The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1988-07-12 Info Packetr City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: July 7, 1988 To: City Council From: City Manager I Re: Leasing of Buses to University We were recently approached by the University Parking and Transportation Director to determine whether the University could lease three buses from Iowa City Transit. The lease is proposed for a period of one year. CAMBUS was counting on their three new transit coaches to serve a new commuter parking lot being constructed near Finkbine. This lot is to open at the end of August. The University, as the City recently experienced, had their purchase order cancelled by Saab-Scania. Representatives of the City met with University staff to discuss a leasing arrangement. We have agreed to lease to the University three of our 1977 model transit coaches. The buses that were selected are identical to the existing CAMBUS fleet and are not air conditioned; therefore, they are seldom used during the summer months. The University will pay the City a monthly rental fee and be responsible for all maintenance and damage repair. The University will also pay for repainting at the beginning and at the end of the lease period. Representatives of the City Transit operation are in support of this proposal, and I have authorized them to proceed. bc4-1 cc: John Lundell 9 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE: July B, 1988 TO: City Council FROM: City Manager RE: Curb Ramp Program We are in the process of constructing our annual curb ramp program. The following represent this year's project: 1. Southwest crosswalk on Burlington and Capitol 2. Southeast corner of Linn and Court 3. Northeast corner of Market and Johnson 4. Northeast corner of Bradford and Arthur 5. Northwest corner of Bradford and Arthur 6. Southwest corner of Washington and Lucas 7. Southeast corner of Washington and Summit S. Southwest corner of Washington and Summit 9. Northeast corner of Washington and Governor 10. Northwest corner of Washington and Muscatine 11. West driveway curb at 815 Washington, Pi Beta Phi House, walk only 12. Northwest corner of Bradford and Baker 1067 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: June 30, 1988 To: Steve Atkins, City Manager From: John Lundell, Transit Manager Re: Waterloo Transit System Per your referral from the June 28, 1988, Council meeting, I have researched the operating statistics of the Waterloo transit system. Compared to Iowa City Transit, Waterloo operates a very minimal level of service with a substantial subsidy. The Waterloo system recovers 15% of their operating expenses from farebox revenues with the remainder coming from local, State, and Federal subsidies. In FY87 the average cost per passenger for Iowa City Transit was $1.04 compared to $2.12 for Waterloo. Each Iowa City resident rides Iowa City Transit an average of 41.5 times each year compared to 6.8 rides per year for each Waterloo -Cedar Falls resident. Thank you and feel free to contact me if you need any additional information. bdw4-9 Ida I RECEIVED JUL 8 1988 EAST CENTRAL REGIONAL LIBRARY 625 Guaranty Building • Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52401 319-365-0521 600-332-7914 DATE: July 6, 1988 TO: Mayors of Cities in Cedar, Iowa and Johnson Counties FROM: Lily Lau, Acting Administratortt SUBJECT: Regional Trustee Elections East Central Regional Library, as established by Chapter 303B in the Code of Iowa, is governed by an elected Board of Trustees representing specific geographical districts within the Region. On the November ballot, a trustee position from Iowa, Cedar and Johnson Counties will be listed. In order to have a candidate's name placed on the ballot, the candidate must obtain nomination papers at the county courthouse, complete them appropriately with signatures of twenty-five eligible voters, and return them to the county auditors (or election) office. The deadline for completed papers is September 9. Elected trustees will begin their four-year terms January 1, 1989. No Regional trustee may serve on a local library board or be employed by a library during his or her term of office. Needless to say, we are anxious to have qualified and motivated people running for the office. You, from the communities being served by the Region, are in the best position to know potential candidates. Please encourage them to file their nomination papers. If you have any questions, please call the East Central office. i0(o9 9 Recycling Report: x` 1,� E" Getting Real with Recycling Recycling's an increasingly popular component in