . .
1', '/ \ "1 . , 4 I '. ) ", ..
' '..'.', ' '~" ":J 'I ' , " , ,',
.'.11 I ., 'to ( ,I j'" . " I . . . '. 'J,'
,,' .,', , . ", . . I. ~ , ,', ". . ,
,"" ""t ',:',' ,:'~I :' ~,- "','1, ,';,"; , .' ","" ; "..:
U,S, Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART liTo becomplered by Federal Agency)
Name Of Project
Iowa Cit Air ort Relocation Feasibilit St d
Proposed Land Use
General Aviation Ai ort
ODla 01 land Evaluation Request
Au
Federal Agencv Involved
~t.inn A~minfQt.~~+'~nn
cou3li'IilriWIt'llboUJty, Iowa
PA' "D.T:~:"I"lr'("r.'~""b'~"~'t""<;"'I-:~"~d" '.b'. 'f/S"C' ,(;j -:','" ; ~ ~'e':~;;:i,t"I\'Vt:I;':I"<;i~Y~[.i/, ;'~;~t,.-:,.:~~,~~. ,01110 Aequ~t:Recclv'~;BV'Scs..:,,:.....~~\'t~;.'/.;:,'..:; ';,'.1 i~:;;'.~....,:~. .~;. ':! . ", .
' )',\". Gdc,'.! '!:s".c~r? .~,t~"";iX';'l: :,!J: ;;'.' (: :\'\7~:lf~1:~:~~::;~:;~~~~~:<JI~t.~~~:\~'~$.r~:'~).t~ ~.:~'ti;\~i;~i~:;~:~\,;"i!;;; ;:"3 _:.....</::(. .:\'I.:':~~;~}~:~::/':_~:;..;;:!,r.,::~:>.;!/; ~... . '.
\1;1)q#Wj~~,i,t~contai~ prj!'1al,~nlque. stat.?Wid?'~,~(I'~,~':I,10~orra.~t1~@la[id1'~>'~2tl:2;~.Y~~,'~No' ~C,",~C$,,~ri~~~,tlf'1cr'~a :F,e,fl)1 ;~!~~'?>'" ..
,,',',/I('npMhe,lfPpA.doesnot apply "-, do not cpmp(elaad~rtIOn8(Mi,lr(J(tlli$"orm);,!:,i" tir~;ilJ" <";"'l?';,"l;"I:! """,',:,';"~j'2~" ,"
.- }1oJ~j~~~o~(~!>,~.;,..; :"~\::.~~:,,:~,,:.:: :.. ': .,- "..: '\/:{l' ,:~~~~.~~e..La~~J~. G.o,V:",J,~rl.sdjctl~n.:~':'. ,~;. ~_ ::~: A~?u~~ .O~;F~~~!and Asp~tl~~~ 1~;FPPA .
: '..,.<8~ii{'\:'"I<':;.cC? t,y/i'",u' ,". "',""',',16 ifJ~re,~\;ti:rj.!'i/eY'i1;')...::,,'(o,::,:7 (p',::,; Acr~s:,.N:;1cl3';; ~~;J:,:, % '3'1 '
"~'.WP!,~g~ ~V~IU',!,iOhSYll~~ u'cd:":!,::;:~:Hi( ,~~~~f,~:~col.'~!,'M'1FI11~n~,sv,~!;~I)':"'i~Y:; ~~!a,:\f.~t~r~I~~~~n~~~~,:~~ BY;>~s:.",
, "i;Mif;~:W.".,'JQ h h 1'tln,';!CO '",: :,".i"::;:;fi: ,~il;c~"l,j~J,,;;;;'Ir~S;;;;;a.~~;,;(,:.. ,::,.,~.\'A5'!&'f., '3r./'1:?.A"')
Allernalive Site Ratln
SiteD': Site!:...
10' 18,
115 11,
300 ~oo
i,'., " ,::,'"
'J.'II" ,':na,,"
'l1lf" "t.~ I'
L .010/->, &. ,()I% '
17,1/7 "/7,'17
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency,)
, A, Total Acres To Be Converted Directly (.Jlunllay8T'l'axi:waJ~'
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly (nh~on'
C. Total Acres In Site
.~, ..';_ ' I . ,.,. .~. ,"'.. '" ..,. '';' ,.", _. ,
PART li/ITo'be compleied by SCSI Lend EvaluatliinJriformaiion':;"': ',,,::::~' "
A,,',TotalAcres Prime 'And Unique Farmland',,;:,;~,;,:,.\::',. ,':",: "I:",
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland ,",'
C, ,Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted
D. rPercentago Of, Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Sarno Or Higher Relative Value
PART.V./To be completedby SCSI Land Evaluation Criterion " "',
":,iRelatlve Vallia Of FarmlandTo Ba Converted 1&aleofOto.tOOPoinrsl
PART VI ITo be completed by Federal Agency) Maximum
Sile Assessment Criteria (Thesecrireria areexplalnod In ',CFR 658.5(bJ Points
1. Area In Nonurban Use 1 <;
2, Perimeter In Nonurban Use 10
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed 20
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government 20
5, Distance From Urban Bulltup Area 15
6. Distance To Urban Support Services 1,
7, Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average 10
B, Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland 10
9, Availability Of Farm Support Services 5
10. On.Farm Investments 20
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services 10
12, Compatibilltv With Existif1!LAqrlcultural Use 10
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160
SileA-
1Q5
115
300
SileO
.'
",
....,. :"
''''I
':'(}.'iJfr,'
/1/
L.c/%
,'...,~ IIU
.
/......,
f6'1, '6
9&,/p, ';.9/.~'
", ..
j:>
9
..J9
o
o
o
10
2
u5
15
o
o
72
1.
10
20
o
1,
15
10
4
5
19
o
o
113
1<;
10
20
o
15
1~
10
4
5
18
o
o
112
100 90 91 91
160 72 113 112
260 162 204 203
Was A local Site Anessmenl Used?
Ves 0 No 0
.,.....--
, ,
'"
B-2
,,,}
(See InltructioflS on 'crollc ridel
FO''''31i,8JI,J
~......_~ -- ",.....-----
.....
",
!
,
..J
,-
.J
.....
I
I)
r'
,!
IA
f~1
:J
'..
/]
I .~-
: ~\
,
:.J
,-',
j
~~
..,..
I
.j
:'"1
,
i .)
,
,
:,;
:.\
v
'I
I,.;.
, ,
'. \
-
.. .. _____.~- .....r .,....... - -
;< ',: ' '7: ,: ">:~~:.'. '; kI ,',.;~ f.'r( ~ :.':~", '. '., '. :':",.,.
'. , ,tJ 'r , " ~::;:l '"':1,' ,', ..~ ".. " ,
....:(.;~~t',.:.,~~,,:::.'::..ll- "';""""\',.-';',_ :.," .......~',_,t~:.
,
, I
State Historical Society of Iowa
I')
: [
The Historical Division of the Department of Cultlll'al Affairs
.~ '
September 10, 1992
In reply refer to:
R&CII: 770352821
"
,
..!
Ms. Lisa R, Beeman, Airport Planner
Coffman Associates
1300 E, 104th street
Kansas City, MO 64131
RE: FAA - JOHNSON COUNTY - IOWA CITY AIRPORT
Dear Ms. Beeman:
We have received and reviewed the information YOII submitted to our office
concerning the above referenced project, Based on your project description
and a review of our records and maps, we make the following comments and
recommendations,
There is potential for cultural resources to be found in your project area,
We would recommend an archeological survey be conducted prior to land ,
disturbance activities at any of the proposed candidate sites. This includes
a survey of areas that might be added to the existing airport according to
proposed alternative one (expansion of the existing facility). The purpose of
a survey would be to locate any presently unidentified archeological or
historical sites which might be impacted by the proposed undertaking,
Should you have any questions or if the office can be of further assistance to
you, please contact the Review & Compliance'program at 515-281-8743.
Sincerely,
~S:~~
Archeologist, 'Review'and'Compliance'Progr&~
Historic'Preservation'Bureau
/hf
D-3
o 402 low" Avenue
lown City, lown 522.10
(319) 335.3916
o C'pitol Com pie,
Des Moines, low" 50319
(515) 281.5111
o Monlnuk
!lo,372
Clermont, lown 52135
(319) 423.7173
387
.....,
\
-. -, ,.-~ .....- '-r
- -
'.r-
- - ......--
.
. .". -
... ,"""
;"""'t-l"""'fj... "~-'" 't....1. '""',, ',:' ;'.',," ",
. '. .,' :' ',., .,~ ,'.',. ~" :,. " . : { - , - ' ';";: .:-' .' ..:.
. ' ". 'I "I "'I .. , "
."' .'_~. c......,' ',' :J~', :, ':'~.......', ,,~. ',;' ..e' '" ,., -. .,:(.~'. '. I",;'
~
STATE OF
I
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
LARRY J, WILSON, DIRECTOR ':
, "
TERRY E, BRANSTAD, GOVERNOR
September 3, 1992
:'.
I,
,
;
t,
,
I
Ms. Lisa R. Beeman, Airport Planner
Coffman Associates, Airport Consultants
1300 East 104th Street
Kansas city, MO 64131
Re: Iowa city Municipal Airport, Iowa city,
Iowa city , Proposed Airport Improvements
and site Analysis
Dear Ms, Beeman:
The Iowa Department of Natural Resources has reviewed the proposed
improvements of the existing Iowa city Airport facility or possible
development and expansion of the facility at one of the three
alternate airport sites as identified in Exhibit C.
Of the four sites identified, only Alternate Site 1 of Exhibit C, has
the potential to create problems in the future. The area immediately
west of the proposed site was submitted to this agency for acquisition
under the Resources Enhancement And Protection (REAP) program.
Acquistion of this area has the support of several local conservation
groups. This proposed acquisition application was submitted as stage 1
of a 2-part acquisition of an 817-acre'wildlife area (outlined in red
on the enclosed Exhibit C) encompassing 510-acres of wetland and 307
acres of uplands including 15 acres of virgin prairie, If this area
is acquired, it would be managed for upland game and waterfowl
production and harvest. The potential for conflict with this type of
management and use of the area as well as possible safety hazard for
airport users would greatly increase.
This agency did not see the development of the existing airport site
or expansion of either alternate sites 2 or 3 to have the potential
for conflict with any future development or use of these area during
the preliminary review of these sites.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposed
development in the early planning stage.
'/~
LARRY J. WIL N, DIRECTOR
IOWA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
LJW:dlh
D.4
WALLACE STATE OFFICE BUILDING 1 DES MOINES,IOWA 50319/515.281.51451 TOO 515.242.5967 ,
317 'f.;
'"
, '
,..,
,...
,
,
\1
..~\
.i-i
~,
: I
,-."
,....
, ,
, ,
"
,-'
\~
r-,
, '
,,'
",
,-'
,--'.
~
, ,
~,
, ,
, '
,
""
II
, I
I"'jj
:'1
.tJ
~-~
-,
......-
~
.
",
-,
...~
-
...,
)
!..f
i
.-..1
r"''''
, I
)
!...,
,
\..y;.
,"
I,'
(,/
II
,'.
".
,I
,
t\'
"
,
;
..
f
..-!
..,1
...- ,
.,.-- .............-~.~-~
,..... ~ '-
, . .,- ....... -,-
9
.....T- ...--
--...."~._~Jl..
~
...
\",:,"[..""'dt ';,;.;l.,": ,. " '
L ''r~ ""71 ' ' E>' I" " ",,-
.~', .. ~(""':~~,'~,::'r:B:f.::'.(, \,:,<,:::," ',: ,:', :i'f,/:~'~>:"
.
,"
, ,
,,'
____1.__
\
, ,-
,
,
,
.. ,
1:
,
I
~
.11
'-
"
#".-
-\' ...,
",
,',
. ,
Ah'pOf+
....
~ -
."...'~
.
.. -....-..-.,.....,.-----....-r---' ......
-~.....~ -- ,-
y
-....,.- ..
---- --
.....
..~
~-~
....,
,
~
, L,. " " ,',"
' r, . 1-... . J \ .,," ",
J " "=, _ ~ " , .. , , ,','
' ", - "~ ~ " "", "','
'". .... .',.:J' " ' ,r' . . , I 'liH," < " " "
I., .,,~,:h~"':",i i' ll~..., "'>>/1" ''', ,c
.-::- ~,tIJJ, ,..;~~:'..I\ :~\~. J,I,. ~~'I":' : ...', ,.,., .
~
.,
~(fl/~ r:
I
V IttIL i'
I
'..:
.,
!:
\;
II
I
I
i
,I
'I
,
,
I
,
I
I
I
"
~avl rete m~(sh
~S I Sl-l
A'~rOf+
Exhibit C
ALTERNATIVE AIRPORT SITES
D)S?
. ,..,-.'.,'
11"1 --,-_..._.~
.~
I .~. . 'MUIlJ,IfJlJOkl:ll1l\llMl
.
.. ............ ....... r-
t;~" "Gt-,)rl,"''''P~_'':,';J1L'.., ,',,: i'-:\ ,': '.' :"~ ,>.',.:
". "fl;l',.. '; '11]" ,~a .Zl,' ,+,' ',' ' :" ," '.' ','" ,j
. ,~ ,. .
~
f
~ ' ~
\;:
,'.,
~
~:
'i'
", -
,
t
i:; ,'t,
,'.'
"
.il
;-1
11
"
li
.:<
"
n
~}
f:
,1 r-
?;
"
"
fi
to
i;;,
Q ,...
"
v
/,
l~ '-.'
f)
~j
"
"
.H i
~. !
. i
~'
., I
R ,
\1 " i
,
, ,
p .- ,
,
~ !
U ,"
f I
,
I' I I
~ ~
~ r
j !
'.,.J i
I
ri IJ"l I
i1 1
,', U
~ !
I i
I ~ .., i !
~ i
I I i
~ <....i I
.-- I
" ! I
~ 'i ,
~ " I
;
;i
11 I
\'- ~:;; I
~
1
.!l ,
I
'l~..
[!
}j ,,'
,
I~ ,
" <-.
(,.,i
}'i
.,] '"'
(:j , ,
" I' i
;1 '-.J
)"
.'j
H .../( I
i-j
'I ,
;'j \.J
,'I
f!
,\
iI ,
, , 1
iI 3i7 ,
v
'\
If,.,.' .
I
-
,., - '",,",
- - .-r-- .....-
-
--.-.. ........ ., ......,.- .....tr
'-y
~,~,. "f4...:...',~...;' B" ,'. ','" "':',:':..
.' ." ,t 1 ',. "" , ' '. , " , "
~":,",: t:..\':- :~_:':. '::~. '.,:';..,'. ',..", ','''' ;;..., ',',.
,...,
, ,
: I IIIIe
...
~ l
i.~
..,
I
t.J
,"
J
:"1
:"l
:1
i)
n
!:oil
;J
n
'~,
I
-,
i'
I
,~
'II
I,
i!
....
U
I U
I II
I W
i !~
i
, l;l
,
I
/I
0,
I
,
I i \
, ,
I 'J
I
TERRY E. 8RANSTAD, GOVERNOR
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
LARRY J. WILSON, DIRECTOR
"j"
11 September 1992
Ns. Lisa R. Beeman
Airport Planner
Coffman Associates
1300 East 104th Street
Kansas City, NO 61,131
Dear Ns. Beeman,
I am l/titing in regards to the IOIia City Airport proposed changes. In
using my personal knowledge of these areas and in reviewing wetland inventory
maps, I only see potential problems with Site Ii 1. Note that I did not
do any on site inspections at this time for this project.
Site 1/ 1 is immediately to the east of a large wetland basin which
contains numerous smaller wetlands. There has been work by many conservation
organizations to develop this into a large wetland/wildlife complex. Iowa
City has a Imste treatment facility adjacent to this lietland area. They have
expressed interest in using this wetland area for final treatment of their
effluent.
There is currently 154 acres listed as protected wetlands in this area.
A larger amount of land is also potential liet1ands but not protected under
state lali. The potential to create over 550 acres of wetlands in this area
exists. The existing wetlands plus the possible creation of additional
wetlands should cause serious concerns over aircraft/bird collisions. In
recent years, over 1,500 ducks plus numerous songbirds and shorebirds have
been using the existing wetlands which do not completely ice over. If the
waste treatment plant opts to use the marsh system, a large area of marsh
would be open year round lihich could over winter a large number of waterfowl.
Smaller wetlands also exist directly on the proposed airport Site Ill.
Naps are enclosed.
Sincerely,
~~~~
Timothy A. Thompson
Wildlife Biologist
238 Stevens Drive
IOIm City, IOIia 5221,0
(319) 3Sl1-83I,3
D.6
WALLACE STATE OFFICE BUILDING / DES MOINES, IOWA 50319/515,281,5145
387
.'
\
-
------- ..--...........,
-- - .....-.-
,.,
, '~', ':-' '~-~.. ',' ,C;" ; ,:.c", , "" ",,".,",: ::'
\ "L l" .2.1 ' '~:t' , , " ,
l~',\, [',if:" ,',,:Sf'" ,::_,', :',_,;, " , "..',,' ,,' ','
,,, .
: C
,
, .
i J
! ~
tl
, J
(
'/ .. I
I
,'.
r-- ._~,
i C
':.
f l
1 \
~ I
i J ;"
!: .
'ih...
,. ~'
p~
':
;~ II
'l
i ~ :
l~
! ~ r
I.
.....
~
r-:
~
~
.s
~
.,'
...:
~
,
I
I
i
'1
" '~j'
, I
"1' ,"-'
..,
. ,
,I. I,I!
"
I
...... j
I
rOr j
" I
,', I 'j
t,,,j
"
.. .~
II,
~I
i
,.
!'I
\,,1
.
rf'r) I
, I
., '- I
i "
, .. II v\ I
I ..
,~ )' ,
, I
I ~ ~ i~ !
I
- ~
j It I'
I ~ '-'
:
\ II ,
'"
. D.?
~ ,~ , I
I
l.l.1 I~ 3~7 \"
(l.
.....,
p,\
, .
, I;
I
I IT
!
~
!
.
,
. ,,\
.
" /)
!
l
~ (~
,
i ' \
; ( "
!
'I
I,J
'I
I "
I
l.....
I r
-
..,
,
",)
II
I,
'",.
I I'
I I:
r~i
I I!
I
, hi'
,
I
I I I-
I _.
, Ii
i 1'1
V
~
'"
i I
,
"
"'
; ,
: I
:',
:1
1.'\
n
I,;
, I
, !
\-1
.....' -
- ".. -- ~. ....,,; - ....
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
ROCK ISLAND DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
CLOCK TOWER BUILDING - P,O, BOX 2004
ROCK ISLAND, ILLINOIS 61204,2004
September 1, 1992
Planning Division
Ms. Lisa R, Beeman
Airport Planner
Coffman Associates
Airport Consultants
1300 East 104th Street
Kansas city, Missouri 64131
Dear Ms. Beeman:
I am writing in response to your letter dated August 11,
1992, concerning the proposed improvements to the Iowa City
Municipal Airport,
Rock Island District staff have reviewed your proposal,
and we have the following comments:
a. No corps of Engineers (Corps) administered land
is involved; therefore, no further Corps real estate
coordination is necessary.
b. The present site and alternatives 2 and 3 do
not appear to contain wetlands. Alternative 1 includes
potential Corps regulated wetlands, Department of the
Army (DA) authorization will be required for any proposed
placement of fill or dredged material into waters of the
United States (including wetlands). If site 1 is chosen,
please complete and submit the enclosed application to
the Rock Island District for processing.
c, The Rock Island Field Office of the U,S. Fish and
wildlife Service should be contacted to determine if any
federally listed endangered species are being impacted and,
if so, how to avoid or minimize impacts, The Rock Island
Field Office address is: 4469 - 48th Avenue Court, Rock
Island, Illinois 61201. Mr, Rick Nelson is the Field
Supervisor. He can be reached by calling 309/793-5000.
D.S
'-.l'
387
I
"
.'
:;
;';
"
'"
j~
,J
::j
'.:;
""
..,
!~
~:!
~;
(j
~I
;i
Ii
;'1
~
.~
i
...
y
-
. .. .....
, "
. '." '.. " '\ ., '
-2-
No other concerns surfaced during our review. If
you have questions or need more information, please call
Ms. Dorie Bollman of our Environmental Analysis Branch at
309/788-6361, Ext. 6590. Thank you for the opportunity
to comment on your proposal.
sincerely,
~ .,iL-
Du~on, P.E,
Chief, Planning Division
Enclosure
D.9
--
'~~
-- ..
,.-
'.
.
:
\.;,.
~
,
,..1
/'"
,
, ,,'
r"
l.1
,"
~
,..
,
i ,
.)......1
n
I
(,I
I', ,
, I
i:I 1
1
:
lj
il
"1
,.1
I"
I
"i
I':
,
,
v
I"
I
~
I,
t
"
bJ
I
~
.~,
" > ~_ \ . . L . " ." . ". \ ", . .
'" \
..
. j-:
,
; I
....
L
, ,
, i'
: 'f
,
n
"I
'"'\
'/j
, (;1
: I
, l:n
, 'II'
, ,
',' /,1
, ,
~ :,,~
,
,
,
, t'
I ,I
It,',
I
I ,'",
I I,
! i
I . '.
I I,~
: C'i
'-.,
I
i "
I ,\
1\
I ..I
1'1
ii"
I
i )'
: ;:
Appendix C
PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL
AGENCY RESPONSES
(EXISTING AIRPORT SITE)
:1,.;
!
r (I
.L
(_.1
, ,
I:
\-1
I'
I ; I
\..;'
3g7
'",
~," ':' ,,::",' ",j.. , ',,"-:"-" '; "
',' ,:", ' '!" "I", ,;.':';,' , i "';:1' , ,t_
, ",' ",' ,.. ,./, " " '\ .. '
, ,,:~" y:~~';. ';':;,:'<:'!)~:.:' ,>,",',, " ';",:<;~' ,',,:
--",
.',
',;: .~
.' .,::
'0,>-, "
,.
...
,
'l
I"
,
r
i'
1.;,
..:,
, '
"
r
::,'
.....'
.,;
, ,
~ I
~c.l
1\
AI
u
'I
,..J
'''1
~,
, ,
;
I
t-.;
',-,
)',
i I
,"
;J
!
"i
387fJ
-
'j'
, ,
I;'
'"
,;..
, ,
i
v
,.,
I
-t
"j
'''''
\ j
\<P'I
f"}
I,
"'1
II
p.,
r1
1\
....,
;1,
\
(n_,
, ,
,
-,
~.
\ '
.J
a
!1
, ,
-
-~i
'I
II
~
i
'~
, :
,
'-J
-
. " . , .' " ," l' , '. '
.~\-'I '_.' ....' ',' ~ \ ",
I~, :,', ",~: ':. ')~ _',_,,~~,,~~ _ :;1":'" ), :"',',,':" ' , ' ' .,;'::,-~,~':::l<.
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
SOIL
CONSERVATION
SERVICE
SUB-AREA OFFICE
109 Lake Park Blvd.
Muscatine, IA. 52748
Date: January 13, 1993
To:
Wayne B. Schuster
Coffman Associates
1300 East 104th Street
Kansas City, Missouri 64131
RE: FPPA Request Iowa City Municipal Airport,
Dear Mr, Schuster:
The request for completion of the AD-1006 form for the
project identified above has been referred to this office.
The AD-1006 has been completed for the site. Of the three
alternatives only number 3 had any cropland included. I
only did an evaluation on the cropland being converted,
Please let me know if you have any questions or need further
information.
~~X~
Lonnie R. Miller
Area Resource Soil Scientist
cc:
SCS Fiel(~/Office, Iowa City
c-t
387
y
\
. " ." ',. \ '- ~ . " .. :. '. ~ )..' . :',. , '. :' ',- . "
'. ", .
I.~:">,' .. ',,',' L:.:;'.i,~.:':",::::,_,', :' '>:, <,:,:-':",,:,
" '\" ,.......,'., \ l\rrli.\I' I. I.
,',.
""."~"l'"~""~I-':-..,.,
~...,,-
....-
U,S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
,",'
..
....'...i
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) Dale 01 land Eval~llion ~QO~st ,
October 0 2
Tn~~'g1~~i'i'<~M~. On' ~o..i hi' i j,,, ~h."" F'dF~~~~~~V I~~i'~~i "" Mm1".L ,U ..
r.:~O:~S:~ LaA~~iU:~i nn COUnlV And Slllle ..
Johnson Iowa r"
PART II (To'be'c'dmp,leiect fly SCSr"f,;o:i,.ji:;;~';'"!~i",,'li,,,: "'!".;: .'r "',,',,, 0",' R,quCSt R',ceiv9d~y S.q,1,."i\i"',\r::~...,!,,;i'!'!~~i~1.lIlf:f~ '
,~ ; .',,: ,.., ;,., ,,' .. ;'" :,.: .' " :.::,~..~..t.'" ;.~' '::i " '",' ~ ~:\',:"; .::',:' ~ ,;.::': o. \', '. :", t' , ...... ~>" ::;" ,;, ~ i :"""~I""~'::';'''' "... \':, ';',: :1:';!.~~~,. .!1'} n-~oll~" /; ,'1\ '
Does th,e site cq~\ai,n'n[!!i1~iu~!~u.e; ~~~lewideorlocal.l~por!anlfa[(I1land7 i "Yes.;, No', Acr~~J!rlg'led 'Av'rc0~~j:~'-4iW.'~l!ill ;,
1)1 no; the FP~A does nOlopp(y,,,-dQ pot,c,ofr/p(eto a,ddlt(on~1 parr~ or this lorm). ' ,)it, ,',0 ',"':J, ..'I'JJ :' ..: ',;" " ';Sl(':)1\;~m~i'1
Major C:OP('}',.,,',', fI iI,;! ,:,.>',!, F.r~~~I,._,Land In GoVl., JurISdiCtion,>;;;-,';" '; ;.. A~,,:~n,lor Farmlcn,d ASD!IJ,~!1J~~t:!Vi!" I
," , C' 0, "" .., Acres'" l"lI,';~.lt~""jp':i17&r Acres',~~,~:it~1i ' . r-,
.' :"...':'." '~:'."':"'-"""!""'l'i'''~~;J:, "1'-r.... . .," ...~.'...lt '1 _ . .t- I." '11. 11, /,;,~~,
Namo OJ l8n~ t~.luallon Syuel1\ U~ed.. '.'Jh' :'1, "j ~I. .NamDWt~,~ ~;~ ~~'llSsmllnt-svst~rn.;~;~;:t,.;~j~ ".~ ~~!1:~~g~'IU!~~I~~~~~I~~~j , , .
.~.".~ "'. .: ~),' 'II',. ", '.".'';.' r. I ..'\......(.., :{~,~;:',~;j~~ ".: ,;; '.~,:;;,~:,:, ;~iL:.';';;~7:,1~f:>;r'x: l;l
'" '. I,' . _', ". :,l'~~'kr,'i/):':-~~......:"~
" --, . ,Ilt\,~;h..., '." '~If. .~l.. 1...~~.Ii,,;':~:~i -'~.'.'''. ,.\,.i't'.J~r.. _~~ \.1
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency) " AllornUIYlISiteAaliM
SitllA Site B Site C Site 0
A, Total Acres To Be Converted Directly 0 0 80 "
"
B, Total Acres To Be Converted Indiractlv 0 0 0 ..
C, Total Acras In Site 450 550 5~0 ... , f.\ ~
,',' ", ',: ..',' " 1./,',,/. .. :"""'~:!l:?Rt '
PART IV (TQb!,comp,(eWd PyS'c$FLllJ1i1Jvaluatlon In.formatIPD:\.,:, .'", :. : I :-. I,,~.'~I. ~.: ~'. - ;i~.:.. .- ~:. ""':i" . i1
;:~"~:'~~"'- iJ~\'~'t"-,
A, Total Acres Prime'And Unique Farmland ',',,' .. .~..:.:t'. .,..~ ',' .. ' ,'.., ..':, ..:J :20-.', 1:~~1?:~;,~~~.tA;~\,ll
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland !:<,';, " t",. .;' f{,~,:: ;1::':~:,\ih~~N,Y~. .'
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or LocarGovt: Unit To Be Converted " . ~ I () 19'~ :;~\':'-'''.::':';~l.(t~:.rl.
,'.. .. "~"" '.\
O. PerccntllUo Of Farmland In GOYI. Jurlsdlclion With Same Or Higher Relatiye Value , . " 1",jl.~ ;:'''-~,ii.;lIii:~'',~{.t.r-'
PART V (To be completed by SCSI Land Evaluation Criterion " 8;', ~ " :';,"~'''>' ~:!!:~~t;:y~
Relative Value 01 FarmlandTo Be Converted (ScaleolOto rooPo/nts) '. .':..,'.':
PART VI (ro be completed by Federal Agency) Mal<imum ": ,'" ;~W,:::.~,l.
"
Site Assessment Crltoria (Thott1critcrla lIro explained In 1 CFR 658.6(bJ Points : " ,
'.-.
1. Area In Nonurban Use 1<; 12 1~ 1~
2. Perimater In Nonurban Use 10 7 7 7 .
3, Percent Of Site Being Farmed 20, 0 0 0 ", .
4. Protection Provided By Stato And Local Government 20 0 0 0 ,.
5. Distance From Urban Buillup Area 15 0 0 0
6, Distance To Urban Support Services 1'i, 0 0 0 , ,
7, Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average 10 0 0 8 -
B. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland 10 0 0 10 "
9, Availabilitu Of Farm Suooort Servicas 5 'i 'i 'i ..
10, On,Farm Investments 20 0 0 10 ,
11. Elfects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services 10 0 0 0 l~"
12, Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use 10 0 0 ~ ,
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 24 24 55
,
PART VII (To IJecomplered by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Parr V) 100 --.!15.. 5 ,
0 0
.'
'(alai Site Alserment (From Parr Vlabore or a local 160 24 21, 55
site ilssessment
TOTAL POINTS (Total 01 abore 2/ines) 260 24 24 137.5 .. ,
I Date Of Seicction Wal A LOCill Silt! AUClSmOnt Used1- '~
Site Selected: Yes 0 No 0
.:'.'.....
.'
,
"
",
!
I
nllason For SlIllIcllon:
I
I
(.,;
.""
" ~nfon ruvufloliduJ
C.2
, I
..1
'I
3B7,J
Form AD'100B 110,031
~.... - ,.: - y-----
I
I
i :1
,
-
I
~ ,-'
1
"
!.....
,""I
:J-
l,~
I~'
l,,,j
11
J~/
'I
~.
..~
,
-,
!
I ,
",
~
,i, ,~
1\ ! '
,".,.~ )
, '
,:,
'.!J
"
,
!!
,
'....
~..,
I
, "
, ,
~;
_ . ..---~...~__ ...or". ,_...... _ _ ._..,-- -.....-.,....... .. _...,.. _ ...
.' , , . ,I \ . .' " " t.
" 'J"',. ". ~'. . '. .
-')
, ,
I
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
ROCK ISLAND DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
CLOCK TOWER BUILDING - P,O, BOX 2004
ROCK ISLAND, ILLINOIS 61204'2004
November 17, 1992
'__=- AnUlTIONO'
Planning Division
.~,
Mr, Wayne B. Schuster
Associate
Coffman Associates
Airport Consultants
1300 East 104th Street
Kansas city, Missouri 64131
Dear Mr, Schuster:
I am writing in response to your letter dated
October 29, 1992, concerning the proposed improvements
to the Iowa city Municipal Airport.
Rock Island District staff have reviewed your current
proposal. The present site and option 1 do not appear to
contain wetlands, options 2 and 3 do appear to encroach
upon potential Corps of Engineers regulated wetlands to
the south of the current site, Department of the Army (DA)
authorization will be required for any proposed placement
of fill or dredged material into waters of the united States
(including wetlands), If sites 2 or 3 are chosen, please
complete and submit the previoUSly mailed application to
the Rock Island District for processing.
All project options at the present site are located
on the willow Creek floodway, Coordination with the Iowa
Department of Natural Resources will be required to comply
with state floodplain regulations.
No other concerns surfaced during our review. If
you have questions or need more information, please call
Mr, Randy Kraciun of our Environmental Analysis Branch,
telephone 309/788-6361, Ext, 6174. Thank you for the
opportunity to comment on your proposal.
sincerely,
----;) ~
' ~'--/2.
;~L~ I ~ 0tLvt ^-
oGdley M. anson, P.E.
Chief, Planning Division
:,,/
, ,
-
C-3
, I
, ,\
...
3g1
\
I
.....
~ ..- -'T""'
-
.. ............~, ...........~ p-~ , .-.....
r ...--,
;:~:,.','~;iS;~I,~: ,lit: ,:,)~I': ~,'< ".',;',.. ",'~': '~ ",' :.:::
.; .' \ '~J". "\'. :,$1 ',' . . .~:t., "Zl,~;.<':: :. '. ,~ ,;', .".,
I
i
:1
!i
t:
~~
;1
jl
h
:)
:,1
U
{;
(,
....,
,..,
, ,
,
j, t
...
, ,
, ,
, I
;"
~ .(
n
.;..[
M
i
i
I.'
r--
,
, ,
~-
~;.
,
"
'; I
" ,
i
(' I
,
,~
"
I"
:
,
,....; I
'..
,
[:
C. I
, I
r~
l;
t~.
Ii
.~....'
~
i.
