HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-10-04 Bd Comm. Minutesbbl
MINUTES
MAYOR'S YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
SEPTEMBER 12, 1977
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
MEMBERS PRESENT: Barber, Cazin, Darnell, Holzhammer, Johanson,
Kaefer, Nelson.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Carter, Larson, Schreiber.
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION AND FORMAL ACTIONS TAKEN:
New board members, Nelson and Darnell, were introduced and welcomed
to the board.
A final report of the Summer CETA program was given by the Director.
The increase of federal funding allowed for more youth to be employed
this year. The program was also extended an additional 4 weeks. A
copy of the report is attached.
Darnell, a representative from the School of Social Work, presented
the Diversion Project and a program known as Earn -It. Earn -It is a
short-term job program for young persons who ave gotten into trouble.
The program provides temporary work for youth offenders so they may
earn money to pay restitution for their damages committed in a crime.
Darnell requested that Earn -It be developed in Johnson County and be
under the supervision of Mayor's Youth. The Board was supportive of
Earn -It.
Approval was given for Darnell to conduct a survey of area employers
to see if there is interest in providing youth a way to repay damages.
Officer elections were held. Johanson was elected as the new Chair-
person. He suceeds Holzhammer. Barber will resume the position of
secretary/ treasurer for another term.
379/
0
SUMMER C.E.T.A. 77
Final Report
A. County: Johnson
R. Project Period: June 6- August 26
0
C. Participants: were economically disadvantaged and 14-21 years old
total number of youth employed^131
Age
Male
Female
14
15
13
15
16
14
16
10
16
17
7
10
18
5
5
ly
3
4
20
4
5
D. Emplgyment
1. Employment opportunities were developed at public agencies and
private non-profit organizations that would:
a. provide supportive supervision
b. offer a variety of job duties
c. accept thio enrollee as part of the staff
d. expose the enrollee to other career opportur.Sties
2. Hours: 36 maximum per week on the job and 4 career hours per week
3. Wage: $2.30
E. Jobs: 34 young people found employment through the City of Iowa City.
Animal Shelter
2
City Manager
1
Personnel/Clerk
2
Cemetery
2
Equipment
2
Library
4
Police
3
Parke
6
Recreation
2
Parking Operations
1
Refuse
3
Streets
5
Water
1
The following is a list of the jobs Lhat were deviloped,:
Police cadet
Patient escort
continued •
Nurse's aide
X-ray assistant
Grounds/Maintenance worker
Recreation aide
Stage assistant
Secretary/receptionist
File clerk
Lab assistant
Store clerk
Daycare aide
Greenhouse worker
Animal caretaker
F. Career Exploration:
Four options were available to the enrollees:
1. Tutoring
2. Personal Development
3. Working and Other Living Skills
4: Exploring Community Careers
•
Career days were scheduled WednPSday and Thursday of each week. Enrollees
were encouraged to arrange 4 hours each week and they were paid for time
spent in career exploration.
G. Special Community Projects:
1. Police Cadet Program - was developed with the help of Police Chief Harvey
Miller and his department. The youth working as cadets assisted the
devartment with office work (filing, reception, typing). The youth were
exposed .. to routine police tasks and were able to accompany officers
on investigations.
2. Solar Greenhouse - was constructed on land donated by the Jphnson County
Board of Supervisors (corner of Gilbert and Bowery Streets)
a. Project was funded by School of Social Work and HACAP.
b. Built by 5 Summer C.E.T.A, workers.
c. The greenhouse will be used to grow vegetables for the
Council on Aging and Congregate meals.
H. Expenditures:
Youth salaries, benefits, supportive services $97,296.33
Administrative 11.703.67
T OT A L $ 109,000.00
/•
MINUTES
RESOURCES CONSERVATION COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 13, 1977 4:30 P.M.
ENGINEERING CONFERENCE ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Angerer, Bolnick, Houck, Hotka, Stager.
STAFF PRESENT: Tinklenberg.
Hotka called the meeting to order and welcomed Kent Angerer to the
Commission.
REQUEST FOR STAFF ASSISTANCE
Bolnick moved, Stager seconded, that the Resources Conservation
Commission request Dick Plastino to take the data presented by
Karen Franklin and Roger Tinklenberg and work out the cost factors
for an east side pilot project recycling newsprint, white glass and
all metal cans weekly with the regular garbage pick-up by using a
trailer. Ile was also requested to look at the feasibility of an
in -town dropoff point compared to the Landfill point for each
portion of the waste stream, assuming a 50% participation rate and
look at the weight, fuel and labor factors of an in -town verses
out-of-town dropoff point.
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION AND FORMAL ACTION TAKEN
Houck moved, Stager seconded, that the minutes of the August 23
meeting be approved as corrected. Passed unanimously.
Karen Franklin summarized the contents of her study entitled,
"Recycling in Iowa City - A Proposal for a Source Separation
Program" (attached). In the discussion which followed, Staff
member Tinklenberg pointed out that the annual tonage of solid
waste collected by the Municipal Solid Waste crew is between
10,000 and 12,000 pounds, not 20,000 tons. Also the cost of the
waste collection is $27.52 per ton instead of $13.66 per,ton as
reported on page 12. After additional discussion it was decided to
make the above request for Staff Assistance to Dick Plastino,
Director of Public Works.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Bolnick reported that there are four major areas in the Compre-
hensive Plan as presented to the City Council which are of interest
to the Resources Conservation Commission. Those areas are:
-Growth Management
-Energy
-Transportation
-Environment
The alternatives presented in these four areas will be distributed to
the Commissioners for discussion at the next meeting.
