Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-03-12 Info Packeti 70: FROM: RE: City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE: March 1, 1985 City Council City Manager Informal Agendas and Meeting Schedule March 5 1985 Tuesday 6:30 - 9:00 P.M. Council Chambers 6:30 P.M. - Old Dubuque Road/Bristol Drive/Foster Road 7:15 P.M. - Energy Conservation Measures - Funding Program 7:30 P.M. - Financial Policies for the Operating Budget 7:45 P.M. - North Side Lighting Project 7:55 P.M. - Action Steps for FY86 Council Objectives 8:15 P.M. - Review Pending List Priorities 8:20 P.M. - Airport Zoning Board of Adjustment Membership 8:30 P.M. - Council time, Council committee reports 8:40 P.M. - Evaluation of City Clerk (Executive Session) March 11 1985 Monday 6:30 - 8:30 P.M. Council Chambers 6:30 P.M. - Review zoning matters 7:00 P.M. - New Sign Ordinance 7:45 P.M. - Downtown Parking Study Report 8:15 P.M. - Council agenda, Council time, Council committee reports March 12 1985 Tuesday 7:30 P.M. - Regular Council Meeting - Council Chambers March 19 1985 Tuesday 6:30 - 8:30 P.M. Council Chambers 6:30 P.M. - Minimum Open Space Requirements 7:15 P.M. - Harlocke/Weeber Area Rezoning 8:00 P.M. - Street Naming Policy 8:10 P.M. - Transit Fare Subsidy Program 8:20 P.M. - Council time, Council committee reports March 25 1985 Monday No Informal Council Meeting - CANCELLED March 26 1985 Tuesday No Regular Council Meeting - CANCELLED City Council March 1, 1985 Page 2 PENDING ITEMS Priority B: Leasing of Airport Land for Commercial Use Congregate Housing Development Alternatives Iowa Theater Type Problems Housing Alternatives Newspaper Vending Machines Unrelated Roomers - Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment City Plaza Fountain Barrier Comprehensive Economic Development Program Housing Inspection Process and Operating Policies Liquor/Beer License Suspension Policy Sewer Tap -on Fees and Requirements Kirkwood/Dodge Signalization and Traffic Patterns Fees for Sign Permits Appointment to Committee on Community Needs - April 9, 1985 I MAX City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: February 25, 1985 To: City Council From: City Manager,e— � Re: Federal Programs We regularly receive information from various national organizations and recently received a request from CCN that the City Council contact legisla- tors to ensure that federal programs are not cut. As the issue of funding of federal programs will be with us for some period of time, I would recommend that the City Council adopt a policy position which seems to be reasonable concerning the financial circumstances of the State and Federal Governments.. With such a huge Federal deficit it seems inappropriate for the City simply to request that no federal programs relating to cities be cut. A more appropriate policy position would seem to be that if there are going to be cuts, cities should not receive proportionately any greater cuts than other programs, and further, that if federal funding for specific programs, such as revenue sharing, is going to be phased out, it should be phased out over a period of several years so that cities and states can adjust to less federal revenue. Adopting this position will give cities more credibility when responding to legislative proposals. /sp a City of Iowa city MEMORANDUM Date: February 26, 1985 To: City Council From: City ManagerZ4�� Re: Downtown Iowa City Parking Study Attached for your review is a copy of the Parking Study which was completed by the team of Hansen Lind Meyer, PC, and Rich and Associates, Inc., with City staff assistance. This report will be scheduled for discussion during your March 11 informal meeting. The staff and consultants will be present to answer any questions. bdw/sp Enclosure cc: John Lundell, Transportation Planner 490 Il February 28, 1985 I _ Mr. Neal Berlin City Manager 410 East Washington i — Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Mr. Berlin: Attached is the final report of the parking study for the Iowa City central business district. This parking study was prepared by Hansen Lind Meyer and R.C. Rich & Associates, Inc. of Detroit. It is our opinion that the study validates the need for the vertical expansion of the Dubuque Street parking ramp. With that vertical expansion, there should be sufficient parking in the two downtown ramps to accommodate parking needs in the central business district for several years, depending on the -' pace of further development in the central business district by the private sector and/or the University. As further development occurs, it will be important to reevaluate the need for additional parking. The most probable locations for that parking are on what s described in this study as Site N1, the parking lot next to the Holiday Inn i -1a); or Site N2, the present city parblock 64 -1a); lot adjacent to the Senior Citizens Center, just south of Iowa Avenue between Linn Street and Gilbert _ Street. — This basic recommendation is based on the present situation with respect to a number of issues that relate to parking. As the City Council examines this — study and reaches their decision as to the appropriate steps to take, we would ask ed but parate issues keep in mind needsfornstructuredtparkingSepwhich they Those issues are as follows: 1. The continued use of Iowa Avenue on -street parking versus reinstallation of landscaped median and beautification of Iowa Avenue as the major approach to the old Capitol. 2. businessndistrict, particularlyrtonthe reast and ound the southhofycentral the central business district. 3. The number and placement of monthly parking permits in the present ramps. U I�Jfd Page Two 4. Parking meter enforcement policy and the rates for metered parking and for overparking fines. 5. Optimum occupancy levels of the structured parking and the duration of those occupancy levels. 6. The City's objectives in providing structured parking in the central business district. 7. The bus fare as it relates to the hourly parking rate. Yours truly, HANSEN LIND MEYER, P.C. RICH AND ASSOCIATES, INC. ..r�, John Douglas Benz, AIA.' Richard C. Rich, P.E. Principal President JDB/dei Enclosure 2.00 INDEX EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION 1 — STUDY AREA 1,2 HISTORY OF PARKING SYSTEM 2,3 ! METHODOLOGY 3-8 - RESULTS OF FIELDWORK Off -Street Parkins 9,10 j I On -Street Parking 10-12 (j it Meter Turnover Counts 12-21 Pedestrian Surveys 22-27 1 Student Surveys 28-31 Employee Survey Full -Time 31-33 i.� Employee Survey Part -Time 33-36 4 Summaries 37,38 DEMAND ANALYSIS Employee Demand 39-41 Visitor/Customer Demand 41,42 Residential Demand 42 University Demand, Staff 43 University Demand, Student 44,45 SITE ANALYSIS — Introduction 49 Future Parking Demand 50-53 Analysis 54,55 Site 1, Parcel 64-1a 55-60 i Site 2, 3, 4 61,62 A. Site 2, Senior Center Lot 62-67 _ B. Site 3, Civic Center Lot 68,71 C. Site 4, Chauncey Swan Lot 71-73 i .4 w Summary of Sites 2, 3 and 4 73-76 i i - i { - i Summary of Sites 2, 3 and 4 73-76 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Zoning Map of Study Area Pedestrian and Student Survey Locations Site Map with Parking and Building Inventory Meter Turnover Routes Turnover Count Summary Current Parking Demand and Supply Deficit and Surplus Analysis Parking Projections Effective Block Parking Radius Site 1 Summary of Demand for Added Parking Spaces Site 1 Effective Block Parking Radius Site 2 Summary of Demand for Added Parking Spaces Site 2 Effective Block Parking Radius Site 3 Summary of Demand for Added Parking Spaces Site 3 Effective Block Parking Radius Site 4 Summary of Demand for Added Parking Spaces Site 4 Effective Block Parking Radius Site 5 Parking Demand Summary 4 8 11 15 16-18 46,47 48 52 57 60 64 66 69 70 72 74 78 81 N M Executive Summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A detailed parking supply and demand analysis was conducted of the City of Iowa City central business district (CBD) and immediately surrounding area. The pur- pose of the study was to analyze the existing condition of the parking system and to determine present and future needed improvements. While the entire study area is bounded by Davenport Street on the north, Van Buren Street on the east, Prentiss Street on the south and Madison Street on the west, most of the recommendations in this report deal with the area south of Market Street. The study was conducted by the consultants with review and data collection by City staff. The study involved a methodology which was tailored to the characteristics of parkers in Iowa City as opposed to using averages or trends of "typical communities". While this involved extensive staff time to gather data and conduct surveys, it was felt that certain unique characteristics of Iowa City (e.g. mass transit usage, strength of the CBD, and University impacts) warranted the process. University student interns were used for the majority of the data collection in order to reduce the study costs. Data collection activities included: (a) a complete inventory of all existing parking in the CBD including City, University and private on and off-street spaces; (b) a meter turnover study to determine the utilization and length of stay of on -street parkers; (c) a survey of all business managers; (d) a survey of all full and part time employees (2,472 employee surveys were returned); (e) a pedestrian survey in the CBD; (f) a University student survey on campus; and (q) various other data provided by the City and University. Numerous meetings were held with the consultants, City and University staff, and the Chamber of Commerce Parkinq Committee. A 00 0 Using this data, present and future parking needs were determined for the various user groups, (i.e. visitor/customer, employees, students and residents). Future CBD developments were forecasted and their impact on the parking system predicted. Such projects include development of Parcel 64-1a adjacent to the Holiday Inn, development of the old library I parking lot, increased occupancy of the Old Capitol Center, and higher utilization of the Holiday Inn. Since the exact size and type of deve- lopment on Parcel 64-1a and the old library lot is unknown at this time, several different size developments were considered and the parking impacts of each estimated. Also accounted for in this study was the n addition of two levels (180 spaces) on Dubuque Street Ramp as well as the y number of persons on the waiting list for monthly parking permits. !i After determining existing and future parking demand by user group, this demand was compared to the existing parking supply to arrive at the j number of needed additional spaces. The first phase of this process com- pared the entire study area demand to the study area supply to determine a net deficit or surplus of parking spaces. However, this does not accurately reflect the actual parking needs due to maximum distance each — user group is willing to walk from their parking location to their final destination. For example, the parking supply in the Recreation Center lot does not serve the customer needs of the Iowa Avenue merchants. The _ various areas within the CBD each have individual parking supply sur- pluses or deficits. I -- B #90 i The second phase of the study process identified potential sites for future parking facilities to serve the CBD. Each site is analyzed in terms of location, user group, land acquisition difficulty, and potential for mixed use. Upon completion of this analysis, reconnendations are made regarding future parking improvements. This study only analyzes present and future parking needs and recommends improvements. there is no cost or financial feasibility analysis. A followup study should be conducted to forecast construction costs and to develop a financing mechnism if the City Council desires to consider additional parking facilities. In summary, the results of the parking study are: 1. In the study area south of Market Street there are 5,646 parking spaces composed of 4,822 off-street and 814 on -street spaces. In this same area there is an existing demand for 5,886 parking spaces composed of 2,207 employee spaces, 1,961 visitor/customer spaces, 813 residential spaces, and 905 University spaces. This results in a net deficit of 240 spaces. However, certain areas of the CBD have higher and lower parking needs. 2. The existing City parking system utilization ranges between 75 - 100% in the surface lots and between 58 - 80% with peaks approaching 100% in the two parking ramps. C n 3. The University plays an important role in both the parking supply and demand within the study area. The student population has a significant impact on the City parking system, especially along Iowa Avenue. Sur- veys indicate during the fall and spring semesters the majority of parkers along Iowa Avenue are students. While it is recoonized that students are critical to the livelihood of the CBD, they are utilizing limited short term parking spaces which otherwise would serve other visitors and customers to the CBD. 4. The parking turnover study indicates considerable meter feeding. Per- sons are parking in a space longer than its maximum metered time and "plugging" the meter. Apparently the public does not understand that meter feeding is illegal. 5. A high amount of long term parking is occurring on the streets east of Van Buren Street at non -metered spaces. Some of these parkers would probably utilize the ramps or lots if permits were available. However, others will continue to park for free there regardless of how many con- venient charged spaces are provided elsewhere. 6. As of January 1, 1985, 125 persons were on a waiting list for a monthly parking permit. This number does not represent the actual demand for permits which would be generated if the City promoted the sale of such permits. 0 I M 7. For the purpose of analyzing the parking demand and supply in various portions of the CBD, four sites were chosen as possible locations for future parking facilities. These sites were chosen based on location and current land use. They are: E i -- i Site 1 - Block 64, Parcel 64-1a (adjacent to the hotel) r, Site 2 - Senior Center Lot i Site 3 - Civic Center Lot Site 4 - Chauncey Swan Lot I Site 5 - The area south of Burlington Street ri is Each site was analyzed in terms of parking attractiveness to each user group, difficulty of land acquisition, and potential for mixed use ., development. 'J 8. Site 1, which is commonly referred to as 64-1a, was studied by the con- sultants in Phase A of this parking study for its mixed use potential. That report dated September 19, 1984, concluded that from a design standpoint a mixed use development which includes a parking element is feasible. The City of Iowa City has engaged Zuchelli-Hunter and Asso- ciates to conduct a market feasibility study. Obviously whatever type - of development takes place, it will have as significant impact on the parking system. E i -- Assuming the loss of the surface parking spaces on the old library lot (79 spaces) and Parcel 64-1a (90 spaces) along with the addition of two levels (180 spaces) on the Dubuque Street Ramp, there is a net demand for 175 additional spaces on Site 1. Depending on the size and type of development on the old library lot and Parcel 64-1a, this demand could vary from 367 spaces to as much as 490 spaces. Site 1 offers a great deal of mixed use potential and does an excellent job of serving visitor/customer and employee parking needs. However, it does little to serve the University student demand or the business establishments on the north side of the CBD. Land acquisition is not an issue since the City already owns the site. 9. Site 2 which is referred to as the Senior Center lot includes the Ecu- menical Housing parking lot and the private establishments facing Linn Street between Iowa Avenue and the alley. Presently there is a demand for an additional 180 spaces on this site. After accounting for the addition of two levels on the Dubuque Street Ramp, a loss of 90 existing surface spaces on the site, and the loss of the surface spaces on the old library lot and Parcel 64-1a, the demand increases to 242 spaces. When various size developments on the old library and Parcel 64-1a sites are considered, this demand varys from 290 spaces to as much as 340 spaces. F 04 G 00 Due to the location of Site 2, it offers high potential for a joint City - University parking facility serving the parking needs of the Senior Center, Ecumenical Housing, University of Iowa, as well as visitors and Iemployees of the downtown. Such a facility could serve to replace the faculty/staff parking lost when the University builds a classroom facility on the existing lot adjacent to Gilmore Hall. Preliminary discussions have been held within the City regarding the Senior Center parking area being used as a congregate housing site. Mixed use developments including both parking and housing have been built in other communities and could be possible on this site. Building on this location would require the City to acquire the private properties along Linn Street. Also, the present Ecumenical Housing park- ing would have to be acquired in exchange for their being guaranteed — space in the new parking facility. Parking spaces would also have to be provided within the new facility for existing surface parking reserved for Senior Center patrons. 10. Site 3 includes the existing surface parking to adjacent to the Iowa City Civic Center. This lot contains 112 spaces serving monthly permit holders and various governmental vehicles. There presently is a demand for 125 spaces on this site which will increase to 205 with the loss of surface parking on the old library lot and 64-1a along with the addition of two levels on the Dubuque Street Ramp. Depending on the size and type of development on these parcels, the demand on Site 3 could vary from 234 space to as much as 256 spaces. G 00 This site is less desirable due to its distance from the CBD and major University classrooms. It is more attractive for long term (monthly per- mit) parkers who are willing to walk longer distances than visitors/cus- tomers. i ( ! The major mixed use potential for this site is a joint parking/municipal building complex. Such a proposal has been suggested by the consultant - studying the space needs of City offices. Land acquisition costs would be zero since the City already owns the property. F I 11. Site 4 incudes the Chauncey Swan parking lot. Since the City owns nearly the entire block, a great deal of flexibility exists in terms of a parking facility's size and design. However, the park area and large electrical must be considered. After taking into account the loss of isubstation parking in the old library lot and 64-1a along with the addition of two 7. levels on the Dubuque Street Ramp, there is a'demand on this site for 200 _ spaces. Depending on the size and type of development on these parcels, the parking demand could increase to between 261 and 310 spaces. The location of Site 4 is better suited to serve the parking needs of the i CBD than the Civic Center lot; however, it is not convenient for student use. Since Site 4 is on the fringe of the CBD the mixed use potential is not as great, although a combination parking and inter -city bus depot is possible. Unless the City chooses to purchase the one remaining privately I � owned parcel, there would be no land acquisition costs involved. H �qe 12. Site 5 includes the areas of the CBD south of Burlington Street. This area is viewed as having the most potential for long term growth of the CBD. Parking demand in this area fluctuates with the activities within the Courthouse, Federal Building, and Sabin School. Upon completion of the new County office building on the former Elm Grove Park site, a por- tion of the current parking demand will be shifted to the new office site. I I — There presently exists a parking deficit of approximately 125 spaces in this area. No specific location was analyzed as a future parking L facility site. The City should continue to monitor the growth of this _ area to determine the parking demands. — Upon review of the above stated study results, the following recommendations J are made: 1. The City should immediately begin the design and construction of two additional levels (180 spaces) on the Dubuque Street Ramp. The justification for this expansion is as follows: a. Existing utilization of the City surface lots is near 100% and the two parking ramps range from between 58-80% with peaks near 100%. i b. Hotel related parking needs will increase as the hotel utilization rises. i #9a c. As of January 1, 1985, there were approximately 125 persons on a -- waiting list for monthly permits. This number will be considerably higher if the City promotes the availability of monthly permits. d. The City is almost certain to lose 79 spaces on the old library lot ( and 90 spaces on Parcel 64-1a as development of those properties occurs. The new developments will in turn generate the need for additional parking. e. Higher occupancy of Old Capitol Center, Plaza Centre One, and the old City Library, as well as other vacant properties within the CBD will lead to increased parking demands. f. It is important not to allow the parking system to reach 100% occu- pancy before expanding the Dubuque Street Ramp. This is due to the fact that at least two existing levels of parking will be displaced during the construction period. 2. The City should await the market analysis report of Parcel 64-1a before " making any further decisions regarding future parking facilities. Obviously this parcel represents a possible significant development site which could dramatically affect parking needs in the CBD. 3. Based upon the results of this study, Site 1 (Parcel 64-1a) and Site 2 (Senior Center lot) are the most attractive in terms of meeting present and future parking system demands. Site 2 is an excellent location to serve the parking needs of University students, thus freeing up spaces on J 4P W i I i I i I fw i t rl iv !i J Iowa Avenue for visitors/customers. After making a decision on the best use of Parcel 64-1a, the City should further examine the actual parking and financing options on Parcel, 64-1a (if appropriate) and the Senior Center site. However, if a decision is made not to place additional parking on Parcel 64-1a, further consideration should be given to the Chauncey Swan site. 4. The City should encourage the University to complete their parking study in order to more accurately identify present and future University parking needs. In addition, discussions should continue between the University and City concerning the potential for a jointly used parking facility. 5. Consideration should -be given to reducing the term of the two hour meters along Iowa Avenue to one hour meters. This will encourage greater turnover of these spaces and reduce the use by students, thus freeing up spaces for other customers and visitors. 6. A decision should be made on the level of overtime parking violation enforcement. The meter turnover study indicates considerable meter feeding; however, further enforcement in this area will reduce the enforcement level of expired parking violat'ions unless additional staff is provided. An awareness program should be initiated to educate the public on the illegality of meter feeding. It is apparent that many per- sons are unaware that it is illegal to park beyond the meters' maximum time limit. K lq9d , INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study is to quantify the current and projected demand for parking in an area of downtown Iowa City bounded by: Van Buren Street on the east, Madison Street on the west, Prentiss Street on the south and Davenport Street on the north (see map on page 4 ). The study makes recommendations on potential parking facility sites, the timing of parking projects and an overall parking management strategy. This study will provide information to enable the City of Iowa City to make an informed decision regarding future parking facilities. An integral part of this study was work done earlier this year in investigating the feasibility of increasing the capacity of the Dubuque Street Ramp, and raising the rates of the parking system. STUDY AREA The study area contains 53 blocks within Iowa City. The area includes several zoning designations, as follows: High Density Multi Family - Rm 44 Low Density Multi Family - Rm 12 High Rise Multi Family - Rm 145 Community Commercial - CC 2 Central Business District - CB 10 Central Business Services - CB 2 Commercial Office - CO 1 Most important, however, is the compact nature of the area, and the unique functional relationship between the Central Business District and the University of Iowa. The two are in a symbiotic relationship and thus very dependent on each other. There are several University buildings in the study area which add to the unique character. #90 In 1972 the City of Iowa City adopted an official parking policy which emphasized the City's role in providing parking in a defined area of the i CBD, and that on -street metered parking would eventually be eliminated with parking concentrated in off-street locations. In that same year a parking facility program was proposed and presented to the voters, but - r rejected on financial and environmental grounds. j -2- # d I M While there is not a major change in CBD land use expected in the next 2 i— years, there are projects that could alter the need for parking in the CBD. iThe CB -10 (Central Business District zone) is intended for high density development involving pedestrian oriented shopping, office, service and j entertainment uses. Off-street parking is only provided by the City in i the CB -10 area. In general, the existing study area can be described as having University .� oriented functions on the west and northwest; residential functions in the .J north, east and southeast, and commercial and service functions in the nsouth and middle sections. . HISTORY OF THE PARKING SYSTEM .rl In the early 1960's the City of Iowa City initiated an urban renewal ^' program in the Central Business District. During the remainder of the decade, funds were secured from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and legal actions were completed. In 1972 the City of Iowa City adopted an official parking policy which emphasized the City's role in providing parking in a defined area of the i CBD, and that on -street metered parking would eventually be eliminated with parking concentrated in off-street locations. In that same year a parking facility program was proposed and presented to the voters, but - r rejected on financial and environmental grounds. j -2- # d I M i i f I� I.1 try �J I In subsequent years revisions in the program were made which resulted in it's approval. An $8 million parking facility plan was adopted. As a result of this initial work two parking projects were successfully completed, the Capital Street Ramp in 1979 and the Dubuque Street Ramp in 1981. The City of Iowa City operates its own parking system, including both on -street and off-street facilities. Currently there are two parking ramps and 6 parking lots in the parking system. The parking lots are divided into short term and long term metered spaces and permit lots parking. The parking ramps also include several functions including transient, permit, and hotel uses. METHODOLOGY The fieldwork and data collection conducted during the study was completed by both the consultant and City staff. The work done by the City was outlined and conducted under the direction of the consultant and the Transportation Planner for the City, John Lundell, and Assistant Transportation Planner Jeff Davidson and student interns Gloria Maritote, Jim Stoffer, Kent Elbow and John Roberts. Parking Division Supervisor Joe Fowler and parking employee Dan Crandel also assisted in the fieldwork. iOn -Street and Off -Street Inventory An inventory of all on -street and off-street parking spaces in the study area I was completed by City staff. On -street spaces were categorized by meter type, free spaces, restricted spaces, or no parking zones. All off-street spaces, -3- MY ZONING MAP OF STUDY AREA ®RM 12 mCO 1 =I CB 10 ®RM 44 D RM 145 D CC 2 ® CB 2 m m z N N i were counted and designated on each block where they occurred. To the greatest extent possible; the users of these parking areas, the rates and restrictions were noted. The results of these inventories are shown on the enclosed site map (page 11). Summaries of on -street and off-street parking are shown on the charts in the Appendix. j Meter Turnover Study A meter turnover study was undertaken at three locations in the study area. The turnover study was done in all three locations on the same day and each - area is shown on the map on page 15. Each meter space and loading zone on each area was numbered and recorded by type. City staff walked each route each hour; license plate numbers of each vehicle at each meter were recorded, as were tickets and expired meters. The survey was conducted from 8:30 a.m until 5:30 p.m. •J The result of this work is shown on pages 16 through 18. The purpose of the I meter turnover study was to establish length of stay and magnitude of meter j feeding, determine where abuses are occurring, and record the number of meter violations that were not ticketed. _i Block by Block Inventory —, Each block in the study area was inventoried for the businesses and - residences on each block face, with the name and type of business noted. This process aided the distribution of the Manager Survey Forms and inventorying each business. -5- 490 ■ Manager Survey Each of the businesses in the study area was orally surveyed by City staff. A questionnaire was prepared that staff used to ask questions of each business manager: 1. Type of business 2. Number of full-time and part-time employees 3. Hours of Operation 4. Number of customers or visitor estimated to be coming to their business each day. 5. Percentage of customers or visitors who are employees or students already downtown. 6. Where customers and employees park 7. Hours of operation The results of these surveys were separated by block and block face and entered into a computer to create a data base. Employee Survey An employee questionnaire was distributed to most businesses in the study area. The information was used to arrive at parking characteristics by employee category, i.e. full-time vs, part-time; and professional, retail, clerical or "other". PedestriSurvey To acquire characteristics of various pedestrian categories downtown, a pede- strian survey was undertaken by City staff. Surveyors were stationed in three locations from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on July 18th. A map showing the survey location is found on page 8. The surveyors randomly stopped pedestrians -6- I #9d �.1 i i l r-1 Manager Survey Each of the businesses in the study area was orally surveyed by City staff. A questionnaire was prepared that staff used to ask questions of each business manager: 1. Type of business 2. Number of full-time and part-time employees 3. Hours of Operation 4. Number of customers or visitor estimated to be coming to their business each day. 5. Percentage of customers or visitors who are employees or students already downtown. 6. Where customers and employees park 7. Hours of operation The results of these surveys were separated by block and block face and entered into a computer to create a data base. Employee Survey An employee questionnaire was distributed to most businesses in the study area. The information was used to arrive at parking characteristics by employee category, i.e. full-time vs, part-time; and professional, retail, clerical or "other". PedestriSurvey To acquire characteristics of various pedestrian categories downtown, a pede- strian survey was undertaken by City staff. Surveyors were stationed in three locations from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on July 18th. A map showing the survey location is found on page 8. The surveyors randomly stopped pedestrians -6- I #9d on the street and inquired about their purpose downtown, how they arrived downtown, where they parked (if they drove), how far they parked from their destination and how long they expected to be downtown. Student Survey I A separate student survey was conducted on September 27th. City staff again j conducted the surveys, at the locations shown on page 8. As with the Pedestrian Survey the surveyors randomly stopped students and asked how they came to classes, where they parked (if they drove), and how long they would be downtown. n i .,7 Meetings r " Several meetings were held with the Chamber of Commerce Parking Committee to discuss issues of concern to business people, visitor/customers and u j residents. J Additionally meetings were held with Mike Finnegan, Dick Gibson and Dave Ricketts of the University of Iowa, which is also conducting a parking study. Meetings were held with different departments within the City of Iowa City to discuss planning items and future projects. i 'J -7- i PEDESTRIAN & STUDENT SURVEY LOCATIONS I i I ) 18 17 IB IS 11 13 12 i }}� 11 57 58 59 G 81 62 63 101 19 2U 60 v � < 69 68 67 66 65 61 CI 103 1 y m m 1 00 = = t o 1 78 77 78 79 80 81 82 102 2 8 w � 87 86 BS 81 83 101 0 7 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 100 B9 90 91 92 93 3 6 PEDESTRIAN SURVEY POINTS t STUDENT SURVEY POINTS a RESULTS OF THE FIELDWORK The following details discuss the results of the fieldwork described in the previous section. Off -Street and On -Street Inventory (see Appendix ) There are a total of 6110 parking spaces within the study area; 5346 off- r � street spaces and 764 on -street spaces. The off-street spaces consist of public parking, private parking and University parking. On -street spaces consist of public parking and University parking. r Off -Street Parking r, J The off-street parking spaces are shown on the map on page 12. On each block the parking areas were lettered for identification, and are summarized on charts in the Appendix. A majority of the off-street parking spaces are pri- vate parking areas for employees, visitors and residents. Parking spaces at individual residences were not included in the survey, but parking for apart- ment buildings and larger multi -family houses was included. As previously mentioned, there is an area in the CBD zoned CB 10, which limits parking development (see map on page 4 ) to encourage higher density development. Parking in this area can only be provided by the City. Within the CB 10 area, the City operates two parking structures, six surface parking lots that are metered, and one contract parking lot. The parking structures are attendant operated, with an incremental parking charge and �- monthly permits (employee parking) in the Dubuque Street Ramp (block #64). A I more detailed report on the parking operations and finance can be found in a -g - ?�Q companion report entitled 'Final Report; Iowa City Parking Study Phase A'. That report is integral to the understanding of the parking operations. i1 W Outside the CB 10 area there are surface parking areas that offer parking for employees, customers and residents. The University has parking areas a structure and several lots within the study area for staff and employee I;. permit parking, visitor parking, and student parking (both short term and storage lots). i 10 I� Surface parking lots within the CB 10 area and areas south of Burlington Street offer land development opportunites. It should be remembered that as j� surface parking is taken away for development, two forces are acting to t € create a demand for parking: the loss of surface spaces, ano the increased r N i.; demand for parking from a new development. t I" ! ' On -Street Parking On -street parking consists of metered parking loading zones and free spaces. I The map on page 11 shows the location of metered spaces, and the charts in the Appendix inventory the on -street parking. The meters have been categorized by letter, a - g and LZ (loading zone). Meters are dispersed on almost every block and for the most part are logically located; shorter term meters near commercial establishments, and longer term meters away from these areas. The intent is obvious; short term meters in front of commercial establishments to encourage turnover, and long M term parking where turnover is not necessary. I' -10- 01 - . f2 -�� LF + •' ' �—� '*� ®��� ^''kms" � � ` $fit^'•' �`'"y�i',$ Y�� • � " � M ' �:leU3�t1�h _ y 'T L r fila �7y}t,� rn � •iN.1 � . I Fitt min Elm ME MR M gr IF- 1E !A1✓�rA.ia'h % tk Ulm At ` . ;,. � s �1• �e,i•Y: 1)f�yy /(tc•t �..J• 1 r{'41 C • Y N IVA i �1,'ll lid! l i��IL 1Aktir'S y_ M1 . ..w ■ � :rF �1e. it +f1M))%M•rT.r13Tii'fT31T.r �4:'Y!�Itjyi13trySY+t,. a My1T� �pN � ii•l G �l� iASt�i -I- •t' OI�M r��aY.•��' ''Sx}`�v}f� 4�J •�`, �_,. - �E � r Y i 1 J; / 1. I Xflry19. r4(t r e }..Ji � :�� Z'•`. •YfiUY L.ULw fill NI SON ,E �� e if aruo Omxnnuu ®1L+1LmumllnxuLn.aA, Xnu n.nuG PARKING STUDY YLOCA ,;, an.APIA LFy........n.Ixc ,.xulun r...r.... IOWA CITY IOWA A FACE! � �fJmmunn Cr%Jume uu � Xuun oun runuuc .•.r...r. ::;o.n..n.IX. YX(iMO .,D ' o o GGY[nMY[XIYL YLGLXI .......... 1 InILI LPAC,. ... ..r. [\ �} IOfF SIIIfEI SYAUSLIIf Itlllfit 11 At P11n I1t TIL LI LY $01 CAVII L IS I 1•L IO.Irirrp lou, ,E Employees and students, if they must park on -street, should be encouraged to use the long-term meters. This can be done by education as well as making the rates higher on short term meters. Another important aspect of meter location has to do with student useage. There are University buildings i located throughout the study area, and of special concern are those on Iowa Avenue. Short term parking meters on some streets discourage student use by ' i r I timing them so they do not completely cover a class period, i.e., a 30 minute w meter is shorter than a class period. On Iowa Avenue there are a mixture of 30 minute, 1 hour, and 2 hour meters. As can be seen from the Student J Surveys, of those students who drive, almost 50% are parking on -street. Meter Turnover Counts The results of the meter turnover counts are found on pages 16, 17 and 18. i- There were three routes as shown on page 15, and referred to as Area I, 11 and III. The following is a key to the charts. 1. Block Face - The block face is the block number and face of that block on which the meters were studied. In all cases the faces correspond to the following compass directions: FACE A - NORTH J FACE B - EAST FACE C - SOUTH -7 FACE 0 - WEST FACE E - MEDIAN PARKING CLOSEST TO THAT BLOCK FACE 2. Meter Type - The types of meters on the particular block face. -12- 4 490 3. Time These are the approximate lengths of time that cars _ spent at the meters, but only the cars staying beyond the limitation of the meter were noted. For example on block face 66 B there are one hour meters, therefore cars staying in excess of one hour were noted. l 4. Number The number of cars throughout the day that spent the corresponding time at a meter. These were the total number of overtime porkers at that time stay. i 5. No Expiration -Of the total number of cars with overtime parking. This number represents cars that never had an expired meter. This indicates meter feeding. 6. Expiration with - Of the total number of cars with overtime no ticket arkin this number represents the cars that p9. � 1 had expired meters with no ticket. This indicates that either the parker did not put any money in the meter, or that they did not put in sufficient money to cover the time they would spend in the parking space. I 7. Expiration with - Of the total number of cars with overtime ticket parking, this represents the number of cars that r had expired meters and also received a ticket. ' M 1 1 -13- 4 490 i U * 8. Expiration with- This represents the cars parked on the block no ticket- no face during the day that were not overtime time violation parkers, but nevertheless had an expired meter and no ticket. * 9. Ticket on expired— As opposed to above, these are cars that were meter with no time violation not overtime parkers and who were at expired meters that did receive a ticket. * The totals for these two categories on the charts on pages 29, 30 and 31 are totals for that block face, not any specific lengths of stay. -14- 06 METER TURNOVER AREAS AREAS 2 3 uuuuunuuu a� I l TURNOVLR COUNT SUMMARY Expired w/no Ticket on .',plred — No Expiration Expiration ticket -no time meter who time Time Y Expiration who ticket w/ticket violation violation AREA I Block Face Meter Type 80 D 30 min 2 HR 6 3 0 3 2 3 HR 1 0 0 1 1 Univ. B L2 4-2 hour violation, 2 tickets - 2 hour 3 HR 3 2 1 0 4 HR I 1 0 0 5 NR 2 2 0 0 8 HR 2 2 0 0 0 0 RO C 2 HR 3 2 0 1 30 min 4 MR 1 1 0 0 6 HR 1 1 0 0 1 1 - 66 D 2 HR 7 3 2 2 30 min 3 HR 2 0 0 2 4 HR 1 1 0 0 8 HR 1 1 0 0 5 2 _i 80 B 2 HR 3 0 2 1 30 min 3 HR 1 0 0 1 6 HR I 1 0 0 5 1 r-. 