The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1985-10-16 Info PacketCity of Iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE: October 11, 1985 TO: City Council FROM: City Manager RE: Informal Agendas and Meeting Schedule October 15, 1985 Tuesday 6:30 - 8:30 P.M. Council Chambers 6:30 P.M. - Civil Defense Plans and Procedures: Discussion with Civil Defense Director 7:15 P.M. - Personnel Study 7:45 P.M. - Cottonwood Tree,Prohibition 8:00 P.M. - Council time, Council committee reports October 16, 1985 Wednesday 4:45 P.M. - Council Chambers Special Council Meeting (Bond Sale) - separate agenda posted October 21, 1985 Monday 6:30 - 8:30 P.M. Council Chambers 6:30 P.M. - Review zoning matters 7:00 P.M. - Fees Study 8:10 P.M. - Council agenda, Council time, Council committee reports 8:25 P.M. - Consider appointments to the Senior Center Commission and Resources Conservation Commission October 22. 1985 ruesday 7:30 P.M. - Regular Council Meeting - Council Chambers October 29, 1985 Tuesday 6:30 - 8:30 P.M. Council Chambers 6:30 P.M. - Community Development Block Grant Program - Recommendations from CCN 8:00 P.M. - Council time, Council committee reports /f97 1 1 City Council October 11, 1985 Page 2 PENDING LIST Priority 8: Transit System Study (November 1985) Leasing of Airport Land for Commercial Use City Administrative Procedures (November 1985) Kirkwood/Dodge Signalization and Traffic Patterns Coralville Milldam Project (November 1985) Sidewalk Cafes (November 1985) Newspaper Vending Machines (November 1985) Stormwater Management Ordinance Review Abandoned Vehicle Ordinance Evaluation Meeting with Chairpersons of Boards and Commissions (November 7, 1985) Meeting with Don Zuchelli re. Parcel 64-1a (November 15, 1985) City Council FY87 Goal Setting Session (November 25, 1985) Appointments to Resources Conservation Commission, Board of Adjustment, Board of Examines of Plumbers, Human Rights Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission (November 19, 1985) /o 19/ NOMMIL- I City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE: October 11, 1985 TO: Chairpersons, Boards and Commissions FROM: Mayor McDonald RE: Meeting with City Council The meeting of the Chairpersons of all boards and commissions, which had been scheduled for October 2 and was canceled, is now scheduled for November 7. The meeting will be held at the Public Library, Room A, beginning at 3:30 P.M. and will be followed by dinner at Givonni's. Please contact Lorraine Saeger (356-5010) no later than October 28, 1985, regarding your attendance at this meeting. cc: City Council City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: October 11, 1985 To: City Council From: Neal Berlin, City Managers,, / Re: Peterson Street Extension This memo is intended to review relevant facts as they relate to the extension of Peterson Street to* serve the proposed Vista Park Village subdivision. It has never been the policy of Iowa City to assume any portion of the costs associated with extending local streets to serve new subdivisions. This fact was recognized by the Planning and Zoning Commission in its recommendation to approve the preliminary and final plats of the Vista Park Village with the applicant assuming all costs for extending Peterson Street. The Commission rejected benefit assessment, as proposed by the applicant, finding that area property owners would not benefit from the extension since their properties are already served by existing street improvements. This finding was echoed by the Council at your August Z6, 1985; informal meeting, when extension by assessment was dismissed by a consensus of the Council. The principal issue which remains is -whether the City was required to extend Peterson Street to the southern boundary of Shamrock Place at the time of its development. It has been suggested that the City was obli- gated to extend Peterson Street to the southern limits of Shamrock Place according to an agreement with Bruce Glasggow as well as HUD. The City has found no record of any obligation either to HUD or Mr. Bruce Glasgow, from whom the property was acquired. This is further reflected by the fact that HUD stipulated as a condition of approval of the project that Shamrock Place could not be assessed if Peterson Street were ever ex- tended. As far- as we can determine, the City was not obligated or required to extend Peterson Street any farther south than its current point of intersection with Shamrock Drive. Based upon these facts, I recommend to the City Council that the applicant assume all costs for extending Peterson Street. This action will be consistent with established City policy, the Subdivision Regulations and the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission. bc3 cc: Charles Mullen Loren Hershberger /e 99 1 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: October 10, 1965 To: City Council From: City Manager "_"� "2— Re: Comparison of Administrative/Confidential Salaries/Benefits/Number of Employees The City Council requested that a study be conducted to determine how the City's salary levels, benefits and number of employees compare with other communities, private business and the University of Iowa. The enclosed survey, prepared by the Human Relations Department, concludes: 1. On a population basis, Iowa City has fewer employees per capita than most large comparable cities in Iowa. 2. In certain service areas, Iowa City has far fewer employees. The significant difference is noted in parks, fire, police, streets and refuse. A national survey was recently conducted of police departments in the United States. In the population classification of 50-75,000, 72 cities were surveyed. The average number of police officers per 1,000 popula- tion is 1.79Iowa City has 1.07 officers per 1,000 population. Only five other cities out of the 72 surveyed have the same number or fewer officers per 1,000 population than Iowa City. 3. Iowa City salaries are comparable to other municipalities. There are some overall variations; however, these are -not significant. 