HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-03-11 Info Packet of 2/28•�t.:ii+au ac.0..a.a. v..vr.. va: ay.A«..:-,.......: _:r..........�...«_.JL—...w.........:...........::..n...............
. City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 28, 1986
TO: City Council
FROM: Acting City Manager
RE: Material in Friday's Packet
Informal agendas and meeting schedule.
Memoranda from the Acting City Manager:
a. Interim Assistant City Manager
b. Tree Removal - North Dubuque Street
c. Duplicator and Department Copier Replacement
Memorandum from the City Attorney regarding city participation in Park -and -
Shop Program.
Memorandum from the Acting Finance Director and the Parking Supervisor
regarding Park and Shop.
Memorandum from the Senior Planner regarding former U.S. Highway 218.
Minutes of the February 20 meeting of the Swimming Pool Committee.
Letter from the League of Women Voters regarding a welcome for the Council
and public before the regular Council meeting of March 11.
Recommendation from the School District regarding walkways in the West High,
area.
Letter from the Housing Commission Chairperson to the Coordinator of the
Shared Housing Program.
Calendar for March 1986.
Diagram of proposed Scott Blvd. alignment from Bob Wolf
Letter from Mayor Ambrisco to the Airport Commission requesting a
joint meeting of the two bodies for March 24th.
Legal opinion from the City Attorney re proposal for City Subsidizing
of the Park and Shop. �{
nk'
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 28, 1986
TO: City Council
FROM: Acting City Manager
RE: Informal Agendas and Meeting Schedule
March 4, 1986 Tuesday
6:30 - 8:30 P.M. Council Chambers
i 6:30 P.M. - South Riverside Drive - Street Name
7:00 P.M. - Park and Shop Program
7:15 P.M. West High School Area Walkway(s)
7:30 P.M. - Scott.Boulevard - Court Street to Rochester Avenue
8:00 P.M. - Council time, Council committee reports
March 10, 1986 Monday
Informal City Council Meeting CANCELLED
March 11, 1986 Tuesday
6:30 - 7:00 P.M. Special Informal Council Meeting - Council Chambers
6:30 P.M. - Review zoning matters
6:45 P.M. - Consider appointments to the Civil Service Commission,
Historic Preservation Commission, Housing Commission,
Planning and Zoning Commission, Resources Conservation
Commission, Board of Trustees for Police and Fire
Retirement, and Committee an Community Needs
7:00 P.M. - League of Women Voters' Welcome for City Council ano Public -
Civic Center Lobby
7:30 P.M. - Regular Council Meeting - Council Chambers
March 18, 1986 Tuesdav
6:30 - 8:30 P.M. Council Chambers
Informal Council Meeting - Agenda Pending
PENDING LIST
Proposed Environmental Regulations - March 18
Leasing of Airport Land for Commercial Use
City Administrative Procedures
Sidewalk Cafes
Newspaper Vending Machines
Stormwater Management Ordinance Review
Hutchinson/Bayard Access Request
Economic Development Revolving Loan Fund
Mesquakie Park Development
470
i
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 27, 1986
To: City Council and Department Heads
From: Dale Melling, Acting City Manager
Re: Interim Assistant City Manager /
I am appointing Rosemary Vitosh, Director of Finance, to serve as Interim
Assistant City Manager effective March 3, 1986. This appointment will be for
the duration of -my service in the. capacity of Acting. City Manager. During
that time, Ms. Vitosh will serve as Acting City Manager in.my absence.
1
bj4/4 1
64. .
'� taAvaavavl.va a\a .lvvaal
I
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 26, 1986
To: City Council
From: Dale Nelling, Acting City Manager.
Re: Tree Removal - North Dubuque Street
All tree removal which has occurred in the North Dubuque Street area .
recently has beendone by Iowa -Illinois Gas 8 Electric. " Tree removal'
which will be necessary for construction of the street improvements_ will.
be done as part of the overall construction project. Therefore, no fur-
ther tree removal is scheduled to occur until the contract has been let by
the City.
