HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-02-12 Info Packet,.ity of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 1, 1985
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
RE: Informal Agendas and Meeting Schedule
February 4 1985 Monday
6:30 - 8:30 P.M. Special Informal Council Meeting - Council Chambers
Discussion of FY86 - 90 Capital Improvements Program
February 5 1985 Tuesday
6:30 - 9:00 P.M. Council Chambers
6:30 P.M. - Human Services Funding - Final recommendations and decisions
7:30 P.M. - FY86 Budget and CIP decisions
8:45 P.M. - Council time, Council committee reports
February 11 1985 Monday
6:30 - 9:00 P.M. Council Chambers
6:30 P.M. - Review zoning matters
6:50 P.M. - Melrose Lake Area Rezoning
7:30 P.M. - Foster Road/Bristol Drive/Old Dubuque Road
8:00 P.M. - Gas and Electric Franchises
8:30 P.M. - Charter Amendments - Administrative recommendations
8:45 P.M. - Council agenda, Council time, Council committee reports
February 12 1985 Tuesday
7:30 P.M. - Regular Council Meeting - Council Chambers
February 18 1985 Monday_
HOLIDAY - CITY OFFICES CLOSED
February 19 1985 Tuesday_
6:30 - 9:00 P.M. Council Chambers
6:30 P.M. - Meet Weeberwith
AreanRezoning andning and iUrbanCommission
zoningregarding
Polocke/
Policies
7:30 P.M. - Waste Water Facilities Study Report
8:30 P.M. - Coralville Milldam Project
8:45 P.M. - Council time, Council committee reports
City Council
February 1, 1985
Page 2
PENDING LIST
Priority A: Leasing of Airport Land for Commercial Use
Discuss Action Steps for FY86 Council Objectives
Evaluation of City Clerk (Executive Session)
Priority B: Mandatory Open Space Requirements (February 1985)
Congregate Housing Development Alternatives
Iowa Theater Type Problems
Housing Alternatives
Energy Conservation Measures Funding Program
Newspaper Vending Machines
Unrelated Roomers - Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment
City Plaza Fountain Barrier
Comprehensive Economic Development Program
North Side Lighting Project
Housing Inspection Process and Operating Policies
City Conference Board Meeting (February 25, 1985)
Liquor/Beer License Suspension Policy
Street Naming Policy
Appointments to Broadband Telecommunications Commission,
Historic Preservation Commission, Johnson County/Iowa City
Airport Zoning Board of Adjustment, and Resources Conserva-
tion Commission - February 26, 1985
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 31, 1985
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
RE: City of Coralville - City Administrator
The City of Coralville has requested that I and Carl Ramey, City Manager
of Marion, work with Tim Shields in the recruitment and selection process
for the new city administrator for Coralville. You may recall that I
provided similar assistance to Arthur Neu, Mayor of Carroll, last year.
These will be gratuitous services.
alq
1, 1
I
City of Iowa CitL
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 1, 1985
To
To: City Council
From: Dale Helling, Assistant City Manager
Drew Shaffer, Broadband Telecommunications Specialist
Re: Playback System for Government Access Channel 29p
We have been researching automated playback systems for use on Government
Channel 29. Presently Government Access Channel 29 has a playback capability
of only one two-hour program tape. You may have noted that each program
repeats as many as ten times prior to being changed. In order to make any
change, it must now be done manually. To play back more programs per day
would require additional staff time commensurate to the number and length of
programs that are played back on the channel.
There has been no available alternative to this situation until recently.
Automated playback systems have been developed which allow up to 19 one-hour
programs to be played back in one day, and can be programmed for executing a
seven day schedule in advance. This will allow government Channel 29 to show
a full range of diversified programming every day and will not rely on repeat
programming. We will be able to play back Part 1 and Part 2 of City Council
meetings (or any other meetings) one after the other, for example, rather
than having to run Part 1 on one day and then run Part 2 some other day.
In addition, we are starting a Municipal Programming Exchange Directory with
dozens of other cities across the country. We have had many letters from
other cities requesting a program exchange, but the City has had little use
for such programs in the past, being limited to playing back only one or two
programs per day. However, now that we will have the potential of playing
back up to 19 programs per day automatically, we can make good use of generic
programming from other cities. This generic programming might entail public
affairs, community interest, educational or informational material that would
be of interest to any other City.
We intend to submit an order for the 'Director„ on February 6, 1985, at a
cost of $14,185 including installation and training in its operation. Funds
for the purchase of this system are available in the franchise fee account
balance. Delivery is expected in approximately 60 days.
The Broadband Telecommunications Commission has discussed this matter and
concurs with staff that this unit would be of great value in programming the
Government Access Channel.
If you have any questions or need further information please feel free to
give either of us a call.
ds/sp
WE
City of Iowa Cit%
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 1, 1985
To: City Council �'I
From: Rosemary Vitosh, Director of Fin nc e�
Neal G. Berlin, City Manager 5:, :,, /
Re: Return on Investments/Impact of New Asst. Finance Director Position
Return on Investment
The City's investments can be broken down into long term investments and
short term investments. The operating funds are invested short term
(average of 3-1/2 to 4 months) due to the need to meet current cash flow
needs. Long term investments with up to 20 year maturities are used for
some Enterprise Bond Reserve Funds and for the Police and Fire Pension and
Retirement Funds. The current return on short term investments is 9.10%
while the average yield on our long term investment portfolio is 12.11%.
If the City was able to increase its return on investments by 1/4%,
additional annual investment income revenue would amount to approximately
$43,800; an additional 1/2% would result in additional revenue of $87,600.
The interest income projections in the FY86 budget were based upon a 10%
yield on short term investments and an 11% yield on long term investments.
Other cities are using the following average rates for their FY86 budget
projections:
Clinton
9%
Sioux City
7.5-8%
Cedar Rapids
10%
Ames
8-9%
Davenport
l0%
Dubuque
8.5%
Impact of Assistant Finance Director on Investment Income
Included in my recommendation of duties for the new Assistant Finance
Director position was to move some of the investment responsibilities from
the City Treasurer to the new position. This recommendation was not based
upon expectations that such a move would substantially increase the City's
investment income. Rather, the move would ensure that our current
excellent investment program was maintained. Nancy Heaton, City Treas-
urer, has the primary responsibility for the investment of City funds.
Investment transactions can take up to an average of one and one-half
hours of her time per day. She has no other professional accounting staff
in her division and is therefore responsible for all financial analysis
and complex accounting work which must be done in her division. In
addition, the customer service demands from the utility billings and the
a01
-2 -
parking ticket billing areas take a substantial amount of her time. Nancy
does an excellent job with the investments but her workload doesn't always
permit her to spend as much time on investments as we would like.
During this fiscal year Nancy has aggressively pursued the use of swaps
and selling of securities in the Police and Fire Pension investments. A
swap involves the trading of one security for another. A security may be
sold to take advantage of its increased market value at a certain point in
time. Proper timing is imperative to maximize the benefit of both types
of transactions. In the first seven months of this fiscal year, Nancy has
increased investment earnings by $188,000, or 46% over the first 7 months
of FY84, through the use of such investment transactions. Attached is a
chart which shows the increased yields which have been received on the
recent sales of securities. This aggressive posture in managing our
investment portfolio is what we need to maintain and improve upon in order
to continue to maximize the return on our investments. The Assistant
Finance Director position would provide the additional staff hours needed
to spend on the investment program.
Although there is always room for improvement, the City of Iowa City has
one of the best and most productive investment programs in the State. This
is evidenced by the fact that Nancy Heaton has been a guest speaker at an
Iowa Municipal Finance Officers semi-annual meeting and at a League of
Iowa Municipalities annual meeting on investment procedures and legisla-
tion. In June, 1985, Nancy will be a guest speaker at the Illinois
Municipal Treasurers Association meeting in Springfield, Illinois. She
has earned a reputation for being an advocate of changes in the investment
practices for public funds and is determined to earn the highest rate of
earnings possible. The City of Iowa City's investment earnings projec-
tions for the FY86 Budget may appear optimistic when compared to the
projection basis used by other cities but I am confident that Iowa City
can achieve such returns barring a further, long term deterioration of the
market.
Brokers who review our investment portfolio are typically very complimen-
tary and have, on several occasions, used Iowa City's .portfolio as a model
in their workshops for other governmental agencies. In fact, Nancy
frequently receives inquiries from other governmental agencies who have
heard that Iowa City's investment program is a good model to follow.
Another duty recommended for the Assistant Finance Director would be the
management of the City's insurance portfolio. With the current increase
in commercial liability insurance premiums, the City needs to spend more
time evaluating alternatives in order to minimize its insurance costs. The
30% premium increase just experienced will cost the City an additional
$68,000 in FY85. I have estimated another 20% increase ($56,000) in FY86
for insurance costs. This 20% increase may be overly optimistic based
upon what is currently happening in the insurance market. Most certainly
it will require a large amount of staff time to evaluate possible alterna-
tives. My time is limited in what I can spend on insurance analysis and
the City should be spending more time on the management of its risks or
risk -avoidance in order to lower its potential exposures and thus reduce
its liability costs in the future.
bc5
�
$1
SALE OF SECURITIES To MAXIMIZE YIELDS
INVESTMENT
MATURITY DATE
FACE VALUE
SCHEDULED YIELD
YIELD FROM SELLING
U.S. Treasury Bond
08/15/01
692,000.00
12.18
12.38
U.S. Treasury Bond
08/15/01
260,000.00
14.46
20.55
U.S. Treasury Bond
08/15/01
305,000.00
14.46
20.55
Federal Home Land
10/26/92
190,000.00
12.29
14.30
Bank
Federal National
11/10/87
910,000.00
10.81
10.99
Mortgage Assoc.
Government National
07/05/10
517,839.00
12.67
14.42
Mortgage Assoc.
U.S. Treasury Note
05/15/91
530,000.00
14.67
20.34
U.S. Treasury Note
05/15/95
575,000.00
14.39
19.63
a01
1
parks & recreation MEMO
department
to',l Berlin, City Manager from. T• Allen Cassady, Acting Director
emary Vitosh, Finance Director
Recreation Division Half -Time
date .January 25, 1985
re: Supervisory Position, 1986
Budget
The inclusion of an additional half-time supervisor would allow staff to
achieve new operational savings and net revenues. Through a combination
of volunteer, corporate and programming efforts, the funding for support
i of the half-time position could be achieved without additional tax support.
Game
02 'Poo'
Supervision
During the fall, winter and spring the 11:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. temporary
leader duties could be provided by a volunteer.
I
Rate $4.00/hour @ 175 days @ 4 hours/day = $2,800
Corporate Assessments/Fitness Program
Projected 100 fitness assessments @ $15/assessment = $1,500
Projected 20 corporate fitness participants @ 5 hours/week
@ $1.25 @ 40 weeks - $5,000
Projected Total Revenue 6,00
Corporate Program Costs
8 hours @ 4 assessors @ $10/hour = $ 320
10 hours of exercise leader/week @ 40 weeks = $3,200
@ $8.00/hour 3,520
i
Projected Corporate Program Net Income $2,980
Summer Camp Electives
Sports, aquatics, outdoor and arts in the parks electives will be added to
enhance the Summer Camp program offering. Since the ratio of leader to
participant will remain at ten to one, the new program revenues can be
achieved without costs, except more precise supervisory planning and control.
Elective cost $25 @ 2 sessions @ 4 electives $6,000
@ 30 participants/elective
FY86 Analysis •
Recreation Program Supervisor (one-half time) 811,780
Proposed Funding
1611.0 Class III, Step I $11,128
city of iowa city=
L..ty of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 31, 1985
To: Neal Berlin, City Manager & City Council
From: T. Allen Cassady, Acting Director Parks & Recreation Dept.
Re: Bench in front of Gifted
The request to place a bench in front of the windows at Gifted has been
denied by the management committee of the Old Capitol Center. Manager
Jack Hanks met with me on December 11 and has discussed the matter with
his committee on two occasions.
The design of the benches was requested by the management committee when
the area across the entryway, opposite Gifted, was suggested as an
alternative. This request was denied because it would impede the normal
flow of pedestrian traffic entering the mall.
bc4
a83
Clty of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 31, 1985
To: Mayor McDonald and City Council Members
From: Margaret Nowysz, Chair, Historic Preservation Commission IMA
Re: 1984 Historic Preservation Awards Program
On January 9, 1985, the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission held the
1984 Historic Preservation Awards Program. This was the second annual awards
program sponsored by the Commission. The purpose of the program is to
recognize local projects that represent historically and architecturally
sensitive rehabilitation of a buildings exterior or to acknowledge new
construction that demonstrates aesthetic sensitivity.
Eight nominations were submitted for the 1984 program. Applications were
received from the following:
Sweets & Treats Mid -Eastern Iowa Community Mental
226 S. Clinton Health Center
505 E. College
Burger King
124 S. Dubuque
Rocky Rococo Pizza
118 S. Dubuque
Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific
Railroad Depot
119 Wright Street
Ellis Home - Front Porch
1003 Third Avenue
Goodner Home - Front Porch'
230 S. Dodge
West Terrace - Old Capitol
University of Iowa Pentacrest
Judges for the program were Judith McClure, architect for the state Office of
Historic Preservation; Deba Leach, an architectural historian from Davenport;
and Marlys Svendsen, preservation planner for the City of Davenport.
Ten and
days prior to the program, the judges received copies of the app
on the afternoon of January 9, the jury viewed slides of the buildings and
made site inspections of the nominated structures. On the evening of January
9, jury members critiqued the perservation skills demonstrated in each
project and recommended that awards be presented for restoration of the
Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Depot, Rocky Rococo Pizza, the front
porch of the Goodner home and the balustrade of the West Terrace of Old
Capitol. Comments made by the judges regarding the nominees were recorded in
the January 9, 1985, Historic Preservation Commission minute.Copies of
those minutes were included in your January 29, 1985, meeting packet.
The Commission encourages the Council to accept the recommendations for
awards made by the jurors and to present awards for sensitive restoration of
these structures at the February 12, 1985, Council meeting. The names of the
individuals who will be accepting the awards will be given to you prior to
the February 12 meeting.
all
2
i
The Commission is encouraged by the positive response to the 1984 Awards
Program and feels this event has given the program the credibility and
exposure that will motivate others to participate in future programs.
cc: Don Schmeiser
Jim Hencin
bj3/19
0
" a.
Johnson Cot ty Council of Governme" s
_ %% 410Ey,
.MSMngtonSt bA0Ctbvw52240
iDate: January 30, 1985
To: City Council of Iowa City and Johnson County Board of Supervisors
tQ
From: Cheryl Mintlel�Numan Services Coordinator
Re: City/County Representatives' Committee Recommendations for FY86 Human
Service Funding
0n Monday, January 28, 1985, the following City and County representatives
met in an open meeting: Mayor John McDonald, Kate Dickson, George Strait,
and Chairperson Dennis Langenberg and Dick Myers. Also present were: Carol
Thompson, Director of the County Department of Human Services; Marge Penney,
Chairperson of United Way Allocations Division; Mary Anne Volm, Director of
United Way; Riley Grimes, County Coordinator; and Cheryl Mintle.
Staff presented their funding recommendations and the committee discussed
them. The committee then formulated recommendations for funding which are
attached as additions to the staff recommendations which you have already
received. Committee recommendations are being presented to the City Council
for full review at their Informal Session on Tuesday, February 5, 1985.
In addition to making the attached recommendations, the committee agreed on
the following issues which need City/County/United Way attention in the
coming year:
1. The possibility of human service agencies combining various functions.
2. Improving the service delivery system which provides emergency assistance
to the indigent.
Please call me at 356-5242 with any questions or concerns.
bdw3/1
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FY86 HU14AN SERVICES FUNDING
BY JOINT CITY/COUNTY REPRESENTATIVES
Unless listed below, the committee agreed with staff recommendations. The
following agencies have committee recommendations which differ from staff
recommendations:
Crisis Center - Food Bank and Emergency Assistance
Committee recommendation is that City and County contributions be the same,
at $8,902, 3.2% increase City, 3.0% increase County.
Domestic Violence Project
Committee recommendation is for City and County contributions to be the same,
$12,000, 15.0% increase City, 53.8% increase County.
Rape Victim Advocacy Program
Committee recommends no increased expansion for this program and for the City
and County allocations to remain at last year's level of $9,865 for both City
and County.
United Action for Youth
Committee recommendation is that the Outreach Counselor not be picked up
locally after grant termination. Due to the size of last year's allocation
it was decided that a 5% increase is too large and that the City and County
allocations should increase by $1,000, or $38,592 City, $38,500 County, 2.6%
increases.
City New Requests
City representatives decided that the staff recommendations for funding new
requests be forwarded for full Council discussion on February 5th.
County Only Requests
ARC
County representatives recommended that the staff recommendation for full
allocation of $16,000 (same amount allocated last year) be made on a purchase
of service method. The County would be billed based on program usage.
Youth Homes and 4 -C's
County representatives decided that additional Board of Supervisors' discus-
sion is needed on these agency requests.
See attached City and County revised charts for complete details of Committee
recommendations.
:d6l%]
'OMMITTEE RECOIMIENDATIONS
CITY OF IOWA CITY
HUMAN SERVICE AGENCY FUNDING FOR FY85
REQUESTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FY86
1/30/85
. . . . . .
. . . . FY86 .
. . . . .
. . . . . .
Agency
FY85
Request
Proposed $ Increase
% Increase
Big Brothers/Big Sisters
$ 21,901
$ 27,800
$ 24,091 $
2,190
10.0
Crisis Center -Intervention
I
8,281*
8,460
8,460
179
2.1
i
Crisis Center -Emergency
8,627
8,737
8,902
275
3.2
Domestic Violence Project
10,420*
14,500
12,000
1,580
15.0
Elderly Services Agency
27,159*
27,836
27,836
677
2.5
f
HACAP
2,000
2,277
2,277
277
13.8
Mayor's Youth Employment
29,076
29,000
29,000
-76
-.2
i
Willow Creek Neighborhood Ctr. 8,327*
9,400
9,400
1,073
12.8
Rape Victim Advocacy
9,865*
14,183
9,865
0
0
United Action for Youth
37,592*
39,365
38.592
1,000
2_6
Total Continuation:
$163,248*
$181,558
$170,423 $
7,175
4.4%
New Requests
87,361
Red Cross
-0-
3,000
3,000
3,000(4)
-
Sub -Total
163,248
271,919
173,423 10,175
6.2%
Contingency Fund (2.0%)
3,156
-
3,468
312
-
Total Aid to Agencies
166,404
271,919
176,891 1) 10,4873)
MECCA
-0-
10,000
10,000(2)
-
_
*With mid -year salary adjustments, totaling
$6,960.
(1)A 3% increase for Aid to
Agencies is
($166,312 x
3%) $171,301.
This
recommendation is over that amount by
$5,590.
°•
(2)In addition to Aid to Agencies, MECCA
is being recommended for
funding
from Iowa City's liquor
profit revenues
for FY86.
Full Council
discussion
recommended.
i
(3)Last year's overall City
increase in
funding was
8.8%.
(4)Full Council discussion
recommended for Red Cross
new request.
N
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
JOHNSON COUNTY 1/30/85
HUMAN AGENCY FUNDING FOR FY8b
REQUESTS RAND ERECOMMENDATIONS FOR FY86
. . . . FY86 . . . . . . . . . . .
Re uest Proposed $ Increase % Increase
A enc
FY85
_
Big Brothers/Big Sisters
$ 10,800 $
15,000 $
11,340 $
540
5.0
CAHHSA (VNA)
112,350
112,350
112,350
No change
No change
Crisis Center -Intervention
24,262
25,840
25,475
1,213
5.0
Crisis Center -Emergency
8,635
9,498
8,902
267
3.0
Domestic Violence
7,800
19,500
12,000
4,200
53.8
Free Medical Clinic
30,899
34,408
32,443
1,544
5.0
4,175
4,554
4,554
379
9.0
HACAP
2,400
3,842
3,842
1,442
60.0
Independent Living
Mayor's Youth Employment
2,200
3,144
3,144
944
42.9
willow Creek Neighborhood Ctr.
2,000
2,600
2,600
600
30.0
103,000
103,000
103,000
No change
No change
MECCA
Rape Victim Advocacy
9,865
14,183
9,865
0
0
4,000
4,000
4,000
No change
No change
Red Cross
United Action for Youth
37,500
46,000
38,500
1,000
2.6
27,708
54,600
27,708(1)No than e(2)
No c3ai%e
Youth Homes
$387,594
$452,519
$399,723
$ 12,129
Total Continuation:
DHS Transfer
12,511
16,000
16,000
3,489
27 9
ARC Summer Program
16,866
16,866
2,366
16.3
Adult Day Program
14,500
4.2
Lutheran Soc. Service
12.980
13,536
13,536
556
427,585
498,921
446,125
18,540
4.3%
New Requests
0
1,500
1,500
1,500 -
Elderly Services Agency
(2)
0
6,141
4,000
4,000
4 -C's
427,585
506,562
451,625
24,040
5.6%
Total:
() re-evaluation
recommended with
discussion,additional
funding.
2Committeerecommended
addit onalBoard
Gi-ti]
MINUTES OF STAFF MEETING
January 16, 1985
Referrals from the informal and formal Council meetins were distributed
to the staff for review and discussion (copy attached?.
The City Manager reminded the staff of the budget meeting with the City
Council on Saturday morning at the Public Library. This meeting will include
the capital improvement projects.
The Finance Director distributed a memorandum regarding the issuance of
checks. She advised that checks will be issued only on the two regularly
scheduled release dates of the 13th and 23rd of each month. Requests for
checks are duein the Finance Department on the 6th and 16th of each month.
The City Manager advised that a special formal Council meeting will be
held before the informal meeting on Tuesday evening, January 22. Two items
will be on the agenda - the tax abatement ordinance and a resolution regarding
the purchase of land in the Lower Ralston Creek area.
Prepared by: j
Lorraine Saeger
1
M1
i
Regular Council Meeting
DATE: January 15, 1985 PENDING COUNCIL ITEMS
LU o
W Lu
WowO
SUBJECT
I
aw
REFERRED
DATE
X28
Q
COMMENTS/STATUS
02
o W
TO
DUE
�Puu
o'C
a z
Ct
W
a
December Zoning News
1-15
P&PD
Copy in Friday's Packet. Request
January, February and March issues.
Jensen/Ruppert Properties
1-15
P&PD
Develop alternative access ideas.
Board of Adjustment
1-15
P&PD
Check minutes of meeting re. referent
to no economic harm re. Spenler
Tire sign issue.
Harlocke/Weeber Issue
1-15
P&PD
Set up meeting with Council and
PAZ. Notify property owners and
neighbors.
Resources Conservation Comm.
1-15
City Clerk/
Lorraine
Readvertise.
Bulk Rate Bus Passes
1-15
Transit
Explore possibility of making these
available to outlying apartment ary�
to use as incentives to attract
tpnantq
Employee Information
1-15
P&PD
Jin
Contact Millard Warehouse regarding
number of regular employees and how
many reside in Iowa City. For Friday
Parket.
Fleeting on February 25, 1985, for
o
City Conference Board
1-14
City Clerk
public hearing and action on Assessor'
FY86 Budget.
m L
o 'c
Old Landfill south of South
1-14
Public Work
Is there dumping of concrete or other
fill in that area?