3772
• 2 •
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Houck noted that the object of the Commission is to set short-term
and long-term goals. The Commissioners decided to defer any further
action on goals and objectives until the next meeting.
AGENDA FOR THE SEPTEMBER 27 MEETING
1. Discussion and planning cf an energy conservation week.
2. Comprehensive Plan.
3. Goals and objectives.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:40 P.M.
Respectively submitted, Roger Tinklenberg.
John Houck, Secretary.
a
0
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the following
assistance with information and ideas:
0
people for their
Richard Dague, Jerry
Costello, Lon Drake, Bob Hibbeler, Barry Hokanson, Pat Foster,
Richard Plastino, Linda Schreiber, Roger T2nklenberg, Gene Dietz,
and Philip Hotka.
F
0
-1-
The idea of using something over again rather than throwing
it away is an idea which few people would argue with. If the
discarding of a material infringes on the beauty of an area or
occupies large portions of valuable land and if that material
can be sold for reuse, advocacy of recycling becomes even more
popular. The major point of contention which any municipality
faces when investigating the concept of recycling is the method
of implementation—to decide on what is recyclable; what is the
best use of the material, ecologically and economically; what
process is best suited to the size and nature of the particular
waste stream.
Recycling is referred to generally as resource recovery,
a term which embodies all degrees of technology, methods of
collection, and processing. I will use a distinction, which
is made in much of the literature on the subject, between resource
recovery and source separation. Resource recovery is the processing
of mixed garbage by means of a capital intensive, high technology
system. Garbage is collected in the traditional manner and
taken to a processing plant where it is separated into usable
categories. These categories—their number and nature—will,
of course, vary depending upon the desired end product and the
market. Source separation, as its name implies, requires the
sorting of garbage at the home, business or industry. Collection
methods are fitted to the number of separated types of waste
and the convenience and economics of the community. The sorted
0
1WM
material is picked up or taken by the individual to a central
location where further processing can be done, if required by
the market, or where the material can be accumulated for trans-
port to the buyer. Source separation is a labor intensive,
low technology system.
As may be apparent from the descriptions above, neither
system is without certain complexities. There is no system
now which allows the recovery of valuable materials by a cheap,
simple method of taking all the mixed garbage and in one step
having it magically transformed into a usable product. To get
any saleable material from either resource recovery or source
separation systems, the bulk must be carefully sorted. The
purity of the end product determines the constancy of the market
and the price offered. One of the primary differences between
resource recovery and source separation is in the degree of
technology used in the sorting process and concomitantly the
cost of the initial investment in equipment and related main-
tenance costs. The most complex recovery system might grind
everything up and then separate the particles through the use
of magnets, blowers and sifters. liven in that system, an initial
cull would have to be done manually to extract dangerous products
such as aerosal cans. The least complex sorting process would
be that which was done manually before the collection of the
garbage. Ideally, complete preparation for market requirements
could be done in this manner with no investment in sorting
-3 -
equipment, depending solely on a proportional distribution of
labor. Unfortunately, we have not yet reached tha plateau of
the Ideal and in that vein, one must consider the drawbacks
of each of the systems.
Source separation depends upon the cooperation of the entire
community. The goals of recycling—to reduce the amount of waste
"dumped" and to save natural resources by shifting to secondary
rather than virgin material in production—are not fulfilled
if only a small portion of a municipality agrees to participate.
In the case of Iowa City, the various users of the landfill,
other than the city, would need to be considered. As I emphasized
before, the purity of the sort is important for the commitment
of the buyer. In a manual system, the possibility of error in
sorting is greater than if the separation was done mechanically.
This, of course, refers to the least complex program in which
the only sorting which is done, is done by hand. Source separation
programs often include a more precise, low technology mechanism
for sorting after collection. Collection itself is one stumbling
block in source separation for the process requires the revision
of traditional collection methods; there must be some manner
of maintaining the distinct categories of separated refuse from
the home or business to the storage center or market.
Resource recovery systems also have their problems. The
greatest deterrant is that of a high initial investment; for
example, price tags which range from $5.6 million for the Ames
0 0
-a-
plant to a projected $56 million for a plant in Westchester
County, New York.I In addition, high technology recovery systems
have had to contend with high maintenance costs, long periods
of down time for repairs and the resulting problem of what to
do with the refuse when the plant is down. The newness and
complexity of the technology invites such risks. However, beyond
the fact of the coats, resource recovery systems are built on
the principle that the solid waste problem can be solved by
technology—that all we need do is create a clever enough machine
and all the waste we are generating will disappear. These systems
do not compel the individual to do anything beyond what they
are doing now—buying convenience packaging and throwing every-
thing away indiscriminately. If we agree that one of the reasons
we advocate recycling is to cut down on the amount of space
occupied by landfill requirements, then we should also agree
that basically we want to reduce waste. It seems ridiculous
to perpetuate the creation of waste to maintain a multi-million
dollar facility to reduce that waste. Emphasis should be on
reduction at the source—people. Resource recovery systems do
not do this; the community of citizens is not a factor in their
operation other than a source of input. And if that input is
not sufficient the operation cannot function efficiently. This
argument is denied by advocates of resource recovery; Kelley Co.,
manufacturers of incinerator/heat exchangers, say in their
advertising pamphlet ". . ., the common misconception—that
L
rI
-s-
you have to have a constant waste stream to use waste conversion
systems—is incorrect. Whatever is available is burned, and
to that extent supplies heat that would otherwise have to be
provided by scarce and costly fuels."2 This may be true, in
part, for self-contained systems, such as the Deere plant in
Dubuque, in which the waste source, the conversion system, and
the user of the heat are all part of one operation. Ames is
a better example for municipal structures of what might happen
when the waste stream is not sufficient to keep the plant running
full time. Capital amortization and labor costs remain the
same even when the plant is not running, so a constant waste
stream becomes necessary. Unfortunately, cities do not have
profits and write-offs in which to absorb the costs of such
shutdowns.
