HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-08-25 Info Packet.V'
W
W
City of Iowa City
(-- MEMORANDUM
Date: August 20, 1987
To: City Council
From: City Manager
Re: Wilson/Morningside Drive Sidewalks
Attached are representative samples of petitions and accompanying correspon-
dence from the Wilson/Morningside Drive area residents concerning the con-
struction of sidewalks. The City has received 17 pages of correspondence
from these residents indicating that they do not wish sidewalks constructed
in their area. In an effort to determine Council direction early on concern-
ing this matter, an expression of your interest in whether we should proceed
with the sidewalk special assessment program for next construction season
would be appreciated.
bj4/6
/dR
August 17a 1987
Attention: Iowa City Council
Subject: The owner Of 224 S. Lowell objecting to
sidewalks being installed on the two
blocks of S. Lowell St.
Many trees would have to be removed which would
greatly diminish the beauty of this two block
long street.
The expense of putting in sidewalks on the east
I side of S. Lowell would be a great economic
burden to the present owners.
Our driveway to the garage has such a grade at
Present that many times a car will "bottom out".
when entering or exiting the driveway to the
I Street. We have a 4 to 5 foot rise in our lawn
f
in the first 18 feet from the street,if
It uld
be a big problem in developing a driveway wo it
wo
would be possible at all. Any walks would
require a retaining wall which would be very
dangerous to children playing in the front yards,
South Lowell is only two blocks long and has very little
traffic. I have lived here for 29 years and do
not remember one accident due to the lack of Side-
walks.
The installation of sidewalks would create many
more problems than they would solve. We ask that
YOU drop the sidewalk project on S. Lowell St.
C. W, House,
•.JG 191987 6 �e�j < ��
MARIAN K. KARR Dorothy �n9/ousel _ Owner
CITY CLERK (3)
1A *WLI
.V'
b
To: The City of Iowa d-11
1
1 1
We, the undersigned residents/homeowners on Wilson Street, are
opposed to the construction of a sidewalk on our street.
Name
Address
� /
�,Z33/.Il1
9h YP
(IL�l'Gi. �
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Phone
3.3 0 %C-,
35,4 -Z 7z�3
33?- z7v3
337- 2Y/5
X3'1 S 3'7
337- 3:z9i
33 3 -95��0
33,7- 710
331- i
/4A t�-Ol-
re llewiv n Corres1A e/? Olen
no c/
Seng A Colihell
.1.
/a lt4A-z
.Y'
/ W
�o
WSJ,
r-luu 19 1987
MARIAN K. KARR
CITY CLERK (3)
Fit I o"Itt
/� 'e
.o.
August /8, 1987
Iowa City, Iowa
f
Dear councilors;
We are disturbed to hear that our neighborhood is being surveyed
for sidewalks. Though we have two preschool children and can
appreciate the advantages of having sidewalks, we were well aware
of their lack when we moved into the neighborhood and do not want
them.
The character of most of the homes in the neighborhood would be
{ severely damaged by the loss of mature trees. Our own lot would
lose substantial value because of the extensive grading required
to install a sidewalk on a lot 8 feet above the street.
In short it would damage property values and damaging the
city's ability to pay for the project and most importantly the
people who would most benefit from the project don't want it.
Please do not install sidewalks in our neighborhood.
Nicholas Hoefer
Mary Hoefer
234 Lowell Street.
nt1G 191987
MARIAN K. KARR
1 CITY CLERK (3)
/A'-2.
.o•
r
1719 Wilson Street
Iowa City, Iowa
August 18, 1987
To Whom It May Concern:
My husband and I built at this location in 1951. Some time soon
after, we asked for sidewalks --I don't remember the date. At that
time we were told it was not feasible as the houses were too close
to the street. Our houses are still at the same location so I am
at a loss to understand why there is room now.
I understand the Systems House has asked for sidewalks. They knew
this was an old established neighborhood and had no sidewalks when
they built. Frankly, I have not seen the children out and about,
and much of the traffic on this street comes from schoolbuses and
Seats buses other than the normal flow of homeowners' cars and an
occasional utility truck.
This is a very quiet street, but the street itself is narrow and
at one time calendar parking was initiated. This would have been
a very good idea, but was also turned down --maybe the fault of
some on this street --we never heard, other than it never happened.
As the stake (driven by the surveying crew) on one of the lawns
indicates, the sidewalks would mean the demise of 9 well-
established trees and probably the ruin of quite a few driveways.
As the petition accompanying this letter indicates, I'm sure I
speak for the residents of this street in registering our
opposition to the installation of sidewalks.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Robert (Lucille) Knoedel
1719 Wilson Street
Iowa City, Iowa
ia0-AM-
9
.V'
4&�. i9�7
To: The City of Iowa
We, the undersigned residents/homeowners on Lowell Street, are
Opposed to the construction of a sidewalk on our street.
Name
"s
PO
eco'/
173
�s
7
!�uu 1) 061
■m
MARIAN K. KARR
CITY C1 3( )_
.Y'
•
rM
! PETITION M THE CITY COUNCIL OF IOWA CITY y/
i 1 21987
We the un QST tt-40?Ants of Wilson/Morningside Drive from Seventh Avenue
p IIYCLERK(3)
► west on Morningside running into Wilson then running east to Seventh Avenue.
(Making a U shape), are petitioning the City Council of Iowa City NOT to
put sidewalks in this low traffic area. This is not a through street, does
not carry a heavy traffic load (in fact it is a very light traffic area),
the only traffic in the area are the residents, their family and friends.
