Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-09-09 Info Packeti City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE: September 5, 1986 TO: City Council FROM; City Manager RE: Material in Friday's Packet Memorandum from the City Project Management Committee. Manager regarding Swimming Pool Projects/Staff Memorandum from the City Manager and Director of Finance regarding budget amendment request/Fire Department. /Sod Memorandum from the City Manager regarding annual meeting of City Council with the chairpersons of boards and commissions. /say Copy of letter from Mayor Ambrisco to Iowa Department of Transportation regarding speed limit on Highway 6 Bypass. /So5 Memorandum from the Department of Finance regarding parking ramp monthly permits. /sob Memorandum from the Police Chief regarding alley enforcement downtown. /so q Memoranda from the Department of Planning and Program Development: a. Environmental Regulations b. Fringe Area Policy Agreement - Update c. Subordination Agreement for 918 Iowa Avenue S.a d. Plaza Mini -Park Renovation /5'/o e. News Release - 1987 Community Development Block Grant Program Memorandum from the Transit Manager regarding purchase of transit coaches. /6/3 Memorandum from JCCOG Transportation Planner regarding proposed UMTA- funded project for Iowa City Transit. Copy of letter from County Auditor regarding cost comparisons between the Iowa City special election /b'YS and the remaining costs of the June 3, 1986, election, COPY of suitinvitation Ehlers visit to e at theLeague of IowaMunicipalitAssociates, their itali ies1986 ntioninDosMoinesp/ty Convention i L Memorandum from the City Mgr, regarding an overview of the financial operating position of the City's Transit System. /Siff I City of Iowa city MEMORANDUM Date: September 4, 1986 To: Assistant City Manager Director of Parks b Recreation Recreation Superintendent Assistant Director of Finance From: City Manager Re: Swimming Pool Projects/Staff Projectnagement Committee I have become more familiar with the swimming pool projects in recent weeks and it is my desire to develop a mechanism for providing staff assistance to the Director of Parks and Recreation in his exercise of the management of these projects. Therefore, I am creating a staff project management commit- tee for that purpose. The Director of Parks d Recreation will serve as the Chair of this Committee and will call meetings as he sees fit. The Committee will be free to utilize the expertise of other staff members, citizens, and representatives of the architect. Committee responsibilities will be primarily in the following areas: 1. Interpretation and/or implementation of provisions of contracts with the architect and general contractors for each project. 2. Monitor progress of each project to assure it is conducted consistent with terms and conditions of all relevant agreements. I envision the Committee operating with sufficient authority to resolve the vast majority of issues which may arise in conjunction with the two projects. It will be the responsibility of the Committee Chair to ensure that the City Manager's office remains fully informed of all Committee activities. The Director of Parks b Recreation will contact you in the future to arrange for an initial meeting of the Committee. bj2/7 cc: City Council /502 R1 W -rFromm _� City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: September 4, 1986 To: City Council k From: Stephen J. Atkins, City Manager Rosemary Vitosh, Director of Finance o_c�_ Re: Budget Amendment Request - Fire Department QJv�y'� The FY87 Operbting Budget did not include any budget amount for capital equipment for the Fire Department. As discussed with the Council during the budget review sessions, this was done intentionally in order to allow the new Fire Chief to assess department needs prior to establishing a budget amount for the department's capital outlay. Since the new Fire Chief would not be hired until after theFY87 Budget was prepared, we did plan to amend the Fire Department's budget during FY87 for necessary capital outlay purchases once the needs were determined. iFire Chief Larry Donner has reviewed the department's needs and the attached memo summarizes the request for capital equipment purchases, in the amount of $44,810. Funding for these purchases would be from the fund balance of the General Fund. It is my intent to proceed with these acquisitions unless directed to do otherwise. Your formal approval would occur later in the fiscal year, at the time of the budget amendment process. cc: Fire Chief bj3/19 /So3 T City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE: August 21, 1986 TO: Stephen J. Atkins, City Manager �j� FROM: Larry D. Donner, Fire Chief �J RE: Supplemental Budget Request for FY -1987 During the FY -1987 budget adoption process the fire department did not receive a capital allocation. It ie my understanding locking the new that this decision was made by Council to avoid fire chief into to old fire chief's budget. After six months on the job, I have had a chance to analyze the fire department's needs and have assembled the following reques funds. The items listed are t for additional basic priorities. •BASIC PRIORITY LIST -Self Contained Breathing Apparatus -Protective Clothing (Nomex $18,540.00 Hoods) -Fire Rose (Large Diameter) 900.00 -Fire Rose (Attack Lines) 12,000.00 -Nozzles 600.00 -Resuscitatore 1,200.00 -Portable Airway Suction Unite 2,400.00 -Medical Kit Boxes 1,200.00 -Carbon Monoxide Detector 420.00 -Rope 750.00 -Auto Extrication Equipment 1,876.00 -Kedrick Extrication Devices 3,500.00 -Extrication Boards 700.00 -Camera 300.00 425.00 $44,810.00 Iowa City's firefighting equipment is old and in many oases unre- liable. For example, many of the self contained breathing unite in service are over thirty years old. The manufacture has told us that they will not stand behind these older unite because of their age and because of defects inherent in these older models. The Fire Department's ability to perform adequately Is in serious Jeopardy because of the deteriorating condition of the basic tools listed. There is an increased liability to the City because of the poor condition of the equipment necessary to safe- guard the lives and health of our firefighters and citizens. I G03 Mi The above list will not totally correct the equipment deficien- cies within the Fire Department. It is only a stopgap measure to prevent the further degradation of the Fire Department's ability to protect the community during various emergency conditions. The City will need to spend in the neighborhood of {60,000 to $75,000 per year, excluding rolling stock, to bring departmental equipment up to an acceptable level. It is only a matter of time before the department experiences a catastrophic equipment fail- ure resulting from the age and condition of the equipment in use. Routine capital replacement has been postponed as long as practi- cal. The situation has reached a critical level adversely impacting our ability to deliver a first class level service to the community. I' A OV w: AL /So 3 T City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE: August 25, 1986 TO: City Council/Chairpersons of Boards and Commissions FRCMN: City Manager RE: Annual Meeting Please mark your calendar to reserve October 30 for the annual meeting and dinner of the City Council and the chairpersons of all boards and commissions. This will be held at the Highlander Inn beginning at 3:30 P.M. Another reminder of this meeting will be sent to you early in October. I -f I CITY of CIVIC CENTER q1OIOVVA E WASHINGTON ST. IOWA CIN, IOWA 52240 (319) 356-5CM September 2, 1986 t Mr, Robert Heneley District Engineer 1 Iowa Department of Transportation 430 16th Avenue S,H, Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52404 I. Dear Mr, Heneley: I U,S, Highway 6 passes through northwest, In the southern g our io COmmur c from the southeast to the hourHi hwa 6 Bypass. The speed in our community it has been called , yin recent years there has been as been and 1s now 45 miles per south of the Highway 6 Bypass a great deal of new develo reached that it no longer ap The level of development has development Intersections are now signalized onto serve as a b been at relativel new intersections Of the y close spacing. I am requesting your consideration of U.S. Highway 6 to determine if the i study o the speed limit along appropriate. The area of concernisfrom per hour speed limit t still Highway 1 East to the east Iowa city cityrlimits, intersection with Iowa Your attention to this matter and your Iappreciated, timely response will be greatly ' Sincerely, Mayor ✓ ~rim v cc: Richard Kautz, Resident Maintenance Engineer (P.O. Box 427, Iowa city) city Council City Manager bj4/4 /So5' City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: August 29, 1986 To: City Manager and City Council From: Rosemary Vitosh, Director of Finance (1-11� Joe Fowler, Parking Systems Supervisorj__ Re: Parking Ramp Monthly Permits Normally the City sells 180 monthly parking permits for the Dubuque Street Parking Ramp. During the ramp's expansion and construction 95 of those permit users were moved from the ramp to the municipal lot (the surface lot north of the parking ramp). Now that construction is completed, we should be able to again accommodate 180 permits in the ramp and sell an additional 95 permits for the lot. Currently there are 26 names on the waiting list for ramp permits and 21 on the waiting list for lot permits (Chauncey Swan, Recreation Center, Civic Center lots). In the past, the total waiting list for permits typically exceeded 100 names. Following the increase in parking rates in February 1986, many permit holders did not renew their permits and many on the waiting list declined the offer to purchase a permit. It is antici- pated that cold weather will increase permit sales and although we don't know if an additional 95 permits could be sold, we believe that over time a substantial number will be sold. We therefore propose to sell a total of 275 monthly permits for ramp/municipal lot parking. 