Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-07-30 Info PacketCITY OF IOWA 'CITY CNIC CENTER 410 E. WASHNGTON ST. IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 (319)356-500C July 16, 1985 The Honorable Charles Grassley U.S. Senator 232 Russell Senate Office Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Grassley: I am providing the following in response to your request for information regarding the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). I hope you will find it helpful in addressing this issue before the Senate Labor subcommittee. The applicability of FLSA standards as outlined in the recent Garcia decision poses serious financial problems for Iowa City. Additional costs for overtime to be paid retroactive to April 15, 1985, were not budgeted. These costs will easily exceed $50,000 for the three month period since April 15. A majority of these costs will occur in the Police and Fire Departments. ! Scheduling changes necessitated to achieve the reduction of scheduled overtime will result in a reduction of staffing levels or levels of service, not just for police and fire services but for other city services as well. i Nevertheless, Police and Fire personnel are by far the most seriously impacted. Police officers work a schedule which repeats over a period of 49 days and averages 40 hours per week. This schedule provides for a rotation of days off so that each officer enjoys a three-day weekend on two out of every seven weekends. It is a schedule which is preferred both by the City and by police officers. Yet this schedule would necessitate the payment of approximately $123,000, or 7.5% of the police personnel budget, for additional scheduled overtime during the current fiscal year unless the work schedule is restruc- tured. The current schedule is used by other police departments and seems to accommodate very well the preference for people in 24-hour operations to have at least some scheduled weekend time off. On the average it requires no more hours worked than a traditional 40 -hour week. Nevertheless, it does not fall within the exceptions defined in the Fair Labor Standards Act and thus cannot be used. This is extremely unfortunate and represents a disservice to those in public employment who enjoy the advantages of this innovative scheduling. Iowa City Firefighters work a series of 24-hour shifts which result in an average of 56 duty hours per week per person. This schedule repeats every nine days and includes meal time, sleep time, and other personal time along with scheduled daily activities. This and other similar 56 -hour average work week schedules are very common in the fire services. Nevertheless, addi- tional payment in the amount of approximately $89,000 for scheduled overtime will have to be incurred by the City in the current fiscal year unless this schedule is altered. This would represent an approximate increase of 7.2% in I . _ __._. Ar- __ Senator Charles Grassley July 16, 1985 Page 2 the personnel budget for the Fire Department. It will thus be necessary to reduce the hours of each firefighter by four hours per nine -day cycle in order to come into compliance with the Fair Labor Standards. This is equivalent to a 5% reduction in service or a reduction in force of approxi- mately two firefighters in order to avoid these substantial increases in cost. Finally, the option of receiving compensation for unscheduled overtime worked either by pay or by compensatory time off has been enjoyed by most Iowa City employees for many years. Payment for all overtime work, which does not include scheduled overtime discussed above, would have cost Iowa City an additional $52,000 in the past fiscal year. This figure will be higher in FY86 given the 4% across-the-board increase received by all employees as of July 1, 1985, In summary, the total cost of compliance with the mandates of the Fair Labor Standards Act would be in excess of $265,000 in the current fiscal year. Iowa City cannot afford this 2.5% increase in its personnel 'budget and will therefore be forced to reduce services and/or staffing accordingly. This cost to taxpayers could be reduced in part by granting a period for compli- ance which would afford public employers an opportunity to renegotiate work schedules before being held liable for retroactive payment of overtime as the result of existing schedules. A more desirable option would be to relax the FLSA maximum hour standards to allow for continuation of the traditional schedules for public safety personnel. In addition, allowing for compensa- tory time off for overtime worked would be of benefit to many public em- ployers and employees as well. i I strongly urge the Senate Labor subcommittee to consider the critical magnitude and impact of the Garcia decision and to initiate legislation which will permit public employers employees to continue both traditional and innovative scheduling in public employment. Many of these are not only "fair" by today's standards, but are preferable to both employers and em- ployees. Your concerns in addressing this matter are greatly appreciated and I would be happy to provide further information at any time. SS cerely yours, hon McDonald ay or dh/sp cc: City Council City Manager Human Relations Director Assistant City Manager CITY OF IOWA CITY CHIC CENTER 410 E. WASHNGTON ST. IOWA CITY. IOWA 52240 (319) 356-5000 July 19, 1985 AN OPPORTUNITY REVISITED You recently received a communication from the City of Iowa City entitled "An Opportunity" informing you of the City's plan to solicit a private development team to build and finance an office facility. After further research by the City staff and bond counsel, a decision has been made to pursue an alternative financing mechanism for this project. The City intends to sell Certificates of Participation to finance a lease purchase arrangement. Under this arrangement a commercial bank, specialty lease financing company, or underwriter will enter into a lease with the City and then sell Certificates of Participation to interested investors who will share in the tax-exempt interest income. This proposal will allow the City to select an architect to design the structure and then competitively bid the construction. It is anticipated that a Request For Proposals will be issued in August to select an architectural/engineering firm. The financial package will be developed this fall. Construction is anticipated to begin in the spring of 1986. If you are interested in this alternate concept, please contact the City Manager's office at (319) 356-5010. Thank you. Sincerely yours, I Dale E. Helling Acting City Manager i I I i i i City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: July 16, 1985 To: City Council From: Dale Helling, Assistant City Manage Re: Discussion of Wastewater Treatment Facilities The attached memorandum is being provided in response to Council's .recent questions about the upcoming discussions of this project. Council will be given a further update at your informal meeting on July 29, 1985. The meeting with representatives from Arthur Young & Company and Metcalf & Eddy referred to in the final two paragraphs of the City Manager's memorandum is scheduled on Wednesday, August 7, 1985, at 1:30 p.m. in the City Manager's Conference Room. Council members should advise whether or not you will be attending that meeting. bj2/11 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: June 28, 1985 To: City Council From: City Manage Re: Treatment Plant/Sewer Study The purpose of this memorandum is to give you a progress report on the Metcalf & Eddy study. Mr. Charles Pound, Vice President, Metcalf & Eddy, in the Arlington Heights office who is responsible for the project, was recently reassigned to Alexandria, Egypt. He will be replaced shortly with a new vice president. However, the work will progress without interruption because Mr. Larry Jaworski, the project manager, will continue to supervise the work. Metcalf & Eddy is continuing the review of the three engineering alterna- tives. The Fluor Corporation has completed a construction cost estimate. The Fluor estimate changes the cost relationships of the three alternatives. Metcalf & Eddy concurs with the Fluor estimates. Because there is only a 7% difference between alternatives 8 and 11, they represent virtually the same economic value. Original Fluor' Description Estimate Estimate 1. Alternative /2 (Existing Plant 72%) (Sand Rd. Plant 28%) $49,746,000 $49,272,000 (SE Interceptor Sewer) 2. Alternative 88 (Existing Plant 100% with various pumping 35,029,000 31,696,000 stations.) 3. Alternative B11 (Existing Plant 72%) (Sand Rd. Plant 28%) 40,379,000 33,912,000 (Sycamore Interceptor) For detailed estimate, see attached "Cost Summary." For detailed description of alternatives, see Metcalf & Eddy, April 5, 1985, Phase II Report. This past week, City staff met with representatives of Metcalf & Eddy and Arthur Young & Company to develop parameters for preparation of the financial alternatives. When Metcalf & Eddy submits its final recommendation on the three engineering alternatives, Arthur Young also will present a number of 2 financing alternatives. These will range from the most conventional munici- pal financing, such as the issuance of fixed rate general obligation and revenue bonds, to various kinds of privatization. One of'the alternatives is a financing method similar to that which is being considered for the con- struction of a new City office building. In all instances Arthur Young & Company will also indicate what impact the proposed income tax law changes might have on these financing methods. At the end of July or early in August the final Metcalf & Eddy/Fluor/Arthur Young recommendations will be received. At that time the City staff and the Wastewater Treatment Plant Review Committee will meet with representatives of Arthur Young & Company and Metcalf & Eddy to review the recommendations. Because of the nature of the engineering recommendations and the number of financing alternatives, the members of the City Council are encouraged to attend that session. Based on that session, the Review Committee will make a recommendation to the Council. Shortly thereafter the Council will be requested to proceed with a specific engineering alternative and a method for undertaking construction. The Committee will consider whether an engineering firm should be engaged to prepare plans and specifications or whether a design build or construction management process should be utilized. As soon as we have some idea of the dates of the meeting, we will be contact- ing you. In the interim, if you have any questions, please let me know. cc: Advisory Committee Chuck Schmadeke /sp /4W 3 Ober SWIM ITd 0eSr6IPIgON � '1ERN1E 12 11L7ERtu7E 1e 1 Re aw+� FUDR flfE QMNZ 111 e gbtltq 81mt hNWllhtlm RimTE(NIVE CN1PlCE M$2,2)3,000 E[lstbra Plard ERMAIan $2,233,000 $2.2331000 $2,233.000 $2.233,000 $2,233.000 StWMMttlan em[wgr ltwwtc /yt tw S•/sl,oao 8,682,000 7,290,000 10,923.000 51/5/•000 8,682,000 6/d 6088 ltwtmt hart 7r 161,000 7.531,000 Litt Bht"on W rolm mgm 0 0 7,162,000 7.531,000 a 0 2•996,000 3,268,000 1,170.000 1,091.000Sweets Erb Total 23.051.000 19.617.000 11,86),000 10,521,000 10,067,000 11.321,000 OwAinivincy ase) 37,902,000 38.266.000 21.302.000 76.915.000 26.066.000 31.061.000 MdnImtwtlw G9+1, IOgltre[!tg fael Sr6eS.000 5,710.000 3,657,000 /,012,000 3.913.000 1.659.000 Total Corret[uctlon Coat 51685,000 5,710,000 3,657.000 1,012.000 3.913.000 1.659.000 $/9,212,000 $19,716.000 -1.0 $3"•696,000 051029,000 -9.5 03.912,000 $10,379.000 "out -16.0 a) AM 0 11 AM IN CD 0012106 E ommom 70 1990. 3 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: July 18, 1985 To: City Council From: Dale Helling, Assistant City Manager Phyllis Alexander, Civil Rights Specialist y� Re: Housing Audit - FHAP Grant For the purpose of bringing you up to date, the following will describe the housing audit that was recently conducted under our Type II contract with HUD. During June of 1984 the City of Iowa City and the Iowa Civil Rights Commis- sion submitted a joint application for a Type II contract to HUD. We were awarded the contract and $4,000 was allocated to Iowa City for staffing a part-time position to continue the auditing program and our outreach activi- ties. With regard to the auditing program, eight auditors were hired and from February 1, 1985, to May 11, 1985, 93 audits were conducted which tested difference in treatment on the basis of race. A report documenting the results will be disseminated during August of 1985. The Civil Rights Assistant is now -coordinating and implementing a second audit. Four auditors have been hired and will test difference in treatment on the basis of presence or absence of dependents. The audit began July 8th and is scheduled to conclude on September 15th. As you will recall, the City's non-discrimination ordinance was amended in May of 1984 and one of the changes- was the prohibition of discrimination based on the presence or absence of dependents in housing. It was not appropriate to test for discrimination in this area at that time but rather to allow time for acceptance and compliance. It has now been over a year since the amendments went into effect. Landlords and the general public have been apprised of the changes and testing to determine compliance is now appropriate. A report documenting the results of this audit will be dissemi- nated in November of 1985. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions regarding this matter. bdw/sp lTv e ■ I I { t I . I i 1 j MINUTES OF STAFF MEETING July 17, 1985 Referrals from the informal and formal Council meetings were distributed to the staff for review and discussion. Appreciation was expressed to Bob Jansen, City Attorney, for his work and support during the past years. Mr: Jansen has resigned his position effective Friday, July 19, 1985, and this will be the last staff meeting which he will attend. Prepared by: clZcCL u �gIkA Lorraine Saeger U 1 I j I { t I . t i � I I I Informal Council Meeting DATE: July 15, 1985 PENDING COUNCIL ITEMS �¢ o 0 oM SUBJECTS IREFERRED DuuE2a o COMMENTS/STATUS az yH-w Wcca I.. Street Lighting 7-15 Public Work Aug 2 Analysis of locations submitted by j Larry Baker and identified by Traffic Engineer in response to survey. to Northside Lighting Project. � I I. Provide Council with outline of Civic Center Expansion 7-15 Finance/ Jul process and include time estimates. ACM 25 Schedule for discussion on July 29. ew i y al opim o E! Newspaper Vending M chines 7-15 City Attorn y/ for further Councildiscussion. PPD Aug Schedule for informal discussion and �! 21 Council public hearing no later than I of one or more banks of machines. Include possible location(s) and cost estimates. Sewage Treatment Facilities 7-15 ACM Send memo to Council re. scheduling, i etc. CDBG FUnds 4Public uxay to runtl $12,000 request from f Mary Coldren Home. Explore alterna- ! tives for conditional funding in I is sold after money is allocated? JI� I i 41: Include map showing alternatives Request for access on for access in recommendation. Hutchinson it Informal Council Meeting Page 2 DATE: July 15, 1985 PENDING COUNCIL ITEMS W> ww wo'� SUBJECT �� REFERRED Mgv' o COMMENTS/STATUS ¢: w D�uE E~w az ¢ w ¢ ¢ a Market Analysis 64-1a 7-15 ACM Schedule for informal discussion. Display of Flags 7-15 ACM Affirmative response to Chamber of Commerce. Bicycle Lanes on Market andLeave lanes off. Respond to Ms. Jefferson 7-15 ACM Rubben. Mortgage Revenue Bonds 7-15 PPD Staff recommendation accepted. Pursue no further. Transit recommendations 7-15 Transit OKay to discontinue S.W. tripper. Include this route and Bulk Rate Pass Program in comprehensive Regular Council Meeting July 16, 1985 DATE: PENDING cot wni ITFMq WW W; �W>- o2 SUBJECT Qw o REFERRED TO DATE DUE X25 �w COMMENTS/STATUS 0.Z ¢ ¢ W a Board of Adjustment Notice 11 7-16 P&PD Aug ana for third erationnafterdadministrativenprocedur Requirements 23 is developed and reviewed by Council. Inoperable/Obsolete Vehicles 7-16 H&IS Ordinance passed and adopted. Traffic Signals/Safe y Measures 7-16 Public Work Aug 2 Send info available to Council regarding First Avenue and Rochester, Sunset & M6, and Mormon Trek and N6. safety measures, traffic counts, etc. Contact IDOT. Update Council at each informal meeting. City Plaza Fountain 7-16 P&PD Jul Contact architect of fountain 26 re. 1. Why doesn't water flow as it 2. Any ideas to make it safer?. Report to Council. Mud, Dirt and Debris 7-16 Public Work Check on dirt from Van Buren Street project at Van Buren and Iowa. City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE: July 26, 1985 TO: City Council FROM: City Manager RE: Material in Friday's Packet Memoranda from the Assistant City Manager: a. Civic Center Expansion Project b. Referrals to Traffic Engineer Memorandum from the City Attorney regarding Nuclear Weapons Free Iowa City Ordinance. Memorandum from the Chairman of the Parks and Recreation Commission regarding the joint facility/city park pool renovation proposal. Memorandum from the Acting Director of Parks and Recreation regarding Mercer Park multi-purpose recreation facility. Memorandum from the City Engineer and Senior Planner regarding Peck request for access from Hutchinson Avenue. Memoranda from the Department of Planning and Program Development: a. Referrals from Council about Operation of City Plaza Fountai b. Iowa Department of Water, Air and Waste Management River Reclassification Program c. Conditions on CDBG Funding Memorandum from the Department of Public Works regarding Brookside Or and Second Avenue Bridges over Ralston Creek. Memorandum from the Human Services Coordinator regarding mid -year fun requests by human service agencies. Memorandum from the City Clerk regarding beer/liquor license/conditio approval. Ltr. from Jay Honohan re Swimming Pool Project Copy of article from The Miami Herald entitled "Law, the Constituti: and Nuclear War". Copy of article from Nuclear Free America entitled "Nuclear Free Zo: history of... Copy of article from Nuclear Free America entitled "Nuclear Free Zo: legal notes...". City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: July 25, 1985 To: City Council From: Assistant City Manager Re: Civic Center Expansion Project Attached please find a copy of a preliminary schedule for the above -referenced project. This schedule assumes that all phases of the project will proceed without, major problems or delays. However, once an architect has been selected, more specific time frames for design, bid letting, and construction will be established. This may result in some deviation from the current preliminary schedule. Staff will be simultaneously developing a financing plan based upon the issuance of Certificates of Participation for funding the project. Again, scheduling may deviate from that projected once we have had the opportunity to work with our new financial advisor in this area. However, we would not anticipate significant changes. You have indicated that Council wishes to retain a high level of involvement in this project. As you previously requested, time has been scheduled during your informal meeting on July 29; 1985, to discuss this issue further. The should' provide a perspective to help you consider the preliminary timetable extent to which Council and/or individual lease ivebmesa ciallt be involved. If you have any questions in the interim, p 9 bj3/19 i I City of Iowa City Administrative Office Building Preliminary Building Construction/Financing Schedule August 8, 1985 - Financial Advisor, Bond Counsel and staff begins review and planning for the lease purchase arrangement and the sale of Certificates of Participation. August 12, 1985 - Request for Proposals mailed to architectural/engineering firms. August 28, 1985 - Deadline for RFP responses from architectural/engineering firms. September 4, 1985 - Architectural firms selected for interviews and asked to prepare conceputual schematics for the project. September 6, 1985 - Report sent to