66 8 2 HR 3 1 1 1 1 hour 9 NR 1 1 0 0 1 1 I 61 @ 3 HR 6 5 0 1 30 min 4 NR 7 5 1 1 2 hour 5 HR 3 1 2 0 j I 6 HR 1 1 0 0 0 1 44 A 1 hour 2 HR 1 1 0 0 0 0 _ 10 hour -1 61 A 2 HR 1 1 0 0 iJ 30 min 4 HR 1 1 0 0 2 hour 5 HR 1 0 0 1 I 6 HR 1 1 0 0 4 1 i� 61 D 2 HR 8 3 I 4 1 hour 3 HR 1 0 0 1 I 2 hour 6 HR I 0 0 1 0 0 1 ti: - X90 Expired w/no Ticket on Lapired No Expiration Expiration ticket -no time meter w/no Owl Time I Expiration w/no ticket w/ticket violation violation AREA I (Cont) Block Face Meter Type — 61 C 2 hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 A 1 hour 2 HR 10 6 1 3 10 2 i 3 HR 1 1 0 0 i 81 A LZ 2 HR 4 0 0 0 4 0 82 0 L2 2 HR I o 0 0 1 0 -' 84-83 0 LZ 2 HR 2 0 0 0 2 0 AREA 2 -' Block Face Meter Type 65 B 2 HR 3 2 1 0 1 hour 3 HR 2 0 2 0 _. 6 HR 1 0 0 1 1 1 LZ 4 HR 3 0 0 0 3 0 62 0 2 HR B 5 2 1 ( 1 hour 3 HR 3 2 1 0 i� i 5 HR I 0 1 0 0 0 62 C 2 hour 3 HR 1 1 0 0 4 MR I 1 0 0 0 0 43 C I hour 3 HR 1 1 0 0 0 3 0 2 hour 7 HR 1 0 1 42 A 2 hour 9 NR 1 1 0 0 2 0 63 A 2 hour 4 HR 3 1 1 1 4 0 - 63 0 30 min. 2 HR 4 4 0 0 1 hour 3 MR 2 0 0 2 1 0 104 0 1 hour 8 HR I 1 0 0 5 hour 9 HR 2 1 0 1 2 0 i 103 B 6 HR 1 1 0 0 5 hour 7 HR 2 2 0 0 8 HR 2 0 2 0 jI 9 HR 2 1 1 0 -17- Ll i U' S • Feed Meter after ticket W -T 6 2 #90 ;I Expired w/np Ticket on expired No Expiration Expiration ticket -no time meter w/no time Time Y Expiration w/no ticket w/t Icket violation violation Black Face Meter Type 79 C 2 HR 22 12 7 3 1 hour 3 MR 13 6 4 3 4 MR 1 1 0 0 5 MR I 1 0 0 2 0 60 C 2 MR 21 13 3 5 30 min. 3 HR 16 4 7 5 1 hour 4 MR 4 1 11 1 2 hour 5 HR 3 1 11 6 MR 1 1 0 0 8 MR 1 0 1 0 16 4 60 E-1 3 HR 12 11 1 0 2 hour 4 MR 1 0 I 0 5 HR 2 1 0 I 9 MR 1 1 0 0 10 2 60 E-2 2 MR 24 13 7 4 1 hour 3 HR 2 3 4 MR 0 1 0 5 MR 1 0 0 6 MR 1 0 0 7 MR 0 0 1 4 1 79 E 2 MR 30 18 11 1 1 hour 3 HR 3 1 0 2 4 MR 2 0 1 1 5 HR 1 1 0 0 6 MR 1 0 0 1 11 2 80 E 2 HR 25 10 8 7 1 hour 3 MR 4 2 0 2 4 MR 4 1 I 2 5 MR 1 0 0 I 7 HR 1 I 0 0 • 8 HR 1 I 0 0 16 2 fib E 2 MR 27 14 7 7 1 hour 3 HR 6 3 2 1 4 HR 4 I 2 1 5 HR 2 0 1 1 6 HR 1 0 0 I 7 MR I 1 0 1 11 2 66 A 2 MR 7 0 6 1 1 hour 3 HR 5 1 2 2 4 MR 3 0 1 2 5 MR 1 I 0 0 8 1 U' S • Feed Meter after ticket W -T 6 2 #90 ;I i a AREA 1 - This area covers Clinton Street, Washington Street and streets intersecting Washington. There were not a significant number of meter viola- tions (expired meters or overtime parking) in this area except on blocks 66D, 61E (Iowa Avenue median parking), 61D and 65A. The most common violation appears to be cars staying two hours. With the exception of 65A. these vio- lations are probably students. It is significant to note that on almost every block face in this area there appears to be employees parking on -street. This can be seen by the long length of time spent at a meter by some cars. About 29% of the total overtime parking in this area is greater than 4 hours. In most cases these employees are feeding the meter. As an example; on Face 66D the one 8 hour car did not have an expired meter, which indicates meter feeding. This meter feeding is showing up on block faces where the meters serve retail establishments. This indirectly hurts these businesses by tying up an on -street space that could be used by customers. On some blocks there appear to be people who are pulling into a metered space and either not putting money in the meter, or using time already on a meter. In either case they are not overtime parkers, but they do have expired meters. AREA II - This area covers Linn Street and College Street, which in some respects is not as heavily commercial. There were more long term parkers at these meters than in Area I, but in general there were fewer expired meters. About 40% of the overtime parkers were staying 4 hours or more. Meters on 1040 and 1036 have the worst overtime parking, but these are also 5 hour meters which encourage employee parking. -19- �f 90 II II . i AREA 1 - This area covers Clinton Street, Washington Street and streets intersecting Washington. There were not a significant number of meter viola- tions (expired meters or overtime parking) in this area except on blocks 66D, 61E (Iowa Avenue median parking), 61D and 65A. The most common violation appears to be cars staying two hours. With the exception of 65A. these vio- lations are probably students. It is significant to note that on almost every block face in this area there appears to be employees parking on -street. This can be seen by the long length of time spent at a meter by some cars. About 29% of the total overtime parking in this area is greater than 4 hours. In most cases these employees are feeding the meter. As an example; on Face 66D the one 8 hour car did not have an expired meter, which indicates meter feeding. This meter feeding is showing up on block faces where the meters serve retail establishments. This indirectly hurts these businesses by tying up an on -street space that could be used by customers. On some blocks there appear to be people who are pulling into a metered space and either not putting money in the meter, or using time already on a meter. In either case they are not overtime parkers, but they do have expired meters. AREA II - This area covers Linn Street and College Street, which in some respects is not as heavily commercial. There were more long term parkers at these meters than in Area I, but in general there were fewer expired meters. About 40% of the overtime parkers were staying 4 hours or more. Meters on 1040 and 1036 have the worst overtime parking, but these are also 5 hour meters which encourage employee parking. -19- �f 90 AREA III - This area has the largest number of overtime parking of the three - areas studied. Meters along this area are very close to the University buildings on block 60, and the majority of the 2 hour and 3 hour overtime parkers are probably students. Every block face, however, also has cars parking long term, which indicates use by store employees. About 16% of the overtime cars were staying 4 hours or longer. Some conclusions from the meter turnover study are: 1. Enforcement of overtime parking violations at metered spaces needs to be reviewed. Though costly in terms of manpower, increased chalking of tires should be considered for overtime — parking. In addition, the City should consider conducting a turnover study once every six months to identify areas where parkers are either feeding meters or not paying. 2. There is an education process needed for people parking down- town. Many people may not realize that it is illegal to feed a meter, staying longer than the limit on the meter. The educa- tion process can be accomplished by including articles or press i releases on parking regulations and by placing signs that explain that meter feeding is illegal. These signs should be placed prominently, either on the meters, or on regular signs at each end of a block. 3. Re-evaluate the location of 1 hour and 2 hour meters in the core area. On Iowa Avenue there is a mixture of 30 minute, 1 hour and 2 hour meters. The purpose of the 2 hour meters is somewhat unclear, unless they are for the use of students. -20- #9a There are significantly high enough parking space deficits on blocks 80 and 60 that this on -street parking should be maintained for short-term parkers, not long-term parkers or students. 4. 0n -street parking should be for quick in and out trips, and to supplement the lack of off-street parking. Meter limits should be set to encourage quick turnover, and rates should be set high enough to reflect the convenience of the on -street spaces and also encourage the use of off-street spaces; especially the parking ramps. 5. Enforcement should not be so strict that it will deter people from coming downtown. 6. The turnover study accounted for 118 tickets issued, while on that day a total of 545 tickets were written. Even though this included all types of parking tickets both off-street and on - street there was still a large number of tickets written that the turnover study did not account for. • In all, the meter enforcement personnel are writting an above average number of tickets per day. The average per day is usually 50 to 15, whereas in Iowa City they are averaging about 100 per day. -21- //90 PREFACE TO SURVEY RESULTS The rollowing sections of the report review the results of the various people surveys conducted. These surveys were; i' 1. Pedestrian survey -- 2. Student survey 3. Employee survey - full-time and part-time The pedestrian survey was directed towards shoppers, business visitors. employees and students who were walking on the sidewalks. People were ran- t _ domly stopped and the surveys did not focus in on one category. The student survey was conducted in front of University buildings and only students were surveyed. The employee survey was a questionnaire distributed to employees during the manager survey. The results were separated into full-time and part-time classifications. i I J. r -22- //90 Dubuque and Washington A total of 296 pedestrians were interviewed at the Dubuque and Washington survey location. In response to the question "For what purpose are you down- town today?", 32.8% indicated 'other", 28.4% responded they were shopping, 23.3% were downtown to work and 15.5% were downtown on business. This latter group exhibited the highest "drive and park" percentage at 61.4% followed by the shopping category of respondents where 45.2% indicated they drove and parked when coming downtown. For the remaining two categories, 34.8% of the " "work" respondents indicated they were driving and parking followed by the "other" category where less than one-quarter (22.7%) responded they would be -23- X90 CITY OF IOWA CITY PEDESTRIAN SURVEY RESULTS Several sites around downtown Iowa City were selected as Pedestrian Survey w, locations. At these sites surveyors stopped pedestrians at random to i determine their purpose downtown, their method of transportation, where they parked, distance from where parked to their destination, the expectea time w I they would be downtown, if they were shopping, the number of stores they l would visit and the distance traveled from their homes to downtown. The !k i results of this survey can be found in the Appendix. The survey locations iwere: 1. Dubuque and College 2. Iowa and Dubuque " 3. Dubuque and Washington The Dubuque and Washington survey location was the busiest with 296 respon- dents Dubuque and Washington A total of 296 pedestrians were interviewed at the Dubuque and Washington survey location. In response to the question "For what purpose are you down- town today?", 32.8% indicated 'other", 28.4% responded they were shopping, 23.3% were downtown to work and 15.5% were downtown on business. This latter group exhibited the highest "drive and park" percentage at 61.4% followed by the shopping category of respondents where 45.2% indicated they drove and parked when coming downtown. For the remaining two categories, 34.8% of the " "work" respondents indicated they were driving and parking followed by the "other" category where less than one-quarter (22.7%) responded they would be -23- X90 i ! I + i N driving and parking. Correspondingly, this group had the highest percentage indicating they walked (54.6%). For all categories combined, the average was 36.1% indicating they walked to get downtown. For those respondents who indicated they drove, 53.4% said they parked on -street. For the shopping category nearly three-fourths (71.8%) indicated they were parking on -street while only one-quarter (25.0%) of the "work" category indicated they parked on -street. Nearly two-thirds (62.5%) of those downtown to work were parking in a surface lot while 12.5% of this category said they parked in a ramp. For all categories combined, 27.6% were parking in a lot and 19.0% said they were parking in a garage downtown. The survey respondents also indicated approximately how far they had parked from their destination. For all categories combined the average was 2.5 blocks. Those downtown to shop parked the closest to their destination at an average distance of 2.2 blocks, while those downtown to work walked the farthest at an average distance of 3.1 blocks. The average length of stay downtown ranged from 1 hour 36 minutes for those downtown to shop to 5 hours 55 minutes for those downtown to work. For all groups combined the average stay was 2 hours 59 minutes. If those downtown to work are factored out, the average stay for the "transient" groups calculates to 2 hours 6 minutes. Those pedestrians downtown to shop were also asked how many shops they would be stopping in. Responses averaged 3.2 stores per shopper. .r -24- //?o Finally pedestrians were asked how far they. traveled from their homes to the downtown. For all categories the average distance was 7.2 miles. Most of the categories were relatively consistent averaging between 6 and 7 miles. Those downtown on business were the exception to the average, traveling an i -- average distance of 10.0 miles. Dubuque and College A total of 253 pedestrians responded at the Dubuque and College survey location. Nearly 32% were downtown to shop followed by approximately 31% downtown to work. The remaining respondents were divided between 15% _ downtown on business and 23% downtown for 'other" reasons. Slightly over half (55.7%) of the respondents drove and parked to get downtown. Those -7 respondents who indicated they were downtown to shop had the highest _1 percentage driving at 64.2% while those downtown to work had the lowest percentage driving at 49.1%. Overall, 23.3% of the respondents walked to get �I downtown. J In response to the question, "Where did you park"7 a majority (39.6%) of the respondents indicated a parking ramp followed by 33.1% parking on -street and 27.3% parking in an off-street lot. More than one-half (51.9%) of the shoppers were parking in a ramp while only one-fourth (25.6%) of the work category were parking in a ramp. i The distance the various respondents were walking was very consistent between the various categories (i.e. shopping, business, work, other) with the aver- i ages ranging from 1.7 blocks to 2.1 blocks with the combined average at 1.9 f blocks. v„ ~ -25- pyo Pedestrians were also, asked how long they expected to be downtown with the average stay ranging from 1 hour 46 minutes for shoppers to 5 hours 25 minutes for those downtown to work. The overall average for all categories is 3 hours 7 minutes. This figure is inflated by the workers category, a large percentage of whom indicated they would be downtown for 8 hours. If the workers category is factored out, the average stay for the "transient" groups becomes 2 hours 5 minutes. The final question asked of pedestrians was the distance they traveled from their homes to downtown. For all categories the average distance was 8.8 miles, with those working downtown traveling the shortest distance (6.5) miles and those coming downtown to shop traveling the greatest distance (10.6) miles. Iowa and Dubuque One hundred and twenty pedestrians were interviewed at the corner of Iowa and Dubuque. At this location 31% of the respondents were downtown to work followed by 29% downtown for 'other" reasons, 22% downtown to shop and 17% downtown on business. This particular survey location was unique in that it had the highest per- centage indicating they were parking on -street (71%). Only 20% were park- ing in an off-street lot and less than ten percent were using a parking garage. -26- 00 The respondents also indicated how far away they had parked. The average for all categories was 2.1 blocks, but ranged from 1.8 blocks for those shopping up to 2.5 blocks for those downtown to work. Also asked of the pedestrians was how long they expected to be downtown. As would be expected. those downtown to shop had the lowest average stay I hour 4 minutes followed by those downtown on business staying an average of 1 hour 33 minutes. Those downtown for 'other" reasons stayed an aver- age of 2 hours and 24 minutes and those downtown to work averagea 6 hours and 38 minutes. The overall average was 3 hours and 15 minutes. If the worker category is factored out the average stay for the "transient" groups becomes 1 hour 45 minutes. Those pedestrians who indicated they would be shopping were also asked how many stores they would be shopping in that day. At this survey location the average was 2.9 stores per shopper. The final question again asked of the pedestrians was approximately how far they traveled from their home to downtown. The average distance for all groups was 8.6 miles, but ranged from a low of 5.9 miles for those working downtown to a high of 10.6 miles for those coming downtown to shop. Those who indicated they were downtown on business traveled an average of 9.3 miles while those who indicated 'other" traveled an average distance of 9.7 miles. -27- x{7 M I STUDENT SURVEY RESULTS A Student Survey, similar to the Pedestrian Survey was conducted at three survey locations: 1) Washington and Capitol 2) Iowa and Linn i 3) Iowa and Clinton The results of this survey are shown in the Appendix. I_ IAt these three locations a total of 1,335 stuacnts were surveyed. Survey location #1 (Washington at Capitol) was the busiest where 639 students were surveyed. This was followed by location #2 (Iowa and Linn) where 372 stu- dents were surveyed and location #3 (Iowa and Clinton) where 324 students Iresponded to the questionnaire. Each survey location will be discussed individually in the following section. _ Washington at Capitol Fifteen point two percent (15.2%) of the students who respondea drove down- town to attend classes, while the majority chose to walk (55.1%), or take the bus (19.2%)• More than half (53.1%) of the students who drove indicated they were parking in an off-street lot, and of these the majority were using a University lot (66.5%) followed by a City lot (13.5%). The remaining responses were parking in a downtown garage (24.5%) and parking on the street (22.4%). " -28- Students who drove were asked how far away they parked. The average showed a significant walking distance, 3.4 blocks. I Finally, students who drove were asked how long they expected to be downtown. i r The average calculated was 5 hours and 8 minutes. This figure is somewhat i iinflated by the nearly one-third of the respondents who indicated they would f w be downtown eight hours or more. I Iowa and Linn ..r Iowa and Linn Street was the second location used for the student pedestrian 1 survey. The percentage of students indicating they drove and parked was i twice the response as at Washington at Capital (30.9% vs. 15.2%). The percentage indicating they came by bus was 18.3%, and the percentage I_ indicating they walked was 43.0%. _J J This survey location had 36.6% of students who drove parking in a lot and _ 51.5% parking on -street. The remaining of 11.9% were parking in a downtown parking garage. Of those students who parked in an off-street lot, two thirds were parking in a University lot. Students were parking an average distance of 3.1 blocks from their classes, which was very close to the average given at the initial survey location. i JIn response to the question asking how long they would be downtown, the average stay was 4 hours 13 minutes. t � -29- Iowa and Clinton At this particular survey location 29.3% of the students surveyed indicated they drove and parked. The majority (45.4%) indicated they walked, and 17.6% used the bus system. r-. ,..; Of those students who indicated they drove, 51% were parking on -street, and r 32% were parking in an off-street lot. Of those parking in a lot, 68.8% were I parking in a University lot and 21.9% were parking in a private lot. The average distance students were walking from where their car was parked was very consistent to the other survey locations at 2.9 blocks. The average stay was consistent as well, averaging 5 hours 4 minutes. An interesting result was the length of time students are spending downtown. On the Iowa and Clinton survey, 28% of the students who drove to class were staying from 1 to 2 hours, which roughly corresponds to the meter limitations J on Iowa Avenue. In all cases there are significant numbers of students who are spending all day downtown. EMPLOYEE SURVEY RESULTS I Employees of businesses in the CBD were asked to complete a brief question- naire which would provide important characteristics regarding how they arriv- ed downtown, the distance traveled, where they parked and the type of vehicle driven. The results were separated into full-time employees and part-time -30- X90 H employees and further categorized into professional, clerical, retail or "other". A total of 1,730 full-time employees and 742 part-time employees answered the questionnaire. The composite results for these two classifica- tions (full-time and part-time) will be discussed in the following section. The composite results of the surveys can be found in the Appendix. i r.. i FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES r Professional One-half of the total full-time employee respondents classified themselves as .� "professionals". As is normally the case, the majority of these respondents indicated they normally drive and park when coming downtown to work. The next ^' most common response was from those who indicated they walk to work, which was followed by the those who indicated they take the bus. The employees were also asked how far they traveled from their homes to their place of employment downtown. For the professional category the average dis- tance was 8.7 miles. More than one-third of the downtown employees who drive, are parking in a company provided space. The remainder of the respondents were divided between on -street, public parking lot, parking ramp and "other". This group is park- ing an average of 1.8 blocks from their workplace with nearly two-thirds park- ing one block away. The respondents were asked to indicate the type of vehicle they were normally driving downtown. The responses were very consistent with what is normally found for this category with 42.6% indicating they drive a compact or subcom- pact automobile, and 47.4% driving a midsize car, fullsize car or stationwagon. -31- //P i i i i 1 , I I ' Clerical Clerical employees accounted for approximately 21% of the fulltime employee respondents. The percentage driving and parking was slightly lower (7U.1%) Than the professional category. There was a correspondingly higher percent- age choosing other methods of transportation. 10.1% utilizing the bus system, 6.4% walking, and 9.5% normally riding with a friend or spouse. Clerical employees traveled a slightly greater distance from their homes to their offices compared to the professional category (10.8 miles vs. 8.7 miles). A surprising result of this survey was that more than half of the clerical employees (56.1%) indicated they are normally parking in a company space. This was significantly higher than the professional category of employees. The remainder of the responses had approximately 15% parking on -street, 14% parking in a public parking lot and 9% in a parking ramp. The average dis- tance parked from their place of employment was slightly lower at 1.6 blocks compared to the professional group. This could possibly be due to the higher number of clerical employee parking in a company provided lot. In response to the type of vehicle driven, the clerical results were 40.9% driving a compact or subcompact, and more than one-half (57.6%) driving a midsize, fullsize car or stationwagon. Retail Retail employees accounted for about 18% of the total full-time employee responses. The percentage driving and parking was the lowest of all full- -32- �9V time employee categories at 58.7%. Nearly one-fifth indicated they normally walk to work while about 13% indicated they use the city bus system. In response to the question "Where do you normally park?", one-third of the retail employees answered in a parking ramp. This was the highest percentage indicating this choice among all categories of full-time employees. Slightly less than one-fifth indicated they parked on the street and about one-fifth indicated they parked in a company parking space. This group was also choosing to park the farthest distance from their place of employment at an average distance of 2.5 blocks. Finally, the response to the type of vehicle driven showed a virtual even split between those driving a compact or subcompact (48.4%) and those driving a midsize car, fullsize car or stationwagon (42.6%). Other The "other" category of employees accounted for 11.5% of the total full-time employee responses. Nearly two-thirds (64.8%) of the respondents indicated they drove and parked when coming downtown to work. Only 4.5% of this group indicated they use the bus to get to work. The average distance traveled from their homes to downtown for this category were 8.3 miles. PART-TIME EMPLOYEES Professional The professional category of part-time employees accounted for 12.7% of the total part-time respondents. Less than two thirds of the respondents indi- cated they normally drive and park when coming to work. The next most common -33- Aza r7 ■ response was "walking" given by about 14% of the employees, followed by those indicating they come by motorcycle or bike (12.8%). Only 5.3% of the employees in this classification indicated they use the city bus system. The average distance part-time professionals are driving from their homes to downtown was 6.8 miles, compared to an average distance of 8.7 miles for the full-time professional employee respondents. More than one-third of the professional part-time employees indicated they parked in a company provided parking space, with 28.4% responding they usual- ly parked on the street. The other responses were 20.9% using a public park- ing lot and 11.9% using one of the downtown parking ramps. Most of the drivers were able to park relatively close to their place of employment, with the average walking distance calculated at 1.6 blocks. More than one-half parked one block away or less. Clerical Part-time clerical employees accounted for nearly one-fifth of the total part-time employee responses to the survey. Half of this group responded they normally drive and park when coming downtown to work, with the remainder choosing to either; take the bus (17.1%), walk (16.3%), use a motorcycle or bike (1.8%), ride with a friend or spouse (7.0%) or ride with another company employee (1.6%). The distance this group travelled to work averaged 7.7 miles. The location where clerical employees were parking was very similar to that for the professional classification, with the major difference being in the -34- W i 'J n I i i I response was "walking" given by about 14% of the employees, followed by those indicating they come by motorcycle or bike (12.8%). Only 5.3% of the employees in this classification indicated they use the city bus system. The average distance part-time professionals are driving from their homes to downtown was 6.8 miles, compared to an average distance of 8.7 miles for the full-time professional employee respondents. More than one-third of the professional part-time employees indicated they parked in a company provided parking space, with 28.4% responding they usual- ly parked on the street. The other responses were 20.9% using a public park- ing lot and 11.9% using one of the downtown parking ramps. Most of the drivers were able to park relatively close to their place of employment, with the average walking distance calculated at 1.6 blocks. More than one-half parked one block away or less. Clerical Part-time clerical employees accounted for nearly one-fifth of the total part-time employee responses to the survey. Half of this group responded they normally drive and park when coming downtown to work, with the remainder choosing to either; take the bus (17.1%), walk (16.3%), use a motorcycle or bike (1.8%), ride with a friend or spouse (7.0%) or ride with another company employee (1.6%). The distance this group travelled to work averaged 7.7 miles. The location where clerical employees were parking was very similar to that for the professional classification, with the major difference being in the -34- W higher percentage of clerical employees choosing to park in one of the aown- town ramps and the lower percentage parking on -street. There was a slight increase in the average distance clerical employees were choosing to walk from their cars at 1.8 blocks. The responses to the type of vehicle driven followed very closely those of J professional classification with 37.1% driving a compact or subcompact auto- mobile and 57.1% driving a midsize car, fullsize car or stationwagon. i I Retail The retail part-time classification accounted for the greatest response rate of part-time employees with 43.0% of the total. A surprising statistic for this classification was the extremely low percentage (38.6%) ariving and parking when coming to work. Just under one-third (30.4%) indicated they normally walk to work and nearly one-fifth (18.5%) take the bus. The use of one of the downtown parking ramps was the most common (33.8%) ( choice for the part-time retail classification of downtown employees. Parking in one of the public parking lots and on -street was the choice of 23.9% and 23.2% respectively, followed by 10.6% parking in a company parking lot and 8.5% indicating 'other". Part-time employees walked an average distance of 2.2 blacks from their cars to their place of employment. The type of vehicle driven was very consistent with other part-time cate- gories. More than half (52.1%) were driving a midsize car, fullsize car or stationwagon and 42.3% indicated they were driving a compact or subcompact. -35- Tft i Other The 'other" category accounted for just over one-quarter of the part-time employee responses. Results for this category had 42.0% indicating they drive and park when coming downtown to work, and 31.0% indicating they normally walk when coming to work. Seven point five percent (7.5%) used the City bus system to get to work. The "other" category was unique to the part-time group with the highest percentage (33.3%) of respondents indicating they normally park on the street. Just under one-fifth utilized a public parking lot downtown and 14.7% said they parked in one of the downtown parking ramps. The average distance the 'other" category was walking was only 1.8 blocks from their car to their work location, which was similar to previous categories. Finally, the 'other" category was unique in that it was the only one of the part-time employee groups that had less than half (47.5%) driving a midsize or larger car with a correspondingly uncharacteristic 49.5% driving a compact or subcompact car. -36- X90 PEDESTRIAN SUMMARY Of the 669 pedestrians surveyed during this study, 29% were shoppers, 16% were downtown on business, 28% were employees downtown, and 28% were students or downtown for some other reason. Over half of all shoppers coming downtown were driving. Depending on the survey location, a shopper or someone on business was either parking on -street or in a parking ramp. This result was dependent on the desti- nation for the shopper and where the survey was taken. In general both groups were parking at least 1.5 blocks from their intended destination, but in no case was the average above 3 blocks. The average stay for shoppers was just under an hour and a half, and for someone ' on business was over 2 hours. For shoppers, the average number of stares stopp- ed at during their trip was 3. All of these results are consistent with results seen across the country, except that there are more shoppers in Iowa City that are staying for a longer period and stopping at more stores. STUDENT SUMMARY The results of the student surveys indicate that 23% of the students are driving to class (see composite results in the Appendix). The results vary by survey location, however, with the Iowa and Linn, and Iowa and Clinton locations with — the higher drive and park percentages. Excluding the Washington and Capitol results, half of the students driving are parking onstreet and walking an aver- age 3 blocks. This result appears consistent with field observation in which students were observed walking quite far for onstreet spaces; both metered and free. -37- 190 OM i J FULL-TIME EMPLOYEE SUMMARY For all categories combined, 71.4% indicated they normally drive and park when coming to work, with 9.5% responding they normally walk to work and 7.9% using the city bus system. The other responses had 6.0% riding to work with a friend or spouse, 3.6% coming by motorcycle or bike, 1.4% riding with a company employee and 0.2% taking a cab. The average distance traveled for all categor- ies of employees was 9.2 miles. For all categories combined, just over one-third (37.8%) were parking in a com- pany parking lot, with nearly one-fifth (19.0%) parking on the street Using a public parking lot was the choice of 17.1% of the respondents while 17.7% chose r to use a downtown parking ramp and 8.5% indicated "other". The average dis- tance employees parked from their place of employment was 1.9 blocks, with more than half (59.8%) parking one block or less from their place of employment and ,i ian additional 16.7% parking two blocks away. rs For the full-time group, 42.7% were driving a compact or subcompact car, and 49.0% were driving a midsize or fullsize car. PART-TIME EMPLOYEE SUMMARY yAn analysis of all part-time categories revealed less than half (44.7%) normal- ly driving and parking when coming to work downtown. Slightly greater than �u one-fourth (26.0%) chose to walk to work, while 13.6% indicated they normally i 1 use the city bus system. J yThe average distance traveled from home to downtown for all categories of part- time employees was 7.4 miles. When all categories are considered, the location where employees were parking was very consistent, 25.5% parking on -street, 23.1% parking in a company parking lot, 22.3% parking in a public parking lot and 21.8% using one of the downtown parking ramps. -38- M Anaivsis i DEMAND ANALYSIS CURRENT The chart on pages 46 and 47 show the current demand for parking from employees visitor/customers, residents and students. These numbers represent the number of car spaces currently needed for each group as ascertained by the fieldwork. The figures shown for each block include long term spaces needed (LT), short term spaces needed (ST), residential spaces needed and University spaces needed. By adding these, the total current demand for each block is found. I L.4 r As described above, the calculations for ,employee and visitor/customer demand come from information gathered from the manager survey forms and 'S from the employee and pedestrian surveys. When no manager form was received from a business, estimates were made based on the business type and size. Once compiled, the data was reviewed and adjustments made where necessary. Adjustments occurred where the estimates of visitors made by —� the businesses were determined to be either too high or too low. EMPLOYEE DEMAND Employee demand was broken down into full-time and part-time employees. Full-time employees parking space needs are shown as long term spaces and -� part-time demand are included in short term spaces. Full-time employees for each block face were compiled from two sources; the Manager Survey form from each business, and/or estimates of the number of full-time employees J -39- 010 Part-time employee parking demand as noted above was included in the short term demand. Similar to the full-time employees, the number of J people used in the computation came either from the Manager Survey or from estimations. In most cases where no part-time number was given, no estimates were made unless they came directly from conversations with the building owner or business manager. In the case of part-time employees a i distinction was made between professional/clerical and retail. For the -40- X90 The latter was used for businesses where the Manager Survey was not —; completed. As an example, from past study work it is known that the typical law office will have approximately 1.25 employees per attorney, or that an accountants office will have about 1.5 staff per partner or principal. In a case where the square footage of the establishment was given, an employee number per 1000 square feet of net space was used. In ., most cases this number was 4 per 1000 square feet for offices and 3 per 1000 square feet for retail. These ratios come from the results of j previous studies. From the employee surveys it was found that 71.4% of the full-time employees drive and parked. This characteristic was applied to the total y number of employees on each block face to arrive at the parking demand. After applying this factor, the resultant number can be considered the J number of full time employee spaces needed for that block face at peak time. It should be noted that this is a planning number, and does not J take into account employees who may be coming to their business for a _ short period and then leaving, such as salespeople. Part-time employee parking demand as noted above was included in the short term demand. Similar to the full-time employees, the number of J people used in the computation came either from the Manager Survey or from estimations. In most cases where no part-time number was given, no estimates were made unless they came directly from conversations with the building owner or business manager. In the case of part-time employees a i distinction was made between professional/clerical and retail. For the -40- X90 professional/clerical category, a drive and park characteristic of 57.1% was used, which is an average of the professional and clerical categories as calculated in the part-time employee composite survey. Retail part-time acteristic of 38.6%. Once the drive and employees had a drive and park char tic was applied to the total number of part-time employees park characteris the resultant number was divided by 3 to correct for the fact that part-time employees generally do not work 5 days a week. This also takes into account that a part-time employee may not work a full 8 hour day. i j VISITOR/CUSTOMER DEMAND from visitors and customers Added to the short term demand was the demand { _j to the establishments on each black face. The gross number of visitors/- esults or from estimates customers was taken either from the Manager Survey r based upon business type, location, and size. Where estimates were neces- type sary, the number of visitors/customers was based on several factors: and size of the business, location, and its relation to other estimatesven same types. of analysis was used to check and verify t by the business managers on surveys. Once the number of visitors/customers was computed, a formula* was used to convert people into car spaces needed. From the pedestrian survey an J overall drive and park characteristic of 59.1% was used. To reflect an average stay of approximately 1 hour and 45 minutes by visitor/customer, the resultant number was divided by 4. * d location, The formula used varied based on the type of business an - -41- 09 I I I I a An adjustment was also needed to properly account for visitors or customer, who are counted as part of the overall number of visitor/customers from the Manager Surveys but who are actually employees of area businesses already w. downtown. In the Manager Survey, each business would count everyone enter- ing their business as a visitor/customer. To avoid double counting these people managers were questioned on the Manager Survey concerning what per- centage of the business' visitor/customers were already downtown i.e., employees shopping on their lunch hour. The estimates ranged from 25% to 75%. An additional adjustment was then needed to avoid double counting of visitor/customers i.e., a person making more than one stop at different businesses. This adjustment came from the results of the Pedestrian Survey, where shoppers were asked the number of stores they would be going to that day. The average response was about 3 stops. •J RESIDENTIAL DEMAND 1 The following assumptions were made for residential needs, based on a block !