180 parkers would be assigned to the ramp and 95 to the municipal lot. Permit holders would be given the choice of the ramp or the lot if permit space was available in both. Since the municipal lot is planned for development in the future, the additional 95 permits would need to be sold on the basis that the City could, with 30 days notice, eliminate permit parking. The permits elimi- nated would be the last 95 permits sold for either the ramp or the munici- pal lot, based on initial purchase date. We do maintain records on the initial date of purchase for each permit holder. Individuals on the waiting list are contacted when a permit becomes avail- able. It has been our policy that should an individual contacted not want to buy a permit at that time, that we will agree to leave the name on the waiting list although we do move it to the bottom of the list. Now that the list is shorter, we are finding that we are calling the same Individ- ual frequently and in some cases that individual continues to turn down an available permit but still requests to be left an the waiting list. Be- cause it is a waste of staff time to frequently contact an individual who is not currently interested in buying a permit, we will change our policy 1SoG C -I z on this matter. In the future, if an individual turns down a permit two times in a row, we will not allow their name to be put on the waiting list for a six month period. Your approval of these two recommendations is needed. First, an additional 95 permits are proposed to be sold for the ramp/municipal lot. However, those permits would be eliminated in the future when the municipal lot is closed for development. Second, the recommended change in procedure which emit states that after an individual has turned down the list grain forparsix twice, that individual will not be put on the waiting 9 month period. The next renewal date for parking permits is October 1, 196. eriod able toeimplementttheseorecomoendationsebywthework on tht rnealpend of Septembeand r•like to be tp5/8 /SDt I City of Iowa city MEMORANDUM DATE: September 4, 1986 TO: City Council FROM: Harvey D. Miller, Police Chief4Q11 RE: Alley Enforcement: Downtown Officers have been instructed to check the east/west alley in the 100 and 200 blocks between College and Washington Streets five or more times per shift and to respond as promptly as possible -to requests for enforcement. The main problem in the daytime hours appears to be the off- loading of trucks delivering merchandise to retail outlets. The situation is difficult to control; deliveries occur at any hour and are thus unpredictable; and, quite simply the alley provides the only method of delivery for larger items. Night blockages are generally autos of those frequenting the uptown bars or nts and pizzaparlors. dTheservehiclesearewoftenned yticketedthe t--- but with little impact, except griping, upon those that park there. There are times when the Department receives complaints of alley Parking that a response is -delayed because officers are tied up with other emergency or routine traffic. This is unavoidable. Some requests for polices services are of much higher priority than parking violations. 156#7 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE: September 5, 1986 TO: City Council FROM: Karin Franklin, Senior Planner QE0 Environmental Regulations The attached documents were. first sent to the Council in March, 1986. They include the recommendations of the Urban Environment Ad Hoc Committee for grading and erosion control plans and site development review to protect environmentally sensitive areas. An outline of possible ranges of applica- bility of future environmental regulations is also included. The question before the Council at this time is to what extent the Council wishes any future environmental regulations 'to be used. That is, does the Council wish to apply environmental regulations to all construction and movement of earth over a given amount, or does the Council wish to limit the applica- bility of the regulations to a given size of development? The Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended that any future environmental regulations relating to grading and erosion control or site development review for natural feature be applied only to subdivisions, large scale developments, and planned development housing plans. /Soft 7/9/85 RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL CONCERNING LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES On April 9, 1985, the City Council of Iowa City adopted the policy recommen- dations of the Urban Environment Ad Hoc Comnittee for the preservation and protection of Iowa City's urban environment. These policies address several important elements integral to the character of Iowa City which need to be protected and preserved. Among these elements of concern are environmentally sensitive areas which are defined as follows: Environmentally sensitive areas are geographical areas containing natural, ecologic, archeological or aesthetic resources or features which are of value to the public and the destruction of which might result in the permanent or long-term loss of important public in economic suchresouds aseiandslides or flooding, and such as mature )in the long term degradationss, in rof the environment. Examples of such environmentally sensitive areas include, but are not limited to, uncommon or unique geologic formations, natural stream corridors including floodpiains, fioodways and greenbelts of the Iowa River and associated creeks, natural starmwater•detention areas, bottom land and upland woods, steep slopes, areas of high recreational value for bird watching and observation of flowers and other plants and animals, and areas containing a high concentration of ecologic and aesthetic features. The Urban Environment Ad Hoc Committee recommends that the City council of Iowa City consider the following means of implementation for the preservation and protection of environmentally sensitive areas. The Committee is recom- mending general concepts it wishes to see included in future regulations; it is not setting forth specific ordinances to be considered. I. Reoulatinn of land Disturbing Activities Goal The goal of regulating land disturbing activities is to insure develop- ment that is sensitive to the underlying topography and to control excess erosion, hazardous rock and soil slippage, sediment production, and drainage and water management problems associated with grading and removal of vegetative cover. Objectives Objectives of *such regulations are to address and minimize the effects of the following: 1. Development affecting the stability of steep slopes. 2. Severe alterations (excavation or fill) to the natural topography. 3. Clearance of vegetation or destruction of vegetation by means other than clearance. 4. Alterations to the natural/existing drainaaeways. /$08 I I 5, The creation of erosion and runoff onto adjacent and/or downstream properties. 6. The effect of land disturbing activities in ravines, The Committee suggests the following definitions: 1. Grading shall mean excavation or fill or any combination thereof and shall include the conditions resulting from any excavation or fill, 2. Land d csu is in activity shall mean any disturbance to land in excess °T yards wmcn may result in limited to, tilling, removal Of vegetative including, but not sail, and grading, except that the term 9tative cover, stockpiling of disturbing activities,shall not include minor land 3. Minor land disturbin activities shall mean any disturbance to land not exceeding cub c yards ncludin gardening, landscaping and normal regi but not limited to, home lanes. Pair of private drives and I 4, Ravine shall mean a long, dee slopes of at least 50 feet but notigreaterin ethan t500 feetacailic� paid Of Much have a slope of 15 percent or greater. 5, Steed slooe shall mean a slope an ' peva rtent or greater, Y part of which contains a ' grade of Recommendations The Urban Environment Ad Hoc Committee recommends that the following be included in the implementation of regulations addressing land disturbing activities: 1. All land disturbing activities shall be subject to the approval of a I grading plan and/or permit. 2. Ali land disturbing activities shall be subject to the approval of an i erosion control plan, 3. All land disturbing activity on slopes of 15 percent dr greater shall require the submission of detailed grading and erosion control pians I certified by a professional, registered soil engineer, or equiva- lent. i 4, For steeper slopes, e.g. 25 percent or greater, additional require- ments be adopted, such as percenta natural state. ge of land to he left in its I I ' fQQ8 rA 3 Exemot ions The Committee recommends that the following be exempted from these regu- lations: 1. The construction of individual single-family dwelling units except on steep slopes (15 percent or greater) shall be exempt frau grading plan/permit requirements but shall be required to file erosion •control plans. 2. Minor land disturbing activities as defined, including hone garden- ing, landscaping, patio construction, etc. 3. Minor land leveling associated with normal agricultural activities which does not require grading below the top soil, or land disturbing activities for the construction of access roads to support agricul- tural production. 4. Cemetery graves, sanitary landfill sites (subject to other regula- tions), emergency grading and other similar activities. Prohibitions Any land disturbing activity shall be prohibited in the lower portion of a ravine. to preserve and protect its natural water carrying capacity. PS -409 W I 7/9/85 RECOMMEIIOATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL COIICEP.11I11G SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS In order to implement the policy recomnenda�ions of the Urban Environment Ad Hoc Committee which were adopted by the City Council of Iowa City on April 9, 1985, the Committee recommends that the Council consider the site development Plan process as a means to preserve and enhance Iowa City's environmentally sensitive areas. As with the Committee's recommendations concerning land disturbing activities, the purpose here is to recommend general concepts the Comnittee wishes to see included in future regulations. Specific ordinances are not being presented for consideration at this time. I. emulations of Oevelooment Through a Site Develooment Plan Process Goal i The goal of the site development plan process is to identify environmental- ly sensitive natural features located on land proposed for development so that those features may be, protected and enhanced through sensitive and innovative development. Ob ectives The objectives of site development plans include: i 1. The preservation of natural topographic features including steep slopes. 2. The preservation of natural ecosystems and vegetative cover (such as woodlands) which contribute to the climatic and aesthetic nature of the City. 3. The preservation of natural drainageways and floodplains. 4. The encouragement of innovative and alternative approaches to conven- tional flatland practices in order to minimize grading, cut and fill operations, as well as the amount of impervious surface. Recommendation - The Urban Environment Ad Hoc Committee recommends that the o owfT int— g procedure be included in regulations designed to protect and enhance environmentally sensitive areas. Site Development Plan Process A. Protected Latural Features t The first step in the site development plan process is to define the k natural features that are to be protected. These will include: 1 1) Steep slopes (15% or greater). t 2) Ravines. 3) Orainageways. 11 4) Floodways and floodplains. 