The installation of sidewalks would increase the taxes for many people in
this area who are on fixed incomes, and this would create a very real hardship.
And would destroy many beautiful, valuable trees that enhance the neighborhood.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
--—-———— — — — — —— ADDRESS — ——
NAME TELEPHONE
3 J
/ ee / 73 GS
.V'
'P -gey
i
PETITION TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF IOWA CITY
We the undersigned residents of Wilson/Morningside Drive from Seventh Avenue
west on Morningside running into Wilson then running east to Seventh Avenue.
(Making a U shape), are petitioning the City Council of Iowa City NOT to
put sidewalks in this low traffic area. Thi's is not a through street, does
not carry a heavy traffic load (in fact it is a very light traffic area),
the only traffic in the area are the residents, their family and friends.
The installation of sidewalks would increase the taxes for many people in
this area who are on fixed incomes, and this would create a very real hardship.
And would destroy many beautiful, valuable trees that enhance the neighbgrhood.
�JJ, 1 ?1981
MARIAN K. KARR
1VVS"'
•P'
PETIT N TO THE
iTY COUNCIL OF IOWA CITY
. f 6 i� r
�q�F�l_AN K. KARR
We the undersigned res i (1
�-�Rx Wh/Morningside Drive from Seventh Avenue
west on Morningside running into Wilson then running east to Seventh Avenue.
(Making a U shape), are petitioning the City Council of Iowa City NOT to
put sidewalks in this low traffic area. This is not a through street, does
not carry a heavy traffic load (in fact it is a very light traffic area),
i
the only traffic in the area are the residents, their family and friends.
The installation of sidewalks would increase the taxes for many people in
a
this area who are on 'fixed incomes, and this would create a very real hardship.
And would destroy many beautiful, valuable trees that enhance the neighbgrhood.
F- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
N — — — — —
i:
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE
F of 1 .71 �71rIn e 160�i 338 Qq
e�2
n
C
-A757
rldZ - 2 7S V
G
3 7— J Z 1/Z
X37 ^ 900
a/— 112-4
2 — ap .?
23 9— .57647
Pa9A- 413 �
PETITION TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF IOWA CITY y_11 -f;7
We the undersigned residents of Wilson/Morningside Drive from Seventh Avenue
west on Morningside running into Wilson then running east to Seventh Avenue.
�
(Making a U shape), are petitioning the City Council of Iowa City NOT to
Put sidewalks in this low traffic area. This is not a through street, does
not carry a heavy traffic load (in fact it is a very light traffic area),
the only traffic in the area are tho 1.o 4A,._.._
The installation of sidewalks would increase the `taxes Lfor ld friends.
many
people in
this area who are on fixed incomes, and this would create a ver
And would destroy many beautiful, valuable trees that enhance the neighbgrhood.
N= _ - - - -- ADDRESS -----------------
----
TELEPHONE
U
i
CITY CLERK (3)
/Q%2�
4 —/7 1/6'-7
wee Qo �e F cape _e 10� h rd -e � G e,
.uta naeb, �j \fAe. a'"U ion
i(pdL �—6zih'IP.vY.R� � � r Yl//(.fj/ �dcru"' • �.e Ga
�Lf�c�GLu � Bu�22�t, arc
���sre.�ei� CGkO••G� �c� G s ����� ef' /G�-� %`C[2��n.�Ge�-ar�i�
CXS �/�L-QA.CG.�i,l � +'�'�1L�cL/LGI+ �.C(JA LZI.�•(/((�bCL�I
.tr����, Ylto-r-e� GeiL,c�,2.cca-�c� � �Qy Yu�c,.l }Zo �tc2urtt.�i�i�
a 1,,4 elm 6t/
oa�D
^,t1G 191987
a
MARIAN K. KARR
CITY CLERK (3)
M OWL
.1.
a
August 19, 1987
City Council
City Manager
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Gentlemen:
The front of my property is graced by the presence of two very
old and beautiful maple trees. They are fully performing their many
irreplaceable ecological functions. Aesthetically too, these trees
add their stateliness to our street and worth to our land. There is
no reason to arbitrarily destroy them. We are already losing too many
trees to our planet's great detriment. We need more trees, not fewer.
I petition to save all of the thirteen trees that would be lost to put
in sidewalk on our street.
I have lived here for many, many years and am growing old in my
home here. The cost and upkeep of sidewalk would work financial and
physical hardship on me that I could not handle. I petition that this
hardship will not be imposed.
221 Lowell Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Sincerely,
Sylvia Stromaren, Homeowner
W o W � M
AUG 191981
MAIAN K. RR
CITY CLERKA(3)
/A OOL
w
P
(page 2 of 2 pages)
In 1965 the City wanted to install sidewalks along all streets. At
that time the residenrca along Lowell and Wilson streets petitioned a-
gainst putting in sidewalks and were granted their request. (IWe have a
cop., of that petition and the photographs prepared as exhibits at that
time and in 1959 wlien an earlier effort was made to put in sidewalks.)
No new homes have been built in this area since 1965, except for a
SYstems Unlimited hone built last year. 610 understand that the sidewalk
survey was begun at their request. We did not object to hiving them in
our midst. H(mover, if we had known that sidewalks would have been one
of the results of their being here, a strong protest would have been
made.
