Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-06-18 Info PacketCity of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: June 13, 1985 To: City Council From: Patt Cain, Associate Planner Re: Design Review Committee Recommendation about City Plaza Fountain At its meeting of June 5, 1985, the Design Review Committee discussed the suggested changes or barriers to the City Plaza Fountain. These sugges- tions were prepared by City staff in response to a request from Council and were referred to the Committee for recommendation. Committee members questioned the need for putting up any barriers and pointed out that the barriers themselves could be hazardous. The Commit- tee also discussed possible design solutions, as opposed to barriers or elimination of parts of the fountain, to prevent persons from climbing on the bricks. The discussion resulted in the following unanimous recommendation to Council: 1. No change be made to the City Plaza Fountain. 2. If Council feels compelled to take some action to decrease the City's liability, the Committee suggests that changes be limited to imbedding four warning signs, one on each side of the foun- tain, into the bricks bordering the base. These signs should be designed especially for this purpose upon consultation with the fountain architect. bc4 // 9jw M City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: June 12, 1985 To: City Council and City Manager From: Chuck Schmadeke, Director of Public Works Re: Digester Repair - Wastewater Treatment Plant The concrete supports for the secondary digester cover at the wastewater treatment plant have deteriorated to the point where collapse of the 290 ton cover is quite possible. Repair work necessary to provide adequate support for the cover will cost $20,816. The Public Works Department is proceeding with this work as quickly as possible in order to ensure structural sufficiency and to minimize disruption of the treatment process. bc3 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: June 14, 1985 To: City Council From: City Managerx��_C_/ Re: City Building Needs Several weeks ago the City Council directed that the staff pursue a lease Purchase agreement for the Elk's Building owned by Southgate Development. Temporarily we have placed these negotiations on "hold". Also, we have arranged to have an engineering firm review all of the structural and building data for the City. The City has received a proposal from Mr. Larry Svoboda and additional infor- mation was requested. (See enclosed correspondence) Since our last discussion, I have conceptually developed another proposal. This alternative provides for the construction of a building, financed with IRBs, between the existing building and Van Buren Street which will be lease purchased from a private developer. This idea has received preliminary parapproval kinglot roimnediately bondcounsel. of lthe Civic iCenterl andwill ease air receive propo alshts tothe from private developers to build an office building of approximately 22-24,000 square feet. A proposal of this nature will create a competitive environment for financing, design and construction which, I believe, could be exceedingly beneficial to the City. Under this proposal, remodeling of the existing building will proceed virtually independent of this project. The project will be bid just as the City bids urban renewal parcels with various criteria determining erha successfuler. The will beifinanc dlthrough lease thepissuance of IRB's issued by the City. It is not possible to absolutely determine which alternative is most advanta- geous to the City, either presently or in the long term, for there are too manyvariables over which the City has no control and which are changing almost constantly. These variables include the rate and term of financing availablthe construction costs, theto the papplicabilitytoffStatetandrovided Federal bytaxeregulationdeveloer, the acceptable rate of return for the developer and national economic conditions. While it appears that a lease purchase for both the Elk's Building and the building proposed by Mr. Svoboda could be executed for approximately the same amount, questions concerning financing, building type, parking requirements and site availability exist for the Svoboda project. Based on the most recent financial analysis, it is unlikely that a building can be built on the Civic Center site at the same cost proposed for either the Elks or Svoboda building. While financing with IRBs has the potential for being less than GO bonds, it is estimated that a building on the Civic I/ 9f i 2 Center site would cost $500,000 more over a 20 year period. However, in a competitive bidding environment it is conceivable that the cost could be equivalent to the other proposals or even less. There are, of course, advantages to having the building on the Civic Center site which might justify some additional cost. The alternative proposal which Mr. Svoboda proposes for the Civic Center site does not seem feasible. I do not believe a building of the nature which is proposed for the site is compatible with the current development an the site and underground parking does not seem to be a viable solution because of cost and site considerations. However, it does indicate that private developers are interested in a project on the Civic Center site. If the City Council still wishes to determine if development on the Civic Center site is preferable to other solutions, the City could prepare a prospectus and receive bids for the project based on IRB financing. This process probably will take at least six months because the prospectus will include a draft contract which requires some time to prepare. In the interim I assume that Southgate Development will proceed with the Elks Building project. If the building on the Civic Center site proves to be infeasible, then the City could again consider either the Elks Building or the Svoboda alternative. However, at that time the financial terms may have changed and certain aspects of the building project, important to the City, already may have been determined. This item is scheduled for discussion at the informal session of June 17. /sp 1 June 10, 1985 Mr. Neal Berlin Civic Center Iowa City, Iowa Dear Mr. Berlin, As per your comment regarding a larger building during our last telephone conversation, I have submitted a sample blueprint of such.a larger building. The blueprint illustrates a first floor plan of 7000 square feet with an exterior viranda as per the original print. The viranda would, of course, be replaced on the second and third floor with interior floor space of approximately 8000 square feet per floor. The building would therefore contain 22000 to 23000 square feet of floor space, depending on whether interior floor space would or would not contain stairwells, hallways, etc. With a somewhat smaller building than I proposed in my original option #2, but with the inclusion of a sprinkler system, I can and will remain on my offer to construct the building under a lease -purchase agreement for $13,600 per month, or I will agree to sell the building outright for 1.4 million dollars. The building will contain,.in addition to the sprinkler system, one hour rated wall and ceiling construction throughout making the building one of the most fire safe and fire resistant buildings in Iowa City. My proposal regarding a timetable of construction has already been outlined. I believe that I can reach a financial accord with my tenants to vacate the existing building early so that constrction can begin this late summer. My construction period will take five months. As previously stated, however, if my tenants decide to stays on until next spring, I could not start construction until then with a completion date set for fall. In any event we are still looking timewise, at a length of time equaling no more than 15 months from now, I believe that Southgate's timetable was 12 months almost one month ago. It would seem that by the time that any decision is forthcoming on this project, that my timetable and any other timetable will be the same. If a difference of one or two months does develop, I would question why such a difference would be of paramount importance when we are talking about a building that we would like to see last the city of Iowa City 75-100 years? Due to the fact that the City of Iowa City is now exploring other avenues I have attached another proposal to this letter on the following page. //pr :i i i I PROPOSAL - OPTION #3 i I I would like to offer an additional proposal to my original proposals as follows: If the City of Iowa city decides to construct an office I i building on an already existing city owned property, I would propose to build the same building as I have proposed 1 on city property for a reduced cost of: I 1 A. Outright purchase by the City for 1.29 million dollars, or, B. A lease purchase agreement based on payments of $12,650 per month, based on a 20 year lease -purchase agreement. I would ask that under such an agreement that P the city grant a long term lease on the construction site, I such lease to be voided at the time that the city would exercise its option to purchase the building. Such a building would maintain its undrground parking features so that there i would be no loss of parking space. Such a building would only be subject to grade restrictions and any additional costs incurred of developing the grade to the building. i Respectfully, y Larry Svoboda j i i 1 11ft t May 29, 1985 Mr. Neal Berlin Civic Center Iowa City, Iowa � Dear Mr. Berlin, i Please excuse my oversight in failing to date my proposal. Consider this letter as an amendment to the proposal with the proposal date as shown on this letter. I shall attempt to answer your letter of inquiry as follows: 1. Masonry Blda vs Frame B1dP. I am in fact proposing a frame ui g w1 rick veneer. I believe that the Elks Building is also constructed of oak framing, constructed at a time of less stringent building codes. It is also been called to my attention that the Elks Building suffered damage from termites and was subsequently treated sometime around 1950. My new building would be ground treated before const— ruction. Such treatment would guarantee that the building would be termite free for a very long period of time. My proposal would make use of space joists which are properly engineered for structural safety. They are also useful for i expansion of plumbing and electrical facilities because of the nature of their construction. Space joists are also more soundproof that an ordinary joist system because of the " dead space" feature that they employ. I do not believe that the Elks Building is constructed with space joists due to its age. 2. S rinkler S stem. I have not made an allowance for a sprizader system in my proposal because, a, It is not required by code, and, b. I am attempting to hold costa down. Cer— tainly an allowance could be worked into my proposal for such a system. 3. Ventilation and Air Conditioning. My proposal includes windows w c are ventilated. In addition, my proposal includes central air conditioning Systeme, separately zoned. A chiller system could be substituted for the air conditioning systems for a nominal cost. Once again, I did not figure a chiller system in an attempt to keep costs down. 4. Underground Space vs_Above Grade Space. The advantages of the use of the a buildingg al above grade are obvioua whether space is for storage, computer area, or office area. of the Old Housed if of oto the Cin the 5. D C e no accep e ,emolition Ioplanyanotherastructure wa 1 11ft premises, perhaps apartments with ground floor commercial, so in any event, the existing structure will be removed, 6. Buildiin Size. My building proposal of 18000 square Peets based sed on the fact that the building is expandible to 24000 square feet either, A. at the time of initial construct- ion, or, B. At a later time according to city needs. The obvious advantage of my proposal is that the foundation with underground parking is already in place for future expansion and therefore, the city couldbuild upon the already existing foundation as the need arose. Certainly, if, in the future the need never arose for future expansion, the city would be spared the cost of additional construction not needed. If, however, the need did arise, the hard construction cost for the expansion would already be in place, f,ea, heating, foundation, elevator, etc. Therefore future expansion costs would be fractional. If, however, the city desired to construct 24000 square feet of space during initial construction, it would be necessary for the city to either grant a parking variance for the existing CB2 zone parking requirement or rezone the property to CB10, eliminating parking requirements from consideration. Certainly the fact that the city would eventuallyown the property would seem to make this point a non -issue, as public property has no parking requirement. 7. Construction Timetable. I purchased the 430 Iowa Avenue proper su ec o tenant's rights. It is conceivable that f I could make arrangements with the tenants to leave before expiration of their lease. I could then begin construction this summer with building completion set by the end of this year. If, however, the tenants opted to stay to the end of their } lease I could not start construction until next summer with building completion set for the end of 1986. At the outside j the most time that would be involved would be'16 months. Four months beyond the twelve months that you outline in your letter should not be a problem for a project of this magnitude. B. lease-Optionto Buy. In my first proposal I misinterpreted the3551—re—=e Cty of Iowa City regarding the City's interest in the form of lease option agreement to be imple- mented. I amend my position as follows: Option #1. Part A.. I would agree to construct and sell to the City of Iowa City an 18000 square foot building for a price of 1.2 million dollars, or: Part B.. I would offer to construct the same building and offer the building to the