Another factor, which is basically economic in nature, is
whether we are willing to spend millions on a system which is
geared to handle the present waste stream, when it is very
likely that the contents of that waste stream will change within
10 years. Investment in a high technology system begs adherence
to the principle of "prior existence"—if we already have put
a lot of money into one system we must maintain that system
even if a change would mean adoption of measures that were more
environmentally aware.
After considering the factors discussed above, the markets
closest to Iowa City, and estimates of the nature and size of
our waste stream, I propose that at this time we institute a
program of recycling based on the principle of source separation.
I will outline below the particulars of that program and some
alternatives and hopefully convince you that this is the best
approach for Iowa City and the most readily practiceable.
The overall system is conceived as follows: Once a week
separated recyclable materials would be picked up from the -
household with the regular garbage pickup. Three color coded
tags would be distributed to distinguish the three categories
of recyclable material—paper, glass, and metal sans. These
materials would be deposited in a trailer attached to the garbage
truck. The recyclables would be taken to a central processing
and temporary storage area near the landfill. Attendants there
would disconnect and empty the trailer while the truck dumped
as usual. If necessary, the trailer would then be connected
to the truck again for another run. The recyclables would be
stored in designated areas or processed further, depending on
the particular material. The buyer would make arrangements
with the city for delivery or pickup of the paper, glass, or
metal.
Paper and metal cans were chosen because they are the easiest
things to recycle without a complex procedure. Glass is more
difficult but it does take up a lot of space and doesn't break
down easily, and the possibility of recycling is present.
0 0
-7-
Recyclable paper would include newsprint, white ledger, and
corrugated cardboard; the current market prices are $20, $50,
and $10 per ton, respectively. City Carton has the best set-up
for receiving this material and since they are already involved
with newsprint recycling are the most likely buyers. Since
bundling by the resident is required now in order to recycle
newsprint, separate bundling of ledger and cardboard should be
requested. The sorting of paper is particularly important since
to mix grades means the contamination of the lot. Therefore,
there should be a second sort at the storage center into bins
or dumpsters for each grade. City Carton has made arrangements
to pick up paper at other establishments in town (eg.University
buildings) and would probably be willing to do the same for a
city center. They have expressed a firm desire for a lot of
paper.
Metal cans includes bi-metal and aluminum cans. There are
two buyers in Iowa City who have expressed an interest in buying
from a city recycling center, They are Russell Salvage and
Dewey's Auto Salvage. Both companies are very concerned about
recycling generally and are enthusiastic about participating.
Russell Salvage offers approximately $200 to $290/ton for
aluminum and $8/ton for bi-metal; they would pick up at the
landfill but this might detract from the price. Denny Peterson
of Dewey's Auto Salvage offered $200/ton for aluminum and $20/ton
for bi-metal. He also said that his company could make containers
0 0
available at a storage center, which they would pick up and
that they would be willing to consider the purchase of equip-
ment to process the cans. Both establishments said they would
not require that the cans be crushed. However, if an arrangement
could not be made with a local company to sort and crush the
cans, the city would need to purchase a magnetic separator and
x
crusher which would be used at the storage center. The bi-metal
and aluminum could still be sold locally but it might be wiser
to consider the sale of aluminum direct to Reynolds Aluminum Co.
They will pay from $300-340/ton and will pick up minimum loads
of 1000#.
Glass does have a market although the closest one is Owens
in Streator, Illinois. The current price for all. colors of
glass is $30/ton. Using Mr. Plastino's figures of 4.5 lbs.
of glass/household/week3 and the 1974 census figure of 14638
households in Iowa City, there are potentially 33 tons of glass
per week which could bring $990/wk, gross. Owens requires the
sorting of glass by color and the removal of metal rings. They
will accept shipments by truck; they have a cullet collection
day every Thursday. Goodwill Industries in Des Moines has been
recycling their glass through Owens, shipping it by rail.
However, the railroad requires a 50 ton minimum; it usually
takes Goodwill 6 months to accumulate that much of one color
(their program is based on voluntary deposit of recyclables
at various drop points). They are presently senking a 3 -part
*Goodwill in Des Moines has offered to make their designs for
a crusher and separator available to Iowa City.
0 0
-9-
hopper car so they can ship more frequently. We might consider
affiliating with them, either by shipping our glass to them or
by picking up on their shipment as it comes through Iowa City.
An alternative to glass sales to Owens or lies Moines is the
sale of glass to road builders; finely ground glass can be used as
an ingredient in asphalt and as road berm. This alternative
would require further investigation but might prove profitable
as a local use.
To sum up the marketsi there are good local markets for
paper and metal. We can get from $10 to $50 per ton of paper
depending on the grade, $20 per ton for bi-motalcans and $200
per ton for aluminum. Glass must be sent out of town and will
gross $30 per ton. Again, using Mr. Plastino's figures from
1976 for waste composition and figures from the estimated refuse
collection budget for FY78, the approximate cost for one ton
of mixed refuse now is $18.28—$13.66/ton for collection operating
expenses plus $4.62/ton for the landfill fee. Recyclables
make up about 49% of that ton and with the prices listed above
would bring in $12.80/ton.4 Assuming an annual, figure of 20,000
tons of refuse, income from recyclables could reach $256,000.
