HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-01-28 Info Packet of 1/17i
Y
I
i
VM:is..aaaa2..a.
..........•..»....A................r......w,.........
n.n..nw.........
....0 a•u:La •rvu —�P
�E E E.11 P
January 28, 1986 2 of 2 Mew p
i
ter,;
fr
ti
J
r
r �I
r. rd's•.
r
�V��JI�'arV ti�Fnf � + •
_
�a Y I l �
...
` I if fl4i. }�1.,�
.�..
I'-. .:.: rn jai � 1..:.:.t .. .. ":\., ':. � .'. '
.. 1 � .r: J,•�:'
■
r
V '
n
c
-�...aa.......... ,..................
.,,....�..........
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 17, 1986
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
RE: Material in Friday's Packet
Informal agendas and meeting schedule.
Memoranda from the City Manager:
a. Capital Improvements Program - Staff Priorities
b. Pending UMTA Section 9 Grant Application
Memoranda from the Department of Public Works:
a. Wastewater Treatment Facility
b. Wastewater Facility Construction
c. ParKing Ramp "8" - Dubuque Street
Memorandum from the Equipment Superintendent regarding FY87 equipment
replacement.
Memoranda from the Finance Department:
a. Free Bus Passes for Low Income Elderly Citizens
b. FY87 Budget - Recreation
c. Projected cost increase in the Park and Shop Program
Memorandum from the Chair of the Historic Preservation Commission rega
the 1985 Awards Program.
Letter of resignation from Human Relations Director.
Memoranda from the City Clerk:
a. Beer/Liquor License/Conditional Approval - The Airliner
b. Beer Permit/Sunaay Sales/Conditional Approval - Country Kitch
Copy of letter from Geri Hall, Member of the Senior Center Commission,
the Chairperson of the Committee on Community Needs.
Copy of presentation by Thomas Summy at the January 14 Council meeting
Copy of note from the President of Israel in reply to Mayor's letter r
the Nuclear Free Zone Ordinance.
Articles: a. City's fiscal feat
b. Cities cut energy costs
Minutes of staff meetings of January 8 and 15, 1986.
Letter from National League of Cities with attached survey of key muni)
issues.
Proposed Capital Improvements Program.
d/�
i
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 17, 1986
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
RE: Informal Agendas and Meeting Schedule
January 18, 1986 Saturday
8:00 A.M. - 1:00 P.M. Iowa City Transit Facility
Special Informal Council Meeting to discuss FY87 Budget
January 21, 1986 Tuesday
6:30 - 8:00 P.M. Council Chambers
6:30 P.M. - Meet with Wastewater Facilities Committee
7:15 P.M. - Discuss City Attorney Evaluation Process
7:30 P.M.' - View Film on Historic Preservation
7:45 P.M. - Council time, Council committee reports
January 25, 1986 Saturday
8:00 A.M. - 1:00 P.M. Iowa City Public Library, Meeting Room A
Special Informal Council Meeting to discuss FY87 Budget
January 27, 1986 Monday
6:30 - 8:30 P.M. Council Chambers
6:30 P.M. - Meeting of City Conference Board - Separate agenda posted
6:45 P.M. - Review zoning matters
7:15 P.M. - Development Policy for Southwest Iowa City
7:30 P.M. - Coralville Milldam Project
8:00 P.M. - Council agenda, Council time, Council committee reports
8:15 P.M. - Consider appointments to the Airport Commission, Mayor's
Youth Employment Board, Human Rights Commission, Design
Review Committee, Committee on Community Needs and
Broadband Telecommunications Commission
January 28, 1986 Tuesday
7:30 P.M. - Regular Council Meeting - Council Chambers
PENDING LIST
Leasing of Airport Land for Commercial Use
City Administrative Procedures
Sidewalk Cafes
Newspaper Vending Machines
Stormwater Management Ordinance Review
Abandoned Vehicle Ordinance Evaluation
Six Month Evaluation of City Attorney
Hutchinson/Bayard Access Request
Economic Development Revolving Loan Fund
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 17, 1986
To: City Council
From: City Manage
Re: Capital Improvements Program - Staff Priorities
A group of City staffpersons consisting of department heads and division
heads from departments which submit capital improvement projects annually
review and prioritize the proposed projects. For the FY87-91 CIP their
priorities are as follows:
TOP PRIORITIES
1. Landfill Leachate Lift Station
2. Benton Street Bridge Widening
3. Cemetery Building Addition
4. Civic Center Expansion
5. Bridge Decks: Burlington, Dodge and Gilbert
6. Animal Control Facility
HIGH PRIORITY
7. Existing Sewer Plant Upgrade
B. City Plaza Light Replacement
9. Governor Street Retaining Wall
10. Bridge Decks: Woolf and Melrose
11. Dodge Street -Dubuque Street to Governor Street - Improvements
12. Melrose Avenue Paving
13. Bridge Replacement - Lakeside Drive and Second Avenue
14. Heartland Railroad Crossings at Dubuque Street and Clinton Street
MEDIUM PRIORITY
15. Benton Street/Mormon Trek Signals
16. Softball and Soccer Fields
17. Benton Street Culvert Replacement
18. Scott Boulevard Paving
19. Heartland Railroad Crossing at 1st Avenue
20. Melrose Avenue - Byington Avenue to Railroad Bridge - Widening and
Improvement
21. Napoleon Park Restrooms
22. Governor Street Retaining Wall
WA
/9-S
2
LOW PRIORITY (Those which did not fall within any of the other specific
categories.)
23. Kirkwood/Dodge Signals
24. Extra Width Paving at First Avenue, Sandusky and Foster Road
25. Highway 1/Sunset Signals
26. FY87 Alley Paving
27. Airport Master Plan
28. North Corridor Sewerage
29. Rohret Road Paving
30. Curb Ramp Installation
31. Taft Speedway Paving
32. Parcel 65-2a Renovation (Blackhawk Mini -Park)
33. Ralston Creek Property Acquisition
34. Orchard Douglas Storm Sewer
35. City Park Tennis Courts
36. Terrill Mill Park Improvements
LOWEST PRIORITY
37. Pedestrian Bridge Over Highway 6
38. Burlington Street Foot Bridge
39. Park Road Storm Sewer
40. North Market Park Play Area
41. North Dubuque Street Sidewalk
42. New Bridge - Governor to Keokuk
43. North Dubuque Street Curb and Gutter
44. Napoleon Park Restrooms
45. Bus Fleet Replacement
These priorities are being provided for your information only. They may
be helpful as you discuss the FY87-91 Capital Improvement Program on
January 25, 1986. The method for determining these priorities is somewhat
crude and its greatest reliability is breaking them down into the catego-
ries indicated as top, high, medium, low, and lowest. Rankings within
these categories are crudely determined and have less validity than the
group rankings.
Items not included here but found in the proposed CIP document were not
discussed when the staff addressed the program in October, 1985. Several
projects have been added since then.
/sp
195
1V'1vN N�v{wv\!vv.\lwti vw 4\w\u[�v\vlvv�w..K.Y: a":�v:•wv�H�vw.�.•..'w iiry �..vw..n.wv:.'. ..v �..1..v.v.wv:�-.'. •.�.'
City of Iowa City.
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 16, 1986
To: City Council 00,
From: City Manager/ a�
Re: ' Pending UMTA Section 9 Grant Application
In keeping with your request to be notified of all pending UMTA grant
applications, JCCOG is currently preparing a Section 9 operating assis-
tance application on behalf of Iowa City Transit. This application is
for $115 384 of federal funds which will be used to operate Iowa City
Transit {n FY86. The amount is $4,083 (3%) less than we received last
year.
JD/sp
0
..............
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 15, 1986
To: Neal Berlin and City Council
From: Chuck Schmadeke
Re: Wastewater Treatment Facility
The Iowa Department of Water, Air and Waste Management is requiring, by
issuing an administrative order, the City of Iowa City to submit a plan of
action to the State by February 18, 1986, stating that it will have com-
pleted all construction necessary to meet final effluent limitations by
July 1, 1988. In order to meet final effluent limitations the proposed
existing plant expansion, the Sand Road Treatment Plant, and approximately
2/3 of the southeast interceptor sewer must be constructed. The cost of
these improvements is $26 million. A copy of the administrative order is
attached.
tp3/1
I
I
i
i
cc: Wastewater Treatment Plant Review Committee
I
/97
a
•�N�1 Kaa\avv .. •va\.v............uv.wi.ni.l .. .:...
BECEIVEDJAN 101986
department of water, air and waste management
January 8, 1986
Honorable John McDonald, Mayor
City Hall
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Re: City of Iowa City
Administrative Order 86 -WW -03
Dear Sir:
Enclosed is Administrative Order 86 -WW -03 concerning the City of Iowa City.
The order requires the City to submit a plan of action under the Municipal
Improvement Program by February 18, 1986. The Plan of Action is required to
state that all construction necessary to meet final effluent limitations will be
completed by July 1, 1988.
The Department would like to schedule a meeting here in Des Moines with City
officials to discuss the required plan of action. I will be calling you•in the
near future to set up a meeting date.
If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me at (515)281-6267.
Sincerely,
LEGAL SERVICES DIVISION yy
4"'.,
Diana L. Hansen
Compliance Officer
DLH:hmd/M352BO3.02
Enclosure
cc: Region 6
CAB/Charles Furrey
henry a. wallace building • 900 easf grand • des moines, i0wo 50319 • 515/281.8690
197
%4
pT
0
c
DEPARTMENT OF WATER, AIR AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER
IN THE MATTER OF:
City of Iowa City, Iowa ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER
Wastewater Treatment 86 -WW -03
Facility
No. 52-25-0-01
To: c/o Honorable John McDonald, Mayor
City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Pursuant to Iowa Code section 455B.175(1), you are
hereby notified that the Executive Director of the Iowa
Department of Water, Air and Waste Management
(hereinafter referred to as the Department) has deter-
mined that:
I. A. The City of Iowa City, Iowa, owns and opera-
tes Wastewater Facility No. 52-25-0-01 located in sec-
tion 15, T79N, R6W, Johnson County, Iowa. The City
holds NPDES Permit No. 52-25-0-01 governing the opera-
tion of the facility.
B. On August 10, 1984, Regional Office 6 staff
informed the City by letter that it was required to
submit a plan of action under the Department's munici-
pal improvement plan within six months. The City was
i informed that the treatment facility must achieve
iwastewater treatment compliance by 1988. The inspec-
tion report which accompanied the letter indicated that
DH:hmd/LSQ002D03.01
197
%4
r
i...................,,.,.... .... .... ,.................M.. .
the City needed to address the problem of bypassing
which occurred whenever there was a rainfall of
approximately one inch or more. The inspection report
also noted numerous deficiencies in the repair of the
i
City's aging and deteriorating facility and certain
violations of effluent limitations.
C. By letter dated January 9, 1985, the City
requested that the Department
grant a nine month exten-
sion of time to complete the plan of action. originally
due on or about February 15, 1985. The City requested
the extension due to the fact that the City was to
receive an engineering report from Metcalf and Eddy, an
engineering consultant, on May 1, 1985 concerning
collection, treatment and financing alternatives for
i
the City's wastewater treatment facilities. The
Department granted an extension to July 1, 1985 for
submission of the plan.
D. On June 26, 1985, the City of Iowa City submitted
a two page interim plan of action. In this interim
I '
plan the City' indicated that three alternatives had
been developed and that additional study would be con-
ducted to determine the most desirable solution and to
determine feasible financial options for implementing
j the selected alternative. It was projected that the
additional study would be completed by August, 1985.
;
j On July 23, 1985, Region Office 6 informed the City
i
that it would grant an extension to October 1, 1985 for
DH:blb/LS0002D03.01-.02 2
!i
i
/97
3
submission of the City's plan of action due to the pro-
jected completion of engineering studies by August,•
1985.
E. On or about December 23, 1985, Region Office 6
staff received a second Interim Plan of Action. This
submission indicated that a study to select alter-
natives and financial options to implement the selected
E alternatives should be completed by March, 1986.
T Region 6 staff reviewed this submission and found that
it did not constitute a formal plan of action.
F. To date the City has not submitted an acceptable
plan of action to the Department.
II. A. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33
i
D.S.C.A. 81311, requires municipal wastewater treatment
facilities to meet final effluent limitations by July
1, 1988. This Act establishes the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program in
order to accomplish this and other goals.
B. Much of Division III, Part I, of Iowa Code
Chapter 455E was adopted in order to implement the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act and the federal
` regulations and guidelines issued pursuant to the Act.
See section 455B.171.
C. Federal regulations relating to delegation of the
NPDES permit program to the States, 40 C.F.R. Part 123,
and the Memorandum of Agreement between the State and
EPA require, among other things, that dischargers which
DH:blb/LSQ0O2D03.01-.02 3
!
197
'!
do not comply with final limitations must be given a
schedule to comply "as soon as possible" but not later
than the applicable deadline under the Clean Water Act,
40 C.F.R. 5123.25(18); 5122.47(a)(1).
D. Department Rules
1. Department rule 900--64.6(6) Iowa Administrative
Code (I.A.C.) requires the owner of a publicly owned
itreatment works (POTW) to prepare and implement a plan
of action to achieve and maintain compliance with final
effluent limitations in its NPDES permit. The
Department is to review such plans of action and either
approve or disapprove pprove a plan.
2. Department rule 900--64.6(6)"b" I.A.C. provides:
The plan of action will vary in length
and complexity depending on the compliance
history and physical status of the par-
ticular POTW. It must identify the defi-
ciencies and needs of the system, describe
the causes of such deficiencies or needs,
propose specific measures (including an
implementation'schedule) that will be taken
to correct the deficiencies or meet the
needs, and discuss the method of financing
the improvements proposed in the plan of
action.
The plan may provide for a phased
construction approach to meet interim and
final limitations, where financing is such
that a long-term project is necessary to
meet final limitations, and shorter-term
projects may provide incremental benefits to
water quality in the interim.
Information on the purpose and prepara-
tion of the plan can be found in the depart-
mental document entitled "Guidance on
Preparing the Plan of Action", available
through the records center of the depart-
ment.
3. The purpose of the plan of action is to improve
DH:blb/LSQ002D03.01-.02 4
i
/9�
pT
P
n
water quality throughout Iowa by providing proper
treatment of domestic waste. A plan of action is
required of a city for a POTW in order to provide a
framework upon which city officials can base management
decisions for improving and maintaining municipal
sewage treatment plants in order to meet final effluent
limitations by July 1, 1988.
4. Department rule 900--64.6(4)I.A.C. sets forth the
procedure for establishing schedules in NPDES permit
conditions to achieve compliance with applicable
effluent standards and limitations, water quality stan-
dards, and other legally applicable requirements. The
rule provides that 'in the absence of any legally
applicable schedule of compliance, such steps shall be
achieved in the shortest, reasonable period of time,
such period to be consistent with the guidelines and
requirements of the Act.'
III. The Department finds that the City of Iowa City
is in violation of the requirements of rule
900--64.6(6) Iowa Administrative Code (I.A.C.) which
requires that the City submit a plan of action to
achieve and maintain compliance with final effluent
limitations in its.NPDES permit and have such plan
approved by the Department. The City is in violation
of rule 900--64.6(6) due to its failure to timely sub-
mit a*plan of action as requested by the Department.
DH:blb/LSQ002D03.01-.02 5
/97
L................. w,,........
THEREFORE, the City of Iowa City shall comply with
the following provisions in order to cease further .
violations of the above cited rules and statutes:
The City of Iowa City shall complete and submit to
Region Office 6 of the Department a plan of action pur-
suant to rule 900--64.6(6) I.A.C. by February 18, 1986.
The plan of action must indicate the actions that the
City of Iowa City will take to meet final effluent
limitations and must include a time schedule for imple-
mentation of such actions. Any construction of new
treatment facilities or upgrading or rehabilitation of
existing facilities needed to meet final effluent limi-
tations must be completed by July 1, 1988. Therefore,
the plan of action must specifically state that all
construction necessary to meet final effluent limita-
tions will be completed by July 1, 1988.
Pursuant to Iowa Code section 455B.175(1), a Notice
of Appeal to the Water, Air and Waste Management
Commission may be filed within 30 days of receipt of
this Order. The Notice of Appeal should be filed with
the Executive Director of the Department of Water, Air
and Waste Management. A contested case hearing will
then be commenced pursuant to Iowa Code chapter 17A.
Failure to comply with this order may result in the
imposition of administrative penalties pursuant to Iowa
Code section 4559.109 (1985) or referral to the
Attorney General to obtain injunctive relief and civil
DH:blb/LSQ002D03.01-.02 6
/9;7
E
penalties pursuant to Iowa Code section 455B.187
(1985).
Any questions regarding this Order should be directed
to:
Diana L. Hansen
Legal Services Division
Iowa Dept. of Water, Air and Waste Management
Henry A. Wallace Building
900 E. Grand Avenue
Des Moines, IA 50319
515/281-6267
Dated this day of , 1986, at
Des Moines, Iowa.
Stephen W. Ballou
Executive Director
DH:blb/LSQ002D03.01-.02 7
/97
%4
��1k v'\valva al.aaa \atw.0
\.\aa
.....aaaa..w.`.J..`n......... w...v..v.....
penalties pursuant to Iowa Code section 455B.187
(1985).
Any questions regarding this Order should be directed
to:
Diana L. Hansen
Legal Services Division
Iowa Dept. of Water, Air and Waste Management
Henry A. Wallace Building
900 E. Grand Avenue
Des Moines, IA 50319
515/281-6267
Dated this day of , 1986, at
Des Moines, Iowa.
Stephen W. Ballou
Executive Director
DH:blb/LSQ002D03.01-.02 7
/97
%4
�K\va aat/.a va. \a\ to ava\ a..� c a\!\�tuv..V:.V::.-: a �. � : �t as �..a.,.wl._�i�..:i...a.•.a .a..v..t .. n...4.�:.v.aW�.aaN w
. city of Iowa city
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 16, 1986
To: Neal Berlin and the City Council
From: Chuck Schmadeke CIP).
Re: Wastewater Treatment Facility - Financial Analysis
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. has completed its study of the financing alterna-
tives for constructing the Wastewater Treatment Facility. A copy of the
report is attached. The Wastewater Committee will be reviewing this
report along with a financial analysis report being prepared by George K.
Baum & Company and Boettcher & Company. Upon completion of the review by
the Wastewater Committee, this matter will be scheduled for informal
discussion with the City Council.
tp4/1
cc: Wastewater Treatment Plant Review Committee
a
i
_'MV�K\awaa✓.vwbav\V✓av\\ aaa vvatNav'rWiJy: ::: r: h:Nwawa��aw+�wi.n:��i.'..Tn.v.aw.:w.v�..�Iy..4vAVM1vwv.�y'
.!
MSE
December 18, 1985
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.
Engineers& Planners
85 W. Algonquin Road. Suite 500
Arlington Heights. Illinois 60005.4422
(312(2280900
Mr. Charles Schmadeke, P.E.
Director of Public Works
City of Iowa City
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Dear Mr. Schmadeke:
Attached is the revised Financial Analysis report for Alternative
II. The analysis includes four financing methods and the
resulting debt service requirements.
We are prepared to meet with you do discuss this report at your
request. We appreciate the opportunity to serve the City of Iowa
City.
Very truly yours,
z` �
Loren W. Leach
Project Manager
LWL/tpw
Attachment
Boston / New YUTA / Palo Allo / Sen Bpmard.no / Wino. CA / CMCapp / Houston / Atlanta / $111,11111. NJ / S4ver Spring. MD /Honolulu
/97
r ,
MSE
December 18, 1985
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.
Engineers& Planners
85 W. Algonquin Road. Suite 500
Arlington Heights. Illinois 60005.4422
(312(2280900
Mr. Charles Schmadeke, P.E.
Director of Public Works
City of Iowa City
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Dear Mr. Schmadeke:
Attached is the revised Financial Analysis report for Alternative
II. The analysis includes four financing methods and the
resulting debt service requirements.
We are prepared to meet with you do discuss this report at your
request. We appreciate the opportunity to serve the City of Iowa
City.
Very truly yours,
z` �
Loren W. Leach
Project Manager
LWL/tpw
Attachment
Boston / New YUTA / Palo Allo / Sen Bpmard.no / Wino. CA / CMCapp / Houston / Atlanta / $111,11111. NJ / S4ver Spring. MD /Honolulu
/97
A
I. STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES
The objective in this report is to analyze four approaches
available to Iowa City for financing its proposed
wastewater conveyance and treatment facilities. The final
outcome of the analysis will be to assist the City in
identifying the most attractive option available based on
the costs and risks involved.
II. ANALYTICAL APPROACH
Metcalf 6 Eddy's Phase III Report recommended Alternative
11 as the preferred technical alternative for
construction. The analysis presented in this report is
aimed at identifying the approach best -suited to financing
this alternative. The costs associated with the
construction of Alternative 11 are detailed in Table 1.
Four financing alternatives will be analyzed:
A) Municipal Fixed Rate Revenue Bonds
B) Municipal Fixed Rate General Obligation Bonds in
Combination with Municipal Revenue Bonds
C) Fixed Rate Privatization Financing
D) Variable Rate Privatization Financing
The approach to the analysis is divided into two parts.
The first is a quantitative and qualitative comparison of
the financial alternatives, ranking them in terms of both
risk and annual capital cost to the City. In making this
assessment a number of assumptions were made. Some of the
assumptions used in this analysis were provided by the
City. The assumptions utilized in this analysis are as
follows:
Construction Cost
Construction Period
i
Legal 6 Administration Fees
Underwriters Discount
Bond Insurance
Debt Service Reserve
Debt Interest Rate
Maturity
I
/97
H
c
�ltiiiat\!aa\v \a{1a i\\a tc\a\'a!tnan.uMi.V 11i: Y::a:vaaawaHa...A...v.wi.YiA.'�/H'.vAVAev..-.�A�MN.YAY.Y.`�r`.".'
Construction Fund Investment Rate
Debt Service Reserve Fund Investment Rate
Liquidity Fee
Remarketing Fee
Recognizing that the assumptions used in part one of this
report are highly conservative with respect to
privatization, part two of the analysis utilizes
privatization assumptions that reflect Metcalf & Eddy's
recent experience with this financing method. These
scenarios find justification in the general beliefs that
the potential exists for construction cost savings with
privatization. Experience with privatization transactions
to date shows significant savings due to time and cost
efficiencies of private sector management. For the
purpose of the part two analysis, a conservative estimate
of a construction cost savings of five percent has been
utilized. A complete list of the assumptions used in both
parts of the report appear in Table II.
r
�0.'A::a.a.S..i.a:.y..wati.ai...tw..::..:..._ r: rr:..a....+»....,.-A....-........,..m ..m.....w....w.w.n..«�..v...
TABLE I
CONSTRUCTION COST FOR ALTERNATIVE 411
A.
University Heights Sewer System
$
1,469,022
B.
Northern Portion SE Interceptor
$
3,991,060
C.
Existing Plant
$
9,993,247
D.
Sand Road STP
$
9,309,437
E.
Sewers - SE Interceptor
$
7,627,212
F.
Lift Stations
$
1,521,022
Total Construction Cost
$33,911,000
Annual O&N Cost
$
1,335,400
- 3 -
197
I
TABLE II
Summary of Financing Analysis Assumptions
114
Fixed Rate
Fixed Rate
Variable Rate
Fixed rate
Privatization
variable Rate
Privatization
Cost Category
Revenue Bonds
OJ/Revenue Bonds
Privatization
Privatization
construction Cost
$33,911,000
$33,91.1,000
$33,911,000
$33,911,000
$32,215,000
$ 32,215,000
Oonstruction Period
1.5 years
1.5 years
1.5 years
1.5 years
1.5 years
1.5 years
Legal & Admin. Fees
$ 120,000
$ 120,000
$ 330,000
$ 330,000
$ 330,000
$ 330,000
Werwriters Dis=nt
28
28
28
28
28
28
Bond Insurance
0.88
08 /0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.8%
Debt Service f1eserve
158
0% /158
158
158
158
158
Debt Interest Fate
9.28
7.58 /9.28
9.28
5.758
9.28
5.758
Maturity
30 Years
20 Years/30 Years
25 Years
25 Years
25 Years
25 Years
const.. rand Invest Babe
7.758
7.758
7.758
5.758
7.75%
5.758
DSR Fund Invest Rate
9.5%
9.58
9.28
5.758
9.28
5.758
Liquidity FLe
NA
NA
MA
3/8%
NA
3/88
Remarketing Fee
NFL
NA
NA
1/88
NA
1/88
58 reduction in oonstruction cost
114
III.1 ANALYSIS - PART 1
A. MUNICIPAL FIXED RATE REVENUE BONDS
Although there is usually no legal limit to the amount of
fixed rate revenue bonds that may be issued, from a
practical stand point the size of a bond issue is limited
by the size and amount of revenue available for debt
service. Because debt service is tied to a project's
future revenue stream, there is a modest amount of risk
associated with revenue bonds. Revenues pledged to debt
service must therefore include a coverage factor for bond
holder security. This additional coverage is typically
258 of debt service.
In addition to providing coverage, it is necessary to
establish a debt service reserve fund of between 108 and
208 of the bond size or one year of principal and
interest. This fund is to be maintained over the life of
the bonds and utilized to meet maturing principal and
interest in the event that revenues are insufficient for
their payment. Monies withdrawn from the debt service
reserve fund must be restored to bring it up to the
required level.
This analysis makes an allowance for both of the above
mentioned requirements. These, in combination with the
assumptions detailed in Table II, suggest an estimated
borrowing requirement of $47,265,000 using fixed rate
financing. This translates to debt service payments of
$4,006,660 over a 30 year amortization period.
The major advantage to this structure is that the interest
rate is not only fixed, but also that the bonds usually
remain outstanding for their entire maturity, i.e, they
are not subject to interest rate adjustments or bondholder
"put options." This feature gives Iowa City
predictability of future capital costs, making the rate -
setting procedures less complex.
There is a general acceptance of wastewater system issues
in the market, because the market for fixed rate revenue
bonds is very well developed. With fixed rate financing,
the issues are quick to implement and there is a
corresponding high investor demand. Because the bonds are
secured by the revenues of the system, General Obligation
(G.O.) borrowing capacity is preserved for other purposes.
A disadvantage of this financing option is that
conventional revenue bonds are costly relative to other
alternatives. The fixed interest rate does not permit the
City to take advantage of short term market conditions or
potential rate decreases. The security of project
M.W
/97
generated revenue streams makes them more risky than G.O.
bonds.
A potential variation on this alternative is the use of
short-term financing during construction, with long-term
fixed rate financing at the completion of construction.
State and local governments can avoid the risk associated
with delaying a project until long-term interest rates
fall by using short-term financing as a "bridge" between
beginning work on a long-term capital project and the
issuance of long-term debt to finance the project
permanently.
Long-term debt financing has recently been affected by
sharp fluctuations in interest rates which makes decision-
making more difficult. In response to the need for
increased debt financing in a time of unstable markets, a
variety of short-term debt techniques have been created to
achieve lower rates and to enable an issuer to issue debt
by making its securities more attractive to investors.
Examples of these short-term debt techniques, issued in
anticipation of some proven source of revenue or
refinancing, are Tax -Exempt Commercial Paper (TECP),
Variable Rate Demand Notes, and Traditional Fixed Rate
notes such as Bond Anticipation Notes (BANs). In the
State of Iowa, short-term notes can be issued for a length
of time not exceeding the construction period. This
approach offers potential savings on interest costs during
construction, but includes the risk of not knowing the
level of interest rates when long-term financing is
required at the completion of the project.
MUNICIPAL FIXED RATE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS IN
COMBINATION WITH FIXED RATE REVENUE
Secured by the full faith and credit of the City, G.O.
Bonds are economically more attractive than Revenue Bond
Issues. The City is authorized to levy on all real
property ad valorem taxes, as may be necessary to pay
interest and principal on a G.O. Bond. Therefore, holders
of these issues do not require the added security of a
debt service reserve fund. The end result is a lower
financing requirement and a lower cost to the City.
From a political stand point, financing with G.O.'s may be
less desirable as the G.O. Bond issue will use the total
capacity of City's bonding capability. In Iowa, G.O. Bond
issues to meet environmental requirements can be issued
without voter approval. Furthermore, in Iowa City G.O.
Bonds are limited to a 20 year amortization schedule while
revenue bonds can be carried out 30 years.
The estimated borrowing requirement using a combination of
G.O. Bonds and Revenue Bonds is $42,045,000, resulting in
debt service of $3,828,430 annually for 20 years and
=.In
197
{
n
$1,890,130 payable over the remaining 10 year life of the
revenue bonds.
The risks and rewards associated with this financing
alternative are comparable to those discussed under the
fixed rate revenue bond alternative. However, because the
security of general obligation bonds is of the highest
quality, the coupon on a G.O. is lower than the coupon on
a straight revenue issue. The political mandates of G.O.
issues detract somewhat from their favorable economics.
There are legal limits to the amount of general obligation
debt that a community can have outstanding. Iowa City
currently has $35 million in general obligation debt
capacity, $20 million of which it is willing to allocate
to this project. Because the construction costs
associated with Alternative 11 exceed $30 million, the
general obligation bonds need to be supplemented with
revenue bonds in order to complete the project. Our
analysis takes into account the requirement for two
issues.
C. PRIVATIZATION, FIXED _RATE FINANCING
This analysis of fixed rate privatization assumes the
availability of tax-exempt Industrial Development Bonds
(IDBS) at an average rate of 9.28. This analysis uses the
same construction costs as used in the municipal
scenarios. Other key assumptions utilized in the analysis
are as follows:
1. Annual debt service is based on a 25 year financing.
2. Legal and administrative fees are $330,000, due to
the relative complexity of the transaction and the
need for a complete service agreement between the
City and the privatizer.
3. The debt service reserve fund is 158 of the bond
size.
4. Five year depreciable property for tax purposes is
estimated at 888 of the estimated construction
cost. Eighteen year depreciable property is
estimated at 128 of the construction cost.
5. A 10% Investment Tax Credit has been included.
6. The federal income tax rate is assumed to be 468.
The effective State tax rate is assumed to be 58.
7. The facility is purchased by the City in year 25 at
508 of original cost.
I
- 7 -
197
i
r
t
8. The applicable tax law is that effective in 1984.
9. Bond insurance of 0.88 has been assumed.
10. Property taxes of $536,779/year are payable annually.
Given these assumptions, the estimated financing cost of
fixed rate privatization is $47,541,000. The
corresponding capital charge that results is $4,117,000
payable each year for 25 years.
The tax burden associated with payment of annual property
taxes results in an increase in revenue requirements. Of
the taxes paid by the privatizer roughly $5.37 million
accrue to Iowa City over the life of the project. As a
result of the accrual the increase in revenue requirements
is partially offset.
A noneconomic aspect of fixed rate privatization that may
be appealing to the City is the necessary transfer of
operating risk from City to privatizer. Under
privatization, operating risk is passed from the public to
the private sector and, if desired, the bulk of the
construction risks may also be placed upon the privatizer.
Furthermore the privatization transaction can be invisible
to the system's users if so desired. The privatizer acts
as a wholesaler of the treatment service. Iowa City can
still maintain its relationship with its users as the
service retailer. Structured in this manner, Iowa City
can set management policies regarding rate -setting and
system use.
Although the City passes operating risk to the private
sector, a degree of operating control is also given up.
While this is an issue for Iowa City, because the City has
an existing public work force, examples of situations in
which the existing work force has been incorporated into a
privatization transaction are common.
D. PRIVATIZATION, VARIABLE RATE FINANCING
The analysis of privatization with variable rate financing
uses variable rate tax-exempt Industrial Development
Bonds. The effective rate used in this analysis is 5.758.
As with fixed rate privatization, the same construction
costs and schedule as used in the municipal alternatives
were used for the variable rate scenario. Other key
assumptions utilized in the analysis are described below:
1. Annual debt service is based on a 25 year financing.
- 8 -
X97
2. A 1/88 remarketing change and a 3/88 fee for
liquidity support is added to the interest rate.
3. Legal and administrative fees are $330,000, due to
the relative complexity of the transaction and the
need for a complete service agreement between the
City and the privatizes.
4. The debt service reserve fund is 158 of bond size.
5. Five year depreciable property is estimated at 888 of
the estimated construction cost. Eighteen year
depreciable property is estimated at 128 of the
construction cost.
6. A 108 Investment Tax Credit has been included.
7. The federal income tax rate is assumed to be 468.
The effective State tax rate is assumed to be 58.
8. The Facility is repurchased by the City in year 25 at
508 of original cost.
9. The applicable tax law is that effective in 1984.
10. Bond Insurance of 0.88 has been assumed.
11. Property taxes are $536,779/year are payable
annually.
The total project cost using variable rate IDB's is
$45,395,000. This translates to an annual capital charge
of $3,297,000 over 25 years.