720,
/71 z I
o R � M
-`.UG 19 1987
MARIAN K. KARR
CITY CLERK (3)
/A*01
o R � I
'1U- 19 1987
MARIAN K. KARR
CITY CLERK (3)
140
huSbPC`�k cy1c�
si cQn3p�
Wr W�11 hAVr- 40
ni c, 11 c cs cy\j o
io Sic t�, aAti� �cA s4 tY s
b�1cA�Fc,r1
►-L o-vr� IV CC\ G, which
i 5 ty-lcc\ 40
Qnl, ry �cd {ter I
l)�n, V/L
'SSL `�1
c /A 44L-
.Y'
August 18, 1987
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
f The appearance of a survey crew in my frontyyard last week was an unpleasant
surprise - the second one this year from the City of Iowa City, Z complied
with the order to replace a portion of the .sidewalk in the College Street
side of my 'property, One of my neighbors seems to be ignoring the May 30th
1 deadline g g
i
A quarter of a century ago we faced the same situation regarding sidewalks,
or lack of, on Lowell St, We didn't need them then and we don't need them
I now, Vehiclar traffic on Lowell and High streets is not limited to its resi-
dents but it is quiet except when school is in session, 8 becomes heavier
[ then and we who live in this neighborhood, especially on Collegeaand Lowell
are unable to park our cars in front of our homes, Our streets become an
extension to the City High parking lot.
The majority of my neighbors have yards in which the children p1Ay and lack of a sidewalk does not seem to limit their activities,
i
Four of the nine homeowners in my block are retired) $40,00 per sidewalk square
is a major expenditure on a fixed income, The homes on the east side of
Lowell are all on ground several feet above the street which would require
either grading and replacement of large lawns or a retaining wall, both of which
would add considerably to the cost. This would also require complete replace-
ment of driveways and extensive grading or a wall on either side of the drive,
These costs would be prohibitive both tot the retired homeowner and to the young
families who have bought their property in the last year or no.
I do not object to the presence of a "Systems Unlimited" home in my neighbor-
hood, but Ido not feel that one resident of an area Should dictate such a
project, If sidewalks are a necesssity for them, they should have purchased
property on which to build where sidewalks were already in existance.
Sincerely,
'(Miss) Helen G, Hughes
201 Lowell St.
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
339-6745
^,uc 191987
MARIAN K. KARR
CIT`! CLERK (3)
MOWL
.Y'
•
TO: The Iowa City City Council
The Iowa City City Manager
It has come to our attention that a request has been made
to the city to consider the building of sidewalks on the 'street
where we live.
We stand opposed to this due to the financial burden it
would place on our neighbors and us. We are a young couple who
have only recently become homeowners and find our budget
stressed to its limits by the combination of a mortgage, taxes,
and utilities. Several of our neighbors are retired and would
surely find the expense imposed upon them a hardship.
As we view our property as it fronts Lowell Street and the
lots along the street, several factors come to mind which would
seem to make construction of a sidewalk extremely costly if not
completely impractical.
First is the issue of the slope of the front yards. Will
construction of a sidewalk entail also building retaining walls
that will shorten our front yards? If walls are built, what
safety hazards do they present to any children in the
neighborhood? If walls are not the answer, what effect will
grading entire front yards have on the extensive trees and
bushes an peoples' property? Will the change of slope cause us
to replace our driveways to match the new grade?
Along our street there are large trees and bushes which
provide us with shade, wildlife with sanctuary, and the ground
with protection. Many of these stand in the path of a sidewalk
and would undoubtedly fall to city forester's saw. Removing
trees and bushes to replace them with concrete would be ironic
when you consider the benefit the former provide the ecology of
our neighborhood.
Lastly, the need for a sidewalk to separate pedestrians
from vechicular traffic, is not warranted. Our street is an
extremely quiet one with traffic limited almost exclusively its
residents. The children that live in the neighborhood play in
each others' back and front yards. The only time traffic comes
onto the street is when City High School is in session; a time
when most children will also be in school. Are these sidewalks
to be built so that children under the age of five can ride
their tricycles along them, unsupervised by a parent or
babysitter? I do not support this concept and hope you do not
either.
We stand with our neighbors in opposition to this request
an the basis of its cost, damage to our proporty, loss of plant
life, and lack of need to separate pedestrians from vehicles -
Sincerely,
`,UG 19 1987
M
Peter Muir
Susan Corbin -Muir
216 S. Lowell Street MARIAN K. KARR
(319)354-1142 CITY CLERK (3)
/dRf1j
.P'
s
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 21, 1987
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
RE; Pee Changes for Certain Water Services
Attached please find a copy of a memorandum from the Public Works
Director hanes in
Division services. Thesetwerecnotgincluded einnthe cfee uWater
study, but
are recommended to cover costs to the City to provide the indicated
services. These fees would be effective December 1, 1987.
This information is presented at this time to allow for inclusion in
1the 987 difayou hoose totincludebefore
these, thennecessayour rynamendment da for 8totthe
�
ordinance under consideration (Item 29) is available.