Riverside Drive.
MINUTES OF STAFF MEETING
January 23, 1985
Referrals from the informal Council meeting of January 22 were distributed
to the staff for review and discussion (copy attached).
Items for the agenda of January 29 include:
Public hearing on Melrose Lake area
Public hearing on an ordinance to rezone property in the 1500 block
on the east side of South Gilbert Street from CI -1 to CC -2
Public hearing on an ordinance to amend the sign regulations
Public hearing on vacating the north alley of Block 4, Lyon's
First Addition
Recommendation from the P&Z Commission regarding a request to rezone
property on the north side of Rapid Creek Road
Resolution approving final subdivision plat of First and Rochester,
Part 2
Resolution approving preliminary subdivision plat of Southwest Estates
and final subdivision plat of Southwest Estates Part One
Recommendation of the P&Z Commission to adopt revised bylaws.
Ordinance amending Plumbing Code, recommending that the three
readings be waived
Resolution adopting fees for Office of the City Clerk
The City Manager advised that there will be no informal or formal Council
meetings on March 25 and 26. Three Council members will be attending a
National League of Cities meeting and another Council member will be out of
town. The staff was requested to plan agenda items accordingly.
The City Clerk advised that the mayors' portraits have been hung in the
Council Chambers. Parks Division staff painted the Chambers and also put
up the portraits. The City Manager requested that the Acting Director of
Parks and Recreation pass on to the crew his thanks for a job well done.
The City Manager commented that there have been problems with people not
being willing to clean up meeting rooms after the meeting is concluded.
He requested that the department heads, at their staff meeting�kor�debris
clear that staff is responsible for clearing the room of any papers
left by the participants of the meeting.
The Assistant City Manager advised that quarterly reports should be in by
February 8.
The City Manager advised that if any employees have questions about the
insurance coverage which will take effect July 1, 1985, Anne will be glad
to meet with them. He also he
send
printed information givingasked
ctor
asummary tHuman
ofthechangeslwhichswilletake place.out
Pre ared by:
Lorraine Saeger
age
Informal Coi
M ATr
vnUL•s—•
W 10
02
Q
Lower Rals
'1
J
North Dubu
Water Pres
Foster Roa
Liquor Li(
Charter R
MINUTES OF STAFF MEETING
January 30, 1985
Referrals from the informal and formal Council meetings were distributed to
the staff for review and discussion (copy attached).
The City Manager furnished copies of articles from theWall Street Journal
which deal with employee evaluations and employee relations.
The Acting Director of Parks and Recreation advised that forms are available
for maintenance or repair needs. These forms should be used to request assis-
tance rather than by phone. Work assignments for the staff can be handled in
a more orderly manner with the use of the forms.
The City Manager advised that a memorandum will be sent to the staff regarding
the IRS ruling regarding the treatment of fringe benefits in the Tax Reform Act
of 1984. The regulations are extremely confusing, but it appears that the
City will be forced to withhold an amount for the use of vehicles. This
probably will be based on a value of $4.00 per day. This would apply to
people who are assigned a car, to those who are on call, to those who take a
car home for a meeting or to leave to go out of town the next day, and to
those who are picked up and taken to work. The Accounting Division is pre-
paring to make changes in the computer to take care of this. Information will
be provided as to the kind of records which will be needed. It is being con-
sidered to have the employee furnish this information with the time sheet.
Department heads will have to certify as to the use of the vehicle for each
employee. This will be retroactive to January 1. When a final ruling is
received from Internal Revenue, the staff will be informed.
Prepared by:
r Lorraine Saeger
Informal COL
nATG' Januar%
Cw
U
WW
1310
02
nom. i
Interesl
increase
Economi
Adminis
Housing
Newspap
Fountai
IRBs
Northsi
Liquor
Informal Council Meeting
Page 2
BATF' January 28,
UI.—Ir
W W
m
02
az
PR RecommE
W
I, .
Regular Council Meeting
DATE • January 29
Ucc
3
O
az
�
Repair Lig
Political
Nonconforn
Awning/Can
Sign Ordin
Yoder Prof
Street Nan
Melrose La
Regular Council Meeting
Page 2
DATE: January 29, 1985
PENDING COUNCIL ITEMS
��1 .7l�l�l . ImI 1
i
T TH
S m ,
I
i g
lOAM-Staff Meetin 8AM-Magistrate
8AM-Ma istrate Court (Chambers)
j
Court(Chambers)4PM-Urban Environ (Conf Room)
•30PM-S tial Ad Roc Committee
pe Rec Center, A) 7:30pM-£ormal P&Z
informal Council ( (Chambers)
(Chambers) 7:3OPM-Riverfront
7&ZPt(RecfCtmr,, lA) 6:30PM-Informal Comm (Sr. Center
p )
/`S
7/,7_131OAM-Staff Mtg 1f�
I ,D (Conf Room) 8AM-Magistrate
8:30AM-Housing 3P Se Cenr
AM -Magistrate Appeals Board cccqmm l enior4ff r) Court (Chambers)
Court (Chambers) (Public Library) 5- ustmeen d(c:ha
9:30AM-Housing Co1v 17P -parks & Rec
•30PM-Informal (Public Library) COlilla (Rec Center)
Council (Chambers 7.3en oAirport Co
7Senior,Center)
•30pM-Resources 7:30pM-council 7:30PM-historic
Conservation Comm (Chambers) preservation Co
(Public Library) d/
/% 8AM-BroadbandI7:30pm-Fomal
.zv
TelecommunicationLOAM-Staff Meetin 8AM-Magistrate
i Comm (Chambers) (Conf Room) Court (Chambers)
HOLIDAY 3.30PM-CCN (Publi
Library) P&Z
....._.,.-..�., environ (Chambers)
Court•(Chambers) 'R
6:30PM-Informal 7:30pM-Council
Council (Chamber )
7CommM (SeniorRCEr s
8AM-Magistrate
Court (Chambers
4PM-Library Boar
(Public Library
F
S
Prepared by Ernie Zuber
January 31, 1985 r
C/�PliT l�l � MPr��/�m��7� P
2_ 3
l--�o19-4 _I STdSP _I _GTmfl%Gv
fond
'biuYllh�T4.H ST_�•��" II 3Ypool-i _ I _ � : � I _ _. __ I � ___;_...
f—.—I�Lhr.%A_l"%�r01C--- i 2po0o J ._ i :- , ._. , -- •-- -_� -
J�br e=whferaY'c--- . ;_2oaoo',__I FYk�_/de_wv�/a7Drric YAu571 it Y s%I 1/sbe�� Ta
i• --f I I I1�% I, bare .
A7%!G i-SS!/ijG - LOq WG—,, r�1K� Qnr it i1�
11
A
U�ILow �_r�e%t�I�••ai K--- I ,.3z 3.�'0� -I �--�---� I— C- _ II I � _�— —I 1 _ � �' -
dew9[K Llm�,fr. III ' ppl I � I _2Zoo I—II i IC' � i �
I — ,9!la_�AvIH JI-;—!-- - I i--� 'I l�eQ°o� �-��. r-- -1,•-1- �
L-A --
C-' _ �tvlc �TeY ��' �++s�ryr—,__�I,�zGtoc» _-�IM�sT_�o� i17I_✓ rers).�ew acJ7 61% �.e r -n� � -
f}iy�r i M9 S �'/or —! `I/U6 0 oa
-I-- f _— I F
/T
oo ao'oIIS Tr it I Lyo'oo of j I --` -
' ' Vrr ja T VI'r�YA� c
I
-1--_I-
f3-Q--B/1tf1_0 W'ys,
-- d+r�C Z - _ rI / o0o
- -�I o
4310115 it S3ySUo II H3000' -III 31'So6
TDTL 9694to, /y/ S000 o- 1
711, '
36 0
J-11 I11
. SWI n�s7se �ra�mC!il1_FAC//i�P�S�J� I the"�snun�u a'r or/n!�/c jsI -! sjJIj OLW(? e Hei17 ievu, a IBio.ds!..
a�
6
,; 1-en,e, c Z'ye dl�i�. �r�ssoj.� Para/dy w I
/l 'Y vr7 . flT L[ us �� 'a at,,%Y c' r Ji II i i II
7- N/e h1fv4 Tir„r l �eoK �!
Eve)—
eayK,i�h_S�vdy ��,4s nLLe--11I' pS_4 i'r. ._M .ard_c.7on, e
rc w r� A
86
----- --- FX
.... ......
CFF
,J,f, t, t ';1
.70-14, ii
�_
II
I
1 3.Y
yoo
M311,7S
;�j
bo7c FhvS
it -dr—
vs ; t e,!77
?/
It— ---
*I,
Afa
sr
I
I
We.
4.00C
)rr9*W'e I wee
-A
r� C.O,��74
i ---- -------
P 121 p- o V4
-A,
0,4d is
60 n
�.Zxoa;
A
LEE
-000.
71_700
37 U'01
-----------
�0 0
2
0
,56 0ao
xr pc-
vie
4
aw007
IV
4�—�I-
711
L �T_
Ih�
_�
---
t
f y�loa���
l
j
pw
—4
i
cow
I
A�jJej
q i
c r
p
I
I
J 1 1 'S fi Ar %+f_47e. 4)Yooloh
00,00
730060 7l_!LZ_O5"l 11 7
II
L, 3gp,0I ' i I-�TLhow f1_ssu'rcd_�/�—' _
3150
1..—�_^
–.�
–
I I
I �---
If
. �--
I.__
IA
Y3 U
/r 1,tov
' ; Am,.� I� ! � ', :. I � � e P1 , �? .
4P ? f(avemvp
7h/N
- 27
Re
4. J.S
'
o -C
Fl
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 8, 1985
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
RE: Material in Friday's Packet
Memorandum from the Wastewater Facility Committee with attached Phase I
Report from Metcalf 8 Eddy. ag 8
Memorandum from the City Manager regarding administrative employee merit
pay system. a 89
Memorandum from the City Attorney Review and Selection Advisory Committee
regarding recruitment process. a 9 0
Memorandum from the Planning staff regarding Foster Road/Bristol Drive/
Old Dubuque Road.
Memoranda from the Department of Public Works:
a. Bristol Drive/Old Dubuque Road Intersection -9ZLZ
b. Dubuque Road Improvements - CIP V -5—
c. North Side Lighting y�
d. Dubuque Street - Iowa Avenue to Park Road qs
Memorandum from the Housing Coordinator regarding update/status of Project
IA05P022005, acquisition of ten units. 129 6
Memorandum from the City Forester regarding establishing a city tree nurseryvg±z
Letter from Randall A. Yoshisato to Mayor McDonald with attached letter to
the University regarding problems encountered with traffic congestion near
the University. A copy of a reply to Mr. Yoshisato from the University is C? 960
attached.
Article: Proposal to share airports unpopular a 99
Legislative Bulletin No. 2, February 1, 1985. .300
i
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 8, 1985
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
RE: Material in Friday's Packet
Memorandum from the Wastewater Facility Committee with attached Phase I
Report from Metcalf 8 Eddy. ag 8
Memorandum from the City Manager regarding administrative employee merit
pay system. a 89
Memorandum from the City Attorney Review and Selection Advisory Committee
regarding recruitment process. a 9 0
Memorandum from the Planning staff regarding Foster Road/Bristol Drive/
Old Dubuque Road.
Memoranda from the Department of Public Works:
a. Bristol Drive/Old Dubuque Road Intersection -9ZLZ
b. Dubuque Road Improvements - CIP V -5—
c. North Side Lighting y�
d. Dubuque Street - Iowa Avenue to Park Road qs
Memorandum from the Housing Coordinator regarding update/status of Project
IA05P022005, acquisition of ten units. 129 6
Memorandum from the City Forester regarding establishing a city tree nurseryvg±z
Letter from Randall A. Yoshisato to Mayor McDonald with attached letter to
the University regarding problems encountered with traffic congestion near
the University. A copy of a reply to Mr. Yoshisato from the University is C? 960
attached.
Article: Proposal to share airports unpopular a 99
Legislative Bulletin No. 2, February 1, 1985. .300
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
iDate: February 7, 1985
j To: City Council
From: Wastewater Facility Committee
i
Re: Phase I Report on Wastewater Plan
j Metcalf & Eddy has submitted Phase I of the "Wastewater Plan -Alternative Study"
The Wastewater Facility Committee has reviewed the report and met with Metcalf
and Eddy to discuss the various alternatives. As a result, the Committee recom-
mends that alternatives 2, 6, 8 and 11 be considered for further evaluation
because they all satisfy a majority of the following criteria:
1. Construction Cost. The alternatives vary in cost from $25 million to $46
mi ion o ars). The Committee rejected the higher cost options.
2. Com atibilit with the Com rehensive Plan. Alternatives which would encour-
age deve opment in ocations contrary o he comprehensive plan should not be
pursued.
3. Flexi��b. It was deemed desirable to select alternatives that have the
i extli6Mty of being expanded to allow growth within treatment plant service
areas beyond the 20 year design period.
} 4. Treatment Sites. The alternatives selected provide for further study of all
pp[ a the var ous treatment plant locations considered.
k 5. Wastewater Flow Transfer. There was interest in selecting alternatives
which would Te—a—M—Ty-771ow the transfer of flows in the future from one
treatment site or drainage area to another treatment site or drainage area at
minimal cost.
I
Metcalf and Eddy has recommended further evaluation of alternatives IA and 4 in
addition to alternatives 2, 6, 8 and 11. The Committee rejected alternatives IA
and 4 on the basis of cost.
The Committee recommends that the City Council consider alternatives 2, 6, 8 and
11 for further study.
This subject is scheduled for discussion at the informal Council meeting of
February 19, 1985.
Wastewater Facility Committee:
John McDonald
I Noel Willis
Richard Gibson
Michael Finnegan
I I Richard Burger
j Chuck Schmadeke
Don Schmeiser
Rosemary Vitosh
Neal Berlin
asp
CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA
REPORT ON
71
-' WASTEWATER PLAN ALTERNATIVE STUDY
PHASE
i
JANUARY 309 1985
METCALF & EDDY, INC. / ENGINEERS
' BOSTON / NEW YORK / PALO ALTO / CHICAGO
i
1
h.
M:E
January 31, 1985
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.
Engineers & Planners
85 W. Algonquin Road, Suite 500
Arlington Heights, Illinois 60005.4422
(312(228-0900
Mr. Charles J. Schmadeke, P.E.
Director of Public Works
City of Iowa City
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Dear Mr. Schmadeke:
Attached is the Phase I report covering the Investigation
and Evaluation Phase of our agreement dated October 24, 1984.
Comments from the Wastewater Committee have been incorporated
into the text as discussed at our meeting January 25, 1985.
We are prepared to meet with the City Council to discuss this
report at your request. Phase II of our study cannot begin
until the City's alternatives have been identified and verified
by the Council.
We appreciate the opportunity to serve the City of Iowa City
and look forward to the next phase of our study.
very truly yours,
115-14�:7
Lawrence P. Jawor•ki
Project Manager
/mr
Ooslon I New sof I Pale Allo I San Oomaroino I Irvmh. CAI Chicago I Houston I Atlanta I Somerville, NJ I Srlvel Spring. MD I Honolulu
i
h.
M:E
January 31, 1985
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.
Engineers & Planners
85 W. Algonquin Road, Suite 500
Arlington Heights, Illinois 60005.4422
(312(228-0900
Mr. Charles J. Schmadeke, P.E.
Director of Public Works
City of Iowa City
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Dear Mr. Schmadeke:
Attached is the Phase I report covering the Investigation
and Evaluation Phase of our agreement dated October 24, 1984.
Comments from the Wastewater Committee have been incorporated
into the text as discussed at our meeting January 25, 1985.
We are prepared to meet with the City Council to discuss this
report at your request. Phase II of our study cannot begin
until the City's alternatives have been identified and verified
by the Council.
We appreciate the opportunity to serve the City of Iowa City
and look forward to the next phase of our study.
very truly yours,
115-14�:7
Lawrence P. Jawor•ki
Project Manager
/mr
Ooslon I New sof I Pale Allo I San Oomaroino I Irvmh. CAI Chicago I Houston I Atlanta I Somerville, NJ I Srlvel Spring. MD I Honolulu
Table of Contents
Paqe
Chapter I
Introduction
1
Chapter II
Findings and Conclusions
2
Chapter III
Phase I
3
Basis of Alternative Development
Historical Review
3
Design Conditions
6
Effluent Conditions
13
Collection System Needs
14
Site Information
15
Alternatives
Introduction
18
Costs
18
Treatment
19
Alternative Descriptions
Alternative 1
21
Alternative lA
24
Alternative 2
27
Alternative 3
30
Alternative 4
33
Alternative 5
36
Alternative 5A
39
Alternative 6
42
Alternative 7
45
Alternative 8
48
Alternative 9
51
Alternative 9A
54
Alternative 10
57
Alternative 11
60
Summary
63
Appendix A
- Cost Curves
66
I
Chapter I
Introduction
This report evaluates several different alternatives for the
transportation and treatment of wastewater generated within
the designated service area of the Iowa City wastewater
treatment facilities. The complete report will consist of
three phases leading to a recommended plan.
Phase I comprises a screening of treatment/transportation
alternatives on a conceptual basis. Thirteen alternative
solutions are presented. All alternatives presented have been
developed to meet both short-term and long-term goals. Each
of these alternatives provides treatment service for a twenty
year period. Sewer systems developed for each alternative are
based on fully developed areas following the intended land use
identified in the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan (1983).
Phase II will evaluate in detail the six most favorable plans
identified in Phase I. This evaluation will lead to the
selection of three plans to be investigated in Phase III.
Phase III will evaluate the three selected plans on a basis of
constructability and financial implications. The most
favorable plan will become the recommended plan.
This report contains only the Phase I effort. Following a
review of this material, additional studies will be undertaken
to complete Phase II.
-1-
.M
I
I�1
I
Chapter I
Introduction
This report evaluates several different alternatives for the
transportation and treatment of wastewater generated within
the designated service area of the Iowa City wastewater
treatment facilities. The complete report will consist of
three phases leading to a recommended plan.
Phase I comprises a screening of treatment/transportation
alternatives on a conceptual basis. Thirteen alternative
solutions are presented. All alternatives presented have been
developed to meet both short-term and long-term goals. Each
of these alternatives provides treatment service for a twenty
year period. Sewer systems developed for each alternative are
based on fully developed areas following the intended land use
identified in the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan (1983).
Phase II will evaluate in detail the six most favorable plans
identified in Phase I. This evaluation will lead to the
selection of three plans to be investigated in Phase III.
Phase III will evaluate the three selected plans on a basis of
constructability and financial implications. The most
favorable plan will become the recommended plan.
This report contains only the Phase I effort. Following a
review of this material, additional studies will be undertaken
to complete Phase II.
-1-
.M
I
Chapter II
Findings and Conclusions
The Iowa Department of Air, Water and Waste Management
should be requested to perform load allocation studies on
i
the Iowa River.
I j ;7
i I
2.
Additional flow monitoring is recommended to properly
size stormwater treatment and/or storage facilities and
j
necessary transportation systems.
I � r
3.
Stormwater flow equalization or treatment at critical
d
locations in the collection system can provide cost
�7
savings by reducing pipeline sizes.
�M
4.
Alternatives IA, 2, 4, 6, 8 and 11 are recommended as the
alternatives to be studied in detail. These alternatives
provide a range of alternative solutions using
combinations of treatment sites, conveyance alternatives
til
and treatment methods.
1�
1
1�
i'
i M
,
i
i I rel
n. 4
1.1
1 t
i
-2-
-3-
it
Chapter III
Phase I
I
The purpose of this Chapter is to review previously completed
engineering studies, to identify design conditions for
development and evaluation of alternative plans,
and to
develop and evaluate alternative plans
using different
combinations of treatment sites
and transportation
techniques. This chapter is
"
organized into two main
sections. These
i
are:
..
1. Basis of Alternative Development
2. Alternative Plans
BASIS OF ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT
Historical Review
During the last several years,
ing
effort has been undertaken by IowaCitydevelop
and!a� implement a public works program aimed at improving the
transportation and treatment of wastewaters
generated within
the service area of the Iowa City wastewater
treatment
system. This engineering effort has
been partially funded by
grants from the United States
Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) and the
Iowa Department of Water, Air and Waste
Management (IDWAWM), Additionally,
final engineering plans
and specifications
have been completed and submitted for
review to the
IDWAWM. A small portion of the interceptor
o
sewer system known as the River Corridor Sewer has been
+i
1 �
( I
i
constructed.
-3-
it
I �"
•
IJ
i .
I`
j
r�
t F„
lig
I �"
The Iowa City wastewater collection system, like many other
systems, has been used for purposes other than transportation
of wastewaters. Over the years extraneous sources of water
not normally requiring treatment have been connected to the
system. These sources are:
1. Roof drains
2. Inter -connections with storm sewer system
3. Foundation drains
These sources of water not requiring treatment must be
included in the treatment system once they are mixed with
other wastewaters. Annually these extraneous sources do not
represent large volumes of water. They do however, result in
large instantaneous flow rates that require sewerage systems
to be oversized. This oversizing occurs both in the
collection and treatment portions of the sewerage system.
Figure 3-1 illustrates how Iowa City compares with other
cities where extraneous waters have been prevented from
entering the collection system. From Figure 3-1, communities
the size of Iowa City would expect maximum wastewater flows to
be 2 to 3 times the average wastewater flow. The ratio for
Iowa City of peak hourly wet weather flow to average dry
weather flow is 9.7. When comparing the peak hourly wet
weather to average wet weather flow the ratio is still 6.7.
These high ratios result in construction of sewers up to 2 1/2
times larger than those used by comparable communities where
the extraneous water has been prevented from entering the
sewers. It is costly and difficult at this time to either
construct adequately sized pipelines or to eliminate
extraneous water from the system. Iowa City has an ongoing
program to eliminate roof drains and inter -connections with
storm sewers. These programs should be continued.
-4-
•
IJ
i .
I`
j
The Iowa City wastewater collection system, like many other
systems, has been used for purposes other than transportation
of wastewaters. Over the years extraneous sources of water
not normally requiring treatment have been connected to the
system. These sources are:
1. Roof drains
2. Inter -connections with storm sewer system
3. Foundation drains
These sources of water not requiring treatment must be
included in the treatment system once they are mixed with
other wastewaters. Annually these extraneous sources do not
represent large volumes of water. They do however, result in
large instantaneous flow rates that require sewerage systems
to be oversized. This oversizing occurs both in the
collection and treatment portions of the sewerage system.
Figure 3-1 illustrates how Iowa City compares with other
cities where extraneous waters have been prevented from
entering the collection system. From Figure 3-1, communities
the size of Iowa City would expect maximum wastewater flows to
be 2 to 3 times the average wastewater flow. The ratio for
Iowa City of peak hourly wet weather flow to average dry
weather flow is 9.7. When comparing the peak hourly wet
weather to average wet weather flow the ratio is still 6.7.
These high ratios result in construction of sewers up to 2 1/2
times larger than those used by comparable communities where
the extraneous water has been prevented from entering the
sewers. It is costly and difficult at this time to either
construct adequately sized pipelines or to eliminate
extraneous water from the system. Iowa City has an ongoing
program to eliminate roof drains and inter -connections with
storm sewers. These programs should be continued.