I..;:
i
I']
-
~ ' ;
I,
317 "
I
I
I
I
I
i:::,:'L~/'-' :;1", :;.:ti.::.,.. 0...., ';. i':"'::,,'.'.'"
~: .. )".'~ :' .'. ~~:,:'" : t~' . ': '.>;';~.'~- ......, ",',',:' ':'" . ,'-,l", ~ ';~: ',:,:,
0
n
...,
1\
i \
".".
i~l
I,.
.'"
'"
n
;j
0
0
n
.-
n I
i I
~-:J I I
I
.
11 I
. ,1 ~ I ,
,
.J ,
I
I
"I I
I I
J I
i
I 0 I
I
(J
I ~]
U
I U
U
U
0",
".1 381\
I ...'
'-.
.
....... ~.
--. ,. -
.....r
,.....
- -
, :........ ~.. :.>J 'I:'>":,'I.':,:~~:", I"'>',?
. ',. '~., '. .. .. " '"
. '.,' ';.; \ ;'.'" I.:,... : .~. ... .' ,'. ',:' ,.:
,. . . - " '.1 :"", '. '1, ',' .', '0' , I ',,> ...
4' . ,';.'.' ,., "". ". . .' , .. ,
",.., ""'1." ""'_,...
",':.' '.. ":.: "':'" '",.
,
",', ,";..'
~ '::~l~l~".".'\'l""'''''l''
~""~11 ~'JI'i4, :'
t,~ 1'\.r.iJ'X~':
'::'" ;)'.).';.":\0'.
'~':;,!"'\*~ .
~~"~:' 1,'<. ,
({." 'I'..
,WI..: '.. .".t,
~~~'\:. ~". A',~"~~
I' ,'k" I ~~ . .\'\...,
I ~..~ " ,.f :).
n If. '~.:", ,. ~J"";
l':i~- I '\t~~'r~.'
. irJi., , . 'ff'/i . '1' "..
~ . . ~'~~i;"I'" I1Y ,'I~' ,Jtk.; -~~f
r.: , f., . "'\~
I> " ..... .. ". ,
,. ., {, '.' ~ .
' '. ~, . , . 'I.....,
JI1" ,. "", '. . "'. ".',' :',:'iii' . , .. ..
"i~ ~ , , '. .,.;;t..., ""~'., ",
.. ~,. . . . ',. "'" ". ~ ..,
.~~. ".~:': ~/~'I1"":' . . ,'. . ':"'. .....Ii' . . '~, .
. "... . " ., . '. ".
. f.~' '... ~~ ...... . .... . ',' ".." '.
,~, <ll~' '~'\~.l. ' ".,\ .~. " '''''Ik'' "1" ", '.'" '. . . ,.f..,.:. ;,",. . .,' ,,'
.. ,. '.. . . ..,. . ", . .. .. "., .. .
", ,.... ~..., "', ".., '. .,' "".-- ....., . ....
......, " """i",,,,,". .' \. '" '.. " .,".'..... ./" "., ....1 .
(".: ',1: ~I f l-,J' ')~~"'I ,~.j 1 \.l...._';fj. 'r.' .' ", "" '",.".". . ",,,,,1' ' ",j
r'; .Ii .'l'.....~',''', I .~,.. ~., \.~..,.". "Jo'\ . ",' ""1" \;, 1" """',''''':~, J,~, , ,0,. ,,). "
'j.,."., "t,,, "" ',. ,..~ ,'''., " , , /'''. .... , ..'.,...., "" " '...
,\,'....-.4'. I' '\...~ ;;" ~ j. 'I', '~;.\.. '. ',". . '.. , <. .' '''. '\"~'~.i"'I1\";'~"~"";"''';''~r'''I'', .
"..., .., '" "... ". ,.., .,., '''''' ,., ,,'.... ., " ". '.' ""'.' .
. -ill"" ,., "", "'''1' " "., , "''''." , '." ',11..,... Jj. ',' ''ll.'' 0<'. ,",.." '., "
'~:z;.r', :..r.,l 't:'\6'f:>.. \ .'W.< IJ;'\;I~'-: ;~''- ';j;,'i .,/" ~':':::,/ ",3' .{.'\'~:\I:-4i" ",":> ~:,:;,< '..J; \~'':Jl~~r:~:',( "l'~?'<" \ f.
r\.~jI~;~l l~ "-J,J.~ h .~ .,. I' '.' '. ,.. """, "'... . ',..., . .. ", .. ,." ,'11'''. . . .. ..,
\~~t'fi'''' },~>tPii Y~l'i:~!~'~~iif; trf'~:"t,\'rli?i;;;1~:f'''ii:; r ;<]1'" '~~'~\'~~~':f~i;~~i/:- ~l,' i~~;'
~,\1l! . ,v.; "'I'; ~"!< "\1- ~ ,.... ''''it., it '''. '..., _, ,. "1'" ~''''''..",. .
'i. :..)" %,'\' ,. "r,.~.,. .... ''{;!\! "'",.\ ......, ~";;..j"" ",' " ''', >!i'- :"-A ""_ "~...'.' j\\'I\ltI...;.l ~.
'..:~%. {;i'a~i;,(~~t~~:~~',ltii\t~;~1t;ill~"~11Jt.1~~:fi;~~;'~~.~
~, ",;'... :.\:il'W ':;;9'~I~"~'ii'.' '}'~~>,~ '~: "',., "or, ''''ill- "{j...,",'~;.,,, 'i;'or,. "",.' i '11:. '''''''''''''~' ~It' :'.-:'1
~~.;~~~ '~~~~~J\'? ~ ,:../. ~"....".. .. ;'" """.'" . ., , '''''''''. ',,,,,,,,..,,,.,, .
;~"'!1';;~~1;,;I~~;Yf~(""'. ~,~. ~t;?~~f't~' >"':'~'S~~~~;,~:~~~1i~:"f~\~:.\j. .i"'~~~"'~~~J,~y'~I?~~ ~.~. i~4t::~ft%~j~
", ,. "',. . \" . ",..... " ~ ';;"" .... .. . . "'li! · 0",,"... ."~:il.itl<\
~'r);:\!r:::~~.r~k~{}:;, ~~~~!':,",:,</ "";:"')1' "fl:' ~1.'~~~~.J~~:j~~~N:':'x ;,~tl{ t.;~, ~. '~f~\~J\'.~1,\(~~~~~ ,.'.; lit
~ f ."".....,,~ ";I-'1f....'.'A14:.."lm '1" t ", ".~ .'t. ';(.;;'\;W'~'~""I' ";>~'" 'c 'r. "'J "l,'
,'" . ~'. i;',~~'~;~, ,: ..'+ \~ ';U"/Wf ~j~, \ol' :'I:J.~'l;'~~~', ;':( ~i~~~ .~~r:e: ;;~&I' /; ~}~\i{, ~t~<(~;'):';\~;~1r~'~'"Ph~~'
I, "'X',' ".t.\... ~""~lM~"~' \i"}~":r\t; 1~.c.'1( 'T..:c..',', 1./'" T,,',' \~' J'" \, T.:~;';J;fP'" I,' ."it""'PI",!,~,~~~..,~...,~::-!i, ",1
. .. I ...-.......f.~.. 'I :t.L' ~1 ~H: !' '." ~,; '.,' "" '. ..J;, "<'" i>',,~ . "\1
'~~)/, ,~}'i J"'\'h~,... . "'"'' ..,,..... "..', , .". ""'W ,. .]C' "^.. ".,.." ...
~~..t."'\\" , ,., '~;;;~' .' '$.VRf.". """'-, "'.' ....., W.... """""', '<'. ,., ',,~ "', .
. ~" J....\ ~.h - ~ ,'1{1 ~ "I" ,I' ..., '1',' " ',,' V." " \'" ''',.,... .~\ '\"''-'>-", ~..l \'.~
I. .. . ,,,..,, .,.",..., " ".. '. ,~..., ,J <<." ", ':,' ., '" "".,'" .,',. '.' . ,," . "'. " '.",
~;f'~:I'VI;~?\~:'~,~~,,~{:.)~. ';', .'.. "I . ''': '):..V~'.' "','" . :j'ii:~. ~"'(\. .., ",<ji,'.".V .\
~ ',1"~~lfl)t~~'~M~1 1" :~~,tt~~~,< ft'" )l 't::~:f1~,:\, ~~ '.:;(' ~.~~ '. >~. ,/~V'?~I<I)\ ." .i~~l;; .'~fttJ}~,~:., 'J'1t; :"_~, :.,'> . ,':'t:.)}l ~~{\\ "j' ~
- . ,'l,,( 'I...., ,N',... " I'. \.../ ,j! " . ~ ,I" ,t.'. t... I" . ,'" , "\', ,. . ",' "" 'I~ . \
'" ~ ."....'1 ., . " '~ ~" .., "1'~' "'" .'" "'.. ,.r... "'"
~~I"'..HI.,.\L~..\..t.,. ",. '. ;,'" "N, " ;,. "', 0I,! '. ,',.".." . " . ~":',,',,,;,,
tJl,}'" \l,"'V/'.." '., . ""'i"" ".... """.. , / "'. ",',. ;1
.;. ,I"~,l~,,' ;,'" '" ~ 1.'. "(rei;' ',"'1".; '."p. , t.... ~:':. ""'f ',}t' \ , '.
'.,', ,.,'...." ; ..." f .. ..;. '"..., ,,', Vi'< "j' "', ~f~" ~an I". '., : "". .~.
11~1:~,\ l ,,~ .. ~:I tt'. " (' "I'lll "." ~,' "'. i, .~. ". .)/: ~Yt~." 0 iIIl I,',.".~ .... 'J, ,,, 'I
..W'" . .'..'.'..,.', "'" '.,., '.'.. .. 'k.. '. .., '.,
....." "'''''''''' ", ""'" , '... .. 'Iales /'} '" I ~:J
J.'/~~J;".,"";";~).".!"'~.";;"/""',: .:!', ",':" ".' ASSOCi"," ":;,'~""'~:~,'i,;.';',.,.:..'."
,.. .' ;., ',. '." ',." ; ,. .. , I Is', ~c '.
'.;",1' """..."':.,,,.-:... ,;.,.", . Consul an 'j
""'" .. ....... . . "
.u .... ," '''.: "'. .. ..', .", ,
ifl:");'. :, . '." , . ..
'/::\.j
:{,,:':
',. '.~:J.
.,
iJ:
\
~... ..... (,., .' ~
.' . ,,';Po d. R. Green. Canpa .
. ... HowafNG ENGINEERS .
. CONSULTI . .
. ,
~I
~r
~.l
3g11
'-
.,~
\
(~~':":J.t"~' ;,'.:,,^' ,i~~~' ,,',;.;;tJti'-"':t." ;':Ij' i,. '.;,'. }<..,:..,;..:'I::;....:.::, \
I ...~ .1. .' , ", ,_ _ , ..', II J 'II {, . . ",' ,'" \ " , ,
,~;~~~.{, )'1 ;.:'~ ~/:." ~>.. / ~:':; :nt," !'<. ... ':, ~" :!'_<: "'l:' ,'.::':.;:.~
',<_'p,': \'~i";1\ ;\i.'.if~~V".~." 'J','" J' .,1' ,'\:.' " .'I.J
, . '" ~ ~.., \ .'" , .'. ,)'.... ~ ~
-,-
"'" ~
I
- - ... ----T ....., ~----""-r--,..., -
....- ~- -" ".....-- - -
. ....,.
,~ " '" -!," .. .' ',..<:.. :, ,','.: 'I,;....'. -.' . ", "!' ',: :"I"~'
,. .... '". I ,. /. ' ~ . .
I..:.. L"l, ."J' ,,21'0. ~. ".. . '.0;.'. , o. " "
~.~ ',!,.,JJ:~'~:'JIJ4',~,\:--',,~ ~.', 'l!'~\' .,' " . ',\ : . 1 ',:
,':t,I.;,'l.:lL_--"-_k.
,
.......~.,0.;1f_~_. --- ..'--....,U.7.~UC-~__ --1""""~ -. '"'IT'" ...,..-,~~~~ H_' .-...-....::ao..:.;,...:~:..~~
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 12, 1993
To: City Council
From: City Manager
Re: Material Sent to Council Only
· Memorandum from the City Clerk regarding joint meeting with Johnson County Board of
Supervisors, F
· Memorandum from the Director of Finance regarding revisions to the two'year financial
plan,
· Letter from Timothy 0, Wilke, Mayor of Lone Tree, regarding Iowa City Water Resources
Study, 0
· Letter from the Downtown Association regarding parking regulations in the Capitol Street
Parking Ramp. 39
· Memoranda from the City Attorney regarding:
1) Legal opinion regarding County mapping project.
2) Status update on acquisition of water sampling wells,
3) New lawsuit.
39:2.
?93
39
· Copy of a letter from the City Attorney to Assistant Attorney General Timothy 0, BentoQ
regarding legal action against the City by the State. .3't.S
· Memorandum regarding meeting of the Southeast Iowa Municipal League, 39 ~
· Copy of a newspaper article regarding conflict over right to farm, 397
· Agendas for February 9 and February 11, 1993, meetings of the Johnson County Board
of Supervisors, ,":/9 f
bi1fN1hl'l_
* Brochure from Grant Wood AEA regarding a conflict resolution & mediation
training,
I
I
~ ,- .."..-..--
.. ..~.- ......,"-~--....-r-' V"-
'--r-- -. .,~
-
'.'::,.:, "f71:;;iH;'" ~':'.,::d..:-' ;i&'~ ,,', , ;' ':, ." : '. ,,-;'..,':<' .",,'
I.., " . t -, "M' , I , .-.\.~, ; " ,''t.
~:. '. ~I~~-:~.j'., ,......-.~:-.,' ",' .,',~" "..'
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 12, 1993
To:
Mayor and City Council
Marian K, Karr, City Clerk ~
From:
The joint meetin9 of the Iowa City City Council and the Johnson County
Board of Supervisors has been set Tor Monday, April 5,.at 4:00 p.m.
More information will follow. Please forward any agenda items you wish
discussed to me,
~~
'.
~...... ,., - ,,-.----
....
.. ... ______..~- .-v ~ --.. - ~ _.,- _~.....". - ... ______
i~:.: : i71,> , ):!l,: ,; "'k:,,' '''"b: <::,,'<, ,,',:' ,',>,:, :>::,<,.'
.: ,~\~'L~; . ~~:rl ", ,Jill: ' ~tJJ 1", " . . ,.... 'j' , ,.' ':" 'r': .
.
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date:
February 12, 1993
To: City Council and City Manager
From: Donald J, Yucuis, Director of Finance
Re: Revisions to the Fiscal Year 1993.94 and 1994.95 Proposed Two-Year
Financial Plan
A public hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, February 23, 1993, at 7:30 p.m, in the Council
Chambers regarding the Fiscal Year (FY) 1993-94 and 1994-95 proposed two-year financial
plan.
This memo highlights the changes that have occurred in the proposed FY1993-94 and 1994.
95 two-year financial plan between the time the budget document was printed and the
Council's final review, Attached is a summary of the changes made to the proposed FY1993.
94 and 1994.95 two.year financial plan,
I
The 1993-94 property tax levy rate is $12.890 per $1,000 of taxable assessed valuation
compared to $12,826 in FY1992.93, The FY1993.94 tax levy request and total expenditures
as published in the newspaper for the public hearing cannot be increased without scheduling
a second public hearing and publishing a new notice.
Final City Council approval of the FY1993.94 proposed budget is scheduled for March 2,
1993, Two resolutions will be presented for your approval. The first resolution will approve
the FY1993.94 operations budget, The second resolution will approve the FY93-94 and 94-
95 two-year financial plan, including the Capital Improvements Projects, Please remember
that a more comprehensive Capital Improvements Projects report will be submitted to you et
en upcoming City Council work session, The FY1993-94 Cepitallmprovements Projects
budget will need to be amended later when a new CIP plan is finalized by the City Council.
Please contact me or Deb Mansfield if you have any questions,
n.\budoll,dy
33~
I
. "....
-
.--..-~...- ....... 1-- """"""--T
.....
- -
'~-r- ..
,- .
...... ~..,..- ....
::: 'f71,:';":"?d...."" :~/"" "f';"":' ',',: '..', . "'''. ',:":" "<'.'
I. " ""./' ""'1 ' ,,' ~
.~, ',:.r.r'~..<",,' :~~." ~1' ~;. ,-.,;".:\:',.<;. . '.' .;'::. ',', ,\" '>~
",
CITY OF IOWA CITY
FISCAL YEAR 1994 AND 1995 RECONCILIATION OF CITY MANAGER'S ORIGINAL PROPOSED
BUDGET TO THE FINAL BUDGET AFTER CITY COUNCIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENTS
FUND/REVENUEIEXPENDITURE DESCRIPTION
GENERAL FUND:
REVENUES:
Total per City Manager's Proposed Budget
Adjustments:
Property taxes,based on actual assessed value
Employee Benefits transfer In- Increase In the % of the employer share
of PollcelFlre pension contribution from 17% to 19,66%.
Total Final General Fund Revenues
EXPENDITURES:
Total per City Manager's Proposed Budget
Adjustments:
Corrected p~rsonal services to Include January 1 union pay plan.
Recalculated employer share of PollcelFire pension contribution.
State Increased rate from 17% to 19,66%.
Total Final General Fund Expenditures
ENTERPRISE FUND:
REVENUES:
Total per City Manager's Proposed Budget
Adjustments:
Wastewater Treatment Reserve.Transfer In decreased due to savings
on 1993 Sewer revenue debt
landflil Reserve.Revlsed Interest Income calculation
Total Final Enterprise Fund Revenues
EXPENDITURES:
Total per City Manager's Proposed Budget
Adjustments:
Corrected personal services to include January 1 union pay plan.
Added Transfer to CIP for ramp repairs
Wastewater Treatment.Revlsed debt service funding based on the new 1993
Revenue bond schedule,
Wastewater Treatment'Revlsed debt service payments based on the new
1993 Revenue bond schedule.
Transit- corrected transfer to Transit Equipment Maintenance
BBT. Corrected capital outlay
Total Final Enterprise Fund Expenditures
Page 1
.6-'
.........m..~_
,~-.t'll
""fIItIIlIJlI
.u_
FY94
BUDGET
FY 95
BUDGET
$23,475,237 $24,577,629
47,373
105713
50,027
112,248
$23,628,323 $24,739,904
$23,610,619 $24,973,962
55,320 58,660
99503 105473
$23,765,442 $25,138,095
$27,125,843 $27,539,329
1148,7711
40,000
1149,1411
70,000
$27017072 $27460 188
$25,993,824 $26,061,243
20,360
o
1257,7271
1148,7711
3,231
20001
20,514
250,000
1156,4561
1149,1411
3,426
o
$25,608,917 $26,029,586
Jl1.J JUM.ll.4l\I..JJIJrJIl'IM
:3~9
I
;oF ~~ v-'~~
.. .. ..------...-~-- "'--r ,~....... - - "'-r- _-,- -.............---...,r-a--y-".-
:'/' 'f~/' ...::;.<ffl.... , .. ::'~~/' '", ' "1: ' :,' ,',..: ,",.'::, .'- :.'
t. \>." ,... .- II i ,..I. . " ,I ( , ' /. :1 '" "
.... ',.'; ,~/,!:.l:, ,\,....~,:" .. ::,,: i' ..... ,-~ :'.,.' ,_' . ,'.' ,." ". ,'0. " . ;.',~;
,
CITY OF IOWA CITY
FISCAL YEAR 1994 AND 1995 RECONCILIATION OF CITY MANAGER'S ORIGINAL PROPOSED
BUDGET TO THE FINAL BUDGET AFTER CITY COUNCIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENTS
FUND/REVENUEIEXPENDITURE DESCRIPTION
OTHER FUNDS:
REVENUES:
Total per City Manager's Proposed Budget
Adjustments:
JCCOG.Additionallocal government revenue
Transit Equipment Mtce,-Addltlonal funding from Transit Operations
AsslstedlPubllc Houslng'Not included In the budget to Council
Special Assessments- Not Included In the budget to Council
Employee Beneflts,Addltlonal property taxes using actual assessed valuation
Employee Benefits,lncreased transfer from reserve to pay for a portion
of the employer share of PollcelFlre pension contribution
Employee Benefits Police/Fire Reserve-Added In Interest Income
CDBG-Added additional federal funding and rehab loan proceeds
Total Final Other Fund Revenues
EXPENDITURES:
Total per City Manager's Proposed Budget
Adjustments:
JCCOG-Minor adjustments to a variety of line Items
Corrected personal services to Include January 1 union pay plan,
AsslstedlPublic Houslng.Notlncluded In the budget to Council
Special Assessments- Not Included In the budgat to Councli
Employee Benefits-Increased transfer to General Fund to pay for increased
cost of PolicelFlre pension contribution; State rei sed % from 17 to 19,66%
Employee Benefits PolicelFlre Reserve-Added In transfer to Employee
Benefits Operating Fund to pay for a portion of employer share of
PolicelFlre panslon contributions,
CDBG-Added additional federal funding and rehab loan activity,
RUT,Fundlng for design only-HWY 6 Pedestrian Bridge
TIF-Corractad to FY 93 budget,
Total Final Other Fund Expenditures
GRAND TOTAL, OPERATING BUDGET
Totel Operating Revenuas after Adjustments
Total Operating Expenditures after Adjustments
Page 2
FY 94
BUDGET
FY 95
BUDGET
$ I 3,515,703 $14,024,635
191 146
3,231 3,426
3,648,903 3,648,903
52,666 52,526
15,072 17,577
90,000 94,230
90,000 72,000
302,000 272,000
$17717766 $18185443
$13,5B8,7 I 4 $14, 190,305
11,3491 (1,2701
8,536 9,051
3,633,479 3,B25,650
68,516 64,162
95,199 93,674
434,411 502,000
302,044 271,965
100,000 0
126 289 0
$18,203,261 $ I 8,955,537
$68,363,161 $70385,535
$67,577,620 $70,123,218
,g,
- --
.........
1!ll1'lll_ IIIftl Il. ..~n JJ L . dlll~I._UIII
....- ~ -' ...-.---
-, '-T"""'". ,.~
- .. -..---........,- .....-r- '-'" - - _ -
.... ~T-'"
......
, , ,
'"1: ,.... t~/'" :tl>';';:' ~-;:/.,,' b:'J' :, ,,', '::,,' . : < ""
L' : ,,:. . '.'. '.' I" ....f.. ".' . ,. . \', " . ,',' .
'I ..-I , , ,J ,.i.~"", ,\ .., . . '.
.":.',". . ......:::',,'. l>l~::' , \'. R.~ :~. r~~ \"'.' """", \. . .
CITY OF iOWA CITY
FISCAL YEAR 1994 AND 1995 RECONCILIATION OF CITY MANAGER'S ORIGINAL PROPOSED
BUDGET TO THE FINAL BUDGET AFTER CITY COUNCIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENTS
FUND/REVENUEIEXPENDITURE DESCRIPTION
FY 94
BUDGET
FY95
BUDGET
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (CIPI
EXPENDITURES:
Total per City Manager's Proposed Budget
Adjustments:
Parking ramp repairs
Hwy 6Pedestrian Bridge-Design only
Whispering Meadows Park Development
$3,635,400 $713,800
0 250,000
100,000 0
70 560 0
$3,805,960 $963,800
Total Final CIP Fund Expenditures
I
t
I
I
I
Page 3
i~ '
3.
-
-. ~
..l"U.6_ db.- ~-
... ~,""1J.l\
\
of;;>
-~
,,-.~
~
.. .---.~--....r 1......... - - --r-
- - - ,........
I~'; '"L7":':'iill,,':.:F!,.'< ",;P:':'.. ,':: ,',: ':;""'>',':"";,:"
".. .:' I~f " ....~ ,'. ',,~\.,~",' jJ,~ I",:, ", .:' , -', . 1:._ :'-,:::.':',',
. ,.
'I CIl
~~
C.~
~'"
~~
~
~
CIl~
~O
10
CIl
~~
~~
~
~
.. ~
i ~~
CIl
~
"
..
..
,
~
"
o
~
"
..
CIl
C
Z
~
~
~;,;
~~
'"''
O~MMO~~OON~~~~~~~~O~~O~N~~~I~'
~mri~NririNN~~~~~~NmN ~~O~NmNril~1
mM~~~~ri~O~~O~~riN ~ mo~ooNriIO.
.................................. ..........1..'...
\0 III III " f"o Ul 1"1 \D f'o r-t M 0 .... .., N" III M \D N 0'1 0) V> '''''
\D 1/1 .... III III Ifl 0 ILl " 0 0'1 r1 f'" \D '" III " 0 r1' M ,.( ,1tI.
co N \D M .., 0 \D \D \D 0.., rot ., Ifl 0 ''''.
.. ........ .... ,...
.., ('II n co M ,.. M If"o'
'I'<'
NMNriIDr-t....OIDo\OIllCOr-tr-tOMO....NMIDO....r-tOr-tINI
"'O'I\DIDM\DID O)O'Ir-t....COO)O'I lIl"'O'IIIl....r-tONr-tOV>Ir-t1
'" II) ri ... M ...." M.., 0 co 0 Q) ri N 0 0 M III Ifl '" r- 'It 0 MIlD'
~WM~~~~ ~~M~~N~ om~~N~~~~NMI~
lD M ri Ifl III 'It 0 co In III co ('II 0 M In r-t r-t \D III \D N co M 0'" 1M'
.... ('II CO 0'1 M M.., 0'\" ri OJ N M'" (1'1 N .., 0 I\D'
o..... ...... .... .. .... rail
M M ('II lD M M n M ('II N 1'1 M 101
N lID'
III 0 CD 0 f"o 0 MOO 0 ... 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \D 0 f'" ... 0 0 101
ID .., 0\ \0 0 0 .... 0 co 0 co .... 0 N .... 101
N .... 0 co to 0 M 0 OJ 0 .... II) ~ to ~ 111)1
.. .. .. .. .............. ........ I'"
10 0 M \D I/) 0 U"I M \D \D 0 OJ r-i \D ~ I~I
to ~ M ~ M II) M N to N to 10 N \Cl 1'1 101
N "'f 0 "'f II) r-i 0'1 r-i '<t ltol
.. .... 1"'1
N r-i "'f r-i N M I\ClI
In'
to 1'1 ~ r-i 0'1 r-i "'f 0 \D 0'1 0'1 II) \D r-i r-i 0 1'1 0 to N 1'1 0 0 0 0 0'" INI
to 0'1 M \D M \D 0 OJ (J\ 0'1 to 0 CO" II) "'f 0'1 II) to 0 0 0'1 1"1
" II) 0 " N "1'1 \D ~ \D CO N OJ 0 N 0 0 1'1 ~ 0 0 r'I II"'lI
~~;~~~o o~~m~~~ om;~N 0 NMJ~
CD 1'1 to II) .... ~ \D II) 0 M II) ~ to \D 11)" M \D II) NO" 11'11
"'f N 1'1 (1l M f'I) (1l (1l \D "to N" r-i 0 10'11
~ M ~ N .; N ~ ~ N ~ IM1
N I~.
M to 0 co 0 "'f 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q1 N 0 0 0 OJ to " " \D \D MOO"" lUll
N 1'1 0 "'f 0 ItI 0 0 0 0 to 0 " 0) 0 0 II) to (1l (1l 0 \D to ItI 0 0 0'1 Ii'll
MOO" III 1'1 N 0 0 0 0 "'f ItI OJ 0 0 OJ "'f 0 to \D \D 1'1 1'1 0 0 M 101
.................................................... ..1"-
co to N II) 0 0\ N \D to N 0 to 1'1 \D Ul 0 CO 0'1 0'1 1'1 III N \D \D 0 N M 101
N \D to N co 0'1 1'1 1'1 1'1 0 NO)"" ,.. \D " MOM II) II) 111 0 OJ 0'1 0 r-4 I~I
10 (1l \D N .... ~ 1'1 .... (1l ~ 1'1 .... to N" N N 0 11111
.............. ...... .... .. 1"'1
r'I N N rl \D M 1'1 .... 1'1.... N 1'1 1'1 .... II"'lI
N I\DI
to \D 0 co 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 co N 0 0 0 OJ 0\ 0 .... 0 0 r-i 0 0 0 l"'fl
o 0 0 "'f Ul 0 0 0 r-i OJ 0 0 to \I) 0 ...." ICOI
to \D 0 rl 1'1 0 III 1'1 0 OJ 0 111 "'f II) ID 1'1 ~ Ii'll
........ .... .................... .. lo.lI
N,..\DlI'I 0'1 ID ~toO'l\D O"OOOUl ~ 1,..1
....10 N 0'1 M O'Ito,..to r-iNII1M~l'l M lto.
O'IOJ N "'f.... .... \D "'f INI
.; ~ M ~ ~ 11111
In'
M MOO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OJ I"'l 0 ID \D 0 0 0 r-i lID.
OMO 0 0 OOtoOO 0 UlONO\O'I\DtoOOOO'lIO'lD
CO~O lI'I N OOll'lMUl 0 MOII)....N\DMOOOMIOJft
.. .... .. .. .......... .. ...................... I ~
00'l\D 0 N ,...NlI'IO"'f lI'I toO'lOJMON\DO'IONMI"'f1
1I1(J1\D co 1'1 MON....O'I \D I"'lIl1 r-iNlI'IOOJCJ\OrlIMft
CJ\ \D .... l'l CJ\ "'f .... M 0 N N 0 I"'.
.. .. .. .. .... .. .. 1'-11
"'f N \D M r-i 1'1 " 1'1 .... ItOft
'I'<'
MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONOOOIIl1I
.... 0 "'f 1111.
0) 0 CJ\ I""
";0 N 1,..1
\D 0 \D INI
to 0 to IlI'II
.... .. I'"
N N N 1('01
.... II"'lI
0'1 0 II) \D \D \D \D 0 \D .... CJ\ 0 0\ \D \D \D N 0'1 0 to co 0 II) \D to CJ\ III I".
\D "'f ,.. to U"I N OJ N 0 "'f .... II) M "'f M N CJ\ OJ M N 111 OJ CJ\ (1l N r-i IlI'II
CJ\ 0\ Ul "'f "'f ~ 0 \D "'f M \D lI'I Ul ,.. M N "'f "'f \D to OJ Ul M "'f N r-i I\D'
.................................... ........1..1""
l'l .., \D M OJ MOJO \D " \D ~ II) 0 N " "~ to ....,.. 0'1 N 0'1 IN~
ON.... co N 0 to 1'1 \D 111 N N 0'1 " II) " " 0\ " r-i 0) r-i I\DB
OUlOJO\DO'IIOIll MOJ Mill.... ....rlll1M l~
..; N...4~ ~ ri M I\DI
II'<'
I
~
~CIl
b~
~~
"
C
CIl
;e
~o
~
~~
"'10
~
'"
~:;:
~~
Ill'"
~
u
z
CIl CIl"
5 Z III E
" ~~ ~CIl ~
~ ~~ "'~ ~ ~~
~ ,,~ z~ u ~~
CIl ~~ o~ tIltll s ,2~~~:~ p!w~
ZtIl > ZOIllZZ 2Xf-lI(IIlHf-lZ tIllll~ ~
~~ ~~ ~~~~~CIl88!5~~~~~ ~~~ ~~
!<~~CIlOCll!<~~!<!<~~~~o ~~CIl ....Z"
~M MHMU MI(~~~~IIl~~1Il III MMMZ
Ctl~CIl ~!<>~ CIl~~"'~~"CIl~ Q"'~ZZo~
~,,~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~"p~!<U~~ ~
~o .~~~CIl8~~oO ~~ ~~cg ~u '" ~
~~gg~~o~~~~~~~~~~..lll .~~~~ ~ u
~~gg~~~~~~"c5"~eClleCll~~~~~~~g~S~S~g~
~"'~~~~~~~ " ~~ooooo"'o 8"
UQ~~~~~~~ ~ mm~~~~~tIl~ ~
o
"
~
'"
'"
o
.
--.,...-- ... ~......... --.
--.-
L l
.:llflJIII
-
~.~.t.. .b.l.llll 1 111 1iJMlM1.IIJWlUWl""
,,--~--
:Jg~
.~.----.~- ....-~.-
I
---- . ---....... ,.-
- ........-~. ~}- -~ .,...... ~
... ~..... .... - "'--",. ............~- -...- ,.~
'1:' 't'-+,:',.. I~" :'..;, '.;,:':'"'/"":;'&}" "':,': ,','...' ,':' ~:,i :':.;-:';,::-
).~ " I,; ',' ~ "'.' ~r " " '." '. '. ".' ,_ .
L, .'., 1 \; .,1 , . 1 . '~IJ' .',' 1. 't .
.. . I l ~l " ,. . ~ . j.. " Y ;-- ~' , . , ~ ....
oJ , .,ll_ ,.: -'I' ~. '}.,J-", . ,-', "$,. ",,"/',
'. \ .\~.t ;,. ., ", >_.,'. I,
I'
:'
Lone Tree, Iowa 52755
February 08, 1993
Mayor Darrel G. Courtney
City of Iowa City
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Dear Mayor Courtney:
This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated February 2
concerning the proposed meeting of February 22 to discuss issues
of the Iowa City Water Resources Study. We do regret that you
and/or the City Council members will be unable to attend. We
would like to request that Mr. Ed Britton and Mr. Ed Moreno '
attend this meeting to represent your city with a presentation of
the proposed well field project.