� face analysis. The number of single family houses, multi -family houses and apartment buildings were inventoried. The following space needs were used —'I for each housing type; J Single family homes - 2 0 spaces Multi -family houses - 1.0 - 1.5 spaces / unit Apartments Regular - 1.0 - 1.5 spaces / unit Seniors - 0.5 spaces / unit These generation factors were applied to the number of occupied and vacant residential units to arrive at the number of parking spaces needed. These generation factors come from the City of Iowa City Zoning Ordinance, pub- lished 12/30/1983. -42- i UNIVERSITY DEMAND There are many University buildings near the CBD, and some University offices are in buildings within the CBD (Jefferson Building, Old Library and Eastlawn). Students were surveyed, and their impact on on -street park- ing has been previously discussed. Additionally, students have been factored out of the customer/visitor counts in the preceeding analysis. This was done by asking the business manager to estimate the number of students (percentage) who come to their establishment on an average day. University Staff The University supplied a listing of employees in each building in the CBD area, and separated the list by employees who have parking permits with the University and those who do not. The University has stated that those employees who do not have permits are generally not driving to work, or if they do it's infrequently. University staff who have a parking permit are parking in University designated parking areas. While the demand from University staff should not be overlooked, it is not felt to be an important influence in the parking situation in the study area. An exception to this is the staff member that for convenience is parking onstreet, probably at a meter, though this number is not thought to be significant. Based upon an analysis done by the Unversity on permits issued to employees in the University buildings in the study area, there are 2,807 University employees parking in University parking areas. -43- X90 Students Student demand for parking was difficult to quantify. The student survey revealed that of the 1335 students surveyed, 23% had driven to class. Of the number of students who drove a car and parked, 15.7% were utilizing municipal parking. A portion of students who drive to classes are utilizing University parking areas some of which are included in the study area parking supply. It should be noted that the student survey was conducted in good weather. _i The actual drive and park percentage may rise somewhat in inclement weather. A more detailed study at the University is needed to properly account for the parking demand of the students that directly affects and competes with the demand for parking by other users in the CBD, but based on information provided by the University a valid estimate can be made. The University was asked to provide the number of students attending class in University buildings in the study area at a peak time and day. Based on the University's research, two peak days and times were found, Mondays at 11:30 a.m. when approximately 3,300 students are attending classes, and Wednesdays at 10:30 a.m. when approximately 4,000 students are attending classes. _ To approximate the number of spaces needed by students, the number of students at a peak time was multiplied by the two highest drive and park percentages from the student survey (30.1%). Based upon this there is an estimated 1204 student cars coming into the downtown for class purposes. -44- 011 , B Of the 1,204 student cars in the area at peak time, it can be determined from the student survey that 620 of these are parked on -street, 143 in the parking ramps, and 441 on surface lots. Of those cars parked in surface lots, 299 are using University lots around the area. Based on the above, there is a peak need of 905 parking spaces from _I students in the study area excluding those students parking in University parking areas. Vj y/yo J ' CHART A CURRENT PARKING DEMAND & SUPPLY CALCULATIONS i j — Demand Total On- SS u f - Total Surplus j Long Short University Students Demand Street Street Spaces /Defici' Term Term Residential i - BLOCK 100 23 18 0 41 0 36 36 - 5 0 13 0 13 +13 a 87 0 0 0 0 0 0 -99 76 0 0 99 99 0 0 70 70 0 0 0 -70 69 85 0 25 25 -60 57 6 11 68 0 0 0 -60 { 48 6 8 46 60 tH 0 0 0 84 84 +84 89 0 0 41 16 27 43 + 2 86 10 31 0 81 9 112 121 +40 77 11 13 57 80 19 39 58 -22 — 68 26 13 41 109 28 156 184 +75 J 58 35 59 15 21 0 47 47 +26 47 3 1 17 — 0 0 270 270 +270 i 90 0 0 0 0 23 174 197 +197 85 0 0 0 95 12 43 55 -40 i 78 7 8 80 110 7 32 39 -71 — 67 87 23 0 113 13 107 120 + 7 59 68 20 25 74 10 71 81 + 7 !- 46 7 16 51 I i 0 258 258 10 0 10 -248 i PentaCrest 0 0 67 6 13 -180 79 0 0 0 253 253 0 249 249 117 0 117 -132 60 0 0 56 37 44 81 0 45 14 7 35 -46- �,P i Long Short Total On- Off- Total Surplus -- Term Term Residential University Demand Street Street Spaces /Deficit BLOCK — 80 169 183 33 385 49 24 73 -312 66 136 129 38 303 50 32 82 -221 61 60 127 20 207 52 90 142 - 65 44 91 36 0 127 29 139 168 + 41 91 0 0 0 86 86 0 51 51 + 35 84 140 404 0 544 0 873 873 +370 81 431 195 8 634 0 0 0 -634 65 113 176 22 311 21 0 21 -290 62 90 52 0 142 19 40 59 - 83 1 43 8 39 0 47 8 120 128 + 81 92 0 0 0 59 59 0 0 0 - 59 i I 82 77 112 16 205 0 58 58 -147 r+ 64 ill 100 0 211 0 514 514 +303 ^ 63 23 28 0 51 7 161 168 +117 42 9 39 0 48 0 92 92 + 44 J 93 23 18 0 41 8 165 173 +132 101 33 15 54 102 10 124 128 + 26 y 102 98 51 0 149 20 138 158 + 9 103 14 17 89 120 21 79 100 - 20 104 49 35 22 106 24 129 153 + 47 i- 41 0 0 161 161 0 220 220 + 59 I — 3 10 9 18 37 29 182 211 +174 0 55 15 0 70 61 80 141 + 71 2 130 35 0 165 34 0 34 -131 1 15 5 36 56 26 70 96 + 40 19 19 8 28 55 0 93 93 + 38 _ 6 36 4 0 40 4 248 252 +212 7 0 0 20 20 25 189 214 +194 8 46 9 14 69 14 90 104 + 35 9 14 4 43 61 13 39 52 - 9 20 24 42 0 66 0 45 45 - 21 - 2327 2115 1226 905 6573 899 5358 6257 -47- Wo i O DEFICIT & SURPLUS ANALYSIS 211 S s7 s e1 5 61 D 21 D 7t D 58 © d6 4 Ud •ZB a a7 ■ d X45 S - TOTAL SUPPLY O BLOCK NUMBER D - TOTAL DEMAND e/d - SURPLUS (+) OR DEFICIT (-? a 0 i INTRODUCTION TO SITE ANALYSIS It is very important that this section be reaa for a proper understanding of the following site analysis. 1. The Chart on pages 46 and 47 represent the current parking demand and i supply for each block. 'I I r 2. On the chart the assumption is made that each block operates independently of another block. This means that the demand on one i1 block is only using the supply on that block. This is a simplifying !.; assumption used in the initial analysis to determine individual block �j surpluses or deficits. In further analysis of sites, the demand and supply are broken out and assigned to different blocks using an fI "Effective Block Parking Radius" (EBPR). The "EBPR" is an influence area based on the parking supply available around a particular block, _ the different demand types and quantity, and on walking distances. i 3. The analysis of each of the following sites or areas resulted in two planning numbers. The first number is the need for spaces in the Effective Block Parking Radius of a site if no price was charged for parking. The second number is the demand for parking spaces in the EBPR with a price charged for parking. Parking demand is elastic: as i price rises the demand will decrease to some degree. The second I J number represents parking demand at the current price set by the City. J I � �I -49- //90 FUTURE PARKING DEMAND There are several factors that could change the parking demand in Iowa City. Some of these factors concern additional growth and occupancy of new and existing buildings in the study area, as well as factors that would influence the use of automobiles. r -r r_! Some key influencing factors are the enrollment at the University of Iowa. r economic climate and the strength of the CBD availability of land or build- ings, the availability of parking, and the level of and use of mass transit and automobiles. In some ways, all of the factors above are inter -related '1 to each other. If the enrollment at the University is decreased, the number —' of students using services and parking would also decrease. This decrease would affect business downtown. which in turn would affect employment. Another important factor would be the cost of gas and any shift from autos to mass transit. Mass transportation in and around Iowa City is well iutilized now. Any change from or to mass transit would affect parking in the study area. Lastly, it has been discussed that Iowa City needs to strengthen the CBD office sector to help maintain the retail sector. For the office sector to increase more long term employee parking will be J needed. u GROWTH PROJECTIONS P i 1 i Eastside - University r The most likely new development for the University is an additional class- room facility on the Gilmore Hall parking lot site on Block 85. This faci- lity would remove the existing University surface parking lot (114 spaces). ~ The University may not replace that parking. There is also the possibility -50- X90 a i that a portion of the University library lot (240 spaces along the Iowa River) could be converted to classroom facilities. CBD - Core There are several possible growth areas in the CBD core, and these are based on the availability of land and better utilization of existing buildings. Areas of growth potential include the Senior Center parking area, Old Library building and adjacent parking lot, and the surface parking lot on block 64. Available land for development is limited in the CBD core how- ever. The chart on page 52 shows parking demand estimates for developments on the Library Lot and Parcel 64-1a. CBD - Fringe North of Iowa Avenue - Because of the presence of the University in this area there is little growth potential. There is the possibility of higher utilization of the "Northside Neighborhood" shopping area. East of Gilbert Street - Because of the availability of possible sites there are several development opportunities in this area: a higherutiliza- tion of the Civic Center parking lot, the Rec Center parking lot and the Chauncey Swan parking lots. An important impact in this area would be the further development of Mercy Hospital and their parking needs and supply. Specifically, the new surface parking lot built by the hospital will have an -51- 1190 PARKING PROJECTIONS Project Size Added Spaces Needed Increased occupancy of Plaza Centre One, 45 employee Old Capitol and the Old Library 20 visitor/customer Parcel 64-1a Commercial Development: A 30,000 net sq.ft. 86 employee -- 20 visitor/customer B 50,000 net sq.ft. 142 employee 31 visitor/customer ( C 70,000 net sq.ft. 200 employee 39 visitor/customer n (- Library Lot Development A 50,000 net sq.ft. 143 employee Office (block 63) 22 visitor/customer B 75,000 net sq.ft. 214 employee 33 visitor/customer J C 100,000 net sq.ft. 206 employee 44 visitor/customer Parking removed by 64-1a 90 spaces j Parking removed by Library Lot Development 79 spaces � J I 1 � -52- 1190 -53- 1199 impact on the parking supply in the area. Mercy hospital has an approximate need for 720 parking spaces. Before the construction of the parking lot (280 spaces) and parking structure (235 spaces), much of the parking for the hospital was on-street. The new parking structure is used by employees of the hospital, and the parking lot is used by both employees and visitors. The hospital does not limit access to the parking lot, so that anyone .- willing to pay can park there. It has been observed that University � students are using this lot. Should the hospital expand and limit use of the surface lot, additional parking for the hospital will be needed. The large parking lot can be seen as land banking until expansion is necessary. �H South of Burlington Street - The area.south of Burlington Street is not as r„ intensly developed as the CBD. This area offers the greatest potential for future expansion of the downtown. This expansion of the downtown will require parking that is presently not available in this area. i West of Capital Street - Because of the presence of the University there I II is little growth potential. '1 n II I I -53- 1199 ANALYSIS Each block in the study area was reviewed for the number of parking spaces needed by employees, visitor/customers, residents and students and staff from the University Supply from each block was also analyzed. The area north of Market Street was not considered because it is basically .. student housing and residential and has little impact on the Central Business District. Considering the area south of Market Street, there is a demand for 5886 parking spaces. This demand is made up of 2207 employee F spaces, 1961 visitor/customer spaces. 813 residential spaces and 905 student jgut spaces. la �a In this same area south of Market Street there are 5646 parking spaces available. Of this number, 4832 are off-street and 814 are on -street. Of I k � the off-street spaces, 1815 spaces are operated by the City as public parking either transient or permit parking; 615 spaces are University controlled, and the remainder are private parking areas for businesses and residents. Under this broad analysis there is a net deficit of 240 parking spaces in the area. This deficit is made up of employee, visitor/customer and Univer- sity spaces. Of the 240 space deficit, it is estimated that 123 are employee and residential spaces, 77 are visitor/customer spaces, and 40 are student spaces. i i The broad analysis is a barometer of the relative parking conditions in the area. To more accurately predict the surplus or deficit of parking spaces, -54- 10 !1 the parking characteristic of each demand type, walking distances and avail- able parking needs to be considered. Even though there is a net deficit in parking spaces in the broad area, people in general are currently finding a place to park, albeit far away and incon- venient. For example, there is a significant number of people (probably employees) who are parking east of Van Buren Street where there is a good deal of free on -street parking. This also occurs on -street and off-street loca- tions south of Burlington Street. In addition, students are parking an aver- age of three blocks from their destination, but 33% are parking in excess of four blocks. There are some individuals (employees, visitor/customers and students) who will not pay to park but will walk the extra distance to find a free space except possibly in bad weather. Based upon the individual block and overall deficit, several sites were analy- zed in the area as possible locations for additional parking. These sites were chosen because of their relative location to demand generators. Where no site was obvious, a deficit for a defined area was given. The number of spaces needed is given for each site. This means that for each site, indepen- dent of another, there is a demand for a certain number of spaces. In combi- nation, the number of spaces needed for each site would decrease. ANALYSIS OF PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR SITE I DUBUQUE STREET PARKING RAMP - BLOCK 64 Site l is the surface lot next to the new Holiday Inn and the Dubuque Street Parking Ramp (block 64). The existing parking ramp has 424 spaces, and the proposed expansion of this structure vertically will add an additional 180 spaces. A discussion of the expansion of the Dubuque Street Ramp is on page ,,4 of the Executive Summary. There are currently 180 permit parkers allowed in the Dubuque Street Ramp and the adjacent vacant lot. There is a demand for -55- hyo 1 i t I i w ,w '( IN _j about 45 more permit spaces in the Dubuque Street Ramp but these cannot be accommodated because of the demand from customers. visitors, and Hotel patrons The estimated peak demand from the Hotel for parking (see appendix, page q) is 211 spaces. which for this analysis has been assigned to the Dubuque Street Ramp, though the City has committed to supply parking in either of the parking ramps. This peak demand for spaces generally occurs in the evening when the peak demand for parking from other users is lowest. There are numerous office buildings and small businesses in the surrounding blocks and these locations generate a demand for employee and visitor/customer parking. Using the distances that employees, visitor/customers, and students said they were walking from their car to their destination point an influence area or EBPR was defined for Site 1. The average walking dis- tances for shoppers was 1.9 blocks, visitors 2.1 blocks, full-time and part- time employees 1.9 blocks, and 3.1 blocks for students. These results are consistent with results from similar studies done by the consultant Three important considerations in the analysis of the demand for additional parking on Site 1 are; 1) The current parking supply in the area, and their occupancies. 2) Where the demand from these blocks are currently parking. 3) How much people are now paying to park (if at all), and if they would be willing to pay to park if additional parking was provided. Because people are currently parking in inconvenient spaces it was felt a parking structure on 64-1a might draw parkers who are currently using these less convenient spaces. Based upon an analysis of the area around parcel 64-1a using an EBPR (see page 57 for a graphic representation of the EBPR for Site 1), the following assessment has been made of the current condition. -56- 00 i w ,w '( IN _j about 45 more permit spaces in the Dubuque Street Ramp but these cannot be accommodated because of the demand from customers. visitors, and Hotel patrons The estimated peak demand from the Hotel for parking (see appendix, page q) is 211 spaces. which for this analysis has been assigned to the Dubuque Street Ramp, though the City has committed to supply parking in either of the parking ramps. This peak demand for spaces generally occurs in the evening when the peak demand for parking from other users is lowest. There are numerous office buildings and small businesses in the surrounding blocks and these locations generate a demand for employee and visitor/customer parking. Using the distances that employees, visitor/customers, and students said they were walking from their car to their destination point an influence area or EBPR was defined for Site 1. The average walking dis- tances for shoppers was 1.9 blocks, visitors 2.1 blocks, full-time and part- time employees 1.9 blocks, and 3.1 blocks for students. These results are consistent with results from similar studies done by the consultant Three important considerations in the analysis of the demand for additional parking on Site 1 are; 1) The current parking supply in the area, and their occupancies. 2) Where the demand from these blocks are currently parking. 3) How much people are now paying to park (if at all), and if they would be willing to pay to park if additional parking was provided. Because people are currently parking in inconvenient spaces it was felt a parking structure on 64-1a might draw parkers who are currently using these less convenient spaces. Based upon an analysis of the area around parcel 64-1a using an EBPR (see page 57 for a graphic representation of the EBPR for Site 1), the following assessment has been made of the current condition. -56- 00 I EFFECTIVE BLOCK PARKING RADIUS SITE I EMPLOYEE & VISITOR/ GE = SITE LOCATION k : -A I ; There is a demand for 1,011 additional parking spaces within the influence area around block 64. The demand consists of approximately 516 employee/ - residential spaces, 324 visitor/customer spaces and 171 student spaces. The analysis that resulted in the 1011 spaces needed was completed as follows. Each block in the broad area was first analyzed for demand, and the type of demand. The next step was to review the parking on a particular block, and on blocks surrounding it. At this point the different demand types were reviewed with the surrounding parking categories, and parking was assigned. The assignment placed parking types in parking areas. The deficit on each block that resulted was then assigned to block 64; based on the distance of that block from block 64, the demand type, and the probability of someone using parking on block 64. Based upon projections, the demand for spaces on block 64 would either increase or decrease depending on spaces lost or added, and new demand generators. The chart on page 52 shows different levels of development in the study area that would effect the parking on Site 1 and other sites. These demand numbers can not be directly added to the existing deficit, because adjustments need to be made based on location and type of develop- ment. Currently, there is a demand for 1011 spaces in the EBPR of Site 1. Assum- ing that 180 spaces are added to the Dubuque Street Ramp, the demand would decrease to 831 spaces. Of the 169 spaces lost on the Library lot and par- cel 64-1a, about 75% of those parkers would be expected to use a parking facility on block 64 if no rate was charged. With the projections for future parking demand from page 52, about 75% of the added demand from all the projects could be expected to use parking on block 64. J -58- There is a demand for 1,011 additional parking spaces within the influence area around block 64. The demand consists of approximately 516 employee/ - residential spaces, 324 visitor/customer spaces and 171 student spaces. The analysis that resulted in the 1011 spaces needed was completed as follows. Each block in the broad area was first analyzed for demand, and the type of demand. The next step was to review the parking on a particular block, and on blocks surrounding it. At this point the different demand types were reviewed with the surrounding parking categories, and parking was assigned. The assignment placed parking types in parking areas. The deficit on each block that resulted was then assigned to block 64; based on the distance of that block from block 64, the demand type, and the probability of someone using parking on block 64. Based upon projections, the demand for spaces on block 64 would either increase or decrease depending on spaces lost or added, and new demand generators. The chart on page 52 shows different levels of development in the study area that would effect the parking on Site 1 and other sites. These demand numbers can not be directly added to the existing deficit, because adjustments need to be made based on location and type of develop- ment. Currently, there is a demand for 1011 spaces in the EBPR of Site 1. Assum- ing that 180 spaces are added to the Dubuque Street Ramp, the demand would decrease to 831 spaces. Of the 169 spaces lost on the Library lot and par- cel 64-1a, about 75% of those parkers would be expected to use a parking facility on block 64 if no rate was charged. With the projections for future parking demand from page 52, about 75% of the added demand from all the projects could be expected to use parking on block 64. J -58- In conclusion there is a current need for 1011 spaces, which would increase to 1114 spaces with addition of 180 spaces to the Dubuque Street Ramp, the loss of the Library lot and parcel 64-1a lot and increased occupancy in the Old Capitol Center, Old Library and Plaza Centre One. At the smallest deve- lopment projection the need would increase by 203 spaces (for a total of 1317 spaces), and at the largest development projection the need would increase by 367 spaces (for a total of 1481 spaces). i These space needs assume that no rate is charged for parking. If a rate was charged for parking the number of spaces needed would be lower because as the price rises, demand decreases. For the current demand, the number of parking spaces needed with a rate charged would be about 175. With the � addition of the expansion of the Dubuque Street Ramp, loss of the Library i lot and parcel 64-1a surface parking, and increased occupancies of Plaza Centre One, Old Library and Old Capitol Center the number of spaces needed increases to 215. In the future, using the smallest development project projections the total spaces needed on Block 64 would increase to 367 spaces, and at the largest the spaces needed would increase to 490. A summary of these numbers is shown on page 60. -59- II r 1 t -59- II SITE 1 SUMMARY OF DEMAND FOR ADDED PARKING SPACES Influence Number of Spaces Needed Add or Subtract No Rate Rate From Demand Charged Charged A. Current Demand 1011 175 831 Employees and Residential 516 spaces Visitor/Customers 324 spaces Student 171 spaces B. Addition of 180 spaces 1114 -180 Dubuque Street Ramp (Factor 75% for use with rate charged) -126 C. Permit Parking waiting list (125 on list) +125 (Factor 75% for use with rate charged) +92 0. Develop Library Lot (loss of 79 spaces) + 59 (Factor 50% for use with rate charged) +30 E. Develop parcel 64-1a (loss of 90 spaces) + 67 (Factor 50% for use with rate charged) +34 F. Increased occupancy of Plaza Centre One, + 32 Old Library and Old Capitol Center (Factor 30% for use with rate charted) +10 G. Development Scenario A +203 +152 (Factor 75% for use with rate charged) H. Development Scenario B +315 (Factor 75% for use with rate charged) +236 I. Development Scenario C +367 (Factor 75% for use with rate charged) +275 (1) Add or subtract from demand is applied to base number in F -60- 831 1317 (1) 367 (1) 1429 (1) 451 (1) 1481 (1) 490 (1) 400 ; 49 956 141 1015 171 1082 205 1114 Base 215 Base 1317 (1) 367 (1) 1429 (1) 451 (1) 1481 (1) 490 (1) 400 ; PREFACE TO ANALYSIS OF PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR SITES 2, 3 & 4 , Sites 2, 3 and 4 are in relatively close proximity to each other. Each site has certain advantages and disadvantages. All three sites are presently surface parking lots, and are located on the following blocks. Site 2 - Block 61, Senior Center Lot Site 3 - Block 44, Civic Center Lot Site 4 - Block 43, Chauncey Swan Lot In analyzing these sites some important considerations were; 1. The current parking supply in the area, especially the free on - street parking east of Van Buren Street that is being used y f I_I employees and students. 2. How many people are currently not paying to park, and would they be willing to pay to park if additional convenient parking was provided 3. The number of students who are parking at meters on Iowa Avenue and � surrounding streets, and the number of students who would choose to _ park in a parking ramp if it was convenient and available. It should be noted that the University may have a need for parking spaces in s, but especially on Site 2. Preliminary Cis - the area of these three site cussions have been held between the University and Board of Regents regard - 5. ing the possibility of a new building adjacent to Gilmore Hall, on block lot This site presently includes a University operated 114 space parking tlo serving University staff. The University may not replace the parking lost to the new building, though plans have not been finalized. -61- X90 To complete the analysis, the unique parking characteristics of the different demand types were considerea. The distances that employees, visitor/customers, and students were walking from their car to their desti- nation point was one characteristic used to establish the Effective Block Parking Radius (EBPR) or influence area, along with the demand generators surrounding a specific site. Each of the sites identified (2, 3 and 4) have a different influence area or EBPR, and each is graphically shown. ANALYSIS OF PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR SITE 2 SENIOR CENTER LOT- BLOCK 61 The Senior Center Lot is located on Iowa Avenue between Gilbert and Linn Streets. While the lot is not large enough to provide additional structured parking, there is a building west of the Senior Center Lot on Linn Street that could be acquired to provide enough land to construct a parking ramp. The demand for parking on this site includes employees, visitors, customers, residents, and students (and possibly staff) from the University. The existing parking areas on this site contain approximately 90 car spaces, which are used for Senior Center visitors, Ecumenical Housing residents, and to a limited extent by the other buildings on the block. Any additional parking provided on this site would have to take into account the current needs of the Senior Center and Ecumenical Housing. To acquire the Senior Center Lot, the City may consider providing parking for the Senior Center and the Ecumenical Housing in a proposed parking ramp. -62- '0�9a , In addition to the Senior Center, Ecumenical Housing and other buildings on block 61, there are numerous office buildings and small retail businesses on the surrounding blocks. In this area a major factor in the demand for park- ing are the students from the University. Along Iowa Avenue there are major University classrooms from Gilbert to Madison Streets. Students who are driving to class are presently parking in parking lots (where they are avail- driving Iowa Avenue), and in the City's parking on -street (especially ramps. i while there is a deficit in the EBPR for Site 2 (see page 64), people are be inconve- king for students, who inve currently finding a place to park even though that parking may - 1 nient. An important concern in this area is par Gated they were parking an average of three blocks from their destination. arked in excess of ., Thirty three percent (33%) of them indicated that they p are finding early four blocks from their destination. Clearly students morning parking on Iowa Avenue and surrounding street spaces. This prac- s n tice takes up convenient on -street parking for visitors and customers. .J By creating additional parking on block 61, students and others may choose this parking instead of on -street spaces. The additional parking on this site would also provide parking for the Senior Center, Ecumenical Housing, and employees and visitor/customers in the area. Therefore, a pa ng ramp on Site 2 would attract parkers from free on -street spaces, and from onstreet metered spaces. There will always be those students and employees who will still choose to park far away to find a free place to park, though. park- ing structure on this site would also provide more convenient parking for uque eet some employees or visitor/customers who are now using the Ramp, thus freeing spaces for demand that is closer to the Dubuque Street Ramp. -63- #40 I 7-7 EFFECTIVE BLOCK PARKING RADIUS SITE 2 EMPLOYEE & VISITOR CUSTOMER RANGE STUDENT RANGE 466 &445 44 43 42 41 ;+:;0:61 62 63 104 19 20 83 b"d L UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 100 L 91 92 0 SITE LOCATION o. I;o P4 4 �r1 76 77 76 as 87�86 as 83 b"d L UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 100 L 91 92 0 SITE LOCATION o. I;o P4 4 �r1 83 b"d L UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 100 L 91 92 0 SITE LOCATION o. ERRATA (March 15, 1985) Based upon the analysis of the EBPR around Site 2, there is a deficit of 726 spaces. The deficit for this site was computed in a similar manner to the computation for Site 1. Each block in the overall area was reviewed for demand type and available parking; both .on that block and on surrounding blocks. Different demand types were reviewed with the supply, and parking was assigned. Of the 726 space deficit on Site 2, 290 spaces would be employee/residents, 170 visitor/customer spaces, and 266 student spaces. In addition to the current demand for parking 'there are additional projected demands that may have an impact on this site, which are shown on page 52. If a parking ramp Js built on the site, 90 spaces would be lost and would have to be replaced. The addition of 180 spaces to the Dubuque Street Ramp would reduce the demand for spaces on Site 2 by 108 spaces because it would increase the available parking spaces in the area. Finally, there will be parking spaces lost on the Library lot and parcel 64-1a lot which would increase the need for spaces on Site 2 -by 51 spaces. The base number of spaces needed is 854 including the above changes. At the smallest development scenario -- would be a total demand for 962 spaces, and with the largest development 1050 spaces. If the University replaces the Gilmore Hall Parking Lot (174 spaces) in the proposed parking ramp this would increase the base spaces needed by 174. These numbers are summarized on page 66. It is important to note that the spaces needed on a given site for a given. area does not mean that economically the needed spaces can be provided. As you begin to place a price on parking, the actual number of spaces needed on' a site could be reduced anywhere from 20% to 60% based the consultants experience and economics in Iowa. On page 66 the estimated spaces needed -65- x{90 i r f; l Based upon the analysis of the EBPR around Site 2, there is a deficit of 726 w spaces. The deficit for this site was computed in a similar manner to the computation for Site 1. Each block in the overall area was reviewed for u demand type and available parking; both on that block and on surrounding Ir. blocks. Different demand types were reviewed with the supply, and parking was assigned. i w Of the 726 space deficit on Site 2, 290 spaces would be employee/residents, 170 visitor/customer spaces, and 266 student spaces. In addition to the .i current demand for parking there are additional projected demands that may have an impact on this site, which are shown on page 52. If a parking ramp is built on the site, g0 spaces would be lost and would have to be replaced. The addition of 180 spaces to the Dubuque Street Ramp would reduce the demand for spaces on Site 2 by 154 spaces because it would increase the available parking spaces in the area. Finally, there will be parking spaces lost on the Library lot and parcel 64-1a lot which would increase the need for spaces on Site 2 by 51 spaces. The base number of spaces needed is 733 including the above changes. At the smallest development scenario there would be a total demand for 841 spaces, and with the largest development 929 spaces. If the University replaces the Gilmore Hall Parking Lot (174 spaces) in the proposed parking ramp this would increase the base spaces needed by 174. These numbers are summarized on page 66. It is important to note that the spaces needed on a given site for a given area does not mean that economically the needed spaces can be provided. As you begin to place a price on parking, the actual number of spaces needed on a site could be reduced anywhere from 20% to 60% based the consultants experience and economics in Iowa. On page 66 the estimated spaces needed -65- 19W J I , 1 SITE 2 SUMMARY OF DEMAND FOR ADDED PARKING SPACES Influence Number of Spaces Needed Add or Subtract No Rate Rate From Demand Charged Charged A. Current Demand Employees and Residential 290 spaces 726 180 618 99 693 143 744 169 834 236 854 base i 242 base G. Development Scenario Visitor/Customers 170 spaces +108 962 (1) Student 266 spaces (Factor 50% for use B. Addition of 180 spaces -108 290 (1) Dubuque Street Ramp B +168 (Factor 75% for use with rate charged) -81 C. Permit parking waiting list (125 on list) + 75 (Factor 60% for use with rate charged) +44 0. Develop Library Lot (loss of 79 spaces) + 51 and parcel 64-1a (loss of 90 spaces) with rate charged) +98 (Factor 50% for use with rate charged) +26 E. Replace spaces lost to construction on site + 90 F (Factor 75% for use with rate charged) +67 F. Increased occupancy of Plaza Centre One, + 20 lot spaces Old Library and Old Capitol Center (174 spaces). (Factor 30% for use with rate charted) + 6 618 99 693 143 744 169 834 236 854 base i 242 base G. Development Scenario A +108 962 (1) (Factor 50% for use with rate charged) + 54 290 (1) H. Development Scenario B +168 1022 (1) (Factor 50% for use with rate charged) + 84 326 (1) I. Development Scenario C +196 1050 (1) (Factor 50% for use with rate charged) +98 340 (1) (1) Add or subtract from demand is applied to base number in F NOTE: The above numbers do not include the incorporation of Gilmore Hall lot spaces in the proposed parking ramp (174 spaces). -66- i if the current rates were charged for parking are shown. The current need for spaces if a rate were charged would be 18U, and the base number with the addition of demands from lost spaces and occpancy of the Old Library and other buildings would be 242 spaces. With the smallest development scenario the need for spaces would be 290 spaces, and with the largest development scenario 340 spaces. The benefits of Site 2 are: 1. Its close proximity to the University classrooms. 2. Its close proximity to the business/shopping area. 3. Its midpoint location between the existing Dubuque Street Ramp and r, the University. 4. Its high visibility on Iowa Avenue. _l Acquiring the necessary land might require some arrangement with the Ecumenical Housing; exchanging the parking lot for spaces in a parking — structure. Acquisition of the privately owned parcel on the west would require the purchase of the property. A parking ramp on this site also affords the opportunity to provide covered secure parking for the Ecumenical Housing and the Senior Center; as pre- viously mentioned, in some trade-off for the parking lot. It would also offer the possibility to do a joint project with the University to provide badly needed University parking for both students and staff. This may be especially important if the Gilmore Hall parking lot (on block 85) is lost J due to construction, and the University is looking for additional parking to replace it. The effects of the Gilmore Hall lot closing was computed in the preceeding deficit numbers. Should the University close this lot and not provide parking for the staff there would be an immediate need for 174 parking spaces. 67- X940 i ANALYSIS OF PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR SITE 3 CIVIC CENTER LOT - BLOCK 44 The analysis for Site 3 is similar to that for Site 2. The Civic Center Lot is located behind the Civic Center on the east half of block 44. This lot -+ contains 112 spaces and is used by the public, police and employees of the City. After completing an analysis around the EBPR of this site (see page 69), a need for 500 spaces was found. Of the 500 space deficit in the EBPR there is a need for 223 employee/resident spaces, 127 visitor/customer spaces, and 150 student/staff spaces. In addition to the current demand for parking there are projected demands that may have an impact on this site, which are shown on page 52. If a parking ramp is built on the site, 112 spaces would be lost and would have to be replaced. The addition of 180 spaces to the Dubuque Street Ramp would reduce the demand for Site 3 by 72 spaces, because it will increase the overall parking supply available. Lastly, there would be the effect of spaces lost on the Library and Parcel 64-1a lots. The base number of spaces needed is 642. At the smallest development scenario there would be a total demand for 737 spaces, and with the largest development 813 spaces. These numbers are shown on page 70. Also on page 70, the need for spaces is estimated taking into account a rate charged for parking. The current demand for spaces in this case would be 125, and the base number after adjustments for replacement of spaces and addition of other spaces is 205 spaces. Taking into account a rate charged with the added parking demands from proposed developments the total space needs on Site 3 with the smallest development would be 234 spaces and with the largest development 256 spaces. -68- k EFFECTIVE BLOCK PARKING RADIUS SITE 3 EMPLOYEE & VISITOR/ CUSTOMER RANGE =SITE LOCATION SITE 3 SUMMARY OF DEMAND FOR ADDED PARKING SPACES Influence Number of Spaces Needed Add or Subtract No Rate Rate From Demand Charged Charged A. Current Demand Employees 223 spaces 500 125 428 71 472 95 514 116 626 200 642 base 205 base 737 (1) Visitor/Customers 127 spaces 234 (1) Student 266 spaces B. Addition of 180 spaces - 72 Dubuque Street Ramp 256 (1) (Factor 75% for use with rate charged) -54 C. Permit parking waiting list (125 on list) + 44 (Factor 55% for use with rate charged) +24 D. Develop Library Lot (loss of 79 spaces) + 42 and parcel 64-1a (loss of 90 spaces) (Factor 50% for use with rate charged) +21 E. Replace spaces lost to construction on site +112 (Factor 75% for use with rate charged) +84 F. Increased occupancy of Plaza Centre One, + 16 Old Library and Old Capitol Center (Factor 30% for use with rate charged) + 5 G. Development Scenario A + 95 (Factor 30% for use with rate charged) + 29 H. Development Scenario B +147 (Factor 30% for use with rate charged) + 44 I. Development Scenario C +171 (Factor 30% for use with rate charged) +51 (1) Add or subtract from demand is applied to base number in F -70- 428 71 472 95 514 116 626 200 642 base 205 base 737 (1) 234 (1) 789 (1) 249 (1) 813 (1) 256 (1) A parking ramp on this site would serve employees, residents, visitor/cus- tomers, students and possibly staff from the University. This site offers a i reasonable parking alternative to on -street parking for students and staff, as well as for employees of the various offices and shops in the area. A j arkin remL_on this site is not as desirable as Site 2 because it is located farther away from the University classrooms and at the end of the l ! CBD. A parking ramp on this site is not as prominent or as easily found as j a structure on Site 2. There would be no land acquisition costs for this j site. since it is owned by the City. i I I .. ANALYSIS OF PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR SITE 4 CNAUNCEY SWAN LOT - BLOCK 43 j J The demand for parking in the EBPR around Site 4 is similar to the demand for parking around Sites 2 and 3, except that the student space deficit is lower. This is due to the longer walking distances to the site from University parking generators. There is a current need in the EBPR area of Site 4 (see page 72) of 420 spaces which includes 174 employee spaces, 127 visitor/customer spaces, and 119 student/staff spaces. Presently there are approximately 120 spaces in this "L" shaped parking lot. A parking ramp could be placed on either half ~ block, i.e. the east half or the north half, or the ramp could be built on the entire footprint of the site. Assuming the ramp is built on either half of the site (loss of 80 spaces), there would be the possibility of leaving the remaining surface spaces (40) as parking or converting that land area into an alternate use at a later date. The current need for spaces on Site 4 is adjusted for the projected loss of spaces in the EBPR as well as the addition of demand generators as outlined on page 52. If a parking ramp is built on the site there would be an -71- 7-1 w EFFECTIVE BLOCK PARKING RADIUS SITE 4 EMPLOYEE & VISITOR/ CUSTOMER RANGE k STUDENT ANGE I I I I I I ,9 17.. 