4. Employee benefits for Iowa City employees are higher in some areas and lower in other categories. However, there is no appreciable disparity when compared with both the public and the private sector. bj3/20 f00 i Date: To: From: City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM October 11, 1985 City Council Anne Carroll, Director of Human Relations @rte- CA�� Re: Administrative and Confidential Salaries and Benefits/Staffing Levels Following last year's budget discussions information was requested on the status of salaries and benefits provided to Administrative and Confidential employees. A survey of comparable positions in other large Iowa cities and regional munici- palities, particularly university communities, was conducted for Administrative positions. These communities generally are the agencies with which Iowa City competes for administrative personnel and are used during the collective bargain- ing process by fact finders and moderators for comparative purposes. The list of respondents is included in Attachment A. Comparisons also were made with University of Iowa and local private sector salaries, as available and appropri- ate. Since Confidential positions are recruited on a local basis, positions comparable to representative City Confidential positions were surveyed only within the University of Iowa and in the local private sector. A comparison of benefit packages of other municipalities and within the Univer- sity (for Professional and Scientific employees) was conducted. Information also has been included on salary administration matters, such as merit pay adjustments and employee distribution in salary ranges, and on a comparison of staffing levels between Iowa City and other Iowa municipalities. Staffing Levels Iowa City's staffing levels, both for specific service functions and total City operations, were compared with other major Iowa cities. The cities are Cedar Rapids, Ames, Waterloo, Dubuque, Sioux City, Davenport and Des Moines. For all City functions, Iowa City has fewer City employees per citizens served than the average for all cities surveyed. For many City functions, Iowa City employees serve considerably more citizens than city employees in comparable Iowa communities. For example, the Streets Division serves 98% more residents per employee, the Police Department 51%, Parks 30%, etc. (See Attachment B for specifics.) Administrative Salaries * Compared to other municipalities Iowa City salary ranges are on average 5% below the survey salaries at the range minimum and 5% above the survey salaries at the range maximum. (See Attachment C for specific positions.) * Of the 17 Iowa City employees hired/promoted into Administrative positions since July 1982, the average starting salary was 18% above the salary range minimum. As salary ranges are on average 41% wide, new Administrative /900 2 employees have been hired/promoted only slightly below the range mid -point. This is perhaps due to the high level of qualifications demanded by the City, the salary history of employees hired or promoted, and the salary level of employees supervised by Administrative employees which necessitates higher supervisory salary levels. * Salary increases for Administrative positions have totalled 86.5% from FY77 through FY86. Salary increases for all other employee groups a e exceeded Administrative employee increases, as follows: Police 127.25% Fire 105.4% AFSCME 95.7% Confidential 96.7% (See Attachment D for specifics.) * The average department/division head possesses eight years of experience with the City in a department/division head level position. * The distribution of Administrative employees are positioned in salary ranges as follows: 1st quartile 3% 2nd quartile 26% 3rd quartile 41% 4th quartile 30% (6% at range maximum) * For FY86 the allocation of salary increase funds for. Administrative employees was 4% across the board plus merit increase funds to be allocated in January 1986 equal to 1% of the fiscal year salary budget. A merit increase formula was developed to control actual allocation of funds. Merit increase funds were awarded conservatively and substantially below the levels allocated: Allocations Permitted (Formula) Actual Allocations (2/3 of eligible employees) 0% increase - 25% of employees 0% increase - 42.5% of employees 0-2% increase - 50% of employees 0-2% increase - 51.5% of employees 2+% increase - 25% of employees 2+% increase - 6% of employees * For FY87 the following salary increases have been approved for City employees: Police 4% AFSCME 4% Fire Subject to collective bargaining Confidential Salaries * Compared to the University of Iowa and the local private sector employers (7 employers of 250-900 employees), Confidential position salary range minimums were 6-20% higher than the survey average minimum, and generally, but not consistently, higher than the survey range maximum (1.9% lower to 9.5% higher). (See Attachment E.) y. /9oa i A 3 Administrative Employee Benefits * City Administrative employee benefits were compared to the benefits provided by other municipalities and by the University of Iowa to Professional and Scien- tific employees. (Private sector benefit information was not obtained.) Compared to other municipalities, Iowa City benefits slightly exceeded the survey average in the areas of vacation and holiday time off, life, dental and disability insurance coverages. Iowa City insurance benefits were generally equal to the survey average benefits and benefits were below average in the areas of tuition reimbursement, sick leave accrual, and longevity