I have also enclosed a list of questions that residents have
compiled and would like information and/or answers on concerning
the proposed well drilling by your city. These questions will be
addressed during the publlc meeting on February 22.
I thank you in advance for your cooperation. If you should have
any questions or concerns, please contact me at 629-5510.
Respeotfully,
77inol:fly Do UW-~~ (
Timothy D. Wilkey
Mayor
City of Lone Tree
3,a
I
I
.....
.....-- ~ -- ".....-- -.. .............-...-...... ,.-~ ""-r-
I
,\;, '. :~"":'r,:, '~,;:;-': '~~I ,'. .:(j; . . ,,' : , ",' '. . '"'' " : ~ :,"
~,':':~:'4J:::i::-{~l,:':."'::"" '...:':ZJ.. !'::"'., ;.:-,'-: ...:'~'<",
'1
,
ii
I
To Iowa City Council:
How much research has been done to see if this (our rural water
source) can handle this proposed large number of gallons over a
30 to 40 year period? How do you predict or project future usage
and/or problems?
Why are you going out of your own limits to "pirate" water?
Have you spent as much "tax" money looking for water within your
own city limits? (deep well s, Iowa Riverl.
Is It possible or feasible to create a property tax to provide
the money Iowa City needs? Perhaps spread over a 5 to 10 year
period the tax would be more easily accepted by Iowa City
residents. Because Iowa City has grown so much, thus increasing
their water use, they have also Increased their tax base. Many
people are building $300,000 to $400,000 homes. Perhaps for good
water they would not care If a small tax Increase occurred?
The area North of Iowa City (Coralville, Oakdale, Interstate 80
and 380) seem to be the areas that will be the prime area of
development in the next 10 to 20 years. Why not look for water
within that area?
Has Iowa City established any water conservation programs?
Why can't Iowa City be more restrictive on lawn watering and also
concentrate on water saVing devices (low flow shower heads, etc)?
I'n well head protection planning, who will set the rules? County
Supervisors or Iowa City? Is this not in County jurisdiction and
does DNR have set specifications?
Have the social, economic or legal costs been factored Into the
cost of the project? ex: displaced farmer, attorney fees?
Give a direct breakdown of all the costs: what percent for the
facility, what percent In main transmission, what percent in
insurance, what percent in upkeep, what percent In easement, what
Rercent in condemnation. Please give a breakdown in each of the
fifteen and thirty million dollar totals.
Iowa City Is going to have to build a new water treatment plant
regardless of what happens, why not build It at the Coralville
Reservoir and use the water there?
If Iowa City cannot find a suitable water source in the rural
area, will they be forced to river water only?
390
I
~ - ".-.----
- .. ~..~-....r T-w" - - .-r- --."..
... ........,..-...
.~ I,: t'..fl':"'" ,eH..io,:" ,::0:-/ ;' :tj'..:' ;: ',: '... .,,". .;,,:; :.:.....
'." r ,.:~. .'! '.,./. ',',' 1 Ii,' \;'. r' J ,
'~":r:"L,r .';~:::",' :~;'. ,',I ,,', ': '':'" ':, ,:,; ,:,..'>,', '.':
..
I
I
,
Why Is the Iowa City Council not answering our questions? The
questions now are handled by H.R. Green?
What are H.R. Green's qualifications to perform this study?
Are you aware of the problems Winterset has had with their water
because of H.R. Green? Wlnterset has a manmade reservoir and
H.R. Green said to drill wells and the wells would meet their
needs, which turned out not to be true. Now Wlnterset had to
turn back to their reservoir.
Would not H.R. Green push the plan that financially is most
beneficial to them?
I
Is It not in H.R. Green's financial Interest that they see the
project succeed?
Given past history of airport and sewage treatment facilities, can
their reports show any validity?
How muoh validity can the Iowa City Council place in H.R. Green's
engineering studies for this total project when they were proven
wrong in the initial water study Southwest of Hil Is which did not
meet the specifications as first represented?
What is the criteria that Iowa City must meet to reach the final
outcome?
At what point would Iowa City make a decision as to whether water
is or is not available? What amount of GPM is the deoiding
factor? Or how much money can be spent?
Why haven't the citizens of Iowa City been better Infqrmed as to
what Is going on and how much of their money has been spent so
far?
What provisions have been made in the funding of this project to
make restitution to the publlo If in fact this project would
render the aquifer useless, either with contamination or from
withdrawal constraints?
How can we be rest assured that all options will be given equal
consideration with as much money that has been spent already?
What does It take to stop the project?
3'lQ
I
'lII""'~ y-' --
.. .. .----..~- -r ~~...........,.....,... ,.~
WI' ~..,. - "'--", __ .--~-
({l.,.;'~).;',' ,'J-. ",.,',-+'1' '~,""', ::'.'"".",:.,.",:,',':>',~. ,'.,
'Ili,~,,' . i2l,' or I ,..'I"...." .." ';' '" ,--"
\., ..'~t.',.: :~t:, ;<:...:> ,:,;:"",,:,,\:.'" "":::",' "/"
DOWNTOWN ASSOCIATION PARKING AND TRANSIT COMMITTEE
February 4, 1993
To the Council members
Steve Atkins, City Manager
Dale Helling, Assistant City Manager
The Downtown Association (DTA) Parking and Transit Committee has spent a
considerable amount of time and effort to make a recommendation to the Council
on the issue of whether parking in the lower levels of the Capitol Street ramp
should continue to be restricted before 10:00 AM. We appreciate the data
provided by Joe Fowler regarding parking use and the number of tickets issued
in the ramp since the policy began, The DTA has also polled 88 retail and
food service members in the downtown area on this issue and received 41
responses to our survey.
The Parking and Transit Committee concluded that the policy now in
effect appears to have had the effect of decreasing the parking in the Capitol
Street ramp and increasing the use of the Burlington Street ramp, We believe
that instances of congestion I backed up traffic and gridlock have been reduced
during this past holiday season and that the availability of parking for
periods later in the day has improved, We believe that public acceptance of
the policy has been generally good and that many shoppers appreciate an
improvement in the quality of their downtown experience,
We realize that the public education process has not been an unqualified
success and that too many people have knowingly and unknowingly violated the
parking restrictions. Based upon recent efforts of the Old Capitol Center to
hand out warnings at the entrance gate, it appears that there is a small core
of parkers who refuse to be bound by the regulations. The number of parkers
who do not see or read the warnings and receive tickets has been decreasing
and the number of complaints continues to decrease,
Based upon the recommendation of the Parking and Transit Committee, the
Board of Directors of the DTA, at the January 26, 1993 board meeting, approved
the recommendation that the current policy be continued, That recommendation
also indicated that the City, the Old Capitol Center and the DTA all need to
continue public education, The DTA Parking and Transit Committee will divert
part of its parking promotion budget to advance public education and we ask
that the City improve the markings and signs used in the Capitol Street ramp,
3't/
,
I
:r .'.'~ .',,'.' ,1 :';.;.,.. -". "",,'7-/'~" " '~'~fZl-,:,.: . "'<< ~': ,:'"", ", ,',., ~y ';,,:'
I . , L.I " .21 ,,,.1 ,. I ' .'.. , .', ' "
~:'I:,~:l,t,:,.,\,:,:J~~;~"':':I'i-:' :', I"'J:,"'~' /.'~< ,:.'....~J~:,'
We remind the Council that the current policy was adopted because there
were clear indications that longer term parkers were using lower levels of the
ramp at the expense of shorter term parkers, We think that the Capitol Street
ramp is best intended and suited for short-term parking needs, the Burlington
Street ramp is best used for intermediate term parking and the ramp now under
construction will be best used for long-term parking. When the new ramp is
completed, economic and other incentives can then be applied to help
distribute parking throughout the three ramps, The issue of restricted
parking in the Capitol Street ramp could then be re-evaluated,
Attached are the results of our January, 1993 survey in which 24
respondents approved continuation of the current policy, 5 were neutral, and
13 opposed the policy, In addition, I have enclosed comments received by the
Old Capitol Center in response to survey they conducted,
Sincerely,
tIA /? h (~
Stan R. Miller, Committee Chair
400 Plaza Centre One
Iowa Ci ty, IA
354 1500
3~'
,
,
I
,
I
I
"
I
I
i
I
,
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
,
- ~ -- -
~~.......-- ....
-
.. ........'. .....,.- .......
.....
":." : ~. . ,...9-I~.; ,..;,;/ ; \Cr . :" :' ): '. '::' ',,:. ".'<,:"
I. ." L.." '.i I , ':Q_ ',' ,'. ' . " "
.",,' ...I~,;:' :',c~-:-,': ,'\\ ~ " "'~'\ -""" I",;'" '. ",' :'
DOWNTOWN ASSOCIATION PARKING SURVEY
JANUARY I 1993
ISSUE
The City of Iowa City has experimented this past fall with a plan to restrict
parking on the lower floors of the Capitol Street ramp prior to 10:00 A,M,
Please indicate your preference on this issue,
RESULTS
Retail location of respondents
Outs ide OCC OCC tenant Unknown Total
Strongly encourage the
current policy 9 5 1 15 m
Continue, with reservations 4 4 1 9 22%
Neutral on the issue 4 1 0 5 12%
I Prefer the policy be
discontinued 2 3 0 5 12%
Strongly against the
current policy 0 7 0 7 17%
Total 19 20 2 41 100%
3~1
,~i,;:,', 0-: ",' . 'in :::',:,lIl;" ," i(;;':< ", ':"..~ ':': ",;<: :,,' :: <:"
':", J:. <,~l,~'I:?l .1[..,", ',' '" """1"
.< .,1; :,:.I;~cl'\~' '--"l _.,' ....". . "",:
,
~
(J\
CAPITOL=
=CENTER
Tkf/tAli</ik(!~
Suite 300
201 S, Clinton, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 338.7858
Merchants Association
TO: Store Managers
FROM: Kathy Warling
RE: Survey on parking ramp and extended holiday hours
DA TE: Tuesday, December 29, 1992
I. Since this past August, the city has enforced the new parking policy in the
Capitol Street parking ramp, This policy prohibits people from parking on the
lower levels until 10 a,m, In the next few weeks, the Downtown Association
and City will be evaluating the effectiveness of this policy. Please take a
moment to evaluate how this policy has effected your store. (Has the
availability of parking increased/decreased for your customer? Do the
customers feel it is easier to enter and exit? Do they get to park on the lower
levels more often? etc",) Once a meeting date has been set I will be sure to
inform you. This meeting is an opportunity for you to hear the viewpoints of
other businesses as well as to express your own views,
I
J: L01Je... it-
X ~<...., hc<-Q S.~L tI-f Jl<A(L
~t L ~ b a e-L- ~\~t ev{" ~ -- ~fW\. elL; ~Lltt;~)
~brHAa1L~_lr/~~\~, \:(~ \rlf/{~ ~Y'\
~d;1/ k, - 'i ~"-' ''; v.. "u: v-I \ l \. '0 e
~I b' (\ j . ( j \
1\~Lf, _ ot (I If ~ i r- \ \~"\~ ~
It r'M - l~l tl-LUJ ",/1\...<,1" ' 6...<; c<L.-
I \ ~~~L-(d u-~ '
THE DOWNTOWN ENCLOSED SHOPPING CENTER
~,
-..r,r-.... .
-,.:- -
I
"...,-
.. .. ......--...-............~--~-T-r - - .-.,- .--
,.--JU' _-.......".- ....:........._ -.....
.' ','
-':; ,:':; L"!/: ,:., "l1!I...,:, kl '. ',;', > I.,",' .: <. ':~, ';/ '.:;:,'
\,:~ t,~." ;,:: ,:41;, ;.,"141,<,'; ; ... . <:..,',,: ,'. ',':":',
..- .'''," , ,
_JU'U.~ ~
(;}\
1"11__'
=",&&\ollo_
~~
Suite 300
201 S. Ciinton, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 338,7858
Merchants Association
".
TO: Store Managers
FROM: Kathy Warling
RE: Survey on parking ramp and extended holiday hours
DATE: Tuesday, December 29,1992
1. Since this past August, the city has enforced the new parking policy in the
Capitol Street parking ramp, This policy prohibits people from parking on the
lower levels until 10 a,m, In the next few weeks, the Downtown Association
and City will be evaluating the effectiveness of this policy. Please take a
moment to evaluate how this policy has effected your store. (Has the
availability of parking increased/decreased for your customer? Do the
customers feel it is easier to enter and exit? Do they get to park on the lower
levels more often? etc".) Once a meeting date has been set I will be sure to
inform you, This meeting is an opportunity for you to hear the viewpoints of
other businesses as well as to express your own views.
l'Y\o:,-\ o~ """\ c:.u.''=>'" oW\.e,\nS ~"'~ --\'he
OV' u.) o.\k, .lr\"'I:l~ ,^D.~ 11'\.0 c.o \N\W\.'H\.-\ ~
*"'-e. ~o.'" k\"'~ \^ o..V'\^.1l ,^ou.\"~_
b\.\,!:,
o..l.o~ \.\,-\'
THE DOWNTOWN ENCLOSED SHOPPiNG CENTER
. ,-,---, .
,~,
..., .
.-
~
,
~ fIF- V-'-
- ............... ~~.- .....".
I>':: '.,'t:, ; <~'~ ~"': ",~.;.;.,:.. ,,~{ " ':' ':',' , , ,,:,,:i....: ",
.. " ..[ ',. ., ,@."" ,', .. . ,
,"_,' .,:.' ".';" t ", ':'.);' ',- I ..: ' '" -,. "..,.'
. .L~II"'("_"J 1-"':: I.. " '.,.,.,'
, ." (i,> . \, , 1\." . ", ,,' ,','
I
~
CAPITOL:
= CENTER
Tit fI<NJ .( iJt C!Wj
Suite 300
201 S, Clinton, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 338,7858
'Merchants Association
/'
TO: Store Managers
FROM: Kathy Warling
RE: Survey on parking ramp and extended holiday hours
DATE: Tuesday, December 29,1992
1. Since this past August, the city has enforced the new parking policy in the
Capitol Street parking ramp, This policy prohibits people from parking on the
lower levels until 10 a,m, In the next few weeks, the Downtown Association
and City will be evaluating the effectiveness of this policy. Please take a
moment to evaluate how this policy has effected your store, (Has the
availability of parking increased/decreased for your customer? Do the
customers feel it is easier to enter and exit? Do they get to park on the lower
levels more often? etc..,) Once a meeting date has been set I will be sure to
inform you, This meeting is an opportunity for you to hear the viewpoints of
other businesses as well as to express your own views.
o QM ~i II IVllrU ~ WOYV\ QA,lZtOV\W1S
ttci pCVttIY\~ is YHull_ ruFFi'CJlfrt. 0 ~
~ C\.. Lo r 6D sru clt IJls fcU<.t. MJv {)lAlClJ
~ USfACL ftJ-- f1.~ {by ~'nqr to ~
~Q)l J, ~ \J.U-L +11- ~ tilL ~tuClUU~
oJ...-lU' Nfr ~~ .(-lu fYP.J..J-- \-0 9f-t
to GlClSS CCuu'--Dt ~ eN lttJcc/\j.d.
oLD r)of }kJr'\ IZ. it ha.'5 lne;t.Q~ DVJ
~SOWUI .~'I ~ tuV~
(01 fM'U1'l} HtIuJ." rM ~ ~ Wrrl1
~,
f(o:~
~E DOWNTOWN E~P1N~~ rm
3ql
I
~ __ - ~._ _n _. ..~...- --.,_~........".-
/'"
" ,,;,,,,,:'.', '~...,. ,,~- ,', {fi";":;" f''''.':',.", ,,' "',
12.:; ./ ,':"i :.",' ': ;': .:, ,.......:..' .'.,~I ,'<'./ .",:
. , ., t.. ," '" '" ':' , ' ..... ", ' ' '. ,,'
'. '," .....;.. ,1<-;\" ;~ ,'. .~.,:. ",' ~, ,.: ~'_ '..
._.__ ~_.___....__"_._. _ _.,.~__ ,._..__u. ._ _...___.... _.
fcJ\.
CAPITOL:
= CENTER
Tit fIw.t .( fk C!a.,
Suile 300
201 S, Clinton, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 338,7858
Merchants Association
TO: Store Managers
FROM: Kathy Warling
RE: Survey on parking ramp and extended holiday hours
DA TE: Tuesday, December 29, 1992
1. Since this past August, the city has enforced the new parking policy in the
Capitol Street parking ramp, This policy prohibits people from parking on the
lower levels until 10 a,m, In the next few weeks, the Downtown Association
and City will be evaluating the effectiveness of this policy. Please take a
moment to evaluatc how this policy has effected your store. (Has the
availability of parking increascd/decreased for your customer? Do the
customcrs feel it is easier to enter and exit? Do they get to park on the lower
levels more often? etc,..) Once a meeting date has been set I will be sure to
inform you. This meeting is an opportunity for you to hear the viewpoints of
other businesses as well as to express your own views.
j ():Mvlc a!~J ~ ~~, ~Z
$. /}iUheil ~(. :r
JjriJ0 . !? ~ Lfu'f1j aJ cUf
~t eM -/h-e r)f<y, c1~ -11,,-- '.
L ' , IM..j1~ [J:;t;jd ur
-'f 1/j1tvJ ~ ! U ,of) A 0/1J-. r-1IffL
~ vU/(,tGW
~ fO/JwiV
THE DOWNTOWN ENCLOSED SHOPPING CENTER
JCtI
.......
I
.......'-------- .----...-~..-~......-~~._- .-- -- - ~-----
? --.., ,. , . ~ - - . - --. ~.- "', ...,'
I~~'" "CL~ :)~:\:", :(:,': .,:;td ,;' .," .'.:',. .~ .,;.',; ,\.:"::::,"
'. '; f.iL . .~~ :'3.,. " lTl I ~: ":: " ", . '
II,. . . I ,'. ) }',. f' '.
t;J,
CAPJTOL:
=CENTER
Tk~-tlk(!a.,
Suile 300
201 S, Clinton, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 338.7858
Merchants Association
TO: Store Managers
FROM: Kathy Warling
RE: Survey on parking ramp and extcnded holiday hours
DATE: Tuesday, Deccmbcr'29, 1992
L Since this past August, the city has cnforccd the ncw parking policy in the
Capitol Street parking ramp, This policy prohibits people from parking on the
lower lcvels until 10 a,m, In the next few weeks, the Downtown Association
and City will be evaluating the effectiveness of this policy, Please take a
moment to evaluate how this policy has effected your store, (Has the
availability of parking increased/decreased for your customer? Do the
customers feel it is easier to enter and exit? Do they get to park on the lower
levels more often? etc...) Once a meeting date has been set I will be sure to
inform you. This meeting is an opportunity for you to hear the viewpoints of
Q~~;:'~".\~:lt'~k" 1\Q10 ~vhl (-
ouqlt Jwll, a'b'tfillDd of ~.m ,'i(\
iliclY\ It CGOD Vtcicclo nt+ tQ \ (){;
Q '-\0 '\)UVIG il'!l ~ \cvw li/u
~ YRl\illj ,(t Ql()-Iu~ u'11b
roD -h 'Pe\ Vr: (LV ffi\.,~ 1tQ
1120cl 0.4 WQt ~ rJ " 2)6
c9(\ lAXJ.rud () lftvlC Ol\.~ldJ &J
~4 ~ut fL\Ykl~ ll\ ~ -
(U.t'Ilp. ~ ViLcl tD cr wrl.
~~ LlYD ","61 ~DO() 1u-* t
THE DOWNTOWN ENCL'oJED SHOPPI&) CENTER 391
.......c
I
(~ ' \"':'1"''; ~;ITI:: '[ti" ,\ ~dt> ,:-,,:':': ":', ';':':::,',:-.-:~, ;':.,',
'r::J;,i",:',:.':~4f'," ,,':J~t,,: '.::'{.] :-:-., ':, ': ; ,',": ' "'.,'"
. ";.'
" '. .. ';'~i'lZJ:%;~i'~~t~F.~'(;:l!;1~i~~'ii8~t~{fif.~I' I~~ltffj(r~-
, '. 'i\)'>~:h;lsr.\j.i~:{~'M;~.~;.!~\\:~lf~~~W ~~~ ~. ~~@t~~i~&.~~~~rl'
. , ' \:.i"",":i'tl:~,~:;,.:.". i.:: :'.',~'1"i~i'~' : ~ ,. ,"~. ~tbll1.~ )!.:'
t ,..1 .r " - -'-\J,t',., ,\ ,1"I:\~;:I, )'1 ..1.1.......~),,-.'....I'Jt. I"r
'. ' ',lJ'''t';':'''(~ :~:."'. . .' ~'",~,,,.~ ...~ ~ , ':~ "r"~-~ !,I - ", ~.t ~ . ,- ;,
"f" '.':',"..!: ,'" '., r/:':,:\;f',:W~~',~/'/;i>':',::~:;;- \
'.I ~",' . .,
.,;,. ::' \ ',~'
'.J'
f' .
,: Id\
~~
1k /ItA.? 0( U. C!Wj
Suite 300
201 S, Clinton, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 338.7858
Merchants Association
TO: Store Managers
FROM: Kathy Warling
RE: Survey on parking ramp and extended holiday hours
DA TE: Tuesday, December 29, 1992
I. Since this past August, the city has enforced the new parking policy in the
Capitol Street parking ramp, This policy prohibits people from parking on the
lower levels until 10 a.m. In the next few weeks, the Downtown Association
and City will be evaluating the effectiveness of this policy, Please take a
moment to evaluate how this policy has effected your store. (Has the
availability of parking increased/decreased for your customer? Do the
customers feel it is easier to enter and exit? Do they get to park on the lower
levels more often? etc,..) Once a meeting date has been set I will be sure to
inform you, This meeting is an opportunity for you to hear the viewpoints of
other businesses as well as to express your own views.
J. ~~ /;{,u p.t1I.bi1j ran.p- ~ hro
~ ~ Wi~~~ ~~ I bltf
d-wu'nj tw. CJW~a-o ~ ~ maLt
~ct a:b Cf:oo am. ~a;& J1J f>>..t ~Wt;
rvOI
~ ti wv. ~aJ:t ~t1- J.~ (6h,~~ -' &npJ
had. io f~ ~ 'bY Uj1fJ-U ~ J .
DU.M!'1j W ho-fJ~ /; ViutJ- Us &OO/J
v~ 141~ %OA ~ ~
nML~ ~ ~I Y-W )~ '
)
THE DOWNTOWN ENCLOSED SHOPPING CENTER
~~,
\
fIIl1"- ...--' ~
.. ...... -- -"t -, 1 ~
, . . , :', ," ,'. '.:', , ' , .'. ..-.- \..' .. ~' ,
..., ' :tl/-' ""W- ': ";:tm-,t ._--t-i": ' '.';. '.' :/,~;~''- ',' C,', '
," : '.. , ''', v . 1 ~.;"", I,/,.~" ," ., :,I ~
. I' .. .' I -' ...., , _..../ '-:-..,.' ~
..... "" ;. ',,' I, ,,' ),~, ..,':. .,'." ~'.' I, ";'1'
.:,'. \_,"I,~"", ,~, "";"~'~"'...-' :"";~.,/ ':' ',," ',r
(;)\
CAP1TOL=
= CENTER
1ft I!<Nof 0( 'lk (!~
Suile 300
201 S, Clinton, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 338.7858
Merchants Association
TO: Store Managers
FROM: Kathy Warling
RE: Survey on parking ramp and extended holiday hours
DA TE: Tuesday, December 29, 1992
I. Since this past August, the city has enforced the new parking policy in the
Capitol Street parking ramp, This policy prohibits people from parking on the
lower levels until 10 n.m, In the next few weeks, the Downtown Association
and City will be evaluating the effectiveness of this policy. Please take a
momcnt to evaluate how this policy has effected your store. (Has the
availability of parking increased/decreased for your customer? Do the
customers feel it is easier to enter and exit? Do they get to park on the lower
levels more often? etc...) Once a meeting date has been set I will be sure to
inform you. This meeting is nn opportunity for you to hear the viewpoints of
other businesses as well as to express your own views.
..L
R....lc... ",.ft
s.......'" ~~.J ~$.&t
M<.t Md i;,." ') rr.- I/'VV\ ~~~
t\.:v-.I,- tt-. 1~-G....t
, I vu- l C> Jr,- VI
\ &-~c... ~
{^-~ +t.-
~ "^-~;\
b--~ l
\,........""..'" I
~ ~-1<-
(... j'od
"1)" ~>J...o..
, . M.Q...::;.L:w....
L-v-" tw'" ClI'o
~tN"',
THE DOWNTOWN ENCLOSED SHOPPING CENTER
391
I
fIF -- .".-.----
.. .. ...----..-~--......-II' '-r - - ....-r- --
~'\,\' ~.J ,~..:'.,' '....:' '~~'''''''l' ,.' ~"" .:> ','~~,<:"",~",<~:,<~.
I:', 't"'l . oft HH,,. .1, " "" '" "
. ,. I ~ '" .' i' " , I., ' ,,':: . "I . ,,' ",..' ,'"
:", '. ',10 I, "'" ,<I., '. ". " . .,' "t......-. '
.~, . ,; ,-=,. " ~ ", \ ~" ~ . \. , r . '. " "
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 11, 1993
To: The Honorable Mayor Darrel G. Courtney and Members of the City Council
From: Linda Newman Gentry, City Attorney
Re: Legal Opinion Request: Payment for Updating C pleted Maps as Part of the
Mapping Project for the City and County Assessors
ISSUE:
You have asked whether the Joint Conference Boards, established to approve and levy a
budget in order to carry out city and county assessors' valuation duties, may undertake the
task of up'dating completed parcel maps,
CONCLUSION:
It is my considered opinion that Section 441.50, Code of Iowa (1991) is broad enough to
incorporate the function of up'dating the completed parcel maps, State law permits, indeed
requires, the assessors to seek and obtain "technical or expert help to assist in the valuation
of property,..." The mapping project will eventually assist both the City and County Assessor
to make more accurate valuations of property in Johnson County, and thereby improve the
assessment process.
However, the question of whether the Joint City and County Conference Boards want to
approve such budget and levy is not a legal question, but a policy decision to be made by the
Boards. That decision has not yet been made, Indeed, based on the facts presented, the
decision is premature,
In sum, since the existing Contract between the Auditor, as "Contractor," and the Johnson
County and Iowa City Conference Boards explicitly deletes Slockett's up-dating function from
the mapping project, the Contract must either be amended, or a new contract written and
executed, J. Patrick White, Johnson County Attorney, agrees with my assessment.
FACTS AND ANALYSIS:
As I understand the facts, Tom Slockett, Johnson County Auditor and "Contractor" under the
"Contract for Tax Parcel Mapping and Permanent Real Estate Index Number System," has
requested additional monies in order to update and maintain maps already completed and
turned over to the City and County Assessors, However, there are no such maps as yet _
although I understand the Assessors anticipate the maps will be given to them within the next
1.3 months,
3'~
I
....
f51 - - "...._..._-~_..-.--
...,......,..-
I
I
I
i
I
I
i
I
,
r ..... - - .......-- ... ~ ,..
., ....... ~- ..... ,.. p
--.. -..,..-
~1,',: ~ '.- {;.. .'.ci\'.:O' ,;', :';...':::,,~ '::'.:~,
I. . , LOt. ...~, rT' .'1!Lf. ,\' " ", '. .." ,
,":." :f~, " ,:II~' . ;~~ (...~.: . '~.' '., '. ," . '.'. ,.
.2.
Once the Assessors accept those maps, as parI of the Mapping Project, I agree the maps
should be kept up to date and functioning, However, in prior negotiations batwaen the Joint
Conference Boards and Contractor Slockett, this function was explicitly written out of the
contract:
"4) New parcels created due to growth in the county during the project that
are located on already completed tax maps will be added to the tax
maps as a maintenance function pursuant to statutory duties of the
Johnson County Auditor, and shall be done by the Auditor."
Also, as City Assessor Hudson points out, the Contractor has not reached the maximum
allotted budget/lavy of $383,315. Hence, the Contractor's request is premature. Indeed. the
Contractor has not yet requested payment for mapping services, so there is no need to levy
additional monies at this time,
It is thus my recommendation that in the event additional monies are requested lovar and
above the $383,315), that the City and County Conference Boards meet to discuss the issue
as a formal agenda item, In a word, there is no need to reconvene the Joint Boards at this
time.
.
,
,
~
i
~
l
!
I trust this will be of some assistance to you, but please do not hesitate to contact me if you
have further questions.
cc: J. Patrick White, Johnson County Attorney
Dan Hudson, City Assessor
Jerry Musser, County Assessor
Tom Slockett, Contractor
n\mImO.I......or
3~~
- ...... . ".
i ~ irI!
t .....~- ".....- -. r .---..~-- ""-r--
I
:""Pft' "i1",' ':' '!H";" '1'- . '-' ',' ,rr, ',' "
, \ I, " , , I ," I. _ ' ~ ,
I ' I, '.. ' , I "" h, , . ' ".'
.... ' , . ~ ., 'i , ' :' , , '" :', r ' . ' .. . ~ .:
": ':J,. ....;.." , . ~'_."", .,tftJ., ..,PI "': :' " ,",''' . ,,', "
,I . ',"; ." \' 1'1.,' "It :',
,
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i Date:
I To:
\
From:
I
Re:
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
February 11, 1993
Honorable Mayor Darrel G, Courtney and Members of the City Council
Unda Newman Gentry, City Attorney ~
Status Update: Acquisition of Water Sampling Wells in Johnson County, Iowa
As you may have heard, a person In Pleasant Valley Township, located south of Iowa City in
Johnson County, Iowa, has asserted a compensable leasehold Interest In property over which
the City previously acquired easement rights, At this Juncture, It would appear that the claimed
leasehold Interest Is a "new Interest' that came after the City's fully executed and recorded
document. Thus, the "claimed Interest" would, we currently believe, be subject to the City.'s pre.
existing Interest.
We believe the City has done ali It could lawfully to obtain the property Interest needed to drill
the two-Inch water sampling well on the property, that the property where the City attempts to
drlills a front yard (as opposed to a cultivated farm area), and that the City has a lawful right to
proceed with drilling operations,
In the meantlme, condemnation documents for the other three properties are being prepared I and
we will continue to keep you Informed.
cc: Steve Atklns, City Manager
Marian Karr, City Clerk
Dale Helling, Assistant City Manager
Chuck Schmadeke, Public Works Director
Ed Moreno, Acting Water Superintendent
n:\mamos\wellupd,lng
3~J
I
!, ':"f-=-" :"ZI....'. '~.:..... t.~l;'...., .....,.. .'"",'.",
",", '.. _' I' '" .,' ::'.,' . \ .'
L . ",', .. i . I ,:" . ,I ,,"
'~~...,\~~~:/i~",_ ):',..~:~l',:. ,'~~~..'".,;':.'.'." ; ,'.:...~. '""','
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 11, 1993
To: Honorable Mayor Darrel G. Courtney and Members of the City Council
From: Linda Newman Gentry, City Attorney
Re: Partial Litigation Update: New Lawsuit
James Allen Yeltatzie and Theresa E. Spangler v. Johnson Co, Sheriff's Dept., Iowa City
Police Dept., et. al.; Civil No. 54693
City has received a copy of an original notice and petition in the above-matter, claiming false
arrest, defamation, and malicious prosecution by reason of various law enforcement and
mental health employees concerning the plaintiffs.
My initial review of the case is that City employees acted appropriately and lawfully, and I am
assigning the case to Anne Burnside, First Assistant City Attorney, fora vigorous defense,
I trust this will be of some assistance to you, but please do not hesitate to contact me if you
have further questions.
cc: Steve Atkins, City Manager
Dale Helling, Assistant City Manager
Marian Karr, City Clerk
Attachment
n:\mImO.\n.wllWll,lng
3'~
1:::\ ~fc'ic' ":'i!:!t ,~,,~'bl,', '':-:;-'-,,: ~c:~' ,',: ,:-.::":" Pi :>::~:
c',." \;'. I':.;)j . f9 ' ,.',. " ..
.:' <,,' ......-:o~.: "~~"\,:'. 11\ ..'I.', "i.'4 \~'.' " . ': ,'.'. '.",
IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR JOHNSON COUNTY
i
I
,
1
"
j
~
U
,
,
I
1
JAMES ALLEN YELTATZIE )
and THERESA E. SPANGLER, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. )
)
JOHNSON COUNTY; JOHNSON COUNTY )
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; CITY OF )
IOWA CITY; IOWA CITY POLICE )
DEPARTMENT; MID-EASTERN IOWA )
COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH CENTER; )
ROBERT DOLEZAL, individually )
and in his capacity as a law )
enforcement officer for the )
Johnson County Sheriff's )
Department; and VERONICA WIELAND, )
individually and in her capacity )
as a psychiatric nurse for )
the Mid-Eastern Iowa community )
Mental Health Center, )
)
Defendants. )
TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANTS:
civil No.
5Lfu~3
I.'"
Lv
c: .."
:'~ ..., ,--,
....~ -: tJ . :
~... - :
".
. .
,
:>
ORIGINAL NOTICE
R(;;CZIVEi:>
FEB 11 1993
CITY mORNEY'S OffiCE
You are hereby notified that there is now on file in the office of
,
I
the Clerk of the above Court, a Petition in the above-entitled action,
a copy of which Petition is attached hereto. The Plaintiffs' attorney
is John Wunder whose address is 610 Cedar Street, Muscatine, Iowa 52761.