com- munity waste manage- ment programs, but just how much waste reduction can cities and counties expect from recycling programs? Well, experience indicates, it all depends. By Charles Papke 28 SOLID WASTE G POWER/APRIL 1988 People in the Wilton, NH, area (population: 10,000) recycle 45 per. cent of their trash these days in a regional recycling program. But folks in Palo Allo, CA, (57,200) with one of the oldest and most comprehensive recycling programs in the country, in contrast, recover about seven percent of their trash. Other cities with aggressive pro- grams recover still less, but still others claim much higher rales. Wood. bury, NJ, (10,700) reports an aston. ishing recovery rate of g0 percent. How can this be? Why is there so much variation in recovery (or diver- sion) rates, and what does this tell us, if anything, about recycling's potential for reducing the volume of municipal wastes? Some recycling advocates claim vigorous recycling programs could solve the nation's waste disposal problems by achieving 90 percent waste reduction across the board. But other recycling experts feel more realistic expectations, for most com- munities, would range from 15 to 30 percent. Both groups can cite specific com- munity programs to support their contentions, but recyclintis real po- tential in communities that are only now initialing programs is more diffi. cult to determine. Examining existing programs across lire country provides some clues, but several factors must be considered in comparing results: • the composition of the municipal wastes generated in the communities; • the recycling methods the com- munities use; • the ways the various programs are put together; and e the perceived cost-effectiveness of the various programs. Name That Composition The source of a city's or cnunly's waste and its composition can be more COMPARISON OF RECOVERY RATES FOR CURBSIDE RECYCLING PROGRAMS City Diversion Goal Recycling Rate Current Diversion Ann Arbor, MI 25% 58 10% Austin, TX 15% 47 3% Boulder, CO 50% 20 4% Davis, CA N!G 40 6% EI Cerrito, CA 25% 22 291. Groton, CT 25% IS 10•6 Islip, NY 50% 8 4% Madison, WI N/G 52 2696 Marblehead, MA NiG 33 5•6 Marin Co., CA 30': 30 5% Minneapolis, MN 16% it 1•6 Montclair, NJ 25% 114 45% Palo Allo, CA 25% 25 796 St. Louis Park, MN 16% 55 41% San Jose, CA 25% B 5% Santa Rosa, CA NIG 7 4% Springfield Township, PA N:G 8 12% Sunnyvale, CA 25% 19 09. Wilton, NH NG B 18% Woodbury, NJ 859: 74 90% Notes: Some curbside programs also use deo-off, bu)-ca:k, composing and other rocycling options. Recycling Rale is in pounds par prrspn par month. Waste D,ve,s-cn s :ho per cern of municipal solid waste recovered by the program. tPer cent of residential wastes is higher). NIG means that the city has not adopted a specific goal. le 7d important to the success of recycling programs than to waste -to -energy projects. Operators of %VTE projects ire concerned mostly with the waste streams BTU -value, its quantity and the relative amounts of combustible and non-combustible materials in the waste. Source separation recycling project managers need to know more. They need to know lire relative amounts of a broad range of components, what variations to expect in their quantities and their source. Knowledge of these details is less important to projects that do not include source separation, but more on that later. Historically, recycling has targeted mainly the residential waste stream — using drop-off centers, buy-back cen- ters, curbside collection. Generally, organized recycling programs fes op. posed to market-oriented recyclers) have targeted only a few materials — mainly corrugated cardboard and office paper products — in the commercial waste stream. Although entrepreneurial individuals and some waste haulers have occa- ! siomily collected cardboard and a few other recyclable items from businesses for resale, their efforts have not, for the most part, resulted in regular collection programs. Entrepreneurs have concentrated on the most easily recovered materials, which tum the quickest profits. The aggressiveness of their collection efforts lends to fluctuate with the strengths of their markets. Because most recycling efforts only pursue materials in the residential waste stream — which may represent as little as 25 percent or as much as 90 percent of a community's total waste stream — it's easy to see why two equally effective curbside re- cycling programs can recover very different proportions of a community's wastes. A residentially -oriented pro- gram that recovers 50 percent of household newsprint, glass and cans may divert over 30 percent