city on a lease- purchase arrangement, based on a monthly rental fee of 12,700.00. Such monthly payments could be converted to contract purchase payments at any time that the city desired to excercise its option to purchase the property. Such a lease -purchase arrange- ment would be based on a 20 year lease purchase agreement. //?f f i Option #2. Part A.. If the city opted for a larger building to be constructed immediately, I would offer to sell the building containing 24000 square feet to the city for a price of 1.4 million dollars, or, Part B.. I would propose to construct the same building and offer ment, basedhonbaimonthly rentalto the ifeeoofa$13g600.0O. lease-purchase payments could be converted to a contract purchase agreement at any time that the city desired to excercise its option to purchase the property. Such a lease -purchase arrange- ment would be based on a 20 year lease purchase agreement. Pro ect Pinancina. I have been in contact with a representative rom Dain Boswor h who has indicated a strong interest in IRB financing of the project. He has quoted a rate of 8J % plus miscellaneous upfront costs. The length of the project fin- ancing would be for 20 years. I hope this letter answers your questions. I am certain that you will agree that the location of the new building coupled with underground parking is a highly desirable feature of my proposal. The downtown business men that I have talked to feel that the additional parking is critical and necessary for new office space. The general taxpayers that I have discussed my dollproposal with en arsinvoly involved in unanimously new offnice building with in favor of thehadvantage of underground parking. They feel that they are getting more for their money. They express concern about having their tax dollars spent on an older structure that carries with it the uncertainties of an aging structure. I would be happy to answer any further questions that you have concerning my proposal and I would feel honored to discuss my proposal with the members of the City Council. Thank you. 3 Respectfully, Larry Svoboda Rt #6 Iowa City, Iowa Ph 3516534 //70 I I I i Option #2. Part A.. If the city opted for a larger building to be constructed immediately, I would offer to sell the building containing 24000 square feet to the city for a price of 1.4 million dollars, or, Part B.. I would propose to construct the same building and offer ment, basedhonbaimonthly rentalto the ifeeoofa$13g600.0O. lease-purchase payments could be converted to a contract purchase agreement at any time that the city desired to excercise its option to purchase the property. Such a lease -purchase arrange- ment would be based on a 20 year lease purchase agreement. Pro ect Pinancina. I have been in contact with a representative rom Dain Boswor h who has indicated a strong interest in IRB financing of the project. He has quoted a rate of 8J % plus miscellaneous upfront costs. The length of the project fin- ancing would be for 20 years. I hope this letter answers your questions. I am certain that you will agree that the location of the new building coupled with underground parking is a highly desirable feature of my proposal. The downtown business men that I have talked to feel that the additional parking is critical and necessary for new office space. The general taxpayers that I have discussed my dollproposal with en arsinvoly involved in unanimously new offnice building with in favor of thehadvantage of underground parking. They feel that they are getting more for their money. They express concern about having their tax dollars spent on an older structure that carries with it the uncertainties of an aging structure. I would be happy to answer any further questions that you have concerning my proposal and I would feel honored to discuss my proposal with the members of the City Council. Thank you. 3 Respectfully, Larry Svoboda Rt #6 Iowa City, Iowa Ph 3516534 //70 I CITY OF IOWA CITY i CMC CENTER 410 E. WASHNGTON ST. IOWA ON, IOWA 52240 (319) 356-5CCD r r May 24, 1985 I Mr. Larry Svoboda I R.R. 6 Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Mr. Svoboda: This letter is in response to your undated proposal for a new office building. This response is not meant to indicate any interest by the S City in your proposal or to create any obligation on the part of the City. The purposes of this letter are to respond to your proposal, t' indicate the needs which the City has identified for office space and to ;. seek clarification. Please consider the following. The City is interested in a building which provides approximately 22,000 square feet of usable office space with full occupancy projected for no }; later than 12 months from this date. The City desires a masonry building while it is my understanding that you are proposing a frame x: structure with brick veneer. The building should be sprinkled. It is not necessary that all of the office space be above ground for the City has significant needs for storage, computer operations and printing +' facilities. While the underground parking would be convenient, it is not a necessity. There is no information in your material concerning the nature of ventilation and air conditioning. I would be very concerned about the ability of the City to obtain the parking variance " because no financial hardship or other hardship can be shown in that i other parking alternatives exist for the City, including use of other r' City property, In addition, I know there will be some concern about the City being involved in the demolition of the old house on that site. Because of financial limitations the City is interested in a 20 year lease purchase agreement, rather than a 5 year lease with an option to purchase, as you propose. Based upon our discussions, with Southgate Development and your initial presentation, it appears that your proposal would be more costly for the City. The City would be interested in receiving an annual cost for a 20 year lease purchase agreement. Also, please provide the source, length, and expected interest rate for project financing, i If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact me. r Sin erel yours, Neal G. erlin / City Manager /sp /df i I I ■ This brochure is a brief composition setting forth general specifications and features of a proposed new office building for the City of Iowa City. The proposal contained at the end of this brochure is based on projected costs as well as actual bids obtained to construct this building. The general layout and design features of this building are subject to the approval of council and city staff. Wall partitions, room layout, door location, etc., may be altered or changed. BUILDING SIZE AND LOCATION The site of the new building would be at 430 Iowa Ave., directly across the street from the city staff parking lot. The initial size of the proposed building would be 100 feet by 60 feet, with the building facing Iowa Avenue. The building would contain three stories above grade with one level below grade for parking. The