You are further notifiedcthat unless, within 20 days after service
of this Original Notice upon you, you serve, and within a reasonable
time thereafter file a motion or answer in the Iowa District Court for
Johnson County, at the Courthouse in Iowa city, Iowa, judgment by
default will be rendered against you f,or the relief demanded in the
Petition.
,
"." ". I'.
cd7~/~~1pl0-. 6-; '&rW
Clerk f the Dlstr ct Court
Johnson County Courthouse
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
NOTE: The attorney(s) who are expected to represent the Defendant(s)
should be promptly advised by Defendant(s) of the service of this notice.
39Y
~.....- ~ -" ".-.---
.....
- .. ~.~-- v-", ,-.... _ ~
/. ' -.',', '", , ,'.." \
,o', ' _' ,/iiiio . (} '~I '. ..,., ", ,
I~:\,;),tlli:':',""'~~',:",:; ,:~;0J'".,.<it;,~" :' ":'" ',':.:-':::'," ,,:"',
.: '7 O-Y 5ot, f, (1, r
IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR JOHNSON COUNTY
I
I
I,
I
I
i
!
l
i.
I;
!
~
,
!
!
I
JAMES ALLEN YELTATZIE )
and THERESA E. SPANGLER, )
)
Plaintiffs, }
}
v. )
)
JOHNSON COUNTY; JOHNSON COUNTY }
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; CITY OF )
IOWA CITY; IOWA CITY POLICE }
DEPARTMENT; MID-EASTERN IOWA )
COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH CENTER; )
ROBERT DOLEZAL, individually }
and in his capacity as a law )
enforcement officer for the )
Johnson County Sheriff's )
Department; and VERONICA WIELAND, }
individually and in her capacity }
as a psychiatric nurse for )
the Mid-Eastern Iowa Community )
Mental Health Center, )
}
Defendants. )
FEB 11 1993
CllY AtTORNEY'S OFfiCE
civil No.
s1~9$;;
u a '""
~!:t~ ....., j1
(l)c:'. 'I
0...,- t'T\ .
:c C Q;) --..
n~,'" - r
CCI'tn _
i~;:; fTl
-'n:; :ta
-<"'0 :z:
on::;' -
",0,,", Ii? 0
~c:("j
~::: (..)
... ,Q
AMENDED PETITION
"'i~I"":IV~D
,"t.... "'..... 'U
\
COMES NOW Plaintiffs, pursuant to Iowa Rules of civil
,~
I,'
Procedure 88 ana 89, and hereby submit their Amended Pet,itip~ <Is.
, ,
follows:
FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS ,
, ..
;:-~-
,-:
~ ....
:-.,
:J
,
1. That Plaintiffs James Allen Yeltatzie and Theresa E.
Spangler are residents of Johnson County, Iowa, and at all times
materials hereto were husband and wife.
2. That Defendant Johnson County is a "municipality" as
defined by Chapter 613A.l{l) of the Iowa Code, and as such is
responsible for the actions of the Johnson County Sheriff's
Department. Defendant Johnson County Sheriff's Department is a law
enforcement agency in and for Johnson County, Iowa, and as such is
391./
I
~"'" ~,'",..,...'~, ~i..., .:,f,l...:,,'.".",:.'.",..,.. ",',:' >.;,'
I., 'L 1 "Ii1, I ' ", " " ,""
:.' f:: -: ...~,~1'71> '''1... ,I"~ >,..... ...,. ,"', . i: . ..',:
.' 1 .......,;.."1_. \ .. \
responsible and accountable for the actions and conduct of its
employees in the performance of their duties.
3. That Defendant City of Iowa City, Iowa is a
"municipality" as defined by Chapter 613A.l(1) of the Iowa Code,
and as such is responsible for the actions of the Iowa City Police
Department. Defendant Iowa City Police Department, Iowa City,
Iowa, is a law enforcement agency in and for the municipality of
Iowa City, Iowa, and as such is responsible and accountable for the
!
I
j
1
.
,
(
,
f
I
I
1
~
I
!
I
I
I
I
actions and conduct of its employees in the performance of their
duties.
4. That Defendant Mid-Eastern Iowa Community Mental Health
Center is a non-profit mental health organization, and as 'such is
responsible and accountable for the actions and conduct of its
employees in the performance of their duties.
5. That Defendant Robert Dolezal is a resident of Johnson
County, Iowa, and at the time material hereto was acting in his
capacity as a law enforcement officer for Defendant Johnson County
Sheriff's Department. JUdgment is sought against Defendant Dolezal
in his individual capacity as well as his capacity as an employee
of Defendant Johnson County Sheriff's Department.
i
I
I
I
6.
,~,
u
Defendant Veronica Wieland is a resident of Johnson
:,::-: ~~ . ;
Iowa, and at the time material hereto was actiiig. in-her;
, -
County,
-
capaci ty as a psychiatric nurse for Defendant Mid-Eastern :~owa
Community Mental Health Center. JUdgment is sought aga~nst . ,
.)
2
31~
~-- "., -- y-.~
. ".~T~-""-r ..,...,~.......",....,~ ,.-
-. .......,..- ............-...
;\ ,:' L;I:'::',,;Z(:':, :,',P:I', . ': !,O:;';~/ ','> ~~,~~:',:': ':', ::>:,"
.,'.:,~tJ,.~. ..~.,t._ ,.~,(J, . "'~:'\.':0 .'",' . \~;..\.
Defendant Wieland in her individual capacity as well as her
capacity as an employee of Defendant Mid-Eastern Iowa _commu~ity
,'" .."
- - rl "'1
Mental Health Center. .J "
COUNT I
- -, ::
(MALICIOUS PROSECUTION)
C: ,
::-)
.,
-~
Plaintiff James Allen Yeltatzie repleads Paragraphs 1 through
6 above as though fully set out herein.
7. That on February 10, 1991, a Ms. Julie Heim, a/k/a Julie
Wilcox, reported to the Johnson County Sheriff's Department that
she had just been kidnapped and raped by Plaintiff James Allen
Yeltatzie. Ms. Heim was encouraged and accompanied by Defendant
Veronica Wieland, who was acting as an employee of Defendant Mid-
I
Eastern Iowa community Mental Health Center at the time, to report
this alleged crime.
a. Ms. Heim was interviewed by Defendant Robert DOlezal, who
was acting in his official capacity as a law enforcement officer
for Defendant Johnson County Sheriff's Department.
9. Defendants Veronica Wieland and Robert Dolezal knew, or
should have known, that Ms. Heim's report of criminal conduct on
the part of Plaintiff James Allen Yeltatzie was false.
10. Defendants Johnson County Sheriff's Department, Robert
Dolezal and Veronica Wieland enlisted the assistance of the Iowa
City Police Department to further investigate Ms. Heim's
allegations. Notwithstanding evidence proving that Ms. Heim I s
3
39q
-
.....'MI'&...11 ~ I
,..1 J1W!
.-
.
-
!
i
I
I
I
!
\
!
~
Ii
1
.,
~,--
- .........'
::: " I' ~ .." .,,'''' : I' :\ '- 'to . r'...~~ . J:' .,'1." :'~: ,~ .' - . ,~. ",_,.'
I' "fll... ~Zl,> ,lZl ., ',. " . ,." . ,
-.:".~.....[ '. <. :~:cr., : ~7J::" ..~. ",',.., , ,',:::,", ~.':.'
.~.li . _,. ' ~IL~,. ,....,., .,'., ....
, ", ,',N'.)' " ./., I '. " " ,
I.::'
(...1
CI -,
- ;"
: '.. :;'1
, ,
allegations were fictitious, Defendants obtained a searc~:w~rtant
r:: '.'
from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County to search 'the
...)
residence and business offices of Plaintiff James Allen Yeltatzie
for evidence of the fictitious kidnapping and rape.
11. On February 13, 1991, search warrants were executed at
the residence of both Plaintiffs; the office of Plaintiff James
Allen Yeltatzie at University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa
city, Iowa, and his office located in Muscatine County, Iowa.
12. No evidence of the alleged kidnapping or rape was
discovered. However, other items of an alleged incriminating
nature were discovered.
13. Based on law enforcement officers' observations of those
items, a subsequent search warrant was requested and granted
purportedly authorizing law enforcement officers of Defendants
Johnson County Sheriff's Department and the Iowa city Police
Department to seize those items. Both Plaintiffs were subsequently
indicted for various criminal offenses by Johnson County Attorney's
Trial Information. That prosecution was entitled' State v. Theresa
E. Soanqler and James Allen Yeltatzie, criminal Nos. 26981 and
26984.
14. Plaintiffs, through their respective attorneys, filed
Motions to Suppress the items seized by Defendants Johnson County
Sheriff's Department and the Iowa city Police Department. After
a contested hearing, the Honorable,Judge Larry Conmey sustained the
4
39r
I
,., - - - .".-.--
. .. ~"-~---"'-r----, --y - --r- ..--- ,.~
---.. ...-
i: '" t'~' ':'.:,:' ,jffl-": ':: '~-:'i't:i: ;; :' "., '. " ,";,,. " ,: , ,:''':'.;.' "
I., , ' - " , 'l \, ~ , ' , ~
.., ,I"" ,. , 'I ,'.~- ....,. ~: " '.',',.",
. ..'T'......'.:..l'>:;~~.,~:. "\1."....,.." 'I ~.'. ,J", :~'t""'" _ ~ '",:1_"
Motions to Suppress on September 12, 1991, and ruled that all the
items seized by the Defendants could not be used at trial. That
action effectively terminated the criminal prosecution in favor of
the Plaintiffs, resulting in the dismissal of the charges against
both Plaintiffs. Judge Conmey held that the Defendants acted "with
reckless disregard for the truth," and further ruled that there was
"no probable cause" to believe that Plaintiff James Allen Yeltatzie
had committed the al,leged kidnapping and rape, which was the
underlying basis for the original warrants.
f
~
I;
~
.
I,
,
l
,
II
1
I:
l
I
t
I
I
15. Said conduct on the part of Defendants Johnson county
Sheriff's Department, Robert Dolezal, Iowa city police Department
and Veronica Wieland was maliciously contrived and was intended to
injure Plaintiff James Allen Yeltatzie of his good name, and to
bring him into public disgrace and scandal.
16. As a direct and proximate result of the actions by the
Defendants described above, Plaintiff James Allen Yeltatzie
suffered the following damages:
a. embarrassment and humiliation;
b. mental anguish;
c. attorney fees in defending the criminal prosecution;
d. harm to his future prospects of employment;
e. harm to his character and reputation, including
social and business standing;
".,, "" ',"
, . .'. ,." I,....
"'.: '\.01 i.; II "";.: :"J
5
. .1."
39~
--~--. "., - ~--
,.....~ ..--~ 'V'W'" ,~
- .. ......-~.~-.....r ,... '
... "~---""""'."""'~
,
":':' t7f :,' ,:;rrt'.:,' '(:i:':~;,",",,' :.'.:<,".,.~':',:' :.>:.::,:'
I~ ;;,...t:.J., :.' ')2:1',; : ":"~71,'; "', 'c'>J: ,', ,', ,:'~': : :~, "':'
f. loss of consortium, companionship and society of his
spouse to which he is entitled; and
g. invasion of his privacy.
17. Defendant's wrongful actions were with the malicious
design and purpose of injuring Plaintiff James Allen Yeltatzie so
that in addition to his actual damages, Plaintiff James Allen
Yeltatzie is entitled to punitive and exemplary damages.
18. By reason of the' foregoing damages and injuries,
Plaintiff James Allen Yeltatzie has sustained damages in excess of
$5,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff James Allen Yeltatzie demands judgment
against the Defendants in a reasonable amount (or actual, general
and punitive damages, together with interest as provided by law,
and the costs of this action.
\
COUNT II
(MALICIOUS PROSECUTION)
Plaintiff Theresa E. Spangler repleads Paragraphs 1 through
14 of Count I above as though fully set out herein.
15. said conduct on the part of Defendants Johnson County
Sheriff's Department, Robert Dolezal, Iowa city Police Department
and Veronica Wieland was maliciously contrived and was intended to
injure Plaintiff Theresa E. Spangler of her good name, and to bring
her into pUblic disgrace and scandal I' ". '''',
,. ., "..,' oj
" ,
l... ~ '..I II"
I i ::.J 2";
6
. . .. ~
3?~
\
.....
- ,......- - ..---..-......-...-~- ........
~- ..
::':',:~ :", ..t"": ',,:CD', ','Ct ,:' <. ~ ::':> .:,:':;:::
I., ,L.". )ll "!::1 ',In. "', . ."
.","J,':','~, ,1..\,',..4'..:. I~l ~I. . ~_\ ,.: ". "'" _.,"
16. As a direct and proximate result of the actions by the
Defendants described above, Plaintiff Theresa E. Spangler suffered
the following damages:
a. embarrassment and humiliation;
b. mental anguish;
c. attorney fees in defending the criminal prosecution;
i
,
j
,
,
,
,
~
i
~
"
!
:\
,
"
I
~
i
d. harm to her future prospects of employment;
e. harm to her character and reputation, including
social and business standing;
f. loss of consortium, companionship and society of her
spouse to which she is entitled; and
g. invasion of her privacy.
17. Defendant I s wrongful actions were with the malicious
design and purpose of injuring Plaintiff Theresa E. Spangler so
that in addition to her actual damages, Plaintiff Theresa E.
Spangler is entitled to punitive and exemplary damages.
18. By reason of the foregoing damages and injuries,
Plaintiff Theresa E. Spangler has sustained damages in excess of
$5,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Theresa E. Spangler demands jUdgment
against the Defendants in a reasonable amount for actual, general
and punitive damages, together with interest as provided by law,
and the costs of this action.
.'...., 1'111' ''''1"'
". ",."
. ""1
II ""J"'-
C' ," ~;~~J
,; '., .. ~
7
.......
39q
;~~'":'L71i','i,;m,::'''~:P:I,:'::';,,a,., ,", ", ,:":,, ':":,
. =,JJ'f' J" 2J,,~ ~71 ,~;~",. ", " .," ',J,
", , . ~ . 'I ,. ,
COUNT III
;;
p.
"
,
~
~
~
I
"
I
~
i
~
!
I
,
I
1
,
f
,
!:
\
l~
f!
l
~
H
,
,I
(i
i;
jf
I
i
I
I
(ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE)
Plaintiff James Allen Yeltatzie repleads Paragraphs 1 through
15 ,{ Count I above as though fully set out herein.
16. The underlying search warrants were obtained in violation
of Chapter 808 of the Iowa Code for lack of probable cause.
17. As a direct and proximate result of the actions by the
Defendants described above, Plaintiff James Allen Yeltatzie
suffered the following damages:
a. embarrassment and humiliation;
b. mental anguish;
c. attorney fees in defending the criminal prosecution;
d. harm to his future prospects of employment;
e. harm to his character and reputation, including
social and business standing;
f. loss of consortium, companionship and society of his
spouse to which he is entitled; and
g. ' invasion of his privacy.
18. Defendant I s wrongful actions were with the malicious
design and purpose of injuring Plaintiff James Allen Yeltatzie so
that in addition to his actual damages, Plaintiff James Allen
Yeltatzie is entitled to punitive and exemplary damages.
'. ., .,' I '~" ,. ,'"
,:'.'_',' ,..' '.' ,',,:, ~ I
; :" I' II' :'JJ ~J-
\J'; '.., I, __
8
. . 1_..
"'I
I
-
.---..-~....- .......,..-.....". , -r - - '-,.- -..,- ...... l.........y.
:::' ',,:'L~/~-' '.0 "'~' i~1 :,.:>~ ':'.': ",- ....", ':" .
'-,,"1/ ':' ~","r","r" '11."- ':' '. "", ",
~,;.. " ~ '~~ " 1 " ,"" \ "1, '.".. -:--- ., ~ , j.. \ ' ,\ . ':, ,'.' " ~. "\) ..' ", J
19. By reason of the foregoing damages and injuries,
Plaintiff James Allen Yeltatzie has sustained damages in excess of
$5,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff James Allen Yeltatzie demands judgment
against the Defendants in a reasonable amount for actual, general
and punitive damages, together with interest as provided by' law,
and the costs of this action.
COUNT IV
(ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE)
Plaintiff Theresa E. Spangler repleads Paragraphs 1 through
15 of Count I above as though fully set out herein.
16. The underlying search warrants were obtained in violation
of Chapter 808 of the Iowa Code for lack of probable cause.
17. As a direct and proximate result of the actions by the
Defendants described above, Plaintiff Theresa E. Spangler suffered
the following damages:
a. embarrassment and humiliation;
b. mental anguish;
c. attorney fees in defending the criminal prosecution;
I
I
I
I
I
I
d. harm to her future prospects of employment;
e. harm to her character and reputation, including
social and business standing;
. .. I '\' I' ".' , ,. I ... ~
; .'.. .l' ...
~~ :C; ; ,','
II --:: J~'
1.4...", ..,)
9
" '-M
lIf
.~......-~--
......
,
,
,
,
I
!
i
,
~
),1
"
1
'I
\
g
~I
,.
.'
~.-
i.~
Ii
\
.1
,
,
;;
I ~
ii
1
,
r
,
i
1
j
"
t
t
,
v- --
- .. ..--------.~--....". ,...... - - ....r-
-. ,.-
----~.
t
':': ~," , ..; i: ~ "':, " '. . " : " ,'~ ::,' .: :',
.. U" ItS)' .l,., '.' .1 I . , , ..,. ' '. .
I~:"-;::'j:":":m:<',c.,, ',: \'~,:: ~,',: '; ,", ' <::,:
f.
loss of consortium, companionship and society of her
Spouse to which she is entitled; and
g. invasion of her privacy.
18. Defendant I s wrongful actions were with the malicious
design and pUrpose of injuring Plaintiff Theresa E. Spangler so
that in addition to her actual damages, Plaintiff Theresa E.
Spangler is entitled to punitive and exemplary damages.
'19. By reason of the foregoing damages and injuries,
Plaintiff Theresa E. Spangler has sustained damages in excess of
$5,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Theresa E. Spangler demands jUdgment
against the Defendants in a reasonable amount for actual, general
and punitive damages, together with interest as provided by law,
and the costs of this action.
COUNT V
(DEFAMATION)
Plaintiff James Allen Yeltatzie repleads Paragraphs 1 through
12 of Count I above as though fully set out herein.
13. That sometime prior to the presentation of the original
search warrants to a JUdicial Officer for endorsement, Defendants
Johnson County Sheriff's Department, Iowa city Police Department,
Mid-Eastern Iowa Community Mental Health Center, Robert Dolezal and
Veronica Wieland, in their respective official. ...~apacities,
. ,~ ..,.. .
maliciously prepared and composed "Attachment 'A" of:'th~ original
j... ,'1,
" '.",,' II ,-, J
.... :'-
~..... }
10
'.
"L...
391/
\
'fC'" - y----
- .. ...------.... ~- .....r ...,....,~. - -r- - ~,.~ _ ~... ....... - ....
.' , .'., " . - . ,', '.; ". ~ . I . ,. ' ",' ( . " .
.\ .:...' 'j. ,,1- "',:~t . '.." '.'"
""'0:' "~; .'t>,/:." ',':l..I' : ' , : .,'. , ", ":
L", ' ," I , .. ," 'It"';".'- " .' , .'
'~"''', 'J' '''I~~ '.':,':J,~.:, ,: "r~~1 'I'~, ""~'.. "''';: ,':."
warrants, said writing of and concerning Plaintiff James Allen
Yeltatzie by name.
14. That said writing was defamatory and untrue.
15. That this defamatory portion of the search warrant was
delivere'd by the Defendants to the Clerk of Court, where it was
eventually filed and made available to the public. This writing
prepared and subscribed to by the Defendants was intended to
convey, and did convey to any reader, the impression that Plaintiff
James Allen Yeltatzie kidnapped and raped a woman in rural Johnson
County I, Iowa. Any person to whom this defamatory writing was
communicated understood the writing to have said meaning. That
writing has exposed Plaintiff James Allen Yeltatzie to public
contempt and ridicule, has deprived Plaintiff the benefits of his
potential clients' confidence, and such is libelous per se.
16. This defamatory' writing, communicated as described above,
was calculated to cause great injury to Plaintiff's professional
reputation, in that it was intended to cause Plaintiff to lose his
professional standing and loss of employment and freedom.
17. As a direct and proximate result of the making and
publication of the untrue and libelous writing by the Defendants,
Plaintiff James Allen Yeltatzie has suffered the following damages:
a. embarrassment and humiliation;
. b. mental anguish;
'. ., ...' .' "r .."....
c. attorney fees in defending the criminal prosecution;
I', ,'''1'',/
:. .....i.ot
II ,-" I~'
l..;':.J:..J
11
.....
39f'
~-- f5' -- ........~
....,
.. .. ..----. ~~- ..... r ..,.....,-----. - r- - -,-- .... -"'"r - ... .~......,.. -
. ,
":, "":~7J':' Ii': .t-,' ' .... d .': " ,"," '::', ',.'; ::'
\: ,''-,ti:, :',' ',~D1 ;:" , (" 3l, "', ..' :,: " " ",", ~,
d. harm to his future prospects of employment;
e. harm to his character and reputation, including
social and business standing;
f. loss of consortium, companionship and society of his
spouse to which he is entitled; and
g. invasion of his privacy.
18. Defendants I wrongful actions were with the malicious
design and purpose of injuring Plaintiff James Allen Yeltatzie so
that in addition to his actual damages, Plaintiff James Allen
Yeltatzie is entitled to punitive and exemplary damages.
19. By reason of the foregoing damages and injuries,
Plaintiff James Allen Yeltatzie has sustained damages in excess of
$5,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff James Allen Yeltatzie demands judgment
I
against the Defendants in a reasonable amount for actual, general.
and punitive damages, together with interest as provided .by law,
and the costs of this action.
COUNT VI
(DEFAMATION)
COMES NOW Plaintiff James Allen Yeltatzie, and hereby
DISMISSES this Count, without prejudice.
......,' ,." I"',""
.. .:0' ,.,1..1
I;'; '.....1...
I' '~J"'
I ~:'.J .....)
12
.,'"
-
-
--
,...~lMIfI1UIlIJtfl
.-
JT
3~q
~\:'.,~, I:": ,', .'" _' '..t~' ':' ".,' '"."'" ,',,>,,', .'.
" "t I ,b), l, ',' "',, '\ . ,,'. "
's ,<J~:,<' X\":J,',"} C.:,' :i",.; ,", i ',' ,,' "..',':',."
COUNT VII
(SECTION 1983)
Plaintiff James Allen Yeltatzie repleads Paragraphs 1 through
15 of Count I above as.though fully set out herein.
16. The above-described actions by Defendants Johnson County
Sheriff's Department, Robert Dolezal and the Iowa city Police
Department were performed under color of state law.
17. Said actions deprived Plaintiff James Allen Yeltatzie of
his rights secured by the United States Constitution and laws,
including United States Code Title 42, section 1983.
18. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct,
Plaintiff James Allen Yeltatzie has suffered the following damages:
a. embarrassment and humiliation;
I
b. mental anguish;
c. attorney fees in defending the criminal prosecution;
d. harm to his future prospects of employment;
e. harm to his character and reputation, including
social and business standing;
f. loss of consortium, companionship and society of his
spouse to which he is entitled; and
g. invasion of his privacy.
19. Defendant's wrongful actions were with the malicious
design and purpose of injuring Plaintiff James Allen Yeltatzie so
" :'. -j! I' . r' ',". ~ ,
that in addition to his actual damages, Pl~intlff ,~ames Allen
, '
'; :~; ::'} 1 f "":j r-
"'- ....'
13
,
. 'I..
39'1
I
'\.:',,'.' ....\"...:,'~. ": :"'~/" ,,;,,~~:', :,::,.:"::~,:. ;.,':..:,:...'\",,:'1"
I.. .to' I", " l" ,,',', "." ,.
~,><"J~,...'.-':, ~,.....,.'\;. J~:, .:' "~..:,,;." I,' ,.,' ,':',' "'. ,A,'
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
.
I
,
i
I
I
!
i
"
I:
,
~;
,
"
j
'leltatzie is entitled to punitive and exemplary damages, and
reasonable attorney fees in pursuing this action.
20. By reason of the foregoing damages and injuries,
Plaintiff James Allen 'leltatzie has sustained damages in excess of
$5,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff James Allen Yeltatzie demands judgment
against the Defendants in a reasonable amount for actual, general
and punitive damages,' together with interest as provided by law,
attorney fees, and the costs of this action.
I
I
I
COUNT VIII
(SECTION 1983)
I
,
. ;
Plaintiff Theresa E. Spangler repleads Paragraphs 1 through
15 of Count I above as though fully set out herein.
16. The above-described actions by Defendants Johnson County
Sheriff's Department, Robert Dolezal and the Iowa City Police
Department were performed under color of state law.
17. Said actions deprived Plaintiff Theresa E. Spangler of
her rights secured by the United States Constitution and laws,
including united States Code Title 42, section 1983.
I
18. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct,
Plaintiff Theresa E. Spangler has suffered the fOllowing damages:
a. embarrassment and humiliation;
b. mental anguish;
, .'''' I' . , . . ." ~ ,
'. " '.,
c. attorney fees in defending the criniinal prosecution;
I ," ", I t ,-;J.......
j - '...., ... I I."....J:...;
14
399
~--fF- 'r'--
.. .. ....-~'~- ....... .,....~..--:r"'~ .,.~
- ...--..".-- -.......-~;- .....,... --
\
;:,' f'...;.,'i:.".".,~',:, 't~/':" ~'m-< : >,' . :,~'", ':",.:'
::'.... ' ',' I ,',',','. :'1 :,',' ,': '.:.;, - .-.,' ",
, " I' i . -, , , , . ',-' . , '\' .
I. ....,~ " . _ ",.., ..' ....... ~; \.......). , ."': ',~ ',. ,,': ~ \,",
d. harm to her future prospects of employment;
e. harm to her character and reputation, including
social and business standing;
f. loss of consortium, companionship and society of her
spouse to' which she is entitled; and
g. 'invasion of her privacy.
19. Defendant's wrongful actions were with the malicious
design and purpose of injuring Plaintiff Theresa E. Spangler so
that in addition to her actual damages, Plaintiff Theresa E.
Spangler is entitled to punitive and exemplary damages, and
reasonable attorney fees in pursuing this action.
20. By reason of the foregoing damages and injuries,
Plaintiff Theresa E. Spangler has sustained damages in excess of
$5,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Theresa E. Spangler demands judgment
\
against the Defendants in a reasonable amount for actual, general
and punitive damages, together with interest as provided by law,
attorney fees, and the costs of this action.
L,-.
. ' " ' . ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS
. " ~ "
"
,';1 'M'
.. .,"
. , .'.
.. ~.
, r" J ~'l
II ....1"
..-
15
..,
, '., ~. , ."
\:.. '"
,.
I."
"
--
rlll'--'~ ~J...Jw!:Il\""~n,.n_.I'MlAUII
.~,- .&...~.... !.. ._~~
J?1'
I
............. .......,- ....... "". - - .-.~ -- ......
',' "f'"":"/"""'~'~"':"~-'.': ''';'1:'.: ,,',',:::,,',,:'
"~' ,'. " . . " ,\ ..( . " ' . :' " -'. '.' '
L. I I . . \ '. .
.~.",,~,~: ..:.illl,......,.'.,,~<'..~,,),. \..::1......, .', ,,'~:.' .',1
February 5, 1993
Timothy D. Benton
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Law Division
Department of Justice
Hoover State Office Building
Des Moines. IA 50319
RE: State of Iowa v, City of Iowa City; Law No, 54672
Dear Tim:
-'\;:&..
CITY OF IOWA CITY
Enclosed please find one copy of the completed acknowledgement of service, which I
understand you will file with the Clerk of Court in Johnson County, While I will be filing an
initial Appearance with the Clerk in this matter, the defense of this action will,be conducted
by John Hayek, of Hayek, Hayek & Brown in Iowa City, Bremer Building, Iowa City, Iowa
52240, telephone number 337-9606,
I am sure I will be seeing you sometime in Iowa City, and please do not hesitate to call me if
you have any questions,
Cordially yours,
.~
City Attorney
cc: John Hayek. Retained Counsel
Chuck Schmadeke, Public Works Director
Steve Atkins, City Manager, FYI
Mayor Courtney & Members of the City Council, FYI
nUIlllfl\bMlon
410 EAST WASIIINOTON STREET I IOWA CITV, IOWA 52240.1126 1"191 lU.JOOO I FAX (li,) JU.SOO'
'395
"
... ~ - ,,-.----------...---..-~...- ......,.~
,J, - ',' , I'J, '\' '. , ' , ;, ", . " . .
. "L"':" '[:Jr.,"" "8'" ,,' """ ,,':,: "
~. ","',',f- ,..',~'71,::>".(, '-', i ',',' , ',"~ ,', "J .>~
.\,.......:,''1...,_..,j ',; ,......,
, ", ",'1 . ,_', ,\ " '. '{,
SOUTHEAST IOWA
PRESIDENT
DON ORR
Mayor, Columbu. Junction
VICE PRESIDENT
BOB GUST
Mayor, Willon
DIRECTORS
JANETFIFE
Council Member, Keokuk
HAROLD KElDERMAN
Mayor, O.kaloo,"
JEANElTE PHILLIPS
Counol Member, Museatine
IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT
ROBERTA BOITSCHA
Mayor, Hill.boro
SECRETARY.TREASURER
EARLENE LEKWA
Cieri<, Columbu. Junction
\
SOUTHEAST IOWA MUNICIPAL LEAGUE
p,O, Box 209 Columbus Junclion, Iowa 52738 (319) 728-7971
ATTENTION: SOUTHEAST IOWA OFFICIALS AND
ASSOCIATE MEMBERS.
The February meeting of the Southeast Iowa Munioipal
League will be hosted by the City of Mt. Pleasant.
Meeting Date: Wednesday, February 17, 1993.
4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. tour Wal-Mart Distribution
Center. Meet at Wal-Mart Distribution Cente1'.
(See map.) ,
Following tour, go to IRIS RESTAURANT, mff 34 frest.
Regist1'ation and Sooial Hour: 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Dinner: 6:00 p.m. Three meat buffet dinner, $10. 60.
(inoludes tip and tax)
Business meeting will be held following dinner.
,
I
i
i
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
P1'Ogl'am speake1' to be announoed.
To make reservations, please oall the Mt. Pleasant
City Hall to Florenoe 01 omon , 319-385-1470 on 01'
before Fellruary 12, 1993.
3~'
--,
"., - -.".-. - -.
(:,': :';t7t;::,'>:ff1,::,,:::tl;:',),~>"~' :".,.,.:.,:':': :,:,:,,;,'>.>; :'):,;:
'<;:!"'~'J~l .",~':'l"l;~.;,r"., ','~~~.:: ~',." 'I~ - I',',.':,' \ " '1".,'. . _ ,,,,,:.. -.,':,'
. I
. + -
s
C.J
,
: ..... M ~ 'i:~l ~ ~= 00= ~ ~ II !'
~.' ',,)~(:~~.Il;' . "~
. 11~...,:lrIJ~.
,
, I ,
. . .. ,I~ . ;
" ~"I"-\
'1. " ~
.,' ." .....
(' ,~~._.J
.'...............11
-j-
~
p
"
.."
-j- .,.
r... ! 1',1
~ H V~::;~
,'\ ~'t j
~ '!,:iT
-.J . "'!'!_
~ !.!',
i
,
,
.
.,
I~' .i~\ ~ .q~.o
\l~ '~I' I'
'" ~ I I . I
;,\ 'II! ~ I .i~ ia
Ill, ; mn
; g~m !
" -\111'
IP::
= !I;
ii;ili
, '.
. .1~qa
, 1'1
.. " , I: I[
.....\ L.. ,\u \
. r II '
, " ; I' ~
,'" lin
.' ,
: ..1 i '1 ~I;
. . I
i ,I ,Ii
"s'1w
i II ',II
! igli~l
'IJllin
'I~ ':'''~;I''''I' "~'I'\I't. I
~;.!( { ~I .Il..'
'I' I ~,,,<<I C .
I . . ,,~ ' :\ .,."t
; . '1'1-;:(.1.,:
.'t'l ' 'l~r.l, -(.II I.. ; :1...
!
! ~ I
, ~IIII
liP1@
~, I
,
~ ~ I
ffi ~ a ~~ h~
~ ;! E 8ft jjlil
1.-:.. 0 31 ~ ~S:l ~
F" ~ · 8 UI~ d ~
~ ~ filhi~
III '
...
m
3q~
...... IF - ..
.
- ..... -- ~'.....,.
~:' , : i,~, .' '.:,' Ill': ,.>",'" : :"~rj;":. .' ,\,"" ,.,'.." ':'" :, '.':':': ,',\
I::'..:,:: ra;,,'::0J'/' ,C-':':',,~~~f::: ;':. " '~.' ...,.::,';: "::''.',:'::.'::,':~''
1{,(, lxs 11c';'d ;f~!sh('
I
OffIcials hope to haR conflicts
between fanners and
homeowners with a
right.to.rann ordinance.