-4-
cl,
i
I
tl
ly
In the engineering studies completed to date, detailed
evaluation of community needs have been undertaken. These
studies parallel the comprehensive planning completed by the
y Iowa City Department of Planning and Program Development. The
purpose of the review of community needs conducted as part of
this study is only to update the previously completed work
(done in the period 1978-1980) to the current time frame. For
-6-
Other problems result from the entrance of extraneous water
—
into the collection system. The most common problems are
sewer back-ups into basements and discharge of wastewater from
the collection system at low lying locations. In terms of
compliance with environmental regulations, the uncontrolled
by-passing of wastewater during minor storm events is not
^
allowed. To comply with the regulations, any sewer system
flows resulting from a storm with a frequency less than a 5 -
year storm must receive full treatment. Figure 3-2 defines
the characteristics of the 5 -year storm.
As previously discussed, Iowa City has been soliciting Federal
„
and State aid to assist in the engineering and construction of
the needed improvements. Working within the guidelines of the
USEPA and the IDWAWM, Iowa City has remained in the grants
p
r
program and currently is ranked as the sixth community in the
[ �ti
f
State of Iowa to receive Federal and State funds. However,
'
the first five communities are expected to take all of the
(
funds available to the State for the next several years.
Current USEPA requirements stipulate the need for all
1•. i
communities to be in compliance with the NPDES permit
conditions by July, 1988. This compliance requirement is to
be met regardless of the availability of Federal and State
grants. Therefore, it does not appear probable that grant
4
assistance will be available to the City for implementing .
needed improvements.
Design Conditions
ly
In the engineering studies completed to date, detailed
evaluation of community needs have been undertaken. These
studies parallel the comprehensive planning completed by the
y Iowa City Department of Planning and Program Development. The
purpose of the review of community needs conducted as part of
this study is only to update the previously completed work
(done in the period 1978-1980) to the current time frame. For
-6-
co
0
c
0
m
0
E
0
�p
c
Q
n
0
2<
0
N
D
u
5 10 15 20 30 40 50 60 z i '+ I. "' .
MINUTES DURATION HOURS
this study it is
not be completed
until 2010. Requ
the needs of the
may occur after
evaluated on the
term needs of the
assumed that new treatment facilities will
until 1990 and should serve the community
fired sewer interceptors will be sized,to meet
.r service areas when fully developed. This
the year 2010. All alternatives will be
basis of meeting both short-term and long -
community.
Population. Figure 3-3 illustrates the projected population
growth within the service area as defined in the Facility Plan
by Veenstra and Kimm. The service area is established from
natural geographical barriers, areas served by other
,. facilities, and sufficient area to allow for orderly growth of
the community. Figure 3-4 shows the boundary established as
the service area. The population growth curve shows a 298
`i growth to the design year 2010 from the 1980 population of
50508. This is a compounded annual rate of 0.758 per year.
'
S
i
I,l
i
i
Loadings. Population growth, historical data developed in the
operation of the existing wastewater treatment plant, and
recommended sewer system rehabilitation projects have been
utilized to develop estimates of future hydraulic, organic,
suspended solids, and nitrogen loadings for the facilities.
Hydraulic loading rates have been identified for various
conditions and are summarized in Table 3.1. .
organic, suspended solids and nitrogen loadings are summarized
in Table 3.2. The loadings shown are annual average values.
An estimate of the peaking factor and resulting daily maximum
loading are included in the table. The daily maximum loading
is important in properly sizing wastewater treatment
facilities.
From Table 3.1 the determination of a peak hourly wet weather
flowrate is shown based on flow estimates from the Facilities
-8-
I �
� �'
�
i
'
;,1
i
��
iJ
��
la
! �,
�`
�1
.
I "1
��
i � -�
'
I ��
19
R
Table 3.1 Hydraulic Design Condition
Source
Wastewater Flow
(MGD)
Existing(1)
ADW
AWW
MWW
PHWW(2)
Theoretical
6.681
6.681
6.681
11.664
Sewer Infiltration
-
2.534
6.570
. 6.570
Pooting Drain Tile
-
1.565
15.203
62.760
Inflow
0.040
0.510
4.000
Subtotal
6.681
10.820
28.964
84.994
Increase - 1979 to 2010
Population Increase
(14,350 ! 100 gpcd)
1.435
1.435
1.722(3)
3.586
Planned University Increase
(4)
0.665
0.665
0.665
1.664
Planned Industrial Increase
(4)
0.315
0.315
0.400
0.787
Unforeseen Industrial and
Governmental Increase
(5)
0.400
0.400
0.400
1.000
Subtotal
2.815
2.815
3.092
7.039
TOTAL -YEAR 2010
9.496
13.635
32.056
92.033
(1) From Facilities Plan, Vol. VI, Pg. A-9-
(2) Using a peaking factor of 2.5.
(3) Based on 120 gpcd to account for greater infiltration during MWW
conditions.
(4) Based on Facilities Plan projection (year 2000) + 104.
(5) These flows represent 20% of the peak monthly water use
of the largest water uses in the Study Area, exclusive of the
University.
ADW means Average Day Dry Weather Flowrate
AWN means Average Day Wet Weather Flowrate
MWW means Maximum Day Wet Weather Flowrate
PHWW means Peak Sourly Wet Weather Flowrate
1
I
i
Table 3.2 DESIGN
WASTE LOADINGS
_Population -Year 2010
Pro erred
peak ng
Des gn
Residents
Value
Factor
Value
Out -of -Town Students
63,700
3,000
,..
Flows - MGD
i
ADW - Average Dry Weather
AWW - Average Wet Weather
9.196
MWW -Maximum Wet Weather
PHWW - Peak Hour
13.635
32.056
r
Wet Weather
92.033
Organic Loadings - lbs BODS
.
Resi sora - 63,700 p 0.17
Out -Of -Town Students -3,000 @ 0.05
10,829
1. 58
17,072
�i
Industrial
ISO
1
2.5
375
t •�
Governmental
,386(1)
1,528(2)
1
14386
Iowa City Water Plant
1528
University Water Plant
_
t rI
TOTS
_
16,893
1.97
33361
Suspended Solids - lbs/dav
Rea dents.- 63,700 @ 0.20
Out -of -Town Students -3,000 @ 0.06
12,740
2.7
34398
Industrial
51022(1)
2.7
406
Government
1,371(3)
1
5022
Iowa City Water Plant
1374
University Water Plan
_
TOTAL
19,316
2.14
41280
f 1.J
Or anic and Ammonia Nl tcooen (TRN1
lay
(
Resident 631700 @ 0.036
OU
Out -of -Town Students -3,000 @0.018
2,293
2.2
5015
Industrial
4054 7(1)
2.2
119
Governmental
551(2)
407
TOTAL
3,305
1
1.85
�2
el
6j
(1) Existing maximum loads plus 151.
(2) Existing maximum loadsplus planned expansion plus 151.
(3) Existing maximum loads
minus the water
plants plus
501.
t
'I
1r
� � 1
{ Iti
t r
i
j`
i
i`
-�z-
Plan and a peaking factor of 2.5. It is believed however, that
this peak hourly wastewater flowrate of 92 MGD may be
overestimated since past operating experience at the Iowa City
plant indicates peak flowrates of less than 50 MGD are more
representative. In addition, October of 1984 was the wettest
month for Iowa City since the Civil War. Flooding and
associated problems at the Treatment Plant were not
encountered as would have been expected if the peak hourly wet
weather flow were indeed 92 MGD.
In the previous engineering studies, the recorded maximum flow
rate was 38 MGD. Currently in place sewer capacity can
support the higher value of 92 MGD if all sewer lines are
flowing at capacity. The new River Corridor Sewer is believed
to flow at less than maximum capacity during 5 -year storm
events. It is recommended that additional flow monitoring of
total flows in the sewer system be undertaken. This
information can be collected and utilized prior to the final
design of improvements.
Effluent Conditions
The Iowa River is the major drainage way within the service
area for the Iowa City system. This river is classified by
the IDWAWM as a Class B receiving water. No drinking water is
taken from this river downstream of Iowa City. Because of the
classification of the river and its ability to assimilate
wastewater, the stream is defined as an effluent limited
segment. The current effluent requirement for this
classification requires the discharge of less than 30 mg/1 of
biochemical oxygen demand and suspended solids as well as
ammonia nitrogen levels of less than 10 mg/l in the summer and
15 mg/1 in the winter. The USEPA is studying the need to
modify this requirement. The IDWAWM should be requested to
undertake a waste load allocation study to determine: 1) if
-13-
higher effluent concentrations are justifiable; and 2) at what .
level does the stream become water quality limited. This
evaluation will identify the minimum degree of treatment
required to protect the Iowa River from adverse environmental
impact.
Wastewater treatment facilities could be located with
discharge points into tributary streams of the Iowa River. An
example would be a plant discharging into Snyder Creek.
Discharges into these streams must comply with the 30-30
standard and will also be required to meet more stringent
ammonia standards. These discharge limits are established on
a case by case basis. For this study it is assumed that
complete nitrification will be required at facilities not
discharging directly into the Iowa River.
Collection System Needs
Iowa City faces two problems with respect to the
transportation of wastewater by the existing system. First,
during storm events the capacity of the existing system is
exceeded. This results in uncontrolled discharges or sewer
back-ups. Secondly, new service areas will be added to the
system. As new areas are added, sufficient capacity must
exist for the new wastewater flowrates. The wastewater must
also be transported economically.
Growth areas Figure 3-4 illustrates the previously proposed
interceptor sewer construction. Major growth areas are
located along I-80, in the southeast and northeast portions of
the City, and in the western portion of the City particularly
along Highway 1. The area to the north along I-80 is
adequately served by the recently constructed River Corridor
sewer. Development along Highway 1 is adequately served with
the existing system. As development occurs to the southwest
-14-
a�
I
i
I
�
I
Ir
I
�
I
!
) W
+
4!I
'
i
1^1
I�
higher effluent concentrations are justifiable; and 2) at what .
level does the stream become water quality limited. This
evaluation will identify the minimum degree of treatment
required to protect the Iowa River from adverse environmental
impact.
Wastewater treatment facilities could be located with
discharge points into tributary streams of the Iowa River. An
example would be a plant discharging into Snyder Creek.
Discharges into these streams must comply with the 30-30
standard and will also be required to meet more stringent
ammonia standards. These discharge limits are established on
a case by case basis. For this study it is assumed that
complete nitrification will be required at facilities not
discharging directly into the Iowa River.
Collection System Needs
Iowa City faces two problems with respect to the
transportation of wastewater by the existing system. First,
during storm events the capacity of the existing system is
exceeded. This results in uncontrolled discharges or sewer
back-ups. Secondly, new service areas will be added to the
system. As new areas are added, sufficient capacity must
exist for the new wastewater flowrates. The wastewater must
also be transported economically.
Growth areas Figure 3-4 illustrates the previously proposed
interceptor sewer construction. Major growth areas are
located along I-80, in the southeast and northeast portions of
the City, and in the western portion of the City particularly
along Highway 1. The area to the north along I-80 is
adequately served by the recently constructed River Corridor
sewer. Development along Highway 1 is adequately served with
the existing system. As development occurs to the southwest
-14-
a�
j
I
I
+
higher effluent concentrations are justifiable; and 2) at what .
level does the stream become water quality limited. This
evaluation will identify the minimum degree of treatment
required to protect the Iowa River from adverse environmental
impact.
Wastewater treatment facilities could be located with
discharge points into tributary streams of the Iowa River. An
example would be a plant discharging into Snyder Creek.
Discharges into these streams must comply with the 30-30
standard and will also be required to meet more stringent
ammonia standards. These discharge limits are established on
a case by case basis. For this study it is assumed that
complete nitrification will be required at facilities not
discharging directly into the Iowa River.
Collection System Needs
Iowa City faces two problems with respect to the
transportation of wastewater by the existing system. First,
during storm events the capacity of the existing system is
exceeded. This results in uncontrolled discharges or sewer
back-ups. Secondly, new service areas will be added to the
system. As new areas are added, sufficient capacity must
exist for the new wastewater flowrates. The wastewater must
also be transported economically.
Growth areas Figure 3-4 illustrates the previously proposed
interceptor sewer construction. Major growth areas are
located along I-80, in the southeast and northeast portions of
the City, and in the western portion of the City particularly
along Highway 1. The area to the north along I-80 is
adequately served by the recently constructed River Corridor
sewer. Development along Highway 1 is adequately served with
the existing system. As development occurs to the southwest
-14-
a�
ly
additional capacity will be required. This additional
capacity could be provided by a new sewer crossing the river
near the southern City limits. This sewer is not needed in
the near future. Development in the southeast is more
critical as the existing system is operating at capacity and
land development projects have been proposed.
Capacity Limited Areas In addition to the southeast area
described above, sewer capacity limitations exist in the
Rundell Street Trunk, in the Southeast Trunk, and in the Lower
Muscatine Road Trunk. B&B Engineering Services Inc. has
evaluated the Lower Muscatine Road Trunk. They concluded the
sewer is currently at capacity but that additional capacity
could be achieved by replacing critical segments of the
trunk. Other localized problems exist and should be corrected
as a part of street or other utility improvement projects.
In developing alternative solutions, the above mentioned
capacity limitations and growth areas must be considered and
included in the required improvements.
Site information
Wastewater treatment facilities can be provided at several
different locations. in this report four sites have been
considered. These are:
1. Existing Wastewater Treatment Site
2. Proposed Sand Road Site
3. A site located south of the Sand Road Site
4. A site located south of the Heinz Lift
Station
Other sites were evaluated and eliminated from further
consideration. Moving further south to the confluence of
540
M "411
litial
i�
Iy
i
f
(�
�
i Iti
I
I
o.
y%
I
f
I
I
� y
additional capacity will be required. This additional
capacity could be provided by a new sewer crossing the river
near the southern City limits. This sewer is not needed in
the near future. Development in the southeast is more
critical as the existing system is operating at capacity and
land development projects have been proposed.
Capacity Limited Areas In addition to the southeast area
described above, sewer capacity limitations exist in the
Rundell Street Trunk, in the Southeast Trunk, and in the Lower
Muscatine Road Trunk. B&B Engineering Services Inc. has
evaluated the Lower Muscatine Road Trunk. They concluded the
sewer is currently at capacity but that additional capacity
could be achieved by replacing critical segments of the
trunk. Other localized problems exist and should be corrected
as a part of street or other utility improvement projects.
In developing alternative solutions, the above mentioned
capacity limitations and growth areas must be considered and
included in the required improvements.
Site information
Wastewater treatment facilities can be provided at several
different locations. in this report four sites have been
considered. These are:
1. Existing Wastewater Treatment Site
2. Proposed Sand Road Site
3. A site located south of the Sand Road Site
4. A site located south of the Heinz Lift
Station
Other sites were evaluated and eliminated from further
consideration. Moving further south to the confluence of
540
M "411
litial
0
I:!
�.; The previously proposed Sand Road site increases the service
f area without the need for pumping stations. This site
'ja
..j requires the construction of deeper than normal sewers due to
the the crossing of watershed boundaries. A site located
further south along Sand Road at the southern limits of the
tM
service area minimizes the need for deep sewers in the
southeast region. A more southerly site requires slightly
longer lengths of sewer construction.
To minimize the construction of large size sewer lines,
treatment of wastewater near the point of origin has been
evaluated. A site near the Heinz Lift Station would allow
treatment of wastewater from the southeast area of Iowa
City. Treatment could continue at the existing site for the
y wastewater flowing by gravity to this site. If needed,
another treatment site could be utilized at or near the Sand
Road Site.
-16-
Snyder Creek and the Iowa River allows for development of a
_
larger service area but also requires more sewer line
construction. Sites along the west side of the Iowa River do
not provide any advantages not found along the east side of
the river and a major river crossing would be required to
utilize sites on the west bank. Finally, locating a new plant
north of the existing site is not feasible due to the
topography in the northern part of the City.
The existing site is located south of Kirkwood Avenue and is
w
bounded by the Iowa River, Ralston Creek and Highway 6. This
41i
site is limited by natural barriers; however, sufficient land
area is available to construct the required improvements. The
(.�
land area occupied by the existing sludge lagoons and
dewatering beds could be utilized in the treatment of
wastewater and stormwater by adding new sludge processing
,
facilities. Wastewater flows generated south of the present
'
sewer system limits must be pumped to be treated at the
r
existing site.
I:!
�.; The previously proposed Sand Road site increases the service
f area without the need for pumping stations. This site
'ja
..j requires the construction of deeper than normal sewers due to
the the crossing of watershed boundaries. A site located
further south along Sand Road at the southern limits of the
tM
service area minimizes the need for deep sewers in the
southeast region. A more southerly site requires slightly
longer lengths of sewer construction.
To minimize the construction of large size sewer lines,
treatment of wastewater near the point of origin has been
evaluated. A site near the Heinz Lift Station would allow
treatment of wastewater from the southeast area of Iowa
City. Treatment could continue at the existing site for the
y wastewater flowing by gravity to this site. If needed,
another treatment site could be utilized at or near the Sand
Road Site.
-16-
i
Since a significant portion of the wastewater flow is from
storm events, treatment of excess flows at sites other than
the main treatment facility is feasible and may be cost
effective. Flow equalization basins allow the use of smaller
i sewer lines and require a minimum of labor to operate.
i
All of the above mentioned sites will be developed into
treatment alternatives in the following sections. Locations
of the southeast interceptor sewer will be subject to the
recommendations of the Facilities Plan regarding identified
archeological areas. The community layout diagrams are
,.� therefore subject to these conditions and are intended for
1 purposes of comparisons between alternatives. Advantages and
r
disadvantages of each site will be discussed in more detail in
the Alternative Descriptions.
r�
I�
j
I�
-17-
U�
ALTERNATIVES
Introduction
Fourteen alternatives, illustrated and discussed in the following
text, have been developed to satisfy several objectives. These
objectives include providing equivalent secondary treatment for
all wastewater flows generated during the design storm event
within the Study Area during the year 2010, meeting a 30-30
effluent standard, relieving the current surcharged sewer
conditions, opening new areas in the south and southeast for
residential, industrial and commercial development, and providing
the City with an operable system well beyond the twenty year
study period. The individual alternatives presented are not all-
inclusive, but collectively they do represent a composite of
treatment sites and collection schemes. Attractive alternatives
identified during this phase of the study will receive detailed
evaluation in Phase II of this project.
Iw Costs
i
Cost estimates have been prepared which include construction
costs and operation and maintenance costs projected over twenty
years using an inflationary rate of seven percent. The estimates
iM were computed for each alternative based on flowrates, volume, or
linear foot of in-place sewer pipe depending on the alternative
j yl component. All costs indicated are present worth, year 1990
i dollars (ENR -5400). The ENR number is a widely accepted cost
index used to estimate future or past construction costs. It is
updated on a weekly basis in the Engineering News Record
magazine. The present worth value represents the sum total of
the capital costs and the present day value of the operation and
maintenance costs over the study period; in this case, twenty
years. The present worth is the money required initially to fund
all construction costs, with enough money remaining to cover all
operation and maintenance costs over the twenty year period,
MC -15
after it is invested at an assumed interest rate. Operation and
— maintenance costs include items such as labor, materials,
chemicals, and energy. Using present worth cost values to
compare alternatives is required so that labor- or energy -
intensive systems are evaluated fairly and not given a favorable
bias due to lower construction costs. The objective of Phase I
was to compare the costs of various alternatives, some using lift
i
stations extensively, and it was therefore necessary to utilize a
"- present worth analysis. It is important to recognize that these
cost estimates are not absolute and should be used for
w. comparative purposes only. Although monetary cost comparisons
are not the sole basis for alternative selection, relative costs
j are an important factor. System reliability, post -study period
3i planning, and site availability are just some of the non -economic
considerations to be considered. There are some cost items that
were dropped from the analysis either because they are common to
all alternatives or negligible relative to the other cost
components. General sewer rehabilitation, land costs, and
miscellaneous structures would be examples of these items.
I•� Actual total project present worth values MAY BE SLIGHTLY HIGHER,
ti as determined in the Phase II study. Construction phasing is
another relevant factor that will be addressed in subsequent
i
reports. This present analysis was based on collecting,
transporting, and treating 100 percent of the design year
wastewater flows.
Treatment
Treatment costs were developed for three general families:
f- secondary treatment of wastewater, stormwater treatment, and
small -flow treatment. Secondary and small -flow treatment can be
categorized as activated sludge or fixed film systems. More
specifically, the small -flow system curve represents a composite
of extended aeration, contact stabilization, and rotating
j biological contactors. These treatment systems have historically
been utilized most frequently for small, packaged -type treatment
-19-
I N
plants. Stormwater treatment curves incorporate available data
on primary effluent filtration and underdrained rapid
infiltration land treatment. Both systems are generally cost-
effective for treating large quantities of dilute wastewater and
achieving a 30-30 effluent quality.
j
Due to the nature of wet weather flows in Iowa City (very high
hydraulic peaking factors), equalization is an important feature
in the treatment plan. With equalization, new facilities can be
down -sized to treat reduced g
f peak flows Burin storm events.
r. Collecting more information on the plant hydrograph is imperative
before detailed equalization studies can be performed. The
hydrograph associated with the design storm will allow an
1"
equalization basin to be sized for proper hydraulic peak
reduction. This effort must precede any detailed treatment
process design.
Iti
Although present wastewater samples indicate that nitrification
is not a concern in the Iowa City Study Area, the situation may
be altered by future industrial discharges. Therefore, any new
treatment plant must have the flexibility to address a future
j potential need for nitrification.
Expansion of any magnitude at the existing site will require
utilization of the land currently occupied by the sludge
lagoons. Belt filter presses will be used in the solids handling
i
(i train to make more land area available for expansion. Ultimate
disposal for all options' will be land application, rather than
landfilling as recommended in the Facilities Plan.
-20-
RIO
WA
ALTERNATIVE 1
Treatment System - A new secondary treatment plant will be
constructed at the Sand Road Site. The treatment facilities at
the existing plant will be abandoned as all wastewater flow
generated in the Study Area will be treated at the new site.
Flow equalization will be provided at the existing plant thereby
reducing the size of the outfall sewer. Bypassing during the 2-
inch/1-hour storm event will be eliminated, while effluent
qualities will meet the 30-30 BOD and SS standards. Sludges will
be digested, dewatered, and land applied.
Collection/Transportation System - Sewer rehabilitation and
construction will proceed as directed by the Facilities Plan.
Additionally, relief sewers will be constructed within the
Ralston Creek south branch drainage area as needed to eliminate
surcharging. Construction of the Southeast Interceptor System
will allow the City to abandon the Village Green, Heinz, and
Fairmeadows Lift Stations. The Outfall Sewer System will convey
wastewater flows from the existing treatment plant site to the
Sand Road location. Flow in the Rundell Street trunk sewers will
be diverted and development opportunities will exist in the
southeast and south regions of the Study Area.
COMMUNITY LAYOUT
—21-
EXISTING
WWT►
WP
P`4I
1-,
PINE ST.