In order to use FAUS funding for this project, the funds must be released
prior to contracting for construction. Therefore, we will be assured that
the necessary funds are available before any tree removal occurs.
If you have other questions regarding this matter, please let me know.
tp2/12
I
City of Iowa city
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 28, 1986
TO: City Council
FROM: Dale Helling, Acting City Manager
RE: Duplicator and Department Copier Replacement
The Purchasing Division is working on replacement of the Print
Shop duplicator and three photocopiers. The duplicator in the
Print Shop is fiveyear old, is being used passed capacity and
can no longer keep up 'with the demand. It is advisable for
replacement now because the trade-in value is good and also to
avoid downtime in the Print Shop which could necessitate using
outside printing. Outside printing costs are double what the
internal printing costs are.
Copier replacement in three departments is necessary because
these machines are also aged and can no longer handle the high
use. The copiers that are now in those departments will be
shifted to lover usage areas.
The machine purchases should be in March and will be paid by
the Central Services Fund. The list price is approximately
$100,000 but through discounts and trade-ins the net purchase
cost will be around $80,000. The Central Services Fund is a
self-supporting. fund and has sufficient monies on hand.
A budget amendment is to follow in May if this purchase is
acceptable.
1173
3
,�Naatat Uta aala
I
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 28, 1986
To: Mayor and City Council From: Terrence L. Timmins, City AttorneyJewxln -4-
Re: City Participation in Park -and -Shop Program
Since Monday's discussion of the Park -and -Shop program by the City Council
and DTA representatives, I have given some thought to the proposal put
forth by the DTA and would caution that it might be challenged by parties
- parkers and merchants - who would not benefit from it. While I believe:
that the. DTA proposal for increased .City financial participation in
Park -and -Shop could be defended as being in furtherance a legitimate
government end, that being to encourage shopping in the downtown and thus
the continued economic viability of the downtown, there may be those who i
do not agree that that is a legitimate end of government.
Some discussion of the issue should thus be had by the Council, if for no
other reason than to make a record of the City's rationale for increased
participation, should the Council agree to the DTA proposa4
bdw5/6
bf
1
L,
•ta:...a.a..t.............. ...
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 28, 1986
TO: City Council
FROM: Kevin O'Malley, Acting Finance Director A%Tll a�ffl,.,
Joe Fowler, Parking Supervisor � — '7r
RE: Park & Shop '
February 24, 1986, the Iowa City City Council was approached by
merchants representing the Downtown Association of Iowa City.
At this time it was requested by the merchants that they receive
a reduction in the cost of parking in the City of Iowa -City's
parking ramps for parking paid for thru the Park & Shop Program.
During the discussion that followed, downtown merchant employee
abuse of the program became a major topic. Council indicated
they favored the discount forshopperparking but not for employees.
The Downtown Association is proposing that they.receive a discount
on Park &-Shop coupons which do not have three or more stampsfrom
the same store. Any ticket stamped three or more times by the
same store will be paid for at the standard hourly rate of 400.
This system would require additional. -billing time by staff but
could be accommodated. This program% -twill provide a discount for
the shopper's tickets and ensure full payment for employee parking.
After the February 1st parking rate increase several of the largest.
users of. the Park & Shop program have dropped participation. The
Downtown Association should assure Council that they will actively
pursue increased participation in the program. The Park & Shop
program should also be actively advertised by participants to
increase public awareness of the program.
i
I�
I
T /'S
.!
,�AvlvA va(atvS aaa a\a a.a at ..v .v vv'r�avvwnav n..: a.. a v
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 28, 1986
To: City Council of Iowa City
From: Karin Franklin, Senior Planner
Re: Former U.S. Highway 218 / r
With the recent opening of new U.S. Highway 218 south of I-80, former Highway
218 south of Highways 6 and 1 within Iowa City became an unmarked primary.