5) Certain trees, groves of trees and woodlands as defined in Attach- ment A. 61 Unusual geologic features, e.g. exposed limestone bluffs. i 7 Prairie (to be further defined) I /So $ 2 IS -68 B. Natural Features Checklist The next step is the requirement that a natural features checklist be submitted with all preliminary subdivision, LSRD, and LSNRD plans and with building permit applications for all development other than single family or duplex development on individual lots. The checklist shall include a list and/or site plan of natural features present and an ap— proximate percentage of land occupied by each one. It will be the responsibility of the developer to submit the checklist and the responsibility of City staff to perform inspections of sites as it deems necessary to ensure the integrity of the checklist. If possible, the City shall maintain an inventory of undeveloped environ— mentally sensitive lands to assist developers and City staff with such checklists. iC. Site Development Plan Required The protected natural features will be assigned a numerical value dependent upon the extent and need for protection. If this point total reaches a certain limit, or where 25% or more of the site is occupied i by protected natural features, a detailed site development plan must be submitted for review. i D. General Standards for Site Development Plan Review The site development plan will be reviewed to make sure that it complies with the following general standards: 1) The development will promote the goals and objectives of the site E2) 'development plan process. The development will not cause a serious and lasting degradation of the environment. i 3) The development will guarantee the conservation and protection of irreplaceable natural resources from pollution, impairment or destruction by minimizing alteration of the natural site features t to be preserved. 4) The development will blend into the natural setting of the land— scape for orderly growth and development. 5) The development shall strive for diversity and originality in lot layout and siting of, buildings in order to achieve the best possible relationship between the development and the land. c} E E. Specific Advantages of a Site Development Plan 1) It provides a mechanism for identifying natural features to be protected. 2) It can strongly influence the redirection of development away from natural features. IS -68 T 3 I Wi 3) It can give the City some control over development on land that does not require a grading permit. 4) It can deal directly with the issue of preservation of trees and other natural vegetative cover in subdivisions, LSROs, LSNRDs, and on individual lots. /So• Attachment A Protected Trees. Groves of Trees and Woodlands A. Trees The following trees, full-grown and maturing, which are native to the Iowa City area, are considered important examples of their species as defined by trunk diameter and, once damaged or destroyed, could not be immediatel replaced, or, in some cases, may be impossible to replace. y Species Trunk Diameter at 4 Feet Aspen (Quaking) Aspen (Big Tooth) Ash (Green/White) Basswood/Linden (American) Birch (River) *Butternut Cedar, Red *Cherry (Wild Black) Oagwood (Pagoda) Elm (American) Hackberry *Hickory (Shagbark, Butternut, Mockernut) *Hop Hornbeam *Hornbeam Locust (Black) Locust (Honey) Kentucky Coffee Tree Maple (Black, Sugar) *Oak (White, Burr) Oak (Northern Red, Pin, Northern Pin, Swamp White, Shingle, Chinkapin, Black) Pine (Eastern, White) Plain (American) Redbud Serviceberry *Walnut (Black) "6"103- 6- 10" " 10" 6" 6" 6" 8" 3" 10" 10" 6" 4- 4" 10" 10" 10" 10" 6- 104 8- 100 4- 4- 8. "4"8" Trees marked with * have a high priority for protection because of their stature, relative rarity or the difficulty of reestablishing them if damaged or destroyed. For trees with multiple trunks, such as river birches, a composite trunk size will be calculated according to an accepted formula. 2. Grove of Trees - Any stand of trees on an area of 1/4 acre'or more consisting o eight r more trees with a 10" or greater caliper which are on the list of protected trees. 1. 3. Woodlands - An area of one-half acre or more containing at least 100 growing trees which are on the list of protected trees. Recommended Performance Standards I. Such standards should require that the maximum number of trees possible be preserved. 2. For groves of trees and woodlands, 50% (or some other appropriate percentage, of the grove or woodland should be required to remain in its natural state. /6501 ion Regulating Land Disturbing Activities The basic goals in regulating grading (excavation and fill) activities are to minimize the effects of development on the stability of steep o presrve natural draiminimize alterations n and runoff blto the tnaturale topography. The regulation of grading goes hand in hand with erosion control, and o grading permit should be issued without an erosion control plan for the site to be graded if these basic goals are to be met. Clearly, the steeper the slope and the larger the development, the greater the potential adverse impact of land disturbing activities. Thus, regulations can be applied at various levels relating to both the steepness of slopes and the size of development. Council is requested to provide the staff with some direction as to the level at which it wishes to have controls applied. The explanation below and Table I identify a number of levels at which regulations might be triggered. These levels range from very comprehensive (i.e. regula- to least re- strictivel(i e. regulatto ions would apply most all to onlyalargetscale developments on steep slopes). Since the levels relate to both steepness of slope and size of development, these factors can be combined in a variety of ways; the table.below provides only a sampling. In order to provide you with some idea of where these regulations might apply, the attached map shows the general areas of Iowa City with slopes of 15 percent or more. This 15 percent figure is used by many communi- ties, but there is a considerable range (from 8% to 25%) in some commu- nities before a variety of regulations become applicable. Grading and Erosion control pi ans Under existing regulations the City requires plans and proposed methods for the prevention and control of soil erosion and sedimentation for more,v of 2 acres or and for Large Developments any commercial/ develpment(orRredevelopment of one acre or more. These plans are reviewed and approved by the Depart- ment of Public Works prior to final approval of subdivision plats or Large Scale Development (LSD) plans or prior to the issuance of a build- erg controlermit. Erosion n and runoff problems.H weverr,saddress they donot speakato hel ofmIssuesiof the stability of steep slopes, severe alterations to the natural topog- raphy, or to the effect of land disturbing activities in ravines. A grading plan, which would provide information directly related to the issues outlined above, could be required as part of the erosion control plan. Additional information required for the plan would include 1) existing and proposed contours (existing contours are already required for site plans for subdivisions and LSDs), 2) the approximate amount of material to be excavated and/or filled, and 3) the extent and slope of ail grading. Details of drainage patterns are already required by existing erosion control regulations. on steep slopes (15% or greater) additional information on soil types and soil borings could be /So8 T 1 T I PAGE 2 required. Grading and erosion control plans would then be evaluated according to certain criteria or performance standards which would address the goals of the plan requirements. Some of the information required for grading plans is already provided for LSDs and subdivisions. The Council may choose to require addi- tional information to meet the goals of a grading plan. The other suestionhould bet answeredbe and erosion required forsmallis wdevelophether mentsn(which require only rbuilding permit approval) and for any grading activity whether immediately asso- ciated with development or not. Currently grading can be donewithout any City permit. Levels at whichgrading and erosion control lans could be required: I. For all movement of earth in excess of 50 cubic yards. WEAHC recom- mendation) This would permit gardening, construction of patios or home addi- tions, repairs, etc, without a plan(Certain types of land dis- turbing activities such as the digging of cemetery graves, the use of sanitary landfill sites, and agricultural activities should probably be exempt.) 2. For all movement of earth in excess of 500 cubic yards, except where the maximum,grade between property lines exceeds 10 percent, grading Plans would be required for movement of earth in excess of 50 cubic yards. This would permit construction of most single-family homes and many small commercial buildings without submission of a grading and erosion control plan except on steep slopes. 3. Certified grading and erosion control plan required for all movement o eart on slopes of 15 percent or more. Certification by a registered engineer would be required to insure the adequate control of erosion and other adverse impacts an steep slopes. 4. Certified grading and erosion control plan required for all building perm applications for new construction or expansion on slopes 15 percent or greater. This means grading and erosion control plans would only be required if construction was going to take place. Grading of a property prior to application for a building permit would therefore not be required to have grading and erosion control plans. I -f PAGE 3 S. Grading and erosion control plan required for all subdivisions, PDH j plans and large scale developments (two acres or more). s j Development requiring a building permit only (e.g. 'the Cliffs") would not be subject to the requirements. On slopes 15% and greater certification of plans could be required. Implementation at this level would mean adding requirements for information to existing regulations. 6. Certified grading and erosion control plan required for all large sca�evelopments on slopes of 15 percent or more. This would be the least restrictive regulation applying only to large developments on steep slopes. i Table I shows how each of the levels described would affect different I types of developments which require the movement of earth. I ` fi I is . 1 ' i, 1 j • I I I i I j i I 1 04 -� - - X 0 0 X X I 1. Single family on Individual lots 2. Multi -family 3.29 units 3. Multi -family 30 or acre units -rte LSubdlvlsions/POW (less than 2 acre! S.S. sLSIMOS (2 acres or sore) S. •LSRD6. /P® (2 acres or ware) 7. •Cammrcial/ Industrial 1-1.99 acres !. Commercial/ Industrial under 1 acre 9. Grading only (m Irmedlote development) X • Required 0 • Not required TADLE 1: LEVELS OF GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL REQUIREMENTS Extent of Earth Movement 2. All grading 3. All grading II 1. All grading aver 500 tu.yds., an slopes 155 1. All building 5. All suhdivl- , 6. All LSDs on ' In excess of 50 except on slopes or Wore Corti- cu.vds. 105 or sore, fled plans. per orsmon.slopes slops, LSOs/ slopes 15i or X X xX X X 0 0 X X XX X X o 0 X X � X Y X X 0 *Erosion control plan already required, �©v �v �v PAGE 4 II. Regulations requirings Site Development Plans for Environmentally Sensi- tive urea The basic goal in regulating development through review of site develop- ment plans, is to protect and enhance environmentally sensitive areas such as woodlands, floodplains and hillsides, and to provide a tool for j innovative development that is sensitive to these features. As is the case for land disturbing activities, these regulations could be trig- gered at various levels. The regulations would require submission of a natural features checklist with applications for development at whatever level the Council deter- mines to be appropriate (e.g. for all building permits or only for large scale developments). The natural features checklist would be reviewed to determine if a site development plan is required. Please consult the recommendation concerning site development plans dated 7/9/85 included in this packet for an explanation of the natural features checklist. If no such plan is required, building permit or development/subdivision plan review would proceed normally. If protected natural features are present beyond a certain threshold (e.g. more than 15% of a site is in the floodplain) the developer would be required to submit a site devel- opment plan and to comply with certain performance standards. Site pian review for LSD/PDH plans would continue in accordance with current procedures. III. Addi The extent of additional activities, and therefore costs, will depend on the level at which Council determines that these regulations should apply. The list below assumes that regulations will apply to all devel- opment from the building permit process up -and to grading for which no permit is currently required. A. Developer 1. Grading plan - For excavation, fill and small developments, there would be an added cost of providing contours, slopes and drainage patterns. - For large developments there would be little added cost, because information is already required for detailed construc- tion plans. 