of the waste generated In a rural community but only rive percent in a more industrialized urban area. But divergent definitions of recy- cling also contribute to the confusion. "Post -consumer scrap," for instance, refers to commonly recycled materials such as cans, glass and newspapers. These materials are termed "post- consumer scrag' because they are generated by consumers after prod. RECYCLING: THE OPTIONS Source: Resource Management AseorJatds SOLID WASTE & POWER/APRIL ]958 29/0P Wale Program Option Diversion Cale YARD WASTE comprises a to lox of Start-up and operation costs COMPOSTING waste stream. similar to curbside collection programs. Curbside collection can capture essentially as yard Net costs comparable to waste. total solid waste disposal costs. OFFICE Comprises 3 to 5% of waste Costs generally covered by PAPER stream. avoided disposal lees RECOVERY ands sale of materials. Typical recovery rates: up to 50% of available materials Largo -volume programs can per location. generate revenues. COMMERCIAL Recovery rales from 10 to Generator's costs can be WASTES 60% of malarial, depending oflsel by avoided disposal COLLECTION on design. costs. Targets typically cardboard. Collection costs generally some glass, plastics and less than revenues from metals. sale of materials. SPECIAL Comprises filo 9% of waste Curbside collection of some MATERIALS stream; lives d ails, less plastics and oil adds smae RECYCLING: than 1%. cost to program. PLASTICS, TIRES A OIL Existing recycling recovers For lire generators, ' small portion of available recycling costs less than waste materials. disposal, whore available. DROP-OFF Typical target materials: Can be the least expensive CENTERS newspaper, cans, glass option. bottles. Fully staffed confer may Recovery rates less than cost $40 per Ion; lower with 2% of municipal Wastes. volunteers. BUY-BACK Mulli•malerial sites divert 1 Start-up costs similar to CENTERS to 5% of waste stream. drop-oll centers; operational costs higher. Simplo•malerial sites divert less. Generally a poll generating operation. CURBSIDE Recovers 10 to 25% of Full program costs an be RECYCLING municipal wastes, less than solid waste COLLECTION correction and disposal. Typically targets newspaper, cans and glass conlainors. Net program cost typically $2050 par ton, or 30.60 cents per household per month. DISPOSAL Compose 1010 451% of the Highly variable costs SITE waste system. depending on type of RECYCLING operation. Typically targets newspaper, caduoand. gnnss. cans. Programs can be designed plastics, yard waste a to generale profits. others. Source: Resource Management AseorJatds SOLID WASTE & POWER/APRIL ]958 29/0P ucts and packaging materuils have been used and discarded. All cities track these materials in their recycling statistics. Bill other scrap materials, termed "pre consumer scrap." are recovered before entering the waste stream, especially in the commercial sector. They're recycled in-house instead and re -manufactured into new products without ever being discarded. Paper manufacturers recycle imperfect paper and cardboard products. Plastic prod- uct fabricators routinely save their trim and other plastic scrap for resale to the primary manufacturer. Similarly, scrap metal and paper stock dealers have long traded on a commercial level in scrap materials that never entered the waste stream. The varying amounts of "pre -con- sumer scrap' that cities include in their recycling statistics can create city -to -city recovery rate discrepan- cies of 10 to 20 percent. Differences in methods Another important consideration when comparing recycling programs is the technologies Ihcy use. A drop-off center, or even a network of drop-off centers, will not be as effective in diverting recyclables as a weekly curbside collection program. But nei- ther system is as effective alone as both would be in tandem. Likewise, comprehensive recycling programs using all available method- ologies can recover a sigmificanl portion of post -consumer scrap, yard wastes (for composting), a variety of commercial wastes, office papers and other special wastes, thus targeting almost all recyclables in both the commercial and residential waste streams. As might be expected, these pro. grams have the best chance of reaching the high goals many jurisdic. tions have adopted. Figure One lists various recycling technologies currently in use with rough estimates of their effectiveness as stand-alone approaches to waste management. But since no one city has yet fully employed all the technologies, it's difficult to accurately predict what a comprehensive program might