/;?VOU5
.V'
City of Iowa city
MEMORANDUM
DATE; August 21, 1987
TO: Steve Atkins and City Council
FROM: Chuck Schmadeke
RE: New Schedule of Fees for Water Main Tap; Water Main Installation; and
Service Charges for Routine Water Service Procedures
The Water Division has asked that several fee structures be adjusted. These
are as follows:
1. Water main tap - last adjusted July 5, 1984.
The price adjustment in the resolution represents an increase of
approximately 22 percent in labor and materials cost. The old price and new
price are listed below.
fSize Old Price New Price
1 3/4 inch $ 59.40
1 inch $ 72.40
t 11 inch $123.90 $ 90.50
$150.20
11 inch $155.60
$195.40
2 inch $212.50
$255.70
i
2. Prices for installation of a water main were last adjusted in 1984. The
price increase represents increases of approximately 20 percent. The total
cost element is composed of pipe, fittings, valves and labor. The increase
is higher than taps because materials comprise a larger portion of the cost.
Tabulation is shown below.
i
j Size Old Price New Price
I 6 inch $11.00 $13.20
I` 8 inch $14.25 $17.10
10 inch $18.10 $21.80
12 inch $22.50 $27.00
16 inch $29.80 $35.80
The charges for service procedures were last adjusted in July of 1984. The
prices listed approximate the cost of labor and materials. The after-hours
fees are relatively high due to the labor provision of paying a minimum of two
hours call -out time when a call -out is made after hours. Tabulation of old and
new prices is listed below. Old prices are shown in parenthesis.
During Normal After Normal
Service Working Hours Working Hours
a) Connection fee for $11.00 ($9.00) $30.00 ($25.00)
1. installing new meter
2. resetting meter
i
/V? o3
.1.
Steve Atkins and City Council
August 21, 1987
Page 2
Service
During Normal
Working Hours
After Normal
Working Hours
b) Carding fee for shut-off
$11.00 ($9.00)
$30.00 ($25.00)
in collection procedure
c) Check leaky meters and
No Charge
No Charge
meter connections
d) Frozen meters
$11.00 ($9.00)
$30.00 ($25.00)
+ cost of meter
+ cost of meter
repair
repair
e) Shut-off service at curb
and check for leaks
No Charge
$30.00 ($25.00)
+ hourly rate for
time over 2 hours
f) Broken hydrant
$11.00 ($9.00)
$30.00 ($25.00)
+ repair costs
+ repair costs
g) Location of water mains
No Charge
No Charge
for other utilities
h) Location of water main for
private enterprise
No Charge
$30.00 ($25.00) +
hourly rate for time
over 2 hours
i) Meter accuracy check at
customer's request
$30.00 ($25.00)
Not done after normal
working hours
J) Miscellaneous services for
No Charge
$30.00 ($25.00) +
other governmental agencies
hourly rate for time
over 2 hours
/0144s
CITY OF IOWA
IN T CITY
CIVIC CENTER 410 E. WASH
G ON ST. IOWA CIN, ION/A 52240 (319) 3565Q"0
August 20, 1987
Mike Gatens
2045 Dubuque Road
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Dear Mike:
t Attached is a copy of report which I submitted to the City Council con-
cerning your request for consideration of a possible change in City policy
with respect to the installation of a sewer collection system. The memorandum is self-explanatory and I believe points out the fact that in the
decision-making process concerning the construction of a sewer collection
system, public benefit is particularly critical. Please note that it is
important to the overall public sewer system planning process that the
system be planned to accommodate the likely growth in the area so that
public costs can be minimized wherever possible.
4
You have suggested during your discussions with the City Council that your
intent was to provide for a private sewer system, that is a sewer system
and lift station that would serve the four -lot subdivision at Dubuque and
Highway 1. While it is certainly a possibility, the term "private sewer
f system" I believe to be a misnomer. Ultimately the sewage generated would
be placed in a public collection system and transported to the City's
treatment plant. If at some time in the future the private system should
fail through unsatisfactory maintenance on the part of the owners, not
k only would the sewage system back up into the homes and thereby cause a
public health and/or safety problem, but- also a failure at the lift sta-
tion could cause sewage to be released into the public right-of-way. The
cost of cleanup would be borne by the City government. Wherever possible
private systems and any sewage system that meets only the needs of a few
properties should be discouraged.
Sincerely yours,
i tephen J At in
.o• City Mai er
/sp
cc: City Council
Chuck Schmadeke, Public Works Director
Frank Farmer, City Engineer
A
.o•
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 18, 1987
TO: Steve Atkins, City Manager
FROM: Chuck Schmadeke
RE: Mike Gatens Property - Corner of Dubuque Road
& Highway #1
Representatives of Mr. Mike Gatens approached the City Council at
their regular meeting on August 11, 1987, requesting permission
to install sanitary sewer to serve the above-mentioned property.
They also submitted a proposed preliminary plat to the Council.
The preliminary plat has not, as of this date, been submitted to
the Planning staff for review, nor have plans for the proposed
public improvements been submitted to the City's Engineering
staff for review.
An attempt will be made here to review the proposed sanitary
sewer for the subdivision. However, it should be kept in mind
that the sewer as proposed may or may not serve the development
as approved following review by the Planning staff and by the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
When designing sewer for a subdivision, several design parameters
and regulations must be adhered to. They are as follows:
1) The design must be performed by a professional engineer
licensed in the State of Iowa (state law).
2) The public assumes that each lot within a subdivision
is served by the public sewer system. It is essential
that public sewer service be provided whenever
possible.
3) Lift stations should not be constructed if gravity
sewer is available (Iowa City policy). Reasons for
this policy are high maintenance costs, high expansion
cost to reconstruct the lift station and force main to
serve the entire tributary area after it is first
constructed for a smaller area located within the
tributary area, and duplicate sewer systems if gravity
sewer is eventually constructed.