Technically, properties fronting on former 218 have no official address.
Interest was, expressed by some property owners
Highway 218. in the renaming of former
In response, the staff sent a letter to each property owner having access to
former Highway 218 and South Riverside Drive requesting input concerning
21 s
8be�renaminof those
staff
renamedSouth Riverside r Drive, oecontinue uthesname tfrom "north Hofhthe
Highway 6/218 intersection and .the local road, currently called South River-
side Drive, be renamed Mesquakie Drive. Over 20 letters were received in
addition to phone calls, mostly opposing any changes in street names. Resi-
dents accessing South Riverside Drive/"old" Highway 218 frequently cited the
cost and inconvenience a road name change would cause by having to renotify
friends, family, credit card companies, banks to change checks, etc. Busi-
nesses
envelopes, invoices and other busincited the cost to ess eformstiandrthe business
confusionathis
would cause for their customers.
If the Council elects not to change the names of the streets to those sug-
gested above, the City may request that the Iowa Department of Transportation
place a sign indicating that "old" Highway 218 is now designated Iowa 923•
addresses would be changed on "old" Highway 218 only accordingly.
Before proceeding further with this issue, Council direction is requested
concerning the possible renaming of either street. For the time being, the
Post Office will continue to deliver mail to addresses that already exist
along both sections of road until a name change occurs.
bj4/19 ,
4L74
��i vlvat a[v�avvatv�aa v[a-.a..v:va.(va.a�wn.av n.: _'��:: +'�'.a a•
CONFERENCE MEMORANODM
DATE: February 20, 1986
PROJECT: Joint Swimming Pool
Iowa City, IA
NM File N2.86A
PRESENT: Planning Comittee:
Mike Cilek
Darrel G. Courtney
Randy Jordison, Co -Chair
Diana Lundell
Mike Moran
Mary Neuhauser, Co -Chair
Dee.Yanderhoef
Craig N. Willis
City of Iowa City:
Dale Helling
Neumann Monson, P.C., architects
Kevin Monson
Ken Wictor
MOTES BY: Kevin Monson
1. Mary reported that the City Council concurred with the recommendation to
close Mercer Park Pool.
2. Ken reviewed the meeting held with, Mike, Terry, and Rick on Tuesday to
discuss pool configurations. It was determined that the 50 meter, 6 lane
pool with a slightly larger shallow "ell", best meets the City's require-
ments.
3. The design concept was reviewed to have the pool oriented with the long
dimension to the south where there would be located a solarium, contain-
ing a therapeutic pool and deck space for lounging. This space would
also serve as a vestibule to the exterior decks in the summer.
4. The use of sloping translucent roof panels over the shallow "ell" space
could be used to provide a light and inviting space thereby reducing the
closed -in feeling of an indoor pool.
S. It was recommended by the Architect that a therapeutic pool and an out-
door wading pool be included to provide greater use of the pool facility
by all age groups from infants to the elderly.
6. The therapeutic pool would be designed in such a manner that it could be
closed -off from the main pool for those times when it would not be used.
7. The degree of separation of the locker rooms for the public and the
school s use was discussed. If separate locker rooms are required this
would have a substantial effect on the cost. Randy will review.with the
school and report back to the Architects prior to the meeting next week
if possible.
8. The feeling of openness of the entire facility is a quality the committee
wishes to achieve.
9. 357 spectators could be seated in bleachers along the 25 meter course.
This was felt to be adequate for high school meets but additional seating
would be needed for state or national competitions. Providing greater
Page 1
X77
VT
lU. The new facility should be referred to as the: Joint Swimming Pool.
11. The depth of the water at the main pool area will be 4'4" at the shallow
end to 5'-0" at the diving tank end. The diving tank will be 12'-0" to
12'-6" deep at the main drain.
12. Water ballet and water polo would have to be done in the diving tank area
to have enough depth of water. Randy will review with the school the
adequacy of the size of that space.