1E 9 .J .x , .1 7se61 ex eJ ,la 19 xo f``69 66< 66' �eS� 6. J 1 6 s m m m = = N ZST.> i 'o O a 9a i 76 n 7e 79 e: pox 2 s a —CLINTO ST. a i a e7 ee esJ e, eJ ion 0 7 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 100 e9 90 91 9x 93 J e j SITE LOCATION �b additional 60 spaces needed in the ramp, and if 180 spaces are added to the Dubuque Street Ramp the need would decrease to 330 spaces. Finally, an adjustment was made for the spaces to be lost from the Library lot and Parcel 64-1a lot, which resulted in a base number of 564 spaces, shown on page 74. With a rate charged for parking the current demand decreases to 105 spaces, and the base to 200 spaces. With the smallest development scenario the space - needs would be 261, and at the largest, 310. i — f Site 4 is more centrally located for employee and visitor/customer parking and would provide a more convenient and consistent parking supply for these users than Site 3.. With respect to students, this site is not as convenient 1 ias Site 3 and is less desirable than Site 2. From the standpoint of employee and visitor/customer parking, Site 4 is desirable, and because of the configuration possibilities it offers the best flexibility. Because the -' City owns this parking lot and the site is large and flexible, it offers a good location for development, but unfortunately not the best parking location to serve all parking demand types. - SUMMARY Of the three sites analyzed (2, 3, and 4), the best sites for additional -' parking appear to be either Site 2 or Site 4. Briefly, the pros and cons of all three sites are listed below. Site 2 - Senior Center Lot - Pro Con - Close to University buildings - Land acquisition necessary - Close to the CBD core - Visual impact of structure - High visibility on housing unit -73- I SITE 4 SUMMARY OF DEMAND FOR ADDED PARKING SPACES f Influence Number of Spaces Needed Add or Subtract No Rate Rate From Demand Charged Charged A. Current Demand Employees 174 spaces 420 105 Add or subtract from demand is applied to base number in F -74- 330 Visitor/Customers 127 spaces 392 Student 119 spaces 75 B. Addition of 180 spaces - 90 Dubuque Street Ramp (1) 784 (1) (Factor 75% for use with rate charged) -67 C. Permit parking waiting list (125 on list) + 62 (Factor 60% for use with rate charged) +37 D. Develop Library Lot (loss of 79 spaces) + 80 and parcel 64-1a (loss of 90 spaces) (Factor 50% for use with rate charged) +40 E. Replace spaces lost to construction on site + 60 (Factor 75% for use with rate charged) +45 F. Increased occupancy of Plaza Centre One, + 32 Old Library and Old Capitol Center (Factor 30% for use with rate charged) +10 G. Development Scenario A +122 (Factor 50% for use with rate charged) + 61 H. Development Scenario B +189 (Factor 50% for use with rate charged) + 95 I. Development Scenario C +;20 (Factor 50% for use with rate charged) +110 Add or subtract from demand is applied to base number in F -74- 330 145 532 190 564 base 200 base 686 (1) 38 392 261 75 472 145 532 190 564 base 200 base 686 (1) 261 (1) 753 (1) 295 (1) 784 (1) 310 (1) •-t 1 J Site 2 (continued) Pro - Potential to relieve the parking shortage along Iowa Avenue - Potential of joint development with University - Could provide Senior Center and Ecumenical Housing with covered parking Site 3 - Civic Center Lot Pro - Within range of University student utilization - Land acquisition simplified, City owns site. - Would provide needed City employee parking. -15- Con Con - Less visibility - Further distance from CBD core - Probably too far from University buildings to help supplement the loss of the Gilmore Hall parking lot. �/V N Site 4 - Chauncey Swan Lot Pro - Somewhat centrally located site for employees and visitor/customers. - Large site that offers different combination of configurations for parking structure - Possibility of using only part of the site for parking, leaving the remainder for other development. Con - Less convenient for students and staff of the University and there- fore would probably not allow joint development with the University. w A parking structure on Site 2 would better serve the overall current parking J problems in this area. It would also provide a good opportunity for a joint City/University development. From the analysis it appears that either a 245 or 300 car space structure could be built, depending again on the develop- ment scenario used. Further economic study is necessary to verify the size. -- a "�•^mss it seems unfeasible that both structures (on the Senior Center -- Lot site and the Chauncey Swan Lot site) could be built initially. Building a parking structure on one of these sites would reduce the need for parking on the other. For either of the sites it would be prudent to also { y` investigate the mixed use potential of the site, especially the ground floor ` space of a structure. This would include ground level commercial or retail space that would enhance the streetscape of the area. Both sites discussed above offer this opportunity. ' I ri -76- ANALYSIS OF PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR SITE 5 Site 5 is the addition of additional parking to either blocks 102, 103 or 104. In the EBPR around these blocks (see page 78) there is a demand for 3660 parking spaces, of which 1517 are employee spaces, 1463 visitor/cus- tomer spaces, 531 residential spaces and 149 student spaces. In this area there are 3535 parking spaces; 3333 off-street and 202 on -street. In the EBPR of these blocks there is a deficit in parking of about 125 spaces. The deficit is made up of 75 employee spaces and 50 visitor/customer spaces. J The parking demand around certain blocks in the EBPR fluctuates greatly depending on the day of the week and time of the month or year. This is especially evident around Courthouse Square, the Post Office and the School J Administrative Building. The parking demand for these blocks can vary i greatly and none of these demand generators offer a large amount of visitor parking. This is compounded by a relatively small amount of available on -street parking. i To date, growth in this area has been limited due to the lack of available parking. Further growth of the CBD will probably occur south of Burlinton Street, but this development can not occur without parking. The office market sector needs to increase to keep the retail market viable. With added office space there must be added employee parking. The City should investigate the potential of land acquisition or joint development of sur- f , fate parking lots, especially on blocks 102, 103 or 104. Added parking on any of these blocks would serve the major demand generators in this area as well as reserve land for the future development of a parking ramp. -77- 19e R EFFECTIVE BLOCK PARKING RADIUS SITE 5 = SITE LOCATION EMPLOYEE & VISITOR/ CUSTOMER RANGE I i SUMMARY OF SITE ANALYSIS In the analysis of the sites the demand and supply were broken out and assigned to different blocks using an effective block parking radius (EBPR). The EBPR represented an influence area based on the parking supply available on a particular block, the demand types and quantity and on walking distances. J Considering the entire area, excluding the blocks north of Market Street I! there is a demand for 5886 parking spaces. In this same area there are 5646 .� existing parking spaces, resulting in a net deficit of 240 spaces. This j represents a barometer of the relative parking conditions in the area. In each of the individual site analyses the parking characteristics of each demand type were considered. J The chart on page 81 is a summary of the demand figures for sites 1 through 4. The first line of each site represents the demand for parking with the rate not charged and the second line represents the demand for parking with the rate charged. Specific developments (the loss or addition of parking spaces) have been shown to arrive at a base number at which development scenarios of parcel 64-1a and the Library lot have been included. The deve- lopments go from the smallest square footage to the largest. For Site 2 the additional demand from the University has been shown which is the replacement of the Gilmore Hall parking lot. It should be remembered that any development of parking in the area may involve an increase in the existing parking rates to help pay for the -7g- 09d U future parking development. This is due to the bond covenants that spell out debt service coverage ratios that are necessary before additional development may occur. i _ While the further study of parcel 64-1a is underway, a study should be made j J of both Site 2 and Site 4. Specifically this study should look at the land acquisition costs and the possible project cost to assess the financial Ij feasibility for either of these projects. It is the recommendation of this r study that both Site 2 and Site 4 be seriously considered because they provide a possible solution to CBD parking problems especially those on Iowa w v Avenue In the area south of Burlington Street there is a need for approximately 125 spaces. While the potential for expansion of parking in this area is limited, there is the possibility of adding some on -street spaces where I _ on -street parking is currently not allowed. Additionally, the City should investigate the potential of land acquisition or joint development of surface parking lots, especially on blocks 102, 103 and 104. The surface parking on these lots would not only provide much needed parking, but also provide a -.. land bank for future parking facility development. Full utilization of all available on -street spaces in this area should also be considered. -80- fi� bum i I 1 PARKING DEMAND SUMMARY 1,2,3 and 4 We I i �r e VWZ\ \ vO 4 4q V y a a b JW\ ,kyr,,. Wim` \Old\O Oj\O ,aT �Q Q eW W \ lY V QW 0 C 0 E F G N 1 Site 1 A Base No Rate Charged 1101 spaces 831 spaces 956 spaces 1015 spaces 1082 spaces 1114 spaces 1317 spaces 1429 spaces 1481 spaces Rate Charged 175 spaces 49 spaces 141 spaces 171 spaces 205 spaces 215 spaces 367 spaces 451 spaces 490 spaces co Site 2 No Rate Charged 726 spaces 618 spaces 693 spaces 744 spaces 834 spaces 854 spaces 962 spaces 1022 spaces 1050 spaces Rate Charged 180 spaces 99 spaces 143 spaces 169 spaces 236 spaces 242 spaces 290 spaces 326 spaces 340 spices Site 3 ` No Rate Charged 500 spaces 428 spaces 472 spaces 514 spaces 626 spaces 642 spaces 737 spaces 789 spaces 813 spaces jltl Rate Charged 125 spaces 71 spaces 95 spaces 116 spaces 200 spaces 205 spaces 234 spaces 249 spaces 256 spaces Site 4 No Rate Charged 420 spaces 330 spaces 392 spaces 472 spaces 532 spaces 564 spaces 686 spaces 753 spaces 784 spaces Rate Charged 105 spaces 38 spaces 75 spaces 145 spaces 190 spaces 100 spaces 261 spaces 295 spaces 310 spaces i cm 8R� a OFF-STREET SPACES ON -STREET PARKING SPACES BLOCK # BLOCK BLOCK n METER TYPE AND FREE SPACES BLOCK TOTAL A B C D E F G TOTAL 57 A 0 57 A 0 8 0 8 0 C 25 C 0 D 0 25 D 0 0 58 A 0 58 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B 12 B 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 10 ' C 63 C 0 7 0 0 0 0 1 8 0 81 156 D 0 5 4 0 0 0 1 10 28 'J 59 A 66 59 A 2 0 0 0 11 0 0 13 A B 9 B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 19 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 13 107 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 J 60 A 0 60 A 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 24 —; B 0 B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 C 2 44 43 0 0 2 2 93 D 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 117 61 A 78 61 A 4 0 33 0 0 0 1 38 B 0 B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 C 0 0 7 0 0 1 0 8 D 12 90 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 52 62 A 0 62 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i B 40 B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,..' C 0 C 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 8 M t D 0 40 D 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 11 19 63 A 0 63 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B 32 B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 42 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 87 161 D 0 6 0 0 0 0 1 7 7 104 A 0 104 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 57 B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 31 C 0 5 0 6 0 0 0 11 D 41 129 D 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 13 24 a i X90 OFF-STREET TOTAL ON -STREET PARKING SPACES BLOCK BLOCK N TOTAL BLOCK s METER TYPE AND FREE SPACES BLOCK A B C D E F G TOTAL 48 A 0 48 A 0 B 0 8 0 C 0 C 0 I ' D 0 D 0 U ' 47 A 3 47 A 0 _; B 31 B 0 C 13 C 0 I n D 0 47 D 0 0 1 `-a 46 A 21 46 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U B 10 B 0 0 0 U U 0 10 10 C 24 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U D 16 71 D 0 0 0 0 0 U 0 0 10 i 45 A 19 45 A 0 0 0 U 0 0 11 11 8 10 B 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 14 C 15 C 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 12 D 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 _. 44 A 0 44 A 0 2 0 0 9 0 11 B 0 B 0 3 0 0 6 0 9 C 27 C 0 0 9 0 0 0 9 - 112 139 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 43 A 0 43 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B 0 B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 C 2 0 6 0 0 0 8 D 120 120 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 42 A 0 42 A 0 _J B 0 B 0 C 0 C 0 D 92 92 D 0 0 41 A 0 41 A 0 B 160 8 0 - C 0 C 0 0 60 220 D 0 0 X90 #90 OFF-STREET TOTAL ON -STREET PARKING SPACES BLOCK # BLOCK BLOCK # METER TYPE AND FREE SPACES BLOCK TOTAL A B C 0 E F G TOTAL 19 A 67 19 A 0 B 0 B 0 C 0 C 0 D 26 93 D 0 0 20 A 0 20 A 0 B 0 B U C 5 C 0 0 U 0 40 45 0 1 .a j 69 A 0 69 A 0 B 0 B 0 C 0 C 0 I 0 0 0 D U 0 M 68 A 8 68 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B 0 B 0 5 6 0 0 0 0 Il C 19 C 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 8 E fa I D 12 39 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 67 A 21 67 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J B 0 B 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 7 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 0 11 32 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 66 A 8 66 A 0 33 0 0 0 2 0 35 B 7 B 0 6 0 0 0 U 0 6 C 17 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 32 D 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 50 65 A U 65 A 14 0 0 0 0 1 0 15 B 0 B U 4 U U 0 1 1 6 C 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 U U 0 D 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 64 A 90 64 A 0 B 0 B 0 C 424 C 0 D 0 514 D 0 0 c #90 OFF-STREET TOTAL ON -STREET PARKING SPACES BLOCK a BLOCK TOTAL BLOCK # METER TYPE AND FREE SPACES BLOCK A B C D E F G TOTAL 81 A B 0 D 81 A 0 0 0 0 0 p p 0 C 0 B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 U 0 U 0 82 A14 82 A 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 C 27 B C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p D 14 58 D 0 0 0 0 U 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 102 A 52 102 A 0 0 0 0 8 38 B U 0 0 0 0 p p C 12 C 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 6 D 3fi 138 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 6 4 0 0 0 U 8 20 2 A B 0 p 2 A 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 12 C 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C D 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 22 0 0 p 0 0 0 22 34 8 A B p 30 8 B O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 30 C 0 0 0 U U p p D 30 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 14 14 14 87 A B 0 0 87 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 B D 0 0 0 0 U p 0 0 0 0 0 C D 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 13 85 AA 00 86 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p C 27 B 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 27 p � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 16 85 A 8 p 174 85 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p C 0 8 U 0 0 0 10 U 0 10 0 0 114 0 0 0 0 0 0 p D p 12 0 U 0 1 13 23 d #90 i OFF-STREET TOTAL I i OFF-STREET TOTAL ON -STREET PARKING SPACES BLOCK if BLOCK BLOCK k METER TYPE AND FREE SPACES BLOCK TOTAL A B C D E F G TOTAL PentaCrest A 0 U of I A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B 0 B 0 0 10 U 0 0 0 10 C 0 C 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 84/83 A 0 84/83 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B 0 B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 873 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 873 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 101 A 46 101 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 27 B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 36 C 0 0 4 0 0. 0 0 4 0 15 124 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 A 0 0 A 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 13 B 0 B 4 0 5 0 0 0 0 9 C 0 C 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 26 D 80 80 D 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 13 61 7 A 0 7 A 0 0 0 0 0 U 0 0 B 189 B 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 14 C 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 189 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 11 25 100 A 0 100 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 36 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 36 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 89 A 0 89 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 0 B 0 B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 84 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 84 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 A 270 90 A 0 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 8 0 B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 270 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e OFF-STREET SPACES ON -STREET PARKING SPACES BLOCK # BLOCK BLOCK t METER TYPE AND FREE SPACES BLOCK TOTAL A B C D E F G FACE 91 A 0 91 A G B 0 B 0 C 51 C 0 D 0 51 D 0 0 92 A 0 92 A 0 B 0 B 0 C 0 C 0 D 0 0 D 0 0 93 A 40 93 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B 8 B 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 8 C 36 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 81 165 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 3 A 26 3 A 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 11 B 96 B 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 13 C 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 D 60 182 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 219 6 A 23 6 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 B 16 B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 209 248 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 f *90 PEDESTRIAN & STUDENT SURVEY LOCATIONS VAN jqFW MT- � I I II I I II II 1 44 43 42 F-41 Tiw-I ii i v 3069 ee 103 1 9 m < _ m = N z 0 a a m76 TT 7B 79 90 el ex +0x x U!, e i a a �1 all eT ee es ar ea +m o T UNIVERSITY OF IOWA i i 100 09 90 91 92 9e 0 e I ' � PEDESTRIAN SURVEY POINTS i STUDENT SURVEY POINTS i CITY OF IOWA CITY PEDESTRIAN SURVEY RESULTS DUBUQUE & COLLEGE SHOPPING BUSINESS WORK OTHER TOTAL -33-� -1a3- 3ii-B t3Ti HOW DID YOU COME DOWNTOWN? Drove 52 64.2] 22 [ 59.5] 39 [ 50.0 I [ 1.7 28 [ 49.1] 1 1.8 141 [ 55.71 3 l.2 Passenger - car parked Passenger - car left 1 1 1.2 1.2 2 [ 5.4 0 [ 0.0]]]1 2.7 7 I11 1L14.... 1 1.8 7 [ 11.3] 5 25 2.0 9.9 Bus Cab Walk11 6 0 7.43 0.0 19.9 1 [ 0 [ 0.0 0000.00 5 `` 4 Blocks 20 0.0 23.31 7.9 Bike Bike -B8 5 Blocks 31 [122.7 0 -57 [173.5 ' 6 Blocks OTAI 2 4.7 0 W 7 Blacks 1[( 1.9 -9 I [ -21 jIDb:O] 1.6] WHERE 010 YOU PARK? TOTAL LTa . 6 20.03 1 Average Distance 1.7 blocks Lot reet 7 18 [ 13.51 6 [ 28.6] 33.3) [ 38.1 18 11[[ 46.21 [ 15.6 7 [ 25.91 37.0 38 55 [ 27.3]]] 39.6J Garage Garage ageOTAL - �1 •y .� 3➢ C1 37 T3D 7] HOW FAR AWAY DID YOU PARK? 1.7 13.3 l i 0 1 Block 35 67.3] 10 [ 78.71 18 w 2 Blocks 9 17.3]]]1 8 [ 7.1] 11 3 Blocks 2 3.8 0 4.77J]] 6 `` 4 Blocks 4 7.7 0 j[j[ 6.J 3 5 Blocks 1 1.9 0 l.6 1 6 Blocks 0 0.0 2 4.7 0 W 7 Blacks 1[( 1.9 -9 I [ -21 jIDb:O] 1.6] 0 -3D TOTAL LTa . 6 20.03 1 Average Distance 1.7 blocks 2.1 block I. HOW LONG WILL YOU BE DOWNTOWN? [ 46.2] 10 41.7] 73 [ 53.7] [ 28.2j 9 37.5] 37 U 2 8.3] 10 14.23 8 2.6 1 4.2 30.0 1 4.2] 3 0.0 0 0.01 2 mm rJ6 9 blocks 2.0 blacks 1.9 blocks 1 1.7 13.3 l i 0 [ 0.0] 5 8.5 HOW LONG WILL YOU BE DOWNTOWN? [ 46.2] 10 41.7] 73 [ 53.7] [ 28.2j 9 37.5] 37 U 2 8.3] 10 14.23 8 2.6 1 4.2 30.0 1 4.2] 3 0.0 0 0.01 2 mm rJ6 9 blocks 2.0 blacks 1.9 blocks 1 1.7 13.3 [[ 0 [ 0.0] 5 8.5 1 [ 2.8 U-15 Minutes 6 7.5 6 20.033 8 [ 10.4]jj 7 11.9 27 [ 11.0 15.30 Minutes 19 23.8 6 [ 2U.0] 8 [ 10.4J 11 [ 18.6 44 [ 17.9 30 Min. - I Hour 1 Hr. - 1-1/2 Hours 15 18.8 1 [[ 3.31)7] 7 [[ 9.11]1] 9 [[ 15.3 32 C 13.0 1-I/2 H.- 2 Eburs 28 35.0 6 20.03 1 1.3]) 10 16.9]) 13.4]]] 45 .3 [[[ 185.7 6.3 [4 [[ 3 ([ 3 15 5.3 Hours[ 1 1.3]] 1 [[ 3.3]jj 1 [( 1.3]jj 2Hours l[ 2.0 5 Hours 0 [ [[ 3.4 3.3 e 0 [ 0.0] 1 [ 3.3] 4 L 5.21 0 [ 0.0] 5 [ 2.0 Hours U Hours 0 ([ 0.0]] 4 -30 [[13.3j] 6] 40 77 ( �551.,�9jj 2 34 [r 4 w•uJ 46 Idd 18.7 0 TOTAL 6D [10.07 0100 [1Db.D] L Average Stay 1:46 2:51 5:25 2:06 3:07 2:05 Without Workers Category. IF YOU ARE SHOPPING, HOW MANY STORES WILL YOU BE STOPPING IN TODAY? 1 - 2 27 j 33.81 3 - 4 27 33.8 5 or More 26 32.5 TOTAL Average HOW FAR IS IT FROM YOUR HONE TO DOWNTOWN? 0.5 Miles 55U71 25 69.4 00 oe.a 4; 1.•� 6.10 Miles 53 8.3 8 10.171923 9.011.15 Miles 41 2.8 4 5.111.7 103.916-20 Miles 11 2.8 1 1.30 0.03 [ 1.221-25 Miles 10 0.0 0 0.00 U.01 04 26 ' Mlles 16 6 16.7 1 1.3 8 13.6 31 12.1 TOTAL � Average Distance: 10.6 Mlles 9.9 Mlles 6.5 Mlles 8.8 Mlles 8.8 Mlles I CITY OF IOWA CITY IOWA b DUBUQUE COMPOSITE SHOPPING BUSINESS WORK OTHER TOTAL 22.5 17.5 30.8 29.2 NOW DID YOU COME DOWNTOWN? Drove 15 [ 55.6]] 17 [ 81.01 20 [ 54.11 16 [ 45.7 68 [ 56.71 Passenger - Car Parked 1 [ 3.7] 0 [ 0.03 0 [ 0.0] 0 l 0.0 1 [ 0.8] Passenger - Cer Left 0 [[ 0.01 1]]] 0 [[ 0.0]] 2 [ 5.40]1 0 [ 0.0 2 [ 1.71 CBus ab 0 [ 10.0] 0 [ 0.0] 0 [ 20.0] 2 [[ 25:0] 12 [ 1'.8] Walked 7 [ 25.9] 3 [[[ 14.3] 6 ([ 16.2] 10 [[[ 28.6]O.]7 26 [[ 21.7]7]] Bike TOTAL -27 [ 7.7 -21 [10 .0.0 37 [102.7 75 ni1S.� -0 1.7] WHERE DID YOU PARK? Lot U [ 0.0] 3 [ 17.6] 9 [ 45.01 2 [ 12.5] 14 [ 20.3] _I Street 13 81.3 14 [[[ 82.4 9 [[[ 45.0 13 [[[ 81.3 49 [1 6 [[ 71.0 Gara9TOTAL lb 18.8 77 [10 . B. 0 -20 [iDO.O �16 [I 6.3 -b➢ [TOD:7 iI HOW FAR AWAY DID YOU PARK? i.l One Block 7 43.8 6 [ ]5.3] B [ 40.0] 6 37.5 27 39.11 Two Blocks 7 43.8 8 [ 47.1 6 [ 30.0 8 50.0 29 42.0 Three Blocks I 6.3 2 11.8 2 [ 10.0 0 [ U.0 5 7.2 ' { Four Blocks 1 6.3 1 5.9 0 [ 0.0 1 [ 6.3 3 ( 4.3 ^r Five Blacks 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 [ 10.0 U [ 0.0 2 [ 2.9 Six Blocks 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 [ 5.0 0 [ 0.0 1 [ 1.4 �y Seven Blacks 0 0.0 0 [ 0.0 1 ( 5.0 1 6.3 2 2.9 TOTAL 'Ib [IDS -17 [1 '20 jlou -Ib 1 -b9 i-� Average Distance: 1.8 blocks 1.9 blocks 2.5 blocks 2.1 blacks 2.1 blocks HOW LONG WILL YOU BE DOWNTOWN TODAY 0-15 Minutes 4 14.8 0 0.0 0 [ 0.0 0 [ 0.0] 4 3.3] I5-30 Minutes 8 29.6 3 E 14.3 2 [ 5.4 1 [ 2.9] 14 11.7 30 Min. - I Hour 8 29.6 11[[[ 52.4 0 [ 0.0 4 [ 11.4 23 19.2 [ 2.7 11 [ 31.4 16 13.3 4.8 1[ 2.7 9 [ 25.7 17 14.2 1 3 Hours 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 [ 0.0 4 [ 11.4 4 3.3 4 Hours 1 3.7 1 4.8 4[ 10.8 0 0.0 6 5.0 5 Hours 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 4 2.7 5 14.3 6 5.0 B (lours 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 5.4 0 0.0 2 1.7 7 Hours 0 0.0 0 0.0 0[ 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 _ 8 Hours 0 0.0 1 4.8 26[70.3 1 2.9 28 23.3 TOTAL -27 . -71 10 37 [10n) 73 M-. 01 T10 EMT U. Average Stay: 1:04 1:33 6:38 2:24 3:15 Without workers category: 1.45 - IF YOU ARE SHOPPING, HOW MANY STORES WILL YOU BE SHOPPING IN TODAY?1-2 [ [ [ 3.4 10 376 5 ;0 - 0 [ 0.0 - 0 [ 0:0 0 [ 0.0 10 37:0 "-� 5 or More 1 3.7 0 [[ 0.0 0 [[ 0.0 0 [[ 0.0 1 3.7 TOTAL -27 D I 0 1 -0 1 -Z7 Average : 2.9 2.9 HOW FAR IS IT FMOM YOUR HOME TO YOU OFFICE? [ [ [ B - 10 Miles 20 70.0 01�I1 64.8 2 [ 95.4 22 [ 75.7 95 [ 78.3 4.2 IT. 15 Miles 0 0.0 4 19.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 3.3 16. 20 Miles 1 3.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.8 21- 25 Miles 0 0.0 0 ,U.O 0 0.0 1 L 2.9 1 0.8 More than 25 Miles 6 22.2 2 9.5 1 C 2.7 6 17.1 15 12.5 TOTAL -21J-M77 79 7Z0 wo, Average Distance: 10.6 miles 9.3 miles 5.9 miles 9.7 miles 8.6 miles _ 7 #90 CITY OF IOWA CITY DUBUQUE AND WASHINGTON PEDESTRIAN SURVEY COMPOSITE SHOPPING BUSINESS WORK OTHER TOTAL 28.4 15.5 23.3 32.8 HOW 010 YOU COME DOWNTOWN? HOW FAR IS IT FROM YOUR HOME TO YOU OFFICE? U - 5 Miles 6 - 10 Miles II- 15 Miles 16. 20 Miles 21. 25 Miles More than 25 Mlles TOTAL Average Distance: 78 94.0 33 71.7 57 87.8 85 88.5 253 86.3 0 0.0 2 4.3 5 7.4 3 3.1 10 3.4 0 0.0 1 2.2 1 1.5 1 1.0 3 1.0 2 2.4 2 4.3 2 2.9 0 0.0 6 2.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 73 U..6 �8 17.4 �3 4.4 7.3 7.2 6.2 miles 10.0 miles 6.9 miles 6.9 miles 7.2 miles i 10?o 38 45.2]] 31 [ 67.41 24 34.8j1 22 22.7]] 115 [ 38.9]1 Drove PassenPassenger [[ 0.0 1[[ 4 5.8]4 [[ [ 4.4]8 2.7]Bus - Cer Lefte4 0 12 ( 0.0] l 14.3]] 00.0 6 13.0 [ 10 [[ 14.5 l2 [[ 12.4]] 40 13.5 j .- Lao Walken 0 28 [ 0.0 33.3 4. 0 8 0.0 17.4 3 ( IB [LL26.1 4.3 j] 1 53 -97 1.0 (j 54.6 4 101 1.4 j] 36.1 :' Bike -b4 Ab 102.2 6➢ [103.0 [10 .1 �Db laa18 TOTAL -� WHERE UID YOU PARK? 5 [ 12.8] 6 [ 19.41 15 [ 62.5] 6 [ 27.3 32 [ 27.6] ..J Lot 28 [ 771.8 18 [[[_58.1] 6 [ 25.01 10 [ 45.5 62 [[ 53.4]] Street Gara9T0TAL _1➢ [ 5.4 -3T [T02.6 f4 12.5 _2,2 27.3 13 I, f66d] r HOW FAR AWAY 010 YOU PARK? One Block 10 26.3 9 29.0 3 [ 12.5 7 2 31.8 9.1 29 29 25.2 25.2 •„ Two Blacks 16 9 42.1 23.7 6 12 19.4 38.7 5 [ 20.8 8 [ 33.3 8 36.4 37 32.2 i.j three Blocks 1 2.6 1 3 9.7 4 [ 16.7 3 17.6 11 9.6 Four Blocks 1 2.6 0 0.0 2 [ 8.3 0 0.0 3 2.6 Five Blocks 1 2.6 1 3.2 2 [ 6.3 2 9.1 6 5.2 Six Blocks Seven 9latki 0 "iii [[ 0.0]] 0 -31 [( 0.0 Ito. 0 [[ 0.0�j -9 [idn 0 -a [ �0.0)j CT�1 0 TTS 0.0 �-• TOTAL Average Distance: [166:0] 2.2 blocks 2.4 blocks 3.1 blocks 2.7 blocks 2.5 blacks ' HOW LONG WILL YOU BE DOWNTOWN TODAY 0-15 Minutes 9 [ 10.7] 4 [ 8.7] 5 [ 7.4] 10 [ 10.41 28 32 [ 9.51 10.5 15.30 Minutes 16 13 [ 19.0 [ 15.5 7 7 15.2 15.2 3 3 [[[ 4.4 [ 4.4 6 9 6.3 9.4 32 10.9 - 30 Min. - I Hour 1 - 1 1/2 Hours 20 [ 23.8 8 17.4 0 [[[ 0.0 2.9 16 20 16.7 20.tl 44 44 15.0 15.0 11/2 - 2 Hours l6 3 [ 19.0 [[[ 3.6 6 7 13.0 15.2 2 2 2.9 12 12.5 24 8.2 3 Hours 4 Hours 4 4.8 3 6.5 3 [ 4.4 7 5 7.3 5.2 17 11 5.8 3.1J 5 Hours 0.0 2[ 4.3 2 [ 8.8 2.9 6 6.3 10 3.4 6 Hours 7 Hours a Hours3 0[ 0 -84 [ 0.0 [[ 3.6 0 2 -46 [ 0.0 [[ 4.3 3 39 -a 4.4 57.4 1 4 -'4b [ 1.0 (.. 4.2 4 48 81 1.4 11,6x..3 TOTAL [1 [ld . d6 Lluu•W 2:06 L+aa• Average Stay: 1:36 2:06 5:55 2:32 Without Workers Category IF YOU ARE SHOPPING, HOW MANY STORES WILL YOU BE SHOPPING IN TODAY? I -t 3.4 46 [ 1.4 [ 18 1 0 U 0.0 [ 0.0 0 [ U.0 0 0 [[ 0.0 [ 0 0[ 0 [ 0.0 0.0 0.0 46 22[ IS 5.4 [ 25' [[ 18:1 5 or More IS '83D [[ -0 [ I - d -B3 ZO TOTAL Average 32 HOW FAR IS IT FROM YOUR HOME TO YOU OFFICE? U - 5 Miles 6 - 10 Miles II- 15 Miles 16. 20 Miles 21. 25 Miles More than 25 Mlles TOTAL Average Distance: 78 94.0 33 71.7 57 87.8 85 88.5 253 86.3 0 0.0 2 4.3 5 7.4 3 3.1 10 3.4 0 0.0 1 2.2 1 1.5 1 1.0 3 1.0 2 2.4 2 4.3 2 2.9 0 0.0 6 2.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 73 U..6 �8 17.4 �3 4.4 7.3 7.2 6.2 miles 10.0 miles 6.9 miles 6.9 miles 7.2 miles i 10?o CITY OF IOWA CITY STUDENT SURVEY RESULTS COMPOSITE HOW DID YOU COME TO CLASS TODAY? k foo I ■ 307 [ 23.01 Drove Passenger - car parked 12 [ 0.91 36 [ 2.7] Passenger - car left 240 18.61 Bus [ 0.0] Cab 659 L 49.41 Walked Bike 73 5.5 1m TOTAL WHERE DID YOU PARK? Private University City Lot 10 [8.3] 92 [76.0] 19 [15.7] 121 [ 40.5] 41.81 125 [ Street Garage 53 17.7 299 00.0 TOTAL HOW FAR AWAY DID YOU PARK? 62 [ 21.7] 1 Block 76 [ 26.6] 2 Blocks [[L 3 Blocks 4 Blocks 30 L 10.5] 5 Blocks 8 [ 2.8] 6 Blocks 31 10.8 7 Blocks 2M TOTAL Average Distance 3.1 blocks HOW LONG WILL YOU BE DOWNTOWN? 3 [ 1.01 0-15 Minutes 15-30 Minutes 16 [ 5.2] 30 Min. - 1 Hour 26 1 Hr. - 1-1/2 Hours 36 [ 11.7] 1-1/2 Hrs.- 2 Hours 29 [ 9.4 3 Hours 39 [ 12.6] 4 Hours 24 [ 7.8 5 Hours 27 [ 8.7] 6 Hours 9 [ 2.9] 7 Hours 95 30.7 8 Hours TOTAL Average Stay 4:47 k foo I ■ CITY OF IOWA CITY STUDENT SURVEY RESULTS IOWA & CLINTON HOW DID YOU COME TO CLASS TODAY? Drove Passenger - car parked Passenger - car left Bus Cab Walked Bike TOTAL WHERE DID YOU PARK? Private University City Lot 7 [21.9] 22 [68,8] 3 [9.4] Street Garage TOTAL HOW FAR AWAY DID YOU PARK? 1 Block 2 Blocks 3 Blocks 4 Blocks 5 Blocks 6 Blocks 7 Blocks TOTAL Average Distance HOW LONG WILL YOU BE DOWNTOWN? 0-15 Minutes 15-30 Minutes 30 Min. - 1 Hour 1 Hr. - 1-1/2 Hours 1-1/2 Hrs.- 2 Hours 3 Hours 4 Hours 5 Hours 6 Hours 7 Hours 8 Hours TOTAL Average Stay 95 [ 29.3] 5 [ 1.5] 7 [ 2.2] 57.61 0 10.0] 147 [ U4513 '32'4 32 [ 32.0] 51 [ 51.011- 17 1.0]:17 17.0 00 28 [ 31.8] 18 [ 20.51 19 [ 21.6] 89. 2 [[ 2.3j1 12 13.6 2.9 block 0 [ 0.0] 0 [ 0.0] 1 [ 1.0 15 13 [[ 13.0 6 [ 6.0] 5 [ 5. 2 [ 2.00] 40 40.0 100 00. 5:04 $?o m I hyo CITY OF IOWA CITY STUDENT SURVEY RESULTS IOWA & LINN HOW DID YOU COME TO CLASS TODAY? _ 115 [ 30.91 Drove 4 [ 1.13 Passenger - car parked 2.71 Passenger - car left 6g 18.33 Bus 0 [ 0.01 Cab 115 44.0] Walked [ .— Bike 312 100.0 i TOTAL { r WHERE DID YOU PARK? Private University City Lot 3 [ 8.11 25 [67.6] 9 [24.3] 37 [ 36.61 52 [ 51.51 .-1 Street Garage 12 r 11:9 Tff TOTAL HOW FAR AWAY DID YOU PARK? 27 [ 27.61 1 Block 17 2 Blocks 18 [ 18.41 I 7 3 Blocks 13 [ 13.31 4 Blocks9 9.23 5 Blocks 4 [ 4.13 6 Blocks 10 10.2 7 Blocks _. TOTAL 3.1 block Average Distance HOW LONG WILL YOU BE DOWNTOWN? 3 [ 2.73 0-15 Minutes 4 3.61 15-30 Minutes 12 16.3] 30 Min. - 1 Hour - 1 Hr. - 1-1/2 Hours 12 [ 10.8] 1-1/2 Hrs.- 2 Hours 10 [ 9.0 i 3 Hours 16 [ 14.43 4 Hours 5 Hours 13 10-81 6 Hours 7 Hours 8 Hours 24 21.6 11T TOTAL 4:13 Average Stay m I hyo 00 CITY OF IOWA CITY STUDENT SURVEY RESULTS _ WASHINGTON AT CAPITOL _ HOW DID YOU COME TO CLASS TODAY? Drove 97 [ 15.2] Passenger - car parked 3 [ 0.51 Passenger - car left 123 [ 19.2] I Sus 0 [ 0.0] Walked 3 [ 57.0] Bike 45 [ I { J TOTAL 645 .0 ` r WHERE DID YOU PARK? Private University City Lot 0 [0.00] 45 [86.5] 7 [13.5] 52 [ 53.11 Street 22 [ 224 Garage 24 24.5 (-± TOTAL HOW FAR AWAY DID YOU PARK? 1 Block 2 Blocks 47 [ 41.0] 3 Blocks 13 [ 13.0] 4 Blocks 20 [ 20.0] 5 Blocks 2 2.0] [ 6 Blocks 7 Blocks 9 r 9:0 W TOTAL Average Distance 3.4 block HOW LONG WILL YOU BE DOWNTOWN? 0-15 Minutes 0 0.0] 15-30 Minutes 3 [ 3.1] 30 Min. - 1 Hour 4 [ 4.1] 1 Hr. - 1-1/2 Hours 11 [ 11.2] 1-1/2 Hrs.- 2 Hours 10 [ 10.21 3 Hours 14 [ 14.3 4 Hours 5 Hours 10 [ 10.2] 6 Hours 10.2 [ 14.1] 7 Hours 4 8 Hours31 31.6 -J-8 T100.03 TOTAL i Average Stay 5:08 n 00 CITY OF IOWA CITY FULL-TIME EMPLOYEE SURVEY RESULTS PROFESSIONAL CLERICAL RETAIL OTHER TOTAL HON 00 YOU NORMALLY COME TO WORK? Drive and Park 673 [ 78.0] 251 [ 70.11 182 ( 58.1] 129 [ 64.8) 1235 [ 71.4] Ride with Company Employee 11 [ 1.3] 6 ` 1.71 3 [ 1.0] 4 [ 2.0] 24 ( 1.41] Ride with Friend or Spouse 38 [ 4.4 34 9.5 1.9 [ 5.6 13 [ 6.5 ]] 103 [ 6.0 Walk 55 [ 6.4]] 23 [ 6.4] 55 [ 17,7]] 32 [ 16.11 165 [[ 9.5 Cao 1 [ 0.1] 0 1.0] 2 U.6] O [ 0.01 3 [ 0.2 _ Bus 53 [ 6.1 36 30.1 39 12.5 9 4.5 137 7.9 Motorcycle or Bike 8b7 L 3.7 i5b 2.2 mil 3.5 To 6.0 T73b 3.6 HOW 010 YOU COME TO WORK TODAY, C� IF DIFFERENT FROM NORMALLY? Drive and Park 35 [ 36.1jj 17 [ 51.5] 11 [ 21.6] 14 [ 32.6) 77 [ 34.4] j Ride with Company Employee 9 [ 9.3] 1 [ 3.0] 4 [ 7, 8] 6.7] Ride with Friend 4r Spouse 13 [[ 13.47] 12 ([[ 36.4] 16 [ 31.4]]] 11 [ 25.61 52 [ 23.2] Walk 13 13.4 0 0.0 11 [ 21.6 6 14.0 30 13.4 Cab 1 1.0i 1 Motorcycle or Bike 14 C 12 C 2.4 1 33. ]]� 2 ([ 133:,7 8 18:63 IT 25 �23 11.2 TOTAL -97 ." -33 [100.OJ -5I (100.01 HON FAR IS IT FROM YOUR HOME TO YOU OFFICE? U - 5 Miles 453 [ 65.7] 129 [ 50.0 119 [ 62.6 93 [ 67.9 194 62.3] I 6 - 10 Miles 109 [ 15.8])) 45 [ 17.4]] 28 [ 14.7]] 26 [ 19.0 208 [[ 16.3] 11- 15 Miles 49 [ LI] 35 [ 13.6] 14 [ 7.4] 4 [ 2.9 102 [ 8.0] 16. 20 Miles 25 [[ 3.6 20 [ 7.8 12 [ 6.3 3 C 2.2 60 [ 4.7] i 21- 25 Miles 12 1.7 12 [ 4.7 2 3 [ 2.2 29 1 2.31 More than 25 Miles 41 j 6.0 17 [46.. 6]7 15 7.9 tl 5.8 81 [ 6.4 TOTAL b69 [100.01 M D7 T4b 171 1274 11W.01 -� Average Distance 8.7 miles 10.8 miles 9.4 miles 8.3 miles 9.2 Miles WHERE 00 YOU NORMALLY PARK? Public Parking Lot 128 [ 18.5] 36 ( 13.6 33 [ 17.5 22 [ 15.9 219 1J7:8 i - Company Parking Lot 256 [[[ 37.0 148 [E 56.1 35 [ 18.5 95 [ 32.6 484 3 Parking Ramp 121 I7.5 24 9.1 63 �[33. 3 19 [ 13.b 227 1 On-Street 134 19.4 40 15.2 37 6 32 [ 23.2 243 1Other TOTAL T [ 7,5 TR 6.1 To1 IS9 I4.0 IY67 HOW FAR AWAY 010 YOU PARK? j1 One Block 423 61.2 185 70.1 79 [ 41.6 60 [ 58.4 767 [ 59.83 -- Two Blocks lis Ifi.6 33 12.5 40 [ 2L1 26 [ 19.0 214 16.Thre7 - 24 9.71 FoureBlockss 62 Oj 23 23 12.1 54 7.8 17 fiA 1 9 10.0 16 I4A 196 7.5 Five Blocks 21 3.0 3 1.1 14 1.4 5 3.6 43 3.4 Sic Blacks or More 16 2.3 3 1.1 15 7.9 4 2.9 38 3.0 TOTAL M 264 TO T31 . Tt6z 100.01 Average Distance 1.8 blks I.6 blks 2.5 blks 1.9 blks 1.9 blks WHAT TYPE OF AUTO 00 YOU DRIVE? Compact or Subcompact 295 [[ 42.6 j]j] 108 [[ 40.9]] 92 [ 48.4]1 53 [C 3B.4) 548 29 [[[ 42.7]1 Pickupzor Campere, Full -S 51 Sta.Wan 351 [ 47.4] 151 [ 50.4] 89 [ 44,7] 14 [ 10.1] 675 [ 45.81 Van M"18 f 26 7S 1;1 TN 4.2 'M 2.2 IM 32 f 2;5 0 10d i CITY OF IOWA CITY PART -TIPS EMPLOYEE SURVEY RESULTS _ PROFESSIONAL CLERICAL RETAIL OTHER TOTAL HOW 00 YOU NORMALLY COME TO WORK? Drive and Park 6o [ 63.8 65 [ 50.4 I23 38.6 84 42.0 332 [ 44.7 Ride with Company Employee 0 [ 0.0 2 [ 1.6 0 0.0 3 l.5 5 [ 0.7 Ride with Friend or Spouse 4 4.3 9 7.0 23 : 7.2 9 ( 4.5 45 ( 6.1 Walk 13 13.8 21 16.3 97 30.4 62 [[ 31.0 193 ([f 26.0 Cab 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 [[ 0.0 1 0.5 1 0.1 Buz 5 5.3 22 17.1 59 L 18.5 15 [ 7.5 101 13.6 Motorcycle or Bike �1�2 (T012:8 TZ�O 7. 17 [5.3 1370b;0 8.8 TOTAL [ [[11D0 HOW DID YOU COME TO WORK TODAY, IF DIFFERENT FROM NORMALLY? Drive and Park 9 [ 50.0] 8 ( 47.11 24 [ 29.3] 25 [ 41.0] 66 [ 37.1] Ride with Company Employee 0 [ 0.0] 0 [ 0.0] 2 ( 2.4 0 [ 0.0] 2 [ 1.1 Ride with Friend or Spouse 2 11.11 4 23.5 16 [ 19.5 11 18.0] 33 [ 18.5 Walk 3 16.7 1 5.9 12 [ 14.6 11 18.0 27 4 15.2 Cab 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.6 1 0.6 Bus 3 [ 16.1 3 17.6 14 [ 17.1 3 4:9 23 [ 12.9 Motorcycle or Bike � 5;6 77 [1 5:9 -92 [ 17.1 IT I6.4 M [ _104.6 TOTAL HOW FAR IS IT FROM YOUR HOME i [TO [I TO YOU OFFICE? 0 - 5 Miles 54 [ 80.6] 52 [ 12.2 100 [ 70.9J 76 [ 74.5] 282L2.4 6 - 10 Hiles 7 [ 10.4] 10 [ 13.9 27 [ 19.1] 14 [ 13.7 58 II- 15 Miles 2 3.0 5 [ 6.9 8 U2.1 4 3.9 19 16- 20 Miles 3 4.5 2 4 2.8 2 0 0.0721- 25 Miles 1 1.5 1 1.4 1 4 3.9 7More than 25 Miles 0 0.0 2 2.8 3 4 3.9 TOTAL L100 U Average Distance: 6.8 miles 7.7 miles 7.4 miles 7.7 miles 7.4 miles WHERE DO YOU NORMALLY PARK? Public Parking Lot 14 1 20.9] 17 [ 24.3 34 23.9 20 [ 19.6 85 ( 22.3 Company Parking Lot 23 34.3] 24 [ 34.3 15 [ 10.6 26 [ 25.5 88 L 23.1 Parking Ramp 8 11.9 12 [ 17.1 48 [ 33.8 15 14.7 83 21.8 On -Street 19 28.4 11 [ 15.7 33 [ 23.2 34 33.3 97 25.5 T07 Other 3 4.5 6 8.6 12 8.5 7 6.9 28 7.3 TOTAL 77 142rjW HOW FAR AWAY DID YOU PARK? One Block 40 59.7 40 57.1 62 43.7 61 [ 59.8 203 53.3 Two Blocks 15 22.4 15 21.4 38 26.8 IB ( 17.6 86 22.6 Three Blocks 30 14.9 9 12.9 22 I5.5 11 10.8 52 13.6 Four Blocks 1 1.5 3 4.3 6 0.2 9 8.8 19 5.0 Five Blocks 0 0.0 1 1.4 8 5.6 2 2.0 11 2.9 Six Blocks or More 1 1.5 - 2 270 ,9 T 4.2 T� 1.0 MT o 2.6 TOTAL Average Distance: 1.6 blocks 1.8 blocks 2.2 blocks 1.8 blocks 1.9 blocks WHAT TYPE OF AUTO DO YOU DRIVE? Compact or Subcompact 26 38.8 26 37.1 60 42.3 50 49.5 162 Mid -Size, Full -Size, Sta.Wan 39 58.2 40 57.1 74 52.1 48 47.5 204 52O "M rWT1 30 :9 Van 0.0 or Camper 0.0 �8 1,4 ,-411 �:� j:� 0.8 P //P SUMMARY OF DEMAND FROM IOWA CITY HOLIDAY INN Hotel Guest Parking 178 Rooms @ 52% occupancy =93 rooms 85% drive and park = 79 spaces 178 Rooms @ 80% occupancy = 142 rooms 85% drive and park = 121 spaces The Hotel Developer has given two projections on first year occupancies, 80% and 52%. The spaces required for guests at each of these occupancies are shown above. A drive and park percentage for the guests has been projected at 85%. At full occupancy (100%) there would be a projected need for 151 spaces. During the Fall the Hotel may need this many guest spaces due to University of Iowa home football games. Hotel Restaurant and Lounge Parking Restaurant 150 seats: Dinner 150 seats @ 90% availability @ 2.5 people/car @ 90% drive & park = 50 spaces. Lunch 150 seats @ 90% availability @ 2.5 people/car @ 30V drive & park = 16 spaces. Lounge 200 person capacity: Dinner 200 @ 50% occupancy @ 2.5 people/car @ 50% drive & park = 20 spaces. Lunch 200 @ 25% occupancy @ 2.5 people/car @ 30% drive & park = 20 spaces. Restaurant 200 ca acit : Dinner 200 capacity @ 90% availability @ 2.5 people/car @ 75% drive and park = 54 spaces Lunch 200 capacity @ 90% availability @ 2.5 people/car @ 75% drive and park = 22 spaces. _ q X90 1 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: February 26, 1985 To: City Council From: City Manager/ Re: Office Space for the City Attorney and Staff Both short and long-term plans must be made for providing adequate office, library and associated areas for the City Attorney and staff as a result of the City Council's decision to employ a full-time City Attorney. Because we are presently in the process of developing a long-term solution to the City's space needs, any decision at this time should be considered an interim solution. However, it will be necessary to have office space and facilities available when the new City Attorney arrives. The City Attorney's staff currently has 867 square feet of area. See sketch 1. The long term needs study projected a requirement of 1100 square feet. It now appears that a more realistic requirement would be approximately 1500 square feet. See sketch 2. It is proposed that additional area be allocated for a City Attorney's office. The large area currently used by the building inspectors will be vacated. This area, with windows on two sides located in the southeast corner of the building, will become a large office for the City. Attorney. This will give the City Attorney sufficient space for books and materials, a working desk and an area for small conferences. This will preclude the necessity of using the Law Library for small meetings. At the same time the current office of the Chief Building Inspector will be vacated so that it also could be utilized as a small conference room or for additional staff such as legal interns or, sometime in the future, another attorney. The area currently occupied by the Building Enforcement Assistant will become a reception area for the City Attorney's office. These arrangements will require the relocation of the Building Inspection Di- vision. While I cannot give you a definitive answer, at this time, as to where the Division will be relocated, it is clear that even if the City Council should make a timely decision on long-term space needs, additional space will have to be rented now to accommodate City services. Currently we are thinking about relocating the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department since that function could be relocated elsewhere without seriously hindering the operation of other City departments or of the Public Works Department. For the long-term, if administrative offices stay in the Civic Center, it is our current thinking that those functions which relate to policy making and the City Council should probably stay in the Civic Center. This would include the City Manager, the City Attorney, and the City Clerk. Possibly. there also would be sufficient room for Human Relations. Because the work of the City Clerk, the City Attorney and the City Manager frequently is related, and because all work for the City Council, relocation of one or more of these 1f9/ 3 would be disfunctional. In addition, the public would be able to deal with all of the policy related functions in one location and all of the support and other administrative staff in another location. We are still working on this concept. In the meantime, we will plan to provide office space which will adequately meet the needs of the legal staff when the new City Attorney arrives. cc: Mary Neuhauser Rosemary Vitosh i I 71713 S.F. - CIVIC CENTER 4 SlfEfzH 2 - ,nn /ySZSCJ.