LIFT STATION
W WTP •,.`x`15
••5�0
• B
ALTERNATIVE t1
-22-
LEGEND
FORCE MAIN
GRAVITY
EE WEA
M%
Alternative #1
COST ESTIMATE
ENR=5400 (JAN. 1990)
Item
Cost
Flow Equalization
$6,260,000
New Secondary Treatment Plant
31,800,000
Effluent Sewer
1,741,000
SE Interceptor Segment
14,140,000
Outfall Sewer
4,843,000
Fairmeadows Branch
1,202,000
SE Interceptor -Upper Reach
2,270,000
Total
62,256,000
ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES
Advantages
Disadvantages
Relieves Rundell St. Trunk
Cost
Allows for future SE development
Provides additional treatment capacity
Extensive sewer
Eliminates need for lift stations
construction
Room for plant expansion
Eliminates by-passing during
5 -year storm event
Provides long-term solution
This plan is not recommended for additional evaluation.
-23-
ALTERNATIVE lA
Treatment System - This system will be similar to Alternative 1
except that the new treatment plant site will be located further
south, just outside the Study Area boundary. This site, not
considered in the Facilities Plan, will serve the Study Area by
gravity flow, while remaining out of the 100 -year flood plain and
other environmentally sensitive areas.
Collection/Transportation System - By relocating the proposed
treatment plant to the south, the cuts required for the
installation of the Southeast Interceptor system can be
reduced. In addition, the length of effluent sewer linking the
treatment plant with the Iowa River can be reduced by over 800
feet. These features more than offset the additional costs
incurred by extending the Outfall and SE Interceptor System
further south.
COMMUNITY LAYOUT
' X L. �' /1' I.�l�'+1 Mt .I.IIDY .may C i.�yl ti�lili—\ '� y[:•
r J Y•� } I ��y L •; ��
•— � � � ' �j .Ill... .p[Y� . .,�`.
{.
\
j `/ I •� �l .`
y6?
�/�_ �;>•. Obi •)yF,
A1.1 tl.TICDX
�r-\ LN; ETA`
F
1
PROPOlED
i
-
WW
• /
i.
i . ,
//
.y
MEND
._i—r.ic-� r��L0110E Y.W
-2A-
W.
.W.
[II1ITINO TIN[
MNTP LI1T 7TA ATI
TIOX
ABANDONED
I
r 00.
..•E' ``J`16
t
'4J
ALTERNATIVE #IA
-25-
LEGEND
VONC( MAIN
11,AVITY
81WER
I
'
i
r,
�i
f
,
i
II`
i
Alternative #lA
COST ESTIMATE
ENR=5400 (JAN. 1990)
Item
Flow Equalization
New Secondary Treatment Plant
Effluent Sewer
SE Interceptor Segment
Outfall Sewer
Fairmeadows Branch
SE Interceptor -Upper Reach
Total
ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES
Advantages
Relieves Rundell St. Trunk
Allows for future south and
southeast development
Provides for additional treatment capacity
Room for plant expansion
Eliminates need for lift stations
Eliminates by-passing during
5 -year storm event
Drains entire Study Area by gravity
Provides long-term solution
Cost
$6,260,000
31,800,000
746,000
12,731,000
5,439,000
1,202,000
2.270,000
$60,448,000
Disadvantages
Cost
County involved to
obtain treatment
plant site
This plan is recommended for additional evaluation.
-26-
I
ALTERNATIVE 2
Treatment System - East and southeast regional flows will be
collected and transported to a wastewater treatment facility
situated at the Sand Road location. This secondary treatment
Plant would receive raw wastewater, treat these flows to achieve
a 30-30 standard, and discharge the effluent into the Iowa
River. The existing treatment plant would be expanded to meet
the remaining Study Area wastewater flows. This expansion would
include flow equalization. A separate stormwater treatment train
will operate in parallel with the existing facilities to meet the
hydraulic requirements of the design storm. All flows will
receive treatment to meet the 30-30 effluent standard. Sludges
generated at both treatment plant sites will be land applied for
ultimate disposal.
Collection/Transportation System - The Southeast Interceptor
System will be constructed to transport flows to the Sand Road
treatment site. This sewer system will divert flows away from
the Rundell Street Truck Sewer and will also provide sewer
capacity to accommodate residental and commercial development in
the southeast portion of the Study Area. Regional relief sewers
will be constructed in the Memory Garden area to reduce
surcharging occurrences.
COMMUNITY LAYOUT
-2%-
N
!ll{THIO FINE ST.
Ww p LIFT STATION ....
21"
6!'
PROPOSED fSl-
WWTP
s
.•..•............
60
LEGEND
/OTIC[ MAIN
�!l
AV'Ty
{E w[!
ALTERNATIVE f2
_P8_
II
II
j
!
�
f
I
�
N
!ll{THIO FINE ST.
Ww p LIFT STATION ....
21"
6!'
PROPOSED fSl-
WWTP
s
.•..•............
60
LEGEND
/OTIC[ MAIN
�!l
AV'Ty
{E w[!
ALTERNATIVE f2
_P8_
-i:
Alternative #2
COST ESTIMATE
ENR=5400 (JAN. 1990)
Item
Cost
^
Flow Equalization
$4,601,000
Stormwater Treatment
5,088,000
-,
New Pumping Capacity for Existing Plant
5,408,000
Sludge Handling
1,315,000
� {
^
New Secondary Treatment Plant
14,840,000
Effluent Sewer
996,000
I
SE Interceptor Segment
14,140,000
Fairmeadows Branch
1,202,000
SE Interceptor -Upper Reach
2,270,000
_
i
Total
$49,860,000
ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES
Advantages
Disadvantages
�I
!
Relieves Rundell St. Trunk
Increased construction
I
Allows for future SE development
cost
Provides additional treatment
Limited room for plant
yR{
capacity
expansion at existing
Eliminates by-passing during 5 -year
WWTP site
storm event
Operational complexity
"
Utilizes existing facilities
due to two treatment
I
Eliminates need for lift stations
sites
''—
Room for plant expansion at new plant
i
Long-term community needs can be satisfied
This plan is recommended for additional evaluation.
-29-
-i:
ALTERNATIVE 3
Treatment System - The existing treatment plant will be expanded
to provide additional hydraulic capacity so that the trickling
filters are operating at their maximum loading rate. Some flow
equalization will also be provided. The excess flows that occur
during the design storm event will be directed to the Sand Road
site for treatment. The Sand Road treatment plant will also
receive flows from the Southeast Interceptor System. All
wastewater flows will receive secondary treatment to meet the 30-
30 discharge standard.
Collection/Transportation System - Major construction will
include the Southeast Interceptor and Outfall Sewer Systems.
Other construction will be minor relief sewer work to alleviate
surcharging occurences. The SE Interceptor system will divert
flow away from the upper end of the Rundell Street Trunk Sewer
and open up the Southeast region for development. Additionally,
the existing lift stations in the region (Heinz, Fairmeadows,
Village Green) will be abandoned.
COMMUNITY LAYOUT
Rr
I.
mooMlm
wE,
t• RRORO°ED
\ �\ x:.•07 ;
LEGEND
r... __
w ° °
D,
I
Alternative #3
COST ESTIMATE
ENR=5400 (JAN. 1990)
Item
Cost
Existing Plant Modifications
$4,584,000
(incl. increased pumping capacity)
w.
Flow Equalization
4,601,000
Sludge Handling
1,315,000
New Secondary Treatment Plant
9,835,000
w
1,317,000
Effluent Sewer
SE Interceptor Segment
14,140,000
Fairmeadows Branch
1,202,000
`
C
SE Interceptor -Upper Reach
2,270,000
CiOutfall
Sewer
3,594,000
$42,858,000
Total
tt
ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES
!'
j
Advantages
Disadvantages
Relieves Rundell St. Trunk
Limited room for plant
u
Allows for future SE development
expansion at existing
I'
Provides additional treatment
WWTP site
capacity
outfall sewer not used
Eliminates by-passing during
continuously
5 -year storm event
Operational complexity
Eliminates need for lift stations
Extensive sewer
Room for expansion at new WWTP
construction
Utilizes existing facilities
Requires future storm -
Re q
Allows future abandonment of
water treatment or
existing treatment facilities
storage at existing
site
This plan is not recommended for additional
evaluation.
-32-
ALTERNATIVE 4
Treatment System - The existing treatment plant site will be
dedicated to stormwater treatment. Flow equalization will also
be utilized at this site. The dry weather flows will be directed
to the Sand Road treatment plant. This facility will also treat
the flows contributed from the Southeast Interceptor System.
Wastewater flows at both treatment sites will receive secondary
treatment and effluent qualities will meet the 30-30 discharge
standard.
Collection/Transportation System - The Southeast Interceptor and
Outfall Sewer Systems will convey wastewater flows to the Sand
- Road Facility. Additional sewer work will include relief lines
variousto reduce regional
Interceptor willdivert l
lowsawayufrom the Rundell hStreet tTrunk
Sewer and have capacity to accommodate future development in the
southeast portion of the Study Area. The three lift stations
currently operating in the southeast region can be abandoned.
COMMUNITY LAYOUT
-33-
q-1-1
A
W
I
;I.
{
I
'
c
Is
F
11
1:
(l
�
IIS
Ii
F
I
I�
M
i
4
i 1 �
i
I
I �
M
r
{
y
A
N
Alternative @4
COST ESTIMATE
ENR=5400 (JAN. 1990)
Item
Flow Equalization
Stormwater Treatment
Additional Pumping Capacity at
Existing WWTP
New Secondary Treatment Plant
Effluent Sewer
SE Interceptor Segment
Outfall Sewer
Fairmeadows Branch
SE Interceptor -Upper Reach
Total
ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES
Advantages
Relieves Rundell St. Trunk
Allows for future SE development
Provides additional treatment
capacity
Eliminates by-passing during
5 -year storm event
Eliminates need for lift stations
Room for expansion at new WWTP
Utilizes existing facilities
Minimizes the size of the Outfall.Sewer
Cost
$ 5,029,000
5,088,000
4,725,000
24,013,000
1,317,000
14,140,000
2,174,000
1,202,000
2,270,000
$59,958,000
Disadvantages
Cost
Operational complexity
Extensive sewer
construction
Requires future storm -
water treatment or
storage at existing
site
This plan is recommended for additional evaluation.
-35-
i
ALTERNATIVE 5
Treatment System - All wet weather flows will be directed to a
separate stormwater treatment facility located at the Sand Road
site. Additionally all flows generated in the areas served by
the Southeast Interceptor System will receive treatment at this
location. The trickling filters at the existing plant site will
be utilized to treat the remaining dry weather flows and flow
equalization will also be provided at this site. In all cases,
secondary treatment meeting the established 30-30 effluent
standard will be used.
Collection/Transportation System - Same as previous alternative,
except the Outfall Sewer System will be utilized to convey wet
weather flow from the existing site to the Sand Road treatment
facility.
COMMUNITY LAYOUT
-36-
v
EXISTING TINE
WWTp LIFT STATION
1?„
9
y m zE"
by <0 ,21,
b1
PROPOSED St,
WWTP ••``��tis
• 4V0
• 3
~ ............................ • •u•
ALTERNATIVE f5
- 37-
LEGEND
FORCE MAIN
�ORAVITV
!EWER
i
R
i
Alternative #5
COST ESTIMATE
ENR=5400 (JAN. 1990)
Item
Flow Equalization
Sludge Handling
New Secondary Treatment Plant
Effluent Sewer
SE Interceptor Segment
Outfall Sewer
Fairmeadows Branch
SE Interceptor -Upper Reach
Total
ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES
Advantages
Relieves Rundell St. Trunk
Allows for future SE development
Provides additional treatment
capacity
Eliminates by-passing during
5 -year storm event
Eliminates need for lift stations
Room for expansion at new WWTP
Cost
$5,083,000
1,315,000
20,670,000
1,317,000
14,140,000
4,843,000
1,202,000
2.270.000
$50,840,000
Disadvantages
Limited room for
expansion at
existing WWTP site
Operational complexity
Intermittent use of
Outfall Sewer
Extensive sewer
construction
Requires larger sized
Outfall Sewer
This plan is not recommended for additional evaluation.
-38-
M
ALTERNATIVE 5A
Treatment System - Same as Alternative 3.
Transportation/Collection System - Same as Alternative 3 except
_ that the Southeast Interceptor System, from the Pine Street
location southward, would be converted to a pressure line. A new
pumping station at the Pine Street Lift Station site would permit
the downstream interceptor to be installed as a force main. This
allows for reduced pipeline construction costs as a result of
shallower cuts and smaller diameter pipes. All future
connections to this system, however, would require the use of a
lift station.
^ COMMUNITY LAYOUT
-39-
R
PINE ST.
I
a
Alternative 45A
COST ESTIMATE
ENR=5400 (JAN. 1990)
I
Item
Cost
Existing Plant Modifications
$4,584,000
i
(incl. increased pumping capacity)
Sludge Handling
1,315,000
Flow Equalization
4,601,000
New Secondary Treatment Plant
9,835,000
_
Lift Stations
4,448,000
Effluent Sewer
1,317,000
r
SE Interceptor Segment
5,493,000
Outfall Sewer
3,594,000
I
Fairmeadows Branch
496,000
"
SE Interceptor -Upper Reach
2,270,000
$37,953,000
Total
j�
ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES
Advantages
Disadvantages
Relieves Rundell St. Trunk
Limited room for
Allows for future SE development
expansion at existing
�.
Provides additional treatment
WWTP site
capacity
Outfall Sewer not used
I
Eliminates by-passing during
continuously
I�
5 -year storm event
Continuous pumping
Room for expansion at new WWTP
through SE
_
Smaller pipe sizes
Interceptor
Future connections to
SE Interceptor will
involve additional
_
lift stations
This plan is not recommended for additional
evaluation.
-41-
i
ALTERNATIVE 6
Treatment System - With the use of packaged treatment plants,
wastewater flows can be divided into three regional treatment
zones. The upper portion of the Southeast Interceptor System
will convey flows to a Snyder Creek treatment plant. Another
packaged plant will be located at the Sand Road site. This will
permit gravity flow from future south and southeast
development. The bulk of the wastewater flows generated in the
Study Area will continue to be treated at the existing treatment
plant site. Flow equalization will be provided at this site and
a separate stormwater treatment system will be constructed in
parallel to the dry weather flow facilities. Any flows that
surpass the hydraulic capacity of the expanded trickling filter
train will be treated by this parallel stormwater system.
Secondary treatment will be utilized at all treatment sites to
achieve the 30-30 effluent standard.
Collection/Transportation - This alternative involves
construction of approximately 758 of the Southeast Interceptor
System, with the option of completion at a future date. The
Heinz, Fairmeadows, and the Village Green Lift Stations will be
abandoned. South and southeast development will be served by
gravity flow sewers to the packaged treatment plants.
COMMUNITY LAYOUT
��r.. • � I \\IJ,.� � � t
-y���y.�+{/- - ISI; �I[� �Hl� •lj„�+ •�r��-,- �\"�`�
1 v��t1-p,{1 ���• �` 1`�'r'lFi in � _ \-•'iso/\��-•u..l �\- �••,"
' .'r l! IT tt�LON •. �L.-1"�-tj= r • L.
17
in(rtmo+; 'O
INYDER
CRE X
I• PROPOSED \'11`/ _ ;�;'_- + �'�i��=�: '• •=-i
IEDEND
-4Z-
I M
1 ".. 0
ExISTINO
WWTP
PROPOS
WWTP
•�JO�
. •gt
PINE ST.
LIFT STATION
ALTERNATIVE t6
-43-
LEGEND
FORCE PAIN
GRAVITY
FEWER
M %
Alternative #6
COST ESTIMATE
ENR=5400 (JAN. 1990)
Item
Cost
Flow Equalization
$4,601,000
Stormwater Treatment
5,088,000
{ --
Existing Plant Modifications
6,722,000
I
Small Flow Treatment
9,083,000
i
Effluent Sewer
296,000
I�
SE Interceptor Segment
6,334,000
Fairmeadows Branch
1,202,000
t
i
SE Interceptor -Upper Reach
2,270,000
I!
Sand Road Interceptor
1,631,000
tCia
Total
$37,227,000
ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES
Iti
Advantages
Disadvantages
Iti
M
Relieves Rundell St. Trunk
Limited room for
``
E'er
� 1
Allows for future south and
expansion at existing
SE development
WWTP site
if y
Provides additional treatment
Increased labor and
capacity
maintenance
Eliminates by-passing during
Operational complexity
5 -year storm event
Three discharge points
Utilizes existing facilities
l�I
Eliminates need for lift stations
!!
Easily expanded into regional system
i -
Room for expansion at new WWTP
I'
I—
This plan is recommended for additional
evaluation.
i
-44-
ALTERNATIVE 7
Treatment System - The existing treatment plant will be expanded
to provide additional hydraulic capacity including flow
equalization and a separate stormwater system, operating in
parallel during wet weather conditions. Two packaged treatment
plants will be included in the Study Area. One located at Snyder
Creek will treat southeast flows. The other plant will be
located at the Sand Road site and treat flows generated by
development in the south. Flows at all sites will receive
secondary treatment to reach the 30-30 effluent standard.
Collection/Transportation System - The upper portion of the SE
Interceptor will be constructed to direct flows away from the
Rundell Street Trunk. They will be transported to a pumping
station along the Fairmeadows Trunk, which in turn pumps the flow
to the existing plant site. This sewer will be located along
Highway -6 and will be a combination of force main/gravity sewer
as topography dictates. The two packaged plants will have
corresponding gravity sewers, eliminating the need for the Heinz,
Fairmeadows, and Village Green Lift Stations.
COMMUNITY LAYOUT
• ,_yea ' - ..� I r.._ •. �. - .. ..p- .:.. ti;
L• 1+' I -� _�``rm rt. •-r,,�lj .�'� iia
ROPOSED
PU
27 �C' ' l I`Iti\ � CJ' ' _1: :, fir.=��:_1: ^�� •`�
} _ w
rr
• INP a.no.' it j••
Cri 1ATO
.0. Piw.n_r•� �\
v,•� j `` PROPOSED
�• dY .-�"��� [NYDER CREEK, ;{�•�_ /,
1 IA CILITY I
WWTP JIB ,{\
0 ,'-__1T,\`�/�'1 IOyP Illy•
�• /////� 1y,I/ L[0[ND
Clwf•
-45-
E%ISTINa
WWTP
PINE ST.
LIFT STATION
27••
PROPOSED
PUMPING STATION
\
••g1J
ALTERNATIVE #7
LEGEND
� FORCE MAIN
�ORAYITY
!EWER
I
Alternative #7
COST ESTIMATE
_
ENR=5400 (JAN. 1990)
i
Item
Cost
Flow Equalization
$5,518,000
'
Stormwater Treatment
7,314,000
—
Additional pumping capacity at
7,245,000
existing WWTP
Sludge Handling
1,326,000
I,
Small Flow Treatment
6,090,000
Lift Station
2,700,000
r,
Effluent Sewer
296,000
Sand Road Interceptor
478,000
fl
Snyder Creek Interceptor
1,153,000
I
Fairmeadows Branch
1,202,000
j
SE Interceptor -Upper Reach
2,270,000
J
HW 6 Interceptor
3,763,000
Total
$39,355,000
ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES
Advantages
Disadvantages
I�
Relieves Rundell St. Trunk
Limited room for
Allows for future South and
expansion at existing
Southeast expansion
WWTP sites
Eliminates by-passing during
Continuous pumping at
5 -year storm event
lift station
Provides additional treatment
Three discharge points
_
capacity
Room for expansion at new WWTP sites
Cost
1
This plan is not recommended for additional evaluation.
-47-
ALTERNATIVE B
Treatment System - All wastewater generated in the Study Area
will be treated at the existing plant site. Flow equalization
will be provided at this site. A separate stormwater train will
provide treatment for wet weather flows beyond the hydraulic
capacity of the expanded trickling filter system. All flows will
receive secondary treatment to meet the 30-30 effluent standard.
Collection/Transportation - The upper end of the Southeast
Interceptor System will conduct flows to a pumping station at the
Pine Street site. Two more regional pumping stations will be
constructed to serve existing and future south/southeast
development. All three pumping stations will discharge into
force mains that converge at an elevated point along Highway -6.
The flows will then travel through a gravity sewer to the
existing plant site for treatment.
COMMUNITY LAYOUT
AAF
�1 i!~ I11 `- •' I •Lr s.�,� Ute, ..
_
.r ` ►UY�INO y• `�"_-jam
�7l ,•� NTATION Y,
.`% Nt rt.nu Lnt, n.+
PUMPING
ITATIND NATION .
_ rnor05M
PUMPING
•v 't 6 NATION:
01J% LEGEND
�� t
-----------------
Ilk I
M. 1-j
L
r7
i
EXISTING
WWTP
IRQ
N
PINE ST.
LIFT STATION
CIS PROPOSED
%PUMPING STATION
127••
33„ 1
1 •�
410" .f.,
1 �
1 12'
1 �� 21..
♦ �.
1t0.. �•
1 PROPOSED
1 PUMPING STATION
1
PROPOSED
PUMPING STATION
ALTERNATIVE #8
LEGEND
-FORCE M4IN
I
N
Alternative #8
COST ESTIMATE
ENR=5400 (JAN. 1990)
Item
Flow Equalization
Stormwater Treatment
Existing Treatment Plant Modifications
Lift Stations
SE Interceptor -Upper Reach
SE Interceptor Segment
Fairmeadows Branch
HW 6 Interceptor
South Interceptor Segment
Total
ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES
Advantages
Relieves Rundell St. Trunk
Allows for future SE expansion
Eliminates by-passing during
5 -year storm event
Provides additional treatment
capacity
Consolidates small pump stations
into larger facilities
Utilizes existing facilities
Minimizes sewer construction
Cost
Cost
$4,559,000
9,561,000
8,996,000
4,607,000
3,158,000
1,032,000
1,202,000
2,799,000
304,000
$36,218,000
Disadvantages
Limited room for
expansion at existing
WWTP site
Continuous pumping at
lift stations
This plan is recommended for additional evaluation.
-50-
ALTERNATIVE 9
Treatment System - Same as Alternative 8
Collection/Transportation - South and southeast regional pumping
stations and force mains will convey wastewater flows to an
elevated point along Highway -6 where a common gravity line
continues to the Pine Street site. At this point, a gravity
sewer will be constructed using tunnel methods, where necessary,
to transport the flows due west to the existing plant site. The
upper end of the Southeast Interceptor system will divert and
contribute to the flows directed west by the new sewer.
COMMUNITY LAYOUT
s
wr 1 • ..+•TUNNEL Lor v�r�Y 1 ��• �•-1 .: :�,,,,.\,$•
Al
'j''lL •-• •••L `� `\
�,`/
� ^ ` Litt VATIDM
T .�
�
11 li �•
'QI iii ice'`
•�Ml1YI
arnmoY\ � ,Lir; opm»r�
1,
I:;'
I S•
..J
�"1'�
►NDroeEo }��1 ►IIMVIIN +� `
PUMPING --/A 6TATN)N
NATION 1'Lf ,.•Y
S�JnK•.
••�•
LEGEND
ro11LL W.I.
r
y /ln /
�oYLvlr.
-51-
R
ALTERNATIVE #9
-52-
R
V.