BY ERIN HAWSSY
S.\S f)L\Ntl'l(IICIlIllJ.lmU
. Walnut Creek, CalIf. - The east.
em reaches of Contra Costa COuntY,
dotted with apricot orchards, com.
fields Wld graJX:vines, possess some
of the finest growing soli In Callfor.
nla,
But the largest crop In the past de-
cade has been affordable homes, Wld
they have attracted newcomers who
do not always realize that noise, dust
Wld pesticide go hand,ln.hWld with
the bucolic landscape,
County officials hope to halt the
Increasing conflicts between the
farmers Wld the homeowners with a
proposed right.to.farm ordinance
that would outlaw "nuisance" com,
plaints over agricultural activities
while requiring home,buyers to be
Informed of the'lnconvenience or
noise caused DY agriculture.
"we want to support the
fanners," sald County Supervisor
Tom Torlakson of Antioch, who rep-
resents eastern Contra Costa Coun"
ty, "I'm not sympathetic with some-
one saying, 'I Just moved In here Into
this ranchette, Wld I don't like the
noise next door.' "
Such conflicts have become com.
mon In recent years as suburban
sprawl has extended Into rural areas
across the Bay Area and eisewhere
, In California. Land once thought to
be the natural province of farmers
Wld ranchers has become attractive
real estate for commuters and others
foreed to consider outlying areas to
find affordable housing.
Some new settlers In Contra Costa
County say the proposed ordlnWlce,
which b scheduled for a public hear.
Ing before the board of supervisors
by the end of the year, would de-
prive them of their right to due pro-
cess. Some have complained that
pesticides Wld other chemicals used
In farming can preSl!nt health haz.
ards to the rest ofthecommunlty,
Farmers and ranchers say they
need the law to help them survive In
an Inherently risky business, The
drought and recession, coupled with
competition from huge San Joaquin
Valley growers, puts enough stress
00 them, they say, without addition.
al pressure to shut down from neigh.
. bars who do not appreciate the un.
. pleasant ILlpects of I1lrnl life.
More tlmn 800 fllrmers raise crops
In the (1I\Int)', said Agricultural C~m'
!lev, / /9 '1:2
)
".:'.../....
missioner Jlltk DeFremery, About
200,000 of the county's 400,000
acres b rangelWld tor cattle, he said.
"We need some kind of protee-
tlon," said John Glnochlo, a rancher
Wld former presJdent of the Contra
Costa Farm Bureau, "We have a
right to farm, We've only been doing
It for generations."
G1nochlo said rWlehers spend
much of their time dealing with
neighborhood compWnts about dust
Wld noise from their herds. They
also spend time fighting vandalism
Wld trespassing by new neighbors
who often see an open field as the
perfect dJrt.blke arena.
Farmers, meanwhlle, deal with
complaints not only about noise Wld
dust but also about pesticide spray.
Ing and driving their slow traetora
on busy city streets, said Leonard
<rl!rry, who owns about 100 acres of
apricot and peach orchards around
the fast.growing city ofBrentwood,
During the 19805, Brentwood
nearly doubled In population, to
about 8,250, Wld It anticipates grow.
Ing to 118,000 by the year 2020. The
neighboring communlty of Oakley
nearly tripled In population durinll
the 1980s, . . . I
"P!!Ople drive by with a ReRltor
Wld they see beautiful green croPS, I
and they think It's a park," <rl!rry
said, "They're not parks, We're try.
Ing to advise people before they buy
Into an area to let them know what
to explrt" .
Homeownera, however, say that
they should have rights even If they
were not In the area first, They say
their ability to complain or to sue
over farming practices would be
stripped away by the ordinance,
Comella Yarborough.Nunes, who
bought a two-acre property next to
an apricot orchard In Brentwood
three years ago, said she will sue to
get the ordinance overtUrned If the
Board of Supervisors approves It
Yarborough.Nunes, an outspoken
critic of local farmers, said she was
enchanted with the beautiful coun.
tryslde 'when she first drove
through. Since moving In, she sald,
her two sons 'have suffered pest!.
c1de-related IIIn~.
"I was probably pretty naive at
that point, as people are when they
move out here," she said, "They
should tell people about the cheml.
cals they use here." '
Gerry said fanners face a higher
risk from pesticide exposure than
the homeowncrs, so they make sure
the chemicals are applied properly,
"You have to USl! care, and we use
It," he said. "I don't think there's Wly
-real safety problem," .1
.( fl'tlt. /1':" ~'ct)
~~
~:
'=r
S:: ~
o ",".I
~.~
'0 s:
,t:i (D
'=:.=
,~. ft
3"
..... ~....- -v------.---.. ,.. -- -,.- ....., 1--
,~::':,CI'<,,:::(j'>' ).;, '/: ':,) I' '.', . "', , ' ' " :', ',',< ~';' . ;:: :::, ,:
.' ;"..r~ ' ,~}'f.',,-,'l ,t,tl~' ':~1'4'" J,'; ,I, "", ',I ,.
, " " " "," \' " "',
-,
,1,,111\1011 Counl)'
~ \JOWA~
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Patricia A. Meade, Chairperson
Joe Balkcom
Charles D. Duffy
Stephen p, Lacina
Betty Ockenfcls
February 9, 1993
INFORMAL MEETING
Agenda
1. Call to order 9:00 a.m.
2. Review of the minutes.
I
j
c?
(.,)
. 3. Business from the County Engineer. 0.(") -;;; o"J
~,.:.~ C:' ,;",,:1
:7_~ , ,.~.I
, (") .-:, tJ1
. bids received for salt storage shed and the roof. :::,(,.; -:l
~\ .... ,'.
. f"1 -'
O?:i to)
...-::--: .'
:;'
"';' ,-
" ...
a) Discussion re:
b) Other
.,
4. Business from Sally Murray, Department of Social Services:
I
a) Discussion re: Case Management Application renewal.
b) Other
5, Businejis from Bruce Ahrens, AFM Senior Farm Manager of Farmers
National Company re: rental of county farm/discussion.
6. Business from the County Auditor.
I
i
I
j
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
a) Discussion re: review of final FY '94 budget.
b) Oilier
7. Business from the County Attorney.
. '
a) Executive Session to discuss strategy re: S.E.A.T,S. collective
bargaining,
b) Other
.'
913 SOUTH DUBUQUBST, P,O. BOX 1350 IOWA CITY, IOWA 52244-1350 TOL: (319) 3SWlOO PAX: (319) 3S6{086
3f8
\
I
\
!
!
1
I
l
I
j
l
..
~
~
~
"
"
i
I
l'
.I
~
l
!
!
. I.
i
~
!
I'
I;
,
l;
j
~
t
\
(:
):
"
,
fJ
t
[
i
;1
.
,
.',,, 'f~/' ~" '. ,:"/::, -t,'.:':" :"" . ,",: >:':' ,-:'
::.",\.. , '-:1'. "rl'~' ',t, , ,,'.,
l~ -, : '. I ',' I .' ).~"'" " "'J'" ,l ",
,.. 'J ~" -';'.'\\," . ~" -', .~~\ ;., '. ," , ",
.. w' I .;....
.~'IU nO,UUd r.02/L
,
'..;
. "
Agenda 2.9-93
P:lgc 2
8. Business from the Donrd of Supervisors.
a) Reports
b) Other
9. Discussion from the public.
10. Recess.
'!
,
f
,
I
t,':) I
.,. c..~ ,
~- "'l i
.' -, O'l /..... ,
.' ,
'. .' ~.~. :-, . . ,
: , i
- . I ,
-. :'1 !
.. I I
,-'.
'" -., ,
.. ":" I
-' !
~~'-. ~.,~
....,.. i
'.
.- " !
'.'
,
i
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3q8
\ . ':i-j'/","'k)' t' i, ,>... · " ,,," -"-, ., ,
I",' t.'.' 71 ,.",. ,.fl. '.., ," ",.,
.~, <:,,-';" ',: ;" ;-:: : ,,~i.. ' ";zJ;, '-': ...' " '., "." ",: >:
Rev BV:XEROX TELEeOPIER 7011 : 2-10-93 e'35AM'
~OHNSqN COUNTY AUDITOR TEL:3l9-356-6086 .
319 356 60e6~ 3193565009:" 1
Feb 10,93 8:20 No.004 P,Ol/O?
-
Jolu"on County
\ IOWA ~
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
i
I
I Patricia A. Meade, Chairperson
, Joe Bolkcom
Charles D. Duffy February 11, 1993
Stephen P. Lacina
Betty Ockenfels FORMAL MEETING
I
Agenda
,r>
- to1
c:: ,,_. .,., r'"-'-'
: '-' r1 . j
. ....... ~ '.
,.-......
- "
('- 0
-
"
-'.
~. .'p . -
"
--~,
0' " r,?
.:..
. . ,~
'.:J
1. Call to order 9:00 a.m.
I
,
i
2. Action re: claims
3. Action re: minutes
4. Action re: payroll authorizations
5. Business from the County Auditor.
a) , Action re: permits
b) Action re: . reports
c) Motion to authorize the Auditor to publish the FY '94 proposed .
, budget summary with expenditures of $27,970.341.00, revenues of
$27,338,368.00, and ending fund balances as follOWS:
$ 380,000,00
~
953,321.00
1.1J',780,OO
2,738,00
ll.OO
Other Special Revenue funds 1.2.1,566,00
All Expendable Trust funds ~
General Basic
General Supplemental
Rural Basic
Secondary Roads
Capital Projccts
Debt Service
for the public hearings on February 23, 1993 and March 2, 1993 at
5:30 p.m,
d) Other
,_"" ,~, ""'" ""'.'110 'f2L: (9) 356-6000 PAX: (319) ~4~ '
I
~-- ".....-
- .. ~..-~-....--,---, W' - '-r-- ...-,- -.... ~ 'V
,:f"" :f::,' \ ': ,"0 ;,\.'. .:',',.:: ':'J!:f" ~" "'~\'::" .': ,:,,:"':, ,,',. ~':~
~\ .,...'u~ [,..,~r:J .' ~l"-[' " ,T1J ',:" :~''''n . '. ~ ," ,,','
, " ~. _, " , , , ' I" , ., '. ' f'" ',.'
JOHNSON COUNTY AUDITOR TEL:319-356-6086
Feb 10,93 8:20 No.004 P.02/07
Agenda 2.11-93
!luge 2
6. Business from the County Attorney.
a) Report re: other items.
7. Business from the Board of Supervisors.
a) Action re: bids received for salt storage shed and the roof,
b) Action re: Case Management Application renewal.
c) Action re: rental of county farm.
d) Other
8. Business from the Assistant Zoning Administrator.
a) Discussion/action re: to set public hearing for conditional use
permitlhome business application CU9303 for Edward Wallace,
b) Motion setting public hearing.
c) Other
9. 9:30 a.m. . Public Hearing on Zoning and Platting applications:
a) First and Second consideration of the following Zoning,
applications:
1. Application Z9252 of Robert W. Wolf, Iowa City,
requesting rezoning of 11.82 acres of a 200 acre tract from
RS Suburban Residential to RMH Manufacturing Housing of
certain property described as being in the NW 1/4 of the SW
1/4 of Section 18; Township 79 Northj Range 5 West of the
5th P.M. in Johnson County, Iowa (This property is located
on the cast side of Scott Blvd. NE, .25 miles south of its
intersection with American Legion Road NE in Scott Twp.).
m
......,
I
,;".\t,,:': ~., ',":'.:':::',: .,.......,... .":;" ...',,'
/.' ". to' . " " '-(' " , 't:..::!" .', '., . '""
,~;,;,~,::,:\,.,:. ;,~': :<';, :,-.:"",',:8f,~..:. : ,", :.;'" ,: ':,,:':,' :..,:.':>,
Rev BY:XEROx TELECOPIER 7011 ; 2-1lJ-Q3" ,-.
JOHNSON COUNTY AUn !TOR TEL: 319-356-GO~c;"1 ;
.:..1.;:;0 ~~c t;'u-::C"1
Feb 10,93
-.. ----'-'-..
8:20 No,004 P,03/07
Agenda 2.11-93
PaKe 3
2. Application Z9255 of James Stockman, Iowa City, owner,
requesting rezoning of approximately 1.34 acres of a 5,81
acre tract from Al Rural to RS Suburban Residential of
certain property described as being in Lot 1 of J & S
Subdivision located in the NW' 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section'
10j Township 78 North; Range 6 West of the 5th P.M, in
Johnson County, Iowa (This property is located on the east
side of Oak Crest Hill Road SE, approximately 1/4 of a mile
south of its intersection with 480th Street S8 in Liberty
Twp.).
I
I
I
I
I
,
i
i
i
3. Application Z9256 of David J. Lindemann, Cedar Rapids,
and Michael Burkett, Solon, owner, requesting rezoning of
approximately 1.95 acres of an approximately 16 acre tract '
from Al Rural to RS Suburban Residential of certain
property described as being in the NE 114 of the SW 114 of
Section 22; Township 81 North; Range 5 W(}st of the Sth
P.M. in Johnson County, Iowa (This property is located on .
the south side of 180th Street NE approximately 112 mile
west of its intersection with 160th Street NB in Cedar Twp,).
4. Application' Z9257 of JOhll Meade, Iowa City, owner,
requesting rezoning of approximately 1.00 acres of a 159
acre parcel from Al Rural to RSSuburban Residential
described as being in the SW 1/4 of the SW 114 of Section
22j Township 79 Northj Range 7 West of the 5th P.M. in
Johnson County, Iowa (This property is located on the
north side of Rohret Road SW, approximately 1/8 of a mile
east of its intersection with James Avenue SW in Union
TwP.)'
S. Application Z92S8 of Holly Wellendorf, Iowa City, and
Robert Am, Iowa City, owner, requesting rezoning of
approximately 1.04 acres from Al Rural to RS Suburban
Residential of certain property described as being in the SE
1/4 of the NE 114 of Section 5; Township 79 North; Range 5
West of the 5th P,M. in Johnson County, Iowa (This
property is located on the west side of Utah Avenue NE,
approximately 1/2 mile south of its intersection with 340tl1
Street NE in Scott Twp.),
3qg
'"
I
I~:;'" ,::~'i~l':' , ,/~i~:' c. :'::/' 'I' ',:;ij:,, .':, "', ,,'::" , "/:"i",'
" ,",: ",' rm... '\" . -=---/19, . :<" ""1'",1 .;,'
':', ,~.,_'"I~,:",.'." ",,'-1' '-'~.I"'" " """ ,,:','\ :."'.';
" . ~ "",. .'.... '-" 'I..
JOHNSON COUNTY -A"uDI'TOR'.TEL':3'lg._-356-6086"" ,
.....~ .':,0 ':.1.:Cc;..,
Feb 10,93
.:..i.:;O'::~C:;:'vU::';R ...
8:20 No.004 P.04/07
Agenda 2-11-93
Pnge4
6. Application Z9259 of Neil Brusha, Solon, requesting
rezoning of approximately 20.87 acres from Al Rural to RS
Suburban Residential of certain property described as being
in the NE 1/4 of Section 24; Township 81 North; Range 6
West of the 5th P.M. in Johnson County, Iowa (This
property is located on the north side of Sutliff Road NE,
approximately 1/2 mile east of the intersection of Iowa
Highway #1 and Sutliff Road NE in BigGrove Twp.).
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
j
I
,
7. Application Z9260 of Braverman Properties Inc., signed by
Cordell Braverman, Iowa City, requesting rezoning of
approxima!ely 133.3 acres from Al Rural to RS Suburban
Residential of certain property described as being in the
North 1/2 of Section 21; Township 79 North; Range 5 West
of the Sth P.M. in Johnson County, Iowa (This property is
located on the north ~ide of American Legion Road SE and
west of Wapsi Avenue SE in Scott Twp.).
b) Discusslon/nction re: the following Platting applications:
1, Application S9067 of Marvin Bontrager and, Jim Boller,
signed by M M S Consultant Inc., requesting prelimin~ry
and fmal plat approval of Boller's First Subdivision, a
subdivision of certain property located in the SE 1/4 of the
NE 1/4 of Section 35; Township 78 North; Range 8 West of
the 5th P.M. in Johnson County Iowa (This is a I-lot, 3.44
acre farmstead split, located on the west side of SW
Cosgrove Road, 0.25 mile south of the intersection of SW
SOOth Street and SW Cosgrove Road in Washington Twp.).
2. Application S9068 of Lloyd Hochstedler and Jim Boller,
signed by M M S Consultant Inc., requesting preliminary
and final plat approval of Boller's Second Subdivision, a
subdivision of certain property located in. the SW 1/4 of the
NW 1/4 of Section 36; Township 78 North; Range 8 West of
the 5th P.M. in Johnson County, Iowa (This is a I-lot,
10.00 acre farmstead split, located on the east side of SW
Cosgrove Road, 0.25 mile south of the intersection of SW
Cosgrove Road and SW SOOth Street in Washington Twp,),
199
'"
.....- fF -~ .......-
.. ... ~...~- ....-r---., - -
..
\
t~:;,"'" (",\ 'i:,:' "~' .: ::' "~',' ,', "-"" :..', ',"; ': ':, "'- ',:: ,:':,
I. '" [' "', I ' ",I,'. " ".,./ ' , " ' , ", , , '
~::,~" '.~~ :'>:~ ".\. ~~,\ ..:\ '~";"4 l';"~'-'~' .: :,,~'_.<," I :':"
JOHNSON COUNTY AUDITOR TEL:319-356-6086
Feb 10,93 8:22 No,Q04 P,Q5/07
Agenda 2-11-93
Page 5
3. Application 89233 of Fred B. Charbon requesting
preliminary and final plat approval of Charbon's Third
Subdivision, a subdivision located in the SE 1/4 of the SE
1/4 of Section 35; Township 80 North; Range 7 West of the
5th P.M. in Johnson County, Iowa (This is a I-lot, 36.00
acre agricultural subdivision located 1/8 of a mile south of'
Highway #6 on the west side ,of Deer Creek Road' SE in
Clear Creek Twp.).
4. Application S9290 of Sand Road Farms Ltd., signed bY' Jack
Tank, requesting preliminary and final plat approval of Sand
Road Subdivision, a subdivision located in the SE 1/4 of the
NE 1/4 of Section 26; Township 78 North; Range 6 West of
the 5th P.M. in Johnson County, Iowa (This is a I-lot,
12.00 acrc, farmstead split located on the west side of Sand
Road SE, approximately 1/4 of a mile south of the
intersection of Sand Road SE and 540lh Street SE In Pleasant
Valley Twp.).
I
I
I
,
I
I
i
S. Application S9292 of Richard' L. Brue requesting
preliminary and final plat approval of a Resubdivision of
Lots 26, 27, and 29, Woodland Valley Estates, a subdivision
located in the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 22; Township
80 North; Range 6 West of the 5th P.M. in Johnson County,
Iowa (This is a 2-lot, 3.35 acrc, residential subdivision
located on the south side of Oak Park Drive NE,
approximately 400 feet northwesterly of the Intersection of
Oak Park Drive NE and Oak Park Court NB in Penn Twp.).
6. Application 89293 of James W. Stockman requesting
prcliminary and final plat approval of a Subdivision of Lot 1,
J and S Subdivision, a subdivision located in the NW 1/4 of
the NW 1/4 of Section 10; Township 78 North; Range 6
West of the 5th P.M. In Johnson County, Iowa (This,js a 2-
lot, 6.32 acre, residential subdivision located on the east side '
of Oak Crest Hill Road SE, approximately 1/4 of a mile
south of the intersection of Oak Crest Hill Road SE and
480th Street SE In Liberty Twp.).
~1t'
.....~-....-
"
I
.---r .. ~.-~__ ....".
, ..... - - . -7- -- - ,-
.... -T-
1~:;<'l~1 '..,.,'iJ.,;. ~;,::,:'", 'I:C(' \.', ,:;' ','..:' "",:,"'!;",:",,;. ,,'
,~', ,:,\.;...::;:,~;?~r:,;,~:,/ ::"l;J',":' ..',:...'~>/': /:>
Rev BY:XEROx T~LEeOPIER 7011 : 2-10-93 B:38AM'
JOH~SON COUNTY AUDITOR TEL:319-3S6-6086 .
319 356 6086~
Feb 10,93
3193565009:" 6
8:23 No,004 P,06/07
Agenda 2-11-93
Page 6
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
i
I
.
,
,
I
I
i
I
I
,
!
i
I
!
i
I
7. Application S9294 of Holly J. Wellendorf requesting
preliminary and final plat approval of Digby Grove, a
subdivision located in the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 5;
Township 79 North; Range 5 West of the 5th P.M. in
Johnson County, Iowa (This is a i-lot, 1.21 acre, residential
subdivision located on the west side of Utah Avenue NE,
approximately 1/2 mile south of the intersection of Utah
Avenue NE and 340th Street NB in Scott Twp.).
8. Application S9295 of Dale E. Sanderson requesting
preliminary and final plat approval of Pumpkin Flats, a
subdivision located in the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section
21: Township 79 North; Range 5 West of the 5th P.M. in
Johnson County, Iowa (This is a 2-lot, 11.09 acre,
residential subdivision that contains one non-buildable lot
located northwest of the, intersection of American Legion
Road SE and Wapsi Avenue SE in Scott Twp.).
9. Application S9296 of M. Alice Lindsey requesting
preliminary plat approval of Lindsey Estate Subdivision, a
subdivision located in the NE 1/4 of the NW 114 of Section
15: Township 81 North; Range 7 West of the 5th P.M. in
Johnson County, Iowa (This is a 24.lot, 92.15 acre,
residential subdivision that also has three non-buildable lots
located on the southeast side of James Avenue NE,
approximately one mile south of the intersection of James
Avenue NE and 120th Street NE in Jefferson Twp.).
10. Application S9297 of Lila Jean Murphy, signed by Randall
L. Williams, requesting preliminary and final plat approval
of Beckman Addition, a subdivision located in the NB 1/4 of
, the SW 114 of Section 10; Township 79 Northj Range 5
West of the 5th P.M. in J olmson County, Iowa (This is a I.
lot, 4.72 acre farmstead split located on the north side of
Lower West Branch Road SE, approximately 1/4 of a mile
east of the Intersection of Lower West Branch Road S8 and
Wapsl Avenue SB in Scott Twp.).
..---........ -- -..... ..~
i'
!
, .
,
I
398
,
I,
I
I
,
I
i
I
~
.. .... -- ~...........,. - ....... ~ , -- - - ...--
. ' - -,.~ - ~ ~ - ~
.. '"' ,".....,....-.- - ...-- .~
!
.':, .' . " f-:'/' " ."",:. .. ',:. .' ,... ,: ' : : " " . ; . .
I.,' , ' ..bJ", .,', ,,[j' ", ".' ",' , ',' "
.. .,',' " 1>':~.r:9:' ',>,~" .... ~ ,\Tl' .;,',1..';,1",' ','- '..,'.... ,,':'.>
, ,.,~ _ .,1. !'.. ,'Ii, _ ,- ,.. , .
," ",I" \' ". ' ,','," " , ,
Agcnda 2.11.93
Pagc?
10. Adjourn to informal meeting.
11. Inquiries and reports from the public.
12. Adjournment.
i I
'3~
-...........- -- .....r ,......... ----- '-r-
...... fIF - - ....,-.___-w-.- . ....,,,
~,
! ,'.. ...:: '~. : ,'t~ "t9'" ':'" :,,:,' ': ".' ," :;',::; ".\
;::: "'I;'f:':l'~"" <. "~:':~ >-, ',,:.,:-:-1: ,. > ':'r _ 1. ,':':-"l~:
' ,", . i , ,I .. ,t" I .',' , , .' " ,','
.. .' '."~ -'i.l. I ..' . "~':'! . _ ~, " , . '" "',. I." _,
.:,>;",~j:..,,\I,:,.:-:,'",e",,-~, ,.t~ \. '~'. ." "', . l"~
Conflict Resolution The Presenters The Program
& Mediation Training Both presenters come highly recom- This training oilers a "hands-on" ap-
mended by Noa Davenportol the Iowa proach to improving skills used in con,
Connicts and disagreements will ai- Peace Institute, nict resolution, You will gain compe-
ways be a part 01 our lives, but they ... Lois Crane, of Iowa City, has 16 tency in the step-by-step process
don't have to be frustrating, stresslul, through:
and counterproductive, Conflict reso- years of experience as a school psy- ... An examination of conflict and I
lution processes can transform conflict chologist with the Grant Wood Area ,
Education Agency, She has partici- responses to conflict, ,
into an opportunity to hear and be I
heard, to understand others and be pated inseveral conflict resolution and A Skills practice, inc1nding: !
understood, and to generate solutions mediation trainings through the Com- I
that work lor everyone involved, Us- munity Board Program in Grinnell and I active listening I
ing these processes, you and those in San Francisco, as well as through the I "I" messages: making needs and I
around you will be able to resolve dis- Community Dispute Settlement Cen- interests known in non-threaten- I
agreements through communication ter in Cedar Rapids, She has attended ing ways I
instead of fighting,shuttingdown, giv- the "Train the Trainers" workshop of- I brainstorming for solutions ,
ing in, or sabotaging, fered through the Iowa Peace Institute, I evaluating solutions I
She is an experienced mediator and I demonstrations of role-plays, and I
...When: has trained school faculties and stu- i
I active participation in role-plays, i
Saturday, Feb. 27, 8:30 am - 3:30 pm dents in peer mediation programs in i
and Sunday, February 28, 1 pm - 7 pm many area schools. ,
Presenters will use activities, skits,and I
On Sunday, presenters and partici- ... Bill Eckerly, of Cedar Rapids, is a visual aids, Handouts will be avail-
pants willschedule two additional two- consultant in communication and con- able,
hour role-playing sessions for further nict resolution, With a background
practice. which includes experience as a minis- You can useconnictresolutionskillsin
... Where: ter, hospital chaplain, counselor, me- your own lile, You can also use them as
Grant Wood AEA offices, diator,and director of a conflict resolu- a mediator, an unbiased third party, to
200 Holiday Road, Coralville. tion center, Bill is especially interested facilitate others in resolving their con-
...Cost: in helping empower people to take nicts through communication,
Tuition is $100, Partial scholarships control of their own lives, Hehas facili-
tated workshops for groups of people The way to become good at mediation
are available, in private businesses, non-profitorga- is practice and honest effort. This train-
... Other informalion: nizations, churches and colleges, and ing is designed to benefit ali interested
Saturday's training will include a helps people learn skills to achieve participants, including experienced
simple lunch and snacks, On Sunday, mutually beneficial outcomes to con- mediators, However, no previous
snacks will be provided. nicts, training is necessary,
Registration
DYes, I will attend the Conflict Resolution & Mediation Training,
... This training is being offered in
response to local demand and is be-
ing coordinated by Annie Tucker,
354-1250, Please call Ms. Tucker with
any questions you may have.
... Enrollment is limited, so please
respond soon to ensure your regis-
tration.
Name
Address
Phone
... Please enclose the registration form and a check in the amount of $100 for
the entire tuition and send to: Mediation Associates, 1425 Oaklawn Avenue,
Iowa City, Iowa 52245,
... If you seek a partial scholarship, please contact Annie Tucker at 354-1250
before you register.
... II you are interested in holding a
training in your businL'5s or organi-
zation, please contact Ms, Tucker at
the number listed above,
Brodlllretlesigllrd by lotli D,M,"/,"ae/e, Iowa City
3"
I
':::'" ':'t''":'/';~''~' ,,';:,, ' " ,; " ,:: ';.', ." '.'. ", >"" '., .'".., :'"
L. .\' I 'I""'" \'. "., ' J,
.: '.- ~...../: \,;.v '> I -..~',:., 1'-1 ',,~ " " :\.,,'.. " ,":'.,'
mzs I!MOI I All] I!MOI
anuaAV UMl!pjl!O SZv!
sall!possV uO!lI!!paW
i
I
I
. i
Unraveling the knot:
a conflict resolution & mediation training
Februanj 27 & 28, .1993
Grant Wood AEA A Coralville
3"
,
.......
I
't"'". -
-..-......... ~.........,.- .....,-.,.""'Y' - .. "-.-r-
_- ,.1IIJPl -.. ~ T-
... ,~.....- ~-.......-"',.. .
i
" . . ' . . .' ',' ~ '.
.\. .' ... .' ", ":"":":' ":.~l" " ' ..', " " ;.,'
, t'/ ~' ."",,~, """"
I."'." .' ',..., .. :',- '.'10'" '. ".': ,",' ::.;
.. ' '. .\ ",.. , "
. . ,"'. ,
" J r, "i.. . ... \. . , '. .
" '" . ,....... ,', ,~. \ ',- -' . ,
SVGGS llMOI I ^l!J llMOI
anUah Y UMllPlllO sm
SalllpOSSY UO!lIl!paW
Unraveling the knot:
a conflict resolution & mediation training
.,
Februanj 27 & 28, 1993
Grant Wood AEA A Coralville
i
I
i
I
i
,
I
I
I
,
,
I
I
~-
. J _--dl~
.~I. ..U:l..I~~,ru__ __~____________._____--'--____~~
.....
..
--
,
j,
~l'::'''''':'m-'':''-:; 1-.':' . f' :......~ '" ,:,~t.. ': " \~ .: t.::\:,:, :"\;,:.t".:,.. 1.:,'.
\ ~ . \ . { 1 ,J, ., .:.Gi] \ t...!, ~ , . "" .. ,I. I ' '.
I'J\~ "1 r I' ^ ."t,.....~ ". I..' 'J" :"'" ' , >",
.. ",', 1':-", .'.;, ,r-".. fl"~,,:' .' j' . ("... ",;' I.t I"..
t', ."t '",< ""'~'l "",t~;""" :.,..... ':,' .' ':'" : '..' "",'
",/',,}r';'(J...\!:.1{~/P~'\f'1;:', '\'I-~i""ll~I:"~":l ~ _.". .', ~ _...._:.'ll~.:')
"..- .......' \.....
I
..-- fWJ - .......-
.. ..-~-.- .....,.---....-r '--y - - Y"r- __,.-- .. ~...,.- ..-
~:.,.,-~' _."~'.:""'<-"\;':'81'/' :l:."'i;~\:':IJ',' 'l~' ,"",:':1;
, . , '.,' ",- I " " , ' ", '.
,...,U",~Jl /"",,. ....' .', '...' ,. ,',' .. '
:::';rJ,)J:,:~;:I,rn.'~. ,.;.,;,'" '. '1. __: ',J .: "";",,', ':.',:..::,:'
,'-'-'--
,
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 19, 1993
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
RE: Material in Information Packet
Copy of letter from Mayor Courtney to Iowa-Illinois Gas and Electric 1~
Company expressing appreciation for the contribution through their
"Green Team" program.
Memoranda from the City Manager:
a. Miscellaneous (Family Leave; Library Expansion) 01
b. Iowa City Area Chamber of Commerce - Legislative Policy Positions ~
c, Pending Development Issues 0
d. Cigarette Ordinance I./Ot!
Memorandum from the Finance Department regarding current trends in 0
parking,
Memorandum from the Community Development Coordinator regarding Citizen "0'
Building Project. , .." !e
Memoranda from the City Clerk:
a. Council Work Session of February I. I993
b. Council Work Session of February 9. 1993 ~Og
Minutes of the December 21, 1992, meetin9 of the Neighborhood Open Space
Committee, '109
Copy of letter from the Department of Public Safety informing Police Chief
Winkelhake of an award. I.//CJ
Article: What's in that bottle? 411
Copies of Senate File 94, House File 100. and House File 130 '/1').
February 1993 Newsletter from the Free Lunch Program directors. "/13
Agendas for the February 16 and February 18 meetings of the Johnson 111/
County Board of Supervisors, .
Agenda for the 2/23/93 Formal & Informal meeting of the Bd, of Supel'visol's. ~/5
Memo from City Mgr. regarding 2/22 worksession starting time and 71/~
public hearing on the FY94 budget 2/23.
Copy of letter from Councilmember Kubby to Legal Services requesting I
comments on proposed rule/procedure changes for Iowa City Housing Authority.
---....
- ...-
'wn Hl1tl.,~~_, .:~JIHl!MII
- ,
I
"1. " . f'"":."l' ',: '&1' ':'. ';;;, ' 'i~-' :,:,,, ;.,.:, '.", :..,',' ,: ":..." .
~ I, " ::. I I \ "ll ....... ,';\ ,..:., . \" ,_,,', . "'.
-. ,'" " I"". ' ',' ", " "
.: r, \........' '. ~'\i":'" ~""H, /. ",""""'"'"\": ' ','" :;' ~'. ,,':'
~&..
CITY OF IOWA CITY
February 18, 1993
Stanley J. Bright, C.E.O. and President
Iowa-Illinois Gas and Electric Company
206 East Second Street
Davenport, IA 52801
Dear Mr. Bright:
On behalf of the citizens of Iowa City, I would like to thank Iowa-illinois Gas and Electric for Its
generosity In contributing to the enhancement of our environment through your 'Green Team'
~~ '
Our city recently received a check In the amount of $8,000 which, wilh matching funds, will be
utilized In four city parks. Two of these projects will Involve student volunteers from adjacent
schools - one Is a cooperative venture with a very active, non-profit civic organization to
enhance the city's oldest park, and the other will Involve replacing trees which were lost due to
tloodlng In the city's most popular park,.
Without the 'Green Team' program, these projects would likely not be completed,
Once again, thank you,
Sincerely,
Darrel G, Courtney
Mayor
cc:
City Council //
Director of Parks & Recreation
bc4.1
4'0 EAST WASIIINOTON STREET' IOWA CITY, IOWA '1240.11'6. (ll') 1".'000' FAX (119) 1)6.'009
t!(Jf)
I
...-' -
;., 1 --~r- ....,f'r",--
... . .-----...~- ....."" ...........