13. Mike pointed out that vending machines would provide income without cost-
ing the City staffing time. It was decided to have vending machines in
lieu of a staffed concessions stand.
14. The committee voted to accept the configuration of the pool as follows:
50 meter (usable), 6 lanes with shallow 'ell'.
15. The committee decided that the justification for an 8 lane facility had
notbeen adequately met at this time.
16. The potential costs of the facility were reviewed. Based only on rough
square foot estimates the cost break out as follows:
Pool $1,680,000
Locker rooms, lobby, storage, all support spaces $ 910,000
Site development $ 300,000
Equipment $ 300,000
Fees and expenses $ 210 000
TOTAL
11. A list of the advantages and disadvantages of a free standing facility
vs. a facility attached to Southeast Junior High School was presented by
the Architect. A copy of which is enclosed:
18. After discussion of the site possibilities it was decided that.the fac-
ility should be free standing at a location to be determined within the
park and school property boundary line area.
19. An open public meeting to encourage citizen input for the design of the
pool to be held on March 6 at 4:30 p.m. was tentatively established.
This memorandum is submitted for your review. It is intended that the data
contained herein be considered a factual reference and provide a basis for de-
sign. If you have any questions, additions or changes, please contact this
office.
NEUMANN MUNSON ARCHITECTS Distribution: 10 copies - Dale Helling
226 South Clinton Street Ken Hictor
Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Roy Neumann
Kevin Monson
Jack Kiefer
NMA File
Page 2
Z177
E
IOWA CITY, IOWA, JOINT SWIMMING POOL
February 20, 1986
Pros and Cons of Free Standing Swimming Pool
PROS
I. Existing parking lot can be utilized
- less additional parking required
2. Greater design options available
3. Expansion possibilities are improved
4. Less disruptive of school play fields
CONS
1. Greater travel distance for student
access to facility
2. Use of existing school boiler would
not be economically feasible
3. Use of existing school locker rooms for
students going to pool would not hp
.4
,�VIKNiKaGst.�:. a. vt....:.a:v.r�iw.�.,wAv�,�r>........�....+-,-R....^..................w.........w.v..: n•...w...-.
!4
League of Women Voters of Johnson County
P.O. Box 2251, Iowa City, Iowa 52244
1 ,,_ �
5
L'
CITY CLERK
' February 21,1986
-
IotaCity City Council
Mayor William J..Ambr:sco
410. E.- Washington -
Iowa City, Ia.
To the Iowa City City Council:
Thank you for agreeing to get together with League members and the
general public at 7:OO p.m. on March eleventh prior to your regular
meeting. Please feel free to announce the event and to invite anyone
you.like.
The LWV promotes informed citizen participation in all levels of
government For this purpose we have scheduled "Food for Thought"
receptions prior.to various local government meetings this year. We
plan to bring refreshments as well.as questions, and we look forward to
a 'pleasant informal discussion follaoed by an informative meeting on
March eleventh.
Sincerely yours,
Naomi. Novick, President.
i
i
Susan Horowitz, Observer Chair
NN/SH/ie
i
i
r
ACC, iIC,.__
IOWA CITY COMMUNITY
SCHOOL DISTRICT
David I. Cronin
Superintendent
February 7, 1986
;925
509 S. Dubuque Simi
Iowa 01y. Iowa 52240
(3191338-3685
Members, City Council
Iowa City Civic Center
410 E Washington
Iowa City, IA 52240
Dear Council ttember:
As per your request, school district personnel, representatives of the West
High Student. Council and property owners met on Wednesday, February 5, 1986
to discuss a suitable location for a walkway between -West High School and
Westwinds Drive. (Attached is a listing of those in attendance.)
After considerable discussion it was agreed that two easements and sidewalks
would be the most desirable solution. It is recommended that one sidewalk be
located immediately north and adjacent to the Trait Ridge Condominiums (see
attached ;map) and one be located immediately north and adjacent to the Cedar
Point Condominiums (see attached map).