As compared to the other alternative financing approaches
analyzed, privatization with variable rate IDB's shows a
distinct economic advantage. Despite arbitrage
restrictions unfavorable to privatization, use of variable
rate IDBs is clearly the least costly alternative to Iowa
City. The new innovations in the floating rate financing
instruments give a financing source that is structured on
a long-term basis but priced on a short-term basis. While
restricted by law from issuing its own variable rate debt,
the City can still take advantage of low short-term
borrowing rates by engaging in a service agreement with a
privatizer financing with variable rate debt.
The trade-off associated with the low interest rates of a
variable rate issue is market risk of interest rate
fluctuations. Fluctuations in interest rate make annual
debt service costs variable, thus complicating the rate -
setting process. Acceptance of risk for interest rate
fluctuations can be negotiated with the private sector and
can range from total risk being taken by private sector to
total risk taken by the City. The various scenarios for
- 9 -
• /97 i
the allocation of this risk will have to be explored by
the City's legal advisors to determine any legal
limitations associated with risk allocation. Obviously
Iowa City would want to avoid swings in rates that would
occur if the City tried to match rates to the debt
service. Because of bond covenants, however, rates must
cover the annual interest and principal due, with an
additional coverage factor for security. To avoid rapid
fluctuations in rates, Iowa City could establish an
interest rate stabilization fund. This fund could be
utilized if interest rates increased (or replenished when
interest rates declined). Using a stabilization fund,
Iowa City could mitigate fluctuations in its user rates.
Market risk could also be mitigated by conversion to a
fixed rate issue at a favorable rate. In good markets,
this rate could potentially be even lower than in today's
market.
III.2 ANALYSIS - PART 2
Recognizing that one of the advantages of Privatization is
its ability to allow the public sector to benefit from
private sector efficiencies, two additional analyses have
been performed that take this into account. Typically the
Private sector can use to its advantage economies of scale
that come with experience and size of operations. Often
the resources available to private industry result in
efficiencies of time as well. For the purpose of this
analysis, only a cost savings due to privatization has
been assumed. Based on recent Metcalf & Eddy experience,
a five percent construction cost savings has been
incorporated into this analyses of the privatization
approach. The results of this change follow:
Project Cost Annual Capital
Charge
Fixed Rate Privatization $45,171,000 $3,937,000
Variable Rate Privatization $43,133,000 $3,152,000
IV SUMMARY
In this section Table III is provided to summarize the
projected financing alternatives quantitatively. Figure 1
shows the relationship between the four alternatives. In
Figure 2, the Privatization alternatives assuming 5
percent construction savings have been added. A
comparison between the best cases of private and public
financing are shown in Figure 3. Also provided in this
section are qualitative comparisons between each of the
alternatives.
- 10 -
197
i
st
rM'aiAiaaR\.SaHt \avtwaitt a\iv\a!uan.A.VGaO: a.. a'.. avaaawanv.�A�:«viii..�.�.v.Y.arav�....v�.�.YYJ.vnHnn}•.�n'�'
Based on the annual revenue charges presented in Table III
along with annual operation and maintenance costs, the
impact on user charge rates can be estimated. Table IV
summarizes the impact of each financing method on the
current user charge rate. The user charge rate is
projected to increase in a range of 3.2 to 3.9 times the
current rate based on the financing method selected. If
Revenue bonds are selected, the minimum nonthly charge for
sewer service will increase from the current $3.25 to
$12.35. This increase in cost of service is illustrated
in Figure IV. Figure IV shows the cost of service for
maintaining the current level of service as well as
providing increased capacity, stormwater treatment
capability and upgrading of current service to meet
environmental regulations.
1
T
Annual
Relevant
Cost
Capital Charge
f.
$47,265,000
$4,008,860
Yr
1 - Yr 30
$42,045,000
$3,828,430
I
1
1 - Yr 20
i
i
I
i
vtanliaavavay.+yyyl\\M �a\\vavaty .a+y+.Yu:A.::::f:+a\\\a�++++.�.+A.+.«:e:.+r.yv.v.w�wn�.yvm�F.v.•mv.•.vyy^r'
Table III
Summary of Project and Financing Charges
Financing Alternative
Municipal Fixed Fate
Revenue Bond
G.O. Bond/Fixed Fate
revenue Bond
Fixed Rate Privatization
Variable Rate Privatization
Fixed Fate Privatization w/
Oonstructicn Oost Savings
Variable Rate Privatization
W/ construction Oust Savings
Total Project
Annual
Relevant
Cost
Capital Charge
Tine -Period
$47,265,000
$4,008,860
Yr
1 - Yr 30
$42,045,000
$3,828,430
Yr
1 - Yr 20
$1,890,130
Yr 21 - Yr 30
$47,541,000
$4,117,000
Yr
I - Yr 25
$45,395,000
$3,297,000
Yr
1 - Yr 25
$45,171,000
$3,937,000
Yr
1 - Yr 25
$43,133,000
$3,152,000
Yr
1 - Yr 25
t
Table IV
Use Charge Rate for Financing Alternatives
1. Includes current debt service due in 1988.
- 13 -
197
1
Annual
Financing
Operating
Debt
Revenue
Rate
Method
Cost
Service
Requirement
Multiplier
Municipal Fixed Rate
$1,335,400
$4,491,889
$5,827,289
3.8
Revenue Bond
G.O. Bond/Fixed Rate
1,335,400
4,311,459
5,646,859
3.7
Revenue Bond
Fixed Rate
1,335,400
4,600,029
5,935,429
3.9
Privatization
Variable Rate
1,335,400
3,780,029
5,115,429
3.3
Privatization
Fixed Rate
1,335,400
4,420,029
5,755,429
3.8
Privatization
w/Construction
Cost Savings
Variable Rate
1,335,400
3,635,029
4,970,429
3.2
Privatization
w/Construction
Cost Savings
1986 Base Budget
$ 983,358
$ 552,435
$1,535,793
1.0
1. Includes current debt service due in 1988.
- 13 -
197
1
T
Iowa City
I
�M+nXittaafaYSalav \v\N as\ta\\vvv!wanw'/wni.Ni:::
rp•a\v\aa+_+wrA.::...:Fwwwr`.w.v.vnwnu..w.aO.µvnwsaw•.•.++
G.O. Bond/Rev. Bond
4000
-- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - --
_..� _—.. _ .^.-- ---.� _._ - --
.........
..............................................
.—
Iowa City
Fixed Rate Rev. Bond
3500
FIGURE 1
IOWA CITY
Financing Alternatives Compared
Annual Capital Charge ($000's)
4500 r
Iowa City
�M+nXittaafaYSalav \v\N as\ta\\vvv!wanw'/wni.Ni:::
rp•a\v\aa+_+wrA.::...:Fwwwr`.w.v.vnwnu..w.aO.µvnwsaw•.•.++
G.O. Bond/Rev. Bond
FIGURE 1
IOWA CITY
Financing Alternatives Compared
Annual Capital Charge ($000's)
4500 r
1500
Project Year
Iowa City
G.O. Bond/Rev. Bond
4000
-- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - --
_..� _—.. _ .^.-- ---.� _._ - --
.........
..............................................
.—
Iowa City
Fixed Rate Rev. Bond
3500
Privatization
3000
Variable Rate
2500
Privatization
Fixed Rate
2000
7
1500
Project Year
FIGURE 2
IOWA CITY
Financing Alternatives Compared
Annual Capital Charge ($000's)
4500 r
-- — — -----------------
4000 r
........................
......3500
3000
2500 4
t
t
2000
......................
1500
N N N N N
Project Year
(1) Assumes 5% Construction Cost Savings
Privatization
Variable Rate (i)
Iowa City
G.O. Bond/Rev. Bond
Privatization
Fixed Rate (1)
.................
Iowa City
Fixed Rate Rev. Bond
Privatization
Variable Rate
Privatization
Fixed Rate
j
I
i
�yl \\\aaJFaa\+\+\Hoa\att\a+vLaMnn.:wn.J:::l'Y+\'.++...w.�.wtw...isw.+.vwwv.v.tv..wv.w..1..�.Yna..rv�.a•n.'
;J
'1
FIGURE 2
IOWA CITY
Financing Alternatives Compared
Annual Capital Charge ($000's)
4500 r
-- — — -----------------
4000 r
........................
......3500
3000
2500 4
t
t
2000
......................
1500
N N N N N
Project Year
(1) Assumes 5% Construction Cost Savings
Privatization
Variable Rate (i)
Iowa City
G.O. Bond/Rev. Bond
Privatization
Fixed Rate (1)
.................
Iowa City
Fixed Rate Rev. Bond
Privatization
Variable Rate
Privatization
Fixed Rate
j
I
i
�yl \\\aaJFaa\+\+\Hoa\att\a+vLaMnn.:wn.J:::l'Y+\'.++...w.�.wtw...isw.+.vwwv.v.tv..wv.w..1..�.Yna..rv�.a•n.'
FIGURE 2
IOWA CITY
Financing Alternatives Compared
Annual Capital Charge ($000's)
4500 r
-- — — -----------------
4000 r
........................
......3500
3000
2500 4
t
t
2000
......................
1500
N N N N N
Project Year
(1) Assumes 5% Construction Cost Savings
Privatization
Variable Rate (i)
Iowa City
G.O. Bond/Rev. Bond
Privatization
Fixed Rate (1)
.................
Iowa City
Fixed Rate Rev. Bond
Privatization
Variable Rate
Privatization
Fixed Rate
j
I
FIGURE 3
IOWA CITY
Public vs Private Capital Charge Comparison
Best Case Basis
Annual Capital Charge ($000's)
- 4500
Project Year
IPrivatization case assumes 59 const cost savings
--
Privatization
Variable Rate
Iowa City
G.O. Bond/Rev. Bond
y
tialu{iaJ.\\a\\\\Mv.a\\uti a\a<a.ivawMiNJJllYtitaYiauu..wwMM:wwY�x.'.vv'.•.uv/xx�u
J/vu•I`MxM1YMMu+'�'
FIGURE 3
IOWA CITY
Public vs Private Capital Charge Comparison
Best Case Basis
Annual Capital Charge ($000's)
- 4500
Project Year
IPrivatization case assumes 59 const cost savings
--
Privatization
Variable Rate
Iowa City
G.O. Bond/Rev. Bond
EXISTING FACILITIES
$3,25
(26S)
$3.84
(31%)
STORMWATER TRANSPORT &
TREATMENT SYSTEM
REHABILITATION OF EXISTING FACILITY
$3.96
(32x)
FIGURE IV
USER CHARGE BREAKDOWN
TOTAL MINIMUM CHARGE = $12,35
NOTE: THIS IS THE MONTHLY CHARGE RATE THAT WOULD BE ASSOCIATED
WITH THE MUNICIPAL FIXED RATE REVENUE BOND FINANCING
METHOD
INCREASED TRANSPORT B
TREATMENT CAPACITY
YCTCALI n COOT
I
The following sections describe the qualitative aspects of the
financing methods:
A) Municipal Fixed Rate Revenue Bond Financing
i Advantages•
o Predictability of future costs due to fixed
long-term interest rate.
o Market acceptance of issues due to
creditworthiness of system and general
acceptance of wastewater system issues;
corresponding high investor demand.
o No reliance on G.O. credit, preserving
borrowing capacity for other purposes.
o Typically does not require voter approval.
o City retains operating control of the facility.
o City can contract out 0&M and associated
performance risks.
o City can capitalize on arbitrage opportunities.
o Quick to implement.
Disadvantages:
o Fixed interest rate does not permit City to
take advantage of short-term market conditions
or potential rate decreases.
o City bears construction risk.
o City may bear 0&M performance risk.
B) Combined Municipal Financing using G.O. Bonds and
Fixed Rate Revenue Bond.
Advantages
o Lower interest cost than complete revenue bond
financing.
o Predictability of future costs due to fixed
long-term interest rate.
- 16 -
197
r
i
_RVNN\aaa ate•ata\a\M......aa\a�taaa.vN.�N. Ji:: .l-. a\aaaMMa����ninnnin..vw�.v aw.a ..nnW`Mvnw.w. I.
o Market acceptance of issues due to
creditworthiness of system and general
acceptance of wastewater system issues;
corresponding high investor demand.
o City retains operating control of the facility.
o City can contract out 06M and associated
performance risks.
o City can capitalize on arbitrage.
o Quick to implement.
o No debt service reserve fund requirement for
the general obligation portion.
Disadvantages;
o Fixed interest rate does not permit City to
take advantage of short-term market conditions
or potential rate decreases.
o City bears construction risk.
o City may bear O&M performance risk.
o Uses G.O. credit that might be better used
elsewhere.
C) Fixed Rate Privatization
Advantages•
o Resulting capital charges are competitive with
public approaches.
o May be stuctured as a fixed capital charge to
the City.
o Public bonding capacity is preserved for other
uses.
o Operating risks are passed to the private
sector.
o Contract may be structured to place bulk of
construction risks on the private sector.
o Arrangement does not require voter approval.
- 17 -
197
�q
■
l:\M....... a:. ......'.v`+..:v.w.... rrvv h.Y.v.:v..w•..�
i
I
i
I
Disadvantages:
I O Operating control is passed to private sector,
O Detailed contractual arrangements must be
negotiated, lengthening the time of
implementation.
D) Variable Rate Privatization
Advantages:
o Lowest cost alternative due to combined factors
Of tax benefit sharing and lower short-term
interest rates.
o Operating risk is passed to private sector.
o Public bonding capacity is preserved for other
purposes.
o Contract may be structured to place bulk of
construction risk on the private sector.
Disadvantages:
o Higher level of market risk compared to fixed
rate financing.
o Operating control is passed to private sector.
o Enabling legislation may be required.
o Detailed contractual arrangements must be
negotiated, lengthening the time of
implementation.
V RECOMMENDATIONS
The results of this analysis favor the economics of
variable rate financing. Because public use of floating
rate debt is not a legal alternative in Iowa, the benefits
of this low cost alternative can only be realized in a
service contract with a private sector entity. If cost
were the only basis for decision making, variable rate
privatization would be the obvious choice. However, the
risks associated with this approach may detract from its
economic attractiveness. The overall savings available to
the City is dependent upon the level of risk for interest
rate fluctuations
reter
City's exposure ntotincreasing tinterest srates, thealessthe
attractive is variable rate privatization.
- 18 -
i
197
4
ei.......................... ..:..._.....„.. ....... ..... ........�.. ».•
In assessing the City's alternatives it appears that fixed
rate privatization is only more economical than fixed rate
municipal financing if one assumes that the private sector
will construct the facility at 95% of its cost to the
City. The economics of the public alternative using a
combination of General Obligation and Revenue Bonds at
fixed rate is more compelling than fixed rate
privatization, provided the bonding capacity of the City
can be allocated to the project.
i
Recognizing that cost is only one criterion for decision-
making, some of the less tangible characteristics of each
alternative have been evaluated. Based on an assessment
of these other variables, it is recommended that the City
consider privatization further in light of the discussion
that follows.
i While it is acknowledged that Privatization may not be
economically viable for all communities,it is a promising
alternative for Iowa City. In Iowa City's situation, some
of the factors which come together to provide
privatization's economics were not assumed in the
financial analysis. In addition to the probability of
construction cost savings, the potential exists for time
efficiencies and O&M savings. The financial creativity
and flexibility characteristic of many private financi
have also been excluded from the analysis. In mostngs
instances creative approaches result in increased savings.
Finally, the liability of the privatizer for property
taxes other than those imposed by the City tends to bias
the analysis against privatization. This added tax burden
detracts from the level of savings that can be offered and
ignores the benefit of these added tax collections to the
City. Privatization scenarios that consider the benefit
of increased tax revenues to the City could be expected to
show savings when compared to various public approaches.
This report evaluated the financial aspects of expanding
wastewater treatment service to the City. In this
context, privatization is a favorable alternative.
However, other factors other than finances are critical to
the decision making process.
If for reasons unrelated to economics and risk the City
prefers traditional public finance to privatization,
Alternative B, the G.O./revenue bond combination is the
recommended approach.
- 19 -
/97
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 2, 1986
To: Neal Berlin and City Council
From: Chuck Schmadeke
Re: Wastewater Facility Construction
Metcalf & Eddy, the City's wastewater consultant, has presented five
processes for constructing the proposed improvements to the City's waste-
water treatment and collection system. The. five processes are the tradi-
tional, program management, fast track, turnkey and privatization. These
five processes are discussed in detail in the report titled "Implementa-
tion Method Alternative 11" dated November 25, 1985.
In order to select the most appropriate construction process, it is neces-
sary to first decide whether or not the improvements should be constructed
now or phased over a period of several years. Phasing the project, for
example, may discourage privatizers, and reducing the size of the projects
through phasing may eliminate consideration of the program management
process.
Iowa City's proposed wastewater facility improvements (alternative 11)
accomplishes three major goals: 1) meet wastewater treatment plan efflu-
ent standards established by the Environmental Protection Agency and the
Iowa Department of Water, Air and Waste Management and provide sufficient
capacity for the next 20 years; 2) eliminate flooding caused by sanitary
sewer collection system surcharging; 3) improve the collection system in
the southeast area of the city to serve future residential and industrial
demand.
The proposed improvement costs and effects are as fol Tows:
A. Existing treatment plan improvements ($9,993,247) - Meets EPA and
IDWAWM effluent standards.
B. Sand Road treatment plant ($9,309,437) - Provides treatment capacity
to satisfy the 20 -year demand and relieves surcharging and basement
flooding.
C. Southeast interceptor sewer ($7,627,212) - Relieves surcharging and
basement flooding in the Rundell Street area and Fairmeadows area and
provides for additional growth in the southeast area.
D. Northern portion of the southeast interceptor sewer (;3,991,060)
-Relieves surcharging and basement flooding in the east side area.
E. University Heights sewer (512,469,022) - Relieves surcharging and
surfacing flooding in the Benton Street area east of Greenwood Drive.
�r
ti1
qty\�taa\atal.v\v.............. ..:...... ..ar �Y�. • ..w :.. I..v.YAY.ma.
Page 2
The only advantage of phasing construction of the improvements over several
years' is to minimize the initial increase in user fee. Effluent standards
must be met by July of 1988, so existing treatment plant improvements must be
included.in the first phase.
Attached is a copy of a letter from Metcalf & Eddy listing required increases
in user fees to construct the improvements using various financing alterna-
tives and required increases in user fees with no construction phasing, five
year phasing, and ten year phasing. The temporary solution to the Rundell
Street sewer problem mentioned in the letter involves constructing the Pine
Street lift station, and a 27 -inch sewer along Highway 6 to the existing
treatment plant. The cost of the 27 -inch sewer is estimated at $2,200,000
and it would be abandoned after completion of the second phase.
This matter is scheduled for informal discussion on January 21, 1986, with
the ad-hoc committee. Your decision is needed before the committee proceeds
further with discussion of the.process for implementing the construction.
bcl
cc: Wastewater Treatment Plant Review Committee
n
r
0
. • , u" R. Metcalf &Eddy, Inc.
Engineers 8 Planners
05 W. Algonquin Hone. Suite 500
Aeinglon Me:ghls, Illinois 60005.4422
December 10, 1985 (312)226-0900
Mr. Charles Schmadeke, P.E.
Director of Public Works
City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Dear Mr. Schmadeke:
This letter summarizes our review of revenue stream requirements
and the resulting impact on user charge rates as requested at our
meeting on December 5, 1985. Table I shows the relationship
between the existing user charge and the user charge resulting
from construction of the entire project (Alternative 11) under
the six financing methods. As shown in this table, the user
charge rate must increase between 3.2 to 3.9 times the current
rate.
I i
Additionally, Alternative 11 has been evaluated by constructing
the project in two phases. The initial phase involves the
improvements at the existing plant along with the northern I
portion of the southeast interceptor and a temporary solution to
the Rundel Street sewer problems. The second phase involves the
remainder of the project along with a permanent -solution to the
Rundel Street problem. Table II summarizes these findings for j
both a 5 and 10 year phasing schedule.
We hope this review provides the required information. We are
prepared to discuss these findings at any time.
Yours very truly,
Loren W. Leach
Project Manager
LWL:tpw
I
I
i.
ti
VMiii\vaaa aa!a.\. \.♦w ct+1 a :i vva!vaw:.+,r.�A•::::.:...waa......�_M.........:...-.....a ...r.....v:..+�n .•nw.vn nr
Table I
Use Charge Rate for Financing Alternatives
Financing
Operating
Debt
Annual
Revenue
Rate
Method
Cost
Service
Requirement
Multiplier
Municipal Fixed Rate
$1,335,400
$4,491,889
$5,827,289
3.8
Revenue Bond
G.O. Bond/Fixed Rate
1,335,400
4,311,459
5,646,859
3.7
Revenue Bond
Fixed Rate
1,335,400
4,600,029
5,935,429
3.9
Privatization
Variable Rate
1,335,400
3,780,029
5,115,429
3.3
Privatization
Fixed Rate
1,335,400
4,420,029
5,755,429
3.8
Privatization
w/Construction
Cost Savings
Variable Rate
1•,335,400
3,635,029
4,970,429
3.2
Privatization
w/Construction
Cost Savings
1986 Base Budget
$ 983,358
$ 552,435
$1,535,793
1.0
1. Includes current
debt service due in 1988.
■
Year
1988
1993
1998
2003
Table II
User Charge Mutiplier for Phasing
Multiplier
No
5 Year
10ear
PhasingPhasingPhasin
3.8
2.3
2.3
4.1
4.4
2.5
4.4
4.8
5.2
4.6
5.2
5.7
1 .
A_1
'4
n
rt
V.�tvAavaaaw!♦�a'.l\\'v.aa'.\aa�a\a!avvvnMiN: J:: Y::\'.ww\w--ar��..I....."nii:rv..va+..v..w....v�...F.v.v.wv.�.�rvwt�+'
M
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 16, 1986
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Frank Farmer, City Engineer �i-V,
RE: Parking Ramp 'B" - Dubuque Street
The west elevator of Parking Ramp 'B" is scheduled to be in operation
on February 10, 1986. At that time, the east elevator will be closed
for approximately three weeks to adjust the elevator for additional
floor operation.
Signs stating that the west elevator is closed are posted on the
ticket spitters at the west entrance. Signs will also be posted at
the east entrance. Neither Parking Systems nor Engineering have
received any complaints with regard to handicapped accessibility.
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 17, 1986
To: Dale Helling, Assistant City Manager
Rosemary Vitosh, Finance Director
From: Terry Reynolds, Equipment Superintendent
Re: FY87 Equipment Replacement /
Below is a breakdown and explanation of major equipment tentatively sched-
uled in our nine-year replacement schedule to be replaced in FY87.
Equipment tentatively scheduled to be replaced in FY87:
1 - Subcompact Auto E 6,900
2 - Compact Pickup Trucks 18,000
3 - 3/4 Ton Trucks 36,000
1 - 1 Ton Truck 16,300
2 - 2 Ton Trucks 91,000
1 - Backhoe 40,100
6 - Snowplows 36,600
1 - Air Compressor 15200
1 - Medium Tractor 10,100
1 - Concrete Saw 7,600
1 - Vibratory Roller 10,100
1 - Tower Truck 35,500
1 - Compactor/Roller 38,000
1 - Trencher 10,100
1 - Boom Truck 49,700
5421,200
The equipment is broken down by type, with a brief explanation as to
condition, etc. Please keep the following in mind when reading through
the explanations:
1. Because of the nearly 100% stop and go city driving conditions and
type of use, the engine mileage on these cars and trucks is approxi-
mately double the odometer mileage.
2. A final decision whether or not to replace an individual piece of
equipment is not made until the fiscal year in which it is scheduled
for replacement. Actual replacement of equipment may be moved ahead
or back, depending on condition at the time bids and specifications
are to be drawn up. The condition of equipment is monitored
constantly, allowing us to replace some equipment earlier than sched-
uled and some later than scheduled based on condition and operating
cost of each individual unit.
ao�
VT
�`1 h�A vvvaa vva.a.v.♦.v..�v.va.a..a .va�wNi,a, .. ..-. ... ..a .a
3. Most new equipment should last as long or longer due to our improved
preventative maintenance program begun in 1979. It is vital that
adequate preventative maintenance be performed from the time a vehicle
is new if maximum useful life is to be obtained.
One (1) subcompact auto to replace a like vehicle (No. 533 at Recreation).
No. 533 was scheduled for replacement in FY86 but was moved to FY87 due to
its condition at the time. This car is showing wear now and should be
replaced. It is an a projected seven year life cycle and has approximate-
ly 28,000 miles on the odometer. The operating cost for this vehicle is
now higher than the average for like units.
i
Two (2) compact pickup trucks to replace two (2) full-size 1/2 ton pickup
trucks (No. 103 at the Landfill and No. 124 in the Equipment Division).
i No. 103 is a 1977 model with 55,000 miles on the odometer and is showing
signs of wear both physically and mechanically. It is on a projected 10
year life cycle. The operating cost for this truck is now running higher
than the average for like units. No. 124 is a 1978 model with 48,000
miles. -on the odometer and is on a projected 9 year life cycle. It is
mechanically good but is starting to rust in the box and floor area. This
truck might be retained for another year if we spend about $200 to repair -
the rust spots. Currently this appears to be a cost effective alterna-
tive.
Three (3) 3/4 ton trucks to replace like vehicles (No. 15 at the Water
Division, No. 179 in the Equipment Division, and No. 886 at the Park). No.
15 is a 1979 model with 45,000 miles on the odometer and is on a projected
8 year life cycle. It is in poor physical condition and only fair me-
chanical condition and should be replaced. It's operating cost is higher
than the average for like units. No. 179 is a 1978 model with 29,000
miles on the odometer and is on a projected 9 year life cycle. It is in
good mechanical condition but is showing physical wear. This unit has
received body work in the last 2-3 years due to rusting and further dete-
rioration is now occurring. This truck might be retained for at least one
more year if we spend about $300 to repair the rust. Currently this seems
to be a cost effective alternative. No. 886 is a 1979 model with 35,000
miles on the odometer and is on a projected 8 year life cycle. It is in
good mechanical condition but only fair physical condition and is showing
body rust. This truck could probably run one more year with no major
increase in operating cost, which is now running a little below the aver-
age for like units. No body work would be done.
One (1) one ton truck to replace a like unit (No. 7 at the Water Divi-
sion). This is a 1978 model on a projected 8 year life cycle with 34,000
miles on the odometer. It was scheduled for replacement in FY86 but moved
to FY87 due to condition. This truck is in good mechanical condition but
only fair physical condition. It also has a large gasoline engine that
gets poor fuel mileage. In order to extend the life of this truck, the
truck body would have to be repaired at a cost of about $500 and the util-
ity body would have to be repaired or replaced at an additional cost of
$1,000 (repair cost) or $6,000 (replacement cost). It would not be cost
effective to keep this truck any longer.
a 0
Vim.,..;......... .,...«.......,. .....�..... ......... ...... A.....................
Two (2) two ton trucks to replace like units (No. 211 at Forestry and No.
918 at the Park). No. 211 is a 1978 model with 23,000 miles on the odome-
ter and is on a projected 10 year life cycle. This truck is in good
condition both mechanically and physically and will probably be retained
for another year. No. 918 is a 1976 model with 41,000 miles on the
odometer and is on a projected 10 year life cycle. It is in good mechani-
cal condition but shows some physical wear. Although it was used in the
past to plow snow, the front end is too light for continual use in this
area. This truck may be retained for another year if not used to plow.
The operating cost for both trucks is less than the average for like
units.
One (1) backhoe to replace a like unit (No. 415 at the Cemetery). This is
a 1972 model with 2,200 hours on the meter and is on a projected 10 year
life cycle. It is in reasonably good condition both mechanically and
physically for its age but is showing wear. It has served well beyond its
replacement cycle. Operating costs are going up dramatically on this
machine and it should be replaced.
Six (6) reversible angle snow plows to replace like units (Nos. 226, 246,
242; 251, 258 and 908 at the Street Division). Nos. 226 and 246 are large
endloader mounted plows. No. 226 is a 1979 model and No. 246 is a 1978
model. These plows will be reinspected in the summer to make a final
determination on replacement. Nos. 242, 251, 258 and 908 are 1978 models
and are showing considerable wear. All the above plows are on a projected
8 -year life cycle. Nos. 226 and 246 are in good condition and will proba-
bly be retained for another two to four years. Nos. 242, 251, 258 and 908
have bent and worn moldboards and should be replaced.
One (1) air compressor to replace a like unit (No. 14 at the Water Divi-
sion). This is a 1973 model with 500 hours on the meter and is on a
projected 8 -year life cycle. This compressor was scheduled for replace-
ment in FY86 but was moved to FY87 due to condition. The operating cost
is going up on this unit, it is showing wear and should be replaced with a
more efficient unit. Alternatives to replacement with a new unit will be
explored, including shared use with other City operating divisions.
One (1) medium tractor to replace a like unit (No. 267 at the Landfill).
This tractor is a 1972 model with 1,600 hours on the meter and is on a
projected 15 year life cycle. It is in only fair condition both mechani-
cally and physically, its operating costs are rising substantially and it
should be replaced with a more efficient diesel unit. Currently it is
necessary that gasoline be carried to the Landfill to fuel this unit.
One (1) concrete saw to replace a like unit (No. 268 at Traffic Engineer-
ing). This is a 1970 model and is on a projected 17 year life cycle. It
is showing wear and will be replaced with a smaller, more easily maneuver-
able machine. The operating cost of this machine increased substan-
tially in FY85.
One(1) vibratory roller to replace a like unit (No. 266 at the Street
Division). This is a 1977 model with almost 500 hours on the meter and is
on a projected 10 year life cycle. It is in good condition and will be
inspected in the summer to make a final decision regarding its replace-
ment. It will likely be retained for another year or more.
M.
0
c
4
One (1) tower truck to replace a like unit (No. 315 at Traffic Engineer-
ing). It is a 1979 model with 20,000 miles on the odometer and is on a
projected 8 year life cycle. The truck is in very good condition but the
lift assembly is showing wear. This unit will be reinspected before a
final decision is made on replacement of all or part of it. It could
probably be retained for another one to two years if $500-51,000 were
spent on the lift assembly.
One (1) rubber -tired compactor/roller to replace a like unit (No. 203 at
the Street Division). This is a 1970 model with 2,500 hours on the meter
and is on a projected 17 year life ,cycle. This unit was purchased used
in 1978 and is showing wear both physically and mechanically. This ma-
chine will be repaired and retained or replaced with another used unit,
depending on the estimated future use and the operating cost. It would
not be cost effective to purchase a new unit.
One (1) trencher to replace a like unit (No. 214 at Traffic Engineering).
This is a 1970 model and is on a projected 17 year life cycle. This ma-
chine is starting to show signs of wear both mechanically and physically.
It is, however, in reasonably good condition. It will be inspected in the
spring before a final decision is made on replacement. Currently, it
appears this unit could be retained for another year.
One (1) hydraulic boom truck to replace a like unit (No. 270 in the Equip-
ment Division). This is a 1972 model with 12,000 miles on the odometer
and is on a projected 15 year life cycle. It is in good condition and
will be retained for at least another one to two years.
/sp
aoo
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 16, 1986
To: City Council
From:
Rosemary
Vitosh,
Director of FinanceQw+..,..iV�
Re:
Free Bus
Passes
for Low Income Elderly Citizens
The Council has given approval to the establishment of an Elderly, Transit Fee
of 259. This fee will not be assessed low income elderly citizens. A current
City program which has been in effect for several years provides free refuse
service to low income residents. It is proposed that the free refuse program
criteria be used for determining eligibility for free bus permits to the low
income elderly.
This criteria would allow low income residents who are 60 years of age or
older and who qualify for any of the programs listed below to sign up for a
free bus pass. Each individual must be eligible under the low income crite-
ria of one of the following programs: Supplementary Social Security Bene-
fits; Title XX Program; Food Stamp Program. In addition, those individuals
who qualify to file an Iowa Disabled and Senior Citizen Property Tax and Rent
Disbursement Claim with the State can present a copy of the form most re-
cently filed to show eligibility.
A release of information form, available at the Civic Center or Senior Cen-
ter, must be signed and will be used to verify the individual's participation
in a program with the proper agency.
With this criteria, the City is relying on state and federal guidelines from
agencies which deal regularly with programs based on financial need. In this
way, the City is not put in the position of reviewing confidential income
data and of deciding who is "low income."
To allow time to properly publicize this program for free bus passes for the
low income elderly and to sufficiently train volunteers at the Senior Center,
I am recommending that the implementation date for the elderly rate be March
1, 1986.
bj4/7
�O/
{
I
City of Iowa City
_ MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 17, 1986
TO: City Council
FROM: Rosemary Vitosh, Finance Director G1&4p�
RE: FY87 Budget - Recreation
Attached is a letter from the Johnson County Arts Council regarding
their expanded service level request in the Recreation Division's
FY87 Proposed Budget. The new request adds $1000 from City funds;
please refer to the attached expanded service level for $5170 in-
stead of the one on Page 191 of the FY87 Proposed Operating Budget.
ce ct�;4r bs Ceaf r -
Iowa ON / Johnson County Ms Council
Lower Level. Jefferson Bldg. 319.337-7447
129 E. Washington Iowa City, Iowa 52240
December 22, 1985
r j Joyce Carroll, Acting Director
Lee Community Recreation Center
220 S. Gilbert St.
Iowa City, IA 52240
Dear Joyce:
I am writing because I have to make an adjustment to our
budget request to the city. At the very end of the request I
described the Community Partnership Incentive Grant program of
the Iowa Arts Council and how we could apply for $1,000 from
the IAC if we received at least $1,000 from the city. Unfortunately
I have just now found out that this is not the case.
