Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-10-04 Info Packet*City of Iowa Cit ME MORANDUM DAn1 September 30, 1977 To: City Council FROM: City Manager RE: Lindquist Center Phase II 1. The University previously presented plans for Lindquist Center Phase II to the City. These plans were reviewed by the staff, the Design Review Committee and the City Council. The Design Review Committee voted to recommend approval. The staff had reservations.regarding the court yard layout, the inclusion of short term parking, and the driveway entry point. The City Council approved the plan for the building; subject.to future modifica- tion and review of the court yard layout. 2. The University has submitted a revised court yard layout, consistent with staff comments. The revised layout has been reviewed by the Director of Public Works, the traffic engineer, and the Redevelopment staff. All staff objections have been corrected. The layout will still prove troublesome for semi -trailer trucks, but due to limited semi usage, this defect is minimal. The revised loading area is better than the existing situation. The designated short term parking has been removed. The geometrics at the entry point have been improved. 3. The letter and revised diagram submitted by the University are attached to this memorandum. 3$1s THE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 ' Oce of Facilities Planning TJune 23, 1977 nd Utilization Mr. Paul Claves Urban Renewal Director City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Paul: RECEIVED JUN271977 Per the request of the City Council we have continued our study of the Lindquist Center, Phase II, service court design. We do not believe the suggestion by the City Staff that access to this court should be from Capitol Street is acceptable. Such a location would cause a reduction in green space planned for the southeast corner of the block. We believe this green space is as important to the City as it is to the University. Further, the slope involved would make the service area inaccess- ible during inclement winter weather. Recognizing the legitimacy of the concerns expressed about Burlington Street but still believing that some access at this point is reasonable, we have altered our concept about the function of the court. The alteration most importantly features the elimination of auto parking spaces. This will reduce considerably the traffic into and out of the area. Further, the redesign permits trucks to enter and leave the area without any on -street backing movements or necessity to cross into the opposing traffic lanes on Burlington Street. Site lines to the west of the present building corner are improved. Two diagrams of the proposed design are enclosed. Each shows a different truck movement capability. Incidentally, the drawings are still somewhat conceptual in nature, and they can be modified to conform to City technical requirements. The proposed court access will be an improvement over the existing situation. Part of the solution involves the relocation of the existing building's load- ing dock from the south to the east side of the building. This will eliminate the problems associated with the present dock and Burlington Street. Paul, I think this concept and set of plans is in keeping with the suggestions contained in the May 13, 1977 Staff Report. I hope it can now be approved by the City Staff and City Council. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance in the review and approval process. cerely yours, Richard E. Gibson Director REG:es Enclosure cc: Dean Jones Alaneu✓erebih/y 1110gram L61viI umpgoISr cairfn FOR A4NWROMN(r •PIAS' MO !"r 20'-O" 10.j kity of Iowa cite MEMORANDUM DATE: September 29, 1977 TO: City Council FROM: Linda Schreiber RE: Departmental Referral Did the Iowa League of Municipalities issue an opinion regarding the Landlord - Tenant Ordinance? The League has not issued an opinion regarding the Landlord -Tenant Ordinance. The League did issue an opinion on House File 332 (Property Tax Bill). In the opinion regarding this bill, the League felt the 6 percent property tax lid applied to residential properties was not equitable to renters. The League also pointed out that apartments of three units or more were considered com- mercial property and therefore exempt from the 6 percent lid requirements. &'(t 44- 381 A DATE: Svteiaber 30, 1977 TO: City Manager FROM: Administrative Assistant (...r'.; RE: Old Jet 14eeting, September 28, 1977 Members of Project GREEN and representatives of the Airport Commission and veterans groups met with the City staff to discuss the status of replacing the F-86 at the Airport entrance. The report which outlined the possible alternatives to replace "Old Jet" had been sent to the Council and to the individuals present. One method was to obtain another similar aircraft from Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson, Arizona, where surplus military planes are taken for parts inventory and demilitarization. Three cost estimates for this method were obtained. One firm made quotes For shipment by rail and truck ranging from ;2,885 to $3,698. This would cover disassembly, packing and shipment. The second estimate was $6,526 for disassembly and transportation to Iowa City. The third estimate was $4,854. None of these estimates include reassembly after the aircraft arrived in Iowa City. The second approach was to obtain an aircraft locally. By working with Congressman Leach's office, it was learned that it is possible to obtain an aircraft. Kitty Donohue pointed out that it was possible to obtain an aircraft in this manner if: 1) the aircraft was located closer to Iowa City than Tucson; or 2) if demilitarization in the field is cost-efficient to the Air Force. In either rase, it might be as long as four to six months before an aircraft is declared surplus. Nancy Seiberling reported Iry Janey, All Iowa Body Shop located on Highway 218 at the south edge of Cedar Rapids, felt the aircraft could be repaired at a cost of $1,000 to $2,000. The price would depend upon the extent of refin- ishing that is necessary. Previous meetings by representatives of Project GREEN, Airport Commission, and veterans groups were held to suggest other memorials for the Council to con- sider. However, Flo Beth Ehninger pointed out the Council refused, stating they wanted "Old Jet" or a similar memorial. A brief discussion about obtaining a plane locally followed. The safeness of the plane's repairs for mounting and display purposes was discussed. Denny Peterson spoke of Janey's qualifications and volunteered to transport the plane to Cedar Rapids where repairs would cost less. Setting up temporary heli -arc welding sites is a costly process. In addition, he indicated that he knew of a similar plane located in Waverly, Iowa, and would check to see if the dings could be removed and exchanged. This idea proved unsuccessful. Caroline Embree favored exchanging the planes if the mounting was structurally capable of holding a similar plane. 387 •CHH CAT gow. -) C-51 . { qckru.Ev 11,��L� �v,n zr r :l � '�:� ��::✓ r rn, l.I 1� ��' '1li a �: I ,�.,.:u� � f � � , DATE: Svteiaber 30, 1977 TO: City Manager FROM: Administrative Assistant (...r'.; RE: Old Jet 14eeting, September 28, 1977 Members of Project GREEN and representatives of the Airport Commission and veterans groups met with the City staff to discuss the status of replacing the F-86 at the Airport entrance. The report which outlined the possible alternatives to replace "Old Jet" had been sent to the Council and to the individuals present. One method was to obtain another similar aircraft from Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson, Arizona, where surplus military planes are taken for parts inventory and demilitarization. Three cost estimates for this method were obtained. One firm made quotes For shipment by rail and truck ranging from ;2,885 to $3,698. This would cover disassembly, packing and shipment. The second estimate was $6,526 for disassembly and transportation to Iowa City. The third estimate was $4,854. None of these estimates include reassembly after the aircraft arrived in Iowa City. The second approach was to obtain an aircraft locally. By working with Congressman Leach's office, it was learned that it is possible to obtain an aircraft. Kitty Donohue pointed out that it was possible to obtain an aircraft in this manner if: 1) the aircraft was located closer to Iowa City than Tucson; or 2) if demilitarization in the field is cost-efficient to the Air Force. In either rase, it might be as long as four to six months before an aircraft is declared surplus. Nancy Seiberling reported Iry Janey, All Iowa Body Shop located on Highway 218 at the south edge of Cedar Rapids, felt the aircraft could be repaired at a cost of $1,000 to $2,000. The price would depend upon the extent of refin- ishing that is necessary. Previous meetings by representatives of Project GREEN, Airport Commission, and veterans groups were held to suggest other memorials for the Council to con- sider. However, Flo Beth Ehninger pointed out the Council refused, stating they wanted "Old Jet" or a similar memorial. A brief discussion about obtaining a plane locally followed. The safeness of the plane's repairs for mounting and display purposes was discussed. Denny Peterson spoke of Janey's qualifications and volunteered to transport the plane to Cedar Rapids where repairs would cost less. Setting up temporary heli -arc welding sites is a costly process. In addition, he indicated that he knew of a similar plane located in Waverly, Iowa, and would check to see if the dings could be removed and exchanged. This idea proved unsuccessful. Caroline Embree favored exchanging the planes if the mounting was structurally capable of holding a similar plane. 387 0 0 Ken Kinyon felt that the veterans wanted Old Jet repaired to a safe, attractive condition or a suitable replacement found. I indicated the Council is most eager to resolve this matter. Pete Peterson requested that I investigate further the availability of a composite listing of surplus F-86 planes. lie felt the staff could make telephone calls to these communities to determine if they were interested in exchanging planes or parts of the plane so repairs could be made to "Old Jet." Embree felt the community had expressed a lot of sentiment to repair Old Jet. Denny Petersori, Dewey's Salvage, was asked to contact Janey to determine if repairs could commence soon. Peterson indicated that he would make arrangements to remove the remaining portion of the wings and transport them to Cedar Rapids for repair. *City of Iowa Cite MEMORANDUM DATE: September 30, 1977 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Angela Ryan, Asst. City Attorney RE: Sidewalk Assessment Appeals of Peet, Farkus, and Angelsburg These appeals arose from the 1973 Sidewalk Improvements Program. The three properties are located on the south side of Church Street between Dubuque and Linn Streets. The unique problems with these pro- perties are that the City changed the grade and it replaced both private sidewalks and driveways as well as the public sidewalk. The owners were then assessed based upon the running foot of the public sidewalk. This method of assessment worked to the disadvantage of parties with no driveway or a short driveway. There is also a serious question as to our jurisdiction in replacing private sidewalks and driveways, possibly without the owner's consent. In attempting to reach a settlement, I suggested that the owners pay for the actual cost of the amount of concrete received. It com- puted as follows: Farkus: assessment $1,689.12 actual cost 1,061.97 627.15 Peet: assessment 337.82 actual cost 243.21 94.61 Angelsburg: assessment 540.52 actual cost 757.58 - 217.06 You will notice that Mr. Angelsburg benefited from the City's method of assessment. He has indicated a willingness to settle for a $100.00 reduction in his assessment. The proposed settlement would reduce the three assessments a total of $821.76. Because of the method of assessment used, I recommend that we settle. If the Court were to hold that we had no authority to replace private sidewalks and driveways, we would recover less than the proposed settlement. In addition, we would have incurred the cost of litigation. *City of Iowa CUP MEMORANDUM DATE: September 22, 1977 TO: Neal Berlin and City Council " FROM: Dick Plastino, Director of Public Works 12 RE: Transit signs for downtown, department re rral, informal, September 19, 1977 The Transit Manager and the Public Works Director have discussed the above item. Transit signs for downtown cannot be done in the fore- seeable future. While it is a minor job to prepare the materials for the sign frames, preparation of the State Transit Grant, training new drivers, and the shortage of drivers makes it impossible to work on this particular project at this time. Items of this kind test the understanding of the staff involved. Only a few weeks ago Council emphatically denied additional staffing in the Transit Division and as a result the Transit Manager, a highly educated, qualified individual, by necessity must work with many minor items which consume his time as surely as major projects such as State Assistance, Federal Assistance, etc. It is always the intent of the Public Works staff to provide the City with the highest level of service possible. When severe overloads start to occur, good people become very frustrated with generally bad results. An analogy might be made to a crane lifting a heavy load. The crane does a fine job up to its recommended weight limit and once that limit is exceeded breakdowns start to occur very quickly. In the Transit Division the State Transit Grant, rapid personnel turnover, customer relations, personnel relations, scheduling problems, and bus maintenance problems represent the basic workload of the Transit Division. Additional work items must either be deferred or the basic duties of the division must be slighted. 3519 •City of Iowa CHP MEMORANDUM DATIt September 26, 1977 10: Pat Foster, Councilman FROM: Gene Dietz, City Engineer RE: Sewering the North Peninsula Area Several weeks ago the question arose regarding whether or not Coralville would be in a better position to handle sanitary sewage from the peninsula area rather than sizing the corridor sewer to accept the projected load. I have done a cursory investigation into this possibility in which I discussed the matter with Bill Blackmer (Coralville City Enginiier) and Ron Meyer (MMS, Coralville's Consultant). The basic facts surrounding the issue are as fellows: 1. The estimated population projection for the peninsula area as well as that that could possibly be served immediately north of the Interstate is 10,000 people; 2. Coralville's present population is approximately 6600 and their projected growth over the next 20 years which has been sized into their treatment plant is 17,000; 3. The plant capacity at present is 1.75 MGD, existing dry weather flow is 0.95 MGD, and during wet weather the load at the plant is approximately 3.0 MGD; 4. The logical point for Coralville to accept sewage from the peninsula area appears to be what is commonly referred to as the Quarry Road Lift Station which is at capacity; 5. From the Quarry Road Lift Station it is pumped to another lift station located at Third Avenue at Clear Creek and pumped to the top of the hill to a collector sewer along the strip and then on to the treatment plant; 6. The Third Avenue Station is at or near capacity during rainstorms and it is questionable whether or not the force main would be large enough to handle an expansion; 7. The collector sewer along the strip surcharges during heavy rain- storms; and 8. To get sanitary sewage acrn's the river from the peninsula area to the Quarry Road Lift Station would probably require an additional lift station since a siphon would not be effective until development had progressed significantly and flows were large enough to keep the siphon.functioning properly. E Pat Foster/Gene Dietz • Page 2 It is my understanding that the Mayor of Coralville expressed a desire to work with us on this situation. However, the facts surrounding the situation as listed above would require rehabilitation and/or expansion to two of their lift stations as well as force mains and gravity sewers and it would require a new lift station on the peninsula as well as a river crossing. Ultimately, it would be necessary that Coralville expand their treatment facilities since our projected growth in the peninsula would use up their entire 20 year growth period expectations in the process. Without a great deal more research it would be impossible to fix price tags comparing the alternate of sizing the corridor sewer to handle the exr.ra load versus sending it to Coralville. It is my opinion that the Coralville alternative would be much more expensive in the long run. Essentially, vie have to put in the corridor sewer due to the overloaded conditions of the existing system and the primary extra costs associated with sizing it for the peninsula area would be in pipe sizing only. If it were desirable to have Coralville serve the area and that the peninsula area remain within the corporate limits of Iowa City, the above analysis does not discuss the desirability (or undesirability) of trying to negotiate long term service commitments between municipalities. It would be my recommendation that we not pursue the alternate of having Coralville service the peninsula area. Irregardless of my opinion on the subject, however, it is necessary that Council provide direction one way or the other. Veenstra 8 Y.imn are currently updating the plans and specifications which arc due December 15. Currently our consultant is under the assumption that the corridor sewer shall be sized to handle the peninsula area as well as some of that area north of the Interstate. cc: Neal Berlin \/Dick Plastino 0 F�10 SEIP217,9177 ABBIE STOLFUS CITY CLERK TO: City Officials FROM: Iowa Savings and Loan League E September 26, 1977 The Iowa Savings and Loan League is sponsoring a series of legislative workshops across the state of Iowa. At these workshops, pending legis- lation will be discussed with particular emphasis on the deposit of public funds in savings and loan associations. Competition for the deposit of public funds will enable local govern- ments to recfeve a higher rate of interest on the funds deposited. We feel that with the continuing pressure on local governments in regard to services and in regard to the payments by the public of local property taxes, that it is in the best interests of the governmental body to receive the maximum amount permitted for the deposit of public funds. We are also inviting your legislators to attend these workshops and hope that it will provide an opportunity to dicuss with them the merits of this and other legislation. We will be happy to have you attend the workshop. Please fill out the enclosed registration form and return it to this office. .Thank you very much for your participation. Your workshop will be held at: Sincerely, Kathy Cashman Administrative Assistant Ironmen Inn I -80 Coralville Exit Iowa City, Iowa Date: November 1, 1977 Time: 8:00 P.M. 0 0 LEGISLAiNE WORKShOP Ironmen Inn - Iowa City, Iowa November 1, 1977 - 8:00 P. M. The following members will be attending the above workshop: Name: Name of Association: Address: Please return to Iowa Savings and Loan League by October 21, 1977. CITY OF IOWA CITY CIVIC CENTER 410 E. WASHINGTON ST 10\NA C!"!' September 29, 1977 James D. Meyer Meyer $ Meyer 106 N. Grand Chariton, Iowa 50049 Re: Proposed additional access to Highway 6 Dear Mr. Meyer: Sometime ago the City received a request to permit additional access to Highway 6 with Hollywood Boulevard connecting in the area between Keokuk Street and Gilbert Street. The City staff reviewed this matter and recommended to the Planning and Zoning Commission and subsequently the City Council that no additional access should be permitted in this area. Council suggested that if the contiguous Hollywood Boulevard right-of-way could be sold to abutting property owners and IDOT was agreeable with the access point then perhaps the City Council would support it. Shortly thereafter your representatives met with the IDOT District Office to determine the potential for right-of-way vacation and ownership transfer. IDOT district officials indicated to you and to the City the belief that Hollywood Boulevard right-of-way west of the proposed point of access and contiguous to the Boyd property would most likely be declared excess right-of-way by the Ames office and therefore eligible for sale to abutting property owners. However, that undeveloped portion of Hollywood Boulevard east of the proposed access cut would not be considered excess right-of-way. Further, when the additional access was made it would be required by IDOT that a connection be provided between the existing Hollywood Boulevard and the access point. Apparently this recommendation was made under the assumption that an intervening property owner, Mr. Grob, would be agreeable to a reverse curve in the alignment of Hollywood Boulevard which would provide for the intersection with Hollywood Boulevard to be setback at least 200 feet from the south edge of Highway 6 and thereby providing adequate queueing and storage areas. Since those discussions, it has been learned that Mr. Grob is not agreeable to this proposal. Therefore, it is the IDOT position that Hollywood Boulevard would have to be extended in its existing right-of-way and tic into the proposed cut. This condition would very closely mirror a similar condition 1000 feet to the east at the Keokuk/Highway 6/Hollywood Boulevard intersections. This solution is unequivocably unacceptable to the City staff. Further, if this is the only design solution that can be found to be acceptable to all the developers concerned, the City staff must recommend to the City Council that the proposed access connection be disallowed. 22 0 0 It appears that there are some alternatives which would permit a reverse curve alignment of Hollywood and subsequent minimal 200 foot setback from Highway 6 to resolve this issue. The first remedy appears to be an arrangement with Mr. Greb such that the reverse curve through the parcel presently in his ownership would become more attractive to him. A second set of alternatives would involve a relocation at the proposed access point to the west. The IDOT officials have now clarified their minimum 1000 foot intersection spacing to a minimum 600 foot spacing. Presumably by making certain rearrangements and adjustments to the site plan as proposed, the reverse curve could be made on the Boyd property. This solution would not involve any concessions on the part of Mr. Greb. A third alternative would be to seek a suitable site location other than the Boyd property located in the southern part of Iowa City. In summary, there appear to be several alternatives which are available to you to resolve this issue. However, failing these alternatives, the design proposal before the City staff at this time is unacceptable. 7sinceely, d JVt Director orks RJP/jp cc: City Council NIMS Consultants CEIVED SEP 1 61977 Johnson County Council oil -Aging Phon, 3381.8018 538 Booth Oilbwt Str,d Are, CoA, 314 Ince City, lov, 52240 September 14, 1977 Mr. Neal Berlin City Manager Civic Center 410 East Washington Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Mr. Berlin: The Johnson County Council on Aging is enclosing a report for the month of August 1977. We hope that you will find it satisfactory. Thank you. SigcereVid Lo is] man, Executive Dir ctor ]g $a3 1 -hove 338.8018 Area Code 319 JohnsonCounty Council on#Aging REPORT FOR MONTH OF AUGUST 1977 I. Expenditures 538 south Gilhert Slrea Inwe City, Iowa 52240 II. Supportive Services A. Information and Referral Nature of Calls Property Tax .............................14 Shoppers Aide ............................25 Handyman Chore ...........................23 Dental Care.. .........................18 Congregate Meals ......................... 15 Friendly Visiting ........................27 TOTAL in B. Assistance with Rent and Property tax Number of clients .. ................14 Assistance with Food Stamp Form ...... 1 C. Phone -a -Friend Number of volunteers.................20 Number of clients....................30 The Council on Aging has volunteers and 2 outreach workers who make calls to clients twice or three times a week to persons who have been referred to the agency by friends, family or other providers of services, e.g., VNS, DSS, Housing Rehab. D. Shopper's Aide.......................25 Number of volunteers................3 Number of clients...................:19 E. Assistance with Moving...............2 III. Services sub -contracted from Heritage Agency on Aging, Area X (Monies provided by IA State Commission on Aging Under the Older Americans Act, Title III and Title VII). A. Dental Care Program Number of bills paid.................4 (Total of $368.00) 3 Director's Salary ..................•••• ..$190 50 Postage.................................. 18.09 Office Supplies .......................... Outside Printing ......................... 25.00 27.17 Telephone ................................ TOTAL II. Supportive Services A. Information and Referral Nature of Calls Property Tax .............................14 Shoppers Aide ............................25 Handyman Chore ...........................23 Dental Care.. .........................18 Congregate Meals ......................... 15 Friendly Visiting ........................27 TOTAL in B. Assistance with Rent and Property tax Number of clients .. ................14 Assistance with Food Stamp Form ...... 1 C. Phone -a -Friend Number of volunteers.................20 Number of clients....................30 The Council on Aging has volunteers and 2 outreach workers who make calls to clients twice or three times a week to persons who have been referred to the agency by friends, family or other providers of services, e.g., VNS, DSS, Housing Rehab. D. Shopper's Aide.......................25 Number of volunteers................3 Number of clients...................:19 E. Assistance with Moving...............2 III. Services sub -contracted from Heritage Agency on Aging, Area X (Monies provided by IA State Commission on Aging Under the Older Americans Act, Title III and Title VII). A. Dental Care Program Number of bills paid.................4 (Total of $368.00) B. Handyman Chore Number of volunteers.................3 Number of clients....................26 C. Special Development Project - Program in which the Council on Aging provides programs of special interest and educational content to older persons here at the Senior Center each Tuesday once a month and on Sunday. Programs: August 10 - Film, Man and Nature August 17 - Film Nature August 31 - Film, Revolutionary Machine Number of clients attending .......... 33 CITY F IO A CITY CNN C CEN ER 410E ',,', ' c ` > i!`d ;; I 10Vd/% CI I Y 1(_)V.4\522/ 0 (31'-)J 354 18M September 21, 1977 Air. Darold Albright Graphic Printing/National Copy Center P.O. Box 986 Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Mr. Albright: I have received your correspondence dated September 1.6, 1977, which details your complaint regarding our handling of the printing for the Urban Renewal proposals. As I understand your letter, you feel the City acted in an off -]landed, unjust, biased, and inappropriate manner because less than half of this printing project was awarded to your firm. hinile it is true that less than half the printing work was awarded to your firm, it is not true that this was due to a bias against your firm or unjust actions. Rather, it was due to the principles of the free enterprise system which you referenced in your letter. "ie other firm to which you refer, Technigraphics Inc. was awarded a larger share of the printing job because they were able to provide the City better service and a higher quality finished product at a lower cost. In reference to your letter, your summary of the estimated job requirement is correct. We contacted several firms to inquire as to whether or not they would be willing to work after the normal 8:00 to 5:00 shift .n this project. You felt that your firm could comfortably handle the copying of 25 copies of 25 documents, averaging 125 pages each for a cost of$2,494.80, or 3.2� per impression. With respect to binding documents in accordance with our preliminary estimates of having documents averaging 125 pages and ranging up to 300 pages in length, your firm was not able to provide a binding service for this size document meeting our requirements. The City's Buyer was able to come up with the solution of taking the printing work your firm would perform to another printer to have any such docnmients bound. You state in your letter that, "It was ultimately determined that 'single -hole' drilling from Economy Advertising would best service your needs". From our point of view, this binding method was not one that would best serve our needs; rather, it was a poor alternative that would have to suffice under these circumstances if your firm was to be utilized. Technigraphics, one of the other fines which we contacted, quoted us a price of 2.5f per impression at the volume of 25 copies of 25 documents averaging 125 pages each in length. 'hey were also able to supply the finished documents, even the 300 page size, in an attractive bound form at basically the same tura the documents were printed, for approximately 60¢ per docmmient. 3821 l pJr. Darold Albright 2- 6. September 21, 1977 Obviously, Technigraphics submitted the more competitive proposal. However, based upon our original. quantity estimates which we stressed to all parties were based upon several "ifs", lie didn't feel we should conuni.t the entire Job of 25 copies of 50 originals of approximately 125 pages each in length io Technigraphics, because it might be cutting it too close From the City's standpoint. It was for this reason that we decided to also line up your' firm to perform some of the printing. As previously stated, we also scheduled time with Economy Advertising to perform some binding. In addition to this, we also lined up (Economy and two other printers, plus our own print shop, to perform printing as a contingency in the event the actual quantity of printing exceeded our original estimates, or in the event of machine breakdown. lie ultimately received 34 proposals as opposed to our original estiim<1tc of 50, and those which were received had an average size of 67 pages, as opposed to our estimate of 125 pages. Faced with this large reduction in volume from what we had anticipated, a decision had to he made regarding which printer to utilize. Based upon our quotes of 2.5$ per impression from Tcchnigrnphics, and your quote of 3.2¢ per impression together with the fact that Technigraphics was able to provide us tine previously described binding service, it was decided that Technigraphics should be awarded the nnjority of the project and, in particular, the larger documents over 50 pages which they were able to bind. lysing this basis, thirteen proposals were sent to your firm. For the City to divide this project uih equally at this point as you would have preferred would have been indefensible from our standpoint. Technigraphics would have had a very legitimate complaint that we were showing unjust favoritism toward your firm and a bias against theirs. They would have found themselves quoting a lower price and providing better service, but still not being given any more of the work than your firm, quoting a higher price and not being able to provide a complete service. Your firm rags finished by 5:00 on Thursday, September 15, and Teclmigraphics had the bound proposals ready for us to pick up the first thing Friday, Septenber 16. Neither firm received the quantity of proposals they would have preferred to receive or were expecting to receive. Technigraphics charged us 2.5� per impression and your firm ended up charging us tm average of 5.7¢ per impression for the lower volume. It was unfortunate for the printing firms involved that the anticipated volumes did not materialize after everyone had made provisions to handle a large volume. Given the circumstances and everyone's expectations, I suspect that no matter how the job would have been handled, one party or all parties would have been dissatisfied. However, I hope you realize that the decision we made, when faced with the unanticipated lower volumes, was based upon business facts and not upon emotional or personal considerations, as alledged in your correspondence. Mr. Darold Albright -3- September 21, 1977 I can understand why you feel justified in charging a higher price per impression than what you put on the higher volume work (3.2a vs. 5.7¢ average). I would like to take this opportunity, however, to point out that you have, through an apparent oversight, overbilled the City $101.66 less your 10% discount, for a net amount of $91.49, due to the fact that your bill listed proposal R31, which was 46 pages in length, twice. I sincerely hope this response has served to clarify the facts and actions surrounding the recent printing of Urban Renewal proposals. Sincerely, «.u.o., Thomas J ��Struve Purchasing Agent TJS:bc Rrisnu TiON WHEREAS, with the meeting of September 14, 1977, Dr. Robin Powell brings to a close a term of service on the Parks and Recreation Commission of the City of Iowa City, and WHEREAS, he has been an untiring and resolute worker for the betterment of the City of Iowa City, and WHEREAS, he has through his firm determination supported high standards and contributed greatly to the work of the Commission, and WHEREAS, through his efforts, he has rendered that service to both the Commission and the community, NOW, THEREFORE, the Parks and Recreation Commission hereby resolves: That we express our appreciation of his term of service on the Commission and our gratitude for the hours which he has given to the work of the Commission, and That this resolution be incorporated into the minutes of the Commission and that a copy be given to Dr. Powell. Dated at Iowa City, Iowa, this 14th day of September, 1977. Gldnn Boutelle, Chairgprs2�Y 1 Robert Crum, Vic�irperson 0 0 SECTION 1 APPLICATION LEWER I CITY OF IOWA CITY 0\ Ili ,,'i NI LIQ 110 1. WMI 1()WA (:I I Y k )WA !,:>n) lid �) September 30, 1977 Mr. Terry Fritz, Director Public Transit Division Iowa Department of Transportation State Capitol Des Moines, Iowa 50319 Dear Mr. Fritz: The City of Iowa City hereby makes application to the Iowa Department of Transportation, Public Transit Division, for a grant under the pro- visions of the Financial Assistance Program. The amount requested is $277,205. This figure includes $188,548 to assist the City in subsidizing its present public transit service, $75,427 to help the City institute selected transit improvements, and $13,230 to provide a portion of the cost of various capital items. The following grant application will explain the details of and sub- stantiate the need for this financial assistance. We look forward to a prompt reply indicating your concurrence with our request. Sincerely, Carol W. deProsse Mayor Pro tem CWdP:Is L 0 0 1. APPLICATIO14 LETTER Applicant's Legal Name: City of Iowa City Mailing Address: Civic Center 410 E 'Washington Street Iowa City Iowa 52240 Telephone Number: 319 / 354-1800 (Area) Date: September 30 1977 Capital Assistance: Operating Assistance: $ 13,230 $ 265,475 Total Amount Requested: $ 277,205 Signature: Title: Mayor Pro tem City of Iowa City, Iowa 0 2. AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION We, hereby, authorize the City of Iowa City, Iowa, (Applicant's legal name) on September 27, 1977 (date) to apply for $ 277,205 (total amount of funds) to be used for capital and operating (capital and/or operating) assistance under the state transit assistance program and enter into con- tract with the Iowa Department of Transportation. Name: By: Title: Mayor Pro tem City of Iowa City, Iowa Address: Civic Center. 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Telephone: 319 / 354-1800 (Area) 0 0 The City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, in its meeting of September 27, 1977, authorized by motion that the Mayor submit this grant application under the provisions of the Iowa Department of Transportation, Public Transit Division, Financial Assistance Program. A certified extract of the minutes of the September 27, 1977, City Council meeting are attached. A resolution authorizing the Mayor's signature and submission of this grant will be made part of the agenda of the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting. Upon passage of this resolution a certified copy will be forwarded for inclusion with this application. O CITY OF CIVIC CENTER 410 E. WASHINGTON S. STATE OF IOWA SS JOHNSON COUNTY OWA CITY IOWA CITY IOWA 52240 (319) 354.186-) I, Vicki J. Brei, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, do hereby certify that the extract of the minutes of the meeting of September 27, 1977, attached hereto is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the meeting which was held by the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, all as the same appears of record in my office. 1977. Dated at Iowa City, Iowa, this 30th day of September, 'AZ Zetl VICKI J. BREI Deputy City Clerk City of Iowa,City, Iowa 0 Extract from Regular Council Meeting held on September 27, 1977, at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers at the Civic Center: "Moved by deProsse, seconded by Perret, to approve the submission for the State Transit Grant Assistance which will include estimated costs for: Evening Service .....................$28,000 Additional Peak Service.............$24,000 SEATS, Handicapped & Elderly ........ $28,000 SEATS, After-hours Taxi Sery........ $ 2,000 Transit Marketing Program ........... $10,000 2 -way Radios ........................$ 3,000 Kneeling Apparatus ..................$ 3,000 Replacement Bus .....................$ 8,000 Motion carried unanimously, 7/0. Copies of the application will be included in next Friday's packet." SECTION 3 CERTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 0 CITY OF CIVIC CLNILR 410 L WASIIINC,,1(-)N ;1 STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY ) SS 0 OWA CITY II )WA Ul Y UWA 5 240 (319) 3511.18a) I, Abbie Stolfus, City Clerk of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, do hereby certify that the Proof of Publication attached hereto is a true and correct copy of the Proof of Publication which certifies that the "NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSAL BY THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, TO APPLY FOR AN IOWA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OPERATING AND CAPITAL GRANT FOR THE CITY TRANSIT SYSTEM" was published on the 20th day of August, 1977, in the Iowa_ City Press Citizen, all as the same appears of record in nly office. Dated at Iowa City, Iowa, this 30th day of September, 1977. ABBIE STOLFUS City Clerk of the City of Iowa City, IA A Printers fee 5_. /1.4'61. -__— CERTIFICATE OF PUBLICATION STATF.OF IOWA, Johnson County, ss: THE IOWA CITY PRESS -CITIZEN Vichy J. Curtis, being duly sworn say that I am the cashier of the IOWA CITY EIRESS- CITMEN, a newspaper, published in said County, and that a notice, a printed copy of which is hereto attached, was published in said paper _4{f�__—_ tines, on We following A Cashier Subscribed and sworn to before me Wisci't_ day0f_`-"),,�i+at.:..�A.D.19. —I— No2, t.U.J l.( Public ='CPIEM6E0 4� n FPic, AL PUBLICATION LOrILL 01 PUBLIC NONIAO ON A PRUSSIA. SY IMI CITY 01 IOWA CITY, 10". TO APPLY POA :b IOWA UPAR;NNI Or IIu.YSPOMIICN WEA- 1 ATIX MO CAPITAL OAMT POA ThE CITY lRMSIt 1 SYSTEM A pui lC 1,1110p .111 of bid bbn tN. Counon or Mr Cl ey of PPA City. IW.. rA Tww./. SYot. A. 1M. At 7:10 P.M. M M. Col"ll awn. [LIc tonl.r, 110 E. W.shlnpton St., 10-, City. Jorosdn ; Co.. Io-.. for public Input ".rdlry tM Vt,'% oropos.d AWIlGtldn loran to-. O.Ot. of Tran. Ct... llnp Nd 4plt,l dr..A for the tit, t,osit I Yyttw. ftrsm, .I snlnp N M M.rd AW Mh Nntlon should .pD..r .t Thr Counoll Maf np .t n. tin .D.<I lied .b.r.. G1CF77 /s/ ANdIE SIMM, CITY CLARK / CITY OF STATE OF IOWA ) ) SS JOHNSON COUNTY ) OWA CITY U ANA (.'11Y 1O\/VA '.� MC) (319) 3"/11 I, Abbie Stolfus, City Clerk of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, do hereby certify that the minutes of the meeting of September 6, 1977 , page 4 , attached hereto is a true and correct copy of the meeting which was held by the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, all as the same appears of record in my office. Dated at Iowa City, Iowa, this 30th day of September , 191L. ABBIE STOLFUS City Clerk of Iowa City, Iowa • CouActivities Sep*6, 1977 Page 4 highway right -of -Way for a sewage line for the Racquet Club. Moved by Balmer, seconded by Selzer, to approve the request. Motion carried unanimously. Atty. Hayek explained the need to clarify action on the Ord. amending the Ilomo Rule Charter in Sec. 3, Moved by Perret, seconded by Foster, that the Clerk correct the 8/30/77 minutes to reflect that the original ord. was tabled, and the substitute ord. was deferred for one week. Motion carried. The public hearing to rezone a tract of land to a CH Zone was opened and closed as no one appeared for discussion. Moved by Balmer, seconded by Foster, to adopt RES. R77-363, Res. Bk. 42, pp. 731-732, TO ACCEPT THE VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION OF A 2.7 -ACRE TRACT located west of Hwy. 1 and Dane's Dairy and contiguous to the south City limits. Affirmative roll call vote unanimous, 7/0, all Councilmembers present. Sr. Planner Schmeiser explained staff concern re this matter and asked that Council not consider rezoning until after the annexation has been completed. Mayor Neuhauser declared the public hearing on the State Transit System Program open. Public Works Dir. Plastino pointed out 2 additions: Repair Maintenance of Vehicles - $61,000, and Wages of Temporary Employees $12,000. Robt. Welsh, 2526 Mayfield Rd., expressed his desire to eliminate portions of the proposed application. Several Councilmembers commented on evening service. Public hearing closed. Moved by Foster, seconded by Vevera, that the ORD. AMENDING ORD. #76- 2007, THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT ORD. be considered and given 2nd vote for passage. Motion carried, 7/0. Affirmative roll call vote unanimous, 7/0, all Councilmembers present. Moved by deProsse, seconded by Perret, that the rule requiring that ords. must be considered and voted on for passage at 2 Council,mtgs. prior to the mtg, at which it is to be finally passed be suspended, that the second consideration and vote be waived, and that the ord. be voted upon for final passage at this time. Affirmative roll call vote unanimous, 7/0, all Councilmembers present. (.loved by deProsse, seconded by Perret, that ORD. N77-2658, Ord. Bk. 11, pp. 163-164, AN AMENDMENT TO THE HOME RULE CHARTER FOR THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, BY PROVIDING THAT INITIATIVE OR REFERENDUVI PROPOSALS BE HELD AT REG. CITY OR GENERAL ELECTIONS WHICH NEXT OCCUR MORE THAN TWENTY-FIVE (25) DAYS AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE APPROPRIATE PERIOD FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND AMENDING SEC. 7.05(B) THEREOF be finally adopted at this time. Affirmative roll call vote unanimous, 7/0, all Councilmembers present. Moved by Perret, seconded by Balmer, that the rule requiring that ords. must be considered and voted on for passage at 2 Council mtgs. prior to the mtg. at which it is to be finally passed be suspended, that the 1st and 2nd consideration and vote be waived, and that the ords. be voted upon for final passage at this time. Affirmative roll call vote 0 CITY OF NII I1 4101. WA5IIINGION SI. STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY ) SS �.J OWA CITY IUWA CIIY IOWA `)2240 (319) 3`.4-IP(JD I, Abbie Stolfus, City Clerk of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, do hereby certify that the Proof of Publication attached hereto is a true and correct copy of the Proof of Publication which certifies that the "NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSAL BY THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, TO APPLY FOR AN IOWA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OPERATING AND CAPITAL GRANT FOR THE CITY TRANSIT SYSTEM" was published on_the 22nd day August, 1977, in the Iowa Cit Press Citizen, all as the same appears of record in mY o ce. Dated at Iowa City, Iowa, this 30th day of September, 1977. J BI IF��- City Clerk of the City of Iowa City, IA 1J Printers fee b_.5e-.f15 CERTIFICATE OF PUBLICATION STATE OF IOWA, Johnson County, ss: THE IOWA CRY PRFSS-CITIZEN Vicky J. Curtis, being duly swom sNy that 1 am the cashier of the IOWA CITY PRESS. CITIZEN, a newspaper, published In said County, and that a notice, a printed copy of which is hereto attached, was published in said paper _. �ii! _ ._ lines, on the following dales: 1 / v Cashier Subscribed and sworn to before me this.-�L_%_ dayof. « ./_:_.--.._ A.D.19 I Notiry Public I �. ..1 LIrJi�;`l5 61 a+FY(ik 3F';!..!3tH 30, 1919 i.-- i 0 _ OFFICIAL PUBLICATION 46ICC Of ?Mile PG41NO ON A PAC%SAL 01 1N1 CITY Of ILNA Clef. INC 10l PLY BCP NI INA OC.AriPCNt Of TOANAO?AN" Cert. ATING MO Wilk C"it 104 bC City TP;MSIT SBSiEB A P.Olf, MnIM In Nr fni4 M/On u. Cwn<II of v. City of Io-. City. Io-.. On Twtary, Seat. 70. 1117. At B:A P.B. In Or (..,11 Tfa ern. Cbl: C.n:.r. 410 B. Y.tNlniton St., Io.Y City. Jonnton .. Ill.. An All, Pwlllon Gf vNth" @r City ir44a apply for .n Io. Mal. of Irs,sa. Cp.ntlrq I:f GI Craft for IM eity Vmlit system. Prr:ml dtl'In0 la ar NUN On "t, awltlan tF.ad'1 At IN Calrrll Metlnq rt U. LIN Aa.:l- ii...Npn. A Anay oI IN Pmwiva erne .PPllo- .Itn Is fp r f1 I. It IN Will Of N. Lf" Cho, CI r1r. Ulf". 410 L yUNNNton 1t., la. r!tp. 11,111, CO.. Ip... 11::/Il Is/ Mill SOLFIB, CITYO.OA Auputl 77,1977 0 CITY OF IOWA CITY c !,.'V CJ R!i1 410 F WASH INGRA SI. IOWA QIY IOWA b211O (3Fi; STATE OF IOWA ) ) SS JOHNSON COUNTY ) I, Abbie Stolfus, City Clerk of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, do hereby certify that the minutes of the meeting of September 20, 1977 , page 3 , attached hereto is a true and correct copy of the meeting which was held by the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, all as the same appears of record in my office. Dated at Iowa City, Iowa, this 30th day of September 19 77 . ABBIE STOLFUS City Clerk of Iowa City, Iowa • rcri ncctvitiIes 20, 1977 Page 3 Conc. the draft letter regarding social security fur police and fire employees, the Ci Ly I.19r. was asked to identify costs. Moved by Balmer, seconded by Vevera, that Council go on record as opposing social security for police and fire employees. (lotion carried unanimously, 6/0. City Mgr. Berlin advised that the memo on annexation had been referred to the Comprehensive Plan Coordinating Comm. and to P&Z Comm. After recomms. are received, the item will be discussed informally by Council. (.loved by Selzer, seconded by deProsse, to receive and file the letter from Wayne Fiala cone. rental of the Epstein modular on Clinton St. Mall. Motion carried unanimously. Moved by deProsse, seconded by Vevera, to not re -rent the modulars as they become vacant, and eliminate them as soon as possible. Motion carried unanimously, 6/0, Perret absent. Mayor Meuhauser reminded Council of the mtg. at 4:00 P.M. on 9/23 for discussion of the Tenant/Landlord Initiative Ord. Supportive material for City Atty. Hayek's memo released today will be available on Wednesday. City figr. Berlin called attention to the graduation of City Clerk Abbie Stolfus from the Municipal Clerk's 3 -yr. training program on municipal gov't. operations co-sponsored by the Ia. State Univ. Extension Service and the Ia. Mun. Fin. Officers Assn. The Staff will be providing to Council in the Friday packet, the Housing Maintenance Ord., currently being considered by the Housing Comm., which includes items relating to rent -withholding and retaliatory eviction. The City Mgr. stated that consideration at a later date might be appropriate. The public hearing was held on the State Transit System Prog. A new list was presented. Hugh Mose, Transit Supt., explained his recomms. and discussed systems utilizing evening services in other communities. Don Schaeffer, Regional Planning Comm.; and Richard Blum, 2041 Rochester Ct., appeared. Public hearing closed. Council discussed inclusion of the transit garage site feasibility study. 