I
1—
Alternative $9
COST ESTIMATE
ENR=5400 (JAN. 1990)
Item
Flow Equalization
Stormwater Treatment
Existing Treatment Plant Modifications
Lift Stations
SE Interceptor -Upper Reach
SE Interceptor Segment
South Intereptor Segment
Fairmeadows Branch
Tunnel
Total
ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES
Advantages
Relieves Rundell St. Trunk
Allows for future SE expansion
Eliminates by-passing during
5 -year storm event
Provides additional treatment
capacity
Consolidates smaller pump stations
into larger facilities
Cost
Cost
$4,559,000
9,561,000
8,996,000
1,907,000
2,270,000
1,032,000
1,304,000
1,202,000
7,193,000
$38,024,000
Disadvantages
Limited room for
expansion at existing
WWTP site
Continuous pumping at
lift stations
Requires tunnel
construction through
dense residential
area
This plan is not recommended for additional evaluation.
-53-
ALTERNATIVE 9A
Treatment System - Same as Alternative 8.
Collection/Transportation System - Similar to Alternative 9,
except that a third pumping station will replace the
tunnel/gravity sewer. A force main would head due west and enter
the existing treatment plant site at a point that minimizes the
need to repump this flow.
w
IN
EXISTING PINE ST
WINT
WWTP LIFT STATION
PROPOSED ......•.
—�"""' PUMPING STATION
21"
1
21" ..
♦ 12'
1
P`a4P % PROPOSED
1 PUMPING STATION
PROPOSED
PUMPING STATION
� PES
• J '
• 9
ALTERNATIVE #9A
-55-
LEGEND
- — - FORCE MAIN
� GRAVITY
6EWER
I
i
i
�
(w
IF
I
r`
i { 1
t
�A
{
ti
{ 1�I
w
IN
EXISTING PINE ST
WINT
WWTP LIFT STATION
PROPOSED ......•.
—�"""' PUMPING STATION
21"
1
21" ..
♦ 12'
1
P`a4P % PROPOSED
1 PUMPING STATION
PROPOSED
PUMPING STATION
� PES
• J '
• 9
ALTERNATIVE #9A
-55-
LEGEND
- — - FORCE MAIN
� GRAVITY
6EWER
i
i
iL.J
L
Alternative #9A
COST ESTIMATE
ENR=5400 (JAN. 1990)
Item
Cost
Flow Equalization
$4,559,000
Stormwater Treatment
9,561,000
Existing Treatment Plant Modifications
7,316,000
Lift Stations
5,162,000
SE Interceptor -Upper Reach
2,270,000
SE Interceptor Segment
1,032,000
South Interceptor Segment
1,304,000
Fairmeadows Branch
1,202,000
Pine St. Interceptor to Existing WWTP
1,786,000
Total
$34,192,000
ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES
Advantages
Disadvantages
Relieves Rundell St. Trunk
Limited room for
Allows for future SE expansion
expansion at existing
Eliminates by-passing during
WWTP site
5 -year storm event
Continuous pumping at
Provides additional treatment
lift stations
capacity
Consolidates smaller pumping stations
into larger facilities
Cost
This plan is not recommended for additional
evaluation.
-56-
ALTERNATIVE 10
Treatment System - Dry weather flows will be treated at new
facilities constructed at the Sand Road site. The existing plant
site will be dedicated to wet weather flow treatment using flow
equalization. All flows will receive secondary treatment and
effluents will meet the 30-30 discharge standard.
Collection/Transportation System - The lower portion of the
Southeast Interceptor System will convey flows to the Sand Road
Treatment Facility. The upper end of the SE Interceptor System
will divert flows from the Rundell Street Trunk to a pumping
station at the Pine Street site. From there, it is pumped to a
gravity sewer that connects to the existing treatment plant
site. The Outfall Sewer System will be constructed to link the
existing and Sand Road treatment facilities. This line will be
sized to convey dry weather flows.
COMMUNITY LAYOUT
L' J•� N~TLtIOY i•--uI�.�IT \��. .....
..TA
• wwT1' TM [Y _
•1
PUMPING
_ J STATION
•• ` �,a ti— �� fj LIIT uNwr � �,�^
� y,},Ca— � —• 'LiYwiluoowt "Y
V� :I -I 1� � V Nt YI1110M V-'"1 •LIIj \4T1 ;.
.11.0
\� NWT► V fcr `s,, 1 i
LIGEMO
NNtpq
-57-
'II
311111111
iI
I
FINE ST.
LIFT STATION
C30 PROPOSED
1 PUMPING STATION
1
127'
1
12
qA'
ISED .•'
fP • I
••JOi
ALTERNATIVE *10
-58-
LEGEND
FORCE MAIN
GRAVITY
SEWER
Alternative $10
COST ESTIMATE
ENR=5400 (JAN. 1990)
Item
Flow Equalization
Stormwater Treatment
Additional pumping capacity at
existing WWTP
New Secondary Treatment Plant
Lift Station
Effluent Sewer
SE Interceptor Segment
Outfall Sewer
Fairmeadows Branch
SE Interceptor -Upper Reach
HW 6 Interceptor
Total
ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES
Advantages
Relieves Rundell St. Trunk
Allows for future South and
Southeast expansion
Eliminates by-passing during
5 -year storm event
Provides additional treatment
capacity
Room for expansion at new WWTP site
Minimizes size of sewer lines
Cost
$9,278,000
5,088,000
6,510,000
24,013,000
2,700,000
596,000
4,228,000
2,174,000
1,202,000
3,158,000
2.273,000
$61,220,000
Disadvantaqes
Cost
Limited room for
expansion at existing
WWTP site
This plan is not recommended for additional evaluation.
-59-
W.
v.
Alternative 11
Treatment System - The existing treatment plant site will be
upgraded and a stormwater treatment system will be constructed in
parallel to process wet weather flows. A new treatment facility
will be constructed at the Sand Road site to treat wastewater
generated in the eastern regions of the Study Area. All flows
will receive secondary treatment to meet the 30-30 discharge
standard.
Collection/Transportation System - The upper reach of the
Southeast Interceptor System will covey flows to the Pine Street
Lift Station site. From this point, a force main and gravity
sewer will run due south, connecting to the lower portion of the
SE Interceptor. The Fairmeadows Lift Station will be abandoned
and the Heinz Lift Station will be upgraded to meet increased
flows resulting from industrial development.
COMMUNITY LAYOUT
" 1c
•� 7r"`- H 7� �..-'` . �,�,� 7�>
rLr � ..
T urT �unox. Y `.. c(.L—� •at � •.17�.
' •` r ` i\« PUMPING 9TETION _ •-� '� `�~�
PROPOSED
,' L I ' •—FYI •. 1 i `v lam.
...... � hLi:Y(
—, • •�`�.._�� ����'.. � 4 urt aunox°,ice r�.:
•,'� ` ����, � ,tea, ��_,,,. ;a.j�'�+• = .
'; 1` �'/q •• y:IIIYuoOw( Lir•-tlnll:�.�j.� ••.
•S 1 @ - ., �-`' A'_' am (i.rl x..:. iir� ruilax-- -
f�7I itWWTP
PROPOSE
i 1 . U •a•ll 1 � .��!_° _ i tip- _a
r---------------
LEGEND
�' :�li� •^ ��� '� : �I `�001YRT
✓'
-60-
9
EXISTING
WWT.
/-1
ALTERNATIVE #11
-61-
=EiEND
� FORCE Y11N
GRIN ITY
SEWER
M
Alternative #11
COST ESTIMATE
k
ENR -5400 (JAN. 1990)
Item
Cost
Flow Equalization
$4,900,000
Stormwater Treatment
7,000,000
t
;f!
New Secondary Treatment Plant
6,600,000
I
it
Lift Stations
2,600,000
�n
Existing WWTP Modifications
9,536,000
i;1Heinz
Road L.S./Sewer Improvements
1,851,000
Gravity Sewers
8,500,000
W
Force Main
688,000
Total
$41,875,000
Iw
i
ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES
C
ft
1N
f�
Advantages
Disadvantages
p
Relieves Rundell St. Trunk
Limited room for
Allows for future development
expansion at existing
Utilizes existing facilities
WWTP site
Reduces sewer costs
Utilizes a nes lift
17
Eliminates bypassing during
station
design storm event
Operational complexity
Costs
due to two treatment
sites
1
i
"
'
I r
This plan is recommended for additional evaluation.
i
-62-
summar
for each alternative have been
Present worth cost estimates
Table 3.3. In addition,
developed and are summarized in
Plan has been prep rea
present worth value foe the Four Phase
that have been
M.
for comparison with the alternatives
the July 1 1983
Y
the costs detailed in
cost was updated and
developed. Using
Veenstra & Kimm report, the phased
her estimates.
the otiscussed
adjusted to the same basis as
tw
that haveen
is
While each of the alternatives
areeesimilarities
1
include distinguishing features,
tion
in the identific�ou
i .
between various alternatives that result
These groups
P
q
of four major groups or classes of alternatives.
of the wastewater treatment
j
are based on the location
f'
facilities and are as follows:
treatment ility and abandonment of the
1) A new
Alternatives 1 and lA
existing site
facilities - Alternatives 2,6,7
ui
2) Satellite
and 11 - Alternatives 8,9,
facilities
3) Use of existing
and 9A
existing and new treatment
4) Combinations of
Alternatives 3,4,5,5A and 1
�
facilities -
in
is a significant isnot
Although the cost of an alternative
least expensiveution may be
the selection process, the
nonlmonetary factors
I
y
the best solutionfor Iowa Citthe service area, long term
such as potential for increasing Therefore, the selection of
I
treatment capabilities, etc. Phase
in greater detail during
for investigation
of technical
alternatives
II of this study should reflect a range
briefly describe
li v
approaches. The following paragraphs
for further investigation in
specific alternatives recommended
i . .
Phase II.
-63-
i
In the group of alternatives involving new facilities,
Alternative 1A was chosen because it made better use of the
topography.
In the group of alternatives involving satellite facilities,
Alternatives 2 and 6 allow for the evaluation of approaches
using two or three facilities. Alternative 6 is more
attractive than Alternative 7 since interceptor sewer
construction can be minimized. Alternative 11 is a low-cost,
flexible plan.
In the group of alternatives involving utilization of the
existing facilities, Alternative 8, while not the least
costly, provides less complex operation and involves the use
of smaller sized pipe.
In the group of alternatives involving combinations of new and
existing facilities, Alternatives 4 comprises smaller
interceptor sewer lines. Alternative SA, the least costly,
was not recommended for further evaluation because it utilizes
a common pressurized pipeline. This type of situation results
in several design and operating problems for pumping
stations. Additionally, new service areas would have to be
pumped into the pressurized pipelines.
The recommended alternatives provide a mix of solutions to be
investigated in further detail. This mix of solutions allows
comparison of a wide range of alternatives during the second
phase of the study.
-64- '�_$Q
r
i
i
Table 3.3
COST SUMMARY
I
r
Table 3.3
COST SUMMARY
VA
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH'
V:
ALTERNATIVE YEAR 1983 (ENR=3950) YEAR 1990 (ENR 5400)
P�
#1
45,539,000 62,256,000
r
#lA
44,217,000 60,448,000
#2
36,472,000 49,860,000
int
#3
31,350,000 42,858,000
N,
#4
43,858,000 59,958,000
11i
i
#5
37,189,000 50,840,000
t}�
#5A
27,762,000 37,953,000
iii
$6
27,231,000 37,227,000
#7
28,787,000 39,355,000
#8
26,493,000 36,218,000
#9
27,814,000 38,024,000
r
#9A
25,011,000 34,192,000
$10
44,781,000. 61,220,000
$11
30,631,000 41,875,000
Proposed
Four Phase Plan 49,082,000 67,100,0002
FOOTNOTE:
i
'The total present worth value represents the sum
total of the capital cost and the present day value
of the operation and maintenance costs over the study
period; in this case, twenty years. The present
worth is the money required initially to fund all
construction costs, with enough money remaining to
cover all operation and maintenance costs over the
-•
twenty year study period, after it is invested at an
assumed interest rate. Operation and maintenance
costs include items such as labor, materials,
chemicals, and energy.
2Costs as detailed in the July 27, 1983 report, by
Veenstra and Kimm adjusted for an ENR=5400.
-65-
i
Appendix A !,
I`J � I � .� 1`f
Li
ILI
Gravity Sewer Pipe (In-place Costs)
Pipe Diameter (in) Unit Cost (SZft)
i
12 151
�'
j
i
2
I �
I
:^
1 i j
�r
�V)
i
I
�j..�
w
I�
rt
i�
,n
n
�-
-i
J
-,
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 7, 1985
To: City Council
From: City Managei//I-�-1��
Re: Administrative Employee Merit Pay System
Attached are the guidelines developed by the Merit Pay Taskforce and recom-
mended for use in allocating the merit increase funds available January 1,
1986. Use of these guidelines and careful review of employee performance
level will assure that merit increases are received only by above-aver-
age/excellent performers.
These guidelines for the allocation of merit increase funds are not appli-
cable to Library employees, as the allocation of merit increase funds for
these employees is determined by the Library Board.
bj4/4
of
PRECEDING
DOCUMENT
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 7, 1985
To: City Council
From: City Managerr /'- +_ -l� /�
Re: Administrative Employee Merit Pay System
Attached are the guidelines developed by the Merit Pay Taskforce and recom-
mended for use in allocating the merit increase funds available January 1,
1986. Use of these guidelines and careful review of employee performance
level will assure that merit increases are received only by above-aver-
age/excellent performers.
These guidelines for the allocation of merit increase funds are not appli-
cable to Library employees, as the allocation of merit increase funds for
these employees is determined by the Library Board.
bj4/4
Administrative Employee Salary Increase Options - January 1, 1986
Employees Below the Mid -point of the Salary Range - Step Increases
4% (approximately)
0%
Performance is fully satisfactory. Increase may not exceed range
mid -point except as warranted by performance outlined below.
Employee performance indicates that there is a high probability of
termination of employment unless performance improves. Award of a
merit increase may be made upon significant improvement in performance.
Emolovees Above the _Mid -point of the Salary Range - Merit Increases
0-2% Above: Average Performance
Employee consistently meets and may exceed performance standards and
MBO goals. Minor deficiencies in areas of general performance or goal
accomplishment are counter -balanced by excellence in other areas.
Employee displays a high level of commitment to organizational goals
and cooperation in achieving them. An employee in this category
accepts responsibility readily, displays initiative in suggesting and
implementing new approaches and is able to recognize problems and take
effective action to resolve them. An employee in this category is a
team player and problem solver.
2% and above: Excellent Performance
Employee consistently exceeds all performance standards and MBO goals.
Employee displays innovation, leadership and demonstrates greatly above
average job knowledge and skills. An employee in this category consis-
tently takes initiative in grasping responsibility, in suggesting and
implementing new approaches and contributing to problem resolution.
There is a high level of cooperation in working to achieve organiza-
tional goals - the employee is a team player and problem solver.
OF THOSE EMPLOYEES ELIGIBLE* TO RECEIVE MERIT INCREASES THE FOLLOWING
GUIDELINES WILL BE USED IN ALLOCATING INCREASES:
25% of eligible employees - 0% increase r
50% of eligible employees - 0-2% increase
25% of eligible employees - 2% plus increase
*"Eligible" employees excludes employees below the midpoint of the salary
range or at the maximum of the salary range.
Across -the -Board Increases
All Administrative employees are also eligible to receive a 4% across-the-
board increase on June 29, 1985.
City of Iowa CIt'*
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 7, 1985
To: City Council
From: City Attorney Review and.Selection Advisory Committee
Re: Recruitment Process - City Attorney
At the February 6 meeting of the City Attorney Review and Selection Advisory
Committee the following recruitment process for the position of City Attorney
was outlined for your approval:
Advertising will begin approximately February 15 and applications will be
accepted until April 15. A lengthy advertising period was necessary due to
ad placement deadlines and to permit adequate application response time.
Ads will be placed in the Wall Street Journal and in newspapers locally and
in Des Moines, Davenport and Cedar Rapids, in journals of the Iowa League of
Municipalities, Iowa Bar Association National Institute of Municipal Law
Officers, County Attorney Association and in the journals/newsletters of
midwestern states and selected urban bar associations in other areas of the
country. Announcements will also be sent to Iowa and Drake Law Schools, City
Attorneys and Assistant City Attorneys in other Iowa municipalities, affirma-
tive action recruitment sources, and other local/required sources. Advertis-
ing costs are expected to total approximately $1,000, funding for which is
available within the Human Relations Department budget.
Applicants will be asked to submit resumes, receipt of which will be acknowl-
edged by letter. Applicants selected for interview by the City Attorney
review and Advisory Selection Committee will receive more detailed informa-
tion about the position requirements through the job announcement (attached)
and will also receive information about the Iowa City community.
While applications are being received the Committee will finalize the
interview format it will use and discuss interview arrangements. The
Committee may begin to interview applicants as received, or will begin very
shortly after the application closing deadline of April 15.
bj4/9
�e1
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 15, 1985
To: Members of the Public
From: City Council of Iowa City
Re: Vacancy in the Position of City Attorney
Under the direction of the City Council of Iowa City performs work as
listed below:
Directs the legal affairs of the City as a corporate entity and provides
that the City is properly represented in all its legal proceedings.
Prepares and gives legal opinions in all phases of municipal government
and gives legal advice to the City Council, City Manager, department heads
and other City officials, and City boards and Commissions.
Represents the City and City officials in litigation.
Organizes, assigns and supervises the work of legal department staff for
efficient and effective delivery of legal services.
The position of City Attorney functions in a full time capacity. Compen-
sation rates will be established through negotiations with the City
Council, based on applicant's previous experience, however, minimum salary
will range from $45,000-350,000.
Position Requirements:
Requires admission to the Bar of the State of Iowa upon appointment, and
four years of experience as a practicing attorney; or an equivalent
combination of training and experience. The State of Iowa permits
admission to the Bar of Iowa without examination for an applicant who has
practiced five full years under license in the jurisdiction in which
he/she has been admitted to the bar.
The position also requires considerable knowledge of legal principles and
practices including constitutional, torts, contract, litigation, and
administrative law and procedure. The position also requires considerable
skill in presenting written and oral statements of law, clearly and
logically. Management skill in directing and reviewing the work of
professional and office staff is also required. Residence within the city
limits of Iowa City will be required upon appointment.
Application Procedures:
Applicants shall submit a resume which provides information concerning
education, legal experience, especially as it relates to municipal law,
and previous experience in supervision of legal staff. Applicants are
also asked to submit examples of legal writing which the applicant has
prepared.
Page 2
Selection Procedures:
Applicants will be screened and preliminary interviews conducted by a
committee appointed by the City Council. Interviews of finalists will be
conducted by the City Council.
j pen Meeting - Public Record Considerations:
I
Materials submitted in application for the position of City Attorney are
public records under the provisions of Chapter 68A of the Iowa Code and
will be open to public inspection. Information concerning an applicant
obtained from other sources or from the applicant which is of a poten-
tially damaging nature, which information might be received in the form of
correspondence or written reports from governmental agencies or individu-
als will be treated as confidential personnel information and will not be
open to public inspection.
Applicants may request, at the time of interview, that his or her inter-
view be conducted in closed session, under the provisions of Section
28A.5(i) of the Iowa Code, if the conditions specified in that subpara-
graph are found to exist.
Applications should be forwarded to Ms. Anne Carroll, Director of Human
Relations, City of Iowa City, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa
52240. Applications must be received by April 15, 1985.
iThe City of Iowa City is an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer.
bj4/6
I
i
I
I
j
M�
i
Page 2
Selection Procedures:
Applicants will be screened and preliminary interviews conducted by a
committee appointed by the City Council. Interviews of finalists will be
conducted by the City Council.
j pen Meeting - Public Record Considerations:
I
Materials submitted in application for the position of City Attorney are
public records under the provisions of Chapter 68A of the Iowa Code and
will be open to public inspection. Information concerning an applicant
obtained from other sources or from the applicant which is of a poten-
tially damaging nature, which information might be received in the form of
correspondence or written reports from governmental agencies or individu-
als will be treated as confidential personnel information and will not be
open to public inspection.
Applicants may request, at the time of interview, that his or her inter-
view be conducted in closed session, under the provisions of Section
28A.5(i) of the Iowa Code, if the conditions specified in that subpara-
graph are found to exist.
Applications should be forwarded to Ms. Anne Carroll, Director of Human
Relations, City of Iowa City, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa
52240. Applications must be received by April 15, 1985.
iThe City of Iowa City is an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer.
bj4/6
I
i
I
I
j
M�
9
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 8, 1985
To: City Council `�
From: Karin Franklin, Senior Planner 1�
Re: Foster Road/Bristol Drive/Old Dubuque Road
The attached materials include Resolution 83-294, the most recent Council
statement regarding the alignment of Foster Road and a memo and materials
sent to the Council in August, 1983 just prior to adoption of the resolution.
The 1983 materials provide background on the history of the Foster Road
discussions. A large map of the area will be available at the informal
Council meeting.
Property owners on Oakes Drive, Ouincent Street, North Dubuque Road, and
Bristol Drive have been notified of the discussion scheduled for 7:30 p.m. on
February 11.
bj5/1
aql
I
R
RESOLUTION NO. 83-294
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE PREFERRED ALIGNMENT OF FOSTER ROAD BETWEEN
DUBUQUE STREET AND OLD DUBUQUE ROAD.
WHEREAS, the City Council of Iowa City has agreed that a roadway should be
provided between Dubuque Street and Prairie du Chien Road south of I-80 and
north of Whiting Avenue for the future development of this area; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of Iowa City has agreed that a roadway should be
provided between Prairie du Chien and Old Dubuque Road north of Highway 1 and
south of I-80 for future development in that area; and
WHEREAS, these roadways should act as trafficways for the immediate
neighborhoods and should not provide a beltway across north Iowa City and
should, therefore, be suffic�ntly offset at their intersections with Prairie du
Chien Road; and
WHEREAS, these roadways have been referred to as "Foster Road"; and
WHEREAS, the construction of Foster Road will take place as development
dictates.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
That the alignment of Foster Road shall follow that shown on Exhibit A, B, and C.
It was moved byBa and seconded by Lynch the
Resolution be adore -d, and �-upon ro I ca there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
X _
X _
X
X X
X_
X
Balmer
Dickson
Erdahl
Lynch
McDonald
Neuhauser
X Perret
Passed and approved this 13thday of Sentenber 1983.
IJi
KAYUK
ATTEST: Iy - 4A) Raeelved E Approved
CI CLERK
By The Legal D •parmmeni
A 1 10 1 jv�
NI
J
"� ' , ' . �' --cs •—ar --ilii__._
.i'r ','�;'' •' •►�r''.j •`` 1 � �/I �..:-yap__—:.-:=- _ .e.• --..
Ic
q ` i � � 'amu .� •`�•
:10 A •:`, :1 it r / f, / / �-•- •` -
Z77
.1� ;�� , .. �:..•.�..� •moi �''�+_ _"�, "
1,54. 11
_-11-'111_'-'-�•/ .�IjO•'
--ter•-i' 1 i 1\ .'�r• / ��/ ,. �.