If only one easement can be obtained and only one sidewalk constructed, the
preferred location would be north of the Trail Ridge Condominiums. The
school district supports the obtaining of the easement(s) and the
construction of the sidewalk(s). However, the school district will not bind
itself to construct a walkway on school district property from the City
constructed sidewalk to the building because of the terrain of the site and .
existing athletic fields.
The school district and property owners hope you will act favorably upon this
request.,
Sincerely,
Jerald L. Palmer
Executive Director of
Administrative Services
X79
.4
i
�CvtNtataauRrurablFaar4aiou<aMwnvv".,•raravvrarary.nrJa�.R.r..uvrri��•rw..w rr.w.. �i..•Irnv.awvv. nn
i
Gene Fisher
Keystone Property Management Co.
521 Kirkwood Avenue ;1
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Sabin and Barbara Colton
633 Westwinds Drive
Iowa City, IA 52240
Judy Kelley
629 Westwinds Drive
Iowa. City, Iona 52240
Gary Milavetz
677 Westwinds Drive
Iowa City,.IA 52240
Karl Kattchee (West Student Senate President)
924 14th Avenue
Coralville, IA 52241
Carol Wunsicker —
904 Denbigh Drive
Iowa City, IA 52240
Iowa City Coomonity School District:
Jerry. Palmer
Craig Gjerde'
Jerry Arganbright
City of Iowa City:
Barry Beagle
WEST HIGH SCHOOL
A
D
WESTWINC)S
❑oo
0
4
4
MARK IV
Dbe"rfs Rt
ED
M�X�itA (((ttti..t♦ \..grit.........l
CITY
OF -IOWA.
CITY
CIVIC CENTER
410 E. WASHNGTON ST.
-IOWA CITY, IOWA 5240
(319)356-500D
February 24, 1986
Ms. Diana Miller
., Coordinator.
.Shared HousingProgram
28 South Linn Street
Iowa City IA 52240
Dear Ms. Miller:
0n behalf of the Iowa City Housing Commission I would liketocommend.
you on -the exemplary work you are performing as coordinator ofthe Shared
Housing Progrsm.'. As you know, the Shared Housing Program has been a top
concern of the Housing Commission and we have been vary pleased with the
success shown in the first year of operation. Your attention to detail
.and plans for program expansion indicate an increasing benefit to the elderly
of the community.
The Housing Commission is pleased to offer continued endorsement of this
well -executed program.
Sincerely,
Fred C. Krause
Chairperson -
Iowa City Housing Commission
✓cc: City Council
■
,4Alala4�\\a.
r
B
s
m
T
w
TH
F
s
Al
5
6
7
SAM -Magistrate
Court (Chambers)
LOAM -Staff Meeting
(Conf Room)
8AM-Magistrate
Court (Chambers)
•
8AM-5PM - HLM wirh
staff (Conf Rm)
-
7PM-Informal
7:30PM-Formal P&Z
(Chambers)
7:30PM-Informal
Council (Chambers
7:30PM-Riverfront
P&Z (Sr. Center)
Corm (Pub Library
9
10
//8:30AM-Housing
IZ 10 Stafp Mtg
/K
i5
BAH -Magistrate
Appeals Board
Conf Room)
8AM-Magistrate
Court (Chambers)
/Public Library)
9AM-Housin
3 M -Se for Center
Co3mm
Court (Chambers)
Comm.
LBnyiaron
(SgenCiorOCtr)
4Ad�ust
4ppl-
?Chambers)
anlic
d Hoc Commit ee
Rec
7PM-Pa ks & Rao
Comm % Center)
'
7:30PM-Resources
Center,a
6.30PM-Informa>
6ouncil
ec
7PM-Air[tort Copm
(Transit Facility
Conservation
(Ch era
7:30)M -Council
7:30 -His oric
Comm (Pub Library
(Chambers)
r se at on Cortin
I6 -
111
l8
/9
2 o
2I
2 z
8AM-Maggistrate
Court (Chambers)
8AM-Broadband
Telecom &n catiion
Comm
10AM-Staff Mtg
(Conf Room)
4PH-Design Review
SAM -Magistrate
Court (Chambers)
.