�T, (SNaDED/vR6a) <f9/ [NaIM[LL1 ro(IIR! O+SPTIM, Room VIA J EMDIME[M PILES [MO. LLwSRILTION OFpC LOO RAW DM Ur LOOPM UP Ur I ANITOL WAS "VS ON BL DG \ \i \ RECEr. ID[C. go. An $MR. \\t ILDINO ' SPECTORS STORAGE P0� •' DLLITER 7,743 S.F. - CIVIC CENTER SkErcHr 1- R/I 8675P 7T.<SNaaEa REo, OWCTOR LMO. (MDIM([+ PUILK OLLFTIN ONE LO+O [MDIMLG COME. +Y. /ILts CRI. +Ewnurmori ornc ' f l flsvr OL UP LOoOMom UP ur I ALIIOL Y[LS O VER$ DM I so. an (TOL+D[ PRINT DOW 71713 S.F. - CIVIC CENTER 4 SlfEfzH 2 - ,nn /ySZSCJ.�T, (SNaDED/vR6a) <f9/ City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: February 26, 1985 To: All Department Heads and All Division Heads From: City Manager —y Re: Policy for Application and Execution of Grant Agreements The purpose of this memorandum is to establish a policy for the application and execution of grant agreements. This policy is necessary because there have been instances when grants have been submitted which have not been coordinated with all the responsible departments; the applications have policy and/or program implications of which neither the City Council nor the Manager have been informed; and grants have been submitted by persons who have no authority to obligate the City or City personnel to grant require- ments. In order to ensure that this policy is carried out in a consistent and timely manner, the following procedure will apply to the processing of all grants: 1. The head of the department responsible for coordinating a grant proposal shall submit a summary description of the proposed grant program to the City Manager before any application is prepared. 'This description shall be in writing and may provide other supportive materials.. It shall include the nature, purpose and cost of the grant program along with a summary of all activities to be undertaken by the City as part of that program. 2. The City Manager shall either present the material to the City Council before authorizing preparation of a formal application or may direct the department head to proceed with such preparation. 3. All final applications for grants shall be forwarded to the City Manager for review and comment and shall be submitted to the granting agency for consideration only upon approval by the City Manager. The application must be received by the City Manager at least seven working days before the submittal date unless prior arrangements are made by the department head with the City Manager. 4. The completed application shall be forwarded to the City Manager along with a properly drawn resolution, when the City Manager deems such a resolution is required, for City Council action authorizing submission of the proposal. 5. Upon notification that a grant application has been approved, the department head shall advise the City Manager of said approval and shall coordinate with the City Manager during the preparation of the final grant agreement or contract. �9� City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE: February 26, 198n TO: Wastewater Faciiity Committee FROM: City Manage � RE: Articles Attacned are copies of two articles from the February 1985 issue of Water/Engineering & Management which may be of interest to you. cc: City Council twith attachment) X93 With federal support eroding, the funding needed for continuing construction of water/ wastewater facilities is going to have to be provided by other means. Privatization is one of these—and its use requires understanding and carefully planned management. Privatization Needs the Professional Approach by Garret P. Westerhotf Anyona who says the privatization of rrxunlcipal water and wastewater facilities Is either easy or a cure-all is misinformed and naive. While pri. vatization does offer the potential of significant benefits, achieving them re. quires hard work and a team of experts. Most of all, an educated approach and understanding of the privatization con- cept is needed. We at Malcolm Pirnie can appreciate this based on our ongo- ing Involvement as consultant to the city of Chandler, Arizona, during the privatization of its wastewater reclama. don facilities. Based an this experience, we believe we are in an excellent position to out- line and discuss the principal elements and keys to success of privatization from the perspective of professional en- gineers in their traditional role of soly- sidered by more than Soo agencies. In what is believed to be this country'; first application of the privatization process in the municipal water and wastewater Industry, the city of Chandler in December, 1983, entered Into an agreement with a service party to own, finance, construct, and operate Its wastewater reclamation facility (ap- proximate capital cast of S20 million). Malcolm Pimle, Inc. served as engineer- ing consultant to the city for the design, service party procurement, and service party contract negotiation, and is con- tinuing technical assistance during the Implementation of this project. Under privatization, a facility—such as a solid waste, water, or wastewater plant—Is typically financed using tax - extra I development bonds (IDBs). The IDBS ere Issued through a municipal agency, but they are the obligation of the service party. The serv- ice partys cast of borrowing through an ing problems for municipal clients. That experience also permits concise Identification of the phases or steps necessary and the alternative routes available for a privatization project. Privatization is one approach for Im. plementing a municipal project. In this approach, a private entity (referred to herein as the service party) becomes the legal owner of the facility. The service party corotrucis and operates the facil. ity end provides a treatment service to the public sector agency. Privatization Is not new. For mom than ten years municipal agencies In this country have successfully used the privatization concept for solid waste resource recovery facilities. Much can be gained from this experience. With the recent decrease In funding for wastewater treatment facilities un. der the U.S. EPA Construction Croats Program, and decrease or elimination of other state and federal funding pro- grams, municipal agencies have begun to investigate alternative methods to fi- nance needed facilities. 11 is estimated thatprivatization Is being seriously can. IDB is virtually always lower than it would be without the tax-exempt states. Once the facility is operating, the serv. ice party takes tax benefits, including investment tax credits and depreciation benefits, which normally go along with a private project that are not usable by the municipal agency. The largest cost savings are realized when the private service party has ac- cess to tax-free financing such IDBS for financing the project. The recently en- acted Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 limits the volume of IDBS which an be issued by each state in any calendar yeas This will likely reduce the availa- bility of tax-free financing for privatiza- tion of water and wastewater projects because they will need to compete with other projects. Without the availability of IDBS, the service party would be required to pay significantly higher in- terest rates and the financial advantages of privatization would be reduced. Even with this reduction, privatization may WATER/Englneonng 8 Management, FEBRUARY 1885 25 X93 result In savings over tax-free financing. 7lrree keys to a successful privatize. don project am: • understanding the privatization process; • recognizing its advantages and disadvantages; and • structuring the process to cap. italize on the advantages and to mini. mize the disadvantages. A municipal agency has definite re- sponsibilities and is subject to many legal requirements, all established for the protection of the public. laws dic- tate how an agency conducts its busi- ness (e.g, "sunshine laws"): how it pro- cures goods, facilities, and services; and how it may contract for these. These laws vary from state to state and even within a state for various agencies such as municipalities, authorities, and spe- cial districts or commissions. In addi. tion to the legal aspects, most municipal agencies am held responsible to the pubfic via the political process. The legal and political responsibilities thus become constraints under which the privatization of municipal facilities oc. curs. While these can be generalized, based on the experience of those who have already moved along the path to privatization, they must be carefully examined on a rase•byrase basis. Tare e four principal reasons why municipal agencies am considering privatization: •Inebilltvto Raise Caolml—Municf- pal agencies must function within a debt limit established by law. Privatize. tion deals have been structured to m - move the financial obligation from this debt limit. • 7hx Incentive Advantages—Under privatization, the service party can take advantage of tax incentives not available to municipal agencies. Providing that the project Is properly structured, a portion of these tax advantages am passed back to We municipal agency via the rate structure established. • Greater Private Sector Efficiency— Because the service party is removed from some of the constraints inherent In a municipal agency Implementing and operating a project, there Is belief, In many rases, that the private sector can operate mom efficiently than the music. ipal agency. • 71ransfer of Risk—Much of the risk for proper operation of the project can be transferred to the service party via the service contract. It should be re- membered, howevac that the private sector will likely charge for the assump. don of transferred risk. Just as them am advantages to pri. vatization, so are them disadvantages For the most part the potential disad. vantages are associated with a loss of control which occurs in privatization. 26 Simply put, the facilities no longer belong to the municipal agency and the only controls it raisins are those in. cluded in the contractural agreement. The areas of control that should be evaluated in structuring a privatization agreement am: • level of service, especially in areas of reliability, safety, and public health risk; • future Increases in costs resulting from conditions which cannot now be fully determined such as the need for characteristics (wastewater treatment). or changes In treatment requirements due to new regulations; • environmental concerns including aesthetics, noise, odors. and dust; • future transfer of facility own. ership; • resolution of disagreements with Iha service party; and • utilization of future construction or operation funding or funding assistance which might become available. A privatization project includes three major technical elements: Fiscal 0 evaluation of allemative financing methods to determine the financial ad. vantages of privatization. Enginearin • establishment of facility require- ments; • development of technical aspects to be included with a Request for Quali- fications fRFQ) and a Request for Pmpo. sals (REP); • evaluation of technical aspects of proposals; and • evaluation ofcontractural perform. Once. Legal • ownership, guarantees, and alloca. tion of risks; • conformance to procurement, bid. ding, and other applicable statutes and requirements; and • contractural terms and conditions. Typically, a project which is to be privatized moves through three distinct phases: • development of conceptual plan to meet these mqufremeots; • preliminary estimate of costs with and without privatization; and • evaluation of alternative routes to Implement the project, including pri. vatization. In the case of a water or wastewater facility, for example, this phase would establish the treatment requirements, characteristics of the raw water supply or wastewater influent, quality require. ments of the treated water, development of a conceptual plan, estimate of capital and operating costs. and analysis of privatization and other forms of financ- ing for a particular project. Contracting Phase • development of selection process procedures; • service party selection; • contract negotiation; and • contract award. The RFQ is generally advertised na. tionally to obtain expressions of inter. est, qualifications, and experience m. cords from private entities interested In submitting a proposal for the project, Based on the response to the RFQ a "short list" of five or fewer fimu is usually developed to submit a detailed proposal. Development of the short Bst recognizes that a considerable amount of time and cost Is usually associated beyond the RFQ submittal. In some states (New Jersey, for example) laws am being developed that will require that LI qualified respondents to the RFQ be permitted to submit a proposal. Some Early ac•vstlon work prod•• oaatrucilon of it, WATEFUEngineedng 6 Management, FEBRUARY 1985 //93 agencies are preparing to meet this m. quirement with a ranking system based on the RFQ response to nolffy, the low. raryking entitles of the unlikeliness of the' being selected. The short-listed firms are issued the RFP. This is a much more detailed docu- ment generally requiring extensive cost and financing Information as well as considerable information on proposed staffing, qualifications and experience of proposed staff, guarantees, and other approaches to contractural terms. After the proposals are submitted, either all or only the highest ranking Parties are interviewed to present addi- tional information and to clarify their held osals.with thearty Contract service negotiation, selected based on the evaluation of the proposals and interview. If a satisfactory agree. merit cannot be reached, these negotia. tions are terminated and new negoda. lions begun with the second -ranked service party. Monitoring Phase There is a most important monitoring Phase. for once the contract has been executed, the municipal agency has an Na PMlect Definition a A new wastewater reclamation facility with a proposed ultimate capacity of 20 mild and an tattled capacity of 5 mild Is to be constructed. a One hundred percent of the treated effluent from the plant win be reused for agricultural and landscape irigadom a The Process selected Is extended aeration activated sludge followed by filtration, with Provisions far higher levels of treatment as may be required by futum muse. a The Project cost is approximately S20 million. ongoing responsibility to assure Com- pliance with the contractural terms. This monitoring phase of the project is extremely Important since most con- tracts will include many "pass- through" costs during the construction and operation of the facilities. Ul. timately, the municipal agency is re. sponsible to the public for the service Party's Performance. AIterative privatization routes exist LZ a municipal agency can enter the process at three points in a project's development, as the figure on page 25 illustrates. -' ,..•r .....wr art osamMra WA11ty, a Pbnesdng aample Of PrtMIMIon In amlon. wATME 41neerin8 A ManaBomeM, FEBRUARY 1885 ry requirements ere a performance specifica. ed with design the respon- service part%t u, rile umailea aesign is complete, the preliminarydesign establishes the basic layout, environmental elements, aes- thetics, architecture, flexibility and re. liability required, plans for future ex• pansion, and increases in treatment level, etc. The service party is responsi. ble for completion of the final design. • After Completion of Final De sigrr—The municipal agency has com. Plate designs prepared, and the process design is subject to review by the service Party to permit it to guarantee perform- ance. Foch method offers different adven• tages and disadvantages. The first method gives the service party the greatest opportunity to construct a facil. ity which it considers would be most cost-efficient. However. it presents diffi- culties In establishing construction costs early in the process and, therefore, less objectivity in selecting the service Party an a cost basis. 11 also affords the municipal agency the least opportunity to control many of the project elements. The third of these offers less Bexibil. Icy to the service party but gives the municipal agency maximum control of Project elements and retains project eli- gibility for potential federal and stale grants fora longer period of time. It also Offers the opportunity for better compar- ison of costs among service paries pro. Post ng on the project because the finan- clal "deal "can be clearly separated from the technical aspects of the project. This method was used by Chandler, and Is a route that many agencies considering Privatization are following. The preliminary design method is a compromise between the two ex. tremes. It is the one utilized by most solid waste resource recovery projects which are privatized. From a municipal agency's perspec- tive, the key to a successful privatization project is the right combination of an. surfing maximum gain from the paten. 27 M chronol treatment facility the administrative The Privatization "(Jeal" September 1981 Wastewater facilities plan Is finalized and 1. PMSI build@, owns, and operates weatewater and engineeringexperts who are expert- approved, reclamation facility. City contracts with PMSI for Chandler offers us a good use study. wastewater treatment service, . - August,1982 Malcolm Plrnis as consultant begins develop• :... About the Author mant of design concept for project and reuse 2. City issues 40-year land lease to PMSL. .. plan.; .. . December 1982 Design concept is completed: consultant rec• 3. PMSl will use cityk(Malcolm Pirate's) plans sed specifications and will reimburse city for P�'3 ommends to mgd Initial rapacity. fees. design tees. 'March,1983 project staffs due m financing concerns. 4. Englnesuing-Science (part of Panum orgeni- Meirh,1983 Malcolm Pirmie begins preliminary design for rati(M) will perform review of process deplore. Atter design review, PMSI will warrant the proc- plant; initial capacity reduced to 5 mgd m cut an design, ' costa. . . May. 1983 consultant works with city staff and financial consultants to prepare data on the feasibility of 5. Ralph M. Parsons Company (Part of Persons organization) will ant r construction menegec - privatization. All elements of the construction will be com- petitively bid. Malcolm Pirie will provide car- July, 1983 City selects investment banking firm to advise feta construction engineering services and PMSI .. . on project financing alternatives. will reimburse city for these services. 1.983. Comrdiam initiates final design. .�..a. operations and mamtenaraw(Otthncondact- -.A 1983- city working with Malcolm Plume,investment ahmwfllbemmpetltivelypmcuredetalea date. �Odober 1983 explores ation. banking and legal approaches methods and approaches of privatization. 7. Service fees d b d m PMSI will be: PV y city 00ohet 1983 '.RFP rallmg for proposals m build, own, and . a. 'A basic charge equive7eatI m debt operate plant designed by city is developed by service for capital cpaR 'Ihiia charge...:, .. bond counsel and reviewed by city andcomul.- will becomputad,based anacnulpmj-: . tents. scttapiralmsts and isnquiiiafantfo city •. 11183 • ` . RFP is issued m all firms which had expressed receivOctober Parad to conventional al municipal muakipal tl-` ......_, '`Interest on private financing, m well es other.: nancing metho& _ Novemher 1983 :.Seven proposals are, received. y •. opereyng-�hatge eyulvalent to .November-1983 Interviews are held with four top-ranked actual O&M costs plus 5 postcard. << .proposers. Citypaya directly Tui major repeli and.re- ; )tlove®her, 2983 Revised RFP is issued after city attorney rules lament cents and must e@ubllah @,fund (or ` that city should not consider attractive propo- sucb. sals presented at interviews without readver- . !Lim& 9. After 25 years, city; bre option to. puroI'm )December; 1983 Revised proposals are received. ... faculty at fair market value or can continue the arrangement at a reduced basic charge . Decemhe;1983 Ranking of top two firms is approved by dty council.. x.`-10:PMS[w(llarh[eve8nencinebyelmrtmrm,:: December 28,1983 Agreement between city and Parson Munici-'. -'tax-fie IDA bonds -< pal Services. Inc. (PMSq is executed. . 1L The Pmsons Cbtporetlon parent company �. December 29 1983 Industrial Development Authority(MA) bond of PMSI guaranteasbonds and performance of i.,:.° - .. ,...... . •,: tele le completed.. .. _.. .,s 'r PMSL tial financial benefits and the minimiza- don of the potential disadvantage of loss of control. These can be obtained when: • The municipal agency fully under- stands the priwtizatlon Process and the options available with and without It. a The RFP Is ramfullY prepared to guarantee proposals which allow selec- don of a qualified service party and enables fair evaluation of the financial benefits being offered. • A contmd Is negotiated which is 29 fair to both parties and clearly defines treatment facility the administrative the service being contracted. Accomplishing these objectives re. body turned to privatization. Highlights of the novel approach taken to Imple- quires input from a team of fiscal, legal, ment this project are shown in the and engineeringexperts who are expert- sidebar. enced with the privatization process. Chandler offers us a good use study. 'this community is a fast-growing sub. urb of Phoenix. To preserve its bonding About the Author capacity for other nods to meet the Garret P. WosterhofL P.E., is vimpresident demands of Its growth and to reduce the of Malcom Plmie, Inc. located in While financing cost of a needed wastewater Plains, New York. WATERIEngineedng 8 management, FEBRUARY 1985 P�'3 Contract service firms are in business to make a profit by selling a broad range of management skills to their clients. Municipal managers can definitely benefit by using them, but should know exactly what these firms have to offer. What to Look for in Contract Service Firms by William A. Callegarl If you are the manager of a municipal water system, wastewater facility, or both, you are probably understaffed, overburdened, and looking for practical solutions to your daily problems. Suc- cessful management is no simple mal - ter, It requires you to have a thorough understanding of state and federal regu. lations, handle everyday affairs and middle -0f -the -night emergencies, while keeping the bottom line cost within budgeted limits. Today, many large and small munici- pal entitles, industrial installations, subdivisions, and real estate develop. ments are solving their utility opera. tions problems by using contract serv. Ice firms. These firms are well -orga- nized businesses whose job is to provide professional services in opera. tions and maintenance of water and wastewater facilities. When the mayor, city council, water board, owner of an Industrial complex, or developer of a subdivision hims a service firm, they become clients of that firm. The customers are homeowners, in- dustrial complex operators, businesses, and citizens who use the water and wastewater facilities. The service firm has obligations to both groups In maintaining good bust. Personnel and equipment can be obtained quickly for emergmcles or urgent requlw mems when contract sarvke fimU an used by municipalities. ness relations with its clients, and m- sponding to the needs of all its custom- ers. Whet is most important is that in more and more cases across the country, contracted services are proving to be less expensive to use than traditional in- house administrative practices. with an in-house stag operating the facility a typical city council or board must cope with problems which range from payroll administration, personnel relations, insurance and retirement pro- grams, to equipment operation and maintenance, vehicle problems, monthly reports for stale and federal agencies, and purchasing material. Since many councils serve on a part- time basis, successfully running a district can easily become a full-time function. It is also necessary for scun - one to be on 24-hour call who is em- powered to make decisions and dale. gate authority In emergency situations. In the event a district Is annexed, the council or board is faced with terminat- ing employees, programming the distri- bution of benefits, administering rethe- ment programs, and even liquidating office equipment, vehicles, and tools. As an alternative, a contract service Rom can be hired to perform all or part of the operational and maintenance func- tions. Under this concept, the time and cost of personnel required for various Wks can be spread out over several different clients. Usually, a service firm will assign on a regular basis one or mom operators to the client to perform normal, day-to-day functions. Highly skilled specialists can be utilized on an as -needed basis, Instead of keeping them on the full-time payroll. Add4 tionally, extra operators and/or mainte. nance personnel and equipment ran be brought in as required. Contractservice firms providing turn. key services generally charge a monthly fee, often based on the number of utility connections. The fee covers cost and overhead requirements for meter read. Ing, billing and collection, day -today operation of the facilities, and the vehi. cles and equipment normally used. Maintenance fees are charged when ad. ditional assistance is needed from non. operating personnel such as mechanics, 26 4/'3 A contract esrvim firm an provide technlally qus(msd personnel for inspection and malntfs not an sn ernesded basis. laborers, or other operators who are not on regular assignment to the clients. Studies of municipal, county, and other governmental activities conclude that private contractors provide mainte- nance and construction services at lower costs than public entities. Effi- ciency is higher, since contract service firms know they can easily be replaced U work is not satisfactory or prices are not within budgets. Finally, the profit motivation, Inherent In private enter- prise, is an excellent Impetus for an efficient and cost-effective operation. 7ypieally, a contract service firm ap- proaches each job from a "total service" standpoint. Experience has proven that. in a short time after a service firm becomes involved in a project, it ban. dies a greater volume of work more efficiently. Service firms have the ability to make improvements to system opera. tions In such a way that using their services is measurably mom cost-effec. five. 7bey also have experience in diag. nosis, troubleshooting, and preventive maintenance which can reduce future unexpected and costly breakdowns. Another advantage is flexibility and, where appropriate, arrangements can generally be made which range from performing single tasks to handling the entire project on a tum -key basis. Different contract service companies will obviously use somewhat dif- ferent approaches to organizational structure. At Am.7bx we concentrate our expertise In four areas: administra- tion, operation, maintenance and repair, and Installation. Administration can be divided Into two categories. 'Me first Includes job costing, wM provides accurate re- cords of expenditures, computer serv- ices, general amounting functions such as payroll, accounts payable, insurance co and other similar Items. preparation of budgets, and periodic review of budget status and cost-contml measures. An- other task is scheduling, to make certain the plant meets requirements appli- cable to local, state, and federal regale- tions—and communicating and coordi- nating with authorities if problems arise. A primary task Is determining what tests need to be nm, what samples need to be taken, and sending the re- sults to the appropriate agencies by the assigned dates. Another administrative hmction is to provide accurate and regular meter reading, billing, and collection. An ex- act audit trail is crucial In administra. tion. Experience has shown that 10-20 percent of the meters in a distributing system are never read. Some have gone undiscovered because they were cov- ered with weeds or builder's debris: some are broken, and other lines are direct -connected with the meters. All of these off-line meters must be reported Immediately. Contract service fines are more likely to have conscientious em. ployees who make every effort to clean out and mad the meters and even make minor repairs, such as the replacement of missing Ilds. A monthly report should be gener- ated after each motor reading, outlining broken or missing meters for replace. ment or repair by maintenance person- nel. It is Important that this be done on a consistent basis to ensure optimum mv- enue to the client. A systematic and efficient check for Inoperative meters can Increase client income by as much az 15-20 percent. Operations is supervised in our sys- tem by a projectmanager who is highly trained and experienced, and has ulti- mate responsibility to the client and the public. His job Is to establish and main- tain smooth and effective interaction with the client, engineering and legal consultants, residents, and regulatory agencies. Responsibilities include col- lection of plant samples, as well as preparation and submission of monthly reports on behalf of the client to state and federal agencies regarding opera- tion of wastewater treatment plants and water systems. He is a licensed operator and generally has a strong engineering, biology andlor construction back. ground. it is to a client's benefit to have an operations team headed by such a manager to ensureplants am being oper- ated at optimum efficiency. Failure to do so can result in legal action against the client, and could result In severe fines for noncompliant treatment plants. 7be project manager is assisted by a chief operator and other operators who are responsible forthe day -lo -day opem- tion of the facilities. It is extremely rare for one manager to capably perform all of these duties by himself. He must be backed up by a well-qualified support staff which includes regulatory special- ists, engineers, construction specialists, and electrical and maintenance special. ists who are technically competent to carry out everyday operations func- tions, as well as special maintenance and construction problems. We break operations into two arem: system and plant. System operation in- volves checking lift stations, treatment plants and water plants, handling every. day preventive maintenance, and open sting collection and water distribution systems. Operators are trained to re- spond to customer problems. Plant operation is supervised by a state -licensed and certified operator who visits the plant on a daily basis. He logs flow dela, checks chlorine m. siduals, tests for solids content, changes chlorine bottles, adjusts packing, greases pumps, and troubleshoots prob- lems. He also monitors Row data, ad- justs operating units In the plant, Is In charge of cleaning, adjusting and lubri- cating the equipment, and directs sludge management. Maintenance and repairapplies to all electrical systems, pumps, and mayor equipment, as well as the complex as- pects of electrical expediting, electrical system calibration, and care of flow measurement equipment. Ibis function also covers water and sewer lines, valves and fire hydrants, relief of sewer block. age, and groundskeeping. In collection system maintenance, where inflltmdon Is a problem, experi- enced professionals check the system using an organized and consistent in. spection program. Ibis Includes direct visual inspection, smoke testing, and TV testing, where needed. Properly planned and carried out, occasionally WATENEngineerinq & Management, FEBRUARY 1995 t�93 Expenahre equlpmem such as thblat tuck an be brought In onty when required; • cat. ~hV benMt of camrsel service Mass. only a small amount of investigative work is required to detect significant inflows of water from outside sources. Prompt detection can prevent the client from making unnecessary and expen. sive repair and facility expansions. For example, through an ongoing infiltra. tion study during a heavy rein, inspec. tion of certain sections can locate prob. lemareas. A repair program can then be instituted which will reduce the load on the treatment plant, helping It operate mom efficiently and at lower cost. Installation is concerned with the construction of water and collection system lines in accordance with city and other applicable codes, the comer. tion of water and sewer taps, and the inspection of both. In planning the con. streclion of these systems, the service firs works with manufacturers of mate• rials and equipment to keep abreast of new materials and methods. This an. sures that the latest technology can be used, with cost -savings and better oper. ational insults for the client. otmct service firms may simply provide personnel to supplement an already existing staff. Alternatively, personnel can be hired to work in par. ticular emas only. A properly organized and 0pmind contract service firm is equipped to provide all the services needed for a full utility department. Any combination of duties can be "mss. tom structured" to meet a particular demand, or can be combined for a cam. plate tum -key service. Whether an entire staff or a single person Is needed, all contract personnel should be backed by the entire facilities of the firm. Services to the client reflect not only the skills of a specific worker, but also include his professional sup- port team. If, for example, an unusual problem should arise on the job, the service firm worker is as far away from additional assistance as a phone call. Since he has access to the entire staff, he can mom than likely take advantage of the experiences of colleagues who have met and solved the problem before. Using this Information, he can apply it to overcome his particular problem effi- clentiy. He then is in a position to reduce expenses and. In many cases, eliminate problems resulting from use of trial -and -error methods. In this same me, a contract service firm worker becomes familiar with the client's system. Familiarity, plus his pro- fessional training and experience to assuming responsibility, means he can usually spot the symptoms of a problem before it assumes catastrophic propor. done. He can look beyond surface can. ditions and make recommendations as to whether repairs will be sufficient, or whether a new part or piece of equip. ment should be purchased. Another example of the cost-effec- tiveness of the outside service firm ran be illustrated by asking, "Why hire a whole manwhen you need shall man?" ff, for instance, a client requires a meter reader only three days per week, he him him from the service firm for that period only, saving the cost of a full. time staff employee. Or lake the case ola small city whose administrators believe it requires two operators for 0 to 10 hours daily, when actually it could achieve the same results using a single operator with suitable back-up person. nal for a normal 8—hour shift. Contract service firms normally have the capability to provide a substantial amount of in-house training to cover all phases of operational and administra. tive work, including safety procedures. In addition to personnel, service firms may have resources to supplement existing equipment. Few clients own all of the specialized equipment and tools necessary for major projects or emer. gency work. But many service firms do. That' have the flexibility which permits them to bring In the proper equipment, tools, and personnel on short notice. WATER/Engineering a MmagomenL FEBRUARY 1985 Cost savings can also be achieved through proper purchasing. A profes. sionally managed service firm has con. sidemble vendor flexibility and the pur- chasing power which comes with buying for several systems or plants. The firm probably has daily contact with a variety of suppliers and the ad. vantage of knowing where to locate Parts and materials, in addition to knowing who offers dependable off. hour and weekend delivery and service. This is invaluable knowledge, espe. cially when extremely severe weather can disrupt operations at any time. A good contract company will pro- vide Its clients with a "bottom-line ca- pon": a summary of reports covering plant operations, effluent quality, water distribution, billing and collection, m. pair activity, and flow records. Management studies ran also be of. fered by the broad-based contract serv. Ice firm. Tlsese outline personnel re- quirements, analyze plant operations, give comparisons, evaluate system Problems, make cost and equipment estimates, and supply appropriate tec- ommandations. B you are considering the use of a service firm for a management study, it is advisable to do considerable check- ing into its reputation. Be certain to contact state officials and previous cB- anls. If the reports confirm that the firm does efficient, professional work at competitive prices and hasgood rapport with its clients, then the service firm will probably perform in the same man. net when it conducts the study. Also, a reputable contract service firm should be able to demonstrate a history ing relations with state and local regula. tory agencies. Having them recognize a service firmis long-standing concern for public health through consistently ac. curate reports and dose commualce- dons can prove to be invaluable to a client if an unforeseen problem arises in his water or wastewater system. In conclusion, a contract firm opor. ates from the standpoint of providing total service. Through their expertise in all phases of admlalstretion, operation, maintenance and repair, and Installa- tion; their clients acquire more cost effective and efficient service then they would by hiring their own personnel. AN About the Author WIIImo A. Callegarl, P.E., la chief execu- tive officer of Am-Ttrx Corporation In Hour ton, Taxns. 31 / ??3 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: February 25, 1985 To: City Council From: Dale Helling, Assistant City Manager Re: FY86 City Council Program Division Statement The FY86 Program Division Statement for the City Council has been revised based upon recent budget discussions (revised copy attached). Please note that three items have been deleted: Gas and Electric Franchises; Hiring of New City Attorney; and cost -benefit analysis for a Joint Human Services Facility. The two former items will be achieved by the end of FY85 while Council decided not to pursue the latter during FY86. The remaining 16 objectives are addressed in the attached memorandum which suggests specific action steps for each. This memorandum should be consid- ered a working draft from which Council will finalize the action steps. This matter is scheduled for discussion at your informal meeting on March 5, 1985. bjl/15 a 'f9T City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: February 28, 1985 To: City Council From: Dale Melling, Assistant City Manager Re: FY86 City Council Objectives - Action Steps The following is a list of 16 major City Council objectives for FY86 and suggestions for each regarding what action steps will occur during FY86 and who will be primarily responsible for carrying these out. It remains the ultimate responsibility of the City Manager to ensure achievement of all action steps assigned to the operating departments. The following is a working draft and all action steps will be finalized after discussion by Council on March 5, 1985. 