... �_• - ,o,51
\,EXHIBIT C`—INTERSECTIONS AT PRAIRIE OU CHIEN t
.1
City of low& CL ^
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 11, 1983
To: City Council
From: Karin Franklin, Planner
Re: Foster Road
Enclosed is some background material on the Council's deliberations
regarding Foster Road. The focus is on Foster Road east of Prairie du
Chien although a memo from Don Schmeiser dated March 14, 1980, deals with
the entire Foster Road alignment, east and west. This memo serves to give
you a synopsis of the issues which surround the alignment question. An
article from the Daily Iowan (p. 15) relates a sense of the controversy
about the road and sets out where various Council members stood at that
time (1980). The minutes of the February 23, 1981, Council meeting (p. 3)
and the resolution (p. 1) dated March, 1981 update the Council's position
on Foster Road. No substantive discussion on the easterly portion of
Foster Road, which would change that position, has taken place since 1981.
cc: Dale Helling
bj4/13
0
i
City of low& CL ^
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 11, 1983
To: City Council
From: Karin Franklin, Planner
Re: Foster Road
Enclosed is some background material on the Council's deliberations
regarding Foster Road. The focus is on Foster Road east of Prairie du
Chien although a memo from Don Schmeiser dated March 14, 1980, deals with
the entire Foster Road alignment, east and west. This memo serves to give
you a synopsis of the issues which surround the alignment question. An
article from the Daily Iowan (p. 15) relates a sense of the controversy
about the road and sets out where various Council members stood at that
time (1980). The minutes of the February 23, 1981, Council meeting (p. 3)
and the resolution (p. 1) dated March, 1981 update the Council's position
on Foster Road. No substantive discussion on the easterly portion of
Foster Road, which would change that position, has taken place since 1981.
cc: Dale Helling
bj4/13
0
R
r�
RESOLUTION NO. 81-50
RESOLUTION NOT TO AMEND THE. IOWA CITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR
LAND USE, TRAFFICWAYS, AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES WITH REGARD TO
FOSTER ROAD.
WHEREAS, a petition was submitted to the City Council requesting that the
Iowa City Comprehensive Plan be amended deleting Foster Road between North
Dubuque Street and North Dodge Street (Iowa Highway 1); and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council have held
public hearings as required for matters relating to the Comprehensive
i
Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF IOWA CITY that the
following be adopted by the City Council:
1. Foster Road between North Dubuque Street and North Dodge Street (Iowa
Highway 1) remain a part of the Iowa City Comprehensive Pian and of
the Comprehensive Plan Map for landuse, trafficways, and community
facilities; and
2. Foster Road between Prairie du Chien Road and North Dubuque Road
(Iowa Highway 1) will again be considered for possible deletion from
the Comprehensive Plan upon a determination that it is not needed to
relieve traffic problems within the area.
It was moved by Roberts and seconded byyevera the
Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
X Balmer
x Erdahl
x Lynch
x Neuhauser
x Perret
x Roberts
x Vevera
Passed and approved this 24th da of March 1981.
YOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Received & Approved
By The Legal Department
Oakes Third -
chronology of review by Planning & Zoning and City Council
10-20-80
Filed preliminary plat.
i
Review by Planning & Zoning; refer to Council for clarifi-
Oakes Third -
chronology of review by Planning & Zoning and City Council
10-20-80
Filed preliminary plat.
12-4-8D
Review by Planning & Zoning; refer to Council for clarifi-
cation of policy on lift stations (in packet 12/12/80 with
memo from Assistant City Manager on lift station policy).
12-15-80
Council - sewer plan discussion; memo from P&Z regarding
lift station at Oakes Third noted.
2-17-81
Planning & Zoning discussion of access question.
012-23-81
Council discussion of lift station and secondary access
(expanded minutes attached).
Approval of lift station.
aarova R street Payout (sketch attached).
3-24-81
Council approval of Res. 81-50, not to amend the Iowa City
Comprehensive Plan for Land Use, Trafficways & Community
Facilities with regard to Foster Road.
5-29-81
Revised plat submitted.
7-2-81
Approved by PdZ subject to agreement on provision of 12"
trunk sewer.
7-13-81
Review by Council.
7-14-81
Public discussion - neighborhood objection to development
expressed.
aai
INFORMAL COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 23, 1981
(EXPANDED MINUTES)
DISCUSSION RELATING TO OAKES ADDITION
SEWER
Discussion of utlinedithis there.area in Oakes'the propertyxisoin the area the Compreoutlined for
hensive Plan
and the sequencingcing o
Phase III development because of sewerage problems.
Neuhauser: City has discouraged lift station.
ity
daries is
Balmer: Contiuoutherefore, anv exception ption shouldment within xbetmadecn ithis ncase, allowing rfor ea
lift station.
Perret: Questioned staging of development.
Erdahl: Questioned consistency of lift station in context of the facilities
plan.
dividual developers who
i Neuhauser: not be
willingm or able• t • develop ndnt on nywithin sequence. city may to
make accommodations within plans to allow development.
Consensus:
A lift station should be allowed given that this developer is ready to proceed
with developing an area within the City limits, which is contiguous to other
development.
STREETS (Foster Road)
Boothroy: Related history of
Foster Road
areaissue
requestedAfter
an ubmi ss ion amendmanto to Oakes
the
Second, property
Comprehensive Plan, deleting Foster Road from the plan.
Planning and Zoning recommended that no amendment be made and that
Foster Road roughly follow the alignment of the plan with a jog at
Prairie du Chien. The question of exactly where Foster Road would be
east of Prairie du Chien was not resolved.
Oakes Third was submitted with two cul-de-sacs. A need for secondary
access was perceived by the staff. The'question of Foster Road was
not addressed and any secondary access was not seen as ato Foster n alternative
od. (A
Agsketch of plan as presented.) The sketch plan
was taken ta
SAI
i
2
The staff had recommended looking at a series of collector streets for
this area rather than an east -west arterial. Pland to maintainoning and Zoning was
adamant in stressing
the
Comprehensive Planmap ei
with the ofeventual construction.n the
Roberts: Both the proposed collector and Foster Road are necessary. Sketched
plan is the best solution offered yet.
Concurrence by other Council members.
Discussion of costs of building Foster Road across the ravine. Boothroy pointed
out condemnation costs would be incurred.
Discussion of size of streets and ability of City to pay for overwidth.
Requirement of 31 feet rather than 36 feet seen as a compromise.
Consensus:
The Council is not willing to revise the Comprehensive Plan to delete Foster
Road, however, the future may show that Foster Road to the east of Prairie du
Chien is not necessary. if development occurs in the area and warrants
construction of the road, it will be built.
The concept of the collector street for Oakes Third is acceptable to the Council
and no more work need be done in that area.
Staff was directed to look at property questions for Foster Road west of Prairie
du Chien.
A
INFORMAL COUNCIL DISCUSSION
FEBRUARY 23, 1981
INFORMAL COUNCIL DISCUSSION: February 23, 1981, at 1:30 P.M. in the Conference
Room at the Civic Center. Mayor John Balmer presiding.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Balmer, Roberts, Neuhauser, Perret, Lynch, Erdahl,
Vevera. Absent: None. Staffinembers present: Berlin, Stolfus, Helling.
Others present for certain discussions, as noted.
TAPE-RECORDED, Reel 881-5, Side 1, 1-2444.
APPLICATIONS TO PLANNING AND ZONING Boothroy, Schmeiser, Schmadeke, Farmer 1-651
Spring Valley Subd. Prel. 6 Final Boothroy noted previous concern over
adequate access. As Coralville had requested an indication from the
Council on a recommendation, the concensus was to deny Part I and approve
Part II as recommended by Planning and Zoning and Staff.
Linder Valle Subdivision Pref. Johnson County is waiting for the City's
recommen anon. a applicant was willing to provide an access along the
East property line for future extension of the Street. The County Board
of Health has approved a redrawing of lot sizes which will allow use of
septic tanks. Council discussed the requirement for provision of rural
development standards for the streets and decided to require compliance
from this Subdivision, but asked for relooking at the standards for the .
streets.
River Crest Estates/Deer Hill Estates Dr. Hershfield and Dennis Sauegling
present. Althougs subdivision is within the Iowa City area of juris-
diction, the likelihood of annexation is very remote (30 years). as the
area is north of the Iowa River. Dedication for future easements and
detention basin will be provided. The letters regarding the water distri-
bution system and storm water management have been received. After
further discussion of requiring of rural development standards for the
proposed private drive, Council asked that the matter be removed from the
County's agenda. Staff will come back with recommendations for revision
of rural development standards for Council djscussion on March 9th.
OAKES SUBDIVISION Oakes present. Mayor Balmer called attention to memo • 650=820
from ChM
i
ma a e, 2/19, regarding lift station for Oakes Subdivision drainage
area. Schmadeke noted that this area will always need a lift station.
There will be no provision of sewer north of Interstate 8D for 40 years.
There is enough land within the City limits now for 200,000 population.
By using Prairie du Chien Sewer to connect to the River Corridor System,
the capacity will be exceeded for the Prairie du Chien Sewer. It handles
68 acres now, would increase to capacity for 230 acres. The Prairie du
Chien sewer will need to be upgraded in the future anyway. A lift station
has a life of 20 years, is paid for by the subdivider and will be the
City's responsibility after 20 years. The Mayor noted that a majority
agreed to use of the lift station, Perret b Erdahl objecting.
FOSTER ROAD East of Prairie du Chien Road. The Planning and Zoning Comm. 820-1030
reed not amending the Comprehensive Plan Map, leaving Foster Road
in, but agreed to an offset at Prairie du Chien. Boothroy presented a
preliminary sketch for Oakes Third Addition showing access to Prairie du
Chien thru Lot 7, and northerly alignment for Foster Road. This concept 50
Page
Informal Council
February 23. 1981
mot
.They did not wish to amend the Comprehensive
n Foster Road. The sketch as discussed was filed
. kes expressed concern that they would be providing
eir subdivision. Alternatives regarding purchase of
property for the Dubuque/Prairie du Chien portion will be provided soon.
TRANSIT ISSUES Mose. Lundell
Washington Street Transit interchange The Mayor reported that he did not
avor t e recommen a ion rom the City Manager and Transit Manager to close
Washington St. to automobile traffic in front of the Mall. A majority of
Councilmembers agreed. Representatives from Downtown Association, Lehman
and Crum, asked consideration to leave the street open, and offered other
suggestions. Parking enforcement and use of island by passengers was
discussed. Council was urged to view the problem area at 5 P.M. Staff
was requested to look at operational procedures and report on practical
alternatives to minimize the problems. A representative for the bus
drivers noted their preference for closure of
street of automobithe les.
Lundell called attention to a study by graduate
Small Buses Mose summarized conclusions shown in charts submitted with
is memo. Hours for drivers on most routes are either 6AM to 2PM or
2PM to IOPM. Councilmembers discussed use of small buses with the large
buses at peak hour, 4PM, and running until 6:30 when large buses would
stop, small buses continuing to iOPM. If small buses were decided on,
Council favored purchase of good quality buses. Funding alternatives
were suggested. Staff will report on alternatives for funding using the
small buses and prepare a budget.
Capital Improvements Projects
Accessible Vans Page 40 CIP.,'it was noted that the University would like
to get out of providing accessible„vans for the students;This, item will',
remain in the LIP.
New Transit Garage Concensus was to move this item up to FY84.
Bus Fleet Ex ansion/Re lacement Buses have not converted to natural gas
use. Deese is use �n summer and 02 used in winter, for a savings of
f30,00D. This item will remain in the CIP.
103n-1447
1447-199(
MANAGEMENT ADVISORY PANEL City Manager Berlin asked if Council had any add-
itions to the agenda list of panel priorities and procedures. Regarding
/2, Discussion of Council Salaries, Neuhauser stated that she would not
support a raise for Councilmembers, but would support a decrease; and
would support a raise for the Mayor because of the number of hours worked,
by a Mayor, but would limit the term to be served. She also opposed the
proposed raise for the County Supervisors. After discussion, the Mayor
advised that a majority of Councilmembers were not in favor of an increase
in Council salary. However. Perret will appear before the Management
Advisory Panel regarding the issue.
APPOINTMENTS Mayor's Youth Employment Board, Council agreed to appoint 1990-20
Dave Bayless; to Committee on Community Needs, Sandra Lockett, Janet Cook,
and reappoint Pat (Cora) McCormick; to Broadband Telecommunications Comm.,
William Terry and Nicholas Johnson.
act
NU
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 20, 1981
TO: City Coun t
FROM: Doug Booth`
RE: Foster Road
Included in the Council's packet is a memo from Don Schmeiser to
the City Council dated March 14, 1980 which details cost estimates
for construction of Foster Road from Dubuque Street to North Dodge
Street and includes a discussion of the issues and impacts of three
alternative alignments for Foster Road. This memo is a good sum-
mary of the issues brought up during the Foster Road discussions
both at the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council meet-
ings. At the last informal meeting of July 28, 1980, Council
directed staff to proceed with those necessary steps regarding ac-
quisition of two parcels for the more northerly alignment of Foster
Road between Dubuque Street and Prairie du Chien.
In determining the estimated costs for the extension of Foster Road
from Prairie du Chien Road to North Dodge Street, Council should
direct their attention to Table 2 of the Schmeiser memo and segments
6, 7, 8, and 9. Costs estimates shown for alternative 1 and alter-
native 2 for those respective segments are the same, however, alter-
native 3 differs significantly on the assumption that Foster Road
would not be continuous between Prairie du.Chien and old Dubuque
Road. The ultimate function of Foster Road, i.e. collector or
secondary arterial, will directly affect the cost of its construc-
tion to the City.
aaI
I
1
-
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 20, 1981
TO: City Coun t
FROM: Doug Booth`
RE: Foster Road
Included in the Council's packet is a memo from Don Schmeiser to
the City Council dated March 14, 1980 which details cost estimates
for construction of Foster Road from Dubuque Street to North Dodge
Street and includes a discussion of the issues and impacts of three
alternative alignments for Foster Road. This memo is a good sum-
mary of the issues brought up during the Foster Road discussions
both at the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council meet-
ings. At the last informal meeting of July 28, 1980, Council
directed staff to proceed with those necessary steps regarding ac-
quisition of two parcels for the more northerly alignment of Foster
Road between Dubuque Street and Prairie du Chien.
In determining the estimated costs for the extension of Foster Road
from Prairie du Chien Road to North Dodge Street, Council should
direct their attention to Table 2 of the Schmeiser memo and segments
6, 7, 8, and 9. Costs estimates shown for alternative 1 and alter-
native 2 for those respective segments are the same, however, alter-
native 3 differs significantly on the assumption that Foster Road
would not be continuous between Prairie du.Chien and old Dubuque
Road. The ultimate function of Foster Road, i.e. collector or
secondary arterial, will directly affect the cost of its construc-
tion to the City.
aaI
City of Iowa CL
MEMORANDUM
Date: March 14, 1980
To: City Coun 1
From: Don Schmeise 1np Director
Dept. of PIs ni g 8 Program Development
Re: Foster Road Analysis
The purpose of this memo is to discuss the issues which have been brought up
during the Foster Road analysis, both during the staff study and in discussions
with Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Attached to this memo is
a chart, Table 1, which isolates five issues which we have identified. Table 1
contains three columns: the identification of the issue,. a description of
impacts associated with the issue, and the impact of each of the three
alternative alignments for Foster Road and First Avenue extended.
These general alternative alignments were identified in the Foster Road report
(Figures 8-10, pages 32-34) and are as follows: Alternative 1, continuous
arterial beltway; Alternative 2, network of collector streets; and Alternative
3, discontinuous collector streets designed for internal neighborhood access
and circulation only.
Also included are the estimates requested by Council for developer and City
costs for the construction of Foster Road.
A discussion of the issues and impacts follows:
Ia. Circulation --community.
The arterial beltway concept will provide for smooth, continuous traffic
flow from the peninsula area around the north and east sides to the Mall.
This beltway would connect with the major traffic facilities and provide
access to important destinations in these areas. It is, however, important
to consider how much circulation improvement Foster Road would actually
provide. Interstate 80 already connects Dodge and Dubuque Streets and
would be the preferable route for much traffic originating north of the
City limits. A question has been raised as to whether it is suitable
practice to utilize the interstate as part of the local street system.
Interstate highways are utilized for local travel safely and efficiently in
other cities in Iowa (including Cedar Rapids, Des Moines, and Davenport),
as well as to some extent already in Iowa City/Coralville. Perhaps most
importantly, Interstate 80 is an existing road with construction and
maintenance costs paid for with no local funds.
lb. Circulation --neighborhood.
Neighborhood circulation for developing areas will be provided equally
well by either alternative i or 2, because either one provides direct
connections to adjacent arterial streets. Alternative 3 would provide
M
2
somewhat poorer overall neighborhood circulation, since the area between
Prairie du Chien Road and N. Dodge Street would not have direct access to
Prairie du Chien. The area between N. Dubuque Street and Prairie du Chien
Road would have equivalent neighborhood circulation under each of the three
alternatives.
2a. Neighborhoods --Traffic intrusion into developing areas.
New residential development on the north side will hopefully provide
several attractive neighborhoods for future residents. Heavy traffic
flows of external traffic could create severe neighborhood problems, by
creating excessive noise and pollution, and a virtual barrier running
through these neighborhoods..
2b. Neighborhoods --congestion in older central areas.
Protection of older residential neighborhoods has been an important past
objective of the City and has continued to be an important consideration in
the analysis of Foster Road. Where others have promoted Foster Road as a
means of relieving traffic in central neighborhoods (e.g. the near north
side) and on narrow residential streets (e.g. Kimball Road, Ridge
Road/Whiting Avenue), our analysis has simply concluded that the relief
would not occur. We feel that if any outer street were to divert traffic,
Interstate 80 would be doing that already.
Traffic from destinations west of the Park Road bridge headed for the
ACT/Westinghouse area presently has three choices as to route:
a. Church Street, which is an arterial street but passes through a
residential area.
b. Interstate 80, which is longer in distance, but is continuous driving
with no stops and may actually be quicker.
C. Kimball Road and Brown Street, which are the quickest, 'most direct
routes.
Foster Road is not likely to divert traffic in this situation, or in others
we have looked at.
3. Cost to the public.
Foster Road is intended to be constructed as development of the north side
occurs, rather than appearing as a project in the Capital Improvements
program. For some segments of Foster Road to be built, however, City
expenditure of funds will have to occur. Cost estimates for the three
alternatives are shown on the attached chart, Table 2. The total City
share for alternative 1 is around $950,000; for alternative 2,
approximately $835,000. Alternative 3 would be less expensive because the
segment spanning the ravine east of Prairie du Chien Road would not be
constructed. Alternative 3 would save the City over $300,000 as compared
with a continous arterial beltway.
V% %
4a. Urban form --north corridor development.
Staff has raised the issue of urban form and the possible encouragement of
sprawl development resulting from Foster Road. This issue has been the
subject of much debate and little agreement, since it is not a matter for
precise conclusions. Land use controls --zoning and subdivision --are the
primary means of determining future land use. What staff has attempted to
point out is that the road system has an enormous influence on private
market decisions that are made within the constraints set by legal
controls. In general, it is well established that development tends to
occur in areas that are well -served by an arterial street network.
4b. Urban form --natural areas.
Staff feels that much of the north side area is the type of
environmentally -sensitive area that the comprehensive plan intended to
carefully identify and prioritize before the potential value is lost as the
area develops. Most of the area is likely to develop unless a private or a
public land purchase program is undertaken. Staff recommends that
floodplains, ravines, and the most sensitive areas be protected where
possible. In alternative 3, the street pattern lends itself to enlarging
the contiguous open space areas, specifically the ravine east of Prairie du
Chien Road.
5a. Energy consumption -development in the Foster Road corridor.
Development which occurs in the north side area will be most energy
efficient in terms of gasoline consumption if alternatives 1 or 2 are
chosen. Alternative 3 would cause some longer trip making than necessary
under other alternatives.
5b. Energy consumption --secondary effects.
Staff considers the energy savings from alternatives 1 or 2 to be
considerably lessened by secondary effects resulting from the development
of an arterial beltway on the north side. These would include the
encouragement of a further peripheral development, which is likely to
consume a great deal of fuel because of future driving patterns. In
addition, travel patterns that cannot be served by mass transit can be
expected to be established under these conditions.
tp/sp
aql
I
TABLE 1: . ALTERNATIVES/IMPACT SUMMARY FOR FOSTER ROAD
I '
ISSUE DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT IMPACT OF ALTERNATIVES
I� Alternative 01 Alternative 02 Alternative 03
1. CIRCULATION a) improve community circulation' + p
b) provide neighborhood circulation + +
t
for developing areas
. NEIGHBORHOODS a) traffic intrusion into
developing areas
b) congestion in older, central areas
PUBLIC COST cost of providing Foster Rd.
segments that will not be built
by developers
URBAN FORM a) encouragement of development
in the north corridor
b) availability of contiguous
i
natural areas for open space
. ENERGY a) fuel consumption by development
in Foster Rd. corridor
b) secondary effects
I
Note: + positive impact
0 neutral impact,
- negative impact
These are intended to be used as relative measures, for
111 comparison of the three alternatives, rat er than absolutes
-
0
+
0
0
0
-
_
+
-
0
+
r'
-
0
+
I
Iowa City Department of Planning and
Program Development March.13, 1980
� S[LraNlf
f (rat attached no)
1. Curwa.e St. to Ilasl.111 lana
7. OJaynllls Cane
J. Albar%arly property
4. emitting Felt*, laid $front
S M Chle� Immd mt to prairie
6, prairie du Chem goad to
Oates property
). Dean property
0. lnredy property
1. N. Oe5mawa load
fNbtal •• fwt.Ie
boost's Ilamr
11t/rob 11))
Subtotal •- Clly coAttroction
of ON 1e/lnt$
(u9nnll I.S,6111
Subtotal .. all rope cpertr.ctlae
UMmentt I,l,S,6JN1
Subtotal •• Immanent to
0. sting street%
(legrnts 519)
Toru
TAIL[ t: FSTIPAR0 COSTS FOR COPOLCTIW OF tOSrt1 MWD A1T1AmITlrFS
uTCI1wTIrC 01
DFr[lOP41city
1
I.O,N. • CONSTNCTION
I
1 1.150 i s52,500
(9,000 i
12ri.Of
I May$ i
160.00o i M.ISO !
41,275 i ".ISO
331.S6t
71.1m
50.000 ; 61.000
I 195,000 1
557,411
97,111
0
$59,115
311.431
631,936
0
719.000
SS5I.431
1950,931
ILItaATIY[ d I 1 ALT(gNATIVI /I
DFY[LOP[4 CITY i DEVELOPER City
g.0.v, [ohsTluCTIJq� i I.O.W. I CostsmacTIO+•
•S Le50 f $2.500 I I �{ I,ISO' i ft.f00
' 59.000
t01a7S ! 1 1226,111 j t0,{CS
I
3O.000j 101,!50 ' [ 10.0001 311.It0
1
I i .
j /1.i/31 q,7S0 i ! i
JI I I I
371.312 I FLIM ! 710.111 i ".On
j I lO.000I 65.000 I � f0,000� tl,WO
j 195.000 s ' i 1►f,000
557.111 I 11,111 i 151,111 ; 61.511
I
0 � Iil.lt! � 0 106,100
Sf1,111 S/1,931 ! 1f/, 11/ Hf,11I
I i
0 i 719,000 0 i 719,000
I
US1,111 ; 1135.911 I 13417.101 I lat.1111
Nota Falter load 1 m mad to be a bIm rad.