3 Councilmembers were opposed to the study. It was the consensus of Council to include SEATS Elderly and Handicapped transit, SEATS after-hours taxi serv., transit marketing prog., two-way radios, "Kneeling" apparatus, and replacement bus. Evening service, peak service and feasibility study will be discussed again Friday. Advertising on the buses will be reviewed at a later date. The public hearing on the plans and specifications for the Mormon Trek Blvd. Improvement Proj. FAUS M-4039(1)--81-52 was held. No one appeared. Moved by Selzer, seconded by deProsse, to adopt RES. H77-376, Res. Bk. 42, p. 760, APPROVING PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT, AND ESTIMATE FOR THE MORMON TREY. BLVD. IMPROVEMENT PROJ. & DIRECTING PUB- LICATIONS OF NOTICE TO BIDDERS. Affirmative roll call vote unanimous, 6/0, Perret absent. 0 0 OPINION OF LEGAL COUNSEL n u 4. OPINION OF LEGAL COUNSEL L It is my opinion that the City of Iowa City, Iowa (applicant's legal name) has the authority to apply for state transit assistance program funds and expend such funds if awarded in accordance with Iowa Department of Transportation Rules 820-(09,B)1 as adopted September 7, 1976 by the Transportation Commission and approved on October 13, 1976 by the Legislative Rules Committee; that the above name is a duly.constituted agency in accordance with the laws of Iowa; and that there is no existing or threatened legal impediment to the above named applying for or receiving such funds, or carrying out the project if successful in being awarded such funds. Name: i City, Iowa By: Address: Civic C nt 410 E. Washinmton Street Iowa City Iowa 52240 Telephone: 319 / 354-1800 (Area) 0 SECTION 5 FINANCIAL CERTIFICATION 0 S. FINANCIAL CERTIFICATION I, Neal G. Berlin , hereby certify that the attached statement correctly shows actual expenditures for transit pur- poses by the City of Iowa Cit Iowa (agency name) during the period July 1 1976 -June 30 1977 My association with the City of Iowa City Iowa, (agency name) is that of City Manager and my certification of actual expenditures is based on generally ac- cepted accounting principles and practices. i Name: Neal G. rl' Signature: Title: City Manager Date: September 30 1977 Address: Civic Center 410E Washington Streot Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Telephone: 319 / 354-1800 (Area) Fu,m 076007 • B•74 S.A. SUMMARY FINANCIAL OPERATING STATEMENT for Iowa City Transit FROM 7/1/77 to 6/30/78 • Note: Do not list on this form any subsidies received - see Section 9. FISCAL YEAR 1976.1977 ACT. EXPENSES FISCAL YEAR 1977-1979 TOTAL BUDGET STATE FUNDS %STATE FUND TO REQUESTED TOTAL BUDGET OPERATING REVENUE] General Revenue Cash Passengers 249,440 252 500 } r fff 1}. � •r� •, 'S'G rflrstr "j '' `$��9�i'✓fk r4:`iAt srf �Q.Y� 4tik Vi ;Yrlr�.�. Tri Tickets - - Vyeckly Passes _ Monthly Passes 67 520 67,500}a. _ 500 Sub -Total General Charter Revenuefj+Yf'Zyi'r�'V School Revenue Passes and Cash 316,960 320 500 Charter Sub -Total TOTALREVENUE(A) 316,960 320,500 OPERATING EXPENSES General and Administration 43,161 49,090 12,272 25% Accounting - - Insurance and Safety Operating Taxes 35.895 Operations Supervision Maintenance 20,231 160 355 19,798 196 ,416 4,949 25% 49 104 25% Transportation 360,026 397 544 99,387- 2S% Service and Cleaning 26,217 Purchasing and inventory 70,197 Marketing 6,307 8.500 2.125 25% TOTAL EXPENSES B 760 667 754 194 188,548 25% NON-OPERATING INCOME Interest - Advertising TOTAL NON -0P. INCOME (C) - NET INCOME (LOSS) ((A-B)}C) (443,707) (433,694) (188,548) 43.5% • Note: Do not list on this form any subsidies received - see Section 9. 17aim 070009 6.79 +nor S.A. DETAILED • FINANCIAL OPERATING STATEMENT c� for Iowa City Transit FROM 7/1/77 to 6/30/78 Page 1 of 3 FISCAL YEAR 1976-1977 ACT. EXPENSES FISCAL YEAR 1977.1978 BUDGET STATE FUNDS REQUESTED STATE FUNDS TO TOTAL BUDGET GENERAL 8 ADMINIS.: Salary -General Mgr. Expense -Gen. Mgr. Gen. Employee Travel Salaries -Staff Gen. Employee Exp. Dues B Subscriptions Office Supplies Gen. Medical Exp. Accounting Fees Legal Professional Fees Vacation/Sick Leave Telephone Group Life Insurance Acc. 6 Health Wages Employee Hosp. Ins. Pension Costs Transit Planning Trustee Expense Miscellaneous 18,421 13,838 3,459 25% - - - .1.101 784 196 25% - - 705 809 202 2r% 123 690 172 25% 461 Soo 125 25% - - - - 245- - 909 1,147 _ _ 15,859 82 - - - - 811 203 25% Publications 1 655 104 TOTAL GEN./ADMIN. ACCOUNTING: Salaries 8 Wages Office Supplies Vacation/Sick Leave Accounting Services Revenue Security Exp. 43,161 49 090 12 272 25% - - - - - - - - - - - TOTAL ACCOUNTING INSURANCE E SAFETY: Ins. 6 Safety Wages P/L 6 P/D Insurance Injuries 6 Damages Workmen's Comp. Fire 6 Theft Ins. Equip. Acc. Rprs. Rev. Equip. - - - - - - 31,974 - - - - 5.282 3,S32 883 1,022 - - 25% 3L86728 3 532 8 TOTAL INS./SAFETY 7;-76-020908 • - S Page 2 of 3 5. A. DETAILED Fuel Taxes Social Security Taxes I.P.E.R.S. Unemployment Taxes Sales Tax 20 FINANCIAL OPERATING STATEMENT 15 851 19,423 for - - - Iowa City Transit FROM 7/1/77 to 6/30/78 TOTAL OP.TAXE LIC. OPERATIONS SUPERVISION: 38,895 41,040 10,260 15,640 ISCAL YEAR FISCAL MAK 2,943 STATE 1976-1977 1977-1978 STATE I FUNDS FUNDS TO .. ., minraT RFnn gTFD TOTAL BUDGET OPER, TAXES G LICENSES: - - Fuel Taxes Social Security Taxes I.P.E.R.S. Unemployment Taxes Sales Tax 20 042 21,617 15 851 19,423 4.856 - - - 2 " TOTAL OP.TAXE LIC. OPERATIONS SUPERVISION: 38,895 41,040 10,260 15,640 11,772 2,943 Salaries B Wages Office Supplies Vacation/Sick Leave Utilities - ' - - - 4,591 8.026 2.006 20,231 19,798 4 949 TOTAL OPER. SUPV. MAINTENANCE: Supervisory Salaries Mechanics Labor Repair to Serv. Equip. Vacation/Sick. Leave Maint. Supplies - Rev. Equipment Repair Parts - Rev. Equipment Outside Towing Maint. performed by - - - - - - - 4 271 1,068 - - - - 4,500 1,125 - 16 068 4,017 160 355 171t577 9 anot�r City Dept. TOTAL MAINTENANCE TRANSPORTATION: Supv. f, Adm. Wages Drivers Wages Rents for Terminals Vaca. 6 Sick Leave Diesel Fuel Gasoline Motor Oil Anti -Freeze Refrigerant Tires/Tubes Rev. F.qp. Uniforms 160,355 196,416 49 104 5 214 10 860 2 715 279,009 321,214 S3,837 425 3,923 160E503 5 2,175 40 13,360 - 2 043 4,942 Miscellaneous I- 2 TOTAL TRANSPORTA. - 360,026 397 544 :t 99 386 25% F og 020008 a•75 • S.A. DETAILED • FINANCIAL OPERATING STATEMENT for _ Iowa City Transit FROM 7/1/77 to 6/30/78 Page 3 of 3 — FISCAL YEAR 1976-1977 ACT.EXPENSES FISCAL EAR 1977-1978 STATE FUNDS BUDGET REQUESTED STATE FUNDS TO TOTAL BUDGET SERVICE & CLEANING: Supv. & Adm. Wages Service Wages - 10 190 2 547 25° 24,580 24,000 6,000 25% - - " Vacation/Sick Leave Serv. Supplies - Rev. Equipment 1 637 - - TOTAL SERV./CLEAN. 26,217 34 190 8 547 25% PURCHASING &INVENTORY: Salaries & Wages Repairs Bldgs/Grnds. - 3,989 - - " 3 786 94 - - Vacation/Sick Leave Main. Supplies - Bldgs/Grnds. 653 88 22 25% Misc. Purch. & Stores Exp. 2,409 210 2 24 " Refunds Equip Repl Res. •Misc. (se 7,458 55 664 - - - TOTAL PUR./INVEN. 70,197 4,084 1,021 25% MARKETING: Salaries & Wages Tickets & Schedules 1,550 2 926 - - 6,500 1,625 Media Advertising 1,831 - - Special Promotions Agency Fees & Misc. Office Supplies - - 2 000 - - Vacation/Sick Leave - - - TOTAL MARKETING 307 • New Engine - 1,808 Bus Rental - 12,703 New Buses - 41,153 55,664 Farm 020009 9.TB S. B. iv, PERSONNEL LISTING city of Tnwa rity. Iowa Fy 1977-1978 'BcnmT aum e. EMPLOYERS SHARE OF YEARLY FICAAIPERS 1. YEARLY FRINGE BENEFITS B• YEARLY PERSONNEL COSTS (dtet0 a. ACCOUNT FOR ALL PERSONNEL BY PERSONNEL )OB TITLE OR CLASSIFICATION (Do Not List Names) b. YEARLY SALARY C. No. of Persons d. TOTAL YEARLY SALARIES (Bs0 THE 1. Transit Manager $13,838 1 $13,838 $1,449 N/A $15,287 2. Senior Driver 11,772 1 11,772 1,233 N/A 13;005 3. Dispatcher 10,860 1 10,860 1,137 N/A 11,997 4. Maintenance Worker II 10,190 1 10,190 1,067 N/A 11,257 S. Bus Driver (Full -Time) 11,675 14 163,454 17,118 N/A 180,572 6. Bus Driver (Part -Time) 7,888 20 157,760 16,522 N/A 174,282 7. Maintenance Worker I 6,000 4 24,000 2,514 N/A 26,514 C TOTALS 42 $41,040 -0- $432,914 TOTAL PERSONNEL COSTS 432,914 CLASSIFICATION CITY OF IOWA CITY • • 17 1978 BUUGET CLASSIFICATION DETAIL COMMENTARY MIND. _OQneral ___ PROGRAM avortation FUNCTIONPublic Works ACTIVITYMass Transit DEPARTMENT ESTIMATE 6110 Permanent Full -Time Personnel 190,114 6120 Permanent Part -Time Personnel 165,760 6130 Temporary Employees 12,000 6100 TOTAL SALARIES & WAGES 367,874 6210 Overtime 24,000 6220 Termination Wages --- 6200 PART-TIME AND OVERTIME WAGES 24,000 6310 FICA Taxes 21,617 6320 ITERS Taxes 19,423 .- 6300 PENSION & RETIREMENT 41,040 6410 Health Insurance 28,829 6420 Life Insurance 1,147 6400 INSURANCE 29,976 TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES 462,890 7110 General Office Supplies 482 7120 Books, Magazines, Newspapers 92 7140 Minor Office Equipment 116 7100 TOTAL OFFICE SUPPLIES 690 7210 Agricultural Material 53 7230 Clothing Purchase --- 7240 Fuels, Lubricants, Fluids & Gas 60,503 7250 Sanitation & Industrial Supplies 4,500 7270 Food for Consumption 50 7280 Miscellaneous 708 7200 TOTAL OPERATING SUPPLIES 65,814 CLASSIFICATION cru ur 1QTA-CITY . I7 197$ RUDGET CLASSIFICATION DETAIL MINI) General PROGIUAMTransportotion FUNCTION Public Works ACTIVITY Mass Transit COMMENTARY 7310 Building & Construction Supplies 7320 Vehicle & Equipment Materials 7350 Surfacing Materials 7300 TOTAL REPAIR & MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 7000 TOTAL COMMODITIES 8150 Health Care Services 8160 Other Professional Services 8100 TOTAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 8210 Telephone & Line Charges 8230 Publications TOTAL COMMUNICATIONS 8310 Travel Expense 8330 Registrations 8340 Meals 8360 Mileage Charges 8300 TOTAL TRANSPORTATION & EDUCATION 8430 Workmen's Compensation 8400 INSURANCE 8510 Gas & Electric 8520 Water & Sewer 8500 TOTAL PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICES 8610 Repairs & Maint. to Vehicles & Mobile Equipment 8620 Repairs & Maint. to Buildings 8630 Repairs & Maint. to Equipment 8600 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE TOTAL 8720 Uniform & Laundry Service 8730 Equipment Services 8740 Printing 8700 TECHNICAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT ESTIMATE 35 16,068 53 16,156 82,660 500 2.000 2,500 1,578 104 1,682 370 210 130 74 784 3,532 3,532 7,622 404 8,026 171,577 3,786 4,271 179,634 4,942 25 6,500 11,467 CLASSIFICATION • CITY OF IOWA CITY • FY 197$ BUDGET CLASSIFICATION DETAIL FUND General PROGRAM Transportation FUNCTION Public Works ACTIVITY Mass Transit COMMENTARY Dues & Membership Rentals Other TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS TOTAL SERVICES & CHARGES Operating Equipment Furniture & Office Equipment TOTAL EQUIPMENT Administration Expense Transfers TOTAL TRANSFERS Capital Outlay TOTAL MASS TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT ESTIMATE 809 210 1,019 208,644 750 135 885 37,500 37,500 38,385 792,579 u TRANSIT SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS ITEM* TOTAL COST LOCAL SHARE 1. Evening Service: 6:30-10:00 p.m., six nights per week; one-hour headways on all routes; November 1, 1977, through June 30, 1978. 2. Extended Peak Period Service: Extra peak -period "trippers", which have in other years run only during Jan., Feb. and March, will be scheduled for Nov. and Dec., 1977, and April, 1978. 3. SEATS Elderly and Handicapped Specialized Transportation Service: contract with Johnson County SEATS for in -city service from September 1, 1977 through June 30, 1978. 4. After-hours Taxi Service: Subsidized taxi service for elderly and handicapped individuals when the SEATS program is not in operation; January 1, 1978, through June 30, 1978. .5. Transit Marketing Program: Increased emphasis on the promotion of transit service, particularly the proposed transit improvements and off-peak hours. $ 56,500 13,700 27,827 2,500 10,000 TOTALS = $110,527 *For detailed descriptions of these projects, please refer to Section 7. $28,250 6,850 STATE SHARE STATE $28,250 50% 6,850 50% 0 27,827 100% 0 2,500 100% 0 10,000 100% $35,100 $75,427 0 •I 0 • S.C. CAPITAL EXPENDITURES lie, the City of Iowa City. Iowa. (agency name) hereby apply for State Transit Assistance Funds to be used for capital purchases in the following manner and amounts: ran;tal Teem nescrintion 1 Total Costs Local Share I Federal Share I State Sham 1 ea. 35' Transit Coach 1 ea. Two-way Radio System for 18 buses, 2 auto and 1 base 8 ea. "Kneeling" apparatus to retrofit our present buses. In $75,000 $7500 Gen'1 $60,000 UMfA $7500Capital fund Grant Asst. Gen'l UMfA Capital 29,300 2930 fund 1 23,440 Grant 2930 Asst. 2,800 2800 (Capital Asst. TOTAL F13,230 0 CITY OF c :IVI(. (:I NII I, /11() 1 September 30, 1977 0 OWA CITY u ,wA (.'I I Y K )WA !0240 (319) 354 18,U) Mr. Terry Fritz, Director Public Transit Division Iowa Department of Transportation State Capitol Des Moines, Iowa 50319 Dear Mr. Fritz: This letter constitutes a request by the City of Iowa City that the requirement for federal matching funds be waived, as specified in Section 1.4(3)a of the Financial Assistance Program. The cost of this capital acquisition, kneeling apparatuses to retrofit eight (8) of our present buses, will be $2,800. Sincerely, Carol W. deProsse Mayor Pro tem CWP: Is 0 0 SECTION 6 CONTINUATION OF FUNDING 0 6. CONTINUATION OF FUNDING 0 We, the City of Iowa City. Iowa -- (agency name), realize that state transit assistance funds are appropriated by the State Legislature on a year-to-year basis. We also realize that if such funds are awarded as a result of this appli- cation, there is no guarantee of additional funding, either in. the present or future years. Ile also realize that if future funds are either not awarded or not avail- able it will be necessary to provide financial support for transit services from sources other than the Iowa DOT Transit Assistance Program. Our plans for financing transit services after Iowa DOT transit funds are depleted are as follows: Before the enactment of the State Transit Assistance Program Iowa City financed its transit operation through the farebox, the general fund, and federal revenue sharing. Should State Transit Assistance cease to be available Iowa City would continue to provide transit service through the use of these sources coupled with increased fares -^a decreased lev-Ic of service as needed. . Name: City Council, City of Iowa City, Iowa ByApplicant',s Goy r g Board) 111/ V(LL Q k/1(Isiiggnattuu➢/re) Title: Mayor Pro tem City of Iowa City Iowa Address: Civic Center, 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City Iowa 52240 Telephone: 319 ) 4 -mo / 45Im (Area)/ Area • SECTION 7 PROJECT GOALS AND ACTIVITIES C, 7. PROJECT GOALS AND ACTIVITIES Principal Contact for this Projecf: Hugh A. Mose, Jr. Telephone: 319 / 351-6336 (Area) Project Period: July 1. 1977 - June 30, 1978 List below the specific, quantifiable and measurable project goals: (Use additional sheets if necessary.) This grant application requests funding for the following purposes: 1. Reduction of transit operating deficit. 2. Transit service improvements. a. Evening service. b. Expansion of peak period service. c. SEATS specialized elderly and handicapped service. d. After-hours taxi service. e. Transit marketing program. 3. Capital acquisitions. The following pages describe the proposed projects and identify specific goals and objectives. At the time of this printing the detailed project description and goals and objectives are still being finalized. They are to be reproduced and distributed separately. SECTION 6 THIRD - PARTY AGREEMENTS AGREEMENT FOR TRANSIT SERVICES This agreement is entered into by and between Johnson County, Iowa, and the City of Iowa City, Iowa, both municipal corporations. Whereas, the City of Iowa City wishes to provide its residents with special elderly and handicapped transit services; and Whereas, Johnson County, pursuant to its general powers, has in operation a special elderly and handicapped transit service for the unincorporated portions of Johnson County, Iowa; and Whereas, Chapter 28E of the Code of Iowa provides, in substance, that any power exercisable by a public agency of this state may be exercised jointly with any other public agency of this state having such power; and Whereas the parties to this agreement desire to implement a Proposal for Iowa City-Coralville Urban Area Elderly and Handicapped Transportation Service, dated August, 1977, prepared by the staff of the Johnson County Regional Planning Commission, which proposal is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" -and by this reference made a part hereof; Now, therefore, be it agreed by and between Johnson County, Iowa, and the City of Iowa City, Iowa, as follows: I. The original term of this agreement shall commence September 1, 1977, and continue for ten months through and including June .30, 1978. -2- 2. Johnson County will administer the program by extending its special elderly and handicapped transporta- tion service, known and referred to as S.E.A.T.S., into the corporate limits of the City of Iowa City. This service shall be available to persons over 60 years of age -and accompanying spouses, and to persons with ambulatory, manual, visual, audial or mental impairments which seriously limit their ability to obtain adequate transportation and accompanying spouses. 3. Johnson County agrees that operation of the program will be in full conformity with any and all rules -and regulations established by the Iowa Department of Transportation for such elderly and handicapped transit service programs. 4. The parties agree that the following service pro- visions shall apply: A. The County shall have available the equivalent of one vehicle within the Iowa City corporate limits for approximately 67 hours per week; actual hours of operation shall be set by Johnson County through -its Board of Supervisors to -maximize responsiveness to demand and productivity. B. The County shall make service available 7 days per week except for county holidays established by. the Board of Supervisors. 0 C. The County shall charge and retain a 50¢ one- way fare to defray operating costs for the next year; in the event this agreement is not renewed for future years, Johnson County will pay all accrued fares to the City of Iowa City. D. The service shall be subject, in all other respects, to operating policies and procedures as may from time to time be established by the Johnson County Board of Supervisors. No policy or procedure substantially at variance with the Proposal shall 'be established without the• approval of the City of Iowa City. S. All management and administration will, be vested with the Johnson County Board of Supervisors and the Board shall see to the payment of all costs incurred as a result of this program. 6. In consideration of the County's agreement to provide special elderly and handicapped transit service as herein provided, the •City of Iowa City agrees to pay to Johnson County the sum of $27,827.22 for the ten month period covered by this contract. Payments shall be made upon receipt of funds from the.Iowa Department of Transportation. In addition, the City of Iowa City agrees to provide Johnson County with one vehicle suitable for elderly and -4 - handicapped transit services. 'Title to this vehicle shall be transferred to Johnson County. Acquisition of the aforesaid vehicle by the City of Iowa -City. :shall be accomplished only following approval by Johnson County of specifications for the vehicle to be so provided, which.approval.shall not be unreasonably withheld. In the event this agreement is not renewed for future years, Johnson County will re -convey title to the vehicle to the City of Iowa City. 7. It is further understood and agreed that the vehicle to be provided by Iowa City will become part of one operating system and that the vehicle so provided and owned by Johnson County will, at the county's discretion, also be utilized for special elderly and handicapped transit services in other parts of Johnson County as part of an integrated and fully coordinated County -wide service. 8. This agreement is renewable for future one year terms provided the City of Iowa City has, at least 90 days.prior to the expiration of the current year, provided Johnson County with notice of its desire to renew the agreement and further provided that Johnson County has not, more than 90 daysprior to expiration of the current term, notified the City of Iowa City that it does not wish said agreement to be renewed. In the event of renewal, this contract will remain in full force and effect as to all terms hereof except for the amount of financial consideration to be paid hereunder. The financial consideration for any renewal term shall be subject to negotiation by and between the parties which negotiation must be concluded not less than 90 days before July 1 of each and every year hereafter. 9. This. agreement shall be filed with the Secretary of the State of Iowa.and the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa. Dated'this 23rd day of August 1997. CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA JOHNSON COUNTX, IOWA BY: W.. au R0-4'BY: Garol W. deProsse ora a I i e ,WiairmaiF Mayor Pro Tem Board of Supervisors Attest: City er Attest: ounty ui;or _ 0 SECTION 9 FINANCIAL AGREEMENTS 0 0 Source of Funds Property Tax Federal Revenue Sharing Sale of Maps Farebox Revenues 9. FINANCIAL AGREEMENTS Amount $349,440 100,000 500 320,000 TOTAL $769,940 0 Period Available 7/1/77 to 6/30/78 u *Briefly note any restrictions on the use of these funds. M M I hereby certify that the above listing represents a complete and thorough disclosure of all funds received by or eligible for receipt by the City of Iowa City Iowa (agency name). Name: Neal G. li Signature. Title: it Hager Addres Civic Center, 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City. Iowa 52240 Telephone: 319 / 354-1800 Area 0 0 SECTION 10 COMPATIBILITY $ COORDINATION The proposed activities of the Iowa City Transit application for the FY 1978 IDOT Transit Assistance Program are coordinated and compatible with the existing transit and paratransit operations within the region of Johnson County and the six -county Region X area. Coordination with the Areawide Transit Systems As described in the Transit Development Program for the Iowa City-Coralville Urban Area (1974) and the FY 1977 Transit Development Program Update (1976), the Iowa City Transit system is coordinated and complementary to Coralville Transit and the University of Iowa Cambus system. The three systems operate with two common transfer interchanges (the CBD and the University of Iowa Hospital complex), have free inter -system transfers, and have a unified planning framework and transit improvement priority program under the direction of the Johnson County Regional Planning Commission. Coordination with Regional Paratransit Systems Iowa City Transit has extensively participated in the development of a coordinated specialized elderly and handicapped transportation system to be administered and operated through the Johnson County SEATS program. For FY 1978 Iowa City Transit will consolidate its funding with Coralville and Johnson County to operate a two -vehicle system providing demand -responsive service for the elderly and handicapped within Johnson County. This program represents the first year implementation of a five-year Region X Regional Transit Development Program for Johnson County which will consolidate and coordinate various specialized operators within the county. Iowa City Transit is programmed to participate throughout this five-year period. Coordination of Programming and Planning In order to provide for coordination and compatibility of its operations, Iowa City Transit has taken the necessary steps to program its proposed improvements in the planning framework and committee structure of the area regional planning agencies, the Johnson County Regional Planning Commission and the East Central Iowa Association of Regional Planning Commissions. Iowa City Transit has included its program in the.:above cited TDP, TDP Update, and RTDP and has also extensively par- ticipated in the following committees: (1) The Transit Advisory Committee (JCRPC) This committee coordinates projects and activities among the area transit systems. It is composed of policy-making representatives of the area governmental organizations and citizen representatives of the Johnson County Regional Planning Commission. All the transit improvements for Iowa City Transit for FY 1978 have been reviewed by this committee in the develop- ment of the TDP Update. I (2) The Subcommittee on Specialized Transportation Services This committee is responsible for the development and coordination of projects for elderly and handicapped trans- portation. The Iowa City Transit program of contracting for elderly and handicapped transportation services with the Johnsonq.County SEATS program has been discussed and approved by this committee. (3) The Transit Operators Committee (JCRPC) This committee is composed of the area transit operators and the transportation planning staff of the Johnson County Regional Planning Commission. It meets regularly to discuss matters relevant to the coordination of transit operations. (4) The Regional Transit Advisory Committee (ECIARPC) This committee has responsibility for the development and monitoring of the Region X Regional Transit Development Program. Iowa City Transit has programmed its five-year budget format into the Region X Regional Transit Development Program. r� SECTION 11 PROMOTION OF TRANSIT SERVICES 0 The marketing and promotion of existing Iowa City Transit services and the proposed transit service improvements will be implemented according to a program composed of the following elements: (1) Radio Advertising A program of paid and public service announcements will be implemented. A major portion of the program will be devoted to musical advertising contracted with a national advertising company. This radio advertising will be directed at increasing ridership for the off-peak day and evening hours appealing mainly to elderly, handicapped, students, housewives (or househusbands), and other market segments who utilize transit during the off-peak hours. (2) Newspaper Advertising As with the radio promotion program, newspaper advertising will be directed to increase off-peak day and evening ridership. In addition, newspaper advertising will be utilized to educate the Iowa City elderly and handicapped about the special services available from Iowa City Transit including: free off-peak service, subsidized demand -responsive service from Johnson County SEATS, and the proposed SEATS after-hours taxi service. (3) Information Delivery Program New transit maps and schedules will be published to coincide with the implementation of the proposed transit service l improvements. It is anticipated that the new maps and schedules will be of equal quality to the previous ones. The total cost for printing will be in the range of $2,000-2,500. (4) Participation in the IDOT Transit Marketing Program Iowa City Transit, has intentions of fully participating in the IDOT transit marketing program. In addition, Iowa City Transit is providing input into the comprehensive marketing study being developed by the staff of the Johnson County Regional Planning Commission funded from an UMTA mass trans- portation technical studies grant. This study will analyze the potentialities of increasing transit ridership for the work and school trip. (5) Transit Marketing and Promotion Evaluation A student intern from the University of Iowa School of Business Administration will evaluate the Iowa City Transit marketing program according to traditional business marketing concepts. This evaluation will include suggestions in improving Iowa City Transit marketing and promotional activities. 0 0 SECTION 12 LETTER OF COtM1ENT johnson county regional planning commission mile Isatel turner 22%2 south dut>uque street. owo city. rowo 62240 (319)351 8556 6nil L Brandt September 29, 1977 Mr. Terrence Fritz, Director Public Transit Division State Capitol Des Moines, IA 50319 Dear Mr. Fritz: The Johnson County Regional Planning Commission was unable to submit regional review comments at this time to accompany the Iowa City Transit application. The Iowa City Council completed its decision making process on the application on Tuesday even- ing, September 27, 1977. The Commission's Executive Board was scheduled to meet on the next afternoon, Wednesday, September 28, 1977 to review the application and provide appropriate review comments. The Board failed to obtain a quorum, however, and no official comments can be forwarded to you at this time. The Executive Board is scheduled to meet next Wednesday, Oc- tober 5, 1977 after which time we will forward our comments to you and to the East Central Iowa Association of Regional Plann- ing Commissions. The East Central Association of Regional Planning Commissions review process requires that our agency review all programs whose primary impact is in Johnson County prior to any action by East Central. I understand that East Central will likely review the application at its October Commission meeting. I am sorry for any inconvenience this may cause your agency. I trust, however, that it will not unduly hinder your review of the Iowa City application. Si rely, „pilaa� 40it E L. Brandt Executive Director ELB/fb CC: James Elza Neal Berlin Isabel Turner 13.. STA7'1 STI CS Statistics Actual Amount For Previous Fiscal Year 1976 - 1977 Projected Amount For Fiscal Year 1977 - 1978 Net Change $ Change Total Passengers 1,402,783 + + Annual Revenue Miles of Operation 556.099 631.000 + + Number of Vehicles Type (Bus/Van/Etc.) 18 Buses 18 Buses Year of Manufacture 1-1956 2-1974 12-1971 3-1977 1-1956 2-1974 2- --- --- Passenger Capacity 15-43 Dass. 3-51 Dass 15-43 pass. 3-5 --- - - Peak Period Usage 15 3 months 1S-(6 months More se sprinR-1 ice fall— Off-Peak Usage 12 buses 17 btiqA9-- - - Hours of Operation 6:15 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. 6:15 an - 6:30 Pm - --- Days Operation OP Y of Mon -Sat Mon -Sat Number of Routes 6 route pairs 6 route --- --- Fares Adult 25¢ 25 --- Elderly 25 25 - --- Handicapped 25 25 School 45¢ 25 - - Peak 25¢ 25 - Off -Peak Elderly G Handcapped Free Free --- School Field Trips 15¢ 15 --- --- Monthly Passes Unlimited $8,00 -- -- IOWA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PUBLIC TRANSIT DIVISION FISCAL YEAR 1978 FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM GRAWI' APPLICATION THE CI'T'Y OF IOWA CITY, IOWA Mary C. Nouhauser, Mayor September 30, 1977 CITY -UNIVERSITY URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT NO. IOWA R-14 FINANCIAL AND COMPLIANCE REPORT JULY 31, !977 CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY- UNIVERSITY URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT NO. IOWA R-14 FINANCIAL AND COMPLIANCE REPORT JULY 31, 1977 C O N T E N T S Page REPORT OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS ON THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 1 REPORT OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS ON COMPLIANCE AND INTERNAL ACCOUNTING CONTROL 2 and 3 Findings and local public agency replies 4 - 6 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Balance sheet 7 Statement of audited costs 8 Note to financial statements 9 I MCGLADREY. HANSEN. DUNN & COMPANY CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS City of Iowa City Regional Inspector General for Audit Iowa City, Iowa Department of Housing and Urban Development Kansas City, Missouri ' We have examined the accompanying balance sheet of the City of Iowa City, ' Iowa, City -University Urban Renewal Project No. IOWA R-14 as of July 31, 1977 and the related statement of audited costs for the eighty-three months then ended. Our examination was made in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and the audit requirements set forth in the Department of Housing and Urban ' Development publication titled "Audit Guide for the Urban Renewal Program for Use by Independent Public Accountants" dated June 1973 and, accordingly, include such tests of the accounting records and such other auditing procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. As described in the Note to Financial Statements, the accompanying financial statements are presented in accordance with accounting practices pre- scribed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. These practices differ in some respects from generally accepted accounting principles. Accord- ingly, the accompanying financial statements are not intended to present finan- cial position and results of operations in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. This report is intended solely for purposes of reporting ' to the Department of Housing and Urban Development and is not intended for any other purpose. ' In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly the financial position of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, City -University Urban Renewal Project No. IOWA R-14 as of June 30, 1977, and the project costs incurred ' for the eighty-three months then ended, on the basis of accounting described in the Note to Financial Statements, on a basis consistent with Department of Housing and Urban Development procedures. Iowa City, Iowa September 20, 1977 - 1 - MCGLADREY. HANSEN. DUNN & COMPANY CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS 11 1 1 City of Iowa City Regional Inspector General for Audit Iowa City, Iowa Department of Housing and Urban Development Kansas City, Missouri 1 We have examined the financial statements of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, ' City -University Urban Renewal Project No. IOWA R-14 for the eighty-three months ended July 31, 1977 and have reported thereon under the date of September 20, 1977. Our examination was made in accordance with generally accepted auditing ' standards and the instructions contained in the Department of Housing and Urban Development publication titled "Audit Guide for the Urban Renewal Program for Use by Independent Public Accountants" dated June 1973 and, accordingly, includes such tests of the accounting records and such other auditing procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the financial statements. In connection therewith, we familiarized ourselves with such of those documents listed as Item 3, "Reference Material," on page 4 1 of the "Audit Guide" as seemed appropriate in the circumstances. Our examination included those procedures necessary, in our judgment, to determine compliance with contractual terms and conditions and regulations, policies and procedures prescribed by the Department of Housing and Urban Develop- ment and by management and by the governing board of the Project, insofar as such compliance review was necessary under the provisions listed as Item 7 "Audit Requirements" on pages 7 through 25 in the "Audit Guide" referred to in the pre- ceding paragraph. ' In making our examination, and based on our test of transactions and the ' examination of Project records, we obtained no knowledge that the City of Iowa City, Iowa has not complied, except as detailed in a following section titled "Findings and Local Public Agency Replies," with the following; a. The terms and conditions of the contract. 1 b. The regulations, policies and procedures prescribed by its governing 1 board and the Department of Housing and Urban Development regarding the City -University Urban Renewal Project No. I014A R-14. 1 As a part of our examination, we also reviewed and tested the system of internal accounting control to the extent we considered necessary to evaluate the system as required by generally accepted auditing standards. Under these stan- dards the purpose of such evaluation is to establish a basis for reliance thereon in determining the nature, timing and extent of other auditing procedures that are necessary for expressing an opinion on the financial statements. ' -2- The objective of internal accounting control is to provide reasonable, but not absolute, assurance as to the safeguarding of assets against loss from unauthorized use or disposition, and the reliability of financial records for preparing financial statements and maintaining accountability for assets. The concept of reasonable assurance recognizes that the cost of a system of internal accounting control should not exceed the benefits derived and also recognizes that the evaluation of these factors necessarily requires estimates and judg- ments by management. There are inherent limitations that should be recognized in considering the potential effectiveness of any system of internal accounting control. In the performance of most control procedures, errors can result from misunderstanding of instructions, mistakes of judgment, carelessness, or other personal factors. Control procedures whose effectiveness depends upon segregation of duties can be circumvented by collusion. Similarly, control procedures can be circumvented intentionally by management with respect either to the execution and recording of transactions or with respect to the estimates and judgments required in the preparation of financial statements. Further, projection of any evaluation of internal accounting control to future periods is subject to the risk that the procedures may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, and that the degree of compliance with the procedures may deteriorate. our study and evaluation of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, City -University Urban Renewal Project No. IOWA R -14's system of internal accounting control, made for the purpose set forth in a preceding paragraph, disclosed conditions that we believe to be material weaknesses which are detailed in the following section titled "Findings and Local Public Agency Replies." Iowa City, Iowa September 20, 1977 - 3 - FINDINGS AND LOCAL PUBLIC AGENCY REPLIES The following findings were discussed with Mr. Paul Glaves, Urban Redevelop- ment Coordinator, during the course of the audit and at a conference held September 20, 1977: 1. Non-cash Grant -In -Aid On Burlington Street Project Not Updated Per Department of Housing and Urban Development Request A Department of Housing and Urban Development letter, dated July 24, 1974, requested that Form 6202 be updated when the Burlington Street Project, estimated to cost $459,848.97, was completed. The Project has been com- pleted but the Form 6202 has not been updated at this time. REPLY: The Local Public Agency is in the process of seeking certification of additional non-cash local grants-in-aid for projects completed or underway and will update the Burlington Street Project as part of this effort prior to closeout. 2. Equipment Sold Without Documenting Bids Or Issuance Of A Bill Of Sale Urban Renewal Handbook Classification RHM 7217.1 Chapter 1 requires solicitation of at least three bids, (orally or in writing), documentation of the bids, and the issuance of a bill of sale when property is sold. A typewriter was sold in November 1974 without proper documentation. REPLY: RHM 7217.1 was not followed due to the issuance of Federal Management Circular 74-7. 3. Incomplete Documentation On Third Party Contracts Urban renewal Handbook Classification RHM 7217.1 Chapter 2 requires that all third party contracts for professional services be in writing, state the maximum compensation, and if only one vendor is considered, to docu- ment how the vendor was selected and the compensation was determined. In 1973, $5,265.82 was paid to Ralph Burke, Incorporated for a cost estimate on underground parking structures. The only documentation available was a letter from the City authorizing Ralph Burke, Incorporated to proceed. Maximum compensation and the basis of selection were not stated in the letter. REPLY: The error is noted, and subsequent professional services have been pro- vided under the proper conditions, including a statement of maximum compensation. - 4 - 11 4. Local Agency Unable To Locate Property Acquisition Schedule We were unable to test the proper recording of charges for acquisitions on the property acquisition schedule because the schedule could not be located by the Local Agency. REPLY: ' The schedule is not called for in Handbook 1320.1 which replaced RHA 7208. ' 5. Reuse Value Of Land Sold To City Not Supported By City Council Resolution ' Real property, with an appraisal value of $85,500, was included in transfers of property to the City of Iowa City for which the reuse value was not established by City Council resolution. Reuse value on parcel No. 101-2 should have been increased by $85,500. tREPLY: ' The value of the Capital Street right-of-way, which was treated as a transfer pursuant to 24CFR570.801(c), should have been treated as a trans- fer pursuant to 24CFR570.801(b)2. A resolution redesignating this trans- fer will be submitted to the City Council. 6. Exceptions On Property Acquisitions ' a. Immovable fixture/leasehold interests purchased on parcel No. 83-3 (Linder) had no documentation on the City Council resolution establishing the fair value. ' REPLY: ' The error was administrative, with no impact on financial transaction. b. Immovable fixtures purchased on parcel No. 92-6 (Wagner) had no bill of sale in support of the transaction. ' REPLY: ' An adminstrative error, with no impact on financial transaction. c. Furniture purchased on parcel No. 93-22 (Little) had no proclaimer in file on fair value. REPLY: An administrative error, with no impact on financial transaction. - 5 -- 11 11 7. Uncertainty Regarding Rental Assistance Payments To Individuals ' We were unable to verify the rental assistance payments to individuals due to the inability of the Local Public Agency to locate some of the appropriate files. A random sample of 36 of the payments to the approxi- mately 200 individuals receiving such payments was selected for testing. ' Files documenting 6 of the payments could not be located by the Local Public Agency. Two files tested indicated possible overpayments, and two files tested indicated possible underpayments. The remaining 26 files indicated a proper payment was made. Based on an evaluation of the errors, we can state that we are 63% confident that rental assistance payments were not overpaid by more than $80,000. ' REPLY: The Local Public Agency will continue to try to complete their records to document the payments made for rental assistance. The Local Public Agency intends to make no follow-up on the over or underpayments since they will not be able to recover any over -payments nor intend to search out any ' individuals who were underpaid. II - 6 - CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY -UNIVERSITY URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT NO. IOWA R-14 BALANCE SHEET July 31, 1977 ASSETS CASH ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE Tenant rents Department of Housing and Urban Development, relocation grant DEFERRED PROJECT COSTS Project costs incurred (Less) sales price of land sold RELOCATION PAYMENTS LIABILITIES AND CAPITAL LIABILITIES Note payable, banks, guaranteed by Department of Housing and Urban Development, due August 19, 1977 Accounts payable and accrued expenses: Accounts payable Trust and deposit liabilities Accrued interest payable CAPITAL Local grants-in-aid: Cash Noncash Federal capital grant: Project capital grant, progress payments Relocation grant $ 43,316 2,825,225 $ 8,407,140 817,389 $ 7,440 17,667 $14,402,796 (1,588,433) $ 55,788 243 28,500 $ 2,868,541 $ 133,742 25,107 12,814,363 817,389 513.790.601 $ 1,613,000 84,531 $ 1,697,531 9,224,529 12,093,070 S13,790.601 The Note to Financial Statements is an integral part of this statement. - 7 - CITY OF IOWA CITY, I014A CITY -UNIVERSITY URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT NO. IOWA R-14 STATEMENT OF AUDITED COSTS Eighty -Three Month Period Ended July 31, 1977 Project costs: Survey and planning expenditures Administrative costs Legal services Survey and planning Acquisition expense Operation of acquired property, net of rental (income) Site clearance Project improvements Disposal, lease and retention costs Interest expense Other (income), primarily interest Real estate acquisition Project inspection Project costs before noncash local grants-in-aid Noncash local grants-in-aid Total project costs incurred Project costs incurred, current audit period Relocation payments, 100% reimbursable The Note to Financial Statements is an integral part of this statement. M-1' $ 308,299 457,748 61,256 15,630 141,988 (61,278) 424,220 171,043 45,622 1,158,290 (435,932) 9,188,988 101,697 $11,577,571 2,825,225 SL,_02,796 S14.106.878 S 817.389 11 I NOTE TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ' Note 1. Significant Accounting Policies The accompanying financial statements are presented in accordance with accounting practices prescribed by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development which vary from generally accepted ac- counting principles as follows: ' Accounting for project costs and relocation payments: ' The Department of Housing and Urban Development requires that project costs and relocation payments be included on the balance sheet as assets until the Project has been closed out. 1 PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA BY THE STAFF DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION CITY COUNCIL Edgar Czarnecki C. L. "Tim" Brandt Penny Davidsen Carol deProsse J. Patrick White CITY MANAGER Ray S. Wells DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Dennis R. Kraft, Director Planning Division Staff Richard Wollmershauser, Senior Planner in Charge Donald Schmeiser *Anthony Osborn Morris Dicker James Wamberg Jorge Rendon Sherry Child, Secretary Former contributing staff members: Dick Royce M. Terrance Lambert * Project Planner PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Donald Madsen, Chairman Patricia Cain James Galiher Lyell D. Henry B. A. Horner Louise Larew Dr. Robert Ogesen Printing: Phae Keemle 0 R3A AREA STUDY CITY OF IOWA CITY JUNE 1974 0 CONTENTS List of Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , Neighborhoods of the Study Area , _ , , , , _ , Physical Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inventory and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . General LancT Use . . . . . . . . . . . . Population Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Street Circulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Community Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Utilities . . . . . . , , . . . Storm/Sanitary Sewers , , , , , , , , , , Water System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Existing Lighting , , , , , , , , , , , , , Existing Parking , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Existing Zoning , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Development Problems , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Land Use Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recommended Development Program . . . . . . . . . . objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Case studies of zoning actions in the Study Area . . ii Page iii v v 1 2 6 11 11 21 30 42 48 48 50 54 54 54 56 56 60 63 63 66 66 66 70 72 72 0 0 LIST OF MAPS Page 1. The Study Area's Location as Related to Iowa City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Neighborhoods of the Study Area . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Ralston Creek Inundation Areas . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. Convenience Food Store Service Areas . . . . . . . 14 5. Offices: Medical -Government -General - 1970 . . . 16 6. Church Locations - 1972 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 7. Non -Residential Land Uses - 1972 . . . . . . . . . 20 8. Population Density Distribution (People/Acre) -- 1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 9. Percentage of Resident Population Between 17-24 Years of Age -- 1970 . . . . . . . . 24 10. Population Over 65 Years -- 1970 . . . . . . . . . 28 11. Percent Single Family Dwellings -- 1970 . . . . . 33 12. New Multi -Family Units -- 1971-1973 . . . . . . . 35 13. Median Rent Per Housing Unit -- 1970 . . . . . . . 37 14. Median Rent Per Room -- 1970 . . . . . . . . . . . 39 15. Location of Homes with Historical or Architectural Significance . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 16. Existing Arterial Street Network - 1970 . . . . . 44 17. Traffic Volumes -- 1971 (Average Annual Daily) . . 45 18. Bus Transit Routes -- 1973 . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 19. Park Type Facilities Service Areas and Population 18 Years and Under -- 1970 . . . . . . 51 20. Public Schools in the Study Area . . . . . . . . . 53 iii LIST OF MAPS (continued) 21. Location of Sewer System . 22. Location of Water System . 23. Location of Street Lights 24. Existing Zoning . . . . . . 25. Existing Land Use -- 1973 26. Special Problem Areas . . . 27. Proposed Zoning . . . . . . iv E Page . . . . . . . . . . . 55 . . . . . . . . . . . 57 . . . . . . . . . . . 58 . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Appendix . . . . . 64 . . . . 68 0 0 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Land Use Composition of Study Area . . . . . 2. Student Forecast by Enrollment Levels . . . 3. Median Family Income and Age of Household Head, Owners and Renters -- 1970 . . . . . . 4. Median Family Income and Age of Household Head, Renters -- 1970 . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Population Composition by Race . . . . . . . 6. Composition of Housing Supply by Percentage 7. Removal of the Study Area Housing Supply From the Iowa City Total . . . . . . . . . . B. Composition of Housing in Iowa City . . . . 9. Number of Apartment Units for Which Permits Were Granted in the Study Area and for All of Iowa Cit I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10. Housing Characteristics of Iowa City and the Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. Size of Park Facilities in the Study Area 12. Enrollment Levels for Longfellow and Page 12 26 29 29 31 32 32 34 36 38 49 Horace Mann Elementary Schools . . . . . . . . . 52 13. Zoning Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 CHART 1. Population Age Distribution v . . 23 INTRODUCTION This is the first in a series of small area studies which will be forthcoming as part of a continuing program prepared by the Department of Community Development and intended to serve as a foundation for a new Comprehensive Plan. As additional studies are completed, the unique characteristics of the neighborhoods of Iowa City will be examined and the needs of the City will become increasingly apparent. In addition to these area studies, topical studies of the characteristics, facilities and needs of Iowa City will be presented including a population study, economic base analysis, housing analysis, and a community facilities study among others. Thus, this represents an inaugural publication, the culmination of which will be the completion of a new Compre- hensive Plan. After the Comprehensive Plan is completed, implementation of the Plan will result in new development ordinances (zoning and subdivision) and resulting priorities for succeeding Capital Improvements Programs. The purpose of this background Area Study is to analyze the social, economic and physical characteristics and functions of the area as they relate to the community as a whole, to determine if deficiencies exist, and to provide an initial framework for developmental or redevelopmental direction. Specifically, the objective is twofold: 1) to present basic background information and data concerning significant elements in the older, predominately R3A zoned Study Area and to explore their functional relationships, and 2) to provide possible conceptual approaches as an essential basis for the development of the area in response to immediate needs as determined by this study. 2 NEIGHBORHOODS OF THE STUDY AREA The Study Area consists of the major portion of the center of Iowa City excluding the University and CBD areas. (See Map 1). This sector of Iowa City has been broken into several "neighborhoods" for treatment in this study due to ease of analysis and differences in sub -area characteristics which were found in the course of the study to necessitate this approach. Map 2, "Neighborhoods of the Study Area", presents the nine sub -areas into which the area was divided. Each is identified by characteristics which are felt to best describe the area under discussion, and as such are not necessarily intended to characterize the traits of the "neighborhoods". The Summit Street Historic Area This portion of the Study Area located along South Summit Street extending from east Burlington Street south to the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad overpass has been recently designated an historical area by the National Park Service. The area is part of Iowa City which still retains the atmosphere of America's elegant mid-Victorian era. Three- fourths of the buildings in the area were constructed between 1860 and 1910. These old structures are remarkably preserved and present a large variety of architectural styles. Later buildings successfully preserved the gracious and dignified residential atmosphere achieved by their predecessors. The flavor of the area is park -like and strongly evocative of the culture of well-to-do middle class Midwestern Americans of the late 19th century. Because of the exceptional distinction of some of the houses and the still more exceptional degree to which it has pre- served its character intact, the district is to be regarded as a museum of one aspect of American life and history, the preservation of which will provide an amenity and cultural heritage of the City. The Horace Mann Area This area is distinguishable as a relatively independent neigh- borhood, possessing an elementary school (Horace Mann), and a grocery store in its approximate center. Possessing a higher percentage of owner occupied housing, there is lesser Univer- sity impact vis-a-vis the other neighborhoods of the Study Area. MAP 1 STUDY AREA LOCATION AS RELATED TO IOWA CITY, IA 0 Ll NEIGHBORHOODS OF THE STUDY AREA FEET 660 1320 BROWN RONALDS CHURCH FAIRCHILD DAVENPORT BLOOMINGTON MARKET JEFFERSON IOWA WASHINGTON COLLEGE i BURLINGTON COURT LONGFLLLOW ARBA W =C W = p J O < ~ Q J Q m C yOj O U Z 7 f W< M z O 7 M 3 J > V m _J m= 0 J W z U W 11 L O > 0 0 3 O i t 0 0 > O m BOWERY SEYMOUR SHERIDAN 4 MAP 2 The Dubuque Street Area This is a University dominated area, centered around the arterial street after which it is named. Possessing a great deal of multi -family, fraternity and sorority usages, its high rental occupancy rate and student aged population set it apart from much of the Study Area. The Mercy Hospital Area Centered about two one-way arterial streets, this is an area which is dominated by uses beyond its borders. This portion of the Study Area can be easily identified because it possesses the Mercy Hospital complex. The Hospital is a 298 -bed private facility, the services of which are available to all members of the community. The remainder of the Mercy Hospital area consists of uses and occupancy patterns that characterizes the Study Area as a whole. The CBD Area The majority of the Central Business District (CBD) area lies beyond the boundary of the Study Area, and consists primarily of commercial, offices and governmental uses. This will be covered in detail as part of a future Area Study focusing on the CBD and CBD Frame Areas. The College Green Area This sector of the Study Area is composed of residential land uses mostly dependent upon University oriented tenants. Similar to the Dubuque Street area, it nevertheless contains a greater mixture of dwelling types. The Upper Muscatine Avenue Area Much of this neighborhood is more easily associated with outlying residential areas. Lying at the interface of the City -dominated and University -dominated areas, it combines traits of both. The Bowery Street Area The redevelopment and conversion of dwellings in this area is a dominant feature distinguishing it from its neighbors. Lying at the limit of the student commuter -shed, it is an area composed of a disproportionately larger percentage of elderly persons. The Longfellow Area Similar to the Upper Muscatine Avenue area, this neighborhood possesses elegant examples of turn -of -the century dwellings, and seems relatively unaffected by the University. PHYSICAL FEATURES The physical features of an area have an effect on the extent and type of development that will occur in that area. Both manmade and natural features act as attractions and detriments to growth of a community. The physical features, as they exist as restrictive environmental factors in the Study Area, will be analyzed. These features can be a stimulus or a retarding influence on future and desirable development in the Study Area. Topography The land form of the Study Area is relatively flat land, gently sloping to the south and west, save two steeper slopes, one confined to the northernmost extremity of the Study Area, and the other paralleling the eastern border of Ralston Creek and generally sloping down toward that stream. The area may be properly considered a plateau, being neither in the flood- plain of the Iowa River nor at the higher level of the surrounding hinterlands. Drainage NATURAL SURFACE DRAINAGE: The entirety of the Study Area is located within the drainage basin of Ralston Creek, with the sole exception of a small area upon the northwestern boundary. Within the Study Area, there are at least two major subdrainage ways, consisting of a northern and southern system. Before the development of a storm sewer system, numerous small intermittent streams existed on either side of Ralston Creek within the Study Area, including Park Brook and Market Brook, both identified upon early Iowa City plats extending north of Ralston Creek near Gilbert Street and Van Buren Street respectively. This surface drainage function has been supplanted by the storm drainage system created by the City as development necessi- tated better control of increasingly large runoffs. As with any city, Iowa City increased the rate and amount of runoff occurring in its developed area as a larger percentage 0 0 TA of the once forested and open land was covered with buildings, streets, and impervious surfaces. It is this process which has aggravated the flooding of Ralston Creek, and necessitated the development of a storm sewer system over much of its natural watershed. Ralston Creek It is not the purpose of this study to attempt an indepth analysis of Ralston Creek within the Study Area, but certain observations may be made. First, in its present state the Creek is far from the form it took at the platting of the City, both in terms of its alignment and its behavior. Second, Ralston Creek has been bridged at virtually every stream -street intersection, thus effectively removing its potential influence as a barrier to movement within the Study Area. Finally, the type of development permitted along the Creek is both inappropriate due to the potential property damage and the total negation of any natural recreational potential such creek -side land once naturally possessed. 10. W.1 911. \:eim The existing storm sewer system within the Study Area was finished in its present form in 1972, with the completion of a one and one-half million dollar storm/sanitary sewer separation project. This project involved the creation of two totally separate systems for the handling of sewerage, with all storm runoff being taken into Ralston Creek and all sanitary sewerage being routed to the sewage treatment facilities of the City. FLOODING: The problems of flooding in the Study Area are virtually solely associated with Ralston Creek. As previously stated, this Creek and its flooding are in no small part the result of the location of Iowa City and its streets, homes and institutions. That does not solve the problem; it only serves to make it clear that whatever problems exist, they are not truly natural but manmade, and must be man -solved. As Map 3 shows, a substantial area along either side of Ralston Creek is subject to periodic inundation by flood waters flowing over the banks of the Creek. This overbank flow causes untold property damage, disrupted travel within the community, and possesses the potential of being a threat to the safety of the citizens of Iowa City and the Study Area. 9 0 RALSTON CREEK INUNDATION AREAS FLOOD PLAIN FLOOD CHANNEL FI I I 0 660 1320 ummmommor 0 201 4012 MFTERS W 2 v 7 ,1 a C �_ N 4 W > J m 7 Z O it I J > m .1 m Z ❑ J W J U w U > O V N d O O 5 O > 9 JEFFERSON IOWA WASHINGTON COLLEGE BURLINGTON COURT BOWERY SEfMOUR SHERIDAN 0 MAP 3 2 The ultimate solution to be chonen to control the flooding and/or flood damage will be determined after the study on Ralston Creek is completed. Whatever action (or combination of action programs) is chosen, it must be a permanent solution, reflecting an accurate assessment of the impact any future development may have on the Creek. In the past the Creek was realigned, deepened, lined and banked, and every solution became obsolete as development of the Creek basin advanced. Thus, here as elsewhere the validity of immediate solutions to immediate problems was disproven. Tree Cover The role played by trees in the habitability of an area can best be appreciated by an examination of the consequences of their absence. A quick idea of their significance can be gained through the following example. Consider standing or sitting on the northeast corner of the intersection of Dubuque and Washington Streets at noon on a 900 summer day. Then compare the apparent heat there to that experienced when standing or sitting beneath the canopy of trees on the Pentacrest on the same day at approximately the same time. The difference will be significant for more reasons than the presence or absence of shade. Put simply, a treeless, paved area acts as a heat sink, absorbing much of the radiant solar energy, radiating heat and, thereby creating a desert effect near the ground's surface. This is caused by the lack of moisture, the direct light of the sun on the low albedo of the paving and the absence of breezes at ground level. It has been shown that a "city is often twenty degrees hotter than the surrounding countryside in the summertime . due to these characteristics of the materials that are used to fabricate our cities". Among the possible strategies for ameliorating this effect is the use of trees, for their effects are manifold. First, if preserved and perpetuated, the natural canopy of deciduous trees can serve the manifold function of providing cooling shade, cooling the air through transpiration of moisture, channeling cooling breezes over the ground and, of course, stabilizing the ground from erosion. They also help slow down the water cycle by retaining water, impeding its rapid runoff and thus, in turn, further cooling the climate through evaporation. The judicious choice of shrubs in the right spots permits visual isolation, and may buffer breezes where inappropriate, as may trees. 0 E 10 Thus, where breezes are needed they may be channeled, and where they should be lessened this, too, may be done. The roofs of houses, with their low albedo and resultant heat absorbing characteristics, may be shaded so that they do not absorb as much heat from the sun, all merely through preserving the natural tree cover of the area. Since 1965 the City of Iowa City has been conducting a vigorous program of street tree planting, which has resulted in the placing of some 3,250 hardwood trees along the streets of the City. Many of these trees were planted in the Study Area to replace elms depleted by the Dutch elm fungus responsible for denuding the tree cover of so many cities. This program has no anticipated completion date, but may well be a continuing effort by the City to maintain Iowa City's appearance and in future years receiving the afore- mentioned benefits from the trees planted today. Hence, the Study Area is fortunate to possess the tree cover it has, for it serves to provide a more attractive and habitable environment. 0 0 11 INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS The Study Area contains examples of virtually every category of land use present in Iowa City except industrial. The distribution of these uses is important to both the Study Area and Iowa City as a whole, for it is this pattern which deter- mines the travel patterns, relative land values and amenities or nuisances present in the community. GENERAL LAND USE Residential Of the 607.7 acres in the Study Area, approximately 558 are currently used for single family residences, and 12.88 for multi -family structures. As the following table shows, there are about 400 more dwelling units in multi -family structures than single family in the Study Area, or around 308 more units on only a quarter of the land. (See Table 1). As indicated in the table, the vast majority of land in the Study Area is dedicated to use as residential property, and the overwhelming majority of that is in the single family category. Next comes institutional land, which consists of government property (schools, parks, government offices), churches, hospitals and club buildings. This concentration of institutional uses in the Study Area is atypical, and almost solely the result of the inner city locale of the Study Area. While the residential land uses comprise the most extensive and significant uses of property in the Study Area, the institutional and commercial uses in the Study Area are important to this immediate area and to Iowa City. Convenience Shopping Convenience goods and services are those items or services which are needed frequently and are essentially the same wherever sold. Thus, groceries, drugs, sundries, laundry, dry cleaning, shoe repair, etc., could be considered conven- ience goods or services. Such items are typically made available by small or moderately sized outlets, such as "chain" grocery stores, or small neighborhood shopping centers. 12 Table 1 LAND USE COMPOSITION OF STUDY AREA USE DWELLING UNITS AREA IN ACRES Single Family 1,173 195.75 Two Family 536 46.80 (268 structures) Multi -Family 1,564 45.68 Fraternities & Sororities - 6.76 Commercial - 18.10 Institutional - 34.00 University - 5.65 Streets - 213.00 Alleys - 36.00 Vacant land - 6.00 TOTAL 3,2733 607.74 1 Included in commercial is 107,395 sq. ft. utilized by doctors and dental offices and clinics. 2 Included in institutional is City -owned property, schools, parks, churches, hospitals, club buildings, etc. 3 Due to differing definitions between dwelling units and housing units as defined by the Bureau of the Census, the figures for such units are not comparable. 13 The location of such outlets is critical in matching those to be served with the outlet, and thus not only being conven- ient to customer, but assuring the retailer of a clientele. As Map 4 demonstrates (using a 1/2 mile service radius) there are two major grocery stores serving the Study Area, with at least four more corner type groceries (using a 1/4 mile service radius) located within the Study Area. These corner groceries, while not able to supply the full line of convenience goods, do function to meet the needs of those residing near them for the most commonly needed convenience food items, an important function in an area with as large a pedestrian commuting population. Added perspective may be gained from considering the more modern service radius standard for convenience goods of six minutes driving time which, assuming an average speed of 20 m.p.h., gives a 2 -mile service radius. This standard obviously assumes access to automobiles for the service population, and as such reflects the adjustments of more recent commercial development to the highly mobile urban population. Curiously enough, it is the southeastern portion of the Study Area, characterized by a low percentage of student -aged people, a relatively low percentage of elderly and, hence, a more "typi- cal" population in terms of age grouping, and a high owner occupancy rate (more homeowners) that lies beyond the walking distance service radii of the grocery stores. All of these findings tend to indicate that the residents of this area are quite likely more mobile than is true of the rest of the Study Area, and as such fit the driving time standard for convenience shopping more closely than those residing in areas within walking distance of the grocery stores. Thus it may be stated that the location and type of convenience goods retail outlets serving the Study Area are reasonably well suited to the needs of the people of the Study Area at this time. Shoppers Goods and Specialty Items Shoppers goods are those items needed infrequently, denoted by variety and, thus, relatively unique. Examples of such items would include sports equipment, clothes, furnishings and toys. Such items are sought at irregular intervals, and need not be as centrally located as convenience items in order to adequately serve a given population. Specialty items are goods consumed so infrequently, and of such unique character as to require only a generally accessible location because those seeking them will be willing to make special trips to obtain them. Such items may, in fact, be purchased only once in a lifetime, and include cars, expensive jewelry, custom tailored clothes and furs. 0 0 CONVENIENCE FOOD STORE SERVICE AREAS rri I U 660 mmmL 0 201 MF TFRS WHITEWA' SERVICE AREA LIMIT EAGLE SERVICE AREA LIMIT 14 1/2 MILE RADIUS �- 1/4 MILE RADIUS - - - w 2 Z 2 w 0 ¢ x O Q Z W K N O U Z 4 W Q > J fA J Z O J 2 i J > l� ? J pl = O J W N U N o G O O 00 3 > u m JEFFERSON IOWA WASHINGTON COLLEGE BURLINGTON COURT BOWERY 'iE IMOUR SHERIDAN MAP 4 0 0 15 The inclusion of the shoppers and specialty goods category in the same analysis is due to the small scope of this Area Study. Suffice it to say that a full scale retail space study will be required to adequately treat the question of retail space needs for the community and regional level shopping facilities which are designed to merchandise the shoppers and specialty goods, although the Central Business District will include many such outlets. In view of the fact that such shopping centers are designed to be reached primarily by auto, and the fact that the Study Area has no less than eleven streets designated as either arterial streets or primary road extensions, and is centrally located, it is apparent that access to such centers must be considered adequate if they are located appropriately to serve Iowa City as a whole. Obviously this considers neither the person without an automobile, nor the role of the Central Business District. Downtown Iowa City Traditionally downtowns have served as the central focus for the economic, cultural and social functions of a city. In the case of Iowa City these functions have an enduring viability in the Central Business District due to several factors, most of which are related to the University, dwelling patterns, commuting patterns and street capacities. All mitigate in favor of the downtown. The public commitment of urban renewal evidences a strong faith in a downtown commercial and office center. Assuming the redevelopment of Iowa City's center is successful, the proximity of the Study Area thereto re-emphasizes its place once more as a desirable residential area. The CBD area obviously evidences the strongest direct influence from this center, but all of the neighborhoods abutting it reflect the influence it has. The College Green Area possesses offices on its western extreme which can be ascribed in some degree to the proximity of the CBD. The Dubuque Street Area in its southern half shows the influence in restaurants, taverns and drug stores. The Mercy Hospital Area in its western portions is similarly affected. Thus, while the CBD lies pre- dominantly beyond the borders of the Study Area, it exercises a strong influence on the Study Area and its inhabitants. Offices As Map 5 shows, there is a clustering of office land uses in the CBD area and the western section of the College Green Area. These offices include real estate, medical, and 0 0 16 OFFICES: MEDICAL -GOVERMENT -GENERAL -1970 FF E I 0 660 ommm` 0 201 METERS w z z= w w z w 0 O Z W R, O U Z I d W Q J m Z O J D U w U 2 W O zz >>y OO > 0 R JEFFERSON IOWA WASHINGTON COLLEGE BURLINGTON COURT BOWERY SEYMOUR SHERIUAN MAP 5 0 0 17 governmental offices, with Mercy Hospital being the single largest unit. The Impact of the University The Study Area is strongly influenced by certain locational and institutional circumstances, the effects of which are evident in the land uses of the area. First is the ubiquitous influence of the University of Iowa, felt not only through its physical presence but also through the population it attracts, the tastes it engenders and the influence it exercises either through policy or a lack thereof. The policy of the University toward undergraduate housing, as evidenced by its dormitories, has had tremendous influence upon Iowa City and the Study Area. Obviously,the clustering of students to attend classes must create an "instant market" for many school related items such as books, but the effects of a concentrated population in high density nodes (i.e., dorms) are certainly greater. Whereas the class -attending students may have need of such facilities as restaurants and book stores, the resident students in dormitories must look to the area surrounding the campus to supply a large part of their living needs, including food, service facilities such as dry cleaners, and even apparel shops. For the Study Area, situated along the eastern periphery of the University, this has meant pizza parlors, corner groceries, taverns, and similar establishments related to the needs of a population largely limited in its mobility. It is the limited mobility of the student population which is, perhaps, the single most important characteristic in determining the effects of the resident students. No con- clusive figures are available but the assumption that a very large percentage of the student trips in the Study Area are made on foot or by bicycle seems irrefutable. This, in turn, makes the concentration of commercial outlets at distant car -accessible points impractical in meeting the needs of the students. It is a curious parallel to an earlier life style, wherein corner groceries were necessary, as the "shopping center grocery" is too far to conveniently reach on foot. There are additional consequences of the pedestrian travel mode, including a need for relatively high dwelling densities to accommodate those needing to live within a reasonable walking distance of the University. Unlike the auto commuting worker or student, the individual either unable or unwilling to use the automobile must carefully consider his dwelling's location relative to his most frequent destinations, i.e., 0 9 FE school, work or stores. The location of the dwelling relative to an infrequently visited destination (e.g., a mortuary) will be relatively unimportant. Thus, the Study Area's convenient geographic location makes it a desirable residential area for students and this, in turn, affects the other land uses of the area. Churches and Synagogues The Study Area possesses a number of churches (see Map 6, Churches and Synagogue Sites), many of which have been located in the Study Area since its earliest development. As with other uses which located at their current site long ago, many churches have felt pressure to relocate further out from the City center (since 1967, four churches have left the Study Area) in an effort to find more land upon which to grow. The realization of this desire is often prevented by the problem of finding a usage which is permitted under the current zoning ordinance for the old church building and which can advantageously utilize the unique architectural character- istics of a church building. The problems of these churches in finding new users for their structures are not unique to Iowa City, but are complicated by the leniency of the zoning ordinance in originally permitting churches in residential districts wherein the few potential buyers are prohibited. The usage characteristics of churches do not lend them to residential locations, and the fact that few congregations are predominantly "walk-in" (the parishioners living within walking distance of the church) tends to indicate no compelling reason to permit churches in residential areas. Thus, the original leniency of allowing churches to locate where they choose has effectively backfired, ultimately hurting the churches as their requirements have altered over time. Map 7 summarizes all of the nonresidential land use locations in the Study Area. Among these, the governmental and insti- tutional uses (in black) tend to form a buffer to the eastern land uses, lacking but a few blocks to completely isolate the commercial from the residential land uses in the Study Area. Thus, the extent of the CBD is delimited with a high degree of certainty, with the public and quasi -public land uses serving as buffers between the residential and commercial properties. The desirability of this is obvious, and should be enhanced through appropriate zoning district boundaries. FtFI 0 660 0 201 METERS 0 0 CHURCH LOCATIONS 1972 W Q W 0 0 Q ¢ Q J R p W M O U = f Q W Q 7 J Ql J= 0 J i J > 0 O 0 Q O >O N 00 > 7 K JEFFERSON IOWA WASHINGTON COLLEGE BURLINGTON COURT BOWERY SE(MOUR SHERIUAN 19 MAP 6 0 NON - RESIDENTIAL LAND USES 1972 oe� F1fI 0 660 1320 2640 611111111111111111111 0 201 402 604 METERS PUBLIC SEMI - PUBLIC BROWN RONALDS CHURCH FAIRCHILD DAVENPORT BLOOMINGTON MARKET JEFFERSON IOWA WASHINGTON COLLEGE BURLINGTON COURT BOWERY SEYMOUR SHERIDAN 20 L MAP 7 Z w N K r Y r o Z M 4 p W N O U = 2 w 4 O J m J Z O JR J > O m J m= O J W J U w 4 O O Z >O O > R 20 L MAP 7 0 0 21 POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS The Study Area possessed a population of 8,485 persons in 1970, or 18 percent of the total population of Iowa City. This population displayed a highly atypical age distribution, as discussed in the following treatment of the student popu- lation and the elderly. The median age of the area population was 22 years, and the breakdown by sex was 458 male, 55% female, as compared with Iowa City's population of 498 male and 51% female. Students The composition of the resident population of small areas of the Study Area in 1970 reflected to a large degree the influence of the University of Iowa upon the Study Area. This influence was very localized, with the greatest impact being within one-half mile of the site of Old Capitol. (See Map 8, Population Density Per/Acre.) Inasmuch as one- half mile is the commonly accepted maximum standard for walking distance between a trip attraction and a trip origin for the pedestrian, this finding is easily explained. The exact number of University students residing in the Study Area is unknown, but an examination of that component of the population age group most likely to be in attendance at the University (17-24 years of age) can be used as a fairly sure measure of student population. As Chart 1, "Population Age Distribution", shows, there is a concentration of young adults (17-24 years) in the Study Area, comprising a slightly greater percentage of that population (398) than is true of Iowa City as a whole (358). An appreci- ation of the significance of this figure can be gained from the observation that nationally, this age group comprises only 12% of the population. In certain subareas of the Study Area the percentage of students in this age group was over 56 per- cent in 1970. (See Map 9, Percentage of Residents Between 17 and 24 Years Old.) A curious phenomenon encountered in such parts of the Study Area is the "eternally young" resident population. This is due to the constant, selective influx of young persons into the Study Area which results in a population which is per- petually younger in its composition than is typical for most neighborhoods or cities. Whereas the typical suburban community goes through a cycle of young families with small children to older families where the children have left the L�.:IIIIII 111111 111111 111111 / //.' 11111[ NO � ,111111111111111111 III��� % % ■ ,111111111111111111111111 % % � " FRA 00, 111111■/Illlllr::llll�" ■IIIIII ��.'lllll�l 1/111111 , �f.1111111 IIII 1111111 IIIIII liliiii! i oe ■'�oi5Pill M r�ols:,% ,%% �,�.`IIIIII'IIIIII IIIII1111111'//. :I;% POPULATION AGE DISTRIBUTION IOWA CITY 2000- 1900 1900 1700 1600- 1500 1400 1300 1200- 1100 1000 900 900 700 600 500 400 300 TUDY AREA FEMALES fUDY AREA MALES _ IOWA CITY FEMALES IOWA CITY MALES STUDY AREA 500 400 SIM 200 .r. In•��- i� O N N N -I J m 0 0 O U O U O 0O O N O U O N O N 0 N O AGE DATA DERIVED FROM 1970 CENSUS FIRST COUNT. .p 2s CHART 1 24 1970 PERCENTAGE OF RESIDENT POPULATION BETWEEN 17-24 YEARS OF AGE. O GGO 1320 2640 i 45% ■ 56�. 0 201 402 BO METERS �9jYlii BROWN ■ O 52% 23' RONALDS _ CHURCH FAIRCHILD 51 DAVENPORT BLOOMINGTON 43%MARKET '} $I dml - M'-- 35 A T 'TIME 38% ■ ■ 19% s_ ■ I � O Z W ¢ y0j O U I 4 W� J m J Z O J �. J > 0 m J m= O J W J U W t7 O U 2 0 > N p I j O ¢ JEFFERSON IOWA WASHINGTON COLLEGE BURLINGTON COURT BOWERY SEYMOUR SHERIDAN MAP 9 0 25 home, the Study Area has probably maintained a relatively large population of young, single residents for many years. In terms of the effect of young residents on the area, certain observations are possible. First, a younger popu- lation demands more area, not necessarily for recreational facilities but for facilities of the more active nature than an older resident population would need. Second, many of the needs of a major portion of this component of the population, e.g., medical, educational and entertainment facilities, are met by the University. Third, although there are a large number of students in the Study Area, they are apparently not of the group in which substantial family formation has occurred, as evidenced by the low percentage of very young children when compared with the average for Iowa City (5.28 and 8.38 respectively). Fourth, the variation within the Study Area in the percent of residents of the student age group is great, with one sub- area (Longfellow Area) having only 19 percent of its residents of that age group, and another area (East College Green) having 56.5 percent of this age group. Finally, as pointed out in the convenience shopping section, there are numerous facilities in the Study Area tailored to meet the needs of the student residents. These serve to further amplify the desirability of much of the Study Area for students, thereby attracting more students, and in turn encouraging more local business development, an example of a feedback effect in the realm of population and land use. The analysis of any area as strongly influenced by a large population of "in" and "out" migrants as the Study Area is extremely difficult. If the analysis is to be accurate, it must account for the conditions of the resident population both including and excluding these non -permanent residents. Unfortunately, statistics of a sufficiently specific nature to accomplish this are lacking. If the residents are well- to-do and the students poor, the average income may well appear quite high. The reverse situation is also true, making the determination of the economic and social characteristics of the more and the less permanent residents indistinguishable through census data. Thus, this study is hamstrung by one of the most obvious and pervasive characteristics of the residents of the Study Area, the very high percentage of University students, their spouses and children. Any attempt to distinguish between 0 • W the group which may be characterized as "student related" and "city related" would be to treat both groups more appropriately, not to ignore one of the other's needs. Yet, such treatment is not possible, for the grouping of all residents of the Study Area, even when aggregated at the block level, is a misleading grouping. This condition has made an analysis of the true income and social characteristics of the Study Area difficult because the area's resident population is so transient and because the aggregation of these figures renders them potentially meaningless. It should be noted that the anticipated stabilization of the student population of the University may result in a slight decline in the resident student population of the area. The following table shows University enrollment at various levels and enrollments predicted by University officials for each of the next ten years: Table 2 STUDENT FORECAST* MEDICINE FRESHMEN, JUNIORS, DENTISTRY, YEAR SOPHOMORES SENIORS LAW GRADUATE TOTAL 1972 6077 7258 1860 4857 20,052 1973 6275 6911 1964 4900 20,050 1974 6395 6897 2008 4950 20,250 1975 6490 6814 2046 5000 20,350 1976 6600 6970 2080 5000 20,650 1977 6800 7094 2106 5000 21,000 1978 6950 7224 2126 5000 21,300 1979 6950 7409 2141 5000 21,500 1980 6830 7514 2156 5000 21,500 1981 6600 7528 2172 5000 21,300 1982 6365 7447 2188 5000 21,000 * University of Iowa Spectator, Vol. 6, No. 6, May, 1973, Iowa City, Iowa, p. 4. 0 9 27 Elderly Another age group deserving consideration is that of those over 65 years of age. This group comprises 11.9E of the Study Area population, as compared with only 6.5E for Iowa City and 10% for the nation. This age group concentrates in the Study Area for several reasons, some of which are different from those of students. Whereas students can be said to reside in the Study Area for reasons of access to the University, the elderly are frequently renters who have migrated to the lower cost residential areas of the City or have lived there over long periods of time. In addition, the Study Area is conveniently located relative to the facilities offered by the CBD, a factor both students and elderly are likely to consider favorable. Among the elderly, there is a higher proportion of elderly women to men in the Study Area, over 2.45 to 1. This pro- portion is even more remarkable when considered in light of the ratio between elderly women and men for all of Iowa City (1.9 to 1). It should be pointed out, however, that women do tend to outlive men, but the ratio is not this high nationally, 1.39 to 1. Furthermore, Iowa is atypical in this trait in that until 1940 there were more men over 65 than women. In 1970 in Iowa the ratio of women to men over 65 was 1.05 to 1, still significantly lower than is true nationally. Thus, the Study Area and Iowa City both display a highly atypically composed population in its age distri- bution and in its composition by sex and age. As Map 10, "Population Over 65 Years" indicates, certain subareas of the Study Area possess unusually high percentages of elderly residents. This concentration is to some extent explicable by home ownership patterns, but a far more compre- hensive explanation is income related. In Iowa City in 1970, median incomes for families consisting of more than a single person by age group, were as shown in Table 3. What these figures demonstrate is the similarity of income status for families of the youngest and oldest family age groupings. That they reside coincidentally in the same area becomes less puzzling as the implications of this income picture are grasped. Even more telling are the figures as shown in Table 4 for families which rent their dwellings. 0 Table 3 MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME AND AGE OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD, OWNERS AND RENTERS Under 30 years old 30-44 years old 45-64 years old 65 years old and over MEDIAN INCOME GROUP $ 5,000 - $ 6,999 10,000 - 14,999 10,000 - 14,999 5,000 - 6,999 Table 4 MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME AND AGE OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD, RENTERS Under 30 years old 30-44 years old 45-64 years old 65 years old and over MEDIAN INCOME GROUP $ 5,000 - $ 6,999 10,000 - 14,999 10,000 - 14,999 3,000 - 4,999 These figures can be reasonably interpreted to evidence a strong latent, unmet demand for low-cost elderly housing in Iowa City. Furthermore, at present (1973) over 50 percent of the occupants of the Leased Housing Program are elderly, supporting the hypothesis of an unmet demand for elderly housing in Iowa City. Minorities The minority component of the Study Area population is sur- prisingly small, with only 0.78 of the population being 0 0 30 black, 0.12 being Indian, and all other non-white races comprising but 1.12 of the City population in 1970. The following Table 5 summarizes the population composition of the Study Area by race. As evidenced by the Table "Population Composition by Race", there are virtually no clusters or concentrations of ethnic minority groups in the Study Area. A significant grouping of the minority population occurs in areas which are in close proximity to the University of Iowa, indicating an association with the University. (For a more detailed analysis of the condition of minorities in Iowa City, see the Minority Status Report - 1973, Department of Community Development). HOUSING By the very nature of its narrow scope, this Area Study must approach an analysis of its housing stock almost solely from the supply side. This is true because of the mobility and variability of its resident population which is the predominant source of housing demand. where in an area - wide housing analysis the total demand for housing may be estimated and allocated, in an Area Study of the scope of this one, the portion of the total housing demand of the region which must be met by the Study Area is unknown and highly variable. Thus, rather than examining the adequacy of the existing housing stock to meet an allocated demand, this study must approach its topic from the viewpoint of the quality, rather than the sheer quantity of its housing. Overview There were 3,765 housing units in the Study Area in 1970, or approximately one sixth of the total supply of housing stock in the central urbanized area of Johnson County. This supply is provided on about one eighth of the developed land in the urbanized area. The overall development density of the area is 11.7 dwellings per gross acre, or about 3,700 square feet per dwelling unit. At 40 percent for public right-of-way, parks, and school grounds, the Study Area has a net residential acreage of 172 acres, for a net dwelling density of 19.4 units per acre, or 2,245 square feet per dwelling. These are overall densities, and do not accurately represent the density of development for many of the subareas of the Study Area. The net density of development for the portion of the Study Area south of Fairchild Street, north of Bloomington Street and west of Van Buren Street and east of Dubuque Street is 30.9 Table 5 • * This figure was suppressed to avoid any possibility of the disclosure of information about a particular person or persons. • ** The term Negro is that utilized by the Bureau of the Census, and in no way connotes the attitudes or values of the author. W r POPULATION COMPOSITION BY RACE E.D. # 25 27 28 42 43 44 45 46 47 54 55 Iowa City Total # 1161 286 580 374 1101 504 739 538 1144 1040 940 45,810 of Whites Total # 4 1 16 2 9 7 0 7 3 8 5 463 of Negroes** Total # 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 1 2 30 of Indians Total # 11 19 11 10 10 * 19 * 8 6 4 547 of Others • * This figure was suppressed to avoid any possibility of the disclosure of information about a particular person or persons. • ** The term Negro is that utilized by the Bureau of the Census, and in no way connotes the attitudes or values of the author. W r 0 0 32 dwellings per neL acre ol: land. 'Thus, certain areas have much higher or lower. densiLies Lhan the norm. Table 6 COMPOSITION OF HOUSING SUPPLY BY PERCENTAGE STUDY AREA IOWA CITY S.F. Dwellings 35.82 46.45 Duplex Units 16.42 12.28 Multi -Family 47.88 41.32 This Study Area possesses a significantly larger percentage of duplex and multi -family dwellings than is true of Iowa City as a whole. Only 35.82 of the dwellings in the Study Area are of the single family type, whereas 46.68 of the housing stock of Iowa City is comprised of single family dwelling units. (See Map 11, Percent Single Family Dwellings 1970.) This is the result of the aforementioned impact of the University of Iowa, the downtown, and the zoning classifi- cations of much of the area. Because the Study Area is a component in the overall housing stock of Iowa City, accurate comparison of the two areas would require the removal of that component of the Iowa City housing supply located in the Study Area. The following table reflects such a removal: Table 7 REMOVAL OF THE STUDY AREA HOUSING SUPPLY FROM THE IOWA CITY TOTAL STUDY AREA REMAINDER OF IOWA CITY S.F. Dwellings 35.82 49.42 Duplex Units 16.48 11.12 Multi -Family 47.82 39.52 oil ■'•d►•o1/0 rz ���� ffiq �, �.•• 34 As Table 7 shows, the removal of the Study Area component from the Iowa City total only serves to emphasize the dissimilarity of dwelling type composition of the Study Area in comparison to Iowa City. As Table 8 ("Composition of Housing in Iowa City") shows, the past fifteen years have seen a significant shift in the composition of Iowa City's housing market, with multi -family dwellings comprising an increasingly large percentage of the total number of dwelling units available. This increase is largely the result of a demand for housing by young single adults, particularly those associated with the University. Table 8 COMPOSITION OF HOUSING IN IOWA CITY 1958 - 1960 1966 1970 SFDU 678 602 49.68 46.4% DUPLEX 108 13.92 10.02 12.28 MULTI- 232 27.12 40.42 41.38 FAMILY What is true of Iowa City as a whole is even truer of the Study Area. Here the majority of dwellings are in other than single family structures, with a total of over three hundred multi -family units having been built or initiated in con- struction in 1971 through 1973. Map 12, New Multi -family Units (1971-1973), shows the location of these new apartments. The relative scale of this level of building can be best perceived through a comparison of the number of apartment units for which permits were granted in the Study Area versus the number of permits granted for all of Iowa City (see Table 9 for comparison). 