About a week ago I discovered that the Iowa City/Johnson
County Arts Council had received a grant under this program from
the IAC in fiscal 1980. According to the IAC rules, an arts
council is eligible to have three successful requests for assistance
from this program within a five year period. We have now exceeded
the five year rule and are no longer eligible to apply.
The upshot of all this is that we cannot get any matching
funds from the IAC for our budget request. Whatever we have
requested from the city in the way of support must come entirely
from the city. So, instead of requesting $4,170.12 from the
city, we must now request $5,170.12.
I hope that I have explained this satisfactorily. It is
ja very complicated situation, and I apologize for having to bring
this up at the last minute. If you have any questions, or need
more information, please let me know. I will be out of town
from Dec. 24 - January 1. I hope you have a happy holiday!
Sipcerely,
June C. Fischer
President
i
- aD.Z
a
d
FORM 4
EXPANDED SERVICE LEVEL
F Y 8 7 REVISED 1/7/86
ACCT. is 1610.0 0EPARTMENT/O1V1S10N: Parks & Recreation/Recreation
Use this sheet as a worksheet. Be sure to include the costs with your description.
Dictate from this worksheet to Word Processing. WPC will return it to you. You
should submit a copy along with the other budget forms to Finance.
DESCRIPTION: REVISED DECEMBER 2, 1985
Iowa City/Johnson County Arts Council
Project
#1
— Paper/Fiber Exhibition 187
$1,335.00
Project
N2
— Artsfest 187
1,249.00
Project
N3
- Videotaping of the Artists Forum
2,166:00
Project
B4 -
Membership Brochure
420.00
,
a
5,170.
WHY SHOULD THIS EXPANDED SERVICE LEVEL BE FUNDED?
COST
$5,170.00
The Iowa City/Johnson County Arts Council has requested assistance through
the budgetary process as directed in 1985 by the City Council. The Arts Council
has approached the Parks and Recreation Commission and now requests $4,170.00 to
continue two widely recognized events; (a) Paper Fiber and (b) Arts Fest. It
should be of particular interest to the Council that the Iowa City Recreation
Division is currently a co-sponsor of the Arts Fest Program and that for four
years has provided assistance, as reasonably possible. This program has flourished
and is now a well-known event throughout Iowa.
In order to make monthly exhibitions available to a wider audience, the Arts
Council monthly exhibits includelans to da
. They e and ralso �request t via aassistance toble their tdevelop ists rtheir amember-
ship drive in an effort to maintain current members and solicit new.
o,?d .2,
A
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 17, 1986
TO: City Council
FROM: Kevin O'Malley, Assistant Finance Director '
RE: Projected Cost Increase in the Park & Shop Program
A question was raised concerning the effect on the Park & Shop
Program caused by the increase in parking rates which was
approved by Resolution at the January 14th meeting. The pro-
jected hours of use of the Park & Shop Program for FY86 is 367,773
hours. The projected cost increase to the merchants in the pro-
gram, with the lOt/hour increase, would be $36,777 over a 12 month
period.
An estimate of the Park & Shop revenues for a 12 month period is
$110,332 at the previous rate of 300hour and $147,109 at the
approved rate of 40d/hour.
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 17, 1986
To: Mayor Ambrisco and City Councilmembers
From: Margaret Nowysz, Chair, Historic Preservation Commission W,9
Re: 1985 Historic Preservation Commission Awards Program
The Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission's 1985 Historic Preservation
Awards Program will be held on Thursday, January 23, 1986, at 7:00 PM in the
Civic Center Council Chambers. Members of the Iowa City City Council are
cordially invited to attend.
This is the third annual awards program sponsored by the Commission. In
1983, the Historic Preservation Commission recognized three preservation
projects which represented historically and architecturally sensitive reha-
bilitation to buildings' exterior features. Four awards were presented in
1984.
The judges selected to critique the applications for this year's program are
Robert Harvey, Professor of Landscape Architecture at Iowa State University,
Jim Jacobsen, National Register Coordinator for the State of Iowa, and Todd
Mozingo, an architect from Indianapolis, Indiana.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me or Monica Moen,
at 356-5247. The Commission looks forward to seeing you on January 23.
tp4/8
024 T
%0
CITY OF I
O
WA CITY
CIVIC CENTER 410 E. WASHINGTON ST. IOWA CfrY, IOWA 52240 (319) 356-5000
January 16, 1986
Neal Berlin, City Manager
City of Iowa City
! 410 E. Washington St.
f! Iowa City, IA 52240
Dear Neal:
r
Please accept my resignation from the position of Human Relations Direc-
tor, effective February 7, 1986. I have accepted the position of Human
Resource Manager with National Computer Systems in Iowa City.
I will always be grateful to you for the opportunity you gave me in ap-
pointing me to this position five and one-half years ago and I have
learned a great deal from working with you. I can still remember when
beginning in this position how impressed I was with the City organization
and City staff and this impression has not changed. There isn't a bunch
of people anywhere like this bunch and it's been a lot of fun. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Anne Carroll
Human Relations Director
bc4
1.....aw.„.....„....... ..... ...a....:,..........:..:::...............--�....,:..,........................,......::..•...�,......
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATII December 31, 1985
TO: Iowa City - City Council
per: City Clerk
RE: Beer/Liquor License/Conditional Approval
FOR YOUR INFi
9/10/85 Couni
for Sunday S;
the 90 -day p:
to retain thi
M
-u.::<,.....,........ .............
....,�....,....:::::__....
city of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
"fli January 13, 1986
i0: Iowa City - City Council
FROM: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk �tr
RE: Seer Permit/Sunday Sales Conditional Approval
FOR YOUR INFORMATION -- Conditional approval was given at the
9/10/85 Council meeting to Country Kitchen, 1402 S. Gilbert
for Sunday Sales/Beer Permit. They have submitted, after
the 90 -day period, the required information which allows
them to retain their permit.
err..:n.................._.........................:.....................�c.�......�..........
January 16, 1985
Mr. Mickey Lauria, Chairperson
Committee on Community Heeds
City of Iowa City
410 H. Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Dear Mr. Lauriaz
F o L E
JAN I J .1416
CITY C FRK
As a Senior Center Commissioner, I received a copy of your December 20,
1985 letter to our chair, Bill Cain. Although disappointed in your decision
not to fund the volunteer specialist position, I can understand the need to
prioritize during the economic crista. What I, personally, find difficult
to understand is your assessment that a part-time volunteer would adequately
asaume the responsibilities of a volunteer specialist.
As a former volunteer coordinator for the Hancher Gift Shop, I can assure
you that coordinating volunteers is a difficult and time consuming process.
Recruiting, training, scheduling, and supporting our scall cadre of 20 volun-
teers took hours of work. Many volunteers, once scheduled would charge their
minds about working at the last minute, leaving the gift shop unattended. AS
a volunteer coordinating other volunteers, I resigned after one year, promising
never to place myself in such a thenklesa position again.
Three years ago I became a Senior Center volunteer, facilitating the
Alzhelmerrs Support Group. The Senior Center staff provided as much support
as possible, however, I was responsible for organizing, publicizing, locating
speakers, 'thank yours", membership and newsletter. Unable to meet all of
these responsibilities, I looked for volunteers to assist me from within the
group and outaide of the group. I found none. After a full year of looking,
I gave up and the support group disbanded. This was particularly and as there
were 10-12 seniors who attended regularly and pleaded with me to continue the
group.
The points I am making are as follows.
- Volunteers coordinating volunteers find the job time
consuming and unrewarding.
- Volunteers tend to work when they tent to. If It is
not convenient, they do not work.
- While a great deal has been published about seniors
and volunteerise, in Iowa City, seniors expect staff
to do the •groundwork" jobs. (This has also been
demonstrated in other cities across the country.)
/I
Page two.
Last year we advertised for volunteers to coordinate volunteers at the
Senior Center. The only people who answered the advertisement were looking
for a paid position and expressed anger that we would expect a volunteer to
assume such a major responsibility.
i Zn siort, Mr. Laurie, it is well known that there are members of your
committee who express the opinion that the senior Center should be run solely
by senior volunteers, not understanding the role and function of administrative
staff. In reality, the concept of senior volunteers running their own center
hes provided unsuccessful time and time again. Your suggestion demonstrates
a Zack of understanding of the successful operation of the Senior Center and
of its problems. This is only natural. For example, I cannot understand the
need for city staff to record, transcribe, and post CCN minutes. Surely you
could locate a suitable volunteer to handle CCN minutes.
sincerely,
� Ail
Geri Hall, 1986 Chairperson
Senior Center commissioner
GH:be
CC: Iowa City Committee on Community Needs
Iowa City Council
Johmmn County Board of Supervisors
Senior Center Commisafon
SOP
E
Presented at Formal City Council
meeting of January 14, 1986
Mr Mayor and Council Members
Everyone comes to you to protest their individual pet part of
the City Budget. The economic conditions of the state has
been lean to the cash registers of the businesses as well as
for the coffers that feed the various govermental agencies.
Coffers that fund the services that people became spoiled by
in good times and that they expect the city to provide in
times of unstable economic conditions.
Over twenty years ago, studies shoed that a strong retail
core need a good transportation system, both by private auto
as well as mass transportation. The private and public
reinvestment in dowtown Iowa City in the past decade was
based on that premise. The premise further promised
increased tax base from a new downtown core to justify the
expense. Proudly we have a new downtown that has increased
tax base.
Continued studies by both city and private sector support the
fact that lack of parking is still a major dowtown problem.
The Zuchellie report on the last Urban Renewal parcel points
out that for intensive use, additional parking will be '
needed, as did the HLM report of last spring, as did the Old
Capital Center Martketing survey and so on. As a downtown
merchant and even my collegues in Sycamore, say that the
biggest compliant heard is the lack of parking.
As the supporters of mass transit come to you urging low cost
so they could get to work—those of us that made the
€ investment in dowtown that provide for our livelyhoods and
employees livelyhoods are an the line to say we need to be
considered also.
we need more parking as well as we need more riders. we have
a large investment that depends on volumnes of people getting
to our doors each day. You have been concerned that as the
price of bus fares goes up that ridership will drop. By the
same flip of the coin as parking cost goes up..fewer people
will spend money to park and to support our stores.
The bull: of the dowtown merchants reimburse the customer for
thier first hour of parking if they make a purchase of over
$5.00. This park and shop , and the bus and ride, programs
was started when partking cost was 20 cents. You are
doubling our cost... providing nothing. Something has to
give. You haven't look at the needs for FY 88 to determine
the rate needs at that time.
The economic conditions are such that stores of both large
and small sizes have to question such an expense. It was
questioned when the last bus raise went into effect and
=.everal merchant=_ drop their support... its the old them or me �209
r
OF
PRECEDING
DOCUMENT
Presented at Formal City Council
meeting of January 14, 1986
Mr Mayor and Council Members
Everyone comes to you to protest their individual pet part of
the City Budget. The economic conditions of the state has
been lean to the cash registers of the businesses as well as
for the coffers that feed the various govermental agencies.
Coffers that fund the services that people became spoiled by
in good times and that they expect the city to provide in
times of unstable economic conditions.
Over twenty years ago, studies shoed that a strong retail
core need a good transportation system, both by private auto
as well as mass transportation. The private and public
reinvestment in dowtown Iowa City in the past decade was
based on that premise. The premise further promised
increased tax base from a new downtown core to justify the
expense. Proudly we have a new downtown that has increased
tax base.
Continued studies by both city and private sector support the
fact that lack of parking is still a major dowtown problem.
The Zuchellie report on the last Urban Renewal parcel points
out that for intensive use, additional parking will be
needed, as did the HLM report of last spring, as did the Old
Capital Center Martketing survey and so on. As a downtown
merchant and even my collegues in Sycamore, say that the
biggest compliant heard is the lack of parking.
As the supporters of mass transit come to you urging low cost
so .they could get to work—those of us that made the
investment in dowtown that provide for our livelyhoods and
employees livelyhoods are on the line to say we need to be
considered also.
we need more parking as well as we need more riders. we have
a large investment that depends on volumnes of people getting
to our doors each day. You have been concerned that as the
price of bus fares goes up that ridership will drop. By the
same flip of the coin as parking cost goes up..fewer people
will spend money to park and to support our stores.
The bulk of the dowtown merchants reimburse the customer for
thier first hour of parking if they make a purchase of over
$5.00. This park and shop , and the bus and ride, programs
was started when partking cost was 20 cents. You are
doubling our cost—providing nothing. Something -has to
give. You haven't loot: at the needs for FY SB to determine
the rate needs at that time.
The economic conditions are such that stores of both large
and small sizes have to question such an expense. It was
questioned when the last bus raise went into effect and
several merchants drop their supoort...its the old them or me o2 O 9
r
1
n
V+ay.:Ni+vaa.aJ.a v.va. v�..aavv
theory of trying to stay in business and fighting raising
cost. Again another increase this time in parking could
result i -n a drop in parking support and useage at places such
as movies, resturants and night spots that don't support the
present park and shop or bus -and shop programs.
This could progress to a result that would make a full circle
back to the blight that we have all worked so hard to get rid
of. The bus and parking systems are for the good of the
entire city. You cant single out any one group and say theu
deserve to pay more or less.
I feel that you need to take several steps of action:
I. Budget from the General Fund for Mass Transit, because
the system is for the benefit of the entire city not
those that ride it.
2. Transfer the monies for the needed one year.
3. Transfer the monies back to Parking in 18 months and
start the plans for the third ramp in FY 88-89
4. Work with the University in route selection to avoid
duplication and competition for riders.
5. Promote the bus system as a fun way to travel. In
business we always have to advertise to attract new
customers. In this city we feel that the population
turns over every four years.
6. Chart a final 10 year program when the JCCOG report is
done.
7. As politicaly unpopular as it would be.'
put into effect
a fare increase effective September 1986' Remember the
fare increase affects less than 5 percent of the
Population.
Iowa City is alive and the envey of the rest of the state,
because of long range planning. I urge you not to move to
fast for what could happen to us down the road.
Thank you
Thomas H. Summy
2505 Rochester
owner - Stephens Clothing
OLd Capitol Center
aof
s1
\•..v .......... . ......
RE CE 14" 1986
t I
HIJ
�o%e
r
P�
as 'CITIZEN Awlday. January 14, 19%
OUR VIEW
Pty's fascal feat
A lot of people are saying there are no surprises in the
:C4'3 proposed budget for fiscal 19W. They are wrong.
ts
=44-toorise Is t with Congress hit the citleaand with the low; Legislature poi on *u
to
':VOste the possibility of a tai freeze, Iowa Citlalu have a vita,.
7U4 Parantee that all the Services they have comet de*d
upon will continue to be provided — unchanged.
There is a price, of course — a 6 percent property tax In-
;.. -crease. And while it won't mean much to the average home-
-'owner, taxes will be a significantly bigger chunk of businesses
expenses in fiscal '87, and consumers will likely feel the fallout
— but only slightly.
Overall, the fiscal 1987 budget Is an artful achievement that
V ; .comes to citizens courtesy of the insight of ell yy officials.
'. .Late last year the city round tam tncreaaes on some
e':3eivtces and hammered out a plan tos f k up the transit sys-
+t'lertt'a red L.A. That way, a 6 percent property tax Increase will
:r -more than cover the maintenance of services in fiscal '87, de•
spite increased costa.
Further, city officials wisely have saved $588,000 in feder-
al revenue sharing money slated for civic center expansion.
Aad they already have planned on severe cuts In federal
-revenue sharing money next fiscal year.
The federal money plus an end of the year balance in the
:.general. fund will - cover the anticipated $720,000 In nes tax
.money if the legislature votes to freeze property taxes.
If the Legislature allows tax increases; the federal money
and the general fund carryover provide a cushion for absorbing
imticipated cuts that might be made at the federal or state
kid. Or it could provide funds for capital Improvement
=='projects.
There Is always that unanticipated glitch. But in this econom•
le climate, given what the city knows and can plan for, It Is
truly amazing that residents can look forward to a year In
which the level of municipal services remains the some
City Manager Neal Berlin was wrong when he called the fis-
cal 1967 budget "plain vanilla." It is not at all bland. True,
there are no provisions for impressive new municipal projects.
But consider the fiscal times: The state's economy is slipping,
money from the federal government is tentative at best and all
municipal services will cost more next fiscal year. Forget the
frills; forget the Ideals. At this point, just treading water Is a
fiscal feat.
Berlin, Finance Director Rosemary Vitosh, their staffs and
the city council deserve commendation for their insight and
their work.
211
VT
................... ......... .
IOWA ENERGY u.`i..EMN
With winter on the way, wouldn't you like
to cut your healing bill in half? Randy
Martin, Energy Specialist with the Iowa
Energy Policy Council has done just that by
putting energy conservation measures to
work In his house.
"My heating bill went from $600 to $250
last year. Now that I've finished the base-
ment, I expect it to go as low as $175,"
Martin says. His total energy bill, which
Includes electricity, water, and gas for a
two bedroom house has gone from a 12
month average of $130 dollars a month to
$62.00 a month.
"Energy conservation pays for Itself.
Ideally, you should be able to borrow money
for home Improvements and pay back the
toanlhrough your monthly savings," Martin
says, "My total Investment of $3000 will pay
for itself within three to four years."
"My heating bill went from $600
to $250 last year... I expect It to
go as low as $175:"
Martin began Implementing his plan with
an energy audit that helped him figure out
which projects would yield the greatest
savings for the least Investment. He started
working on the no cost or low cost energy
savers first. They included putting gaskets
on electrical outlets, adjusting
water temperature, Insulating water heater,
and reducing lighting levels.
Air leakage amounts to 30 or 40 percent
of the average heating bill so Martin's major
energy savings came from tightening the
building and then Insulating It.
"Stopping airleakago Is not only Import.
ant for energy savings and comfort, but
also to protect your house from the damag.
Ing effects of moisture," Martin said. "Most
people think of caulking outside the house
but this does not significantly slow air
leakage. Caulking around the Interlor of the
house, around the baseboard, band joist,
and In the attic is the only sure way to
reduce air leakage."
Using the audit, Martin also considered
replacing windows and doors. While MIS is
an area that most people consider first
when Implementing energy savings pro-
grams, it Is expensive and only accounts for
about 10 to 15 percent of the air leakage.
The audit showed Martin this was nota cost
effective Item for his house because It
would take 20 to 25 years to pay for Itself.
With the Improvements he's made,
Martin's house Is now tight and well Insul-
ated against winter heating bills. If you're
Interested In how these same energy
saving methods can work for you, call
Randy Martin on the Energy Hotline
1.6045324114.
Air leakage Improvements In
Martin's house.
Iowa City and the Slouxland Interstate
Metropolitan Planning Council (SIMPCO)
are using energy management program.
ming to cut operating costs and save tax
dollars.
Each program is financed by a revolving
loan fund that best benefits the community
Involved. For Instance, Iowa City's Energy
Savings Payback Fund (ESPF) Is a separate
account in the city accounting system.
Departments which apply for energy con-
servation funding pay back the loan at an
agreed rate plus the amount of one year's
energy savings. This payback provides
energy management program Involving
energy offices In Iowa, Nebraska, and
South Dakota. Member communities from
each state will be able to use the fund for
eligible energy conservation measures they
might not otherwise have been able to
afford.
The revolving loan funds set up by Iowa
City and SIMPCO to fund energy manage.
ment programs offer several advantages
other communities might went to consider.
They benefit all departments of acommun-
fty or regional planning area. They replen-
Ish the fund so energy conservation
measures can continue. And, they reduce
the stress on operating budgets by using
fuel savings to pay for conservation
measures. Initial money for the programs
comes from federal, state, and local
government.
Energy education
packets for
Iowa libraries
The Iowa Energy Policy Council Is pro.
viding energy Information on conservation,
research, and alternative forms ofenergyto
Iowa libraries. Free packets will be sent to
Interested libraries which take part In an
evaluation assessing the use of the mater -
lots.
This program Is part of the Appropriate
Technology Information Dissemination
Grant from the Department of Energy.
If you would like to receive the informa-
tfon,contact Tony Hefting at the EPC
(515) 261.7016.
�2_1Z
R
MINUTES OF STAFF MEETING
j. January 8, 1986
Referrals from the informal Council meeting were distributed to the staff
for review and discussion (copy attached).
Items for the agenda of January 14 were reviewed.
A memorandum concerning agenda items was furnished to the staff. The
importance was stressed of bringing up items for the agenda at staff meet-
ings.
The City Manager advised that the budget will be printed today and tomorrow.
The budget retains the current level of service through FY87. It postpones
the building project to an undetermined time. It provides for positions
that were vacated in the current fiscal year to be reinstated as of July
1, 1986, after a review to determine what positions are necessary. It
provides for increased year-end balance in both years and provides the
ability to sustain the current level of services even if there is a state-
wide tax freeze. However, the budget is predicated upon a six percent
increase in property tax. It does not require additional fees with the
exception of some issues in recreation still being considered, and there
will be adjustments in water and sewer fees in this coming year. Most
of the expanded service levels have to do with computers.
The City Manager announced the appointments of Larry Donner as Fire Chief
and Terry Trueblood as Director of Parks and Recreation.
The City Manager advised that he has reviewed the department heads' evalua-
tions. Time will be scheduled soon with each individual.
The City Attorney announced that the staff will be receiving on a monthly
basis the pending issues and referrals in the Legal Department. The staff
was asked to review items pertaining to their department to see if they
agree with the comments.
The City Manager asked the staff to take note of the schedules for the
budget discussions on January 18 and 25.
Prepared by:
Lorraine Saeger Y
�2/3
0
Informal Council Meeting
DATE. January 7. 1986 PENDING COUNCIL ITEMS
H ¢
W
W W
>.
-13
�Z
SUBJECT
aw
o�
REFERRED
To
DATE
DUE
a��
o
COMMENTS/STATUS
�a
W
w
a
West Side Walkway
1.
1-7
P&PD/
Coordinate with School.District re.
location and West High sidwalk. Move
Transit
bus stop to location if walkway is
built.
Resource Conservation Commission
1-7
Assistant C
ty Mane
er
Work with RCC to develop mission
statement.
Sewer Proposal
1-7
Public Work
Review alternative proposal.ind refer
to Committee.
Keggers
1-7
Legal
Review ordinance re. foryof profitgpublicy
events. City Manager contact Casey Mah
Sidewalk Cafes
1-7
Legal/
Assistant C
ty Mana
e
Resurrect prior proposals and legal
review for control regulations, etc.
Benton Street Bridge1-7
Public Work
Include recognition of Mr. Ashton as
builder. Notify family.
Miller -Orchard Park
1-7
City Manage
Letter to Charlie Ruppert with cc to
CCN and Parks and Recreation Conmissio
Call Karen Hradek.
N!
MINUTES OF STAFF MEETING
January 15, 1986
Referrals from the informal and formal Council meetings were distributed
to the staff for review and discussion (copy attached).
The Human Relations Director announced that the staff will be receiving
within the next few days a memorandum describing training courses which
will be available. The number of courses is reduced from previous years.
The first one to be offered will be on handicapped awareness. There will
be one session for supervisors and one for employees. Only one course
for employees will be held, and department heads should determine who
should attend.
The City Manager reminded the staff of the ordinance which deals with
problems encountered with irregular attendance by board or commission
members. The ordinance requires the chairperson of the board/commission
to inform the City Council when any member has three consecutive unex-
plained and unexcused absences.
The City Manager asked the staff to take note of the schedule for
Saturday's budget meeting which will be held at the Transit Facility.
FPrered by: 0
Lorraine Saeger
4
■
Informal Council Meeting
DATE. January 13. 1986 PENDING COUNCIL ITEMS
UW
���111
W>
o
F-
tc W¢
oM
SUBJECT
oW
REFERRRED
DpAUE
o
COMMENTS/STATUS
TO
2Lo
az
¢
w Cr
a
Send copy of Council resolution to
Open Meetings Policy
1-13
City Clerk
each board and commission member.
Provide copy to all new members.
Contact City of Des Moines re. status
Impact Fees
1-13
P&PD
of studies on fees for tax exempt
institutions. Check with City
Assessor on old report re. tax
exempt properties.
Spanish Information Network
1-13
Assistant
'ty Mana
er
What is status with Heritage and
future plans?
Letter to Ruppert with copy to CCN
Miller -Orchard Park
1-13
City Managi
and Parks and Recreation Commission.
Rubberized R.R. Crossings
1-13
Public Woris
Proceed
Demo Buses
1-13
P&PO
Proceed
Informal Council Meetings
1-13
Parks & Re
eation
Set up chairs on side of table
facing audience and on the ends.
Airport Overlay Zones
1-13
City Manag4r
Letter to Airport Commission re.
computations for building Dermits.
Ad -Hoc Transit Study Committee
1-13
P&PDSolomon
Lundquist - potential
Lundell
citizen member.
nT
N�lav�la.al....•...t'........val.aa�w.µ..•..v .
Regular Council Meeting
DATE. January 14. 1986 PENDING COUNCIL ITEMS
%4
UUWLLJ
In
Fa
SUBJECT
aw
��
REFERRED
DATEaw¢
oir
COMMENTS/STATUS
To
DUEw
it
W
a
1.74 acre rezoning in County
1-i4 p&pp
0raft letter for Mayor to Board of
Supervisors.
Melrose Avenue R.O.W. Vacation
1-14 P&PD
Legal
Deferred - Place on next agenda.
Legal to check with University.
P&Z Recommendation re.
1-14 P&PD
entranceways
Refer to Urban Fringe Policy Committee
Recommendation on agenda
1-14 Staff
Ensure a recomnendat ons inc u e wha
action is required and when it should
occur.
Street Light Report
1-14 Public Wor
Parks & Re
-Puttrr—
/
eation/
Traffic Engineer and Forester review
for evaluation, cost estimates, and
recommendations. Address differences
Ran t
Lighting Project. Police provide
report on relative rates of criminal
activity in the study area.
Economic Development Revolving
1-14 P&PD
Develop outline and framework.
Loan Fund
Schedule for discussion at informal
Council meeting.
Repair Light
1-14 Parks & Re
eation
In Council Chamber
Dubuque Street Ramp
1-14Finance
When will west elevator be operational
Is sufficient signage for handicapped
in place notifying them of current
"out of order" status?
%4
December 31, 1985
NEC EIVF9J'•'1' 01986
Mearrl 1901 PrriryMrYa Avru NW
lWpu WmNnpn, D.C.
of 2oow
con (202)828'3000
Cable: NLCMES
The Honorable John McDonald
Mayor
City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Dear Mayor McDonald:
onlors
ft p
S—wvw
U4 ..Cww 0M
CA. ew,.,
M y G C..'"
WW.. S. 4v .L,.1
r.nor. gYM.q.,
Gor t r
WYa.S PrL Wwp.
fncuow Oi.wr
Aun e.w
I am writing to advise you of the final actions taken by the
Congress and administration this year affecting cities, of the
actions we expect to be considered when Congress returns on
January 21st, and of the courses of action you might take to
protect your city's needs and interests.
Along with this letter, I am enclosing a packet of background
material and a brief survey on key municipal issues. I would very
much appreciate it if you would share the background information
with your elected colleagues, and I would be grateful if you would
have your appropriate staff person insure that the survey is given
prompt and careful attention. The survey will be critical in our
efforts to give you the best representation possible in
Washington, D.C., in 1986.
This past year has been one of the most difficult in history for
municipalities from the federal perspective. The federal
government called for the deepest cuts in history to cities, a
host of new and expensive federal mandates, and changes in the
federal tax code which would preempt or restrict your municipal
authority to raise revenue or capital.
Next year will be considerably worse unless we can all work
together.
Despite the sharp cuts in federal aid to local governments, the
federal deficit and the federal trade deficit set new records.
Although the federal government made these reductions, it proposed
still more federal mandates and - with the exception of the
success we achieved with regard to the Fair Labor Standards
legislation - no reductions in any existing federal mandates.
Finally, the federal government began consideration of the most
W.a
far reaching tax reform proposal of the last 50 years - a proposal
which would dramatically affect each and every municipality in
America. Even though the Congress is a long way from final action
on tax reform, the House tax reform bill will sharply restrict
your authority to issue municipal bonds beginning at midnight
tonight.
Through it all, cities have continued to balance their budgets and
respond to the basic needs of their citizens. It is a remarkable
achievement, particularly for some of our cities in the greatest
fiscal distress - communities in the farm belt, where property
values are plummeting and foreclosures are too common; cities
affected by a large influx of immigrants and foreign devalued
currency; cities and towns adversely affected by the sharp decline
in energy prices; and cities hit hard by foreign imports and
consequent high levels of unemployment, and poverty no longer
caught by an eroded federal safety net. I believe this is a
credit to you and all municipal elected officials.
When Congress adjourned for the Christmas vacation, it left
without acting to implement its own budget. The conflicts between
the Senate, the White House, -and the House which have prevented
any meaningful action to reduce record federal deficits lasted
through the last bitter hours. Thus, even though the Congress
actually cut spending some $6 billion below what the president
requested for the current fiscal year, Congress left town without
taking any substantive action to cut the federal deficit. All the
money saved was simply used to pay for greater tax breaks and
spending elsewhere.
Part of the reason for the failure was the time Congress took to
pass the Gramm-Rudman legislation - a proposal which would
supposedly balance the federal budget by 1991. The Gramm-Rudman
legislation would effectively delete the Congress and White House
from the federal budget process, instead substituting
automatically triggered cuts in a small percentage of the federal
budget. It would be comparable to your city - if it had to deal
in an emergency with a record deficit - passing an ordinance which
said that, beginning in the next fiscal year, about 25 percent of
the city budget would be subject to across the board cuts in
annual installments over 5 years until the city's budget balanced.
You and your fellow elected colleagues would bear no
responsibility for determining what the city's priorities were.
Garbage collection, 9-1-1 emergency response service, city
maintenance, etc. would all be cut uniformly - and there would be
no consideration of what the appropriate level of local taxes
ought to be.
f
-kllam.......................,...._ ........._......_ A ..,...
-3-
As you can see, the proposal has some obvious political
attraction. Because, however, the portion of the federal budget
subject to the Gramm-Rudman proposal - which, of course, includes
all municipal assistance programs - is approximately equal to the
current federal deficit, it means that implementing the bill will
terminate any federal relationship with local governments. It
means that effective March lst next year, all federal programs to
cities will be cut in the current fiscal year. That is, you
should expect reductions in your April and July revenue sharing
payments, cuts in your Community Development Block grant funds,
cute in any public transportation or federal -aid highway funding,
and in any wastewater sewage treatment grant funds. I expect the
March lst cut to be about 4.6 percent. Unless Congress proposes
an alternative, I expect that on October 15, 1986, Gramm-Rudman
will require a further 18 percent cut.
In March, we anticipate that the Senate Finance Committee will
begin actual consideration of the House -passed tax reform bill, AR
3838. At that time, we expect the administration to make strong
efforts to repeal the deductibility of local property, personal
Property, income, and sales taxes. The administration estimates
that this will reduce municipal revenues somewhere between 1-3
percent. The committee will also be considering the
administration and House proposals to restrict local authority to
issue general obligation, revenue, and industrial development
bonds. In other words, at the same time you are trying to
compensate for extraordinary cuts in federalassistance, there
will be serious efforts underway which could undermine your own
ability to raise revenues yourself.
Finally, I expect the federal government to continue to press for
mandatory Medicare contributions from cities, for federal permits
for water discharges, for more expensive enforcement of
mandates.
drinking
water and hazardous waste regulations, and for other new
You and I both know that your citizens will insist upon a certain
level of basic, public services and facilities. We both know that
the federal government will continue to insist that cities provide
certain standards and levels of basic services such as sewage
treatment, etc. The question will be who will be responsible for
paying for these facilities and services, and how can the revenues
be raised.
The current federal deficit exceeds $200 billion. The president's
tax reform proposal, as well as the version passed by the House,
would cut back tax breaks enough over the next 5 years to bring in
nearly $400 billion in new revenues - mostly from individuals and
a4-
11-
-4 -
corporations who have not paid their fair share over the last 5
years. The bills would also bring in revenue from cutting back on
your city's ability to issue tax exempt bonds. Both bills,
however, pretend that tax refrom is completely unrelated to the
nation's single most important problem: the deficit. Thus,
instead of using even a single dime of the new revenues for
deficit reduction, both versions would return every dollar to
corporations and individuals in the form of the steepest tax cuts
in this century.
If the federal government proceeds along this path, it will
directly affect your city. You will be faced with tough decisions
about cutting personnel and services or raising taxes. if your
constituents believe they are paying more in local taxes, but
receiving less, they are likely to hold you responsible.