amain. And again, definitions play a role in judkbng the merits of the various methodologies. The perceived effec. tiveness of any given method will depend upon how effectiveness is 30 SOLID WASTE & POWMAPRIL 1988 measured. An aggressive office paper recycling program can remove virtually IM percent of the targeted material — white ledger grades, for instance — bul slill have a negligible impact on the city*s waste stream. Many curbside recycling programs boast 60 to 70 percent public pvlici. palion, yet divert less thin Io percent of the municipal waste stream. ISrlici. pation levels don't necessarily say much about diversion, yet few recy- cling programs measure their effec. tiveness in those terms — prefer. ring statistics such as household participation levels or tuns recycled. As might be expected, that, too. adds In the confusion regarding diver. sion rales. In any case, most recycling; methods can be classified as some sort of source separation approach which requires recyclable materials to be separated from wastes where they are generated. But one technology, I)is- posal Site Recycling (DSR), is basically different. USN systems remove recy- clables from the mixed wastes at a centralized facility such as an inciner- ator, landfill or transfer station. SATURN t9 SHREDDERS FOR ALL YOUR SIZE REDUCTION NEEDS ! 'i- 7 • - . E Ll u_ Mobile. . . , .. or Stationary Saturn offers a complete line of shredding equipment to handle virtually any waste reduction requirement. With Saturn's patented hydraulic drive and automatic anti - jamming capabilities, troublesome materials are readily reduced without stress on shredder or shredder drive systems. Saturn Shredders can't be beat for size reduc- tion on: MSW • PALLETS • HAZARDOUS • DRUMS IN -PLANT • WIRE CABLE • WOOD PRODUCTS NONFERROUS • NUCLEAR LOW RAD • PLASTICS TIRES 9 ETC. To get more information and arrange for a test on your material, please write or call: MAC/SATURN Corporation 201 E. Shady Grove Road Grand Prairie, Texas 75050 (214) 790.7000 J 0000-JIMME17:21- -.R CIRCLE 16 ON READER SERVICE CARD DSit systems often use a combina. tion of mechanical and manual means to pick through selected loads of refuse that contain predictably high concentrations of recyclable materials, often cardboard, Municipal wastes have been processed in this fashion in some European communities and else. where, but the technology is not as well developed here in the U.S. High Performance Recycling Three key factors to improved recycling performance are well known, but not always emphasized as new programs are planned and imple. mented. They relate to program design, public awareness and program management. Program Design. 12ecyeling op- portunities, whether they are volun. tary or mandatory, require conven. ience. Drop-off centers localed at or near disposal sites atlain higher re- covery rales than those in out -of -the. way locations. Likewise• curbside Programs are more effective waste diverlers with weekly collection than with less frequent or irregular sched. ules. But program design is also impor. GUNDLE. THE WORLD LEADER IN LINING SYSTEMS, INSTALLATION AND SERVICE. Single -source responsibility—for materials, manufacturing, testing, a patented extrusion system for seam welding, turnkey installation services and the experience of over 270 million square feel of installed liner—from the world leader, Gundle. Call Gundle for additional technical information and roll with the leader. Gundle Lining Systems Inc :r�••cs �'f3 I'noJnmUb I6,W Ibe.mn. I.v, MITI L'SA I'L�m Ii I h 141.,<r.4 1,411,,,. ,,,, ut 4.n lb;R;N I., I, 11..E I%\ :11 PAIIII CIRCLE 115 ON REAPER SERVICE CARD tanl for maximizing the efficiency of materials handling and processing. Providing household recycling con. tainers to residents can increase recovery rates and participation; and careful integration of recycling col. lection with refuse collection and processing can improve recyclins s potential for waste reduction. Overlooking these program design factors, however, can severely limit the effectiveness of any program and burden the effort with excessive cost and labor requirements. It may mean handling recyclable materials more often than is necessary, as some programs do. Other communities use on -route sorting in curbside collection pro. grams, but could save vehicle time and labor expenses by introducing a series of simple processing steps. Some. times, too, expensive glass crushers are used when more efficient methods of handling and transporting recycled glass are available. Public Awareness. Promotion may be the most important factor in determining