1. Begin implementation of sewage system facilities. improvements - design and construction. Council will determine construction plan and financing strategies by July 1, 1985. The City Manager and Public Works Director will work with the consultant to complete design of facilities during FY86 and initiate the first phase of construction in the spring of 1986. 2. Complete development plan and begin construction on remaining Urban Renewal parcel. The City Manager and the Director of Planning and Program Development will seek to have a preferred developer named by March 31, 1986, and. beginning of construction by June 30, 1986. 'I9�Z 3 3. Pursue non -property tax revenue sources including local option taxing alternatives. The City Council Legislative Committee will discuss what lobbying efforts will be made in FY86 if the current legislative session yields less than satisfactory local options; or the City Council will decide what alterna- tives for local option taxing, if any, will be pursued in the event such options are made available by the current legislature. 4. Implement plan for addressing space needs in City operations. The Council will adopt a plan by September 30, 1985. If space in an existing building is to be utilized, occupancy will be achieved by June 30, 1986. If new construction is necessary, plans for such construction will be approved by December 31, 1985, and construction underway by June 30, 1986. The City Manager will be primarily responsible. 5. Formulate comprehensive economic development policy. This policy will be adopted by the end of the current fiscal year and implementation will be through First Capitol Development, Inc. in conjunction with participation by the Mayor and City Manager. �f9� 3 6. Develop long-term parking plan. Planning and Program Development staff will continue to work to present a plan for adoption by the City Council by March 31, 1986. 7. Identify and assess current needs for elderly housing facilities. The needs identification and assessment study by the Department of Housing and Inspection Services will be completed by July 1, 1985. If a significant need exists, Council and staff will work to develop strategies for achieving private development of congregate housing i facilities, the strategies to be formulated by September 30, 1985. 8. Finalize short and longer term policies regarding airport development. The Airport Commission will be responsible for adopting these policies in conjunction with City Council funding commitments based on the comprehen- sive economic development plan. 9. Begin implementation of recommendations from the Urban Environment Ad Hoc Committee. Planning and Program Development staff will incorporate recommendations of the Committee, as approved by the City Council, into its operating procedures. This should be achieved by December 31, 1985. J FUND: GENERAL PROGRAM DIVISION STATEMENT DEPARTMENT: CITY COUNCIL PROGRAM: POLICY & ADMINISTRATION DIVISION: CITY COUNCIL CITY COUNCIL PURPOSE: The City Council is a representative body elected by the citizens to formulate City policy and provide general direction to the City Manager for implementation of that policy. CITY COUNCIL GOAL: Establish policy for the City administration to ensure effective and efficient planning and operation of all facilities, services and public improvement programs. CITY COUNCIL OBJECTIVES: 1. Begin implementation of sewage system facilities improvements - design and construction. 2. Complete development plan and begin construction on remaining Urban Renewal parcel. 3. Pursue non -property tax revenue sources including local option taxing alternatives. 4. Implement plan for addressing space needs in City operations. 5. Formulate comprehensive economic development policy. 6. Develop long-term parking plan. 7. Identify and assess current needs for elderly housing facilities. 8. Finalize short and long term policies regarding airport development. 9. Begin implementation of recommendations from the Urban Environment Ad Hoc Committee. 10. Complete feasibility study of home mortgage revenue bond program. 11. Develop street lighting plan. 12. Identify strategies for maintaining current tax base. 13. Adopt policy for parkland acquisition. 14. Adopt minimum open space requirements. 15. Increase legislative committee contacts and activities. 16. Explore feasibility of City -owned electric generating plant. PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT: f the specificncil objectives is measured in is carried out by all performance tof under departments direction andodivisionsCity individually Achievement collec- tively. a 10. Complete feasibility study of home mortgage revenue bond program. Planning and Program Development staff will complete the analysis by July 1, 1985. If the program becomes viable, operating policies will be developed by September 30, 1985, with implementation to follow immedi- ately. 11. Develop street lighting plan. Discussion by Council will be followed by revisions to the current policies if warranted. Preliminary discussion by Council will be scheduled before September 30, 1985, and the revised policy, if appropri- ate, submitted by the Public Works staff for Council approval by March 31, 1986. 12. Identify strategies for maintaining current tax base. This will be pursued in conjunction with A5 above, in cooperation with efforts of the First Capitol Development, Inc. 13. Adopt policy for parkland acquisition. A final policy will be formulated by Parks and Recreation staff to be adopted by Council by September 30, 1985. � 9� 5 14. Adopt minimum open space requirements. This ordinance will be finalized by Parks and Recreation staff to be adopted by Council by September 30, 1985. 15. Increase legislative committee contacts and activities. Council will explore methods for achieving this objective prior to the January 1986 opening of the second session of the current General Assembly. 16. Explore feasibility of City -owned electric generating plant. /sp R Pursuit of this objective will be contingent upon the outcome of renewal efforts of the franchises with Iowa -Illinois Gas & Electric. OY I CITY OF IOWA CITY CHIC CENTER 410 E. WASHINGION Sl IOWA CITY. IOWA ,52MO (319) 3` 6 `K000 February 26, 1985 The Honorable Jean Lloyd -Jones Representative (46th District) State House Des Moines, Iowa 50319 Dear Jean: I wish to acknowledge your enthusiastic support of the local option taxing legislation which was passed as part of the tax plan bill, H.F. 377. The City of Iowa City greatly appreciates your efforts regarding this issue which has remained a high priority item of this City Council for several years. Thank you for your cooperation in this regard. Si cerely, ohn McDonald Mayor bdw/sp cc: City Council o9s" I CITY OF IOWA CITY CIVIC CENTER 410 E. WASHINGTON ST IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 (319) 356-5CSSj February 7.6, 1985 The Honorable Minnette Doderer Representative (45th District) State House Des Moines, Iowa 50319 Dear Minnette: The City Council of Iowa City greatly appreciates your efforts in the House Ways and Means Committee and on the House of Representatives floor in support of local option taxing alternatives. I believe it was largely through your efforts not only in the creation of good workable legislation but also in its promotion among your constituents, that the House of Representatives has passed H.F. 377 including local option taxing alternatives which will benefit not only Iowa cities but also the State as well. This issue has long been one of highest priority for the City of Iowa City. We are always pleased when our representatives in the State Legislature support those same priorities. However, it is particularly gratifying that you have worked as diligently as you have to promote this bill before the legislature. I wish to thank you on behalf of the City Council for your most commendable efforts in this regard. Sincerely, Jh'n McDonald bdw/sp cc: City Council '9s City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: March 1, 1985 To: City Council From: Karin Franklin, Senior Planner Re: Foster Road/Bristol Drive/North Dubuque Road At the the February 12 meeting of the Council, you requested that the staff inquire of Dean Oakes whether he would consider the construction of Foster Road off North Dubuque Road in a westerly direction across the Ackerson's property. He will not acquire the Ackerson's property to the extent neces- sary to construct the road in that alignment nor will he construct the road in that alignment if the City acquires the property. Selection of this alignment would require, therefore, the sole participation of the City in the cost of the project. Assuming that the Council would wish to choose an alignment which Mr. Oakes would participate in the payment of and which would provide adequate traffic circulation in the area yet minimize the use of Bristol Drive, the staff recommends that Alternative M2 be selected. (The memo sent to the Council January 18 including all of the alternative alignments and approximations of their costs is attached.) The costto the City for Alternative k2 would include the realignment of Bristol Drive within the existing right-of-way and extra width paving on Foster Road. The cost of acquiring property to the east of Foster Road may also require City involvement; Mr. Oakes has indicated he is willing to contribute an amount equal to the telephone easement (20') but that he does not feel he should have to purchase land from Mr. Kennedy. The total approximate cost of the project is $13,600 for land acquisition, $6,000 for over -width paving costs and $9,000 for the realignment of Bristol Drive. The staff feels that Alternative A2 will provide adequate circulation for existing development, the Oakes' proposal and future development. It is not anticipated that this alignment will have a significant impact on Bristol Drive, but that Quincent, Oakes Drive and the improved North Dubuque Road will carry a majority of the traffic generated by the proposed Oakes' development. bj4/1 414 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: January 18, 1985 To: City Council From: Karin Franklin, Senior Planner Re: Bristol Drive/Old Dubuque Road Intersection At the Council meeting of December 17, 1984, a request was presented on behalf of Dean Oakes for reconsideration of the Bristol Drive/Old Dubuque Road intersection. Members of the Council reiterated their concern that the road leading north from Old Dubuque Road, known as Foster Road, not become a beltway. The consensus of the Council was to look at possible alternatives to the wide radius turn option in which Foster Road flowed into Old Dubuque Road east of Bristol Drive. The staff was directed to meet with interested property owners in the area and to evaluate each of the alternatives for a future Council meeting. On January 11, 1985, the people listed at the end of this memo met with the staff to discuss the four alternatives presented to the Council. Property owners on either side of "Foster Road" expressed their desire to not lose significant portions of their property to road right-of-way. Residents of Bristol Drive expressed concern regarding existing congestion of Bristol Drive and the desire to prevent increased traffic on their residential street. Mr. Oakes suggested alternative A5 which uses a typical T -intersection for "Foster Road", Old Dubuque Road and Bristol OPive but incorporates a median which prevents through traffic between Bristol and "Foster Road" and allows only right hand turns. Alternative R6 is an additional staff suggestion which has been reviewed by the Traffic Engineer, the Director of Public Works and the Planning staff. Evaluations of each of the alternatives in terms of cost to the City, present and future traffic flow, and the impact on existing properties are presented below. Costs are based on an assumed per acre land cost of $20,000, current paving costs of $100 per lineal foot of concrete for a 28 foot wide street (local), $110 per lineal foot of concrete for a 31 foot 'wide street (collector), and $25 per square yard for median or cul-de-sac construc- tion. Since Mr. Oakes may be able to purchase property to the west of the existing telephone easement lane, land costs include only that property which would need to be acquired from Dr. Kennedy, to the east of the lane. It is also assumed that Mr. Oakes will construct road 1" and dedicate it to the ;ity with the City paying for the paving over 28 feet in width. All costs are estimates and are for comparison purposes only. -2 - Alternative Al Cost: $206,600 The high cost of this alternative is attributable to the cost of improving Old Dubuque Road from the point at which the northerly road would join it to Highway 1 (c. $160,000). This easterly portion of Old Dubuque Road is presently unpaved. This design would provide easy access west and east so that Bristol Drive, although accessible, would not be the most attractive access point to Highway 1. This alternative has a significant impact on Dr. Kennedy's property by requiring the acquisition of nearly one acre of his property. Alternative 02 Cost: Approximately $28,600 Traffic flow from Road "X" to Bristol Drive would be impeded but not prevented by the jog. A vehicle traveling south on Road "X" on a trip west would be required to stop at Old Dubuque Road, turn right and accelerate before deciding to again turn left onto Bristol Drive. At some point Old Dubuque Road east of Bristol Drive may need improvement to discourage eastbound traffic from using the improved surface of Bristol Drive. Land acquisition from the property owner east of Road "X", Dr. Kennedy, would be required. Property owners on Bristol Drive may experience more through traffic. Alternative A3 Cost: $25,800 Again as with Alternative R2, traffic flow from Road "X" to Bristol Drive would be impeded but not prevented by the jog. At some point Old Dubuque Road east of Bristol Drive may need improvement to discourage westbound traffic from using the improved surface of Bristol Drive. Land acquisi- tion from the property owner east of Road "X", Dr. Kennedy, would be required. However, less land would be necessary than that required for Alternative /2. Property owners on Bristol Drive may experience more through traffic. Alternative 14 Cost: $14,900 Traffic from Road "X" is more likely to flow directly to Highway 1 via Bristol Drive with this design than with any of the others. If further development to the north were to take place, traffic on Bristol Drive could increase significantly. fo The impact on the properties to the east and west of the lane will be minimal compared to the other alternatives. However, the impact on the residences on Bristol Drive could potentially be significant if develop- ment beyond Mr. Oakes' proposed 22 dwelling units were to take place and if traffic chose Bristol Drive as the preferred route. Alternative 05 Cost: $15,125 A median has been suggested by Mr. Oakes as shown. This alternative would prevent traffic from flowing from Road 'X" to Bristol Drive. Traffic on Old Dubuque Road would be restricted from any left hand turn movement at this intersection. In the future, if further development were to take place to the north, removal of the median would be recommended to handle increasethe Widening of would be necessary; this coo t isnot includedoaodate the in thetotal median In the short term, the impact of this design on Bristol Drive residents would be negligible. In the future, however, problems would no doubt arise if the median were to be removed after residents of Bristol Drive grew to depend upon its presence. Alternative /6 Cost: $34,900 Bristol Drive would handle only the residential traffic on the street. Through traffic from Road "X" or Old Dubuque Road would be impossible. Old Dubuque Road would handle all present and future traffic from Road "X" and would require improvement to the east at some point. No negative traffic impact should be felt by the residents of Bristol Drive. There would be only one access point to these residences; the cul-de-sac would extend approximately 1100 feet, 200 feet beyond the City's 900 foot limit. However, development of this area is almost complete and consists of 16 single family residences. Secondary access to Bristol Drive may not be necessary. The material presented to the Council is being forwarded to all residents of Bristol Drive and to the people listed below. cc: Dean Oakes Kay b Kent Ackerson, owners of property on N. Dubuque Road Dr. J. R. Kennedy, 1811 N. Dubuque Road Joey Braverman, 1425 Bristol Drive Nick Cilek, 1510 Bristol Drive Ji .� � Y.•` "`� X� I �If -I.j.i -amu;' :. I�u �� "�� •1/'-•_ , . . ,il 1�� fl• i. :�� :• %�'' 1• 1 . I 1111. NI,�l j / "n.b -:�11 /,�,, �..�:�. , C �' � ,�'�,� � � ,. ,Ill,• 1 i�/�/'//�-y/L.,�/Q, i:' Y •...� •• in '/ 111���:11L tea• - '/' / �:. �,1�. I 1 , I` 2rr.2 :/ / Vii. �, 'ii� i:' 'l,"`�\ •`: \'',V'\ iL\: `' s j .ap• ALTERNATIVE #1. -INTERSECTION WITH BRISTOL DRIVE '\ -0\ J i 4 I.y I � l`C�:ti.\ e!7II II V •\ �\ '� .. � .I .i •'ice •( / 1! liI Iar �•\,' i, , -__ _ a •• •�2r,•D j„ i 7 k • I • � 1I/11' i; l � I�f `' �`�`\`� . ai [ /.� \\ ••', 268.9 / C ' �. : �\ .�, a �•c T .. ! I j :. I �,` a oIF L ALTERNATIVE N2 -INTERSECTION AT N. DUBUQUE ROAD, 125' EAST OF BRISTOL DRIVE i 0 / 104 \l ^C3 p o� � °I •LL �► ALTERNATIVE 93 -INTERSECTION AT N. DUBUQUE ROAD 100' EAST OF BRISTOL DRIVE i n 110 L ICKC - - - -- - - - - - THE #4 INTERSECTION AT BRISTOL DRIVE i o 'I 1 -- o/ / � ALi RNATIVE �5 INTERSECTION T BRISTOL DRIVE / v X96 n r: bNTEaSECTION ALTERNATIVE T BRISTOL DRIVE �. I I \ Li 1 010 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: February 28, 1985 To: City Council From: Karin Franklin, Senior Planne Re: Mandatory Open Space Ordinance At the Council's request, the draft of the mandatory open space ordinance was sent to the major developers in Iowa City for their input. Verbal comments Board of Realtors. A synopsis of those comments and a revised draft were received from Bruce Glasgow, Larry Schnittjer of MMS Consultants and the of the ordinance will be prepared for the Council's informal meeting of March 19. In order to move toward resolution of this issue, it would be helpful if the Council would decide at that time to refer the ordinance to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission for consideration and recommendation, or to dismiss the issue. cc: Al Cassady bj3/19 1�97 i 0 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: February 27, 1985 To: City Council From: Rosemary Vitosh, Director of Finance Re: Financial Policies for the Operating Budget Iowa City was in the forefront in its adoption of a formal fiscal policy in 1973. That policy dealt with capital expenditures. A recommendation from the recent review of Iowa City's budget for the Distinguished Budget Presen- tation Award was that specific financial policies which guide the preparation of the operating budget should be stated in the budget document. This was provided in the proposed budget under the section entitled Financial Policies for the Operating Budget. These policies are not new, but are a summation of the policies used in past years. The two major items in the policy statement deal with the preparation of a balanced budget such that: 1) available resources and anticipated expenditures are equal; and 2) the year-end unreserved balance is maintained at a level which will fund cash flow requirements in the first quarter of the following fiscal year. Review of these policies is scheduled for your informal meeting on March 5, 1985. It is recommended that the City Council adopt these policies at the same time that the Operating Budget is approved (March 12, 1985). A copy of the Policies as they appeared in the Proposed Budget is attached. bdw/sp Enclosure FINANCIAL POLICIES FOR THE OPERATING BUDGET SCOPE The purpose of this section is to present the policies that the City of Iowa City follows in managing its financial and budgetary affairs for the Operating Budget. The funds involved are the General fund, the Debt Service fund, the Enterprise fund, the Trust and Agency fund - Pension and Retirement, the Intra - governmental Services fund, and the Special Revenue fund. Most of these policies are not new, but repre- sent long-standing principles and traditions which have guided the City in the past and have allowed the City to maintain its financial stability. POLICIES I. Balanced Budget 1. The operating budget of the City of Iowa City shall be drawn so that available resources and anticipated expenditures are equal. 2. The City will maintain an unreserved balance at year-end at a level determined by Council to fund cash flow requirements in the first quarter of a fiscal year. II. Revenues 1. Property Taxes A. General Tax Levy The budget of the City of Iowa City shall be drawn so that the general tax levy does not exceed limits established by State law. B. Debt Service Levy Taxes shall be levied each year under the Debt Service Levy in the amount equal to the general obligation principal and interest due in that same year, net of the portion abated or paid by the enterprise funds. C. Tort Liability Levy The City levies for the expected costs of one year's premiums on property and liability insurance policies held by the City. D. Trust and Agency Levy The City shall levy under Trust and Agency for: 1. The City's share of contributions to police and fire pension and retirement systems, at rates determined by an actuary, for current sworn officers. 2. The City's share of contributions for employee benefits budgeted under the General Fund only if the general tax levy is equal to the maximum levy established by State law. E. Transit Levy Taxes levied under the transit levy shall not exceed the limit established by State law. Tax revenues from the transit levy will be receipted into the General Fund then transferred to the Transit Fund. 2. Fees and Charges The City will establish fees and charges in accordance with revenue bond requirements or for covering all or part of the related costs of providing the services. 3. Investments The City will invest 100% of idle funds and will obtain the best possible return on all cash investments within the limits of the State law. 4. Intergovernmental Revenue Revenues from local, State and Federal governments will be used according to the restrictions or intent placed on each. E 5. Additional Revenue Sources V The City will continue to search for additional revenues as a method of balancing its budget. III. Expenditures f 6 1, Current Service Level Maintaining the current level of services will receive first priority for funding. 2, Cost Effective Programs l` The City will encourage technology and capital investment programs which are cost effective and reduce operating expenses. 2 i 3. Infrastructure and Equipment The City will continue the scheduled level of maintenance and replacement for its infrastructure and equipment. 4. Reductions To balance the budget, the City will attempt to avoid reductions. If the situation arises, consid- eration will be given first to alternatives which avoid employee layoffs, resist cuts in service and establish user fees. IV. Economic Development The City will take active measures to encourage economic development of the community with the intent of increasing jobs and the tax base. V. Debt Service 1, Purpose of Debt Debt will fund capital improvement projects; it will not be used for annual operating expenses. 2. Debt Limit The total general obligation debt will not exceed 5% of the total assessed value of real property. 3 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: February 22, 1985 To: Chuck Schmadeke, Director of Public Works From: James Brachtel, Traffic Engineer Re: Status - Streetlight 700 Block of Miller Avenue The City Council had referred a request regarding the installation of an additional streetlight in the 700 block of Miller Avenue. In January of 1985 a postcard survey was conducted of those residents that would be affected by this proposed installation. The responding residents concurred that a streetlight would be desirable. At the end of January 1985 a letter was sent to Iowa -Illinois Gas & Electric Company requesting the installation of a 175 watt rpercury vapor streetlight. Recent phone conversations with Iowa -Illinois has indicated that the instal- lation has been placed upon their work schedule for the week beginning 18 February 1985. This work schedule is contingent upon weather conditions and other related work efforts. - Should you have additional questions or require additional information, please don't hesitate to contact me. bdw2/3 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 Aril October98984 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 n January 1985 waspor lh. $470105t Thehestimated costdditional system orFY1985 will be $6,110. Soo 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. bj3/1 500 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: February 26, 1985 To: Iowa City City Council From: James Schoenfelder, Energy Coordinator Dale Helling, Assistant City Manager Re: Iowa City Energy Conservation Program Last year the City of Iowa City received a $67,018 refund from Iowa - Illinois for utility overcharges. It would be appropriate to use this money to implement an energy conservation program which will save a considerable sum of money over the next several years and into the future as well. In addition, the City has the unique opportunity to use this money to participate in an Iowa Energy Policy Council cost share program for local governments which will, through use as matching funds, turn this $67,018 into a $157,960 fund for implementation of Energy Conserva- tion Measures (ECM's) for the City of Iowa City. The following pages represent a summary outline of an energy conservation program proposed to be submitted to the Iowa Energy Policy Council for 50% cost sharing should the City Council approve the application. The total proposed budget is $157,960 of which Iowa City would pay half or $78,980; $11,980 of which is in-kind personnel services and $67,000 of which is from the utility overcharge refund. Each program proposal is listed on page 4 with associated costs. A brief description of each program follows the listing. Several of these descriptions reference attachments which have not been included with this packet since they are quite bulky and are merely support data. Two things which relate to the attached descriptive materials should be noted. First, the $5,600 proposed to explore use of methane can be used to fund that portion of the consultant's work which relates to this question. It has been the City's intent from the beginning to explore this possibility as part of any redesign of the existing plant. Second, the list of identified EMCs contains those low cost and major cost items previously identified but not implemented due to lack of available funds. A few may have recently been completed and these will be identified during the technical audit process. The vast majority remain to be completed and represent substantial energy cost savings potential for the City. This material summarizes the Energy Conservation Program we are proposing. The first three pages are from an earlier memo which has been included simply as a review of the history of the Iowa City energy program. Page 4-21 represent the proposed future program. tp3/1 Sol City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: June 28, 1984 To: Iowa City City Council From: -Richard Webb, Energy Coordinator Dale Heiling, Assistant City Manager Re: Energy Program Update (City Conservation Fund d Franchise Fee) The City of Iowa City energy program has evolved over the last six years as a result of three basic decision crossroads. It may very soon face another. It is the objective of this brief discussion to review the energy program history and to outline the forthcoming decision issues. The st decisin on cil made was torrecognize the need itonlocallylmanageaand hplan wfor ergy City nresource conservation in a prudent and wise manner. Mr. Ira 8olnick, then Director of IPIRG (Iowa Public Interest Research Group), voluntarily identified some simple ways that energy could be conserved at the Civic Center in mid -1977. Almost a year later Councilmember Carol DeProsse drafted, presented, and obtained approval for an ordinance that established the Resources defined Commission and remassot day:(RCThe Commission shalleexercises were r ather broadlydefined responsibility for the development of resource conservation policies and shall pay special attention to long-range planning and programming' (Ord. /77-2829) A quarter -time staff position was created to provide assis- tance to the Commission. In the spring of 1978, the City's Community Development Block Grant application proposed an energy specialist to do public awareness and other energy related programs. The City received the grant and the Energy Coordinator position was created, a full-time position with a 30% General Fund contribution. An infra -red heat scanning camera was purchased to in- ventory residential structures for heat loss and preliminary data for a community energy plan was gathered. By FY80 the Energy Coordinator's budget reached $30,000, 70% from the CDBG program. In FY80 two pilot solar demonstration projects were constructed. A liquid solar hot water heating system was installed at 742 Dearborn and an attached passive solar greenhouse was erected at 633 Reno. Both have given evidence that these types of conservation technologies work well for the Iowa City area. The open house seminars which followed their completion were well attended. The second major decision for the energy program occurred toward the end of FY80. Discontinuation of CDBG funding, along with a perceived need to conserve more energy within City government operations turned the program to focus on internal goals. The City Council authorized funding of the program totally from the General Fund. The infra -red scanning and community energy planning activities were dropped. During FY81 walk- through audits were conducted for all major municipally -owned structures that were heated or cooled. .576/ Page 2 Energy conservation measures (ECMs) were identified and categorized by cost of implementation, and paybacks were calculated. Follow-up moni- toring visits since FY81 have indicated that a significant majority of those ECMs categorized as "no -cost" and "low-cost" (less than $400) have been implemented. For example, of eight larger buildings chosen on the basandisof 118 low-cost consistency conseof use rvation measures availability of energy data, 44 no-costhabit changes and mechanical system adjustments/improvements. Of those 68 (42X) have been documented as completed in the follow-up visits. The total cost of these measures was under $3,500. This does not include the approximate $50,000 cost for Civic Center HVAC system improvements which replaced an obsolete system. More important than raw numbers, however, is the degree to which these measures have improved the respective buildings' energy efficiency. The most common evaluation process used to identify increased energy effi- ciency is the Efficiency Index (EI) -total energy divided by total building square feet which is then divided by weather degree days. For the same eight larger buildings considered above, the average E.I. for increase of 36% which was 32.22. In Ytranslates into a83 the E.I. had n FY83dusavingsced to 2of5f44an efficiency 0 based on weather and then current energy costs. This represents the annual savings for only eight of the City's 22 heated and cooled structures of over 1,000 square feet in size, and the savings from minimal levels of investment. Additionally, it represents the savings of one fiscal year only. FY84 savings will be larger because utility costs have increased 20% so far. A majority of the no -cost measures have been completed. Divisions can continue implementing low-cost and capital -cost ECMs, but only with some additional financial support. The City's conservation investment during FY81 and 82 in the energy program has more than returned itself. However, because many of these measures are habit changes or maintenance programs and because personnel changes occur over time, continuous monitoring visits are warranted to prevent any erosion of accomplishments. In FY83 the Energy Coordinator was reduced to a half-time position. This decisAudition monitoringed the visitstanddResourcor eslConservation Commissiodecision for the n staffing the primary purposes now. In addition, monthly Efficiency Index reports to all user divisions have been initiated. However, this leaves little or no time for documenting savings on special projects, evaluating capi- tal -intensive conservation measures, or providing any public informa- tion/outreach. The fourth energy policy decision the City Council may face very shortly will involve both the City government energy program as well as a community focus on energy issues. As previously mentioned, City departments and divisions could greatly improve their rate of implementing low-cost and capital -cost conservation measures if additional funding were available. This could be accomplished with a reserve fund in the Energy Conservation budget. Any disbursement could be individually approved by the City Manager provided that the conservation measure has a significant payback and represents a successfully tested technology. The attached analysis of Fire Department apparatus room heating retrofits has such payback potential. The attached letter from Police Chief Miller on the Animal Shelter regarding an overhead door replacement is another example of the need for seed money to implement cost effective ECMs. 501 Page 3 The community focus involves the soon to be renewed electricity and natural gas franchise. The energy element of municipal and commu- nity/economic development should be further emphasized and its importance in local growth recognized. At the i% of revenues level, a franchise fee would be sufficient to fund and staff the above discussed municipal program (remembering that City conservation is indirect public conserva- tion) as well as a community focused program. An outline of conservation programs identified by the ad hoc Franchise Committee is attached. Obviously, an affirmative stance on the franchise fee issue represents a Council philosophy that would return the energy program, in part, to that of having community -oriented goals. This would be a -positive dove in light of ever-increasing energy costs and increased local energy awareness. While Council would not want to make any long-term decisions regarding the future direction and scope of the energy program until final determina- tions are made on the issue of a franchise fee, there are higher cost ECMs already identified which will yield a significant payback and future savings. These should be implemented, with discretion, as soon as possible. An appropriation for financing these measures would be cost effective, even if no franchise fee revenue becomes available. This will be raised during budget discussions for FY86. In addition, Council is encouraged to consider an amendment to the FY85 budget for this same purpose. The City has recently received from Iowa -Illinois Gas E Electric refunds totaling $67,018.06 for all City operations. This is unanticipated revenue of which a portion (or all) could be set aside to finance the ECMs referred to above. The amount receipted into the general fund is $29,247.55, while various enterprise funds will receive amounts ranging from $26,049.08 (Water) and $7,677.26 (Pollution Control) to $38.84 (Assisted Housing). The revenue from these refunds receipted into enterprise funds could be placed in reserve for funding ECMs in those divisions only while the remainder could be appropriated for those which are identified in divi- sions operating out of the general fund. Ail expenditures would be approved by the City Manager and none would be appropriated until a new Energy Coordinator is on board and available to verify cost-effectiveness. It is anticipated that a new Energy Coordinator will be employed and working by early August. In the interim, if Council is interested in this funding concept, time can be scheduled for informal discussion during July. Staff recommends that Council seriously consider this option. It is interesting to note that the per unit cost for natural gas rose 128% from FY78 to FY83, while the City's expenditures rose only 91%. For electricity the per unit cost rose 89% for the same period, while the City's cost rose 100%. Neither of these figures takes into account any of the expansion of facilities and services during that time, such as lighting, heating, and air conditioning for new buildings, additional street lights and traffic signals, increased volumes of water and waste- water treated, acquisition of a City computer, etc. bdw/sp 50/ n So i J IOWA CITY ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAMS PROPOSAL Outside City Project Material Consultant Personnel Total 1. Computer d Software $5,500 $600 $6,100 2. EMS Interface 2,500 80 2,580 3. Flue Gas Analyzer 1,500 1,500 a. Training 300 300 b. 1st Year Adjustments 100 1,400 1,400 4. Light Meter 100 100 5. EMS Senior Center 14,300 100 14,500 6. ECM Identified 110,000 2,200 112,200 7. Complete TA's 500 2,000 2,500 8. Home Heating Index 350 400 800 1,550 9. Water Power 300 2,830 400 3,530 10. Methane Landfill 300 3,000 1,100 4,400 11. Methane Sewage Trt. 300 3,500 1,800 5,600 12. intra -City Shared Savings 500 1,200 1,700 $136,250 $9,730 $11,980 $157,960 So i J COMPUTER AND SOFTWARE AND EMS INTERFACE: Over the last five years the City of Iowa City has developed and implemented an energy conservation program with only limited access to computer hardware and software. Several attempts were made to computerize aspects of the program but were largely unsuccessful. Poor hardware accessibility and no sophisticated software were the primary stumbling blocks. Computers had to be time shared with a local vendor or rented at the public library. Terminal access was not easy. Energy-related software was unavailable for the machines used. Software had to be programmer generated which severely limited program development. The computer was little more than an electronic file cabinet and calculator, Today these programs are essentially outdated and useless. Sophisticated, powerful and user friendly personal computers are entering all sectors of the business world. These personal computers are easily pro- gramned and generally have many canned programs interchangeable with one another. The Energy Coordinator's office is endeavoring to secure a personal computer dedicated solely to energy management and conservation. The computer chosen would not only perform analysis and data storage functions, but would also interface with the two existing Honeywell W700 Energy Manage- ment Systems and a third proposed EMS. Future EMS equipment would also be intergenerated into the system. This would give the Energy Coordinator immediate access to individual building performance data. Other computer applications are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Passive solar systems analysis. Active solar systems analysis. Building heat gain and heat loss analysis. Life cycle cost analysis. Building annual energy use calculations. HVAC system performance calculations.. Building Energy Index calculations with monthly graphical representation. Lighting design calculations. Residential buildings Energy Index calculations and data storage. Demand limiting simulations. Variable speed drive motor simulations. Car pool rider interfacing. Iowa City is requesting $8,680.00 for the purchase and installation of computer hardware and software with a small amount of in-house programmer time. Also purchased and installed would be a Honeywell communication model for two existing Energy Management Systems (EMS) units and one proposed EMS. sol i FLUE GAS ANALYZER: The City of Iowa City owns sixty-eight buildings (excluding schools) which are heated and/or heated and cooled. Of these, twenty-three are considered major energy users and most use natural gas for heat. In 1983 Iowa City spent approximately $107,000 for heating with natural gas. If the City, through quarterly flue gas checks, could keep the combustion equipment more efficient by only two percent, the annual savings would be $2140. Presently the City has no equipment with which to analyze combustion. The City must depend on an outside contractor to maintain the combustion equipment not always assured that combustion analysis was done or done accurately or at frequent intervals. It is our intention in this program to purchase flue gas analysis equipment and train City maintenance personnel to use the equipment. In addition, this equipment and personnel could be shared with the school district, if appropriate, to dramatically increase savings. Iowa City is requesting $3,200.00 for the purchase of flue gas equipment, training personnel, and the first years cost of burner adjustments for twenty-three buildings. $o/ LIGHT METER: Reducing excessive levels of illumination is an important energy conservation measure. In existing structures the only practical way of determining excess j illumination is by direct metering. Direct metering can also be used to j quantify natural daylighting contribution in order to establish switching priorities and the necessity of automatic light controls. A light meter can i also be an educational tool to help city employees understand and visualize various illumination levels. The Iowa City Energy Coordinator will use a light meter to help promote energy conservation in lighting for the various I ; buildings owned and operated by the City of Iowa City. Iowa City is requesting $100 for the purchase of a direct read light meter. 