Consequently, we believe you might want to consider some of the
following steps:
1. issue a state of the city address in which you specifically
alert your citizens to the potential impact on local taxpayers of
pending federal actions;
2. Conduct an extensile campaign, both in citizen's meetings and
through the local media, to inform the public of the choices
forced upon the local level by these federal proposals;
3. Send a letter to all your municipal employees advising them of
the federal issues which might affect their job status, salaries,
pensions, and benefits;
4. Contact your Congressional delegation, preferably in person, to
request:
(a) a detailed analysis of how the revenue from your city sent
to Washington is shared (for instance, you might want to
ask why the federal government sends more economic
development assistance overseas, but tells cities it has
"no revenue to share;"
(b) a detailed analysis of the impact of current and pending
federal mandates on your local budget and taxpayers;
osed ta
(c) ondyourled city,�alysis of the particularly withct of regardht pyourscity's bills
authority and ability to raise capital and revenues;
can
ut
(d) an by nearly a$400 billion tion of how tunder he utax yafford ctaxes
reform when the federal
deficit is at record heights;
i
0
�Mti\'�A vaaval!.a\v \ vvV.. a v a..".. valaa.n.L.nwi.v: . • ..v v......a�.. l..r..u.i�i...�v.�. na .v.....v�� .1 �•I.vna-.µ..Nr
—5—
(e) a specific statement in support of reauthorization of
General Revenue Sharing; and
(f) a commitment of strong, visible support for any local tax
increases you will be required to seek in response to the
pending federal proposals.
We face a long and difficult year. It will be a year in which I
believe you will have to represent you constituents not just at
the local andstate levels, but also upon the federal level. We
will have to make our voices heard.
I hope the information included along with this letter will be of
assistance to you. I would be very grateful for the benefit of
Your views and further suggestions you might have in order to help
us better represent you.
With best re ards,
Alan eaI
Executive Director
a�s�
I
i
1 a,,,,.,....,..,.. ...,,......... .............. x
Background
Status of Major Federal Issues s Cities 1986-87
Gramm-Rudman:
As part of the legislation increasing the federal debt to over $2
trillion, the federal government enacted the so-called
Gramm-Rudman legislation. This law provides for the triggering of
automatic cuts in certain federal spending every year over the
next 5 until 1991, beginning with cuts in the current fiscal year.
Under Gramm-Rudman, the first round for FY1986 will be triggered
on March 1, 1986 for the federal fiscal year which began last
October 1st. In all future years, the automatic cuts would be
triggered on October 15th, unless the White House and had enacted
an alternative budget proposal which reduced the deficits to the
amounts set under Gramm-Rudman.
At this point, our best estimate is that all programs directly
affecting municipalities will be cut 4.6 percent for the current
year. This will mean that public transportation, housing, CDBG,
EPA wastewater funding, highway assistance, etc. will be cut by
that amount (see chart fl). Because the first PY1986 revenue
sharing payment will be made in the next week, we project that the
final 3 payments (April, July, and October) might have to be cut
by about 6 percent in order to achieve the full 4.6 percent
required.
The Gramm-Rudman legislation triggers automatic cuts in a small
percentage of federal expenditures over the next 5 years whenever
the federal government estimates that the new deficit targets will
be exceeded by $10 billion. The targets begin with $171.9 billion
for FY1986, and decline by $36 billion annually to $0 by 1991.
The administration estimates that under current law the deficit
for FY86 is well over $200 billion.
Gramm-Rudman limits the maximum cut in FY86 to $20 billion, and
prorates that for the last 7 months of the year. That means that
the maximum cut, I or "sequestration" as it is called, would be about $11.7 billion for the current year. It means that the
president will be required to submit an FY1987 budget to the
Congress by February 5, 1986, which provides for a deficit no
greater than $144.
Gramm-Rudman exempts most of the federal budget from the automatic
cuts. For instance, only about 13 percent of federal expenditures
are susceptible to the cuts. In FY1986, fully $750 billion of
$967 billion in federal spending is protected from any cuts, and
even of the remainder, much is partially protected. No city
program, however, is protected.
a��
&a
Because Social Security, interest on the federal debt, federal
obligations for binding contracts, federal tax subsidies, and
other programs are completely exempt; the small percentage of
federal expenditures remaining nearly equal the current federal
deficit. This means that when the rate of growth of the exempt
programs is taken into account, it is not even clear that the
total elimination of the non-exempt agencies and programs would
achieve a balanced budget.
Gramm-Rudman provides that the cuts are to be divided equally
between defense and domestic programs. In other words, next March,
this means that about $5.8 billion in cuts will be made in defense
spending, and the same amount out of domestic spending. Because
defense spending has increased so much (for example, the Pentagon
received $6 billion in excess inflation adjustment last year), the
actual percentage cuts will be much deeper in state and local
programs.
If the federal government continues its current inability to deal
substantively with the federal deficit and Gramm-Rudman rolls
forward, it will mean the elimination of domestic government.
Because Gramm-Rudman would be so destructive to national defense
(while most ongoing weapons system and research would be fully
protected because they are covered under binding contracts, it
would mean extraordinary cuts over the next 5 years in military
readiness, especially equipment and personnel), many expect the
administration to seek extraordinary cuts in domestic programs in
order to avoid triggering Gramm-Rudman. Since the president has
pledged to increase defense spending by about 7 percent, he will
be required to seek much deeper offsetting cuts in order to submit
a budget providing for a deficit reduction of about $50 billion.
Consequently, as.you can see from the chart, we anticipate an FY87
budget request with wholesale cuts and eliminations in key city
programs.
What you should do: Almost without exception, members of Congress
acknowledge that Gramm-Rudman is an irresponsible way to deal with
the federal deficit. Almost all acknowledge that no long term
solution will be possible without including tax revenues and
Social Security. Moreover, because Gramm-Rudman would call for
much greater automatic cuts when economic growth is low, and much
lighter cuts during strong economic growth, there is a good chance
that Gramm-Rudman could provoke a recession.
It is important that you fully understand and are prepared for the
automatic cuts - especially those set for March 1st. It is
equally important that your Congressional delegation understand
that dealing with the deficit requires everything to be on the
table - exactly the same way every city budgets every year.
Finally, it is critical that your delegation understand that no
rT
V„al: Yia ..aa...... .a.w.w.v.......aaaaa..+..:._A.....«ei...rv....r._r.....v....+.v.vnr.vwv..r
-3-
budget process can proceed separately from the revenue process:
that is, you must pay for what you spend. Remember, the pending
tax reform proposals seek to raise nearly $400 billion in new tax
revenues - mostly from wealthy individuals and corporations who
have not paid their fair share - but then proposes to turn right
around and give back every.penny in the form of the deepest tax
cuts this century.
3
I
II'
i
3
Chart I
GRAMM-RUDMAN ESTIMATED CUTS
i
FY 1986 (4.6i) FY 1987
i
G_RPossible
2=LL1-8%L White House Cuts
General Revenue
Sharing $211
$ 53 $ 7621
Community Development i
Block Grant 161 601 900 '
EPA and Municipal
Wastewater Grants110 414 600
Public Transportation 170 635 2,027
Federal Highways 607 2,266 2,600 1
UDAG 15.4 56 3302 t
Subsidized Housing 252 750 2,209
Job Training
Partnership Act 129 476
i_
1
Under current law, the last revenue sharing payment to cities and
towns is scheduled to be made in October, 1986. This figure anticipates j
an administration request to eliminate the scheduled payment entirely.
2 Denotes elimination.
}
I
/�Z
%4
�`�M4N vvav av!�aa�ty ♦�u..'.
a a:.. aa......uva
Chart I
GRAMM-RUDMAN ESTIMATED CUTS
i
FY 1986 (4.6i) FY 1987
i
G_RPossible
2=LL1-8%L White House Cuts
General Revenue
Sharing $211
$ 53 $ 7621
Community Development i
Block Grant 161 601 900 '
EPA and Municipal
Wastewater Grants110 414 600
Public Transportation 170 635 2,027
Federal Highways 607 2,266 2,600 1
UDAG 15.4 56 3302 t
Subsidized Housing 252 750 2,209
Job Training
Partnership Act 129 476
i_
1
Under current law, the last revenue sharing payment to cities and
towns is scheduled to be made in October, 1986. This figure anticipates j
an administration request to eliminate the scheduled payment entirely.
2 Denotes elimination.
}
I
/�Z
%4
December 31, 1985
Federal Tax Reform
Before adjourning, the House of Representatives passed HR 3838 to
reform the federal tax code. The Senate is expected to begin
consideration of its own version in early March in the Finance
Committee. Even though the Senate has yet to act, however, the
House bill will restrict the authority of cities to issue
municipal bonds after midnight tonight.
After passing the tax bill, the House and Senate each passed
separate non-binding resolutions calling for a delay in the
January 1, 1986 effective dates in the House passed bill. These
resolutions, however, carry no legal weight. Therefore, because
e
provisions on
municipal bonds
toeissueiboondsour afterttodayl not
unless the bonds comply not only with existing law, but also with
the pending legislation.
As you read the analysis below, you should keep in mind that the
tax reform bill is only halfway through the Congress. There are,
consequently, many opportunities to make changes in the Senate.
It is especially important to make sure that cities are able to
preserve their right to raise their own tax revenues, so you want
to be sure to urge your Senators to strongly oppose any efforts to
i repeal or modify the ability of your city's taxpayers to deduct
state and local taxes.
Likewise, it is important to preserve your city's capacity to
issue municipal bonds and short term notes, especially for
traditional public needs and purposes. As you go through this
material, you should identify where your city will be most
adversely affected and make sure your Senators are aware and
responsive.
It cannot be emphasized enough how important it is that you
communicate your concerns immediately before the process begins.
Tax reform is so complicated that it will be exceptionally
difficult to have input once the process in the Senate is
underway.
The House Ways -and Means Committee completed action on its version
of federal tax reform before sunrise on Saturday, November 23rd.
The committee plans to formally report the bill out the week of
December 2nd. Committee Chairman Dan Rostenkowski(D-I11) plans to
bring the bill before the full House prior to the Christmas
recess.
As completed, the House bill (Rosty II) bears remarkable overall
similarities to the president's proposals. That is, the bill would
lower individual and corporate tax rates to their lowest levels in
a��
-z -
over 50 years. The bill would remove federal tax liabilities for
almost all low income Americans. And the bill would reverse the
shift of imposing greater taxes on families and individuals and
less on businesses. indeed, perhaps the most remarkable
similarity between the bill and the president's request was the
repeal of the investment tax credit and the stretch out of
depreciation benefits - two of the most expensive tax provisions
which marked the 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act - the more than
$100 billion in new federal revenues from repealing these two tax
expenditures would not, however, be returned to the federal
Treasury to help deal with record deficits.
For the nation's cities, there are enormous differences between
the two proposals. For while elected city officials were given
virtually no access to the administration during the 5 months the
White House was reviewing the November, 1984 Treasury tax reform
proposal - during which time hundreds of billions of dollars of
changes were made to benefit certain interest groups - there were
substantial improvements made in the chairman's own proposal from
the perspective of municipalities.
The president had proposed to terminate the deductibility of
state and local taxes - a proposal which by the Treasury's own
estimate would have reduced cities' own revenues between 1 and 3
Percent. Rostenkowski proposed a compromise which would have
taken away about 75 percent of deductibility. it was
overwhelmingly rejected in the final hours of committee action.
The bill preserves the right for cities first asserted by
President Abraham Lincoln that the federal government should not
impose a tax on taxes levied by state and local governments.
The president had proposed to terminate the historic and
rehabilitation tax credits. Rostenkowski, with a Chicago
congressional district, understood the value of this credit to
rebuilding downtown areas in a public-private partnership. The
chiarman proposed a modification to preserve the credits; the
House agreed.
The Treasury had proposed to sharply cut back on charitable
contributions, the president modified that proposal, but still
would have prohibited the charitable contribution deduction for
any taxpayer who did not itemize. With the extraordinary cuts
in domestic programs, this issue has become critical for a
growing number of cities in order to help meet emergency food,
shelter, medical, and fuel assistance needs of citizens.
Rostenkwoski's bill modified the proposal to permit all
taxpayers to deduct for making such contributions.
The president had proposed to terminate the authority for cities
to issue bonds to provide for housing opportunities for those
who could not afford decent, safe, and sanitary shelter. The
amz
-3 -
president also proposed to cut back on depreciation and to
eliminate the rehabilitation tax credit. The committee bill
restored the credits and the right for cities to issue housing
bonds, but provided greater investor incentives to invest in low
income housing.
In terms of direct impact, then, the bill changes would be better
for cities in a number of ways.
* In perhaps the most key direct impact area to many city
officialmandatessonhcities, asewelllasould preempting muse chificant
currentnew
authority. The president had proposed eliminating the authority
of cities to issue any tax exempt bonds where more than 1
percent benefited any non-governmental user - a proposal which
even U.S. Treasury Secretary advised NLC president Voinovich was
unreasonable. Rostenkowski upped the percentage to 5, and would
e
permitted some authority to issue housing bonds. But the
final Rouse bill would permit cities to issue unlimited general
obligation and revenue bonds, as long as no non-governmental
person
10 or 1ercent o
thevalue cofvthe bonds. The ebill iwould tal oof $provide0authority f
to issue water and sewer, solid waste, housing, idb, and some
other kinds of tax exempt bonds, but under a new state -by -state
volume cap which would cut city borrowing authority about 40
'I percent from the current year.
The change on municipal authority to issue bonds, moreover, will
be effective on January 1, 1986. Even though the Senate will
ofthe
not
act
January 1, 1986udate inntil mthe iRouseme xbillais sufficienttoput a cloud over city authority to issue any bonds unless they
comply with the newly proposed federal rules.
Overall, however, the impact is one that will vary. No two cities
would be affected the same way by tax reform. Probably the most
significant area affecting cities would be in the corporate area,
for there the shifts are most dramatic.
' Under current law, the top corporate tax rate is 46 percent. Some
retail and high.tech companies pay at close to that rate. On the
other hand, some of the largest and most profitable corporations
in America, including almost all the major defense contractors,
pay little to no federal taxes. Under the committee proposal,
thus, those companies currently paying over 45 percent would
experience a sharp reduction in federal taxes, while those paying
virtually no federal taxes would experince the opposite.
�71T
VT
�'�M�\a4vaaaaa .ass .l v.aa�a.u.a .vv .aaa w..x.+...:.............. l.�.�«..
—4—
Because most corporate activity occurs within the nation's cities,
this tremendous shift in corporate tax liabilities would have a
major impact on each city.
Overall the bill, consistent with the president's proposal, would
shift more of the federal tax burden from individuals and families
to corporations. This shift of slightly over 8 percent, or about
$126 billion, over the next 5 years could be expected to provide
some increased consumer spending, but some decreased business
investment in cities.
Analysis:
The House proposal (Rosty II) to President Reagan's federal tax
reform proposal would reduce the capacity and authority of the
nation's cities to raise their own revenue to provide for their
own public facilities, needs, and responsibilities.
The Ways and Means Committee proposal will curtail the authority
of cities to issue -tax exempt municipal bonds and notes --in some
cases retroactive to September 25, 1985 --at the end of the year,
even though Congress is unlikely to take any final action until
next year.
As has become a tradition in the Congress, the introduction of tax
legislation --drafted in secret sessions --affecting cities will
have the effect of law even without enactment, or even action by
the Senate. That is because it will prevent municipal bond
counsels from giving cities clean opinions to issue bonds which
are not in compliance not only with existing federal tax laws, but
also any pending federal tax law changes. These opinions must be
qualified, because legislation is now pending (Rosty II) which, if
agreed to by the full Congress --would make certain of the bonds
taxable to their holders. This gives the Ways and Means Committee
the ability to make major changes in city's authority to issue
even general obligation and revenue bonds without any final
action.
The threat to cities of pending legislation in the bond area can
only be removed by affirmative action in the Congress. Therefore,
cities will have to comply with the bond mandates in his bill
until any changes are agreed to in a final conference between the
House and Senate after Senate action next year. There is little
chance of accurate and detailed information about the new federal
mandates with which cities would be required to comply by January
1st. Moreover, given that the Senate is almost certain to make
further changes, and that the U.S. Treasury is hopelessly behind
a/�z
-5 -
in issuing regulations, it will likely be at least three full
years before any actual and reliable legal guidance will be
forthcoming with regard to what actions cities will be required to
take.
KEY PROVISIONS IN PROPOSED LEGISLATION AFFECTING CITIES:
Following is an analysis of the key provisions in the Rouse
proposal, Rosty II, affecting municipalities:
Deductibility of State and Local Taxes: Rosty II would not repeal
or modify the ability of fames or individuals to deduct state
and local taxes.
Municipal Bonds: The House proposal will erode city authority and
increase the cost to issue traditional public purpose bonds and
notes. It will cut municipal authority to issue industrial
development bonds by about 45 percent. Just as the federal
government is terminating federal assistance to cities, the bill
will sharply interfere with cities' own authority to raise
revenues to meet their own public needs.
As agreed to, the Ways and Means bond proposal would set up two
categories of eligible tax exempt municipal bonds: "governmental"
and "non-governmental." Municipal bonds which failed to meet the
new and ambiguous tests for either of these categories would be
ineligible for any tax exempt financing --even if the bonds were
backed by the full faith and credit of the taxing authority of the
municipality and the proceeds were to be used for a traditional
public facility.
Because the bill would redefine and narrow the definition of
traditional public purpose bonds, it will mean that cities will
have to be much more careful about issuing even general obligation
and revenue bonds next year. An uncertain number, however
traditional and public purpose, would be taxable under the new
proposal. Others would retain their tax exempt status, but would
require an allocation of bonding authority under a strict new
state volume cap.
The bill will, thus, severely erode the ability of cities to raise
short term and long term funds. It will impose a whole new array
of costly and confusing federal mandates over city borrowing
authority. And it will make many municipal general obligation,
revenue, and tax assessment bonds taxable. The bill will cut back
on municipal authority to issue industrial development bonds by
about 45 percent through the imposition of a new state -by -state
volume cap effective on January 1, 1986.
i
SI!
The bill creates some perverse situations for publicly owned and
operated facilities --some intentional, some--apparently--
unintentional. These situations are perhaps best understood by
describing them as the "sins of commission" and the "sins of
ommission."
These situations refer to the action by the House which would
prohibit tax exempt financing for publicly owned facilities which
fail the new test. The perversity is best displayed by noting
that under the bill, non-profit universities and hospitals would
be guaranteed tax exempt financing, but public hospitals and
schools might be denied tax exempt financing.
Sins of Commission
This term refers to deliberate action taken by the House to
prohibit city authority to issue tax exempt municipal bonds for
the following publicly owned and operated facilities which cannot
meet the new 10 percent or $10 million test:
o sports facilities
o convention or trade centers
o parking facilities
o district heating or cooling
o industrial parks
o hydroelectric facilities
o hazardous waste facilities
Sins of Ommission
This term refers to city bonds for traditional public facilities
which the committee provides no authority for in the event they
cannot meet the new tests (not all inclusive):
o public (as opposed to non-profit) hospitals
o highways
o jails/prisons
o dog pounds
o town halls
o city recreational facilities
o elementary and secondary schools
City officials should note that even for those traditional public
facilities which can meet -the new double test, there will still be
an additional hurdle before they would be permitted to issue
public purpose bonds: in any case where a non-governmental user
will receive or benefit by the equivalent of $1 million or more,
the project would have to be covered by the "non-governmental"
volume cap (see below).
a/�
-7 -
The new definitions which will govern city authority to issue
bonds after December 31, 1985 are:
o Governmental Purpose Bonds: As under the Reagan plan, Rosty II
proposes a new generic definition.to redefine and curtail severely
the authority of cities to issue traditional G.O., revenue, tax
assessment, and tax increment financing bonds. The "one percent
rule" proposed by the White House would be liberalized to the
lesser of 10 percent or $10 million. In other words, a city's
G.O. or revenue bonds would lose their tax exempt status if any
other person (including a non-profit organization) benefited from
the use of the financed facility or program by more than either
amount, or if more than $5 million or five percent were used to
make loans to a person.
For example, if a city constructed improvements as required by EPA
to a municipally owned and operated sewage treatment plant, it
would be prohibited from financing such improvement through the
use of 'governmental' bonds if any industry used more than 10
percent of the plant's capacity or the equivalent of $10 million
of the plant's improvements.
Despite claims by the Ways and Means Committee that traditional
public purpose municipal bonds would be protected, the action by
the committee will force major changes. Under current federal
law, a bond is treated by the IRS as an industrial development
bonds --even if it is issued as a G.O. or revenue bond by the
municipality --if more than 25 percent of the bond debt is secured
by a non-governmental entity and such an entity benefits by the
financed facility through trade or use by 25 percent or more.
Thus the House bill proposes to cut back the existing federal test
by some 60 percent.
More importantly, while the new single 10 percent test will have a
disproportionately adverse impact on small cities, the new $10
million limit will have a disproportionately adverse impact on
major public facilities. That is because it would, in effect, set
a much lower percentage for any project which cost more than $100
million. For example, major prison and public hospital facilities
now cost well in excess of $100 million. Increasingly, these
major public facilities involve contractual operations, such as
for cafeteria and food service, lab services, emergency rooms, and
building maintenance. These contracts can easily exceed $10
million --making the entire facility ineligible for tax exempt
financing. Even where they do not trigger the ineligibility, they
often include contracts in excess of $1 million, forcing the city
owner to compete under the state volume cap in order to be able to
issue the G.O. bonds to provide for the hospital or prison.
a� Z
0
-8-
As in 1984, those cities which have sought to "privatize" will be
the most harshly punished. The committee action, consistent with
the earlier staff draft and the administration's tax reform
proposal, all go out of their way to eliminate what little
incentives remained for cities to privatize and to impose severe
penalties on those cities which have.
The proposal would also propose new IRS arbitrage, information
reporting, temporary holding period, and advanced refunding
restrictions on traditional public purpose bonds similar to those
advocated by the Reagan administration.
The changes would generally be effective January 1, 1986, except
for certain bond projects in progress (those where either
construction, reconstruction or rehabilitation was commenced or a
binding contract for at least 10 percent of project costs had been
signed) by September 26, 1985.
o Non-governmental Bonds: Unlike the Reagan proposal, Rosty II
would permit limited city authority to issue some tax exempt bonds
which cannot meet the new 10 percent or $10 million test.
a��
0
-9-
Cities could issue bonds under a single, new state -by -state volume
cap only for:
1. multi -family rental housing (subject to new targeting rules);
2. municipal or state owned airport facilities (not including
hotels, food preparation facilities, restaurants, gift stores,
etc.; the volume cap would exempt all but the freight handling
facilities);
3. municipal or state•owned dock and wharf facilities (except for
freight handling facilities not in the immediate vicinity --
eligible freight facilities in the immediate vicinity would be
the only portion of port facilities under 'the volume cap);
i 4. municipal or state owned water facilities either operated by a
governmental unit or for which rates are set by a governmental
unit;
5. sewage and solid waste facilities;
6. more targeted single family and veterans mortgage revenue
bonds;
7. some limited authority to use tax exempt bonds for 501(c)(3)
non-profit financing.
8. government-owned masa commuting facilities;
9. small issue IDBS (sunset repealed); and
10. student loan bonds.
11. certain tax increment financing bonds
Additional restrictions on "non-governmental" bonds:
@ tax increment financing bonds:
The bill would impose strict new limitations on tax increment
bonds issued by cities in the 34 states where authorized by state
law.
Under the committee proposal, tax increment bonds would be treated
as "governmental use" bonds to the extent the proceeds were used
to finance such facilities as streets, sidewalks, lighting,
curbing, and other assessment bond type public improvements.
Tax increment financing bonds issued for redevelopment purposes,
however, could only be issued as tax exempt after January 1, 1986
if they meet the new test for "qualified redevelopment bonds" and
A
......................... .....,....... _ ...........
_10 -
have sufficient authority under the respective state volume cap.
Such eligible bonds could only be used for the costs of acquiring
the land to be redeveloped and for relocation expenses of eligible
occupants.
The bill would define qualified redevelopment bonds as those:
(a) issued pursuant to state statute and secured solely by
incremental property tax revenues;
(b) issued to finance the above described eligible activities,
but only in a federally defined blighted area (determined
based on the substantial presence of structurally
substandard buildings, excessive vacant land, abandoned or
vacant buildings, excessive vacancies, or delinquencies in
ithe payment of real property taxes);
(c) issued pursuant to a plan adopted by the city in which the
blighted are is located; and
(d) issued for financing where the designated area(s) does not
exceed 10 percent of the assessed value of property within
the city, but where each designated area must exceed
one-fourth square mile.
The bill would have a particularly harsh impact on small cities,
I many of which have seen their downtown areas simply erode under
the farm crisis. The 10 percent and quarter mile rule is close to
an absurdity in such situations.
Similarly, creating a new federal definition of blight removes
from cities the authority to determine the appropriate use in a
designated redevelopment area. For instance, many cities believe
that the presence of porn shops, while not substandardin
structure, are antithetical to downtown redevelopment. The new
federal standard would make such a change ineligible for tax
increment financing.
@ multifamily rental housing bonds:
Under the bill, multifamily housing bonds would be more targeted
to low income renters and the financed structures would have to
remain rental for a longer period of time. The greater the
targeting towards low income renters, the more generous the
depreciation treatment which would be allowed to the owners.
A city could issue multifamily bonds after January 1, 1986, if:
(a) 25 percent or more of the units are rented to families with
incomes of 80 percent or less of area median income, or
20 percent or more of the units are rented to families with
incomes of 70 percent or less of the area median income.
a��
/
a01C
The bill would provide depreciation to such properties at a rate
approximately a 25 percent more favorable rate than non -low income
housing.
Or a city could issue multifamily bonds after January 1, 1986, if:
(b) 40 percent or more of the units are rented to families with
incomes of 60 percent or less of the area median income.
The depreciation treatment for such properties would be
approximately 50 percent more generous.
Under the bill, housing financed with tax exempt bonds would have
to remain rental for the greater of 15 years or the maturity of
the tax exempt bonds with the longest term, as opposed to 10 years
or 50 percent of the longest term under current law.
The multifamily bond provisions would also require annual
certification to the Treasury and clarification of income
adjustments for family size.
@ single family mortgage revenue bonds:
The proposal would still call for the sunset of the authority for
cities to issue single family mortgage revenue bonds on
December 31, 1987. It would also limit the use of such bonds
effective January 1, 1986 by requiring:
* that all proceeds would have to be used to finance mortgages for
eligible persons;
* 90. percent purchase price limits (110 percent in targeted
areas);
* that at least 50 percent of mortgage loans be made to borrowers
with family income less than 90 percent of area median income,
and that no loans be made to a borrower'with family -income
exceeding 115 percent; and
I
* that two-thirds of the loans made in targeted areas would have
to go to borrowers with incomes not exceeding 140 percent of the
greater of either the area or statewide median income.
* mortgage credit certificates --would be conformed to the mortgage
revenue bonds.
Any change in the use of a non-governmental bond financed facility
to use (whether through rent or sale to a taxable person) would
make rent or interest costs of the private taxpayer
non-deductible.
-12-
o The new 1986 Volume Cap (see illustration and chart)--Rosty Ii
would set a new, single state -by -state volume cap for all
non-governmental" bonds, except those issued for airport runways,
air traffic control towers, and publicly owned and operated
airport terminal and parking facilities, as well as some port
facilities. The cap would also include any amount of bond
proceeds exceeding $1 million from a "governmental" general
obligation, revenue, or tax assessment bond used by persons other
than a state or local government.
30=111 R 1 6139 4 0� nou
IN d11m)
I'ME1 5141 dY 67 IGC 11Cllt O ,11" POMI A a 90.rnee93 bmb (ft 9 W d 1n L OC In pUllm M
rn ,mut 13661 uo[ t2o6e POML a of 919708 09 {ac 1md, Mdtl, .Guld N udu $1i
.01� C.P.
-n , U.S. TCOMMY, MC
a/�z
90L1 Mr.
aT 9s
X17
nr11
1�
�1
9196 d A
r
tr
2n1Mt2W
1
a
Mulka
ow
W L
3.239
t.1d9
97><I
ad n.o
LM
Fl.
AL"Vity
Ima
23.6"
$u.235
$16.951
$SIM
$m.36L
MASS
SN.10
11T
AL"m
A1r19
-
156
365
55
202
No
702
IM
SCUMS676
_
-
_
0
7L
-
9 13
1.407
2"
1.5"
11113
m
7766
9
M
1w
29
1>e
S22
IN
20%
"f
793
992
523
9.216
0,�
4"
m1�
323237
913
13"
23
m
566
1111
ra
91afd1
12
70
961
1.07
06
9"
193
3.267
200
1.640
in
1744
�L
-
G
70
576
323
1.623
1,009
ISIS
1htM
700
123
210
919
pluaLs
�
477
�
17
2
1,"a
2,00
9MN
WIN&
i IMM
0
US
6
1n{
923
979
9"
�
_
-
a
219
916
911
510
623
19"
a
lv
no
�
M
1N
195
906
1N
315
1,no
A
166""
r�Lr
Mehra
U
10
5a
-
IN
651
1,3391
M1303
0\
7er.m�ee
]II
533
50
112
676
1.339
1.011
1939
20
60
916
1n1
1.131
1123"
926
M,9aet�
623
78
M
172
3"
1.290
70
17"
NLalr4v/1
-
a
257
70
M3
1n
a
261
336
SOS
1.137
633
666
1111
22"
1
a
26
N
13
75
261
706
101
H1bCWk"235
_
i9
n
9 23
233
1623
Or"
*W WEPIUM
5
49
0
57
s
11.w
3
-
252
1.052
29231
3"
1.9m
1.10
3940
e. nMa9G
-
13
N
11S
3
20
771
-
1.09
1.113.
176
ilf
1.006
3.10
933
me C
"x12 CGoL,r
-
38
313
1
la
$39
1.077
Sn
Mxt2 o6,mn
123
27
T
19
75
269
2m
1133
CIdG
-
M
623
a
633
1.tM
1.90
7"
OIL�a
-
3
136
126
233
S23
339
M
M"M
-
105
T
67
an
511
976
lar
9e9"19Mda
200
M
1,400
606
m
3.613
2.123
1626
MI'M 1-11d_
N
60
210
m
331
2M
291%
uMh CKOU M
-
3B
361
261
112
692
371
121$
.2 0r99u
, 0
23
40
-
200
01
700
1ST
To
-
1"
6"
-
20
1.01
172
12"
2�
23
3,"7
769
ni
7,3"
6.921
2.716
1331
163
"
251
5"
rM
1323
vm1e
72
72
1
"
133
200
716
91991131"
a
123
996
233
574
2,025
"1
240
"
50
100
50
175
90
70.
5"
r.e nolinim
_
a
on-
333
3"
1001
YL®1n
20
152
30
1
300
713
03
9T
9p1A
-
-
a
79
119
240
M
I'ME1 5141 dY 67 IGC 11Cllt O ,11" POMI A a 90.rnee93 bmb (ft 9 W d 1n L OC In pUllm M
rn ,mut 13661 uo[ t2o6e POML a of 919708 09 {ac 1md, Mdtl, .Guld N udu $1i
.01� C.P.
-n , U.S. TCOMMY, MC
a/�z
V r'
L<..,.....,.,..,,.....I.........., ,....................,._ w.,.....
-13-
This last item is critical for city officials. It is the second
major hurdle referred to above. It means that city officials must
be certain that the state allocation process provides sufficient
authority so that G.O., revenue, or tax allocation financing for
major public facilities may go forward. It means that projects
backed by local tax revenues would be forced to compete with
private and non-profit deals.
I
The volume cap would be the greater of $200 million or $175 per
capita runtil
after
capita toreflectthetermination�hwould drop to
.Of the allocation, non -profits would be guaranteed a privileged
position not subject to any control by the governor or state
legislature. They would be guaranteed at least $25 per capita.
The remainder of the cap would be allocated one-half to the state,
one-half to local governments on the basis of relative population.
This allocation could be overriden by a gubernatorial proclamation
before the next session of the state legislature, and afterwords
by rule state statute.
e
City of onlyIllinChicago
ois)would dother Illinois
io
me
notbesubjecttoanyaction
by the Illinois governor or state legislature, however.
There is a special allocation rule for tax increment financing
bonds, but it would only apply to those states which issued more
than $25 million of such bonds between July 18, 1984, and November
21, 1985. This provision would set aside the greaterof $6 per
capita or $8 million of a state's volume cap for tax increment
"qualified redevelopment bonds."
This set aside could be overridden by state statute.
Similarly, unless changed by the state, at least 50 percent of
non-governmental bond proceeds in 1986 and 1987 would have to be
used for single and multifamily housing bonds.
Under the provision, gubernatorial authority to set a different
allocation scheme by executive order would expire on the
January 1st following the next year after enactment of the tax
reform bill in which a state legislature met in executive session.
If no state allocation law were passed and signed into law prior
to that date, the state would automatically revert to the federal
allocation scheme.
For example, if this provision were enacted into law on August 17,
1986, a governor's authority would expire on January 1, 1988, as
long as the governor's respective legislature met in regular
session in 1987.
lmz
.......,.....,.......,.......«, .......... ....... ._x _...,.