Currently, the income from refuse collection is 0. Given a
very rough initial cost of $200,000, this rather simple recycl.i.ng
operation could theoretically net $56,000 in the first year.5
These figures are based on 100% participation and are, there-
fore, just expressions of potential. However, there is evidence
-lo -
of strong support for a recycling program here. With the proper
collection procedures and an aggressive campaign to promote
public awareness of the program, I am convinced that the
arrangement I am proposing can succeed. Participation is the
basis for optimum success. This summer I conducted a survey
in which I asked people to separate recyclables from their trash,
weigh them and record the weight, and then answer some questions
about recycling. The participants were chosen randomly from
the phone book (survey/questionnaire is attached). I am still
receiving data so the findings are not complete as of Aug. 1.
Yet there are trends in what has been returned. There is over-
whelming support for recycling; no one has indicated that they
would never under any circumstances recycle the items listed.
Also, 64% of the respondants favored an ordinance to require
the separation of refuse. The separation which was required
in the survey was more extensive than that which would be required
under a regular program and yet the response was still favorable.
These results in conjunction with the results of the comprehensive
plan survey indicate an encouraging degree of active interest
in a source separation program.
A collection system which follows the pattern of regular
garbage pickups and is done at intervals which are easy to
remember can insure tht this interest in recycling will not br+
frustrated. Four of the questions on my survey pertain to the
frequency of pickup of recyclables; the tabulations reveal that
age
82% of the respondants would participate in the program a major
part of the time if the pickups were monthly or weekly. The
weekly pickup is favored, with 64% indicating they would always
participate (18% almost always) as opposed to the monthly intervals
indication of 50% who said they would always be involved (32%
almost always). A few people indicated that they didn't feel
they had enough trash to warrant a pickup each week. The city
might consider starting the program on a mont:hl.y basis, thus
distributing the work load for the collection crews over the
month, using different pickup dates in different sections of
the city. This should be done only after we have exhausted
all possibilities for the preferred weekly pickup. The bimonthly
and biweekly "always" participation rates were less than 50%
in both cases and should not be considered.
The use of trailers for collection has been objected to
as too difficult to manipulate in alleys and back-ups. I would
propose that, in the limited number of dead end alleys, the
supervisor's pickup trucks be used in these_ cases as they are
used now in similiar situationsl also, that the routing be
evaluated to determine if revisions could not be made to require
fewer back-ups. Another alternative, which I have seen practiced
in other cities, is the requirement that all pickups must be
curbside on the main street, that is, if you live on an alley,
leave them out on the main street. This would minimize if not
entirely obviate the problem with the manipulation of trailers.
0
-12-
The trailers have a distinct advantage over other devices for
the collection of recyclables since they can be constructed
(possibly on boat trailers with a little local ingenuity) to
fit the requirements of a particular waste stream; ours would
have three compartments—one for each category of separation.
They do not fill as quickly as racks and yet still utilize
present equipment, doing away with the need for new types of
trucks to fit a recycling system. They are inexpensive. Trailers
used in other cities are generally built with a sir. -foot tongue
to allow for ease in movement on the part of the collectors.
The color coded tags promote faster handling and also help to
keep the sort. It may be necessary to assign three workers
to a truck to accomodate the extra truck to curb movements.
This proposed system would eliminate Saturday -overtime Situations.6
An alternative to having the pickup done by the regular
crews is to contract with a private hauler to pick up the
material and deliver it to the storage center which could then
be located somewhere within the city. Bob Hibbeler of Goodwill
Industries has expressed an interest in such an arrangement;
the storage center could be an annex to the present Goodwill
store. However, Goodwill would require a generous subsidy in
the beginning to construct the center and provide adequate trucks
and personnel. Presently, Goodwill is trying a mobile drop
facility for their standard recyclables —textiles, etc. A van
is parked in the parking lot of a local industry and the employees
0 0
-13-
are encouraged to drop their used items there. They have approx-
imately a 10% participation rate. I would not want to see this
type of arrangement for Iowa City, i.e., the resident- taking
recyclables to a center or drop point, except as a last resort.
The results of my survey indicate that only 18% of the people
would always do this, and we can expect a much higher participa-
tion rate if the material is picked up at the home. Also, home
pickup is a much more energy efficient way of approaching recycling
since it doesn't require a trip from each household to the crntor.
Since the program is labor intensive, it is important to
involve as many people as possible in it. One way of promoting
sur_ti involvement is through an intensive and aggressive campaign
to let people know exactly what is going on and what they should
do. Gene Dietz attended a conference in Chicago on recycling
which was sponsered by the EPA. They gave recommendations of
what had proved to be the most effective means of public relations
for recycling programs. At the top of the list was a letter
from the mayor to each household. This could include a brief
explanation of the setup, some figures on future landfill space,
potential income from recyclables, an explanation of a trial
period of monthly pickups leading to a weekly schedule(depending
on the final decision on interval), and most importantly, a
strong emphasis on the importance of each household. Further
publicity should also be done through community organizations,
the schools, and the media. A phone where poople can call with
• 014 -
questions on particular sort prohlOms should b? available.
There should also be accommodations at the st:orago center for
those people who are not serviced by the city system but would
like to recycle. Perhaps other municipalities who use the land-
fill now would be willing to set up a similar program and use
our facility, with appropriate financial arrangements.
Now is an excellent time to set up a concrete program.
Public awareness of energy problems is greater than it has been
in past years. most people know to some extent what is involved
in recycling. The federal government, through adoption of the
Resource Conservation Recovery Act, and the state government,
through HF 187—the litter bill, have expressed an active concern
for solid waste management in terms of recycling efforts. Hundreds
of small and large cities are turning to recycling programs
and are being successful. We should start planning this fall
and winter with the intent of have a working program in the
spring of 1978. The overall maintenance of the program could
be placed under the supervision of the proposed director of
the Resource Conservation Commission. If the monthly pickup
is chosen, it should run for one year and then, if feasible,
be revised to a weekly interval in the spring of 1979.