C to ers )
7.30PM-Informal
3:30PM-Committee
Com (Pub Library)
P&Z (Senior Ctr)
on Community Need
(Rec Center, B)
7.Ch3 PM-For�a1 P&Z
tamberel
7PM-Informal
Council (Chambers
23
;kF
26
A7
Af
�Y
SAM -Ma istrgte
Court (Chambers)
10AM-Staff Mtg
(Conf Room)
SAM -Magistrate
Court (Chambers)
7:30PH-Council
(Chambers)
4PM-Library Board
Library)
7.30PM-Informal
(Public
P&Z (Senior Ctr)
30
31
BCMrii
eutChambrs)
7PM-HuTan Rights
Comm `Senior Ctr)
NEI
.Ti2yorMa � I
vP�
�....... .............
of
PRECEDING
DOCUMENT
V
• Six-%rn.< �
1 3-31-J-1-
.MvaCtvu�vt tt\v'i r`tv \\a[\_vt \v+nw.vn.v:.•. 1a1
CITY OF IOWA CITY
CIVIC CEN(ER 410 E. WASHVGTON ST. IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 (319)356-500D
March 3, 1986
Joseph A. Tiffany, Chairman
Airport Commission
1606 Morningside Drive
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Dear Mr. Tiffany:
As a result of recent discussions with our City Attorney, Mr. Terry
Timmins, I am requesting that the Airport Commission join the City
Council in a joint meeting to discuss the upcoming phase of the airport
expansion project, and the ultimate ramifications that implementation of
the Airport Master Plan has for our community. I, like other members of
the City Council and some of our citizens, are concerned about the
ultimate cost of the project, and whether or not the benefits to the
City warrant the expenditures now contemplated. Furthermore, based on
my conversation with the City Attorney, it is apparent that the ultimate
cost of implementing the Master Plan may exceed current projections,
depending on whether or not the City is required to acquire property
interests in the approach zone to the various runways, particularly
Runway 624. In this context, I feel that it would be particularly
appropriate to discuss both the Ranshaw lawsuit, and the lawsuit which
the City has recently initiated against Mr. Hagen.
Consequently, upon the advice of City Attorney, our joint meeting will
be held in closed session so that we can discuss both the pending liti-
gation involving the airport and future property acquisition around the
airport. I have scheduled this joint meeting to occur on Monday, March
24, 1986, during the City Council's informal session. If the Commission
has any problem or conflict in meeting at that time, I would ask you to
notify Acting City Manager Dale Melling as soon as possible so that an
alternate date can be arranged.
Sincerely yours,
William J. Ambr sco
Mayor
bdw5/3
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: March 4, 1986
To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Terrence L. Timmins, City Attorney
Re: Proposal for City Subsidization of the Park 'n Shop Program -Legal
Ramifications
Introduction:
In reflecting on the proposal recently outlined for the City to subsidize
the Park 'n Shop Program at the downtown ramps, it initially appeared to
me that there may be a legal problem with the concept. Although I have
conducted research on the subject, I have not been able to come up with
any case law that is entirely on point. However, based on the research I
have conducted, it is my conclusion that a legitimate rationale may exist
to justify and support the proposal, and that it could be upheld on that
basis. In this memo, I will first outline my concerns with the proposal.
I will then review what relevant case law I have found, and its bearing on
the issues presented in our situation.