0 0 NEW MULTI -FAMILY UNITS (1971-1973) FI`E T 0 660 MMM%m 0 201 Mf IERS W 2 Z Z W 0 m H Y f 0 J Z W W p 0 Q j RI I O J > N ul d p a ' O 00 i 7 R JEFFERSON IOWA WASHINGTON COLLEGE BURLINGTON COURT BOWERY SEYMOUR SHERIDAN 35 MAP 12 0 0 36 Table 9 PERMITS GRANTED Based on the construction of multi -family units, an extensive amount of land use changes has occurred in the Study Area during the last three years. In 1972 there were a total of 283 dwelling units in apartment structures for which building permits were granted, of which fully 212 were for apartments located in the Study Area. That represents over 75 percent of all apartment units granted building permits in 1972 in Iowa City. However, the continuance of this trend is dubious in light of the decreased level of permits issued in 1973 and the population trend of the last year. Thus, the Study Area is not entirely confronted with the problems of new develop- ment but rather how should such development fit into the existing fabric of the area. Cost of Housing The cost of rental housing in the Study Area is, like all of Iowa City's housing, higher than is typical for the rest of the state. (See Map 13, Median Rent Per Housing Unit.) In point of fact, for Johnson County as a whole, the per dwelling cost of housing is higher per room than for any other county in the State of Iowa. As Table 10 indicates, the average rental per room in the Study Area is the same as that of Iowa City. (See Map 14, Median Rent Per Room.) The cost of housing in an older section such as that of the Study Area might be expected to be slightly lower than the average, but the relative geographic position of the Study Area in Iowa City probably offsets much of this tendency, for in this one area are combined access to both the down- town and the University. This alone makes residence in the area quite attractive, not only to students and to the elderly who desire proximity to a majority of the services they need, STUDY AREA IOWA CITY YEAR NO. OF PERMITS UNITS YEAR NO. OF PERMITS UNITS 1970 3 38 1970 8 328 1971 7 71 1971 25 421 1972 19 212 1972 23 283 1973 1 4 1973 4 63 Based on the construction of multi -family units, an extensive amount of land use changes has occurred in the Study Area during the last three years. In 1972 there were a total of 283 dwelling units in apartment structures for which building permits were granted, of which fully 212 were for apartments located in the Study Area. That represents over 75 percent of all apartment units granted building permits in 1972 in Iowa City. However, the continuance of this trend is dubious in light of the decreased level of permits issued in 1973 and the population trend of the last year. Thus, the Study Area is not entirely confronted with the problems of new develop- ment but rather how should such development fit into the existing fabric of the area. Cost of Housing The cost of rental housing in the Study Area is, like all of Iowa City's housing, higher than is typical for the rest of the state. (See Map 13, Median Rent Per Housing Unit.) In point of fact, for Johnson County as a whole, the per dwelling cost of housing is higher per room than for any other county in the State of Iowa. As Table 10 indicates, the average rental per room in the Study Area is the same as that of Iowa City. (See Map 14, Median Rent Per Room.) The cost of housing in an older section such as that of the Study Area might be expected to be slightly lower than the average, but the relative geographic position of the Study Area in Iowa City probably offsets much of this tendency, for in this one area are combined access to both the down- town and the University. This alone makes residence in the area quite attractive, not only to students and to the elderly who desire proximity to a majority of the services they need, 0 0 MEDIAN RENT PER HOUSING UNIT 1970 FFF I 0 660 "==%on 0 20! METERS W 2 2 Z D Z W v 0 m J m m= O A W J U W 0 Z O > in 6 O O O 3 > 0 K JEFFERSON IOWA WASHINGTON COLLEGE BURLINGTON COURT BOWERY SE (MOUR SHERIDAN 37 MAP 13 0 0 38 but also to those employed by the University or in the down- town area. This location makes the area particularly subject to the seasonality of the residence requirements of students and University related persons. Thus, in addition to the higher rents commensurate with the geographic advantage of much of the Study Area, there is another factor at work, i.e., potentially high vacancy rates. Table 10 HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS OF IOWA CITY AND THE STUDY AREA Any real estate market as restricted in scope as that of the Study Area, especially that element of the Study Area within one-half mile of the campus, has a relatively inelastic supply of housing. This makes the limited supply of housing doubly valuable, as it is definitely restricted in its capacity to expand to meet increased demand. When coupled with an extremely high potential vacancy rate during the summer months (up to 258 among students), the cost of housing is made even greater. IOWA CITY STUDY AREA Occupied units 14,766 3,432 Mean number of rooms 4.5 4.1 per unit Owner Occupied Units 6,775 1,136 Mean value $20,517 $16,258 Mean rooms/unit 5.9 6.0 Mean cost/room $3,485 $2,710 Renter Occupied Units 7,991 2,296 Mean contract rent $111/mo. $102/mo. Mean rooms/units 3.3 3.1 Mean cost/room $33/mo. $33/mo. Any real estate market as restricted in scope as that of the Study Area, especially that element of the Study Area within one-half mile of the campus, has a relatively inelastic supply of housing. This makes the limited supply of housing doubly valuable, as it is definitely restricted in its capacity to expand to meet increased demand. When coupled with an extremely high potential vacancy rate during the summer months (up to 258 among students), the cost of housing is made even greater. 0 0 MEDIAN RENT PER ROOM 1970 FEET 0 660 1320 2640 0 201 402 804 METERS FF 35 . :.N S 35 --� BROWN RONALDS CHURCH FAIRCHILD DAVENPORT BLOOMINGTON MARKET $36535 & $ 31 J� 1 $ 35 $ 27 Orr W Z Z Z W H W 1- Y O m Z W 0 0 Q O M J 0: p W R N p U Z 4 W 4 p J A] > Z O J j J > U W o 0 > " ¢ JEFFERSON IOWA WASHINGTON COLLEGE BURLINGTON COURT BOWERY SEYMOUR SHERIDAN 39 MAP 14 0 0 40 Whereas the cost per room for rental housing in the Study Area is equal to that for Iowa City, the cost per room of owner occupied housing is substantially less and the mean value per dwelling is also lower. This apparent anomaly is a result of the relative ages of the houses of the Study Area and of Iowa City. whereas apartment construction in the area has been substantial in recent years, the same cannot be said of detached dwellings in the Study Area. Thus, owner occupied homes in the Study Area are typically older than those in the rest of the City, and, therefore, not as competitive in certain respects as the newer rental units in apartments. In addition to this there has been substantial replatting of this sector of Iowa City which has resulted in many of the homes being located on very small lots. These smaller lots cannot be expected to possess values comparable to those of larger lots prevalent in the newer sections of Iowa City. Finally, there is the element of risk, namely the risk that with the prevalent R3A zoning one's home may become an unwilling neighbor to an apartment or club. The price paid for a dwelling with this potential problem will be less than for a similar dwelling in a zoned district where such a possibility is highly unlikely, ceteris paribus. Of course, this last point has its other side, i.e., that of the homebuyer who wishes to eventu- ally build an addition onto his home for rental income, and therefore finds the current zoning classification desirable. Homes of Historical or Architectural Significance A city develops through time. Considered as a whole its physi- cal features are constantly changing. On the other hand, smaller areas within the City, once developed, are usually stable and relatively permanent. The physical forms of urban neighborhoods -- street patterns, architectural design and relationships, extent and character of landscaping, type of street furniture, and so on -- represent the development ideas, and perhaps ideals, of their period of construction. The history of a community is reflected in its development pattern. The Study Area has some homes and sites of particular interest or historical significance. (See Map 15, Location of Homes With Historical or Architectural Significance.) Most of these homes are scattered throughout the Study Area although, in the Summit Street portion of the Study Area, there is a concen- tration of old elegant homes which are remarkably preserved and which present a variety of architectural styles. Many of the homes within the Study Area are representative of six distinct periods of nineteenth century architectural design including: 1) Colonial Period, 2) Greek Revival Period, 0 E 41 LOCATION OF HOMES WITH HISTORICAL OR ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE U I II T 0 6 G 1320 2640 0 201 4012 804 Mf PERS • SITE LOCATION BROWN RONALDS CHURCH FAIRCHILD DAVENPORT BLOOMINGTON MARKET I ul ION W 2 2 W - m 7 O W J Q m= LQ > O 0 O O U J = W O J U > l7 W V 0 G 00 T Q JEFFERSON IOWA WASHINGTON COLLEGE BURLINGTON COURT BOWERY SE fMOUR SHLRIDAN SUMMIT STREET HISTORICAL AREA MAP 15 • 42 3) Gothic Revival Period, 4) Anglo -Italian Style, 5) Neo - Jacobean Style, and 6) Composite or Elective Style. Such buildings and areas contribute to the variety and vitality of Iowa City by enriching the daily experience of both residents and visitors. Many of these homes form an important part of the community's historic and cultural heritage. This does not mean that any structure must be saved simply because it is old or that any site must be developed as a special part because it was once vaguely associated with some historic event. It does mean that Iowa City, preferably as part of the comprehensive planning program, should make a thorough inventory of its resources and take the necessary steps to preserve those homes which are found to contribute significantly to its physical and cultural heritage. Terms such as historic or cultural conservation, and the more traditional historic preservation, are used to identify public and private accomplishments within a community to maintain and enhance the value of this heritage. STREET CIRCULATION The efficiency of land use depends greatly on the capacity and design of an area's traffic way. It may be fairly stated that the street system is orientated almost solely toward the automobile with all of the other modes including pedes- trian movement, bike, and mass transit taking a distant second place. This results from the original platting of Iowa City in the middle 1800's into blocks approximately 400 feet square. This rectilinear grid pattern has resulted in a somewhat higher percentage of the land being used for streets than in newer areas of the City. Numerous constraints mitigate against any modification of the existing street network; one of the greatest constraints being the fixed land use pattern, and its dependency upon the existing street system. Present circulation indicates that there are a large number of relatively low level arterial streets and the designation of a few high level arterial streets within the Study Area. As with any inner-city area, the Study Area functions both as a residential community and as an area of transition between outlying residential uses and the center city. This means that various streets within the area are necessary to provide transportation routes to and from the downtown for residents not of the Study Area. Thus, arterial streets 43 which have the concentration of fewer than four per fifty -square block in outer residential districts may have up to twice as many arterials in the same area in this sector of the City due to the coming together of numerous arterials in the relatively small space. These facts point toward some form of articulated street system comprised of direct routes to common destinations along those streets best suited to handle the higher volumes of traffic. Functional classification is the basis for so delineating streets. Such classification will be the basis for improving the streets in future plans. Widening, curbs and gutters, signing and roadway marking are the results with a larger roadbed more attractive to heavy traffic on those streets selected as collectors and arterials. Not every street can be selected as an arterial or a collector. Heavy traffic volumes, longer trip lengths and trip purposes are translated into needs for designating definite streets to their use. Those not selected will be determined local streets and will funnel traffic to higher systems. Map 16, Existing Arterial Street Network (1970), designates the existing arterial street network. The present arterial street system could be said to cleave the Study Area with little regard to the impact on existing neighborhoods. It should be remembered that an arterial street is defined as one providing for through traffic movement between areas and across the City and direct access to abutting property. Thus, every street large enough to be an arterial is not necessarily one, for it must serve to move people through an area, not merely to it. Where traffic volumes are slight, the desig- nation and design of streets to arterial levels is unnecessary if not undesirable. As Map 17, Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes - 1971, shows, the arterial streets of the Study Area display wide variance in the volumes of traffic handled. While South Governor between Burlington and Bowery Streets move but 2,000 vehicles per day, Burlington Street is handling 16,500 cars on an average day. The impact such streets have on the uses fronting on them can be expected to be extremely different. As a general rule of thumb, all other things being equal, the higher the volume of traffic the more effectively a street functions as a barrier. Thus, the effect of Church Street in functioning as a neighborhood boundary will be considerably less than that of Dubuque Street. Commercial uses, unlike most residential ones, will frequently be centered about arterial streets because of the high access potential. This is also true of high density residential uses, but in the latter case the impact of streets is frequently 0 0 EXISTING ARTERIAL -STREET NETWORK (1970 ) I I I I 4 660 0 201 MF fE RS W 2 2 Z W 0 R H Y . O O' = W W N o J m J= O J i J > m J N= O J W J U W C > O > 0 a 1 O 00 > O m JEFFERSON IOWA WASHINGTON COLLEGE BURLINGTON COURT BOWERY SEYMOUR SHERIDAN 44 MAP 16 FI f t U 560 020 U 201 ME TE RS TRAFFIC VOLUMES 1971 (AVERAGE ANNUAL DAILY) W Z Z Z W V1 m F Y O p W W N O U Z = 7 W q J m m -� m= O J W j U W U' O Za Q N 00 0 m JEFFERSON IOWA WASHINGTON COLLEGE BURLINGTON COURT BOWERY SEYMOUR SHERIDAN as MAP 17 0 0 96 minimized by site design, whereas commercial outlets will often purposely allow the greatest possible impact from streets via the direction they face and building design in an attempt to attract business by appearing highly accessible. Unlike these preceding examples, the value of abutting an arterial for a single family dwelling is outweighed by the nuisance and danger an arterial and its high traffic volumes will create for the residents. Public Transit At present the only feasible, proven public transit system which can be made to function efficiently and which is available for a town the size of Iowa City is bus transit, the system already in use in Iowa City. The City bus system combines low fares, 15C, with a route system which provides all of the residents of the Study Area with access to the system within three blocks of their homes. The accompanying map (Map 18, Bus Transit Routes 1973) identifies the routes currently employed by the City buses within the Study Area. As of this writing, the policy of the bus system is to pick up riders along the route without the use of designated bus stops. This means added convenience for those using the system. While the success of the bus system is adequate justification for its continuance, it cannot be expected to function as a panacea for all the transportation ills of the Study Area or Iowa City. In short, the automobile remains the primary means of vehicular transportation in the Study Area as well as the City. Bikeways and Pathways The development of a totally separated bikeway -path system within the Iowa City area is at this time infeasible due to the cost of right-of-way acquisition. However, an articulated bike pathway system can be developed utilizing collector streets and non -street rights-of-way as the main arteries for bike traffic, and in this way achieve a reduction of the unnecessary interface between two dissimilar modes of trans- portation, i.e., cars and bikes. In summation, the existing transportation network and infra- structure of the Study Area are extremely auto dependent, and I I I I 0 6G0 0 201 MFfERS 0 BUS TRANSIT ROUTES 1973 W 2 2 Z W 0 M H Y O = W W O O U 0 ± E W O J m J Z Q i m J m= OJ w ' V w Q J 9 N O O e 0 > 1 O 0 > 0 ¢ JEFFERSON IOWA WASHINGTON COLLEGE BURLINGTON COURT BOWERY SEYMOUR SHERIDAN 47 MAP 18 0 0 EU would require large public investments to modify or suffi- ciently alter this dependency. While alternative systems should be explored, the proper layout and functioning of an arterial street system could do much to ameliorate the complaints voiced by area residents about auto traffic and its attendant ills. The ultimate solution to the present circulation problem in the Study Area will be determined after the Area Transportation Study is completed in the coming year. This study is being administered by the Johnson County Regional Planning Commission. COMMUNITY FACILITIES Community facilities are physical manifestations, i.e, buildings, land, equipment, and whole systems of activities -- of governmental and private services on behalf of the public and of major segments thereof. They are important components of a community and add greatly to the quality of urban life. The demand for more and varied community facilities and services increases as urban areas expand, population grows, old facilities become outmoded, and living standards and public expectations rise. While the demand and need for traditional community facilities such as water or sewer lines continues, the demand for other services, such as health clinics and recreational parks, is increased by a more sophis- ticated and expectant public. A service or facility that a few years ago was a luxury may now be regarded as a necessity. Parks As with commercial facilities, recreational facilities are typically broken into functional classes for the purpose of analysis and treatment. The neighborhood park is the smallest standard park with a maximum service radius of one-half mile and the "neighborhood" being the area served. The community park is the next largest park, possessing a service radius of two miles and intended to serve a group of neighborhoods, namely, a "community." Finally, is the regional park, designed to serve those within 40 minutes driving time, and providing park space for a whole cluster of communities. Obviously the scope of this report limits it to the smallest standard park, the neighborhood parks. The Study Area currently possesses five park -type facilities, and of these,only three are actually parks; they are College 0 0 W Fiill (also called College Green), Happy Hollow and North Market Parks. The City has recently acquired additional park land located in the southern -most extremity of the Bowery Street area. This park site, named Oak Grove Park, will provide a basic neighborhood playground recreational facility for the residents who are isolated from the rest of the Study Area by the right-of-way of the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad. However, the Oak Grove Park site will not be fully developed into a true neighborhood park until fall 1975. The following table summarizes the sizes of these parks. Table 11 PARK APPROXIMATE ACREAGE College Hill 2.4 Happy Hollow 3.3 North Market 1.5 Oak Grove 1.6 In addition to these parks, the following possess area and facilities appropriate for service as parks. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE Horace Mann Elem. 1.27 Central Jr. High 2.5 Longfellow Elemn. 10.0 It has long been an accepted principle that the most efficient use of scarce public land can be made if parks and school sites are integrated. This concept fails to weigh the problems of administering joint facilities between two governmental bodies (i.e., park boards and school boards) and takes the view of what would work best under ideal circum- stances. Iowa City is fortunate to possess a school system not enamored to the concept of "securing" areas from people via fences, gates and patrols. Thus, the schools cited above as possessing recreational areas are open to the general public, and do, in fact, function to a certain degree as joint facilities. 50 Map 19, Park Type Facilities Service Areas, presents the service areas of the existing park type facilities of the Study Area. Although most of the Study Area is located within the service areas of existing parks, there is a question of the adequacy of the area provided. The accepted acreage standard for neighborhood parks is 2.5 acres of park land per 1,000 people, with one half that 2.5 acres being designated for passive recreation (e.g., picnic grounds, trails, nature areas) and the remaining half for active recreation (e.g., field sports, court sports, children's play area). Based upon this standard there should be 21.2 acres of neighborhood park land serving the Study Area, when in fact there are only 8.8 acres of official park land present. only by including the school grounds does the park land present exceed demand. The neighborhood park should, in its active areas, possess sufficient space to accommodate a softball field, a tennis or basketball court and a playground, and in its passive areas space equal in size to the aforementioned active portion of the park. This means a minimum area of 5 acres, greater than any of the parks in the Study Area. Thus, even if there is adequate acreage in neighborhood parks in the Study Area, the site sizes of most parks are insufficient to accommodate the needed facilities without becoming outdoor gymnasiums. Therefore, the need is clear; that the school sites be perpetuated in their multiple usage roles, and that any potential they have as recreational resources be preserved and enhanced wherever possible. This is especially true of the Longfellow Elementary School site which has sufficient acreage to function as a true neighborhood park. The adequacy of community and regional parks (as with shoppers and specialty goods outlets) is beyond the scope of this report. An indepth evaluation of the adequacy of the park system as it affects the Study Area will be provided in the forthcoming Community Facilities Study. The reader is referred to the 1965 Park and Recreation Surve for Iowa Cit by Ralph H. Burke, Inc. or specific recommendations for park improvements and additions. Schools As with parks, the public school system will be treated in the Community Facilities Study. This analysis, therefore, will be restricted to the effect of the schools upon the si PARK TYPE FACILITIES SERVICE AREAS POPULATION 18 YEARS AND UNDER FEET 0 20, METERS CI:N'1' RAI, JUNIUR IIIOII SC1100I. CUIJJ:G1•; TALL IlARI: HAPPY 1101,1,Ow 213 I'ARH BROWN RONALDS CHURCH FAIRCHILD DAVENPORT BLOOMINGTON MARKET W = ~ = W C, 0 0 < O Q J G W cc O V Z J m j m J 0= O J W V W �? 7 0 1 0 > H O > , 0 0 0 a HORACE 11ANN SCIIOOL JEFFERSON IOWA WASHINGTON COLLEGE BURLINGTON COURT LONGFI:LLOW SCIIOOl, BOWERY SEYMOUR SHERIDAN MAP 19 0 0 52 Study Area in terms of location and site attributes. The two elementary schools in the Study Area, Horace Mann and Longfellow, are located as shown on Map 20. Both possess service areas (two-mile radius) which place their boundaries beyond the borders of the Study Area. Longfellow Elementary School, a three-story brick structure, possesses a reasonably large site of ten acres. Located on a collector street, it was built in the early 1900's. Horace Mann Elementary School, with its 1.27 acre site, adjoins North Market Park's 1.5 acre. Like Longfellow Elementary, it was opened in 1917, is brick, and has three stories. This school, however, fronts on two arterial streets, Dodge and Church Street. This undesirable location is somewhat ameliorated by the presence of crossing guards, a measure which might remove most of the danger posed by the streets' presence, but cannot relieve the potential distraction these streets may create. Table 12 below gives the enrollment levels for the last three years of Longfellow and Horace Mann Elementary Schools. Table 12 ENROLLMENT LONGFELLOW HORACE MANN 1971 990 350 1972 336 313 1973 399 302 The location of the Central Junior High School in the center of the Study Area provides the residents of the area with an almost ideally located facility. The location of an arterial street (Jefferson) is acceptable for students of the ages of those in attendance, and the location of the building on the far side of the site from the arterial minimizes the disturbing influence such a street may have. Unfortunately, it is this street which separates the actual building site from the school property southeast of the main site. 0 FF rr PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN THE STUDY AREA FEF I 0 660 1320 2640 0 201 4012 804 METERS BROWN Ilr,r;ICC Mann RONALDS CHURCH ■ FAIRCHILD DAVENPORT BLOOMINGTON MARKET Central JEFFERSON Junior High j IOWA WASHINGTON COLLEGE BURLINGTON COURT Lon,�lel.lotii 1 BOWERY SEYMOUR SHERIDAN W 2 r Z Z w V, K r Y 1 O 0 W M y O U Z I Q W Q m J m = O J W wU w O a >O N OO 2 > U K 53 MAP 20 0 Summary 0 54 In summation, the neighborhood parks and schools in the Study Area are well located relative to those they are intended to serve, and appear to possess adequate site sizes except for certain of the neighborhood parks. Like many early 1900's public facilities, they reflect a more compre- hensive philosophy of city planning than was true of more recent times. Thus, the Study Area possesses a legacy of well planned and reasonably well sited educational and recreational facilities. Utilities Storm and Sanitary Sewers Map 21 describes the location of sanitary sewers in the Study Area. A one and one-half million dollar storm/sanitary sewer separation project was completed in the Study Area in 1972. As a result of the separation project, -most of the problems that existed in the area have been corrected. Ninety percent of the sanitary sewers in the Study Area are not used to capacity and in most cases never will reach capacity. Minimum size of sanitary sewers are 8", the reasoning for this size is not one of capacity but rather for the elimi- nation of cleaning problems. An 8 sewer should serve approxi- mately 450 single family lots at flattest grade; at steeper grades, 8" sewers could serve 1200 - 1500 homes without reaching capacity. Therefore, even an increase in density within the given area should not cause overloaded sewers. Storm sewers are in good condition throughout most of the City; these include Ralston Creek, other open ditches, and some enclosed storm sewers. The one major problem relates to Ralston Creek which must handle most of the storm water runoff of the Study Area. This problem is currently being investigated. Water System The municipal treatment plant is located at the intersection of Madison and Davenport Streets along the bank of the Iowa River and serves the entire City as well as University Heights. The Study Area is located close to the treatment plant being in the older part of the City. The water is distributed throughout the system by a total of 136 miles of mains ranging in size from 2 to20 inches. Recent improvements have totally automated the operation of the treatment plant and increased peak capacity from 7.5 to 12.0 million gallons FI F1 Ti 660 mommilmo 0 20, METERS • L LOCATION OF SEWER SYSTEM EXISTING SEWER SYSTEM WR W 0 V Q 0 ~ C J K U = W K y O V i 4 W Q J m Z O J Q ] U W 0 W O aZ >O N 00 i > V Q JEFFERSON IOWA WASHINGTON COLLEGE BURLINGTON COURT BOWERY SEYMOUR SHERIDAN ss MAP 21 0 0 56 per day (see Map 22, Location of Water. System). No major new construction of water lines is envisioned within the Area Study boundaries. Most current problems concern the size of mains, and leaks and breaks due to age of mains in the area. To that extent, a program of gradual replace- ment of water mains is being pursued by the City. Relative to the above statement, the City is also increasing pressure in the water mains by replacing all of the more obsolete 2" and 4" mains with 6" mains as time and money allow. Although fire protection is generally adequate in the area, hydrants are being placed to serve a radius of 600' through the area and new replacement hydrants are installed when time and funds are available. Existing Lighting The locations of street lamps are depicted on Map 23. It was generally felt from personal observation that the commercial portion of the Study Area had adequate lighting. The residential areas possess a minimum of lighting, far too little for the safety and desirability of the residents. Extreme dark conditions exist in practically all portions of the residential neighborhoods. It is specifically felt that more installation of lighting should be provided primarily for the residential portion of the Study Area and, in particular, for the high pedestrian traffic in the Study Area. Existing Parking Most of the parking needs of the Study Area comes from the result of activities via commercial and high density residential units. A shortage of parking is evident in the commercial portion of the Study Area, as most metered parking is occupied during the normal working hours. A low level of convenience parking is also evident in the residential areas of the Study Area, as off-street parking facilities are inadequate. Insufficient off-street parking leads to the undesirable consequences of on -street parking which disrupts normal traffic flow, generates pedestrian and motor vehicle hazards,prevents street cleaning, while also adding to the unsightly appearance of residential neighborhoods from the street. The provision of adequate off-street parking is contingent upon the requirement of such spaces in the Zoning Ordinance, as it is far cheaper for a builder to rationalize for on -street parking than to actually provide off-street parking. FEET 0 660 "mmium 0 201 MF. I ERS 0 0 LOCATION OF WATER SYSTEM EXISTING .R SYSTEM O W Q N 0 u j I a W 4 m J m_ O Z 0 > 0 j n 1 00 > 0 R JEFFERSON IOWA WASHINGTON COLLEGE BURLINGTON COURT BOWERY SEYMOUR SHERIDAN 57 MAP 22 III I 0 GGb 0 201 METERS 0 0 LOCATION OF STREET LIGHTS W 2 r = Z w N K r Y h 0 0 = p W W 0 O U 2 M W IL J m m= O J W O U W 0 , Q O< O O i > O Q TREET LIGHTS JEFFERSON IOWA WASHINGTON COLLEGE BURLINGTON COURT BOWERY SEYMOUR SHERIDAN MAP 23 • 59 The reader is referred to the 1979 Parking and Side Yard Study for specific recommendations and comments. The increased demand for adequate off-street parking facilities in the neighborhood portions of the Study Area is largely due to the influx of multiple family units into the existing fabric of the residential areas. These high density units generate more parking requirements than the once predominant single-family units. The location of off-street parking is equally as important as its provision, for poorly located and designed off-street parking areas can be as much a blight to a neighborhood as no off-street parking at all. 9 0 D& EXISTING ZONING Zoning classifications for this study are defined in Table 13, Table 13 ZONING DEFINITIONS R1A = Single family residential. Minimum lot area -- 10,000 square feet. R2 = Duplex or two-family residential. Minimum lot area -- 6,000 square feet. R3A = Multi -family residential. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit -- 1,000 square feet. R3B = Multi -family residential. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit -- 750 square feet. C2 = General commercial. No minimum lot area requirement. No setback yard requirement except for commercial and residential uses listed in a high zoning classification. Minimdl off-street parking space requirement except for land uses listed in a high zoning classification. CB = Central business district. No minimum lot area require- ment. No setback yard requirement except for commercial and residential uses listed in a high zoning classifi- cation. No off-street parking space requirement except for land uses listed in a high zoning classification. Reference is drawn to Map 29 for the zoning of the Study Area. The preponderance of the area is located in the R3A multi- family zone. Such zoning intent was based upon several objectives stated by the Harland Bartholomew & Associates Study of 1960 Housing and Public Buildings, Iowa City, Iowa. Perhaps the most telling for the Study Area is reproduced below. "The major housing problems in Iowa City involve two entirely different, yet still somewhat related aspects. The first is in increasing the supply of rental units in convenient relation 62 to the University of. lowa. This problem is aggravated by the present occupancy of most of the suitable located multiple - dwelling areas by private residents, many of these single family, so that the areas are no longer available without conversion or replacement of existing dwellings. Further, the conversion or replacement of individual buildings, unless carefully related to the overall neighborhood design, would tend to affect adversely the remaining homes, which relates to the second aspect of the housing problem -- overall improvement and protection. These factors were considered in the zoning plan, but there will no doubt be pressures from time to time to relax the regulations with respect to specific individual properties." Thus, much of what has transpired in the Study Area in terms of the redevelopment was casually related to this study and the zoning district designations it spawned. This does not say that the concept was incorrect so much that it demonstrates something pointed out at the time; a carefully considered neighborhood plan is necessary to achieve the stated ends if undue conflict is to be avoided in relation to existing dwellings. Such a neighborhood plan was not forthcoming, and its absence has been felt. It is the stated intent of this study to attempt to fill that void. C� C 63 DEVELOPMENT PROBLEMS The Study Area contains large areas of intermixed land uses, building types and, hence, use characteristics as illustrated by Map 25, Study Area Land Use. However, the problems of land use and land use control in the Study Area are materially different than those of newly developed areas. The critical problem of an older, established area is not solely the protection of what exists but selective replacement; not development but redevelopment. Were the Study Area unchanging, it would be moribund. This is not the case or the problem, but rather the type of redevelopment to be permitted, and where such redevelopment is appropriate. Iowa City and the Study Area in particular are being subjected to housing demands and development pressures usually peculiar to the larger metropolitan areas. It is a unique and fortunate problem, in that rather than struggling to find ways to revita- lize a declining central area, the City, as is the case with the Study Area, is faced with the problem of accommodating substantial requirements for increasing housing stocks. While the Study Area does not contain a large quantity of deterioration or ill development, there are two neighborhood areas that are confronted with the problem resulting from the occurrence of dramatic land use changes. These areas are shown on Map 26 as special problem areas. The two areas are presently single family in character and should be retained as such. Every effort should be made to preserve and enhance the integrity of these neighborhoods. Land Use Problems The most significant land use problems confronting the Study Area may be summarized as follows: 1. The Study Area functions as a transition area between the homes of many residents and their places of work or schooling. This effect may have well been inevitable, regardless of the type of zoning classification adopted, as the tremendous growth of the City caused increased usage of the Study Area as a place to be traversed to arrive elsewhere. 2. The present zoning classification of the Study Area has insufficient controls over multiple family housing in residential districts, including excessive allowances for height and building bulk. ■f■.■. • • LLQ � I I �� �• A I'i• 1 Am Ou lie]■■ C -I F-1 M 3. The conversion of single family housing to multiple family units causes dramatic land use changes within the Study Area, especially injurious to single family property. 4. New multiple family housing clashes with existing single family units from a cultural standpoint; they increase densities, probably decrease amenities, and perhaps change the character of the neighborhood more decidedly in favor of multiple family. 5. In almost every residential block in the Study Area there are a number of scattered duplexes or multiple family dwelling uses interspersed with single family homes. As previously related, the single family home is the most sensitive to adverse effects from other land uses. 6. Many additions to existing structures in the Study Area have no continuation or basic similarity of design to the existing building. These additions have been criticized as being inappropriate for the scale of the existing structure, as detracting from the appearance of the neighborhood, and reducing the values of existing homes. From a cultural standpoint, the disparate land uses and the lack of architectural continuity could be construed as a liability or a negative development. 7. Off-street parking facilities are inadequate in the residential neighborhoods of the Study Area. Increased demands for off-street parking comes from the result of conversions of former single family dwellings to rooming houses and multiple family structures as well as the former minimum provision of one parking space per dwelling unit in new apartment buildings. 8. Although the Study Area is located well within the service areas of existing parks, there is a question of adequacy of area provided. Based on the standard 2.5 acres of park land per 1,000 people, there will be a need for a minimum of 5 acres of playground and 7 acres of playfield. 9. Problems of flooding in the Study Area mainly stem from the results of inappropriate development in the floodplain areas of Ralston Creek and continual development and increased run-off upstream. 10. In general, the Study Area has an undesirable mixture of: incompatible residential uses, moderately deteriorating residential buildings and a general feeling of dissatis- faction and discouragement on the part of many single family residents. 66 RECOMMENDED DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Iowa City is engaged in a comprehensive program of planning for community improvement. It is the general goal of the citizens of Iowa City to improve the quality of life in the City -- by enlarging human opportunity, improving the environ- ment and strengthening the economy. The objectives set forth below are not to be considered as a comprehensive or complete statement of the residents of the Study Area relating to social and physical development, but rather are intended to represent those social, economic and environmental objectives which relate directly to the physical development and improve- ment of the City as well as the Study Area and for which the City Council has primary responsibility. OBJECTIVES The development of progressive programs to: -- increase compatibility between established and developing land uses throughout the area. -- preserve and maintain the basic character of existing neighborhoods. -- provide for a more desirable living environment than would be possible through usual development practices. ALTERNATIVES Several alternative development strategies could be formulated for purposes of guiding the future development of the Study Area. The alternative strategies to be considered include: (1) to preserve the existing character and density of the Study Area by prohibiting future conversions of single family units to multi -family units, and by prohibiting the con- struction of additional apartments and offices; (2) to allow the transition occurring in the area to continue, realizing that this will result in an increasing residential density, and will most likely increase the level of activity, the amount of noise and congestion, and result in a reduction in the amount of open space in the area; (3) to attempt to allow for the transition of parts of the Study Area while making provision for the preservation of other parts. If alternatives one or three are followed, it will require substantial zoning changes in the Study Area. In considering all of the above-mentioned alternatives, there is a need to closely evaluate all applicable land use regulations and to 0 9 :Y1 amend those ordinances which re9Ult in developmental patterns which are inconsistent with desired objectives. These could include not only changes in the zoning classifications of various properties, but also possible changes in: (1) maximum allowable residential densities; (2) lot coverage requirements; (3) off-street parking requirements; and (4) the provision of required open and/or landscaped areas. Other regulations which could be considered include architectural design controls and on -street parking regulations (both prohibitions and allowances) and street design standards. The improvement of the Study Area presents a fairly complex problem which requires both short and long-range solutions and the cooperation of the private and public sector of the community both in the development of strategies and in agreeing upon and implementing substantive objectives. The following alternatives when taken individually or in combination appear to have some promise in solving the problems which currently exist in the Study Area. Alternative One The area illustrated on Map 25 as Problem Area #2 be rezoned from R3A to an R3 and R2 classification (see Map 27 for rezoning of the Study Area). In planning for the future improvement of Iowa City, zoning should reflect the unique characteristics of individual neighborhoods which make up the City. The avowed purpose of zoning is designed particularly to guide and control private development, and to stabilize and preserve private property values. Because zoning is primarily retroactive in its effect, it cannot,as a result, be used as a major device to correct existing conditions. However, zoning can and should be used to regulate uses in each area of the community. The proposal for rezoning is based primarily on a consideration of the following factors: 1. The deleterious effect of high-density apartments on both the economy and marketability of predominant single family residential areas. 2. The inherent conflict and clear incompatability between high density apartments and single family housing. 3. The realization that the conversion of single family housing to multi -family units caused dramatic land use changes which can be especially injurious to single family property. ........ 'A RONALD FAIRCHIL % — r••••• r•••• ••• •••VAN i_DAVENPI rild c - .. • ...All PA BLOOMIN MARKET rte, 1 .L4�:= ,'�. ••. �•..• •.•.•..•.....•.110.4 ............... AMAMI IPA WA 41040 fir,• ••. •• ........... 69 4. The areas, despite a mixture of duplex and multi -family uses, still retain the character of a preponderantly single family residential neighborhood. 5. Zoning should be aimed at protecting existing development in areas of historical or architectural significance, and particularly the architectural integrity of existing structures. Alternative Two It is suggested that the City strengthen its housing conservation program through rigorous uniform code enforcement programs for the rehabilitation of structures and neighborhood facilities. It is suggested that the City establish a development ordinance which would control the conversion of single family homes to apartments, and which would assure that such conversion will enhance the living environment. The older single-family neighborhoods in the Study Area are a part of the City where conservation and land use control actions will be needed immediately. The conversion of single-family units to apartments and the construction of new apartment buildings can have a deteriorating effect on adjoining property and adjacent neighborhoods, especially when development is not related to established land use policies. Alternative Three Iowa City should establish a program that will identify, preserve, and protect homes and neighborhoods of historical or architectural signifi- cance. This program should incorporate provisions that will establish high standards of design in architecture and landscaping for all residential improvements. There are buildings, sites, or neighborhoods of particular interest and significance within the Study Area. Many of these features have national or local historical importance. Some may be associated with notable persons or groups, eitner historic or contemporary. Some may be distinctive in archi- tectural design, landscaping or other artistic features. Such buildings and areas contribute to the variety and vitality of the City by enriching the daily experiences of both resident and visitor. They form an important part of the community's 70 historic and cultural heritage which, if lost, cannot be replaced. Alternative Four The City should encourage moderate and high density redevelopment within the Study Area. However, such develop- ment should be permitted only where suitable and where it can be related to the policies of a new comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. The ultimate approach toward the solution of the widely existing problems confronting the Study Area is the develop- ment of a new comprehensive plan accompanied by new land use control ordinances. These new documents will include means for dealing with a broader range of problems than merely the height and bulk of buildings and the use of land. They will bring together the sufficient information needed to facilitate planning, correct the most flagrant land use conflicts, protect existing development and improve the mutual compatibility of all land uses. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations set forth below relate directly to the physical development and improvement of the Study Area. Community Facilities Parks/Schools The of dual use of snoula ne continuea anaongjuly aevelopea. mere are two elementary schools and e unior high school with sufficient land to provide active recreational area. Because of the limited availability of vacant or open land within the Study Area, these school sites are virtually the only spaces available for active recreation. Existina narks and park facilities not suitable for active recreation and should be renovated into a downtown park that will provide informal passive recreation. Great improvements in the number and the quality of recreational facilities has been made during the last few years. However, the shortage of park acreage available is a major deficiency in park -type facilities and playgrounds in the Study Area. Streets 0 0 t is recommended in order to accommodate 71 The amount of traffic occurring in the Study Area is based predominately on the activities that occur nearby. The new land uses generate traffic which often congest the existing street system. Present circulation indicates that there is a wide variation in traffic type and quality. These variations should be reflected in an overall plan for circulation. (Detailed recommendations will be determined after the Area Transportation Study being prepared by the Johnson County Planning Commission is completed in the coming year.) Parking It is recommended that adequate off-street parking facilities 1L �b turLner recommenaea tnat on -street a not be permute on any arterial street. A so on -s on �/ii=a.l.Vl p L" LCS1LLCllLldl SLreeLS. Tne reaaer is rererrea to the Parking and Side Yards Study prepared by the Planning and Zoning Commission for specific recommendations. 0 APPENDIX 0 72 Past zoning actions occurring in the Study Area were studied in order to formulate a policy framework for land use and development. The zoning actions studied were separated into two classifications: zoning cases approved and zoning cases denied. The conclusions in regard to the policy implications of these cases are listed below: Zoning Cases Approved Civic Center Parking Lot (R3B to C2): Council initiated request for rezoning property bought by City. There are no policy implications confronting the Study Area involved in this zoning case. Approved. (1/21/69) Ray Lewis (M1 to C2 and R3A) Rezoning of an area generally bounded by Gilbert Street, Bowery Street, Dodge Street and the CRI&P Railroad was accomplished after a study of this area was made by the Planning Staff. It was determined that the proposed zoning was more conducive to the area than the present M1 zoning. Rezoning was approved. (2/2/71). Telephone Company (C2 and R3B to CB) Telephone Company bought property contiguous to its building for further expansion and requested rezoning for its present building and the newly acquired property. Request was approved by Council. (2/2/71). Zoning Actions Denied J. C. Dehler (R3A to R3B) Request for rezoning property at 922 E. College Street. Applicant wished to erect apartment house and contemplated 34 apartments under R3B rather than 26 apartments under R3A. The request for R3B was denied on the basis of "spot zoning and no justification for increasing density." (9/17/68) 0 0 73 By Petition (R3A to R2) Request for rezoning of area south of Burlington, east of Dodge, north of CRI&P Railroad and west of present R2 District. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of this request, assuming that the non -conforming uses resulting from an R2 classification would be undesirable, especially to area residents. (5/27/69) Abrams (R2 to R3A) Property faced R2 zoning and was removed from R3A zoning on the west side by two lots. Long block on which property is located required that school children used adjacent alley as walkway. Planning and Zoning considered this request to be a form of spot zoning. Request denied. (7/8/69) Ray Lewis (R3B to M1) Applicant was operating a tin shop in converted garage and wanted to convert to auto repair shop. Planning and Zoning determined that the M1 zone would be too close to the CBD and also disapproved of spot zoning. Denied. (8/12/69) Paul Schneider (R3A to C2) Request for rezoning an area located on the north side of an alley across from a C2 zone located on the south side. Other property to the north and east of the area was zoned residential. Planning and Zoning felt that the alley was desirable barrier separating R3A zoning from C2 zoning. Request denied. (12/2/69). James Pearson of Pearson Realty Company (R3B to C2) Owner of property proposed to demolish residence and adjacent residence and erect an office building. Planning and Zoning denied the request on the basis that it was spot zoning and would allow commercial intrusion in a predomi- nantly residential block. Denied. (11/23/71). Sgontz, Shively, Trott, Hoffman, Summit and Court Area (R3A to R3 and R2) Residents objected to the intrusion of multiple family structures upon older but well kept neighborhoods. Many residents of the area voiced opinions pro and con. Planning and Zoning attempted to defer decision until a study could be made but applicants insisted on a decision. Planning and Zoning denied. (9/19/72). (This zoning case initiated the Area Study of Study Area one.) 0 LI 74 Policy Guideline The action taken on these rezoning cases suggest several policy guidelines: -- Zoning that will result in the enlargement or extension of non -conforming uses should not be allowed if it is not advantageous to proper land use. -- Spot zoning is considered to be detrimental to surrounding land uses and a deterrent to proper land development. -- Commercial zoning outside the CBD area should not be allowed until the need is demonstrated. -- There has been no substantial amount of rezoning occurring in the Study Area since 1962 when the area acquired its current R3A zoning district classification. 