payments. University of Iowa Professional and Scientific employee benefits exceeded City benefits in the areas of vacation, sick leave, life insurance, and retirement. Benefits were fairly equivalent for holiday time and long-term disability coverage and the City contributed a greater amount than the University for dependent health insurance. (See Attachment F for more specifics.) Please feel free to contact me if I may provide any additional information. Attachments A. Salary Survey Respondents B. Staffing Levels C. Administrative Salary Survey Results D. Wage Increases FY77-86 E. Confidential Salary Survey Results F. Benefits Survey bdw/sp ATTACHMENT A IOWA CITY SALARY SURVEY 9/85 Survey Cities Responding Population Ames, IA 46,000 Cedar Falls, IA 36,000 Cedar Rapids, IA 110,000 Council Bluffs, IA 56,000 Davenport, IA 103,000 Des Moines, IA 191,000 Dubuque, IA 62,000 Sioux City, IA 82,000 Ann Arbor, MI 107,000 Columbia, MO 62,000 East Lansing, MI 48,000 Independence, MO 112,000 Madison, WI 171,000 Moline, IL 46,000 Peoria, IL 124,000 Racine, WI 86,000 Springfield, IL 100,000 Springfield, MO 133,000 Topeka, KA 115,000 Wauwatosa, WI 57,000 Survey Average Population 92,350* * More cities with lower populations were also sent surveys, but demonstrated a lower return rate. j' ' I` Attachment B BUDGETED PERSONNEL j' ' All Municipal 1:112 1:107 5 Employees *Cedar Rapids, Ames, Waterloo, Dubuque, Sioux City, Davenport, Des Moines, Iowa City **Information on other departments/divisions not available 1Functions surveyed include: Controller, Treasurer, Budget, Purchasing, Utility & Plarking Billing, Data Processing. Staffing ratio discrepancy attributable to the fact that many Iowa City functions sot found in surveyed cities. Johnson County population also served - ratio based on total population of 65,508. 4Ratio of card holders to population indicates Iowa City is comparable to a city of 150,000+ - new staffing ratio indicated. Attachment B BUDGETED PERSONNEL PER CAPITA/LARGE IOWA MUNICIPALITIES* 1 FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT EMPLOYEE: NUMBER OF RESIDENTS IOWA CITY SERVING % MORE (% FEWER) DEPARTMENT** IOWA CITY SURVEY AVERAGE RESIDENTS/EMPLOYEE Parks 1:5058 1:3880 30 Fire 1:990 1:667 48 Police 1:789 1:522 51 Streets 1:2730 1:1377 98 Legal 1:12,627 1:13,814 (9) Financel 1:1804 1:2124 (15)2 Refuse 1:4698 1:2824 66 Library 1:24493 1:56084 1:2283 73 1464 Human Relations 1:16,836 1:13,843 22 All Municipal 1:112 1:107 5 Employees *Cedar Rapids, Ames, Waterloo, Dubuque, Sioux City, Davenport, Des Moines, Iowa City **Information on other departments/divisions not available 1Functions surveyed include: Controller, Treasurer, Budget, Purchasing, Utility & Plarking Billing, Data Processing. Staffing ratio discrepancy attributable to the fact that many Iowa City functions sot found in surveyed cities. Johnson County population also served - ratio based on total population of 65,508. 4Ratio of card holders to population indicates Iowa City is comparable to a city of 150,000+ - new staffing ratio indicated. rr , I BE Current Public lore City University r Iowa City Iowa City Sector Compared to of Iowa Compared to ATTACHMENT C Salary Survey Avg Survey Avg. 1 University FINANCE DIRECTOR Finance Director NIN 536,192 537,01IB - /.61 MID 11,221 12,931 . 3.0 KAI 52,062 18,013 • 6./ i Controller MIN 25,709 29,991 -16.7 $27,620 -7.Is - MID 30,368 31,332 -13.1 35,900 -18.2 MAI 31,986 38,672 -10.5 /1.180 -26.3 Parking Systems Supt. MIN 23,099 25,770 - 7.8 MID 28,216 26,387 - ,5 MAX 32,311 31,003 • 1,3 i, Purchasing Agent MIN 23,899 26,018 - p.9 MIO 28,216 29,533 - 1.6 MAX 32.344 33,017 - 2.2 Treasurer MIN 23,899 27,098 -13./ 27,620 -15.6 MID 28,216 31,166 -10.3 35,900 -27.1 MAI 32,311 35,233 - 6.9 44,160 -36.6 Word Processing Supr. MIN 20,675 18,116411.1 15,121 431.1 010 2/,211 19,931 021.5 18,200 433.0 27,500• MAX 27,560 21,751 •26.7 20,979 .31.1 •Xet lone) survey by Assoc. of Information Systems Profess lone Is, February, 1985. FIRE DEPARTMENT Fire Chief MIN 30,930 35843 MIO 38,512 10,773 -15.8 MAX 16,072 15,703 • .8 Battalion Chief MIN 27,780 28,581 - 2.9 MIO 33,131 30,926 • 7.1 MAX 38,376 33,267 •15.1 Fire marshal MIN 23.899 26,182 -10.8 MID 28,216 29,131 - 3.1 MAI 32,311 31,779 • 1.8 1- I I BE i ..... Current Public IOWA City University Iowa City Iowa City Sector Compared to of Iowa Compared to Salary Survey Avg. Survey Avg. University HOUSING 1 INSPECTION SERVICES DEPARTMENT HIS Director MIN $30,930 131,749 - 2.71 MID 38,542 36,242 - 6.4 MAX 46,072 40,734 044.1 Housing Coordinator MIN 23.899 24,643 - 3.1 MIO 28,246 26,023 • .8 KAI 32,344 31,402 • 3.0 - Senior Bldg. Inspector MIN 23,899 26,201 - 9.6 MID 28,246 29,544 - 4.6 KAI 32,344 32,887 - 1.7 HUMAN RELATIONS Human Relations Director MIN 30,930 32,804 - 6.3 MID 38,542 37,305 • 3.3 KAI 46,072 41,725 .10,4 Personnel Generalist MIN 20,675 22,468 - 6.7 - MIO 24,211 25,665 - 6.1 MAX 27,560 28,902 - 4.9 1 1 d 9 LIBRARY Library Director MIN 30,930 MID 38,542 MAX 46,072 Assistant Library Dir. MIN 25,709 MID 30,368 MAX 34 986 Library Coordinator MIN 23,899 MID 20,246 MAX 32,344 31,933 35,282 38,631 25,634 29,331 33,028 22,642 25,724 28,806 - 3.2 9.2 •19.3 .3 • 3.5 • 5.9 v 5.6 • 9.8 •12.3 125,520 ..71 33,163 -9.2 40,810 -16.7 Police Chief MIN 36,192 Current IOW City Public Sector Ione City University low City 44,221 52,062 41,660 46,652 Salary Survey Avg. Compared to Survey Avg. of Iowa Compered to •11.6 40,810 •27.6 Police Captain MIN27,768 University - 5.0 PARKS 6 RECREATION DEPARTMENT .38.1 MID KAI 33,134 38,376 32,227 35,287 • 2.B 26,005 Perks A pec Director MIN 133,446 131,077 • R.R 31,9DO 420.3 111 0 12,099 38,650 4 0.4 MAX 50,502 43,622 ♦15.8 ikcreatlm Supt. NIN 27,768 26,538 • 1.6 27,620 . M10 33,134 29,997 •10.5 35,900 ,5 - 8.4 MAX 38,376 33,155 •14.7 11,180 -15.1 Parks Supt. MIN 25,109 26,079 - 1.3 27,620 - 7.4 MID MAX 30,368 34,986 29,621 33,202 - 2.5 35,900 -14.2 • 5.1 41,I80 -26J PLANNING A PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PPO Director MIN 33,446 38,472 -15.0 MIO42,099 42,204 ,3 MAX 50,502 45,936 • 9,9 CONG Coordinator MIN 23,899 26,771 -12.0 MIO 20,246 30,209 - 7,0 MAX 32,311 33,647 - 4.0 Senior Planner MIN 23,899 26,924 -12.7 - MID 28,246 30,203 - 6.9 . MAX 32,344 33.481 - 3,5 Transportation Planner KIM 23,899 26,002 - 0.8 MID20,246 I 29,443 - 4.2 MAX 32.344 32,404 - 1.7 POLICE DEPARTMENT Police Chief MIN 36,192 36,667 - 1.3 25,520 •41.8 MID MAX 44,221 52,062 41,660 46,652 • 6.2 33,165 433.3 •11.6 40,810 •27.6 Police Captain MIN27,768 29,166 - 5.0 20,110 .38.1 MID KAI 33,134 38,376 32,227 35,287 • 2.B 26,005 -27.4 • R.R 31,9DO 420.3 I^ I Current lows City ;I Iowa City Compared to i I I I I 1 11 I I Current lows City ;I Iowa City Compared to i I I I Current lows City Public Sector Iowa City Compared to University of Iowa Iowa City Compared to Salary Survey Avg. Survey Avg. University Police Sergeant MIN $25,709 $24,491 ♦ 5.01 $16,157 ♦59.1% MID MAN 30,368 34,986 27,146 29,801 .11.9 16,791 •61.6 •37.4 21,425 ♦63.3 Anlhsl Control Supt. MIM 22,214 17,620 ♦26.1 MIO 26,125 19,759 •32.2 MAX 29,627 21,898 •36.2 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Public Npras Director MIN 36,192 39,850 -10.1 MID 44,221 45,978 - 4.0 INN 52,062 57,105 - .1 City Engineer MIN 30,930 33,928 -9.7 32,360 -4.6 MID MAX 38,542 46,072 38,518 43,228 . .1 6.6 41,830 -8.5 • 51,300 -11.4 Asst. City Engineer MIN 25,709 28,459 -10.7 MID 30,368 32,380 - 6.6 MAX 34,986 36,301 - 3.8 Pollution Control Supt. MIN 27,768 28,372 MIg 33,134 32,139 • 3.1 MAX 38,376 35,905 • 6.9 Streets /Sanitation MIN 27,168 29,147 - 5.0 Supt. MID 33,134 33,043 • .3 MAX 38,316 36,939 , 3,9 Traffic Engineer MIN 25,709 29,70D -15.5 MID 30,366 33,918 -11.7 MAX 34,986 38,135 - 9.0 Water Supt. MIN MID 27,768 33,13133,175 29,349 - 5.7 $23,570 417.8% MAX 38,376 31,000 ,1 . 3.7 30,640 31,710 • A.1 t 1.8 Asst. Supt. Pollution MIN 23,899 25.383 - 6,2 Control MID 28,246 28,042 ♦ MAX 32,344 30,700 ,7 • 5.4 I iv 1 i0 Iowa City Current Public Iowa City University Iowa City Sector Compared to of Iowa Coepared to ,I Salary Survey Avg. Survey Avg. University Asst. Supt. Nater NIM $22,211 {21,371 - 9.72 MIO 26,125 26,631 - 1.9 MAX 29,827 28,891 4 3.2 Asst. Supt. Streets MIN 22,214 21,513 4 3.3 MID 26,125 24,401 4 7.1 MAX 29,627 27,288 4 9.3 Asst. Supt. Sanitation MIN 2D,675 22,156 - 7.2 MID 21,211 24,276 - .3 MX 27,66D 26,395 ♦ 4.4 TRANSIT DEPARTMENT Transit Manager MIN 30,056 29.401 4 2.2 i MIO 36,213 33,533 4 8.0 MAX 42,058 37,665 .11.7 MISCELLANEOUS Asst. City Manager- - - MIN 27.760 35,890 -29.2 - MID 33,134 41,075 -24.0 MAX 38,376 46,260 -2D.5 ' Civil Rights Spec. MIN 20,675 21,092 - 2.0 „ .,. MID 24,211 23,830 • 1.6 MAX 27,560 26,568 • 3.7 Assistant City AtIty. MIN 23,899 21,019 - .5 MIO 28,246 27,799 4 1.6 MAX 32,344 31,579 4 2.4 Equipment sunt. MIN 23,899 21,140 -13.6 20,100 418.8 MID 28,246 30,673 - 9.3 26,005 4 8.6 MAX 32.344 34.606 - 7.0 31,900 4 1.4 -Survey average population for cities reporting this position was 110,000. iv 1 i0 Position Comparisons CITY OF IOWA CITY 1 Assistant Library Director Librarian III Treasurer Assistant University Treasurer City Engineer , Controller Associate Chief Accountant Word Processing Supervisor 71a Recreation Superintendent f � Manager Building & Grounds Police Chief Campus Security Police Captain i Police Sergeant Campus Security j Manager of Water Plant i' Position Comparisons CITY OF IOWA CITY UNIVERSITY OF IOWA Assistant Library Director Librarian III Treasurer Assistant University Treasurer City Engineer Senior Engineer Controller Associate Chief Accountant Word Processing Supervisor Office Coordinator I Recreation Superintendent Director of Recreational Services Parks Superintendent Manager Building & Grounds Police Chief Campus Security Police Captain Campus Security Police Sergeant Campus Security Water Superintendent Manager of Water Plant /9ev i i I. A- J i i I i i, ' I i t, i P i I POLICE FIRE AFSCME CONFIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATIVE r ,i I I 1 I 1. 1 I ATTACHMENT D WAGE INCREASES - FY77-86 TOTAL ACROSS THE TOTAL STEP/MERIT TOTAL BOARD INCREASES INCREASES INCREASES 82.25% 45% (4.5 years) 127.25% 81.4% 24% (4 years) 105.4% 67.7% 28% (4.5 years) 95.7% 68.5% 28% (4.5 years) 96.5% I 56.3% 29.75% (last 10 years) 86.05% r ,i I I 1 I 1. 1 I ATTACHMENT I Current University law& City Private lows City Iowa City of Iowa Compered to Sector Compared to CLERICAL Salary University Average Private Sector Secretary to City Myr. MIN 118,013 $16,926 ♦ 6.4% $16,819 • 6.9% MIO 20,520 20,018 ♦ 2.5 20,161 ♦ 1.8 MAX 23,026 23,110 - .1 23,178 - 1.9 Secretary to Dept. Head MIN 16,973 15,121 ♦10.1 11,509 ♦17.0 MIO 19,169 8,200 ♦ 7.0 17,283 ♦12.7 MAX 21,965 20,979 ♦ 1.7 20,057 ♦ 9.5 Nord Processing Ory�r. MIN 11,.113 13,185 • 9.0 11,898 •20.8 MID 16,300 15,728 ♦ /.2 11,912 • 9.8 MAX 18,381 18,211 ♦ .6 17,926 4 2.6 ATTACHMENT I y.. I i i /9od ' Attachment F Administrative Employee Benefits Survey VACATION ACCRUALS A OF DAYS UNIVERSITY CITY OF LENGTH OF SERVICE SURVEY AVG.