]]-feet wide, with a right-of-way of 66 rept.
Construction cost aro esllested at 1150 par
linear fat (projected It61 call
City pays for a.addth having In future aaalr111ons
(colts 115 per Square yardl
laws city Coliseums of plammotop
Sed Program Development 4rch 11, 1910
FOSTER ROAD SEGMENTS
(refer to TABLE 2)
..Fcsr�`I
[R,,,:.'oad l:m�y"be dept �� plan l
I:-I " ' �• ` •e: n and Were U Ulte Ibel :ears be dein to , lour agreed with keeping the road In the mending Uut We arterial beltway con-
i By TOM DRtWY a:? e•� ','ti . , change tout . !• •' comptehenllve plan so that developers ' cept be dropped, said In a memo U the .
' CJyEWror+•.,ASjr,�'j g �, planning y g council That this arterialbellwa
f• But, as W have before, ibe lannin can build It IncremenU4 .as housing U Y 7
�+A maluiq d the laws City Council " rnmmjsslon and the staff disagreed' co45"ted In amar w10 Cost the city {950,000 for right•of-
aped Monday W kiep In the city conn- - on whether an arterW.bellway toting way acquisition and Conriruclla ta
prebecaivePWthe controversial Fmur DodgeandWbpqueaUxUUoeasnry COUNCRAD114'Clemena'Erdahl and areas where developers don't that it
Road arterial bdtwy across We city's or desirable. / David Perret oppoud Inclusion of We profitable U build Uw toad.
primly uadavetopsd far Horth Side. 7iougb several person warned that a beltway to the plan, arguing that the The memo says •Itul an alternate
7be Informal deckdoa came after ■ beltway may have adverse dfacts on ' read'may be hartnfW ad•la not worth system of continuous collector a reets—ice
tasseling belwaaa the eouoe8'aod the : developing neighborlaada, Mayor John, expenditure of city' foods. Councilor which are narrower streets — would` --
Ptanning and ymbKSComouls" In Balmer. and Councilors Lawrence Mary Neuhauser was absent. , provide Iw direct routes across the
whkhi0-ip that Ibe maaUy •':" Lynlh Robles" VsJhMti,;iiQ'Olfnn Planner Kenn tavest7r who authoredartb. aide, and would 'cod the city ..
r•' +is�apwjrst : t Robertsawed irllk {hliaagtwrJsdlg4, ins : ' ibe; Dj►csmb}t•i{t{!1 ;repoH rsnorq; , ; . • - , Sao Fader Road, pans g
,h, t! ,.;.,;.•.,L'•:.,z.t',''t_'' � ,� �. 'i Cantlnusdlronpa0a,,1
Foster. Road
�'I
j
•'
•
having We In the
.,
I'' (&M.000. Non -connected collector#beet$
' providing no the area
Senior Planner Don Schmelser noted
that the city will have toconconstructsome �
road Comprehemlve
, ' Plan will allow for well-planned far.
{F0 �
;5
".000.
(mdd cost ,00o,
t 'Though Veveu supported retention of
segmenta of the road even though
segments
.developers will build the major, share.'.'
North Side development, since
I- developers,and potential residents win
lit•'1
I»N
• r'.: be
,.Ibehdlwa)emsept,
a dlynnoueyshould be spent an the con-"'
Visits wild, "1 realise Were are
., probablyaceupleplaces"whercUhedly;,'•:,
:�• be aware of the rad. •.
,...,, We have law• concept W law Com•
�,�jr'•••�'strwUoo
of Foster Road, since It will lie
m
will have to pay thet of construction:.' "prehemive plan now and 1 wholehear•
saying are willing ip,�ldly agree Uul ll alwuldbeWere, anddl „
t
• •I within 1,000 yards of Interstate and
mak serve a similar llmcllou for those
•..;.,,'So you're you
spend city money on It?".Erdahl asked.::•
; should stay there," Roberts said. '
tppi
jgveUg across the plly.. '. •
Ver, but only If 'it's absolutely,.',
absolutely.,.I
, . Lynch, like the others who spoke •lq
t. support of sticking with the beltway,
t
necessary," Veyera responded. Roberts
I.,
VEVERA questioned' whether the
is necessary, but
,Wensold dot anassessment olproperly;
owners might be possible to Construed. ;
said that We area Is going U develop
•. whether or not the council Includes N
�,
•. j-."Cotacross arterial"
..� be said that We stall and planning com-
.
non-developed segments of the road.
• 'the comprehensive plan an arterial
FI
aL:.I mlwilan agree that U The rad U to be
"1 W'at Ueda la hhnresllsUc;', Erdald
'
street culling through the North Side. U
r the council doesn't adopt a road plan, ha a
built, We comPrdwmlve plan's route U
it...
wild.
"I don't, Clemens, 1 Man k It's plane• '
' : said, "What we're saying Is Lal' IT
�.'We IPglcal plan for
ID to along with leaving it In the
tag;' Roberts answered.
develop and hoping 11 won't be too messy
cor6preheoslve plan but 1 lNould not go
with speyUrt{ wi) ell) money" to
' 'TRE DOUNCIL majority, like the
• and we won't he embarrassed (like)
we've been embarrassed IAs Wl 101 !
1 MIWbe "I& •• ' .. ! •`
W.U.
i ptanalns nonnmdsdos, lodleated 'Bull
fears N Iowa qty.•
DAILY U:OV AN MAMA IBI MOO
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 7, 1985
To: Charles Schmadeke, Director of Public Works
From: James Brachtel, Traffic Engineer%
Re: Bristol Drive/Old Dubuque Road Intersection
The City Council has received six alternative configurations for the inter-
section of Foster Road with old Dubuque Road and Bristol Drive. This
intersection will be part of a collector street system connecting Prairie du
Chien Road to old Dubuque Road and Highway 1. A collector system between
Prairie du Chien and Iowa Highway 1 will be a desirable element as develop-
ment occurs.
Alternate 1 is the most desirable configuration for the movement of traffic.
It provides a smooth link between Foster Road and old Dubuque Road (it would
tend to maintain the current traffic characteristics on Bristol Drive).
Alternates 2, 3 and 4 are very similar from the perspective of providing for
traffic flow between Prairie du Chien and Iowa Highway R1. Of the three,
alternate 4 would add the most traffic to Bristol Drive. Alternates 2 and 3
would tend to make Bristol Drive somewhat less attractive to traveling east
on Foster Road. Distinctions between 2 and 3 are very fine when considered
from the prospective of traffic flow.
Alternate five would be a poor choice based on traffic flow considerations.
It would force all traffic southbound on Foster Road to right turn onto old
Dubuque Road. This will be contrary to the typical collector movement
between Prairie du Chien Road and Iowa Highway 1.
Alternate 6 would be similar to Alternates 2, 3 and 4 from the perspective of
traffic flow. East -west traffic would be required to execute turns greater
than 900. This is undesirable from a collector street system perspective.
From the perspective of traffic flow along a collector system, Alternate 1 is
the preferred choice. Should you have any questions or comments regarding
this matter, please don't hesitate to contact me.
bjl/9
aqa
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 5, 1985
To: City Council and City Manager
r... .
From: Frank Farmer, City Engineer
Re: Dubuque Road Improvements - CIP
Project cost of $156,000 stated in the Capital Improvements Program for
fiscal years 1986-1990 for the Dubuque Road improvement project did not
include the cost of sidewalk. Sidewalk, installed on both sides of Dubuque
Road from Bristol Drive to Dodge Street by the Hy -Vee, would add an addi-
tional $44,000 to the construction cost of the project and increase the total
project cost to $200,000.
bj2/15
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 6, 1985
�I
Works
I
I
- I
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 6, 1985
To: Charles Schmadeke, Director of Public
Works
From: James Brachtel, Traffic Engineer
Re: Council Referral Regarding North Side
Lighting
The City Council has requested information
regarding
street lighting as
provided by Iowa -Illinois Gas & Electric.
COST OF INDIVIDUAL STREET LIGHTS
The cost per month per light for company-owned
street
lighting is shown in
the table below:
Lamp 175 Watt 250 Watt
400 Watt
250 Watt
Size Mercury Mercury
Mercury
Sodium
April 1982 $6.15 $6.60
$7.30
$8.65
April 1983 7.25 7.78
8.59
10.20
April 1984 8.05 8.64
9.53
11.32
October 1984 9.35 10.20
11.80
11.15
The majority of street lights that were requested for the North Side Project
were the 175 watt mercury vapor size.
ANNUAL CITY WIDE STREET LIGHTING COSTS
Below is a listing of the annual cost for the
City's street lighting for the
last four fiscal years. The costs shown include street lights owned and
maintained by Iowa -Illinois Gas & Electric
and the
City's street light
systems.
FY1981 $119,724
FY1982 $135,972
FY1983 $151,984
FY1984 $189,162
CURRENT COST FOR NORTH SIDE STREET LIGHTING PROJECT
The installation of street lights for the North Side Street Lighting Project
was completed in April of 1982. The project required 81 additional 175 watt
mercury vapor lights, 27 additional 250 watt mercury vapor lights and 1
additional 400 watt mercury vapor light. The additional system cost for
these lights in January 1985 was $470.05. The estimated cost for FY1985 will
be $6,110.
E
2
INCENTIVE RATE FOR MERCURY VAPOR STREET LIGHT
Prior to October of 1982, company-owned and operated mercury vapor street
lights were billed at a reduced rate as an incentive for cities to convert to
and use mercury vapor street lighting instead of the old style incandescent
street lighting. The reduced rates were based on the following formula:
New additional mercury vapor units "shall be reduced by 85% of the charge for
such units for the first 12 months following the installation, 70% for the
second 12 months, 55% for the third 12 months, 40% for the fourth 12 months,
25% for the fifth 12 months and 10% for the sixth 12 month period. Thereaf-
ter, full charges as shown above shall apply." These incentive rates were
applied to all new company-owned street lights prior to October of 1982.
These rates were applicable for all franchise holders with a franchise of at
least 25 years in term with two years remaining in the franchise. When the
City allowed the franchise to lapse to less than two years remaining in the
franchise with no new franchise negotiated, the application of the discount
rate was no longer applied by Iowa -Illinois Gas & Electric. Also, if a City
were to have a franchise of less than a 25 year term, this incentive rate
would not be applied. All street lights installed by Iowa -Illinois Gas &
Electric after October of 1982 have been billed at their full rate.
My understanding from conversations with representatives of Iowa -Illinois Gas
& Electric is that if the City and Iowa -Illinois Gas & Electric reach
agreement on a new franchise with at least a 25 year term, the incentive
street light rate as detailed above will once again be applicable to all
newly installed street lights. In addition, the company would reinstall the
application of the incentive rate to those lights installed after October of
1982.
Should you have additional questions or require additional information,
please don't hesitate to contact me.
bj3/1
414
City of Iowa Cit'v
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 6, 1985
To: City Council and City Manager
From: Frank Farmer, City Engineer'!
Re: Dubuque Street - Iowa Avenue to Park Road
Following the CIP discussion on February 4, 1985, the Engineering Division
has reviewed the Dubuque Street project to determine if a widening can,
indeed, be performed on the east side of Dubuque Street only. As stated
previously, this would eliminate access from Dubuque Street to the property
at 612 North Dubuque and the east -west alley north of 612 Dubuque Street.
The alley is heavily traveled and provides access to several parking areas
located between Dubuque Street and Linn Street. The existing Dubuque Street
access is the only access available to provide parking for the property at
612 North Dubuque Street (see attached sketch).
I have discussed eliminating vehicular access with the property owner at 612
North Dubuque Street and since this is the only available access, the
property is not willing to give it up.
With this in mind, the Engineering Division again recommends widening on both
sides of Dubuque Street as per the attached memo of October 26, 1984.
bj3/15
QR5
I
i
I
I
I
City of Iowa Cit'v
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 6, 1985
To: City Council and City Manager
From: Frank Farmer, City Engineer'!
Re: Dubuque Street - Iowa Avenue to Park Road
Following the CIP discussion on February 4, 1985, the Engineering Division
has reviewed the Dubuque Street project to determine if a widening can,
indeed, be performed on the east side of Dubuque Street only. As stated
previously, this would eliminate access from Dubuque Street to the property
at 612 North Dubuque and the east -west alley north of 612 Dubuque Street.
The alley is heavily traveled and provides access to several parking areas
located between Dubuque Street and Linn Street. The existing Dubuque Street
access is the only access available to provide parking for the property at
612 North Dubuque Street (see attached sketch).
I have discussed eliminating vehicular access with the property owner at 612
North Dubuque Street and since this is the only available access, the
property is not willing to give it up.
With this in mind, the Engineering Division again recommends widening on both
sides of Dubuque Street as per the attached memo of October 26, 1984.
bj3/15
QR5
City of Iowa Cit',
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 26, 1984
To: City Council and City Manager
i
From: Frank Farmer, City Engineer'
Re: Dubuque Street Improvements - Iowa Avenue to Park Road
As per your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the Dubuque Street
project to determine if widening can be performed on one side only, on the
block between Church Street and Ronalds Street, to save as many of the
existing trees as possible. The following alternatives have been considered:
Alternative 1 - Widen on east side, thereby saving four (4) trees on the west
side, between Church Street and Ronalds Street.
Alternative 2 - Widen on both sides, thereby eliminating all seven (7) trees
between Church Street and Ronalds Street.
Alternative 3 - Widen on west side, thereby saving three (3) trees on the
east side, between Church Street and Ronalds Street.
Alternative 1
Pros
1. Four (4) trees on west side of
Dubuque Street between Church
Street and Ronalds would be
saved.
2. Severity of jog on Dubuque
Street would be decreased.
Cons
1. Alley access to the east, between
Church Street and Ronalds Street
would be eliminated.
2. Driveway for 612 North Dubuque
Street would be eliminated.
3. Due to elimination of access to
driveway and alley, as referred
to above, property purchase or
compensation may be required.
4. Three (3) trees on east side of
Dubuque Street between Church
Street and Ronalds Street would
be removed.
aqs
E
Alternative 2
i Pros
1. No additional property would
be required.
2. Driveway and alley return on
east side of Dubuque Street
would remain.
3. Severity of jog on Dubuque Street
would not be increased.
4. Effect of pavement location on
private properties would be the
same.
Alternative 3
1. Three (3) trees on east side of
Dubuque Street between Church
Street and Ronalds Street
would remain.
2. Alley return and driveway on
east side of Dubuque Street
between Church Street and
Ronalds Street would remain.
Cons
1. All seven (7) trees between
Church Street and Ronalds
Street would be removed.
1. Severity of existing jog on
Dubuque Street would be
increased.
2. An additional jog through the
Church Street/Dubuque Street
intersection would be created.
3. The four (4) trees on the west
side of Dubuque Street between
Church Street and Ronalds Street
would be removed.
All three (3) alternatives require retaining walls at various locations.
It is recommended that this project be funded with Federal Aid to Urban
Systems (FAUS) funds and is included in the Capital Improvement Projects for
construction during 1986. As noted in previous memos, to utilize FAUS funds
for this project, the minimum width allowed is 45 feet, with 49 feet pre-
ferred.
At the present time, there is approximately 5525,000 of FAUS funds available
to Iowa City. This amount of funding is sufficient to provide seventy-five
percent (75%) of the construction cost, which is the limit for FAUS funds.
The remaining twenty five percent (25%) is the responsibility of the partici-
pating city. The Iowa Department of Transportation desires that these funds
be spent since this program will soon be reviewed by the Federal government.
The Engineering Division recommends reconstruction of Dubuque Street to 45
feet in width with Alternative 2, utilizing available FAUS funds.
bdw4/5
a9s
I
a9s
N
City of Iowa Citi
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 7, 1985
To: City Council
From: Lyle Seydel �6v
Re: Update/Status - Project IA05P022005
Acquisition of Ten Units
The Planning Conference for the above listed project was held in Des
Moines on January 22, 1985. The Housing Authority's Proposal and schedule
for completion of the project must be submitted to HUD Des Moines not
later than February 21, 1985. Attached hereto, for your information, is a
Project Development Schedule with a very brief description of actions to
be completed at each phase.
After the Press Release and article in the local press on January 25,
1985, over 70 calls have been received offering units for sale. While. the
attached schedule is very compressed I believe the project can be com-
pleted as scheduled. The Development Cost Budget reflects a total
projected cost of $603,325 with $550,200 being provided by the Annual
Contributions Contract and $53,125 being provided from other funds
available to the Housing Authority. (These are not General Fund dollars.)
An allocation of $27,500 is provided for contingency purposes and if not
required will reduce the amount required from the Housing Authority.
bc4
e
B
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE
PROJECT IA05PO2205
IOWA CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY
Planning Conference - Held in Des Moines
Overall project development covered and
guidance provided
Housing Authority Proposal to Des Moines
Proposal contains Development Schedule,
Demonstration of Financial Feasibility,
Acquisition Schedule, neighborhood maps,
documentation on availability of housing
and Preliminary Cost Development Budget.
Approval of Proposal by HUD
Place Box Ad in Press -Citizen requesting written
"Offer of Sale" and completed description of
units.
Deadline for Submitting Offer of Sale.
Select 15 units. Offer of Sale will be valid for
30 days. NO cost. Prepare preliminary site
reports, etc. and request HUD appraisal and
site approval.
Request for funds
Receive HUD appraisals and approval to proceed
(If necessary select and submit second group
of units)
Make offer to purchase on as many units as possible -
maximum of 10
Receive HUD appraisals and site approval - second group
Make offer to purchase - second group
Submit site survey and surveyor's report, abstracts,
etc. to opining attorney for preliminary report.
(first group)
Submit site survey, surveyor's report, abstracts,
etc. to opining attorney for preliminary report.
(second group)
Preliminary title opinion to HUD
HUD approval of property and purchase (first group)
HUD approval of property and purchase (second group)
Schedule closing (first group)
January 22
February 21
March 7
March 8-15
March 29
April 12
April 24
April 26
April 29
May 3
May 10
May 10
May 24
May 31
June 14
June 30
Week of June 24
MM
-2-
Schedule closing (second group) July 10
Final Reports July 30
Final Title Opinion
Real Estate Settlement Record
Record Deeds
Completed Land Acquisition (5922)
Declaration of trust
k
City of Iowa Cit
= MEMORANDUM
Date: January 28, 1985
To: Rosemary Yitosh, Finance Director \
From: Terry Robinson, City Forester/Horticulturist
Re: Establishing a City Tree Nursery �1
I recommend that the City maintain an inventory of 10 to 15 tree species made
up of 30 to 40 trees per species to establish a nursery with the capacity to
meet the City's needs. This combination of 300-600 trees would be manageable
without having to add additional employees. This range of species would
allow a good selection for the City's use and would afford the City the
option of using local suppliers on a minimal basis.
I recommend that the City purchase trees at certain target sizes (3/4"
caliper size at a minimum of four feet), which would allow us to begin
transplanting faster growing species in two years and would have the full
selection available after four years. The average cost of these trees is $15
per tree, or $4,500 to $9,000 for the 300-600 trees.
The total number of trees in the nursery will be maintained by replacing only
those trees which have been transplanted after each spring or fall planting
season. The cost of replacement trees after the initial four year period
should stabilize at $1,200 to $1,800 per year.
The City will need to purchase a tree spade to transplant the trees from the
nursery. The equipment available under current conditions provides only the
capability of planting trees after they have been dug, balled and burlapped.
We would be required to dig the trees by hand and replant them. This process
requires four persons working an average of one hour. A. tree spade will
reduce the employees' hours from four to one hour per tree. In addition, the
survivability of the trees is improved by 50 percent over that of trees
transplanted by the ball and burlap method. The spade will also offer the
opportunity to save ,some trees which would be destroyed during construction
projects, by transplanting them. Current prices for rebuilt, reconditioned
machines are $4,000-$6,000. New units cost between $11,000 and $12,000
depending on the options purchased. There are also lease -to -buy options
available from in-state dealers.
Labor hours to maintain the nursery will be higher the first two years
(approximately 200-220 hours per year) until the trees have established
themselves, and have been pruned for shape and branching habit. After the
first two years, maintenance costs will level off at approximately 140-160
hours per year. I would recommend that we attempt to use the Mayor's Youth
group and Youth Conservation Corps workers for at least 20 percent of the
yearly labor hours. This would cut the first two year averages to 160-180
labor hours. At the average wage of $7.00 per hour for temporary and
permanent employees, the two-year costs would range from $1,120 to $1,260 per
year. The following years' costs would range from $770 tp $910 per year.
QR3
y
i
The cost of planting 100 trees from the nursery to a street location will
break down to a per tree cost as follows:
Initial purchase price $15.n0
Labor and maintenance costs for first two years
at $12.60 per year 25.00
Tree spade replacement and operating costs per
hour 20.00
Labor costs for planting per hour 8.00
$68.00
I recommend that in the initial year nursery stock is planted, the purchase
of plantable stock from local nurseries not be eliminated but cut from 100
trees to 60 and further cut to 30 trees the following year. If this proce-
dure is followed, the nursery will return the initial investment of $24,900
in savings by the end of its fourth year. In addition, the number of trees
planted in the city will not drop below 60 as the nursery will be capable of
supplying 30 trees the first year, 60 the second year and 100 by the third
year of the program.
The following is a breakdown of the initial investment for the nursery and
the savings it will supply through the first four years. These costs are
based on the current contract purchase price for trees of $165 each with all
the costs inflated at three percent each year after the first year.
Initial investment for nursery tree stock
Tree spade (reconditioned)
60 trees for immediate planting at $165 each
First year after planting of nursery:
Total cost of 60 trees if purchased and planted
on contract at $165/tree
30 trees purchased on contract @ $165
30 trees from nursery @ $68
Total cost of 60 trees
Savings
Second year:
Cost of 60 trees if purchased and planted on
contract at $170/tree
Cost of 60 trees planted from nursery
at $70
Savings
Third year
Cost of 100 trees if purchased and planted on
contract at $175/tree
Cost of 100 trees planted from nursery
at $72
Savings
$ 9,000.00
6,000.00
29'900:000
3—'900
$ 9,900.00
$a, 950
2 040
990 2'910'00
$10,200.00
$4,200 4,200.00
$ 6,000.00
$17,500.00
$7,200 7,200.00
$10,200.00
ME
a
Fourth year:
Cost of 100 trees if purchased and planted on
contract at $180/tree $18,000.00
Cost of 100 trees planted from nursery
at. $74 $7,400 O',6606b
One alternative which may be considered with this proposal is to eliminate
the purchase of any plantable stock by contract in the initial year of the
nursery's existence, and also the first planting year. If this proposal is
followed, the initial investment will be recaptured in three years.
bdwl/1
cc: T. Allen Cassady, Acting Director
9
RECEIVED FEB 6 1985
201 Woolf Avenue
Iowa City, IA 52240
February 4, 1985
The Honorable John McDonald
Mayor of Iowa City
Civic Center
Iowa City, IA 52240
Dear Mr. McDonald:
I wish to inform you of the problems University activities
are causing me and those who live near Carver Arena and Kinnick
Stadium. I believe the University must take steps to alleviate
the congestion and inconvenience to city residents. At times,
the University is a bureacratic giant which does as it pleases
regardless of the consequences to Iowa City and its residents.