2. Erosion control plan - For small developments, there would be little added cost since Plans can be very simple for development on steep slopes there would be some additional cost since more complex plans would be required. - For large developments, there would be no added cost. /Sat -1 I PAGE 5 3. Certified grading and erosion control plan - Considerable cost would be added. Estimates by local engi- neering firms range from $200 to $5000 depending on the size of the development and the severity of conditions (slope and soils). 4. Natural features checklist - Additional information on site plans wouldmost cases _be required. In is radilavaiaDle and require a professional; a smallatioeadded costt twould resujtes not 5. Site development plan - These plans are already required for LSDs. There would be some extra cost for small developments. B. city 1. Grading and erosion control plans Public Works Department: a. Additional review of plans would be required for excavation and fill and small developments on steep slopes. LSD erosion control plans are already reviewed. b. Inspection: Additional costs would be incurred in inspect- ing grading since currently only erosion control measures are inspected. Cost: Approximately $15 per hour. Housing and Inspection Services Department: If the Public Works Department does not carry out the inspection for instance at the building permit level), an additional site inspection at time of grading could be required, Cost: Minimum $15 per inspection. 2- Natural features checklist PPD/Public Works: a. A review of the checklist and determination of need for a site development plan would be required. Evaluation of the checklist would be potentially the most time-consuming element. However, an inventory of most environmentally sensitive areas in an City already exists and would speed up the process, b. Review of site development plan: There would be some in- crease in staff time required depending on how many addi- tional site development plans are processed and the extent of the performance standards. !J Y f I 0 r. PAGE 6 This cursory review of the cost of the most comprehensive regulation assumes that the City will absorb some of the cost of the regulatory process. This burden may be shifted to the developer by requiring that all plans and inspections be certified by a professional hired by the developer, a r�jew and inspection done by the City staff would be minimal. The sharing of costs of compliance is another area in which the staff would like guidance from the Council, IV. Applicability orderIn sionsmight pfall under e these oregulatif how o regulations, thbuilding984 applications dhave been reviewed. Assuming that all slopes of 15% or more would be regulated and natural features as listed in the UEAHC recommendations are protected, the attached table -shows the total number of applications and approximately how many of these would be affected by the proposed regulations.This table does not include the impact of the most comprehensive regulation, i.e. grading plans for all movement of earth, in excess of 50 cubic yards; the City has no record of such activities. /dp% i -f A T I Number of Plans Submitted for A _oval and Buildin Permit Applications for 1984 !i i with steep Total N slopes and / with pro - ape of Development protected natural tected natural MUatiatio_s features * feature�nl�+± Subdivision 8 3 LSRD/PDH _ 2 LSNRD 5 2 1 Building permits 3 2 84 (multi -family b commercial) 7 Building permits (single-family d duplex) 137 13 18 *Most areas with steep slopes also have other protected natural features such as woodlands, drainage ways, ravines. These areas are all in First 8 Rochester Subdi- visions or Buresh Avenue area. "For almost all developments the protected natural features were floodpiains and drainage ways. M ,Jvt I City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: September 4, 1986 To: City Council From: Karin Franklin, Senior Planner 4(5 Re: Fringe Area Policy Agreement - Update On August 18, the County Board of Supervisors was contacted to set up a meeting of the Fringe Committee regarding a revised policy for Area 4 (Rapid Creek Road/Highway 1). At that time, the Board was waiting for a draft resolution from the County -Attorney setting forth the County's position relative to this area. Upon receipt of the resolution, Board Chairman Dick Meyers would convene a meeting of the Fringe Committee to discuss amending the Fringe Area Policy Agreement in Area 4. From conversations with Mr. Meyers, it appears that there is agreement be- tween the City and the County regarding development along Rapid Creek Road, i.e. that development should be confined to properties with access to Rapid Creek Road, that performance standards for development should be adopted, and that the density should not exceed one dwelling unit/three acres. The issue upon which agreement is not clear is the appropriate policy and implementa- tion measures for the remainder of Area 4 east of Highway 1. The staff will continue to keep in touch with the Board and endeavor to arrange a meeting of the Committee in the near future. bj4/11 /'S6? T ll I City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: August 29, 1986 To: Members of City Council From:rvmarianne Milkman, CDGB Program Coordinator Re: Subordination Agreement for 918 Iowa Avenue The following information is provided in response to Mr. Strait's ques- tions at the Council meeting on August 26, 1986: The tax assessed value for the 85-86 tax year for the above referenced property is $67,390.00. The first mortgage with Hills Bank 8 Trust will be $56,250.00. The City's original Rental Rehabilitation lien was for $4,330.00. The current dollar value of the lien is $3,897.00 since the Rental Rehabilita- tion Program is financed through a 10 year Deferred Payment Loan. One year has passed since loan closing so 10% of the original amount has been forgiven. These figures show that there is adequate value in the property to protect the City's interest even though the City's lien is in second place. This is the same lien position as for the original loan agreement. ct8/28 1vl0 i" City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: September 4, 1986 To: Iowa City City Council Committee on Community Needs Design Review Committee Parks & Recreation Commission Project GREEN Interested Citizen From: Melody Rockwell, sociate Planner Re: Plaza Mini -Park Renovation The area of the downtown plaza located southeast of the Dubuque Street and Washington Avenue intersection in Iowa City, and known for years as the Blackhawk Mini -Park, was first established by Project GREEN in 1974 as a t�empporaryy urban greenspace in the midst of the bleak standstill phase of a�newai• The mini -park area quickly became a gathering place for community groups, forums and social events. When plaza development began to occur, the City considered the sayle ofthemini-servepthe mini park,YatheaCity'Council deferred t of selling the parcel until plaza development was more complete. But as development of the dlneared tion in lpublic sentiment once aaiprevailetosavee mini -park, andthe Cildesigntehe areasa ermanent open space to be renovated using urban renewal proceeds. The renovation will be administered through the Iowa City Community Devel- opment Block Grant (CDBG) Division of the Planning and Program Develop- ment Department using up to $148,000 of urban renewal funds plus $5,000 of architectural services. The CDBG staff intends to work in close conjunc- tion with the Design Review Committee (DRC), because of the integral relationship of this area with the downtown plaza and DRC'sppurview over plaza design elements. The CDBG staff is also interested in receiving comments from as many other community committees and citizens as possible. The proposed schedule for the Plaza Mini -Park Renovation Project 1s as follows; Se tember 1986 - Review and comment on function of the mini -park area in relation ay Plaza: September 10: Parks & Recreation Commission September 16: Committee on Community Needs September 18: Design Review Committee September 19: Project GREEN I 2 September 22: Public Meeting The public meeting to be held on September 22, 1986, at 7:30 p.m, in Roam A of the Iowa City Public Library will provide a forum for comments from community members as well i as representatives of involved City Committees and Commis- sions. A brief site review will be held at the mini -park at 7.00 p;A,; half an hour prior to the Plaza Mini -Park Public Meeting on September 22. October 1986 - Design Phase, which will be based on the stated function preferences of the various commissions and the public. I November -December 1986 - Public hearings on proposed design, development of bid spec cat ons, and completion of bid process and contract award. Spring 1987 - Construction, A schematic drawing of the mini -park and the surrounding City Plaza is enclosed. For more information, please contact me at 356-5251. bj4/1 i /Sit rI I i service alley II f ns.sie 'rre.wn wrr. s� m uts_fsiftes JS Washington s re 0. t: e clunupue 03a street P I a S a a - CITY OF IOWA CITY CN;C CENU 410 E. WASHINGTON ST. Iowa CITY, IOWA 4-2240 =c CCG %t September 5, 1986 { PRESS RELEASE Contact Person: Mary Nugent, 356-5248 Melody Rockwell, 356-5251 Department of Planning 8 Program Development Re: 1987 Community Development Block Grant Program The Committee on Community Needs (CCN) has begun its annual solicitation of proposals for the use of federal funds through the Community Develop- ment Block Grant (CDBG) program. The City of Iowa City hopes to receive approximately $700,000 in CDBG funds from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for projects beginning January 1, 1987. The CCN will hold public hearings on Tuesday, September 16, 1986, at 3.30 p.m. and on Monday, September 29 at 7.00 p.m. to hear citizens' comments and suggestions on the use of the CDBG funds. Both hearings will be held u in Meeting Room A of the Iowa City Public Library. ! The purpose or intent of the CDBG