a program's success or failure. liven in communities with mandatory participation laws, pro. grams must inform residents of recy. cling laws as well as enforce those laws to achieve high participation levels. Many curbside recycling pro. grams backed by mandatory ordi. nances have participation rales below 50 percent. Program promotion must also in. volve all sectors of the community and use a wide range of promotional materials, media and activities to be effective. And the promotion effort needs to be, an on-going campaign. Too many have devoted thousands of dollars to start-up promotion only to see participation decline as the year progresses and the follow-up activities trail off. Most voluntary programs that have achieved and maintained high partici. pation rales use permanent full. or Part-time promotional staffers to dis. tribute materials and continue educa. tional activities. Program Management. One of the more difficult factors to define, in evaluating effective recycling progaams, is their ability to recruit and keep devoted and qualified managers. Many recycling programs have failed over the years, often due to disastrous SOLID HASTE k POwER'APRIL 1988 31 l d 7D market conditions. But while poor market conditions aggravate many management problems, careful plan- ning can increase operating efficiency and creative research can sometimes discover new market opportunities. Collection for recycling is new. Techniques are still developing. And, in most cases, recycling efforts have yet to be fully integrated into municipal solid waste practices. Not surprisingly, in these circumstances, most success- ful recycling programs have benefited from strong leadership and dedication from one or more staff members. As recycling becomes more institu. tionalized and integrated, the need for this extra managerial expertise may diminish. But in the meantime, new efforts will continue to require strong and creative leaders to initiate new programs and fully develop their recovery performance. So, what's it worth? One road block to implementing more expansive forms of recycling has Often been the cost- the money it lakes to start-up and then operate the programs. initial costs can be high and From MAGNAU[�@N... A shredder system that meets your needs, not somebody else's sales quota. As independent consultants. Magnatech has only one stan- dard to meet—your exact shred- ding needs. We have no sales quotas, no blind allegiance to a specific supplier. Call or write for details no reason to use one brand of machine when another would perform better. Your system Is designed with components of any brand on the market, high-speed or slow -speed, newer used, based on the needs of your application. And nothing else. At Magnatech, there's only one standard—meeting your require- ments at the lowest possible cosh or quote. ME MAGNAV[ C@N CIRCLE 119 ON READER SERVICE CARD P.O. Drawer 9829 P.O.Box 52 xanms Oily. MO 64134 St. chilies, MO 63302 (816)761.2338 (314(949.0096 32 SOLID WASTE k POWER/APRIL 1988 recycling programs have often been expected to "pay their own way." Burdened with a requirement for Sell- sofficiency, it's been difficult to justify recycling s cost-effectiveness or implement new recovery programs in cities where commercial recycling operations already exist. But this John Wayne view of recycling, although rooted in the traditional role of the salvager, ignores recycling s newer role as a waste management tool — along with WTE incineration, composting and land disposal. Every discarded item in the waste stream must be handled somehow, but materials recovered from the waste stream through recycling no longer need to be collected and transported in garbage trucks to be burned or buried. True, there are costs associ- ated with the handling of wastes for recycling. But the savings generated by avoiding the rapidly escalating costs associated with other disposal prac- tices should be credited to the recycling effort. When "avoided disposal credits" are not included in the economic analysis of a proposed recycling program, net costs of the program are artificially increased. And the chances of ulti- mately including the program in the city's overall waste plans are reduced. But a growing number of com- munities have adopted full and bal- anced accounting in evaluating recy- cling, and these cities see recycling as a real money -saver. How Much Is Enough? So, even plough precise recovery rates are difficull to predict, this much at least is known: comprehensive, well-desibmed, effectively promoted and well-managed recycling programs can divert significant