The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1986-01-28 Correspondencea\va(a WSaa\. \a\J.ta\\\, Vv�.v!N�wn.�.�NTJf: vJ.a_ �aa�.�.taa++.J4.:.r._�_N. M1w\..v..\t. r...Y.�MN.Y.a\^tin•.N.' TAXES FINESS&SFORFEITUR ERMISS INTTEERGO FOR SERVICES USE OF MONEY & PROP. MISCELLANEOUS REV. LEASED HOUSING PUBLIC HOUSING HOUSING 22004 SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS TOTAL GENERAL j 'L ;! SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS TOTAL GENERAL DECEMBER 31, 1985 ;! 218389.61 y. 33,831.07 .� 453,439.S9 807,604.01 218,550.41 }i av vavavv 21173,710.72 :�i 123,011.60 '' a C_ITT OF IOWA CITY ' F CEC[MEER0 r • MY6 FUNO/ACCOUNT tEOINNINt FUN/ BALANCE RECEI/TB DItBURSEM[Ni0 AOJUSTMENiO TO BALANC[ ENDING FUND INVESTMENT CHECKING A/C .f. 9[M[RAL 1,212,6/2.10 837-311.16 1,026996.50 2751&IB.20 tALANCE 1,7001944.&6 IALANCE BALANCE* *EBT SERVICE 1,190,921.12 33/596.90 244,117.50 1,319 ,41&.16 -19,131.30 CAPITAL PROJECT/ 1,441,010.56 -79 {,291.97 111,171.11 .00 702,739.{7 952,400.52 11511-001.01 9021100.32 .00 ENTERPRISE 6.510&{1.75 836 4911.71 &241404.77 -121-977.00 112601210.72 1,311,0. 4444 6.250,77146 .00 TRUST 1 RISKY 10,712,777.17 2191221.01 351305.17 -21,013.00 101303,016.70 10,301,771.12 5r009.0{ 7,713.30 INTIAIOV. SERVICE 631,283.33 113/7165/ 07,239.77 -12,060.70 677,1111.96 &771619.06 SPECIAL A90E85wENT 59,711.59 513,731.91 37,/11.13 -497,179.71 30,172.41 90-972.{1 •00 SPECIAL REVENUE {**-032.79 201-213.00 202,327.02 -2{1.31 {01,332.33 .00 6011572.33 .00 SUITOTAL 20,219,207.32 -- --:iii---- 1,499199&.7{ ----- 2-767,209.21 ..00_19,9091390.&6 1919391{17.32 r6r9oLL no uo,47-.19 n0a3e.39 -- -- ---.eo ----------.eo .00 ------------------------ -111.00 ;oo -9,72A.96 -------------• 712 LOAN .60 .00 -116.00 L[M[0 NOU83NS ' 279,012.70 127.016.&0 {7,100.62 .00 .00 295,317.17 .00 296.29617 .00 PUBLIC Nounin 63,900.62 10.229./& $0,44/.44 -136.00 xowlN9 22001 11a72.00 110.21 s,4e1.n .00 9.311.71 17.5.0.71 1.00 -- ----------------------------------------- .ee 9.511.3 s.51o.&7 I:oo SUBTOTAL 71317&7.92 -----------------------------------------------------00- 9&7,9&1.19 93{,409.17 ------------------------------------------------------ 722,832.90 ------------------------------------------ --------------------------------- 727,712.91 -570.00 QA83 TOTAL 20@333o573.44 0010.50296.06 ......:°: ::..... .......31723,617.43 ........................................................ 0 CHECKING ACCOUNT DALANCES ARE INTEREST DEARINO ACCOUNTS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF PAYROLL. I I I' VENDOR NAME FUND: GENERAL FUND 3MT7SB2668WASH & DRY ACCESSTIOWA INF RMACITTION SYSTEMS ACCO UNLTMTTEn Cf1RT1. CO. ;OCIATES CO. 1ES6 INC. ►PITAL SERVICES DATA SERVICE ST SERVICE, INC. )R CO. )R COMPANY .0., INC. SUPPLY IE !IONS CORP. ILICATIONS CO. BL E SHIELD BOORS RAFFIC PRODUCTS, INC. CONNIE SSOCIATES ELEVISION INFORMATION GE FILTER CORP. IMPLEMENT CO. RANDY t'tEPORTING EDTY PROPERTIES 9 RECORD & VIDEO CORP. COUNCIL LISTING DECEMBER 31, 1985 PRODUCT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1,492.13 41.35 76.17 1,163.25 470.00 3,290.00 611.40 26.45 48.00 43.77 25.14 45.00 5.00 79.00 26.00 27.75 3,30869 9.95 704.89 13.75 38.00 35.18 3,790.65 30.96 12.14 11.74 33.22 83.95 70.65 248.00 22.85 87.28 5.95 100.00 69.19 1,642.04 10.00 276.25 257.85 15.00 25.00 12,166.86 62.02 265.00 9.50 488.38 73.99 111.28 15.00 1,390.70 4.50 69.00 9.50 85.04 195.65 419.10 25.64 12.00 150.00 129.50 2,104.50 76.40 120.10 18.00 w.,,,..., w..... .................. , _... COUNCIL LISTING DECEMBER 31, 1985 VENDOR NAME PRODUCT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT rr "WAL VER INN & SUPPER CLUB HOLDERBY AND BIERCE HOLDERNESS DANIEL HOLIDAY Ift HOLIDAY WRECKER & CRANE SERV. 0 .V..• VVK• INSURANCE AGENTS ACCESS CO. INDLER PAPER CO. INC. AUDITOR CLERK TY COLLEGE ., INC. TAX COUNCIL LISTING DECEMBER 31, 1985 PRODUCT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 14.97 419.52 69, 2, lr 12, 22, 9, /T.r ,4 VENDOR NAME HANSON DEBRA HARDWXk SPECIALIST, LTD. HARNEY, PATRICK j HARPER & ROW PUBLISHERS, INC. HARRY'S CUSTOM TROPHIES, LTD. i HARTLEY HAWKEYE & MARKS INC. AmUsEnArT HAWKEYE AREA COMMUNITY ACTION "WAL VER INN & SUPPER CLUB HOLDERBY AND BIERCE HOLDERNESS DANIEL HOLIDAY Ift HOLIDAY WRECKER & CRANE SERV. 0 .V..• VVK• INSURANCE AGENTS ACCESS CO. INDLER PAPER CO. INC. AUDITOR CLERK TY COLLEGE ., INC. TAX COUNCIL LISTING DECEMBER 31, 1985 PRODUCT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 14.97 419.52 69, 2, lr 12, 22, 9, /T.r ,4 _... r.._............... ,..____.....,...._................_...,........: VENDOR NAME COUNCIL.LISTING DECEMBER 31, 1985 PRODUCT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 221.17 14.00 29.40 59.50 390.91 _55.84 150.00 10.00 3.00 5.00 623.39 309.83 129.76 228.90 629.47 120.00 114.80 330.45 12.43 103.50 174.24 68.32 26.12 5.00 314.28 3,664.72 87.59 228.75 34.90 1,583.00 4.00 53.97 10.00 183.24 95.95 298.00 162.64 500.00 5,485.38 225.00 30.00 25.50 7.90 22.95 113.35 9.95 86.62 7.50 736.52 139.95 4.25 V -5 - ................ .,,..,_......,,......w.,. _............._..___�__... VENDOR NAME IGHTS BOOKS IO -VISUAL & VIDEO CO. PER VALU OF S. INC. CO. MING SERV. HECY MINISTRIES BUREAU OF LABOR OPEDIC CLINIC SPORTS CENTER ITER CO. GRAVEL CO., INC UBLICATIONS , INC. CO. REDMOND S. C. SUPPLY E0. COUNCIL LISTING DECEMBER 31, 1985 PRODUCT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2, VENDOR NAME C. COUNCIL LISTING DECEMBER 32, 1985 PRODUCT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 59.64 47.28 1,408.00 12.00 98.44 475.00 65.00 139.50 21.99 7.50 15.00 19.48 75.00 13,011.00 2,277.60 45.70 17.42 7.00 177.55 FUND TOTAL 283,418.77 VENDOR NAME FOND: DEBT SERVICE FUND COUNCIL LISTING DECEMBER 31, 1985 PRODUCT DESCRIPTION AMOK GO BOND D INT607.50 INTGO 2,990,00 GO BOBOND 11,785.00 GO GO BOND BOND INT INT325.00 GO BOND INT 63,070.00 410.00 GO GOBOND BOND INT INT 825.00 GO BOND INT 164,435.00 650.00 GO GO BOND BOND INT INT 487,50 GO BOND INT 3,223.00 375.00 GO GO BOND BOND INT INT GO BOND INT 7,437.50 437.00 GGO O BOND INT 2,780.00 GO BAND INT 4,050.00 FOND TOTAL 264,117.50 3 VENDOR NAME FUND: CAPITAL PROJECTS COUNCIL LISTING DECEMBER 31, 1985 PRODUCT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ROFESSIONAL SERVICE 41835.71 31LDIINNGTIH ROVVEEMENT JILDING IMPROVEMENT 600.00 67,540.38 )P EQUIPMENT ACTED 49.00 IMPRV. ERS 68,262.35 GINEERING SERVICES534.55 117.74 39,270.00 )NTRACTED IMPRV. 