parking level below grade would house from 26 to 29 parking spaces. An additional 7 park spaces could be utilized at the rear of the building. The building coverage per level would equal 6000 square feet for a total of 18000 square feet. The rear parking area would serve as future expansion area for the building where another 8000 square feet could be added as needed bringing the total floor area to 26000 square feet. ADVANTAGES OF NEW CONSTRUCTION VERSUS REMODELING OF ELKS BLDG 1. PARKING. The new building would contain 26 to 29 parking spaces underground, all accessible to the elevator. With an additional 7 spaces to the rear of the building, the parking problems that now exist for city administration would be diminished. All city owned staff cars could utilize the underground parking alleviating the city of many weather -re lated car maintenance problems. POINT. The Elks building proposal does not and cannot offer any parking space to help alleviate the existing parking problem. //K 2. HANDICAP ACCESSIBILITY . With the handicap iaccessibility that the new building features, handicap citizens would be able to drive into the building and park beside the elevator to gain access to any floor of the building. The building would also feature handicap accessi- bility at the southwest corner of the building via the handicap lift, then across the front viranda on the front j ground level of the building. POINT. The Elks building proposal provides a more difficult i access problem for handicap citizens who must park a distance from the build i mgr cross through heavy traffic areae, and travel public sidewalks just to get to the Elks building. F In the winter time with associated ice and snow buildup on streets and sidewalks, the handicapped citizens of Iowa City might be denied access to the Elks building altogether. i 3e TAXPAYER ACCESSIBILITY. Iowa City taxpayers would warmly receive the concept of being able to drive into a city office building to conduct their business with Iowa City. POINT a The Elks building proposal does not offer good public accessibility. There are no parking spaces on Gilbert Street and pedestrians desiring to gain entrance to the Elks building must park a distance away and then cross heavily traffickdd areae to gain access.. 4. CITY STAFF ACCESSIBILITY. The city staff parking lot is directly across the street on Iowa Avenue from the location of the proposed new building. Also, as previously noted, frequently used city staff cars could be housed in the underground parking facility. i PONT* If the city offices were located in the Elks building the city staff would have to walk over a block just to get to city staff vehicles. In the new building they could take the elevator to their city staff vehicle. 5e OFFICE SPACE ALL ABOVE GROMM. All office space in the new building would be above ground level..The ad- vantage is that all office space would be accessible to natural light and natural ventilation. POINT, A very substantial portion of the Elks building is IN L 11f 4p located at a subterranean level eliminating the possibility of natural light and ventilation, 6. ENERGY EFFICIENCY OP NEW BUILDING. The new building would be constructed to conform to the latest energy require- mente of the City of Iowa City. The new building faces south and would take advantage of passive solar energy with the large number of windows located on the south side of the building. Highly efficient hot water baseboard heat would be utilized to heat the building. Watt Miser -Low energy flourescent lighting would be used in the office area. High e pressure sodium lighting would be used in the lower level parking area . r. POINT. The Elks building faces north eliminating the advantage of passive solar energy. T. BUILDING DESIGN AND LAYOUT Because this is a new building ousting now only on paper, the design and layout of the building is quite flexible. As previously noted, city staff may alter the plan of the building either inside of outside. POINT. The Elks building has llmited potential for design change simply because it is already an existing building. Be SENT PROPERTY TAX UM. The current tax bill Ilj on 430 Iowa Avenue is 2600 dollars annually. The current tax bill on the Elks building is 9400 dollars annually. Z=. If the Elks building is taken off the tax rolls, the loss to the taxpayers will be 6800 dollars annually. 9. IOWA AVENUE is the government "boulevard avenue" of Iowa City, with the Old Capital facing down Iowa Avenue. The nostalgic and esthetic quality of Iowa Avenue truly makes Iowa Avenue a proper environment for a city office building.. 11f 4p L PROPOSAL Iq proposal contains two options. OPTION #I. I, Larry Svoboda, as owner and developer of 430 Iowa Avenue propose to enter into a lease agreement with the City of Iowa City as follows: I offer to construct a new building on the 430 Iowa Avenue site as per the blue print submitted with this proposal. As part of the offer, I ask the Iowa City Board of Adjustment to apply Sec. 36-58 df the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance to allow 50% of the required parking to be located on the city owned staff parking lot across the street. The application of this paragraph of the ordinance should present no problem as the same care that now occupy the parking lot would continue to do*so. I propose to offer the building.:for a monthly rental fee of $13,000 per month. The agreement shall contain an option to buy the property for 1.2 million dollars at the end of a 5 year period. OPTION 2. If the City of Iowa City would grant a parking variance on the project, I would propose to build an additional 6000 square feet onto the rear of the building. The additional area would be an open space area which would allow the city to design it's space needs as the needs arise. I would propose to offer the building for a monthly rental fee of ;14,400 with an option to buy the building at the end of a 5 year period for 1.4 million dollars. Since the City of Iowa City would end up owning the building, the parking variance would become null and void when the property would be rezoned is public property. The additional square footage of space at the additional /9r' i I �I j • j low cost is possible because most of the heavy cost items such as underground parking, land conte, elevator, plumbing, r concrete work, etc., are already in place in i Option iYl. t Such costs would not increase under Option #2. { } Construction, once commenced, would take approximately 5 to 6 months to complete. Thank you. f rySvoboda i j 1 t x 1 � i { //75 L ■ LEAGUE OF IOWA MUNICIPALITIES 900 Des Moines Street Suite 100 Des Moines Iowa 50309 51512659961 vf�Q June 6, 1985 Dear City Official: In an effort to better inform and be informed by city officials on present and future legislative issues, the League has scheduled a policy meeting for each congressional district. City officials attending the policy meeting will have the opportunity to learn about new legislation enacted by the Iowa General Assembly and discuss, or