0 0 �— L =! i_l, HUNT ER 8` l-` SSOUATES,�INC_ 1: R11A9 f.GCNn.+nt1: oLv[Lof•,+l e_�I t' I•i Ur:r A6t MIM.'. I-INANCIAL NIALr515 Mr. Neal G. Berlin City Manager 410 E. Washington Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Neal, MARYLAND NATIONAL RANK BUILDING 160 SOUTH s'rREET ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND 2.1401 1:101) 7_G�-U365 September 28, '1J77 I believe the To'+a City staff review session yestorday in Iowa City was very good and resulted ilt sound recowmendaLions to Council for designating devc]opers for the 13 urban renewal parcels. It was evident from yestorday's discussion that all staff had expended considerable time and eff.or.t. revic,•;ing each proposal, and ensuing us disccin -otris based on a deen carni-1i.arity with the opportuni.Li.es and shortcomings associated with each proposal. Congratulations to you and your able staff. The record should nota thni: we o:erc ropresenLc:l at the staff meeting and made clarifying comments and posed questions as to substantive do:vtlopment concerns. lie dial not participate in a formal review of submissions or vote on preferences. The recommendations are those of IONa C:iLy staff. for. acCion by City Council. lie believe the recom1.nclations to be fornarded to Council will result in maa:ketable, implementable private clevclopmcnt. We did raise a few concerns, however, wh:icla 1 believe were agreed to by ntaff. ],lamely: ]. Council should exercise careful design review of development on 82-11,, because of .its critical location near the focal point at the intersect.i.on of College and Dubugnec. 'Cho recommended developer is capable of. providing ::m aLtractivc building, but every caution musC be taken to proL•cet surrouncli.np private and public investment by requiring a Most aUracti.ve :a:ructure. 3$30 0 C1 7_UC1-lcLLl_ HUNjy. R 8• ASSOCIATES. INC. t•l.r.. Berlin 0 -2- ScpLowlj-x 28, 1977 2 Council should be ansured that any deli-c*Y"atecl developer. for the College Block building have adequate f:i.nancinq and an excellent team of: architects and contractors CXper:Lenced in build- ing rennovation. 3. Council should consider, as staff did, the desir- ability of consoli.dating small parcels w.Uh adjacenC land to avoid ].and ownership fragmentaLi.on which may preclude larger scale, future development. With additional economic development, future g:rowLh pressures in the downtot.n should be accommodated on parcels which can be readily assembled. 4. Old Capitol Associates should be required by Council to remove contingencies on their bid for Parcel 93-3. 1f they :refuse, the parcel must be rebid. OCA should also be required to take posses- sion of the land on a more e>:peditious basis than Proposed. 5. Council must recognize :ale dif.fi.culL'y 1.n successfully .implementi.ng the reL'ail mall on Block 83/84 and must be prepared to work closely with thc:ilevnloper to ensure a successful project. G. 'Phe city must determine fair market value as soon as possible for the parking l.ot acljaceuL to Parcel. 103-3 for. sale to the designated developer. r 7. ]'he city should be preparing for a revenue band issue for tlrc. first parking garage. The larking ]intcrp.rise Pund should he strengthened in anticipation of bond issues. As indicated in previous submissions,o.f: financial materials, city parking rates should be increased 54 per hour, as soon as possible. S. Designation of developers should not be delayed beyond October. 18, for any foreseeable reason. Sufficient information is available to make decisions, and delay would create a loss of credibility for the renewal program. Minor issues, design consideration and contract language can he. r.r_solvecl after: designa- tion of the preferred developer. 2 " UCI-28L D1r. Berlin 0 • -3- HUNTER & ASSOCIATE,. INC._ September 28, 1977 Both non Zuchelli and I stand ready to assist you and Council in your deliberations should any questions arise. We look forlaard to hearing from you as Iowa City proceed_,, through this exciting implementation stage. With best regards, Sincerely, ZUCIIELLI, HUNTER 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. Scott D. MacDonald Senior Associate SDM:jg cc: Paul Glaves Don Zuchelli 0 City of Iowa Citp MEMORANDUM DAYli September 29, 1977 TO: City Council FROM: City Manager RE: Land Disposition Recommendations, Iowa City Downtown Urban Renewal Project 1. Background Statement: The City of Iowa City initiated a land disposition program for the downtown Urban Renewal Project in May 1976, having had the previous disposition agreement with Old Capitol Associates invalidated by court decision in the case Eastham et al v. City of Iowa City. The City Council, with assistance from the staff and a consultant, Zuchelli, Hunter and Associates, reviewed in detail the Urban Renewal Plan, the parking system, the financial plans, and several options for a land marketing program. The City Council decided to allocate sufficient Community Development Block Grant funds to fully cover the "value of land in inventory" of Project Iowa R-14, to transfer control of the land from the LPA to the municipality, and to under- take a land disposition program directly by the municipality pursuant to the CDBG regulations. The City issued a solicitation of offers to purchase 13 development sites on July 15, 1977, with the deadline for receipt of proposals established as 12:00 Noon, September 15, 1977. The City received thirty-four offers to purchase from 29 bidders, constituting 43 specific bids to purchase development sites. The staff review team composed of the individuals listed in Attachment 1 to this report have individually and collectively reviewed all proposals received. The minutes of the staff review meetings are enclosed. Where deemed necessary, additional information was sought from bidders through telephone calls, letters, or meetings. In all cases the recommendation is to desi nate a developer. Such designation does not constitute an acceptance of t e o er. The acceptance will come only upon complete agreement and execution of a mutually agreeable disposition agree- ment. 2. Recommendations: The recommendations regarding each development site are stated and explained below. The bids received, the recommendation, and the reasons for such recommendation are listed by site. Attachment 2 to this report provides a summary of the recommendations. Land Disposition Recommendations Page 2 Block 64: (Hotel site) a. Bids Received: #16 Dey Building Corporation #17 Old Capitol Associates b. Staff Recommendation: k16 Day Building Corporation c. Basis for Recommendation: Both proposals received met the minimum requirements specified for this site as set forth in the Prospectus. The Dey proposal included a 140 room hotel, a restaurant, retail space oriented to City Plaza on the College Street alignment, direct auto access from the parking to the hotel for hotel patrons, and an interior garden arrangement. This is a sophisticated design which recognizes and deals with the complexities of the public-private mixed use of the block. Old Capitol Associates (OCA) proposed a hotel of from 80 to 150 rooms, to be a minimum of 2 stories and a maximum of six stories in height, a restaurant, and an unspecified amount of retail as an optional feature. Due to the variable nature of the proposal as submitted, members of the staff met with OCA, delivered a request for clarification, and received additional information by letter and drawing, as requested. The response indicated that OCA intended to construct substantially the same hotel as was proposed by them in 1973. This clarified the statement contained in the proposal, "At the present time 150 rooms appears most feasible, how- ever, actual size to be consistent with operatorsifeasibility and market studies at time of development." (See proposal, p. 27) OCA proposed the parking ramp location be a rectangle 180' n -s by 223, a -w on the southeast corner of block 64. (p. 26) This ramp configuration is not wholly consistent with the triangular hotel plan submitted in 1973 and referenced in the letter dated September 23, 1977. The juxtaposition of the triangular hotel with the rectangular parking structure is inferior to the Dey proposal from a design standpoint. Both proposals come from local investment groups which have linkages with other firms. The Dey Building Corporation has identified its architect, and has identified an experienced, major development company and a feasibility analyst with considerable hotel development experience. This design/ implementation team approach indicates a well thought out, committed approach to this development, and an attention to detail lacking in the OCA proposal. (Note: Steps should be taken during contract negotiations to insure that the development team proposed is actually used on this project.) Land Disposition Recommendations Page 3 0 The Day Building Corporation appears to be in sound financial condition and presented evidence that the necessary equity requirements could be met. Corporate liquidity is excellent. OCA presented a financial statement showing liquid assets of approximately $220,000 partially offset by short-term liabilities, against a stated equity requirement of $1,500,000. OCA pro- vided assurances by letter that needed equity could be secured from existing participants in the venture. The actual equity requirement for CCA may be somewhat overstated because the cost estimate of $6,000,000 appears to be high. Costs for the Day proposal were estimated at $3.1 million by Schlaes and Co., at $2.8 million by City staff using Mean's Construction Cost Data (8 months old) and from $3.2 to $3.3 million by Zuchelli, Hunter and Associates. The OCA bid price of $275,625 exceeded the Dey bid by $25,625. However, as provided in the Prospectus, (p. 19),the staff considers this consideration as secondary in this case due to the overriding superiority of the Day proposal for the reasons set forth above. The Day proposal contained an unaudited financial statement. At the City's request, an audited statement was presented on September 26. The staff recommends that the City Council formally waive this irregularity because the defect had no material effect on the substance of the offer, or the clear advantages contained therein. Parcel 81-1: a. Bids Received: 011 Donald Kerf 021 Richard Pieper 024 Things G Things $ Things 030 Strub Building Partnership b. Staff Recommendation: 021 Richard Pieper c. Basis for Recommendation: Bid number 21 and bid number 24 were both clearly superior to the other two on several grounds. Bid number 30 from the Strub Building Partnership was vague in that no clear intentions regarding the use of an addition to the Strub Building (Rosheks) could be stated until the lease expiring in 1979 was renewed or terminated. This delay in specific planning is clearly inferior to the proposals from Mr. Pieper or Things. The proposal from Mr. Kerf was incomplete in several respects, including a lack of required documents as set forth in the Prospectus. The use of the parcel for a delicatessen would pose goods delivery problems to this parcel which is without alley access, and could pose egress problems due to occupancy on this constrained site. Land Disposition Recommendations Page 4 is The Things $ Things 8 Things proposal has considerable merit, but is judged to be slightly less desirable on balance than the Pieper proposal. Both the Things and Pieper proposals would serve to provide investment opportunities for existing, viable, small businesses. The Things proposal would serve to provide expansion space for an existing business which would serve to reinforce the vitality of a unique, larger (not "small shop") business in the CBD. The Pieper proposal would allow an equitable ownership by an additional small business in the CBD, serving to provide added diversity in CBD ownership. Any goods delivery problems caused by the lack of alley access and required on street loadings could be slightly aggravated by increased floor space and inventories for Things, while the service nature of the Pieper land -use (barber shop) would minimize the needs for on street goods deliveries. The front facade depicted in the Pieper proposal was not completely satisfactory when compared to the existing facade of Things 6 Things fi Things (which by implication could be extended) but because the City will by contract retain design review authority a satisfactory design can be obtained. The staff, Design Review Committee, and City Council should be prepared to require a more acceptable facade. The bid price of $9,200 in the Pieper proposal exceeds the Things F, Things E Things bid by $1,200 and in the judgement of the staff is not outweighed by any clear superiority on other grounds. Accordingly, the staff recommends that Richard Pieper be designated the preferred developer of Parcel 81-1. Parcel 82-1a: (College Block Building) a. Bids Received: 01 A & A Coins 03 Eicher, Yoder Partnership 05 Environmental Investments 07 Preservation Investments 09 John Bovey 010 Ju -Li Corporation 012 Iowa Research Center Associates, Inc. 017 Old Capitol Associates 026 College Block Associates 029 Gene Gessner Development Company — 034 College Block Partners b. Staff Recommendation: A majority of the staff review team favors number 7, Preservation Investments. A minority of the staff review team favors number 34, College Block Partners. Each of these proposals is superior in certain respects and the staff did not reach a concensus. The City Manager, on the basis of the written record submitted, recommends the designation of proposal number 34 submitted by the College Block Partners. Land Disposition Recommendations Page 5 c. Basis for Recommendation: The City received a large number (11) of proposals for this parcel and many were excellent proposals. However, each proposal received also contained some material weakness when compared with other proposals. Certain key variables were addressed by the staff in this review. These are detailed below. These variables are sub -categories of the Proposal Evaluation Criteria published at page 30 in the Prospectus. (1) Quality and Creativity of Proposed Development. (2) Plans for Exterior Restoration. (3) The Interior Treatment Does the proposed development achieve a high quality, authentic, restoration of the structure in a way which respects not only historic concerns but also respects modern surroundings in the post 1977 period? (4) The probability of achieving market acceptance. (5) Compatibility with the Standards, Objectives and Controls set forth in the Urban Renewal Plan and Disposition Documents. Are the uses proposed consistent with the location of the structure on City Plaza and do the uses and/or tenants proposed appear likely to be stable, and of long term benefit to the City Plaza environment? (6) The Developers Experience and Qualifications. (7) Experience of principals and key staff which will be involved in the project. Does the offeror have any restoration experience or other supporting background? Has an architect with restoration experience been indicated? Has a builder with restoration experience been indicated? (8) Availability of financial resources. Does the offeror demonstrate the availability of sufficient equity capitol? Does the offeror demonstrate the ability to secure long term, permanent financing for this development? Does the offeror demonstrate an assured cash flow through tenant interest or tenant committments? Do any tenants indicated, demonstrate the financial resources to provide any required tenant improvements, and a reasonable background needed to provide business success? 0 0 Land Disposition Recommendations Page 6 These specific variables were examined in detail by the staff, in addition to addressing all the Criteria listed in the Prospectus. The initial staff review resulted in several proposals being considered among the top three or four by several staff members. These top several proposals were then subjected to additional review by the staff individually and collectively. The following proposals were not given final consideration for the reasons cited. Proposal number 3 from Eicher, Yoder Partnership lacked specific restoration intentions and was keyed more to the improvement of the Hawkeye Bank than to the restoration of the College Block Building. Neither the principals nor any identified architect or contractor possessed restoration expertise. Proposal number 1 from A F, A Coins indicated a good arrangement of appropriate uses, but lacked any clear restoration plans, and lacked any identification of tenants except the principal, who would occupy one fourth of the structure. No particular expertise in restoration was indicated, except for the principal's obvious interest in antique coins and other items. Proposal number 9 from John Bovey included a use for the ground floor which detracted from the attractiveness of the proposal. The proposal did not indicate any particular expertise or sensitivity to restoration, either on the part of the offeror or any retained individuals. Proposal number 10 from the Ju -Li Corporation proposed a use which was not fully compatible with either the building or the ambience the City is trying to create in City Plaza. No particular restoration skill or interest was demonstrated. Proposal number 12 from Iowa Research Center Associates, Inc., was incomplete in several material respects including a lack of forms required by the Prospectus. No particular restoration skill was exhibited, and no financial information was provided. Proposal number 17 from Old Capitol Associates indicated some knowledge of restoration and included an excellent illustration of the proposed building appearance. The written narrative regarding restoration was however less detailed than many proposals received. No tenant leasing or financing committments were demonstrated and no particular restoration expertise by either the developer or any retained individuals was cited or indicated. The proposals from Environmental Investments (05), Preservation Investments (H7), College Block Associates (M26), Gene Gessner Development Company (N29), and College Block Partners (H34) were superior to the others. n u Land Disposition Recommendations Page 7 41 College Block Associates (N26) exhibited both an interest and some experience in restoration. They had retained a consultant with considerable restoration expertise. They did not however have tenant committments, and did not specify a clear plan for use of the second floor. They had a letter of interest from a bank but no firm financing was committed. Equity position was however very good. There was a degree of appeal to the proposed "Amana style" restaurant but the staff disagrees concerning the advisability of a restaurant at this location. Gene Gessner Development Company (#29) presented an excellent proposal in several respects. The development narrative indicated an attention to detail, and knowledge regarding restoration. The developer has retained an excellent restoration architect with considerable experience. The developer would use the second story as the location of its offices, and had a verbal expression of interest, but no committment from an Ames restaurant for a first floor location. A construction loan had been committed subject to obtaining permanent financing, but permanent financing has not been obtained. The equity committment was not fully met, but the developer indicated by letter that additional personal assets could be provided if necessary. The developer himself has restoration experience, having participated in the restoration of Iowa's Old Capitol. Environmental Investments (#5) provided an excellent proposal, indicating an awareness and sensitivity to restoration. As a partnership composed of design professionals, they indicated prior experience in restoration. They demonstrated interest in the downstairs by a softwares retail tenant, but no actual committment. Other letters of interest were submitted, indicating a reasonable likelihood of leasing success. The design firm of the offerors did commit to the second floor. The offeror had secured a temporary loan committment but not permanent financing. Equity capitalization was not demonstrably insufficient, but was at least questioned. The second floor use by design professionals is in keeping with the original use of the structure, but does not serve to particularly enhance the area with a high pedestrian generation rate. Environmental Investments retained a consultant with substantial downtown rehabilitation experience in Mason City, Iowa. The individual retained also indicated an interest in occupying a portion of the building. 0 Land Disposition Recommendations Page 8 0 The Preservation Investments and the College Block Partners pro- posals were clearly superior to the others in several ways. Both contained well thought out restoration plans, both had long term financial committments, both had reasonable assurance of leasing success, and both were submitted by principals with a deep interest in successful restoration of the structure. The key reasons cited by staff for favoring each proposal are cited below: A. In favor of Number 7 (Preservation Investments) or opposed to Number 34 (College Block Partners) The restaurant use is not as desirable a use. The restaurant use would pose goods delivery problems in the alley. The location is inappropriate for residential use on the second floor. The location adjacent to the focal point will have considerable night activity and will interfere with residential use. The experience of the architects (principals of the developer) is a key asset. The builder proposed by College Block Partners does not have demonstrated restoration experience. In favor of number 34 (College Block Partners) or opposed to number 7 (Preservation Investments) 1. The proposal submitted set forth the restoration to be done in the most detail of any proposal. Both interior and exterior restoration would in all respects exceed City requirements. 2. The restaurant use would place an existing, ongoing business in a key City Plaza location rather than new businesses which have a less assured chance of success. The use is clearly compatible with the surroundings, which includes other restaurants, would enhance pedestrian orientation, and would maximize the opportunity for the public to enjoy the interior restoration in a relaxed atmosphere. 3. The restaurant use would not aggravate alley loading problems because the site plan submitted provided an area for on site goods delivery, making this one of few locations in the CDD where the problem is easy to remedy. 4. The interest by the principals in Preservation Investments in restoration did not conclusively outweigh the interest in restoration exhibited by Mr. Zastrow. The fact that as architects the partners in Preservation Investments had restoration experience does not in and of itself outweigh the excellent attention to detail exhibited in the submission prepared by the architects retained by the College Block Partners. P Land Disposition Recommendations Page 9 0 S. The fact that the builder designated by College Block Partners lacks demonstrated restoration experience is not conclusively a detriment. Preservation Investments has designated no builder at this time, so the experience and qualifications of their builder cannot be judged. 6. The location is suitable for residential development. The urban ambience created by City Plaza, with evening activity, makes the location a suitable place for residential use. The staff unanimously recommends a development next door which will include residential use if office use is not feasible. (on Parcel 82-1b, see following recommendation) Additionally, the Urban Renewal Plan specifically calls for residential development in the CBD, and the City has deemed this area as the best location for a downtown hotel. City Plaza was designed with a night time population as well as a day time population in mind. The financial information submitted by the College Block Partners in the proposal and the reply to the request for additional information leaves no question concerning the financial capability of College Block Partners. There does exist some uncertainty in the financial information submitted by Preservation Investments. The Preservation Investments proposal states that the individual leasehold improvements will total approximately $120,000 to $130,000 for the three tenants. Attachment 6 to the proposal documents a committment for $50,000 of this to Wehner, Nowysz, and Pattschull. Attachment 7 indicates a committment to James Harris for "operating and inventory." In response to an inquiry regarding this matter, an additional letter was provided by the bank which stated, "It is our understanding that Mr. Harris is only to finance a limited amount of improvements, i.e., carpet, lighting, and shelves, with the majority of improve- ments to be financed by the purchaser, Preservation Investments." This conflicts with the statements in the proposal as follows: "It is estimated that the cost of improvements to the College Block Building will total $130,000 to $140,000, exclusive of land cost and tenant's leasehold improvements. The individual investment in leasehold improvements will total approximately $120,000 to $130,000 for the three tenants." "The funds for the individual leasehold improvements will be the responsibility of the tenants; Wehner, Nowysz and Pattschull, James Paine Harris and David Levin." The proposal does not indicate the source of Mr. Levin's funds for tenant improvements. This financial inconsistency may not be major, but does contribute 0 Land Disposition Recommendations Page 10 0 to the conclusion that financial capability is best demonstrated by College Block Partners. As indicated above, a vote of the reviewing staff favored Preservation Investments. The staff did not reach a consensus however. Upon subsequent review of the two proposals, and the written reasons sub- mitted for staff preferences, the City Manager has determined that on the basis of the published evaluation criteria, College Block Partners should be designated the preferred developer for Parcel 82-1a, and so recommends. Land Disposition Recommendations Page 11 Parcel 82-1b: a. Bids Received: 03 Eicher, Yoder Partnership 015 Iowa Research Center Associates, Inc. 017 Old Capitol Associates 022 North Bay Construction, Inc. Staff Recommendation: 022 North Bay Construction, Inc. Basis for Recommendation: Bid number 15 from Iowa Research Center Associates, Inc., was incomplete in several material respects, including a lack of required documents called for in the Prospectus. No assessment of developer's financial capability, or experience was possible. The offer was related to (but not contingent upon) an offer to purchase Parcel 82-1a. However, unless awarded to IRCA with the adjacent parcel, this offer is of only marginal usefulness, not calling for any specific development to take place. Bid number 3 from Eicher, Yoder was inferior from several respects. It was conditionally tied to the College Block Building and this parcel would have been of incomplete use if the two parcels were not combined. The proposal included a re -configuration of the parking and drive-in facility at the Hawkeye Bank (across the alley) and would have served to expand an auto - oriented use in the CB zone, and would have created an expanded and relocated accessory off-street parking facility which is not desirable at this location. The proposal would have increased congestion and vehicle loadings in the alley where existing vehicle loadings will prove a problem. Bid number 17 from Old Capitol Associates has considerable merit. The illustration depicting the proposed development was stunning. The combined use of Parcels 82-1a and 82-1b proposed by OCA would provide the most intense use of the two parcels. However, because of the reasons set forth in the discussion above for Parcel 82-1a, OCA was not recommended to develop the College Block Building. The City Manager, the Redevelopment Coordinator, and Scott MacDonald from Zuchelli, Hunter and Associates delivered a letter and met with OCA on September 22. The letter requested OCA to remove the conditional tie between parcels 82-1a and 82-1b (along with other conditional ties between parcels). At the meeting OCA indicated an unwillingness to undertake the development of Parcel 82-1b without 82-1a, and confirmed this unwillingness in their letter of September 23 by not removing this conditional tie (although they did remove certain other ties). 0 Land Disposition Recommendations Page 12 0 The North Bay proposal has considerable merit. The proposed land -use, with retail on the first floor and basement will provide pedestrian generation at the focal point and pedestrian penetration eastward from the Superblock, reinforcing the vitality of the College Street axis of City Plaza. The intensity of use proposed is excellent with office on a second and (optional) third floor if supportable, and if not, with residential use on the upper floor(s). The proposal contains some ambiguity which must be eliminated during the 120 day period for contract execution following designation. A letter requesting additional clarification and information was delivered to North Bay on September 22, and a reply was delivered by Mr. Bailey on September 23. The staff questioned North Bay's willingness to negotiate the condition relating to financing contained in Section 2(e)l of the contract submitted. The developer replied that it is willing to negotiate on this matter. The staff also questioned North Bay regarding the design of the structure. The illustration contained in the proposal shows a structure which somewhat overpowers the College Block Building and which presents a design theme essentially horizontal in character which does not particularly enhance the College Block Building. North Bay replied that they were not committed to the exterior depicted in the illustration and would be willing to entertain a modification if the City so requested. This willingness, along with the City's retained design review authority will insure acceptability of design. The North Bay offer calls for a takedown within one year, but the developer indicated by letter in response to City inquiry a willingness to take title at an earlier date. E. Norman Bailey, the president of North Bay Construction, Inc., is highly knowledgeable regarding real estate and development. The proposal contains excellent references and reflects considerable local development experience. Mr. Bailey has demonstrated an ability to cooperate with the Building Department in prior dealings with City staff. North Bay lacks tenant or financing committments at this time. However, the competing proposal firm OCA also lacked either tenant or financing committments as well. The location of the parcel (adjacent to the Focal Point in City Plaza), the developer's knowledge and experience, and excellent reference from financial institutions serve to mitigate this concern. The bid price of $66,562 by Eicher, Yoder Partnership exceeded the North Bay bid by $16,562. However, because of the reasons set forth above, the staff considers this to be of secondary importance and recommends that North Bay Construction, Inc. be designated the preferred developer of Parcel 82-1b. C� Land Disposition Recommendations Page 13 • North Bay has indicated the desire to consider acquisition of a portion of the Dubuque Street right-of-way as suggested by Don Zuchelli. This additional disposition should be addressed by the City Council prior to the development of building plans by North Bay. Blocks 83 and 84: a. Bids Received: #20 Old Capitol Associates b. Staff Recommendation: #20 Old Capitol Associates c. Basis of Recommendation: The Old Capitol Associates proposal meets the requirements established by the City for this development site. Considerable effort was expended by Zuchelli, Hunter and Associates in an effort to attract bidders on this site. For a variety of reasons (detailed in a letter from ZHA previously submitted to the City Council) no competing bids were received for these blocks. While at least three developers have expressed an interest in this development, their bids were not submitted and the prospect of future bids from such developers is considered by the staff to be highly speculative, with no assurance that other bids can be secured. The OCA proposal contained a degree of uncertainty, so the staff requested additional information and met with the developer as explained previously. On the basis of the proposal received, supplemented with the clarification provided during the meeting and by letter dated September 23, the staff believes that the OCA development will be desirable. OCA intends to construct an integrated development constituting a downtown enclosed retail mall with attached parking. They propose an anchor tenant (department store) exceeding 50,000 square feet. They propose a rectangle 180' a -w by 345' n -s located in the southwest corner of the tract as the location of the parking ramp. OCA proposes that the major tenant occupy the space north of the parking ramp, and that the eastern portion of the tract contain a traditional mall arrangement, with a center common corridor with shops on both sider. A second level mezzanine would be partially constructed above the malled area, in the northeast corner of the tract, and OCA intends to expand the mezzanine southward as market demand permits. Land Disposition Recommendations Page 14 • The design and layout of the development is still preliminary, providing some opportunity for improvement prior to construction. The dimensions of the parking ramp specified by OCA will require a 5 story parking structure. The Prospectus stated a preference for a 4 story parking structure, but stated a willingness to consider a 5 story ramp. The acceptability of the ramp placement and dimensions has not been fully confirmed by staff or consultant analysis. Therefore, the proposed location must be considered tentative at this time. The proposed total square footage of retail space closely corresponds with the supportable retail space calculated by Zuchelli, Hunter and Associates. Expansion space is provided for in the preliminary plan under development by OCA. There is some staff opposition to the layout of this development, because of the placement of the parking structure, the fact that the parking is proposed to be 5 stories, the placement of the anchor tenant, and the less than full second story. Certain modifications to the form of contract contained in this proposal are of grave concern to the staff. Some of the modifications seem clearly unacceptable. The level of liquid assets shown on the balance sheet falls short of the equity needed for this development. However, it is likely that the needed equity can be raised from the venturers once the designation is awarded. It must be recognized that the economics of a development of this scale are fragile. This is compounded by the complexity added by the placement of public parking, integrated with private commerical development. The staff recommends that OCA be designated the preferred developer of blocks 83 and 84. There is some risk that the parking ramp location and design, the site plan, and the contract language, cannot be agreed upon. This risk seems minimal at this time, and the staff recommends that the City proceed to jointly develop this two block area cooperatively with Old Capitol Associates. i Land Disposition Recommendations Page 15 Parcel 93-1/101-2: a. Bids Received: #19 Old Capitol Associates #33 Pentacrest Garden Apartments • b. Staff Recommendation: #33 Pentacrest Garden Apartments c. Basis for Recommendation: The Pentacrest proposal is superior on several grounds. The Old Capitol proposal called for a "staged" takedown with conveyance of the property in thirds over the next two years. Construction would occur in stages, following conveyance. Pentacrest Garden Apartments proposed to take title to the property immediately, and proposed to begin construction this fall with completion within 18 months. Old Capitol Associates has not secured financing for this development, while Pentacrest has a loan committment sufficient to carry out the project. Pentacrest Garden Apartments proposes to retain ownership of the project, and to manage the property itself. OCA proposes to construct and reconvey the property as condominiums, or in groups of apartments for rent. This poses the potential of creating a troublesome ownership mix, with individually owned units intermingled with rental property, creating common area maintenance problems not found in either a "home owners" association or a managed rental property. The economic viability of this project as a rental complex appears solid, due to the location and amenities provided for in the plan. The density of the development at 28 units per acre allows an excellent arrangement, with the living areas buffered from Burlington Street by both plantings and space (parking area). The placement of the units parallel to the slope as it falls from east to west allows for effective use of the slope to design advantage by "stair stepping" the roofline. The exterior appearance proposed for the structures will be fully compatible with the Lindquist Center which is nearby. The City established a minimum price of $170,000 for this property for up to 80 dwelling units, plus $2,000 for each dwelling unit over 80. OCA proposed 108 dwelling units while Pentacrest Garden Apartments proposed 96. Both proposals offered the minimum price for the number of units pro- posed. Accordingly, the OCA bid price of $226,000 exceeded the Pentacrest bid by $24,000. However, due to the clear advantages from the Pentacrest proposal cited above, the price differential is considered secondary and not controlling. 0 Land Disposition Recommendations Page 16 Parcel 93-2: a. Bids Received: #18 Old Capitol Associates 1123 North Bay Construction, Inc. 1127 Hippee Oil Company #28 Ervin Lovetinsky b. Staff Recommendation: N2$ Ervin Lovetinsky c. Basis for Recommendation: The proposals were in two categories. Mr. Lovetinsky and Hippee Oil Company both desired to use the space as an expansion of their sites which both abut this parcel. Old Capitol and North Bay desired to construct on this site. Of the two proposals to use the parcel for expansion, the Lovetinsky pro- posal is superior from the standpoint of the City because use by Lovetinsky would eliminate an existing non -conformity with the established parking requirements. The Lovetinsky proposal also indicated the potential for future building expansion of an existing, viable small business. The North Bay and Old Capitol Associates proposals offered lower prices, but would serve to enhance the tax base. The North Bay proposal is pre- ferable to the OCA proposal because construction would occur sooner and the level of development was more intense. The North Bay proposal would, however, create a residential use abutting an auto repair garage and a service station, which are classic land -use incompatibilities. The anticipated development across the alley on Parcels 93-1 and 101-2 will serve to increase traffic concentrations in the alley. This is necessary if a new Burlington Street curb cut is avoided. Increasing the level of development on this parcel; increasing the need for parking off the alley; and not ameliorating the existing problem is not warranted for this parcel at this time. Accordingly, the staff recommends the designation of Ervin Lovetinsky for this parcel. Land Disposition Recommendations Page 17 Parcel 93-3: a. Bids Received: #19 Old Capitol Associates b. Staff Recommendation: Rebid, unless Old Capitol Associates will remove the contingent tie to 93-1/101-2. c. Basis for Recommendation: Contracting at this time, even for a conveyance and construction two years later is preferable to rebidding this parcel. However, Old Capitol Associates declined the City Manager's request to remove the contingent tie to 93-1/101-2, by letter dated September 23. OCA should again be offered this parcel. If they decline, the parcel will need to be rebid. Parcel 101-1: a. Bids Received: #6 Perpetual Savings and Loan #19 Old Capitol Associates b. Staff Recommendation: #6 Perpetual Savings and Loan c. Basis for Recommendation: The ultimate ownership and use of the parcel is identical for both bids. OCA proposes to pass ownership to Perpetual at cost. Perpetual proposes to purchase directly from the City. No reason exists not to convey directly to the ultimate user. Parcel 102-1: a. Bids Received: #14 M $ G, Inc. #18 Old Capitol Associates #25 Fairbanks Investors, Partnership #31 Mod Pod, Inc. b. Staff Recommendation: #31 Mod Pod, Inc. c. Basis for Recommendation: Proposal number 14 from M 6 G, Inc., was incomplete in several material respects, including a lack of required forms called for in the Prospectus. Additionally, the use proposed (donuts and coffee) is inappropriate on such a small site (without parking) south of Burlington, outside of the pedestrian oriented and natural "walk in" area. Land Disposition Recommendations Page 18 Proposals number 18 from Old Capitol Associates and number 25 from Fairbanks Investors both offered the advantage of land assembly, but from this stand- point the Fairbanks proposal is superior because they own the contiguous, abutting property, while OCA would need to acquire the abutting land from Fairbanks. The ability to assemble the land into a larger tract offers some distinct advantage. However, the Fairbanks proposal contemplates the assembly for resale to an unspecified developer for an unspecified use. The time frame in which such unknown development might occur is totally open ended in the proposal. Discussions with representatives of Fairbanks regarding this parcel date back nearly a year. It has been repeatedly pointed out by staff that the City would solicit offers to purchase and develop this site. The representa- tives of Fairbanks were cautioned that a bid on this parcel which did not identify a use and intensity would be an irregularity. In the judgement of the staff this constitutes ample time to develop a plan for the use of the larger parcel, contingent on receipt of Parcel 102-1. Proposal number 31 from Mod Pod, Inc., constitutes a reasonable level of development of this small parcel. It is an appropriate location for the use proposed. The development would occur without delay and under existing codes and ordinances would not preclude the full development of the abutting property. The bid price from Mod Pod, Inc., of $19,000 exceeds the competing bids by $7,000, and supports the conclusions cited above. Parcel 102-2: a. Bids Received: N8 Warren McAllister #13 Institutional Management, Inc. #18 Old Capitol Associates b. Staff Recommendation: #18 Old Capitol Associates c. Basis for Recommendation: Proposal number 13 from Institutional Management, Inc., is incomplete in several material respects including the lack of required forms called for in the Prospectus. The staff is unable to determine the exact nature of the proposal or the bidder's capability of carrying out the project. 0 Land Disposition Recommendations Page 19 Proposal number 8 poses two distinct problems. The Prospectus solicits a non-residential use and the proposal contains two apartments on the second floor. It is arguable that the non-residential specification should have referred to the ground floor only, but it did not, and the legal staff advises that the irregularity is of a magnitude which should not be waived. The definition of "Dwelling -Two Family" and the definition of "Dwelling" set forth in Section 8.10.3A of the Municipal Code define the two dwelling units so that they are not allowed in the CBS zone pursuant to Section 8.10.14a of the Municipal Code. The Code does allow "multiple dwelling units" but defines a "multiple dwelling" as one which contains more than two units. Proposal number 18 from Old Capitol Associates, calls for a pass through of ownership to one of the investors in Old Capitol Associates who owns the property abutting this parcel to the west. The parcel would be used as accessory off street parking for the office presently occupied by the Chamber of Commerce. This offers some advantages due to the convenience of the parking, but this is considerably offset by the fact that the location is 1 block from one proposed parking ramp and a half block from the other. The OCA proposal does offer the advantage of future land assembly in an area where fragmented ownership has historically hampered redevelopment. The bid price offered by proposal number 8 of $16,100 exceeds the OCA bid by $2,100. Due to the irregularity cited above, and the zoning problem, bid price cannot be controlling. The only alternative to awarding the parcel to OCA is to rebid the parcel. The staff does not, however, recommend rebidding because of the land assembly advantages cited above. Parcel 102-3,4: a. Bids received: 418 Old Capitol Associates #32 First Federal Savings F, Loan Association b. Staff Recommendation: #32 First Federal Savings F, Loan Association c. Basis for Recommendation: The First Federal proposal is superior on several grounds. The OCA proposal offers a high degree of ambiguity, and an unnecessary level of uncertainty for the City. The primary intent is for OCA to seek to develop a convenience center with goods and services oriented to serve the needs of the occupants of the elderly housing complex across the street. A secondary possibility would be to develop this site for medical offices. 