'SCELLANEOUS SUPP. 18,319.44 IOFESSIONAL SERVICE 3,000.00 INTRACTED IMPRV. GINEF�RINGUSERVICES 18,378.93 391.61 11,024.20 NTRACTED IMMV. GINEERING SERVICES 77,741.97 1,196.51 TIDING It0?ROVEMENT NTRACTED IMPRV. 2,773.29 GINEERING SERVICES NTRACTED IMPRV. 41,382.03 10,920.41 NTRACTED IMPRV. 38,669.88 1,835.97 FUND TOTAL mw.-Wa�— 0 407,317.66 14J 3 r .................................. ......... n... ... _............ .. I ....... �. VENDOR NAME FUND: ENTERPRISE FUNDS T & T - --- --- _Y. MC SAL ENO' TE BROT COUNCIL LISTING DECEMBER 31, 1985 PRODUCT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT _.,,,..... ... _........,...._._�_... VENDOR NAME ACTION STATE TREASURER SALES TAX ONPQ ICODUNNTY SEATS STEVE ISSI1N KEVINR, k9YKURTZ CO. MICHAEL PAT 1SHERYLLOANN INC. CONNIE L !+IN, TIM CONTR ;SAFETYEPRODUCTS i PRINTING SERVICE, INC. MELLERS PHOTOJWS�.INC. MERCHANTS NATIONAL BANE METER PRODUCTS CO., INC. MIDWEST JANITORIAL SERVICES 14 MZSSISSIPPI LII CO. MONSON HERBERT MONTGOI�RY ELEVATOR CO. MOYSTON LIVINGSTON JR. MUNICIPAL SERVICE & SUPPLY CO. MUTUAL BENEFIT LIFE INSURANCE t BANE DES MOINES, N.A. h IRVVING 4 BRIAN OrHARR I. REED FRUST CO. LSES, INC. CO. COUNCIL LISTING DECEMBER 31, 1985 PRODUCT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 192.00 312.64 110.28 58. 1,296. 128. 38,135. 4. 323. 5,081. 10,327. 15,327. 6,375. . ,S 8. 45. 1304. 210. 50. 1450. 137. 1,226. 450. 816. 94. 39. 103. 12. 3,950. 1,260. 5,589. 48. 47. 56. 287. 20,380. 121. 42. 928. 1,187. A/s R ,J VENDOR NAME COUNCIL LISTING DECEMBER 31, 1985 PRODUCT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ISCELLANEOUS SUPP. 21.00 ISCELLANEOUS SUPP. EP. i MAIN. TO BLDG 47.10 162.75 ISCELLACNEOUSPSUPPS 1,362.08 INOAR�EQUIP. REPAIRS 1, 685.00 182.44 [SCELLANEOUS SUPP. 40.00 19.79 \TER OVERPAYMENT 8V BOND PRINCIPLE 22.95 25,780.00 •PAIR i MAINT. )OLS i MINOR EQUIP. 498.96 22.42 IIFORM SERVICE ITER OVERPAYMENT 17.00 :LLANEOUS SUPP. 39.00 137.50 WD U4P PERMITS 55.93 35.50 ITSIDE PRINTING 113.45 LTER OVERPAYMENT V BOND PRINCIPLE 24.91 BCELLAxv0U8,SUPP. 5,482.50 240.83 ITER OVERPAYMENT 13.34 .NOR EQUIP REP. NAT 6TER OVERPAYMENT 210.00 TER OVERPAYMENT 10.22 11.57 OAVEMENT MATERIAL 3,984.00 HP ILDING IMPROVEMENT 14,373.77 TER OVERPAYMENT 13.52 MICLE REPAIRS OVERPAYMENT -462.00 TER 14.14 11.60 FOND TOTAL 312,903.85 ,,..,...._...........,____....,......... ..... ._............................ .. COUNCIL LISTING DECEMBER 31, 1985 VENDOR NAME PRODUCT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT FUND: TRUST AND AGENCY P. ELDERCRAPT SHOP SALE ELDPERCRAFT SHOP SALE PO ELDERCRAFT SHOP SALE ELDERCRAFT SHOP SALE ELDERCRAFT SHOP SALE POSTAGE 20. LUMHERMARDWARE SUPP SHOP SALE SHOP SALE SHOP SALE 'RAFT SHOP SALE !RAFT SHOP SALE UUNCARS TALOGHAT. SALE SALE 25 F� H /�15 . .......... .-. , . - I. . '...... ...... . . . . . . . . . . - I - - I - - - - - - - 1. 1.1" . . . . . . . . I . . I ..- . - . ". , , COUNCIL LISTING DECEMBER 3.1, 1985 VENDOR NAME PRODUCT DESCRIPTION i 3 0 VENDOR NAME FUND: INTRAGOVNTAL SERVICE T & T RERS LEWD' ,0, COUNCIL LISTING DECEMBER 31, 1985 PRODUCT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT VENDOR NAME .................... COUNCIL LISTING DECEMBER 32, 2.985 PRODUCT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 407.62 3, 5, 1, 2, 1� 3; 26, 1, 14, -3, 1, 1, 1115 - r .................................,,................. VENDOR NAME INC. PLY CO. SUPPLY MEDIA COUNCIL LISTING DECEMBER 31, 1985 PRODUCT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT FUND TOTAL 1, 2; 1, 4, 1, 2,828.18 56.52 264.16 613.39 26.00 1;314.61 48.00 989,335.77 14 . FUND: SPEC ASSESSMENT FUND FIIRRSST RIL+IORECHT NAALL BANK METRO PAVERS, INC. COUNCIL LISTING DECEMBER 31, 1985 PRODUCT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT SPEC. ASS. BONDS INT 11,500.00 SPEC. ASS. BONDS INT 42,000.00 SPEC. ASS. BONDS INT 4,500.00 FOND TOTAL .....ammo 58,000.00 VENDOR NAME FUND: SPECIAL REVENUE FUND & INC. ,A*CMER'X XQzZRTA AND PS; PHIL & EDWARD TONDLE XWORIE AND PETE DUFFY SUSAN & LARRY LACTERMAN COUNCIL LISTING DECEMBER 31, 1985 PRODUCT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT FUND TOTAL 3 3 1 8 1 3 20 1, 5,747.46 67.41 asa.��ym� 53,458.73 A45. .4 VENDOR NAME FUND: HOUSING AUTHORITY GERG ILIA ;INE COUNCIL LISTING DECEMBER 31, 1985 PRODUCT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 8! 1,eIS` VENDOR NAME OP COUNCIL LISTING DECEMBER 31, 1985 PRODUCT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 72.00 108.00 63.00 24.00 150.00 80.00 72.00 12,033.23 230.00 435.00 100,000.00 19,211.15 202.00 76.00 ............. FUND TOTAL 232,183.63 .............. GRAND TOTAL 2,638,457.62 /445- VENDOR 4.