program is the development and mainte- nance of viable urban communities by providing decent housing. a suitable living environment and expansion of economic opportunities for persons of i low and moderate income levels. All projects and activities must either i principally benefit low and moderate income persons, aid in the prevention or elimination of slums and blight, or meet an urgent community develop - Ment need resulting from a threat to the health and welfare of the comnu- nity, /Slot CPA A wide range of projects are eligible for CDBG funding provided they meet the above-mentioned criteria. In the past several years, CDBG funds have been used in Iowa City for a variety of projects including housing rehabilitation grants and loans; residential accessibility, weatherization and painting grants; neighbor- hood improvements, such as sidewalk construction and repair, storm drain- age, creek channel improvements and playground equipment installation. The CDBG funds have also been used to remove architectural barriers for persons with disabilities, such as installation of curb ramps at intersec- tions and construction of accessible restrooms in parks. Several human service agencies have benefited from CDBG assistance in acquiring and rehabilitating properties or renovating their present facilities. The public hearings scheduled by CCN will provide citizens an opportunity to present their ideas and priorities for projects in the community. Project application forms, along with other information about the CDBG program, may be obtained from Mary Nugent or Melody Rockwell at the De- partment of Planning and Program Development, Civic Center, 410 E. Wash- ington Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52240. Persons unable to attend these meetings may mail their applications to; Karen Kubby, Chairperson, Com- mittee on Community Needs, at the Civic Center address. Proposals should reach CCN no later than September 29, 1986. From: Administrative Offices bj5/5 /s/4;L 6 -I i I City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: September 2, 1986 To: City Manager and City Council From: ✓''John Lundell, Transit Manager Re: Purchase of Transit Coaches On Friday, August 29 bids were opened for the purchase of three demon- strator transit coaches and three new fareboxes. As anticipated, the only bid received for the buses was from Saab-Scania of America.. Their bid was for $103,000 each for a 1983 and two 1984 coaches having a range of 42,700 to 13,500 miles. These buses will be nearly identical to Iowa City's existing Scanias and come with a full one year parts and labor warranty. In 1984 Iowa City paid $127,000 each for our Scanias and similar new coaches today are going for approximately $138,000. Although a bid solicitation and specification package was mailed to the five major transit coach manufacturers in this country, the City did not expect to receive other bids due to the uniqueness of this demonstrator bus project. When these three coaches are placed in service, the City will sell five older model buses thus reducing our fleet size from 29 to 27. Delivery is expected in January, 1987. Bids for new fareboxes were also solicited from Scania to provide them installed and direct from the manufacturer uninstalled. Scania's bid was for $3,600 each installed and the manufacturer bid $3,522 uninstalled. The City staff feels the Scania price is superior to the manufacturer's. Therefore, unless directed otherwise, the City staff will sign a purchase order with Saab-Scania of America to provide three demonstrator coaches with new fareboxes for a total cost of $319,800. This award is contingent upon the approval of the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) which has agreed to pay 80% of the total cost with the City providing the remainding 20%. Thank you and please contact me with any questions or comments. tp2/1 115113 -I -I Johnson County Council of Governments r 410 E V tshir igmSt. bAu City,ati b5224O r W-00 Date: September 3, 1986 e, To: Iowa City City Council From: Jeff Davidson, Transportation Planner Re: Proposed UMTA-funded Project for Iowa City Transit Last year the City Council approved a one-time authorizing resolution for all UMTA Section 9 funded projects for Iowa City Transit. Section 9 is a U.S. a DOT program which funds 80% of capital projects for transit systems. At the time you passed the one-time only authorizing resolution, you asked to be informed of all future Section 9 projects programmed by Iowa City Transit. Accordingly, I wish to inform you that during the month of September JCCOG will be on 9 grant Iowa Cit Transit for mthe tpurchase ing a eofimicrocomputer application and nsoftwa e. behalf of This action is taken by JCCOG at the request of the Iowa City City Manager and Iowa City Transit Manager. ICT presently has no microcomputer equipment, and it is anticipated the equipment for which funding is being pursued will assist in the many data compiling activities currently performed manually by ICT staff. The grant application will be for up to $12,000 in federal funds which would be matched with up to $3,000 in local funds at an 80/20 ratio. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding this matter. cc: Steve Atkins Don Schmeiser John Lundell bj3/3 i /S/V I I tcm slockctt johnaon county auditor commisaioncr of ctcctione C4 votcr registration 6 August B, 1966 ' Marion Karr Civic Center 410 E. Washington Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Marion: In a recent telephone conversation you indicated that the council would be interested in a cost comparison between the Iowa City Special Election and the remaining costs of the June 3, 1986 election. As background, I note that voter registration and administrative overhead costs were not billed. In addition no kind of depreciation, capitalization or rental of voting machines or county computers has been billed. The following discussion will thus not deal with overall costs but only with the Iowa City portion of the incremental costs that are readily assigned to the June 3rd election. What then are the overall incremental costs of the election and how do they compare to the Iowa City portion of those costs? The pie graph below represents the two totals. REMAINING SHARE E3 23298.17 9125.66 IC SHARE OF TOTAL IF this represents the total costs what are the things that make up that total? These costs can be categorized as reimbursements For Forms, publication costs, ballots, poll workers wages, registers of voters, postage, voting machine setup, and voting 417 a clinton - iora city, i0oa 52240 • 319-338-5428 isrs machine transportation. The pie chart below represents those parts. ELECTION COSTS JUNE 3, 1986 ELECTION t A FORMS B PUBLICATIONS C BALLOTS 0 POLL WORKERS E REGISTERS F POSTAGE G DOTE MACH SETUP H MACHINE TRANSPORT 0 A B EM C ■ D 0 E F EaG EDH Acan be seen above the biggest As ballots and to pay the election officials. election costs are For have iewed how theeOveralleVcOsts arebrokendown. Iowa Cit s Of gut overall casts and more of some parts of the casts and less of thersdoes IoworCjtW doespit share the costs equally across the board? The graph below shows what percent of the costs are paid For as of the pacts OF the total, - 2 - 1151 —f i 1 .8 .6 .4 .2 8 IC BREAKOUT A B C D E F G H IC 7,, BY CATEGORY A FORMS B PUBLICATIONS C BALLOTS O POLL WORKERS E REGISTERS F POSTAGE G DOTE MACH SETUP H MACHINE TRANSPORT 0 PER CENT By comparing the percent of the parts that are paid by Iowa City with the relative size of the parts we can sea that while Iowa City pays more than ha1F of some of the parts of the costs those parts are small enough not to have much impact on the overall percentage paid. The exact dollar amounts are illustrated in the Following table. COSTS ALL CITY PER CENT A FORMS $1,175,26 $481,63 40.98: B PUBLICATIONS $2,223,59 $497,84 22.39% C BALLOTS 512,817,40 $3,814.67 29.76: 0 POLL WORKERS 515,475.90 53,946,00 25,SO% E REGISTERS 5135,49 567,75 50.00% F POSTAGE $69.30 534,65 50.00% G DOTE MACH SETUP $167.49 $103,92 62.OS% H MACHINE TRANSPORT 8358.40 $179.20 50,00: TOTAL$32,423.83 59,125.66 The percent paid by Iowa City varies according to the additional costs attributed to the bond issue election under discussion. For example, Iowa City was charged about 62%G of the - 3 - costs For voting machine setup or programming. That is because the bond issue appeared both on the partisan ballots and on the special ballot For non-partisan voters. Thus Iowa City was responsible For part of the setup For the partisan ballots plus 100: of the setup For the separate non-partisan ballot which existed solely as a result of the bond issue election. On the other, hand, Iowa City was charged only about 22: of the Publication costs because that is all the additional advertising space that was required as a result of the bond issue publication requirements, I hope this information answers your questions about Iowa City's June 3rd election costs. But the question and the answer both imply the following question. Is it a good idea for Iowa City to combine its special elections with already scheduled elections or should Iowa City "go it alone"? The answer isn't immediately apparent because some costs can be cut for a very low turnout election. For example state law allows the number of pollworkers to be cut from Five (5) to three (3) when a precinct is likely to have less than 100 voters. In same cases, the total number of precincts can also be reduced. For example, in October of last Weer the primary election only involved part of Iowa City. The total bill For that election was Just !3115.40 or about a third of the bill For this election. But the voters in that election numbered Just 701 in comparison to 4681 Iowa City voters an June 3rd. So the cost effectiveness in relation to the number of voters would indicate that the June 3rd election was greatlW superior, as shown below. DOLLAR COST PER VOTER 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 10/15185 86/03/86 $4 W$1,95 4 - 0 MOTE This graph shows that while the earlier election was less expensive in total cost, the turnout was significantly lower resulting in a much higher, cost per vote. And more than six times the number of people participated in the June 3rd election. This example magnifies the cost effectiveness advantage of higher turnout elections. But keep in mind that the October 15, 1SBS, election only involved District B. So the June bond issue election could never be done as inexpensively as the October 15th election. In conclusion, Iowa City probably could have found a way to cut election costs by devising an election that would have resulted in a lower number of likely voters, But this would certainly have made the cost per voter Figure increase dramatically. And the sum of the costs of such an election together with the costs of the regular primary election would have been much higher than the cost of the combined elections, As a bottom line, Iowa City's decision to combine its special manymore election wvoicing anguOpinlar ionmony theamatter elctionraeslted in suwell as yielding a savings in elections costs to the taxpayers. Lastly, I hope this information is what the council wanted. If not, or if I can be of Further assistance, please let me know. Sincerely. n