at least identify, future legislative proposals affecting city government. This series of meetings is the first step in forming J the League's future legislativeriorities. The second step will be a P p summaryand analysis of the suggestions from the congressional district meetings which will lead to the legislative policy committee's recom- mendations to the League's Executive Board. The Executive Board's re- commendation to the annual convention and the convention's final adoption of a policy statement completes this four -step policy formulation process. As chairman of the Legislative Policy Committee and vice-president of the League, I urge city officials to attend the policy meeting for their congressional district. Participation will benefit both the i individual and the city by providing timely information on new laws going into effect, and participation will benefit the League of Iowa Municipalities by bringing more individual ideas and suggestions to the attention of other city officials. Please distribute copies of this letter to all elected city officials as well as those other city officials that need to know about changes in the laws of Iowa. The following schedule of congressional district policy committee meetings is repeated from our May magazine for your convenience: District 2: Meeting to be held on June 26, at 7:00 p.m. in Manchester at the Farmers 6 Merchants Savings Bank, 101 E. Main. The bank is located at the intersection of Highway 13 and Old Highway 20. District 3: Meeting to be held on June 27, at 10:00 a.m. in Cedar , Falls atT t7e Cedar Falls Women's Club, 3rd f, Clay (across the street from city hall). 1 District 4: Meeting tobeheld in conjunction with the Mid -Iowa (- Association o Local Governments on June 12 in Ankeny at Elwell's Restaurant, 309 N. Ankeny Boulevard on Highway 69. Social hour begins at 6:00 p.m. (cash bar); dinner and meeting begin at 7:00 p.m. (dinner and tip about $12.50). PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT PAST PRESIDENT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Harold G SChaefor John N. Lemon Y. Floyd Hall Robed W. Horpsker Finance Commissioner Council Member. Ankeny kayak. Le Mon Des Moines Cedar Rapids 199 I I -2- District 5: Meeting to be held on June 18 at 7:00 p.m. in Atlantic' at the city council chambers in city hall, 4th 6 Walnut. (Interstate traffic should use Exit 57 and travel south to the first set of railroad. tracks (within the city) turn right and go west 6 blocks on Third Street to Walnut, turn left and go 1 block south to city hall. (Enter through door facing alley on west side of building). District 6: Meeting to be held in conjunction with the Northwest Iowa Municipal League on June 20 at the Greene County Country Club in Jefferson. The country club is located on Highway.4 at the south edge of Jefferson. The social hour starts at 5:30 p.m. (cash bar); the dinner and meeting will begin at 6:15 p.m. On behalf of the.Legislative Policy Committee, we want to meet you and other city officials from your city at your policy meeting. Sincerely p John N. Lemon, Chairman Legislative Policy Committee and Vice -President League of Iowa Municipalities Hal Schaefer Doug Sharp President Third District Cedar Rapids Cedar Falls V. Floyd Hall Erlene Veverka Past President Fourth District Le Mars Prairie City Bernie Aulwes Bill Ballenger First District Fifth District Chariton Council Bluffs Paul Willis Dick Nolan Second District Sixth District Camanche Sloan I i I I I i i DALE WELTRECLIVCJJUN 7Lq85 602 Fifth Avenue, Iowa City, Iowa 52240 I f i /d 00 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: June 6, 1985 To: City Council From: City Manage Re: Street Lighting Project Enclosed is a memorandum from the Traffic Engineer commenting on information from the Student Senate relating to street lighting. In addition, the City and the University recently agreed to a joint project bwhich etween Madison dStr etde for the andi the installation ofstreet are lights tstreelightsrlintonStreet in this area and, particularly with the planned bridge reconstruction, street lights are advisable. The lights will be installed as soon as the materials are delivered. /sp City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM, Date: May 6, 1985 (V To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council From: James Brachtel, Traffic Engineer Y Re: University of Iowa Student Senate Street Lighting Project The Student Senate of the University of Iowa conducted a street lighting project during the winter of 1985. It was the intent of the Student Senate's project to determine if there were areas in town where either street lighting was needed or existing street lighting needed to be improved. A base map of the city was prepared and placed on display at the main library of the University of Iowa. Students were encouraged to put a green pin in this map to locate "areas where street lights exist but need improvement" or a yellow pin to locate "areas where lights are needed." In addition to the map and the pins, the project also encouraged students to add written comments regarding the street lighting in Iowa City. .Below is a list of those areas that were identified by the students as either 1) existing street lighting needed to be improved or 2) needing street light. The areas "where lights are needed" were pinned with yellow pins and are marked with an asterisk below. The existing street light conditions are shown in the right hand column. The written student remarks have been added where they.are applicable and are shown in bold type. The applicable current installation practice is noted in parenthesis under each location. AREA OF THE NORTH SIDE STREET LIGHTING PROJECT PIN MAP SUGGESTION EXISTING CONDITIONS On College Street at Van Buren Street.* None. (Current practice would install one 175 watt mercury street light at the intersection. Prior installation was blocked by mature trees. Ornamental lighting on College Street bridge was considered to be satisfactory substitute. The tree has since been removed, a street light could be installed.) On College Street at its intersection One 400 watt Mercury. with Governor Street. (Lighting is consistent with intersection lighting practice.) On Washington Street at its intersec- Three 250 watt HPS. tion with Clinton.* Two 150 watt NPS. (Lighting is consistent with intersection lighting practice. Area is part of urban renewal improvements.) Vzo/ c I 2 The 100, 200 and 300 block of East Six 150 watt HPS units per block. Washington Street.* Various low level 75 watt Mercury lights for sidewalk. (Lighting is consistent with downtown lighting practices. Area is part of Urban Renewal improvements.) Mid -point of the 400 block of East Six 150 watt HPS units per block. Washington.* Various low level 75 watt Mercury lights for sidewalk. 1 I (Lighting is consistent with downtown lighting practices. Area is part of Urban Renewal improvements.) Mid -point of the 500 block of East One 175 watt Mercury from the north j Washington Street.