> Faa��JAN 16 1986 CITY CLERK Tos The members of the City Council He: Skaugstad Drainage Study This is to endorse the recommendation of the Engineering Division that no action be taken because of the high cost of the project, and the'fact that only one homeowner will be benefitted. As stated in the report, there has been no development within this watershed since the complainant's house was built. As a matter of fact, I am not aware of more than one house being added in the last 25 years. The only change might be the Skaugstads clearing some vegetation out of the gully. In that connection, I would be interested to know whether this gully, the continuation of Magowan Ave., is private or city property. Ruth Becker 521 K. Park Road 10-7 3 r Faa��JAN 16 1986 CITY CLERK Tos The members of the City Council He: Skaugstad Drainage Study This is to endorse the recommendation of the Engineering Division that no action be taken because of the high cost of the project, and the'fact that only one homeowner will be benefitted. As stated in the report, there has been no development within this watershed since the complainant's house was built. As a matter of fact, I am not aware of more than one house being added in the last 25 years. The only change might be the Skaugstads clearing some vegetation out of the gully. In that connection, I would be interested to know whether this gully, the continuation of Magowan Ave., is private or city property. Ruth Becker 521 K. Park Road 10-7 3 a j January 13, 1986 Neal Berlin, City Manager City of Iowa City Iowa City, Iowa SUBJECT: Skaugstad Drainage Study We wish to express our thanks for your recognition of this problem, for the study that has been done, and to add additional information and comments concerning the report. Primary complaints consist of: i 1. Excessive volume of water — primarily coming from storm water run off from the 10.8 acres of land south of Park Road that drains north directly into the gully and resulting in: a. flooding b. damage to public walks. c. ice buildup on both public walks and the street with an increased liability exposure for both property owners and the city of Iowa City. I 2. Sediment and trash deposits. (the trash comes from the 10.8 acres) Since the house at 601 Granada Court was built there have been new houses constructed at 446 Magowan and 457 Hutchinson and a two story addition at 441 Magowan all of which which contribute to additional water runoff into the gully. li The excessive volume of water, trash and sediment dumped into the gully causes problems for a number of the homes in Park View Terrace Subdivision. This is a problem that will require the services of the city to correct, and as taxpayers we believe the city has an obligation to help in this matter. In our opinion, the best solution can be achieved by adopting recommendation 02 Park Road Alternative or H3 Parkview Addition Alternative and urge you to seek approval of one of these alternatives. i Mr. 41c-h'.—r1.—r--.'2.ze.le 601 Granada Court Iowa City, Iowa cc/William Ambrisco, Mayor �L (J '! A k.....,,.,-............ <... ...... BECEIVEDJAN z 1966 To: Neal Berlin, City Manager and William Ambrisco, Mayor From: Thomas H. Stone, Resident 605 Granada Court Re: Skaugstad Drainage study Dates January 20, 1966 1 have read the Skaugstad Drainage Study sent to me ;n mid—December and I have a few comments regarding it. First, my property is also affected by the problems experienced by Dick Breazeale of 601 Granada Court. My yard usually gets less debris and sediment than his, but as much or more water. Fortunately, up to this point, my yard has not suffered the "delta effect" that his has. Water flow from the hill is a problem during both hard rains and run off from melting snow and ice. Water from hard rains fills my back yard and runs over into Don Fowles' yard next door. In fact, holes have appeared between Fowles' back yard and mine. To this point, the damage from flowing water has necessitated replacement of nine sections of sidewalk between Breazeale's property and my driveway. The apron of my drive will also need to be replaced soon. The reason for this is that the water flows between Breazeale's yard and mine, down my sidewalk and drive and Into the street where It continues on to Manor Drive. It typically sits in the low spot at Granada and Manor Cin the middle of the street) well past the time when water from rain or snow has disappeared from other streets. While I'm no expert, it seems to me that this flow of water is damaging or undermining Granada Court, and if the problem is not corrected, pavement repair may be necessary. In conclusion, I believe we have a water problem as well as a sediment problem here. I feel that the Park Road Alternative is the best long—run solution to this problem. / 4�9 @RaHTI @9@@@ D AREA EDUCATION AGENCY 4401 SIXTH STREET SOUTHWEST CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA 52404 (3191399-6700 IOWA WATS # 1.800-332.8488 CORALVILLE FACILITY 114 Second Avenue Coralville, Iowa 52241 1319) 351-2510 January 20, 1986 Mayor John McDonald City of Iowa City Civic Center Iowa City, IA 52240 Re: Mayor's Youth Employment Program Dear Mayor McDonald: Dwight G. Bode, Administrator Myron W. Rodee, Director Division of Special Education F o L E 0 JAN_' 1986 CITY. CLERK We are writing this letter in support of the Mayor's Youth Employment Program (M.Y.E.P.). For several years, we at Grant Wood A.E.A. have had the good fortune to work with M.Y.E.P. and that organization's director, Ms. Peg McElroy. Mayor's Youth is an outstanding service organization which provides exemplary community based vocational opportunities for youth. On an ongoing basis, Ms. McElroy and her staff are continually looking for ways to provide innovative programming. Ms. McElroy is currently serving on two committees regarding the transition of special education students from school to work. Her commitment to economically disadvantaged and high risk youth provides a fundamental service to the community. We would strongly advocate increased support of this quality service program. Sincerely, C/�n `�-A V Robert J. Miller Work Experience Coordinator BM/ns KVe Work Experience Coordinator i all things being equal .. ," i 1 I CITY OF IOWA CITY CMC CBgM 410 E. WASHNGTON ST. IOWA CfrY, IOWA 52240 (319) 356-5000 Date February 3, 1986 TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council RE: Civil Service Entrance Examination - Senior Acrrnmtant We, the undersigned members of the Civil Service Conmission of Iowa City, Iowa, do hereby certify the