.. .~- ..
";,. . '~ .l. . i. _ ",.'7 \" 'IH' , : -,' :,\' ",: ; '.''''',' ""~~:"J" . :,,:..:',\
',' 'f'" fd" .", " '. .' ,', ,.,
I,'" , . ,'. ",_, '", " "."., ."..
.. "': ,I ,'\ " \" " '....',',
.... I,' \.-,.:' . "~I :-,' ".' ~.I . ~"l" ",' "', I , .f
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 18, 1993
To: City Council
From: City Managar
Re: Miscellaneous
1. Familv Leave. We have reviewed the preliminary information concerning the recently
enacted family leave bill, It appears that we should be able to incorporate this new
federal policy into our personnel rules and regulations without difficulty. There may
be other elements that could require some change on our part, but they will not be
known until the final regulations are provided to employers.
J
I
I
i
,
,
,2, Librarv EXDansion. As you may know, the Library has hired a consultant to provide
information to the Library Board concerning the possibility of expansion and/or a
branch library system, The consultant has interviewed a number of people in the
community and will be preparing recommendations to the Library Board,
n.\milc
~
I
I
I
,
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i/o/
I
.-., .-.,- .. ~..... - ...--......
, '" .
t:':, , ~':",'. "<';: >:-', '.. .,,":""/" ,,"':" ".,' ,"', ,',....'.. r.r'..'
I" 'f " "~ "(;.;,, ,I, '"'''' ,
.: '. ", \ ,\ . I \ I.' ,'.. ", \ ,I, ;.' .', ,'.', ' ,','
J. "', oJ ,..:- 'I'., , " .
,',' ,"' ~ ',". II ::' '. "'., \ ," ',' ., .
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 17. 1993
To: City Council
From: City Manager
Re: Iowa City Area Chamber of Commerce - Legislative Policy Positions, 1993
Attached are copies of those legislative policies adopted by the Iowa City Area Chamber of
Commerce which I believe to be directly pertinent to local government operations. The
Chamber has a rather extensive document concerning legislative positions, a copy of which
can be made available if you so request.
I
I
I
!
I
,
,
"
!
"
~
!
,
I
Attachment
bj1plcydm
..
tf~
I
...-' -
... .... -- ~. .....~
(:' ""'f,'[J';"';"" ~"r:', ""~,,, :ltZI'-:" :' , "'" ' .:' :;., :',
I ' , ' , . '"If" ", ' " -. . . ,
~r. { , \ 'I \ \ ' 'I' 1.. ~ ' . . , .
,+',' ,,':. "', ',:, '", ." .,', ,: j ':," ,:, " ' ::.' .",:-' "
. . ,-', . t,.: '.^.'._,;,.'';'_:''$>>.~~:_:: ',' ;' " ,: ',,:. """ ';, /,
HEAL TIl AND HUMAN SERVICES
SUPPORT FOR HUMAN SERVICES
Position in Brief
Oppose further cuts in Iowa~ human services budget and the state.imposed local
property tax freeze.
Background
Funds for human service programs have been severely cut during the last three sessions
of the legislature, The reductions result from efforts to meet the need of a balanced budget,
which has 'been made extremely difficult in light of escalating costs for mandated federal
programs, such as Medicaid, Each year, for instance, Medicaid consumes a greater share of
the overall human service budget, thus leaving fewer funds for other state human service
programs.
Reductions in funds for programs directed at early intervention have been particularly
dramatic. Some examples are:
. In 1991, juvenile justice funding was cut in half, especially reducing family
services directed at preventing children from being removed from homes
and placed in alternative situations that are less effective and more costly,
. In 1992, an artificial ceiling was imposed on the number of children allowed
in the state~ foster care system. As a result, program limitations are based
on budget needs, rather than on needs of children who cannot live at home
safely.
. Caseloads for workers investigating child abuse are considerably higher than
standards set by the National Association of Social Workers to assure
protection for children.
. Reductions in Homemaker Home Health Aid/Chore Services Program have
severely limited services to help maintain people in their homes, rather than
committing them to far more costly nursing care facilities,
Failure to support programs offering help to needy Iowans at early stages is costly to
future state budgets. Simply put, it is far less expensive to improve the failing child welfare
system than to expand the prison system to accommodate those who failed as children; to
provide home health care than to wait for people to require hospitalization; or to prevent teen
pregnancies than to provide health care and welfare services needed to support single teen
parents,
It is also of significant concern that local city and county budgets are under increasing
pressure to continue reasonable levels of service in programs from which state funding has been
cut. At the same timc, however, the stale has imposed a local property tax freeze that
eliminates thc ability for local budgets to respond to thc increased service needs.
32
t/()~
.... ~ - --,,-.
~ ' .. ' ,: , ". , "" " ' ,',: "~\.' ,', ~
", - '~" ,..-", I~"'" "","'..',
I~:, ',,' ': ~' ", . ,\_ ',' ~7t~' ,1_.'1 <, "~I ,<' ,<:.'. ", '. :,', :'~.'~ "":""
" ".f I, '. ~ .' ,I....;,,' "".... ''':', ' :' , '.
"...... 'JJ;', '" ':'\ ' , ",'
I
HFALm AND HUMAN SERVICES
The Chamber Position
The Iowa City Area Chamber of Commerce is opposed to (1) further reductions in
funds for programs that help lowa~ neediest children, other individuals, and families of all
types; and (2) the state-imposed property tax freeze, which reduces local control over local
budgets.
The Chamber encourages efforts to reform Medicaid and other federally mandated
programs that are consuming the increasingly largest proportion of .lowa~ Human Services
Budget. Efforts to contain health care costs will improve chances for adequate funding for
other vitally important human services,
Appro\'ed
December 17, 1m
I
33 f~~
J
i
I
I
,
I
---,,-~~--------.---
. .....--~.......,,.-..-,,.
~.........--'-r- -.,......
. ....T-...
1" "f~l": ..:,:'~'" '..' :-: ",; ",:"'.':' " , .' ': '. ,.", " ,,',
t '\ ,', . I "., '
. ' " ," '; ,".' rH' . ;'11, I: ' ' :'"..' '.','
,'; '..'. .~i " :1:_-::".': ;1'~~'l."";'I'~~' 1"\' " : ' ',." .-:'. " ","", ;','
loCAL GOVERNMENI'
MUNICIPALITY PUBLICATION/NOTICE REQUIREMENTS
Position in Brief
Cities, counties and school boards should be permitted to publish basic public
information in pamphlet form for review by interested citizens, rather than in newspapers,
Background
A current Iowa law, Section 372.13(6), requires that cities publish minutes of city
council proceedings and total expenditures and receipts in a newspaper of general circulation
in the city within 15 days following the meeting, Cities of more than 150,000 population,
however, may either comply with this publication requirement QJ: print a pamphlet containing
such information and furnish copies to the city library, to the daily newspapers, and to citizens
who come to the City Clerks office and request a copy of the pamphlet. Cities of less than
150,000 population do not have the option and must publish,
I
Counties and school boards face similar publication requirements. Sections 331.303(6),
349.16 and 349.18 of the Iowa Code require all county boards of supervisors to publish their
proceedings, a schedule of bills allowed, the report ofthe county treasurer (including a schedule
of receipts and expenditures), all claims allowed, iltC. And, Section 279.35 of the Iowa Code
requires that proceedings and bills and claims allowed by school boards shall be puqlished,
In the 1988 legislative session, the issue was addressed by House Study Bill 723, which
would have extended to ill Iowa cities the option to publish the required information in
pamphlet form. The bill was debated in the House Local Government Committee but failed
to pass out of the committee. Opposition came from local newspapers,
The city manager of Iowa City estimates that the amendment would save Iowa City
$7,600 a year, The League of Municipalities indicates that a petition was signed by the Clerks
of 180 different Iowa cities supporting this legislation,
The Chamber Position
The Iowa City Area Chamber of Commerce supports the passage of legislation that will
grant to all municipalities, counties and schools boards the option of printing a pamphlet
containing basic public information such as official proceedings, receipts and expenditures, and
making copies available to the city library, to local newspapers and to the public,
Appnmd January 12, 1989
Updated NOI'Cmber 19, 1992
34
---- -- -.... . ~
'(Od-
- ...
I
I
,
!
\
~ - ."..-. ------
_ .. .__~.. ~_ -.- IP .,...______ .____--- ___ _
---" ~ ...,. , -...-....-. -... T - ...-- ......".........
.'," "t'....,.'. :~:. . 'S" ' " ' ",'" ,
.h. ..- ...' ", ' "." " .'
I'" " "t., . I I' ' -.. ,
:< ,:,::,~,:, "i,~". "~_', ,; \.,'..... ''',,' :,:,' ,", : ',/..:,,,::,
, .
/
LoCAL GOVERNMENI'
SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE FOR BOND ISSUES
Position in Brief
Support legislation permitting bond issues for public facilities to be approved by a
simple majority vote.
Background
During the affluent 1920s, bond issues were passed readily by majority votes. Later,
many states, cities and local governments defaulted on the heavy debts they had incurred. To
control the creation of such debt, the Iowa legislature in 1931 enacted Section 75.1 of the Iowa
Code, which provides that the 'issuance of bonds by a county, township, school corporation, city
or by any local board or commission' may not pass without an affIrmative vote of 60 percent
of the total votes cast. Such statutes became common. Twenty,three of the 50 states required
a super majority in 1970, Today, only 16 states do. Three require a two-thirds majority, seven
including Iowa require a 60 per cent majority, and 34 states allow bond issues to pass by a
simple majority of 50 percent plus one.
Circumstances have changed dramaticaIly since these restrictions were enacted, and
there are compelling arguments now for reducing the requirement for bond passage to a simple
majority, Since 1931, local governments have. strengthened their financial practices; local
legislative bodies have become far more responsible; professional administrators, financial
offIcers and bond consultants have become available to even the smallest jurisdictions; and
many auditing and rmancial requirements have been added to state laws,
Moreover, the decisions to issue bonds are made by a majority vote of the governing
body whose members were elected by a majority vote of the public, Yet, under the Iowa
system, a negative vote counts one and one.half times as much as an affirmative vote. Such
weighted voting violates the principle of one person, one vote as well as another basic tenet of
democracy, the 'majority rule' concept.
Many bond issues are intended to provide funds for maintenance of existing buildings,
which are crumbling from mechanical and structural deterioration. For example, three-fourths
of our school buildings were constructed before 1970, and many are more than 100 years old,
It is widely agreed that cuts in funds for preventive maintenance result in higher long-term
maintenance costs, A study completed in 1990 at Iowa State University clearly shows that
maintenance needed to repair deteriorating public buildings in Iowa will cost $320 million each
year for 10 years, or about $110 per person each year for the next decade.
Businesses do not choose to develop in or move to counties or states with eroding
infrastructures, The link between economic vitality and continued infrastructure improvement
is rlfmly established. The quality of life enjoyed by Iowa citizens is largely a by. product of past
decisions to construct the vertical infrastructure (buildings) we have today.
Iowa~ population is aging, and thus, bond issues, especially for schools, will become
increasingly diffIcult to pass, even with a simple majority,
3S If~;;'
~l ',.;..' " ~ '.. ",:":,, .,~... ,_' "" '. :', ',', ..; "",
tjj' ' '~' ""PI . ,~t , .."
i',:'"",';, ,', -', ,'; .' /~~ ',..' I" , - ,,' ".' .
~..., ,. ,.\ '!'.l ,. .C.... "'."."
'. - '., '.\ 'I ',~l . -:;', . ~ ,"-~ ',' '; ~. I' " -,'. .:: ' '\I , _
loCAL GOVERNMENr
The Chamber Position
The Iowa City Area Chamber of Commerce supports legislation to reduce the vote
required for approval of bond issues for public facilities to a simple majority, rather than the
present requirement of a super majority vole of 60 percent of the total votes cast, with the cost
of the debt incurred to be paid by income and property taxes,
Appllll'ed
December 17, 1992
I
36
r~~
I
~i .
i~
~
;.1
"
,
~
~. -
.. .... -- -. ....... ~- ....". ,......... - . - -r- .- -,.~ .. ... 'T -
\ "'f~:'>~' ',:>' .;;i,... ,,)r:f'., ',.:,,'><" "" ,:c',',:,'
t., '\. ." I \'.: ,\ 71: ""',?\l ", ,.,",.... '.. , . .
:">:':,t~'i~':" ":'~I;',,:-:,.;..:''''''~:';';,.~.\,''.,'' ,'. ":.,'.",,, :,'\;:!,)
loCAL GOVERNMENT
UNFUNDED LEGISLATIVE MANDATES
Position in Brief
Action to oppose unfunded legislative mandates on local governments.
Background
"Few issues rankle local officials quite as much as state mandates - constitutional,
statutory or administrative actions that either limit or place requirements on local governments
- without state funding," concluded the U. S, Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental
Relations (ACIR) in a 1978 report on State Mandating of Local Expenditures. Mandating at
the state level was not new then; it had become a focus of attention because of (1) local
concerns over uncontrollable budgetary expenditures, (2) continued fisca1 stringency for most
local governments, and (3) and a gniwing tendency for states to place tax or spending limits on
local governments,
In its report, ACIR found that state reimbursement of mandated local costs was the
exception rather than the rule, Rather than improving since 1978, the problem has worsened
as the federal government has shifted responsibilities to the state level and states have shifted
responsibilities to the local level in an effort to balance their budgets and decentralize the
provision of government services, '
In Iowa, the legislature in recent years has imposed upon city and county governments
and school boards a number of additional burdens without providing the affected jurisdictions
with either sufficient funding to cover the cost of the new requirements or an equitable means
of raising the additional revenue. Some local governments have had to go into debt to pay for
the mandated programs; others have been forced to increase available revenues through local
sales taxes, vehicle taxes, user fees or property taxes, or by cutting other services,
The Chamber Position
The Iowa City Area Chamber of Commerce beUeves that new government programs
or additional requirements in existing government programs should not be enacted without the
funding to pay for them.
Further, the Chamber opposes any action by state or federal governments that would
impose additional statutory requirements on cities, counties or school boards unless either
adequate funding or an equitable alternative funding arrangement is provided to avoid adding
to existing flOancial burdens at the local level.
ApprOll:d January 12, 1989
Revised NlMlmber 19, 1992
37~
-......--
__ - ~..... ~-'''Ilo.''J.4
~I' .~J:lULI.~J..:_1!I
-~
~......- i'&- - "....-
....,
.. .. ~'f---..__.....-11P-.-
---,,. .., - - '--.,-- ....
... -
J>,"of,~I::':',L:J: ';~4H- ::,:,::~" ,",.':' ,'. ..:'" '.... '.: ::",', ./,
'. , [. f' 'f7!1 .'. r ," .', . ,. .' l'
,~:,,~ ,'_::' ,:"",:," '. ,~~,',: ",i",o- ,: :,':-: ),;,'~ ":',<::',':;',
I.
LoCAL GOVERNMENf
MUNICIPAL HOME RULE AUTIIORITY
Position In Brief
Support legislation to require the State of Iowa to provide cities with fInancial flexibility
and/or direct state aid to pay for state-mandated programs, Additionally, allow cities to
exercise full home rule authority to develop the appropriate mechanisms to best meet local
needs, conditions and other community issues.
Backwt!und
The powers of home rule are granted in the Iowa Constitution, They enable citizens
of cities to adopt charters and also provide for the practical application of home rule. Home
rule was intended to foster local discretion to develop the appropriate mechanisms by city
government to meet local needs and conditions, but it is being eroded by actions of the General
Assembly and state administrative agencies. These agencies often require cities to modify
operations, facilities ~nd programs without provision of fInancial aid,
The Iowa Code provides for the 'State Mandates Act,' which states as its purpose to
'enunciate policies, criteria and procedures to govern future state initiated specification of local
government services, standards, employment conditions and retirement benefits that necessitate
increased expenditure by political subdivisions or agencies and entities which contract for the
political subdivision to provide services.' This section of the code clearly states the intent of
the legislature. .
\
However, without the benefit of financial flexibility or full exercise of home rule
authority, local governments are increasingly fInding it difficult to use local resources to meet
state mandates,
The Chamber Position
The Iowa City Area Chamber of Commerce recommends that the Iowa General
Assembly fully support and provide protection of the powers of home rule granted in the Iowa
Constitution to our communities. The Chamber further urges the legislature to safeguard
cities' authority to develop and implement local solutions to local problems, and to permit cities
the appropriate fInancial flexibility to provide the means by which to fulfill the state-initiated
local government service requirements and standards,
Approved
NllI'Cmbcr 19, 1992
38
r~
.....- ffP- -- .",----
.. ..~...~-.....~ 'l9-y' - -....
::""'~'L~/:.,':-"'Q"i" ::t[" 'ie,:.,;'; :,' ":.',:':: ~~.~,:.~;>:
~", [' . . S?1:., ' :~,m ,,, ,<~,., '. . ...",'. . ,','. ,,<
~,~ .'1"", ,_::~ ~ \ . ,'.' _,' . ",'
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 17, 1993
TD: City Council
FROM: City Manager
RE: Pending Development Issues
I
i
,
I
I
,
I
I
I
An application submitted by Iowa Realty Company to rezone a 30-acre
parcel located west of Sycamore Street and immediately north of the
corporate I imits from ID-RS to RS-B.
An application submitted by Southgate Development, Inc" for prelimi-
nary and final planned housing development plan approval for a 1.B
acre tract of land located on the south side of West Benton Street
to allow construction of 14 dwelling units on the RS-B zoned parcel.
A pre-preliminary plat submitted by Dean Oakes for Oakes Fourth. a
21-lot subdivision located in RR-1 and RS-5 zones north of Dubuque
Road and south of I-BO on Quincent Street extended.
A proposed amendment to the JCCOG Arterial Street Plan to add the
extension of Camp Cardinal Road between Melrose Avenue in Iowa City
and 22nd Avenue in Coralville.
A request submitted by Dean Thornberry to consider amending the CI-1
zone to permit beauty parlors, or rezoning the Burger King Boyrum
area from CI-1 to CC-2.
/
..
i/~
..... -,&1~ -- -~ ~
.. ... -.-- ''11 ...., r- ....... ~ ". - - "-r- __ ,.,....
. .
'i:-, 't~/';" :,~"" ,":8":' ,,:,:,'M' \ o' :., :." ",.,..., ..... ,';'
L ' " I. ~ " :,' '\ '. , , , '" .
'0\"1'"10 ~;:.~"; ~~~,; '\~""." ',1,~.",' " .:: ,':," ".;..,r:O;,':,
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 17. 1993
To: City Council
From: City Manager'
Re: Cigarette Ordinance
All businesses selling cigarettes have been inspected by the Police during late January and
early February. All are in compliance with the City cigarette ordinance.
~10g~d
~~<4,
I
'!oil
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
i
,
!
,
~
!
I
I
/
I
i
I
I
I
.-.,. --,.- .."......,.........-..-....... - -..- .'~
~:;, ,':LiO!r, ',ltl:-;'~=I ,:/;, .. " . .:~: ." .':'.",.:".,,':"
t.',;,(rLv '/:0r::::':::~ill:>;,;',- ::'," .,',' ',,":,,:',~,
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
0"', F,bru., 5, 1993 MxJ/li /' ~
T.. Slop'" A~"', 0" """" ~ U cdi1 ·
From: Don Yuculs, Finance Director /)0/
Joe Fowler, Parking Systems Superirttendent ::f".....
Re: Current Trends In Parking
Following a series of meetings with the Downtown Association, Old Capitol Merchants Association
and other Interested CBD merchants it was determined that even when parking spaces were
available the public perceived there was not enough parking In the core of the CBD. The major
contributors to this perce pilon were empty spaces located on the upper floors of the Capitol Street
Ramp or in the Dubuque Street Ramp. It was determined at that time that the City would take
a series of actions In an attempt to change parking habits. These actions were:
1. Restrict lower level parking in the Capitol Street Ramp un1ll1 0:00 AM Monday Through
Friday to force early morning and all day parkers to the upper levels or the Dubuque
Street Ramp.
2, Create a pricing difference between the two ramps to encourage long term parkers to use
Dubuque Street.
3, Create a pricing difference between CBD and outlying parking to encourage long term
parkers to park In the CBD fringe area,
, ,
These actions have had the desired result. Parkers have found alternative locations or have
adjusted to the Capitol Street restrictions. Hours of paid parking have increased In the Dubuque
Street Ramp while Park and Shop usage has remained consistent. This would Indicate that some
long term CBD parkers have relocated to this facility.
Outlying metered parking has Increased, This Increase Is most noticeable In the area south of
Burlington Street. The area norih of Jefferson has remained consistent In spite of the fact that
4 blocks of metered parking were removed.
Hours of paid parklng In off.street metered lots has increased, Total hours of off-street parking
has declined but this Is a result of the removal of the Chauncey Swan Lot while a new facility Is
being constructed, Individual lot usage has increased, .
In addition to changes within our system, the University of Iowa has experienced a significant
increase in parking In the lot located next to the University of Iowa Library,
The negative impact of these actions Is the issuance of parking tickets in the Capitol Street Ramp,
Twenty four signs have been suspended from the ceiling on the 3 restricted floors, signs are on
all entrance equipment, and there are signs placed on each door exiting the restricted floors. We
stili receive complaints that parkers did not see any signs restricting parking. The customers
receiving the tickets are new users of the Capitol Street Ramp and the ticket makes a bad first
Impression of downtown Iowa City,
~05
\
I
-. .........', ......,,. - ........ T'r - - .....
\, '.. tl "i:'l' . "i2;',..', 'Q'~ ',..',. '~'.:',<:' :,,:\
1:-,:-:: ,I.:J,";,,\01>, I.:J' ,::!L.;f:' ',',' '-:':,/,:,,, .,::.
2
The positive Impact has been available parking on the lower levels of the Capitol Street Ramp
through out the day, In addition traffic congestion has Improved as persons looking for a space
do not have to drive up 5 floors to locate one, This was most noticeable during the holiday
shopping season when the only major traffic congestion occurred on weekends when restriction
were not enforced.
The completion of the ramp located In the 400 block of College Street should provide more relief
for CBO parking demand, This facility will provide additional monthly parking permits for long
term users and the hourly rate will be substantially lower than other CBO ramps. Additional relief
could be obtained by expanding the on-street meter system to Increase alternatives for current
CBO parkers.
tp5.1
..
I
I
I
1(05
.....
........- -- .
,
I
~ -
v-' --
- .....-- .~'....,,- ......". ..,....------ ... --..,.... -...... ,--
--... - -..,. --
".........-. ---- -- -
,':.'::,\ ~,' ,,' ,":'..' :::J} ,; ': .,L1 ::/''',,', ,'::, .~,\:>,;:
r. L.I, .,~, '.171" .,"] , . , . ,,' '" "
.~.< ;.JL., ,~. .,',.", i" ~. ,'~ ',1' - ,", ", ,. : 'r . " ,.,',,'
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: Fabruary 10, 1993
To: Sieva Atkins
From: 1't\ Marianne Milkman
Re: Citizen Building Project/Low Income Housing Tax Credit ( (,.1 H rt:. ")
Every time you give someone the latest scoop, something happansl We just got a notice from
the Iowa Finance Authority that applications for their L1HTC Program are due March 5, 1993,
Apparently, IFA has some carryover/return funds available - approximately $1 million, Bob
Burns is working on his application as I write.
cc: Karin Franklin
David Schoon
)"/(
vJ-~
fA~ {o ~
/1 ti,jt-1~
n.\Iihlc
,
l/O~
....- .,., -- ,,-'-
.. ..~..- --. ~---""--r--~ -y - - ....r- ---,.~ ...~..... T - ...-
......'
":,. ,;;:, ~"'" ,,~,';:,,~""'.," :':: ""',.,',~,,;: ,.:
I. ,,'.' .' L.." . " 'I 'It, I " """',,
. ,1, ";:" ",: 'lJ :" .,' 1 " ;; ,'. " I,: ,'- ',' , :,
. . ~~, " 1..1 . '1' ... ",,... , . '.' ) ,
. ", '". *,' . ~ \ ' , " , " ,; J, <
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 12, 1993
To: Mayor and City Council
From: City Clerk
Re: Council Work Session, February 1, 1993 - 5:30 p.m. in the Council Cham bars
Mayor Darrel Courtney presiding, Councilmembers: Courtney, Ambrisco, Novick, Larson,
Kubby. Absent: Horowitz, McDonald. Staff present: Atkins, Helling, Gentry, Karr, Moen,
Franklin, Schmadeke, Fosse, Davidson, Gannon, Trueblood. Tape recorded on Tape 93-10,
Side 2; 93-12, Sides 1 and 2; 93-13, Side 1.
CONSENT CALENOAR ADOITION:
Tape 93-10, Side 2
Council agreed to add the following items to the Consent Calendar of February 2, 1993:
Class C Liquor License for Leegh Enterprises dba Legends Sports Diner,
Correspondence as needed.
PLANNING & ZONING MATTERS:
Tape 93-10, Side 2
PCD Senior Planner Monica Moen presented the following Planning and Zoning Items:
I
Settina a public hearina for Februarv 23, 1993, on a resolution amendina the Iowa City
Comprehensive Plan bv incorooratina revised arowth policies for Iowa City into the
Elm.
a,
b. Settina a public hearina for Februarv 23, 1993, on a resolution aoprovina the voluntarv
annexation of an aporoximate 240 acre tract. known as Windsor Ridae Development
and located east of Scott Park, south of Lower West Branch Road and north of
American Leaion Road, IANN92-00021
c. Settinp a public hearina for Februarv 23, 1993, on an ordinance amendina the Zonina
Ordinance to conditionallv chanae the use reaulations of an aporoximate 240 acre
!Lact. known as Windsor Ridae Oevelopment and located east of Scott Park. south of
Lower West Branch Road and north of American Leaion Road, from the County
desianation RS. Suburban Residential. to RS-5. Low Densitv Sinale-Familv Residential,
(REZ92.00131
d. Settina a public hearina for Februarv 23, 1993, on an ordinance amendina the Zonina
Ordinance bv adoPtina Section 36.10,5, the Neiahborhood Conservation Residential
Zone IRNC.12l.
'f(J 7
~.... IF - y-.---
.. "~'-~-""'r ~....--
,~:'~:,"':f]"':,:','~i(i:, ':,iii:'", ':;:1" . '" ,,:' ";':""" ,:',"..,:"
.",[", 1m.. ~71 . t ,.,', "
',I, . " -'\. , ""I! '.'.I~-,"::,.,:', ~I",,' '. " i"'~ I: 1 ,I . . 'j'" ':' ,. t' ., '.'
I,
2
Moen stated thet staff would provide Council with more detailed information prior to
the public hearing,
e, Settina a oublic hearina on Februarv 23, 1993, on an ordinance amendina the Zonina
Ordinance bv chanaina the use reaulations of orooertv located in the RM-12 zone in
the aeneral vicinity of Johnson Street on the west. Claoo Street on the east. Market
Street on the north and Jefferson Street on the south, from Low Densitv Multi-Familv
Residential IRM-121 to the Neiahborhood Conservation Residential Zone (RNC-121.
(REZ 92-00181
f. . Seltina a oublic hearina for Februarv 23. 1993, on an ordinance amendina the Zonina
Ordinance bv chanaina the use reaulations of a 70,05 acre tract. aenerallv located
north of Rohret Road, between Hunters Run and Southwest Estates subdivisions. from
ID-RS. Interim Develooment Sinale-Familv Residential to RS-5, Low Densitv Sinale-
Familv Residential. (Kennedv and Hilaenbera/REZ 92-00161
Moen stated that staff will provide Council with more detailed information prior to the
public hearing.
g, Seltina a oublic hearina for Februarv 23, 1993, on an ordinance amendina the Zonina
Ordinance bv chanaina the use reaulations of a 14,25 acre tract. aenerallv located
north of Rohret Road, between Hunters Run and Southwest Estates subdivisions, from
ID-RS, Interim Develooment Sinale-Familv Residential. to P. Public, (Iowa City School
District/REZ 92-00161
h. Resolution aoorovina the final olats of Park West Subdivision. Parts Two. Three and
Four. Iowa City, Iowa, (SUB 92-00261 160-dav limitation oeriod: Februarv 8, 1993.1
i.
Resolution aoorovina the oreliminarv and final olat of Country Hills Subdivision, a three-
lot. 40,07 acre subdivision located in Johnson County, Frinae Area 7. aooroximatelv
one mile southwest of Iowa City on Hiahwav 1 West, ISUB92,00271 160-dav
limitation oeriod: March 1, 19931
I
COUNCIL AGENDAfflME:
Tape 93-10. Side 2
1.
Mayor Courtney stated he had received a request that agenda item # 13 ba placed after
Planning and Zoning items at the 2/2 formal meeting,
2.
Novick stated that she attended the legislative forum on Saturday and two legislators
felt that the t~xpayers' rights amendments will be on the ballot.tRiG fall, .,2~1i '~.3
In response to Courtney, Atkins stated he will provide Council with the lobbying
registration forms and information,
3.
4,
In response to Kubby, Atkins stated he will ask the City Engineer for information
regarding the pedestrian access issues at Linn and Washington Streets,
5.
Kubby asked that Council look at the City's parking requirements to facilitate recycling
at apartment buildings, Council requested further discussion on participation,
'147
~..... ~~-- y-.-----
. .. ....----.~- .....r ~...... - - '-r- ._.,.~ ... ... T - .. ,
I~:.' ~;ttJ::/.,:: ',~~L: ,.'~d~.,:itr;": ,:;.',' ..,: "".:... ,:".' "':,';:-'
.... __'o':.f.2J'... ,:;-;[f.. I., .~0 IG~'I'" .. ., c. ~ " \ ':\ ,f
3
6. In response to Kubby, Atkins stated that the issue regarding City employee appoint-
ments to City boards and commissions would be placed on Council's pending list for
future discussion.
7, Kubby announced that she would be bowling for the Big Brothers/Big Sisters and
would welcome pledges.
CONFERENCE BOARD MEETING:
Tape 93-10, Side 2
Council adjourned to the City Conference Board meeting at 6:30 p,m, Council adjourned back
into Council work session at 7: 1 0 p,m,
MELROSE AVENUE BRIDGE AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS:
Tape 93-12, Side 1
City Engineer Rick Fosse, Assistant City Engineer Denny Gannon, JCCOG Transportation
Planner Jeff Davidson, University of Iowa Director of Parking and Transportation Dave
Ricketts, and University of Iowa Director of Facilities Planning Dick Gibson presented
information.
NEIGHBORHOOD OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE:
Tape 93-12, Side 2
Neighborhood Open Space Committee members Casey Cook and John Watson presented
information,
HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY FUNDING:
Tape 93-13, Side 1
\
Marge Penney, JCCOG Human Services Planning Coordinator, presented information, Kubby
requested that staff keep Council informed about emergency housing shelters' plans to end
their soup kitchen program.
COUNCIL AGENDArrlME (CONTINUED):
Tape 93-13, Side 1
B. Courtney announced that he and the City Manager would be attending the Urban
Mayors Coalition meeting next week,
9, City Clerk Karr asked Council members to consider tentative dates for a joint City-
County meeting, Karr stated she would follow up with the County to schedule that
meeting.
\
Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p,m.
dtfk\cc2.1.lnl
l/o7
~. -
.
,;:-':..:,f~(:".:c,~d .":'-)2;;' ,',:nt' ',' '" ",.'," ',' ,." ,: : ":i',~:,""'.'
.. . [ fl' ,~'" [71 . \.~:m .,." . .' ",
." .', 1."'" 10, ~:1~ ',:, , .~. ~ . ',~;' I . .,'. I:', . '", -:. .-'
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDU'M
Date: February 16, 1993
To: Mayor and City Council
From: City Clerk
Re: Council Work Session . Airport Relocation Feasibility Study Presentation,
February 9, 1993.7:00 p,m, in the Council Chambers
Mayor Darrel G, Courtney presiding, Councilmembers: Courtney, McDonald, Larson, Novick,
Kubby, Ambrisco. Absent: Horowitz. Staff present: Atkins, Karr, Gentry, Burnside, O'Neil,
Smith, Airport Commission members present: R, Hicks, H, Horan. p, Foster, R, Blum, J,
Ockenfels. Others present: Steve Benson. Coffman Associates, GiI Janes - Howard R. Green
Company, Carl Byers. Howard R, Green Company, Richard Kordick - Howard R. Green
Company. Tape recorded on Tapes 93-13, Side 2; 93-16, both sides; 93-17, side 1.
I
I
I
AIRPORT RELOCATION FEASIBILITY STUDY PRESENTATION:
Tape 93-13, Side 2
Steve Benson, Coffman Associates, presented the Airport Relocation Feasibility Study, Gil
Janes, Howard R, Green Company, and Carl Byers, Howard R, Green Company present for
discussion.
\
Steve Benson presented slides. Benson provided information about the existing airport
facilities, airport users survey, facility requirements, airport site analysis, airport relocation
study, runway safety and object free areas, existing airport site options, new airport site
options, and estimated development costs.
Benson outlined the advantages and disadvantages of the following options:
lli11. Located adjacent to the southeastern city limits and immediately south and west of
U,S. Highway 6.
Advantages:
- Primary runway is 5,600 feet in length for precision approach from the south.