* OF IOWA** IOWA CITY FIRST YEAR 9.75 25 12 FIVE YEARS 13.69 25 15 TEN YEARS 16.64 25 18 FIFTEEN YEARS 19.60 25 21 TWENTY YEARS 21.28 25 24 TWENTY-FIVE YEARS 22.44 25 24 HOLIDAYS e OF DAYS UNIVERSITY CITY OF SURVEY AVG. OF IOWA IOWA CITY 10.5 11 11 SICK LEAVE ACCRUAL i OF DAYS UNIVERSITY CITY OF SURVEY AVG. OF IOWA IOWA CITY 12.6 18 12 LIFE INSURANCE COVERAGE AMOUNT UNIVERSITY CITY OF SURVEY AVG. OF IOWA IOWA CITY 10,800 2 1/2 x 1 x annual annual salary salary HEALTH INSURANCE % SURVEY PAYING UNIVERSITY CITY OF FULL COST OF IOWA IOWA CITY Single coverage 89% Full cost paid Full cost paid Dependent coverage 58% University Full cost paid pays $108.43 toward single & (max.) towards & 'amily (;139.50) single & family *All survey averages from City of Davenport Benefit Survey - Calendar 1984 **Benefits provided to Professional and Scientific Employees. y.. I i i /9od ' I y.. I i i /9od ' 6 OTHER INSURANCES LONGEVITY SURVEY AVG. LENGTH OF SERVICE AMOUNT PAID U OF IOWA IOWA CITY Five Years $231 No $200 Ten Years $370 275 Fifteen Years $529 375 Twenty Years $632 475 Twenty-five Years $761 475 Thirty Years $680 475 60% of responding cities have some sort of longevity plan. RETIREMENT CONTRIBUTION SURVEY AVG. U OF IOWA IOWA CITY IPERS TIAA Employer Contribution Information 5.75% Salary 10% Salary 5.75% salary not available Employee Contribution 3.7% Salary 5% Salary 3.7% salary COVERAGE PROVIDED/ PAID FOR SURVEY AVG. U OF IOWA CITY OF IOWA CITY Dental - single -47% Full pay Full pay Full pay family 34% Full pay University No contrib. pays $6.31 (max.) towards single & family Optical 6% Full pay No No Prescription 18% Full pay No No Long Term'Disability 35% Full pay Full pay Full pay EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE SURVEY AVG. U OF IOWA CITY OF IOWA CITY 65% provide No No tuition reimbursement LONGEVITY SURVEY AVG. LENGTH OF SERVICE AMOUNT PAID U OF IOWA IOWA CITY Five Years $231 No $200 Ten Years $370 275 Fifteen Years $529 375 Twenty Years $632 475 Twenty-five Years $761 475 Thirty Years $680 475 60% of responding cities have some sort of longevity plan. RETIREMENT CONTRIBUTION SURVEY AVG. U OF IOWA IOWA CITY IPERS TIAA Employer Contribution Information 5.75% Salary 10% Salary 5.75% salary not available Employee Contribution 3.7% Salary 5% Salary 3.7% salary F CITY OF IOWA CITY CIVIC CENTER 410 E. ,NASHINGTON ST. IOWA CITU IOWA 52240 (319) 356-5CCO October 10, 1985 Mr. Patrick J. Mc Carney, Director Johnson County Civil Defense 511 S. Capitol Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Pat: I appreciate .your taking the time to meet recently to discuss your upcoming meeting with the City Council. As a follow-up to this discus- sion, I thought it might be helpful to summarize for you the concerns which have been expressed by some Councilmembers and which have led to the request that you meet with the Council. Concerns about local preparedness have been raised periodically, espe- cially when events of an emergency nature have occurred in Iowa City or in nearby communities. The recent fire at the old sewage treatment plant and a chemical herbicide spill along I-80 which threatened to pollute the Iowa River are two examples of fairly recent occurrences of this nature. Council is interested in receiving general information- about the Civil Defense program and its plans relating to either natural or human -made disasters or emergencies such as: 1. Natural disasters: tornados, earthquakes, floods, etc. 2. Chemical emergencies: contaminated water or water supply, toxic fumes, etc. - 3. Nuclear disaster: nuclear accident or nuclear attack. In considering responses to the above, questions regarding execution of plans revolve around how we might accomplish the following: 1. Evacuation of part or all of the City. 2. Relocation of some or all of the citizens to other areas within Iowa City. 3.Preparation by the City to serve as a host community for disaster victims from other communities. 4. What resources are available to assist in the process of recovery and restoration after a disaster? 1901 I I . r 1 i i i I I . r l � ' I Mr. McCarney October 10, 1985 Page 2 Finally, it would be helpful if you could advise the City Council how the City of Iowa City can help to make local disaster response more effective and what role the City should have both in planning for disaster responses and in the execution of those plans if necessary. The above represents a broad summary of Council's interest in the Civil Defense Program as it relates to Iowa City. I offer this summary not as a suggested outline for a presentation, but rather for your consideration in preparing to respond to concerns which may be raised by Councilmembers. I hope this will be helpful for you in preparing for the upcoming meeting. Let me say again that I certainly appreciate your interest and attention regarding this matter. Please contact me at any time if you have any questions or wish further.clarification. Sincerely, Dale E. Heliing Assistant City Manager tp2/12 cc: City Council City Manager i i j i f y t I I . City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE: October 11, 1985 TO: Neal Berlin and City Council FROM: Chuck Schmadeke, Director of Public Works C� RE: Wastewater Committee Meeting A Wastewater Committee meeting has been scheduled for October 21, 1985 at 1:30 p.m. in the City Manager's conference room to discuss implementation methods for the selected alternatives. A tentative outline is attached. it „0 METCALF S EDDY, INC. PRESENTATION TO THE CITY OF IOVA CITY CONCERNING II M04E TATION MMHODS SEMINAR OUTLINE I. INTRODUCTION - ROBERT MAMAN Describe intent of meeting and introduce MSE representatives. II. IMPUMiMATION MBTBODS - MW CYGhN/GUff AIMM Various implementation techniques will be described, the advantages/disadvantages of each discussed, and issues , such as timing and relative measures of cost, analyzed for the following methods: A. Traditional Design/Sid/Build/Operate B. Design/Build and Fast Track with Construction Management C. Turn-Key/Contract Operations D. Full Service Operator/Privalization III.QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE: October 3, 1985 TO: Neal Berlin and City Council FROM: Denny Gannon, Assistant City Engineer RE: Summit Street Bridge During the summer of 1981, the Summit Street bridge deck was reconstructed to its current makeup: corrugated metal decking with an asphaltic concrete overlay (3 inch average thickness). It was decided not to