* side. f (Lighting is consistent with North Side Lighting Project.) The blocks between Johnson and Governor along Washington have very poor i lighting, particularly between Johnson and Dodge.I live out that way and j don't feel very safe walking home!!! } East Washington Street at its intersec- One 175 watt Mercury and two 150 J i. tion with Van Buren Street. watt HPS, j (Lighting is consistent with intersection lighting practice. Area is part of Urban Renewal improvements.) East Washington Street at its intersec- Two 175 watt Mercury. tion with Johnson Street. One 150 watt HPS security light. I (Lighting exceeds current intersection lighting practice.) On Washington Street by the synagog on Johnson Street, there is a 20 foot drop. There is a fence about one foot high (metal) broken in some placesand sovered with ummer. If thebrushcanhis was the site of a be cleared and a real fence put ione n place, thesclist ff would be less dangerous - the sidewalk is also leaning. East Washington Street at Dodge Street. Two 175 watt Mercury. (Lighting is consistent with intersection lighting practice.) j East Washington Street at Lucas Street. Two 175 watt Mercury. (Lighting is consistent with intersection lighting practice.) The blocks between Van Buren and Governor on Washington Street are not lighted enough. Many students live out this way and it needs to be better lighted. There have been attacks reported in this area. Need more lights on East Washington Street and around College Green Park -dark and scary there now!! Also more lights on the street between the Courthouse and Post Office. / aol V t r.. 3 On Iowa Avenue at the mid -points of Six 400 watt Mercury units per the 100, 200, 300 blocks.* block. (Lighting is consistent with downtown lighting practice.) Lights needs to be put on the island of Iowa Avenue from Clinton to Dodge. Then people who park their cars can see people who car hide in these areas. Mid -point 400 block Iowa Avenue.* One 175 watt Mercury from north side. (Lighting is consistent with North Side Street Lighting Project.) Lights are needed big time around the out house sororities. Down Iowa Avenue after the Credit Union. Lights near the alley between Iowa and Jefferson, especially on Lucas. Mid -point 500 block Iowa Avenue.* One 175 watt Mercury unit from south side. (Lighting is consistent with North Side Street Lighting Project.) Mid -point 600 block Iowa Avenue.* One 175 watt Mercury unit from north side. (Lighting is consistent with North Side Street Lighting Project.) On Iowa Avenue at its intersection Two 175 watt Mercury units. with Lucas Street.* (Lighting is consistent with intersection lighting practice.) On Iowa Avenue at its intersection Two 400 watt Mercury units. with Governor Street. (Lighting is consistent with intersection lighting practice.) On Market Street at the mid -point One 400 watt Mercury unit. of the 600 block. (Lighting is consistent with North Side Lighting Project.) On Davenport Street at the mid -point One 175 watt Mercury unit. of the 800 block. 1 (Lighting is consistent with North Side Lighting Project.) On Church Street at its intersection One 175 watt Mercury unit. ' with Clinton Street.* t' (Lighting is consistent with intersection lighting practice.) i On Church Street at its intersection Two 250 watt HPS units. with Dubuque Street. e a 4 (Lighting is consistent with intersection lighting practice.) On Brown Street at the mid -point of None. the 400 block. (North Side Lighting Project would install one 175 watt mercury unit at this location. Location was omitted due to conflicts with trees.) On Dubuque Street at the mid -point One 400 watt Mercury unit. of the 300 block north. (Lighting is consistent with North Side Lighting Project.) On Dubuque Street at the mid -point One 400 watt Mercury unit. of the 700 block north. (Lighting is consistent with North Side Lighting Project.) On Linn Street at the mid -point of One 175 watt Mercury unit. the 300 block north. (Lighting is consistent with North Side Lighting Project.) On Van Buren at the mid -point 100 None. block south. (North Side Lighting Project would install one 175 watt mercury unit at this location. Location was omitted due to conflicts with tree. Tree has since been removed.) On Van Buren at the mid -point of the One 175 watt Mercury unit. 400 block north.* (North Side Lighting Project would install one 175 watt mercury unit at this location.) PIN MAP SUGGESTION EXISTING CONDITIONS On Van Buren Street at the mid -point None. of the 300 south. (No streets intersect with Van Buren between Burlington Street and Bowery Street. There are two street lights spaced along the 300, 400 and 500 portion of Van Buren. This is consistent with current lighting prac- tice.) On Johnson Street at the mid -point None. 300 south.* (Lighting is consistent with current street lighting practice.) 1 c 5 On Johnson Street at the intersection One 175 watt Mercury unit. of Bowery Street. (Lighting is consistent with current street lighting practice.) On Lucas Street at the mid -point of None. the 300 block south. (No streets intersect with Lucas Street between Burlington Street and Bowery Street. There are two street lights spaced along the 300, 400 and 500 portion of Lucas Street. This is consistent with current lighting practice.) On Summit Street at the mid -point of One 175 watt Mercury unit. the 400 block south.* (No streets intersect with Summit Street between Burlington Street and Bowery Street. There is one street light spaced along the 400 and 500 portion of Lucas Street. This is consistent with current lighting practice.) On Summit Street at its intersection One 175 watt Mercury unit. with Court Street. (Lighting is consistent with current street lighting practice.) On Summit Street at its intersection One 250 watt Mercury unit. with Burlington Street. (Lighting is consistent with current street lighting practice.) On Reno at the mid -point of the 400 None. block north.* (Lighting is consistent with current street lighting practice.) On Court Street at the mid -point of None. the 600 block east. (The 600 block of East Court Street is less than 600 feet. The lighting is consistent with current street lighting practice.) On Bowery at the mid -point of the None. 700 block east. (The 700 block of Bowery Street is less than 600 feet. The lighting is consistent with current street lighting practice.) On Burlington Street at the mid- One 250 watt Mercury unit. point of the 900 block east. (The 900 block of East Burlington Street is part of the arterial system. The lighting is consistent with current street lighting practice.) II I 6 On Iowa Avenue at the mid -point of One 175 watt Mercury unit. the 900 block east. (The current lighting is consistent with the North Side Lighting Pro- ject.) On Hotz Avenue at the mid -point of One 175 watt Mercury unit. the 1100 block east. (This block is longer than 600 feet. The existing lighting is consistent with current street lighting practice.) On Jefferson Street in the 10 block None. west. (This block is less than 600 feet. The existing lighting is consistent with current street lighting practice.) On Davenport Street at the mid -point None. of the 10 block east and the 1000 block east. (Both blocks are less than 600 feet long. The existing lighting is con- sistent with current street lighting practice.) On Fairchild at the mid -point of the None. 900 block east.