The program that I have proposed is the best for Iowa City
at this time. It does not require a large capital, investment;
it does not call for increased energy usage; it: does not require
a large wast stream. It is dependent on people —people who have
oxpressed an i.ntcrest. and willingness to do their part; it is
-15 -
dependent on local enterprise—City Carton, Deweys, Russell
Salvage, Goodwilli and it is dependent on the guidance and
support of responsive government.
-16 -
NOTES
1. Volunteers from the Iowa Public Interest Research Group are
writing a pamphlet outlining the differences between resource
recovery and source separation, citing specific examples of
each type. This pamphlet is directed to cities and groups
studying the idea of recycling. It will be available in Dec. 1977.
2. Kelley Company,Inc., Milwaukee, Wisc. "Convert your solid waste
into cheap supplemental energy."
3. Memo from Richard J. Plastino to Neal Berlin, "Summary of
Study on Separate Collection of Recyclable Solid Waste", June 18,
1976.
4. The estimate of 20,000 tons was taken from the "Sanitary Landfill
Permit Summary",for the month ending 7/31/76-1386T/mo, projected
to 16,631T/yr. Using the straight operating costs of $273293 for
refuse collection, FY 78 budget, divided by the estimated 20,000T=
13.66/ton.
Income from recyclables
Newsprint $20/T 328of mixed refuse $6.40
Glass $30/T 128 3.60
Bi -metal $20/T 48 .80
Aluminum $200/T 18 2.00
$12.80/T of mixed
5. Drake, Lon 6 Steven Kittelson, A Solid Waste Management Program
for Iowa City, 1971. Initial figures are taken from Mr. Drake's
study.
0 0
NOTES(cont'd.)
Storage Center 5000sq.ft. with plumbing
Fork Lift
Glass Crusher
Barrels (for glass)
Baler (for paper)
Trailers (5)
Personnel at center
-17-
$80,000
5,000
1,000
500
15,000
15,000
20,000
136,500
54,600(408 inflation)
$191,000
6. At this point I would like to endorse the recommendation
of Mr. Plastino in the memo cited above which advocates the
acceptance of a scavenger law.
7. As of July 29, 1977, Mr. Hibbeler will no longer be with
Goodwill in Iowa City. Tim McCue will be taking his place.
Separate youh.refuse into the following categories, recording the
total weight at the end of seven days in the space provided by each
type of magerial. Also, please record below the time spent each day
on processing and sorting. Glass should be separated by colot, as
indicated, and washed. All caps and rings ohoul.d be removed; l:apa.r
labels need not be removed. Cans should ba separated into aluminum
and bi-mstal(all that are not completely aluminum); these should both
be rinsed. It is not necessary to crush cans; however, crushing makes
transporting easier for the collector and the buyer. If you decide
to crush your Cann, please.do so consistently and indicate in the space
provided in the time data section which you hav_ done. Paper should
be sorted into newsprint and all other clean paper, i.a,. paper vrithout
foodstuffs.. (Carbon ppper, magazines, and"ooated paper --for example,
glossy calendars --cannot be recycled.) Paper should then be bundled
or bagged. Milk cartons should be rinsed. All doubtful materials
should be included in the "other" class.
Weights may be determined roughly by using a bathroom scale. Please
dispose of your refuse as you normally would after weighing.
I. Weights.of recyclable material
White glass
-_ u].bs.
Brown glass
lbs.
Green glass
------ lbs.
Aluminum
_ .l'ns.
Bi -metal & tin cane
Newspaper
—_lbs.
other paper
------ .Lbs.,
Milk cartons
lbs.
Other
lbs.
I"i.Time spent
Day 1
*Cans crushed __yes no
lila t7.y pC;Ujj.44: .• :Li! ''vaw .iV tir :;lf i.Lt: ... __•
2. Do you have a garbage disposal? _
3. Do you compost at home? _
4. Do you recylle at a3.1. riot']?
glass yen 110
aluminum.- yes _ no
newsprint —Yes no
other _,yea _— no
if yes, what?
5.1,0 you perceivC: cnr :loci.eL•y a;:
Very wasteful modoratel.y vra:at �: i'vJ, c">r•.:, re, J. J.y titi: i.:]t`I
i)redominalltl.y thrifty?
6.0(7 you anticipate limitations 6'.7
rC.•:iOUrCC5 a3
(circle one) an unlikelt` ....... 7. % ) •-'-- ..... j_-.;. .lo,_ivi.
7.1i[ a recycling il3:Gt.i7.'aiTl trul'i! :;'i; _.?: i:i:ri ...t ..,Sl ... :a.UC,(.. G�.. .. -_. :'G
itellis 011 thte li9t i:i)ow L?:1Q wl ii.`al
does now (cnr!) rickti!I every
:,willing to parti.cipnt:� ill the
first part of l..is sw.vcy?
(circle one) Awae t 1 2 3 4 5
3.If a program vitsic. started 1'71Li.ch includ'i6 he .:OL.!•, i': !v:l!:i '111:1 the
proccsse3 but whicl"! J.l:C1ti"8f). E! Aiont:lly LAU!:Rpa ;:C hila:; et'' :f i9Cli1C1
you participate?
- •tii.tl? a bi-weekly �' Clcu,�?
d .Lt•7LiwrJ 1. 2 3 a% 'i l?<:7@t•
'i7i.'L'h a t4E ei:1.y c:cilr,?
%ltltt take it to c•
1O.Votlld you s-upport. an.
n.andatory? .-._.... ��'-' __.__10
G;t•.
Don't Switch Off That Light....
Don't switch o/1 that light until you know all the
implications.