4) Minimum pipe size for public sewer shall be 8" (Iowa
City design standards and Iowa Department of Natural
Resources requirement).
5) If utilized, lift station and force main design must
meet criteria established by the Department of Natural
Resources.
P00
.Y'
I
8} Sewers should be sized and designed for the estimated
ultimate tributary area population. There are
approximately 20 acres remaining for development in
this tributary area.
None of the above-mentioned design parameters and/or requirements
have been properly addressed by the subdivider.
With regard to the proposed lift station, further discussion
follows. Lift stations should not be permitted when gravity
sewer is available. The cost of maintaining a small lift station
is excessive when compared to the cost of maintaining a gravity
sewer system. A similar lift station on Iowa Avenue, constructed
in the Pall of 1980, cost $3,000.00 to operate and maintain in
FY87. (The lift station on Iowa Avenue was constructed to serve
( three (3) properties. This lift station was constructed because
the sewer services for these properties were connected to a
tt¢ siphon line located under Ralston Creek, whereupon, due to low
flow and very flat service connections, backup of sewage into
basements occurred quite frequently.) When lift stations are
necessary, they should be designed to serve an entire drainage
area, not a limited number of lots within a subdivision;
otherwise, several small lift stations would eventually be built
to serve the drainage area, greatly increasing the cost of
operating and maintaining the City's sewer collection system.
s The City has, since the turn of the century, selected to provide
to its customers, a gravity sewer collection system with lift
stations strategically located to maximize efficiency. In
t addition, the sanitary sewer collection system improvements being
proposed in the City's wastewater facilities plan continue the
( Program of encouraging gravity sewer construction. Therefore,
lift stations should not be permitted where they are not
necessary, and/or where they do not serve a large enough area to
6 be cost effective,
,o•
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 18, 1987
To: City Council
From: Assistant City Manager�� ,
Re: Traffic/Parking in Downtown—Alleyss
During the past 12-18 months, suggestions have come from the Downtown Asso-
ciation, individual downtown business persons, and various City staff members
regarding parking, loading and traffic movement in the alleys in the Central
Business District. There is a rather lengthy history of concern by some
downtown business persons regardinalleysg use of alleys and suggestions have some
in-
change side only, one wayndesignationsercial nofzallsalleys,ving parking for a d suggestions thatno
changes from the current regulations be made but that enforcement of existing
parking/loading restrictions be increased,
The Downtown Association conducted a survey of its members earlier this year.
There was general agreement that one -side parking might help the situation in
the alleys. Beyond that, there was no clear consensus about the preferable
means of trying to improve traffic movement in the alleys. There is a major-
ity which supports some positive effort and I have discussed the issues at
length with DTA representatives and with the Police Chief, the Parking Super-
intendent, and the Traffic Engineer. Based upon those discussions and on the
input received from the DTA and individual downtown business persons, the
following changes in the regulation and control of alley parking/loading in
the CBD area are recommended.
I. Downtown alleys will be signed so as to permit parking for loading/un-
loading on the north side onl The south side of all alleys will be
signed to prohib par ing a a 1 times.
2. Property owners using dumpsters will be notified that all dumpsters must
be placed on the north side of the alley,
3. Signage will designate loading zones for active loading/unloading only.
The code currently allows up to 15 minutes or the time necessary to
complete loading or unloading and this shall continue.
ns will
hed to
4 pre-
ferred method eisttocfasten thelsigns to painted
g wallsiw{thgflatThe
screws.
However, it will be necessary to gain permission, regardless
method, from the building owners. of the
5. While this change is intended to apply to all alleys in the CBD, it will
be implemented first in the two -block alley between Washington and Col-
lege Streets running from Clinton Street to Linn Street, This trial
period will be for 6-12 months with an evaluation before making similar
designations in other alleys.
M09
2
It is first necessary that the Traffic Engineer complete the survey of build-
ing owners to ensure that the proper signage can be erected. Formal Council
action, if necessary, will be initiated, including any changes in the exist-
ing code which are needed. All adjacent businesses will be notified of the
change and the effective dates prior to implementation.
It is intended that these measures be initiated as soon as possible. There
will remain those times when the entire alley is blocked by larger vehicles.
The alleys are 20 feet wide and cannot accommodate large delivery trucks and
through traffic at the same time. However, it is anticipated that the above
measures will ensure that alleys are only encumbered by active loading and
unloading of larger vehicles and that, to the greatest extent possible, an
open lane will remain on the south side of alleys for movement of through
traffic.
cc: City Manager
Public Works Director
Finance Director
Traffic Engineer
Parking Superintendent
Downtown Association
/sp
.o•
/A*r
Johnson County Council of Governments
rr 41OE%(jsh1ng[Cna bAOG[y,bwb5224O
Date: August 20, 1987
To: Coralville City Council
Iowa Cim\�,(CCii�J Council
iFrom: Don Executive Director
1 Re: Joint Animal Control Facility
f
The staffs of Coralville, Iowa City, and the JCCOG request your favorable
consideration of the attached proposal for a joint animal control facil-
it. If the
Agreement to formalosal izetthe ees �terms of the proposalth our aroval, s andawill stffs vexpediteiits
implementation.
There has been much time involved by numerous persons to reach this point
1 in the discussions of a joint animal control facility. That the staffs of
Coralville and Iowa City have reached consensus on a recommended proposal
for your consideration is exhilarating to me and to those persons
involved.