-14-
OTHER NEW FEDERAL MANDATES:
New Restrictions Which Would Apply toAll lax Exempt Municipal
Bonds
o Short term notes and private placements
Banks and financial institutions could no longer deduct the
interest costs they incur in carrying or purchasing tax-exempt
bonds except in some instances. (Present law permits 80 percent
of these costs to be deducted from taxable income). The provision
would apply to all tax-exempt obligations (short-term and long-
term) issued after December 31, 1985, except the bill provides
that a bank may still take the current law deduction when it
purchases or holds (carries) bonds after December 31, 1985 if:
(1) they are general government bonds; and
(2) the bond issue or private placement does not exceed $3 million
per project, with a $10 million annual limitation per issuer
or local jurisdiction.
o Arbitrage
In general, present law IDB rebate requirements and other restric-
tions on arbitrage are recommended for all tax-exempt bonds. The
proposal is very similar to the administration's proposal which
severely restricts arbitrage and forces governments to issue more
bonds to finance their projects, because investment earnings must
be rebated to the Treasury instead of being used to reduce project
costs. The rebate represents a 100 percent tax on certain invest-
ment earnings thereby penalizing good cash management practices.
o Advance Refundings
The House bill prohibits advance refundings of "non-governmental"
bonds, and imposes new restrictions on advance refunding authority
for "governmental" bonds. Present law permits issuers to
refinance outstanding debt without a time limitation except in the
case of IDBs and MRBs. These two types of bonds generally may not
be refunded more than 180 days before the bonds that are being
refinanced can be'called.
Advance refunding of so-called "governmental" bonds would be
permitted under the following new federal restrictions:
* no original issue could be advance refunded more than twice;
* the amount of refunding bonds would be limited by the greater of
the present value of the interest savings or 250 percent of the
amount of the refunded bonds;
a/�Z
* the time period in which they would have to be called and during
which they could earn arbitrage would be strictly limited; and
f* any amount in excess of $1 million could only be issued if
provided for under the state volume cap.
' Rehabilitation and historic tax credits:
i
The bill would modify current law to provide for a 10 percent
rehabilitation tax credit for nonresidential buildings constructed
before 1935 and placed in service after January 1, 1986. It would
permit a 20 percent credit for residential and nonresidential
certified historic structures.
The owners of the property receiving the credit would have to
reduce the basis of the property by the full amount of the credits
earned.
i Low income housing:
In addition to the treatment of single and multifamily tax exempt
housing bonds, the bill would retain certain incentives to benefit
the construction or rehabilitation of low income housing.
The bill would permit the owners of qualified low income housing
to amortize the cost of additions or improvements up to a $30,000
per unit expenditure limit over a 5 year period.(Section 167(k))
The bill would not apply the at -risk rules (which limit the amount
of tax benefits an investor can take to the actual amount
invested) to certain low income projects.
Targeted jobs tax credits:
The bill would extend the targeted jobs tax credit for two years,
but the amount would be reduced from 50 percent of the first $6000
in salary to 40 percent in the first year, and would be eliminated
in the second.
a/�Z
HOW THE TAX PLANS COMPARE
MWLL; odi.
alw(. Srn.InElry; y0. lma: Wrl JM.Nxnl Cumm.lw; MC
aid
j
a.ov{d.tla
Om uw
TW{{IIr
MFOMM1
fmlomm
wODId
Ioftrf
11{t
Io1ry0
,l.ltlw".h
11M
-'frt�rw�lallul'
I%M•
,o%>Ifo..IDn.
Yr%9 wv Tu.....q
T. "
Tuba
rft6 WNr
T.+n
T.,ab6
Wpl.d n..ad awed
�Iaw m..r
Tauw
TUY,aw{a00.4 t..y.w w...d
[aµa,OM WM
n.ir.,w l•a{aM a'6.iwx ,w
L..IrWO.Iy
U."
TauW
TualY
{b"
U.--w-w
4rd
r d{`
Tanta
U."
U.aY
T�
T.dY
hm*.
0rd.{I,rrM.d.
aqM
.fl.rawYd^
1,01r, w,.W Trywp
IiWY
T.YW
•T..w
rru..IG n00M
T ---w
hiMw..r.l
Tuau.0,
Tu"00 aI0.d Tub."4.,Pr
b.ai
LuY.
Tu.OY
D�adlramYdTM
T."
TYW.
Ir#I.Ww
ri.
dalrlaa
ria
�
w
alh.dldal
fy
Llr0.r Ww
w
1Y
/wY
�
lYyriy
�
I.a�wa.allT
w
V.
seem
Yal w
1d.rleT1. GT.
A
o. Kt.
w
w
w
W.a.✓ w
W.."w
L
w
C-.."rra
w
w
w
I.YafIW Tu 4{Y
fYr,tY
2nrbdm m,
2425
i R Yd.ad
Inn 6..x14
m,i21%I I -
InY.daY 14
dnY
daoliw
ildu.d
"A,b4dAd
,41{d1�{%,4
Al"
w 3m.
I,AM Ude..
!2004
bd.wd
{2000.WnM
fS .,d,,
wM kwm
Da1.aY.Y
llp4Ude.d
{1,001.6dsd
_,W.
�.iwa4 {1,iM
!1,004 Ud..y
If•1M,6de.0
SUMald Daduofar
k st C
a,*
SUM kw d
M.
ti{"I
{2114 bwwI-w
sum. UdrM
�
S.�MI ia�
Iad.W
14004 w.wd
Ulwdf —a.Yf
V^ffim...a w
Ya.UM dd W w
31.fKkA..d
sunw, -
WIn Wei
Iri pb.."
t4UdvM
Ya Udell
Tr, Plead
NY Wed
..y
TT a11201w
toed
.ft
Ila.dsl d.dl
fu]ay1
wf Wed
CYdY14
�I..I.w
�wlr
D.AONYf.1.w
Tb MAdlra.d
D.dr011.L
D.4i44r.IYiON
_
d0N molar llw
ba.ol.rwm..lfw
Irl
d.dwW
d.du fwwn.
I
W
aewdbuiw 1.
Ilminm w lw
e.m.11,00
raIlVw Ulmm
bd..a1W.DW.IW
awt-0rIM Irop.rry
DWwlbl,W
D.dIafIW.L
T4a.tw
prUdpd r.alMaar
mManaY
ra rw.d
urlw,M
�W
luain.. In.a..
C.10wan Wrrr
GadulN,w4
1M {alnn
11%
M%
33% MIs
CIMwIM,wY
CY0.1 {al,.
ITb edMM
N.
Waved U,rlr
Na
10%aatlMN
Na
U.sa.Y
(aPIbld UdnUt,
wnd.Iw;WN
radlwrTUawy
4i%wdMM
bNowIIn1.1.w.
o.d.ad.a Ur
tY
w
.
le.rrT n.
Na
w
N%.a[ap lsr u.a0
r.9
tlIM
MWiI... Tuw
UAaKuI. W
Yn
Mq n.0nurT
al -1 JMIIIbIm
Yn WMUt
I1%. IwIWM1w
Dw.e.albw
Inlrmlw•aq.
• temniwllnl
Iarm..aW
band!
MWLL; odi.
alw(. Srn.InElry; y0. lma: Wrl JM.Nxnl Cumm.lw; MC
aid
j
Vr.:............................. ..........._:............,...�.,,.t-...................
December 31, 1985
3. General Revenue Sharing
Unless the Congress passes legislation to reauthorize General
Revenue Sharing, the program will expire September 30, 1986, and
the last payment to cities will be made in October.
The President signed into law this year a bill which will cut the
program in FY 86 by 8.36 percent. This entire cut will be made in
the fourth quarterly payment, thus, slashing the October payment
to cities by 33 percent.
The first round of Gramm-Rudman cuts will occur on March 1, 1986.
At this point, no one knows exactly what the impact will be on
revenue sharing. The January payments will be made in full
beginning next week, but we anticipate that Gramm-Rudman will
require cuts in the subsequent payments.
According to our best estimate, all non-exempt domestic programs
will be cut approximately 4.6 percent for FY1986. Because the
first FY1986 GRS payment scheduled for next week will not be cut,
there is a strong likelihood that the final three authorized
payments would have to be cut a little more to provide for the
full required cut. 'In other words, the April, July, and October
payments might be cut about 6 percent in order to achieve the full
4.6 percent reduction for FY86. Although there is as yet total
confusion, specifically with regard to GRS, in the Congress and
administration, the legislation would appear to require cuts in
the current fiscal year.
The President's FY 87 budget proposal will eliminate the program
entirely and may even eliminate the last payment scheduled to be
mailed to cities in the first week of October.
in the Senate, Senator John Heinz (R -Pa.) has introduced S318 to
extend revenue sharing at current levels through FY1990. The
following Senators have joined as co-sponsors:
Howell T. Heflin (D -Ala.)
Frank J. Murkowski (R -Alaska)
Dale Bumpers (D -Ark.)
David Pryor (D -Ark.)
Lowell P. Weicker, Jr. (R -Conn.)
Daniel K. Inouye (D -Hawaii)
Alan J. Dixon (D -Ill.)
Paul S. Sarbanes (D -Md.)
John F. Kerry (D -Mass.)
Carl Levin (D -Mich.)
Donald W. Riegle, Jr. (D -Mich.)
Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.)
Alfonse M. D'Amato (R-N.Y.)
Daniel P. Moynihan (D-N.Y.)
John Heinz (R -Pa.)
Arlen Specter (R -Pa.)
Ernest F. Hollings (D-S.C.)
Albert J. Gore (D -Tenn.)
James R. Sasser (D -Tenn.)
Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.)
Robert W. Kasten, Jr. (R-Wis.)
al�l-
V 1'
V....:...,,... ............:.............,........... ................__.:c._,.,....
-2-
In the House, Representatives Frank Horton (R-N.Y.) and Robert Walker
(R -Pa.) have introduced HR796 to extend revenue sharing for 3 more
years, and former New York City Councilmember Reprepsentative Ted
Weiss (D-N.Y.) has introduced HR1400 to extend revenue sharing 5 years
- just the same as the Heinz bill. The co-sponsors of the two House
bills are:
Richard C. Shelby (D -Ala.)
Jim Kolbe (R -Ariz.)
Tony Coelho (D -Calif.)
Charles Pashayan, Jr. (D -Calif.)
Estaban Edward Torres (D -Calif.)
Samuel Gejdenson (D -Conn.)
Wyche Fowler, Jr. (D -Ga.)
Edward R. Madigan (R -I11.)
Melvin Price (D -Ill.)
Marty Russo (D -Ill.)
Cooper Evans (R -Iowa)
Harold Rogers (R-Ky.)
Helen Delich Bently (R -Md.)
Barney Frank (D -Mass.)
Robert W. Davis (R -Mich.)
Dale E. Kildee (D -Mich.)
Howard Wolpe (D -Mich.)
James L. Oberstar (D -Minn.)
Doug Bereuter (R-Neb.)
Barbara Vucanovich (R-Nev.)
Sherwood L. Boehlert (R-N.Y.)
Richard C. Shelby (D -Ala.)
Barbara Boxer (D -Calif.)
Tony Coelho (D -Calif.)
Ronald V. Dellums (D -Calif.)
Mervyn M. Dymally (D -Calif.)
Augustus F. Hawkins (D -Calif.)
Matthew G. Martinez (D -Calif.)
Robert T. Matsui (D -Calif.)
Esteban Edward Torres (D -Calif.)
Walter E. Fauntroy (D -D.C.)
Daniel K. Akaka (D -Hawaii)
Cecil Heftel (D -Hawaii)
Lane Evans (D -I11.)
Charles A. Hayes (D -I11.)
William 0. Lipinski (D -Ill.)
Frank McCloskey (D -Ind.)
Beverly B. Byron (D -Md.)
HR796
Benjamin A. Gilman (R-N.Y.)
Frank Horton (R-N.Y.)
Stan Lundine (D-N.Y.)
David O'B. Martin (R-N.Y.)
Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.)
George C. Wortley (R-N.Y.)
Bill Hendon (R-N.C.)
Michael G. Oxley (R -Ohio)
James A. Traficant, Jr. (D -Ohio)
William F. Clinger, Jr. (R -Pa.)
Robert W. Edgar (D -Pa.)
Austin J. Murphy (D -Pa.)
Thomas J. Ridge (R -Pa.)
Don Ritter (R -Pa.)
Robert S. Walker (R -Pa.)
Gus Yatron (D -Pa.)
John J. Duncan (R -Tenn.)
Ed Jones (D -Tenn.)
Donald K. Sundquist (R -Tenn.)
Nick Joe Rahall, II (D-W.Va.)
Robert E. Wise, Jr. (D-W.Va.)
Jim Moody (D-Wis.)
HR1400
Dale E. Kildee (D -Mich.)
Howard Wolpe (D -Mich.)
Robert A. Young (D -Mo.)
Bernard J. Dwyer (D-N.J.)
Robert G. Torricelli (D-N.J.)
William B. Richardson (D-N.M.)
Gary L. Ackerman (D-N.Y.)
Joseph P. Addabbo (D-N.Y.)
Major R. Owens (D-N.Y.)
Ted Weiss (D-N.Y.)
Walter B. Jones (D-N.C.)
Charlie Rose (D-N.C.)
Dennis E. Eckart (D -Ohio)
Louis Stokes (D -Ohio)
Robert A. Borski (D -Pa.)
William J. Coyne (D -Pa.)
Paul E. Kanjorski (D -Pa.)
-3-
(contId.)
Barbara D. Mikulski (D -Md.) Joseph P. Bolter (D -Pa.)
Barney Frank (D -Mass.) Albert G. Bustamante (D -Tex.)
Edward J. Markey (D -Mass.) . Solomon T. Ortiz (D -Tex.)
Gerry E. Studds (D -Masa.) Frederick C. Boucher (D-Va.)
John Conyers, Jr. (D -Mich.) Nick Joe Rahall, II (D-W.Va.)
George W. Crockett, Jr. (D -Mich.) Jim Moody (D-Wis.)
Steps to Take:
GRS is the highest priority federal assistance program of the nation's
cities. It is the only federal assistance program which returns a
portion of the revenue derived from cities back to them to spend
according to the city's own needs and priorities.
Nevertheless, it is clear that members of the House and Senate do not
understand revenue sharing to be cities' highest priority. Unless
that message is made clear in no uncertain terms, the program will be
eliminated. Moreover, -because of the new Gramm-Rudman law, the
Congress would be prevented from considering any legislation to
reauthorize revenue sharing after this year unless it is incorporated
in the Congressional budget resolution by April 15, 1986.
I. Compile a record of what your city has been able to do with revenue
sharing. Stress the projects built, the program beneficiaries, and the
leveraging of other funds. Remember, as long as this program is
perceived as a local elected officials' political slush fund, it is
doomed.
2. Hold special hearings and press conferences to determine where cuts
in servives or projects will have to be made if revenue sharing is
terminated. Make sure city constituents understand that federal
actions will directly affect local issues unless they make their views
known. Invite your Congressional delegation to these hearings so they
can understand and appreciate what is at stake.
3. Work closely with your state municipal league to get statewide
attention on this issue. It is important that the governor and state
legislature appreciate the statewide impact, and the ripple effects of
the loss of revenue sharing.
4. Make sure to complete and return the enclosed survey so that NLC
will have the most updated information to support renewal.
5. Make sure that your Congressional delegation knows your city's
priorities before Congress resumes on January 21st. Where does your
Congressperson stand on revenue sharing? How about your Senators?
Get an answer, and please share that answer with your state league and
with NLC.
December 31, 1955
4. Housing s Community Development:
Congress failed to complete any action on legislation to
reauthorize HUD's assisted housing programs this year; it provided
only a last minute 3 month extension of FRA authority.
j On the very last day Congress was in session efforts to include
T NLC backed changes in the UDAG selection criteria broke down.Not
only did the House and Senate Banking Committee negotiations break
down, but the entire budget implementation or "reconciliation"
bill fell apart amid bitter disagreement between the White House,
Senate, and House.
Therefore, the FY1986 HUD -Independent Agencias Appropriations bill
signed into law on November 25, 1985 set the funding levels for
the current fiscal year - subject to the March,1 further round of
cuts due to the Gramm-Rudman legislation as follows:
The community development block grant (CDBG) is funded at $3.124
billion, a 10 percent cut from the $3.472 billion available in FY
1985 and assumes the continuation of the Section 108 loan
guarantee program at $225 million. The Section 312 rehabilitation
loan program is retained through loan repayments.
The Urban Development Action Grant (UDAG) program is funded at
$330 million, a 25 percent reduction from the $440 million
provided in FY 1985.
For HUD assisted housing the FY 1986 spending act provides $9.9
billion in new budget authority, estimated to aid 97,000
additional units including: 12,000 units of section 202 housing
for the elderly or handicapped; 36,000 five-year term housing
vouchers; 32,000 section 8 existing 15 -year term certificates;
10,000 section 8 moderate rehabilitation units; 5,000 new
construction public housing units and 2,000 units of new Indian
public housing.
The rental rehabilitation and housing development grants (HODAG)
programs are funded at $75 million each for FY 1986 and the FEMA
emergency food and shelter program for the homeless is provided
$70 million.
The Administration's reported FY1987 budget proposal calls for
major program reductions and eliminations for HUD Housing and
Community Development activities.
r
........... ....,............. .------ a... ......... ... .... ... ............,........... ..
-2-
According to HUD budget documents, $500 million of the $3.12
billion appropriation for the current FY1986 Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) would be deferred until FY1987, even though we
are almost halfway through the current fiscal year and cities have
incorporated their entitlement amounts as provided under the
appropriation. The administration thus proposes a current year
CDBG funding level of only $2.6 billion for FY1986.
In addition to any cuts or deferrals by the administration,
Gramm-Rudman will require approximately an additional 5 percent
across the board cut. This across the board reduction combined
with the 10 percent cut sustained by CDBG for FY1986 and the
Administration proposed deferral would mean CDBG could be cut by
30 percent for FY1986.
The Administration is proposing only $2.6 billion for CDBG in
FY1987 with $500 million of those funds coming from the FY1986
deferral request for CDBG.
The budget documents indicate that the CDBG cuts will be obtained
by the development by HUD of a targeting proposal .that directs
funds to those entitlement recepients with the "greatest need."
The plan would also require changing the current allocation
between entitlement and non -entitlement jurisdictions from 70
percent/30 percent to 65 percent/35 percent; assuming the
termination of the current Farmers' Home Administration's
Community development program.
The FY1987 HUD budget proposal would once again call for the
elimination of the Urban Development Action Grant (UDAG) program,
which was reduced by 25 percent in the FY1986 appropriations to
$330 million and will be subject to an additional 5 percent across
the board reduction under Gramm-Rudman. The pian also proposes
postponing or cancelling the January 1986 large cities UDAG
funding round.
For HUD assisted housing, the Administration's reported plan.would
rescind at $6.2 billion of the $9.9 billion appropriated for
housing assistance in FY1986 and would defer an additional $2.1
billion to FY1987. This would mean the elimination of the Section
8 existing and moderate rehabilitation programs, Section 202
housing for the elderly and handicapped, Sectoin 312
rehabilitation, rental rehabilitation and housing development
grants (HODAG), and major reductions in public housing operating
subsidies and modernization funds.
a/�
Department
of Rousing and Urban Development
1987
(Dollars
Budget
in Millions)
Program: Community Development
Guarantee)
Block Grants (and
Section
108 Loan
Budget Authority
Entitlement
Non -Entitlement
Secretary's
Discretionary Fund
Outlays
�
1986
2 625
2,145.0
919.0
60.5
3,577.4
1987
2,125
1,359
732
34
3,132
1988
2,740
1,759
947
34
2,686
19891990
2,850
1,830
986
34
2 675
.
2,955
1,899
1,022
34
2 ,778
1991
3,056
1,964
1,058
34
2,886
Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program
Budget Authority
(limit)
i
FPS outlays
1986
222.5
108
1987
0
172
1988
0
0
1989
0
0
1990
0
0
1991 i
I
0
0
Repayments
Net Outlays
Total Outlays
-91
17
3,594
-111
-39
3,093
-117
-117
2,569
-115
-115
2,560 r
-77
-77
2,701
-59
-59
2,827
0
r
0
La<.,,...,,.....,............
December 31, 1985
5. Transportation
The Congress took no action on re -authorization of the Surface
Transportation Assistance Act this year. The Act, which
authorizes both the federal highway and public transportation
programs expires on September 30, 1986.
The Congress did finally reach agreement on the fiscal 1986
appropriations for transportation earlier this month. The
appropriations bill provides for a significant reduction in both
transit and highway assistance - which levels will be subject to
even deeper cuts effective March 1, 1986 with the first round of
Gramm-Rudman reductions.
FY 1986 Transportation Appropriations
as approved in the Continuing Resolution
(in millions)
FY 1985 FY 86 FY 86 FY 86
House Senate Conf.
MASS TRANSIT
Section 3 Discretionary Grants
$ 1,120*
$ 1,010
$ 1,082
$1,045
--Bus 8 Bus Facilities
(130)
(115)
(145)
--Rail Modification
(487.5)
(435)
(430)
--New Starts
(422.5)
(380)
(385)
--Planning
(50)
(50)
(50)
--Elderly 6 Handicapped
(25)
(25)
(30.5)
--Innovative Techniques
(5)
(5)
(5)
Section 9 Formula Grants
$ 2,449
$ 2,210
$ 2,066
$2,150
--Operating Assistance
(875)
(875)
(856)
(870)
--Capital Assistance
(1,502)
(1,271.25)
(1,150)
(1,217)
Section 18 Small Urban 6 Rural
(71.8)
(64.75)
(60.6)
(63)
HIGHWAYS
.Obligational Authority
$13,800
$13,250
$12,546
$12,750
AIRPORTS
Obligational Authority
$ 925
$ 925
$ 910
$ 925
*Includes $20 million in unobligated FY 1984 contract authority.
a/141(
3
-2 -
Public Transportation: The Surface Transportation Assistance Act
of 1982 expires on September 30, 1986. While no proposals (the
House Public Works and Transportation Committee withdrew their
proposal) have been introduced to date, the Administration is
currently working on a major redraft of federal transit and
highway assistance.
Their proposal is again expected to include a phase-out of
operating assistance for all urbanized areas over 200,000 and
significantly enhance state involvement in the administration of
any federal transit assistance. These revisions will also be
accompanied by proposed substantial reductions in the level of
federal assistance.
The highway provisions of the Administration's proposal are
expected to provide more flexibility in the use of urban highway
funds, but will also be accompanied by increased state involvement
and reductions in overall funding levels.
NLC supports changes in the STAR that facilitate the use of
federal assistance to reflect more accurately local public trans-
portation (such as local option on the use of transit aid for
operating or capital assistance) and highway needs and priorities,
but we remain steadfastly opposed to the elimination of operating
assistance (at least 35 percent of which is used to comply with
federal transit -related mandates). Furthermore, based on
information available to date on the Administration's proposal, we
see no programmatic improvements or benefits to cities from
proposals unilaterally enhancing the role of states in the
administration of highway or public transportation programs or in
significant funding reductions.
llqlT
December 31, 1985
6. Environment
Despite a number of expiring programs, Congress failed to complete
action on any environmental legislation in its first session, and
will have a number of major issues affecting municipalities when
it returns.
In a key local issue, NLC was successful in getting the Congress
to approve $600 million for the municipal wastewater treatment
grant program. Full FY1986 funding has been held up pending final
Congressional approval of the Clean Water Act, which expired on
September 30th. The $600 million - one quarter of the 1985
funding level - is intended to provide funding until the Rouse and
Senate reach agreement on re
-authorization legislation.
The Rouse and Senate have both acted on their own versions of
re -authorization legislation (R.R.8, S.1128). Both bills reject
the administration's request to phase out the municipal
construction grants program; however, because the Senate version
contains a new allocation formula, agreement between the Rouse and
Senate has been delayed, jeopardizing the construction grants.
i
In addition to ensuring continuity of the $2.4 billion municipal
i sewer grants program to enable cities to comply with the federal
Clean Water mandates, NLC is supporting efforts to exempt
municipalities from legislative and EPA regulatory proposals to
require municipal stormwater discharge permits.
EPA PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR MUNICIPAL STORM SEWERS
Separate municipal storm sewers discharging into the surface
waters of the United States have technically been subject to Clean
Water Act permits and pollution control provisions since the Act
was passed in 1972. EPA has given very low priority to the storm
water discharge issue, concentrating its resources instead on
bringing industrial operations and municipal sewage systems into
compliance.
Now, in response to a federal court ruling, EPA has said it will
require storm water collection systems to obtain a permit similar
to those issued to waste treatment facilities and major industrial
plants.
Recent regulations proposed by EPA will require municipalities
with separate storm water sewers to apply for a permit application
which entails submission of detailed flow and monitoring data,
details of drainage area, pollution characteristics, etc. for each
discharge point, for run-off from highways, for drainage ditches,
a/14Z
-2 -
etc. Based on estimates of sampling and analysis costs, costs per
permit are expected to be anywhere from $1,100 to $8,500. EPA
estimates there are more than one million separate storm water
discharge points within the country's 366 major urban areas.
From the perspective of local government, however, there is
considerably more at stake than just the procedural burden and the
cost of the application requirements. EPA and the states have a
T mandatory legal duty to issue permits that impose treatment and
control conditions on the discharge. While precise costs for
control are almost impossible to calculate, they are expected to
be significant, and more importantly, totally a local government
expense since storm water control is not now eligible for federal
grants under the sewage treatment construction grants program.
Failure to apply for a permit or comply with the permit conditions
is a violation of federal law and exposes local elected officials
as well asappointed operating officials to both criminal (up to 3
years in jail) and civil (fines of $25,000 per day) prosecution
from suits filed by the federal government or by citizens.
Attempts to amend the Clean Water Act -- currently under
consideration by Congress -- to exempt separate storm sewers from
the permit requirements except where EPA could identify a specific
pollution problem have, so far, been unsuccessful. There is still
an opportunity to gain some measure of relief during the
House -Senate conference on the Clean Water Act amendments (H.R. 8,
S. 1128) which is expected to take place within the next two to
three weeks.
To accomplish this, Congress needs to be made aware of the
enormous cost in manpower and physical plant to implement the
program, the folly of the present EPA regulatory approach and the
diversion it would cause in federal, state and local resources now
earmarked for higher priority water pollution control problems.
Congress should suspend the permit requirements for separate
municipal storm sewers pending a better understanding of the task,
the need, and the best approaches to controlling the storm water
discharges that need to be controlled.
Superfund: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA) to provide for cleanup of the nation's
worst hazardous waste sites expired September 30.
EPA has suspended clean-up activities pending completion of a
re -authorization proposal which includes taxing authority to pay
for remedial investigations, feasibility studies (RI/FS) and
clean-up costs.
C�1T
C
L
n
:CD
While the House and Senate have completed re -authorization
measures (HR 2005, formerly S 51 and HR 2817 respectively),
differences over the taxing mechanism to pay for the
re -authorization have prevented any final agreement between the
White House, Senate and House.
We expect the House and Senate to return to the issue of. how to
pay for the Superfund program early next year. NLC supports
prompt re -authorization in order to assure clean-up of sites in
and around cities, affecting the health and safety of municipal
residents.
Safe Drinking Water Act: Both the House and Senate have passed
bills (HR 1650, S 124) to regulate numerous toxic contaminants in
public drinking water. The Administration opposes both bills,
saying such regulation should be left to the states.
While conference to resolve differences between the two verions
has been tentatively scheduled numerous times, it has not yet
taken place. The major stumbling block has been inclusion of a
major groundwater protection program: the House bill contains a
requirement for state groundwater planning; the Senate bill does
not.
NLC supports enactment of a program to provide guidance and
uniform standards in public drinking water. The outlook for
completion is unlikely.
cl?liz
December 31, 1985
7. Human Resources
Mandatory Medicare: The House and Senate each passed legislation
this year requiring municipalities and their employees to
participate in and contribute to the Medicare trust fund in order
to reduce the federal deficit. It was, in effect, a new federal
tax on cities and municipal employees.
The House version would have required participation and
contributions for all municipal employees hired after January 1,
1986 - tomorrow. The Senate proposal would have required both new
and existing employees to participate, effective October 1, 1986.
The proposals are estimated to cost state and local governments
some $537 million over the next'3 years.
Just before Congress adjourned, House and Senate conferees reached
agreement on the House version - that is to require all new state
and local employees hired after tonight to participate. The
conference agreement fell apart, however, over other issues.
Therefore, the status of the new Medicare mandate for cities will
be an issue which Congress will confront after it returns on
January 21st.
It is doubtful that Congress will or could make any mandatory
Medicare provision retroactive. It is uncertain, at this point,
whether a serious effort will even be made to resolve the
differences. There is a chance the initiative will simply die.
NLC strongly opposes any new tax or mandate on local governments.
Employment and Training Programs: Congress provided $106.6
billion in FY86 appropriations for the Departments of Labor/Health
and Human Services, and Education.
Under the bill, the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) Title II -B
Summer Youth Employment Program (SYEP) funds were reduced in FY86
by $100 million from FY85 levels and in FY87 by $160 million from
those same FY85 levels.
JTPA Title III Dislocated Worker Assistance funding was also
reduced by $122.5 million from FY85 levels.
Appropriations for FY86 include $640 million in funding in FY86
for the Job Corps. This approximate $23 million increase from FY85
funding levels was transferred from a similar $23 million
reduction in the JTPA Title II -A Block Grant. All other employment
and training programs remain essentially frozen at FY85 funding
levels.
a��
&a
Other Appropriations Provisions: The bill also provides for the
allocation of $28 million for grants to state and local health
planning agencies for FY86, compared with $65 million provided in
FY85. Fuel subsidies for the poor are funded at $2.1 billion,
frozen at FY85 levels. Social service block grants are funded at
$2.7 billion, down $25 million. The Head Start program is funded
at $1.09 billion, approximately $12.1 million over last year's
levels. The Work Incentive (WIN) Program, targeted by the
Administration for elimination, is funded at $220 million, down
$47 million from FY85 levels.
All these'FY86 funds will be subject to a 4-5 percent cut under
the first round of Gramm-Rudman.
The Targeted Jobs Tax Credit (TJTC): The Tax Reform Act of 1985
recently adopted by the House includes a two year extension of the
TJTC currently scheduled to expire on December 31, 1985. The
credit thus would remain available for wages paid to individuals
who begin work for an employer on or before December 31, 1987, if
this provision is agreed to by the Senate. The cost of the
extension is estimated to be $1 billion.
The bill limits the credit in three respects. First, the 258
credit for qualified wages paid in the second year of a targeted
j individual's employment is eliminated. Second, the 508 credit for
qualified first year wages generally is reduced to a 40% credit.
i Thus, the bill generally reduces the maximum credit per employee
from $4,500 (50% of $6,000 plus 258 of $6,000) to $2,400 (40% of
$6,000). The bill does not reduce the credit presently allowed for
wages of economically disadvantaged summer youth employees (858 of
up to $3,000 of qualified first year wages).
Third, under the bill, no wages are to be taken into account for
credit purposes with respect to any individual if that individual
is employed by the employer for less than 14 days.
j A bill to provide a temporary extension of the TJTC died in the
j last biter hours before Congress adjourned.
j Plant Closings: The House of Representatives narrowly defeated
4 H.R. 1616, plant closing notification legislation strongly
supported by NLC'and specifically supported by an NLC resolution.
4 (See Nation's Cities Weekly, Nov. 4 and 11, 1985.)
Immigration: The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration has
approved H.R. 3080, major immigration reform legislation
introduced by Judiciary Committee Chairman, Rep. Peter V. Rodino
(D-N.J.). Along with an increased temporary farmworker program,
the legislation would make it illegal for employers to knowingly
hire undocumented aliens and legalize foreigners without papers
1-17/,<Z
•�rlNVaa\:aaa!aaa Na\Hw.a av�aa.!t.n�n'M.i.v f::...........------.wv.
-3-
who have lived in the country since before January 1, 1982. The
issue of temporary foreign agricultural workers has been left to
further negotiations.
A similar bill, S. 1200, passed the Senate in December. The House
bill will now go to the full Committee on the Judiciary.
r r'-
CITY'OF.
IOWA ---C
CITY;.
JIOWA!
:.':�
PROPOSED'-'---,
I-
I,
i�
FISCAL •YEAR 1987
JULY 1, 1986 THRU JUNE 30, 1987
CITY OF IOWA CITY.
John McDonald
Darrel Courtney
George Strait
UTY MANAGER
Neal G, Berlin
CITY COUNCIL
William J. Awrisco, Mayor
IOWA
Larry Baker
Kate DicKson
Ernie Zuber
FINANCE DIRECTOR
Rosemary Vitosn
a
FISCAL •YEAR 1987
JULY 1, 1986 THRU JUNE 30, 1987
CITY OF IOWA CITY.