A recent full page ad in the daily newspapers advised the
readers, 'Switch off thatlight to save oil': The ad further
explained that steam for electric power generating turbines
was produced by oil fired boilers, and if the readers
switched off the lights, they would save oil at the gener-
ating plant. Very simple.
Most energy conservation procedures are not that simple.
Do not switch off that light until you know all the impli-
cations. Here are some examples of what happened when
all the complexities of the building systems were not
known:
• Half of the lighting fixtures in one office building
were disconnected, but there was no appreciable
savings in the electric power consumption.
Investigation showed that the air conditioning
system had electric reheat coils which were auto•
matirally switched on by the room thermostat
when the lighting fixtures were disconnected.
• Energy consumption Increased when, during the
winter season, room thermostats were reset from
75 F to 68 F.
The building zones having high internal heat gains
and solar loads increased the demand on the air
conditioning system to reduce room temperature
to 68 F instead of 75 F.
A refrigeration unit working at about 15% load was
switched off to save apparent wastage during the
winter season. The refrigeration energy savings were
exceeded by extra steam consumed for heating and
humidification.
Vol. 24 No. 1 • January 1974
The refrigeration unit supplied chilled water to a
dual duct air conditioning system. The chilled water
load of 15% was imposed by the building interior.
In the absence of chilled water the air conditioning
system automatically switched over to 100% outdoor
air and 100% exhaust operation to cool the building
interior. Thereby, precious heat was thrown away
to the outdoors and additional steam was used to
heat and humidify 100% outdoor air supply.
Simple explanations and immediate responses may be
adequate for simple situations. Rapidly changing energy
technology and complex systems for modern buildings
require an engineering approach for realizing full potential
for energy savings.
Engineering Approach
An engineering approach towards energy conservation will
have the following steps:
Stepl. COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY OF
EXISTING BUILDING
This step establishes the basic building character•
istics as size, type, location, and building compo-
nents; the basic system characteristics as type and
size of cooling and heating plant, type and size of
building perimeter systems and type and size of
building interior systems; the recorded energy
consumption of the HVAC systems, electrical
systems and miscellaneous building systems.
Next, information is collected regarding design
criteria, actual performance, physical condition
and operation of all the systems. The operation
procedures are reviewed for start-up and shut-
down schedules, partial load operation, overtime,
cleaning schedules and operator awareness.
Engineers: HVAC/Electrical/Sanitary/Central Ulilities/Lighting/Transportation/Materials Handling/Automation/Hospital Systems
OSYA. & Hmrw,v. 1.. 1974
Stop2. ANALYSIS
The information collected under Stop t is used for
estimating energy consumption assuming optimum
operation procedures.
The building operation is simulated to analyze the
effect of energy conservation procedure outlined
under Step 3. Depending on size of the project
and nature of the problem, simulation and energy
estimating functions are performed on computers.
Step 3. EVALUATION OF ENERGY CONSERVATION
PROCEDURES
These procedures can be categorized in the
following manner:
Type 1
Procedures which can be implemented immedi-
ately without any capital expenses. These pro•
cedures involve system operation and building
usage. Examples under this category are reduc-
tions in the amount of outdoor air at the time of
peak cooling and heating load, start-up procedures,
control of interior and exterior lighting, changing
area lighting to task lighting, resetting of room
thermostats and automatic controls, shutting off
of energy users when not required, changes in
elevator operation, modifications in cleaning
schedules, etc.
Type 2
Procedures which involve capital expense, but
would have an economic return within 3 to 5
years based on the expected escalation in cost of
energy. These procedures could involve changes
in air conditioning systems from reheat to variable
volume, changes in components of the lighting
fixtures, reductions In air flow requirements and
fan speeds, repair of damaged dampers, valves,
controls and Insulation, caulking and sealing of
leaks, Installation of heat recovery devices, etc.
Type 3
Procedures which involve capital expense, but
would have an economic return of oetween 5 to 7
years. Examples under this category are additional
building thermal insulation, modifications in basic
heating and cooling cycles, replacement of
existing equipment by more efficient or latest
hardware, addition of building automation and
computerized operation.
Type 4
Procedures which involve capital expense Willi an
economic return of more than 7 years. These
procedures could involve sewage and waste heat
reclamation, total energy and application of new
energy technologies such as solar energy for
heating and cooling.
Step 4. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
In some cases it may be simpler and quicker to re-
adjust systems and analyze the results instantly
with appropriate instruments instead of by de•
tailed calculation. The building operators would
receive guidance in establishing new operating set
points, such as leaving air temperatures, and
monitoring the results.
Stop S. PREPARATION OF IMPLEMENTATION
DOCUMENTS
When modifications to the basic systems are
required to save energy, ami these modifications
are to be performed by outside contractors,
necessary design drawings and specifications are
prepared to establish contract prices and method
of implementation of changes.
POTENTIAL FOR ENERGY SAVINGS
"What is the potential for energy savings?" ... is a most
frequently posed question.
The extent of energy savings will depend on how many
energy saving procedures are implemented by the owner.
Experience has shown that it is easy to exceed the national
goal of 7% and savings of 20% to 30% can be achieved with
an engineering approach towards enefgy conservation.
These figures relate to energy units and not dollars. The
potential for savings in dollar cost is far greater due to
unprecedental cost Increases in all the energy sources.
NOTE: This Technical Letter relates to potential for
energy savings in existing buildings. A Technical
Letter outlining impact on design of new buildings
will be issued shortly.
Extra copies of Technical Letters are available.
Written permission must be obtained to reproduce
any part of a Technical Letter. Please direct all
correspondence to Ann Hardeman, Syska &
Hennessy, inc. 110 Wcst 50 Street, New York,
New York 10020.