following named persons in the order of their standing as eligible for the position Of - Seninr Arrmmtant/Arrmmtin0 Pamela Lenz Hired: 2/3/86 IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION 'a�,Z42ZZ� Bruce L. Walker John A. Maxwell I Gerald H. Murphy ATTEST: Marian Karr, City Clerk �...._..................._� _.,.,.. City of lows city MEMORANDUM Date: January 9, 1986 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: James Brachtel, Traffic Engineer Re: Parking Prohibition on Bolen Place As directed by Section 23-16 of the Municipal Code of Iowa City, this is to advise you of the following action: ACTION: Pursuant to Section 23-234 of the Municipal Code of Iowa City, the City Traffic Engineer will direct the installation of NO PARKING ANY TIME signs so as to prohibit parking on the 'outside" of Dolen Place. (This location is identified in the sketch below. The area of the prohibition is shown with small x's.) This action will take place on or shortly after January 29, 1986. COMMENT: This action is being taken after the completion of a postcard survey. 40 responses were received regarding this matter. 31 of the responses favored removing parking from one side of Bolen Place. Of the 40 responses, 23 favored removal as shown below, 14 preferred removal from the other side of Dolen Place and 3 had no preference. The action as noted above is based upon the results of the postcard survey. bj4/8 , ILE JAN 131966 M ARR CITYC� IERKI) 15�7- 3� City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: January 10, 1986 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From:111Marianne Milkman, Associate Planner Re: Development Policy for the Southwest Area of Iowa City West of Freeway 218 In response to an application by Frank Eicher to subdivide Southwest Estates, approximately 150 acres at the southwest city limits of Iowa City, the Planning and Zoning Commission asked staff to review the City's development policy for the area west of Freeway 218, including the cost of extension of City services to this area. The unplatted area west of Freeway 218 and within the city limits is approximately 300 acres and is hereafter referred to as the southwest area. (Note: in the 1983 Compre- hensive Plan Update, the southwest area west of Freeway 218 includes the platted subdivision of Hunters Run.) This memo outlines some of the issues, costs and revenues involved in development of the southwest area; however, it should be noted at the outset that a detailed fiscal impact analysis is not included. Such an analysis would take considerable staff time due to the complexity of such a project and the lack of a readily available data base. Existing Policy and Assumptions The development sequence for the southwest area, as stated in the 1983 Comprehensive Plan Update, is based on the policy of maintaining compact and contiguous growth and thus maximizing efficiency in the provision of municipal services. The plan recommends that "With the exception of the already platted Hunters Run Subdivision, residential development should be confined to areas east of Freeway 218..." in the short range plan. The development of Southwest Estates Subdivision would therefore be out of phase with the existing policy. Policies discouraging "fringe" or "leapfrog" development assume that such development is more costly to the city than contiguous development. Clearly, the longer the sewer and water lines and the greater the dis- tances which must be traveled by refuse trucks, school buses, police and fire vehicles, etc., the more expensive these services are. National studies seem to show that over time (ten years in a fast growing community), urban growth pays for 1 se , even if it occurs in a ,leap- frog" manner. The reason for this is that leapfrog development generally spurs development between it and already developed portions of a cityIt is clear that the rate at which overall growth is occurring is a signifi- 163 i Page 2 cant factor in the "time -to -pay -for -itself' element. In a period of rela- tively slow growth, as is currently the case in Iowa City, it is likely to be many years before an outlying development, and the area between it and the major portion of the city, is fully developed and producing the reve- nues for the city which may result in its paying for itself. Such reve- nues, of course, include not only property taxes but also revenues generated through federal and state "per capita" funds, productivity, personal service requirements, purchasing power, etc. of the new resi- dents. It should also be noted that development of Hunters Run Subdivision is slow, and that there is little development along Rohret Road between Mormon Trek Boulevard and Freeway 218. Cost of Providing Public Services — General Background Information National studies on the costs of providing public services vary widely, depending on what services are included. For your information, Tables 4 and 5 from "User Charges and Service Fees," a 1981 HUD publication, are attached. You will note that although these tables lay out capital and operating costs (in 1973) for various types of residential developments, the tables do not include any figures for services such as libraries, parks, recreation centers or civic administration. The tables do show clearly, and this is borne out by numerous studies, that low density residential development is far more costly to service than high density residential development, and that such costs can be estimated on a per mile basis also. From this it is obvious that costs also increase with distance from the center of operations. Other national studies indicate that, in general, maintenance and operat- ing costs for public services in residential areas are borne 57% by the municipality and 43% by the private sector, while for capital costs the ratio is 19% by the municipality and 81% by the private