Council from the Finance Director and financial advisor regarding the schedule and method for marketing the financing for the project. September 23-25, 1985 - Interviews of architectural/engineering firm held. October 8, 1985 - City Council adopts a resolution hiring the architectur- al/engineering firm. February 28, 1986 - Architect completes design work, plans and specifications for the building project. April 2, 1986 - Bids are due on the building construction project. Aprtl 8, 1986 - Various City Council actions approving and entering into a lease purchase arrangement. April 8, 1986 - City Council action awarding the bid for the construction for the building project. April 15, 1986 - Building construction begins. July 1, 1987 - Building construction completed. IW3 City of loves City MEMORANDUM DATE: July 26, 1985 TO: City Council FROM: Assistant City Manager (2r ce�__ RE: Referrals to Traffic Engineer Attached are several memoranda from the Traffic Engineer regarding questions raised by Council at your meetings on July 15 and 16, 1985. Signalization of the intersection of Sunset Street and Highway #1 will be included in the next CIP program for FY87. This could be moved ahead if Council wishes. The intersection of Highway $1 and Mormon Trek Boulevard is outside the City limits and will not be pursued further unless Council wishes to annex this area. A follow-up report regarding First Avenue and Rochester will come to Council after delay studies are completed in September. Additional street lighting to the south of the North Side Lighting Project area will be scheduled for future Council discussion as part of the follow-up on that Project. City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: July 25, 1985 To: Director of Public Works \\�� From: James Brachtel, Traffic Engineer . Y� Re: Council's Request for Information Regarding the Intersection of Mormon Trek Boulevard and Iowa Highway it City Council has requested information regarding traffic lights, safety measures and traffic counts for the intersection of Mormon Trek Boulevard and Iowa Highway /1. The intersection of Iowa Highway 11 and Mormon Trek Boulevard lies outside of Iowa City's city limits and therefore the City does not have jurisdiction over the control of this intersection. If the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) warrants for signalization are met and the City wishes to install signals, the City must annex enough territory so as to bring this intersection into the City limits of the City so that the City and the state would have concurrent jurisdiction. Once concurrent jurisdiction was established and if the signalization warrants were met, then the City could proceed to provide signalization at this intersection and perhaps receive USTEP funding for 50 percent cost sharing with the Iowa DOT. Traffic Engineering has conducted no traffic counts at this location. If the Council wishes us to pursue traffic counts at this location, they will be scheduled for September of 1985. September is being selected as an appropri- ate time based upon the return of the students to college and the return of many citizens from August vacations. bj4/5 I City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: July 25, 1985 To: Charles Schmadeke, Director of Public Works From: James Brachtel, Traffic Engineer Re: Council Referral Regarding Sunset Street and Iowa Highway dl The City Council had requested that the intersection of Sunset Street and Iowa Highway 01 be studied to determine if signalization would be warranted. The City shares jurisdiction over this intersection with the Iowa Department of Transportation. As part of this concurrent jurisdiction, any change that the City would wish to make must be agreed upon by the Iowa 00T. In May of 1985 the Traffic Engineering Division conducted traffic counts at this location. Subsequently, the accident experience of the intersection has been investigated. Based upon this data, the traffic signalization warrants of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCO) have been met. If the Council is interested in installing traffic signals at this location, the following steps will he required. Traffic Engineering will prepare plans, specifications and estimates for the signalization and permission from the Iowa DOT will be requested. This item can be made part of the capital improvement askings for FY87. It is possible that 50 percent of the cost for the signalization of this intersection may be shared with the state under their USTEP funding program. If the Council would like to 'pursue this partial funding from the state, the plans, specifications and estimates, after they are prepared, will be forwarded to the Iowa OOT as part of a concept statement requesting the funding. If Council is interested in pursuing the signalization and the USTEP funding for this project, the earliest installation date would be late spring or early summer of 1986. bj4/4 r 1414111- 1 1 f- -_. City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: July 25, 1985 To: Chuck Schmadeke, Director of Public Works From: James Brachtel, Traffic Engineem4A Re: Request for Additional Traffic Control at First Avenue and Rochester Avenue It has been requested that the intersection of First Avenue and Rochester Avenue be studied to determine if additional traffic control is required at this location. Traffic counts were performed by the Traffic Engineering Division on July 9, 1985 at this location. Based upon those traffic counts and accident experience, traffic signals are not warranted at this location. The traffic counts did reveal that the traffic volumes currently using the intersection very nearly approach the warrants for a four-way stop. However, part of the warrants for four-way stops require that the vehicles entering the intersection from the minor street be delayed on an average of 30 seconds. The Traffic Engineering Division will be conducting delay studies at this intersection in September of 1985 to measure both vehicular delay and any additional traffic increases that might have been caused by changing conditions between July and September. The traffic volume data, the signallzation warrants and the warrants for four-way stops are attached to this memorandum. Additional information will be provided in September of 1985. bj4/6 GRAPHIC SUMMARY SHEET q Location. F/e5�-AVc/Bft</� T ..AY Dote ......1....� V � �...8.�......!.uES r, m c: ...... !� .................. Hours from Indicate ' . •. h ..A.M. to..................A.M. North Ey. Arrow cQ IA ....................P.M..... .',. ?......P.M. N t j 4 Weather .....62M......... ....:............ N o Road Surface CondRion...DA.),...... . M ............................................................ N-0 /34l: Z180 K .S1fiS 43c8 � iZ*71/ "3/ zlzb � 75Z VEHICLES COUNTED N r I!1 CLASS DIRECTION 6 n All r Pass. Comm. Other ' � 3 REMARKS GI2e--LF-n IJL-mf362i K;---MGxE'/TPsaExrzrAli DATE'/OJuc ,-,� E5 COMPILED BY ����• ���/ i i vrnlvLL• vv"VlvlI �nuvrr.. ..... .. INTERSECTIONI F/iL'si AV c �p<NcSTB� AVb I uL- 85 DATE OF COUNT �+ Y TIME INTERVAL NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT 6 - 7 AM Z. Z,D / �B 13 S% '(v V d 20 /� 7-1=5/ iN LCo j4 el 1.70 -3 CO 51.5 3' �8Z e 9 I 1 y ID :i0 • � 30 58 loo Z -7 5 3g elo-3 9 -10 z Ca 7 L) 8 33 73 81 -' 7 `r`5 `L3 5 10-11 z e S /a(o q` 5/ 8 Sky 73 `f Co & � 4V 34,C 11 - 12 /p� Co /00 0) 34 4:6 '_' 7 75/ �� 2,9 1� 12- 1 1 c) 15 i �L 4-5 �I 0) al 75 �i3Co I - 2 s 9 11 16 el- '1 yz c./ el / '73 58 4eoz 2 - 3 Z 6; 78 6� 7`l -59 01 z Z Co 77 3 - 4 I Z 85< 77 .5/ %�>< / Z //S/ 80 4 -5 3, g� 7 /35 z SII y/ g7 - !8 /v 113 -5 c/ 5 6 Z C�� of 17-0 `l 7z 4.3 IZ-1 z— ISz 115 •&53 6- T Z 9 110 !a df .50 fi (p % 11 S7 -5Co S I g 7 -a 7 'f 71 -3 3q z[o G7 3 80 !v3 .37Co�� a- e 7 3 Cv 711 8 35 3z 53 9 -10 3 s S l03 (os Z9 Z7 `$ Z 7°I 5 / 3�1� �s 1l(n /533 755 j3© 33 I= -I /3L I IpLL 7/O��' 1 .I i 1 I I I d f 1 .I i 1 I I VFHICI F VAI IIUC VAO111 AT.�u ILt- INTERSECTION, ,'-icsr A��/C'�c�ESTE� AUSJDATEOF NT19Juc-,'as TIME INTERVAL NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG AL LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT AM 6 - 6-15 — / -_ -� _ _O '74 6115 - 6130 Z� 6130- 6145 _ _ L7 Z7 / 6145 7.00 / (S / O zp z 7100-7115 3 /D aj . —5�7.15-7130 '`1l0 / 7 7130 7145 2-L 35 7145 - 6'00 I z 3s /God eloo e115 z7/oo e11s 6130 — ) z7 / S to Z5� / /Z /L 0-30-0-45 — 3 Z 1 3 / i zZ LS `74 // ,z _ //3 8•45 - 9100 900-9115— it -7 915-930 — Z L7 / // /5 /`% Z /Q �Zcv 930-9145 — Z 9.45-10-00 z- / Z 1/7 / Z z3 1-7 VEHICLE VAI IIUR TAO -11 AI .I .I PAGE 2 OF 4 rr- JI ILL INTERSECTION- -/.e_ AV%�p�//Cs�E� A 4 %ups DATE OF COUNT I Ci Juc y 8S TIME INTERVAL NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG TOTAL LEFT JHRIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT 1000-1015 / 10115 -1030 — — — /(o ' d 030 10-45 Z. z s/ 17 z 13 1 goy ' 10-45-11-00 - 11-00- 1 1100 - 1115 11-15 - 11-30 11.30 - 11145 11-45 - 12100Z- 12-00- 1200- 12-I5 3 z ZS / /3 3 3 12-15 - 12130 3 / z3 7 �, / z3 Lb /Os 6 12-30 - 12145 Z Z Jr / Z S 12,45- I-00 -loo 1115 z-- 1:15 U15 - 1130 1.30 - 1,45/ z z ZZ -1 /p 1145. 2-00 Z Z Zt7-1Z / /Z VEHICLE Vnl Ilur TARIII Arron eucrr a PAGE 3 OF 4 INTERSECTION f esT S rE�/zo4yEsrE c COUNT �a5 TIME INTERVAL NORTH LEG SOUTH LEGTOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT2fl0 215 / '/ — /7/ NIGHT WLEG 32,15 - 2,30 — Z — l7 / — /03 230 245/ 245 3 00 — 3,00-3-15 Z - / 3 / ZZ- /7 /(o — — 33 ' / T //'? 3,15 -3130 - I ?: 1-1 3-30 - 345 — / z(o 3.45 4,00 ' 1 — 7-1 -- 7-1 4,00 - 4,15 ._ rs _ z(o z/ /37� 4915 ' 4-30 S 3 .3/ )c) 4-30 4;45 _ / e7o Z6 / 3 -` Z8 /� Z ' -- CO .35 — —1% 1 Z 30 -- Z eA� 3 /77 K/D e Z& 7 36 —' 7- Sz38-/o/0 — Z. 5 z � 5 q — � 2:7 ..._ _. .. __...-_ _.... __.._.__. ___.f,__ INTERR€RTI®N1 BAT9 OF t;AUNTI rl-'u as TIME INTERVAL NORTH LEO SOUTH LEO EAST LEO WEST LEO TOTAL LEFT THRU IRrHT LEFT I THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT 6,00- MIS Z — z3 / �,L / (o Z 3 Z.3 / C'/ Iwo8N5 6130 — / 7-. C, /T /-3 L 630 -6,45 / 3 / Z /57 U 695-700/ k /O Z� - f z0 Z/ /L 2-1 7.00 - 7,15 1 s — S /3 7,15 - 7130 / / Z Z(� Z /0 -5 7,30- T 45ZF Z — / (o / / Zi -7 /5 '— / 17 ) 3 L 7-45- 8-00 3 /3 Z' �o d) )'7 / ) I7 8,00- 6-15 ) z 1 )3 z s 7 )/ I ( I(o zJ 845 - 830' z ,� 3 �l 1 zB /L 830 6 45 ' J LS Z / S — J zCo a-4iu o 8-451-9,00 J 3 /7 J 7 11 I 3) C� 13 8 3 9.00-945 Z Z J`/ Z �Q J� J / , Z) 9 s) 9,15 9'30 5 o- Z L `� Z 3 `t/ / ` / 5 ho lo 9-30,9145 _ _ - JU J ' ,/3 T// 7�Cj 9,45 - 10,00 PM I ) I S T �' % Z� 7 (as J w '7)0)8 )4.5 211-6 Muldway Stop Signs The ' .Muldway Stop" installation is useful as a safety measure at some locations. It should ordinarily be used only where the volume of traffic on the intersecting roads is approximately equal. A traffic control signal is more satisfactory for an intersection with a heavy volume of traffic. Any of the following conditions may warrant a multiway STOP sign installation (sec. 2110: 1. Where traffic signals are warranted and urgently needed, the multiway stop is an interim measure that can be installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the signal installation. , 2 An accident problem, as indicated by rive or more reported acci- I dents of a type susceptible of correction by a multiway stop installation i in a 12 -month period. Such accidents Include right. and left -turn colli- sions as well as right-angle collisions. 3. Minimum traffic volumes: (a) The total vehicular volume entering the intersection from all approaches must average at leant 500 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average day, and (b) The combined vehicular and pedestrian volume from the mi - i nor street or highway must average at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours, with an average delay to minor street vehicular traffic of at leant 30 seconds per vehicle dur- ing the maximum hour, but (e) When. the 85 -percentile approach speed ofthe major street traffic exceeds e0 miles per hour, the minimum vehicular volume warrant is 70 percent of the above requirements. ill I i � J � �t I { 4 s>/F 4�, 1 � K � 1 ll { { I Y I I i 211-6 Muldway Stop Signs The ' .Muldway Stop" installation is useful as a safety measure at some locations. It should ordinarily be used only where the volume of traffic on the intersecting roads is approximately equal. A traffic control signal is more satisfactory for an intersection with a heavy volume of traffic. Any of the following conditions may warrant a multiway STOP sign installation (sec. 2110: 1. Where traffic signals are warranted and urgently needed, the multiway stop is an interim measure that can be installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the signal installation. , 2 An accident problem, as indicated by rive or more reported acci- I dents of a type susceptible of correction by a multiway stop installation i in a 12 -month period. Such accidents Include right. and left -turn colli- sions as well as right-angle collisions. 3. Minimum traffic volumes: (a) The total vehicular volume entering the intersection from all approaches must average at leant 500 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average day, and (b) The combined vehicular and pedestrian volume from the mi - i nor street or highway must average at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours, with an average delay to minor street vehicular traffic of at leant 30 seconds per vehicle dur- ing the maximum hour, but (e) When. the 85 -percentile approach speed ofthe major street traffic exceeds e0 miles per hour, the minimum vehicular volume warrant is 70 percent of the above requirements. ill I i i i I P I ' i WARRANTS FOR SIGNAL INSTALLATION Warrant I .Minimum vehicular volume. Warrant 2 Interruption Of Continuous traffic. Warrant 7 Minimum pedestrian volume. Warrant 4 -School crossings. Warrant 5—Progressive movemenL Warrant G. -Accident experience. Warrant 7 --Systems, Warrant 8—Combination of warrants. Warrant 1. Minimum Vehicular Volume The Minimum Vehicular Volume warrant is intended for application where the volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason for consideration of signal installation. The warrant is satisfied when, for each of any 8 hours of an avenge day, the traffic volumes given in the table below exist an the major street and on the higher -volume minor - street approach to the intersection. An "average" day is defined as a weekday representing traffic volumes normally and repeatedly found at the location. MINIMUM VKMICULAx VOLUMES rOM WARRANT I Sanda.i of linea fr nwimm tratile V.hwle. ler Mw on un each appnaad major fa Per to of Nahw•v Nap oL major lareM ftaWN irr.MMl aperrrtli . Maitr Steve, Minae, Street high appnrhaal var dirretkin only) t................ 1................ AnilIaa ! r nage........ I ................ NXI ISO ! r arm........ S r urn........ am tial i1 ................ ! r ore........ we 2110 There major -street and minor -street volumes are for the same 8 hours. During those 8 hours, the direction of higher volume on the minor street may be on one approach during some hours and an the opposite Approach during other hours. When the Mrs -percentile speed of major -street traffic exceeds 40 mph in either an urban or a rural area, or when the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 100111, the Minimum Vehicular Volume warrant in TO percent of the requirPmPnls above. Warrant 2. Interruption of Continuous Traffic The Interruption of Continuous Traffic warrant applies to operating calolitinnr where the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that traffic on a minor intersecting straet suffers escesaive delay or harmnl in entering or crowing the major street. The warrant is satisfied when. for Path or any 8 hours of an average day, the traffic volumes given in the table below exist on the major street and on the higher-eolumr ! minor•etrset Approach to the intersrctiun, and the signal installation will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow. ,OF n Intersection of k6aws7m VE�UUE IInd F/?ST AVE.tJIIE observed TUE Ay9./VL /485. Intersection does not coatply (see attachment 01) 1 __ .... _ __._.___. MINIMUM VEMrft)LAR VOLUMES FOR tt'4RR4HT2 Crhldr• Lr hour cis \umhrr of I+nrr for min ml; utas Vvinklr. Iwr h,mr un hPyhrn.nlumr ml - an rrch appnwch major 4r.A lyceal of nur•atrret appm.ch Ma)nr Street Minor Strrel I.nth +pyrow heal bmr,Iir.rlNm only) I r •....•••. I..""""'•"•' '•aI + su Tb Intersection does not comply. I2 or mor.e........ 1 ................ 2 or more........ 2 or more........ to list I ................ 2orm,ire........ Mil nu (See attachment 92) These major -street anti minor -Street volumes are for the same .9 hours. During those $ hours, the direction of higher volume on the minor street may be on one approach during some hours anti on the opposite approach during other hours. When the 45 -percentile speed of major•street traffic ehceeds 40 mph in either an urban or a rural arra• or when the intersection lies within I the built-up ane of an isolatel community having a population of less than 10,0W, the Interruption of Continuous Traffic warrant is 70 per. tent of the requirements above. Warrant s. Minimum Pedestrian Volume The Minimum Pedestrian Volume warrant is satisfied when, for each '. of any A hours of an average day, the following traffic volumes exist: 1. on the major street. AMI or more vehicles per hour enter the ' i Intersection (total of both approaches): or where there is a raised me- dian island a feet or mon in width, 1.000 or more vehicles per hour (tool or both sppreaches) enter the intersection on.the major street: and 2 During the same 9 hours an in paragraph (1) Lhan are 130 or mom pedestrians per hour on.the highest volume crosswalk crossing the ma. jar strew i When the 95•percentile speed of mujor•stmet traffiq exceeds e0 mph Intersection does not Comply. - in either an urban or a rural sns. or when the intersection lies within' the built-up area of an isolated community having a population or less than lo.000, the Minimum Pedestrian Volume warrant is 70 percent, of (See attachment /3) the requirements above. A signal installed under thin warrant at an inalated intersection should be of the trafric•actualell type with push buttons for pedestrians crossing the main street. If such a signal is Instulled at an InlerHMLlon - within a signal system, it shauhl be equipped and operated with control decieas which provide proper coordination. Signals installed according to this warrant shall be equipped with pelestrian indications conforming to requirements set forth in other sections of this Munuul. Signals may be installed at nonimemection locations (mid -block) pro• videl the requirements of this warrant are met, and provided that the j related crosswalk is not closer than 150 feet to another established crosswalk. Curbside parking should be prohibited for 100 feet in ad• vance of and 20 feet beyond the crosswalk. Phasing• courdination. and in.tallation must conform to standards set forth in this Manual. Special attention should be givon to the signal head placement and the signs and markings used at nonintilmection locations to be sure drivers are aware I � of this special application. Warrant A. Schnol Crusaing A traffic control signal may be warranted at an established. school crna.•ing when a traffic engineering study of the frequency and ode- quacy of gaps in the vehicular traffic stream us related to the number and site or group, of schoul children at the schuul crovotg shows that the number of adequate gaps in the traffic stream during the period when the children are using the crnssing is le,s than the nuroh%t• or mmuh•s in the wine periml (sec. 7A .11). When traffic control signals are installed entirely under this warrant: 1. Pedestrian indications shall be provided at least for each cross• walk a%tablishvd'as a school trussing. 