volumes of material from municipal waste slruuns. And when fully -integrated with a community's over-all waste handling strategy, recycling promises to he a cost.effective tool in managing munic- ipal wastes. Charles Popke is president of Resource Management Associates, a firm specializing in materials recovery and recycling. He con be reached at RAM; 2209 Jelfersun St; Napa, CA 9.75.59; phone 707- 259.8630. /D7d City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: July 7, 1988 To: City Council and Department Heads From: Assistant City Manager Re: Color of Clothing for Televised Meetings Council members and staff have recently been wearing more white clothing during City Council meetings which are cablecast. White or very bright clothing, particularly when worn close to one's face, will tend to reflect the bright lights and create a kind of harshness or glare which may shadow or distort a person's image on the TV screen. This condition cannot be adjusted out and will significantly reduce the quality of the TV picture. Council members and staff who attend regular City Council meetings are requested to refrain from wearing white or other bright colors which tend to reflect light. White shirts and blouses, even when worn with a darker jacket, will nevertheless result in some glare as described above. Pale or pastel colors generally do not have the same effect as they tend to absorb more light. If you are uncertain about a particular garment, I would suggest you wear it to the meeting, call the matter to my attention, and I will ask the production staff to take particular note and will advise you whether or not it has any negative effect. cc: City Manager Broadband Telecommunications Specialist bj/pc2 Al) 71 6 July 6, 1988 CITY OFIOWA CITY Mr. Donald Sehr, Chairperson, and Members, Johnson County Board of Supervisors and Ms. Lynne Cannon, President, and Members, Iowa City School Board and i J Mr. John McDonald, Mayor, and Members, City Council of Iowa City Re: McLean Enterprises v. Board of Review, Docket No. 48046 (Howard Johnson's Motel, Iowa City) Pursuant to Iowa Code Section 441.44, this is to notify each of you that the Iowa City Board of Review is proposing to voluntarily settle the above -referenced tax assessment appeals by agreeing to reduce the assessed valuations on the property as follows, as of January 1 of each of the years indicated: Taxpayers Board of Review Protest Settlement Year Valuation Valuation Values 1983 $1,550,000 $1,110,220 $1,475,000 1984 1,550,000 1,110,220 1,462,500 1985 1,607,630 1,110,220 1,500,000 1986 1,607,630 1,110,220 1,487,500 1987 1,599,630 1,110,220 1,475,000 1988 1,599,630 1,110,220 1,462,500 Taxpayer's income and expense information, obtained by pre-trial discovery processes, shows that the property has been only marginally profitable during the years in question. An MAI appraiser employed on behalf of the Board has opined that the value for each year was $1,500,000, and the taxpayer's MAI appraiser is said to have found various values in the neighborhood of $1,400,000. The settlement values appear to reflect a fair compromise, based upon the MAI appraisals and the tendency of judges to average appraisal values. /0 7Z C1% IC CLSTLR • 410 HAST WASHINGTON STRI¢T • IOWA CITY, IOWA S::AO • (519) IS6.S000 9 -2 - Taxpayer's income and expense information, obtained by pre-trial discovery processes, shows that the property has been only marginally profitable during the years in question. An MAI appraiser employed on behalf of the Board has opined that the value for each year was $1,500,000, and the taxpayer's MAI appraiser is said to have found various values in the neighborhood of $1,400,000. The settlement values appear to reflect a fair compromise, based upon the MAI appraisals and the tendency of judges to average appraisal values. The City Assessor has informed me that all Board of Review members concur on this proposal. Please notify me or Dan Hudson before July 22 if there are objections to this proposal. Otherwise, we will assume there are none. Sincerely, �/ Richard J. Boyle First Assistant City Attorney and Attorney for Board of Review tp3-10 L , June 29, 1988 Mr. James D. Houghton 920 South Dubuque Street P.O. Box 2000 Iowa City, Iowa 52244 Dear Mr. Houghton: CITY OF IOWA CITY & 7t—� t, /, T R4iwies This letter is intended to follow-up our previous telephone conversations regarding Idyllwild Subdivision. As you are aware, on June 14, 1988, the City Council retracted their May 17, 1988, denial of the preliminary plat and referred it back to the Planning and Zoning Commission so that the deficiency under the Floodplain Management Ordinance could be resolved. Revised preliminary and final plats were received on June 10, 1988, which replaced Lots 2-9 on Taft Speedway with an "Outlot." The elimination of Lots 2-9 resolved the conflict with the Floodplain Management Ordinance which required access to such lots to remain passable during the occurrence of a 100 -year flood. As such, the June 10th plats are ready to be submitted to the Commission and Council for consideration. Both plats will be considered under the 45- and 60 -day limitation periods established by the final plat filed on April 27, 1988. 