sector. Obviously these figures will vary according to the services provided, the fee struc- ture, and the extent to which the private sector is required to pay for capital improvements in a municipality. One other issue of general interest is provided by a 1984 study in Fairfax County, Virginia: This study showed that in Fairfax County the cost of services for residential property was almost 50% more than the property generates in tax revenues, while non-residential development pays for itself three times over. The implication from this study and others is that, regardless of where residential development takes place, the prop- erty tax revenues alone which it generates never pay fully for the immedi- ate public service costs. As stated above, however, other revenues generated may, over time, cover the costs of services. The information provided above is very general in nature and oversimpli- fied; the section below deals more specifically with the provision of public services in Iowa City and how they are funded. 16,3 Table 4 THE COST OF PROVIDING PUBLIC SERVICES BY PROPERTY TYPE AND DENSITY: 1973 Single f�sl� Ibeet DOOa IIN t1 I -�4NNvv\aay........ K........... .vWMiN.... r.... ,v\v HvvvwR...rw.:�i. Table 4 THE COST OF PROVIDING PUBLIC SERVICES BY PROPERTY TYPE AND DENSITY: 1973 SOURCE: Paul B. Donning and Richard D. 611stely, "The Public Service Costa of Al— ternative Development Patterns: A Review of the Evidence," in Paul D. Downing (editor), Isocal Service Pricing Policies and Their Effect on Urban Spacial Structure (Vancouver, B.C.: University of British Columbia Press, 1977), Table 8.. tom'. P Single f�sl� Ibeet DOOa IIN t1 NJII•Fullr looses 0000 unitsl " 1 ural!/sere 2 units acre 1 one is(acre 5 units acre fow_ihouset 10_2119 acra W11t 9 trtmnls 5 ural!: acre 10 un1N ave 112h-91se Bnarlsests 30 unitsfacre 60 welts are 1 Unit/acre as e Percentage of IO Ilnitt are 1 unll/scre as a.lerceutage of 60 Units/me Capital Cost Police fore Sanitation Schools Voter'luppl, Ston drainage Scatter, sewerage 6 111,852 119,918 29.220 5,351,582 7,529.220 1.035,068 2,961,671 1 111,752 100,760 21,620 5.151,582 7,0!7,7/1 2,120,]01 1_,506,257 6 109,652 96.010 2$,220 5,151,502 2.561,051 1,595.057 _1`21,0/5 1 105.152 71.118 23.140 5,357.502 1.739.362 1.068.046 BI7,190 1 101,052 52,911 21,211 1,538,155 1,161,154 710,649 591y021 1 101,252 52.914 11111401 4.570,155 055,900 462,120 110.151 6 101,652 52,914 1.100 1,510,155 405,704 231,274 75/.6/8 6 101,652 52.971 IS.796 1.646,161 666,792 201,552 7/5.062 1 101,052 65.171 11,020 1,646,161 111,7!7 117,601 171.609 100% 226 118 lie 617 600 119 1106 101 197 125 2219 1109 41100 la lal capital 1.11 ' Ibrl) uplbl cost 120.945.104 1.028.701 (11,111.706 1.167.201 110,865,160 9]9.400 69,1/6.691 200,110 11.181,019 611.607 66,110,792 555,001 {S,IY16.91/ 491.019 11.02/,/95 261.018 12.556,/0) 221.116 296 021 Openlln9 Cott /.lice lice SmlUllw schools Voter suPDIY Slurs drainage 1 69.811 115,111 15.501 1.168,258 31.621 - 1 66,261 116,011 J1, N2 1.160"258 31,021 - 11 62.111 96,111 70,115 1.168.250 31,821 - 1 55.611 56.911 27,100 1.1615,250 31.021 1 52.067 41.509 25,169 900,526 10,103 1 49,700 41.509 21,606 900,526 10, t0] _ 1 16.150 11,509 20,760 908.526 70,101 1 46,150 51,722 10,0150 269.59tl 25,5]0 1 42,600 51.722 17.640 769.SYB 25,510 1119 710 Ile 110 105 - 1612. 326 11216, j N{ -. SsalWy %mrige Yearly operating cost 41.74)9 1 6161,103 11./01i2'12313 1 1.449.900 1 1.421,SSS 10.604 /1.110,991 28,022 11.165,116 21.)so 11,159,054 26,679 11.152"607 2025 6 1]1.68] 22.116 1 4)2,5/4 111 1211 341t total 9nsu1 Cats per O.Ming unit 1 1,111 { 2,611 1 2,361 ( 2.160 1 Was 6 1"714 6 1.647 1 702 6 655 labs 5051 SOURCE: Paul B. Donning and Richard D. 611stely, "The Public Service Costa of Al— ternative Development Patterns: A Review of the Evidence," in Paul D. Downing (editor), Isocal Service Pricing Policies and Their Effect on Urban Spacial Structure (Vancouver, B.C.: University of British Columbia Press, 1977), Table 8.. tom'. P Table 5 THE ANNUAL COST OF PROVIDING PUBLIC SERVICES PER MILE DISTANCE FROM PUBLIC FACILITY SITE: 1973 Capital or Operating Costs Per Mile Police $ 438• Fire 216• Sanitation lr'.::.:ia...a.a J.....♦ nv. <..+.a(..v...w:....v.wrr. Schools .:.. v.:.... V...,...A..«......:. ...-...... _...........r.....nv...•.vnr Storm Drainage 6,197•• Sanitary Sewers Table 5 THE ANNUAL COST OF PROVIDING PUBLIC SERVICES PER MILE DISTANCE FROM PUBLIC FACILITY SITE: 1973 Capital or Operating SOURCE: Paul B. Downing and Richard D. Gustely, "The Public Service Costs of Alternative Development Patterns: A review of the Evidence," in Paul B. Downing (editor), Local Service Pricing Policies and Their ' Effect on Urban Spacial Structure (Vancouver, B.C.: University of British Columbia Press, 1977), Table 9. J Costs Per Mile Police $ 438• Fire 216• Sanitation 3,360"" Schools 19,845••• Water Supply 21,560'• Storm Drainage 6,197•• Sanitary Sewers 12,179*• Total Cost $68,498 • Includes only operating costs •' Includes only capital costs •�� Includes both capital and operating costs SOURCE: Paul B. Downing and Richard D. Gustely, "The Public Service Costs of Alternative Development Patterns: A review of the Evidence," in Paul B. Downing (editor), Local Service Pricing Policies and Their ' Effect on Urban Spacial Structure (Vancouver, B.C.: University of British Columbia Press, 1977), Table 9. J V-wa........r,.., ... . ....... .:::........ . •___. ........._., ..................., ...., ....,.., Page 3 Sources of Funds for Public Services in Iowa City This section details how various _public services are provided in Iowa City. In considering each service, you should be aware how its provision to the southwest area of the City may affect the costs of services in the rest of the City.' this respect, Peter Fisher, in a 1980 study on the costs of Urban Fringe Development, points out that "The evidence on the public sector costs of fringe development shows that the subsidies to leapfrog subdivisions can be very substantial. Residents of non-contigu- ous developments rarely pay the full incremental cost of providing public facilities and services; instead they pay only the same average cost as other city taxpayers. Since it is more costly to service outlying areas, leapfrog development raises average costs. All city residents end up paying more for services." Costs for almost all services fall into two parts: capital costs and operating costs: The attached table shows how some of these services are funded in Iowa City. 1 ................. Iowa City Public Service Provisions and Sources of Funds for Services or SoUthweSt Area] SERVICES CAPITAL COSTS OPERATIONAL COSTS A. Fixed Network Services 1. Water All costs of construction of water System essentially self-supporting through lines to and within new development fees paid by residents & businesses. Fees are generally borne by the developer. pay for salaries, maintenance of water lines Costs for increasing size of trunk and plant equipment, truck operation & lines or water plant system are borne replacement etc. Note: fees are averaged by City. For southwest area, addition- according to quantity of water used; i.e, all al water loop line will be required residents share in the cost based on water with full development; would be funded usage, regardless of location. with bonds which would be retired from water fees. This loop line would not be required for the development of Southwest Estates. 2. Sanitary Sewers Costs for construction of sewer lines Basically self-supporting (see water system). within development borne by developer. Costs for increasing size of trunk or interceptor sewer borne by City. (Much of Southwest Estates will have private septic system.) Development of remainder of southwest area will require replace- ment of interceptor sewer. Cost would be financed with bonds which would be retired from sewer fees. N 1.....o:.............................r..,..:.......:::::........... . SERVICES CAPITAL COSTS OPERATIONAL COSTS 3. Road construc- Streets within new development required Road Use Taxes support 80-90% of cost of road main - snow ion, mainte- to be constructed to city standards tenancenandremoval, includinderalaries, (10- of nance & snow by developer. Improvements funded by P 20%) supported mainly through property taxes. Road removal— to access streets are special assessment to property owners Use Taxes are calculated on a per capita basis, i.e. to abutting right-of-way to be as population increases taxes returned city For low density development increased improved, and through G.O. bonds be retired increase. Road Use Taxes do not cover increased cost of bonds; these would from property tax revenues. For snow removal and road maintenance. For leapfrog resident/per mile Southwest Estates: 1) Rohret Road development these costs per even greater. improvements would be funded are by special assessment and G.O. bonds; 2) Slothower Rd. would-be mainly funded through G.O. bonds because much of adjacent land is agricultural and subject to deferred assessment. These bonds would be re- tired from property tax revenues. %4 i SERVICES I CAPITAL COSTS OPERATIONAL COSTS B. Mobile Network Services i 1. Police Capital costs are funded almost Operational costs are funded almost entirely entirely through property taxes. through property taxes. Police Chief indicates that complete development of southwest area would require 3 additional employees (minimum) & some additional equipment at a cost of approximately $100,000. General increase in crime in rural and suburban areas requires increased patrols, at a greater per resident cost. 2. Fire Capital costs are funded 70% from Funding 70% property taxes, 30% University fire property taxes and approximately contract. Outlying development will require some 30% through University fire con- increase in personnel and equipment at the West - tract. Development of outlying areas side Station, because of the longer time it will may require considerable capital expen- take equipment to reach the Southwest area from diture in order to maintain average downtown. response time to a fire call at 3.5 minutes, and maximum response time at 5 minutes. Depending on rate and intensity of development, capital outlay may involve additional equipment and/or relocation of the westside fire station. 3. Refuse Removal Capital outlays supported by fees. Service completely self-supporting with current service charge of $4.07/residence/month. Average costs may increase slightly to support additional mileage cost to service outlying development. As development increases additional costs due to distance decrease, since there are no long "gaps" where there are no pickups. 4. Transit Capital outlays usually funded with Operational costs are funded 39% through fares, 15% 75% federal funds and 25% local funds, by property taxes, 18% by a special transit levy generally property taxes. (property taxes), 20% from parking fees and 8% through state and federal grants. Experience has shown that transit routes i to low density, outlying areas of town are very costly in that fare receipts only pay 15%-20% of the costs. The average cost of the service is $25/hr/bus. HAI I :.k,....... ...................... Page 4 C. Fixed Services Facilities Services provided by fixed facilities, such as the library, civic center, recreation center, parks, etc. are funded in a variety of ways. However, for all of them property taxes supply by far the largest portion of the costs. There will be some impact on the provi- sion of these services due to the population increase provided by development of the southwest area. No figures are available as to the increased costs of servicing such a development. One other important fixed service facility is the school