0 0 Land Disposition Recommendations Page 20 OCA contends that such a convenience center would not compete directly with the retail development on 83-84. However, in the judgement of the staff and consultants some such direct competition would result. The proposed tenant mix for the convenience center cited in the OCA letter of clarification dated September 23 does overlap with likely tenants on 83-84. In addition to direct competition which may detract from the long run viability of the 83-84 development, direct competition with other existing CBD businesses from a peripheral location is contrary to Objective "d" in Section B(2) of the Urban Renewal Plan which calls for establishing a land use pattern arranged in compact, compatible groupings. OCA itself adds some question concerning the economic viability of such center by citing the office use as an alternative should the convenience center not be marketable. First Federal presents a clear, distinct proposal to use the parcel for a financial institution with an auto -oriented drive -up facility. Additional office space oriented to the Courthouse or Federal Building is viable. Certain services oriented directly to the elderly might be accommodated in the lease space, without detracting in any way from the establishment of a compact CBD, north of Burlington Street. The site plan proposed is good, although minor modifications of the parking are warranted. The bid price offered by First Federal exceeds the OCA offer by $1,000. This consideration is minimal and not controlling, but does support the conclusions cited above. Parcel 103-3: a. Bids Received: 02 Levy, Malone, and Company 04 Knutson Companies 018 Old Capitol Associates b. Staff Recommendation: 018 Old Capitol Associates Basis for Recommendation: The solicitation statement contained in the Prospectus states, "Any developer submitting a bid for this site with a HUD subsidy committment will be highly favored." OCA received a HUD Section 8 subsidy committment for this site on September 16. The proposal submitted to the City on September 15 did not specifically commit OCA to build the 81 Section 8 units because it was not until the next day that the announcement was made. In response to the City's request for clarification and additional information, OCA provided the letter dated September 26, indicating their intent to build the 81 units subsidized by HUD. Land Disposition Recommendations Page 21 The proposals by Levy, Malone, and Company and by the Knutson Companies were both contingent on receipt of a HUD subsidy allocation. Knutson Company's financial position and experience is superior to either OCA's or Levy, Malone and Company's. However, the likelihood that Knutson Company could secure a HUD allocation in the near future is speculative at best, and not considered particularly likely. Mid States, (which built Autumn Park) is affiliated with OCA by their pro- posal to HUD, and has an excellent track record in the production of elderly housing. Accordingly, the staff finds no sufficient basis to override the preference stated in the Prospectus. The OCA proposal includes an offer to purchase the parking lot north of Parcel 103-3 at $33,500. The staff recommends that such a disposition is in the best interests of the City, but not necessarily at the price stated. The City should determine the value of the parking lot and dispose of it at a price and in accordance with the statutes governing the sale of Municipal, Non -Urban Renewal, land. 3. Additional Recommendations: a. Perpetual Savings and Loan Association and North Bay Construction, Inc. provided audited financial statements, but these statements were more than sixty days old. Interim statements were not submitted. The staff recommends that these irregularities be waived because they have no substantive impact on the developer designations or on the development which will occur. b. Perpetual Savings and Loan Association and North Bay Construction, Inc. should be required to submit interim financial statements for review prior to execution of the disposition agreements. Attachment X1 R E V I E W S T A F F Neal Berlin - City Manager Paul Glaves - Redevelopment Program Coordinator Dennis Kraft - Director, Department of Community Development Rick Geshwiler - Senior Planner Don Schmeiser - Senior Planner Dick Plastino - Director, Department of Public Works Jim Brachtel - Traffic Engineer John Hayek - City Attorney Rosemary Vitosh - Director, Department of Finance Mike Kucharzak - Director, Department of Housing G Inspection Services Dawn Chapman - Redevelopment Specialist Sue Sheets - Redevelopment Specialist Harvey Miller - Police Chief Bob Keating - Fire Chief Dennis Showalter - Director, Department of Parks $ Recreation Scott MacDonald - Consultant, Zuchelli, Hunter G Associates Attachment k2 S U M M A R Y O F S T A F F R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S Parcel Number Preferred Developer 64 Dey Building Corporation 81-1 Richard Pieper 82-1a College Block Partners 82-1b North Bay Construction, Inc. 83-84 Old Capitol Associates 93-1/101-2 Pentacrest Garden Apartments 93-2 Ervin Lovetinsky 93-3 Rebid or Old Capitol Associates 101-1 Perpetual Savings and Loan Association 102-1 Mod Pod, Inc. 102-2 Old Capitol Associates 102-3,4 First Federal Savings and Loan Association 103-3 Old Capitol Associates 7 MINUTES PRELIMINARY STAFF REVIEW MEETING URBAN RENEWAL SEPTEMBER 21, 1977 -- 1:00 P.M. CITY MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM 0 STAFF PRESENT: Berlin, Brachtel, Chapman, Child, Geshwiler, Glaves, Keating, Kraft, Kucharzak, Kushnir, Miller, Plastino, Schmeiser, Sheets, Showalter, Siders, Vitosh CONSULTANT: Scott MacDonald Neal Berlin said the purpose of the meeting was to share information and to Present significant ideas regarding each proposal submitted for Urban Renewal parcels. Some of the comments made regarding individual proposals and respective parcels are listed as follows: PARCEL 64-1 DEY Building Corporation Miller: No problem with the proposal from the standpoint of public safety. Brachtel f, Sheets: A possible problem with the entryway and adequate visibility. Plastino F, Keating: Prefer this proposal for Parcel 64-1. Vitosh: Audited statement was not submitted, therefore, no substantiation of financing could be made but the proposal "looks good". Showalter: Preferred this proposal's landscaping. Kraft: Prefer this proposal -- it is more specific than Old Capitol's proposal. 140 units ;ire proposed which is more than the Old Capitol proposal. Kucharzak A more specific proposal. Secondary egress and accessibility 6 Siders: for the handicapped may be a problem. Architect may present problems -- history with architect indicates some unwillingness to accept suggestions. Chapman: Looks good. Geshwiler: Shows sophistication. Design may present problem with narrowing College Street. Old Capitol Associates Kushnir: Some problems with wording of contract. Miller: No problem with the proposal from the standpoint of public safety. Vitosh: Question of equity in regard to financing. Kraft: Reference is made to 80-150 units, however, commitment is only made to'80 units. Kucharzak: Not enough detail. Question of how to implement the Tree Ordinance. Chapman: Not enough information. Geshwiler: Old Capitol failed to put together a design. Scott MacDonald, Zuchelli, Hunter and Associaties, stated'ihat additional infor- mation was being requested from Old Capitol Associates and would be made available to the Staff when the information was received. 0 0 -2- PARCEL 81-1 Donald Kerf Brachtel: The suggestion of a fast food service should he deleted from the proposal. Keating: With a fast food service, there would be a problem getting a second exit. Kushnir: No information was available. Richard Pieper Kraft: This is one of the two best proposals. Vitosh: Does have an approved loan. Plastino: Think the location is a "natural" for a barber shop. Keating: Prefer barber shop to a fast food service. Kushnir: The contract contains a modification, however, it would appear to be nothing serious. Miller: More specific information on this proposal. Things g Things 6 Things, Inc. Kraft: This business has already proven itself to be a very viable business. It is a good proposal. Strub Building Partnership Schmeiser: Do not strongly advocate this proposal but question what will happen to Roshek's. Miller: Too vague. Showalter: Question why a lesser amount of money was deposited than indicated at the beginning of the proposal. Geshwiler questioned whether a new building is needed or whether space should be allowed for building expansion. Schmeiser felt big stores are needed downtown and thought plenty of places would be available to relocate a barber shop. Plastino felt it would be desirable to have as many individual shops as possible. PARCEL 93-1 and 101-2 Old Capitol Associates Kraft: Looks like a "staged take down," Kucharzak: Too vague. Would not retain management and ownership but would look for someone else to buy. Geshwiler: Lot area coverage would be approximately 28%, yet 30% landscaping is also indicated. There is an element of confusion. Vitosh: May be a financial problem. Pentacrest Garden Apartments Kraft: Looks superior. Kucharzak: Cost per square foot seems realistic. Has ample parking. Good track record for performance. Would retain ownership and management. 0 -3- (Pentacrest Garden Apartments continued) Geshwiler: Looks good. The City's (lousing Report must have been read. Vitosh: Financing would seem to be stable. Good references. Slicets: May be a traffic problem in that additional traffic would be coming out of the alley onto Burlington Street without a traffic light. Geshwiler: No plans are shown for taking care of trash receptacles. Brachtel: Perhaps eastern alley in Block 101 could be made one-way south down to Court Street to more effectively accommodate the traffic flow. Schmeiser noted that the proposals would require LSRD plan approval. Berlin pointed out that there would be two major steps before any plans would be finalized. Brachtel pointed out a possible problem with the City Codes with regard to parking. One and one-quarter parking spaces per dwelling unit would not be adequate, he said, and suggested that there should be two and one-quarter parking spaces per dwelling unit. PARCEL 93-2 Old Capitol Associates No comments. North Bay Construction, Inc. Plastino: Not an appropriate area for residential construction. Geshwiler: Seems best. There are other apartment developments contiguous to this. Kraft: In terms of benefits to the community, this proposal looks best. Kucharzak: May have parking problems. Hippce Oil Company, Inc. Kucharzak: Is okay according to City codes. Geshwiler: Seems wise to have a "new" use -- the way oil marketing is changing, the present structure may be removed in favor of self service. Ervin Lovetinsk Kucharzak: There is presently an existing non -conforming condition because of lack of adequate parking. The proposal would bring the use into conformity with the Zoning Ordinance. Geshwiler: Don't think that much parking is needed. Glaves stated that he would prefer buildings to parking lots. If the present parking situation is not critical, it may become so if a building is constructed, Plastino said. Berlin requested that the Community Development staff determine when changes in the Tree Ordinance will be implemented. -4 - PARCEL. 93-3 Old Capitol Associates 0 Plastino: Should rebid the parcel. Glaves: If contingency is not removed, then it should be rebid. PARCEL 101-1 Perpetual Savings and Loan Showalter: Might have Tree Ordinance problems. Old Capitol Associates Kraft: Old Capitol would plan to convey the parcel to Perpetual anyway, so why not deal directly with Perpetual? PARCEL 102-1 M and G, Inc. Kucharzak: Question whether it could even take place. Vitosh: Bank references gave us nothing. Old Capitol Associates Kucharzak: Looks like Old Capitol is trying to get an "assemblage." Fairbanks Investors, Partnership Plastino: The package of land seems most attractive. Glaves: Has an advantage in that another small parcel would not be created. Kraft: Think it is inconsistent to allow them to speculate on the land. Mod Pod, Inc. Gesh"wiler: Isn't a bad building. It is a good reuse of a small lot. Brachtel: Not realistic to assume parking won't be needed. PARCEL 102-2 Warren McAllister No comments. Institutional Management, Inc. Vitosh: Looks shakey financially. Old Capitol Associates Plastino: Should give it to Old Capitol. It is a "horrible place for residential construction." Geshwiler: "The only thing the Chamber of Commerce can think of is to put parking on it." 0 -s- 0 Because of the tax base, Gloves preferred a building to a parking lot. PARCEL 102-3 f, 102-4 Old Capitol Associates Glaves: Don't know what Old Capitol is going to do -- may be alluding to a drug store. Geshwiler: if elderly housing is going to be located across the street, a convenience center would relate very well. Chapman: Is it reasonable to assume a grocery store will go in? (Staff concurred that this would be reasonable.) Sheets: When you build elderly housing, HUD requires ancillary services. There is no reason to have it across the street when you can have it in your own building. Schmeiser: Does add some versatility to downtown. First Federal Savings and Loan Kraft and Kucharzak: Looks sound. Brachtel: Think they have adequate "queuing", however, would like to change the parking lot configuration. Vitosh: No financial problems. MacDonald stated that there would probably be a drug store in the Old Capitol pro- posal for 83-84, however, it would be unlikely that a food store could pay the rent. PARCEL 103-3 Levy, Malone and Compan Glaves: When conflicts exist between Urban Renewal plan requirements and HUD Section 8 requirements, the Section 8 requirements will prevail. This is in conflict with the Urban Renewal documents. Levy, Malone and Company conditioned their bid in such a way as to allow partnership interests to be transferred or assigned without City approval. This is also in conflict with the Urban Renewal documents. Kucharzak: The proposal calls for one parking space for every two dwelling units. This would be permissible only after positive action by the Board of Adjustment in that the parking requirement is one space per dwelling unit. Knutson Companies Sheets: Knutson Company is "far superior" to Old Capitol Associates. The Company is "serious and committed." Showalter: Will Knutson Company provide a sufficient number of units which would be accessible to the handicapped? MacDonald: Am somewhat wary of Knutson's financial structure. Vitosh: The bank said there were no problems with the financial structure. Geshwiler: Knutson has experience and an excellent design for the site. -6- Old Capitol Associates Glaves: Old Capitol already has 111111 money for the site. Kraft: It is another contingency hid. Attempt needs to be made to separate 103-3 from the p:ircels in Mork 102. PARCEL 83-1 and 84-1 Old Capitol Associates Kraft: They have more information than they arc willing to give. Tactic used is to he too general. That way, they aren't tied to anything specific. Geshwiler: Having University office space in the building is letting down the community. if we can't get more clarification, should reject the proposal. Parking ramp location may create problems. Glaves: A range of acceptable retail uses has been specified. May be unwise to accept legal provisions. Contract language should he clarified. Question their financing. Plastino: Assumption they may not have to comply with Storm Water Management is erroneous. Berlin asked for arguments for or against rebidding the Parcel. Against Kraft: 'There would be a good possibility of litigation. The City doesn't need the reputation of turning down Old Capitol again. MacDonald: May not get anyone else to bid on the parcel. Rent would be approximately $9.00/sq. ft. Any additional requirements would increase the cost to the tenant. If rent goes up to $10-$11, most tenants could not afford to rent. Even though the proposal is not what we might have envisioned, should get what is economically possible to get. For Geshwiler: The proposal is not specific enough. Glaves: The financial structure may not be sound. PARCELS 82-1a AND 82-1b A and A Coins and Stamps No comments. Eicher, Yoder Partnership Brachtel: No on this -- traffic problems. E -7- I: nvi ronmenta I Investments Kraft: One of three that looks good (82-1a). Miller: Looks good (82 -la). Preservation Investments 0 Plastino, Brachtel, 6 Showalter: Looks good for 82-1a. Kraft: One of three that looks good (82-1a). Chapman: A super proposal (82-1a). My first choice. They would put their own business in the building. Kucharzak: My second choice for 82-1a. Keating: My preference for 82-1a. John Bovey No comments. JU-I.1 Corporation No comments. Iowa Research Center Associates, Inc. No comments. Old Canitol Associates Sheets: Like this, but have reservations (82-1b). Chapman G Geshwiler: From a design standpoint, it is superior (82-1b). MacDonald: Think the proposal is "stunning" for 82-1b. North Bay Construction, Inc. Plastino: Looks good for 82-1b. (Also suggest leaving it as mini -park.) Brachtel: A "nifty" idea (82-1b). Glaves: Their design is ridiculous (82-1b). Chapman: Building is atrocious, however, the City could possibly work with Mr. Bailey in coming up with a new design (82 -Ib). Schmeiser: Think the building is not out of scale for 82-1b. Geshwiler: My second choice for 82-1b. College Block Associates Geshwiler: My second choice for 82-1a. Gene Gessner Development Company Kraft: One of three that looks good (82-1a). Geshwiler: My first choice for 82-1a. 'think it is important to have a tenant in the building who owns the building. Also, their proposal shows extensive experience (Larimer Square in Denver) and a complementary restaurant proposal. 0 me College Block !'.rtners E Sheets: Looks good (82 -la). Prefer to see a business in that building; which already exists downtown. Chapman: My second choice for 82-1a. ('['here is no one presently hired by College Block Partners who has preservation technique capability.) Kucharzak: Has merit for 82-1a. Am bothered that tenants were not specified. Feel more confident when there is a firm tenant. Vitosh stated that most of the businesses listed arc newly formed corporations and in many cases there was not enough information to evaluate financial capability. However, no negative comments were received from banks. If' North Bay Construction Company will not redesign the building to a better blend with the College Block Building and Old Capitol will not take 82-1b as a separate parcel and develop it according to their illustrated design, Chapman thought Parcel 82 -lb should be rebid. Rrachtel was opposed to a food establishment in Parcels 82-1a and/or 82-1b and also indicated that a residential use might be troublesome. Glaves felt residential development might be appropriate in some areas of the downtown and expressed opposition to leaving 82-1b vacant. Showalter felt a tax paying business should be located on Parcel 82-1b. Siders would like to see a structure on 82-1b to provide building support to the building on 82-1a. Keating preferred having a building on 82-1b, however, would be opposed to a fast food service. Schmeiser felt the front arcade theme of the College Block Building should be carried out in whatever development is chosen for that parcel. The following people suggested that Parcel 82 -Ib remain vacant and/or used as a mini -park: Plastino, Miller, and Sheets. Plastinu questioned whether it was necessary to discuss why Old Capitol Associates had "packaged" their proposals. Berlin stated that they were probably taking a chance, i.e., what would they have to lose? MacDonald said it is much easier to evaluate two proposals when one has a plan, however, site plans were not requested. Old Capitol probably didn't want to be pinned down for possible future litigation, he said. Additional information is being requested from Old Capitol. Geshwiler questioned whether asking for clarification from Old Capitol was being fair to others who submitted proposals. Berlin noted that the City would ;o back to most other bidders to ask for clarification. Berlin requested the staff to be very specific with their comments and recommendations for the meeting to be held Monday, September 26th. lie suggested that questions similar to the following should be considered: Why did you recommend the proposal? What are the arguments against it/for it? Why did you feel it was inferior/superior? Any additional information that the staff has that pertains to the proposals should be taken into consideration, Berlin said. Prepared by: 1 Sherry Chill Secretary Dept. of Co munity Development 0 0 MINUTES URBAN RENEWAL STAFF MEETING SEPTEMBER 26, 1977 -- 8:00 A.M. HIGHLANDER INN STAFF PRESENT: Berlin, Brachtel, Chapman, Child, Geshwiler, Glaves, Hayek, Keating, Kraft, Kucharzak, Kushnir, Plastino, Saeger, Schmeiser, Schreiber, Sheets, Showalter, Siders CONSULTANT: Scott MacDonald Berlin asked Glaves to inform the Staff of additional information that had been received from developers since the meeting held on September 21st. He asked the Staff to consider the new information in their evaluations and asked that the evaluations relate back to the criteria outlined in the Urban Renewal Prospectus. The evaluations should be as specific as possible, he said, from both a positive and negative standpoint. Glaves explained that the City Council would be asked to designate a "preferred developer" -- this does not mean a development has been accepted, he said. There may be things which the offeror has inserted which arc not acceptable. It is necessary to determine the best development, he said, but it is also necessary to determine which is the best development with the highest likelihood of success. Glaves outlined "new" information that had been requested or received from the following corporations: Old Capitol Associates, Mod Pod Inc., North Bay Construction, Inc. and Fairbanks Investors. (Information was requested from Fairbanks, he said, but was not received.) Attached to these minutes are copies of letters sent to the developers from the City Staff and the responses received. Berlin pointed out that Old Capitol Associates would not plan to have office uses in the mall. It would be 100% retail, he said. MacDonald and Glaves indicated that Old Capitol Associates would plan to utilize some space for office use but they did not indicate where this would be. Berlin asked that this point be clarified with Old Capitol Associates as it was his understanding C 0 -2- that it would be strictly retail. E Glaves noted that one of the changes Old Capitol Assoicates had made was to separate in their bid the hotel (parcel 64-1) from parcels 82-1a and 82-1b, but they would not separate Parcel 82-1a from 82-1b from their bid. After discussing at length the financial capability of Old Capitol Associates, Berlin stated that if Old Capitol Associates comes up with a viable proposal that would provide an adequate monetary return, Old Capitol has indicated they will put up whatever money is necessary to meet the requirements of the project. Glaves pointed out that North Bay Construction Company has indicated a willingness to negotiate with the City to modify the contingency related to finances. Berlin again requested the Staff to base their recommendations on the established criteria in determining the best proposal. Do not relegate a proposal to a low priority just because some phase of the proposal may be conditional, he said. The City Council can ask that the condition be removed. If it can't be removed, Berlin said, then the second choice can be selected. nnorci rn_i Geshwiler felt the DEY Building Corporation proposal meets all of the stated and implicit objectives of the Urban Renewal plan. It is a superior, sophisticated proposal, he said, and the shops which face College Street are a nice touch which enhance its relationship to downtown. The Old Capitol proposal is unacceptable. It is too tentative and there was not enough information to adequately evaluate the proposal. Kucharzek recommended the DEY Building proposal but expressed concern about possible problems with the split level construction in regard to accessibility for the handicapped. Ile said he had some concern about the architectual firm designated. There was not enough information from Old Capitol. 0 0 -3- Siders also recommended the DBY Building proposal but thought the construction cost estimate might be a little low. The DEY Building Corporation proposal is superior, Showalter said. Ile expressed concern about Old Capitol's financial capability, lack of information submitted, and questioned whether Old Capitol could "pull off the whole thing" if awarded the contract. Plastino said he had no choice but to consider what had been presented. Old Capitol probably has the capability but their proposal does not provide enough information. If the financial capability of DEY is adequate, that is my choice, he said. Kraft noted the greater amount of specificity in DEY's proposal and felt the architect and developer both had a lot of experience with this type of development. The chance of the DEY Building Corporation's success seems much greater than Old Capitol's, he said. The Old Capitol proposal was too vague, Keating said, and he selected DEY because the financing seemed good, it met all the criteria set forth in the Urban Renewal plan, and he liked the buffer zone between the parking lot and the hotel. Schmeiser recommended DEY because DEY would seem to be in a better position to pull the project off, the proposal was reflective of a lot of thought that went into the preparation of the proposal, there would be an early completion date, and ownership would be retained by DEY. The Old Capitol proposal was so nebulous that it was difficult to know what they were proposing, he said, and he questioned Old Capitol's financial capability. Chapman also recommended DEY and noted that they offered more than the minimum requirements. She did, however, question whether the amount of retail might be 0 11 excessive. -4- • Sheets recommended the DEY proposal. They have demonstrated the ability to work with the public sector, she said. Old Capitol did not provide enough information and, in many cases, submitted less than the minimum requirements. Brachtel also recommended OEY. lie thought their plan would work very well even though there may be a problem with the geometric entryway and the way it ties in with the parking lot. If Old Capitol would stay with their present plans, there may be significant problems with the traffic layout. There would be a lot of shortcutting through and turning the hotel entryway into a collector street. The sketch of the Old Capitol plan was posted in the room for review purposes. Berlin now asked for further comments. Geshwiler stated that Old Capitol's plans would be introducing a vehicular environment at the end of Linn Street. Vehicular use should be kept as far away from pedestrian use as possible, he said. Kraft was concerned about vehicular cicrulation westward from Linn to College. If the new library is built on the proposed site, there would be a conflict of pedestrian traffic with vehicular traffic during access to and from the hotel. It is unclear what Old Capitol intends to do. Kucharzak expressed concern about management of the hotel in the Old Capitol proposal. Berlin stated that a management firm had been contacted by Old Capitol Plastino indicated that if Old Capitol has a triangular garage, it is likely that the cost per car space will go up. It will be a waste of prime development space to put a drive through there, he said. Berlin was not enthusiastic about a six -story building. -5 - Sheets questioned what role the site plans should have in their evaluations. Glaves responded that they were not requested but were optional. Schmeiser said more interest was expressed by DEY since they submitted design plans. Berlin noted a discrepancy in the dimensions of the Old Capitol bid and in the sketch they provided. Access to the site is a significant point, he said. Glaves pointed out that the previous vote was unanimous for DEY. Is anyone at this point changing their mind, he asked. No changes were noted. Berlin asked for arguments to give the parcel to Old Capitol. Glaves noted two possibilities for awarding the parcel to Old Capitol: 1) Old Capitol proposes 150 rooms which is slightly more than the DEY proposal, and 2) The cost estimate of $6 million would mean a higher tax return to the City, but it may not be economically viable. Kucharzak reiterated that the only way to make him change his mind is if Old Capitol would come up with a commitment for management of the hotel. Plastino noted that College and Dubuque is to be the focal point. The center of downtown is on Clinton. DEY has a lot of retail space on College. This retail will be a good "draw" to get pedestrians on College Street to the focal point. Glaves noted that the team work approach for DEY Building indicates some considerable familiarity with hotel development. Old Capitol does not cite previous experience with hotels but emphasizes consistently that they built Plaza Centre One. It was recommended that DEY Building Corporation be awarded Parcel 64-1. 0 -6- PARCEL 81-1 Brachtel felt that this parcel would be good for either contiguous owner, and disapproved of a fast food business primarily because of delivery problems. He felt Things would be the more suitable development of this parcel and cited the uncertainty of the lease arrangements for Rosheks. The owners of Things has a most attractive and innovative building presently and would most likely be more aggressive. Though both Pieper's and Things and Things and Things are existing businesses and both meet the Urban Renewal standards and qualifications, Sheets favored the barber shop (Pieper's). Her opinion was based on the philosophy of urban renewal -- that the City has a responsibility to relocate the Mall tenants that the City displaced. Chapman rated Pieper as acceptable and Things as very good. The recommendation for Mr. Pieper is with conditions because of the poor design for the store front. The City should negotiate with Mr. Pieper for a change in design. In the event that design negotiations fail, the parcel should be awarded to Things. Their business is cramped and is an asset to the community. Schmeiser favored awarding the parcel to Things. lie noted that Things is one of the larger and more successful businesses in the downtown area and carries a unique line of items. They add diversity to the downtown and retail district, he said. It is critical to retain and maintain larger retail stores downtown. This parcel would enable them to expand to larger retail floor area. Ile rejected Pieper's proposal because the barber shop can be relocated in one of the many small retail spaces that will be available downtown. Architecturally, Things would try to tie in the store front with the existing establishment which would give a better appearance. Keating liked the proposal of Pieper. It meets all the criteria and financing looks good, he said. The completion date is early and we have an obligation to relocate Mall businesses. Things was his second choice. There are problems with Strub, he said, and was not in favor of fast food services. Kraft noted that both the proposal for the barber shop and Things were acceptable, but he preferred Things. It appears to be a more intensive use of the land, he said. Things' proposal would allow for the utilization of the smoke tower to provide a secondary means of egress. This sort of business needs to expand downtown. The present building is architecturally interesting. The Strub proposal is too vague. Hayek noted that it made a lot of sense to incorporate this small parcel with an adjacent parcel. Plastino added that a separate owner of this parcel would add more to the tax base. There is some "health" to economic diversity, he said. To expand a present business does not add as much to the economic diversity or the tax base. Ile added that Things is a unique business now but they will have more competion when the Mall opens. Showalter favored Things in spite of the fact that they submitted a smaller offer. lie felt the barber shop could go into another location whereas Things cannot. The owner of Things (Tom Wcgman) has shown an ability to work with the public sector. There would be a higher chance of success with Things. Siders favored the barber shop and Things, but noted that Things would be a better use. It would generate more pedestrian traffic than the barber shop. Ile noted his experience in working with the owner of Things and also mentioned the fact that it is easier to work with a contiguous property owner. lie will blend the 0 new building in with the existing structure. A cost of $20,000 is low. Stroh's proposal is vague and does not specify the number of stories. Kucharzak preferred the Things proposal but noted Pieper's would also be acceptable. He thought that the pedestrian traffic Things would generate was a turning point in his preference for Things. Geshwiler recommended Things with the barber shop as a second choice. He noted this is the only place for Things to expand. The Strub proposal and fast food service are undesirable. lie noted that Things will build one story with a possible second story later and will not build at all until modulars are removed. Keating noted that both Things and Pieper's meet fire code provisions. Berlin asked for comments regarding the City's obligation to relocate Mall tenants. Kraft noted that hotels often need barber shops and suggested that Pieper's might be able to relocate in the new proposed hotel. MacDonald noted that frequently some subsidy is granted when barber shops locate in hotels but he cautioned against voting against Pieper's on that basis. Glaves stated that the City will not have filled their obligation to provide assistance until all businesses are permanently located. Glaves recalled a previous discussion of the fast food service when the difficulty of loading goods from Clinton Street was mentioned of the Things'proposal with Pieper's This was a consideration in his comparison He noted that he was "on the fence" between these two proposals until he referred to the summary sheets and noted that Pieper's had bid $9,200 as opposed to Things' bid of $8,000. He could not find sufficient reasons to overcome the price bid differential. This is reinforced by the goods delivery problem, he said. Sheets noted that Things has one door and an expansion will not increase pedestrian traffic. -9 - Berlin asked for a vote. Five were in favor of the barber shop and six voted for Things. MacDonald noted that Things requires one floor of space and the barber shop requires one floor. He asked if there was any way that an arrangement could be worked out where the barber shop could have space on the ground floor and Things on the second floor. Berlin noted that there may be foundation problems on the site and it may be impossible to build a second floor. Siders added that a second story may be able to be worked out but it would probably be a problem. The barber shop does not plan to have a basement but Things doesn't say that. Construction of a basement may cause problems. Kucharzak added that the owner of Things will undoubtedly be concerned about aesthetics whereas the barber shop would not be as concerned. The evaluation criteria were reviewed. It was noted that the market acceptability of both were good. It was noted that Pieper's bid was higher and Pieper's would add more to the tax base. For timeliness of construction schedule, Things noted 4-6 months, with the barber shop estimating 6 months. However, Things noted that they will not begin construction until the modulars are removed. A lengthy discussion was held regarding potential City liability should construction begin before removal of the modulars. Berlin noted that this issue should be noted in the report to the City Council, but he thought construction should begin as soon as possible. Plastino noted that inconvenience caused by construction should not be a real consideration since the downtown area will be "in a mess" for a long period of time. Berlin again asked if any other criteria should be considered. Kucharzak noted that Things might think that the modulars will be out by next spring. Glaves again mentioned price as a criteria to be considered. MacDonald noted that Things is a highly rated business and needs expansion. Whoever builds on this parcel will have to build an 18 -foot facade which is enough for two floors. lie again raised the question of building two floors and putting the barber shop on the first floor with Things on the second. In designating a developer, this can be arranged. Geshwiler noted that Things feels it is possible to build two stories. Siders felt he could not answer the question of building two stories without looking at the floor plans, but he felt it would be difficult. Plastino said he could not give an answer without looking at the soil, etc. This arrangement might be a complicated legal decision, he said. Kucharzak noted that if the bid is higher and the requirements have been met, the City should go with the highest bidder. However, he cautioned that there may be problems with liability should construction begin before the modulars are removed. Glaves advised the staff that he had just talked with Mr. Wegman of 'Ibings by telephone. Noting the indication in his proposal that he would not begin building until modulars had been removed, Glaves asked him what would happen if modulars remained on Clinton Street until mid 1980. Would you begin construction earlier? Mr. Wegman's reply was, "No, not unless you get adamant." 0 _11_ 0 Berlin suggested that the Staff contact Mr. Pieper to determine his level of awareness on the schedule for the modulars. If he can construct the building with the modulars there, then the report to the Council should indicate that the bid should go to Pieper. The bid is higher, and the City has an obligation to work with the people who were moved out by urban renewal. We should indicate that there might be problems with construction. We should also indicate that while no preference was given to those presently in the modulars, he had a proposal that met the criteria and the bid was higher. Berlin advised that the report to Council should indicate that there was a considerable amount of diversity of opinion. Both proposals had good ideas. Keating advised that if Things builds two stories, over the long run there might be a risk to the City as far as fire code requirements are concerned. PARCELS 83-1 and 84-1 Berlin recalled the discussion about these parcels at the first meeting and asked for arguments why this bid should not be received or awarded or developer designated. He suggested two things that the staff should talk about: 1) What arguments are there for not designating the bidder as developer, and 2) What comments does the staff have about the specific proposal. Geshwiler's recommendation was that the parcel be rebid. lie noted that Old Capitol's proposal to locate the parking garage along Capitol Street instead of along Burlington impairs the usefulness of the site as a well designed central area shopping mall and creates traffic problems. lie also noted that the proposal shows the major tenant on the Washington Street side of the mall. Historically, all mall proposals show the major tenant at the far end of the mall, away from the major pedestrian activity. lie felt that this mall is the big item in urban renewal and that we owe it to everyone in the City to make this good. lie felt that Old Capitol's proposal was too vague Berlin asked Geshwiler if the proposal seemed consistent with urban renewal objectives to which Geshwiler replied that it is not consistent with getting a first-class retail space. Geshwiler objected to the layout and design. lie also felt their financing was questionable for something like this since they do not spell out how they will do it. Kucharzak recommended that Old Capitol's proposal be accepted. After all, he said, "they may be the only show in town." I would feel very uncomfortable if we should turn it down, lie said. Siders concurred. Showalter noted that there is 150,000 square feet of rentable floor space with 60,000 square feet committed to retail department store use. More information is needed, he said, but recommended proceeding with the proposal MacDonald cautioned that if the Old Capitol proposal is not accepted, there may be no bid. Every major developer in the country which we know of has been contacted, he said, and we couldn't get any more bids. They do have a plan and the plan does include a department store, he said. MacDonald said that Old Capitol does not have a contractual obligation from a department store, however, there appears to be a letter of interest on file. Chapman said it was her under- standing that Old Capitol has a letter of intent but not a letter of commitment. Plastino thought the bid should be accepted. We must strike a balance in this relationship. We must make it clear to Old Capitol that the City will "rall the shots" on the parking garage. Kushnir said he didn't see anything prohibitive about the proposal. There is room to negotiate, he said. 0 -13- U Unless there is some compelling reason not to accept Old Capitol's proposal, I recommend it be accepted, Kraft said. There might be vacant land for the next five years if we turn down the proposal. 11iis parcel is the primary reason why Old Capitol exists. They have spent a lot of money on this and even though their plan may not be fantastic, it is not unresponsive. We need them and they need us. Keating agreed that Old Capitol meets the criteria and recommended accepting the proposal. Schmeiser also felt the plan should be accepted. Chapman rated the proposal as fair. Unless finances are too bad, she recommended acceptance even though she was unable to judge the quality and creativity due to lack of information submitted. 1b most people, urban renewal means the mall, Sheets added. It would be politically disastrous not to go ahead with the proposal even though the plan is not what we had envisioned. We have a responsibility to make it a good plan, she said. Brachtel added that the proposal is difficult to address from a functional standpoint without the benefit of some drawings. The implication of a five - story ramp is an aesthetic consideration because five stories seems over- powering. The intersection of Capitol and Burlington Streets as a sole interest point might be desirable. The more traffic we can control from that point and eliminate from Clinton, the better. lie didn't see too much of a problem with a north -south orientation. We are locked in to their proposal, he said. Claves noted that Old Capitol had met the published minimum requirements. We need to make it clear that some of the contract modifications will be subject to negotiations and design plan review. • _14_ • Geshwiler questioned whether it would actually be a two-story building. Ile indicated that everything he had seen indicated a one-story building with a possible mezzanine. At sonic time in the future the land may be more valuable than it is now. If the site is almost completely covered with a building, that is a threat to the Pentacrest across the street. It just isn't compatible with the Pentacrest. Halprin and Associates designed a very good site plan, but Old Capitol has not reflected any of this information. Total coverage of the site is wasteful. The major department store should be located to the south, otherwise smaller businesses will be relegated to the end and forgotten. The major department store should be closer to the College/Clinton street intersection. Chapman's primary concern was that the City must be assured of financing. Berlin noted that the proposal was not entirely for a two-story building and this should be made clear in the report, lie said. He suggested that Geshwiler and Chapman draft comments spelling out the kinds of things the City wishes to negotiate. Chapman questioned how the vague financial situation was going to be addressed. MacDonald pointed out that available loans would bring that dollar amount to $1 million and thought the economic value would work out okay. MacDonald pointed out to the staff that a mall project is a difficult development and will not yield a fat profit without office space. The department store will say where they will locate; we will not tell them. There is not that much flexibility and not a lot of profit. The Old Capitol proposal seems to be both economically and financially viable. Geshwiler felt Old Capitol would be taking away the long -run potential of the subject site. If they say they can sell condominiums and if there is a market for doctor's offices south of Burlington Street, then there is a market here. 0 _1S_ Kucharzak reiterated that we will have to cater to the department store. We should not limit this too tightly or we will possibly lose the whole project. Glaves noted that Zuchelli, Bunter and Associates had reviewed the Halprin plan and said it "didn't float." Sheets questioned what made the Old Capitol proposal plan different. Berlin asked that the draft report to the Council should address issues which the City wishes to negotiate. Geshwiler said that Old Capitol needed to know that there are some serious objections to the proposal and some serious design problems. Berlin stated that it is important that these issues be raised and noted that the staff, Design Review Committee, and the City Council would be reviewing the plans. MacDonald mentioned that Old Capitol might wish to expand approximately 6 to 10 feet into the Washington Street right-of-way. Geshwiler vehemently objected to any extension into the Washington Street right-of-way. lie questioned whether Zuchelli, Hunter and Associates had a vested interest in the Old Capitol proposal. No matter what Old Capitol wants to do, your firm seems to support it, Geshwiler said. MacDonald responded that expanding into the Washington Street right-of-way might be a way for Old Capitol to do something architecturally interesting. Ile said he and his firm does have a vested interest. 