'These dates were recently extended by Mr. John Cruise in a letter dated June 13, 1988. Accordingly, the June 10th revised plats will be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission for consideration on July 21, 1988, and, assuming the Commission acts on both plats at that meeting, will be submitted for Council consideration on August 9, 1988. Mr. Cruise's letter referenced that the extension of time was to "...explore and investigate new platting alternatives." Should an alternate subdivision design be proposed, which goes beyond resolution of the deficiency previously stated, it will be treated as a new plat requiring submission of a new preliminary and final plat application. Cll IC l'I ]1'1 N • 1I 11 1 l S T ]G TO ST 9111' • Ilrtl CI1'1'. IUN .. ..:.�� • I Ilul lin luno IO/3 6' I Mr. James D. Houghton June 29, 1988 Page 2 Submission of an alternate plat design will be scheduled before the Planning and Zoning Commission based upon the date of application. For example, application must be filed by June 29, 1988, to be considered at the July 21, 1988, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, and by July 13, 1988, for the August 4, 1988, meeting. An application is not considered complete unless accompanied by the appropriate number of plats and legal documents, as appropriate. Submission of a new plat application will establish new 45- and 60 -day limitation periods. If you have any questions concerning this information, please do not hesitate to call me at 356-5240. Sincerely, Barry & gl Associate Planner bdw2-1 cc.NCity Manager Jim Glasgow I M USA Enp7= Rock Island DWrict RECEIVED JUL 7 1988 Public Notice Applicant: Jim Glasgow Construction Date: July 6, 1988 Expires: July 26, 1988 Public Notice No: CENCR-167470 Section: 404 Joint Public Notice US Army Corps of Engineers Iwa Department of Natural Resources I 1. General Information. a. Applicant. Jim Glasgow Construction, Rural Route 6, Iwa City, Iwa 52240, _. b. Project Location. Section 3, Township 79 North, Range 6 West in Iwa City, Johnson County, Iwa; Iwa River. C. Project Description. TheAplicant is in the process of constructing a new housing development. As of February 29, 1988, approximately 30,000 cubic yards of fill material had been placed on a 10 -acre parcel of land. Approximately 5000 cubic yards of the stockpiled fill will be placed along the perimeter of the project site. This area has been determined to be a forested wetland adjacent to the Iowa River and placement of fill will require Department of the Army authorization. No earthen fill will be placed within 150 feet of the Iwa River and no earthen fill will be placed within 50 feet of the drainage ditch. The final elevation of the major area of the project site will be 648 feet, mean sea level (msl). The perimeter fill area will be 646 feet, mol. Approximately 160 feet of the Iwa River bank and the lower 30 feet of both banks of the drainage ditch will be covered with a 2 - inch -diameter stone -base and approximately 100 cubic yards of broken concrete riprap. The purpose of the project is to provide additional residential housing in the Iwa City area. d. Project Plans. The applicant's plans have been reproduced on the attached sheet(s). 2. Agency Review and Where to Reply. e. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers. The Department of the Army application is being processed under the provisions of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Comments concerning the Corps permit should be addressed to the District Engineer, US Army Corps of Engineers, Rock Island District, Clock Tower Building - Post Office Box 2004, Rock Island, Illinois 61204-2004. Mr. Bill Lehmann (309/788-6361, extension 379) may be contacted for additional information. /07�1 b. State of Iowa. The project plans have been submitted to the Iwe Department of Natural Resources for state certification of the proposed work in accordance with Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The certification, if issued, will expream the Department's opinion that the proposed activity will comply with lowa's water quality standards (Chapter 61 IAC). The applicant has also applied for authorization of work in the floodplain pursuant to Chapter 455B of the Iowa Code and other applicable state permits. Written comments concerning possible impacts to waters of Iowa should be addressed to: Iowa Department of Natural Resources, 900 East Grand Avenue, Des Moines, Iowa 50319. A copy of the comments should be provided to the Corps of Engineers office (see paragraph 2.a, of this public notice for address). 