Tom Slockett EHLERS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FIRST NATIONAL -900 LINE CONCOURSE507 MARQUETTE AVE. MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 5S402I 339-8291 (AREA CNANCIAL ODE I 8121 i i RECEI'vESEPej S 1986 August 27, 1986 TO: City Officials FROM: Ehlers and Associates, Inc. Financial Consultants RE: I League of. Iowa Municipalities 1986 Convention September 24-26, 1986 YOU ARE INVITED . . . Any city officials from your community attending the League of Iowa Municipalities 1986 Convention in September at the Marriott Hotel in Des Moines are cordially invited to join us for refreshments in our hospitality suite at the Marriott Hotel on September 25. We're looking forward to seeing old friends and ma traditional Fall meetingThe lking new ones at this . location of the suite will be posted at the Marriott. Also, please come and visit our booth in the Marriott exhibit area. See you at the convention! f qd-eaL,,..7.R d,L 2a t t 1 C� 1 4.. J Jeanne Frederick S Vice President teve Apfenbacher Director/Sr. Vice President I 9 ' M � � I /S/6 I City of Iowa City `^ 0 -AA - MEMORANDUM DATE: September 8, 1986 TO: City Council FROM: City Manager RE: Transit 53y7 The following represents an overview of the financial operating position of the City's Transit System. The analysis represents five years of his- torical data, the current budget, and three years of projected expenditures and revenues. As you are aware, we are about to begin preparation of the FY87-88 budget and in order to prepare a financial plan that satisfies City Council desires, it would be helpful to my office if we were provided with policy guidance as it relates to the City's transit program. As you review the information that follows and consider your policy alterna- tives, critical questions for the City Council will be: 1. What is the desired level of transit service? 2. What resources do your wish to assign to this program? 3. What are the consequences of amending either the expenditure or revenue program supporting the City's transit operations? 4. How can we develop a transit program that represents reasonable financial independence well into the future? In undertaking this review, a rather straightforward trend analysis was used. Hopefully, this type of analysis will enable us to review and discuss the spending and revenue trends associated with our transit operations and reach a conclusion as to 'how we can finance some reasonable level of service. In addition to the trend analysis, the staff, at my request, reworked the current budget and developed a revised 86-87 expenditure detail, which has been used for analysis purposes. This revised expenditure budget is $92,000 lower than that originally approved, based on current service levels. In making the financial projections, indicated on the attached spread sheet/ trend analysis, it was assumed that the level of service (expenditures) would remain substantially unchanged and the current City policies, as they relate to revenues, also would not be significantly altered. It is my conclusion that the City can expect an annual deficit in operations of the transit system in the amount of $365,000 for FY87-88, $409,000 in FY88-89, and $453,000 in FY89-90, with annual deficits increasing disproportionately to growth in expenditures and revenues. Current spending policies would indicate that the City will reach its statutory limit, with respect to the transit property tax levy, and be required to expand the use of the general property tax levy beyond the projected growth rate of 6% in order to finance the current level of transit services. It is expected that the transit levy could reach its limit as early as FY89-90. 1517 I City Council September 8, 1986 Page 2 In undertaking any such financial review, there are certain assumptions that must be considered and, although often difficult to translate into financial terms, these assumptions may affect the overall policy that the City Council would choose to undertake. Some assumptions, such as the declining role of the Federal and State Government in providing subsidies, are critical to how we intend to finance transit operations in the future. Also of importance to operating costs, but not shown in this analysis, is the fact that we depend significantly on the Federal Government for capital assistance to fund the replacement of our transit fleet. Current federal capital programs provide as much as 80% of the funding for fleet replacement. A major assumption in this financial analysis is that ridership will show some growth (2% per year) and that fare revenue will increase accordingly. This assumption is very risky in light of declining fare revenue trends. It is notable that during the historical period the City increased fares and ridership has continued to show a steady decline. The use of any type of population analysis is helpful to determine overall ridership potential, in that population concentrations, such as those that are created by land use decisions, may have an influence on ridership pro- jections. Extensive analysis was not performed, and it is difficult to determine whether there will be any continued growth in the construction of multi -family housing in and around the downtown area and thereby poten- tially affecting ridership. A further assumption is that no new commercial draw will be created in downtown and that the employment centers, as they are now situated, will remain substantially the same. The following analysis of expenditures is based upon information that was provided from the City's budget files. LABOR. This component of the expenditure program is likely to continue to fluctuate with respect to national economic conditions, inflation, consumer price index, and other factors directly associated with collective bargain- ing. Due to labor laws and the bargaining agreements that the City has with its employees, it is likely that labor and benefits will generally run close to the overall cost -of -living trends and the likelihood of fluctuating trends in labor and benefit expenditures can be expected to continue. Only if there are significant reductions in services might we see some dramatic change in the cost of labor and associated benefits. Our wage rates will closely resemble market conditions. The 1986-87 revised budget indicates that labor and benefits will be 53.2% of the total expenses for transit operations. The five-year historical average of labor and benefits as a proportion of expenditures is 56.4% Making an assumption that labor and benefits will grow at an annual rate of approximately 5%, the cost of labor and benefits should remain at about 53% of the cost of operations. Some reductions may occur in certain benefit costs as a result of employee negotiations, such as expanded part-time personnel, however, the results of these negotiations cannot be predicted. Further changes may occur in labor costs as a direct result of national economic policy, particularly how the Federal Government may choose to handle the issue of future inflation- ary times, wage freezes, etc. All of these are impossible to predict. 577 W1 'r City Council September 8, 1986 Page 3 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE. The cost of maintaining the transit fleet has been a cause of concern, specifically due to the fact that the increase in costs for FY85-86 were dramatic and were continued into the current fiscal year. There is reason for concern, particularly given the propor- tion of the operating budget that is assigned to equipment maintenance. However, the trend of these maintenance costs would indicate that histori- cally the proportion of expenditures assigned to maintenance is not out of line when compared to the overall trend. The expenditures for equipment maintenance have been reworked from the budget adopted by the City Council, and the equipment maintenance line item has been reduced by $92,000. The revised budget for FY86-87 represents the reductions and with luck and diligence, we believe we can satisfy the revised expenditure estimates. The reduction in equipment maintenance is made difficult due to often dramatic price fluctuations. For example, the cost of fuel during one fiscal year has been as low as 39a a gallon to as high as 90Q a gallon. Our revised expenditure estimates are at about the middle range, but we must keep in mind that such fluctuations in price make the budget preparation process very difficult. The transit system uses 178,000 gallons of fuel per year. A further financial problem associated with these cost fluctuations is due to the fact that the transit system, although an enterprise fund, does not operate with a sufficient reserve position. The one-time, large increases can have a dramatic effect upon the operating position and make budget forecasting very difficult. In that a substantial portion of the operating budget is funded through property tax revenues, the implications are obvious. It has been suggested that transit be permitted to take over maintenance of its vehicles, as a direct organizational component of transit operations. There does appear to be some merit in this possibility, based upon the study documents I have reviewed. However, whether substantial savings would occur is highly questionable. This matter will be reviewed further by staff, particularly due to the fact that the study information may be outdated. However, given the diversity of opinion that has occurred throughout the community with respect to the assignment of transit maintenance to our transit operations, I would approach such a change with a great deal of caution and urge you not to 'oversell" the savings that may be generated, if any. Organi- zational assignment cannot control fuel costs and other expenses that are a result of private market decisions. When and if actual dollar savings can be determined, this information can be applied to our financial plans. Please keep in mind any change in organizational assignment that saves on transit expenses,and yet may adversely affect equipment maintenance for other City operations, does not serve the overall good of the City organization. For the purpose of further analysis, the combination of labor and equipment maintenance cost amounts to, based on a five-year average, 91% of operating expenses. The trend has changed very little over the five-year history and the current budget (FY86-87) represents 89.7 of expenditures assigned to labor and equipment maintenance. The matter of equipment maintenance requires a great deal of study and before it becomes a significant influence on our ability to reduce transist deficits, additional analysis would be necessary. Iv a City Council September 8, 1986 Page 4 Any analysis should also incorporate a revised depreciation plan whereby we can anticipate the potential reduction of federal capital assistance. FARES. Fares have shown a steady decline as a portion of total revenue. In 1981-82, fare revenue amounted to over 46% and in the five-year period, the figure declined to 38.1% of the total revenue estimated for 1986-87. The five-year trend average for fare revenue is 41.1%. With fares being adjusted a number of times during the historical period, and thereby influ- encing overall revenue share, it is notable that