John McDonald
Darrel Courtney
George Strait
UTY MANAGER
Neal G, Berlin
CITY COUNCIL
William J. Awrisco, Mayor
IOWA
Larry Baker
Kate DicKson
Ernie Zuber
FINANCE DIRECTOR
Rosemary Vitosn
a
1
\
I
J
a,'
I
CITY OF IOWA CITY
PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRA14
FY87-91
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM, FY1987-91
Introduction . . .
• • • • • • • • • 1
Fiscal Policy
. . . . _ 3
Program Summary:
CIP Schedule
• • • • 6
CIP Funding . .
. . . . . . . . . . .8
General Obligation Bond Issues, Chart . .
. . . . 13
Abbreviations . . .
. . . . . . . . 14
Projects:
15'
Map A - Streets Projects
• • • • • • • • •
N Dubuque St. Curb.b Gutter
16
Melrose Ave.-Byington to R.R. Bridge
17,
Summit/Burlington Signalization
. . . . . . 18
Highway 1 -Sunset Signalization . .
. . . . . . . . . ", 19
Benton/Mormon Trek Signalization,
. . . . . 20
Kirkwood/Dodge. Signalization,
. . . 21'
Scott Boulevard Paving,
• • • • • • 22
Melrose Avenue Paving Improvements
. . 23
Rohret Road Paying improvements
. . . . . . . . . . 24
Curb Ramp Installation.
25
FY87 Alley.Paving26
.'.
Rochester/1st Ave. Signalization . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Sunset/Benton Signalization . .
. . . .. ;.128'
Taft Speedway Paving_
• • • 't:30
Dodge St. -Dubuque
Rd, to Governor
Railroad.Crossing
at First Avenue
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
R.R. Crossing - Dubuque St. and
,,,Clinton Street,
• • • • • • , 32
Extra Width Paving.- First.Avenue and
Sandusky . Dr .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . °33
Extra Width Paving.- Foster Road . .
. ... . . . . . . . . . . . .34
Map B: Bridges 8 Sidewalks Projects . .
. . . . . . . . _. 35
West Side Walkway . . ..
• • • • • • • • • 36
Gilbert St. Bridge Deck Repair . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Dodge Street Bridge Deck Repair . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
I
�lM1vaavaara as a t a.MtM1a\ ua� tial aa.anw.wr.v.... a..\.taaaaw�s...+.!.�rN.irr...•.v.•. .\ nv.'. ... rx.'Iyv.Y.\vWas�.a•w
Burlington St. Bridge at Ralston Crk.
Woolf Avenue Bridge Deck Repair
' . ' . ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' • ' . • • • 39
. .
Melrose Avenue Bridge Deck Repair
' ' . ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' . • • • • • 40
. .
Benton St. Bridge Widening
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' • • • • • • • • • 41
Improve Bridges on Brookside Dr. and
42
Second Ave,
Burlington St. Footbridge.
' ' ' ' ' ' ' • ' • • • • • • 43
Pedestrian Bride Over highway 6 . .
. ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' • • • • • • 44
Governor St. Retaining hall
45
Keokuk/Highway 6 Bypass Sidewalk'
' ' ' • • • 46
North Dubuque St. Sidewalk
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' • • • • • • • • • • 47
Map C: Urban' Renewal, City Facilities
' ' ' • ' • • • '" .48
8 Other Projects
City Plaza Light Fixture Replacement ..
. ' . ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' • "'49
Parcel /65-2x' . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Ralston Creek Property Acquisition
51'
and Clearance - - ' .
Renovation of City Park Tennis Courts
Napoleon Park
52:
Restrooms53
.,
Development of Ryerson's Woods '
' ' . ' ' ' ' ' • • • 54:
Na : Market Park Play Are '
' ' ' ' 'i ' • • 55'
Terrell Mill Park Improvements
Bus
56'
Fleet Expansion/Replacement57
Animal Control Facility Remodeling . .
' . . ' ' ' ' ' `:58
Civic Center Expansion ' '
' ' ' ' ' • ' • • • • • 59
Cemetery Building Addition
' ' ' '60:
Benton St. Culvert Replacement
61
North Corridor-Sewer62',
Park Road Storm Sewer ' '
' ' ' ' ' ' 63
Orchard 6 Douglass -Storm Sewer ' • '
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 64
CIP'PENDING-LIST:
• • • • • • • , 65
Existing *Wastewater Treatment Plant
;.'Upgrade
Wastewater,Treatment Facility
66
Pool Complex
. . 66
Ridge Rd. 6 Dubuque St. Intersection . .
. ' . ' . . 66
Airport Master Plan 11
66
River Corridor Buffer and Trail System
67
Iowa Avenue Restoration67
Softball/Soccer Fields ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' 67
New Bridge Connecting Governor and
67
Keokuk
.........
.... .. y8
I
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
INTRODUCTION
Capital improvement programming is the planning, coordination, and scheduling of public improvements
for a community over a period of years. The scheduling is developed according to priorities based
upon need, desire and importance of such improvements to the community within the constraints, of the
City's ability to finance, as well as having the staff to design and administer the projects. Essen-
tially, the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is a legislative and management tool to facilitate the
scheduling, planning and execution of a series of public improvements over a five year period.
The FYSS-FY89 CIP is a compilation of projects currently in the CIP and new project requests. Although
most projects were placed into the proposed five year plan, a few projects have been placed on a
pending list. Those projects generally were viewed as having a low priority for funding at this time.
One exception is the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Although it was included on the pending list, it is
considered a high priority. However, because future actions are uncertain, it is impossible, at this
time, to estimate the cost or timing of the project.
It. FINANCING OF PROJECTS
The financing of the projects included in the FY87-FY91 CIP is detailed on each project sheet.
j Summaries of funding by sources appear in this front section. The City strives to secure and utilize
funds other than operating revenue and general obligation bonds to the maximum extent practical and
utilize general obligation debt within the parameters of the city's fiscal policy.
w
The graph at the end of this front section shows General Obligation (GO) Bond issues by year and the
issues proposed for the next five years, based on this Proposed CIP. The property tax supported GO
Bonds are more equal than issues in past years. The projects have been scheduled to achieve this
level use of GO Bonds. Furthermore, other sources of revenue are used wherever possible for funding
the projects.
III. FISCAL POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
A concept of sound financial planning is critical for the success of any program whether it be public
or private. As a result, the CIP is a determination of 1) the levels of capital projects and 2) the
J sources of financing those projects. While determining the scheduling of projects for completion
withbothin the next those that have eyeen gIt was est established byaState awto landth the hose hat 'ha have beenaado tedrass olictabiothe
City Council as a guide to future City expenditure and indebtedness. It is the later limitation to
which the City Council addressed itself in 1973 by the formal adoption of a fiscal policy that is
aimed at controlling and regulating the property tax level for debt service on General Obligation
-� Bonds used to finance.capital expenditures. The 1979 revised fiscal policy provides a more comprehen-
sive method of financing the many capital projects which the City needs. Adherence to this fiscal
policy can be expected to provide the following advantages:
ii
J 1
a
3
1. Investors interested in City of Iowa City bonds can refer to a fiscal policy and rely on it in
making decisions
on whether to buy obligations of the City and in determining the interest rates
that they
will bid. A formally approved fiscal policy has a strong bearing an the City's ability
to maintain
and improve upon the factors which determine its credit rating.
.i
2. The proposed property tax levy for debt service, on which there is no state imposed maximum limit,
can be
s{
projected and regulated to either remain relatively stable or to increase at an even
controlled
rate.
3. Planning for public improvements normally takes place over a period of years. Nearly always,
funds
are spent for engineering and right-of-way prior to the years in which actual construction
takes place.
The fiscal policy can establish, amounts of money which will be, spent for several
years in the
future for the best public improvements facility planning and mike it possible to
concentrate
time and funds on those priority projects which can be financed and constructed within
the City's financial
_
limitations.
4. A very significant advantage of a formal fiscal policy is to demonstrate the need for additional
revenue sources in future years by matching expenditures and indebtedness permitted by such:a
fiscal policy
-
against a much greater need for additional public improvements.
_
A copy of the City's Fiscal Policy follows.
i
2
'
0
I
FISCAL POLICY
ANNUAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES
J 1. BALANCED DOGET:
The budget of the City of Iowa City shall be drawn so that estimated revenues and anticipated expendi-
tures are equal. (State law requirement.)
J
2. TAXTAX�CEILING:
The budget of the City of Iowa City shall be drawn so that tax revenue in the general operating fund
does not require a tax levy in excess of the limit established by State law,
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
I. DEFIITIUN:
A. Capital Improvements - Capital items of a relatively permanent nature, such as`buildings'
'and
other attachments or improvements to land which are intended to remain so attached such as storm
drains, sewers,and streets. -Capital improvements have four characteristics:
(1) They last a long time.
(2) They are relatively expensive.
(3) They usually don't recur annually.
(4) They result in fixed assets.
B: Capital Expenditures - Those expenditures for public improvements and their preliminary studies
and the acquisitions of property or equipment for new Public improvements. Capital expenditures
are expenditures for capital improvements and shall be financed under the provisions of this
fiscal policy and planned in terms of the five year Capital Improvement Program. Excluded from
capital expenditures are operating expenditures; those annual expenditures which are necessary to
the maintenance of the city, the rendering of services, and providing for normal operation.,
2. PROJECT IS.
Capital improvement projects for the five year period shall be analyzed for the following:
(1) Compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan.
3
i 1
I
� J
—1
J
h
I
i
2. TAXTAX�CEILING:
The budget of the City of Iowa City shall be drawn so that tax revenue in the general operating fund
does not require a tax levy in excess of the limit established by State law,
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
I. DEFIITIUN:
A. Capital Improvements - Capital items of a relatively permanent nature, such as`buildings'
'and
other attachments or improvements to land which are intended to remain so attached such as storm
drains, sewers,and streets. -Capital improvements have four characteristics:
(1) They last a long time.
(2) They are relatively expensive.
(3) They usually don't recur annually.
(4) They result in fixed assets.
B: Capital Expenditures - Those expenditures for public improvements and their preliminary studies
and the acquisitions of property or equipment for new Public improvements. Capital expenditures
are expenditures for capital improvements and shall be financed under the provisions of this
fiscal policy and planned in terms of the five year Capital Improvement Program. Excluded from
capital expenditures are operating expenditures; those annual expenditures which are necessary to
the maintenance of the city, the rendering of services, and providing for normal operation.,
2. PROJECT IS.
Capital improvement projects for the five year period shall be analyzed for the following:
(1) Compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan.
3
L
0
(2) Revenue source - A clear distinction shal.l be made between tax supported and self -supported bonds
(G.O. versus revenue bonds). All projects supported by revenue bonds must demonstrate ability to .
develop sufficient income to repay their costs and costs associated with financing. In addition,
_
proposed revenue sources shall be analyzed in terms of whether the revenue can be used for the
proposed project and the probability that the revenue will be available.
(3) Compatibility with the City Council's goals.
3. MAXIMUM LIMITATIONS ON GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS:
The following two maximum limitations shall apply to general obligation bonds:
_
A. Debt Limit:
Debt incurred as a general obligation of the City of Iowa City shall not exceed constitutional -or,. -
—
statutory limits: presently 5% of the market value of the taxable property within the corporate
limits as established by the City Assessor. (State law requirement.)
y
B.,,Borrowing Reserve:
A minimum of 20% borrowing,reserve, or debt margin, shall be maintained to meet emergencies,'' and
'with
if so used, the bonds shall be retired as soon as reasonably possible in accordance the
provisions of this fiscal policy.
4. CEILING ON DEBT SERVICE:
i
Debt service charges payable from the general tax levy shall not exceed 25% of that levy in any one
fiscal year.
_
i
5. FINANCING:
As a'general rule financing of capital improvements shall meet the following guidelines:
i
A. General property tax and operating revenues, to the extent available, shall be used for capital,
project financing.
—
B. When general property tax and operating revenues are not available under the maximum tax'retes
-
permitted by law or deemed advisable by the Council, financing of capital projects and replace-
ments may be accomplished by the use of bonds as outlined in Section 6 hereof.
C. Every effort shall be made to seek out state or federal grants or assistance to offset a portion
of the cost of capital projects.
1
t�1
1 4
.d i
til1
�'�w.MlAiaataa!aa\.t alHatvl a<viv�!aa+w.w.v...v.avvaa-.aw�R....».i::w....wv..v..v.:. e.v. rvOy:.v:vvi.v.�.v�w
i
6. BOND ISSUES:
A. General obligation bonds - Bonds shall be of a serial type and general obligations to the City of
Iowa City. They shall have a maximum maturity of 20 years. The maturity schedule shall provide
for level principal amortization payments insofar as practicable.
lB. Revenue Bonds - Revenue bond financing shall be determined after first reviewing whether the use
of revenue bonds could be more advantageous than financing -
f Bonds shall be issued in accordance with the following: with general obligation bonds. Revenue
(I) Amortization of principal and interest shall
approved estimates will provide from next revenuerequire no more, including reserves,• -than
s to be available.
(2)Insofar as
one fulpossible, debt service, after the project has been'`completed and' in operation for
l fiscal year, shall be level within practical constraints each year.
J (3)'''All ''revenue bonds for public purposes shall be sold at public competitive bidding in
" dance with the requirements of Chapter 76, Code of Iowa as amended. accor-
The first fiscal policy was adopted by motion of the City Council at its regular meeting on June 5, 1973.
This revised policy was adopted by' Council, motion on June 19,-1979.'
J .
5
%4
4
CITY OF IOWA CITY
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
FY07 - PY91 -
I PROJECT
`
PRIOR YRS'
PY67
PY88
FY89
FY90
FY91
FUTURE'YRS
'TOTAL
N DUBUQUE ST NRB 6 GUTTER
WEST BIDE WALKWAYS
0
0
-
0
0
],500
80,5D0
0
84,000
,. 0.
3.000
p
0
NECROSE--BYINCTOM TO RR BRIDGE
0.
0''
0
:..2.000`.
SUNNIT/BURLINGTON SIGNALS -
0
0
0
0
{•000
]71, OOD
0"778,000-
..
.:'.0
:31.000.
0
0
HNY 1/SUNSET SIGNALS
0
0
0'-
21,000
0
31.000
p
0
..
BENT'ON`ST/HORHOH, TREK SIGNALS
_.
0
0
0'-
71,000
KIRKNOOD/DODGE BIGNALIEATION
..0
0
21.000
0
0
. :..:
0
0,,
0 .
- 0-
21,000
0
i
:....
.....
,.
SCOTT BOULEVARD PAVING
...i:.)
0
0
0
•0
_. 21,000
`, .'i ... ..,
08
NE1AE AVE PAVING
0
-- -
0
76,000
1,101 ,000
0
0
1,170,000
0
.;. 81.000-V
710,000
p
ROBERT ROAD PAVING
- 0
0
':0
791,000
i. .
CURB NT INSTALIATION
0
0
-
26,250
717,000
0
0
U
713,250
ALLBY PAVING FY87
10,]00
11,600
12,113
13, 683
13,250
-23,,820
077,800
-.
0
61,000
0
.1
_.
; :,
ROCHESTER/FIRST AVE SIGNALS
0
0
0
0
0
61,000
24,000
0
0
SUNSET/EENTON SIGNALS
0
0
0
0
21,000
TAR SPEEDWAY PAVING
O
21,000
p
0
0
0
31,000
DODGE ST - DBD RD TO GOVERNOR
0
0
21,000 •
780,000
0
0
0
101,000 '
HEARTLAND RR R-INGS, IST AVE
0
0
160,500
]BB, 500
0
0
0
519.000
500
89,300
0
HEARTLAND RR Y-INGSI D Bq/CLINT
500
1/5,500
0
0
0
0
90,000
TEA
EENIDTW-FOSTER RD
0
0
0
0
0
116,000
.. i..
0
1,200
6,700
0
0
EXTRA WIDTH -18T AVE i BAWOOBKY
0
0
0
10,500
0
28,500
p
0
GILBERT 8T BRIDGE DECK
6,076
67,{0{
0
0
28,500
DODOS ST BRIDGE DECK
17,786
110,841
0
0
0
0
0
69,1]0
I I BURLINGTON Or OR AT RALSTON CR
3,3EE
37,752
p
0
0
0
0
154,270
LHRILF AV BRIDGE DECK
0
0
0
0
0
11,]10
0
6,976 •
73,681
0
0
- NELROSE AVE BRIDGE DECK
0
0
0
00,660
9,021
95,716
0
0
BENTON ST BRIDGE WIDENING
777,]00 7,155,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 2,127,700
101,310
6
i� •
i -
I !
f i PROJECT
BROOKSIDE DR A 2ND AVE BRIDGES
I
I�
CITY OF IOWA CITY
CAPITAL IMPROVEMEWTS PROGRAM
PY87.-. PY91
PRIOR YRS PY87 YY88 FY89 FY90 FY91 FUTURE YRS TOTAL
0 26,000 256,000 0 0 0 O 280,000
0 0 0 0 61,200 0 0 61,200. _
0 0 0 0 40,000 620,000 0: 460,000..
0 0 5,500 56,500 0 0 0 62,000.
0 0 60,000 0 0 0 0 -. 60,000
0 0 .1,000 .50,000 0 0 0, 57,000:.
0 10,165 0 0 0 0 0 70,165
.10,000 115,600 0 0 0 0 0 ,115,600..
0 0 66,070 0 0 0 0 66,070
0 0 66,520 0 0 0 0 66,520 -
0 $1,860 0 0 0 0 .0;. .51,860
0 0 16,700 0 0 0 0 .16,700
.•6,595 6,ODO 0 0 0 0 0 ;,10,595:,; ,
0 1,200 0 0 0 0 0 1. 1,200;
0 0 960,000 620,000 660,000 150,000 150,000 2,520,000
0 0 99,500 0 0 0 0.. _, 991500
0 0 0 228,750 1,021,250 0 0 7,250,000'.. ,
0 0 11,000 0 0 0 0 11,000
0 87,500 99,000 0 0 0 0 182,500
0 0 8,000 115,000 0 .0 0 121,000 ,
0 0 6,000 107,000 0 0 0 111,000
0 0 20,500 151,500 0 0 0 172,000.:
__________ --------__ -___-9_600 :..
7,]11,905 ],876, OIS 7,757, 9I6 6,669,]00 1,188,7]0 150,000 16,829,600
8
BURLINGTON ST FOOTBRIDGE
J
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE OVER HWY 6
GOVERNOR ST RETAINING WALL
,-.
KKOKUK/HYY 6: BYPASS SIDEWALK
N DOBUOUE ST SIDEWALK ,
J
CIM PLAIA LIGHTS REPLACIU!"
PARCEL 165-2A (BLACKHAWK PARK)
'I
PROPERTY ACO 6,CLEARANCE
CITY PARK TENNIS COURTS
NAPOLEON PARK RISTROOKB•.
RVERSON'S WOODS DEVELOPMENT
N MARKET PARK PLAY AREA
r
t
�7
TERRILL MILL :PARK IMPROVEMENTS
BUS FLEET EXPANSION/REPGCENT
ANIMAL CONTROL FACILITY:•
-'
CIVIC CENTER -EXPANSION ;
CEMETERY BIRO'EXPANSION
BENTON BT CULVERT REPLACEMENT
N CORRIDOR SEWERAGE EXTENSION
PARK RD STORM SEVER
ORCHARD/DOUGGHS STORM BENER
TOTAL
I
I�
CITY OF IOWA CITY
CAPITAL IMPROVEMEWTS PROGRAM
PY87.-. PY91
PRIOR YRS PY87 YY88 FY89 FY90 FY91 FUTURE YRS TOTAL
0 26,000 256,000 0 0 0 O 280,000
0 0 0 0 61,200 0 0 61,200. _
0 0 0 0 40,000 620,000 0: 460,000..
0 0 5,500 56,500 0 0 0 62,000.
0 0 60,000 0 0 0 0 -. 60,000
0 0 .1,000 .50,000 0 0 0, 57,000:.
0 10,165 0 0 0 0 0 70,165
.10,000 115,600 0 0 0 0 0 ,115,600..
0 0 66,070 0 0 0 0 66,070
0 0 66,520 0 0 0 0 66,520 -
0 $1,860 0 0 0 0 .0;. .51,860
0 0 16,700 0 0 0 0 .16,700
.•6,595 6,ODO 0 0 0 0 0 ;,10,595:,; ,
0 1,200 0 0 0 0 0 1. 1,200;
0 0 960,000 620,000 660,000 150,000 150,000 2,520,000
0 0 99,500 0 0 0 0.. _, 991500
0 0 0 228,750 1,021,250 0 0 7,250,000'.. ,
0 0 11,000 0 0 0 0 11,000
0 87,500 99,000 0 0 0 0 182,500
0 0 8,000 115,000 0 .0 0 121,000 ,
0 0 6,000 107,000 0 0 0 111,000
0 0 20,500 151,500 0 0 0 172,000.:
__________ --------__ -___-9_600 :..
7,]11,905 ],876, OIS 7,757, 9I6 6,669,]00 1,188,7]0 150,000 16,829,600
8
9
\wit\waa.wv\lvwwn.WN! Y::.:wwa-+�wawn�..M..nwi�lN..�nV. _>tiavr!•..vtia�'.v.Yti•wW�ww�r
PROJECT PRIOR YRS
N DUBUQUE ST CURB 6 GUTTER
0
MELROSR--BYINGTON TO RR BRIDGE
0
f SUBNIT/BURLINGTON SIGNALS
0
HWY 1/SUNSET SIGNALS
0
DENTON ST/MORMON'TREK SIGNALS
0
KIRRWOOD/DODGE�BIGNALIEATION
0
SCOTT BOULEVARD PAVING
- 0
NEIAOSE AVE PAVING
0
ROHRET ROAD PAVING
- 0
_. ROCHESTER/FIRST AVE SIGNALS
0
SUNSIMSENTON SIGNALS
p
TAFT BPEEDWAY'PAVINO -
p
DODGE ST - DBQ RD TO GOVERNOR
0
- HARTLAND RR CROSSINGS -IST AVK-
Soo
NART LAND AN CROSSINGS-D8Q/CLIN
-' 500
EXTRA WIDTH -FOSTER RD
0
MAR WIDTH -1ST AVE 6 SANDUSKY
0
GILBERT ST BRIDGE DECK ,
I
-: 6,026
DODGE ST BRIDGE DECK
1
13,386
•BURLINGTON ST SR AT RALSTON CR
3,588
J WOOLF AV BRIDGE.. DKCK
0
NEIROSE AVE BRIDGE DECK-- -
0
BENTON ST BRIDGE WIDENING - --
272,100
BROOKSIDE OR 6 2ND AVE BRIDGES
t.
0
BURLINGTON ST FOOTBRIDGE
p
CITY OF IOWA CITY
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAK
PY87 - FY91
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
PY87
0
0
21,000
10,500
0
0
0
86,000
0
26,000
0
0
0
26,500
60,100
6,200
0
63,606
160,866
37,752
6,976
9,026
975,000
26,000
0
PY88
FY09
FY90
0
0
7,500
0
0
6,000
O
0
0
0
0
0
26,000
0
0
21,000
0
0
0
26,000
1,106,000
710,000
10
0
-- 2,625
31,700
0
0
0
0
26,000
0
0
2,100
35,000
'0
160,500
96,500
0
..0
0
0•
0
0
0
6,300
0
0
-28,500
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
73,684
...0
0
95,316
0
0
0
0
0
60,800
0
0
0
0
61,200
FY91 FUTURE YRS TOTAL
80,500
0
- '84,000
126,000
0
''"326,000 1- -
0
0
21,000 -
0
0
-' 10,500
.. 0
0
` 26.000
0
0
.21, 000. ....
0
0'
1,130,000 -
0
0
796,000
0
0+...,..36,125
0
O
- 24,000 -
0
O
24,000
.. .:0
0
•t 60,100... .... ,. •�..
0
0
255,000.':.•'
0
_ 0.
... 27,000 :. ...., _
0
0
60,600
0
0
10,500 ... .,:
0
0
_20,500 ,., ..
0
0.
69,610. ,. ..,. ,..
0
0.:
156,230
O
0
,61,160'..:.
O
• : 0
80,660'
0
0
106,160
0
0
1,267,100
0
0
86,800
0
0
61,200
�4ANltaw!•wtw\w\wwalwa�\i�vtl�.y�.NJ:.': S: �a'.wwwaw++�+�nif�w r'rYw'. r.v. _virv. _Y. rvy.YNAwAwra�r
9
I �
Ir�
CITY OF IOWA CITY
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
PY87 - PY91
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
I
PRO7ECP __.
PRIOR YRS
FY87
PYSS PY99 PY90
FY91
FUTURE YRS
TOTAL
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE OVER HWY 6
0
0
0
0 10,000
130,000
O
160,000
KROKUXIMNY.6 BYPASS SIDEWALK
0
0
36,000
0 0
0
0.;
.. 36,000
-j
N DUBUQUE ST.SIDEWALK
0
0
3,000 30,500
0
0
„ 0
, ...
I7 500
......1111
CITY PLEA LIGHTS REPLACEMENT
0
70,115
O
0 0
0
0.
ANIMAL CONTROL FACILITY
0
0
99,500 0 0
0
0
951,500,
MENTON ST CULVERT REPLACEMENT
0
10,000
99,000
0 0
0
0 -
•$09,000 „
N CORRIDOR SEWERAGE EXTENSION
0
0
5,000. 115,0000
0
0,
-.123,000
J.....
PARK RD STORK SEWER
0
0
1,000 107,000 0
0
0 ppg
111,000
_ ... ....
TOTAL .- _
----------
296,300
------------------------------------------------------------ -
1,507,115 -1,446,735 142,700 1,191,700 831,500 0 5,717,970
9
_ I �
CITY OF IOWA CITY
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM'
FY87 - PY91
OPERATIONS
.
PROJECT'..
PRIOR YRS
FY87PY89
PYBB
FY90
FY91
FUTURE YRS TOTAL
WEST BIDE WALNWAYS
0
7,000
0 0 0
CURB CUT INSTALLATION
1,811
0
0 .2,000
f
GOVERNOR BT RETAINING WALL
-
2,017 2,110 2,775 2,331
2,131
0 -17,000
i
CITY PARE TENNIS COURTS
0
0 �5, 500 56,500 0 '-
0
0 67,000
RYER80N'8 WOODS DLVEI4PN01T
0
0 16,520 00
0
0 46,520
�W
0
0 11,700 p 0
0
0
D
BUB FLEETS%PANSION/REPLICEM
- -
1/,300
MET .
CEMETERY BLDG EXPANSION
p
0
0 710,000 105,000 110,000
87,500
"
87,500 630,000
ORCHARD/DOUGL888 STORM SEWER
0 11,000 0 0
0
- 0 "11,000
0
0 20,500 � 10,000 0
0
0 - 30,500
- I
TOTAL-
.._..
1,81/
��.r.....�......
.......... ..........
1,017 �______
379, . 177,775 117,771
.9,976
_______500 ._.__9__2_
87,500
[ 1
.
.............s... �........ ..........
809,720
-i
CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION
I
PROJECT
PRIOR YRS
PY87 PYBB
..
PY89 FY90
FY91 FUTURE YRS TYYTAL
-
CIVIC CENTER EXPANSION
I
p
...................O
0 0 228,750 3,021,250
0
0 3,250,000
i
TOTAL
0
____________________ _____ 1,250 ----------
,.
0 228.750
.............�W��� .w....... ... 7,021,750.
_--__-__-0
0
_3.2.__
"-
0 7,250,000
�
..........t\\Mwww\w\\w\w. ......
I
CITY OF IOWA CITY
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT/
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
FY87 - PY91
PROJECT
PRIOR YRS
FY87.,
Pyas ryag
Pygo
VY91
FUTURE YRS
STATE AID
PROJECT
PRIOR YRS
PY87
I'ves FY89
FY90
FY91
FUTURE YRS
TOTAL
23,625 235,300
My I/8UMS19 T 51GNAIS
0
10,500
a 0
0
0
0
10,500
64,000
0 .0
0
0
0
64,000
TAFT SPEEDWAY PAVING
0
0
18,900 342,000
DODGE ST - DBQ RD TO GOVERNOR
0
0
0 294,000
0
a
0
294,000
34,BO0 0
0
MMUND RE CROSSINGS -IST AVE
0
52,800
0 0
0
0
0
52,800
----------
HARTLAND RR CROSSINGS-DBO/CLIN
0
$5,800
0 0
0
0
0
05,800
1p
0
..........
767,825
.... . .... ....
. . . . .
........
..........
NAPOLEON PARK RESTROOKS
0
25o000
0
0
0
0
25,000
J.
TOTAL
----------
0
----------
174,100
---------- ---------- ---------
0 294,000
7 - ----------
0
0
---------- ----------
0
468,100
CONTRIBUTIONS
PROJECT,
PRIOR IRS
VY67
Yves FY89
FY90
'FY91
FUTURE YRS
TOTAL
P.
KARTIAND Re CROBSINGS-IST AVE
0
10,200
0 0
0
0
0
:,-'10;200
HARTLAND RA CROSSINGS-DSQ/CLIM
0
19.600
0 0
0
0
0 %
--o'19,600
M DUBUQUE ST SIDIVALl
0
0
0 19,500
0
a
"0
"X.19,500
R MARKET PARK PLAY AREA
4,595
0
0 0
0
0
41595
----------
----------
---------- ---------- ----------
----------
0
----------
0
-------- --
53,895
TOTAL
4,595
29,800
0 19,500
0
I
..................
... ......
I
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT/
PROJECT
PRIOR YRS
FY87.,
Pyas ryag
Pygo
VY91
FUTURE YRS
TOTAL
ROORAT ROAD PAVING
0
0
23,625 235,300
..0
0
0
308,925
IJALLEY
PAVING FV87
0
64,000
0 .0
0
0
0
64,000
TAFT SPEEDWAY PAVING
0
0
18,900 342,000
0
0
0
360,900
KEOKUK/HWY 6 BYPASS SIDEWALK
00
34,BO0 0
0
0
0
34,000
---------- ---------- ----------
----------
---------- ----------
1.
TOTAL
----- ----- ----------
0
64,000
76,525 627,300
0
0
0
..........
767,825
.... . .... ....
. . . . .
........
..........
I
A
_• I
' t i
CITY OF IOWA CITY _
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM I
PY87 - FY91
FEDERAL AID e+
PROJECT PRIOR YRS FY07 FY88 PYB9 PY90 FY91 FUTURE YES TOTAL t•t J
I
BERT'ON ST .BRIDGE WIDENING 0 1,160,000 0 0 0 0 0 1,180,000
EROOKSIDR DR 6 2ND AVE BRIDGES 0 0 193,300 0 0 0 ,0. 195,200 -1
BUB PRET RYPANBION/R6pIACiIPP 0 0 ,720,000 215,000 ]]0,000 262,500 262,500 1,890,000
--
TOTAL 0 1,180,000915,200 215,000 -- 220,000 262,500 262,500" 2265,200- - -"
.. .. COMM. DEVELOPMENT BLOCK. GIANT -'
PR07ELT " ' PRIOR YRS PY87 PHI PY89 -FY90 :FY91 FUTURE YRS TOTAL
t
CURB CUT INSTALLATION - B,686 v 9,557 10,005 10,650 '..10,916 a. 11,286 0 `_60,100.
PARCEL 165-24C(BIJICKUWK PARK) ; 10,000 - 125,600 0 p _ p p
0 :;'165,600
PRORATY ACO•A!CLEARANCE 0 O ,16,020 0 0 0 0 .46,030,..
u
NAPOLEON PARK:AEBTROONB 0 76,860 ,; 0 p
r 0 O.�.76160
N MARKET -P
. PARKLBY.ARBA.._ ..... 0 ._.. 6,000 .. 0 _. 0 0 . .S _.
-
AR
-0 0 6,000
TEERIL4 MILL PARK -IMPROVEMENTS - 0 1,200 p p p p 0 1,200 J
DIYTON ST CULVERT REPLACEMENT 0 72,500 0 0 0 0 0 72,500
CNARD/DOUGLASS STORK BEWER "
OR 0 0 0 161,500 0 0 0 161,500
31 616 752 517 56,035 _..$01____
t�TOTAL .......... , 151,950 10,916 11,2.6 0 $01,290 ddd"'
t
(^ r
' . I/v\ .... i.. �..• ...ter ... ......... ....• _.. .. ��... 12.
I
a
i
Vr..:�i.......!.... .........:....!...«:..w.v:::::.♦........--- ......t...............
............ .......:re..•.............
I
2-
I I�
D-
8-
i
I
i
7-
I
J
6-
,JNDS
ISSUED
_IN MILLIONS
-
5-
r�
4 -3-
4-
3-
i
J
2-
D-
1-
F
D-
CITY OF IOWA CITY
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND ISSUES
14 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91
FISCAL YEARS
13
U);
rods paid for with
rty tax.
nds paid for with
rty .taxes and subject I
ters approval. ;
nds abated by enter- ;
funds revenues, f!
ectal assessment.