exceed the three inch average thickness in order to keep the bridge free of a load embargo. The total cost of construction was $29,400. Asphalt is a flexible material. In this case, asphalt has been installed over a metal decking which spans from beam to beam. The decking flexes as a load passes over causing the asphalt to flex also. (This flexing action, of course, increases with heavier loads, i.e. buses.) This movement causes the connections of the metal decking into the bridge beams to loosen which causes the asphalt to -loosen from the decking and eventually ravel away. Every summer since the deck was reconstructed, the City's Streets Division has provided necessary repairs to the deck which entails removing all loose and extensively cracked (localized) areas of asphalt, checking and fixing, where necessary, all connections of the metal decking to the bridge beams, and relaying asphaltic concrete on those isolated areas of the deck where repairs were performed. Due to the extent of patching over the years, the entire asphaltic overlay should be removed and replaced, the metal decking inspected for fatigue, and all connections of the decking to the bridge beams secured. It is also possible that some of the steel decking may require replacement. As stated earlier, there is an average thickness of three inches of asphaltic concrete over the metal decking, the amount of which does not require a load embargo. This timber bridge with a metal decking cannot sustain the asphaltic concrete driving surface due to the effects of impact and heavy live load caused by the use of buses and trucks. It is recommended that the City restrict buses and some trucks from further use of this bridge. (City bus routes would have to be altered. In particular, the bus which uses the Summit Street bridge would instead utilize the Dodge Street railroad bridge.) Also, in order to provide a more solid deck, an average thickness of five inches of asphaltic concrete should be installed over the metal decking. This amount of asphalt will require truck weight limits of approximately 78% of the State legal load limit. The weight limits are 20 tons -for the three axle straight truck, 33.tons for the standard semi - truck, and no weight limit for the double semi -truck (piggy back). Kirkwood Avenue/Lower Muscatine Road is currently posted for a load limit of 16 tons. /ya3 11 ;A 1 1 1 i TO: Neal Berlin and City Council FROM: Denny Gannon, Assistant City Engineer Page Two (Z) It is Proj e4 with 1 i City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE: October 9, 1985 TO: Neal Berlin, City hanger FROM: Frank Farmer, City Engineer, v RE: Construction on Iowa -Illinois Gas F, Electric Property The current construction on property owned by the Iowa -Illinois Gas F, Electric Company is taking place to expand an existing substation and will in no way interfere with the Spruce Street Drainage Project. i City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: October 8, 1985 To: Chuck Schmadeke, Director of Public Works From: James Brachtel, Traffic Engineer Re: Council Referrals Re: Traffic Signalization of Church St/Dodge St. The City Council has inquired as to the possibility of signalizing Church Street and Dodge Street. On Thursday, September 26, 1985, the Traffic Engineering Division conducted a 16 -hour count of vehicular volumes and pedestrian volumes at this location. The traffic accident experience for the past 12 months has also been researched. This information was used to determine if the current conditions at this intersection would require traffic signalization. The data that has been collected was compared against the warrants for traffic signalization as found in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). A copy of the warrants and a summary of the vehicular and pedestrian volumes is attached to this memorandum. Based upon the findings of that traffic count and accident information, traffic signalization is not warranted at this time. Should you have additional questions or addi- tional comments, please don't hesitate to contact me. bc2 /ydS- i WARRANTS FOR SIGNAL INSTALLATION Warrant 1 -Minimum vehicular volume. Warrant 2• Interruption or continuous traffic. Warrant 9 - Minimum pedestrian volume. Warrant 4 -School crossings. Warrant 5—Progressive movement. 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 on the major street and on the higher -volume minor - ,street approach to the intersection. An "average" Clay is defined as a weekday representing traffic volumes normally and repeatedly found at the location. MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUMES FOR WARRANT I Vehicle. ter hour on $.W.. nr lanes for monog traffic Veh{rles per hnur on hiaher.vulumr mi - ,in ewh appnnch major Stat& Antal of Mr - 11"L appnwch Majin Street Minor Street Roth apf~hnl (nn,,irrctinn only) 1 ................ I................ ton . IN 1.7 m..n........ 177 ............. r110 tso 2 w eiwe........ 2 ne mon........ foO 200 1 ................ 2.r mon........ Soo 21io These 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 on the opposite approach .luring other hours. When the Ito -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 is 70 percent of the rrquirem"itts above. Wurrunt 2, Interruption of Continuous Traffic The Interruption of Continuous Trafric warrant applies to ulrersting conditions where the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that traffic on a minor intersecting xtreet Auffers excessive delay or haraurl in enterinK or crossing the major street. The warrant is satisfied when, for each of any K hours of an average day, the traffic volumes given In the table below exist on the major street and on the higher -volume minur•street approach to the intersection, and the signal installation will not seriously disrupt prugreosive traffic flow. Intersection of boelge Sfrmt and C h drill -.Sireef Observed zb sexes TNursalY Intersection does not comply (see attachment 01) / jor H :A MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLI:?1ES FOR WARRANT 2 \umber of lan9+fw mtuini: trdfir C.hirle. I•r hour un Yehi[Irn I'er hour un hiphvr..ulumr mi• � on .ash appn3aeh mejar <trnt notal of nuraV.