'They do have a responsibility to see that the downtown is developed, but there is no financial interest. You also have that same interest, he told Geshwiler. If you reject this for another concept, MacDonald said, you may lose any possibility of development and may lose the entire Urban Renewal program through litigation. Brachtel stated that intrusion into the right-of-way might "just be the thing for Iowa City if it is architecturally pleasing." A considerable amount of thought 0 0 -1G- has been given to a transit transfer point and perhaps this could be incorporated. Schmeiser felt the retail shops would be more viable if they could have exposure to Washington and Clinton Streets. PARCELS 93-1 and 101-2 Kraft stated that Old Capitol has proposed a staged takedown for condominiums and noted that condominiums have not been very successful in Iowa City. They might be a "real drag on the market," he said. The lack of specificity detracts from the proposal, he added. The Pentacrest proposal seems better, he said, and cited some of the following reasons for his opinion: the design is better, the developer has had some residential experience in Iowa City, an early starting date will put more units on the market sooner which will add to the tax base, apartments will be rented faster than condominiums can be sold, the project would seem to be successful, and the design is good. The legal staff had no comments. Keating was favorably impressed with Clark's past performance, that he would retain ownership, and that there is a definite and early completion date. Ile did express some concern about limited access to the interior for fire fighting equipment. He was not favorably impressed with Old Capitol's staged takedown of 1/3, 1/3 and 1/3. lie questioned whether mixed ownership would be wise. Pentacrest has firm plans and finances, Plastino said, and Old Capitol does not. Past experience with the Village Green development shows that it doesn't work very well for tenants to be responsible for maintenance of the grounds and green space, he said. 0 Schmeiser liked the idea that Pentacrest would retain ownership and management. Ile was opposed to condominium units proposed by Old Capitol because he didn't think condominiums would be very successful in Iowa City. After being somewhat familiar with the Westwinds development, it seems that all the condominium units are committed or sold but many may be sold on speculation rather than in terms of buyers living in the units. People are buying them to rent them, he said, and they do not seem to be competitive with single family dwellings. Showalter supported the Pentacrest proposal. Chapman also favored the Pentacrest proposal because it was a concrete, nicely developed proposal with assured financing. Clark has also had a lot of experience with construction in Iowa City, she said. Pentacrest has a good reputation, Siders said, and submitted a good, detailed set of plans. This reflects the amount of interest they have, he said, and expressed concern that Old Capitol has no residential construction experience. If condominiums are considered a single family dwelling use, this would be an illegal use in the CBS Zone, he said. Kucharzak felt more comfortable with the Pentacrest proposal. Brachtel favored the traffic layout pattern of the Old Capitol proposal and stated that Pentacrest may have access problems. If Clark is awarded the bid, we should work with him to alter the lay of land. (This should be noted in the report to the Council.) He also suggested that I' parking spaces per dwelling -1R - unit would not be adequate and thought A parking spaces per dwelling unit would he desirable. The Pentacrest proposal looks good, Geshwiler said. They must have read the City's Housing Report. Berlin asked the Staff to assess Clark's past design capability. Are there any problems with maintenance of his projects? Do you have any housing code problems with him when he builds a building? What about our housing survey which indicates there should be housing alternatives? Siders stated that he complies with City requirements and is easy to work with. He maintains his units very well, he said. Hayek noted that Old Capitol's proposals often come off as "sec:ind best" because the plans aren't as specific or detailed as others and he questioned whether they were being treated fairly. Perhaps they didn't know we wanted specific plans, he said. Glaves said he was troubled that sometimes Old Capitol's vagueness went beyond not having site plans. Geshwiler noted that responses to the General Survey sent out by the Comprehensive planning Coordinating Committee indicated that most people were not in favor of condominiums per se. Siders pointed out that if townhouse development takes place, there may be potential problems regarding accessibility for the handicapped. Berlin stated that when the Council's report is written, reasons for rejecting a proposal must be related to the evaluation criteria. PARCEL 93-2 Brachtel thought either Hippee or Lovetinsky would be acceptable proposals. There are real problems with North Bay's proposal, he said. 0 -19- 0 Sheets preferred North Bay because they specified what they were going to do. Next would come Old Capitol, she said. She expressed opposition to both Hippee and Lovetinsky because of the parking lots. Chapman expressed preference for a building on Urban Renwal land but noted that parking is one of the Urban Renewal objectives. She, therefore, recommended Lovetinsky. North Bay was her second choice, she said, assuming there is adequate financing. Third choice would be Hippee, and fourth choice would be Old Capitol. Schmeiser felt both Old Capitol and North Bay proposals were acceptable. He ruled out the other two proposals because of inadequate tax support. Even though the Zoning Ordinance permits apartments, he did not feel it was a proper location for residences. The Old Capitol proposal was preferred because it permitted an opportunity to buffer from objectionable uses. Keating felt there is a need for parking so preferred the Lovetinsky proposal. His second choice was North Bay, then Hippee, and Old Capitol. Kraft indicated that he had originally preferred North Bay because it would add the most to the tax base, but now felt it should go to either North Bay or Lovetinsky. Old Capitol submitted a conditional bid, he said. Hayek did not comment because he has worked with North Bay Construction Company. Lovetinsky has an excellent reputation, Plastino noted, and does good, high quality work. He did not feel the area was suited for residences so eliminated from consideration North Bay Construction Company. Showalter preferred Lovetinsky or Ilippee. North Bay should be chosen if you want "max tax," he said. Siders objected to residential construction and thought the parcel should go to one of the two contingent property owners. Lovetinsky and Hippee bid well above the minimum bid. Since Lovetinsky presently has a non -conforming status because of inadequate parking, he chose Lovetinsky to alleviate the non -conformity. Kucharzak felt the highest bid factor was significant and, therefore, preferred Lovetinsky. North Bay was his second preference. Geshwiler didn't feel apartments would be objectionable and noted that North Bay would put up a building in a reasonable timeframe. Lovetinsky and Hippee proposals are unacceptable, he said. Gas sales are rapidly changing and the structures may someday be removed in favor of self-service stations, he said. Berlin asked if the only valid argument in favor of Lovetinsky was to change the non -conforming status to conforming. Sheets stated that she was opposed to parking lots. Many people would like to live in the Central Business District, she said, and thought apartment construction would help make the downtown a vital area. Chapman said the Lovetinsky proposal is compatible with Urban Renewal objectives and the price is good. The use is not non -conforming, she said, it is the parking that is non -conforming. If the site is going to be a parking lot, we must justify those reasons, Berlin said. Is there an argument for strengthening an already existing business in the downtown area, he asked. Why is it okay for Mr. Clark to have apartments downtown but not Mr. Bailey, Sheets asked. Schmeiser said he could go along with North Bay. 0 -21- r� If you strictly take Urban Renewal criteria into consideration, Kraft said, North Bay should be awarded the parcel. Geshwiler suggested that the real problem may be that Lovetinsky's business is not as appropriate as North Bay's. It is legal, Glaves said, but that doesn't make it desirable. What makes Lovetinsky better than North Bay, Berlin asked. Shouldn't we let a successful business expand, Showalter said. Who is going to suggest that we ignore the highest bid, Glaves asked. Chapman responded that the City doesn't make all its decisions on the basis of economics. Berlin stated that if the City is going to sell land for parking lots, the justification has to be strong. He summarized the reasons for accepting the Lovetinsky proposal as follows: It would allow a business which was believed'to be in a non -conforming status to become conforming, it would strengthen a small, existing business in the CBD and allow it to expand, the Prospectus indicates it is an ideal place for an auto oriented business. However, the parking lot could be undesirable with cars parked in the lot to be repaired. Lovetinsky submitted the higher bid, but the tax payment to be derived from North Bay's project would overcome the price differential. It was determined that the Zoning Ordinance would be checked to see if Lovetinsky is in conformance. If he is in conformance, perhaps it should be recommended that the bid should go to North Bay. If Lovetinsky is not in conformance, then preference should be given to him. PARCEL 93-3 Glaves commented that unless Old Capitol is awarded Parcels 93-1 and 101-2, their bid on 93-3 will be withdrawn. MacDonald advised that the staff had asked Old Capitol to remove that contingency. Berlin stated that we can go to the Council with the recommendation that Old Capitol be required to remove the contingency. If the contingency is not removed. the parcel can be rebid. u -22 - PARCEL 101-1 Berlin asked for comments or suggestions. No comments were forthcoming on awarding the parcel to Old Capitol. It was recommended that the parcel be awarded to Perpetual. PARCEL 102-1 Geshwiler recommended Mod Pod. It is a well designed building and it is very wise not to park on this site. It is across the street from the parking garage and there would be no problems with parking. M&G wanted parking. They would have a hard time making a go of it without parking. He didn't view Fairbanks and Old Capitol as being consistent with the Urban Renewal objectives. He preferred Fairbanks to Old Capitol, however, since they already own the land that surrounds it. Kucharzak also recommended plod Pod. He felt it met all the criteria outlined in the Urban Renewal plan. Old Capitol was his second choice although he preferred a larger scale development. Fairbanks left it up in the air. Mod Pod met all the criteria. Siders voted for Mod Pod citing the fact that they seem to have a concrete proposal. Ile generally viewed Old Capitol and Fairbanks as one since one would sell to the other. Ile saw problems with the use proposed by MEG. Showalter recommended Mod Pod noting that their bid meets the criteria better. They are a successful applicant and business. Fairbanks would be second only because they own the adjoining land. Brachtel tended to favor a land assembly theme -- Fairbanks or Old Capitol -- but preferred Fairbanks. fie felt MBG's proposal would not work and that Mod Pod's building might look like an "after thought," depending on what other land owners decide to do. Hayek noted that land assembly is very important in that block. it would be a shame to 0 -23- 0 pass up an opportunity to put those pieces together. MacDonald supported this thought by saying that one of the prime purposes of urban renewal is land assembly. Glaves supported Mod Pod. Glaves stated that a recommendation could be made to the City Council that Fairbanks be the preferred developer but that we want a use and intensity prior to the execution of the contract. We could also say that we want land assembly, he said. Sheets reminded the staff that Mod Pod was the highest bidder by $7,000. Claves again suggested that Fairbanks be designated and the land assembled, then asked for a narrative designating use and intensity by the end of 120 days. If we do not feel confident about this, he said, we can go back to Mod Pod or rebid it. Chapman agreed that we should put a 120 -day limit on it and give it to Fairbanks. Glaves noted that we didn't market this parcel with required land assembly. Either we take the bid which is $7,000 higher and take the building we know will come or take our chances and say that land assembly is the primary concern. But, then, by saying that land assembly is a primary concern, we have created a non-competitive situation. Hayek added that the fact that Fairbanks has not submitted anything specific puts us in a bad situation. Kucharzak noted that Fairbanks would buy the parcel and then sell it. We have a high bid and we are sure we will get a building. Schmeiser stated that if we don't select Fairbanks, then we are also ruling out Old Capitol on Parcels 102-3 and 102-4. lie added that he could go with Mod Pod. MacDonald suggested designating Mod Pod with a requirement for land assembly. Glaves added that he talked with Fairbanks and told them they had to submit a development plan. lie told them that the City probably would not award the parcel 0 -2a- to them if they did not have a development plan. 0 The report to the Council should state that this matter has been discussed repeatedly with Fairbanks. If the award is to Mod Pod, we should say that we are interested in assembly and see what can be worked out. The vote for Mod Pod was 9 with 1 vote for Fairbanks and 1 for rebidding the parcel. PARCEL 102-2 Kushnir stated that he would be hard pressed to accept McAllister's proposal. Berlin added that the report should state why we wouldn't accept McAllister's proposal. Kucharzak informed the staff that McAllister came in to the office and outlined what he was proposing for this parcel. He asked if he could put apartments on the second floor. Hayek stated that the Prospectus is very clear about no oral or verbal interpretations of any kind. Glaves favored going back to McAllister and having him change his proposal since it might be viewed that Glaves gave verbal okay to two apartments on the second floor. Siders indicated we should rebid the parcel and get out a written interpretation. Sheets indicated that the bid should be awarded to McAllister since Old Capitol will use it for parking and the parcel is only two blocks from parking. Brachtel felt that if the City wants the Chamber of Commerce to take an active role in securing development for the City, we should give them front -door parking. Chapman felt the McAllister proposal was not acceptable. She favored Old Capitol since she felt this site was best used as parking. 0 -25- Schmeiser selected Old Capitol by process of elimination. He ruled out McAllister since duplexes were nonconforming. Keating favored McAllister since he would like to see a building on this land. Kraft felt we have no choice but Old Capitol. Hayek favored Old Capitol's proposal because McAllister's proposal is not responsive. lie also felt Brachtel's comments were good. Plastino voted for Old Capitol since the Chamber of Commerce needs parking, but felt we should try to restrict it to visitors' parking only. Showalter went for McAllister or for rebidding. Siders favored rebidding the entire project. Kucharzak favored rebidding. Geshwiler felt that McAllister's proposal offered a real use. In reply to the statement that Old Capitol would sell this parcel, Hayek noted that Old Capitol cannot sell this land for more than they pay for it. Glaves noted that a financial statement for this parcel was not required. The Finance Director did call the bank and the bank said that McAllister had considerable assets. There would be no financial problems. MacDonald noted that this is one of the very few parcels which could be assembled and could serve a future large scale development. If there is real animosity about putting this site into parking for the Chamber of Commerce, it should be rebid. This is a real opportunity to create a large scale future development and it would be tragic to throw the chance away. , 0 . -26- Berlin stated that this should be awarded to Old Capitol and discuss in the report that this presents an opportunity for future development and that the staff is not in favor of the parking use. PARCEL 102-3 & 4 Geshwiler felt both proposals seem desirable from the standpoint of long-range land use, however,the First Federal proposal is recommended in that they show a commitment to use the site for a particular purpose. The Old Capitol proposal is an acceptable alternative but they are tentative as to exactly what will take place. Kucharzak thought First Federal met all the criteria, and Old Capitol came in second. Showalter agreed and stated that the First Federal proposal was a good, solid proposal. Plastino felt the First Federal proposal was the most financially feasible and would draw auto traffic away from the Clinton -Burlington Street area. Kraft thought the First Federal proposal was most likely to work. Keating also supported First Federal primarily because of excellent financial capability and the early completion date. Schmeiser, Chapman, Sheets and Brachtel all favored First Federal. Brachtel suggested that the parking lot be reworked and that some items be clarified through negotiations. Glaves felt the site was too large for a fully supportable convenience center and opposed having a retail use at the subject location. It would be competing directly with other business in the CBD and he felt the market should not be split. It was recommended that the parcel be awarded to First Federal Savings and Loan. PARCEL 103-3 Kraft stated that Old Capitol presently has the Section 8 allocation and should be E -27- 11 awarded the proposal. The Knutson proposal would have to be subsidized or it won't work, he said. Plastino concurred. Geshwiler felt Old Capitol was competing with an unfair advantage and suggested that HUD be contacted to see if the Knutson proposal could be subsidized. Old Capitol would be getting this by default which is a shame since Knutson has the best proposal, he said. Berlin noted that Levy, Malone and Company had said they didn't have time to submit an application to HUD. Schmeiser questioned whether HUD might revert the money allocated to Old Capitol to someone else should a proposal other than Old Capitol be selected. Glaves responded that HUD might recapture the allocation or they might ask Old Capitol to select another site. It would be highly speculative to think that if Knutson were selected, the funds would be transferred to Knutson. Kucharzak said he would have preferred Knutson but it is a "sure thing" with Old Capitol and that is significant. Sheets noted that Levy, Malone and Company and Dr. Stone had contacted the City, but Knutson had not. She doubted that Knutson understood the time schedule. It was recommended that Parcel 103-3 be awarded to Old Capitol. PARCEL 82-]b (lased on the use proposed, Kraft felt North Bay was the best proposal. The private -28 - parking in the Eicher, Yoder proposal is inconsistent and Old Capitol refused to remove the contingency tieing 82-1a with 82-I1). Plastino, Showalter and Schmeiser preferred North Bay. Keating chose North Bay because he liked the design of the building, the early completion date, and thought they were financially capable. Siders preferred North Bay because it was not tied in with 82-1a. He thought a determination should be made as to whether the building is to be two or three stories. Because Mr. Bailey has expressed a willingness to work with the City and to negotiate certain details, Chapman and Glaves preferred the North Bay proposal. Sheets also preferred North Bay. Geshwiler thought there would be some advantage in having Old Capitol's building across the street from Plaza Centre One, but was not opposed to North Bay's proposal. Brachtel thought it unfortunate that Old Capitol was unwilling to release their contingency. Berlin said more consideration would have been given to Old Capitol if they were willing to separate 82-1a from 82-1b. It was recommended that Parcel 82-1b be awarded to North Bay Construction Company. PARCEL 82-1a Geshwiler voted for the Gessner proposal. lie felt that having the owner in the building is very important in making sure the building is restored properly. By the nature of the business of Mr. Gessner, they have probably the best group of experienced people of any to do this. The tenants they have proposed for downstairs would fit very well with an old building such as this. He cited their experience in Larimer Square in Denver. His second choice would be the College Block Partners. E 0 -29- The apartments proposed for upstairs are unique and accent the character of the building. Their downstair's tenant is one to whom the City has a commitment. A very good proposal but he questioned the ability of the group of people to do the work. If possible, he recommended gettting Mr. Gessner and Mr. Zastrow together to make one proposal. Gessner has a good group of people to work on this. All of the other pro- posals are inadequate on one or more criteria - including limited financial support, the use is not appropriate for an historical building, or most of the other uses could go on in another place in the community. Kucharzak voted Preservation Investments as his first choice and College Block Partners as his second choice. The final decision between the two is that Preservation gave the best assurance that the building restoration would preserve uniformity of architecture. lie felt uncomfortable that we couldn't tie down the architect as much as we would like. Siders concurred with Kucharzak. Showalter voted first for Preservation Investments, second for College Block Partners, and third for Gessner. Preservation Investments' principals are very solid people. Ile said he wasn't sure that another eatery in the area was needed, however, they already have a solid business in the area. Plastino was firm in his belief that this should not have a residential development. He cited the lack of available parking for tenants and the undesirable surroundings for residential development. In making a decision, he considered whether the bidders had an architect, whether they were aware of the cost of restoration, whether the proposed uses generate high pedestrian traffic, whether they are compatible with surrounding businesses, and whether the financing is sound. Preservation has a very good architecture business, he said. They will be here a long time. The legal staff had no comments. Kraft did not comment because of a business connection with one of the people who submitted a bid Keating voted for Preservation as his first choice. It is appropriate that they restore this type of business, he said. They should know what they are getting into. They also have commitments from tenants and their financing looks good. College Block Parners was the second choice. Some consideration was given to the fact that the City would be relocating a business presently in the Clinton Street modulars. He did express some concern with having a restaurant in that area. Chapman felt the bidder should occupy the building and recommended Preservation Investments. She felt that another restaurant was not needed in the area. Also, Preservation Investments' proposal specifies that the basement is slated for develop- ment. Her second choice was Environmental Investments. They do not plan to use basement space and have discussed using rear space for parking. The third choice was Gessner. lie wants the building very badly and is concerned about the restoration. However, if Mr. Gessner's finances do not prove adequate, he should be dropped. Her fourth choice was College Block Parners, however, they should have retained someone for the exterior restoration. Sheets considered Preservation, Gessner and College Block Partners and cams up with the latter. Their financial situation is very sound. Bushnell's Turtle is a very good business. it is already in the area, and it would be much more appropriate to have it on the east end of College Street to draw people to the pedestrian mall. This is a business that is financially sound and is going to be operating a long time. They have an established clientele. As long as a lot of money is going to he spent to restore this building, it would be nice if everyone could go into the building and enjoy it. Brachtel objected to the food service because of the fact that they would have to use the alley for delivery. lie favored Preservation Investments. Ile again cautioned M -31 - about the alley use for delivery. If we want urban renewal to work, we will have to provide suitable access to the back door. We need to start addressing this problem to come up with some solutions. We should be sensitive to this point. Glaves advised the staff of inquiries made to bidders. Questions and replies are attached to these minutes. Glaves continued about Lyle Berge. He inquired of .Tack Leaman of Mason City about Mr. Verge's work in that city. Ile received excellent comments about his work in Mason City. (Discussion continued with questions asked of Preservation Investments.) MacDonald stated that Environmental Investments "have no take-out commitment on financing." Preservation Investments might have a capital problem, he said. Gessner did not respond to some of the questions. Financing for College Block Partners seems sound, however, "no one seems head and shoulders above anyone else." Glaves supported College Block Partners, fie said he didn't eliminate any proposal because it had residences or restaurants, he was not convinced that the loading problem is worse than any other, he had mixed emotions as to how to achieve restoration and was not too concerned about whether the architect has a vast amount of restoration experience. University students like to live downtown, he said, but University trends don't show a spiraling trend upwards. Berlin was bothered by residential units in the building and stated that he was "nervous" about the Gessner proposal. Geshwiler sugested the possibility of putting Gessner and College Block Partners into one building. Hayek thought this would be too difficult. A vote was taken: Preservation Investments -- 8 in favor. Gessner 0 College Block Partners 3 " Old Capitol Associates 0 " " N _3Z_ Schmeiser stated that high quality apartments don't exist downtown. Chapman felt there should not be a restaurant. Glaves and Sheets saw nothing wrong with having a restaurant in the subject location. Brachtel said a restaurant would intensify a use and felt that alley service points must be considered, otherwise, a problem will exist in future years, he predicted. Berlin asked if there were any arguments in favor of Preservation Investments. Showalter stated that they were solid people who would not allow the "people downstairs" to fail. Siders emphasized the importance of the work of the contractor. Kucharzak said he liked the idea of the architect being the tenant. Hayek thought this argument was persuasive and would assure that restoration would be handled satisfactorily. Schmeiser stated that he was favorably impressed with the work Hanson, Lind and Meyer had done on the College Block Partners proposal. Berlin concurred. MacDonald suggested having Zastrow (College Block Partners) on the first floor and Wehner, Nowysz, and Pattshull (Preservation Investments) on the second floor. Hayek responded that it would be difficult for them to tell us whether they could make a deal. It takes a long time to negotiate something like this, he said. Sheets thought it would be critical to have Bushnell's Turtle on the first floor because the business attracts so many people. -33 - MacDonald suggested asking Preservation Investments and College Block Partners to work out a "deal" and if it doesn't work out, they each have a 50-50% chance of being awarded the proposal. Hayek said this would be legally acceptable. This suggestion was recommended. • September 22, 1977 Preservation Investments 201 Dey Building Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Sirs: The City staff is in the process of reviewing the proposals received for downtown redevelopment property. In the process of this review, we have identified certain specific questions which we would like to present to you. Set forth below are specific questions regarding your proposal. We would like to receive answers to these questions by close of business Friday, September 23. 1. Ile note from your proposal that the proposed tenant, James Harris, has a financial committment for the capital needed for operating and inventory, from the Hawkeye State Bank. We do not have an indication that the proposed tenant, James Harris, had sufficient financial resources available to finance the tenant improvements as specified in your proposal. Please provide whatever information is available to you demonstrating the capability of Mr. Harris to make these tenant financed improvements. 2. Because the initiation of bookstore operations has historically been risky in Iowa City, we would like to know what steps have been taken to insure a continued cash flow to Preservation Investments. 3. Ile note from your proposal a cost estimate for improvements to the College Block Building which will be borne by the partnership of from $130,000 to $140,000. 11ow would Preservation Investments propose to finance the undertaking should the actual costs of restoration significantly exceed these cost estimates? Sincerely, Paul R. Glaves Redevelopment Program Coordinator 38.r / 0 preservation 201 dey building SEPTEMBER 23, 1977 MR. PAUL R. GLAVES REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM COORDINATOR CITY OF IOWA CITY CIVIC CENTER IOWA CITY, IA 52240 investments iowa city, iowa 52240 DEAR MR. GLAVES: 14E HAVE RECEIVED YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 22, 1977, AND SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING ANSWERS AND COMMENTARY IN RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTIONS. 1. MP.. HARRIS PLANS TO FINANCE HIS LEASEHOLD IMPROVEMENTS BY A COMBINED USE OF CURRENT CASH -ON -HAND AND BANK. FINANCING. THE E14CLOSED LETTER IS AN EXPANSION ON THE LETTER OF COMMIT- MENT FROM HAWKEYE STATE BANK. WHICH WAS INCLUDED AS ATTACH- MENT 140. 7 IN OUR PROPOSAL. 2. WE HAVE ANALYZED THIS SUBJECT AND WOULD TRANSMIT THE FOLLOWING THOUGHTS: A. THE ANTICIPATED SQUARE FOOT RENTAL RATES FOR THE SPACES (THE RANGE AND TERMS AGREED TO BY THE COMMITTED TENANTS) ARE SUCH THAT IN THE EVENT OF VACANCY, THE UPPER FLOOR ALONE CAN MEET ANTICIPATED EXPENSES FOR THE ENTIRE BUILDING UNTIL SPACES ARE RE -OCCUPIED; THESE EXPENSES BEING MORTGAGE PAYMENT, TAXES, UTILITIES, INSURANCE, ETC. B. DUE TO THE INTEREST SHOWN 1N THIS BUILDING AND ITS LOCA- TION, WE FIND IT DIFFICULT TO IMAGINE THAT THERE WOULD OCCUR MORE THAN ONE RETAIL VACANCY AT ANY ONE TIME, AND THE14 ONLY FOR A SHORT PERIOD. IN THAT EVENT, THE UPPER FLOOR AND ONE RETAIL SPACE WOULD MORE THAN COVER THE NECESSARY CASH FLOW FOR EXPENSES. WE HAVE THE UTMOST CONFIDENCE IN MR. HARRIS AND HIS CONCEPT OF AND CAPABILITIES IN THE BOOK BUSINESS. ENCLOSED IS A COMMENTARY FROM MR. HARRIS AS TO HIS INTENTIONS AND SOME. PHOTOGRAPHS OF A STORE WHICH REFLECTS THE TYPE OF SHOP HE WILL OPERATE. william nowys2 richard w. pallschull john f. pfiffner rohmd c. wehner telephone- 338-9715 MR. GLAVES • SEPTEMBER 23, 1977 PAGE 2 PRIOR TO SUBMITTING OUR PROPOSAL, WE WERE APPROACHED BY A NUMBER OF POTENTIAL TENANTS WANTING TO COMMIT TO LEASING SPACE. THESE EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST CAME FROM RESTAURANTS, SPECIALTY SHOPS, HOME FURNISHINGS SHOPS AND OFFICES. RATHER THAN SUBMIT A VERY FLEXIBLE LISTING OF POTENTIAL TENANTS IN OUR PROPOSAL, WE INTENTIONALLY INVESTIGATED AND ANALYZED OUR LIST AND SELECTED THOSE TWO TENANTS WE FELT WERE STRONGEST, MOST LIKELY TO SUCCEED, SUPPORTABLE BY THE MARKET, AND FIT OUR CONCEPT OF THE TYPE OF BUSINESS WE WANTED TO SEE IN THE COLLEGE BLOCK BUILDING. .DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE PARTNERS IN PRESERVATION INVESTMENTS HAVE BEEN THE ARCHITECTS ON NUMEROUS RESTORATION PROJECTS, WE HAVE COMPLETE CONFIDENCE IN OUR ESTIMATE OF NECESSARY IMPROVE- MENTS. WE HAVE ANALYZED THESE COSTS IN DETAIL, DOWN TO AND INCLUDING THE COST OF ANALYSIS OF PAINT CHIPS FOR HISTORIC ACCURACY. HOWEVER, IN THE EVENT COSTS WOULD EXCEED OUR ESTI- MATE, WE HAVE AN EXPANDED COMMITMENT FROM THE WELLMAN SAVINGS BANK. FOR A MAXIMUM MORTGAGE LOAN OF $160,000 BASED ON 70% PARTICIPATION. THE PARTNERS ARE WELL ABLE TO INCREASE THEIR EQUITY 114VESTMENT TO CONTRIBUTE THE REMAINING 30% OF COSTS. THIS 'WOULD MAKE AVAILABLE APPROXIMATELY $225,000 FOR THE WORK.. BASED ON OUR EXPERIENCE, KNOWLEDGE AND OUR INTENT TO MAINTAIN THE INVESTMENT AT A LEVEL WHICH WILL PRODUCE C014PETIVELY PRICED RENTAL SPACE WHILE PRODUCING A MODEST PROFIT ON INVEST- MENT, IT IS INCONCEIVABLE TO US THAT THE COST OF THIS RE- DEVELOPMENT WOULD EXCEED THAT AMOUNT. A COPY OF THE REVISED LETTER FROM THE WELLMAN BANK WILL BE FORWARDED TO YOU UPON RECEIPT ON SEPTEMBER 26, 1977. WE WILL BE PLEASED TO FURNISH ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION YOU MAY REQUIRE. VERY TRULY YOURS, PRE-SYRVATION OHN F. PFIF JFP/DRS ENCLOSURES (6) AIA TS k: HAW KEYE STATE BANK JAMES A. SCHULZE Executive Vice Presidunt 0 HAWKEYE IOWA CITY, IOWA 52740 EA STATE BANK TELEPHONE 319/351-4121 September 23, 1977 Mr. Paul Gl.aves Redevelopment Program Co-ordinator City of Iowa City Civic Center, 410 E. Washington Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Mr, Glaves: As regards your letter of September 22nd to Preservation Investments, item lil: it is our understanding that Mr. Harris is only to finance a limited amount of improvements, i.e., carpet lighting, and shelves, with the majority of improvements to be financed by the purchaser, Preservation Investments. In any event, Mr. Harris is providing us with adequate collateral which will enable us to provide him with the additional funds he might need to put in those improvements which he is required to provide. I trust that this will help answer your question, but if not please feel free to call or write at your convenience. Sincerely, i James R. Schulze Executive Vice President JRS:sh 0 0 SEPTEMBER 23, 1977 COMMENTARY BY JAMES HARRIS TO PRESERVATION INVESTMENTS IN RESPONSE TO MR. GLAVES' LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 22 CONCERNING THE RISK ELEMENT OF OPERATING A BOOK STORE IN IOWA CITY, LET ME ADDRESS MYSELF TO WHAT I CONSIDER THE TWO MOST IMPORTANT FACTORS AFFECTING THE OPERATION OF ANY SMALL BUSINESS IN ANY COMMUNITY. THESE TWO FACTORS ARE LOCATION OF THE BUSINESS WHICH INCLUDES NOT ONLY THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF THE COMMUNITY, BUT ALSO FOOT TRAFFIC PATTERNS, AIJD SOUND FINANCIAL AND BUSINESS MANAGEMENT. REGARDING THE LOCATION OF THE BUSINESS, I CHOSE IOWA CITY BECAUSE OF MY FAMILIARITY WITH THE COMMUNITY AND ITS NEED FOR A BOOK STORE. OTHER COMMUNITIES I EXPLORED AND CONSIDERED STARTING A NEW BOOK STOkE IN WEkE SEATTLE, PORTLAND AND EUGENE, OREGON; MADISON AND LACROSSE, WISCONSIN; AND MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA. IN MY OPINION AND THAT OF MANY OTHERS IN AND OUT OF THE BOOK. BUSINESS, THERE IS LESS COMPETITION HERE THAN IN ANY OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED CITIES. IOWA CITY'S LARGE UNIVERSITY POPULATION AND THE GENERAL DEMOGRAPHIC MAKE-UP OF THE COMMUNITY MAKE IT IDEAL FOR A BOOK STORE DEALING IN NEW TRADE BOOKS AND GOOD QUALITY USED BOOKS. AS FOR THE FOOT TRAFFIC CONSIDERATION, THE COLLEGE BLOCK BUILDING, NEAR THE HUB OF URBAN RENEWAL, SHOULD BE IDEAL FOR ANY SMALL BUSINESS. THE ATMOS- PHERE I WILL ESTABLISH WILL BE ONE OF A WELL ORDERED, ATTRACTIVE STORE (SEl_ ATTACHED PHOTOGRAPHS), AND I THINK IT WILL BE A SHOW PLACE THAT IOWA CITIANS WILL PATRONIZE AND TO WHICH THEY WILL BE PROUD TO TAKE VISITORS. SECONDLY, FINANCIAL AND BUSINESS MANAGEMENT IS THE CORNERSTONE OF SUCCESS FOR ANY SMALL BUSINESS. EPSTEIN'S DID NOT PRACTICE SOUND MANAGEMENT. NOT ONLY WERE THEIR DISPLAYS SHODDY AND UNATTRACTIVE, THEY OFFERED VIRTUALLY NO PERSONAL SERVICE. I WAS IN THE STORE ONLY A FEW TIMES DURING VISITS TO MY PARENTS IN BLOOMFIELD, BUT AT NO TIME WAS I EVER ABLE TO FIND WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR AND RE- CEIVED NO HELP FROM THEIR STAFF. MY STORE WILL BE WELL ORGANIZED AND OFFER FRIENDLY, PERSONAL SERVICE AND I WILL FOLLOW SOUND BUSINESS PRACTICES. MY EXPERIENCE WITH BOOK STORES BEGAN AS A DIRECTOR OF'THE WESTERN WASHINGTON STATE STUDENT COOPERATIVE. THIS INSTITUTION OF 10,000 STUDENTS WAS DEPENDENT ON ALL ITS BOOKS FROM THE STUDENT COOPERA- TIVE. BECAUSE THE MARK-UP ON TEXTBOOKS IS GENERALLY 20 PER CENT -2- • WHILE THAT ON TRADE BOOKS IS 40 PER CENT, IT WAS DIFFICULT TO REDUCE PRICES ON TEXTS TO STUDENTS. HOWEVER, WE WERE ABLE TO REDUCE PRICES ON TEXTS BY ABOUT 5 PER CENT BECAUSE OF WHAT WE MADE ON TRADE BOOKS AND SUPPLIES. I BRING THIS UP ONLY TO ILLUSTRATE HOW DIFFICULT IT IS TO DEAL IN STUDENT TEXTS. LARGE SUMS OF CAPITAL AND MUCH STORAGE SPACE IS NEEDED FOR THIS TYPE OF BUSINESS. MY OPERATION WILL BE TRADE BOOKS (APPROXIMATELY SO PER CENT PAPERBACKS A14D 20 PER CENT HARD COVERS) WHERE THE EMPHASIS IS PLACED ON PROPER BUYING AND EFFECTIVE MARKETING TECHNIQUES. SPECIFICALLY, MY MARKETING WILL CONCENTRATE ON JACKET OUT (RATHER THAN SPINE OUT), PROPER TRAFFIC FLOW WITHIN THE STORE, AND AN UP-TO-THE-MINUTE (PERPETUAL) INVENTORY SYSTEM AND PERSONAL SERVICE. I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT I HAVE COMPLETED A THREE YEAR CASH FLOW PLAN WHICH WAS SUBMITTED TO HAWKEYE STATE BANK AND HAVE DRAWN UP A SIX MONTH OPERATION PLAN WITH BEGINNING INVENTORY, ALL WITH THE CONSULTATION OF MY ACCOUNTANT, MRS. LEWIS WILLIAMSON, A C.P.A. AND UNIVERSITY FACULTY MEMBER IN THE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AD14114I S TRAT I ON . 1 THINK, THAT MY EXPERIENCE WITH THE STUDENT BOOK STORE IN BELLINGHAM AND AS A BUYER AT ARBUR BOOKS IN SEATTLE COUPLED WITH A SOUND FINANCIAL POSITION WILL ENABLE ME TO LAUNCH A SUCCESSFUL SMALL BUSINESS E14TERPRISE OF WHICH IOWA CITY CAN TAKE GREAT PRIDE. IT 15 MY I14TENTION TO DO SO. • preservation 201 dey building SEPTEMBER 26, 1977 PAUL GLAVES CITY OF IOWA CITY CIVIC CENTER IOWA CITY, IA 52240 DEAR MR. GLAVES: i0 1 nvestments iowa city, iowa 52240 ENCLOSED IS A REVISED LETTER OF LOAN COMMITMENT FROM THE VIELL14AN SAV114GS BANK. TO WHICH I REFERRED IN MY LETTER TO YOU OF SEPTEMBER 23. WE TRANSMIT THIS TO BE INCLUDED AS AN ATTACHMENT TO THAT LETTER. VERY TRULY YOURS, P ERVATION I VESTM TS J HN F. PFIFFNER, A A/' /DRS ENCLOSURE 0 william nowysz richard w. pattschull john f. pfiffner roland c. wehner telephone 33f1 y7]5 0 Wellman Savings bank Wellman. Iowa 52356 September 23, 1977 sie a�tr a OWN YIN Mr. Roland Wehner Mr. Richard Pattschull Mr. William Nowysz Mr. John Pfiffner d/b/a Preservation Investments 201 Dey Building Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Attention: Roland Wehner Dear Mr. Wehner: • area 319/646.6011 We will be glad to increase our real estate loan commitment, as outlined in our August 30, 1977 letter, to 70% of your total investment in the College Block Building up to a total loan of 8160,000.00. Very truly yours, [74/- .A IL 7 �(/, Stanley R./ Barber President SRB: rs 0 September 22, 1977 Environmental Investments 108 14. Downey P.O. Box 89 Fest Branch, Iowa 52358 Dear Sirs: The City staff is in the process of reviewing the proposals received for downtown redevelopment property. In the poocess of this review, we have identified certain specific questions which we would like to present to you. Set forth below are specific questions regardin.n your proposal. We would like to receive answers to these questions by close of business Friday, September 23. 1. lie note from your proposal that you have a financial committment for a short term loan up to $60,000 for 180 days. Do you have at this time any long term permanent financing source and is this source committed? 2. lie note that you expected additional letters of support for the project which had not arrived at the time of the submission. Please provide any evidence available indicating interest or committment to lease space within the structure. 3. lie note from your proposal that you estimate total cost for improvements to be $126,300 exclusive of leasehold improvements. Please indicate the probable source of funds needed should the actual cost of improvements exceed your estimate. Please also indicate any information which you can provide assuring the capability of the tenants to provide the leasehold improvements. Sincerely, Paul R. Glaves Redevelopment Program Coordinator PRG/ssw S o 3' 0 0 September 23, 1977 Mr. Paul R. Glaves Redevelopment Program Coordinator City of Iowa City Civic Center 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Paul: In response to your letter of yesterday concerning detailed aspects of our proposal, we offer the following: We, as noted, have financial commitment from Iowa State Bank for a short term construction loan up to $60,000 for 180 days. This note is of course renewable for the duration of the construction process but is contingent upon securing a long term mortgage on the property. We have, as yet, no firm commitment for this. What we are after is a 20 year note for 709 of value secured by a first mortgage on the property. Iowa State Bank is working closely with us to identify sources of financing and assist us in securing this mortgage. Due to the time frame this activity will occur during the next two weeks. We have also scheduled a meeting with two out of town bank sources this weekend. How- ever, our preference would be to work within the Iowa City area. 2. A few additional letters of interest are enclosed. You may note that these include interest in both the design studio space as well as the retail space avail- able. We of course have other inquiries in this regard and are convinced that the space can be leased almost innediately. Our concern is in securing tenants that are compatible with our concept for use of the building and we are continuing to look for potential tenants in this regard. 3. Concerning the possibility of cost overruns: As in any preliminary construction cost estimate we 0 Septanber 23, 1977 Mr. Glaves Page 2 • have included a contingency of $15,000 in our proposal as well as added 20,E to known remodeling costs to re- flect inflation and higher labor costs in the Iowa City area. Since our initial proposal we have pursued the possi- bility of matching grants in aid with Adrian Anderson of the State Division of Historic Preservation. As you know $5,000 is already available for this project. However, matching funds may be available for virtually all structural restoration needed as well as interior items that would be restored. (ie: wainscoting, tin ceiling work, skylight repair) Mr. Anderson feels that this project would receive very favorable comment from the National Office of the Department of Interior and would be very willing to assist in this regard. We don't foresee large cost overruns and would insist on total supervision of the work to insure that con- struction costs are controlled. The partnership will assist in demolition and clean up as well as other labor items not needing skilled tradesmen. (ie: paint stripping, etc.) The partnership of Planned Environments, as a leasee, is also prepared to commit additional funds necessary to see this project to completion. Due to the time frame involved in answering your letter of inquiry we hope that this is an adequate response. We are continuing to pursue options available to us and would hope to have more detailed in- formation available within the next couple of weeks. We thank you for your further consideration of ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTMENTS and look forward to the possibility of being a part in the successful redevelopment of downtown Iowa City. Sincerely, ENV MENTAL I MENTS Robert G. Satter Partner 108 N. Downey - P.O. Box 89 West Branch, Iowa 52358 RGS:paq encl uuMrlq u ;OUIn IINI'Ai MASON CITY, IOWA :,0401 September 12, 1977 Environmental Invastments 'Nest branch, Iowa 52358 Attention: Bob Latter and Bryan Gutneinz Gert lemen: We have had nn interest in putting an additional store in Iowa City. I have spoken with you before regarding spare and you know I do like an old and antique decor. Pnts building, College Square, that I looked at with vou, will appeal to us very much and we are very pleased to `-o '6 to €7 per square foot if you are able to vet tnis structure. I hope ?N: w111 g'':'. °ir.3t chance at 9 lease. 1%:v bank is First National of ;:anon City end we are listed in Dun and Bradstreet. If you need any other references, please let me know at your earliest conven- ience. Sincerely, BB'RGO'S, INC. " ' R. L. Berge , President September 13, 1,977 1),ar �c--: :,,Iti:IF the letter reEardlnE JerEo's Inc. renting l ro.n you: I wodld like to lFt You0knov. Lnoldst "o are ir/ a position to Invest •p o in bringing this cu'_1dinF to a point o: i•,a'_ good sellinE si;ace. also, you know, by the ti3a we 1'1xt,,re etc. we are c,j t ave anotner „20,000 to ;,O),000 invested. j L.G� i.anL you to ,tr:uw L"uL if v:e Eo in, we want d 4//iV V,/lY •• _11 be u reul asset to io,aa City and, r„arse, to -�erzo's illae loukir:� 1 orv;ard to ne+_riuc. i i'�... ;ou :.• -Inccvela • • ' September 16 '77 EAS Photographic Lab,.Inc.. 630 South Dubuque Iowa City 52240 Bob Satter Environmental Investments 108 North Downey Street 1+est Branch 52358 Bob:: Thought I'd drop you a line confirming our conversation last week about the possibility of restoring the College Block Building. I am very interested in your plans for the space. What I need is about 1000 square feet for a photographic studio/gallery operation. Skylights, high cellings,.the 19th century atmosphere ----- its perfect for what I'm after.. Please let me know as soon as things solidify. Best wishes,. Ed Stewart 1O�IC,f-'CG ICI I ^ ri'11.9a7f0 '-1t :' I Off•/.• %LONG PT./MVPC TIN ��IG W� •PT P.G. PO% O]P M VPC�TIN• � IOWA....... CI IPI T �LIPNON• ]1• P�]•GP]P ]P�,I \OVTN ELI. TON IOIO.. CIT V/10 WP P.O. PO% 1]PP W CIT Yi II W. T�L•PNO Nf September 23, 1977 Environmental Investments 108 Downey Street West Branch, Iowa 52358 Gentlemen: We are interested to hear that your proposal to purchase the College Block Building from the Citv of Iowa City is under consideration. Should you be the successful bidder, we would be interested to discuss leasing about 600 square feet of office space in the renovated building. Sincerely yours, Pierce King, AIA M 0 M 9 E R 0 F T M C AMERICAN I NSTITUTE. OF ARCHITECTS September 22, 1977 :1r. Charles F. Wagner, Managing Partner Fairbanks Investors, Partnership 10 Paul-11clen Building Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Sir: The City staff is in the process of reviewing the proposals received for downtown redevelopment property. In the process of this review, we have identified certain specific questions which we would like to present to you. Set forth below are specific questions regarding your proposal. I•;e would lice to receive answers to these questions by close of business Friday, September 25. 1. 'rhe proposal submitted by you indicates no specific use for the property eonteriplated at this time. Additionally, the proposal lists 28 partners, all with equal shares in Fairbanks Investors. Please indicate the specific method set forth in the partnership agreement by which a decision to undertake a specific action is made. Does a decision to undertake a development require a majority vote by the partners or does it require the agreement by some other number of the partners? Sincerely, Paul R. Glaves Redevelopment Program Coordinator 1'RG/ssw 2> $3 / • BANK 126 S..t1 Clinton 54.0 MUTUAL Iowa City,, i.w. s224xa�o INVESTMENT CORPORATION A,..Cad. 319 xswul Nr. Paul Glaves 7. Civic Center 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, Iowa. Dear Sir: 9-27-77 Re: Your letter dated 9-22-77 The Fairbanks Investors requires 607. majority for agreement. DIS 3( 1014 S. 3. Si1.Jl, ho. 1. 1. wdr, vir. Im. A.I. ,All.un W. !. r Ir. A. O. 1+11 nn A. M, rOrA r.do 1. 1. S.... C. I. wgnu Fairbanks Investors 10 Paul -Helen Bldg. Iowa -City, Iowa Charles F. Wagner a September 22, 1977 Horth Bay Construction, Inc. 919 Talwrn Court Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Sir: The City staff is in the process of reviewing the proposals received for downtown redevelopment property. In the process of this review, we have identified certain specific questions which we would like to present to you. Set forth below are specific questions regarding your proposal. lie would like to receive answers to these questions by close of business Friday, September 23. All questions refer to your offer to purchase and redevelop Parcel 82-1b. 1. 1. Would you be willing to negotiate with the City to modify the contingency related to financing as set forth in Section 2e(1) of the contract contained in your proposal? 2. Are you committed to the exterior appearance depicted in the illustration contained in the proposal or would you be willing to modify the exterior design if such action were deemed necessary by the City? 3. Under what circumstances would you be willing to accept conveyance of the property on a schedule earlier than that sot forth in Section 2e(1) of your proposed contract form? Sincerely, Paul R. Glaves Redevelopment Program Coordinator PRG/sew 383/ NORTH BAY CONSTiL.ITION, INC. • 919 TALWRN CT. IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 319.338.5421 September 23, 1977 Mr, Paul R. Glaves Redevelopment Program Coordinator Civic Center 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Mr. Glavesl With respect to the inquiries contained in your letter of September 22, 1977 regarding our offer on Parcel 82 -lbs 1. Would you be willing to negotiate with the City to modify the contingency related to financing as set forth in Section 2e(1) of the contract contained in your proposal? R_enly - Yes. 2. Are you committed to the exterior appearance depicted in the illustration contained In the proposal or would you be willing to modify the exterior design if such action were deemed necessary by the City? Reply - We are not committed to the exterior depicted in the elevation attached to our offer and we would be willing to entertain modification of the exterior if the City so requested. 3. Under what circumstances would you be willing to accept conveyance of the property on a schedule earlier than that set forth in Section 2e(1) of your proposed contract form? Reoly - This really ties back into the first question. We would be willing to take title to the property at an earlier time, but would expect greater latitude than presently in the contract as to the time for commencing construction and related schedules. Sincerely, J��a � I ?C- G- 17ormanyHai , % President ENB/vam September 22, 1977 Mr. I'esley A. Fotsch Mod Pod, Inc. 22Vj L. Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Sir: The City staff is in the process of reviewing the proposals received for downtown redevelopment property. In the process of this review, we have identified certain specific questions which we would like to present to you. Set forth below are specific questions regarding your proposal. We would like to receive answers to these questions by close of business Friday, September 23. 