2. At an intersection. the signal normally shunld be trafricwctuated. As a minimum, it should be "ami -traffic -actuated. but full actuation with detectors on all appnoche, may be de,irable. Intersection installations that can be fitted into progressive signal systems may have pretimed control. :t. At non-inlerwectiun trussing%. the signal should be pedesu•ian- aetuated, parking and other obstructions to view should be pruhibited for at least lot) feet in advance or and 20 feet beyond the crosswalk. and the installation shuuld include suitable standard signs and pavement markings. Special police Aupervision and/or enforcement should be pro. _vided for it now non -intersection installation. Warrant i. Progresa)ae Mmement Prugreswive movement control sttmetintes necessitates traffic signal installations at intersrctiuns %herr they would not otherwise be war• ranted, in nnler lu maintain pngwr gmupiug of vehicles ami effectively rrgalale group sperd. The 11mgrr.soye lhtyemert worMint is satid)wl w hen: 1. On a um••w ay strrvt ora pts-ra-t whirl has pnviumio:umlr uoidirrr• tion:d traffic. tht• adjarrnt sigu:de are No far adaul that; they do not pen idr the naar•ssary drgt•tr ul'yrhirlr pl:rttxmiug :uul sla•rJ aunUvd. tar I On a two-way street, adjarent signals do not provide the neces- sary degree of platuoning and speer) control and the proposed and adja. cent signals could constitute a prugressive signal system. The installation of a signal according to this warrant should be based on the M -percentile speed unless an engineering study indicates that another speed is more desirable. The installation of a signal according to this warrant should not be considered where the resultant signal spacing would be less than 1000 feet. Warrant S. Accident Eaprrlenee Intersection does not comply. Intersection does not- clrleply. The accident Experience warrant is satisfied when: 1. Adequate trial of less restrictive rtmed;es with satisfactory ob- servaner and enforcement has failed to reduce the accident frequency; and Intersection does not comply. 2. Five or more reported accidents, of types susceptible to corrac. tion by traffic signal control, have occurred within a 12 -month period,' each accident involving personal injury or property damage to an appar• (See attachment'd4) ent extent of 5100 or more; and 2. There exists a volume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic not less than SO percent of the requirements specified either in the Minimum Vehicular Volume warrant, the Interruption of Continuous Traffic war- rant, or the Minimum Ptdestrian Volume warrant: and c. The signal insullatinn will not seriously disrupt prngressive traf• fie row. / T Any traffic signal installed solely on the Arcident F..y,erienve war- rant should be semi•traffic-aetmted (with control devices which provide proper cuunlination if installed at an inttrsection within a courdinated system) and normally should be fully traffiractuated if installed at an isolated intersection. Warrant 7, Systems Warrant A traffic signal installation at some interarctions may be warranted to encourage concentration and organisation of traffic flow networks. The Systems warrant is applicable when the common Intersection of two or more major routes has a total existing, or immediately projected, enter. Ing volume of at least goo vehicles during the peak hour of a typical weekday, or each of any five hours of a Saturday and/or Sunday. A major route as used in the above warrant has one or more of the following characteristics: 1. It is part of the street or highway system that serves as the principal network for through traffic flow; . 2 it connects areas of principal traffic generation: 3. it includes rural or suburban highways outside, entering or lra- yeraing a city; , 4. It bus surface street freeway or rxprernway ramp terminals; .5. It appears as a major route an an official plan such as a major atrrel plan in an urban arca traffic and transportation study. Warrant R. Combination of Warrants In .ar.plional n•ek signals ia•rasionally may be justified where no •.ingle warrant is ratisrral but when two or mum of Warrants 1. 2, and a am satisri d to the extent of Wt percent or more of the stated vsluea Adequate trial of other remedial measures which cause less delay and inconvenience to traffic should precede installation of signals under this warrant N3 Intersection does not comply. Intersection does not comply. i ..__.. .. _. .t, _- SIGNALIZATION STUDY IOWA CITY 9 � J��65 _.� TRAFFIC ENGINEERING. DISPLAY OF WARRANT NO. I VOLUMES. MAJOR STREET:ZOeAl—.372-n2 AV47 NO.OF LANES: MINOR STREET: <'izsrayE NO.OF LANES: MAJOR MINOR WARRANT COMPLIED WITH. E3YES © NO 80% OF WARRANT COMPLIED WITH. ❑ YES m NO .ANE; I ANES I ANE) �1 111 1�1 mill MUNI 11111up "I uIrlaull [m tail ]MAN MAJOR MINOR WARRANT COMPLIED WITH. E3YES © NO 80% OF WARRANT COMPLIED WITH. ❑ YES m NO .ANE; I ANES I ANE) �1 .r --- SIGNALIZATION STUDY IOWA CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEERING. DISPLAY OF WARRANT NO. 2 VOLUMES. MAJOR STREET: NO.OF LANES: MINOR STREET: NO- OF LANES: MAJOR - -MINOR WARRANT COMPLIED WITH. ❑ YES 0 NO 80% OF WARRANT COMPLIED WITH. ❑YES (1 NO ■ t NlN�II�AI MAJOR - -MINOR WARRANT COMPLIED WITH. ❑ YES 0 NO 80% OF WARRANT COMPLIED WITH. ❑YES (1 NO ■ SIGNALIZATION STUDY IOWA CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEERING. DISPLAY OF WARRANT NO. 3 VOLUMES. MAJOR STREET: 44/d NO.OF LANES: MINOR STREET: G.ev 4d6 NO. OF LANES: r I t MEN M Nimmons 0 MMMM NONE IN .0 MAJOR IAPPROACHES WNW lei AJOR STREETS • MAJOR ST. -- --s PERS WARRANT COMPLIED WITH. 80% OF WARRANT COMPLIED WITH. ❑ YES ®NO C1 YES ENO --- -"- / I COLLISION DIAGRAM INDICATE NORTH BY ARROW eai � e RO .H RT R AV MOVING VEHICLE REAR ENO 0: CRY I. ICY ' r BACKING VEHICLE --fes HEAD ON W : WET `-" NON-IN¢ICLm ^- SIDE SWIPE WEATHER VO4CL --- PEDESTRIAN OUT OF CONTROL C: CLEAR F: FOG jS VEHICCLLE --.e- LEFT TURN S: SLEET R :RAIN 0 FIXED OBJECT RIGHT ANGLE CL: CLOUDY S: SNOW • FATALITY PATE: JULY I.1984 TO ' JUNE 30.1985 O INJURY INTERSECTION FI RST AVE 311d ROCHESTER AVE I0 INTERSECTION Of FIRSTAVE with ROCHESTER AVE CLASSIFICATION BY TYPES AND TIME! ACCIDENT TYPES SIDE SWIPE REAR END RIGHT ANGLE LEFT TURN PEDESTRIAN BICYCLE OTHER 6:OOAM - 10100 AM FATAL PERSONAL INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE TOTAL IO:OOAM - 4-00PM FATAL PERSONAL INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE I TOTAL 400PM - T=00PM FATAL PERSONAL INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE TOTAL T:OOPM ' 12 MID. FATAL PERSONAL INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE TOTAL 12 MD - G�OOAM FATAL PERSONAL INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE TOTAL TOTAL FATAL PERSONAL INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE TOTAL 2 WEATHER COWITION NO OF ACC. PAVEMENT TIME OF YEAR CONDITION NO OF ACC. PERIOD NO OF ACC. DRY WIN (DE. -FE) WET SPR. (MR. -MY.) ICY SUM (JF. -AG) 2 FALL(SE. -NO) CLEAR CLOUDY ,FOG RAIN SLEET j'uUN City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: July 25, 1985 To: Charles Schmadeke, Director of Public Works From: James Brachtel, Traffic Engineer— Re: Council Referral Regarding Additional Streetlighting In the City Council review of the UI Student Senate streetlighting project, certain areas were singled out for additional comment. The Student Senate project identified four locations in the area of the North Side Lighting Project that did not have streetlighting. All four locations were originally omitted from the project due to the presence of mature trees. The conflicting trees have since been removed from two of the locations (mid -point of the 100 block of South Van Buren and the intersection of South Van Buren with East College). I will contact Iowa -Illinois Gas & Electric and proceed with installing streetlights at these two locations. The tree conflicts at the other two locations (mid -point of East Brown Street and mid -point of 400 North Van Buren Street) still exist.. The original concerns that weighed against the additional streetlighting are still present and I would recommend that the City take no further action at these two locations. Councilperson Baker expressed concern regarding the lighting on Notz Street, South Johnson Street and other streets parallelling South Johnson Street. These locations have street blocks longer than the common 400 feet. Attached to this memorandum is a drawing showing the existing streetlighting locations and potential extra streetlight locations. The existing streetlight locations are shown as solid circles. These locations are consistent with the policy for street lighting in residential areas. If lights were added in between these existing lights, the street - lighting pattern would approach the level of the lighting installed in the North Side Lighting Project. These additional lights are shown as X's. At the present time the monthly flat rate charge for these streetlights is $9.21. If all additional lights shown as X's are installed, the additional cost will be $267.09 per month or $3,205.08 annually. These X'd locations would represent extending the southern boundary of the North Side Lighting Project from Burlington Street south to Bowery Street. This change represents a significant alteration of the original North Side Lighting Project boundary. Therefore, I will await further direction from the City Council in this matter. bdw3/1 F /I HICKORY HILL PARR I , m City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: July 26, 1985 To: City Council From: Terrence L. Timmins, City Attorney Re: Nuclear Weapons Free Iowa City Ordinance Introduction: During the informal Council meeting on Monday, July 29, the ,sponsors of the Nuclear Weapons Free Iowa City Ordinance initiative will appear before the City Council to discuss the ordinance. Given the present insufficiency of the initiative petition, some procedural issues have arisen which the City Council should be aware of and which this memo will address. Furthermore, the ordinance itself raises some interesting substantive issues, most of which I have not yet had an opportunity to adequately research. Conse- quently, much of this memo will address the procedural issues surrounding the insufficiency of the petition, and I will only identify and make brief comment on the substantive issues. Discussion: Procedural Issues. The initiative procedure is set forth in the City Charter in Article VII thereof. The petitioners have at this point successfully commenced the initiative pursuant to Section 7.02 of the Charter, and recently filed signed petitions with the City Clerk pursuant to Section 7.03. During the course of the last week, the City Clerk has been verifying the names, and the addresses or birth dates, of persons who signed the petition in order to determine its sufficiency. Section 7.03A of the Charter provides that "the petition must be signed by qualified electors equal in number to'at .least 25% of the number of persons who voted in the last regular city election, but not by fewer than 2,500 qualified electors." Given the voter turnout at the last regular city election, it will be necessary for the petitioners to present a petition signed by the minimum number of qualified electors - 2,500. Although the petition filed with the City Clerk contains slightly in excess of the 2,500 signatures required, the City Clerk has been able to verify only 2,301 of those signatures, leaving the petitioners 199 signatures short of a "sufficient petition." The City Clerk has so notified the petitioners by certificate sent by registered mail, as required by Section 7.04A of the Charter. In addition, a meeting was held with Mr. John Keenan, one of the Assistant etition sponsors, rAttorney on Thursday Boyle July at endedi thatClerk meetingMarian andKarr, discussed the petition's insufficiency with Mr. Keenan. We informed Mr. Keenan that the sponsoring group has two alternatives in pursuing adoption of the Nuclear Weapons Free Iowa City Ordinance. First of all, the group could choose not to attempt to obtain the necessary additional signatures, in which case they could ask the City Council to voluntarily consider the ordinance. It was explained, however, that if the City Council chose not to consider the ordinance, or voted it down, the initiative measure would not then be put on the ballot. �Trs The second alternative would be for the sponsoring group to obtain the necessary additional signatures. In that event, if the petition were then found sufficient, the initiative measure would have to be taken up and considered by the City Council (Section 7.05A, City Charter). If the City Council then adopted the ordinance, the initiative election would, of course, be unnecessary. If the City Council failed to adopt the ordinance within 60 days, the initiative measure would then have to be presented to the qualified electors (Section 7.05A, City Charter) "at the regular City election or at the general election which next occurs more than 40 days after the expiration of the...60...day period...." It was pointed out to Mr. Keenan that the initiative measure could only be presented to the voters if City Council failed to adopt it. Mr. Keenan acknowledged his understanding of that fact, and indicated that he would be equally satisfied with adoption by the City Council, or with adoption pursuant to initiative election. It was also explained to Mr. Keenan that, given the necessity for additional signatures and the additional time that that would take, the City Clerk might have difficulty verifying the amended petition in a timely manner so that the initiative measure could be submitted to the electorate this fall. The most critical step in the submission process occurs on September 26, when the City Clerk must deliver the petition and form of ballot proposition to the County Auditor (Commissioner of Elections). The Auditor must have the petition and form of ballot proposition by that date so that the ballots can be printed in time for the November election. Section 7.050 of the City Charter provides that the vote on an initiative measure "shall be held at the regular City election or at the general election which next occurs more than 40 days after" expiration of the 60 -day period for Council consideration. This Charter provision functions to assure adequate time for the printing of ballots. However, if the City Council uses the entire 60 -day period lawfully available to it to consider the proposed ordinance, it will not be possible to put the question on the ballot this fall. City Clerk Marian Karr has prepared a schedule showing what actions have to occur by which dates if the initiative measure is to be presented to the electorate this fall. Essentially, that schedule, which is attached for your reference, presumes submission of the petition and initiative proposition to the Auditor by the September 26 deadline. Consequently, it requires that the City Council be in a position to vote on adoption of the ordinance at the September 24 Council meeting. If we assume that the City Council will want a public hearing on the measure prior to Council vote on it, that would mean that that hearing would have to occur on September 10. Assuming that the Council will want 20 days published notice of that hearing would push the publication date back to August 20. This, in turn, assumes that the Council will act on August 13 to set that hearing. The consequence of this assumed scheduled is that the City Clerk must certify to the sufficiency of the petition on or before Friday, August 9, so that the public hearing item can be placed on the August 13 agenda. In our conversation with Mr. Keenan, we explained the nature of the time crunch which he and the sponsoring group face in securing the necessary additional signatures. We told him that he had two options in dealing with the problem, the first being to obtain and submit the additional signatures as soon as possible, but in any event prior to August B. 1 4�`T 3 We also explained to Mr. Keenan, however, that if the sponsoring group failed to obtain the necessary signatures by August 8, they would have the option of requesting the City Council to waive the public hearing, or to shorten the publication time for the notice of public hearing, since neither the public hearing nor the 20 -day notice thereof are mandated in this instance. We concluded this discussion with Mr. Keenan by strongly urging that he and the other sponsors pursue the first alternative. In response, Mr. Keenan indicated that they would attempt to obtain the additional signatures and submit them by August 8. Discussion: Substantive Issues. Upon cursory review of the Nuclear Weapons Free Iowa City Ordinance, a few substantive issues did occur to me. First of all, and most obviously, we have to recognize that the ordinance's prohibition against working on nuclear weapons or components thereof in Iowa City may not be enforceable as to the federal government, its agents or employees, under the preemption doctrine. While this would not automatically invalidate the ordinance or prevent its adoption, the issue would certainly have to be closely examined at the time that the City undertook to enforce the ordinance. Under Section 6 of the ordinance, "Enforcement," I note that it calls for the imposition of a fine of up to $500. Cities in Iowa do not have authority to provide penalties in excess of a $100 fine for the violation of an ordinance (Iowa Code Section 364.3[3]). Section 6 of the Ordinance also goes on to provide that residents of Iowa City have the right to enforce the ordinance through private civil actions, and that "Reasonable attorney's fees shall be awarded to a prevailing plaintiff in such litigation." While Iowa Courts will enforce ordinances through private civil actions, they do not ordinarily award attorney's fees in civil cases unless there is specific statutory authorization for such an award. I am not aware of any case law wherein attorney fee awards, given on the basis of authorization found in a city ordinance, have been upheld. To conclude, the inclusion of the provisions reviewed above would probably not serve to invalidate the entire ordinance or prevent its passage, particu- larly since those provisions would be severable if found to be invalid. On that basis, and given the cautionary comments set forth above, the Legal Department would offer no objection to its passage. However, the City Council may want to have the initiative sponsors address themselves to these issues in more detail before final consideration of the ordinance. l / ( . dt.v+u.r a Terrence L. irtm ns City Attorney bj5/6 INITIATIVE ORDI.XMCE SGE U[.H July 15 - Petitions filed with City Clerk August S - Certificate of Sufficiency sent certified mail to the Petitioners (assuming 2500 signatures can be certified on first submission) August 9 - Certificate sent in Council packet and motion setting public hearing placed on agenda August 13 - Council set public hearing for September 10 Augsut 20 - Notice published September 10 - Public hearing on ordinance September 24 - 1st and 2nd considerations on ord- inance waived and motion.to adopt voted on. If defeated, motion made to have the ordinance placed on the Novetaber ballot. September 26 - City Clerk delivers petitions to Commissioner of Elections as required parks 8e recreation MEMO department FRED R/DOLE to: The Honorable Mayor and City from: Fred Riddle, Chairman, Council Parks and Recreation Commission re. Joint Facility/City Park Pool date - July 24, 1985 Renovation Proposal The Parks and Recreation Commission is seeking your endorsement and permission to proceed with plans to build a joint use facility with the Iowa City School District, and to renovate City Park pool. At the May Parks and Recreation Commission meeting, Randy Jordison, the School Board representative and'Chairman of the Iowa City School District appointed swimming pool committee, reported that his group had agreed that $1 million would be committed to a joint -use facility and the most feasible plan would be to locate the pool facility at junior high schools. He added that the Board did not authorize the junior high locations, but had directed administra- tion