. Crosswind runway 3,900 feet in length to accommodate a smaller aircraft in crosswinds.
- Meets all general aviation design standards,
Adjacent to the industrial park,
Convenient to the city.
Excellent highway access from Highway 6,
Good visibility,
Lowest grading and site development costs.
Best overall functional layout for how the airport would funding on a day-to'day basis.
Lowest impacts to prime farm land.
I/OS
\
-
- ............., -.,. ~-~ ....I/r "T"" - -
1'\' ":i:,"; :.Uf'.LI,'tX ::"" ,"""'''': ,",.:,...",
~~ I:: j ~::::J'-\..~71{ 'w' ," ,".. .... '.
.~,.,) ,~t':'.".',/.i,~:':" !')'., ',"~,..\',,:.',..., ",I:',<:,,'~':..' ,'::.i:'
2
- In the same school district of the existing airport site, having the opportunity to convert
existing site back into private ownership.
Disadvantages:
Wetlands.
Most residential relocation with eight residences located within the property acquisition,
Closest to residential areas.
Fee simple acquisition of site #1 would be 640 acres.
Site #2 - Located approximately four miles east of the city and south of U,S. Highway 6.
,
Advantages:
North-south runway 5,600 feet long,
Crosswind runway 3,900 feet long,
Meets all general aviation design standards,
Precision approach capability from the south.
Reasonable visibility,
Least residential relocation with three residences.
Most distance from residential concentration.
Disadvantages:
Longer access would have to be developed to the terminal area,
Further from the city,
Less functional layout.
Highest overall cost of the alternative sites,
Lone Tree school district.
Land acquisitions would involve 710 acres of property,
Site #3 . Located approximately four miles east of Iowa City and east of American Legion
Road and one mile north of Highway 6.
Advantages:
Runways are 5,600 feet and 3,900 feet.
Precision approach from the south.
Overall lowest acquisition cost.
Furtherest distance from residential arees.
Disadvantages:
Further from the city,
Would not have the visibility from a major highway,
Would require that two roads either be closed or relocated.
Construction costs would be higher.
I/og
I
I
,
I
I
,
,
!
I
i
I
j
I
I
l
,\
;,
,
l
5
,
,
r
~
,
"
U
"
~
\i
,
i~~
"
,
:!
I I
I,
,
l
l
I
I
i
I,
,
I
I
,\" ,..;..", '~"" '8"..." '~'-" '. - , ", '. ":' :,' ','" ,
,;" .,'.' ",' ',;, (' ", " '. '.." ,',,-:
\: ': ': ,; ~ "",,' ~.;: . I : . {: (..;' . , . . " .,' ".: \:~,
", ':' U, - ,;~ ,,,'." '~"", ,0, -",' ",'., , ..
\. '.
3
Least functional layout for operational use.
Greatest impact to prime farm land of the three sites.
Fiva residences would be located,
West Branch school district,
Property acquisition would involve 740 acres.
Exlstlna site ootlon #1 - Designed to meet minimum safety standards while maintaining tha
current runway length. Runway 6/24 would be displaced 520 feet on the east end and
extended 465 feet on the west end to maintain a length of 4,300 feet. Runway 17/35 would
be displaced 200 feet on the south end, which would give it a nat affectiva length of 3,675
feet. Runway 12/30 would be reduced 475 feet on the southeast end to give it an effective
length of 3,425 feet. '
Advantages:
Improved safety of existing runway system,
Meets FAA standards for Category B aircraft.
Minimizes the amount of new construction.
Minimizes the amount of farm land impact.
Disadvantages:
Limits the capability to accommodate some business jilts in Categories C and D.
Land use incompatibilities with residential development in the north,
No room for further expansion,
No precision instrument approach,
Minimum property acquisition with 25 acres fee simple and 35 acres aviation easement,
including on permanent resident, 38 mobile homes, bowling alley, and hotel.
Exlstlna site ootlon #2 . Attempted to provide for approach Categories C and D standards on
existing airport site by developing a 5,600 foot runway, Runway 6/24 would be displaced
520 feet on the east end, Runway 12/30 would ba reduced 475 feet on the southeast end.
Advantages:
Simplest way to extend existing runway system.
Most functional layout on existing site,
Disadvantages:
Increasing the land use incompatibility to north with the north-south runway extended,
County fairgrounds on the south would have to be relocated.
Substantial amount of earthwork to fill the quarry site,
Impacts wetlands.
No precision approach,
'1~g
I
\"; '<' 'l', ~':~, \ "~,:' .r...; ,.:..<'.~'~' ",': ',. :tj' ':';' . ':::' .':' ' ':.: ':' :. .',:' '::,'
I. ,J,I.. ,liJ., . I I "', "" ,',. ,
.~,. ,",'U.,:. "::~~:1~:-~","~' .'~ I' ',", ,. ",' :." r,,', " r .
4
Fee simple acquisition would be 104 acres, 4 acres of aviation easement, including two
permanent residents, 12 mobile homes, a motel, bowling alley and the county fairgrounds.
Exlstlno site ootion #3 - Attempts to provide for approach Categories C and D standards with
a new runway orientation, Runway 6/4 would serve as the crosswind runway.
Advantages:
Would not need third runway.
Utilizes two runway configuration.
Disadvantages:
Shifts the land use incompatibility problems to new areas.
Quarry site would still require substantial amount of fill.
Impacts wetlands.
Largest amount of land acquisition for the existing site - 150 acres.
No precision approach.
Inefficient site layout.
I
I
:
Councilmember Larson requested that all slides from the slide presentation be printed onto
hard copy and distributed to Council, Council member Kubby, requested a list of the bare
bones essentials required to complete Option #1 in order to meet FAA current safety
standards.
Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p,m.
dkk\cc2.9.inl
,/o!
-..
.- . L ALa lMilli!UI L_;h..
. ~
y-'--
- .....-- ~.~- -.. .,...,-----..~........,- -- ~ ~ --- ......-.-....................---..... .~~
~~ ..'" :,;..: ~ . k'" 't~ "', 'e:"~"~;'t: ' :,~'~' J ',' .: . I':':" ': "",,\ . . . ..<.,
I"~ "f'l' ",121 "..kl. , :1 I" ,'. ", '
:.':.': " .,< '.",'2""':' :/5011', l....~.,,'. '-'".~" ''', .,;.' ~', ~: ,',' 'I'
't "~~..,~,.:;. ,\,1;.\;., . jl.~ , ',.~ 1-.'" .' . "
MINUTES
NEIGHBORHOOD OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE
DECEMBER 21, 1992 - 7:00 P.M,
~~r-:I' n" ""n, M_ft
. I~l..: "~ It I' ') 'tl:~'.:'l ;'''Jll'!
I ~ !i\:'.:,.;':'!~'}"""
....__w~ ....... J l..,jJ
SC~iOCZ ':~ 1'~-""~'11
~ Iii t'IJ,~f./ 1(.;
MEMBERS PRESENT:
'MEMBERS ABSENT:
Casey Cook, Dee Vanderhoef, John Watson, Ann Bovbjerg
None
STAFF PRESENT:'
Rockwell, Trueblood, Bormann
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Cook called the meeting to order at 7:07 p,m.
CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 23, 1992 MEETING:
Bovbjerg noted on page three, paragraph five, line four, the phrase "criteria applies" should
be changed to the correct plural "criteria apply" so it is understood there is more than one
criterion for site selection, The Committee accepted the November 23, 1992, minutes with
Bovbjerg's correction noted,
I
I
I
I
DISCUSSION OF IMPACT FEES AND IN.L1EU FEES:
Bormann said the use of impact fees, in.lieu fees, and dedications evolved from a desire to
ensure that developers would share the costs incurred by municipalities in developing public
improvements, including perks, Municipalities began conditioning subdivision approval on the
developer dedicating land for public improvements or paying cash in lieu of dedicating land,
Recently, municipalities have been levying impact fees to generate revenue for public
improvements, Impact fees, unlike in.lieu fees which are assessed at the time of platting, are
assessed when a building permit or certificate of occupancy is issued, Thus, impact fees
apply to all new development, not just subdivision development, In addition, impact fees
purport to more accurately correlate a deveiopment's impact and assessment by basing the
assessment on square footage or number of bedrooms per unit rather than on a percentage
of the development's acreage.
Bormann said a municipality must have the authority to assess fees, Iowa City may have
authority to essess fees under Section 409A,8. Code of Iowa, elthough there is a difference
of opinion among commentators and some courts have held that in-lieu fees are outside a
city's authority under similar laws, Amendment 25 to the Iowa Constitution, which grants
"Home Rule" power to municipalities, appears to provide adequate authority for imposing
impact and in.lieu fees.
Bormann said impact fees must not be a disguised tax, State law does not authorize the
imposition of a tax on developers, Under Iowa law, a tax is a charge or levy for general public
purposes while a fee is a charge imposed only as a payment for a benefit conferred. No Iowa
cases involve impact fees, Thus, the ordinance must be carefully drafted or the City may be
challenged, She cited Eastern Diversified Prooerties, Inc, v, Monloomerv Countv. a Maryland
case in which the County lost a challenge to its impact fee ordinance. The Court found that
the dominant purpose of the impact fees was to raise revenue, that a sufficient nexus was
lacking because the impact area was too large, and that there was no determination that the
improvement was necessary. Rockwell said one purpose of incorporating a revised
'I()f
~~.
IC' - . y-. ---
.. .. ..-~..~-....". 1'1f - - '--y--
- - ,-
.. ~-..,..----.......... ------
~:~. ~..<~~-~"'~~~~~~. j"', .:,:,itl......, .,.... ;": .:-: :;"",".. ".'::;- ,'....:"
L ", \ t ,', I <' l . , , .. I' ~. . " '~, '" ,\ ,J
'. t.,. L..I. "", ' ' ;" ,I ' ..., "...., "'"
" " "j,'~,,,, ' '~ll ',;' , p; . "t~-.. .~. \.' '.". . '" ..'., ,_
,,-'.'.. ",' ....
Neighborhood Open Spece Committee
December 21, 1992
Page 2
Neighborhood Open Space Plan narrative in the Comprehensive Plan was to address some of
those issues,
Bormann said that it is important to show that a certain number of homes creates a need for
a certain amount of open space, Some critical points to address are 11 the fee must be for
a benefit conferred, and 21 the funds must be earmarked for and applied to the specific
purpose for which they are assessed. In response to a question regarding the use of impect
fees for feasibility studies, Bormann said she was unsure if the funds could legally be used
for such studies. Bovbjerg said the funds probably couldn't be used for park maintenance.
Bormann said these types of fees are generally used for land acquisition rather than
maintenance.
Bormann said other critical points to consider are that the'funds must be kept in a separate
account and that the funds must be used within a reasonable time. Rockwell asked if one
year would be considered reasonable, Bormann said five or six years may even be considered
a reasonable length of time.
I
Vanderhoef said impact fees assessed on developments in areas which already have a great
deal of development could be a problem because the money generated from one or two
developments would probably not yield enough money for land acquisition. Bormann said that
was probably one reason why a longer period 0.1 time for, using the money wQuld be
considered reasonable, In some cases, however, the city may be forced to provide additional
funds. Rockwell said it may be appropriate for hotel/motel tax money to be used in such
cases. Trueblood said there had been some discussion of using hotel/motel tax money for
open space development, not just for acquisition.
Rockwell asked if the impact fee ordinance would include general comments about the use
of the money. Bormann said the ordinance will have to be specific, but general comments are
acceptable now, for purposes of discussion, She said a development plan is very important.
Watson said as money is collected, the development plan may have to be changed, Rockwell
said comments in the City's Comprehensive Plan could be general in nature; the development
plan could be more detailed and amended as specific situations change.
Bormann said the cost of specific public improvements must be known in order to determine
the amount of the fee that should be assessed individual developers. The ordinance itself will
not specify a dollar amount but will contain a formula for determining the fee. The City must
decide which areas will have parks, which will have trails, and so on. The City can then make
a general estimate of the cost of building a park or trail of a certain size and the fee to
developers would be assessed accordingly, and in direct relationship to the size of the
development.
Watson said some araas do not have as much development as others, He asked how the
money collected would affect less developed areas. Bormann said the formula for
assessments would be based on the number of residents in the araa. Bormann said a problem
with creating a formula for the assessments was the difficulty in nailing down the specific
cost of public improvements, The impact fee ordinance is more susceptible to criticism and
opposition from developers if it is not specific.
Trueblood noted the impact fees are one option, but in.lieu fees or dedications could also be
a way to create open space, . Bormann agreed, but said it may be better to go with impact
'I~r
.,..,~ - y------
....,
- ~ ..---~.~- P"""'V .......~..~---
, .. , ---~ ,-
-... ...WIItfJT"-...
,~:,':,..'~1(/~~,ci\ ':,::'~~"-/\a':~::',:,7:-'.,,::.':;, '::.' :',:',:, :::::,:'
.) . J~ J~;~~~: ACl.'>. ~JPl ,. ~ " . ,-" ::: i:,' :! ~,,'( ,,/ ",
. . ". ' ", ,':,
Neighborhood Open Space Committee
December 21, 1992
Page 3
fees as opposed to in-lieu fees. Trueblood said if suitable land for dedication exists, the City
should be able to accept that from developers, Bovbjerg said she likes the definitions of all
three options. Cook said he would be hesitant to give up any negotiating leverage the City
may have with developers. Bormann said the City Council would have to accept any land
proposed for dedication,
Bovbjerg asked about existing arrangements where developers establish escrow accounts for
the building of sidewalks and other improvements. Bormann said such public improvements
are different because the developers are obligated to construct these improvements and
voluntarily escrow funds in order to receive building permits prior to completion of these
improvements, She said impact fees would not be considered voluntary, Cook thought
escrow accounts established as a condition of receiving a building permit were not necessarily
voluntary.
Bormann said the City's impact fee ordinance would have to satisfy the following
constitutional considerations: 1) Did the government have a public purpose for acting? 21 Are
these means rationally related to public purpose? and 3) Is the public loss greater than the
private benefit? Open space and parks are generally considered to relate to the health, safety
or general welfare and therefore a legitimate public purpose,
I
Bormann said the most important constitutional consideration is whether or not the impact
fees are rationally related to the public purpose. She said there are three tests which are used
to determine whether the fees ere rationally related: 1) a uniquely attributalile test; 2) a
reasonable relationship test; and 3) the rational nexus test. She said there have been no
cases in Iowa challenging impact fees, so there is no Iowa precedent on which to base the
ordinance, The majority of municipalities throughout the United States use the rationel nexus
test. Under that test, fees must be rationally related to the need for public infrastructure
created by the development.
Trueblood said there are 'publications which may show approximate costs of public
improvements, Cook said land acquisition would be an added cost. Bormann said there may
be several sources which provide guidance regarding fair assessments. Bormann said the fees
must be related to the portion of new facilities required by growth, The impact fees cannot
be used to update existing facilities or remedy deficiencies, She reiterated that the fees must
be earmarked for specific purposes and be kept in an account separate from other monies,
Watson asked if the money could be used to improve existing parks if development in an aree
of town causes increased use of an existing park, such as further development of southern
Iowa City causing increased usage of Mercer Park. Bormann believed such use of the money
would be acceptable, as long as the money was used to expand the park in order to
accommodate more users. Bormann said the City must be able to argue that the
improvements are necessary due to growth, The money could be used to correct deficiencies
caused by added growth, but only to the extent that growth-induced needs exceed existing
deficiencies, Watson thought it would be nearly impossible to determine how much of the
cost was due to current usage, and how much was due to projected usage, Rockwell
responded that the costs could be determined proportionally based on existing and projected
populations for an area,
~,
\
.
I{!':"-,' iT....: '&11:'," Ci', "iti! .. '. : :,." .:-:-: ..'.,
~,;. ,~[ .>:~n:':<, JQ/,iU:/: ,,~ _ i' :,:,:'>:~!' :.;:<:.
, "
Neighborhood Open Space Committee
December 21, 1992
Page 4
Bormann said the third constitutional consideration would probably not provide grounds to
challenge an open space impact fee, She said it would be difficult for a developer to prove
that a park or other open space was not for the public benefit.
Cook said the proposed ordinance would be more defensible if the Neighborhood Open Space
, Plan is very strong. Bovbjerg said it should be fairly simple to collect information regarding
the cost of developing open space for various uses. Watson agreed, Trueblood said actual
costs vary a great deal, Rockwell said an average could be determined, Bormann said it was
not necessary to determine actual fees et this point, but rather to know that some sort of
formula will be used to determine the fee for developers on each individual development,
Bormann said even if impact fees satisfy the substantive due process requirements, the
impact fee ordinance can be found invalid if it constitutes a regulatory taking.
Bormann raised a number of specific questions to consider regarding the Neighborhood Open
Space Plan:
1. Can the specific proposal satisfy the rational nexus test? Bormann said the
proposed Plan could probably satisfy that test. She suggested the first plan of action
for creating green space would be to start a trail system in areas where there is more
of a need for green space. She cautioned that the trails should lead somewhere and
should eventually connect so that a system is created,
2. Can the City adequately document the estimated cost of acquiring and constructing
needed open space facilities?
3. Can the City develop a formula which will determine the proportionate share of
each development (the need created by the new development)?
4. Will the City be able to use the funds within a reasonable period of time?
5, Outlying subdivisions will also need open space and that need will have to be
addressed first, Will enough additional funds be generated to make the trail system
feasible? Some developers of these areas may need to dedicate land instead of paying
fees. Other monies may be needed to fund trail system connections:
6, Will the City have funds to expend for those sections of the trail system which
cannot be funded by the impact fees due to the lack of rational nexus or insufficiency
of fees collected? Bormann said there should be some commitment from the City for
other funds to be allocated for trail development, Rockwell said it may not be feasible
to provide trail connections for every park, Rockwell said the Committee should also
be ready to answer questions about the maintenance of scattered fragments of the
trail. Bovbjerg said fraternities, sororities, scout, and other service organizations may
be willing to help with maintenance, i,e, an adopt'a-trail program.
DISCUSSION OF AMENDED NEIGHBORHOOD OPEN SPACE PLAN NARRATIVE:
Watson asked for clarification on page two regarding the 13 "Neighborhood Park Service
Areas." He said the 1978 Comprehensive Plan established 13 areas, and then the 1989
Update "generally affirms that the goels and objectives of [1978) continue to be valid." He
asked if the same 13 areas were adopted as a part of the 1989 Plan. Rockwell said no, those
l/~1
~..... fIF -- .,,-.----
- .. ....-----...-~-- ......-11'---,.--.. - -...,.....,...-~...- ,..'~ - ..
{;i ' <L~I"'" ',: ','liJ': ::C:;" < .; ;,'1' '... '; ,:j". ':.~:" .. ",,',:~,:,':'
,~. 'I~, \r,:,~:,:,:,:,,~,:.:I",f71',"":..'~.", ,',' ", ":.:.. ."1' :. '.. \-
.., ,'",'.~.......: ".. \~ '.:":-'" ;~' " ',I' ~ I ". '," ,". .',' .,' ~', 1.,
Neighborhood Open Space Committee
December 21, 1992
Page 5
13 areas cover the entire City and the 1989 Plan dealt only with developing areas of the
community, Bovbjerg said the statement indicated concern for providing open space was
nothing new. Watson said the last sentence of the second paragraph should be changed from
"strategies. . . was never formally adopted" to "strategies, , . were never adopted."
Bovbjerg said on page two, the fourth paragraph, second sentence, should be changed from
"did not include downtown" to "did not consider downtown," Watson suggested another
paragraph be added on page three, before the first full paragraph, The paragraph to be
inserted should read: "Pressure to arow bevond the Citv's existina boundaries has been
evident since comoletion of the wastewater treatment facilities, As this arowth occurs, newlv
acouired areas should be fullv incoroorated into this Plan, These areas should be olaced in
existina or newlv-created Neiahborhood Ooen Soace Districts. Neiahborhood ooen soace
needs should be assessed and acauired,"
Watson ,said page five, second full paragraph, last sentence, should be changed from "more
than the formula provides for" to "more than the formula allows," There was some discussion
of the correct way to define the formula for the amount of open space needed. Watson said
the formula should read as follows:
[(A x .65DU x PDU) + CPJ x 3/1000. (SS + PSI = OSN
It was decided the following definitions should accompany the formula:
A = Number of acres
DU = Dwelling units per acre (.65 . 65 percent of maximum density allowed by
Zoning Ordinance)
PDU = Persons per dwelling unit (2,34 based on 1990 Census)
CP = Current population (from 1990 Census datal
SS = School site (25 percent or 5 acres. whichever is lessl
PS = Park space up to 7 acres
OSN = Open space needed
Rockwell said Senior Planner Monica Moen suggested "3/1000" be included in the definitions;
"3 acres of ooen soace oer 1 000 oersons."
Bovbjerg suggested on page five, the first full paragraph, last sentence, be changed from
"park. which is adjacant" to "park that is adjacent." Rockwell said Moen had suggested that
under "b, Area measurements are taken to determine:" the first bullet, "Acreage of existing
developed areas," be deleted from the Plan, Watson said on page six, under item 2. that".
(I) above," be changed to "(f, above)" Bovbjerg said the "a," before the final paragraph
should be removed and the paragraph should not be indented because that is the only
subparagraph,
Watson said on page nine, a caption should be included for the origin of the map - "MM
below taken from 1978 Plan," Rockwell said an updated map showing the watersheds would
be used instead of the 1978 map, Watson said that would be preferable. Rockwell
suggested tha third sentence on page nine be changed from "a trail system could be
developed. . . along waterways through the use of subdivision development impact fees" to
"a trail system could be developed. , . along waterways through 5I:I1llIivJ5ieA. development
~f
\
,
I
I
I
,
I
I
!.
,
;':,0':'", L~/':',(d <';:~-;""'''''I ',"';"-"'.''' ,:"':'; : ",",':;', ...
I. -,.., 'f" . '1?!1 ,H ,. 'I~ ' , ' .' ,'" ". ' .
.~ ':', .......;:' I" '''I '1''':\; ,.,~-;-=".,..,. ';~~ \" ".',' " ....: _: J', ,r.'" : ',',":':'.
,
Neighborhood Open Space Committee
December 21, 1992
Page 6
impact fees or mandatorv dedications." Vanderhoef said the next to last sentence should be
changed from "fees, , . could be used" to "fees, , , should be used."
Watson said on page ten, under the category "Watersheds," the "River Corridor" should be
called the "~ River Corridor." Rockwell asked if the last sentence of the last paragraph
should say "benefitting residents would be responsible for D.Wi2I maintenance," Watson said
that sentence should be changed to "benefiting r,esidents would ~ responsibility for
maintenance,
DEVELOPMENT OF PLAN PRESENTAT,ION FORMAT:
It was decided the Committee members would meet informally prior to the next Planning and
Zoning' Commission meeting to discuss the format of the presentation of the Neighborhood
Open Space Plan.
DEVELOPMENT OF SCHEDULE AND PUBLIC RELATIONS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS:
Bovbjerg said Parent-Teacher Organizations may provide a good forum for the Plan
presentation, Watson suggested the following locations: Horn School or West High for Clear
Creek and Willow Creek Watersheds; Grant Wood School for Snyder creek Watershed; Lucas
School for Lower Ralston Creek Watershed; Regina Education Center for Upper Ralston Creek
Watershed; Longfellow Elementary for Ralston Creek Watershed; and the Iowa Memorial
Union for the Iowa River Corridor Watershed,
Cook and Vanderhoef will give presentations on February 22. 23, and 24. Bovbjerg and
Watson will present the Plan on February 1 or 3, 9 or 11, and March 2 or 3.
NEXT MEETING DATE:
It was decided that the next meeting would be held on Monday, January 25, 1993 at 7:00
p.m, [Editor's Note: Meeting canceled due to deferral of the Plan presentation to the City
Council.)
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 9:42 p.m,
Minutes submitted by Kati Kennedy Brown.
no,12.21.rrin
'10'
I
fIII1. .- "..-. -----
.. .. .------.~- ....... ~~.....-r'-....... ,-
-.- ...--...,.---,,--~,-
(
~:, >"L~''''::L:J'''' G::." ',:i:{:" ',".' '::':, ;,'::"..,
I:," :;',r~,:' :.:~,:ry:" ::!~zi: ":~~,., : > ',.',..,'.',', ::.> ,::,::
119
STATE OF
I
TERRY E. BRANSTAD, GOVERNOR
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
PAUL H, W'ECK II, COMMISSIONER
February 16, 1993
Chief R.J. Winkelhake
Iowa City Police Department
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City IA 52240
~~
WQ
Dear Chief Winelhake:
Congratulations! It is my pleasure to announce that you have
been selected to receive the Commissioner's Special Award for
Excellence in Traffic Safety in the Law Enforcement category.
The award will be presented on Thursday, March 4, 1993, 'during
the Governor's Highway Traffic Safety Conference at approximately
1:00 p.m. following the luncheon. The conference is being held
at the Embassy Suites on the River, 101 East Locust, in Des
. Moines. Lunch will be provided for you and one guest.
Please contact Sandy Bennett of our office at (515) 281-5431 to
confirm whether you plan to attend and for more information.
Congratulations again.
Very truly yours,
~.;z.~d y~
~MICHAEL LASKI, Director
Governor's Traffic Safety Bureau
MJC/sb
cc: M. Campbell
C. Whitlow
file
GOVERNOR'S TRAFFIC SAFETY BUREAU
307 EAST 7TH STREET 1 DES MOINES. IOWA 50319,024B 1515,28 1,3907
lito
, -- tluman ~rvices, Iowa State University i
Iy, Extension, the Girl Scouts and mental- ,
Families In need are People, health centers are among the many organj. ei.!l
not getting a com pre- communities, zations involved in this promising under, J
hensive long.term organizations taking, Mid.Iowa Community Action Inc" wo
packate of services making a cal
from t e existing sys, difference based in Marshalltown, is adminJstering J
tern I said Scott Miller, the grant from the Connecticut.based me
project director. Instead, they too often en. Casey Foundation, which focuses on the yO!
counter bureaucratic red tape that defies well.being of children, It is hoped that the bat
creative solutions, and a lack of informa. foundation will continue to prOvide grants I
tion about what is available, over the next five years. con
~ "Move the Mountain" wants to change AIso, the project plans to involve at least isn'
Iml
that to assist more parents and children 200 residents of the five counties who do An,
living in Story, Hardin, Marshall, Powe. not work in the organizations involved _ mil
shiek and Tama counties in dealing with from single mothers, to retired workers to anc
all.too.common family problems such as white-collar professionals - in developing "re
I lack of health care, unemployment and the strategic plans. The idea Is to learn I
child abuse, Just as important, a heavy em. from their fresh perspectives, said Miller, /
~ phasis will be placed on preventive meas. "Move the Mountain" stands to become a /
ures, rural model for the nation. The commit-
Strengthening the accountability of local ment many Central Iowans are making to
organizations for roducing results is an. its success is admirable,
What's in that bot ? Oa
yoke
. publi
"On (
p our water in a bottie and some water is unknown. lessl)
lsts,\
pie will pay more for it than for gas. That's changing, rmally, llun\\
oline, That's testimony to the power The U,S. Food and Drug Administration they
of salesmanship,lnevitably there are those has decided the public has a right to know counl
who assume that if something is for sale, it the source of bottled water it buys, and the killed
must have a value. Remarkably, no enter- right to assume the bottled water is as safe name
prising entrepreneur has yet tapped this as tapwater (which is all that much of it is, fessJo
He
vein of logic to make a fortune selling bot. whatever fancy name the salespeople glue' Ing th
tied air.
Between 1976 and 1986, Americans Iri. onit). then I
The FDA also wants the public to know if firms
pled their purchases of bottied water, to an the water is spring water or artesian water hasal
average of four gallons per person per or mineral water, not that it matters all his ch
year, It's now up to eight. But there is no that much, 'Artesian water is groundwater profe!
evidence that bottled water is any Malthi- forced to the surface by pressure of water othel'l
er than tapwater, and some concern that It at higher levelsj ,spring water surfaces precis
isn't as safe. The Iowa State HygenJc Lablr nelhe!
ratory tested 39 bottied.water samples when a cliff or slope intersects an aquifer. blesS(.'
three years ago and found "significant Mineral water contains magnesium or sili; IIlI1'
leveis of heterotrophic bacteria lindicating ca or calcium or boron or iron or any com. radio
the potential for pathogens) in a few of the bination of chemicals dissolved in the aqui- joined
samples," The contamination could have fer, and each is blessed with its own story ty,Ou
regarding Its supposed healing qualities, throu!
occurred while the botties sat on the grlr teurlsl
cery shelf; bottlers sometimes use ozone as As long as it imparts a distinctive taste the as
a disinfectant, because chlorine (used in that users assume to be healthful, it serves more
most public water supplies) tastes funny, its purpose. public,
But ozone doesn't have the staying power Some consumer groups hall the FDA ble prl
of chlorine, meaning that over time, bot- action as a welcome, If belated, effort to throug
tied water could become unsafe. educate the public, That's fine, as long as lervlel
The contamination found in the Iowa the federal stamp of approval isn't con. before
pllhy"
tests could also have come from the source, strued as a stamp of authenticity for what. enhan<
but as the testers noted, the source of bot. ever implicit claim the salespeople make. me off
latedtl
The)
tion UI1
REDISTER EDITORIALS "P'I',enlthe 1",lI/ullolUll and edll.llhe editorials, 771t laller group 1",lud" buslne,
view of the newspaper, 771'11 reflIX11ht n~vspaptr'. Denni. R, Ry.,.,on, tdltar of Iht tdltarial pog", does no
.diloriallradiUo", and Iht cumnl oplnlo", of Richard Dcak, .repuly edllor of lilt edilorial p<lg.., It ha
Publl.her Chari.. C, Edward.r Jr" Edllor Gtrleva and Rtkha 8..u, Ro: Laird, Linda Lantor, 811I self.ri!
Ol!tl'ho~tr, and Iht edilorial p<lgt "qfJ Ihol UJriI.. Leonard and Suzannt Nc/son, edl,orial UJriitrt, such a
~-'--'-_'~"L- ~/I
-,
v-~
..- ".~T ..... ,.-~ ~
, ',.. ,'..', "....' ' ~.". ,. :' .,' .... " "..,. :.... ',:,
,!;",',:-,t]l....,'..:~: :,':~' ':, :'.:, ,.' :':' :,: ,,"':,, "':
I. I' ' ',.1,. '.I e.' I,', I' "':' . "1/
... I 't' . ,., ,'" \ .. ' '. ,
.:,.' ~ .: 1, "\'" I"", ,:- i' " i... I,' ' " 1, '. I' 1 '" .' 1 . . ."
., .. '..,
I
,.,~ -~-- ..".....-----
.. .. ....-------.............,- .... ~ ..,.....,-------.-~......-,~ -
...--...,.----..--' ..,..----....-
.
\~,:', 't~l':~ ,"lil~' ,t:~, . :' ,(2:: , ' , :, " ",., ',:',' ",:;:
t, .'.,': 101. ,.r IJ7J " ~Pl ,.~', '. ' .' J
.... .:\...;....~~.:' ....I.,~ ~ .~.:'~\. , ')lIM'O'\,',. " , ... 'r,';' ;" :', ..'.
: '(' 1'.Te! f: 1993
I... ..1,.
SENATE FILE ~
BY COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
~
(SUCCESSOR TO SSB 96)
Passed Senate, Date
Vote: Ayes Nays
Approved
Passed House, Date
Vote: Ayes Nays
I
,
I
J
!
I
I
I
I
I
A BILL FOR
1 An Act relating to fertilizers or. soil conditioners and
2 pesticide~ by prohibiting regulations by local governmental
~ entities.
4 BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF IOWA:
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
~~
<J~/t;W. ~~
.IW ~ll~ ~ /W ,~ t(
~ 10 a,vOfdwy ~
MtJ ',4/7
~h;w ~I
TLSB 1440SV .15
da/cf/24
'II~
I
\I
,
-
i
.
.'~---
-.,.-...... fI5l - ...-.---
- r ..----.~--.-r 1 -r -
---r-- --- ,-
y ...,.-
::-:':';, 7 ~.:,,;~" '" ~ i~'':''~' :'-"tj' ':.' :,. ':' ;<','1: ,:" :',:,;" '; :.:': .,'
I., ".L.l "I /' 1 ',j , , " . ",/!o' ,'," .'
,.,,:\.\r~.f.,~i,:':.."t.,y,.1 I,.'.'~\ "'~'" 'fl";'''' : -::." , ". ',,~:,:.r,>,"
S.F. ~ H.F.
I
1 Section 1. NEW SECTION. 200.22 LOCAL LEGISLATION __
2 PROHIBITION.
3 1. As used in this section:
4 a. "Local governmental entity" means any political
5 subdivision, or any state authority which is not the general
6 assembly or under the direction of a principal central
7 department as enumerated in section 7E.5, including a city as
8 defined in section 362.2, a county as provided in chapter 359,
9 or ~ny special purpose district.
10 b. "Local legislation" means any ordinance, motion,
11 resolution, amendment, regulation, or rule adopted by a local
12 governmental entity.
13 2. The provisions of this chapter and rules adopted by the
14 department pursuant to this chapter shall preempt local
15 legislation adopted by a local governmental entity relating to
16 the use, sale, distribution, storage" transportation,
17 disposal, formulation, labeling, registration, or manufacture
18 of a fertilizer or soil conditioner. A local governmental
19 entity shall not adopt or continue in effect local legislation
20 relating to the use, sale, distribution, storage,
21 transportation, disposal, formulation, labeling, registration,
22 or manufacture of a fertilizer or soil conditioner, regardless
23 of whether a statute or rule adopted by the department applies
24 to preempt the local legislation. Local legislation in
25 violation of this section is void and unenforceable.