New York10020 Teleohone12121489.9200
MINUTES
•IOWA CITY RIVERFRONT COMMISSION
RECREATION CENTER ROOM B
SEPTEMBER 21, 1977.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Brandrup, Epley, Fahr, Fountain, Lindberg, Vetter,
Woodruff
MEMBERS ABSENT: Horton, McLaughlin, Neuzil
STAFF PRESENT: Milkman
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION AND FORMAL ACTION TAKEN:
The Iowa City Riverfront Commission met in Regular Session on September 21
with Chairperson Fahr presiding.
" Lindberg moved and Epley seconded that the minutes of the June 15 meeting
be approved as written with the following correction:
Page 1 - last paragraph - "Johnson County Planning and Zoning
Commission" should be changed to "Johnson County
Planning Commission".
• The corrected minutes were approved unanimously.
* Epley moved and Vetter seconded that the minutes of the August 24 meeting
be approved as written. Unanimous.
Fahr reported on the field trip to Hardin County attended by four
Commission members and Dunlap and Carsen of the Johnson County Conser-
vation Commission. He commented that the Hardin County Conservation
Commission has done most of the work on the project, as there is no
Riverfront Commission. He indicated that the policy of the Commission
regarding the project has been to take what it can get and hope the
rest of the land will follow. He reported that some of the land had
been acquired through private donations with some money being spent for
acquisition and some for development and that the Commission was on its
way to obtaining a complete greenbelt. He stated that there is some
development of the greenbelt, i.e. picnicking, boat ramps, camping, but
that much is undeveloped. He reported that there is no problem within
the greenbelt with motorcycles and no security problems, but that there
is some vandalism. He also indicated that there was a problem of the
path of the proposed Route 520 through the greenbelt and stated that
he would write a letter to the Des Moines Register expressing concern
about disruption of the greenbelt by such a large highway.
Fahr reported briefly on the joing meeting of the Riverfront Commission
with the Parks and Recreation Commission on September 14, 1977. The
two commissions voted unanimously to recommend to the City Council
•the acquisition of the Showers property, on which the City has an option,
in preference to the land for sale on the east and west sides of
Sycamore Avenue near the south city limits. The minutes of the joint
meeting will provide further details.
3 773
0 •
Minutes
Page 2
September '21, 1977
n
u
A meeting with the Coralvillc City Council and Planning and Zoningin
Commission has been arranged for Tuesday, October G,
at p.m.
the Coralvillc Civic Center. Epley inquired if there were any special
items for study for the Planning and Zoning Commission members. Milkman
indicated that Phase II of the Iowa River Corridor Study was the
appropriate plan for this.
l-ahr reported that a meeting with the .Johnson County Board of Supervisors
was set for 10:00 a.m. on September 27, at which he will also make a
presentation. He will contact Shirley Sixt regarding a meeting with
the Johnson County Zoning Board. Lindberg stated that as Chairperson
of the Task Force on Comprehensive Planning he was maintaining liaison
with the University with regard to riverfront planning.
After some discussioms the fall and expect,ednearlypwas cold deferred until spring due
to
eduling
Lindberg inquired about the state of the Coralville power dam and
requested that Milkman obtain information from the Johnson County
Conservation Commission.
Milkman stated that the State's allocationof
Bureau
of
fsoutdoor Recreati�
fudns was considerably increased (over $a2,0o0
that
the Riverfront Commission might look into the application for funds for
riverfront land acquisition. The Commission directed Milkman to look
into the possibility of acquiring different portions of riverfront land.
The Commission agreed to invite Jean Lloyd -Jones to its next meeting
to inform the Commission about plans for a private corporation to
acquire and preserve riverfront land.
Fahr inquired if any members present would serve on the Waste Water
Facility Committevolunteers�rFahrwindicatedaheeattend to future
since wouldappointsomeonetings.
As there
were no
Lindberg stated that Nancy Seiberling had been in contact with i �
N's interest in reviving p or
and the Mayor stating Project GREE
developing a walkway and bikeway along Rocky Shore Drive and beautifying'
the river bank,. Fahr said he would contact Seiberling and would report
back at the Commission's next meeting.
Slides of the spring canoe trip were shown at the end of the meeting.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted, •
���
�
lil en owcrs, Secretary
MINUTES
IOWA CITY FUSING NM4ISSION
CITY MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM
SEPT MBER 21, 1977
MEMBERS PRESENT: Hibbs, Kamath, Tanbardi, Smithey, Ovens
MEMBERS ABSENT: Pollock
QUESTS: Fredine Branson
CITY STAFF: Kucharzak, Seydel, Burke, Kushnir, Ryan, Kimball
rhAX441��$Iv a irF
1. The City Council not approve the Proposed Tenant landlord Ordinance
for the reasons that the Ordinance is deficient in constitutional protection
of landowners. It violates the independent right to Contract which exists
between private citizens and which civil right is protected by Iowa
constitutional law in which a City does not have the authority or right
to interfere with. Finally, from a policy standpoint that the Ordinance
is not needed in this City for the reason that the enforcement of the
Housing Maintenance and Occupancy Code presently before this Crnmission
(Crnmission version) that we support the passage of that Ordinance and that
we feel if it were properly enforced that the extraordinary remedies provided
by the Tenant Landlord Ordinance would offer no benefit to the citizens of
the City but could infact cause a rapid and dramatic increase in cost of
rental housing in the City of Iowa City.
DISCUSSION AND FORMAL ACTION TAKEN:
1. Hibbs called the meeting to order.
2. Coordinator's Report -
28 applications for Section 8 Assistance were approved.
As of September 1, there were 231 units under Section 8, and 42 under
Section 23, total 273.