During the Iowa City City Council's budget discussions in FY86 concerning
extensive remodeling of Iowa City's Animal Shelter, the City Council
requested that the JCCOG staff explore the potential and feasibility for a
joint animal control facility. After considerable research had been•
completed by the JCCOG staff, a committee of representatives of the agen-
cies who may have had an interest in participating in a joint facility was
formed. While there was considerable interest by all agencies, there was
no clear indication of a commitment by agencies to contribute capital
I funds to the construction of a joint facility.
Anticipated operational costs to member agencies for a joint facility were
also considered exorbitant. Such costs, determined on the basis of Iowa
City's annual expenditures for animal control divided by the number of
animals impounded, indicated that member agencies would spend as much as
$110 per animal. Smaller communities and the County, which had been
paying from $15 to $30 per animal for animal control, could not justify
the added expense.
The G staff
explored othr
' exten-
sion program uowauCityypresently hasewithtions JohnsoncCounty and Hills.
dogs
Under
and hcats
tsefrom thesegjurisdicIowa
tionsCity's
at theAnimal
ofShelter
perhe capacity of
staff
animalCCeThe
The City Animal Shelter Supervisor believed that, while t
Iowa City's shelter was already very constrained, the number of animals
taken in from the small rural communities would be so nominal as not to
i
/07"
2
costs
affect
the
frurrenom additional animals taken uinapwouldar esultcrn additional
the program income.
The ccG
to
cats) fr0on sthe fCounty� s andHills andpfrom the Iowa
small rural accept
munidogs
and
thentiies as
well have anuintera rinethisbarrangementalhave gall 1eindicatedothey�are recepa
tive to this proposal. This is a matter which will be brought before the
Iowa City City Council some time in the near future.
it
Finally, since Coralville is
the nneed of JCCOG staffthatCoralvillewandcIowayCity
only seemed aPP P
nt facility to meet both communities
consider the construction of a joi
needs at less
cost.culminatedsinsthenpreparations of such aof the attached report ted in
April
Staff representatives will be present at the Council metindo to answer any
questions concerning the proposal. In the interim, please
to contact me at 356-5230 or other staff representatives involved with
this proposal.
bdw4/4
.P'
,1R*t
PROPOSAL
FOR A JOINT
CORALVIL
" AND IOWA CITY
ANIMAL CONTROL FACILITY
submitted to:
THE IOWA CITY
AND CORALVILLE CITY. COUNCILS
Prepared by:
THE STAFFS OF
THE CITY OF CORALVILLE
THE CITY OF IOWA CITY
�I
THE JOHNSON COUNTY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
August 21, 1987
.1.
/W? 0t
.1.
I
PROPOSAL FOR A JOINT CORALVILLE AND IOWA CITY ANIMAL CONTROL FACILITY
August 21, 1987
prepared by
Combined Staffs of City of Coralville, City of Iowa City, and
Johnson County Council of Governments
Coralville Staff:
Fred Bluestone, City Administrator
Al Axeen, Council Member
Don Ewalt, Police Chief
Becky McLaughlin, AC Officer
Iowa City Staff:
Stephen Atkins, City Manager
Rosemary Vitosh, Finance Director
Harvey Miller, Police Chief
Beverly Horton, AC Officer
JCCOG Staff:
Don Schmeiser, Executive Director
Michael Singer, Intern
Steve Morello, Intern
/A *6
INTRODUCTION
This proposal outlines the recommendations of the combined staffs of Coral -
Ville, Iowa City, and the Johnson County Council of Governments (JCCOG) for
the establishment of a Joint Animal Control Facility,
resulting from discussions initiated These recommendations,
in April 1987 by staff members of the
two communities and the JCCOG, address the site selection, cost allocation,
and administrative organization of the Joint Facility,
i
The Joint Coralville and Iowa City Animal Control Facility will consist of a
j new animal control facility financed proportional) b
This shelter will replace the two facilities currently operated byommunitiesoralville
and Iowa City, The City of Iowa City will provide the personnel for operat-
ing and maintaining the facility, The City of Coralville will contribute to
s both the capital costs and the operational budget. The two communities will
enter into a 28E Agreement establishing provisions for a five
Control Board which will -member Animal
j
assist the City Councils in coordinating general
3 policies.
A Joint Facilityis a
viable and cost effective method of meeting the animal
control needs of both Coralville and Iowa City; it will provide Coralville
and Iowa City with access to a new animal shelter at a cost lower than the
construction of individual facilities. The operation of separate facilities
is less efficient, and may result in considerably higher capital costs as the
communities face increased demands for animal control services and capacity,
f I. SITE SELECTION
The combined staffs recommend, after reviewing several
j Potential
the Joint Animal Control Facility be located at the co nerof South eClinton
i Street and Kirkwood Avenue. This is the current location of the Iowa City
Animal Control Shelter (see maps 1 and 2). The criteria for an optimal
location were defined as: public ownership of the facility site, accessibil-
ity to residential neighborhoods, and convenience for animal control staffs.
No other sites fully met these criteria
with the exception of property owned
by Iowa City adjacent to the Iowa City Transit Facility, Further investiga-
tion of this site revealed, however, that the construction of an animal
M $94
2
shelter in that area would either be detrimental to proposed future commer-
cial development on part of the site or in violation of Federal Aviation
Administration Approach Zone and Clear Zone guidelines. In addition, it was
estimated that an additional $15,000 to $20,000 would be required for special
footings to support the facility in what was a landfill area.