�aJ'7
1.
i
4t
�Mti\lM1\iaav\l�aa\\al Na\\\v\�\\a(4a\nw�.MrN. _.... �v\\\♦v�ma���.(...«n/////.\vv\v.v.aw...t.w.•..hf/.v.awM�.v�
The following abbreviations which appear
on the project
listings indicate the source of funding:
" GO = General Obligation Bonds
CP =
Certificates of Participation
SP = Special Assessments
FA =
Federal Aid
T
OP =Operations
SA =
State Aid
CO = Contributions
HC =
Housing b Community Development Act
(Community Development Block Grant)
,ei
S
v
..
..
..l
40
1
14
Gi P
�V�..:.�i�.......,..,�....................-..�.�........... ......_.-..A...�.�..,..
.�.
r
. . . . . . . . . .lv+w.i..W.v:::: ff...... It . . . . .
NORTH DUBUQUE STREET CURB A—
WUER PROJECT
REFERENCE Map A #1
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This is a new project that involves the installation
and resurfacing on that portion of north -bound
of curb and gutter along with necessary storm sewer
Road. The curb would better define the roadway
pavement on Dubuque Street between Kimball. Road and. Ridge
and aid in keeping
vehicles from driving off the pavement-. -
General obligation bonds will fund this project.
City Council requested Engineering to investigate the possibility Of completing this project.
FUTUNE:;'iEAR BUDGET IMPACTS
Normal maintenance costs will be required.
IMPLEMENTATION 'SCHEDULE
What will be done?,. -
Beg inning. Finishing, of
DateSource
Date $ Funding:
Be fore-FY87,
F V87"
FY88.1
FY90. Design
FY91 Construction
July 1989 March 1990 3,500 GO
After FY91 -
A
April 1990, July 1990 80.500 GO
TOTAC
$84,000
I
s
j
,f�
I
MELROSE AVENUE - BYINGTON TO RAILROAD BRIDGE
REFERENCE Map A 02
iDESCRIPTION
OF PROJECT
T
This is a new project involving reconstruction along with the
widening of Melrose Avenue to 37 feet
'
the Hartland railroad bridge to South Grand Avenue and a right
..from
turn lane for westboundtraffic at Hawkins
Drive and+includes necessary storm sewer work. The street is
approximately 70 -80 -years old. .Traffic in
this area is heavy andtheroad and -curb is deteriorating. The
street has already been overlaid and chip-
--sealed several times in its lifetime. This project is first in
a series of projects which will provide for
the reconstruction of arterial streets.
l
General obligation bonds will fund this project. The project
can be done within the existing rights of
i
way, so there won't be any land purchased.
j
J
FUTURE YEAR BUDGET IMPACTS
j
;
Normal maintenance costs will be required,
s
3
IIWLEIENTATION SCHEDULE
Beginning
Finishing Source of
_ What will be done? Date
Date S Funding
Before FY87
FY87
FY88
FY89
FY90 Design July 189
April '90 4,000 GO
FY91 Construction May '90
Sept. '90 324,000 GO
After FY91
i
TOTAL
}3281000
i
f
f
17
i
SUMMIT/BURLINGTON SIGNALIZATION IMPROVEMENT
REFERENCE Map A 03
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Th is a new project has two objectives: first to replace the existing obsolete controllerwitha new
device; and second to replace the side -of -street
a number 'of right-angle accidents have occurred
signal displays with over -lane signal displays. Currently
at this intersection. ' The
existing controller is 30-35
years old and the manufacturer no longer stocks parts for it. Over -lane indication give matorists.a better
view of the signals.
4
General obligation bonds will fund this project.
!'Y
FUTURE YEAR BUDGET IMPACTSIta
There will be no additional costs for maintenance
and electricity.
r
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
- -What. will be done?_.
Beginning Finishing Source of
Date
_
Date s Funding
Before FY87 Design
FY87 Construction
Nov. 185 Dec. 185
FY88
August 86 Sept. '86 21,000 GO
FY89
FY90
FY91
_
After FY91.
TOTAL..
MAW
_aaaaaae J
I
1
r
18
�i
�N aaa ava! \ww\ tw\Haa w\ uv\t\alaautvANN.. .. .. �.vYwaa.a�.uw�..�.....'gni.ii+.u�.v.•..v..r�....��...4N.v.vY.�µ\u�
REFERENCE Map A iq
HIGHWAY /1/SUNSET AVENUE SIGNALIIATION
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This is a new project to install a two-phase semi -actuated traffic control with over -lane indications at
the intersection of: Highway '/1 and Sunset Avenue. Traffic conditions at this intersection meet the war-
rants for* traffic signalization as defined in the Manual 'on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
'
Funding of this project will be shared 50-50 between general obligation bonds and the- Urban -State Traffic
Engineering Program (USTEP).
The opening of Freeway 218 and further development on the west side will' increase traffic in this area.
FUTURE YEAR,BMaT IMPACTS
The annual costs are estimated to be $870.00 for electricity and $360.00 for maintenance The City will be
responsible for all maintenance costs of the signals.
INPLEIEKATION SCHEDULE
What will be done? Beginning Finishing
Date Date Source'of
Before FY87 Design $ FundinL
FY87 Construction Oct. '85 Hov.''85
FY88 July '86 August '86 21,000 GO/SA
FY89
FY90`
FY91
After FY91
TOTAL
19
%4
I
I
f J
t
I
�N aaa ava! \ww\ tw\Haa w\ uv\t\alaautvANN.. .. .. �.vYwaa.a�.uw�..�.....'gni.ii+.u�.v.•..v..r�....��...4N.v.vY.�µ\u�
REFERENCE Map A iq
HIGHWAY /1/SUNSET AVENUE SIGNALIIATION
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This is a new project to install a two-phase semi -actuated traffic control with over -lane indications at
the intersection of: Highway '/1 and Sunset Avenue. Traffic conditions at this intersection meet the war-
rants for* traffic signalization as defined in the Manual 'on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
'
Funding of this project will be shared 50-50 between general obligation bonds and the- Urban -State Traffic
Engineering Program (USTEP).
The opening of Freeway 218 and further development on the west side will' increase traffic in this area.
FUTURE YEAR,BMaT IMPACTS
The annual costs are estimated to be $870.00 for electricity and $360.00 for maintenance The City will be
responsible for all maintenance costs of the signals.
INPLEIEKATION SCHEDULE
What will be done? Beginning Finishing
Date Date Source'of
Before FY87 Design $ FundinL
FY87 Construction Oct. '85 Hov.''85
FY88 July '86 August '86 21,000 GO/SA
FY89
FY90`
FY91
After FY91
TOTAL
19
%4
I
BENTON STREET AND MORMON TREK BOULEVARD SIGNALIZATION
REFERENCE Map A 05
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This project. involves the Installation of a two phase semi -actuated traffic controller with overlane
traffic indications and pedestrian indications.
This project mff be required in FY88- if.residential
growth in the area continues. Traffic engineering studies will continue to
monitor traffic conditions
11 in -the. area, ati the, intersection. These signals wil I increase safety of pedestrians even though At: will
also mean additional delay for those
attempting to cross Benton Street.
General obligation bonds will fund this project.
The Comprehensive Plan projects continued growth in the area west of this intersection in Phase 1of the
development sequence.
FUTURE YEAR BUDGET IMPACTS
Future costs are estimated at $870 per year for electricity and $360 per year for maintenance:
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
What will be done?., Beginning Finishing Source of
Date Date Funding
Before FY87
FY87
FY88 Design and construction July 1987
FY89 Oct. 1987 24,000 GO
FY90
FY91
After FY91
EI
TOTAL
$24,000
20
9
-------
r-
KIRKWOOD AVENUE AND DODGE STREET SIGNALIZATION
REFERENCE Map A f6
'DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This project will involve the installation of.a two phase semi -actuated traffic control with overlane
traffic indications and pedestrian indications at the intersection of Kirkwood Avenue and Dodge Street.
This project will be needed if traffic volumes continue to increase from the north and, 'south feeding
onto Kirkwood Avenue. Additional delay will be encountered by east/west traffic on Kirkwod Avenue, but
r,it will;provide:a safer intersection.
General obligation bonds will finance this project.
FUTURE-, YEAR 'BUDGET IMPACTS-. .
Estimated future costs for electricity are $870 per year and $360 per year for maintenance.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Beginning Finishing " Source'of
What will be done? Date Date " $ Funding
Before FY87
:.. I FY87
FY88 Design and construction
FY89
FY9D
FY91
After FY91
TOTAL
21
July 1987 Oct. 1987 21,000 GO
$21,000
aaeaaae '
.!
SCOTT BOULEVARD PAVING
REFERENCE: Map A 07
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This project involves the paving of Scott Boulevard 31' in width from Court Street to Lower West Branch
Road and then to Rochester. Avenue. Storm sewer facilities will also be installed. This project has
long-range benefits in providing a low -maintenance roadway from Highway 6 Bypass to Rochester Avenue.
When all .the segments are ,in tact it will provide a route significantly more attractive than the
existing -facilities.
This project is shown being funded by General Obligation Bonds. However, staff will apply for Revital-
ize Iowa's Sound Economy (RISE) funds for this project. If the monies are approved, they would cover up
to 80% of the project.
This project is included in the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the trafficway,designrstan-
dards. It, will provide a truck route and aid in moving traffic from the BDI industrial area to I-80,
FUTURE YEAR BUDGET IMPACTS
This ,project will reduce maintenance costs on the gravel portion of Scott Boulevard north of Court;
however.", there will be increased pressure for future road improvement to I-80.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
"What will be done]
Before FY87
FY87
FY88
FY89,_Design and Land Acquisition
FY90"'Co6struction
FY91
After FY91
TOTAL
22
Beginning Finishing Source. of
Date Date _ Funding
July 1988 May 1989
June 1989 Dec. 1989
26,000 GO
1,104,000 GO
$1,130,000
ec_veeecee
i
0
r
MELROSE AVENUE PAVING
REFERENCE Map A /8
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This project; will provide the continuation of the existing configuration of Melrose Avenue from the end
of the concrete pavement near. West High, School. to relocated Highway 218,.a distance of„approximately
2,500 feet. This project will provide a facility which will accommodate the increased flow of traffic
generated by relocated Highway 218.
General Obligation Bonds will fund this project. In the FY86-90 CIP, FAUS.funds were planned, but these
funds,wil,l -not be:,available. ,..
This facility is a proposed improvement in the Comprehensive' Plan. This'proposal,would, construct
Melrose Avenue (a secondary arterial) at primary arterial standards.
FUTURE YEAR BUDGET IMPACTS
Demands may be made to extend four lanes to Burlington Street.
10
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
—
Finishing
t
T
I
i
Date
Date
=
r
MELROSE AVENUE PAVING
REFERENCE Map A /8
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This project; will provide the continuation of the existing configuration of Melrose Avenue from the end
of the concrete pavement near. West High, School. to relocated Highway 218,.a distance of„approximately
2,500 feet. This project will provide a facility which will accommodate the increased flow of traffic
generated by relocated Highway 218.
General Obligation Bonds will fund this project. In the FY86-90 CIP, FAUS.funds were planned, but these
funds,wil,l -not be:,available. ,..
This facility is a proposed improvement in the Comprehensive' Plan. This'proposal,would, construct
Melrose Avenue (a secondary arterial) at primary arterial standards.
FUTURE YEAR BUDGET IMPACTS
Demands may be made to extend four lanes to Burlington Street.
10
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
23
.4
Beginning
Finishing
Source of
What will be done?
Date
Date
=
Funding
Before FY87
FY87
Design and Land Acquisition
July 1986
June 1987
84,000
GO
FY88
Construction
July 1987
June 1988
710,000
GO
FY89
FY90
......_ ._ .
FY91
After FY91
TOTAL
$794,000
E666YC�3C
23
.4
L. ..........:............
ROHRET ROAD PAVING IMPROVEMENT
REFERENCE Map A /9
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This project will provide for the paving of Rohret Road 31' in width from Mormon Trek Boulevard to
rel ocated'•Highway 218. Storm sewer facilities will -also be installed. This project is needed to
accommodate the increase in traffic flow -from new subdivisions adjacent to Rohret Road.
jAbout 90% of this project could be funded by Special Assessment, the rest would-be General- Obligation
Bonds.
This project will service an area shown for development in Phase I (1983 88) of the Comprehensive'Plan.
" FUTURE YEAR -BUDGET IMPACTS t d.p
Normal maintenance costs will be required.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE "
Beginning Finishing Source of
What will be done] Date Date {:: Funding, :i.'
Before FY87
,F.Y87
FY88 Desigh' and Land Acquisition
FY89 Construction
FY90
FY91
After FY90
TOTAL
24
July 1987 June 1988 26,250 GO/SP
July 1988 Nov. 1988 317,000 GO/SP'
$343,250
V F'
.o
CURB RAMP INSTALLATION
REFERENCE 110 (no locations designated)
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
involving design and construction of
curb ramps at the intersection ofexisting
sidewalks enabling physically
This is a new project
and streets. The project will develop a network
of accessible
ublic and rivate facilities. This ro-
sidewalks
isabled iito
1positive vingaccessmanbarriershwhichypresently
restrict the mobility of physically
d's
hndivduas
avetheeff ct of rem
ect impaired individuals.within the.community.
the
fund operating monies will fund the design and inspection
of all curb ramps, about 18% of
ortn,9ttee on Commu-
J_.
The general
project,and C08G monies will be used to fund the construction..
Council app forfthee1986 CDBG entitlement.
1
nity Needs recommended this program, and
in
the 1983 Comprehensive Plan Update to ma e
'
This project is consistent with the mmo elation made
City's special P P
'
services accessible to Iowa
J
; FUTURE YEAR BUDGET IMPACTS
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Source of
is
Beginning
Finishing
i Funding'
What will e7 Date
Date
n and construction'87
Before '87
300 OP/NCt
June 11,600 OP/HC `
1
FY87 Ramp design and construction Jan.
Jan. 'BB
145 OP/HC
J
FY88 Ramp design and construction Jan. '89
design and construction
June '89 12,685 OP/HC"'
'90 13,250 OP/HC
FY89 Ramp
FY90 Ramp design and construction Jan. '90
" 91
June
June '91 13,820 OP/HC
FY91 Ramp design and construction Jan.
q
—
After FY91
;73,800
;-1
TOTAL
J
I.
25
--
I
-- --
.o
n
FY87 ALLEY PAVING
REFERENCE Map A Ill (2 locations)
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This is a new project involving the paving of alleys located in Block 9 of Lyon's Second Addition.(between
T I Dodge Street and Johnson Street, south of Bowery Street) and Block 62 of Original Town (between Washington
Street and College Street from Linn Street to Gilbert Street). Other areas may be added as requests are
submitted.- The alley located in Block 9 of Lyon's Second Addition consists of gravel whereby potholes and
dust are an ever -occurring problem. In addition, it is not clear as to ownership of the property; purchas-
ing or quit claiming the right-of-way would clear this up. The alley located in Block 62 of Original Town
is.concrete that has deteriorated and is in need of replacement.
This project can be funded totally by special assessments.
If utilities are to be put underground, it may be necessary to schedule that with this.project. The City
would pay for relocating the utilities and the cost is estimated to be $130,000.
Renters and property owners have requested these paving improvements.
FUTURE YEAR BWOGET IIPACTS
Routlne�maintenance, costs will: be reduced if this project is completed because dust from gravel will be
eliminated.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Beginning finishing Source of
What will be done? Date 'Date f Funding
Before FY87
FY87: Land acquisition, design and
construction
FYBB
FY89
FY90
FY91
After FY91
TOTAL
26
July 186 July 187 64,000 SP
3
i
$64,000
aaeaeae
�' i
3
w•..........ada....:...a....:: . :: ...:.............A...-.....:.........a.............o.vn.v.v.•..v.v.+.
I
j ROCNESTER/FIRST AVENUE SIGNALIZATION
REFERENCE Map A 012
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
�j
!
This is anew project to install a two-phase semi -actuated traffic
control
with over -lane .indications. at
the intersection rof Rochester Avenue and First Avenue. Traffic
conditions do not warrant
signalization':at
this intersection.
General obligation bonds will fund this project.
This project has been requested by City Council.
.01
FUTURE YEAR BUDGET IMPACTS -
The future costs are estimated to be $870.00 for electricity and
$360.00 for
maintenance.,.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Beginning
Finishing
Source of
What will be done? Date
Date
$
Funding
.
Before FY87
FY87 Design and construction October 186
June '87
24,000
.,GO
1
FY88
_J
FY89
FY90 ......
FY91
• After FY91
TOTAL
$24,000
r
tJ
j�
27
4'
Vr:.:�1a..a.a...a......a....a.a....+..:....:...::...............A..................................�....•..a...•.v.v....
SUNSET STREET/BENION STREET SIGNALIZATION
REFERENCE Map A /13
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
T
'Thi s;:is anew project calling for a two-phase semi -actuated traffic control over -lane indications at the
ikersecfion of Sunset Street and Benton Street. Traffic conditions at this intersection meet the warrants
for traffic signalization as defined in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
General obligation bonds will fund this project.
FRURE YEAR BUDGET IMPACTS
The annual future costs are estimated to be $870.00 for electricity and $360.00 .for maintenance.;.
INPLEIEWATION SCHEDULE,.:.
Beginning Finishing Source of
What will be done? Date Date t Funding
Wore 087
FY87
FY88 Design and construction July '87 August 187 24,000 GO,
FY89
FY90 -
FY91 1
lfter FY91
's
TOTAL $24,000
J
28
\4
I
it vvtavv� atai \ a\ v+vi ai a[v aval aavvw'.Wlw•1::: ..........aw.�%w�i i_ li...�a...v..Y.. ....•�.v.'!l.YhWM\�I� n
j. ♦
1v-`
TAFT SPEEDWAY PAVING IMPROVEMENTS
_i
REFERENCE Map A /14
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This project involves the paving of Taft Speedway 28' in width, from Dubuque Street
west to the
cross-
road;between Taft Speedway and Foster Road. Storm sewer facilities will also be installed. Graveled
residential streets within the City limits
are a maintenance problem for the City.and
public.
a nuisance for the.
j
About 90% of this project could be funded by Special Assessment and the rest of
General'Obligation Bonds.
it will come from
I
J
Current residents have requested this project. There will be.development.along Taft.
mean increased traffic.
Speedway that will
FUTURE YEAR BUDGET IMPACTS
The project will reduce annual maintenance costs on this street.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
J
�.
What will be done? Beginning Finishing,
Date Date
Source of
t
Funding
-J
Before FY87
!, FY87
p
FY88 Design July 1987 May 1988 21,000
FY89 Construction June 1988 Nov. 1988
GO/SP
FY90 380,000
GO/SP
FY91
.
After FY91
"
TOTAL .._. ___
DODGE STREET - DUBUQUE ROAD TO GOVERNOR
REFERENCE Map A /15
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Thin protect will involve .the. widening of Dodge Street to four lanes, 49' wide from Dubuque' Road to
Th
iernor Street. ,`This protect is needed since the amount of traffic has increased in that the existing
two lane facility does not handle the traffic adequately.
Urban iState Traffic Engineer Program (USTEP) will fund 55% of the construction for this project; the
costs will be funded by General obligation Bonds.
other 45% of construction and the engineering '
It is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan trafficway design standards.
FUTURE YEAR BUDGET IMPACTS
Normal maintenance costs will be required.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE Source'
"rce°
Beginning Finishing SFu
What will done?. Date Date
s --�—
Before FY87
FY81 1988
FY88. Design and Land Acquisition Aug. 1968 Sept 1988 388,500 GO/SA
FY89 Construction` '
FY90
FY91
After FY91
1549,000
TOTAL =__'
\4
r:
30
_i
\4
t
��ta vaaaa .aava \.♦Hoa'•\vaa
RAILROAD CROSSING AT FIRST AVENUE
REFERENCE Map A /16
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This project will provide railroad crossing improvements over the Heartland Railroad tracks on First
Avenue. This would provide a rubberized crossing. The existing railroad crossing is in poor condition.
State Grade Crossing Surface Repair monies will fund 60% of the construction. The Iowa Railroad Company
uses the line and will fund 20% of the cost of asphalt crossings. The City will fund the remaining
construction costs and the engineering costs with general obligation bonds.
FUTURE.YEAR BUDGET IMPACTS
Maintenance costs will be reduced at crossings and less maintenance will be required to vehicles using
crossings.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Beginning Finishing Source of
What will be done? Date Date f Funding
Before FY87 Design Jan. 1986 June 1986 500 GO
FY87 Construction July 1986 June 1987 89,500 GO/SA/CO
FY88
FY89
FY90
FY91 -
After FY91;,,,,.
TOTAL
190,000
31
1
i
31
1
3
RAILROAD CROSSING - DUBUQUE STREET AND CLINTON STREET
REFERENCE Map A f17
v..........a
n+..w.nw.v...
v.........h.w�..\....w•r.. lr r..v......vr....v...Av..v..v.ra.....n
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
3
RAILROAD CROSSING - DUBUQUE STREET AND CLINTON STREET
REFERENCE Map A f17
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This project will provide
rubberized railroad crossings
over the Heartland
Railrod .tracks on Dubuque
Street and Clinton Street'.
The existing railroad crossings at the aforementioned
locations are in very
poor condition.
f
State Grade Crossing Surface'Repair monies will fund 60%
of the construction.
The Iowa Railroad company
..
uses the line and will fund
20% of the cost of asphalt
crossings. The City will fund the remaining
construction costs and the
engineering costs with general
obligation bonds..
FUTURE YEAR BUDGET IMPACTS
Maintenance costs will be
reduced at crossings and less
maintenance will be
required to vehicles using
crossings. .
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Beginning
Finishing
Source of
What will be
done? Date
Date
f Funding
Before-FY87 Design.
Jan. 1986
1986
June 1986
June 1987
-.-Soo GO
145,500 GO/SA
FY87 Construction
July
p; FY88 '
FY89
FY90
FY91
j
After FY91
TOTAL
(146,000'
I
I
.
32
........ ,,..
EXTRA WIDTH PAVING - FIRST AVENUE AND SANDUSKY DRIVE
iREFERENCE
i
Map A /18 (2 locations)
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
^'
The City.pays the cost of collector
and arterial street paving in excess
of 28 feet in
width. Streets
J
included in the program are Phase IV
of First Avenue from the north line
of First and
Rochester, Part
One, south approximately 240 feet; and Sandusky Drive from Keokuk Street west. to Gilbert
Street.,Traffic
congestion may be a' problem if streets determined as collector or arterial
are not
paved to widths
greater than •281.
Extra -width paving Will be funded by
general obligation bonds.
To comply with design standards, the
City pays for the overwidth pavement.
FUTURE YEAR BUDGET IMPACTS
Maintenance costs will not increase because
of overwidth pavement.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Beginning Finishing
Source of
What will be done?
Date Date
=
Funding
Before FY87
FY87
FY88 Construction
July 1987 June 1988
28,500
GO
FY89
-
FY90
J
FY91
After FY91
i
TOTAL
$28,500
33
EXTRA WIDTH PAVING - FOSTER ROAD
REFERENCE Map A /19
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The City pays the cost of collector and arterial street paving in excess of 28 feet in width. This
T I includes Foster Road from Prairie du Chien west approximately 1800 feet. This area is planned for
future development. Traffic congestion may be a problem if arterial streets are not paved to a width
greater than 28 feet.
Extra width paving will be funded by general obligation bonds.
To comply with design standards, the City pays for the overwidth pavement. ;This project will facilitate
development of the area in Phase II (1988-1993) as projected.in the Comprehensive Plan.
FUTURE YEAR BUDGET IMPACTS
' Maintenance costs will not increase because of overwidth pavement.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Beginning Finishing Source of
What will be done? Date Date i Funding
Before FY81
FY87 Construction - western 700 ft. July 1986 June 1987 4,200 GO
FY88 Construction - eastern 1100 ft. July 1987 June 1988 6,300 GO
FY89
FY90
FY91
After FY91
TOTAL =10,500
34
n
�H lNvvatly .aava\a a.�.t,va .•
WEST SIDE WALKWAY PROJECT
REFERENCE: No specific location yet
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
This project involves the extension of a walkway from Westwinds Drive to the West High School property
line primarily for student access. This walkway will provide a defined walkway for student access to
and from the school and reduce conflict and damage resulting from students cutting across peoples lawns
and in between buildings. The City Council has requested that the School District and the area resi-
dents living along Westwinds Drive determine the most'suitable location for a walkway.
Completion.of the -project is contingent upon the donation of an easement by private property owners and
the construction.of,an adjoining sidewalk on the West Nigh School property by the School District: The -
City will fund the sidewalk construction costs with a transfer from the General Fund.
FUTURE YEAR BUDGET IMPACTS
Normal.'maintenance costs, including snow removal by City Crews,. will be required.
INPLENENTAT-ION'SCHEDULE'
¢1
kI
0
J'
i
Beginning
Finishing
Source of.
What will be done?
Date
Date
i
Funding
Before FY87
FY87
Design and Construction
July 1986
August 1986
2,000
OP
FY86
FY89
FY90
,
FY9Y.
After FY91
TOTAL
12,000
¢i
36
¢1
kI
0
J'
i
I
^tiMHvaataal.aa� 1...........va!vawn
I I
I
J
— GILBERT STREET BRIDGE DECK REPAIR
J
J
REFERENCE Map B 120
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This project involves the repair of the Gilbert street bridge deck (over Ralston Creek) with a dense
concrete overlay, a system used by the State of Iowa in repairing highway bridge decks.. The Gilbert
Street bridge deck surface is deteriorating in that the concrete is spalling, creating many, potholes. If
not funded, the bridge deck will continue to deteriorate, whereby an entirely new bridge deck will be
necessary.
'General obligationbonds will fund this project. The FY86-90 CIP says that this project would qualify
for federal assistance; however, those monies will not be available in FY87.
FUTURE YEAR BUDGET IMPACTS
Present and future maintenance costs will be greatly reduced.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
%4
Beginning
Finishing
Source of
°f
What will be done?
Date
Date
$
Funding
Before FY87
Design
Nov. 1985
May 1986
6,026
GO
FY87
Construction
June 1986
Nov. 1986
63,404
GO
FY88
-
FY89
FY90
FY91
After FY91
i
.-TOTAL
$69,430
a
I
I
37
I
%4
<,.............................. ...... _ A w ....... ...._._.........,, .. w _
DODGE STREET BRIDGE DECK REPAIR
REFERENCE Map B !21
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This project will involve, the.repair of the Dodge Street bridge deck (over the Heartland Railroad) and
approaches with dense concrete, a system used by the State of Iowa in repairing highway bridge decks and
similar:to the Park Road bridge repair. The. Dodge Street bridge deck surface is deteriorating, in that
the concrete is spalling, creating many potholes.
General obligation bonds will fund this project. Due to the condition of the bridge deck, the project
has been moved up a year in the CIP schedule. The FY86-90 CIP says that this project would qualify for
federal assistance; however, those monies will not be available in FY87.
FUTURE YEAR BUDGET IMPACTS
. Future maintenance costs will be greatly reduced. .
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
What will be ddne7 BeginningDate
Before FY87 Design Nov. 1985
FY87 Construction June 1986
FY88
FY89
FY90
FY91
After FY91
TOTAL
38
Finishing Source of
Date _ Funding
May 1986 13,386 GO
Nov. 1986 140,844 GO
$154,230
eoeeeoeee
BURLINGTON STREET BRIDGE AT RALSTON CREEK
REFERENCE Map B 122
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This project will involve the repair of the Burlington Street bridge deck (over Ralston Creek) with
dense concrete, a system used by. the State of Iowa in repairing highway bridge decks. The bridge deck
is deteriorating in that the concrete is spaliing, creating many potholes.
General obligation bonds will fund this -project. Due to the condition of the. bridge deck this. project
has been moved up two years in the CIP schedule. The FY86-90 CIP says this project would qualify for
.,state assistance; however, those monies will not be available in FY87.
FUTURE YEAR BUDGET IMPACTS
Present and future maintenance costs will be greatly reduced.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
What will be done?
Before FY87 -Design-
FY87 Construction
FY88
FY89:.,_, ..
FY90
FY91
After FY91
TOTAL
39
Beginning
Date
Nov. 1985
June 1986
Finishing 'Source of i
Date S Funding
May 1986 3,588 GO
Nov 1986 37,752 GO
$41,340
IIIICC6EIIOC
i
i
1i
I
I
BURLINGTON STREET BRIDGE AT RALSTON CREEK
REFERENCE Map B 122
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This project will involve the repair of the Burlington Street bridge deck (over Ralston Creek) with
dense concrete, a system used by. the State of Iowa in repairing highway bridge decks. The bridge deck
is deteriorating in that the concrete is spaliing, creating many potholes.
General obligation bonds will fund this -project. Due to the condition of the. bridge deck this. project
has been moved up two years in the CIP schedule. The FY86-90 CIP says this project would qualify for
.,state assistance; however, those monies will not be available in FY87.
FUTURE YEAR BUDGET IMPACTS
Present and future maintenance costs will be greatly reduced.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
What will be done?
Before FY87 -Design-
FY87 Construction
FY88
FY89:.,_, ..
FY90
FY91
After FY91
TOTAL
39
Beginning
Date
Nov. 1985
June 1986
Finishing 'Source of i
Date S Funding
May 1986 3,588 GO
Nov 1986 37,752 GO
$41,340
IIIICC6EIIOC
i
•r.aa..........................e,.........,.,,.::::.........,....._.R_.�..,.,......,......_.,,.......:.....•....-..�,.:...
WOOLF AVENUE BRIDGE DECK REPAIR
REFERENCE Map 0 023
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This: is a new project involving the repair of the Woolf Avenue bridge deck (over Highway 61218, and
Cedar Rapids and Iowa City. Railway Co.) with a dense concrete overlay, a system used by the State of
Iowa in repairing highway bridge decks. The Woolf Avenue bridge deck is deteriorating in that that
:concrete is spalling, creating many potholes. If not funded, the bridge deck will continue to deterio-
rate, whereby an entirely new bridge.deck will be'oecessary.'
General obligation bonds will fund this project.' The FY86-90'CIP says this project 'would qualify for
state assistance; however, those monies will not be available in FY88.
FUTURE YEAR BUDGET IMPACTS
Present and future maintenance costs will be greatly reduced.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
40
Source of
f Funding
6,976 GO
73,684 GO
$80,660
ccveavvac
%4
Beginning
Finishing.
What will be done?
- Date
Date
Before FY87
FY87
Design
Sept. 1986
Apr. 1987
FY88
Construction
May 1987
Sept. 1987
FY89
FY90
FY91
After FY91"
TOTAL
40
Source of
f Funding
6,976 GO
73,684 GO
$80,660
ccveavvac
%4
5'
^'Kti�\vvf aa\t a\a\to\wtt .\u{\v\\l aaaatµYA'1 ... w u a.aauM ru......t vu'.'..a .'i.....v. rw I..V.Y.a\-.•�.'.w'�:'
.r.. ��-. .
.. - .. _
i
I J
MELROSE AVENUE BRIDGE DECK REPAIR
REFERENCE: Map 8 124
T
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
'
This is anew project` that involves the design and repair of the bridge
'Hartland
deck located on Melrose Avenue
over—the Railroad tracks.
The repair entails.a dense concrete
overlay, a'system used by the
State,of,Iowa in repairing highway
the
:bridge decks. The surface of this bridge
is deteriorating'* in that,
concrete is spalling, creating
potholes'ind:rusting deck reinforcing
steel.
General,.obligation,bonds will fund
this project.
' FUTURE. YEAR BIIOGET`IMPACTS
Maintenance costs will be reduced with
this improvements.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Beginning Finishing
Source of
What will be done?
Date Date
f Funding
Before FY87
J
FY87 Design
Sept 1986 April 1987
9,024 GO
_,FY88 Construction,._
May 1981 Sept 1987
95,316 GO
FY89
—
FY90._..
J
FY91
After FY91
t
i
TOTAL
41
$104,340
IIIIQCQQCLC
BENTON STREET BRIDGE WIDENING PROJECT
REFERENCE Map B ►25 `
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This project will provide for the design and widening of the Benton street bridge over the Iowa River
from the existing two lane structure to a facility carrying four lanes. This"project will include the _
removal andreplacement of the extensively deteriorated deck which is presently overlayed with asphalt.
This project is necessary .since the amount of traffic has increased such that the existing, two lane
structure cannot adequately accommodate the traffic. _
Designs would be funded by General Obligation Bonds. Construction will be'funded'with $650,000 (maximum•
allowed per project) of Federal Aid Bridge Replacement Program monies, $530,000 of Federal Aid to.Urban
Systems (FAUS) and the remainder funded from General Obligation Bonds. The actual construction will
begin when Burlington St. Bridge reconstruction is complete.
This bridge is located on Benton Street just east of Riverside Drive (Highway 218/6). Both streets are _
arterial streets and are shown as such in the Comprehensive Plan.
FUTURE YEAR BUDGET IMPACTS
Normal maintenancewillbe required.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Beginning Finishing' ` Source of —
What will be done? Date Date t Funding
i
Before FY87 Design 6 Land Acquisition Feb. 1985 May 1986 272,300 GO
FY87 Construction Oct. 1986 Oct. 1987 2,155,000': GO/FA
FY88__.