The Housing Division is going to provide cmiparables to HUD for the 32
units in Section 23 that will not convert to Section 8.
Autumm Park Apartments - Open House and Dedication ceremony will be held
October 13, 1977 3:00 to 5:00 p.m.
Final Inspection of APA by HUD inspectors will be Friday, September 23.
Co missicn was notified of NAHRO Conference in Minneapolis October 2-5.
Manbers were notified of the following:
202 Housing for Elderly/Handicapped - 100 units allocated to First
Christian Church
- 48 units allocated to Systems
Unlimited
3 79S/
page 2 •
Housing Commission notes
9-21-77
Section 8 - New construction for Elderly/Handicapped - 81 units allocated to
Midstates/Old Capitol
Motion was made indicating Commission support for the above projects, and
Commission urges City Manager to make staff available to give assistance
as time will permit. Motion moved by Lambardi and Smithey seconded. Motion
passed. 5/0
Tenant landlord Ordinance -
Discussion among the members was held with each individual member stating
their point of view.
Pollock absent fran the meeting sent a letter explaining why she was against
the Ordinance.
A motion was offered by Kamath that the Council not approve the Tenant Landlord
Ordinance. Motion seconded by Smithey. Motion passed 4-0-1.
Hibbs, Kamath, Smithey, Owens voting in favor of the motion.
Lombardi abstained.
A meeting with the City Council will be held at 4:00 p.m. Friday,
September 23rd. Hibbs will give the majority report. Lombardi will
report on the minority opinion.
4. Housing Maintenance and occupancy Code -
Before discussion, Kamath made the following statement; "We started on
this 2� year ago, (as you probably know) with the Tenant Landlord Ordinance,
1975 Council, and at that time decided that the best and appropriate thing
to do would be to update the Minima Housing Code. During that time, I believe
I personally put in 40-50 hours including some em ergency meetings last spring
in order to submit the Code to Council. I think basically most of us were quite
satisfied with it. I spent alot of tine on it outside the meeting and I was
ashast and upset, and I still am, to find that what we submitted to the Council;
on September 1 we were told to take it back and start over again. Now, I have
been told that as a Camnission member we really don't have any power or authority
when the Council does this. . As far as I'm concerned if I am going to sit on
a Commission, I assume I am doing it at some sacrifice to myself, my law practice
and my family time. I am doing it for sore benefit to the community and if I
spend 2h, years working on something and then Council says to throw it back in the
hopper because what you're doing doesn't meet with the current thought, I think
that basically I'm wasting my time. I don't think that that is what the Housing
Commission should be doing, discussing this step by step, page by page and
paragraph by paragraph as we're doing it. Perhaps all were suppose to do is
simply have this submitted to us as a rubber stamp, read it over and say, "That's
great", and send it up, because what we think doesn't mean anything anyway. I
was pleased with most of the things that were in the original draft, we did then
with our hands being held for a year and a half by the legal staff, Tony Kushnir
appeared at several of our meetings and now we are told that they don't conform
to certain aspects of law. I don't think because the City hires new staff, after
all the work and time and energy that has been put in by Commission Members would
be simply thrown away. I frankly would like us in some manner, by maybe making a
public statement, that the Council will understand. As a commission member, if I
page 3
Housing Camiission Aes
September 21, 1977
•
am to continue to serve, that it means that my purpose here means sanething.
I think that I cane down maybe because of the glory of getting my name in the
newspaper once a year as a member of the commission. But, I really don't
think other than that . . . like is said about the man who was ridden out of
town on a rail, 'if it weren't for the honor I think I just as soon decline'.
If this means that we're going to spend 30-40 more hours working on this
thing over again, some of which we touched on alot at our last camiission
meeting where there was some opposition. I think we have a problem, and
maybe the way the Co mussion works is not the way the Council should handle
these problems. If the Commission is constantly going to be at clash with
the staff. I would sanehaa like the Council to know my feelings about it and
I know privately that a few others of you are in agreement. I don't want to
discuss it, I just want the Camiission members to know haw I feel."
Commission nerbers decided to meet with Council before taking any further
action.
Kucharzak handed out draft of Housing Maintenance and occupancy Code to
Commissioners, along with a study guide.
Smithey moved that the meeting adjourn, motion seoonded by Owens.
Approved by
Ito Hibbs,
Chairperson
Wednesday, October 5, 1977
City Manager's Conference Roan
0
0
CITY OF IOWA CITY
CIVIC CENTER 410 E. WASHINGTON ST IOWA CITY IOWA 52240 (319) 354.180D
NOTICE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF IOWA CITY IS CONSIDERING APPOINTMENTS
TO THE FOLLOWING COMMISSION:
RIVERFRONT COMMISSION
Two vacancies - Three-year terms
December 1, 1977 - December 1, 1980
It is the duty of the members of the Riverfront Commission to investigate,
study, review and analyze the riverfront needs and to meet such needs
within the City of Iowa City; to investigate and determine what rules and
and regulations are needed and what policy should be established relative
to the riverfront in Iowa City; to study, investigate and make recommenda-
tions relating to clearing, planning and construction of riverbank areas
and for providing green areas and flood plains along the riverfront.
Iowa City appointed members of boards and commissions must be qualified
voters of the City of Iowa City.
The selection and appointments to this Commission will be made at the
November 8, 1977, Council meeting at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers.
The actual term will begin December 1, 1977. This will allow the appointees
to attend meetings of the Riverfront Commission in order to become familiar
with the duties of the Commission before assuming full responsibility. Per-
sons interested in being considered for these positions should contact the
City Clerk, Civic Center, 410 East Washington. Application forms are avail-
able from the Clerk's office upon request.
3SOJ