system. In- creased costs to the system are not addressed in this report although clearly costs for bus transportation would be higher than for contigu- ous development. Revenues for the Iowa Citv Ooeratino Budoet For the Iowa City FY86 operating budget of almost $30 million, the reve- nues are distributed as follows: Property taxes 42% Fees and fines 40% State funding 10% Federal funding 6% Interest income 2% The future of property tax levies is uncertain at this time and will depend on how the Governor's proposal to freeze property taxes fares in the legislature. The calculations which follow will therefore be based upon current tax levies. Under the current taxes for 1984 (payable in 1985-86)., which are calcu- lated on 72% of assessed value for residential property, the total levy is' ;27.48065/$1000. Of this total levy the City receives $10.885/$1000 and the school district receives $11.2466/$1000. Assuming the development of 85 lots in Parts 1, 2, 4-8 of Southwest Estates Subdivision, with homes averaging an assessed value of $90,000, the property tax/lot received by the City (using 1984 figures) would be approximately $705. If all lots were developed at the same time, this would provide an additional revenue of approximately $60,000/year for the City. Increased Costs to City of Southwest Area Development versus Contiguous eve opmen The information presented above indicates the costs of public services borne by the City for any new residential development. The policy for the southwest area is based on the fact that such costs are greater for "leapfrog" development and that, as shown in Table 5, such costs increase with distance from the base from which these services are provided. /G 3 Page 5 The development of Southwest Estates may spur development of the area between Hunters Run and Southwest Estates depending on the development inclinations of the landowners. Using the table showing how public serv- ices are funded in Iowa City, the list below shows the increased costs incurred by the City if development of this whole southwesstarea occurs. The costs listed would not be incurred until a� the year 2000 if devel- opment continued in a conEiguous manner (east of Freeway 218) according to the development sequence of the 1983 Comprehensive Plan Update. I Increased costs to the City if development policy for southwest area is not followed: 1. Water. Construction of loop line for southwest area. 2. Sanitary sewer. Replacement of 10" interceptor sewer with a larger interceptor sewer. Without the replacement, full development of the remaining vacant land on the west side could occur at only one DU/acre. 3. Road construction. Improvements to Rohret Road to city standards. Construction of Slothower Road. In both cases it is likely that a considerable portion of the cost would be borne by the City. 4. Road maintenance and snow removal. Increased costs due to increased mileage for maintenance and snow removal will be borne, in part, by the City. 5. Police. Increase in cost due to extra mileage and the need for in- creased patrols in rural areas. 6. Fire. Increase in cost for additional equipment and personnel which would not be required for development east of Freeway 218. 7. For fixed service facilities (with the exception of school busing costs) there would be only nominal increases in the costs incurred by the City compared to costs incurred due to contiguous development. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the increased costs the City would incur by development out of sequence, staff recommends that the existing policy for the southwest area which basically confines development to the area east of Freeway 218, be retained. /sp /63 I Information Sources 1. Biggs, Joel G. Iowa City Annexation: A Fiscal Impact Analysis. Masters thesis in Urban and Regional Planning, University of Iowa, 1981. 2. Burchell, Robert W.; Listokin, David, and Dolphin, William R. The New Practitioner's Guide to Fiscal Impact Analysis. Center for Urban Policy Research, 1985. 3. City of Iowa City, Annual Budget - Fiscal Year 1986. 4. Downing, Paul B. User Char es and Service Fees. Urban Consortium, U.S. Department of Housing an Urban Development, 1981. 5. Fisher, Peter. Land Use Controls and the Costs of Urban Fringe Development. LEAG Institute of Urban and Regional Research, University of Iowa, 1980. 6. National Council for Urban Economic Development. Competitive Advantage. 1984. 7. Urban Land Institute. Management and Control of Growth, Vol. II. 1975. Additional information was obtained from the following sources: Iowa City - Finance Department Police Chief - Fire Chief - City Engineer - City Assessor Library Director Johnson County - Auditor - Treasurer +\.vN v\vaatav ...........a 3 O City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: January 22, 1986 To: City Council From: Patt Cain, Associate PlannerA Re: Extension of Dates for Initiation and Completion of Construction on Urban Renewal Parcel 65-2b As indicated in the attached letter, the Small -Mears Building Company is requesting that the date for initiation of construction on Urban Renewal Parcel 65-2b be extended until May 1, 1986. The reasons for the delay are stated in the letter. In addition to extending the date for initiation of construction, the date given in the contract for completion of construction must be adjusted accordingly. Mr. Philip Mears, a partner in the Small -Mears Building Company, requested that completion of construction be set for December 1, 1986. Delay of construction on this parcel does further delay renovation and reconstruction of the adjacent "minipark." Although the contract exten- sion requested at this time could reasonably be accommodated, renovation of the minipark cannot be postponed indefinitely --deterioration of the area is obvious and is detracting from the overall appearance of City Plaza and the downtown. Staff