* (This block is less than 600 feet long. The existing lighting is consistent with current street lighting practice.) On Church Street at the mid -point of None. the 900 block east.* (This block is less than 600 feet long. The existing lighting is consistent with current street lighting practice.) No lights in middle of block between Burlington and Court. ARTERIAL STREETS PIN MAP SUGGESTION EXISTING CONDITIONS On North Dubuque Street at its Part of systen using 250 watt intersection with Kimball Road. HPS unit. (The existing lighting is consistent with current street lighting practice.) On North Dubuque just south of Part of system using 400 watt Terrill Mill Park. Mercury unit. (The existing lighting is consistent with current street lighting practice.) i E F On the Burlington Street bridge.* Three 250 watt HPS on north bridge and three 400 watt Mercury on south bridge. (The existing lighting is consistent with current street lighting practice.) On Benton Street at the mid -point of None. the 500 block of West Benton Street. (This block is less than 600 feet. The existing lighting is consistent with current street lighting practice.) On West Benton Street at its inter- One 400 watt Mercury unit. section with Mormon Trek. (The existing lighting is consistent with current street lighting practice.) THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS ON THE WEST SIDE PIN MAP SUGGESTION EXISTING CONDITION On Bartell: Road mid -way between Mormon One 175 watt Mercury unit. Trek and Roberts Drive.* (The existing lighting is consistent with current street lighting practice.) The cul-de-sac of Finkbine Court.* One 175 watt Mercury unit. (The existing lighting is consistent with current street lighting practice.) On Melrose Court at Brookland Park.* One 175 watt Mercury unit. (The existing lighting is consistent with current street lighting practice.) Melrose Court needs improved lighting Brooklyn Park (off Melrose Court) needs improved lighting. At the intersection of Grand Avenue One 175 watt Mercury unit. and Byington Road.* (The existing lighting is consistent with current street lighting practice.) At the intersection of Grand Avenue No City lighting. and South Grand Avenue.* (Current street lighting practice would place a street light at this in- tersection. However, University lighting does exist in the area. There are difficulties in developing IIG&E service in this area.) i f I On Iowa Avenue by the EPB building. Two 400 watt Mercury units in median. (Existing street lighting is consistent with current street lighting practice.) INSTITUTIONAL LAND AREAS In the area east of Law College.* Beyond City ROW. In the Pentacrest. Beyond City ROW. In the area south of Melrose Avenue Beyond City ROW. adjacent to the University storage lots.* Need lighting in viaduct on Washington that leads into the parking lot behind the library. Need more lighting on Iowa Avenue in front of EPB. Need lighting along library on Madison between Washington and College - that whole block on the library side of street. Lighting needs to be much greater on the hill going up to Hillcrest (from the walking bridge off Newton Street). Also - could use another light in Brooklyn Park. Thanks. Lights needs to be put on the island of Iowa Avenue from Clinton to Dodge. Then people who park their cars can see people who car hide in these areas. There's a path between the Afro House and Myrtle Avenue leading to Myrtle parking lot that had some lighting but not much, and it seems as if some of them are always burned out. Also need better lighting on Church near the president's house. City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM -' Date: June 7, 1985 To: Neal Berlin, City Manager From: Rosemary Vitosh, Director of Finance Re: Refund on Group Life Insurance In the spring of 1983, the City took bids on its employee group life insurance. This coverage had not been bid out for over fifteen years. As a result of the competitive bid process, the premium cost was reduced by 26% (=4,064) and a new insurance carrier was selected. The City had built up a reserve balance with its prior insurance carrier which was returned to the City last week in the amount of $18,491. Since changing insurance carriers, the City's claims experience has not been as good and the reserve would have decreased in value if the City had stayed with the old insurance carrier. Therefore, not only has our current premium rate been reduced, the City has also gained by getting a refund on the entire reserve balance. tp3/9 i i yl r r - I 11CCLIICJ YL�I r lye. IOWA -ILLINOIS GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY iIOWA CITY. IOWA 52240 T THOOGEAWEIu DIS, ..:1 u.u.uEl. i June 4, 1985 i i 1 Mr. Neal G. Berlin f City Manager I City of Iowa City Iowa City, IA 52240 I I Dear Mr. Berlin: At the May 14, 1985, informal meeting of the City j Council we were requested to respond to your review of the expired and proposed ordinances and to your recommendations relating to the various issues. The proposed ordinances are those submitted to the City by the Company February 15, 1985. Our responses keyed to your analysis are as follows: + 1. Grant. We believe 25 year franchises with a reopener at the beginning of the lith and 21st year by either the City or the Company are in the best interests of all parties. We have a very large investment and we must continue to make significant investments in facilities necessary to provide reliable electric and gas service in Iowa City. A long-term ; franchise assures us the non-exclusive right to do business f long enough to recover the costs associated with this investment. The City should be primarily interested in having available good reliable utility service for its citizens and for economic development. Having long-term franchises is an essential part of this concept. Any proposals for short term franchises are not acceptable to the Company. 2. Subiect to State Law -not Exclusive. We concur in the City Manager's recommendation that the language of the proposed franchises should be used. ! 3. Right to Erect Poles. —Etc- The tc.The Company suggests the language of Section 3 of the proposed electric ordinance is preferrable. We do not object to the City Manager's recommendation to include language that our facilities should not cause unnecessary obstruction to the sewers and water pipes. The Company's ituft 0.1.11 81. vra 14wr bfl low. VHo r -ON nr rD.w � ■ ■ ■ Mr. Neal G. Berlin Page 2 June 4, 1985 right to trim trees should be retained in the franchise ordinance. 4. Relocation of Installations. The language in the expired franchise is acceptable to the Company but the word •reasonably' should remain in the provision. 