FY89 —
FY90
FY91
After FY91 `
i
TOTAL $2,427,300
.....case.,
42
j
T
i J
J
IJ
�J
i
t
9
�V�N va It a�!avav\•\`.w �t\vav\avvv!vv.wna..V.V. l.•:avv��mw.��...vw.i�.�..wvr.v..v�. rt ..'. r'.'I'rv.YhVr'.mNr
IMPROVE BRIDGES ON BROOKSIDE DRIVE AND SECOND AVENUE
REFERENCE MAP B /26 (2 locations)
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This is a new project to provide for a study to determine needs and for the subsequent design and renova-
tion/replacement of the Brookside Drive and Second Avenue bridges over Ralston Creek. Through the Biennial
Bridge Rating Program, both bridges, which are similar in design, were found to possess structural defi-
ciencies'and are currently posted for truck weight limits: If these bridges are not renovated, both struc-
tures will continue to deteriorate which will require more restrictive load 'limits' and possibly closing
them.
The Federal Aid Bridge Replacement Program will fund approximately 80%, $195,200, of the construction, the
rest would be funded by general obligation bonds.
FUIINE YEAR BUDGET IMPACTS
Normal maintenance will be continued on these bridges.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Beginning Finishing Source of
What will be done?
Date Date $ Funding
Before FY87
FY87 Design July 186
FY88,.Construction 6 Inspection
FY89 May '87
..
FY90
FY91
After FY91 --
TOTAL
43
March 187 24,000 GO
Nov. 187 256,000 GO/FA 1
}280000
.4
ti
.:.a.a....i....a...:wv...::::.:.:.......+.-J4............w:...-.............�.v.v.aw......+.
BURLINGTON STREET FOOTBRIDGE
REFERENCE Map B /27
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This, projectinvolves installation ofa footbridge over Ralston Creek adjacent to the south side of the 4
existing Burlington Street bridge. This project will provide a route for pedestrians along the south
r side of Burlington Street when crossing Ralston Creek along the same alignment as the approach sidewalk —
thus moving the sidewalk further from the street curb.
,;The project will be financed by General Obligation bonds.
FUTURE YEAR BUDGET IMPACTS
Normal maintenance costs will be required.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE r C
� : I
Beginning Finishing '`'Source of
What will be done? Date Date $ Funding _
`Before-FY87— -
FY87
n:. FY88
FY89
FY90 Design and Construction "Aug, 1989
FY91
After FY91
TOTAL
44
June 1990 43,200 '' GO
$43,200
C6...no..
iII
REFERENCE Map B 028'
• � j
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE OVER HIGHWAY 6
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
;
iThis
is a new project to provide
for
the design and construction of a pedestrian bridge over Highway 6
f,
Bypass. No specific location has
been
decided on yet. Anticipating
an increase in the amount of'pedes-
-trian traffic crossing Highway 6,
this
project will provide
an alternative
to the existing at -grade cross-
_..
j
'ings..
+
-�
General obligation bonds will fund
this
project.
'1
FUTURE YEAR BUDGET•IMPACTS
�J
Additional funds will be necessary
for
snow removal.
INPLEIENIATION SCHEDULE
Beginning
Finishing
Source of
What will be done?
'Date
Date
S Funding I
Before FY87
FY81
FY88
i
r' `FY89
1:;1Y90
j
i. Design
9
July , 89
March 90
40,000 GO
J
FY91 Construction
May 190
Nov. '90
420,000 GO -
After FY91
i
TOTAL
€460 000
i
H
45
GOVERNOR STREET RETAINING WALL
REFERENCE Map 8 129
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This is a new project to build an L-shaped wall that would be attached to the existing wall. The Governor
Street wall west of Block 11 at Oakland Cemetery is slowly deteriorating. In July, 1979, N.N.W. examined
the wall and took core samples. This firm stated that within the next five to fifteen years the.weather
would attack -the entire surface of the wall. The firm offered two solutions - a long run one and a, short
run one. The short run solution was to patch the wall which would improve the appearance. The long run
solution was to build an L-shaped wall in front of it. It is recommended that an L-shaped wail be built
before the existing wall collapses. The L-shaped wall would stand five feet above the ground and extend
four feet below the surface then at the bottom turn 90 degrees towards the street. It;would be constructed
of reinforced concrete and use the existing wall for extra support. It was built around 1904 and the
concrete is so old and poor in quality that it cannot be patched.
Operations would fund this project.
FUTURE YEAR BUDGET IMPACTS
There will be no maintenance costs.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Beginning
What will be done? Date
Before FY87
FY87
FY88 Design 'June 1987
FY89 Construction June 1988
FY90
FY91
After FY91
TOTAL
46
Finishing Source of
Date $ Funding
June 1988 5,500 OP
Oct. 1988 56,500 OP
$62_000
%4
KEOKUK STREET/HIGHWAY 6 BYPASS SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS
k�
TOTAL
$60,000
i
REFERENCE Map B 030
',
47
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
f
J
This is a, new project providing for sidewalk
on both sides of Keokuk Street
from just south of Plum Street
across Highway 6 Bypass to Southgate Avenue.
Traffic signals for a protected walk cycle are included.
This project is needed to provide a'walkway_for
residences in the area'north
Highway 6' Bypass to the
K -Mart' shopping' center.
.
-
i
About 57% of this project can be funded by special assessment and the rest by
general obligation bonds.
FUTURE'YEAR BUDGET IMPACTS
Maintenance and snow removal of sidewalk on Highway 6 Bypass right-of-way:
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE'`
Beginning Finishing
Source"of
What will be done?
Date Date
= Funding .,
Before FY87
FY87
-
FY88 Design and construction
July 1987 June 1988
60,000 GO/SP,..,.
� -7
FY89
. i
1,:. ... ,.FY91
M
-After ;EY91.__..:_ -...
k�
TOTAL
$60,000
-A
',
47
M
.. . .......... ....... .......
7
NORTH DUBUQUE STREET SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
rI
REFERENCE Map B 031
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This,project involves the removal and replacement of the existing .4 fo ot wide sidewalk located on the
west side of Dubuque Street between Kimball Road and Mayflower Apartments. The proposed :width Js 8'.
Duetothe high rate of pedestrian traffic on Dubuque Street, north of Park Road which originates mainly
from the Mayflower.Apartments, the existing 4' wide sidewalk located on the west side of Dubuque Street
,...should Pe replaced with a wider facility...
The University of Iowa will fund the removal of the existing 41 sidewalk and,ithe installation -of the 8
sidewalk and culverts, $19,500. General obligation bonds will be used to fud engineeridg,inspection,
and installation of rip rap and backfill, $33,500., ,
This project is consistent with the trafficway design standards of providing sidewalks Talong. streets.
The area served by the sidewalk is shown for development during Phase I and It of the Comprehensive plan
(1983-93) .
FUTURE YEAR BUDGET IMPACTS
Additional funds will be necessary for snow removal.
IMPLEMENTATION'96EDULE
Beginning Finishing Source of
What wil-I be done? Date Date i Funding
Before FY87
FY87
FY88 Design Jan. 1988 June 1988 3,000 GO
FY89 Construction July 1988 Oct. 1988 50,000 GO/CO
FY90
FY91
After FY91
PPP TOTAL $53,000
IIS
48
., . ... . . . . ... ................. . . . . . . .
'i
CITY PLAZA LIGHT FIXTURE REPLACEMENT
REFERENCE Map C /32
a i :
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This is a new project to replace the light fixtures in the City Plaza with units that.are more economical
to. maintain and more energy efficient. Currently, there are 47 light fixtures in the City Plaza. Each of
them has four mercury lamps. The poles have wood casings that are deteriorating and will need -extensive
j maintenance the summer of 1986. The four arms that support the lamps are made of aluminum and have been
T susceptible to vandalism.
The proposed replacements will be a single high pressure sodium lamp in a smoky bronze blown cube'on square -
steel painted poles. The high pressure sodium lamps will use less electricity and will provide more usable _
light. The steel poles will require less maintenance than the wood casings and will also withstand vandal- '
ism better. This project provides for the purchase and installation of new lights.and poles.
General obligation bonds would fund this project. —
FUTURE YEAR BUDGET IMPACTS,
_ I
In, FY85 ;$12,809 was spent to maintain and .operate theexistingsystem. Sterner.. Lighting Systems, Inc.
estimates
to be es ears. -the proposisystem:to--cost'about ,$5,000 annually, and they project .the system's payback period
y (Sterner ;Lighting,Systems,.Inc. is the -manufacturer of the existing and proposed systems.
This proposed system is. compatible with the hinged base that is imbedded in the brick.)
T
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Beginning Finishing Source of cl
What will be done? Date Date i Funding -
Before FY87 TI
FY87 Replacement of lights July 1986 Nov. 1986 30,145 GO ra
FY88 ..
FY89 ,
FY90 i
FY91 1.
After FY91
i
— i
TOTAL $30,145
oeecaao
50
i
1
a
PARCEL 165-2a (BLACKHAWK MINI -PARK REHABILITATION)
U'
REFERENCE Map C 133
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This project is torepairand upgrade Parcel 165-2a. This site was developed to serve as a temporary.
park 'in'1974:'' It is now in disrepair and is deteriorating. The quality of this site,is no longer
comparable Yn any manner to the 'City Plaza. 'In order to link this site with the Plaza; the area needs
to be landscaped; in addition, water lines and sewer drains will be added. The cost also includes
adding furnishings like those in the City Plaza.
Funding will be available from the sales proceeds of Parcel 64-1b and 65-2b.- The proceeds from the sale i
of these parcels are sitting in CDBG funds.
Plans are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan directive to improve and maintain the downtown. _.
FUTURE YEAR BUDGET IMPACTS
Future maintenance, similar to the City Plaza, will be required. Improvements.wilI provide additional
pedestrian space in the downtown.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
What will be done?
Before FY87 Design
FY87 Construction
FY88
FY89
FY90
FY91 --
After FY91..
TOTAL
51
Beginning Finishing Source,of
Date Date $ Funding
Nov. 1985 Apr. 1986 10,000 ' HC
May 1986 Aug. 1987 135,400 HC
$145,400
vvvvveevv
3
I
a
PARCEL 165-2a (BLACKHAWK MINI -PARK REHABILITATION)
U'
REFERENCE Map C 133
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This project is torepairand upgrade Parcel 165-2a. This site was developed to serve as a temporary.
park 'in'1974:'' It is now in disrepair and is deteriorating. The quality of this site,is no longer
comparable Yn any manner to the 'City Plaza. 'In order to link this site with the Plaza; the area needs
to be landscaped; in addition, water lines and sewer drains will be added. The cost also includes
adding furnishings like those in the City Plaza.
Funding will be available from the sales proceeds of Parcel 64-1b and 65-2b.- The proceeds from the sale i
of these parcels are sitting in CDBG funds.
Plans are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan directive to improve and maintain the downtown. _.
FUTURE YEAR BUDGET IMPACTS
Future maintenance, similar to the City Plaza, will be required. Improvements.wilI provide additional
pedestrian space in the downtown.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
What will be done?
Before FY87 Design
FY87 Construction
FY88
FY89
FY90
FY91 --
After FY91..
TOTAL
51
Beginning Finishing Source,of
Date Date $ Funding
Nov. 1985 Apr. 1986 10,000 ' HC
May 1986 Aug. 1987 135,400 HC
$145,400
vvvvveevv
3
i
t
•�h.a.t\tA Naaa va: vaaa\aa`.a<4a\ravav414a-ar.JMv.V: J: .-a': �a-.'.a a4arrwn.�.�..nJiJJ. /.w.•. .vi.vJ.... wrvY..Y.v.aWtiva n
RALSTON CREEK PROPERTY ACQUISITION AND CLEARANCE
REFERENCE Map C /34 '
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This `project involves the acquisition and clearance of a property at 11 S. 'Johnson 'Street, adjacent to
Ralston Creek. This would permit the City to repair a retaining wall, restabilize the bank, and remove
,,,a.seriouily dilapidated house:
This project was not high enough on the CCN's priority list to be included in their 1986 entitlement. It
;,will be; reviewed again for their .1987 entitlement.
These improvements are consistent with the Ralston Creek Watershed ManagementPlan.
FUTURE YEAR'BUD6ET'IMPACTS"
This project will require periodic lot mowing and maintenance by Public Works.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Beginning Finishing Source of
What will be done? Date Date -- f `" Funding
Before'FY87
FY87
FY88,_Land Acquisitlon,,Demolition
FY89.
FY90
FY91
After FY91
TOTAL
52
July 1987 Sept. 1987 46,030 NC
$46,030
y
7
J
RENOVATION OF CITY PARK TENNIS COURTS
REFERENCE Map C #35
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This is a new project to resurface the present 'tennis courts with asphalt. The base needs a three' inch
overlay,, approximately 4.000 square yards of asphalt material. The finish requires one coat of, asphalt
iemulsion and twocoats color red and dree6'sanded. *The present courts have deteriorated. and have,depres-
.
sions that hold water. The standing water will expedite deterioration and also create •a, hardship for
tennis players playing on the uneven surface and removing water prior to play.
Funding for this. project would come 'from operations.
Firwk VEAR'BUDGEY' IMPACTS
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Beginning
Finishing
'Source of:
What will be done?
'Date
Date
$
Funding
Before FY87
FY87
FY88 ConWuction
August 1987
;August 1987
46 520 .,
OP, r
FY89
FY90
FY91
After--FY91
TOTAL
$46,520
53
%4
U
ti
^WN'N vaaattl.wwt \wtlw<tr1 tc�wtt!aaw'•wiN_ :_::: �w :www�.�ww�w.,+.G..�.v�.iir �.�.rY..w .wY. r. _.Y.wNN.Yh•�.rr+t.r•
NAPOLEON PARK RESTROONS
REFERENCE Map C 036
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This project was presented to Council in the FY84-88 CIP. It involves construction of a permanent restroom
facility in Napoleon Park. It will be constructed by participants of the Iowa Youth Conservation Corps,
ages 15-18. Presently, Napoleon Park has no permanent restroom. Portable restrooms instead are'trans-
ported to the park. -._A permanent facility, would;enhancethe appeal of the park to the softball 'players,
soccer players, gardeners and others who. use the site. Water would also be,available`to Napoleon Park by
extending water lines to the facility.
City Council approved the Committee on Community Needs' recommendation to fund the materials needed for
this project with $26,860 CDBG monies. The Iowa Youth Conservation Corps would provide $25,000' for the
labor of their participants. The Water Department and the Parks Division will install the water lines.
The 1978 Comprehensive Plan endorses the development of riverfront parks. Napoleon Park is adjacent to the
east bank of the Iowa River.
The environmental advantage.,of a permanent restroom facility connected to a septic system is the more
desirable_ method of disposal and treatment of waste materials than the portable,restrooms.
FUTURE YEAR BIOM IMPACTS
Periodic maintenance and repair, of the facility is anticipated. However, the need to rent and maintain
portable restrooms would no longer exist.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
What will be done?
Before FY87
FY87 Construction
FY88
FY89
FY90
FY91
After FY91
TOTAL
Beginning Finishing Source of.
Date Date i Funding
June '86 July 186 51,860 HC/SA
54
$51,860
GGGCLLII
I
E
I
. . . . . . . . . . .
DEVELOPMENT OF RYERSON'S WOODS
REFERENCE Map C 037
I
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
'This is anew project to provide, access, parking and trails for Ryerson's Woods.
valuable - This forested park' is a
1.1. a natural resource for the community. It is important to allow the public access in the proper
manner. -Also, we must assure that this park is protected and preserve
d for future generations.,
Operating monies would fund this project; City crews would do the work.
°FUTURi YEAR BUOUT IMPACTS'
Maintenance costs will be added.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
W Beginning Finishing Source of
hat' wi I I be done? -Date Date
Before FY87
FY87
FY88
FY89
FY90
FY91
After FY91
E
I
I
'i4vaaaaa!aaaa \a'PA..Naa.\a. '.... a aawa�...M..wrrrr..
NORTH MARKET PARK PLAY AREA
REFERENCE Map C i38
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This is,a new project to install the necessary equipment to establish a wheelchair, sports course and other
barrier -free. play equipment. There are no existing parks with playground equipment specifically designed
for handicapped persons.,, This park is located near three homes for developmentally disabled individuals
and Horace Mann School which has a program for handicapped children. This project will add more equipment
for the purpose of developing a playground specifically designed for handicapped individuals.
The Committee on Community Needs recommended $6,000 of this project with COBG monies and Council approved
it. The rest would be funded by donations from Horace Mann Parent Teacher Organization.
This project is consistent with the 1983 Comprehensive Plan recommendation to provide facilities for the
City's special populations. _
The,park,.consists of approximately .1-1/2 acres with Horace Mann School Playground equipment and a softball
field occupying one quadrant. .The additional. equipment and wheelchair course will -,take up one-quarter of
the'remaining'park area.
FUTURE YEAR BUDGET IMPACTS
p
The playground will require upkeep'I' m the Parks and Recreation Department.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
-What will be done?
Before FY87 Purchase and install equipment
FY87 Purchase and install equipment
FY88
FY89
FY90
FY91
After FY91
TOTAL
56
Beginning
. Date
June 1985
June 1986
Finishing
Date
Oct. 1985
Sept.1986
source of
f Funding
4,595 HC/CO
6,000 HC/CO
$10,595
EEECEEE
%4
REFERENCE Map C /39 TERRELL MILL PARK IMPROVEMENTS
�
1
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This is a new project to install Oouble Benches with sunshade shelters on the riverbank at Terrell Mill i
Park. This will provide additional opportunity for residents on the near north side of the Iowa River to
enjoy the scenic vistas of the river and to provide overflow capacity for City Park.
The Committee on Community Needs recommended and Council approved the use of COBG monies forpurchasing th
fixtures and the Parks Division will install them. e
.,This.project is consistent with the Riverfront Commission goals outlined in the Iowa City Parks and Recrea-
fion Plan, 1981-1985, including: To make the most of the scenic potential and aesthetic values of the Iowa
River and to develop the recreational capacity of the river and floodplain.
,;FUTURE.VEAR BUDGET'IMPACTS
No annual maintenance costs are anticipated.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Beginning Finishing Source of
What will be done? Date Date f Funding
Before FY87
FY87 Purchase and install equipment June 186
FY88
FY89
FY90
FY91
After FY91
TOTAL
57
August 186 1i200NC " I
$1,200
� I
�I
i
.J
a
I
1
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This is a new project to install Oouble Benches with sunshade shelters on the riverbank at Terrell Mill i
Park. This will provide additional opportunity for residents on the near north side of the Iowa River to
enjoy the scenic vistas of the river and to provide overflow capacity for City Park.
The Committee on Community Needs recommended and Council approved the use of COBG monies forpurchasing th
fixtures and the Parks Division will install them. e
.,This.project is consistent with the Riverfront Commission goals outlined in the Iowa City Parks and Recrea-
fion Plan, 1981-1985, including: To make the most of the scenic potential and aesthetic values of the Iowa
River and to develop the recreational capacity of the river and floodplain.
,;FUTURE.VEAR BUDGET'IMPACTS
No annual maintenance costs are anticipated.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Beginning Finishing Source of
What will be done? Date Date f Funding
Before FY87
FY87 Purchase and install equipment June 186
FY88
FY89
FY90
FY91
After FY91
TOTAL
57
August 186 1i200NC " I
$1,200
n
3
TOTAL $2,520,000
a ccccccccc
58
w ,
BUS FLEET EXPANSION/REPLACEMENT
-
I
REFERENCE Map C /40
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
—
This project provides for the acquisition or remanufacture of transit coaches to replace worn-out
.equipment
.equipment and to expand the fleet. The, City's bus fleet currently includes 29 buses; 14 of these are
_
now 12 or more years old. Growing demand for transit service has meant that
more buses are needed at
peak periods - additional vehicles should be acquired for this purpose.
—
Funding for buses -is projected at 75X, Federal Transit Assistance, 25% from local
monies. This project
is contingent upon receiving: the federal monies.
;!
Currently, City policy encourages the use of mass transit particularly
for ...trips to the down-
town/University area. Only through a planned vehicle replacement program can
we continue 'providing
quality service.
-
FUTURE YEAR BUDGET IMPACTS
:
As,our present coaches get ,older, they are. becoming more and more expensive to
maintainn.. Replacingg them
will reduce maintenance costs for each bus. 'However, buses added to the fleet will increase our total
operating costs.
IMPLEMENTATION SCNEOULE
Beginning Finishing
Source of
What will be done? Date Date
f Funding
Before FY87
_
FY87
FY88 Purchase 6 buses July 1987 Aug. 1988
960,000 FA/OP
—
FY89._Remanufacture 6 buses July 1988 Oct. 1988
420.000 FA/OP
FY90 ;,Replace 2 buses July 1989 May 1990
'440,000 FA/OP
FY91 Replace 2 buses July 1990 May 1991
350,000 FA/OP
After FY91 Replace 2 buses July 1991 May 1992
350,000 FA/OP
TOTAL $2,520,000
a ccccccccc
58
J
ti
... .......... .......
ANIMAL CONTROL FACILITY REMODELING
REFERENCE Map C 041
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This is a new project remodel the existing Animal Control facility and to I ad I d on a garage. The
remodeling' -involves creating a, new reception area, a private office, a locker room With � showers*
enlarg'rgns� from e to -12. The existing inthe 'cat room, expanding the dog room and constructing -new,kennels , and increasing the number
of'dog
garage will be incorporated into the remodeling, so a new garage
u
Will'belbuilt.
General I Obligation . bonds would I finance this project. The bond issue will r I equire. voter approval. This
facility is.also used for lost and, stray, pets from the county; perhaps an agreement fora joint facility
'.,-,...,could be airin4ed"
FUTURE YEAR BUDGET IMPACTS
Maintenance* of. the building will be,simplied but will cost about the same.
-,.
IMPLEMENTATION
SCHEDULE
, - : t ! , T
Beginning
Date
Finishing
source of
Funding
What will be done?
--La_te
Before FY87
FY87
FY88
Design and 'construction
July 1987
June 1988 99,500
GO
FY89
FY90
FY91
After FY91
TOTAL
$,99,500
..... M..=
59
I
3
�A taa'a la.a{...alta... a a a..... avuvNi.V !!: a ......
CIVIC.v..v......•.I.v v..vti.4�.Ya`.'
CIVIC CENTER EXPANSION
REFERENCE Map C !42
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The iSpace• Needs Committee is working on plans to expand the Civic Center. It includes .substantial el
expansion of. the Fire. Department, the Police. Department and other.office space. ,The', expansion will
allowlbetter_storage of the fire,trucks, training space for the police officers and firefighters, and !'
offices for City departments that are currently renting facilities. The project also intends to remodel
the current Civic Center. The remodeling and expansion will make the City offices totally accessible to
'the handicapped.
Certificates of participation will be used to fund the project. The costs provide minimal'pbrchases for
office furnishings.
FUTURE YEAR BUDGET IMPACTS
A substantial increase in office space will raise the maintenance and operating costs of the Civic
Center. Expenses for the rental of offices will be zero.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Beginning Finishing , Source of
What will be done? Date Date f Funding
Before FY87
FY87
FY88 Design Oct. 1987
FY89 Construction May 1988
FY90
FY91
After FY92
NOTAL
60
Apr. 1988 228,750, CP
July 1989 3,021,250, CP
$3,250,000
0
CEMETERY BUILDING ADDITION
REFERENCE Map C 043
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This is an add it ion. to. the, existing shop and work area, 576 square feet (16'X36') , that will provide
more work and storage. space. Cemetery equipment must be kept inside during the, winter and in inclement
.:.weather. -.:;When the equipment is,,inside, there is little room to do maintenance on the equipment'.,
61
I
This project provides for contracting, block
laying and roofing; all the
rest of the
work will be done
by, crews. - The materialSrwill be purchased from the General Fund.
,City
FqTYREjEAR BUDGET. IMPACTS
An increase in heating and lighting costs can
be expected.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Beginning .,Tinishing
:Source,of
What will be done?
Date Date
$
Funding
Before FY87
FY88 Construction A inspection
July 1987 Nov. 1987
11,000
OP
FY90
FY91
if ter FY991
TOTAL
f 11,000
1
61
I
i
L. .........,•., H::::,:_...... . x _.,,..... ...._...
BENTON STREET CULVERT REPLACEMENT
REFERENCE Map C 144
f .
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This project 'involves the removal and replacement of the concrete box culvert under Benton Street at
the'drainageway located just west of Orchard Street along with' the purchase of the property located at
228 WestBenton,' which is located adjacent to -and in the drainage channel' The culvert under Benton
Street is collapsing and a northerly extension of the culvert constructed of concrete block is adjacent
to the concrete block basement wall of the property located at 228 West Benton Street r' Water enters the
basement during wet weather conditions. If not funded, the culvert will continue to 'deteriorate''and may
collapse causing major traffic problems.
The design and construction will be funded by General Obligation bonds. COBG monies will'purchase'the
house. It was not high enough on CCN's priority list to be included in their 1986 entitlement; it will
be reviewed again for their 1987 entitlement:'
FUTURE YEAR BUDGET IMPACTS
!This project will reduce future maintenance costs.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
;What will be'done?
Before FY87
FYB7 Design 8 Land Acquisition
FYB8 Construction
FY89,
FY90
FY91
After FY91
TOTAL
Beginning
Finishing
Source of
Date
Date
"i"'' `
' Funding
Jan 1987
May 1987
83,500 .
HC/GO
June 1987
Dec.19B7
99,000
GO '
62
$182,500
�'N V vaav\�ra\l. uMtr1 r:i rval,.tarni.�.v.v::: "a �. v uwaaavMw.�.6..».a:.::�.avaa. .aw .v.....v:.Nµvnv.rvr•.•.�+'
NORTH CORRIDOR SEWER
REFERENCE Map C 145
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
T
This project' involves the extension of a 24" trunk sewer from the intersection of Dubuque Street and
Taft Speedway northeast approximately 1,800 lineal feet. Portions of the existing trunk sewer between
" Prairie du Chien Road and Dubuque Street are undersized to handle future flows. This project will, allow
for future development of land between Prairie du Chien Road and Dubuque Street north of the future
i
Foster Road extension.
General Obligation Bonds will finance this project; they will be abated by sewer revenue.
This trunk line is shown in the Sanitary Sewer System Facility Plan as a future improvement and the
Comprehensive Plan shows the to be
area served by this sewer in Phase II development. Construction in
Phase I, 1988, will support Phase II development.
FUTURE YEAR BUDGET IMPACTS
^!
No extra maintenance costs will be necessary other than periodic cleaning of pipes.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
S
''Beginning Finishing Source of
iWhat
will be done? Date Date f Funding
Before FY87
FY87
FY88 -Design- Aug. 1987 Jan. 1988 8,000 GO
FY89 Construction July 1988 Dec. 1988 115,000 GO
FY90
FY91
After FY91
TOTAL $123,000
I
J
63
M
Y
. l a s..•.... w. a....
PARK ROAD STORM SEWER
REFERENCE Map C /46
.i
i
i
� ;
..r
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
{
a
This is a new project. The Engineering Division is studying
the problem
of water and
mud washing onto
property below Park,Road afterflowing down the ravine through Skaugstad's
property. The
storm sewer inlet
.:.:located on. Park Road concentrates storm
water flow into a ravine
that terminates on residential
property
f
located at the end of the ravine. .The
soil carried, with the
water then
deposits in the back yards of
residences..,
—
General obligation bonds would fund this
project.
FUTURE YEAR BUDGET IMPACTS
The additional storm sewer would require
normal maintenance.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Be9Daten9.
Finishing
ce of
What will -,be done? .,
f
SFundi
nding
Before FY87
FY87
FY88 Design
July 1987
June 1988
4,000
GO
FY89 Construction
July 1988
Oct 1988
107.000
GO
FY90
FY91
After 'FY91
TOTAL
£111,000
i
Nz
64
.i
i
i
� ;
..r
I
f
{
a
J !
L.
_1
1
, ivaa.aaal.ova\..�.....\....v. .........ate«++Awe..X....�rv.�.....v.....v....M.X.v.ay.�.w.•.�'�'
ORCHARD STREET AND DOUGLASS STREET STORM SEWER
REFERENCE Map C /47
�J
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
65
This project involves the replacement
of an open concrete
channel drainageway with a reinforced concrete
box culvert under Douglass Street at
Orchard Street..and
extending near the north property line of the
�I
property addressed 212 Douglass Street. This project will provide adequate drainage for the property
north of Douglass Street, stop the channel from freezing,
and prevent flooding of property in the, area.
I
General Obligation bonds will finance the design and -purchase of easements; CDBG monies will finance
J
construction, $141,500.
FUTURE YEAR BUDGET IMPACTS
Thisro ect will decrease the City's
P j Y'
maintenance co
costs.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Beginning
Finishing Source of,.
What will be done?
Date .,
Date i
Before FY87
FY87
FY88 Design Inspection
May 1988 20,500 GO/HC
i
Cand onstruction
89
FY89
88
June 1988
Dec.1988 151,500 GO/HC
FY90
FY91
After FY9l
TOTAL
$172,000
� aaaavaaaa
I
65
C1P PENDING LIST
PROJECT
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
This project includes construction of the new wastewater
treatment facility, completion of the SE interceptor sewer,
the outfall relief system, and certain system rehabilitation.
This improvement is needed to construct a wastewater treat-
ment facility which will meet Federal and State regulations
governing discharge of wastewater. This project is specifi-
cally recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. There will be
"increased maintenance costs in operating the'proposed larger
wastewater treatment facility and a minimal cost in main-
taining the trunk sewers. Wastewater discharge from the Iowa
City wastewater treatment facility will conform to Federal
and State regulations regarding discharge of effluent.
EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE
The existing plant is working with some very worn mechanical
equipm6nt';in a deteriorating structure. Decisions'that are
made'concerning_the _Waste Water Treatment Facility will
determine the extent to which the existing plant needs to
be upgraded.
POOL COMPLEX
The Iowa City community is short on swimming pool space. The
school system and the City are considering a joint facility.
The Parks and Recreation Commission recommends that the City
not contribute more than $2.5 million for a joint facility'.
A voter referendum is scheduled for the summer of 1986 for
this project
RIDGE ROAD AND DUBUQUE STREET INTERSECTION
This project is needed to improve the right turn movement from
Ridge Road onto Dubuque Street. Currently, traffic proceeding
south on Ridge Road, then turning north onto Dubuque Street must
use both lanes of Dubuque Street. City engineers will develop
some alternatives to alleviating the problem.
66
ESTIMATED
PROJECTED COST
• I
The costs for this project —
are very unpredictable at
this time.
i
i
i
i
i
f
$ 530,000 —
- j
Costs to be determined. _
i
PROJECT
AIRPORT MASTER PLAN II
Additional land acquisition and aerial easements improvements
to runways and taxiways. To be done after AIRPORT MASTER
PLAN I if FAA funding will be approved.
RIVER CORRIDOR BUFFER AND TRAIL SYSTEM
The project establishes a continuous pedestrian and bicycle
trail along the Iowa River including 100 foot vegetative buffer
where possible. The proposed trail system provides an energy-
conservingmeans of connecting existing parks, historic sites,
and areas of residential,.cemmercial, cultural and recreation
interests. The system relates directly to the Comprehensive
Plan's goal - to protect and enhance the environmental quality
of the City and its environs, and to wisely use and conserve energy.
The buffer and trail system will require maintenance and periodic
repair - mowing and brush trimming along the trail will be necessary.
Protection and enhancement to surface -water quality provided by a
vegetative buffer will alleviate extensive runoff and erosion from
urban land uses.
IOWA AVENUE RESTORATION
ESTIMATED
PROJECTED COST
$2,790,238
351,585,
This project provides for the rehabilitation of Iowa Avenue from Costs to be determined by
Gilbert Street to Clinton Street. It includes construction of a study.
landscaped median in these three blocks which would result in
the elimination of the parking in the middle of the street. The
demand for parking spaces in this area necessitates that alterna-
tive parking be provided before the parking in the middle of the
street can be eliminated.
SOFTBALL AND SOCCER FIELDS
Upon purchase of either the site for a new Wastewater Treatment $ 153,700
Plant or land near the Johnson County Care Facility, this provides
for development of that site for quality playing fields. Included
in the costs are soccer goals, fencing, lighting, benches, bleachers,
Jparking facilities, grading and design.
67
0
E
f
v�.......:....!...+.ew..v::::o-:......,...........R-...............................,..�...vn....wn..+.
PROJECT
NEW BRIDGE CONNECTING GOVERNOR STREET AND KEOKUK STREET
This project will involve the connection of Governor Street,
which ends at the Heartland Railroad tracks, with Keokuk Street
primarily at Kirkwood Avenue. This project includes the con-
struction of a new bridge over the railroad tracks as well as
complete right-of-way purchase for two blocks. This project
will enable the existing one-way couplet on Governor and Dodge
streets to be extended from Bowery Street to Kirkwood Avenue.
By providing another railroad crossing, this project also will
lessen
ithe
connunt of trtraffic traversing the Summit Street bridge
which
68
ESTIMATED
PROJECTED COST
$1,663,000