0 570 / i EMS FOR SENIOR CENTER: In 1983 a comprehensive investigation was conducted into the energy savings potential of an Energy Management System (EMS) for the Iowa City Senior Center. With the cooperation of Honeywell Controls and Iowa -Illinois Gas b Electric company it was found that at a minimum one could expect a $2100 annual energy savings. Since that time considering the average annual fuel escalation, one could expect to save $2,487 in 1985. With an estimated installation cost of $14,500 this represents a 5.8 year simple payback, a very good investment. Since the Senior Center was not a part of the 1981 TA review and since this money can still be budgeted for fiscal year 185, it has been here included as a separate conservation program. Iowa City is requesting $14,500.00 for the acquisition and installation of a Honeywell W702OG with communication modual for the Senior Center. $O/ COMPLETE TA'S ON 18 MAJOR BUILDINGS: On December 24, 1981 the City of Iowa City contracted with Gene Gessner Inc. to conduct TA services for thirteen buildings. The contract amount was for $14,905 and was to be cost shared with the Iowa Energy Policy Council and the U.S. Department of Energy. The contract was terminated and only $6,580.20 paid to the engineer with several areas of deficiencies being cited. It is the intent of the City of Iowa City to upgrade the thirteen unfinished TA's plus conduct new TA's on five additional buildings. These TA's will be upgraded by a Certified Class A Auditor and licensed professional architect currently on staff with the City of Iowa City. The thirteen TA audits to be upgraded are: 1. Recreation Center 2. Civic Center 3. Water Treatment Complex 4. Water Service Building 5. Pollution Control Plant 6. City Park Maintenance Building 7. Mass Transit Barn 8. Municipal Services Building 9. West Side Lift Station 10. West Side Fire Station 11. Southeast Fire Station 12. Cemetery Office Building 13. Airport Terminal The five additional structures to be audited are: 1. Senior Center 2. Animal Shelter 3. Davis Building 4. Municipal Services Equipment Garage 5. Streets/Sanitation Module Iowa City is requesting $2,500.00 to complete TA's for 13 buildings and conducting five new TA's using certified City personnel. Sal RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS ENERGY INDEX: Presently the City of Iowa City calculates a Monthly Energy Index on seven- teen municipally owned buildings. The index has pror.n quite useful in identifying energy wasteful buildings and for giving department heads comparative data on their buildings as opposed to other buildings. The attachegraphs are wishesmptosbetterthe inform zits Becausex. this citizens about thesuccess energy use characteristics of residential and commercial buildings, the City of Iowa City wishes to implement an energy index reporting requirement for residen- tial and commercial buildings sold within its corporate limits. The City of Iowa City already requires every new or remodeled building in Iowa City to be reviewed by a registered architect or engineer to assure compliance with the Iowa Energy Code. The information generated in this review should be sufficient to calculate the Estimated Energy Index with little or no additional work or cost. Existing buildings put on the market can also be easily evaluated. Real estate agents and the Multiple Listing Service presently collect all data on square footage and type of heating and cooling system. Iowa -Illinois Gas d Electric Company offers free of charge to any owner who requests it a five year energy use history of their struc- ture including quantity of usage, cost and degree day information. From this information a simplified Energy Index can be calculated. Implementing this type of program will benefit Iowa Citians in two major ways. First, it will inform consumers of the relative energy efficiency of the building they are about to purchase as compared to other buildings of similar type, use and size. Secondly, it will tend to increase the overall energy efficiencies of the buildings in Iowa City since owners know that the Energy Index will be a factor in a potential buyer's decision. Iowa City is requesting $1,550.00 to investigate and develop the concept of a residential and commercial building index for structures sold in Iowa City with the intent of implementation through City ordinance. Sr ]00 90. 80 70 60 10, a 30 j`IQQ 20 7 '- ? 10 b '•10NTIiL1 BERG)USE SUMMARY FOR - (Pi vi.; Oeut.) CIVIC CENTER Location 410 E Washington Date ; Four Yr. Summary F.Y. 80-83 The EFFICIENCY INDEX represents the level of utilization for the energy purchased. The smaller the number the better the utilization. This INDEX will reflect conservation efforts including weatherization, maintenance of heating and cooling equipment, or lack thereof. I 1 � I t I I I 1 I - 1 1 L1 49.9) 710( 51 -(otAL $ KE. IMA -F.Y. 80 $28,101,68 50.98 [0 70 -F.Y. 81 n $30,869.66 37.11 10 F.Y. 82 $32.694.39 19.14 F.Y. 83 $31.302.13 15.82 T --. > m Assuming 180 Use at 183 cost and weather the '83 charge would have been $59,816.15 - SAVINGS $28,514.02, j( i MONTY EL'ERGY USE SUMMARY FOR •' - (Oivi..Dept.) -,CIVIC CENTER r.L Location 410 E Washington Date ; Four Yr. Swnnary F.Y. 80-83 The EFFICIENCY INDEX represents the level of utilization for the energy purchased. The smaller the number the better the utilization. This INDEX will reflect conservation efforts including weatherization, maintenance of heating and cooling equipment, or lack thereof. 10 100 90 F.Y. 80 Tot. BTU's 62.93 x 108 70 Ave./Mo. 5.244 x 108 6D F.Y. 50 {_ Tot. BTU's 58.174x 108 40 Ave./Mo. 4.85X 108 F.Y. R7- 30 Tot. BTU's 40.672 x 108 20 Ave./'4o. 3.39 x 108 F. r:' 110 4— Tot. BTU's 34.23 x 108 Ave./'lo. 2.852 x 108 90 80 70 60 ' 0 81 0 50 --- 80. i l� o 40 ;• � 30 �� f 8 /83 w 20 10 100 90 F.Y. 80 Tot. BTU's 62.93 x 108 70 Ave./Mo. 5.244 x 108 6D F.Y. 50 {_ Tot. BTU's 58.174x 108 40 Ave./Mo. 4.85X 108 F.Y. R7- 30 Tot. BTU's 40.672 x 108 20 Ave./'4o. 3.39 x 108 F. r:' 110 4— Tot. BTU's 34.23 x 108 Ave./'lo. 2.852 x 108 i WATER POWER: Located on the Iowa River, Iowa City could potentially benefit from three local dams. The largest dam is the Corps of Engineers structure backing up the Coralville Reservoir. Although this dam is a flood control structure and not for power generation, it does provide a fairly constant year-round river flow to the two lower dams. The second dam is the Iowa -Illinois Gas 8 Electric Co, dam located in Coralville originally designed and used for electrical power generation. The dam and original facilities are still located at the site although abandoned and partially sold off to private developers. The City of Iowa City has applied for the water use rights at this site. The third dam is the University of Iowa power dam located at the intersection of Highway 6 and Burlington Street. This dam also was used for electrical power generation. It is not anticipated that this dam would be converted to city use at this time. Perhaps a joint City/University demon- stration project could be initiated. Iowa CIty is requesting $3,530.00 to conduct a feasibility study for using water power for the generation of electricity at the Coralville (City) dam site. ✓9/ P A METHANE GAS FROM LANDFILLS: The current active Iowa City landfill has recently had test wells sunk to determine methane gas content. Little gas is presently available for recovery purposes. Two older landfills may be a different story but no evaluations of these sites have been made. The Sturgis area landfill seems promising since methane gas was discovered during the construction of the Iowa City Transit Facility on the old landfill site. Since there is a City building complex on this site with large requirements for hot water for equipment and bus washing and for heating and electricity, this may be a cost effective application for methane recovery. Iowa City is requesting $4,400.00 to conduct a feasibility study for the recovery of methane gas at the Sturgis landfill site for the generation of electricity and/or direct combustion for heating water and space condition- ing. 5DI METHANE FROM SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT: Several years ago (1977) the Iowa City pollution control plant attempted to recover the methane by-product from the sewage digesters for space heating and digester heating. Because the methane was of a high sulphur content, the combustion chambers and heat exchangers for the space heating were destroyed within two years. The space heating application was abandoned; however, the digester heating application was retained. Sewage gas is used at the present time to heat three digesters. Sewage gas is mixed with utility gas for combustion purposes. No sewage gas is stored so excess sewage gas must be burned off and not used. A study conducted in 1976 indicated use of natural gas for space heating and/or power generation was not cost effective. Gas costs were estimated as $.014 per CCF in 1976. Current gas costs are almost four times that amount. A new investigation is certainly warranted because of higher energy costs and PURPA regulations requiring utilities to buy small generator power. Iowa City is requesting $5,600.00 to conduct a feasibility study for the recovery of methane from the sewage digesters at the pollution control plant for generation of electricity and/or direct combustion for space and digester heating. $o/ •INTRA -CITY SHARED SAVINGS PROGRAM: The City of Iowa City started its energy conservation program in earnest after 1979. In fiscal year 1979 the annual energy use for buildings and environmental control represented approximately 41% of the total energy cost. This equated to approximately 26.79 billion BTU's at a cost of $187,530 or $7.00 per million BTU's. Between 1980 and 1983 the city embarked on low cost/no cost energy conservation measures which, as shown in the sampling of eight of the twenty-three major buildings, resulted in a savings of approxi- mately 36%. The attached table shows the associated energy costs and savings from 1979 to 1984 and projected beyond to 1989. The accumulated sum of savings through 1989 using 1979 as the base year, assuming a no growth scenario, shows a savings of $1,275.508. The low cost/no cost energy conservation measures (EOM's) savings can be documented thru 1984; however, to achieve the future projected savings more costly ECM's must be imple- mented. The future projected savings between 1985 and 1989 assume only ECM's with a seven year or less simple payback will be implemented. Based on an assumption of an additional 20% savings between '84 and '89 and a seven year simple payback, the amount of money to be spent on ECM's is $280,065. Of course this number is based on a no growth of services scenario. If an annual average growth of services is estimated at 5%, this figure increases to $357,442 by 1989. In short, the City of Iowa City should budget $357,442 to be spent between now and 1989 on EOM's to maintain a reasonable energy conservation program. The question becomes how is this program funded. The Energy Coordinator suggests a type of shared savings program. Looking again at the Energy Savings Profile table it can be seen that compared to the base year 1979, the City is saving $160,489 in 1986. If half of the projected savings is budgeted for an ECM, the City still saves $80,245. Budgeting half of each years savings from 1986 to 1989 generates $384,045 for ECM's while the accumulated savings 1979-89 changes to $891,465. This money would be budgeted to the Energy Conservation Program for distribution to the various City departments according to the best return on investments for ECM's. Iowa City is requesting $1,700.00 for the development, implementation and management of an internal shared savings program. �P/ *Actual energy conservation based on eight sample buildings showing an average 36% reduction in energy use. $0/ CITY OF IOWA CITY ENERGY SAVINGS PROFILE (Buildings Only; No Growth Scenario) Annual j Energy Annual Annual Cost Energy Cost Annual Accum. j Energy Us; Energy Cost No ECMs with ECMs Savings of Savings Year BTU x 10 S/Million BTU $ $ f $ 1979 26.79 7.00 187,530 187,530 0 0 80 24.38 8.02 214,856 195,528 19,328 19,328 81 21.97 9.04 242,182 198,609 43,573 62,901 82 19.56 10.06 269,507 196,774 72,733 135,634 83 17.15* 11.08 296,833 190,022 106,811 242,455 I 84 16.58 12.10 324,159 200,618 123,541 365,986 85 16.01 13.12 351,485 210,031 141,434 507,420 86 15.44 14.14 378,811 218,322 160,489 667,909 87 14.87 15.16 406,136 225,429 180;707 848,616 88 14.30 16.18 433,462 231,374 202,088 1,050,704 89 13.72 17.20 460,788 235,984 224,804 1,275,508 *Actual energy conservation based on eight sample buildings showing an average 36% reduction in energy use. $0/ IDENTIFIED ECM's: Over the past five years the Iowa City Energy Coordinator has conducted both certified and informal TA audits of various City -owned buildings. The certified TA for thirteen buildings is included in Attachment H. Also included in Attachment H are the several memoranda sent to the various department heads outlining the ECM's appropriate to their facilities. Included in this section is a summary of the suggested ECM's. So/ i BUILDING Recreation Center Civic Center Nater Treatment Plant Pollution Control Plant City Park Maintenance ECM's SUMMARY ECM DESCRIPTION ECM COST_ a) Put restroom exhaust fans on time clock. $600 3,360 b) Install hot water boiler outside temp. reset. dampers. 2,220 c) Replace old dampers with new low leak 784 d) Replace standard fluorescent tubes with energy saver tubes. e) Replace 20 locker room incandescent fixtures 1,381 with fluorescent fixtures. f) Replace incandescent fixtures in exercise room 442 with fluorescent fixtures. g) Replace incandescent exterior lighting with 1,197 high pressure sodium fixtures. Install refctive lartdows Install heat recoverylequipmenteonalockeror room i 3,500 exhaust fans. J) Replace incandescent fixtures in social hall 1,360 high pressure sodium. k) Replace gymnasium incandescent fixtures with 11,285 metal halide lights. a) Install time clock on hot water recirculating 600 pump. b) Install time clock on restroom exhaust fans. 600 600 c) Separate light switch and exhaust fan in firing range. d) Replace exterior fire station incandescent 589 fixtures with high pressure sodium fixtures. 874 e) Insulate fire station dorm walls. f) Replace unit heaters with infrared heaters in 4,100 fire station. a) Add hot water boiler outside temp. reset 3,500 control. b) Replace 15 incandescent fixtures with fluores- 795 cents. c) Add vent dampers to six unit heaters. 600 a) Add vent dampers to unit heaters in garage and 200 pumphouse. b) Replace 15 incandescent fixtures with fluores- 452 cents. a) Add water heater insulation jacket. has no insulation; add six 30 415 b) South garage roof inch blanket. c) Replace six incandescent exterior fixtures with 800 high pressure sodium. d) Insulate block walls with styrofoam and Block 1,199 Bond. SIMPLE PAYBACK TY Wear7 1.1 2.3 1.6 1.2 1.7 1.8 2.9 2.9 2.9 3.6 5.4 4 1.8 3.75 3.9 4.7 3.6 5.2 5.6 2.8 5.6 1.7 1.3 1.9 4.5 5.8 j0/ Y� ECM SIMPLE BUILDING ECM DESCRIPTION COST PAYBACK TVT_ ears Old Transit a) Replace unit heaters with infrared heating 3,885 3.6 Barn system. b) Install automatic setback thermostat and re- 590 2.2 place electric heaters with gas furnace in break room. c) Add 6" fiberglass insulation to ceiling. 6,120 4.8 d) Replace six exterior incandescent fixtures 531 6.9 with high pressure sodium. e) Add 4" wall insulation. 8,875 5.8 West Side Lift a) Add vent damper to unit heater. 100 6.7 Station Water Service a) Add ten inches blown cellulose in attic. 802 2.2 Building b) Insulate concrete block walls with styrofoam 1,110 3.3 Block Bond. c) Replace two exterior incandescent fixtures 205 4.9 with high pressure sodium. d) Replace entry incandescents with fluorescents. 184 4.6 West Side Fire a) Add three vent dampers to furnaces and water 300 5.5 Station heater. b) Add electronic ignition to furnaces and water 300 1.6 heater. c) Install overhead door switch to keep furnace 150 3 from running when door open. d) Replace unit heater with infrared heater. 3,700 7.3 e) Add six inches attic insulation and insulated 4,550 6 overhead doors. Southeast Fire a) Add electronic ignition to furnaces and water 300 1.6 Station heater. b) Add vent dampers to furnace, unit heater and 300 5.8 water heater. Cemetery Office a) Add vent dampers to furnace and water heater. 200 2 Building b) Replace six exterior incandescent fixtures 490 2.5 with high pressure sodium. c) Add'exterior styrofoam and Block Bond to insu- 882 6.2 late garage walls. Airport Terminal a) Add insulation jacket to water heater. 15 1 Municipal a) Install automatic setback thermostats. 562 2.3 Services Building b) Install sun control shades on two south windows 638 6.5 and control film on six east and west windows. Municipal Service a) Replace 40 watt fluorescent lamps with Watt 1,790 2.3 Equipment Garage Savers. b) Add polystyrene and Block Bond to uninsulated 1,228 3.0 fire wall. c) Add polystyrene and Block Bond to uninsulated 1,434 2.5 wall of old equipment wing. d) Remove south overhead door and insulate opening. 165 1.5 3 ECM BUILDING ECM DESCRIPTION COST e) Replace eleven 200 and 300 watt incandescent 383 fixtures with fluorescent fixtures. f) Replace south entry door with steel insulated 150 door with magnetic weatherstripping. g) Add 6" cellulose insulation to attic. 283 Animal Shelter a) Rewire switches to control lights from desk. 100 b) Install hot water boiler outside temp. reset 270 control. c Add storms over single glazed windows. 106 d Install air lock entry vestibule. 374 e) Add 6" cellulose attic insulation. 380 f) Add polystyrene and Block Bond to uninsulated 1,116 block wall. g) Replace six incandescent flood lights with high 798 pressure sodium. TOTAL ECM COST $85,903'' •ADJUSTED TOTAL COST (from 1981 to 1985) $110,000 0 SIMPLE PAYBACK Years 1.7 2.5 5.9 1.1 1.3 3.7 4.1 5.4 2.8 3.7 Rol 9 i The University of Iowa Iowa City, Iowa 52242 College of Law Clinical Law Programa (319) 3538786 February 26, 1985 Iowa City Council Civic Center 410 E. Washington Iowa City, Iowa 52250 To the City Council: Enclosed herewith is a Memorandum in response to John Hayek's letter to the City Council of February 21, 1985 concerning the rezoning in the Melrose Lake area. The memorandum was prepared by the Civil Litigation Clinic of the College of Law in order to provide further information to the Melrose Lake Community Association. I hope you will refer to both of the Memorandums prepared by the Clinic as you deliberate the proposed rezoning. If you have any questions, please contact the Clinic at 353-6786. JAS/me Sincerely, eff� Smith ma � o a E 0 -.3 271985 MARIAN K. KARR CITY CLERK (3) 5a.,7— MEMORANDUM 0 k R ' TO: Melrose Lake Community Association ` 2 71985 'u"' FROM: Civil Litigation Clinic MARIAN K. KARR DATE: February 26, 1985 CITY CLERK (3) RE: Rezoning in the Melrose Lake Area You have asked us to respond to John Hayek's letter to the City Council of Iowa City of February 21, 1985. That letter consisted of several comments concerning a memorandum of law which the Melrose Lake Community Association submitted to the City Council for their consideration during deliberations on the downzoning of certain properties in the Melrose Lake area. We will respond to the letter on a point by point basis. 1. The "training and experience" of the drafters of the prior memorandum has no relevance to the persuasiveness of the content. The authors did not write the cases, the courts did. The City Council has several members who are attorneys, and they are as capable as anyone to check on the cases cited and determine for themselves whether the first memorandum accurately characterized the relevant case law. 2. The fact that the developers may lose a portion of their investment is not in dispute. Each case that was cited in the first memorandum involved "unique and special facts" involved in the particular situation. The issue is whether, under a given set of facts, the developers have a vested right in a zoning classification such that a rezoning would constitute a taking of property without just compensation. The fact that the developers do have investment backed expectations is only one factor taken into consideration by the courts. ,50;- Other factors include, ". . . the type of the project, its location, ultimate cost, and principally the amount accomplished under conformity." (Emphasis added). Board of Supervisors of Scott County v. t Paaske, 98 N.W.2d 827, 831 (IA 1959). As a general matter, the Iowa cases only find vested rights to exist after a building permit has been issued and after actual construction has begun. c.f., Brackett v. City of Des Moines, 67 N.W.2d 542, 548 (Iowa 1954) (while owned by plaintiff, land zoned commercial and approximately twenty-five years later rezoned i residential; just prior to rezoning plaintiff obtained a building permit ( for a commercial building, had plans drawn up, and took bids for i` construction, but no work was done prior to revocation of permit; "in the absence of any actual construction by plaintiff under his building 1 z permit its revocation was not in violation of his vested rights"). Another important fact here is that, [The developers'] claim to a right to realize their invest- ment expectation overlooks the fact that "rights granted by legislative action under police power can be taken away when in the valid exercise of its discretion the legislative body sees fit" (citation omitted) . . . Because the reasonableness of the council's decision to rezone [a developer's] property is at least a fairly debatable question, [the court) cannot substitute [its] view of reasonableness for that of the council. Stone v. Cit of Wilton, 331 N.W.2d 398, 404-05 (Iowa IinT- Therefore, the city council should be sensitive to the developer's investment expectations and inquire whether blueprints have been drawn, contracts let, or permits issued. The existence of such expectations, however, does not defeat the council's ability to exercise its police powers. It would be anamolous indeed if the city's sovereign power could be considered dependent upon private agreements or that the risk of adverse future action should be imposed upon the city and not the private parties. -2- ,sox , I - I 3. It is our understanding that the staff recommendations are not identical to the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendations. The City Council has the ultimate power to accept, reject or modify these recommendations. The Council has recently indicated it is more in favor of the staff recommendations than those of the Commission, and that the Council will meet with the Commission in order to resolve the differences. Should the council proceed to rezone in a manner not recommended, that could serve as some evidence against the city. But it is far from conclusive evidence that the rezoning is unreasonable. What the courts view as important are the City Council's stated reasons for rezoning. Stone v. City of Wilton, 331 N.W.2d 398, 402 (Iowa 1983). So long as the reasons given do not contravene Iowa Code Chapter 414.3 (1983), and do not serve as a pre -text for some underlying, unlawful discrimination; the the courts will not substitute their judgment of reasonableness in the place of the council's judgment. In light of these standards of judicial review, it seems strange that there is continuing discussion of a lawsuit which is doomed to failure so long as the council acts reasonably and follows proper rezoning procedures. 4. When the courts look at the "reasonable economic use" of a property after rezoning, they can indeed take into account the purchase price, financing and the "realities of development." However, the courts are not looking at the situation in terms of the developer no longer being able to general a profit. Rather, the courts are concerned as to whether no economic use remains after rezoning. That is, after the rezoning, is the developer precluded from putting his land to use in any allowable manner? The rezoning at issue here does take away the -3- .5-0 3- ,j 0 �2_ I right to build lower density housing. The fact that rezoning may cause a loss of market value is unremarkable in light of the well known case of Euclid v. Amber Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926) wherein a 75% reduction in market value after rezoning was not considered a "taking". So long as some reasonable use remains after rezoning, the council need not be concerned that it is not the best and highest use of the property. 5. The courts will consider the impact of both state and local regulations upon a piece of land in determining whether the regulations constitute a taking. However, so long as the regulations are properly enacted and reasonable in scope, they constitute a valid exercise of the legislative police powers which courts are loathe to interfere with. Further, there is no indication that we are aware of that the combined effect of the regulations in question here have the effect of precluding all development. Should rezoning occur, the city would have no right to deny building permits for construction which is in conformance with the new zoning. As long as some reasonable economic use remains, a rezoning would not constitute a taking. The multi -family zoning requested by the Melrose Lake Community Association, RS -8 would permit a reasonable economic use of the property. CLC/me -4- SPX RECEIVED FEB 271985 SOUTHEAST IOWA MUNICIPAL LEAGUE MARCH MEETING WEDNESDAY, MARCH 6, 1985 GREEN CIRCLE RESTAURANT CENTERVILLE, IOWA i The next meeting at Centerville will continue to f focus on legislative issues at the federal and state i levels. State Representative Dan Jay of Centerville and State Senator Don Gettings have been invited to ' attend and speak briefly. Bob Harpster, Executive Director of Iowa League of Municipalities, will also attend to give an update on developments affecting our cities. Mayor Donald Scott and City Clerk Martin Games, hosts for the night, have also invited members to a tour of Centerville's recently completed waste water treatment plant. Tours will begin at 4:30 P.M. at the Municipal Building. A social will be held at 5:30 P.M. with steak dinner at 6:30 P.M.. Plan to attend and encourage all city officials to attend. Send reservations to: Martin Games, City Clerk Municipal Building Centerville, Iowa 52544 Phone: 515/437-4339 Please make reservations. City Signed i i ,Sa3 S nl T Ul TH f 5 / z .3 AM -Ma strata 9 Court Chambers) S 8AM-Broadband LOAM-Statf Mtg. (Conf. Room) 9AM-Magistrate Court (Chambers) 12noo?-Bid Open- Telecom n1 ation Comm `C�iart�ers) 12nror��on-Civil Ing (Confft Room) mm Servicer 7P&ZP(SeniormCtr) II tt C[m��1� 6Counciln(Climamb) Ce 7CommM(Publ icrLi 7(Cnnembers al P6Z l0 // /1Z B•30AM-Housin q 10�M-Staff Mtg 1Con RoomI t 801 -Magistrate S / 8AM-Magistrate Cour c (IIChamrrmmbers) 22ppssaal1s B ro (ypblic 3PM-Senior Can ter Conn (Senior Ctr) g Court (Chambers) 6Counciln(Clt uLibor9ary) gComm 4Pr-Annual P ) (PunsLiG) 7:30PM-Air ort 7.30SPSMecc-ResO1urces ( PobllcaLibrary op 7(Chambers) S.4 PM -Board of Lib) Comm (Chamoers) 7Cd44Mmm-Par so ' 7:3oPM-Mistor c /P lY .16 lOAMt-Statf Mtg =/ Z R 23 8 M -Magistrate Court (Chambers) 8AM-Broadba d Telec4rtYnun Matta (Con Room) s 8AM-Magistrate Court (Chambers) Conor (Cn ers) 3:30PM-CCN, 4PM-Deetsign eneview Comm 7:30PM-Inpormal P6Z (Senior Ctr) (Pubblic Library) 4PHH-NUpoorabaan Emnvviron ee iceLibrary ( ) (PublllcICLiCbCmmratr1V) 6Counciln(Cnambers RS 29 Rr Af 30 .3/ BCourt9(chambers) 1(ConStaff Mtg (Conf Room) BCourtg(Chambers) yy 4(PublicaLibrarV) d 9 7CommM(SenaorRCQr s CITY OF CHIC CENTER 410 E. WASHNGTON ST. i OWA CITY IOWA CITU, IOWA 52240 (319) 356-5000 P R O C L A M A T I O N WHEREAS, the essence of a democracy is government by the people, and WHEREAS, an informed citizenry is a prerequisite of democratic government, and WHEREAS, the University of Iowa Society of Professional Journalists, Sigma Delta Chi, recognizes the need for a responsible press in our country coupled with a better public understanding of the media, NOW, THEREFORE, I, John McDonald, Mayor of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, do hereby proclaim March 6, E 1985, as FREEDOM OF INFORMATION DAY in Iowa City and encourage local residents to join SPJ,SDX in its observation of the day with j public discussions and other appropriate actions. r Q� YOR Signed in Iowa City, Iowa, this 4th day of March 1985. M City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: March 8, 1985 To: City Council From: Dale Melling, Assistant City Manager Re: Response to Letter from Chairperson of Broadband Telecommunica- tions Commission The Chairperson of the Broadband Telecommunications Commission recently sent a letter to Heritage Cablevision regarding a number of problems relating to the local cable system. Council received a copy of that letter and requested that a copy of the response from Heritage also be provided. A copy of that response is attached. The Broadband Telecommunications Commission discussed this response at its regular meeting on March 5, 1985. As a result of that discussion, it was resolved that the following would occur. 1. Heritage will check the light in the Council Chambers against the specifications and needs of the cameras which are used on the Council shoots. They will also continue to monitor Channel 29 and the associated transmission equipment. 2. Heritage staff will be present at the next Council meeting on March 19 to perform a variety of tests on the lighting, cameras and associated production equipment in an attempt to identify the optimum cablecast quality possible for City Council shoots. 3. Commission members will monitor the next Council meeting from differ- ent parts of the Iowa City cable system and will report those findings to the staff. In addition to the above, the Broadband Telecommunications Specialist will continue to monitor all problem areas and will note any recurrence of those problems addressed Mr. Terry's letter. There is not complete agreement between Heritage staff on the one hand and City staff and Commission members on the other as to what are the actual causes of the problems cited. However, everyone has agreed to work together in attempt- ing to identify the causes and to remedy the problems. Copies of any further written communications regarding these matters, should such communications be necessary, will be sent to all Council members. tp5/1 cc: Broadband Telecommunications Commission Drew Shaffer ,$DS Heritage Cablevision 546 Suutheate Avenue k., .. Ln,a City, Icu•a 52:4J 119.1i 1.}084 Bill Terry 415 North 7th Avenue Iowa City, IA 52240 Bear Bill: I am writing on behalf of Bill Blough in response to your February 15th letter regarding specific concerns you had with certain units of access equipment and the technical quality of the City of Iowa City Government Channel. Your interest is greatly appreciated and your concern that these problems be attended to promptly is shared by the company. Therefore, I will address each complaint outlined in your letter and update you on the current status of each equipment problem noted. I am very much aware and concerned with the technical problems the council productions appear to be having. On the February 26th counclI meeting, our Production Coordinator, Paul LeValley, and myself went over with John Hess and his interns to assist with lighting and balancing of the cameras. Paul and I had both watched replays of previous council shoots and had noticed the color balancing problems. However, since no other community producers have complained of having these same problems with the equipment, we both felt that perhaps the problems were not necessarily equipment related. Paul and I both agreed that not enough light was being used in council productions. The 1640 cameras used for these shoots are single -tube, which means they require a great amount of light in order for a clear video signal to register adequately. Lighting also effects how well the cameras will white and color balance. Therefore, after examining the lighting already installed at the council chambers, it was decided that more lighting was needed. Five portable lights were added to the set, which significantly Improved the video. image being put out by the cameras. It also made white and color balancing easier. In addition, I went over with John the correct procedure on how to color balance the cameras, which also helped to improve overall picture quality. _ I believe that the changes in lighting and the clarification of the white and color balancing procedures has helped to eliminate many of the problems you pointed out in your letter. 1 would also recommend that the city look into the purchasing of three 1,000 watt scoop lights j that could be mounted on the existing light rack in the council chambers. I The addition of these lights would eliminate the burden of using i portable lights and would provide more -even and better illumination. Paul has several vendor catalogs at the Programming Center and would be glad to assist John in finding prices for these lights. sd✓r Page 2 r 2. Concerning the problems you noted on the poor reception of channel 29, Bill has had our technicians look into the problem. The transmitting equipment from the civic center was checked into and no apparent problem could be found. However, Bill and the technicians will continue to monitor the channel for any problems. 3• The intercom system on the PVOH was not working for about two to three weeks at the end of November and early December. Paul repaired the system sometime in early December and no problems have been noted since. I might add that a backup intercom system was provided during the time the regular system was down. Concerning the wheels on the support box for the PVOM, I agree that they are a problem and we will replace them within the next two weeks. 4. The new studio equipment is now functioning with no problems. Since its installation in early December, the studio and on-line editing have been inoperable for only one week. Only one studio production was cancelled at this time and that was a program for channel 5• No community producers had productions cancelled. It has been a top priority with us to get the new equipment completely operational. The company shares your concern that any equipment undee'rgoing repairs should not be down for any great length of tim However, I must point out that equipment down time is, unfortunately, a characteristic of this business. This is due to; 1) consistent and extensive use of technical equipment by non-professionals, 2) dependency on how fast engineers can repair the problems and 3) dependency on parts from manufacturers who may have to back order parts from oversees. These three factors, for the most part, are out of our control. I point them out to you only to let you know some of the frustrations that we face in dealing with equipment repairs. I assure you that equipment maintenance is one of our greatest concerns and therefore I will continue to emphasize the preventive maintenance program used in our department. This includes routine cleaning and checks on equipment and better record keeping of Intermittent equipment problems. 5. The down time on the 16nm projector is due to the delay in receiving a specific part that was needed to repair the unit. As of this writing, the projector is repaired and Pratt has said they will get It back to us within the next week. When the projector went down, I looked Into the possiblity of renting another unit. The cost of such a rental, however, was simply too expensive for the amount of use we had scheduled for it. In fact, the only thing the projector has been scheduled for since it went down, has been for two transfers and one of these was for personal use (for b73 Page 3 1' which we charge a fee). Regarding the latter, this individual had the option of having the transfer done at another company. I hope this letter will clarify some of the concerns you listed in your letter, as well as updating you on what the current situation is with the equipment. Your interest in these matters is greatly appreciated by those who work at the Programming Center and by community producers. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, � &Q" I, -�dn Edye Calderon Programming Director cc: Bill Blough BTC City Council Drew Shaffer R 53s k i '1 t City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: March 7, 1985 i To: Mayor Mc/Donaid and City Council Members From: Don Schm�i irector, Department of Planning & Program Development Re: 1985 Community Development Block Grant Allocation In mid-January, the City was advised by HUD that Iowa City had been awarded $695,000 in 1985 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. This grant amount, however, was based upon estimates of the federal allocation since the final figures for Fiscal Year 1985 were not available at that time. The final Fiscal Year 1985 COBG allocations have been received by HUD and the total grant award for Iowa City is $732,000. This figure represents an additional $37,000 over the estimated grant award but a $4,000 reduction from last year's entitlement grant of $736,000. Although the project allocations for the 1985 CDBG program year were based on the 1984 grant amount of $736,000, no 1985 project previously approved by the City Council will be adversely affected since the net reduction will be absorbed by the contin- gency set aside. The following list summarizes the budget for the 1985 CDBG program year: I. PUBLIC WORKS AND FACILITIES. 1. Creekside Neighborhood Sidewalk Project $ 23,200 2. Consolidated Services Facility for MECCA 50,000 3. Goodwill Industries Renovation 205,335 4. City Park Accessibility 35,000 5. North Market Square Handicapped Play Area 3,000 6. Longfellow Playground Equipment 2,400 II. PUBLIC SERVICES. 1. Shared Housing/Program Continuation 15,000 2. Handicare, Inc. Transportation Van 13,350 III. ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY. 1. Miller/Orchard Neighborhood Park Acquisition/Additional Funding 60,000 ,Sd6 i R PAGE 2 IV. REMOVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL BARRIERS. 506 1. Improved Handicapped Accessibility to Mark IV/Willowcreek Neighborhood Center 3,500 V. REHABILITATION OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. 1. Housing Rehabilitation and Weatherization 180,000 2. Housing Modifications for Low- and Moderate -Income Frail Elderly - Elderly Services Agency Project 2,500 VI. GENERAL ADMINISTRATION. 1. General Program Administration 108,009 VII. OTHER. 