to develop a plan for submission for final approval. The Parks and Recreation Commission agreed with the School District's swimming pool committee and on May 8 recommended that in light of the solution proposed; of the critical historical problems, particularly the over -use of the pool at the Community Recreation Center; the deteriorating condition of the two exist- ing outdoor pools; the critical lack of gymnasium space; that the Parks and Recreation Commission endorses heartily the approach of renovating the west side (City Park) pool, abandoning the Mercer Park pool, and constructing a multi-purpose facility. The Commission authorized the Acting Director of Parks and Recreation to take such steps, as necessary, to bring this matter to the attention of the City Manager, City Council, the School District, and other interested groups, with the intent of placing before the public a bond issue in the fall. You received in your July 1 packet an engineering study of Mercer Park pool and an update of a previous study of City Park pool. At that time the Parks and Recreation Commission recommended to you that their recommendation was similar to that made previously and had been modified to take into account engineering studies and the concerns of the City Council. They recommended that in light of the solution proposed; of the critical historical problems, particularly the over -use of the pool at the Community Recreation Center; the deteriorating condition of the two existing outdoor pools; the critical lack of gymnasium space; that the Parks and Recreation Commission endorses the approach of reno- vating the west side (City Park) pool, making such minimum expenditures on Mercer Park pool as would be prudent under the circumstances, and constructing a multi-purpose facility in cooperation with the School District. city of iowa city lq4 The Honorable Mayor and City Council July 24, 1985 Page two The Parks and Recreation Commission further recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager to retain a consultant to submit preliminary cost figures and design to use as a basis for a bond referendum. If the City Manager is given timely permission by the City Council to obtain a consultant, and the staff and committee are authorized to meet and agree on preliminary concepts, costs and management arrangements, this project can still meet our preliminary timelines. Your enthusiastic response to this request will be appreciated. cc: Neal Berlin, City Manager T. Allen Cassady, Acting Director I parks & recreation department0 U7, , to:The Honorable Mayor and City from. T. Council Allen Cassady, Actin D rector re:Mercer Park Multi -Purpose date: July 26, 1985 Recreation Facility i You may find attached a proposal from Shive Hattery Engineers for the development of a conceptual plan and project cost estimate for the Mercer Park Multi-purpose Recreation Facility. This estimate of cost is in response to a previous Parks and Recreation Commission recommendation. An engineering update, which was recently completed and forwarded to you, gave cost esti- mates for the other portion of the project, renovation of City Park pool. ' In addition to Chairman Fred Riddle's letter to you, minutes of some perti- nent Parks and Recreation Commission meetings are attached. These are given to you as additional background. i as the fee for performance of the scope of services, as outlined in the Shive It is my recommendation that the not to exceed estimate of $14,000 be accepted Hattery proposal of July 26, 1985. Superintendent Dave Cronin expressed that he would certainly be willing to share in costs related to a joint pool facil- ity. This initial conceptual plan and cost estimate proposal was discussed with Dr. Cronin, however, no specific proportional dollar amounts were discussed. cc: Neal Berlin, City Manager Dale Helling, Asst. City Manager Dave Cronin, Superintendent, Iowa City Board of Education Fred Riddle, Chairman, Parks and Recreation Commission Charles Schmadeke, Public Works Director Rosemary Vitosh, Finance Director � 4 i city of iowa city ■ SHIVE•HATTERY ENGINEERS Iowa City Highway 1 8 Interstate Bo, P.O. Roz 1050 Cedar Rapids Iowa City, IA 52244 Davenport 319354.3040 Waterloo Des Moines Dubuque July 26, 1985 Rock Island City of Iowa City Re: Mercer Park Multi -Purpose Parks and Recreation Department Recreation Facility 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Attention: Mr. Al Cassady, Director Dear Mr. Cassady: The City of Iowa City has indicated a desire to proceed with development of a conceptual plan for the above -referenced facility. Based on discussions with yourself and Dave Cronin, Iowa City School Superintendent, we have reviewed the requirements for development of these conceptual pians and project cost estimate. This work would involve the following Scope of Services: 1. Review reports and recoltlmendations developed by the Iowa City Parks and Recreation Department and the Iowa City Community School District. 2. Meet with appropriate representatives of the City and School District to define program requirements. 3. Develop a specific facilities program and review this program with appropriate City and School District representatives. 4. Develop preliminary conceptual plans identifying alternate approaches to meeting the program requirements, and including cost estimates for these alternates. 5. Meet with appropriate City and school system representatives to review and refine the alternative approaches. 6. Prepare a conceptual design with plans and details as required to present the concept to City and School District staff, Council, Board members, and the general public. 7. Prepare a conceptual design cost estimate. 8. Provide presentation materials to be used by the City and School District to promote funding for the proposed facilities. We have estimated the cost of the above services to be in the range of $13,000 to $14,D00. We will provide these services on the basis of our standard hourly rates and would not exceed the $14,000 limit without your prior written authorization. CIVII. • INnL)STRIAL • ELECTRICAL • MECHANICAL • STRUCTURAL • GLOILCHNICAL • LNVIRONMENTAL • TRANSPORTATION A / L T7 i City of Iowa City July 26, 1985 Page Two i Per your request, we are attaching a brief description of the 'proposed facility for use in requesting authorization from the Council to proceed with development of conceptual plans. We will be available to meet at your convenience, to further discuss the scope of the project, scope of preliminary services, timing, and other items pertinent to the project. j i I If you should have any questions or comments on the above, please do not hesitate to contact us. Yours very truly, j SHIVE-HATTERY ENGINEERS ! Robert J. DeWitt, P.E. RJD:dh i I. I 1. i . r i I i II SMIVE•NATTERY ENGINEERS - I ATTACHMENT LETTER TO CITY OF IOWA CITY JULY 26, 1985 REQUEST TO IOWA CITY COUNCIL MERCER PARK MULTI-PURPOSE RECREATIONAL FACILITY The Iowa City Parks and Recreation Commission has recommended the development of a multi-purpose recreational facility to be located at Mercer Park. This recommendation is in response to the lack of available gymnasium and swimming pool space required for City sponsored recreational activities. This project is anticipated to be a joint project with the Iowa City Community School District to also help satisfy their swimming pool needs. The multi-purpose facility will include an indoor/outdoor swimming pool, gymnasium complex to accommodate at least two basketball courts or four volleyball courts, jogging track, two racketball courts, a dance/aerobics room, locker and shower rooms, observation/office area, and other ancilliary facilities. The development of this complex will be coordinated with existing facilities at Southeast Junior High to maximize effective utilization of the combined facilities for both the general public and the Iowa City Community School District. The total project cost has been estimated at approximately $3,000,000. Permission is being requested for the City Manager to retain a consultant to evaluate the facility requirements and develop conceptual plans and cost estimates.. The cost of this initial evaluation and conceptual plan development is estimated at $13,000 to $14,000. MINUTES PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION JULY 10, 1985 MEMBERS PRESENT: Riddle, Jordison, Martin, Steinbrech, Willis, Hradek and Alvarez MEMBERS ABSENT: Jennings and Mitchell STAFF PRESENT: Cassady, Howell, Harvey, Moran GUESTS PRESENT: Anne Glenister, Project GREEN; Suzanne Richerson; Jean Hood; Ron Dibbel; Merle Neubauer; David Roll; Harold and Naomi Schedl; Al Good; Sara and James Lindberg; Richard Buss, Hall Engineering; Patti Mitchell, Lynne tte Boven, Marr;aret Brosnihan--interns; and various representatives of the media. RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL i Moved by Willis, seconded by Martin, that this recommendation is similar to that made previously and has been modified to take into account engineering studies and the concerns of the City Council. In light of the solution proposed; of the criti- cal historical problems, particularly the over -use of the pool at the Community j Recreation Center; the deteriorating condition of the two existing outdoor pools; the critical lack of gymnasium space; that the Parks and Recreation Commission endorses the approach of renovating the west side (City Park) pool, making such minimum expenditures on Mercer Park pool as would be prudent under the circumstances, and constructing a multi-purpose facility in cooperation with the school district. Unanimous. Moved by Steinbrech, seconded by Alvarez, that the Commission further recommends that the City Council authorize. the City Manager to retain a consultant to submit Preliminary cost figures and design to use as a basis for a bond referendum. Unanimous. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION AND FORMAL ACTION TAKEN Moved by Willis, seconded by Hradek, that the minutes of the June 12 meeting be approved as written. Unanimous. Jean -Hood, spokesperson for a group of swimmers using City Park pool from 5:30-7 p.m. expressed their concern about changes in the swimming schedule. One third of the pool had been designated for practice area for the Iowa City Swim Club, another one-third had been designated for the Hawkeye Swim Club, and the remaining third was open to the general public. These areas were roped off for the length of the Punt. Families with children or those persons unable to swim the lengthwise of the pool were designated to the two wing sections of the pool which at its' deep- est part is approximately three feet deep. There was no provision for using the diving board. They feel the new arrangements of the pool are somewhat improved for families and for the use of one diving board, but is far from ideal for recre- ational swimmers in the pool. �7 7 7 1 1 ■ MINUTES - PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION July 10, 1985 Page two Cassady said the primary problem is pool availability. Systems throughout the State have been studied for effective utilization of the pool and the present system is widely used throughout the State. There has been diminished attendance in public swimming during the hours of 5:30-7:00 p.m. during the last few years which was a deciding factor in the utilization. The Iowa City Swim Club had their allocated space cut in half and the Hawkeye Swim Club has withdrawn in cooperation, which opens half of the pool to the public in addition to the two wings. Staff feels that this should answer the concerns of the group. The Commission and group discussed the issue at length, touching on the availability of pool time for the public and use by swim clubs. It was agreed that another lane would be added for recreational swimmers. The letter of concern was received and filed.- Cassady announced that Kurt Carmen, new aquatics program supervisor, would begin work on July 15. Cassady reported on the 4% State sales tax that went into effect on July 1, 1985. Children are not bringing the correct change to swim and adults are becoming upset over the taxation. Staff is recommending that the tax not be collected, but rather lower the admission to absorb the tax. The loss would be recovered by raising fees in FY'87. Steinbrech asked and Cassady answered that approximately $2,000 would be lost in revenue by absorbing the tax. Willis asked the Legal Department's recomnend- ation and Cassady answered that he had been directed to collect the tax. Willis stated his dissatisfaction with the legislation. Moved by Jordison, seconded by Martin, to temporarily reduce the fees for the swimming pools for the remainder of FY'86 to absorb the 4% State sales tax. Unanimous. Moved by Steinbrech, seconded by Alvarez, that the motion be amended to read to temporarily reduce the fees for the swimming pools for the remaining summer months. Unanimous. Willis was asked to write to the Iowa Department of Revenue to express the Commission's feelings on the legislation change. DISCUSSION - JOINT POOL FACILITY Dick Buss, Hall Engineering, stated that City Park pool is structurally sound and should be renovated. Mercer Park pool does not have a safe diving well, has no ground fault interrupters, a faulty chlorination system, and a serious leakage problem. Steinbrech asked and Buss answered that short term renovation ($30,000) would allow the pool to "limp along" for a long time. Riddle asked and Buss answered that a new pool to replace Mercer Park pool (indoor/outdoor) would be approximately $1 million. ■ M MINUTES - PARKS & RECREATION CON41SSION July 10, 1985 Page three Steinbrech asked if Buss recommended against putting a new pool in at the same location and Buss answered that the location should he moved to a higher site to eliminate the ground water situation. Willis asked what structural risks are involved if nothing is done at Mercer Park pool, and Buss said there are no true structural risks, but the foundation was backfilled with sand and there is a serious leakage problem, including leakage of sand. The estimated useful life of the pool, doing absolutely nothing, is ten years. However, major maintenance items in the amount of $30,000 should be instituted. Willis stated that he feels the Mercer Park pool situation should be studied in substantial detail before it is abandoned. It maintains serviceability, is a public resource, and considering the shortage of pool availability, should only be abandoned as a last resort. Steinbrech stated he feels the minimum should be expended to maintain the pool. The Commission and staff discussed safety problems concerning diving at the pool and Mike Moran said it meets all State requirements (8' from the center of the board to the middle of the pool --regulation; board is 8'9" from the center). An adjustment was made on the diving board to comply with the State regulation. There was discussion concerning operating both pools and possibly using Mercer Park pool for the majority of lap swim use. Operating costs are 75% staff, 25% chemical and water costs. Moved by Willis, seconded by Martin, that this recommendation is similar to that made previously and has, been modified to take into account engineering studies and the concerns of the City Council. In light of the solution proposed; of the criti- cal historical problems, particularly the over -use of the pool at. the Community Recreation Center; the deteriorating condition of the two existing outdoor pools; the critical lack of gymnasium space; that the Parks and Recreation Commission endorses the approach of renovating the west side (City Park) pool, making such minimum expenditures on Mercer Park pool as would be prudent under the circumstances, and constructing a multi-purpose facility in cooperation with the school district. Unanimous. Jordison asked whether funds would be available for a consultant for preliminary cost figures and design. Moved by Steinbrech, seconded by Alvarez, that the Commission further recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to retain a consultant to submit preliminary cost figures and design to use as a basis for a bond referendum. Unanimous. Cassady asked that members of the Commission and School Board be named as soon as possible to a committee to institute proceedings. /*Y-7 H MINUTES PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION JUNE 12, 1985 MEMBERS PRESENT: Riddle, Steinbrech, Mitchell, Jennings, Alvarez, Willis MEMBERS ABSENT: Hradek, Martin, Jordison STAFF PRESENT: Cassady, Howell, Harvey GUESTS PRESENT: Anne Glenister, Project GREEN; Larry Baker, City Council RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL None. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION AND FORMAL ACTION TAKEN Moved by Steinbrech, seconded by Alvarez, that the minutes of the May 8 meeting be approved as written. Unanimous. COMMITTEE REPORTS Anne Glenister updated the Commission on the Neighborhood Open Space Advisory Committee's meetings. Cindy Alvarez reported that work on the mural in Lower City Park is still in progress. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT Riddle reported on the proposed City/school district joint use facility. Dick Buss, Hall Engineering, has been contracted to do an update on the City Park pool study and do a complete engineering study on Mercer Park pool to determine what it would take to keep the pool in operation for another fifteen years. It is anticipated that the study will be available for the July meeting.• The Committee will meet after the study is received to determine how to proceed. Cassady said that the shortage of available gymnasium space necessitates nearly half of Iowa City's league play at Northwest Jr. High School in Coralville. Another problem is the Division's priority in being granted school district space. lie stressed that with the demand for recreation league play, that the Recreation Center has very limited time available for drop-in activity. i There was considerable discussion concerning the proposed facility, accessibility to the location of the facility, shortage of gymnasium space and open swim time, and increasing shortage of accommodation for programs. Steinbrech asked if the ground water condition at Mercer Park pool is similar to the drowning incident in Gary, Indiana. This was discussed and Cassady said that the ground water condition is similar and this type of incident could definitely occur. The Division will have a procedure outlining safety precautions for the public and employees by fall of this year. JV� El t1) MINUTES PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MAY 8, 1985 MEMBERS PRESENT: Riddle, Jennings, Jordison, Martin, Mitchell, Steinbrech, Willis, Hradek, and Alvarez MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Cassady, Nowell, and Harvey GUESTS PRESENT: Richard Buss, Hall Engineering RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL Moved by Willis, seconded by Mitchell, that in light of the solution proposed; of the critical historical problems, particularly the over -use of the pool at the Community Recreation Center; the deteriorating condition of the two exist- ing outdoor pools; the critical lack of gymnasium space; that the Parks and Recreation Commission endorse heartily the approach of renovating the west side (City Park) pool, abandoning the Mercer Park pool, and constructing a multi- purpose facility. The Commission authorizes the Acting Director of Parks and Recreation to take such steps, as necessary, to bring this matter to the attention io interested groups, with Manager, e theintent City o of plaCouncilcing tschool the district, other gbeforethepublica bond issue in the fall. Unanimous. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION AND FORMAL ACTION TAKEN Moved by Willis, seconded by Jennings, that the minutes of the April 10 meeting be approved as written, with the following amendment: page 2, paragraph 11, line 2: unanimous that the Commission would not let the issue die. Unanimous. Karen liradek updated the Commission on the Neighborhood Open Space Committee's April 11 and April 25 meetings. The Committee has reviewed past planning efforts and established group goals; discussed standards and criteria used for determin- ing neighborhood open space; and discussed definitions of neighborhoods. Dis- cussion at the May 9 meeting will involve establishing open space zones and districts; criteria of acceptance of dedication; and neighborhood open space elements. Cassady asked Commission members to attend the meetings. Jordison stated that the board -appointed swimming pool committee had agreed that $1 million would be committed to a joint -use facility and the most feasible plan would be to locate the pool facility at junior high schools. He added that the Board did not authorize the junior high locations, but had directed administra- tion to develop a plan for submission for final approval. Cassady outlined a proposed bond issue for the joint -use facility and renovation of City Park pool. The bond issue would include the renovation of City Park pool (removal of the bath house and replacement with a new pool, with the exception of the tank). The renovation would be estimated at $700,000, as opposed to an esti- mated $2 million for a new pool of the same configuaration. a I I I PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES May 8, 1985 Page two it is proposed to study the possible abandonment of Mercer Park outdoor pool, which currently has ground water problems. In order to clean the pool, it is now necessary to plug it, pump the water out, and refill it. Relocating a pool to higher ground near Southeast Jr. High School property would free the park for i other use. The multi -use facility would include two gymnasiums, with a running track around them; a fitness area for exercise; two racquetball courts; a centralized office area; and a multiple purpose meeting room. This facility will serve the community adequately for the next fifteen years and will give sonic priority back to recre- ation programs. The demand for present and future physical fitness activities cannot be accommodated by the Recreation Center and allowed use of school district facilities. Sixty-five to seventy per cent of participants in Recreation Center programs are east -side residents, with west -side residents primarily using other community facilities, includingthe Coralvil e 1 Recreation Center across from Northwest Jr. High School. The Division is presently using University and school district facilities at the limit in terms of available gymnasium space in the demanded periods. t The pool at Southeast Jr. High School would be an indoor -outdoor facility with a retractable roof. Handicapped accessibility is a high priority, and there would j be a connection between the pool and gymnasium area for winter access. The esti - mated bond issue would be $2.7 million, and if the facility is constructed during i I this time the construction costs may be favorable. There was considerable discussion involving this joint -use facility and the bond issue in the fall. i Moved by Willis, seconded by Mitchell, that in light of the solution proposed; of the critical historical problems, particularly the over -use of the pool at the fomnunity Recreation Center; the deteriorating condition of the two existing out- door pools; the critical lack of gymnasium space; that the Parks and Recreation i Commission endorse heartily the approach of renovating the west side (City Park) pool, abandoning the Mercer Park pool, and constructing a multi-purpose facility. The Commission authorizes the Acting Director of Parks and Recreation to take such steps,as necessary, to bring this matter to the attention of the City Manager, City Council, the school district, and other interested groups, with the intent of placing before the public a bond issue in the fall. Unanimous. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Cassady, Howell, and Commission members discussed Drollinger Rides' request to place a roller coaster east of the ferris wheel in City Park. The Commission directed staff to further investigate the request and make a decision. Cassady reported that members of the Botany Department, Geology Department, Project GRF.FN, and he had walked Ryerson's Woods on May 5. The University departments and Project GREEN will be assisting the City with nature trails in the Woods, as well as preserving its resources and natural state. I I /I/VI 0000.. ■ 1 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: July 26, 1985 To: City Council From: Frank Farmer, City Engineer..T Karin Franklin, Senior Plann Re: Peck Request for Access from Hutchinson Avenue The Council has received a request from William Peck to allow him to con- struct a private drive over the unopened portion of the Hutchinson Street right-of-way south of Rider Street and north of Bayard. Material from Mr. Peck was included in the Council's packet for the July 16 meeting. Mr. Peck's property abuts both the Hutchinson and Bayard Streets rights- of-way. There is an existing point of access to the property off of Bayard Street. The access point which Mr. Peck would prefer, as outlined in his letter to you dated July 9, 1985, is off of and across a portion of the Hutchinson Street right-of-way which has never been opened. The Council my take one of three actions: 1. Deny Hr. Peck's request, forcing him to use the access from Bayard. 2. Formally open Hutchinson Street.to Mr. Peck's property. 3. Dispose of all or a portion of the Hutchinson Street right-of-way to Mr. Peck. Presented below are various factors which may influence your decision. 1. Terrain. The topography of Mr. Peck's lot and the surrounding area is steep with a ravine running through the Peck property. The grade change from the end of Hutchinson to Mr. Peck's property is a 12-14 foot drop in approximately a 140 feet or a 10% grade. At the Bayard Street access point, some filling was done by a previous owner, modifying the grade change there. The entire lot and right-of-way are heavily covered with vegetation. Construction bf a road or a private drive will require extensive cutting and clearing and fill along the right-of-way. The Council is encouraged to visit the site prior to Monday's informal. meeting. 2. Construction and maintenance responsibilities and costs. Mr. Peck would be responsible -for all construction costs and would need to meet certain specifications of the City regarding stormwater runoff and erosion control. Erosion and stormwater runoff are currently controlled by an intake/curb system on Hutchinson. If Hutchinson were open, construction would be to City -standards and maintenance responsibilities would fall to the City. Disposition of the right-of-way would mean construction at the discretion of Mr. Peck, or as the City conditioned the sale, and mainte- T rO z nance would be the responsibility of Mr. Peck. Construction of an access from Bayard would be predominantly on private property and the responsi- bility of Mr. Peck. 3. Use of public right-of-way. Opening Hutchinson will allow unrestricted use of the right-of-way by all adjacent property owners. Disposition of all or a portion of the right-of-way will restrict use of the acquired portion. 4. Notification of adjacent property owners. Disposition actions require a public hearing; property, owners adjacent to the right-of-way are noti- fied. Although opening a right-of-way for a City street does not require a public hearing, given the changes which would occur in the area, it would be advisable to notify adjacent property owners prior to opening the street. If the Council wishes to permit Mr. Peck an access to his property other than the one he has a right to use on Bayard, the staff recommends that a public hearing be held on the opening of the right-of-way as a public street to Mr. Peck's property. Attachments: Memo from City Engineer bj5/2 Location map i I City of IDwa, City MEMORANDUM DATE: July 24, 1985 TO: Karin Franklin �i FROM: Frank Farmer :/L RE' Hutchinson Avenue Access - William Peck Request Several concerns which need to be addressed with regard to MrPeck's Proposal for extending.a driveway along Hutchinson Street R -0-1V are . as follows: 1. City policy dictates that the street be extended to Mr. Peck's property line utilizing City design standards. 2. Allowing the extension of a "private driveway" along City R -O -W would in effect deny access to other adjacent property owners if access was so desired. 3. Storm drainage from Hutchinson Avenue will create continual maintenance problems since the existing intakes on Hutchinson will no longer intercept all flow. 4. Environmental stability of the R -O -W will be disturbed causing erosion during excess storm water flows. Proper engineering and construction techniques must be utilized to handle the storm runoff, erosion and road design to meet City standards to allow access for adjacent property owners. However, in so doing the R -O -W must be completely cleared to complete any construction work and it should be noted that access to this property is available from Bayard Street. /TrV a- {& y II _ I 1 2 3 RIVER STREET .. V s T � •e' A' 7f' • .• H' JO se• W ,� W W 10 "• �" I C 23 T LU > > ? > 11 12131415� 16 . 22 8 �� a9 17 18 � 9 21 9 Z = 20 10 • H 3 2 3 4 19 I I _ 0 5 6 7 8 9: IB . 12 X 1317 is 15 's J • ___ 14 3 " 4j• • - BAYA D � II 12 13 14 1516 "'' ' �..• K• 4i .•. .. 1y 16 . 1 II 13 s 4 3 2 Ip 12 i w@ r 9 8 I J 3 y 4' • •- 6 . 6 i Cie 8 7 6 snlprp..ac ' fclk: ri.v 3 A k) 9• 3 I ► • 2F 6EE I s' wzl;=A ®.'....u•n �,.•Pie,...d Row •, . • � Prepes.d 13u�IJla S'(tC PITAL 1`••b %A Ci+P, - P City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: July 25, 1985 To: City Council nr From: Patt Cain, Associate Planner 1 " Re: Referrals from Council about Operation of City Plaza Fountain On July 17, 1985, several members of the Design Review Committee, guests and staff met with Brian Gutheinz, architect of the City Plaza Fountain, to elicit his assistance in regard to construction and placement of warning signs on the fountain. (The recommendations from this discussion will be the topic of a subsequent memo.) Two additional questions were addressed, however, as referrals from the City Council: 1) Why doesn't the water flow from the fountain in sheets as it was designed to do? 2) What suggestions does the architect have to make the fountain more safe? Fountain Water Flow After. examining the flow of water from the three exposed pipes Gutheinz had the following recommendations for adjusting the flow to achieve a solid sheet of water: 1. Because the force of water seems greatest in the lower pipes and least in•the highest one, the input valves into the two lower tubes should be throttled down. This should allow the water' to fall straighter from the lower tubes whilegetting more water into the highest element to allow for a fully distributed flow and better sheet effect. 2. There also appears to be a greater flow of water from the side opposite the direction of water inflow into each tube. Apparently the water flows into a sort of tray from which it should spill over evenly through the lip of the exposed tubes. In order to prevent the force of the water causing the spillover to occur primarily on one side, Gutheinz suggested that some type of baffle be inserted on the water supply side of each tray to diffuse the surge of water and allow the trays to fill more evenly. 3. Gutheinz noted*that the lip on the highest pipe seems to be narrower on one side. This slit might have to be adjusted to regulate the flow more evenly if the previously listed items do not result- in the desired sheet effect. to Suaaestions for Fountain Safet The only recommendation made by Gutheinz regarding increasing the safety of the fountain was to add chlorine and/or copper sulfate to the water to keep down algae growth and, thus, minimize slipperiness. He did not rec- ommend any type of reconstruction on the fountain. (Originally there were tanks inside the fountain for feeding chemicals into the water. These were never used, however, and were subsequently removed.) tp5/4 cc: Al Cassady Ir City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: July 23, 1985 To: Dale Helling, Assistant City Manager 1 / From: Melody Rockwell, Associate Planner ,-j6 Re: Iowa Department of Water, Air and Waste Management (IDWAWM) River Reclassification Program On March 13, 1985, IDWAWM issued a Notice of Intended Action to reclassify 21 stream segments in Iowa as Class A streams, including the Iowa River from Belmond, Iowa, in northern Wright County to the point where it flows into the Mississippi River near Oakville, Iowa, in Louisa County.' Class A streams must be suitable for swimming, water skiing, inner tubing, wading and canoeing. Because a municipality is responsible for maintaining all IDWAWM-set standards for the six -mile segment of the river downstream from its water pollution control facility, the proposed IDWA14M river reclassification would essentially require the City of Iowa City to disinfect (chlorinate), and then dechlorinate its sewage treatment plant effluent. The chlorina- tion process would be needed to upgrade the effluent to Class A body contact standards, and the dechlorination would be required to decrease the Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) content in the discharged water to a level non-toxic to aquatic life. IDWAWM held public hearings throughout Iowa in April 1985, and received comments on its proposed changes until May 24, 1985. On April 10, 1985, Mayor McDonald protested the reclassification in a letter to the IDWAWM Director and sent copies of the letter to Governor Branstad and the IDWAWM Commission Chairperson. (See attached copy of Mayor McDonald's letter.) In response to voluminous comments from municipalities and industries in Iowa, IDWAWM staff revised the TRC requirement from 0.008 mg/L to 0.025 mg/L. There were no other substantive revisions. On July 8, 1985, the IDWAWM Commission voted acceptance in total of the IDWAWM staff report recommendations for river reclassification in Iowa. The final adoption of the rule will occur on September 4, 1985, after the Legislative Rules Committee reviews it in August, 1985. On July 18, 1985, an IDWAWM staffperson informed me that there is no notification mechanism in place, and there will be no immediate, blanket imposition of the rule. Municipalities will be informed of the upgraded river reclassification standards as the new requirements are implemented through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit or construction permit programs. IDWAWM officials do not foresee that a TRC standard will be written into NPDES permits during the next year or two. / '�S4 At this time it appears that IDWAWM will not enforce the river reclassifi- cation standard for Iowa City before the completion of Iowa City's proposed sewage treatment plant construction. IDWAVIM has strongly advised the City of Iowa City to incorporate the Class A effluent standards into the design of the proposed sewage treatment facility expansion. tp2/2 -CITY OF IOWA CITY CMC Nf R 4 CKER 10 E. WASHNGION Sl. IOWA CRY, IOWA 5774n (319) 356•5OOO April 10, 1985 Executive Director Iowa Department of Water, Air 6 Waste Management Henry A. Wallace Building 900 East Grand Avenue Oes Moines, Iowa 50319-0120 Re: Notice of Intended Action - Revision of Water Quality Standards Dear Sir: Iowa City objects to the department's proposal to reclassify the waters of the Iowa River through Iowa City to Class A. The definition of Class A waters includes those waters used for skiing, swimming, tubing, wading, and canoeing. The intended action is to protect these users from exposure to high levels of Fecal Coliform. The Iowa River downstream of the Burlington Street dam and within the limits of influence (six miles downstream) of Iowa City's wastewater treatment plant is- not' used for those type of activities listed above. The only visible use is limited fishing below the Burlington Street dam, fishing from the river- bank from the Burlington Street dam downstream to the Highway 6 Bypass, and fishing boats south of the Highway 6 Bypass. The Iowa River flows through farmland for many miles before and after it passes through Coralville and Iowa City. The runoff from agricultural land has a much more significant adverse bacterial impact on the Iowa River than the discharge from the Iowa City wastewater treatment plant. The department proposes to limit the Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) in the river to 0.008 mg/L. This is below detectable levels using existing methods of analysis. The department proposes to have each affected city calculate the TRC of the river from the TRC and flow rate of its wastewater treatment plant discharge and the flow rate of the river. This will require each city to have some method of gauging the flow rate of the river. Iowa City does not believe it is practical to construct and monitor a gauging station only for the purpose of monitoring TRC. Other Midwestern states do not have such a restrictive TRC limit for rivers similar to the Iowa River. For example, Illinois has a TRC limit of 0.75 mg/L, Michigan 0.50 mg/L and Wisconsin 0.14 m0/L. Only Minnesota has a TRC limit more restrictive than the proposed limit for Iowa. This severe restriction is an added burden to Iowa City, especially since the state is unwilling to provide any financial support. The estimated initial cost of $570,000 to install chlorination and dechlorination equipment would % 4S'o Iowa Dept. of Water, Air i Waste Management April 10, 1985 Page 2 be significant. Also, the department's projected operating and maintenance cost for Iowa City is $161,000 annually. This cost is equivalent to 28% of Iowa City's current operating and maintenance budget for wastewater collec- tion and treatment. The Commission seems to be oblivious to the financial circumstances of the State and its cities. Iowa City requests the Department of Water, Air and Waste Management not reclassify the waters of the Iowa River through Iowa City to Class A. Due to the river's present use, the impact of Iowa City's wastewater treatment plant on stream quality relative to other existing sources of water pollution, and the high costs associated with chlorine treatment, Iowa City feels that the present class B warm water classification is appropriate for that section of the Iowa River from the Burlington Street dam downstream to beyond the influence of lawn City's wastewater treatment plant. Si erely you ohn MCDonaa Mayor cs/sp M City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: July 23, 1985 To: DaleAssistant City Manager From: Don if Director of Planning &•Program Development Jim Henc n, CDBG Program Coordinator Re: Conditions on CDBG Funding This is in response to your memorandum concerning the referral from the July 15, 1985, informal City Council meeting. It has been the City's procedure in the past to include a repayment clause in the agreement with each °subrecipient" agency which receives CDBG funding to purchase and/or renovate a structure. The repayment clause may cover a term of. 5-10 years, and it provides for a pro rata share of the CDBG funds to be repaid to the City in the event that the agency dissolves, decides to sell the property or fails to comply with any of the terms and conditions of the agreement. Recently, for example, a repayment clause with a five year term was placed in the agreement with the Domestic Violence Project which was granted $50,000 in CDBG funds. We have proposed a like clause to be included in the agreement with the Mary 0. Coldren Home. The above procedure has been developed with assistance from the City's legal staff. It has been reviewed by HUD staff on several occasions and found to be acceptable. Unless there is a desire by the City Council to revise this procedure, we will continue to follow it in the future. bjl/11 I ,0 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE: July 25, 1985 T0: Neal Berlin and City Council FROM: Denny Gannon L 7, RE: Brookside Drive and Second Avenue Bridges over Ralston Creek The Engineering Division recently inspected and rated thirty-two (32) bridges throughout Iowa City's street network (Biennial Bridge Rating Program). The above -referenced bridges, similar in design, were found to possess structural deficiencies. In particular, the precast reinforced concrete beams in both bridges are deteriorating rather extensively. Noel Willis of NNW, Inc. was consulted, as a result of the Engineering Division's concerns, for his structural expertise. Ile and the Engineering Division have concluded that both structures must be posted for truck weight -limits of approximately 558 of the state legal load limit, and both bridges should be scheduled for replacement or renovation within the next 2-3 years. Traffic Engineering will post weight limit signs for trucks at each bridge by the end of August. The weight limits are Wton�s for the three axle straight truck, 21 tons for the standard semi -truck, and 26 tons for the double bottom semi -truck (piggy back). Engineering Division will include the analysis, design and construction of these bridges in the five year Capital Improvements Program to be reviewed by Council this fall. Johnson County Council of Governments f %%410E.