1. lie note from your proposal that Mod Pod, Inc., would utilize a portion of the structure proposed. Please indicate any expressions of interest or committmont from parties who would lease the balance of the space in the structure. Sincerely, Paul R. Glaves Redevelopment Program Coordinator PRG/ssw 3831 September 23, 1977 Mr. Paul R. Claves Redevelopment Program Coordinator City of Iowa City Civic Center Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Mr. Glaves: I am writing in reference to your letter of September 22, 1977, to answer your question regarding leased space in our proposed building on lot 102-1. We have no firm commitment on any of the space of our proposed building and would not intend to until we were chosen as a redeveloper. In our profession of Real Estate and Certified Property Management we have inquiries weekly and represent a number of individuals and firms in manage— ment and leasing real estate. At the present time we have several parties looking for a variety of leased space. It would be our intention to specifically select lessees for our building that would be compatible to the urban renewel plan and to our own business. I might indicate that our present interested clientele includes insurance, institutional, fast copying, and small retail business. Of course the selection and the placement of a lessee would be determined once we were assured we could make a commitment. We may have found other locations for our present clients, or we may obtain new clients prior to construction and occupancy of our proposed building. Thanking you for your letter and your consideration. Yours very truly, MOD JOW INC A'V . W h's y A. otsch, CPM President WAF/kwi+ 1,10D POD INC.", 221 1/12 EAST WASHINGTON/IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240/13197-351-0102 September 22, 1977 College Block Partners c/o fir. Rd Zastrow Bushnell's Turtle Clinton Street Mall Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Sir: The City staff is in the process of reviewing the proposals received for downtown redevelopment property. In the process of this review, we have identified certain specific questions which we would like to present to you. Set forth below are specific questions regarding your proposal. He would like to receive answers to these questions by close of business Friday, September 23. 1. .Dote 4 to the financial statement attached to your proposal indicates an agreement between the partners which would create a lease which requires annual rentals of 1211% of the partners' cost of acquisition and restoration of the building. Based on the cost estimates contained in your proposal, this would create a monthly rent for Bushnell's Turtle in excess of $1800 per month. Is this level of rent supportable by the business? 2 19hat would the source of funds be should the actual cost of restoration and refurbishing the building exceed the cost estimate contained in your proposal? Sincerely, Paul R. Claves Redevelopment Program Coordinator PRG/ssw 38'3/ College Block Partners Clinton Street Mall Iowa City, Iowa 52240 September 23, 1977 Mr. Paul R. Glaves Redevelopment Program Coordinator City of Iowa City Civic Center Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Mr. Glaves: We are in receipt of your letter of September 22, 1977. Our response to the questions contained in that letter is as follows: 1. It is anticipated that the annual rental of the premises paid to College Block Partners by Bushnell's Turtle, Inc. would be approximately $20,000 plus real estate taxes, insurance and repairs. Of this rental, it is contemplated that at least $12,000, or approximately 50% of the total rental obligation, would be generated through the rental of the four apart- ments on the second floor. Projections by Bushnell's Turtle, Inc., which have been reviewed by its accountants, attorneys and bankers, indicate that the remaining rental could readily be borne by that business. The rental per square foot on the first floor would, according to projections, be less than $4.50. Both insurance and repair costs are anticipated to be low because of the extensive reconstruction and rehabilitation planned for the building. 2. It is not anticipated that funds in excess of the partnership capital and the mortgage loan would be required to complete the project. However, the question of possible additional borrowings was previously raised with Robert M. Sterk, Senior Vice President of First National Bank, and it is anticipated that at least modest additional funding would be available from that source. If not, any additional funds needed could be provided through additional capital contributed or loans to the partnership by the partners. See letter of Barker Development Company attached. Should you desire any further information with regard to our proposal, please feel free to contact either of the undersigned. Very truly yours, COLLEGE BLOCKPARTNERS By B Robert G. Barker, Partner ralwin J. . -V w, Jr. , Pa ner Barker Development Company Rural Route 1 Iowa City, Iowa 52240 September 23, 1977 College Block Partners Clinton Street Mall Iowa City, IA 52240 Gentlemen: This is to certify that Barker Development Company has available for use by College Block Partners in the purchase and restoration of the "College Block Building the following sums, which will be available to the extent required after use by the partnership of the present partnership capital and the permanent mortgage loan commitment from First National Bank: 1. Savings account number 63-1269-5 at Iowa State Bank & Trust Company having an accumulated balance as of September 13, 1977, of $101,766.61. 2. Time certificate of deposit issued by Iowa State Bank & Trust Company due May 23, 1978 in the face amount of $150,000. Should you desire any further information relative to our financial capability in this project, please contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, BARKER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Robert G. Barker, President September 22, 1977 Gone Gessner Development Co. 321 C•. Market Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Sir: The City staff is in the process of reviewing the proposals receivod for downtown redevelopment property. In the process of this review, we have identified certain specific questions which we would like to present to you. Set forth below are specific questions regarding your proposal. We would like to receive answers to these questions by close of business Friday, September 23. 1. Do you have any evidence of interest or committment from tenants who will occupy the structure? 2. Please indicate what the source of funds would be should the actual cost of restoration of tliks property exceed the estinato sot forth in your proposal. 3. Have you secured a long term financing committment to follow your construction loan? Sincerely, Paul R. Glaves Redevelopment Program Coordinator V PRG/ssw 0 September 23, 1977 City of Iowa City Civic Center 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 0 GENE GESSNER INC CONSIATING MECHANICAL ENGINEERS 321 EAST MARKET STREEi IONA CITY. IOdJA 52240 319-351-1349 Attention: Mr. Paul R. Glaves Redevelopment Program Coordinator Gentlemen: We acknowledge receipt of your letter of September 22, 1977 and respond herein to the three questions. The evidence of interest or commitment from tenants who will occupy the structure is record of a telephone conversa- tion of September 12, 1977 with Stewart Hinerfeld, Aunt Maudes, Ames, Iowa who expressed a very definite interest of locating a restaurant on the First Floor of the College Block Building, Iowa City. They are presently completing a restaurant in Cedar Rapids and within a month of the telephone conversation would be interested In beginning a restaurant in Iowa City. Since such a definite interest was expressed, it was decided that no further discussion would be necessary until after commitment is made on the building. Aunt Maudes is a high quality restaurant In Ames. They also have similar facilities in Spencer and now In Cedar Rapids. Gene Gessner, Inc. offices will be located on the Second Floor. At this time, we have not received expressed interest from the other potential tenants listed in our proposal. 3 83/ 0 Mr. Glaves September 23, 1977 Page Two 0 The estimate of construction cost for the restoration Indicated in our proposal was developed by our office and generally confirmed with contractors. We do have experience In this nature work of the Old Capitol Restoration and similar and therefore have confidence In our estimate. Estimates are a major factor of our professional services. Should a hidden latent condition occur, not determinable by the investigation methods available, I have personal assets of in excess of $100,000 of which In part would be committed to the restoration if required. Long-term financing references have been provided by the Iowa State Bank. It is our intent to secure this long-term financing commitment upon notification of acceptance of our proposal. Further commitment will be attained at your request. Your consideration is appreciated. Thank you. A ner Gene Gessner Development Co. GAG:ksk Ll THE DEY BUILDING CORPORATION P.O. BOX 230 IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 Phone 338-1113 Mr. Paul Glaves Urban Redevelopment Program Coord. Civic Center Iowa City, Iowa 52240 0 Re: Bid proposal of Parcel 64-1 Iowa City, Iowa Dear Paul: This letter is in response to a phone call and a letter I received from your office regarding the Dey Building Corp. bid proposal on Parcel 64-1. The phone call advised me that an audited finan- cial statement was required instead of the certi- fied statement we supplied. I immediatly contact- ed Fred Schieber of McGladrey Hansen S Dunn. He states that an audited statement will be available Monday, September 26, 1977. Five copies of the audited statement will be delivered to you at that time. The letter questioned our intent when we stated "We would ask that provisions relating to the development of Parcel 64-1 be modified as follows -- We propose that Booth, Nagle 5 Hartray, Ltd. also be designated as architects or as consultants for the parking structure." Our intent is that the proposal is to be discussed and negotiated should we be chosen as a developer. If there is anything further I can do to be of assistance please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, J. W. Birse Se 'y Treas. De Building Corp. JB/mb 3 8.32 • CITY OF IOWA CITY CIVIC CEN(ER 410 E. WASHINGTON ST IOWA CITY IOWA 52240 (319) 354.180D September 21, 1977 Mr. Ivan Himmel Old Capitol Associates Plaza Centre One Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Mr. Himmel: The City of Iowa City received your bid proposal for the Iowa City downtown urban renewal project dated September 15, 1977. Pursuant to the terms of the disposition process, as outlined in the Prospectus and related disposition materials and amendments, the City of Iowa City requests additional information and clarification of your proposal. The City's questions are presented in the paragraphs below. We request a prompt response to the questions to be submitted to the City of Iowa City by Friday, September 23, 1977. If your firm is unable to prepare a response within the designated time frame, please so notify me by September 23 and indicate when the response will be forthcoming. The questions below are divided into two categories: Parcel specific questions and questions of a more general nature. Other material related to the concerns implied in the questions below or evidenced in our verbal discussions with representatives of Old Capitol Associates on Wednesday, September 21, may be included in your response. In addition to the questions stated below, the City of Iowa City has grave concern with some of the contract modifications you propose in your four bids. We are prepared to discuss the proposed modifications in full detail with you and seek mutually agreeable solutions. In the event that Old Capitol Associates is designated for one or more parcels and contract modifications cannot be resolved through negotiations, pursuant to the terms of the disposition, the City would withdraw the preferred developer designation from Old Capitol Associates. In such an instance, there would be no penalty or forfeiture of funds on deposit by the proposer. Site - Specific Questions Parcel 83/84. The City requests more detailed information on plan development of this parcel. Specifically, the City requests information on the expected size of the retail development, probable mix of stores and commercial activities, status of plans to develop office space and conversations with the University of Iowa, and other information relative to the use of the parcel which is necessary to evaluate properly the proposal. Additionally, what percent of the site do you propose to cover in a building envelope? Do you plan any setbacks or open areas outside the building envelope? 3$31 0 0 Mfr. Ivan Himmel September 21, 1977 Page 2 The City recognizes the difficulty in determining a precise development envelope prior to tenant leasing activities. However, the City is interested in the probable character of the project which will occupy a key development parcel within the Iowa City downtown area. In preparing the proposal, developer must have had more detailed information upon which the bid was based, and the City would like to review such plans for the site. 2. Block 64. The proposal for the hotel site is vague and affords maximum flexibility to the developer and minimum information to the City. The City requests additional information as to the size of the hotel, the number of rooms, the expected amount of retail space and type of space envisioned, and other relevant information which would assist the City in reviewing competitive proposals. The projected cost of the development is $6 million, or approximately $40,000 per room for a 150 room motel. On what basis is this cost estimate made? A competitive proposal indicates a cost of only $3.1 million for a 140 room motel. The developer proposes to take possession of the land after approval of preliminary drawings. The City requests that the developer take possession not later than 30 working days following the date on which the City awards the construction contract for the parking structure on this site, per the proposal on Parcel 83/84. Does Old Capitol Associates have a hotel management firm designated or what arrangements have been made or are contemplated for management of the hotel facility? 3. College Block Building. For Parcel 82-1a and lb, the City requests information on what retail tenants are expected to occupy the building and what prospective rents are. Who will supervise the restoration of the College Block Building? Are aluminum window casings planned for the front of the College Block Building as apparently depicted in the rendering? The developer indicates the cost of development is $900,000. On what basis is this cost estimated? 4. Parcel 103-3 (elderly housing). How many units of elderly housing are proposed for this site? Does the developer intend to use their Section 8 committment for this site or their Section 202 committment? What facilities are planned for the housing development? Developer makes the proposal contingent on acquisition of the adjacent site from the City for a price of $33,500. The City cannot agree to a specified price prior to the determination of fair market value, according to Iowa State Statutes. The City requests the developer to remove the specific contingency of site acquisition for $33,500 and request instead adjacent site acquisition at a price to be mutually agreed by the City and the developer, pending any required appraisals consistent with state law. Mr. Ivan Himmel September 21, 1977 Page 3 5. Parcel 93/101. The developer proposes a delayed take-down and purchase of the site. The City requests the site be purchased in full with execution of the agreement. Developer indicates an intention to build one hundred and eight condominium units. The City requests information on the marketability of these units and the total building coverage on the site. Developer indicates a presumed exemption from on site water retention on the site. The City cannot agree to any such exemption in advance of further studies. In the event, City staff determines on site water retention is required under the statutes of Iowa City, such retention must be accommodated on 93/101. The developer may indicate a desire to seek an exemption consistent with regulations and procedures in the City of Iowa City but should indicate an understanding that such exemption is not automatically given. 6. Parcels 93-2 and 93-3. The City requests additional information on the types of buildings, potential tenants for inclusion in those buildings, and expected development time frame. Additionally, the developer proposes to take possession of the sites 30 days after preliminary design approval. The City requests the developer to take possession of the site upon execution of the agreement instead of waiting for design approval. 7 8. Parcel 102-3 and 102-4. The developer indicates a willingness to build a convenience center if agreements can be negotiated with the adjacent land owner. The City understands that the adjacent land owner is a partner in Old Capitol Associates and requests assurance that the site would be used for a convenience center If these assurances cannot be given, the City requests information on what basis the decision will be made to build a convenience center or alternatively, small offices. The developer indicates property conveyance will occur not later than 30 days following necessary approvals of construction plans. The City requests conveyance occur upon execution of the agreement. Additional information is requested regarding the character of the convenience center or the small offices, probable tenants, and expected scale. Parcel 102-1. The developer indicates a desire to work with the adjacent land owner. The City requests information as to the ultimate use of the parcel and an indication of the likelihood of cooperation from the adjacent land owner. The developer indicates acquisition of the property would be undertaken no later I than 30 working days following necessary approvals of the construction plans. The City requests that property conveyance occur at execution of the contract. L Mr. Ivan Himmel September 21, 1977 Page 4 0 General Questions and Concerns 1. Conditional Bids. Under the terms of the disposition, the City prefers bids which are not conditioned upon successful designation of the developer on other parcels. If a developer has a conditional bid and is deemed the preferred bidder on one parcel but not the preferred bidder on the other parcel, under the terms of the disposition the bidder will be awarded neither parcel. In this light, the City requests that Old Capitol Associates remove all conditions on bids which are predicated upon being successfully designated as developer on other sites. 2. Financial Capability. According to calculations provided in Old Capitol Associates' proposal, equity requirements for the projects bid upon would exceed $4 million. The financial statements enclosed in the proposal do not indicate the ability to raise such a sum. The City requests detailed information on who will provide major equity infusions should Old Capitol Associates be designated as a developer on one or more sites. The evaluation criteria of competitive bids requires the City to examine closely the financial and implementation capability of the bidders. Most of the competitive bids have provided detailed information on sources of equity and lending cormoittments. The City is concerned that the information provided by Old Capitol Associates regarding financial position and ability to implement the projects does not support the ambitious proposals set forth, and thereby request more detailed information. Sincerely.yours, Neal G. Berlin City Manager NGB/ssw O � O OLD CAPITOL ASSOCIATES September 23, 1977 Mr. Neal G. Berlin, City Manager Civic Center Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Mr. Berlin: 0 1 A JOINT VENTURE of OLD CAPITOL BUSINESS CENTER COMPANY and MEADOW LINK INCORPORATED u' The total equity requirements of the projects bid by Old Capitol Associates will be met by the present investors in Old Capitol Associates, if and as needed. V�jtNiPLA J c �GL �d� u�• J �C- L c vry 1 W �t V / ':Y L r f; . - tJt�i• l.'!L" i� \ �N•� A�f.T DEDICATED TO REBUILDING AND BEAUTIFYING IOWA CITY Talap6ona 219251"5275,019.2071720 D,owm 1270 lowo City, Iowa 52240 cook• OLD CAPITOL ASSOCIATES Mr. Neal G. Berlin City Manager City of Iowa City 910 E. Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52290 Dear Mr. Berlin: n A JOINT VENTURE of OLD CAPITOL BUSINESS CENTER COMPANY and MEADOW LINK INCORPORATED September 23, 1977 I have taken the liberty in Mr. Ivan Himmel's absence of responding to your letter of September 21, 1977, regarding the proposal submitted by Old Capitol Associates relative to your urban renewal project R-19 in Iowa City, in answer to questions relative to specific sites: Parcel 83, 89. Excluding areas set aside for public malls, common area, loading facilities, maintenance closets and other miscellaneous public areas, the first level of the shopping center will approximate 150,000 square feet of net rentable space. The redeveloper would like the opportunity to make minor penetrations into the public right-of-way in order to add interest to the architectur- al features of the development as well as to provide more square feet of development area and allow certain flexibili- ties in the size of the city parking ramp. The second level of the mall will be created along the Clinton Street front- age. That section of the mall, i.e., the Clinton Street frontage, will be constructed in such a manner that the second floor could be expanded at a later date as the market warrants such an expansion. In any event, the original construction of the mall will include a parapet wall on all perimeter walls which will give the appearance of a two-level structure. The variety of stores will be of a conventional mix, typical of the pattern of downtown shopping malls. A general department store will occupy approximately two- fifths of the mall with typical merchandising taking place in the balance of the mall, with stores as large as 12,000 square feet and as small as 500 square feet. Kiosk opera- tions also may be located in the mall with a retail area DEDICATED 10 REBUILDING AND BEAUTIFYING IOWA CITY Telephone 319'351.5775, 319337.1770 Drown 1770 Iowa Of,, Iowa 52240 Mr. Meal G. Berlin OLD CAPITOL ASSOCIATES September 23, 1977 Page 2 as small as 100 square feet. We do not anticipate any office space being utilized at this particular time. We have been in contact with the University of Iowa regarding institution- al uses in an air rights above the mall. There are no formal agreements existing on these discussions. However, we have assured the University that we will cooperate with them in any way possible to attempt to satisfy their long range goals. Our intentions for site coverage with the previously mentioned right-of-way penetration, would call for lot cover- age exceeding 1002. we have not planned any set backs or open areas because the nature of an enclosed mall develop- ment dictates that amenities be placed inside the retail space. This will provide an interesting contrast to the open malled streets being created by the City. Members of your Urban Renewal/Redevelopment Staff have reviewed the conceptual plans for the proposed mall. We will be happy to meet with the staff to coordinate the preliminary thinking with the City on the joint occupancy of Parcels 83 and 89. Block 69. Old Capitol Associates intends to implement the basic plan for a 150 -room hotel with hotel amenity pack- age and retail space that is shown on sheets 7 and 8 of the plans previously submitted to the City under City University Project 1, Iowa R-19, dated 18 October, 1973. In our meet- ing, it was indicated that the City did have these plans on file and would distribute them to the interested staff members. The plans will be much more revealing than any narrative that we could possibly furnish in this response. We are, however, willing to meet at any time to discuss the details of the hotel improvements. Regarding the costs of our hotel being set at $6 million, we do not intend to become involved in a quarrel with the pro- posal of $3.1. However, having just undertaken similar type construction in Iowa City, as well as reviewing construction bids almost daily in Iowa City, we believe that a figure of $95 a square foot (which includes construction costs and soft costs) is a reasonable figure to use in estimating construc- tion that will take place two years hence. If in fact there are economies in this market that we are unaware of, we would appreciate your counsel. DEDICATED TO RE13UILDING ANOOCAUT IPIING IOWA CITY Telephone 719 75h5775, 319-337-472D Drawer 1770 Iowa CdV, Iowa 57740 0 Mr. Neal G. Berlin September 23, 1977 Page 3 0 O � O OLD CAPITOL ASSOCIATES The Redeveloper agrees to amend its proposal and take possession of this site 30 working days following the date on which the City awards the construction of the parking structure on this site. We have talked to and are continuing to talk with firms regarding the management of the hotel. We do not anticipate problems in finalizing a deal when the appro- priate time arrives. It is not appropriate to disclose at this point, those hotel operators/managers with whom we have been in contact. College Block Building. We have been actively working on marketing in the retail sales line and we have talked to many prospective tenants for the College Block building. lie certainly do not anticipate any leasing problems with the retail first floor of the College Block Building if we were awarded the contract to proceed with the building. The prospective rents in the building would be similar to those now being used in Plaza Centre One. These have been proven to be marketable rents because of our success in leasing retail space in this building. We have not, at this time, selected a supervisor for the restoration of the College Block Building, but it will be a professional, trained and with experience in historic restoration. Ile are not planning to use aluminum window casing for the front of the College Block Building. Restoration will be as close to original design and construction as possible. If our rendering indi- cated otherwise, it is in error. (See "North Facade Restoration" page 28 of our Proposal). The cost of $900,000.00 is based on our experience in this market in construction costs, plus the fact that we are dealing with over 20,000 square feet of gross structure and not just over 4,000 square feet. Parcel 103-3 (Elderly Housing). As the City knows, we have recently been awarded a grant of 81 units under Section 8. These 81 units of Elderly Housing are proposed for this site. Although we are aware that we are also the recipients of a Section 202 commitment for 48 units for the handicapped, we have not received the documentation on this award and are reluctant to speculate on the implementation of the 48 units. DEDICATED TO REBUILDING AND BEAUTIFYING IOWA CITY Telephone 319JSh S775,31V 337.4770 Drawer 1770 Iowa city, Iowa S7740 e Mr. Neal G. Berlin September 23, 1977 Page 4 0 =() OLD CAPITOL ASSOCIATES Lyle Sydel of the City has a copy of our proposal for Section 8 Housing, Assistance Payment Program, New Construction No. lA050030. That proposal details the facility that is plan- ned for the site and will be much more informative than we can be in this narrative. With reference to the parking lot, the developer recognizes that it will be necessary to meet the legal requirements in determining the costs of any land purchased from the City. We are prepared to act accordingly on any negotiation for the Dubuque Street parking lot. Parcel 93-101. The developer made his land conveyance schedule in accordance with what he believes to be a reason- able absorption rate for the type development proposed. To construct all 108 units at one time would constitute a "glut" on the market and severly affect the saleability of the units. The same would be true if our proposal was only for rental units. Thus, our proposal for a staged take down is rooted in the market place. Although we staged the take down of the sites, because of the higher density and greater invest- ment contained in our proposal, the long run tax benefit will offset any immediate small loss in taxes. The developer proposes that this site be used in such a way that individual ownership can be obtained in condominium units or a group of six units per building can be sold to an individual or group of individuals, who in turn would either occupy the building or rent the units out. The de- veloper is attempting to respond to the most flexible residential program for this close -in site with the pos- sibility of individual ownership as well as rental units being available. Regarding the marketability of the units proposed for the residential site, 93-101, the accumulation of data which prompted the June, 1977, finding, (Memo from Scott McDonald to Paul Glaves) details the need for housing units in the Iowa City market. Research data collected by the developer over the past several years indicates the size and units most likely in demand and the affordability of the units proposed meets a strong demand for ownership in the market. DEDICATED TO REBUILDING AND DEAUT I FYING IOWA CI TY Telephone 319JS1.5775, 319-337-4770 Drawer 1770 Iowa Cil y, Iowa S7740 Mr. Neal G. Berlin September 23, 1977 Page 5 is OLD CAPITOL ASSOCIATES our 18 - six unit buildings will cover approximately 44,587 feet of land. Regarding the water retention concerns, the redeveloper assures the City that it will work in every way possible to satisfy the technical requirements of the ordi- nance. Parcel 93-2 and 93-3. In accordance with our discussions, it is the redeveloper's intent to yield on any proposal that was also bid on by a contiguous property owner. In regard to either of these sites, that is certainly the case. Unless developed by the contiguous property owner, we do not see a market for these sites developing until such time the activity of a shopping mall creates satellite needs. That is the basis of our proposal of a delayed take down and we think it is a sound approach which we prefer not to concede. Parcel 102-3 and 102-4. The redeveloper feels that the central business district will find a need for certain shopping facilities that will not necessarily be located in the retail facilities on Blocks 83 and 84. Since Parcels 102-3 and 102-4 are in the auto -oriented area of the central business district and since the central business district will soon be increas- ing its residential use with the elderly housing and residential area on Parcels 93-101, we feel that an appropriate use for the parcels is that of a convenience shopping center. Units such as grocery stores, drugs ore, gho�ir, harhgchQp, beauty salon, financial insttitutiion, dry cleaner and other small service shops that will not be located in the pedestrian orien- ted area of the CBD will be placed in the center. We feel that such a center will complement the development across Dubuque Street. The contiguous property of old Capitol Associate't s and has agreed to m l� fttattl essem age cannot be marketed, then and only then would we resort to any alternative use of the property. These alternative uses will be in accordance with the Urban Renewal Plan and be subject to approval by the City Council. The Redeveloper will allow his proposal to be changed to the extent that he will agree to conveyance upon 30 working days following the execution of the Agreement. DEDICATED TO REBUILDING AND BEAUTIFYING IOWA CITY Telephone 319JS1.5775, 319-337.4770 Drawer 1770 Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Mr. Neal G. Berlin September 23, 1977 Page 6 0 =(D"'O OLD CAPITOL ASSOCIATES Parcel 102-1. It was our desire to attempt an assem- blage of property including Parcel 102-1, the immediate contiguous parcel to the South and the two remaining Parcels to the South on the whole half block of Lot 102. We cannot give any assurance of the likelihood of being able to ac- complish this entire assemblage. As previously stated, it would be Old Capitol's desire to yield on a bid whenever a contiguous property holder made an acceptable offer for a site. Conditional Bids. The Redeveloper, in view of the City's position on conditional bids, is willing at this time to permit the following changes to be made: Bid I. The condition that the acquisition of Parcel Block 64 be subject to obtaining Parcels 82-1a and 82-1b may be deleted by the City. Bid II. The condition that the acquisition of Parcel 103-3 be subject to obtaining Parcels 102-1, 102-2 and 102-3, -4, may be deleted by the City. The condition that the acquisition of Parcel 102-3, -4 be subject to obtaining Parcel 102-1 may be deleted by the City if an acceptable bid is received from a contiguous property holder. Bid III. The condition that the acquisition of Parcels 93-1 / 101-2 be subject to obtaining Parcels 93-2 and 101-1 may be deleted by the City if acceptable bids are received from contiguous property holders. Financial Capability. old Capitol Associates and its investors have already made an equity investment in the Downtown Urban Renewal Program in excess of $1,200,000.00. Mortgage funds of more than $2,600,000.00 have also been expended. old Capitol Associates has also been involved in the rehabilitation of two existing retail buildings on College Street with costs of more than $300,000.00. In reviewing the list of bidders, we find only the Hawkeye Bank an affiliate of one of the bidders, has made any substantial investment in building improvements within the urban renewal area. The only other substantial investments in the urban DEDICATED TO REBUILDING AND OEAUT IFYING IOWA CITY TeleRhooe 319-351 S775, 319.337.070 Drawer 1770 Iowa CITY, Iuwa 57740 Mr. Neal G. Berlin September 23, 1977 Page 7 OLD CAPITOL ASSOCIATES renewal project area have been made by Iowa State Bank and Trust Company and Perpetual Savings and Loan Association. Both projects resulted from marketing efforts of Old Capitol Associates. Old Capitol Business Center Co. was formed on March 2, 1973, in a response to an appeal from the City for invest- ment by local investors in the urban renewal redevelopment program. All of the equity capital raised locally has come from those original investors. The original partnership was replaced by a limited partnership under the name of Old Capitol Business Center Company on October 4, 1973. The original and existing members of Old Capitol Business Center Company have reconfirmed their commitment to meet the total equity requirements of the projects bid by Old Capitol Associates, if and as needed, in a letter submitted to the City Manager at approximately 11:50, this date. In reviewing the contents of these responses to your questions, we found that we did not respond fully to your question regarding the Section 202 commitment. We feel that it is desirable to attempt to place some of the 48 units for handicapped persons awarded Systems Unlimited in the residential development in Parcels 93-1 and 101-2 if we are awarded those parcels and provided that this is feasible under the rules and regulations which we have yet to receive from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. We have attempted to respond fully to your questions. If further clarification is needed, please do not hesitate to contact us. We hope, however, that this procedure will not serve to slow down the review by the Staff and Council and that we can proceed post haste. very truly your alj�;_ Donald J.' catena DEDICATED TO REBUILDING AND BEAUTIFYING IOWACITY Telephone 319-351.5775, 319.337.4770 Drawer 1770 100,11 city, Iowa S7740 • Hembars of the Council City of Iowa City Civic Center Iowa City, Iowa 522110 Re: Urban Rencwal Land Disposition Ladies and Gentlemen: is L.4U1RO,d41EAiAL HVES1HEM0 108 dorLh Downcy - 11.0. !wx 89 West Branch, Iowa 52358 Dctnber 3, lgn A 13 a ji- 5 j:.J l_I-UJ I am writing in response to the recent land disposition reccnunendations prepared by the City Staff; most specifically those concerning Parcel 82-1a (the College Block Building). As I am sure you are all aware, we have submitted a proposal for this parcel and, as such, have a special interest in this regard. However, our spacial interest aside, we still feel that the Staff report is quite inconclusive and urge you to take a hard look at this matter. Initial Staff review resulted in the elimination of six of the eleven total proposals rather quickly. The remaining five were all judged as meeting the requirements set forth in the bid package by the City and, after more detailed consideration, the Staff did not reach a clear concensus on the most superior proposal. Since this is a unique situation and deserves additional consideration, we urge you to expand your evaluation to include the five finalists. We feel that each of these proposals has substantial merit and none should be eliminated at this stage of the process. While the Staff review concentrated on an objective analysis, there are many subjective questions as cell re- garding the reuse or this parcel. Clearly the major question is "what is best for Iowa City" and this question is clearly the purview of the Council. We offer the following observations we feel are pertinent to proposal evaluation with respect to the College Block Building: 1. The financial capability of the developer has been heavily scrutinized, and should be. However, the large number of proposals is indicative of the feasibility of this project as well as the availability of financing. In addition, there are over a dozen potential tenants inCeresLod in this space and the successful developer should have the opportunity to negotiate with each of than. From this we feel that any of the five has the capability to execute the full intent of their proposal. 2.This particular parcel is well suited for the small investor and, as such, offers the chance to fulfill a stated goal of the urban renewal program. 333A • October 3, 19/7 llember:; of the Council Page 2 3. llhat proposed uses for this b.mi]ding arc best related to Lhe restoration of the structure. How can vie best respect the historic continuity of the College Block and its continued viability in the twentieth century and beyond,. This includes the nature of the use as wall as the number of specific entities that are housed within the College Block. 4. Should local citizens not currently located in the Iowa City area be given preference over others who now have space down- town. There are many other questions that can be identified but it is not aur intent to present you with a long list. Rather tie wish to suggest that additional consideration should be given to the proposals of the "top five" investors. We feel that the Staff has rightly remained in the objective realm in their deliberations. However, that leaves many subjective questions unanswered in this particular case. This is appropriately within the realm of Lhe Council and we would urge you to examine the subjective aspects as well as the objective in your deliberations. We would suggest that the proposals presented cannot totally portray the enthusiasm and dedication of those in:•olved. We would be happy, as I am sure the other four groups would as well, to appear before the Council to more fully explain our intentions and share with you our concerns and enLhusiasm for the success of this project. In summary, we feel that the College Block.. is a unique parcel within the total project and should be given unique consideration prior to the selection of a developer. We th^refore urge that you take the time to reexamine the top five proposals, meet with each of the in- vestors, and strongly consider the subjective aspects of thi'_s situation which will lead to a decision that is in the best interests of the Citizens of lowa City. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, ?JENVIRONMENTAL .INVEEST�MENTTS�z?P��� ((cwtIF ( Y i- Z, Brian P. Gutheinz, Partner OPG:paq INFORMAL COUNCIL DISCUSSION OCTOBER 3, 1977 1:00 P.M. INFORMAL COUNCIL DISCUSSION: October 3, 1977, 1:00 P.M. in the Auditorium at the Public Library. Mayor Neuhauser presiding. Details taped on Reels #30 and 31. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Neuhauser, Balmer, Selzer, Foster, deProsse (1:10), Perret (1:12). STAFFMEMBERS PRESENT: Berlin, Stolfus, Glaves, Schmeiser, Schreiber, Plastino, Kraft, Brachtel, Hayek, Chapman. Mayor Neuhauser requested that Council set public hearing at the earliest date on the Housing, Maintenance & Occupany Code. Informal discussion will also be set for October 17th. City Clerk Stolfus called attention to an error in the minutes of the meeting of the 20th. In the Consent Calendar, the date of the CCN meeting is 9/6/77 instead of 9/16. ZONING APPLICATIONS Sr. Planner Schmeiser was present for discussion. Village Green South - Discussion of dedication of the 40' strip was held. FarKs and Rec and Planning and Zoning recommendation not to accept the dedication was noted. It was questioned whether or not the City Forester had been contacted concerning the plantings vs. utility lines. The item will be deferred one week for the opinion of the Forester. Hy -Vee - As the officials from Hy -Vee were not present, the item was not discussed. Sturgis Corners - If the legal certificates are presented, and the at— toffs staff has time to review them, Council will consider the subdivision. If there is not time for review, the item will be deferred. This policy will apply to any situation. McDonald's - Staff will present a report concerning the purchase of the right-of-way for extension of a street thru Sturgis Corners to locate at the SE corner of Benton because of McDonald's plan to 1 Benton/Riverside Drive. COUNCIL TIME News a er Picky - Problems with the project were discussed. Scavengers are PlCKing up papers ahead of the City truck. City Manager Ber,in advised that a proposal for private pickup of paper will be presented to Council at the Tuesday meeting. Iormal Discussion October 3, 1977 Page 2 URBAN RENEWAL The City Manager noted that the target today was to see whether or not there was Council concurrence with the City Manager's recommendations or changes as they relate to designating a preferred developer. Questions raised that seem to relate to contract negotiations will not be considered. A letter from the Zuchelli firm was presented. Berlin advised that the storm water management ordinance would apply to most of the parcels, and would be negotiated and worked out in the development of the project. A change is being drafted for the tree ordinance and will be sent to Planning and Zoning. These amendments should be finalized prior to any action taking place on these parcels. Urban Redevelopment Coordinator Glaves noted the importance of separating the recommendations of the City Manager from the minutes of the meetings. The parcels were discussed in the following order. Block 64: Hotel - Dey Building Corporation - Construction of the parking would begin as soon as possible after construction on 83-84. A reserve of money will have to build up after the first ramp is built. The City Attorney Hayek agreed with the last sentence that Council waive the irregularity of the non -submission of the audited financial statement. (After staff request, it was submitted.) PARCEL 81-1: Richard Pieper - Concern over aesthetics was expressed. The plan will be reviewed by the Design Review Committee and Council. Delivery of goods was discussed. A majority of Councilmembers did not want to be a party to any arrangement that two bidders could work out. The obligation to modular renters was noted, and the City Manager pointed out that no preference was given, unless everything was equal, as spelled out in the supplementary material that went out with the urban renewal documents. PARCEL 82-1a: College Block Building - College Block Partners - Bushnell's Turtle and apartments - A letter from Environmental Investments was presented. Glaves discussed 'degree of restoration', considered by Staff as a variable. Berlin had met with C.B.P. and E.I. representatives. After staff discussion, no joint proposal has been submitted. Roland Wehner, representing Preservation Investments, asked several questions on staff interpretation of their proposal. They are still willing to discuss a joint venture with Zastrow (CBP). Their contractor would be North American Restoration, Minneapolis. Ed Zastrow, Bushnell's Turtle, made a statement. His proposal was based on today's operation of the business (not open in evening). Noise from the streets and business was noted. • Inal Discussion Oc er 3, 1977 Page 3 PARCEL 82-1b: Old Capitol did not remove its condition regarding this parcel (tieing it to 82-1a). Removal of parking from the Eicher proposal would be a substantive change not a clarification. Frank Eicher appeared for the Eicher -Yoder Partnership. They would have an Interest in considering only 82-1b. The staff was not in a position to recommend just the utilization of 82 -lb for parking and modified bank drive-in. The North Bay Construction proposal will be reviewed by Design Review Committee. If Council ever decided to allow extension of anything out in Dubuque Street, language in the contract could provide for it. The previous decision had been to wait and see how Dubuque/College functions. PARCELS 83-84: Mall - Old Capitol Associates - The Mayor called attention to the letter from Zuchelli, Hunter and Associates and her concern over the design for the building, that it should really be something great. She pointed out Zuchelli's concern that the Council must be prepared to work closely with the developer to ensure a successful project. Staff plans to use ZHA in contract negotiations. (This is Task 17, added to the contract.) It was suggested that the Staff start negotiations as soon as possible. Berlin noted that if Council reached a consensus on any parcel, there is no reason to wait unitl the 18th, but it could be indicated at the formal meeting of the 4th. Glaves pointed out that if the Council designates OCA as preferred developer, there are several things that the staff needs to be working on. These include the confirmation of the parking structure dimensions; specific legal contract language will need to be negotiated; also the transit question and the issue of pedestrian access to College Street Plaza. Concern was expressed over movement of people in and out of the Mall. Attorney Hayek stated two areas of concern in the modifications to the form of contract were: (1) there should be no modifications which would jeopardize the City's control over development of the property, and (2) some language modification proposed for dealing with delays in the in the project and liability. These will be discussed with the developer. Berlin advised that he, the Staff and Consultants advise not rebidding these parcels. PARCELS 93/1 AND 101/2 Pentacrest Garden Apartments - Parking will buffer noise from Burlington Street. There will be 1.8 parking spaces per unit, which more than meets the requirements of the ordinance. Jim Clark answered the questions on his development. Freda Hieronymus made a statement concerning their financial capability and noted that it was not their intent to build anything that they would have any regrets about. Vevera stated, the Council agreed, that no one was trying to discredit Freda or Old Capitol, but they were trying to do what is best for Iowa City. • Armal Discussion October 3, 1977 Page 4 PARCEL 93/2 Ervin Lovetinsky - Glaves stated that benefits provided by providing expansion room to an existing business and to clear up an existing non -conformity in the parking requirements, will in the end, work out to the benefit of the City. PARCEL 93/3 Will be rebid next spring. Robert Welsh suggested holding the land for possible use regarding Madison/Court flow of traffic. PARCEL 101-1: Perpetual Savings and Loan - No discussion. PARCEL 102-1: Mod Pod, Inc. - Fairbanks owns the land surrounding this parcel. Previous discussions with them were noted. PARCEL 102/2: Old Capitol Associates - It was suggested that this be a city parking lot. Hieronymus advised that she owned the remainder of the land along Burlington Street up to the motel. It would be used as a parking lot for the Chamber of Commerce until after the other downtown land is developed. Future sale of the land was discussed. This could be discussed in negotiations. PARCEL 103/3 It was suggested that staff proceed with appraisals on the parking lot. As Zuchelli will meet with Council next week, Council went thru the parcels to see if anyone disagreed with the recommendations. Block 64 has no concerns; Block 81/1, Neuhauser and Perret had concerns; 82/la, deProsse and Selzer had concerns; 82/lb, deProsse and Neuhauser concerns, same as 81/1; 83 and 84, no concerns; 93/1-101/2, no concerns; 93/2, Perret had concerns; 93/3, will be rebid; 101/1, no concerns; 102/1, Balmer abstained; 102/2, 102/3 and 4, 103/3, no concerns. All Councilmembers agreed that Zuchelli should be involved in the negotiations on the Mall. The Resolution designating developers will be on the agenda tomorrow night. Councilman Selzer commended the City Manager, Glaves and the Staff for their work in putting together the reconmenddtions. Meeting adjourned, 4:00 P.M.