1. Contingency 30.706 TOTAL $732,000 If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me or Jim Hencin, CDBG Program Coordinator. bdw/sp cc: Neal Berlin, City Manager 506 City of Iowa City - MEMORANDUM Date: February 28, 1985 �� ^ To: Neal Berlin From: Don Schmeise r ^i / 1 Re: Referral Item Concerning Women Mayors At the February 12, 1985 regular Council meeting, there was a referral item concerning the establishment of murals on the wall of Bushnell's Turtle in honor of women mayors. The staff would be happy to explore such an endeavor, but we are extremely concerned that such artwork in this location would be defaced with graffiti. In honor of women mayors, the staff feels that it would be more appropriate to have a display in the Civic Center or Public Library. If you wish us to continue pursuit of the stated request, please advise. bj4/16 S-67 ;I City of Iowa City MEMORAN19.VM - Date: March 1, 1985 To: Dale Helling, Assistant City Manager From: Karin Franklin, Senior Planner and Marian Karr, City Clerk Re: Renewal of Mobile Home Park Licenses - Compliance with Chapter 22 With adoption of the amended Chapter 22, "Manufactured Housing Parks", on September 28, 1982, all existing manufactured housing parks are required to submit plans meeting the requirements of Section 22-18. This section mandates the submittal of a final plan outlining the boundaries, streets, lots, dimensions of the park, and other pertinent information. A local consulting firm has informed me that the creation of these plans may cost anywhere from $40-$50/lot. For the parks in Iowa City, the cost of compliance could be between $450 and $18,810. PARKS IN IOWA CITY LOTS COST BASED $45/LOT Baculis Mobile Home Park 137 $ 6,165 Bon Aire Mobile Home Park 418 18,810 Hawkeye Trailer Ct. 10 450 Hilltop Mobile Home Park 155 6,975 I.C. Trailer Park 46 2,070 Forestview Trailer Ct. 157 7,065 Larsen's Trailer Ct. 11 495 Thatcher Mobile Home 58 2,610 Towncrest Mobile Home Ct. 97 4,365 The language in the Code specifically states that these plans are required "In order to establish the existing level of development,...". It is my understanding that the cost of compliance was discussed briefly at the time of consideration of the amendments and the Planning & Zoning Commis- sion felt that the requirement was appropriate despite the cost. bc4 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE: March 7, 1985 TO: City Council I FROM: Lorraine Saeger RE: Membership of Boards and Commissions As requested, a breakdown of members of boards and commissions is listed below. This is an update of the information furnished a year ago. BOARD/COMMISSION WOMEN MEN UNIVERSITY OF IOWA Staff Student Airport Commission 0 5 1 0 .509 i Airport Zoning Commission 0 5 Board of Adjustment 3 2 3 Board of Appeals 1 4 Board of Electrical Examiners & Appeals 0 4 1 Board of Examiners of Plumbers 0 3 Board of Library Trustees 4 5 4 Board of Police Trustees 1 6 Board of Fire Trustees 1 6 Broadband Telecommunications Comm. 1 4 1 Charter Review Commission 1 8 4 1 Civil Service Commission 0 3 1 City Attorney Advisory Committee 3 4 2 Committee on Community Needs 6 4 2 Design Review Committee 3 7 6 Historic Preservation Commission 3 4 1 (retired) Housing Commission 3 4 3 Human Rights Commission 6 3 3 Mayor's Youth Board 3 7 1 Parks and Recreation Commission 3 6 3 Planning and Zoning Commission 3 4 6 Resources Conservation Commission 2 5 3 2 Riverfront Commission 6 5 3 Senior Center Commission 4 5 2 Urban Environment Ad Hoc Committee 3 4 6 1 0 .509 i i City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM OATII March 1, 1985 to: Iowa City City Council FROM: City Clerk ": Beer/Liquor License/Conditional Approval FOR YOUR INFORMATION --Conditional approval was given at the 11/20/84 Council meeting to Sycamore Eating and Drinking Co., Mall Shopping Center for Sunday Sales/Liquor License. They have submitted, after the 90 -day period, the required inform- ation which allows them to retain their license. S1O n City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM OATH March 7, 1985 TO: Iowa City City Council FROM: City Clerk RE: Beer/Liquor License/Conditional Approval FOR YOUR INFORMATION -- Conditional approval was given at the 11/20/84 Council meeting to Rocky Rococo, 118 S. Dubuque for Sunday Sales/Beer-Wine License. They have submitted, after the 90 -day period, the required information which allows them to retain their license. S1 1 1 n Ic ava City •lowa u zarch 8, 1985 NM oyor McDonald ��' and Lhe City Council City of Iowa City 0 Civic Center Iowa City, Iowa' 52240 Dear Mayor McDonald and the City Council: The Greater Iowa City Area Chamber of Commerce supports the proposed Sign Ordinance with the following amendments. The Environmental Concerns Committee of the Chamber has worked with the City staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission for over e year on this ordinance. By working together, the Chamber feels that the new Sign Ordinance will provide the appropriate regula- tion needed to maintain the quality of life in our community. Much of the work on the Sign Ordinance, by all involved, has been a process of learning, understanding and negotiation to achieve this proposed ordinance. A sign is used by the public to obtain location and other business information (such as prices, hours and services). However, a couple of issues still exist where a compromise position could not be found. We hope that you give consideration to the following amendments, as we feel that the proposal is inadequate without them: 1) Existing Si ns --Many businesses have constructed signs under the requirements of the present sign ordinance. Some of these signs would be non -conforming under the proposed ordinance, and therefore would be required to be taken down under the amortiz- ation schedule. Suggestion: We STRONGLY SUPPORT o grandfathering of existing signs, which have been constructed in good faith under the existing ordinance. This grandfathering would allow for normal maintenance of the sign, but not allow for major repair or replacement under the old ordinance. 2) Bill Bonrds--Wo feel that to completely eliminate standard bill boards (30 sheets)in our community would deny several businesses a primary means for advertising to the public. aaa. stion: A compromise position of allowing billboards in a couple of specific zone locations, such as CH -1 and I-1, would be supported by the Chamber. 3) Sign Ileigltt--Businesses are using signs to identify their locations or to present a message which is desired by the consumers. In order for this message to be read by the consumer, the message should be visible from a vehicle and at eye level. Greater Iowa City Arca Chamber of Commerce mmuo P.O. Box 2338 Iowa City, Iowa 52244 (319) 337-9637 ,_- tiug,g._sliyon: Businesses will keep the sign to a reasonable height, approximately 25' unless extenuating circumstances are prener,L, we feel that the present 35 maximum -height is accept- able, as there does not appear to be a problem with height. 4) Sign Area Comput_otion--We feel that the complete inclusion of air space is too limiting and discourages unique design. In addition, by measuring the air space between an identification and detail sign on the same pole, the ordinance is reducing information which is desired by the public. Sj gestioil: We agree that the identification sign area should be compuled by using Lhe existing formula, but we believe the public has a need to know certain details before making a decision to pa 1. tuna ze a business. We suggest an allowance for a detail sign (such as gas prices, business hours, etc.) for each identifi- Cation sign. This area would be deducted from the total allowable area. 5) fro �jectin. Signs--In many locations, a projecting sign may be the preferable choice by the public and the business. A project- ing sign may be less obtrusive to the environment, then a free standing sign in a particular location. Suggesti(ir: in the CO-1, CC-2, C11-1 and CI-1 zones, the business should be given a.choice between one of the following types of signs: free standing, monument or projecting, sign. This would allow the business the opportunity to have the type of signage which is most npproprint.e to the location. F) Corncr Si ns--Businesses located on a corner have a unique situation, with customers from four different directions needing information. visibility for traffic safety also enters into this situntion. Su gest ion: We feel that a free standing corner sign should be allowed within the corner triangular area, at a minimum height of 10' for visibility. In addition, we suggest maximum requirements on the size and number of support posts for the sign. i) Fn cin Signs --Business located within the central business district require facia signs for identification of the location. dlem,v of these businesses do not currently use the 20% of total nren b(.-causc of the space of the windows and doors. Suggestion: We support a reduction in the size of the facia signs from 20%. The proposal of 10% of the total area would be an nccept.ed position with the addition of a minimum signage area for any business of 24 square feet. Ft) Time_ and _Temperature Signs--A number of businesses have erected time and temperature signs as a community service. 6/AL Suggestion: We feel that the size of a time and temperature sign should be dictated by the zone which the sign is in. The ne citizens should be able to read the sthe�sizeno maofethea signhtoobe it is located. we support allowing regulated in manner which would be considered equivalent as other signs, within a particular zone. q) Gl_.ecl:rnnic Changeable Signs--A changeable electronic sign is not the same as an Animated Sign. The purpose of the sign is to convey a message to the public, this message may be a consumer or a civic message. Suggestion: We suggest that changeable electronic signs be allowed within appropriate zones (such as CH-1, CC-2, CB-2, etc.). The size of the sign should be dictated by the sign area requirements of the particular zone in which it is located. We urge you to give consideration to these suggestions for amend- ments to the proposed ordinance. We feel that these amend- ments address the needs of the public for information which can only be generated by signage by a business. Sin erely, BiPy er, President Greater owa City Area Chamber of Commerce Attachment. 5/� Results of Survey 3-7-85 I&_ SURVEY FOR THE SIGN ORDINANCE -------- Complete and return by March 4, 1985 The Sign Ordinance as proposed by City Staff and the Planning a Zoning Commission is presently being rev Sewed by the City Council. The Environmental Concerns Committee is in the process of making our final recommendations and changes to the existing ordinance. There ire several unresolved issues which pertain to the impact of the proposed regulations on our local businesses. Ma are seeking input from our Chamber members to better address these issues. Please complete this survey and let us know bow thane issues effect you while we have time to affect changes. First consideration by Council will be Feb. 26th. It is likely the proposed regulations will be approved in March, in which case we will all have to live with them. (Please answer as many questions as apply to you and mail to Chamber office as 2000 as possible to make your opinions count). A. What type of business are you? 159 _Commercial Motel/Rotel 509 Services �9- Industrial 2M__Retail B. In which zone are you located? __171CO-1 Commercial Office U& -CC -2 Community Commercial CN -1 Neighborhood Commercial CC -1 Intensive Commercial 136 CB -2 Central Business Service 22$ CB -30 Central Business 139 CB -1 Highway Commercial 17k - General Industrial 4% I-2 Heavy Industrial ORP Office ■ Research Park C. Upon which type of signage does your business primarily rely for visibility? Awning 325- ins standing -_31- Canopy (Marquee) _($_ Monument __432 Facie 121-- Window D. Billboard Issue: The current ordinance (and the latest proposed version) will allow only "Junior" billboards (72 sq.ft.) in designated commercial and industrial zones. No standard size (300 sq.ft.) billboards are allowed. (However, three standard size exist by grandfather clause). 1. Would you use co-op advertising through a national distributor or manufacturer (if available to you) if the standard size billboards were . allowed in Iowa City? _ 378 yes 638- no 2. Do you think the limited availability of standard size billboards has in any way been a "hardship" to your business? 88-- yes no 3. Would you favor allowing some standard size billboards in the following zones. spaced no closer than 300 feet apart? (300 feet Is approximately the length of one city block). Highway commercial _341- yes ],$_ no IoduI trial 328_ yeano Specify other. _-____-___- -__ 4. Does the present availability of Junior billboards adequately fulfill your outdoor advertising sign Deeds? _65R yes -5.9.- no H. ProJ acting Signs IBoom: By definition this is a building sign which extends more than one foot out free Lhe wall of the building on which it is mounted. These are an economical alternative to a free-standing sign in front of a building. The current ordinance lists special provisions for projecting signs in the CH -1 (Highway Commercial) and CC -2 (Community Commercial) zones. The latest proposed version does not allow for new projecting signs to be erected in any zone. 1. Do you (or did you) have a projecting sign? -218 yea 798- no .. 511;L 2. Would you favor allowing projecting signs in any of the following somas? 2d$ CO -1 Commercial Office 268 CC -2 Community Commercial CN -1 Neighborhood -a$,_ CI -1 Intensive Commercial Commerical _21$ CB -2 Central Business ZL$,_ CB -30 Central Business service _32,g_, CH -1 Highway Commercial 41%_ I-1 General Industrial I-2 Heavy Industrial i ORP Office and Research Perk i F. Height of Free -Standing Signs: The current ordinance allows a -maximum height of 35 feet to the top. The latest proposed version would allow 25 feet. ` 1. Do you have afree-standing sign which is over 25 feet 61g6T j If "Yes". how high is your _ 7%_ yea 93$ no ■1gn7 ---- 20', 39', 10', 21', 20' 2. Is your business effected by the availability of 'pre -manufactured signs which are taller than 25 feet? 98 If "No", How high is it?---- yea 91$ no 0. Facia Sign Issue: The maximum size of facie signs Is determined by a percentage of the area of the building wall on which the signs are mounted. (In cases of multiple occupancy under the current ordinance, it's a percentage of that portion of the building which each business occupies.) Under the current ordinance, facie signs can be 10% of the building well area in the following zones: CO -1 Commercial Office CC -2 Community Commercial CH -1 Neighborhood Commercial CH -1 Highway Commercial And facia signs can be 20% of the building wall area in these zones: CI -1 Intensive Commercial I-1 General Industrial CB -2 Central Bus. Service I-2 Heavy Industrial CB -10 Central Business ORP Office a Research Park In the proposed ordinance the 10% ruling would apply in all zones. In casae of multiple occupancy, it shall be the responsibility of the user's to agree upon the proporation of mlgneage used by each business: well arae? Ii Do you have a facia sign which in larger than 10% of your sign Yea 0% 901 _ __ no i •H. Do you have any additional comments or recommendations? In the proposed ordinance, all sigma which were conforming under the, present ordinance and which will be made man -conforming by pasoage of the proposed ordinance will be grandfathered in (a recommendation of our Committee). All signs previously non -conforming under the present ordinance, which remain non -conforming, will have until 1992 to come into compliance. Nome and location of your business (optional)----------------------------------------------------- --------------------------- - HOUSE PASSES LOCAL OPTION BILL The House has passed and sent to the Senate a comprehensive tax bill that includes local option taxing authority, and an infrastructure bond program for cities. Major provisions of the bill include: 1. Raising the state sales tax to 51 on April 1. The tax would only be in effect for two years and would terminate on April 1, 1987. 2. Permanently increasing the cigarette tax from 10 to 26 cents per pack on October 1, 1985. 3. Permanently raising the use tax on motor vehicles to five percent. This is expected to generate $20 million per year that would be directed to local bonding projects such as highways, streets, water,sewer and other infrastructure pro. jects in cities. d. Exempting purchases of machinery and equipment from sales tax. S. Exempting farm machinery from sales tax for two years. 6. Providing buy -down on interest rates for operating loans to farmers. 7. Permitting local option sales, income or wheel taxes to be levied locally if approved by voters in local referendum. The package which passed on a 52-45 vote now goes to the Senate where it faces an uncertain future. Senate leaders have indicated that a change in attitude at the federal level now makes certain elements of the House package unnecessary and indicated that a statewide sales tax could not pass in the Senate. Passage by the House of a broad base local option tax bill is a first and maintains the momentum for further action in the Senate. City officials should contact their state senators and encourage them to maintain local option as part of any tax plan passed by that chamber or to pass local option as a separate bill for titles. On the Senate side, the local option tax bill introduced by Sen. Gronstal (D -Council Bluffs) and 11 others has been assigned to a subcommittee chaired by Senator Gronstal. Other members of the subcommittee include: Sens. Readinger, Bruner, Gratiaa and Boswell. City officials should contact all members of this subcommittee and urge early passage of this local option tax bill. CIVIL SERVICE BILL TO SUBCOMMITTEE In the last bulletin we alerted you to a study bill - LSB 14275 which would require that all cities, regardless of site, create a civil service system and require competitive examinations for persona in non -supervisory positions which have served less than five years. The reference number on thebill is now SF 266. As expected the load sponsor is Sen. Husak (D -Toledo) and 12 other senators. Other co-sponsors include Sens: Nystrom, Drale, Hiller of Des Moines, Coleman, Boswell, Dialeman, Jensen, Priebe Waldsuln, Scorholtt, Vande Hoof, Hutchins, Rife, Brown, Miller of Cerro Gordo, Wells and Rodgers. (over) __....._...---._ S/3 V rsuap rel` LEGISLATIVE Bahl[\t� BULLETIN a.www•.i... ram 1a1 a1 ]pypabl --- First Session, Bulletin No, 4 March 1, 1985 HOUSE PASSES LOCAL OPTION BILL The House has passed and sent to the Senate a comprehensive tax bill that includes local option taxing authority, and an infrastructure bond program for cities. Major provisions of the bill include: 1. Raising the state sales tax to 51 on April 1. The tax would only be in effect for two years and would terminate on April 1, 1987. 2. Permanently increasing the cigarette tax from 10 to 26 cents per pack on October 1, 1985. 3. Permanently raising the use tax on motor vehicles to five percent. This is expected to generate $20 million per year that would be directed to local bonding projects such as highways, streets, water,sewer and other infrastructure pro. jects in cities. d. Exempting purchases of machinery and equipment from sales tax. S. Exempting farm machinery from sales tax for two years. 6. Providing buy -down on interest rates for operating loans to farmers. 7. Permitting local option sales, income or wheel taxes to be levied locally if approved by voters in local referendum. The package which passed on a 52-45 vote now goes to the Senate where it faces an uncertain future. Senate leaders have indicated that a change in attitude at the federal level now makes certain elements of the House package unnecessary and indicated that a statewide sales tax could not pass in the Senate. Passage by the House of a broad base local option tax bill is a first and maintains the momentum for further action in the Senate. City officials should contact their state senators and encourage them to maintain local option as part of any tax plan passed by that chamber or to pass local option as a separate bill for titles. On the Senate side, the local option tax bill introduced by Sen. Gronstal (D -Council Bluffs) and 11 others has been assigned to a subcommittee chaired by Senator Gronstal. Other members of the subcommittee include: Sens. Readinger, Bruner, Gratiaa and Boswell. City officials should contact all members of this subcommittee and urge early passage of this local option tax bill. CIVIL SERVICE BILL TO SUBCOMMITTEE In the last bulletin we alerted you to a study bill - LSB 14275 which would require that all cities, regardless of site, create a civil service system and require competitive examinations for persona in non -supervisory positions which have served less than five years. The reference number on thebill is now SF 266. As expected the load sponsor is Sen. Husak (D -Toledo) and 12 other senators. Other co-sponsors include Sens: Nystrom, Drale, Hiller of Des Moines, Coleman, Boswell, Dialeman, Jensen, Priebe Waldsuln, Scorholtt, Vande Hoof, Hutchins, Rife, Brown, Miller of Cerro Gordo, Wells and Rodgers. (over) __....._...---._ S/3 The bill has been assigned to a State Cnvenment Subcommittee of Sens. Bremer, Drake and Mann. Several of the co-sponsors contacted by the League indicated that they wen not aware of the full scope of this bill when they signed on. It is there- for imperative that city officials contact members of the subcommittee and all co-sponsors and document the financial and administrative implications of such a bill. The league has met with members of the State Oovenment Committee on several occasions, including the chairman, to insure that all facts of this issue are known to members of the committee. At this time then are indications that the original bill draft will be changed to prevent a mandated civil service system including testing procedures to be applied to all cities. it is also our understanding that there was never any intention of requiring all cities to establish separate pension and retirement systems for police and fin personnel and that this provision will also be corrected. Much of this change is a direct result of contacts city officials have made with legislators. Until we see the changes proposed, all cities should maintain close contact with the League and their own legislators on this bill. SENATE COMMITTEE ACTS ON JOBS BILL The Senate Mays and Means Co®ittee has approved on a 10-2 vote a bill granting tax breaks to businesses that create new jobs. The proposal which will be floor managed by Sen. William Palmer (D -Des Moines) is designed to allow businesses to expand and would not require any tax revenue. The bill proposes that in order to obtain a tax credit the company will have to create jobs. if a businesses employment increases by at least 10 percent it would qualify for three tax incentive programs: 1. Sales, service and use tax credit for the purchase of machinery, equipment and computers related to the new jobs would be refunded. 2. The machines, equipment and computers used to create jobs would be exempt from personal property tax. d. An income to credit for the business for each new job created under the program. The credit would be equal to bl of the taxable wage base. The income tax credit would be available for only one year but may be carried forward. Much of the criticism in committee and from other legislators is that the bill does very little for existing businesses that may be in need of modernization. Compromises art being worked on as we go to press. The fiscal effect on local governments is difficult to assess at this time primarily because the tax incentives are only available with the fulfillment of a contractual agreement for new jobs. If the employment base is increased the potential for raising avenues for local government would come through an expanded property tax base and inventory and additional residential property taxes from new residents. On the cost aide then could be some loss of personal property tax credit being absorbed by local government and other exemptions pro- vided in the legislation. SENATE COM@RCE CDMMITTEE VOTES OUT PUBLIC FUNDS BILL After several weeks of subcommittee work and refinement the Senate Com- merce Committee has approved SF 296, an Act relating to the deposit and in- vestment of public funds. The bill is an attempt at correcting and clarifying many of the problems in SF 2220 passed last session which repealed the state sinking fund and re- placed it with a pledging of assets system for public funds. The major provisions of the bill are: a. Removes the geographic limitation on where public funds can be deposited. Presently state statutes provide that it must be in either your city or the Adjoining county. This allows deposit in any ] depository in the state. b. Creates a voluntary local government investment fund to be privately managed. Funds can be in. vested in obligations of U.S., prime bankers acceptances, commercial paper, perfected re. purchase agreements or certificates of deposit of benks,savings and loan institutions or credit unions located in Iowa. c. Gives priority to public funds on deposit in the event of a bank failure and provides for a sys- tem of loss payments that include an Assess- ment against banks holding public funds if in- surance or liquidation of assets is not adequate to pay losses. d. Creates three separate sinking funds in the trea. surers office. On. for banks, one for S 6 LPs, and one for credit unions. e. Exempts city officials and the public body from liability when deposits are made in accordance with the statute. I. Requires a pledge of collateral of at least 110% of public funds on deposit in my bank. g. Requires that collateral be pledged to the treasurer of state and that the depository shall deliver to the treasurer a security agreement which nrovides the treasurer with a valid and perfected security interest in the required collateral. Debate on the bill is expected within the week and we expect that there will be amendments filed to the bill that would attempt to strike the voluntary investment fund and the geographic limitations section of the bill. Both of these provisions add greater flexibility to investing sod de. positing public funds, are not mandatory and should be retained in the bill. City officials should contact their state senators and urge them to resist any amendments that would strike these provisions from the bill. OPPOSITION GROWS TO CUTS IN FEDERAL REVENUE Despite continued attempts by the Administration to terminate General Revenue Sharing ane year early there are signs that opposition to such action is growing in Congress. Senate Majority Leader Robert Dole is now saying that the White House in. eluded a plan to eliminate nearly 14 billion a year from the revenue sharing program merely to inflate the President's proposed budget savings. A February 15 Wall Street Journal story reported that Dole has said that it Would be un- fair to eliminate the program in FY 86 because titles couldn't plan for the change that fast. Meanwhile Rep. Jack Brooks (D -Tex), an avowed opponent of revenue sharing, issued A statement saying that "the burden would be on the Reagan administration to tell 39,000 cities by it must go back on its word on revenue sharing." SENATE BILL TO REQUIRE EEOC EMPLOYEES SF 301 an Act relating to employment of equal opportunity officers,has been filed by Sanator Tom None (D -Des Moines). The bill requires a city or county having a population of 35,000 or mora to employ an EEOC officer before the city or county is eligible to receive aid ad- ministered by the Office for Planning and Programming. This aid would include non-antitlement block grants and other federal or private aid. The bill has been assigned to the Senate Local Government Committee. It is our understanding that Sen. Hall (D- Marlon) will be the chairman of the subcommittee on the bill. (over) ....... ... _._.. ._._ .. ....... .... .. .... .. .. _.......,.. _....... .._.. ...� ' S/3 _d City officials should contact Senator Hall and argue that this represents another unwarranted intrusion on local guverrment personnel practices and policies and mandates another cost for employment that is not funded by the state. HOUSE BILL MOULD MANDATE MANNING REQUIREMENTS N 1 E 0 Rep. Gary Sheron (D -Des !bines) has introduced House File 342,an Act requiring a certain number of fire fighters to respond to fix calls. The bill amends Chapter 100 by stating that the state fire marshal shall adopt rules requiring a fin department with fin fighters under civil service to respond to a call with at least three fin fighters when using a pumper with a minium capacity of 750 gallons or a ladder company. The bill has been referred to a state government subcommittee composed of Reps. Pavich (D -Council Bluffs), Doderer (D -Iowa City) and Siegrist (R -Council Bluffs). City officials an urged to contact members of the subcommittee. PUBLICATION BILL INTRODUCED Rep. Tom Fey (D -Davenport) has introduced HF 103,an Act relating to publica- tion requirements for cities. The bill .provides that cities in which a daily newspaper is published and a licensed commercial radio station is operated haw the option of printing a monthly pamphlet of the precedingmonth's council meetings, receipts and expenditures in lieu of publishing the items in the official newspapers of the county or news- paper of general circulation In the city. This option is currently only authorized for cities having a population of mere thin 150,000. The bill has been referred to the House Local Government Committee. ELECTION BILL TO SUBCOMMITTEE SF 91,an Act relating to combining city and school elections his passed the Senate and has been referred to the House Education Subcommittee. The Wm - bars of the subcommittee axe: gaps. 011ie, Greth, Hester, Siegrist and Tabor. WORKERS' COO'/VOLUNTEER FIRE FIGHTERS Rap. Bob Skw (D-Guthria Center) and 9 co-sponsors haw introduced a bill relating to wmrkan' comp benefits for volunteer fin fighters. The bill amsnds currant state law by placing a qualification on the in- toxicatfon disqualification for workers' compensation benefits for injury or death to a volunteer fin fighter. The bill states that such injuries an noncompensable only if volunteer fin fighters' alcohol intoxication is evidenced by a blood alcohol level of either: A. 0.2 percent or greater,or B. 0.1 percent or greater but leas than 0.2 unless then is convincing evidence that the volunteer fire fighter was net acting in an intoxicating comer immediately prior to the death or injury. Other co-sponsors of the bill an Reps. Feick, Renaud, Muhlbeuer, Petersen, Rosenberg, Mullins, Harbor, fatty and Swearingen. BOND BILL INTRODUCED Rep. Jim O'gane (O -Sioux City) has introduced louse File 406,an Act re- lating to issuance of bonds for general corporate purposes. The bill would remove the dollar and population limits which currently restrict the authority of cities to institute proceedings to issue bonds for general corporate purposes without calling an election. Currently the limitations are $25,000 for cities of 5,000 population or lass; $75,000 for cities between 5,000 and 75,000;and $150,000 for cities over 75,000 population. The bill has been assigned to the louse Local Govereaent Committee. ..... ......__.. __. _...__......__. _.._... _... ..._..___...... .. ............_..,...�...._._...... ........ ...� 513 i S_ BILL MOULD CREATE SUPERFLIND FOR LANDFILLS Rep. Roger Halvorson (R-Nonona) has introduced HF 362,1 bill that would requite a tonnage fee and groundwater fee on solid waste deposited in sanitary landfills. Revenues produced from the fees would be used for "long -tern care" Of closed sanitary landfills and the administration of groundwater monitoring and quality programs administered by the Dept. of hater, Air and Waste Hanagement. The tonnage fee is set at 3 cents per ton or equivalent for most wastes, 5 cents per ton for ashes and sludge and the groundwater fee is 10 cents per ton. This bill has drawn considerable attention from landfill owners and operators because it places another unfunded mandate on operators and owners. Then is al- so concern that the money would not be used for many years or until the legisla. ture decided that other uses for the revenue had a higher priority. Finally, this tonnage is applied equally to all landfill operations regard- less of location, soil conditions or methods of operation. 7herefore, the assess- ment may never benefit a contributor but only be sat aside to assist one or two isolated locations in the state. The bill has been assigned to the House Energy and Environmental Protection subcommittee of Rep, Paul Johnson (Chr.) and Peps: Black, Mullins, Skew and Torrence. City officials involved in either ownership or operation of landfills should write these subcommittee members and outline your concerns on this issue. CONTACT NUMBERS Just a reminder that state senators can be reached by phone during the week at the following Statehouse number: (SIS) 281-3371. Likewise State Representatives can be reached at: (SIS) 281-3221. Letters should be addressed to (legislators nam), Statehouse, Des Moines, Iowa 50319 OPEN SCOPE BILL OUT OF COWITTEE The Senate labor and Industrial Relations Cnmlitt" voted 6-3 to approve a bill that would open the scope of state labor negotiations to include all terms and conditions of employment. The bill which now goes to the Senate floor is mere vide ranging than the bill introduced last session during the first week but failed to gain Senate approval. As written the bill strikes the scope of negotiations section of Chapter 20 and replaces the existing specific language defining the scope of bargaining with geneml language setting the conditions of employment. The bill also allows the parties to negotiate dues checkoff and payroll deductions for members of the employee organization. The league is opposed to any changes in the collective bargaining legislation. We believe that existing legislation provides on effective and working mechanism for resolving dliputes and we would urge you to contact your state senators and ask that they "gist attempts to expand the scope of collective bargaining. VIDEO TERMINAL RULES PROPOSED Senator Charles Brener (D -Ames) has introduced SF 322,a bill which provides occupational safeguards for public employees who work as video terminal operators. The bill includes specific mandatory requirements of the employer on standards for terminal equipment and workplace environment provisions for inspections and re- quinments for eye examinations for operators. The bill also authorizes the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission to ensure compliance with the various standards and specifies obligations of the employer Including but not limited to breaks, alternative work assignments and rest periods. MANUFACNRED HOUSING LEGISLATION INTRODUCED House File 427,an Act relating to the location of mobile homes within o city or tomty,has been introduced by Reps.Tem Fey (D-Davenport),Jim Cooper (D -Russell and Don Platt (R -Muscatine). (over) 5f i -6- The bill provides that in a zoning ordinance of a city or a county, at least one district shall be provided for the use of land for mobile home parks and in. dividuslly owned lots in mobile home parks. The bill also repeals sections of last year's legislation which provided for the setting of manufactured homes on the seem, basis as provided for site -built homes. The bill has been assigned to the House Local Government Committee. City officials should contact their state representatives and support early consideration of this legislation. Letters should also be directed to the three co-sponsors providing support for their efforts. URBAN REVITALIZATION LEGISLATION Senate File 355 by the Senate Local Government Committee bill has been in- troduced to provide that an urban revitalization plan can be amended by a city using basically the same procedure as in adopting the original plan after a hearing. Notice of the public hearing on the amendment is to be published as provided in section 361.3, except that at least seven days notice oust be given and the hearing cannot be held earlier than the next regularly scheduled city council meeting following the published notice. a a e 5l3I M RECEIVED MAR 6 1985 `aaaa- LEGISLATIVE r� Baal t\rev YM lro BULLETIN `°°"`� owm i.�ww lel el M6YW1 ! J First Session March d, 1985 SPECIAL BULLETIN NIMICIPAL ASSISTANCE IN JEOPARDY IMMEDIATE ACTION NECESSARY Senate leadership has confirmed that consideration is being given to eliminating municipal assistance, which currently amounts to $14.65 million, in 1987. jElimination of the municipal assistance would be part of a tax package underconsid- station by the Senate that would all" them to provide an exemption of sales tax on I farm machinery purchases. This amounts to approximately 122 million. M I The remainder of the tax package under consideration would be the elimination of all personal property taxes. Currently there is a personal property tax replacement fund which spreads replacement dollars back to local jurisdictions based on a num- bar of factors including but not limited to business inventory and warehousing opera- tions. This part of the package would amount to approximately 119 million. In order to replace the revenue last to the general fund from the elimination of these taxes, Senate leadership concedes that it out find as much as S42 million in budget cuts or minor tax increasestn make up the difference. As of today, mar a dozen different proposals were under consideration includingthe elimination of municipal assistance in 1987 as part of the budget cuts to produce the necessary 112 million. Other proposals include passage of additional tax on cigarettes, but this alone is inot enough to make up the 112 million. As we go to press, we do not have any specific reference numbers, although we are certain that the elimination of municipal assistance is under active consideration in order to provide the tax exemption to farm equipment. Currently municipal assistance emounts to approximately 16.73 per capita and has not been increased or adjusted for inflation in several years. Nary cities' ser- ' vices depend on the continued appropriation of this money to local gove Moth. Please contact your state senator Immediate! ISIS) 281-3371 to express yourstrong- est opposition to such a proposal. The following should be pointed out: 1. Elimination would jeopardize local services, especially when taken together with the possible loss of federal revenue sharing. 2. It will result in a direct and immediate property tax increase, if you are not already at your maximum limits. 3. Local option is not a replacement for mmiciwl assistance and hu never been. Local option has always been seen as a supplement to, not a replacement for, municipal assistance, especially when ane requires a referendum prior to enactment. Point out that Iota] option is not sought as a substitute for increased aid through available channels such asauni. cipal assistance, but is part of an overall position directed at improv- ing the fiscal situation in Iowa cities. As with many issues dealing with tax questions, the bill will fall" the path of least resistance. Therefore. those who speak the loudest and strongest will pre- , vail. After you have talked to your senator, please follw, up with letters also outlining your opposition. Make sure that local citizen group representatives that may benefit from municipal - assistance also write letters and make calls an your behalf and argue against such a proposal Call nm ..... (SIS) 281-3371 and talk to your senator. a a a 5/� 0 �kGcl. M/n�nrr � 3�/yrs IMPACT OF REDUCED RATE BILLING FEATURE OF STREET LIGHT RATE NO. 43 ON IOWA CITY STREET LIGHTS Beginning in 1979 and based on our records, the savings to the city of Iowa City due to the reduced rate billing provision of Street Light Rate No. 43 is as follows: I. Actual Savings - Four Year Period A. 1979 - actual savings for lights installed $ 5,498 B. 1980 - actual savings for lights installed 1979 and 1980 7,389 C. 1981 - actual savings for lights installed 1979, 1980 and 1981 9,140 D. 1982 - acutal savings for lights installed 1979, 1980, 1981, and through 9/82 when discount provisions expired 6,938 �I E. Actual four year savings $28,965 II. If Iowa City Would Have Granted Iowa -Illinois a 25 Year Franchise Prior to 10/82, Savings Through 12/84 Would Have Been A. 1982 $ 5,886 B. 1983 11,303 C. 1984 8,602 D. Total savings "lost" $25,791 III. Total Projected Savings on Lights Eligible For Reduced Rate Billing as of 12/31/84 $16,570 8 0 March 11, 1985 Mayor John McDonald and City Council I have asked Iowa -Illinois Gas & Electric to provide me with the figures on their investment in facilities for urban renewal. That figure is $2,128,254 as of December 31, 1984. Certainly this kind of support indicates the community -wide interest of this fine utility. ith Ea , Executive Vice -President reater a City Area Chamber of Commerce Greater Iowa City Area Chamber of Commerce P.O. Box 2358 Iowa City, Iowa 52244 (319) 337.9637 �Ior