Discussion:
Generally speaking, when the City engages in any enterprise activity, such
as the provision of parking services, transit services, sewer and water
utility service, it must make that service available to the public on a
fair and equal basis. In setting rates and in charging fees for the
provision of such services, the City must treat similarly situated indi-
viduals in a fair and equal manner. When a municipality establishes a
rate structure, for instance, for the provision of sewer and water serv-
ices, it must do so without discriminating. against particular individuals
or classes of individuals. Generally, the body of case law regarding
public utility rate making applies to municipal rate making. In the field
of public utility rate making, it is recognized that the utility may
charge a different rateas between residential and commercial/industrial
users. However, in those instances the public utility has the burden of
demonstrating that there is a rational basis for the discrimination, and
that it supports a legitimate interest. In that context, public utilities
have argued that it is rational to provide a given unit of service at a
lower rate to high volume users, such as commercial/industrial user, since
their cost of providing that service to the high volume user is marginally
less than it is than providing that same unit of service to a low volume
user, such as a homeowner. This rationale has generally been upheld.
In the context of a municipal parking ramp, much the same thing takes
place when the City sells a monthly parking permit for less than what the
per hour fee would be for use during that same period of time. Again, the
City can argue that there is a marginal savings to the City in the case of
monthly parking permit because there is less expense involved in admini-
stering a monthly parking permit than there is in collecting fees from
7��
hourly parkers. So the fact that one user pays less for a given unit of
"service" does not necessarily mean that the City is impermissably dis-
criminating between users.
The Downtown Association recently proposed, in response to the parking
rate increase, that the City increase its participation in the Park 'n
Shop Program which has been in effect for a number of years. In order to
flesh out the potential problem with that proposal, it will be necessary
for me to review with you how the Park 'n Shop Program has worked in the
past. Essentially, if a parker in one of the ramps did business with a
participating merchant, and purchased the requisite dollar value of goods,
that merchant applied a stamp to the Parker's ticket. Each stamp applied
to the ticket entitled that parker to an hour's worth of parking "credit."
Thus, if a parker who had been in the ramp two hours presented a ticket
with one stamp on it, the parker was only charged for the second hour.
Under the former rate structure, the first hour's parking was 35 cents,
and the second hour and succeeding hours were at 30 cents per hour. Under
our hypothetical, the parker would have owed a parking fee of 65 cents.
However, because the ticket had one stamp on it, the first hour fee - 35
cents - was not be charged to the parker, and he would have been allowed
to leave the ramp upon payment of 30 cents. The 35 cent charge for the
first hour was then charged back to the merchant who stamped the ticket.
Under that system, it was the merchant who subsidized the parker. The City
realized the entire value of epar ment services rendered - 30 cents from
the parker and 35 cents from the merchant who stamped the Parker's ticket.
When the hotel opened in the fall of 1984, it was pointed out that this
system was inequitable to certain merchant participants in that when two
merchants stamped the same ticket, one was charged 351 and the other 30t.
Also, it was recognized that some parkers obtained two or more stamps, but
stayed less than an hour in the ramp, in which case the City realized more
parking revenue than it was really entitled to. In order to adjust these
inequities from a bookkeeping perspective, the City agreed to charge back
only 301 to merchants on the first hour of parking, instead of the full
first hour rate of 351. Thus, a merchant who stamped a parking ticket was
charged only 301, no matter how many other merchants, if any, stamped the
ticket. This is the procedure that was in effect until the new rates
recently went into effect.
Under the new rate structure, the parking fee is a flat 401 per hour. The
OTA has proposed that each stamp applied to a parking ticket continue to
entitle the parker to an hour's free parking, but that the merchant who
stamped the card be charged back only 30d for each stamp appl ied to a
ticket. Thus, instead of, losing only a nickel on the first hour of park-
ing by Park 'n Shop parkers, the City would lose a dime on every hour
parked. Also, this can no longer be seen as a bookkeeping adjustment, in
that the flat rate eliminates any inequities between merchants who stamp
for the first hour of parking, and those who stamp for the second and
succeeding hours. The proposal to increase City participation now has to
be viewed as a City subsidy for the Park 'n Shop Program. The question
presented is whether or not such a subsidy constitutes impermissible
discrimination against non -participating parkers and merchants or whether
it is rationally directed at achieving a legitimate governmental end.