3. Historical/Archaeological. The staff has consulted the latest published version of the National Register of Historical Places and found no registered properties, nor properties eligible for inclusion therein, that would be affected by the applicant's proposed activity. However, presently unknown archaeological, scientific, prehistoric, or historical data may be lost or destroyed by the proposed work. 4. Endangered Species. Preliminary review by District staff indicates that the proposed activity is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species or the critical habitat of any fish and wildlife, or plant which is designated as endangered or threatened pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 `Ot. seq.). Therefore, no formal consultation request has been made to the United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 5. Dredge/Fill Material Guidelines. The evaluation of the impact of the proposed activity on the public interest will also include application of the guidelines promulgated by the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency under authority of Section 404(b) of the Clean Water Act (40 CFR Part 230). 6. Public Interest Review. The decision whether to issue the Corps permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable impact including cumulative impacts of the proposed activity on the public interest. That decision will reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of important resources. The benefit which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. All factors which may be relevant to the proposal will be considered including the cumulative effects thereof; among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, floodplain values, land use, navigation, shoreline erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food production and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people. 7. Who Should Reply. Any interested parties, particularly navigation interests, Federal and state agencies for the protection of fish and wildlife, -2- 107,11 and the officials of any state, town, or local association whose interests may be affected by the proposed work, are invited to submit to this office written statements of facto, arguments, or objections thereto. These statements should be submitted on or before the expiration date specified at the top of page I. These statements should bear upon the adequacy of plans and suitability of locations and should, if appropriate, suggest any changes considered desirable. 8. Public Hearing Requests. Any person may request, in writing, within the comment period specified in this notice, that a public hearing be held to consider this application. Requests for public hearings shall state, with particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing. A request may be denied if substantive reasons for holding a hearing are not provided. FOR THE COMMANDER: Attach / / JAME LANCHAR, P.E. Plan Chief, Operations Division REQUEST TO POSTMASTERS: Please post this notice conspicuously and continuously until the expiration date specified at the top of page 1. NOTICE TO EDITORS: This notice is provided as background information for your use in formatting news stories. This notice is not a contract for classified display advertising, For more information call the Rock Island District Public Affairs Office, 309/788-6361, ext 274. -3- pfg0Jc'C7 S/YE w ..v'7 I ✓r .moi TYPICAL SECTION Y•!f S/iuwwf „ Flo I Il.or . ... h � •iii /.�.n.�.o� sync \ ♦ /wt Avw.YL.f ' nvw t w� .• f ; f •,•WII. f 11 1 1 11 1 /O IOOId I •/ / M /Nl � • ; BRotE on.•-' ' 641\500✓ .rrnrr wM P XO A Elft m\ VICINITY MAP PIAN M6µ1 . sync \ ♦ /wt Avw.YL.f ' nvw t G/fY_ DE.J. f Olf / 1 I 5t1I0 'I � `,et ,,,.: 16 7 4 7 0 LIST OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS PROJECT DESCRIPTION: NO. NAME ADDRESS r141, p44.10E1yEN7 I. g ocr, GLAS GOI•, $34 U• %3 H0"*0N CITE oa aowA CITY 410 E. WACHIN9Y01J LOCATION: 2• .ZOwA Rlu6A 3. _roaA ury 0% 4. nr-.\r... .+.. �� •nn\ In •ut•n nnnv n\IrrT