\&bshrgtonSt. b✓vcGEy,b,&a52240 !1 Date: July 24, 1985 To: Iowa City City Council From: Marge Penney, Human Services Coordinator Re: Mid -Year Funding Requests by Human Service Agencies I have attached a copy of a tetter sent to me by Dennis Langenberg, Chairper- son of the Johnson County Board of Supervisors, suggesting increased coordi- nation among the major local funding sources for human service agencies: Iowa City, Johnson County and United Way. I believe that a more unified approach to mid -year funding requests is a logical outgrowth of the joint County/City/United Way budget hearings and would better serve the needs of both the funding bodies and the human service agencies involved. I have also attached a draft of a memorandum to the human service agencies currently funded by the City of Iowa City, Johnson County and/or United Way outlining the procedures I propose. In the case of the City of Iowa City, this proposal is largely the formalization of a mechanism already in place combined with an increased attempt at coordination. I have also sent a copy of this memorandum to the Johnson County Board of Supervisors. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns about this proposed proce- dure. /sp 453 JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COURT HOUSE IOWA CITY, IOWA 52244 PHONE (319) 378-5442 June 24, 198S BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HAROLD M. DONNELLY DENNIS J. LANGENBERG DICK MYERS BETTY OCKENFELS Marge Penny DON SEHR Hunan Services Planner JCCOB 322 E. Washington Iowa City, IA S2240 Dear Marge, On Tuesday, June 18, the Board of Supervisors discussed the situation of human services agencies requesting emergency funds or requesting funds for new programs outside the time frame of the United Way Joint Hearings. While the Board of Supervisors WelComes the Input from the human service agencies at any time the situation might warrant, the current practice of asking one -funding body in the absence of other funding bodies does not serve either the funding bodies or the needs of the community In a practical matter. W believe that the receipients of county funding. I.e. the human service agencies and their respective clients would be better served if requests for emergency funds or for now programs were done in an environment where all funding bodies were kept informed of all funding requests. The Board of Supervisors hes observed the advantages that the United Way Joint Budget hearings have provided. In keeping with the alignment of the joint' hearings, the Board would like to have any consideration of emergency funding handled by your office. Therefore, in the future the Board of Supervisors will direct all requests for emergency funding to your office prior to further consideration of any requests. In order to insure that the principle funding bodies are kept informed, we would like to implement a system where representives from the City of Iowa City, United Way and Johnson County could review and screen all requests prior to any subsequent steps. Details to this procedure will obviously need to be developed. Please contact myself or Riley Grimes if you have any questions or can provide us with advice In this situation. You a truly. Dennis J. Langenberg Chairperson Johnson County Board of Supervisors i j cc: John McDonald, Mayor of Iowa City Mary Ann Volm, Director of United Way a I ■ Johnson Counry Council of uovemments e4JOEVvfxhripnSt. b Ac Oty, kivw 52240 Date: July 22, 1985 D� To: Johnson County Human Service Agencies From: Marge Penney, Human Services Coordinator Re: Mid -Year Funding Requests ; In order to better serve the needs of the human service agencies of Johnson County and their clients, as well as to continue and enhance'the coordination made possible by the joint County/City/United� the Johnson County Board of Supervisorand theIowaaCity budget hearings, have requested that emergency requests for mid -year funding be handled by me in my role as Human Service Coordinator for the Johnson County Council of Govern- ments. i All requests for funding should be made in writing and should include P tothe ifunddocumentation. ngd cisions made, the information I w uld s ggestpldilbcrucial that clear and • complete as possible. Some of the factors I will consider in my recommenda- tions to the Board of Supervisors and/or the City Council are: 1. The increased financial need could not have reasonably been anticipated by the agency at the time of the current year's budget consideration. 2. Where possible, other of the agency's funding sources are also asked to bear a reasonable share of the increased financial burden. i 3. The increased financial need is of an immediate nature and cannot be delayed until the following fiscal year. Requests will then be reviewed by a comnittee of representatives of the local funding IowaCityoCitysCouncileandiUnitednWayhofJohnson JohnsonCounty County)oard priorftouconsidera� tion by the bodies from whom funding is sought. I hope this system will work well for both human service agencies and the funding bodies, and I will attempt to keep it as straightforward as possible. Please call me at 356-5242 if you have any questions or feel I might be of some assistance to your agency. /sp O 0I I City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM DAT11 July 25, 1985 TO: Iowa City - City Council FROM: City Clerk W1 Beer/Liquor License/Conditional Approval FOR YOUR INPORMATION -- Conditional approval was given at the 4/25/85 Council meeting to Leo's Standard Service, 130 North Dubuque for Sunday Sales/Beer Permit. They have submitted, after the 90 -day period, the required information which allows them to retain their license. IOWA C OFPC'c: [318 331 100 KALONA C F : j31e] 03Gi 8 LONE T 6 OF . (318J 628G 00 1iLLB OIT10E: Pie] 8� HONOHAN, EPLEY, HAYMOND 6 BRADOOCK ATfORNEYe AT LAW f JAY K FIONOHAN LLOYD A EPLEY a30 E COLR:r STREET GARY L RAYMOND P.O. BOK 3010 MAwRIVE A. BRAODOtJC 91NA Cf1Y, IOWA 5e July 29, 1985 oL D Honorable Mayor and City Council F City of Iowa City JUL 29 198.5 Civic Center , Iowa city, IA szzao MARIAN K. KARR Re: Swimming Pool Project CITY CLERK (1) Dear Mayor and Council: I have read in the newspapers recently about the reports regarding the �. Iowa City swimming pools and certain proposals. I am concerned about one article which indicated that Mercer pool might be closed. For years - in Iowa City, Mercer Park pool has served as the East side pool for children and families.. It has been extremely important part of the recreation i.. program. To close the Mercer pool would be a diservice to the community and especially to young children and older children of the East part of Iowa City. It would make it much more difficult for children to participate in the City's swimming programs and recreational swimming. .i To close Mercer Park pool in order to serve non-recreation interests f ' would curtail swimming for a large number of children of all ages at Mercer. I believe the figures will show that a large number of youngsters use the j pool throughout the summer. It would seem that the City would do better in fixing up the current facilities at Mercer and City Park to insure their continued use, than in a joint facility that serves less of the youngsters because of its location and design to serve other swimming programs. I have been told by hearsay that the Council concurs in the concern for Mercer with a lot of parents. This letter is just to add my concern.,, ; Very truly yours, I � HONOHAN, EPLEY, RAYMOND 6 BRADDOCK BY: Jay H. Honohan I JHH/rkw I Viewpoint '° 'Phe Miami Herald Sunday, lune 'GU, 14ri"_ Law, the Constitution and nuclear war By ARTHUR S. MILLER The time has come to think seriously about the legality of nuclear weap- ons — their manufacture, deploy. ment and Potaible (even probable) use. Add the other nations with nuclear capa. bility, and the situation becomes starkly clear: The world teeters on the edge of total disaster, and government officials the world over are doing little about It. For too long, lawyers have been mute about nucle. ar weapons, assuming perhaps that the H- bomb is Just another weapon — a little more devastating but not essentially differ. ent from the long bow, machine gun, tank and airplane. That simply Is not true. The atom has so altered the nature of war that old rules are inadequate to deal with the ultimate terror. The time has come, as Einstein said, to change "our modes of thinking" about law and nuclear weapons. Lawyers should no longer remain on the sidelines, taking no action to seek and, one hopes, to find ways of escape from com- plete disaster. The full force of law, feeble though It may be, should be brought to bear upon the growing peril. Law, to be sure, has shortcomings as a principle of sa. clef order. It Cannot do everything; there are limits to Its effectiveness in changing either the attitudes or behavior of people. But that does not mean that the effort should not be made. Chief Justice Earl Warren once Said that 'law floats In a sea of ethics." It can be a powerful educational force that will help create the climate so necessary to move away from the abyss. proposition MR de for the persuasive c that nuclear be should be considered unlawful under both interna. tional law and American constitutional law. To to conclude, one must start with the knowledge that law has always been "Instrumental.-, Rather than a fixed body of pre-existing Immutable principles, it Is goal -seeking, purposive, a type of human activity that exists for Identifiable ends. Furthermore, It Is always relative to cir. cumstances and thus constantly in a state of "becoming." Law helps to achieve inter. nal order and external security. In familiar legal terms, nuclear weapons ere a clear and present danger both to na- tional survival and democratic values. Sen. J.W. Fulbright, then chairman of the Sen. ate Foreign Relations Committee, stated the point in 1961 in these well-chosen Words: The president, he said, "by acquir. Ing the authority to commit the country to war, now exercises something approach. ing absolute power over the life or death of every American — to say nothing of mil. lions of other people all over the world ... . No human being or group [is] wise or competent enough to be entrusted with such vast power. Plenary power In the hand of any man or group threatens all other men with tyranny and disaster." So if does — whether power resides in the Kremlin or the White House. The fa- mous, statement of military scientist Karl von Clausewitz, that "war Is diplomacy carried on by other means." may well have been accurate when made early in the 19th Century; but It no longer Is. Unleashing the atom invalidated It — and presents the challenge to law and lawyers. Justice Felix Frankfurter once remarked that "It is of the very nature of a free soci. ety to advance In Its standards of what is deemed reasonable and right." War, partic. ularly nuclear war, can no longer be "deemed reasonable and right." Not for the United States. Nor for the Soviet Union. Nor for any nation with nuclear arms. International law merges with constitu- tional law to proscribe use of nuclear weapons. Once that IS seen, then It goes without saying that their manufacture and deployment are also outlawed. In essence, the legal argument Is that nuclear weapon. ry places a duty -upon those who wield both formal authority and effective control In Ameri2a to ensure that multilateral ac- tion Is taken to stop production of and to destroy existing nuclear arsenals. In other words,American policymakers have a duty of constitutional dimension to initiate andcxrry through negotiations with other nuclear powers to eliminate the growing threat. Surely those who drafted the Consuno- tion did not intend that government offi. cers have the powet on their own discre. tion to make life itself extinct. They wrote a document designed, as Chief Justice John Marshall sold In 1819. "to endure for ages to come and, consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs." The ultimate crisis !'of human affairs" is now hard upon us. The Constitution's.purpose Is set forth in the, preamble: "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide ,for the common de- fense, promote the general welfare, and se. cure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." Nuclear weapons and the delicate, balancel of terror Jeopardize each of these goals; and nuclear war would eradicate them. Study the framers could not have contemplated such a result either for themselves or their posterity. We are that posterity. The preamble has never been given substantive content. but surely the time has come to do so. Posteri. ty has Its claims under the -Constitution. Since. furthermore,' today's rapid rate of social change, proAuced by science and technology, means that most people alive todgy are their own posterity, the pream. files Importance readily becomes evident. People the world over are Increasingly ex- asperated with their governments for not seeking a way out of the nuclear trap. In 1810 Chief Justice Marshall Invoked "the first principles of natural justice and social policy" to Invalidate a Georgia law. maintaining that.Georgia was restrained "either by general principles which are common to our free institutions, or by the particular provisions of the Constitution." The shorthand label for those principles is what lawyen'call "natural law," a theory that has greatest currency among Roman Catholic jud" The Supreme Court has never been reluctant to use. natural -law principles, although Judges uniformly have clothed their decisions In words more pal- atable to lawyers. They have shoe -homed natural law Into Marshall's "particular provisions of the Constitution." One need not rely on only the preamble to conclude that nuclear weaponry violates the Constitution. Other possible arguments a• Firm by delegating, tacitly or ex- pressly (aa In the War Powers Resolution of 1973), war -making powers to the presi. dent, Congress has given up one of Its greatest powers. Even though, presidents beginning with' Washington, have em- ployed violence without congresslonai ap- proval, each Instance, even -including the Civil War and Vietnam, was for a limited goal. Certainly! the. framers did-not.want the blood and �wealth.of the nation to be committed• by one person. Elbridge Gerry observed during the -1787 convention that he "never expected to hear in a republic a motion to empower the Executive alone to declare war." In constitutional terms, that Is aur Invalid delegation of legislative power to the president. r a Second, the Bill of Rights was an ef- fort to place restrictions upon government and to "oblige" it. in Madison's words. to "control itself." The Bill was a recognition that "reasons of freedom and of personal security" should prevail over "reasons of state." The men who wrote the Constitu- tion were not naive. They knew history and they knew the dark side of man. Today there can be no true personal security and no real national security, as long as nuclear weapons exist and proliferate. a Third. Congress should not be per. mitted to refuse or neglect to exercise one of its powers. War -making has already been mentioned. Another Is the authority to punish offenses against "the law of na- tions." International law proscribes nucle- ar weaponry; and Congress has a gpnstitu- tional duty to implement that legal norm. it is, for example, generally agreed that nuclear testing on the high seas is illegal. No nation has a right to pollute the seas or the air. That points up the lunacy of the present situat(on: It Is unlawful to pollute but political officers maintain that It Is lawful to obliterate cities (and even civili. zation). In 1887 the Supreme Court ruled that international law places a duty on every government to prevent a wrong being done within Its own jurisdiction to another na- tion with which it is at peace, or to the people thereof. No doubt that is scant prec- edent, as lawyers understand precedent, to conclude that Congress is duty-bound to determine and enforce international law about nuclear weapons. Nevertheless. Con- gress cannot escape from the harsh fact that, as some international lawyers main. taro, "any threat or contemplated use of nuclear weapons Is contrary to the gictales of International law and constitute a crime of state." Or, as the United Nations has re- peatedly said, the threat or use of nuclear weapons Is a "crime against mankind and civilization." e Fourth, the president, too. has . :,in. stitutional duty — an express duty -- to "faithfully" execute the laws, Surely those laws Include more than congressional stab utes. Arguably, the Judge-made laws of the Supreme Court and, of greater present-im. portance, International laws must alsq I e faithfully executed. (And to execute thein, as Sen. Sam Ervin.often reminded execu. tive officer$, means to Implement, not kill, them.) Furthermore, the president should not be permitted to delegate his war -mak- Ing power (even If It Is Invalid, as suggest-, ed above) to subordinates In the military, services and even, as has been horrifyingly all too true on a number of occasions, to the vagaries of -computers interpreting ride• messages. a Fifth. the Cunsutnnon prn:,cts against deprivation of "life. I:m-rts and property" without -ae process of law !i i. tnrtsally that meant that aosernmeni merely had to follow proper procedures — give a person his day in court. But. as Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes asserted in 1937, the liberty safeguarded by the Con. stitution Is "liberty in a social organization which requires .the protection of law against the evils which menace the health. safety, morals and welfare of the people." The meaning is clear: Due process can be construed to require government action, af• firmative government action, to protect the people. Protection, at a time when all thoughtful people acknowledge that nucle. ar war cannot be won, means positive ac- tion to diminish the likelihood of war. In sum. the Constitution imposes duties as well as confers powers upon govern- ment officers. The suggestion Is not that the Supreme Court, or any other govern. mental body, will leap to the challenge of pending nuclear doom. Judges, in general. are timorous, looking upon requests to go beyond the familiar and the expected -as frightful occasions. Judges, however. are not the only guard- ians of the Constitution. All political offi- cers also are. As for lawyers, who take pride in being "officers of the court" — having, that is, a quasi(-govemmbntal sta. tus — the need is obvious. They should — they must — help devise political (that Is, constitutional) means by which the world can peacefully settle Issues that historical- ly have been settled by war. Failure to.do so would be the ultimate folly. This is emphatically not a call for unilat- eral disarmament. That, too. would be folly compounded. A freeze on nuclear weapons must be accompanied by a simultaneous unfreezing of the rigidity and Inability of the officers of the governments of the world to deal rationally with human sur. vival. OVSAi ON NUCLEAR FREE ,ZONES history of... Nuclear Free Zone Treaties Nuclear Free Zone Proposals Grass -Roots Nuclear Free Zone Campaigns NUCLEAR FREE ZONE TREATIES 1959 Antarctic Treatv (US/USSR) Prohibits the deployment of nuclear weapons in the Antarctic 1967 Outer Space Treatv (US/USSR) Prohibits the deployment of weapons of mass destruction in space. It was originally adopted as a U.N. resolution in 1963. 