suggests that this extension be granted. However, the developer should be made aware of the City's commitment to a timely renovation of the minipark and its concern that this renovation not be delayed further than necessitated by the present request. bc2 i i i i I i t �N vatata�t\\vt�'it\avwaa[avvalva`aw'r4�:.V T:::�:'. IOWA STATE HISTORICAL DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION December 16, 1985 Mr. Arthur A. Small, Jr. Mears, Zimmerman & Mears 209 East Washington Street --Suite 6 Iowa City, Iowa 52290 DAVID CROSSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 012"NW(XXX)OWIRAXIOuxuK(kXlp)Q)6XA0 a STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER Re: IA -86-00002, the Paul Helen Building. Dear Sir, I have good news and news probably not so good. I have spoken with one of the reviewers in the Denver office of the National Park Service regarding your project in Iowa City. Good news: Bonnie Halda reviewed the Part I application and told me that she felt the Paul Helen Building did have sufficient physical and architectural integrity for the Denver office to,approve the Pa 'rt I. (This is not the same as the Keeper of the National,Register actually approving one's nomination, but it is a necessary green light in tax act status as a check and balance procedure). The not -so -good news: the concept of the proposed treatment of the sidewall elevation caused real concern on two fronts. 1. You need to provide enough evidence to substantiate your desire to reface the wall with new materials before the treatment.would be accepted. The Park Service has had some recent unsatisfactory experiences with projects where refacing was allowed --indeed one in Utah where the Denver office's denial of the project for the 258 investment tax credits was sustained on appeal. 2. The concept of converting the party wall into a version of your streetfront facade design will not pass muster in meeting historic rehabilitation guidelines, as I had feared. A review of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards might be good at this point --particularly 1, 2, 3, 6 and 10. Bonnie expressed concern about "the tail wagging the dog" and the ambiguous nature of old and new. i - Historical Bullding-East 12th & Grand -Des Moines. Iowa 50319. (515) 261-6625/6626 0 1 IOWA STATE HISTORICAL DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION December 16, 1985 Mr. Arthur A. Small, Jr. Mears, Zimmerman & Mears 209 East Washington Street --Suite 6 Iowa City, Iowa 52290 DAVID CROSSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 012"NW(XXX)OWIRAXIOuxuK(kXlp)Q)6XA0 a STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER Re: IA -86-00002, the Paul Helen Building. Dear Sir, I have good news and news probably not so good. I have spoken with one of the reviewers in the Denver office of the National Park Service regarding your project in Iowa City. Good news: Bonnie Halda reviewed the Part I application and told me that she felt the Paul Helen Building did have sufficient physical and architectural integrity for the Denver office to,approve the Pa 'rt I. (This is not the same as the Keeper of the National,Register actually approving one's nomination, but it is a necessary green light in tax act status as a check and balance procedure). The not -so -good news: the concept of the proposed treatment of the sidewall elevation caused real concern on two fronts. 1. You need to provide enough evidence to substantiate your desire to reface the wall with new materials before the treatment.would be accepted. The Park Service has had some recent unsatisfactory experiences with projects where refacing was allowed --indeed one in Utah where the Denver office's denial of the project for the 258 investment tax credits was sustained on appeal. 2. The concept of converting the party wall into a version of your streetfront facade design will not pass muster in meeting historic rehabilitation guidelines, as I had feared. A review of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards might be good at this point --particularly 1, 2, 3, 6 and 10. Bonnie expressed concern about "the tail wagging the dog" and the ambiguous nature of old and new. i - Historical Bullding-East 12th & Grand -Des Moines. Iowa 50319. (515) 261-6625/6626 0 0 N! Page 2. IA -86-00002 December 16, 1985 { The pilasters, stone banding, window groupings are part of that concern, as was the proposed use of the round -top form in the upper window. For the entry, the reuse of any f' artifact material should clearly express the fact that it was not part of the building historically. A less dramatic entry would be more desirable. She independently reiterated my comments that clean, simple punched openings (where the width of the brick between them is greater than the width of the opening) would be appropriate because it is what one expects to see in historic party wall construction when windows were present. I'm enclosing material with some applicability in principle to your situation. It concerns a rear elevation specifically, rather than a highly visible sidewall. (The rear addition you have proposed is acceptable, as is.) I hope you do not look at this preliminary review as bad news. I see it as information necessary to knowledgable action. From this point, you may at least proceed with some certainties in whichever direction you choose: You may revise your proposal in light of now -known constraints and continue to pursue the historic rehabilitation credits. As long as the Paul Helen Building does not have Register status, you may rehabilitate in whatever fashion you wish and r receive ITC's for non -historic buildings of commercial use. I will be happy to answer further questions or'provide whatever assistance I can to you. My direct phone number is (515) 281-8637. Sincerely, / Judith Ann McClure, AIA - Preservation Architect /]m