26 3. 'This section does not apply to local legislation of
27 general applicability to commercial activity.
28 Sec. 2. NEW SECTION. 206.34 LOCAL LEGISLATION __
29 PROHIBITION.
30 1. As used in this section:
31 a. "Local governmental entity" means any political
32 subdivision, or any state authority which is not the general
33 assembly or under the direction of a principal central
34 department as enumerated in section 7E.5, including a city as
35 defined in section 362.2, a county as provided in chapter 359,
-1-
</Id-
~
I
y---
... .. ...---~. ~- .....". .,.....-------..---r -....... ,-
.. - T - ..--~ ........-.-
'i: "f'~" ,.': ,&]": ,(2(',' ~~,:. .: ;, ,~' <' " <:,' : .,..'
I,:.,~. ~t '(.....~..8j. ,',~ .~::" .," ",',:, ':. . . ."::"
. ,) ';~,',")r"'I.,;"' ':~'" ~I(""'l" ". :: " : ""'r,.
S.F. ~ H.F.
1 or any special purpose district.
2 b. "Local legislation" means any ordinance, motion,
3 resolution, amendment, regulation, or rule adopted by a local
4 governmental entity.
5 2. The provisions of this chapter and tules adopted by the
6 department pursuant to this chapter shall preempt local
7 legislation adopted by a local governmental entity relating to
8 the use, sale, distribution, storage, transportation,
9 disposal, formulation, labeling, registration, or manufacture
10 of, a pesticide. A local governmental entity shall not adopt
11 or continue in effect local legislation relating to the use,
12 sale, distribution, storage, transportation, disposal,
13 formulation, labeling, registration, or manufacture of a
14 pesticide, regardless of whether a statute or rule adopted by
15 the department applies to preempt the local legislation.
16 Local legislation in violation of this section is void and
17 unenforceable.
18 3. This section does not apply to local legislation of
19 general applicability to commercial activity.
20 EXPLANATION
21 This bill amends chapter 200, regulating fertilizers and
22 soil conditioners, and chapter 206, regulating pesticides. It
23 provides that the provisions of the chapters, and rules
24 adopted by the department of agriculture and land stewardship
25 pursuant to the chapters, preempt legislative or
26 administrative measures adopted by a local governmental
27 entity, if the legislation or regulation relates to the use,
28 sale, distribution, storage, transportation, disposal,
29 formulation, labeling, registration, or manufacture of
30 fertilizers and soil conditioners under chapter 200 or
31 pesticides under chapter 206. The local governmental entity
32 is prohibited from adopting or continuing in effect such a
33.measure, regardless of whether a statute or rule adopted by
34 the department applies to preempt' it. Such a measure is void
35 and unenforceable.
-2-
lit J..
l< .....-- f/9-.'- .......----------..---..~~___....ar'?
I
I,
I
I
I
I
,
I
":. ....-::, '.:l.j~ ,,"f>'. "';lJ' '. '.,:"--.'.:.. '>"\'
I.' ,f'J 'f\'l ('71.' <18 ", ", - . '.,
,.., ' '. .liI: \ ,\. i ~": ,:" '\,....... " ':..... I ',', t ',," d', " :
S.F.
~~
H.F.
1 This bill does not apply to local legislation of general
2 applicability to commercial activity.
3
4
5
6
7 .
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2,5
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
I
I
,
I
i
I
I
I
j
I
I
!
-3-
LSB 1440SV 75
rla /cf/?d
'/I;;' ,
I
............,~
I~~; ~..'(I:',' ,~r , ,i ,t::.>: ',~,(}:"':'.' .o": :. ',::::: ."'/' '::', '/~'
'.~ . '. 'J,--:~\,.\~;g~'I),~~:J .}, .1:;1.1\, . ' " , , ':-,~:.~'. L"'
FEB 2 1993
HOUSE FILE' I a 0
B~ DODERER, HAMMOND, NEUHAUSER,
CARPENTER, BERNAU, METCALF,
DVORSK~, BRAND, and BRAMMER
J.Q,C6L GOVtJmr'ii;:I'i1'
Passed House, Date
Vote: Ayes Nays
Approved
Passed Senate, Date
Vote: Ayes Nays
A BILL FOR
I
1 An Act requlrlng that certain appointments by political
2 subdivisions be gender balanced, and establishing an
3 applicability provision.
4 BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF IOWA:
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 ~ ,
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
:t
"11
....
\}
o
TLSB 1574HH 75
mc/sc/14
'/1;-.
af~Jr.rJ
nun
'If
RUllllIlIJ.1...l11~ ~~~ '
-
ilL
I
~
~ - -.........'-------..- ...--.............-...-~--- ...--r--, ...... - - ~-..... .,-
- ...----..,.- ----.....--.- ........ -- -
,
;:~~-,::'y7i.) :""M,:\)J:,,' .'.,:,r""...: ....: :: ,.:,::':' ';;.,
.: ,;.tit." Xq".. ..'Zl., .t'~~... '. ' ,<. '. . .'. ," ,
., ., .'. ~. ).'. '.
. ..--_. .-..._... -.-..,
f
S.F.
H.F.
lot)
1 Section 1. Section 69.l6A, Code 1993, is amended to read
2 as follows:
3 69.l6A GENDER BALANCE.
4 1. As used in this section, unless the context otherwise
5 requires, "political subdivision" means a city, county,
6 township, public school district, or any other unit of local
7 government.
8 ~ All appointive boards, commissions, committeesL and
9 councils of the state established by the Code tf-not-otherwi~e
10 provided-by-:aw, and all appointive boards, commissions,
11 committees, and councils of a political subdivision shall be
12 gender balanced, if not otherwise provided by law. No person
13 shall be appointed or reappointed to any board, commission,
14 committee, or council e~tab:iahed-by-t.he-eode covered by this
15 section if that appointment, or reappointment would cause the
16 number of members of the board, commission, committee, or
1i council of one gender to be greater than one-half the
18 membership of the board, commission, committee, or council
19 plus one if the board, commission, committee, or council is
20 composed of an odd number of members. If the board,
21 commission, committee, or council.is composed of an even
l
22 number of members, not more than one-half of the membership
23 shall be of one gender. If there are multiple appointing
24 authorities for a board, commission, committee, or council,
25 they shall consult each other to avoid a violation of this
26 section. ~hi~-aection-~ha::-not-prohibit-an-individtla:-Erom
27 comp:etin9-a-term-bein9-aerved-on-atlne-3e7-%98t~
28 Sec. 2. APPLICABILITY. This Act applies to all
29 ap~ointments made on or after its effective date. However,
30 this Act shall not prohibit persons who are serving as members
31 of boards, commissions, committees, and councils as of the
32 Act's effective date from completing their terms. Appointive
33 authorities ,shall make appointments in a manner so as to
34 achieve gender balance as soon as possible after the effective
35 date of the Act, in filling vacancies as they occur.
-1-
-.-.
.
"'~Il rH lJ1JI'lIlIifIllwmrrf1l9S1
P"
..!Il1--d11.
, -
I/I~
,
.....
I
I~:':' >:::'t/- ";:;",~ '.','J:; ,; ':J,'l"':-:: '.:..;" "',.::',,,,' ',:.::..,;'
.~' .~[ ,I" ".fIft., 'ZI. ':',""",_:," ,', ' . ,,""
., '. ,,'< "." I, . '.
S.F.
H.F. lOt;
1 EXPLANATION
2 This bill requires that political subdivisions appoint
3 members to boards, commissions, committees, and councils of
4 the political subdivision in a manner so as to gender balance
5 the entity, if not otherwise provided by law.
6 The bill provides that it applies to appointments made on
7 or after its effective date, July 1, 1994, and that members
8 serving on or after that'date may complete their terms.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
-2-
LSB l574HH 75
mc!sc!14
I
'II~
\
I
::: ,:;',:L~I .":l~r:., :lL>','': \igl. ~,.::. ',:....',,'..;'. ;:: >:'.'
;,".;--..~U, ',:-:?J;~.'.-.~I~,.,I':.l""';~ 1"'::"" I .: ,'.,,'.....~.,
~EB 4 1993
ENERG'( MW
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Passed House, Date
Vote: Ayes Nays
Approved
A BIl.L FOR
HOUSE FILE ~
BY FALLON
Passed Senate,
Vote: Ayes
Date
Nays
1 An Act relating to urban pesticide application signs and making
2 penalties applicable.
3 BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF IOWA:
4
5
6
7
8
9
ii ~~o.y I
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,25
':'LSB 1938HH 75
js/sc/14
~'
'"
~
\:)
I/I~
.
~.... fI/fJ~ -- - v..- - -- ._n ....-.-.-...-
\
I
I
I
I
l
I
l
~
j
J
~ .
t.
l'
.'
Ii
,
.,
j
I
I
I
\
!
,
y..... t~/. ':'.~": <~':; >8- . <'.::. " .,.:.'. ;",,:, '>.'
1:\,.. I " , ~. .' . "} I" ,
-. . " ., ", '\ ' . -',
",'.'.' '0:' .',> .' .' . f " :' l"
. .l.~'. 't.':, ,,'.~ . ~l"'''."''. ' . .
S.F.
H.F.~
1 Section 1. NEW SECTION. 206.34 NOTIFICATION SIGNS -_
2 URBAN PESTICIDES.
3 The notification sign required to be posted for urban
4 pesticide application for residential, commercial, or public
5 lawns or gardens, or other similar areas shall consist of a
6 sign or placard with a minimum size of eight and one-half
7 inches by eleven inches. The lettering shall not be less than
8 one-half inch in size.
9 EXPLANATION
10 This bill requires that the minimum size for a notification
11 sign of an application of an urban pesticide shall be eight
12 and one-half inches by 11 inches with at least one-half inch
13 lettering. Current administrative rules require that a sign
14 at a minimum be four inches by five inches with at least
15 three-eights of an 'inch lettering. A violation of this
16 provision is considered to be a serious misdemeanor under
,17 section 206.22, which is punishable by a fine of ~p to $1,000
18 and imprisonment not to exceed one year.
19
20
21
, 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
-1-
LSB 1938HH 75
,
js/sc/14
'f/~
i
I
-- ,.... -' y-,-
.. .. .......---..-~-- -r "",,~'-r- ~-~ ,.~
. ......,..- ...-
I~~;': ,'; r<,' .""~' ,:'t':: ','.",~j;.. ,,:': ":,': :<" >,:::::"
.' ,tJ I .' . ~;J1 . Ja ,.;:1. , . , \ " ' .'
.,' , . ~ , ..' .' \, " l' ,. - ,.." ,.'. .
FEBRUARY NEWSLETTER 1993
10th Anniversary of FLP
Dear Free Lunch Providers,
We really hit the jackpot. We got not one but two new
directors. They are Betty Schutter and Meg Strohmer. They
take over the directorship as of February 1. I appreciate
the commitment they are making and know they will do a
wonderful job.
I leave this job with mixed feelings. I'm grateful to
Betty and Meg, knowing had I tried to be a student and
director I would have done a poor job at both, I am also
somewhat sad. I have never regretted my decision to do this
job. It has been an enjoyable experience from the
beginning, Through Free Lunch I have met the most kind,
caring, and compassionate people I've ever known. Your
dedication and hard work are what make this program go,
quietly and sometimes unnoticed, day after day, year and
year. You have so much to be proud of. I feel privileged
to have been part of the program. Happy lOth anniversay,
everyone.
Lizann Miller
\
10TH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION
GreetIngs to our thirty-five team leaders!
As we start our new venture as co-directors of the Free
Lunch Program we realize we have a great heritage going back
ten years when the first free lunches were served.
To remember those who recognized a need and started the
first "soup kitchen" and to learn of the "growing years"
which brought us to our present six-day-a-week program, we
invite you to a salad supper in the Welsey Foundation's
lounge on Thursday; Feb. 16 5:30-7:00 pm. We hope each team
will be represented. Please bring a salad to share and your
own service. There will be a board meeting following at
7;30 pm and we do encourage you to stay for it,
One of the jcyS of participating in this program is in
getting to know others working with their groups. On this
Ten Year Reunion night we'll get to meet many who served
befcre us and hear their stories of how we were born and how
we grew, Come, let's thank them for their vision!
FROM THE NEW DIRECTORS
We new directors would like to say helle to all. We hope we
can continue the excellent work that has been done and hope
we can also contribute to the growth of the Program. If any
of you have questions ,or suggestions, please contact us. We
will try to try to keep basic supplies stocked, but please
let us know of needs. We will be updating procedures on
preparation and cleanup in the next month. Heg's phone is
351-5567, Betty's Is 351-4763.
~.sJu~
B;;tq' cfdt;:dti:U
'113
\
0,
I~:" : ':L7t,: ,':,~: ,::,,'d.',, ,:,'":,C,,,-','~, ' ',::,', ',,: ',,:::-,,: :,',::,:,::,
'., ,", tJ, \ ,~sl", t~J. 'c, r_~Zl" " , " : "..' ,. ' " ".- -
'" , '''", , . .,_', " I, " . .. .
NOTES FROM THE JANUARY VOLUNTEER MEETING
Clientel should help taking down tables. Give them a
gentle reminder before they all leave. You can also check
with Chris on the building schedule to determine whether
they nsed to be taken down, Currently the dining room is
scheduled for use Monday and Thursday as a waiting room,
Friday for folkdanclng. Sunday for a meeting.
The large skillet for stir-fry and one large cooking pot
have been missing for several months,. If anyone knows their
where-abouts please return them. Ther~ave been sorely
missed,
A reminder that no cameras or filming of clientel should be
allowed. Recommend to PR people that volunteers only can be
filmed,
We stili have an empty date Feb, 25. All other meal dat.es
are filled through March 29. Volunteers or suggestions
welcomed,
Two new coffee pots and a new refrigerator have been
purchased and are already in use, Three new tables have
been purchased for the program and should arrive shortly,
New ballasts for the dining room lights will be the next
items replaced,
The Free Medical Clinic Is remodelling a new lab space so
'there should soon be more countsr and kitchen space.
The stove also has a new vented hood, The draft from it is
vsry strong, A reminder that the oven pilot lights must be
lit before use, A suggestion was made to TURN ON THE FAN
BEFORE LIGHTING, THE OVEN PILOT LIGHTS as the draft
extinguishes them, Remember to turn off th~ fari when
leaving.
Flyers for the February 26 Charlie King fundraiser at Old
Brick have been distributed. You each should havs received
them. Tickets are $8.50 in advance and $10,00 at the door,
Children are $5,00. They will be available at the 10 Year
Reunion.
FUNDING- 19 churches have responded to the request for FLP
cash donations. The support is to offset our use of Wesley
House building maintenance,
A supply of adhesive stickers has been placed in the drawer
with the log book for your use in labelling and dating any
foods left. Please use thsm because undated food must be
discarded, If you wish to freeze food for your group's
future use, please include the group name and Intended date.
Any undeslgnated may be ussd by any group,
'113
.. .. .---.~-....". ,....~.~--......-..~ -
, ..~ - ..... -...... ----...--. ...... -- -
,
~:",.\.,.l t-:'/\': j''';'~' ~"',.' '. .~.\- ',,:' <;' 1'.,' ' .....:.J :';:':"" ': ":\
I', .' b],. '-b',"" IL:j,," ," , "
~ ::':,<':,:\'];':,~~)m' /);~r. :',~.: ,:',<>';"<:,,:-':',
SERVING SCHEDULE
Monday
1. Trinity Episcopal, Shelly Ha11354-8746 or 335.2320, Dan Lee, 353-5134
2. Zion Lutheran, Janice Koerner, 351-4841
3. St. Mark's United Methodist, Denise Briligan, 338.1315
4. St. Wenceslaus, Margaret Ping, 643.5788
5. First Congregational, Barbara Hanson, 351.4925
Tuesday
1. Coralville United Methodist, Carol Fausett, 351.4925
2. Wesley Foundation/Iowa City Coalition on Hunger, Jennifer Weeber, 354-5561
3. St. Thomas More Women's Bible Study, Karyl McCarty, 351.6189
4. New Horizons, Lorrie Jackson" 353-4868
5. OPEN
Wednesday
1. St. Andrew, Anita Spenler, 338.4250; Virginia Spalding, 338-1942; Judy Walker, 351.2897
2. St. Thomas More, Marita McGurk Eicher, 338.9056
3. First Mennonite, Pat Miller, 338.7218; First Baptist, Sarah Eaton, 351-6021; Faith UCC,
Cher Panther, 354-1906
4. Agudas Achim, Jeanne Cadoret, 644-2746; Rebecca Rosenbaum, 337.5187; Iowa City
Friends, ; Iowa Socialist Party, Karen Kubby, 338-1321
5. First United Methodist, Jean Kuhn, 337.2944
Thursday
1. Plum Grove, Bev Johlin, 354-0017
2. Latter Day Saints, Mindi Labrum, 354.1343
3. First Presbyterian, Dordana Mason, 338.1026; Pam Ehrhardt, 351.6531
4. Education for Living, Diane Marlin, 351.7616 or 335.7420
(alternate months: Jan, March, May, etc.)
5. Joyce Leff, 351.8220
Friday
1. Salvation Army, Captain Miriam Miller, 337.3725
2. Unitarian Universalist, Greg Kammeyer, 626.3003
3. St. Mary's, Susan Whitsitt, 351.8168
4. Gloria Dei, Lisa Walz, 351.2780
5. OPEN
Saturday
1. Newman Center - every other month, Oct., Dec., Feb.
2. Grace Fellowship; Sharon Center United Methodist, Jackie Gibbs, 351-1357; Christ the
King, Rosemary Larson, 338.6829
3. Parkview Evangelical Free, John & Trudy Nidey, 351.4886
4. Trinity Christian Reformed, Kathy Henry, 337.9850
5. Pilot's Club, Mary Young, 351.2496
2/93
1/J
..
~....... - ,., - ..-. -----
- .. .---~. ....r,.- ..... r ..,......~ .-..-,..--,...... ,~
-- .... --....,.------............~
,
. . . .
:'; .~...'~ ,'1: ,: """'M"':';~l' ' ,',>' ":':::'" ""
I" L I ,..[J ',' ",' , ' , ,,' ""',
~',' '-: ' :'~~ '- ;/,{(J,,',', . ...... ';,~, ,; '1"""" I '~'." " :.". '0,:,:: " >:.,.:' " ....~:.;.
~~v o,'^~~UX TELECOPIER 7011 ; 2-12-93 3'38PM;
JOHNSON COUNTY AUDITOR TEL:3l9-356-6086
319 3S6 6086~ 3193565009:" 1
Feb 12,93 15:23 No.010 P.Ol/02
Juhn."n C:lIUlI')'
_ \ IOWA:> BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Patricia A. Meade, Chairperson
10e Balkcom
Charles D. Duffy February 16, 1993
Stephen P. Lacina
Belly Ockenfels INFORMAL MEETING
Agenda
o
~;~S
L~
W
~ ~..-~
ri1 UJ
::0
_'-S
1. Call to order 9:00 a.m.
--
".. "'.N
...
2. Review of the minutes,
...:;_.. ..., .-.
. i....
c?'; ,:..)
:... "
..'
::J
3, Business from Cheryl Whitnc)', Area Administrator for Department of
Human Services,
\
a) Discussion re:' sublease between Johnson County and Slate of Iowa
for the benefit of the Department of Human Services, Cedar Rapids
Region.
b) Other
4. Business from the Director of S,E.A.T,S.
a) Discussion re: S.E.A.T,S. service contract with Iowa City and
Coralville.
b) Olher
5. Business ~rom Keith Jones, President of Coralville Library Board of
Trustees rc: library funding/discussion.
6. Business from the County Auditor.
a) Discussion ro: review of FY '93 audit proposals received.
b) Other
913 SOUTH OUBl1Qua ST. p,o, BOX 1350 IOWA CITY, IOWA 52244-1350 "CL: (319) 356-6000 PAX: (319) m'601t/l~
\
I
.,.-:r _ ..".....-
"--"~'-"R"""1~ ......
,.-.. - - .....,- -_9 ,._
.. .......,..-
...... ....,......... -..... .,-
j
:: "-t~f "in ':'L" 0 ' :' "" ' .. ,,' .,',' .. "
'< · Ct ,'.'(l>::'}4f ',;'iL~ :,:':>", :" ,',:: ,;' ,,:,,'::':,:,'
"... """_' w" ._____. ._,. ..-- .
Feb 12,93 15: 24 NO .ViV r .U~I u~
JOHNSON COUNTY AUDITOR TEL:319-356-6086
Agenda 2-16.93
Pag(' 2
I
i
"
"
i
t
~
i.
I
i
7. Busi~ess from the County Attorney.
a) Executive Session to discuss strategy rc:
bargaining.
b) Other
8. Business from the Bmwd of Supervisors.
a) Reports
b) Other
9, Discussion from the public.
10. Recess.
r
I
I
S.E.A.T.S. collective
cr:l
Vl
.- ." '~
,::- ,.i ~,.
.-:1,-," r.'J ,
.. '_0'
.... . ,
.' .-
-...... '" i
" I
.-
-. ~ i
. ,...~ I
p", ,
- I' - i
-..' {l
,"',. "
'.
'" .- i
i
i
I
1
I
,
I
I
I
,
i
i
i
!
tfl(
~ 1'1'- - ,,-.--- -.. ..~..-....,. }-. .--r----
::,,' -:-,.:,~ ':',' , "'I~: ':", (\,:,"", '.,' : :::
L ' . ,L,.t "L,. ' , , "",',
.": "'\:~J~.t' ',\ " ~,,')...," '::, , )~: ",', \ ":"', ,I -:: ',:, . '.:<
JOHNSON COUNTY AUDITOR TEL:319-356-60B6
Feb 17,93 8:25 No.004 P.Ol/03
Jnh.llon Cnunl)'
_ \ i()WA~
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Patricia A. Meade, Chairperson
. Jo~ Balkcom
Charles D. Duffy
Stephen P. Lacina
Belly Ockenfels
February 18, 1993
FORMAL MEETING
Agenda
1. Call to order 9:00 a.m. \.:>
- W
0 ..."
2. Action re: claims :::;c-; ,..,., , '7J
"',.,- co ~ '
,.;....-:
c-:...:, l::"~
-..J ';'~
3. Action re: minutes -in
=<r~' ;::. ..i
:"r:1 ' . ~
- .~-
o~ ~? ..,)
~'-: ""
4. Action re: . payroll authorizations :-
~
\.::l
5. Business from the County Auditor.
\
a) Action ra: permits
~) Action re: reporls
1, Clerk I s January monthly rcport.
c) Motion authorizing Auditor to enter into contract for auditing services
for FY '93,
d) Other
6, Business from the Assistant Zoning Administrator,
a) Final consideration of application Z9252 of Robert H.Wolf.
b) Final consideration of application Z9255 of James Stockman.
c) Final consideration of application Z9256 of David J, Lindemann.
d) Final consideration of application Z9257 of John Meade.
a) Final consideration of application Z9258 of Holly Wellandorf.
'I) Other
TH DUDUQue Sf, r.o. BOX 1350 IOWA CITY,IOW^ 51244-1350
T1!~: (319) 356,6000 PAX: (319) 356,6086
1/11/
..
-lfI-.- - _Iltl.tall_ ;~.I"",W1""''''''''''''
......
{:".',':"t~,:,' "~',,,,,',.. "~'-," "'1-'" ",",' ,," '", ,', ',' ;,
I'" I, ' ,," "</'" 'Jt I' "" ,', .. , '
~:",,', ':";:'<i<,,~,.' ..):: J:.:>, :<1'1. :~"', ,,:,' ::':-'::; :";: ".'::':<
JUHNSON COUNTY AUDITOR TEL:319-356-6086
Feb 17.93 8:26 No.004 P,02/03
Agenda 2-18.83
Page 2
7. Business from the Planning Assistant.
a) Discussion/action re: the following Platting requests:
1. Application S9290 of Sand Road Farms Ltd., signed by Jack Tank,
requesting preliminary and final plat approval of Sand Road
Subdivision, a subdivision located in the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of
Section 26: Township 78 North; Range 6 West of the Sth P.M, in
Johnson County, Iowa (This is a I-lot, 12.0~ acre, farmstead split
located on the west side of Sand Road SE, approximately 1/4 of a
mile south of the intersection of Sand Road SE and 540tl1 Street SE
in Pleasant Valley Twp.),
2, Application S9294 of Holly J. Wellendorf requesting preliminary
and final pIal approval of Digby Grove, a subdivision located in the
SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section S: Township 79 North; Range S
West of the 5th P,M. in Johnson County, Iowa (This is a 1.lot,
1.21 acre, residential subdivisi9n located on the west side of Utah
AveJlue NE, approximately 1/2 mile south of the intersection of
'Ut~h Avenue NE and 340th Street NE in Scott Twp.).
b) Other
\
8. 10:30 a.m. . Public Hearing on Summit Hills.
I. Application S8201 of William Nye requesting preliminary plat approval
of a replat of Summit Hills, a subdivision of certain property located in
'the NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 5 and the NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4
of Section 6; all in Township 79 North; Range 6 West of the 5th P.M.
in Johnson County, Iowa (This is a 17.0 acre parcel located south of!.
80 and is surrounded by Coralville, Iowa in West Lucas Twp.).
,~
w
....' -"
-. n -
" ..... :::i !
"
.- '" .
-
" -.J
-.
" , ,..
,,;, --
._~ "
-=-:: '. ")
.: .'.
.'
\D
"
fir
\
-r- --.,.- ... ......".. - .. . ..."....~ - 11I17
)
i:~',' ,,'(I-', "::'~ ,: ,:/::":':, '}'l': ',:' ,.; I,,:: : '...., ;.:' ..'.",i.~'
'i . fJ . ~~..,' ~~. ~ .: ,( 11",'4 f " ' " ,'. ,; " ' .' ..../.., .
. . / , . ., . . ", ~, , \ . '" t" _ ,," A ,
JUHN~UN LUUNIY HUU1IUK ItL:~I~-~~D-OUtiO
reo U,~6
~:"O NO,uUq ~.US/u3
Agenda 2-18-83
Page 3
2. Application S8301 of William A. Nye requesting final plat approval of a
Replat of Summit Hills, a subdivision of cerlain property located in the
NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 5, and the NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of
Section 6: all in Township 79 North; Range 6 West of the 5th P.M. in
Johnson County, Iowa (This is a 10.36 acre, 45-lot subdivision located
soulh of 1.80 and surrounded by Coralville, Iowa, in West Lucas
Twp.),
9. Business from the County Attorney.
a) Executive Session to discuss strategy re: S.E.A.T.S. collective
bargaining.
b) Report re: othcr items.
10, Business from the Board of Supervisors.
a) Action re: Case Management Application renewal.
b) Action re: sublease between Johnson County and State of Iowa for
the benefil of the Department of Human Services, Cedar Rapids
Region.
c) Discussion/action l'e: library funding.
d) Other
II. Adjourn to Informal meeting,
12. Inquiries and reports from'the public,
13. Adjournment, .
,::J
:, :.~'
......
~-:
'~~~ .;
- ,..,
: .
"
,'.~ :
I,"
(.oJ
""]'
;:"] """
o 'J~
.....1
...,J ,
~
',OJ
'.'J
'1/(
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
!
-y-; - --.. -. 'IIllI' -- ~~ -"'1-- ..-~ "1...... - - .-.r- --,.- ....,...-
i> '.:, L:":' ,;A< . ':';7'," : "Z!''':,','' ";,-:",.,.:'..',
~,\,,:\f:"f..::,..:Y1.11.<.,~..(_' .,;~IC;I"I. ,..,'/ .' ,,',..', '.:':_:.-::
........ .~ ' 1 I !. I: "I.,.. ", ',.' ,/~" . - ",' .' ",. ': ' '1.
RCV BY:XEROX TELECOPIER 7011 : 2-19-93 3:04P~I:
JOHNSON COUNTY AUDITOR TEL:319-356-6086
319 356 6086~ 3193565009:" 1
Feb 19,93 14:48 No.011 P.Ol/02
Juhnsun Cuunly
_ \ IOWA:; BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Palricia A, Meadc, Chairperson
Ioe Bolkcom
Charles D. Duffy
Stcphcn P. Lacina
Belly Ockenfels February 23, 1993
INFORMAL MEETING
Agenda
1. Call to order 9:00 a.m.
2. Review of the minutes.
3. Business from Jen Madsen re: Social Weliare Board update/discussion.
4. Business from the County Engineer.
a) Discussion rc;
b) Discussion re:
\ e) Discussion re:
roads.
d) Discussion rc;
.e), Discussion re;
Q Discussion re:
g) Other
speed limit requests,
1993 Supplemental Program,
1993 Dust Alleviation Program and county treated
set work session for Five.Year Plan.
embargo for oil roads.
1993 maintenance procedures.
lD
G (u
.....~- -'1
...~ 1. J r.) ~I)
>'==i co
r." C':':.l'n
-.~ . U) ':".'""'"
..-!,..
..Ji-: :'! .'1
.'
." J.
_,I, -.
0'" )
" ..,
..-.. ; t;.~
: ,~..
I', '.u
."
co
5. Business from the DOaI'd of Supervisors.
a) Reports
b) Olher
6, Discussion from the public.
7. Recess.
913 SOUTH DUBUQue ST. P,O, BOX 1350 IOWA CITY, IOWA 52244.1350
PAX: (319) 3561115
Tn~: (319) 356-6000
i
i
\
-,,-' -
.. ...--.......,...-. ......1-- ....~.".. - - .__~ --,.- .. ~ T-
,>. ";r,,,' 'W: :":~/:' ",;3.:'.". .., ':" '. '\,..
,"", ,.,;;.,i> , ':,iJ"':'~" .'~..:r, ' ,'.'. ',':, , :.,' :::-.,':,
Rev BY:XEROX TELEeOPIER 7011 : 2-19-93 3:04P~I:
JOHNSON COUNTY AUDITOR TEL:3l9-356-6086
319 356 6086~ 3193565009:~ 2
Feb 19,93 14:48 No.Oll P,02/02
,llIhll\un CunnI)'
'_ \ IOWA.>
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Patricia'A. Meade, Chairperson
Joe Balkcom
Charles D. buffy
Stephen P. Lacina
Betty Ockcnfels
February 23, 1993
FORMAL MEETING
Agenda
I. Calllo order 5:30 p.m.
2. Public Hearing on FY '94 proposed b\ldget estimate/discussion.
3. Discussion/action re: resolution adopting Ji'Y '94 budget.
4, Discussion from the public,
5. Adjournment.
'0
-. w
r:J "'Tl
::,':": fTI "::]
...~_I 0 .'
(""-" I".'."::J
. , 1.0 ":-:::.
-~; ~-I
-,,(- :~
.:.2n ",
a;;J .
~...-'-" ~ I
. .....
" ~'J i
1.0 I
I
I
I
I
,
913 SOUTII DUBUQUE ST. P.O. boX 1350 IOWA CITY,IOWA 52244-1350
TEL: (319) 356.6000
PAX: (319P56.60iflS '
\,
\
.....
~- - - ......- --- -- - .... .....--T~---...-r--'...".. - - . - .r- .-. ,~
.. ...........-... 1.......-
':""L:';,~r:'l'i ,:.: '7./' ',0 ' ,":"," '..:;,': ,:':,
':-: '~'8,:..)',':~,<:, :~:~'_:,>'::\~, ',',: "'~~:",'>' ',<>" '::
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATE: Febreuary 19, 1993
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
RE: Two Items
1, The City Council's work session of Monday, February 22, will begin
at 5:30 P.M. Food will be available in the City Manager's Conference
Room at 4:45 P.M.
2. The public hearing for the proposed FY94 operating and capital
improvements budget is scheduled as Item No. 8 on the agenda.
The public notice states this hearing will be at 7:30 P.M. In
order to meet this obligation, you are asked to make a motion
that the hearing will be held immediately following the consent
calendar,
1./1(,
\
~,:(.. 'f"'t ":ld> '.;:/"" (0:' ' :, ':", , ",' ',: ',." "
"~:-"',;.rD,,>~"01:'''' ,':'~~'".,,::";,\G(>": ','.~ :",>':,,':',' ,...:,:
Karen Kubby
CIlY COUNCIL MEMBER
CMc; Center
410 E. Waahlngton St.
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
(319) 356-5010
(319) 356-5009 (FAX)
Realdenc;e
802 E. Waahlngton
(319) 338-1321
I
I
I
j
"
I
~
~
f
!
i
I
1
I
I.lli\
/ 'I \
I :
1.....-30-
CITY OF IOWA CITY
Prln~d on 1001. poet.
coneumer recycled paper
February 22, 1993
Jan Rutledge
Legal Services
430 Iowa Avenue
Iowa City, IA 52240
Jan,
I am writing to request that Legal Services of Iowa comment on proposed
rule/procedure changes of the Iowa City Housing Authority.
Ills Important to me to hear your comments because of the advocacy
perspective you will bring to a reading of any proposed new rules.
I don't know the time frame for this discussion, but It's beller to ask too
early for Input than too late.
Thank you for your thoughts on this mailer.
In peace,
#u-.1 ~~
Karen Kubby
bcl.1
'117