The recommended site includes over one-half (0.50) acre with the land valued
at an estimated $3.00 per square foot. The accessibility of this location
will be enhanced by proposed improvements to the Benton Street bridge. Other
advantages to this location include "drive-by" visibility, low value for
I
t alternative uses, and public familiarity with the location of the existing
animal shelter.
II. COST ALLOCATION
The combined staffs of Coralville and Iowa City recommend that residential
assessed values be used as the method for determining cost allocation. Using
this method, the cost allocation ratio for the Joint Facility would be as
follows:
i
1986 Residential Assessed Value
Coralville $112,487,389 13.28%
Iowa City $734,545,918 86.72%
Total $847,033,307 100.00%
III. CAPITAL COSTS
To ensure meeting future State requirements and local needs, the Joint Facil-
ity will incorporate recognized standards for animal control facilities.
i These standards include proper ventilation, drainage, and isolation areas.
° Animal health considerations require a low maintenance, low contamination
interior design. The needs of the personnel, and of the public, suggest that
office and reception areas be designed for maximum efficiency (see Building
Plan).
I
4
.V'
3
Because of the variety of designs and materials which meet these require-
ments, precise estimates for construction costs are difficult to obtain. To
provide the most accurate representation of these costs, both high and low
range estimates are listed for the construction and equipment costs of the
Joint Animal Control Facility, The cost estimates listed below are based on
the assumption that all work will be completed b
i
private
Mino
additional costs will be assessed to the commun t esfor thetvalue rof equip-
ment transferred from current animal shelters for use at the Joint Facility,
All investments in capital costs made by the two communities would be recov-
erable should there be a dissolution of the Joint Facility at some time in
the future.
CATEGORY
low high
Preparation/Foundation
E 4,000 b 5,500
Sewer/Utility
300
1,000
Construction
70,000
80,000
Interior Features
11,400
19,800
Exterior Features
10,300
12,500
Landscaping/Paving
13,750 17,000
TOTALS $109,750
$135,800
TABLE 2. LANG COST ESTIMATES
$/ft.2
Joint Animal Control Facility $3.00
Acres Total Cost
0.50 $65,340
4
TABLE 3 TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS FOR JOINT FACILITY (HIGH ESTIMATE)_
Coralville = 13.28%, Iowa City = 86.72% of total costs
LAND COSTS:
Coralville = 13.28% x $65,340 = $8,677
Iowa City = 86.72% x $65,340 - N.A. (zero)*
CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT COSTS:
Coralville = 13.28% x $135,800 = $ 18,034
Iowa City = 86.72% x $135,800 = $117,766
TOTAL COSTS:
i
Coralville = $8,677 + $18,034 = $26,711
4
Iowa City = $117,766 - $8,677 = $109,089*
*Since Iowa City presently owns the site, its land costs are figured at zero.
Coralville will acquire a share of the land and at a cost equal to 13.28% of
its value. This effectively reduces the actual total costs for Iowa City.
IV. PRESENT CORALVILLE/IOVA CITY ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICE LEVELS
Currently, the Iowa City Animal Control staff accepts impounded animals from
{ rural Johnson County and from smaller communities within the County. In
1986, the Iowa City Animal Shelter handled 1,148 animals. Estimates for 1987
indicate that these rates will remain relatively constant. The Coralville
.o ! Animal Control Officer reported 274 total animals handled in 1986, with
I estimates for 1987 exceeding 300 animals. The total number of animals that
E
will be handled in 1987 by both Iowa City and Coralville Animal Control
staffs, including impounded animals from other cities and rural areas in
Johnson County, is estimated to approach 1,450 in the twelve month period.
The corresponding percentages of all animals destroyed, reclaimed, and
adopted are similar for both the Iowa City and Coralville Animal Control
Shelters. Generally, 55% of all impounded animals are euthanized, 35% are
reclaimed, and 10% are adopted. The Iowa City Animal Control staff patrolled
15,000 miles in 1986. The Coralville Animal Control Officer patrolled 2,752
miles in 1986. Presently, the Iowa City Animal Control staff is comprised of
four full-time employees and the Coralville Animal Control Officer is a
half-time position.
V. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
The animal control staffs for both Coralville and Iowa City are under the
isupervision of the respective Police Department Police Chiefs and will remain
1 so under the new structure. Personnel rules and regulations, salaries and
j salary adjustments will be as determined by each community. Although the
animal control staffs for both communities will each do patrolling within
itheir respective jurisdictions, the Iowa City Animal Control staff will
operate and maintain the Joint Facility for use by bith communities and care
for the animals deposited. The combined staff memt•ers recommend that the
Coralville and Iowa City City Councils enter into a "BE Agreement detailing
this service provision.
The City Councils of both Coralville and Iowa City will hold ultimate author-
ity for decisions concerning the Joint Facility's budget, licensing and
operating procedures. An Animal Control Board consisting of two persons
appointed by the Coralville City Council, two persons appointed by the Iowa
City City Council and a fifth person mutually acceptable to both City Coun-
cils will provide recommendations to the Councils on all matters requiring
j their decision.
/V-9
6
VII. OPERATING EXPENSES AND REVENUES
The Joint Facility's operating expenses for its initial year of operation
will be divided between Iowa City and Coralville on an 86.72% to 13.28% split
for most expenditures and by direct payment for other costs. The funding
split will be adjusted as residential assessments are adjusted.