5. Maps of Underground Installations. The language of the expired franchise should be omitted from the new franchise as the City Manager recommends. We would resist any obligation to provide our maps and updates to the City. The potential for compromising the safety* security and reliability of our electric and gas systems and operations is increased when we lose direct control of the maintenance and use of our facilities maps. The City can have access to the maps at our office. 6. Street Excavations. We concur in the City Manager's recommendation not to include the provisions of Section 4 of the proposed electric franchise ordinance. We believe Section 2 of the proposed ordinance would preclude the need for a regulatory ordinance reference. Any excavating ordinance of general application would apply to the Company. 7. Obligation to Extend Service. We concur in the City Manager's recommendation the proposed language is appropriate. B. Hold City Harmless. We concur in the City Manager's recommendation the proposed language, identical with the expired ordinance language, is appropriate. 9. Obligation to Furnish Energy. We concur in the City Manager's recommendation because the Iowa State Commerce Commission (ISCC) has preempted jurisdiction. 10. Rates. We concur in the City Manager's recommendation because the ISCC has preempted jurisdiction. M Mr. Neal G. Berlin Page 3 June 4, 1985 11. Accounting. We do not believe regulatory ordinance language relating to providing reports is appropriate. The language under review was predicated on rate regulation duties of the City. With the ISCC now regulating rates and the Company's data available to the City upon intervention in a rate case, the need for filing financial data is unnecessary. 12. Right to Inspect Books, Etc. We do not concur in the City Manager's recommendation to include the right to inspect the Company's books for the reasons stated in 11. above. 13. Company to Pay for City's Examination of Books, Records, Etc. The Company will not concur in the inclusion of language requiring payment for costs of this nature. This provision was relevant to the City's prior duty to regulate rates. Therefore, it is an unnecessary cost since the ISCC now has that duty. 14. Company Right to Establish Rules and Regulations with Right to Approve/Disapprove. The ISCC has complete jurisdiction over service including the Company's rules and regulations. Consequently, the language of Section 8 of the proposed electric ordinance is appropriate. The Company does not concur in the City Manager's recommendation. 15. Right to Use Company Poles, Etc. The Company suggests the language of the expired electric franchise be utilized. Expanded use by the City, as the City Manager recommends, is completely open-ended without limitation and not acceptable. 16. Adoption of Police Regulations. We will concur in the deletion of Section 9 of the proposed electric ordinance as recommended by the City Manager. 17. Franchise Binds City and Company, Etc. We concur in the City Manager's recommendation to utilize the proposed language. 18. Condemnation of Private Property. /ao3 i Mr. Neal G. Berlin Page 4 June 4, 1985 We suggest the language could avoid a possible challenge later, but we could delete if the City objects to it. 19. Implementing Provisions of Ordinance Sections 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 of the proposed electric franchise ordinance contain standard language. 20. Other Provisions of Reaulatory Ordinance A •Regulatory Ordinance• is not acceptable to the Company. The Iowa statutes provide that the conditions required for and the manner of the use of streets and public grounds by a utility may be included in the franchise. This language would suggest any such conditions are to be in the franchise so the Company and the public could concur in them. Most of the provisions of the Regulatory Ordinance have been preempted by the ISCC. The City Manager has recommended inclusion of certain provisions of that ordinance in the franchise. The need for such inclusions have been addressed earlier in the item by item response to the City Manager's review of the proposed and existing franchises. In addition requirements such as added undergrounding and compensation for reduced property values have serious cost implications with marginal benefit. Franchise Fee or Rental Fee i The issue of a franchise fee continues to be of interest to some members of the Council. The Company has expressed its concerns regarding a franchise fee (or a rental fee for using the streets). The Company cannot accept any franchise or other provisions that attempt to assess non -Iowa City customers for such a fee. In a letter of October 31, 1984, the Company submitted proposed electric and gas franchise ordinances which contained a one percent rental fee surcharge, which fee should not be viewed as being sponsored by the Company. The ordinances were tendered by the Company to reflect what we understood to be the position of the majority of the Council at that time. The Company and the Council must mutually accept the terms of any franchise ordinances. To avoid any possible misunderstanding about the •major' issues, the City Council should know the Company will oppose any ordinances limited to 10 year terms. It also will not agree to franchises containing a one percent franchise or rental fee unless approved by the voters. I£ a franchise fee or rental fee is approved by the voters, the Company will accept the 1aQ3 Nr. Neal G. Berlin Page 5 June 4, 1985 ordinances provided specific conditions are met. Those conditions are as follows: 1. The City will support at its own costs any application made by the Company to the Iowa State Commerce Commission to impose collection of the franchise or rental fee as a surcharge to the Iowa City gas and electric customers of the Company. 2. The requirement of the Company to pay to the City the franchise or rental fee, as provided in the ordinance as passed, is dependent upon Commission's approval of Company collecting an equal amount from its Iowa City customers. 3. In the event there is a challenge either before the Iowa State Commerce Commission or the'.Courts to the imposition of the franchise or rental -fee, the City shall participate in and defend the fee and the ordinances at its own cost. 4. The mechanics of collecting the surcharge and paying it over to the City as a franchise or rental fee shall be mutually agreed upon and the Company will not sake any payments until same!are collected from its Iowa City customers. S. If the voters do not accept the franchise or rental fee in either the gas or electric franchise ordinance, or both, the City will pass the ordinance or ordinances disapproved by the voters and resubmit same to the voters in identical form less the fee provision. We are agreeable to meeting with the City at its convenience. The citizens and the Company, as well as the City, itself, are entitled to relatively prompt resolution of these matters. 1Ta:pc I Yours very truly, /a 03 1 1