<t aPpr,..rh Major Street Mmnr Street Orth yrynw hrwl loon dir.aiun unlyl 1 ................ 1................ ;:a3 ;y ar inure........ 1 ................ 4991 ;:, Intersection does not comply. AN Ito ' 1 ................ 2ormure........ ;:al Inn (See attachment #2) These major -street anti minor-streel volumes are for the came 9 boom. During those S hours, the direction of higher volume on the minor street may be on one approach during some hours and on the opposite apprnach during other hours. When the )i5•percentile spied of major•street traffic exceeds 40 mph in either an urban or a rural arra, or when the intersection lies within the built-up area or an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, the Interruption of Cnntinunus Traffic warrant is 70 per. tent or the requirements above. Warrant 3. lilinimum Prdestrian Volume The Minimum Pedestrian Volume warrant is satisfied when, for each of any R hours of an average day, the following traffic volumes exist: 1. On the major street, 4300 or more vehicles per hour enter the intersection (total of both approaches); or where there is a raised me- dian island 4 feet or more in width, 1.000 or more vehicles per hour (total of both approaches) enter the intersection on the major street; and 2 During the same R hours as in paragraph (1) there are 150 or more pedestrians per hour on the highest volume crosswalk crossing the ma. jor streeL When the R5 -percentile speed of major•etreet traffic exceeds e0 mph Intersection does not comply. 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 10,000, the Minimum Pedestrian Volume warrant is 70 percent of (See attachment 13) the requirements above. It! A signal installed under this warrant at an isolated intersection should be of the traffic -actuated type with push buttons for pedestrians crossing the main street. If such a signal is installed at an interwclion within a signal system, it should be equipped and operated with control devices which provide proper cuordination. Signals installed acconling to this warrant shall be equipped with pedestrian indications conforming to requirements set forth in other sections of this Manual. Signals may be installed at nonintersection locations (mid -block) pro. vide'l the requirements of this warrant are mot, and provided that the related crosswalk is not closer than 150 feet to another established crosswalk. Curbaide parking should be prohibited for 100 feet in ad- vance or and 20 feet beyond the crosswalk. Phasing, courdination, and imtallation must conform to standards set forth in this Manual. Special i attention should be given to the signal head placement and the signs and markings used at nonintersection locutions to be sure drivers are aware of this special application. /90� Wurrint 4. School Crossing A traffic control signal may be warranted at an established school cros.ing when a traffic engineering study of the frequency and ude• quacy of gaps in the vehicular traffic stream as related to the number Intersection does not comply. and site of groups or schoul children at the school crossing shuws that the number or adequate gap, in the traffic stream during the period when the children are. using the crnssing is less than the number of minutes in the same perital (sec. 7A •:I). When traffic control signals are installed entirely under this warrant: 1. Pedestrian indicatiuns shall be provided at least for each cross• walk e5tabn%hed us a school trussing. 2. At an intersection, the signal normally should be traffie•aC[aated. As a minimum, it should be semi-tnfric•actuated• but full ucluation with detectors on all approaches may be desirable. Intersection installations that can be fitted into progressive signal systems may huve pretimed control. :l. At non -intersection crossings. the signal should be pedestrian. actuated• parking and other obstructions to vies' should be prohibited for at leuet loll feet in advance or and 20 feet beyond the crosswalk, and the installation shuuld include suitable standurd signs and pavement markings. Special police supervision and/or enforcement should be pro. vided for S new non-intersrctiun installation. Warrunt i• Pnaressite ?lo•emcnt Progressive mw•etnent euntrul sometimes necessitates traffic sign:d inst:tllAtiurts at intersections ahere they would not othetvvise he war• ranted• in onler to maintain proper grouping fir vehicles and effectively rrgulAr group speed. The Ih•ugrraty? Movement w:un•md is s:ttisnrd a hen. Intersection does not comply. I. Un a nno•w:q• sU•rrt fir a sUrel which has prrdootin;urtly uuidiroc. tionai traffic, the :iljnrenl signals sir so Ibr apart that they Jo not provide the mYmssary degree al'vehiyle plattamiig :nil spt•ed vint•il. fir ? On a two-way street. adjacent signals do not provide the neces• nary degree of platooning and speed control and the prupused and vlja. cent signals could constitute a prugressive signal system. The installation of a signal according to this warrant should be based on the RS -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 6, Accident Evperienee The Accident Experience warrant is satisfied when: 1. Adequate trial or less restrictive remedies with satisfactory ob- servance and enforcement has failed to reduce the accident frequency: and Intersection does not comply. 