1967 Treaty for Prohibition of Nuclear Wea ons in Latin America (Treaty of Tlatelolco, signed by all Central and South American nations" except Cuba and Guyana, and guaranteed by all five nuclear powers) The treaty was proposed in 1963 in response to the Cuban missile crisis and it was negotiated through the U.N. Garcia Robles, its architect and chief negotiator, received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1982 for his work. 1971 International Seabed Treatv (US/USSR) The treaty prohibits the deployment of nuclear weapons on or under the seabed. NUCLEAR FREE ZONE PROPOSALS 1956 Rapacki Plan for a Nuclear Free Zone encompassing Poland, Czechoslovakia East Germany and West Germanv. Proposed by Adam Rapacki, Polish Foreign Secretary. The Zone was to be ratified independently via unilateral'declara- tions of the countries involved It was to be reinforced by.a commission of non-aligned, NATO, and Warsaw Pact states aided by a system of investigation. posts The proposal was rejected by NATO because it did not address broader Issues of conventional force reduction as we1L `Versions of the Treaty, were resubmitted in 1961 and 1962 but rejected for the same reason The plan has been on hold Indefinitely since France's development of an independent nuclear capability. (See article in section on international perspectives) 1957 Romania proposes a Balkans Nuclear Weapons Free Zone, modelled after the Rapacki plan. Proposal is rejected by NATO. 1959 Ireland proposes a gradual plan for region by Nuclear Free (Ivrti _region creation of a global Zone Brazil, and Chile refuse to ive the me se which nsnthey,will not be bound by he Treaty a until all countries affected havecs,gnedu0e. Cuba and Guyana). "Special thanks to Mike Anderson for researching the history of Nuclear Free Zones CLEAR FREE AMERICA 2521 Guilford Ave., Baltimore, AID 21218 (301) 235.3575 the national clearinghouse and resource center for Nuclear Free Zones _ I 7 s/ i 1959 USSR proposes a Nordic NFZ and a Balkans/Adriatic NFZ (the latter to include Albania, Bulgaria, Italy, Romania, Yugoslavia, Turkey, and Greece) 1960 Fourteen African states propose a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone for all Africa in response to French nuclear testing in the Sahara. The zone has been consistently endorsed by the Organization of African Unity and opposed by the United Statepl Britain, and South Africa. 1961 Unden Plan (proposed by Swedish Foreign Minister Unden) calls for a Nordic NFZ to include Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland. Norway and Denmark have unilaterally refused to deploy nuclear weapons in peacetime and Sweden renounced any deployment in 1969 (see below). 1963 Finland repeats call for a Nordic NFZ. 1968 Sweden unilaterally renounces any deployment or use of nuclear weapons and declares itself a Nuclear Free Zone. Renews call for a Nordic NFZ. 1974 Shah of Iran proposes a Middle -Eastern NFZ. Proposal is supported by most Arab states but blocked by Israel, which insists on bilateral negotiations with each state rather than a blanket treaty. 1975 United Nations adopts a formal definition of NFZs which all nations agree. to recognize. To be sanctioned by the U.N., an NFZ must be codified by a statute declaring the total absence of nuclear weapons within the'zone and, supported by an international system of verification and control.. States of the region must solemnly declare that they will refrain on a reciprocal basis from producing, acquiring or in any other way possessing nuclear explosive devices, and from permitting the stationing of nuclear weapons on their territory by any third party. They also agree to place all of their nuclear activities under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. In addition,. a set of protocols is required between the nations of the zone and the existing nuclear - weapons powers. The nuclear -weapons states must agree to respect the zone's nuclear -weapons free status by. neither introducing nor transporting nuclear weapons within the zone, they must "refrain from contributing to tensions in the zone which might encourage the violation of the treaty, and lastly, they must refrain from using or threatening to use nuclear., weapons against -any state in the region.!' In.summary, an NFZ treaty should include guarantees that the zone is both free of nuclear weapons and immune from the threat of having nuclear weapons used against it. 1978 United Nations definition is expanded to include all sea and air -space within a zone. Installations capable of supporting or basing nuclear weapons are banned from the NFZs. 1979 U.N. Micronesian Trust Territory of Belau (administered by the United States) Vis the world's first Nuclear Free constitution, banning all nuclear mater - See article in section on international perspectives.) 1980 The European Nuclear Disarmament campaign is founded and immediately pro- poses a Nuclear Free Europe, stretching from Poland to Portugal. U.5' 1981 Norway resubmits a Nordic NFZ proposal. It is endorsed by the Norwegian Labor Party, Norwegian Trades Union Congress, and the Social Democratic parties of all the countries involved. 1981 Israel proposes a framework for negotiating a Mid -East NFZ in response to nuclear weapons development programs underway in Libya and Iraq. All Arab states have refused to negotiate since Israel's bombing of the Iraqi reactor. 1982 The Independent Commission on Disarmament (Palme Commission), repre- sented by 17 countries, recommends a Battlefield Nuclear Wea ns Free Zone extending 150 km on both sides of the Iron Curtain ee article in section on international perspectives). 1982 Bulgaria, Greece, and Romania all propose plans for a Nuclear Free Balkans Romania's is contingent upon cancellation of U.S. Pershing and Cruise missile deployments. Together with Yugoslavia, all the countries agreed to hold,e summit meeting on NFZs in 1983. (See enclosed article in section on international perspectives) - 1983 Belauans reaffirm their Nuclear Free constitution by rejecting a "compact of free association" with the United States Although the compact itself was actually approved by 56%, it contained a clause permitting U.S. stationing of: nuclear weapons in Belau According to the Belauan constitution, any .such agreement must be specifically approved by at least 75% of the voters. Only 50% did so in a seperate question. The compact is, therefore, voided and must be either renogiated or withdrawn. Whether the United States, which wants to, establish a Trident submarine base and guerrilla warfare training center= in'. Belau, will respect the constitution is unclear, however. Grass -Roots Nuclear Free Zone Campaigns The following history is by no means complete. We have no doubt overlooked many NFZ declarations in Europe and Australia and we could not identify any in New Zealand or Japan, although we hear the NFZ movement is strong in both those countries Please inform us of . any corrections and/or additions to this list so it can be updated and redistributed. periodically. Australia The NFZ movement originated.in Australia in 1975, sparked'by the Movement Against Uranium Mining. in support of a ban.on all uranium mining, the movemei :asked sympathetic city councils to endorse NFZ resolutions that banned all non-medical nuclear materials The first town to declare itself an NFZ is thought to have been,: Fitzroy. Fitzroy was also the first to put up signs saying"You are now entering a Nuclear Free Zone." There are at least 12 other NFZs in Australia (a full 'list, .Is available from Nuclear Free America). England The city of Manchester adopted an NFZ resolution In November, 1980, and within two o years, was followed by over 160 British towns, cities, and counties (A full list is available from Nuclear Free AmerIca.) All of Wales is Nuclear Free (county by county) and 32 of 51 million Britons are now represented by Nuclear Free Authorities English NFZ resolutions are not legally binding, however, and are rejected by the Thatcher government. Most Nuclear Free Authorites refuse to participate in civil defense planning. This forced the government, in 1982, to cancel "Hardrock", its national civil defense exercise. —NUCLEAR FREE AMERICA 2521 Guilford Ave., Baltimore, MD 21218 (301) 2353575 the national clearinghouse and resource center for Nuclear Free Zones LAS% United States The first NFZ campaign in the United States* took place in Santa Cruz County CA, in June 1980. The proposed ordinance was defeated by a 63-37% margin. The Lockheed Missile and Space Company which would have been forced by the measure to terminate work on the Trident missile system, spent over $150,000 on voter opinion research and direct mail to defeat it. Garrett Park. MD became America's first NFZ in ,May, 1982. Inspired by the declarations of English communities, its citizens overwhelmingly approved an NFZ ordinance, the world's first. (The vote was 245 to 46.) . The City Council of Sykesville MD passed an NFZ resolution in June, 1982, by a vote of 5 to 1. At the same meeting, they unanimously approved the Freeze resolution and rejected crisis relocation planning for nuclear war. Ashland, OR adopted an NFZ ordinance by referendum in the November, 1982, elections; 55% in favor. The ordinance was the first to detail penalties for violations - up to $500 fine and/or six months in jail Roosevelt, NJ, passed an NFZ resolution in the November elections (89% in favor). In January, 1983, the town council and mayor unanimously adopted the NFZ as an ordinance, with the same penalties as in Ashland (abovei, - Assorted Nuclear Free Zones** t , Canada Netherlands. Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan .:-! . . =.lfellevoelstius Toronto, Ontario de Bdt Denmark Portugal ^ Nykobing Falster. (an island) ., : , Asambuja Province IrelanCork t'at'Germanv ; Derry, ;; `;Nurnberg Belfast y.' ` Kassel Dublin <'.LIndau _ `Morfelden-Walldorf Sylt (an Island) -'GroB Gerau County Nuclear Free resolutions directed specifically at the prohibition of nuclear power and nuclear waste disposal proliferated in the 1970s but none, to our knowledge, addressed the issue of nuclear weapons. ** Nuclear Free Zones in Great Britain and Australia are too numerous to mention here. A fulklist Is available from Nuclear Free America -NUCLEAR FREE ZONES \ iJV f legal notes 1. Introduction 2. Opinion of Stanton Long, Oregon Deputy Attorney General and reply of Richard Ernst regarding Ashland NFZ ordinance. 3. Memorandum of Mark Cogan, Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy, reviewing recent federal court decisions which have some bearing on the constitutionality of NFZ declarations. 4. Memorandum of the Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy regarding the wording of NFZ declarations 1. INTRODUCTION The unilateral declaration of Nuclear Free Zones by local authorities creates complex legal issues which have not yet been resolved. The first and most important point to be made here is that this uncertainty, whatever the ultimate decision of the courts, should not deter you from undertaking a Nuclear Free Zone campaign. Nor should legal arguments (such as those espoused by the Oregon Deputy Attorney General below) deter you once underway. The value of your campaign lies as much in its symbolic content as in its final result. Nuclear Free Zone resolutions and personal declarations are not legally binding. Nuclear Free Zone ordinances and charter amendments are. Whether or not these will be upheld in court depends on the types of challenges that are raised, where, and by whom. So far, only areas that are already Nuclear Free have declared themselves NFZs. No nuclear weapons Industries. or facilities have been affected and none of the ordinances, therefore, have been taken to court It seems clear that NFZs of this type (by definition non-binding) will continue to go unchallenged. As NFZs proliferate, however, it is inevitable that some will confront the nuclear weapons establishment directly and end up in court. The legal precedent established by the first decision will have a tremendous impact on the NFZ movement as a whole. It is, therefore, extremely important that any campaign which is attempting to create a Nuclear Free Zone plan carefully -- plan as if it were going to be the test case for the entire country, which it well might be. Keep us informed of your campaign and any challenges brought against it. The federal government has exercised almost exclusive power in the nuclear regulatory area since World War IL The main issue the courts will have to deal with is "pre-emption". Can the federal government's authority in this area and its pre-emptive powers, as first codified in the Atomic Energy Act, be challenged by the zoning of local authorities when public health and safety is at stake? Who knows ... To assist local campaigns, Nuclear Free America has established a Legal Advisory Group, co- sponsored by the Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy. We urge you to get in touch with us before adopting your declarations final wording and as far in advance as possible of any legal challenges you may face. The Legal Advisory Group can review the proposed wording of your Nuclear Free Zone declaration and suggest possible changes, defences, etc We also urge you to find a sympathetic lawyer in your own area as well, and involve him or her in the wording process Even if only dealing with a non-binding resolution, a lawyer can be extremely helpful in getting you through the local Initiative or referendum process (Note: The Lawyers Committee requests that you please channel any questions or requests for the Legal Advisory Group through Nuclear Free America.) I. This memorandum is not yet completed. A copy will be sent to you as soon as possible. --NUCLEAR FREE AMERICA 2521 Guilford Ave., Baltimore, MD 21218 (301) 2353575 the national clearinghouse and resource center for Nuclear Free Zones 1 . )F _ b) Opinion of Stanton Long, Oregon Deputy Attorney General, and reply of Richard Ernst regarding Ashland NFZ ordinance. DAVE FROHNMAYER •"IWM\ IIMW al.,l u Wt.lYl 'i DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 100 Sloe• Office Budding Sllm. Omg. 77] 10 TchyMne: ISOJI 370.440U October 13, 1982 STANTON F. LONG 1,1\11\ 1111W4 \IlM AI i i I Douglas R. Carter, Director - Department of Economic Development 155 Cottage Street, N.E. Salem, Oregon 97310 Re: Opinion Request OP -5424 Dear Mr. Carter: You have asked us to review a proposed ordinance of the City of Ashland, on the November ballot, which would prohibit manufacture or `positioning" in Ashland of nuclear armaments or associated products. It would also prohibit production of nuclear energy and storage of nuclear wastes in Ashland. Violation of the ordinance would be a misdemeanor. The term "products associated with or connected to nuclear armaments or,,components" is very broad. We don't know what it means, and an enterprise manufacturing a computer which could be used in evaluating heat resistance of a missile reentry shield would not know whether it was violating the ordinance. A penal ordinance which is so vague and overbroad is constitutionally defective. The manufacture of nuclear armaments, the production of nuclear energy and the storage of nuclear wastes are all matters regulated by federal law. State law also regulates the production of nuclear energy and the storage of nuclear wastes by laws which clearly preempt that regulation to the state. In 39 Op Atty Gen 81 (1978), it was concluded that a county ordinance prohibiting construction of nuclear plants would be invalid. We I j said: "Examination of ORS ch 469 immediately makes it clear that the generation of nuclear power and the location of energy facilities, including nuclear power plants, has been declared by the legislature to be a matter of statewide concern. It seems quite obvious I NONE M 1 Douglas R. Carter, Director October 13, 1982 Page Two that all the people of the state are concerned and affected by decisions on the siting of power genera- tion facilities. The statutes completely preempt to the state and the Energy Facility Siting Council all such decisions on siting." Id. at 84. Siting of nuclear waste storage facilities 1s .also preemptively regulated by the state. Finally;' it would be a violation of the Commerce Clause of the United States -Constitution for Ashland to prohibit manufacture and "positioning" in Ashland of "associated products," assuming that those products are part of the flow of interstate commerce. The proposed ordinance is thus fatally defective for overbreadth, for attempting to regulate matters which have been preempted by federal or state law or both, and as a violation of the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. If it passes, it will be totally ineffective. IT rn�4 a{ q1c6dra iir5 sehgdaYi � >/,g IM2 Mayor's report is worthless The mayor got leylbms. not Wets. ftem salem. In m event will ge be'totally in- effective." If, Nuclear prmlleers •1lQual come to Ashland if they. nave rave to litigate U. They will go. glum -hem. -al No ,traMfather rights to nuclear "incatim will develop, as they migni of wa.waut forperfect language. Vaten understand the short. Yours very STANTON F. dear. Simple and direct language of Sea. II Ion be amended at any time. even into lawyers' long and complex terms with a plrtnora of dtfimtions. esic too and IM like. Ow to argue about language M lx Amplyisfif buster. Measure SS is not "overbroad." Components having a nuclear usage are not sold Ihtfo gh corner superinarkeu. Hence it is "&$=bit Io !mist that plana Imaging in Ashland either limit their product to mnauclear goods or limit time sales to those outside the mlelear mlRtarydodustrial snmplex. W fairly says. "Furow ether Ibat your products or your customers are Sia nuclear." Measure Sg is not un. constitutional. True. a cart has In, - validated disrnmtnsbon against ergumaree in nuclear waste, But Se includes no discrimination against Interstate eentmtree. Also Sate. General this and othercmu have held that local law can not apply to nuclear hcillfies located and built pur- suam to apaafie fetMral law dine: tives. But this pspdeilion will St. feet Se aNy if a fedmI dl live should loots a nuclear facility in Ashland. Futihermore, Shu pro. position has oen quealimed by the United Slates Supreme Court, It has taken over tM Subject matter. its aptmans Will state the ap. placable law, Thenatter. Sg can be reiewed. Let's adopt Sea now. Then let's work wlru the industrial i e•elop• meet tattungenl to bring more emplq•ment to Ashland, We can "tell" our mrlear•free sone as uni• queant attracting business to Ashland, Rlcherd Frrol ITS Walker Ave. Ashland ty�tCLEAR FREE AMERICA 2521 Guilford Ave., Baltimore, MD 21218 (301) 235.3575 the national clearinghouse and resource center for Nuclear Free Zones lT-S� c) Memorandum of Mark Cogan, Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy, reviewing recent federal court decisions which have some bearing on the consitution- ality of Nuclear Free Zone declarations. MEMORANDUM I To: Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy - - From: Mark Cogan Ra: Nuclear Free Zones i i This memorandum reviews sone recent federal court decisions as they bear on the constitutionality of "Nuclear Fru Zone" regulations adopted by local governmental authorities. i •A. Nuclear Free Zone. ! Following are three existing Nuclear Free Zone ruolutionr. � Garrett .Park. Maryland, Mav 3. 