In researching the matter, I found only one case on point and it did not
involve a subsidy indentical to the one now being contemplated in Iowa
City. In Jarvill vs. Eugene, 289 Ore 157, 613 P.2d 1, the city initiated
free arking in its down own, the rationale being that that would encour-
age own own shopping and thus the revitalization of the downtown central
business district area. The court in that case upheld the measure, saying
that it served a legitimate governmental purpose. Count Board of
Arlin Pon Count v. Richards, 434 U.S. 5, 98 S. Ct. 24, involved an or fi-
nance ro i i ing on-s ree parking in residential areas except to resi-
dents thereof, to persons doing business with the residents and to some
visitors, ail of whom were eligible to receive free parking permits.
Citing permissible social and environmental objectives, the court upheld
the ordinance saying it did not deny equal protection to non-residents.
In our circumstances, an effort by the City to encourage shopping in the
downtown and utilization of the parking ramps by shoppers would probably
be viewed as a legitimate end of government, particularly in light of the
City's massive investment in its downtown and its continuing efforts to
make its downtown an economically viable regional shopping facility.
Indeed, the City's continued financial and economic health depend on the
viability of its downtown commercial base. Not only that, but the City's
inebtednesutilizationsofnits them by kinpersonsps can shoppinglinbtheaid off if dow town. there Thusithe
ismaximum
of the City's efforts to retire those bonds and the continued eco-
nomic vitality of downtown merchants could be seen as mutually dependent.
If one accepts the legitimacy of the governmental end which the City's
subsidization of the Park 'n Shop Program seeks to achieve, the only
remaining issue is whether or not the means chosen to achieve that end is
itself rationally directed at achieving that end. In Jarvill vs. Eugene,
the city determined that free parking for all parkers in i s own own
would serve that end. Some of those parkers would have been shoppers and
other would not. In that case, the means chosen was probably
overinclusive, but was nonetheless upheld.
In our situation, Iowa City would be utilizing a much narrower means to
achieve the same end. The subsidy proposed would only go to shoppers, and
then only to shoppers spending a certain minimum amount at a— r�ici atin
stores. Other shoppers who nonetheless spen m� oneyinn the own own, u
ei her not enough or not with participating merchants, would not receive
the subsidy. The question presented is whether the proposed subsidy would
be so underinclusive as not to be rationally directed at achieving the
desire en .
In my view, the proposed City subsidy of the Park 'n Shop Program would
probably be upheld, even though it is somewhat underinclusive. It is
clear that Iowa City cannot afford a free parking program such as that
reviewed in the Jarvill case. Furthermore, our program must rely to a
great extent on m—er—cERT participation, both for financial reasons and for
purposes of differentiating shoppers from non -shoppers. Finally a key
consideration is that while all shoppers may not receive the subsidy, the
program and its benefits are available to all downtown shoppers and all
downtown merchants alike on a fair and equal basis. As such, even though
the proposed subsidy would not benefit all downtown merchants and shop-
pers, it would be available to all and would benefit substantial numbers
of them.
7�T
'itiia<aaaS.aa.a aa`.aaaa\. <i.aata...�..w...�vrrra +• a...a.......�.Jt.�.........�...n.......n ..v...........v..v..v..+n..
Under constitutional equal protection analysis, the classification of
persons to whom the proposed subsidy would apply (shoppers spending in
excess of $10 at participating downtown merchants) would probably be
upheld by a reviewing court, despite the under inclusiveness problem.
"Under that test the classification must be sustained unless it is
patently arbitrary and bears no rational relationship to a legitimate
governmental interest. Id. It does not deny equal protection simply
because in practice it results in some inequality; practical problems of
government permit rough accommodations; and the classification will be
upheld if any state of facts reasonably can be conceived to justify it.,,
Lunday vs. Vo elmann, 213 N.W.2d 904, 907.
/sp
errence imm ns, y orney