fare revenue continues to decline and any long-term projections, which are contrary to the historical trend, would be very risky. A 5% error in fare revenue estimates could result in an additional $40,000 being added to the projected annual deficit. I believe we are anticipating revenues above the historical trends, and yet we do need to recognize that increased marketing efforts are underway. For projection purposes, fare revenue (ridership) is projected to increase at a rate of 2% per year. STATE FUNDS. State of Iowa grants have indicated a history of early stability in the amount of monies provided to the transit system; however, there has been a recent steady decline. The downward trend is of concern in that. the average share of our revenue package from state aid is approximately 3%. Although not significant, it does represent what had been a steady source of income to the transit system. Any analysis associated with.state aid must be done in face of the fact that the state legislative moods can change and, if so, the amount of money available to operate our transit system can also change accordingly. Any future projections, especially if we begin to pre- pare a program of new revenues and/or expenditure reductions, I would urge caution on the part of the City Council with respect to any dependence on the use of state transit aid. FEDERAL FUNDS. Federal transit operating subsidies to the transit system have shown consistency, which is a remarkable circumstance given the budget cutting fervor of Congress in recent years. I do urge the City Council to consider the fact that there is a potential for the further elimination and/or reduction of these revenues. Local financial support programs, such as transit aid, and other federal support programs have been a point of con- tention in Congress for several years and it is likely that these funds may be at the reductionrinifederal luted etransit yond roperating rent eassistance ldoes not ease paffect in nthe hcapital assistance program from the Federal Government. Federal capital assistance for the purchase of buses is rather significant and amounted to $300,000 for the recent purchase of three buses. Reductions in this and any other capital support program would need to be made up through local tax resources, such as an expanded depreciation schedule,and thereby have serious financial conse- quences Positionowherebytransit couldsystem. not fullyThis fundcould ourpractically equipment replacementCit without substantially increasing operating costs well beyond that which the City could ever hope to afford. A new bus costs, in today's dollars, approximately $200,000, and the Federal Government has shared 80% of those costs. Federal operating subsidies have averaged about 5% of our revenues, however, the :current appropriation bill being considered in Congress reduces operating subsidies by 10% and herefore revenue estimates have been developed in anticipation of this reduction. I urge caution in estimating federal revenues in that a similar policy should be adopted with respect to federal operating aid as that associated with state operating aid. City Council September 8, 1986 Page 5 Federal revenue sharing, which was once over 30% of our revenue program, has declined for each and every year of the five-year history and is no longer a factor in our revenue program. Any money from the State or Federal Government must be approached with caution. In 1981-82, when combined, state and federal aid as a component of our revenue package for operating the transit system equaled 45.6%. This has now declined to 5% in the revised FY86-87 budget. LOCAL RESOURCES. General property tax and transit property tax levies have Wow begun to play the most important role in the operation of our transit system. In FY1981-82 the total property tax for the transit operation amounted to 6.4% of our revenues and has increased in FY1986-87 to 31.8%. Our assessed valuation is estimated to grow at a rate of approximately 6% per year. This appears to be an indicator that we are using property taxation at a far faster rate than the assessed valuation of our community can uphold. These signifi- cant increases in spending to support transit, through the levy of property taxes, indicates that the transit levy will peak at its current mandated limit of .54 and the general property tax levy of the City will be called upon to expand its participation in financing transit beyond the 6% annual growth pro- jection utilized for this analysis. This would reduce our ability to finance other municipal services, and we must keep in mind that the general property tax also has a mandated limit. The City had previously utilized a transfer from the Parking Fund balance to finance the transit deficit for FY86-87. This amounted to $430,000. If con- tinued in the future, this policy has the effect of becoming a line item operating expenditure for the Parking Fund. The policy of making such a transfer is in question and can be discussed further when options are considered. However, an analysis of the Parking Fund indicates that the Fund should have a year-end balance of $300,000 for projection year FY1987-88. Further analysis indicates that the amount that can be expected in the fund balance for the Parking Fund will remain at approximately $300,000 per year. While on the surface this would appear to be healthy fund balances, as a percentage of operating expenses, it will show a declining position and therefore the use of these funds as operating subsidies for transit must be carefully analyzed, particularly if the City Council wishes to see the City's parking system expanded at sometime in the future. Elimination of any type of fund balance not only jeopardizes the financial health of the Parking Fund but also severely restricts our ability to pursue a capital program of parking expansion in the downtown. FINANCIAL CONCERNS. The following represents in summary fashion my general concerns and other considerations associated with the financial operations of the transit system. I. The reduction and/or elimination of state and federal operating subsidies. The reduction and/or elimination offederal capital assistance for fleet replacement. While the Federal Government has consistently provided approximately 80-20 financial aid for the purchase of capital equipment, it is likely that any reduction in this cost sharing by the Federal /54 T 1 �I City Council September 8, 1986 Page 6 Government would require the City to reconstruct its depreciation schedule to create available funds for equipment replacement. 3. The expanded use of the general property tax levy, beyond the projected growth in revenue of 6%, would affect our ability to finance other City services as well,as we must recognize the fact that there is a statutory limitation on general property tax as our other municipal services compete for this limited resource. 4. The reduction and/or elimination of the Parking Fund fund balance could have an effect upon our ability to finance future parking expansion in down- town. 5. It is necessary to set into motion a financial planning process that will improve the financial independence of the transit system and thereby minimize its dependence upon the actions of other governments as well as minimize the growing dependency upon property taxation as operating subsidies. 6. If the City Council were to choose to use any Parking Fund revenues for the transit operations, I would encourage these funds to be used primarily as a capital set aside, not as a full operating subsidy. This would establish a funding mechanism to create a portion of the capital funds necessary for 4 fleet replacement and, given sufficient growth in the transit fund balance, t could be used to offset some of the annual price fluctuations that occur with respect to certain commodities (fuel, parts, etc.). 7. It is expected that the transit levy could reach its statutory maximum as early as FY89-90 regardless of the use of Parking Fund revenues. As an Illustration, the following is shown: Complete use of the Parking Fund balance as an operating subsidy: 87-88 88-89 89-90 Deficits (365,000) (409,000) (453,000) Annual Fund Balance 300,000 300.000 300.000 Shortfall ( 65,000) (109,000) (153,000) I 87-88 Increase transit property tax levy from $402,800 to $467,800, up 23% i over revised FY86-87. I 88-89 Increase transit property tax levy from $467,800 to $511,000. 89-90 Transit levy at maximum and an additional funding from general property tax levy will be necessary. The use of the Parking Fund fund balance, as indicated, does not provide for any potential substantive changes in federal/state funding; no plan for capital formation for future equipment acquisition; restricts ability to plan for future parking expansion in downtown; no plan for any transit City Council September 8, 1986 Page 7 operating fund balance; and funds a level of service that does not reflect the declining ridership and overall financial position of the transit System. In owa ture One lof5those ltaxeseissaalocalavehicle taxbill ln ordering local option taxes. lace option tax on the ballot, a petition to do so must betreceivedawhiichlhas been signed by at least 5% of the number of persons voting in the last state general election. A simple majority is needed for the tax referendum to pass. The vehicle tax must be implemented county -wide. The vehicle tax would appear to be the most appropriate alternative funding source for the Iowa City transit system since the legislature requires that the vehicle tax revenue be used solely for public transit, street and road construction. mustvbeicle tax specifiedaonbthenanballot. Thent itaxniseleviedoonce 00 a Year when vehicles are registered. The County Treasurer's Office has advised that approximately 70,000 motor vehicles are registered in Johnson County. They are unable to advise as to how many were registered to Iowa City residents. Under most circum- stances, we could assume the ratio of vehicles registered is related to the population, approximately 62% or 43,000 vehicles registered to Iowa City residents. However, I believe this to be a very high estimate due t to the fact that students are counted in the census and their vehicles may be registered at their homes. An accurate estimate of the number of vehicles in Iowa City would have to be made; however, assuming 25,000 vehicles at a $10 tax, $250,000 annually could be raised. i This tax would not have any impact on students or other residents whose vehicles are registered out of Johnson County, and I am sure the issue is one that would require a great deal of discussion among the various governmental entities in Johnson County before being placed on the ballot. If we assume that public support could be developed for the use of a local vehicle tax for the purpose of assisting in financing the transit system, whether these funds would be sufficient over the long run is questionable. The local vehicle tax would be a revenue based upon a tax base (number of vehicles) that is not li$rly to show significant growth 1 sover mthis new surface may be significant, hasnoelementvoFugrowthcbuiltiin,whle oother to be a than voter approval of rate increases. This may cause the vehicle tax pather ates are to continue toincrease ito meetofutureatransitedeficitandrproblems.likely Additionally, the policy question arises as to how often the public will support increased tax resources, regardless of the form of taxation, and would voter support for a vehicle tax potentially cause rejection of other local option taxes, if the City would chose to pursue those taxes at a future date? /5/7 City Council September 8, 1986 Page 8 It is my assessment of the City's transit service that without the infusion of a major, predictable, growth -oriented source of revenue, the transit system cannot continue at the level of service currently provided. Such a source of revenue does not appear to be on the horizon and therefore to establish the financial health of the system, and maintain our other municipal services, transit service reductions are necessary. The following policies are offered for your consideration: 1. Contribute the $100,000 anticipated FY86-87 (current budget) end -of -the - year transit fund balance to a transit capital/reserve account. 