Expenditures divided on a proportional basis include utility payments, cleri-
cal supplies, maintenance costs, and food and medical costs for impounded
animals. Personnel costs for animal control and fuel and maintenance charges
for patrol vehicles will be paid directly by each community as the expenses
are incurred. Revenues derived from the licensing of animals and from
adoptions will be netted against those expenditures divided on a proportional
basis.
For the first two or three years, periodic monitoring of expenses will be
done to determine to the extent possible the actual proportion of expendi-
tures each community incurs for animal control. If actual expenditures
Ilj deviate substantially from those which are divided between the communities on
a proportional basis, the Animal Control Board may recommend and the City
Councils may adopt an alternative funding arrangement.
A special account will be established with the Iowa City Finance Department
to maintain records of the Joint Facility. The City of Coralville will be
billed quarterly for net operating expenditures determined on a proportional
basis.
VII. FUND RAISING CONSIDERATIONS
.o• The joint staffs of Coralville and Iowa City feel that generating funds
through private donations is a possible means of both reducing capital costs
3 for Coralville and Iowa City, and heightening public awareness of the serv-
ices to be provided by the Joint Facility. Responsibility for the fund drive
could be delegated to an ad hoc committee of Coralville and Iowa City resi-
dents, with the assistance of city personnel.
.W
7
VIII. STEPS TO IMPLEMENTATION
i
If this combined staff proposal is acceptable to the City Councils of Coral -
Ville and Iowa City, personnel will need to be appointed to an interim Joint
S Staff Committee to oversee its implementation. The specific functions of
this committee in the implementation of the Joint Animal Control Facility
i will include:
S
* Assistance in the establishment of a 28E agreement which formalizes in
general terms this proposal.
* Establishment of a joint finance account.
* Supervision of the design and construction of the Joint Animal Control
Facility.
* Assisting Coralville and Iowa City Councils in the appointment and accep-
tance of Animal Control Board members,
.o•
Existing
Iowa City
Animal Shelter
X
Iowa City
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Armory
MAP #2
KIRKWOW AVE.
Parking
Proposed I
Animal
Control
Facility
0 /
JROP056D JOINT ANIMAL• • CONTROL FAGi(LiTY
BUILDING PLAN
S aptemberr 158736
5
`
V
m
T
W
TH
F
S
1
LOAM -Staff 2
3 4 5
Meeting8AM-Magistrate
(Conf
Court (Chambers)
7:30PM-Riverfront
Comm (Senior Ctr
7:30PM-Formal P&Z
(Chambers)
6
7
8:30AM-Housing 8
LOAM -Staff Mtg 9BAM-Magistrate
Appeals Board
(Conf Rm)
AA
Court (Chambers)0 11 12
Ho 1 iday
(Public Library)
4:30PM-Board of
8AM-5PM-Phone
9AM-Housing Comm
Adjustment (Chamb
Workshop(Conf Rm)
(Public Library)
7:30 -Airport Comm
6:30PM-Informal
:30 -Meeting of
(Transit Facility
Council (Chambers)
all board/comm
7:30PM-Council
members (Chpmti)
6PM-Parks & Re,
13
8AM-Magistratel4
tUanmersq
8AM-Broadband 15
Rec Center)
lOAM-Staff 16
1
Court (Chambers)
Telecommunication;19
Meeting
SAM -Magistrate 18
7:30PM-Informal
(Chambers)
(Conference Rm)
Court (Chambers)
P&Z (Senior Ctr)
3:30PM-Committee
7:30 -Historic Pre
4PM-Design Review
7:30PM-Resources
Community Needs
Comm'(Public
Com
Library)
7:30PM-Formal P&
Conservation Co
(Public Library)
(Public Library)
(Chambers)
(Public Library
20
21
BAM-Magistrate
22
23
24 25 26
Court (Chambers)
LOAM -Staff Mtg
8AM-Magistrate
(Conf Room)
Court (Chambers)
3PM-Senior Center
7:30Pm-Historic
Comm (Sr Ctr)
&rP&Zrvation Comm
4PM-Library Board
(Public Library)
(Public Library)
27
28
8AM-Magistrate
Court (Chambers)
29
3PM-Committee on
Community Needs
30
LOAM Staff Meetin
7PM-Human Rights
(Senior Center)
(Conf Room)
7Pm-Committee
COnnCtr
(Sr( )
7:30PM-Informal
7:30PM-Council
(Chambers)
on
C^. pit Ne ds
Pudic �earing
Council (Chamber )
(Sr Center)
•
.o.
a
City of Iowa City a&"'`"
MEMORANDUM
Date:
August 10, 1987
To:
City Council
From:
City Manager
Re:
Daily Taxes
I thought you might be interested in our recent calculations.
tpl/2
cc: Boards and Commissions
Department Directors
/0? its
.1.
$25,000 Salary
Fed. Income Tax
State Income Tax
Social Security
DAILY TAXES
4 Person Family
$2,211
$1,027
$1,787
$5,025
Based on FY88
Married Joint Return
$ 6.06 per day
$ 2.81 per day
$ 4.90 per day
$13.77 per day
Average taxable valuation for residential property in Iowa City for FY88
in $52,953.
Governments
School District
$ 579
25
$ 1.58
.01
per
per
day
day
Area School
250
.68
per
day
County
612
1.68
per
day
City
Other
10
_02
per
day
$1,476
$ 4.03
per
day
/.Q q-9