Enclosed find a letter I have mailed to Captain W. Fuhrmeister,
patrol commander with copies to President Freedman and Campus
Security Director W. Tynan. The letter identifies the negative
impact that I have experienced. I believe it must be common to
others as well, whether they complain or not. After one parti-
cular football game, the congestion was so bad we could not get
to Hancher Auditorium for an eight o' clock performance. To
make it more incredible was the fact the game ended at 4:30 and
we are only short distance from Hancher. We left extra early
and managed to get to Normandy Drive and Park Road at 7:30.
It soon became clear we would not make it up Park Road and be
able to park before the curtain went up. We decided to turn
onto Normandy, park at the City Park softball fields and walk
through the park in the dark. We managed to make it. The
couple we were meeting had a similar experience as they live
on Melrose Court. They aborted their drive and walked the entire
distance from south of the fieldhouse.
Hopefully, this letter will help you in your dealings with
the University and assist you in being an effective advocate
for city residents. We must work with the University, but they
j must take the major responsibility for planning and expense.
Thank you for any assistance you will be able to provide.
Sincerely,
Randall A. yb'shisato
201 Woolf Avenuc
Iowa City, IA 52240
February 4, 1985
Captain William
Campus Security
The University
Iowa City, IA
Fuhrmeister
of Iowa
52242
Dear Captain Puhrmeister:
This is to inform you that better provisions must be made for
parking and traffic control for large athletic and special events.
The level of patrol coverage for the women's basketball game on
Sunday, February 3, 1985 was wholly inadequate and was responsible
for a number of dangerous situations. As you have no doubt heard,
the roads were in chaos. While returning home from church, my
wife and I witnessed illegal U-turns, driving on the wrong side of
the double yellow line, illegal parking, dangerous passing, and
pedestrians in the roadway rather than on the available sidewalk.
If there were no accidents or injuries, it was by the grace of God
as all the elements were in place. We managed to see all this as
we became stuck in Iowa City's version of big city gridlock. We
took 20 minutes to make a 5 minute journey. Even during the huge
crowds of a football Saturday, we have been spared this.
I believe the University must take responsibility. As a near
by resident of the University, I have become used to the inconven-
iences of the special events. In our neighborhood, we must endure
massive congestion, countless people to trample our lawns and
landscape, beer cans and refuse to choke our flower beds, parked
cars to block our driveway and plain, old-fashioned noise and
nuisance. Since these people are guests of the University, you
bear some responsibility for their control and behavior. Certainly,
If I, a private citizen, were to cause similiar problems to my
neighbors, the police would terminate my gathering immediately.
Moreover, my neighbors would hold me responsible for damages done
by my guests and rightly so. I think few people would fault my
neighbors for complaining at the outrage.
The University has every right to sponsor events in its
facilities; however, I and my neighbors have a right to enjoy
peace and security in our homes and neighborhood. I ask that the
University as a good neighbor take the same responsibility for
its activities as one would expect of a home owner. Please provide
adequate traffic control to alleviate congestion on non -University
property and provide parking for your guests on your property; so
that I can do the same for guests in my neighborhood. Thank you.
A reply to acknowledge receipt of these requests would be appreciated.
rely
C
Ml A:' oshiaato
cc: W. S. Tynan, Director
J. O. Freedman, President
J. McDonald, Mayor
201 Woolf Avenue
Iowa City, IA 52240
February 4, 1985
President James 0. Freedman
The University of Iowa
Inwa City, IA 52242
Dear President Freedman:
This is to inform you of the problems which University
activities are causing me and those who live near the Carver-
Hawkeye Arena and Kinnick Stadium. Attached find a letter
addressed to Captain W. Fuhrmeister, patrol commander for
your files. Please take appropriate action of oversight and
guidance as President and chief executive officer of the
institution in resolution of this matter. Thank you for any
assistance you will be able to provide.
Sincerely,
Randall A. Yoshisato
964
I
i
i
201 Woolf Avenue
Iowa City, IA 52240
February 4, 1985
President James 0. Freedman
The University of Iowa
Inwa City, IA 52242
Dear President Freedman:
This is to inform you of the problems which University
activities are causing me and those who live near the Carver-
Hawkeye Arena and Kinnick Stadium. Attached find a letter
addressed to Captain W. Fuhrmeister, patrol commander for
your files. Please take appropriate action of oversight and
guidance as President and chief executive officer of the
institution in resolution of this matter. Thank you for any
assistance you will be able to provide.
Sincerely,
Randall A. Yoshisato
964
The University of Iowa
Iowa City, Iowa 52242
Vice President for Finance
and University Services
Mr. Randall A. Yoshisato
201 Woolf Avenue
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Dear Mr. Yoshisato:
RECEIVED r iyj8C
i
i
i
i
e
t
February 6, 1985
President Freedman has asked me to respond to your
letter of February 4, expressing specific concerns about
the traffic congestion on Sunday, February 3, and general
concerns about congestion at other University events.
All are in agreement that the level of police and
traffic supervision at the Sunday women's basketball game
was totally inadequate to handle the numbers of people who
attempted to attend the game. Be assured that we have now
made arrangements to assure that there is adequate traffic
and parking staff so as to avoid a repetition of this
problem. I apologize to you on behalf of the University
for the inconvenience that you suffered.
With respect to the general problems of congestion
during athletic events, all agree that the proximity of
the athletic facilities to the hospitals and surrounding
residential neighborhood does create dislocations. The
University attempts to work cooperatively with the city in
minimizing these disruptions. Nevertheless, it is clear
that, on game days, individuals who live in the
neighborhood do suffer some inconvenience. At such time
that Kinnick Stadium passes beyond its useful life,
serious consideration will be given to relocating the
stadium on University land west of Finkbine Golf Course.
Until that time, however, I am afraid that crowd problems
will continue to occur. We are making every effort, in
cooperation with the city, to minimize those problems.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any
further questions or concerns.
ni cer'ly,
Casey D. aho15 f
Assoc�ce President
cc: James 0. Freedman
Mayor John McDonald
William Tynan
William Fuhrmeister
Christine H.B. Grant
i
i
t�
4
j
Please feel free to contact me if you have any
further questions or concerns.
ni cer'ly,
Casey D. aho15 f
Assoc�ce President
cc: James 0. Freedman
Mayor John McDonald
William Tynan
William Fuhrmeister
Christine H.B. Grant
i
Proposal to share
airports uy'rnpopular
a, Ann Mftnan
My
IOWA CITY — A recommenda•
tion that some of the state's mull,
general aviation airports be operat•
ed by more than one city or county
Is a political football that no one
wants to touch.
The transportation subcommittee
of the Governor's Committee for
Iowa's Future Growth last year
recommended closing some of
Iowa's 114 publicly owned airports
and pouring more money Into the
survivors to make air travel within
the state more attractive to bus.
nesses and visitors. The committee
also recommended the surviving
airports be operated by more thin
one city or county.
The committee's recommends -
Um, published in DK"Wr, aren't
new but are actually based on a
similar report released in 1982
during former Gov. Robert Ray's
tenure.
Operations at the Iowa City
Airport, classified ss a medium- to
large -size general aviation facility,
shouldn't be changed, say the may-
ors of Comlviile and Iowa City and
the chairman of the Johnson County
Board of Supervisors.
"I definitely think the airport Is
crucial to this area," said board
chairman Dennis langenberg. "We
could get along without it because
the Cedar Rapids airport Is so close,
but as long as we have It, we should
keep It. As far as the county
providing financial support, I think
that Idea would meet with raised
eyebrows." . .
DORIS HANSEN, who owns an
accounting firm In Sioux City and
was a member of the transportation
subcommittee, admitted the Idea "is
not politically popular. It wouldn't
be easy to convince people in Iowa
City that they have to go to Cedar
Rapids" for all their aviation serv-
Ices.
Nothing was done three years ago
when the suggestion was first made,
cid Hansen, r member of the
state's Small Business' Advisory
Council, and she predicted nothing
would be done this time, either.
Many of the state's small airports
are in 'terrible" condition, Hansen
said. Not only are runways deterio-
rating, but commercial and residen-
.tW construction is taking place too
dose to many of these airports, she
explained further. .
To provide"better services and
have enough money for operations,
the committee suggested reducing
the number of airports from 114 to
about 80.
"Basically, the cold, hard facts of
Ive are we only have so much
money to use for airports," Hansen
said. "We would like to see those
&]ports limited to get better air
service."
By upgrading the airports and
giving them more mmey, the born-
mittee hopes the state could attract
more airlines and, as a result, new
businesses and jobs.
CURRENMY A 4 -percent ales
to on jet fuel is placed in the
date's general fund. The committee
his recommended this money,
which could amount to $700,000
annually, be placed In an aviation
fund to rehabilitate airports, But
Gov. Terry Bransad has historically
opposed earmarking my sate funds
for such ■ purpose, so Hansen
predicted he would oppose the idea
Iowa City property taxpayers
subsidize the airport's operations,
which also are paid for through
revenues from teased farmland and
hanger space rented to local busi•
nesses. Next fiscal year's budget Is
proposed at $191,133, of which
$99,347 will come from property
taxes.
Coalville residents dont contrib•
ute to the airport's upkeep, but
Mayor Michael Kattchee admits his
community does profit from It
"If Iowa City reaps benefits from
the airport, it would be hard to
argue that Coralville doesn't reap
any benefits," Kattehee said.
If Coalville were approached
about providing financial support
for the airport, Kattchee said, the
council would probably have to take
e serious look at the Idea.
The possibility of Involving Coral•
ville and Johnson County In the
airport'a operstions Ment been
discussed before, said Iowa City
Mayor John McDonald
"IF IT IS utilized, yea, it would
be nice to have contributions from
some other sources, If possible,"
McDonald admitted.
The Iowa City City Council U
considering charging user or hod•
Ing fees at the airport to generate
more -revenue, but collecting the
fees is difficult bemuse the airport
doesn't have a control tower that
could keep track of air traffic.
And although the city is ineligible
for federal funds because of build -
halls Incited too close to runway 17,
McDonald sold he hopes that situs•
tion will' be corrected within the
next year, putting the city back in
line for federal dollars.
. Russ Sclwelaer, a member of the
Airport Commission, said no One
can put a dollar figure on the
benefits provided to the community
by the airport
"We feel very, very strong about
whet our airport means to the
economy of Iowa City," Schmeiser
said, estimating tourists and busi-
ness people using the airport gener-
ate more than $8 million a year for
the community.
^ Jsaua
BECEIVEDFE84 685 a
LEGISLATIVE .oDa
BULLETIN
ow .e,..,uw nista
mm saxu
First Session, Bulletin No. 2 February 1, 1985
GOVERNOR'S BUDGET MESSAGE
On January 24 the Governor delivered his budget message in which he outlined his
budge[ proposals for the next two fiscal years.
Of particular interest to cities was a recommendation that a special 510 million
fwd be developed for economic development programs at the local level.
The specific details of the fwd have yet to be worked out but it would be similar
to other federal community development grant programs available to cities with
cities having the maximum flexibility in utilizing the revenue to attract newjobs,
t subsidies for new or expanding businesses or for economic development projects.
i All other financial assistance funds to cities, including municipal assistance,
sewer construction funds, community development loan funds and public transit aid,
were held to the same funding level as last year.
FY 86 FY 87
Municipal Assistance S 1e.65m S I4.65m
Sewer Construction Grants 2.0011 2.002
Community Development Loans 1.50. 1.SOm
Public Transit Aid I.BSm 1.115.
The $10 million economic loan fund to local government would come from part ofthe
revenue produced by a state lottery and under the Governor's proposal would de-
crease to $5 million in FY 87.
DEFICIT PREDICTION
The Legislative Fiscal Bureau is predicting the state will have a $19 million
deficit on June 30, 1986 if the Govemor's spending recommendations are followed.
The Fiscal Bureau bases its estimates on a slower growth in the Iowa economy.
The State Comptroller, however, is predicting a $3.2 million surplus because of
their estimates that revenues will grow faster than projected by the Fiscal
Bureau.
Regardless of who is right, the predictions have set off a rash of recommendations
on ways to avoid the deficit. These recommendations take the form of straight
cuts in appropriations which could impact financial assistance to cities. Other
recommendations include getting the state out of the liquor business and selling
off the inventory to private enterprise. This action could also have an impact
on local government because of the revenue received from liquor sales.
Because legislators have ruled out cuts in education and social programs, other
state agencies could face greater cuts in order to balance the budget.
Also suggested is paying for the Iowa State Patrol from the rood use tax fund
rather than the state general fund.
Finally, the Nouse Democrats have discussed the possibility of eliminating mmf-
cipal and county assistance and replacing that appropriation with local option
taxes in order to save the $20 million presently distributed to local government.
This $20 million is almost equal to the amount of revenue shortfall predicted by
the Legislative Fiscal Bureau if the legislature uses the Governor's hudget. No
final decisions have been made either on budget cuts or increased revenues neces-
sary to balance the budget.
City officials should watch development In this area very closely.
(over)
-2 -
TERMINATION OF GENERAL REVENUE SHARING
Contrary to previous commitments, the Reagan Administration has taken the first
steps to terminating general revenue sharing one year ahead of its eunententitle-
ment cycle.
The current entitlement cycle was to have terminated on September 30, 1986. Under
a proposal from the Office of Management and Budget, the program world be termina-
ted one year ahead of schedule or September 30, 1985, and the Office of Revenue
Sharing would cease operations.
This action comes only three weeks after President Reagan had made a commitment
that the current entitlement cycle would be allowed to tut its course thus allow.
Sng cities the time to begin phasing out the program.
City officials should contact their Congressmen and Senators and ask them to sup.
Pott either 5 318 of HR 796 which have been introduced in Congress and call for
extending GRS.
IRS RULES TO IMPACT EMPLOYEE USE OF VEHICLES
The Internal Revenue Service has announced new regulations that wouldrequire
local governments to withhold taxes if employees have Personal use of my munici-
pal vehicle, including police cars.
The regulations are automatically In effect and may be changed or modified follow.
Ing public comments and hearings which are scheduled for February.
Because of the obvious administrative problems created by the rules, the League
Is working closely with the National League of Cities and Government Finance Of-
ficers Association and the International City Management Association to prepare
comments on the regulations.
The new rules detail various means by which to calculate the •,fair market value"
of taxable non-cash benefits, such as the personal use by a municipal employee of
a city -owned vehicle. Under the regulations cities must confers, to a timetable
for withholding 20 percent of the value of the employee's taxable non-cash benefit.
The rules also establish a method for determining the commuting value Of certain
city vehicles such as pollee cruisers which are not permitted for personal use
but are used strictly for commuting purposes.
The withholding requirements become mandatory for the second calendar quarter of
1985 (June 30, 1985). Therefore, cities must begin compliance steps as of April
1, 1985 in order to insure meeting the June 30 requirements.
As we go to press the League has leaned that the Treasury Department will be
amending these rules that Impose record-keeping requirements. The extent of the
quirenen[I to compon is ute theet knon-cash benefits nown and as we derstand, it does not remove c
although legislation to repeal this
-action Is expected at the national level.
As League
ll
clvsoon boutsthecitiese'gulations are responsibilityiandloptionseavailableimderetheenew rules. ar[1-
ATTORNEY GENERAL RULES ON THREE CITY -RELATED CASES
The Attornry General has released opinions on three areas that Impact on city
gnvernmiMt.
The first opinion relates to municipal utility boards (a 84-12-I1 (L)). The
opinion states that a utility board may panicipate in activities of o local non-
profit development corporation but cannot provide financial contributions to the
local devulopmrnt corporation.
The second opinion (rem -12.5 (L)) relates to the Ilability of governmental units
for injuries to offenders performing unpaid community service, That opinion was
isbinrelatasbto James
209H passed last Jim
session. he opinionCounty
st tes that g vernmopinion
governmental
units or other entities using offenders performing unpaid community service work
ma)be liable for workers' compensation or under general ten law for injuries
to such id
service
relicvedwofkaI l liabilityrforatonsing they ommitnwhhile perfomingwthe rk arenot
• 300
•3-
The last opinion relates to retainage in excess of five percent of a contract
price (184-12-14 (L)), This opinion states that although Chapter S73 limits the
soman[ of retainage on a public improvement contract to five percent, a govero-
mental body could provide expressly by contract for a greeter mount.
BILL WOULD ELIMINATE LANDFILLS
House Study Bill 14, • proposed committee bill by the House Committee on Energy
and Environmental Protection, would eliminate sanitary landfills effective July 1,
1994. After that date the bill prohibits the director to grant permits or a site
license to a sanitary disposal project or a hazardous waste facility to open or
operate a new sanitary landfill site as part of its operation. Although variances
are authorized, the intent of the legislation is to eliminate landfill operations.
The bill also calls for phasing out existing landfill operations through alterna-
tives such as source reduction, resource recovery and incineration.
The bill has been assigned to a subcomittee of Randy Hughes (D -Creston), Chair;
Sue Mullins (R.Corwith); and Bob Skow (D -Guthrie Center).
This bill is similar to one introduced last session which was not acted on because
of the concern expressed by many landfill operators that the 1994 date was not
realistic because the alternatives technology was still not available and thatthe
life expectancy of many landfills is 20 years or more. It has also been pointed
Out that landfills cannot be totally eliminated because of A certain percentegeof
residual material that cannot be disposed of and must be placed in landfills.
City officials should contact members of the subcomittee and indicate the needto
reduce the use of landfill operations but that A total ban or phaseout is not
technically feasible at this time.
LOTTERY BILL ON FAST TRACK
As we go to press the Senate is debating the state lottery bill and • final vote
is expected later today. The Slate bill provides for only the creation of a
state lottery and establishing the rules of operation of the state lottery. This
bill differs from the House version which could combine the state lottery with an
economic development plan including the allocation of lottery revenues for eona-
mic development, research and development, and jobs' creation.
BILLS OF INTEREST
SF
ent or 49 - ANNEXATION OF RURAL NATER DISTRICTS (Hutchins) Bill provides a require-
ma c ty to compensate a rural water district/association for facilities
in an annexedarea. The city must also pay a portion of the outatandingindebted.
mass of the
es
over all of the tp property ofhthe ldistrict eAnd hAssmes all e entire sthe cliabilitiet t he s liabilitiesofdistrict.
(Note: This bill was introduced last session but failed to pass. Primaryobjec.
tion which is still valid is that the rural water districts do not meet specs
of city lines and therefore a city would not only have to pay for the present
system but then the cost of tearing it up to put in spec lines. Cities should
argue that this Is a double cost and recommend that all rural water dlstrictsmeet
specs of city.)
SF 56 - FINES FOR HANDICAPPED PARKING (Small) Authorizes cities and counties to
cats s an o ternat ve neo [ c fine imposed under chapter 601E for parking
In a handicapped parking space. Under section 601E the fine is $15. By ordinance
A city or county could set a fine up to $100. Moneys collected would be retained
by city or county.
LOCAL OPTION TAXES (Readinger and Gronstal) gill author -':es cities and
cauntles to -'-pose Tocol option taxes following voter approval. The bill author•
f:es income Max, payroll taxes And sales taxes.
SF 84 - REGULATION OF FIREARMS (11211, et all The bill preempts political subdivi.
A ons nom v ng ar anccs t at regulate the otherwise lawful ownership, posses. n
slon, transfer Or transportation of firearms.
SF 91 - LOCAL SCHOOL ELECTIONS (Committee on Education) This bill would change
t e Ate o s< real elections to odd-nusbered years In November, the same time As
municipal elections. Amendments have been filed to this bill which would change
the date of municipal elections from November to September to conform to schools.
(over)
• 9
-e -
The original purpose of the bill was to combine the elation to save revenue.
SF 100 - DISCLOSURE/CAMPAIGN CDtf111IBUTIONS (Bremer 6 Grmnstal) Provides limits on
the total amount a candidate for certain public offices may receive from PACS:
establishes a public disclosure act for public officials, public employees and
candidates for public office and provides for expense reporting by lobbyists and
lobbying organizations.
SF 102 - DISASTER LOANS (Hultman) Authorizes the state to provide matching funds
a ra sss[er
or assistance to local and state governments. The state would
provide up to ten percent of the expenses if the assistance is to a local goven-
ment. The bill also establishes a standing appropriation of $50,000 a year for
emergency assistance.
SF 111 WINE SALES (Ainley) Places wine sales under private distribution. im-
poses an ext s� on wine to be distributed to cities as is currently the prae-
tics.
SF 116 - LANDFILL WELLS (Tieden) Provides that the water, air and waste manage-
ment co®asa ons Nerequire that at least one water well is installed as a part
of a sanitary landfill to monitor the water quality of ground water to the sani-
tary landfill.
HOOSE
NF 16 - CAPITALIZATION RATE (Sehenkloth) Changes the capitalisation rate for de -
term n ng ac "I
vs ue o ag property by increasing the present seven percent to
nine percent for the 1989 assessment year.
NF 50 - APPOINTMENT OF POLICE CHIEFS (Spear) provides that the method of appoint-
, ng the chief of the po ca epartsent and the chief of the fin department shall
be specified by city ordinance or city charter.
HF 11 - CAPITALIZATION RATE (Daggett) Changes the capitalization rate from 71 to
V amount equal tot a average federal land bank mortgage loan interest tete for
the preceding five years.
IF SI - GIFT OF REAL PROPERTY (Peterson) Establishes a procedure by which the
qua e e attars o • c ty may approve or disapprove of a proposed gift ofreal
estate by the city to a governmental body. A sixty percent approval vote is
necessary.
IF 59 - RURAL WATER DISTRICT (van Haanen) See SF 49 this bulletin.
HF 80 - IPERS (Connors) Allows vested members of the Iowa Public EaFloyessRatire-
sent System IPERS) who previously had less than IS years of service under the
Peace Officers Retirement System or a local police or fire retirement system to
receive credit under IPERS for this previous service.
NF 97 - COLLECf14T BARGAINING (Shorten) Changes the definition of confidential
pro—Yee —. el m nates t e automatic exclusion of principals and assistant princi-
pals; provides remedies which may be ordered by PERE and allows the board to
petition the district court for enforcement of board actions; strikes the scope
of negotiations section of chapter 20 and enlarges the list to include all other
items relating to working conditions. Only state -mandated retirement systems are
excluded from negotiations.
IF 116 - LEAVES OF ABSENCE (Baster) Provides that any public employee who is ■
can
ate or pu e o cc shall be granted a leave of absence without pay, upon
request, during the SO days preceding election.
HF 119 - WINE SALES (Baxter) See Senate File 111.
FIRST PUBLIC FINDS BILL INTRODUCED
SF 118, an Act relating to the deposit of public funds, has been introduced in
the Senate. The bill deals with several aspects of the deposit of public funds
and is intended to clarify problems resulting free the repeal of the sinking
fund and the current pledging of assets law. The bill removes the in-state geo.
graphic limitations on the deposit of public funds; creates a local government
investment pool; repeals existing sections on pledging of collateral; and inserts
new procedures to give priority to public funds on deposit. The hill does not
address investments nor does it provide any new flexibility for investing public
funds. Debate on the bi 11 is expected in the Senate Commerce Committee during the
next two weeks.
a s s
300