2. Annually appropriate an additional $100,000 from the Parking Fund fund balance to the transit capital/reserve account for the next four fiscal Years (through FY90-91) It is anticipated that if recommendations Nos. 1 and 2 are implemented, by FY90-91 the transit system would have accumulated a capital/reserve account of $850,000. This would result in annual interest revenue of $65,000 to the transit system operating budget. 3. Beginning in FY87-88 (next year), the Parking Fund will contribute $100,000 per year of its annual $300,000 fund balance for the next four years as an o eratin subsid to the transit system. At the end of the four-year period, FY90.91, t a subsidy would cease, and parking revenues would continue to accumulate as part of the Parking Fund fund.balance. 4. Assuming acceptance of the previous policy proposals, the Parking Fund would annually accumulate $100,000 as "pure fund balance". At the end of FY90-91, the Parking Fund would have a balance of $400,000+, and the next fiscal year the fund balance would return to its original fiscal l,on; that is all texcess revenues h� eby in FY91 92theParking Fund fund w dbalancewouldditure would baccumu- lated, ated$775,000. S. The following service reductions and estimated annual savings would be implemented. A. Reduce Saturday hours from 6:00 A.M. to 10:30 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. to 7,00 P.M. Savings - $45,000 8. Combine North Dubuque and Manville Heights routes. Savings - $45,000 C. Combine evening routes. Savings - $42,000 o. institute hourly midday service from 9:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. Savings - $230,000 Total Reductions - $362,000 it le anticipated that given the five-year financial experience indicated in the policy praoo�els, the City can create some measure of stability in a, although reduced, transit program of service; create a measure of financial independence for the transit operating fund; minimize property tax burden; and WAWA in acceptable level of fund balances in the transit and parking funds. T r City Council September 8, 1986 Page 9 The policy proposals are based on both historical analysis as well as best guess projections. If any of the elements of the revenue/expenditure pro- gram are altered, such as fare/ridership continuing its downward trend, and reduced federal/state funding, further reductions and/or revenue increases will be necessary. The financial projections are optimistic, and close and critical monitoring process will be implemented. I believe we,are on a financial collision course with respect to our ability to provide transit service. I recognize I have painted a bleak picture and extensive discussions on the social and economic benefits of transit were not provided. However, no municipal program, regardless of what factors are applied to measure its successes or failure, can succeed if financial resources are unavailable. Clearly the City cannot sustain the transit operation under current policies without the risk of our other municipal services being• affected. The overall social and economic goals of the community are thereby Jeopardized due to the high level of transit services, and our ability to provide other services may be hindered. To assure an affordable level of transit services, a policy whereby the City pursues to the fullest extent financial independence needs to be pursued. To manage a program based on fiscal brinkmanship can serve as a detriment to our overall financial health and commitment to affordable and high quality public services. 1517 Wl I irli FY82* (1981-82) Fares University Heights' Contract State Grants Federal Grants Interest Income Revenue Sharing Property Tax Transit Levy f Transfers from Parking Mj scel l aneous Deficit * Actual Midnotod FY83* (1982-83) FY85* (1984-85) $928,515 57.7 542,500 Labor $833,29653.9 4.5 61,198 Equipment Maintenance 581,255 37.6 1,607,869 SEATS - Taxi 53,934 3.4 1,633,240 Supplies 73,464 4.8 95,303 Capital items (desks, shelters) 4,650 0.3 4.3 95,653 1,546,599 100.0 278 Transfer Out 60,028 0.3 i i 1,737,007 1,606,627 1,848,889 Fares University Heights' Contract State Grants Federal Grants Interest Income Revenue Sharing Property Tax Transit Levy f Transfers from Parking Mj scel l aneous Deficit * Actual Midnotod FY83* (1982-83) IOWA CITY TRANSIT Expend tures FY84* (1983-84) FY85* (1984-85) $928,515 57.7 542,500 33.8 72,857 4.5 61,198 3,8 2,799 0.2 1,607,869 100.0 25,371 546,297 1,633,240 841 IOWA CITY TRANSIT Expend tures FY84* (1983-84) FY85* (1984-85) FY86' % Revanues $1,024,363 59.0 $1,105,013 59.8 $1,101 552,004 31.8 546,297 29.5 841 84,496 4.9 95,303 5.2 , & 75,866 4.3 95,653 5.2 91 278 0.0 6,623 0.3 107,988 1,737,007 100.0 1,848,889 100.0 2,13: 139,291 7.2 124,355 7.6 3( 1,876,298 187,569 1,973,244 111,406 2,161 801 61 44! 341 364 $2,280 Revanues 687,153 46.4 757,486 42.4 785,341 40.4 729,291 41.3 17,976 1.2 15,350 0.8 15,327 0.8 28,688 1.6 107,988 7.3 252,981 14.2 229,320 11.8 126,990 7.2 112,941 7.6 95,272 5.6 187,569 9.7 111,406 6.3 --- --- 1,948 0.1 13,138 0.7 13,491 0.8 455,950 30.7 383,492 21.4 281,869 14.5 240,451 13.6 95,617 6.4 275,753 15.5 293,513 15.1 355,698 20.2 "- --- --- --- 132,021 6.8 158,562 9.0 4,601 0.3 162 0.0 3,602 0.2 243 0.0 $1,482,226 100.0 $1,782,444 100.0 $1,941,700 100.0 $1,764,820 100.0 801 61 44! 341 364 $2,280 T FY82* (1981-82) $833,296 53.9 581,255 37.6 53,934 3.4 73,464: 4.8 shelters) 4,650 0.3 1,546,599 100.0 60,028 1,606,627 687,153 ontract 17,976 107,988 112,941 455,950 95,617 ` 4,601 FY83* (1982-83) IOWA CITY TRANSIT FY84* (1983-84) $1,024,363 59.0 552,004 31.8 84,496 4.9 75,866 4.3 278 0.0 1,737,007 100.0 139,291 1,876,298 Expenditures FY85* (1984-85) $1,105,013 59.8 546,297 29.5 95,303 5.2 95,653 5.2 6,623 0.3 1,848,889 100.0 124,355 1,973,244 $928,515 57.7 542,500 33.8 72,857 4.5 61,198 3.8 2,799 0.2 1,607,869' 100.0 25,371 757,486 1,633,240 785,341 IOWA CITY TRANSIT FY84* (1983-84) $1,024,363 59.0 552,004 31.8 84,496 4.9 75,866 4.3 278 0.0 1,737,007 100.0 139,291 1,876,298 Expenditures FY85* (1984-85) $1,105,013 59.8 546,297 29.5 95,303 5.2 95,653 5.2 6,623 0.3 1,848,889 100.0 124,355 1,973,244 $1,482,226 100.0 $1,782,444 100.0 $1,941,700 100.0 $1,764,820 100.0 I; Revenues 3 P FY86* (1985-86) i % � I 46.4 757,486 42.4 785,341 40.4 729,291 41.3 1.2 15,350 0.8 15,327 0.8 28,688 1.6 7.3 252,981 14.2 229,320 11.8 126,990 7.2 7.6 95,272 5.6 187,569 9.7 111,406 6.3 --- 1,948 0.1 13,138 0.7 13,491 0.8 30.7 383,492 21.4 281,869 14.5 240,451 13.6 6.4 275,753 15.5 293,513 15.1 355,698 20.2 --- --- -- 132,021 6.8 158,562 9.0 0.3 162 0.0 3,602 0.2 243 0.0 $1,482,226 100.0 $1,782,444 100.0 $1,941,700 100.0 $1,764,820 100.0 I; 3 P FY86* (1985-86) i % � I $1,106,340 51.9 840,895 39.5 i 84,643 4.0 98,149 4.6 j 1,337 0.0 2,131,364 100.0 .<. 30,833 i 2,162,197 .q L $� 801,734 35.1 27,516 1.2 j 109,171 4.8 119,467 5.2 2,656 0.1 67,072 2.8 446,573 19.6 341,959 15.2 364,246 16.0 i 31 0.0 $2,280,425 100.0 a CURRENT FY87 (1986-87) $1,056,502 50.8 816,841 39.3 88,500 4.3 116,596 5.6 2,078,439 300.0 51,000 2,129,439 REVISED FY87 (1986-87) $1,056,502 53.2 724,342 36.5 88,500 4.5 116,596 5.8 1,985,940 100.0 51,000 2,036,940 PROJECTED FY88 (1987-88) $1.109.327 53.2 760,559 36.5 .92,925 4.5 122,426 5.8 2,085,237 100.0 50,000 2,135,237 $2,129,439 100.0 $2,146,827 100.0 $2,135,237 100.0 r. . PROJECTED FY89 (1988-89) $1,164,793 53.2 798,587 36.5 .97,571 4.5 128,547 5.8 2,189,498 100.0 50,000 2,239,498 849,971 38.0 27,000 1.2 70,000 3.1 103,800 4.6 339,200 15.1 427,055 19.1 13,000 0.6 (409,472) 18.3 $2,239,498 100.0 PROJECTED FY90 (1989-90) $1,223,033 53.2 838,516 36.5 102,449 4.5 134,974 5.8 2,298,972 100.0 50,000 2,348,972 866,970 36.9 28,000 1.2 72,000 3.1 103,800 4.4 359,552 15.3 452,678 19.3 13,000 0.5 (452,971) 19.3 $2,348,972 100.0 816,966 38.4 816,966 38.1 833,305 39.0 21,346 1.0 27,000 1.3 27,000 1.3 58,266 2.7 70,000 3.2 70,000 3.3 115,384 --- 5.4 --- 115,384 --- 5.3 --- 103,800 --- 4.9 --- --- 301,900 --- 14.2 --- 301,900 --- 14.1 --- 320,000 --- 15.0 380,077 17.8 380,077 17.7 402,882 18.8 430,500 20.2 430,500 20.1 --- --- 5,000 0.3 5,000 0.2 13,000 0.6 --- --- --- --- (365.250) 17.1 $2,129,439 100.0 $2,146,827 100.0 $2,135,237 100.0 r. . PROJECTED FY89 (1988-89) $1,164,793 53.2 798,587 36.5 .97,571 4.5 128,547 5.8 2,189,498 100.0 50,000 2,239,498 849,971 38.0 27,000 1.2 70,000 3.1 103,800 4.6 339,200 15.1 427,055 19.1 13,000 0.6 (409,472) 18.3 $2,239,498 100.0 PROJECTED FY90 (1989-90) $1,223,033 53.2 838,516 36.5 102,449 4.5 134,974 5.8 2,298,972 100.0 50,000 2,348,972 866,970 36.9 28,000 1.2 72,000 3.1 103,800 4.4 359,552 15.3 452,678 19.3 13,000 0.5 (452,971) 19.3 $2,348,972 100.0 i r -I I PROJECTED FY88 (1987-88) $1.109.327 53.2 760,559 36.5 .92,925 4.5 122,426 5.8 2,085,237 100.0 50,000 2,135,237 833,305 39.0 27,000 1.3 70,000 3.3 103,800 4.9 320,000 15.0 402,882 18.8 13,000 0.6 (365.250) 17.1 $2,135,237 100.0 PROJECTED FY89 (1988-89) % $1,164,793 53.2 798,587 36.5 .97,571 4.5 128,547 5.8 2,189,498 100.0 50,000 2,239,498 REVISED 849,971 87) FY87 (1986-87) 1.2 70,000 3.1 50.8 $1,056,502 53.2 39.3 724,342 36.5 4.3, 88,500 4.5 5.6 116,596 5.8 °100.0 1,985,940 100.0 51,000 II. 2,036,940 38.4 816,966 38.1 _ 1.0 27,000 1.3 2.7 70,000 3.2 5.4 115,384 5.3 14.2 301,900 14.1 17.8 380,077 17.7 20.2 430,500 20.1 0.3 5,000 0.2 100.0 $2,146,827 100.0 I PROJECTED FY88 (1987-88) $1.109.327 53.2 760,559 36.5 .92,925 4.5 122,426 5.8 2,085,237 100.0 50,000 2,135,237 833,305 39.0 27,000 1.3 70,000 3.3 103,800 4.9 320,000 15.0 402,882 18.8 13,000 0.6 (365.250) 17.1 $2,135,237 100.0 PROJECTED FY89 (1988-89) % $1,164,793 53.2 798,587 36.5 .97,571 4.5 128,547 5.8 2,189,498 100.0 50,000 2,239,498 13,000 0.6 (409,472) 18.3 $2,239,498 100.0 PROJECTED FY90 (1989-90) $1,223,033 53.2 838,516 36.5 102,449 4.5 134,974 5.8 2,298,972 100.0 50,000 2,348,972 866,970 36.9 28,000 1.2 72,000 3.1 103,800 4.4 359,552 15.3 452,678 19.3 13,000 0.5 (452,971) 19.3 $2,348,972 100.0 849,971 38.0 27,000 1.2 70,000 3.1 103,800 4.6 339,200 15.1 427,055 19.1 13,000 0.6 (409,472) 18.3 $2,239,498 100.0 PROJECTED FY90 (1989-90) $1,223,033 53.2 838,516 36.5 102,449 4.5 134,974 5.8 2,298,972 100.0 50,000 2,348,972 866,970 36.9 28,000 1.2 72,000 3.1 103,800 4.4 359,552 15.3 452,678 19.3 13,000 0.5 (452,971) 19.3 $2,348,972 100.0 i + i II i �r I. i i o II. I