1982 The people of this Town hereby declare the Tom I of Garrett Park to be a Nuclear Free Zone. No nuclear weapon shall be produced, transported, stored, processed, disposed of, nor i used within Garrett Park. No facility, equipment, supply ,or 1 substance for the -production, transportation, storage, process- ,. ing, disposal or,use of nuclear weapons shall be allowed in i ! Garrett Park. I i Sykesville. Maryland. June 14, 1982 Resolution No. 1982-003 ! NUCLEAR FREE -ZONE RESOLUTION WHEREAS , the risks and dangers of nuclear war with c=v®tional � nuclear weapons are beyond the past experience of any nation on earth I /V 4 -3- j. B. Recent Federal cases relevant to Nuclear Free Zones I know of no litigation which has resulted from a I. local government's enactment of restrictions on the tnneporeclon or storage of nuclear weapons. Several recent uses, yvaver, - have dealt with the preemption of regulations directed at the I. generation of nuclear energy or the transportation of nuclear materials. I. New York City ban on transportation f nuclear c 1 1 On January 15, 1976, the New York City Board of Health adopted an amendment to the City Health Code to prohibit the commercial transport of large quantity or high-level radio- active materials through the City. New York City Health Code 4 175.111(()• The amendment reads as follows, f. NCertificate A -the foregoing sport provisions of this section, a Certificate de of Emergency representative shall by the Commissioner a or his designated representative shall be re - h the City oribrought into theach pCity, of any ofto be ntherfollowing ted gutcrlals, exceedingd form Plutonium twogas, or 20isotopes whichever y cheverisuantity n2ess; (2 the 25 Uranium of thecotalnuranium ontent236 in quantities where the U-235 content exceeds one kilogram) 3 of the ets with atomic number 69 orygreater) athe activity of whiichnexceed, 20 curies, (4) Spent reactor fuel elements or mixed fiulon produce assoc .red with such spent fuel elements the activity of which exceeds 20 curies, or (3) Any quantity of radioactive material specified As Ij s "Large Quantity" by the Nuclear Rerulatory Commission in l; CFR Part 71, entitled "packaging of Radioactive Natertil for �I Transport." A "note" appended to the resolution adopting this subsection explains, Itis intended that such Certificate will be lseueu for the most compelling reasons involving urgent pablic ii i i -2 - AND WHEREAS, a modern nuclear weapon detonated, produced, trans- ported, stored, processed, dispose of, or used within Fr the confines of the incorporated Town limits -of Sykesville. Maryland it a very real threat to the Crt • t safety and well-being of the residents of the Town of Sykesville, Maryland. NOW THEREFORE, be is resolved this day 14th of June, 1982, that p Mayor and Town Council of Sykesville, Maryland declare, a the Town of Sykesville, Maryland to be a NUCLEAR - .1 FREE ZONE. No nuclear weapons shall be produced within the Town of Sykesville, Maryland. Further, no facility. W equipment, supply or substance for the producing, storage, processing, disposal or use aCransportaclon, �. of nuclear weapon, shall be allowed in Sykesville, tns byy Maryland. P N Ashland, Oregon, November 2 1982 Section 1. It is hereby determined that Ashland shall be 00 w and is established as a nuclear free zone wherein no nuclear ar- maments or components may be positioned or manufactured nor W shall there be any nuclear energy in any form, experimental or 171 W commercial, produced and no nuclear wastes or any kind shall be cJj, scared in the City of Ashland. (ti t3- Section 2. Any person, firm or corporation violating the terms of this provision shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and it is punishable by sixty (60) days in Jail or a fine of FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS (5500.00) or both. fi -3- j. B. Recent Federal cases relevant to Nuclear Free Zones I know of no litigation which has resulted from a I. local government's enactment of restrictions on the tnneporeclon or storage of nuclear weapons. Several recent uses, yvaver, - have dealt with the preemption of regulations directed at the I. generation of nuclear energy or the transportation of nuclear materials. I. New York City ban on transportation f nuclear c 1 1 On January 15, 1976, the New York City Board of Health adopted an amendment to the City Health Code to prohibit the commercial transport of large quantity or high-level radio- active materials through the City. New York City Health Code 4 175.111(()• The amendment reads as follows, f. NCertificate A -the foregoing sport provisions of this section, a Certificate de of Emergency representative shall by the Commissioner a or his designated representative shall be re - h the City oribrought into theach pCity, of any ofto be ntherfollowing ted gutcrlals, exceedingd form Plutonium twogas, or 20isotopes whichever y cheverisuantity n2ess; (2 the 25 Uranium of thecotalnuranium ontent236 in quantities where the U-235 content exceeds one kilogram) 3 of the ets with atomic number 69 orygreater) athe activity of whiichnexceed, 20 curies, (4) Spent reactor fuel elements or mixed fiulon produce assoc .red with such spent fuel elements the activity of which exceeds 20 curies, or (3) Any quantity of radioactive material specified As Ij s "Large Quantity" by the Nuclear Rerulatory Commission in l; CFR Part 71, entitled "packaging of Radioactive Natertil for �I Transport." A "note" appended to the resolution adopting this subsection explains, Itis intended that such Certificate will be lseueu for the most compelling reasons involving urgent pablic ii i i -4- policy or national secuyyrity interests transcending erns and that ic Public the Issuance If Wilsuch noccbe acceptable as Justification for the issuance of such Certificate. The resolution further amended 1 175.111 to state that the section-ddeStatess not apply 'to radiation sources shipped by or for Purposes or which a�er�tedior to nationall defenaeor ."al •ecuricy The very day this regulation was adopted, the federal government Sued to have it declared preempted and unenforceable. Judge Inter B. Hyatt denied preliminary relief on January 30, 1976. United States v. City of New York, 76 Civ. 273. On January 19, 1981, the United States Department of Transportation (DDT) published a Final Rule, to take effect on February 1, 1982, which had the purpose and principal effect Of nullifying New York City's regulation. 46 Fed. R.S. 5298 (1981). On March 25, 1981, the City brought suit seeking to invalidate DDT's rule, or at least to prevent the City's regulation from being overridden. The State of New York, Sullivan County and the Town of Brookhaven intervened as plaintiffs. A number of power companies intervened as defendants. City ofcity of - V. _ United States Department of Transportation, 81 Civ. 1778 (S.D.N.Y.). On May 5, 1982, Judge Sofaer held the DOT regulation invalid "insofar as It overrides non-federal bans on the highway transport of large quantity radioactive materials through densely populated urban areas...." City of New York v. United States Department of TransPOrtation, 539 F. Supp. 1237, 1291-94 (S.D.N.Y. 1982). 5 - In reaching his ruling, Judge Sofaer first reviewed the procedural background of the suit, id. at 1241-52,1nd held (a) that Congress, in adopting the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA), 49 U.S.C. IS 1801-1812, lawfully delegated rule-making authority and the granting of nonpreemptlon determination, in chis area to DOT, id. at 1252-53,(b) chat )ON'A and its preemption provision, 49 U.S.C. f 1811(a)s are Within the commerce power of Congress and do not violate the Tenth Amendment, id. at 1253, (c) that HYTA Sivas DOT broad power to adopt regulations governing all aspects, including the routing, of the transportation of radioactive materials. Id. at 1253-54, and (d) that nonfederal regulation, inconsistent with valid DOT regulations adopted under H)?A are enforceable only where DOT has specifically granted a nonpreemptlon request or where the nonfederal regulation fits within the "significant role for nonfederal authorities" that DOT must respect in view Of "the traditional Judicial tests for determining federal preemption." Id. at 1255-58. This significant role for non. federal authorities requires that DOT respect the interest of state and local Jurisdictions in promoting public safety. Id. at 3258. Having rejected broader grou:,ds, Judge Sofaer held that DOT's assessment of low-probability/high consequence environmentcl risks was inadequate under NEPA because of the agency's failure to evaluate the risks and consequences of or available alternatives co highway transportation of nuclear mec<aels, id. at 1262-87. ii 1 I -6- Because of DOT's failure to adequately evaluate the risks imposed by highway transportation of nuclear materials or the need for such transport, Judge Sofser held its imposition on unwilling nonfederal jurisdictions to be"arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion," id. at 1288 and 1293. The court limited its injunction against the DDT regulation to New York City, but said that other Jurisdictions should be allowed to show that truck transport throw w i�Aatau n„"� present dangers of high -consequence accidents similar in degree to those presented in this case,' and analyze the risks Posed by the available alternatives, id. at 1294. 2. California Nuclear Moratorium In 1974, California adopted the Ilarren-Alquiat State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Act, Cal. Pub. Res. Code 55 25000-25986 ("Warren-Alquiat Act"1, which established • five -member State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission) omm loon later and gave it broad authority over energy planning and forecasting, conservation, resource manage- ment, research and development, and the regulation of power planta. In 1976, California amended the Warren-Alquist Act by imposing a moratorium on the certification of any new nuclear Plants until the Energy Commission finds and the legislature agrees that a federally approved method of waste reprocessing and disposal exists and the Energy Comisslon hes completed and submitted to the legislature a study on the,feasibllity of pro- tecting a working nuclear reactor by burying it underground. -7- The 2976 amendment also required the Energy Commission to determine whether facilities are available ta store nuclear waste from a given ptoposed nuclear plant. The Pacific Legal Foundation and a nuclear engineer brought suit to invalidate the Warren-Alquist Act a amended, as did the Pacific Cas end Electric Company. The United States District Court, for the Southern and Eastern Dlatricts of CelifOmla ruled for the plaintiffs, holding that the Warren- Alquist Act was preempted by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. 42 U.S.C. 112011-2282. California appealed each suit, and the Ninth Circuit subsequently considered and decided the consol- idatad case in Pacific Legal Foundation v. State Enerry Resources Conservation 6 Development Commission, 659 F.2d 981 (9th Cir. 1981). The court disposed of Article III Justiciability concerns of standing and ripeness, !d, at 910-18, before pro- ceeding to the question of preemption. As to preemption, the court cited case law to the effect that the states' police powers are to be superseded only where such is the clear and manifest purpose of Congress, Such a purpose "may be inferred from the nature of the federal regulatory scheme lotting authority), or from the subject matter being regulated letting authority). Congressional intent to Preempt moot, however, be unambiguous Iciting authority). An intent to preempt cannot be -8 - inferred from the mere fact that the federal are Nte L detailed and complex [citing author- ity), or because the state legislation touches an area of predominantly national concern [citing authority) Id , ., at 919. The court also explained that a state law may be invalid even where Congress did not Intend to preempt it, to the extent that compliance with both obligations it impossible, but that the state law moat be presumed valid, id. The court Joined other courts, notably in Northern States Power Co.v; Minnesota, 447 F,2d 1143 (8th Cir. 1971), aff'd mom„ 405 U.S. 1035 (1972), and United States X. City of New York, 463 F.Supp. 604 (S.D.N.Y. 1978), and hold tbat* tomic Energy Act prCempts only state regulation of radiological hazards, 639 F,2d •c 923. The court then analyzed the Warren-Alquist Act as amended, and concluded that it was intended to protect against ocher than radiological hazards, as the moratorium was adopted largely over concern about econom"S�.l problems occasioned by the un- availability of a means of waste disposal, id, at 923-25. The court then considered the utilities' claim that California's regulation is invalid because it impedes the federal policy of promoting nuclear power. But the court found that Congress never decided to promote nuclear power at all coats, holding that California's restrictions do not impose conflicting obligations on the utilities such as to make compliance with both impossible. Id. at 926-28. fk Iq NN -9- 3. Ocher cases lnvolving nuclear pollCv and p_ C, In Northern States Power Co. v, State o� f Minnesota, 447 F. 2d 1143 (8th•Cir. 1971) off -d mem., 405 U.S. 1035 (1972), the court decided that Minnesota could not regulate the release of radioactive waste into the environment more stringently than the relevant federal authorities. The court huld that Congress acted within its authority over defense and security, interstate and foreign commerce, and general welfare in adopting the Atomic Energy Act, id, at 147. As to preemption, the court held that there is no physical impossibility of dual compliance with both the federal and state regulations where the state regulations are substantially more stringent, and that the Atomic Energy Act doss not expressly declare that the federal government 1a to have sole authority to regulate radioactive emissions from nuclear power plants, id. Examining the legislative history, however, the court concluded that in passing the Atomic Energy Act, Congress intended to Invest in the Atomic Energy Commission the exclusive authority to regulate radiation hazards in connection with nuclear energy, id, at 1147-54. In his dissenting opinion, Judge Van Oasterhout argued that federal preemption should not be Inferred with respect to a state's regulation of public health and safety absent the clearest indication of Congressional intent and close analysis of whether the state and federal regulations necessarily conflict with each other, id. at 1154.55. q=- dpn�.. ice• N p N n L) In United States v. City of New York, 463 F.Supp. 604 (SDNY 1978), the court held that the Atomic Energy Act's exclusive control over nuclear safety preempted New York City's attempt to prohibit Columbia University from operating a nuclear reactor, In Silkwood X. Kerr McCes Corp., 667.F.2d 908, 921-23 (10th Cir. 1981), the court held that the Atomic Energy Act's exclusive control over radiation hazards Preempted awarding Punitive damages under Oklahoma tort Iaw in connection with attmpca to contaminate Karen Silkwood with plutonium. In his dissenting opinion, Judge Doyle argued that federal preemption Of state regulation of nuclear hazards does not require pre- emption of state tort law remedies, id. at 926-30. C. Conclusion The Atomic Energy Act preempts the states from pro- tecting public health and safety with respect to radioactive =Lesions to the environment, not because of any language in the Act but because of a Judicial finding that Congress intended the federal legislation to provide the exclusive means of regulating this risk to the public. Accordingly, Minnesota may not restrict nuclear =lesions more stringently than the federal government, New York City may. not license nuclear reactors within the City, and Oklaboa tort law may not award punitive damages in the case of radiation exposure suffered by an mployee of a nuclear facility. In the area of MuC•lear free zones", the federal interest in imposing )X(jjonal rule would be even stronger than in the nucle t0ergy 09802, and one must &Iso feu the situation of fLconcllabIs state and federal regulations, A problo which (S absent in these three nuclear energy uses. The ewe casei in which the courts held that the e rule was not prompted are instructive as to ways to 5}0I4cture a regulation to avoid prempcion. The California pneritorl= was upheld because its goal was not to protect the ub� lc again 9 radiation but toaude +C,L pw,d development /1 uclear energy In the face of the federal goverment'• ure to approve a means of storing nuclear waste, Sine, �hN r case law held only that the Atomic Energy Act provided V exclusive means to regulate nuclear safety, California's �d91 elation was dewed not Preempted. New York City was success - {µl in -topping DDT from prempting the City's ban on trans- ps�tion of nuclear materials because the City showed that !_ r NEPA. DOT had failed to adequately evaluate the risks stoned by such activity and the alternatives available. Qa(f' DOT failed to adhere to lawful standards in adopting the rule. 1 1 ■ 1 dpn�.. ice• N p N n L) In United States v. City of New York, 463 F.Supp. 604 (SDNY 1978), the court held that the Atomic Energy Act's exclusive control over nuclear safety preempted New York City's attempt to prohibit Columbia University from operating a nuclear reactor, In Silkwood X. Kerr McCes Corp., 667.F.2d 908, 921-23 (10th Cir. 1981), the court held that the Atomic Energy Act's exclusive control over radiation hazards Preempted awarding Punitive damages under Oklahoma tort Iaw in connection with attmpca to contaminate Karen Silkwood with plutonium. In his dissenting opinion, Judge Doyle argued that federal preemption Of state regulation of nuclear hazards does not require pre- emption of state tort law remedies, id. at 926-30. C. Conclusion The Atomic Energy Act preempts the states from pro- tecting public health and safety with respect to radioactive =Lesions to the environment, not because of any language in the Act but because of a Judicial finding that Congress intended the federal legislation to provide the exclusive means of regulating this risk to the public. Accordingly, Minnesota may not restrict nuclear =lesions more stringently than the federal government, New York City may. not license nuclear reactors within the City, and Oklaboa tort law may not award punitive damages in the case of radiation exposure suffered by an mployee of a nuclear facility. In the area of MuC•lear free zones", the federal interest in imposing )X(jjonal rule would be even stronger than in the nucle t0ergy 09802, and one must &Iso feu the situation of fLconcllabIs state and federal regulations, A problo which (S absent in these three nuclear energy uses. The ewe casei in which the courts held that the e rule was not prompted are instructive as to ways to 5}0I4cture a regulation to avoid prempcion. The California pneritorl= was upheld because its goal was not to protect the ub� lc again 9 radiation but toaude +C,L pw,d development /1 uclear energy In the face of the federal goverment'• ure to approve a means of storing nuclear waste, Sine, �hN r case law held only that the Atomic Energy Act provided V exclusive means to regulate nuclear safety, California's �d91 elation was dewed not Preempted. New York City was success - {µl in -topping DDT from prempting the City's ban on trans- ps�tion of nuclear materials because the City showed that !_ r NEPA. DOT had failed to adequately evaluate the risks stoned by such activity and the alternatives available. Qa(f' DOT failed to adhere to lawful standards in adopting the rule. 1 1 ■ 1