2. Five or more reported accidents, of types susceptible to correc- 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 'N4) ent extent of SI00 or more: and 9. There exists a volume or vehicular and pedestrian traffic not less than SO percent of the requirements specified either in the Minimum Vehicular Volume warrant, the Interruption or Continuous Traffic war• rant. or the Minimum pedestrian Volume warrant: and 4. The signal installation will not seriously disrupt progressive traf- ne now. I I A r' Any traffic signal installed solely an the Avvident Fxperienve war- rant should be semi•trafric•actuated (with control devices which provide proper coordination if installed at an intersection within a courlinaled system) and normally should be fully traffic -actuated if installed at an • isolated intersection. Warrant 7. Systems Warrant A tnffic signal installation at some intersections may be warranted to encourage concentration and organization of traffic flow networks. The Systems warrant is applicable when the common intersection of two or Intersection does not comply. more major routes has a total existing, or immediately projected, enter - Ing volume of at least 800 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 pan 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 tra• veining a city; 4. It has surface street freeway or expreesway ramp terminals; u. It aplrears as a major route on an official plan such as a major street plan in an urban arca traffic and transportation study. Warrant g, Combination of Warrants IO eueptinnal canes, signals a•cusionally may he justified where no •.ingle warrant is satisfied but where two or more of Warrants 1, ?, and 3 are satisfied to the extent of 80 percent or more of the stated values. Adequate trial of other remedial measures which cause less delay and Intersection does not comply. inconvenience to traffic should precede installation of signals under this warrant. - _If SIGNALIZATION STUDY IOWA CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEERING. DISPLAY OF WARRANT NO. I VOLUMES. MAJOR STREET: NO.OF LANES: Z MINOR STREET:- NO.OF LANES: I b 9 8� 7 6 5 I 4 3 20 i IO AJOR(2 PLUS LANES ANES )JOfl(2 PLUS INOR(ILANE) /o MINOR ( I LANE) Hill if ll#llllllllll MAJOR —MINOR WARRANT COMPLIED WITH. 60% OF WARRANT COMPLIED WITH. 0 YES ® NO ❑ YES 0 NO 1 t ■�1 AJOR(2 PLUS LANES ANES )JOfl(2 PLUS INOR(ILANE) /o MINOR ( I LANE) Hill if ll#llllllllll MAJOR —MINOR WARRANT COMPLIED WITH. 60% OF WARRANT COMPLIED WITH. 0 YES ® NO ❑ YES 0 NO __ ---------- ----- SIGNALIZATION STUDY TRAFFIC ENGINEERING. DISPLAY OF WARRANT NO. 2 VOLUMES. MAJOR STREET: NO.OF LANES: MINOR STREET: NO. OF LANES: Z MAJOR --MINOR WARRANT COMPLIED WITH. ❑ YES ® NO ;2 PLUS LANE Y 1JORM2PLUS 1 I i I LANE) UORO LANE 80%. OF WARRANT COMPLIED WITH. ❑ YES 0 NO m t IIIIIIN; 11�� MAJOR --MINOR WARRANT COMPLIED WITH. ❑ YES ® NO ;2 PLUS LANE Y 1JORM2PLUS 1 I i I LANE) UORO LANE 80%. OF WARRANT COMPLIED WITH. ❑ YES 0 NO m ---- -'r SIGNALIZATION STUDY Iowa CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEERING. DISPLAY OF WARRANT NO. 3 VOLUMES. MAJOR STREET: LODvE NO.OF LANES: Z MINOR STREET: e-*v-ersJ NO. OF LANES: II --- 10 9 8 7 6 5 40 30 I 201 10, 11■1 t Ell In Iollillillillillillilll It �� NEiS I7 �� i I �i :LES BOTH MA. OACHES OF VEHICLES I MAJOR IOACHES XING MAJOR :TS OF PERS XING R STREETS . , . MAJOR SL --' PERS [—�7ARRANT COMPLIED WITH. 80% OF WARRANT COMPLIED WITH. ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ YES 0 NO INTERSECTION of DODGE ST with CHURCH ST CLASSIFICATION BY TYPES AND -TIME ACCIDENT TYPES sIDE SWIPE I REAR END RIGHT ANGLE LEFT TURN PEDESTRIAN BICYCLE OTHER 6:OOAM - IOAO AM FATAL PERSONAL INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE TOTAL IO:OOAM - 4:OOPM FATAL PERSONAL INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE TOTAL I 4:OOPM - 7:OOPM FATAL PERSONAL INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE TOTAL 7:00PM - 12 MID. FATAL PERSONAL INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE TOTAL 12 MID - 6:OOAM FATAL PERSONAL INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE TOTAL 'TOTAL FATAL PERSONAL INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE I TOTAL WEATHER CONDITION NO OF ACC. PAVEMENT TIME OF YEAR CONDITION NO OF ACC. PERIOD NO OF ACC. DRY I WIN (OE. FE) WET SPR. (MR. -MY) ICY SUM( t - FALL(SE. -N0) I CLEAR I CLOUDY FOG RAIN SLEET SNOW /qo6 VENOGLG •V O LUMV GRAPHIC SUMMARY SHEET >Huz Locofion. LJoO�c Dafe..Z �TcpT „_ .. z Tmc: ....... 1Hourtfrom ............... Indicate A.M. to..................A.M. North ky ....P.M.U.....P.M.Arrow Weather' ...................................... Road Surface Condition..Z7.(.. !18311 zys7 /300) � ' VEHICLES COUNTED LN CLASS DIRECTION All Pat:. r Comm. Other �. REMARKS iii ctEn alv��—cj< 25�r�6Scr>T l�t�sS�:2iY9x/ PL e''• "•• t'r DATE*o g COMPILED BY��✓ /906 TIME INTERV, AM 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 10 -II 11- 12 PM I - 2 2- 3 3- 4 4 - 5 5 - 6 6 - 7 7-8 8-9 9- 10 i VEHICLE VOLUME TABULATION SHEET INTERSECTION, 2DOd.'oc sr/e/,/u.2cf/ 6T DATE OF COUNT�z�s,»Bs TIME INTERVAL NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL 6 - T AM /�l5 . 5 5 • 5$ .. 6 e 3"1 3l'� 8'9 6 �� '30 9 . 9 /S 8 7e�o -10 O Z� 070 l �� ° y0 :a 10 - 11 '+ (o SSS s l7 zl G�1 S7 Sym s78 n - 12 fJ oo 3X• 12- Izg 7 ® b G3 `/3 Sgz 3R 3 Z Z, 1 I L 77 B 3 I- 2 g 3Z7 Z Z3 q ly �f z z9 % 2 -3 .35 s 37a Z� /0(° 88 98 -7Z- Z- 3-4 Z- Lzso ZS 4 -5 /7. <P4,q SO Q 23 11FL So Ce. /63 /z8 /07 5 - 6 /Z "7is `fl 3� Z� 6 - 7 9 � 4-5� n ! v I 7 -B zcoo 3 8 - 9 9 /a/ z3 �L S. y Cn 10 9 - 10 3 n Zd 6 3 *-A IG z is/ Z ,5 /719 0 Zb S Sz �7 AZO .3/ s(o35 L36 s33 �4k 340 /g z/ //s8 /?-W /D 9 Z7 ILL RECEIVED OCT 7 1985 THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON October 3, 1985 Dear Mayor McDonald: On behalf of the President, I would like to thank you for your recent correspondence. A copy of your letter has been forwarded to the appropriate officials at the White House and the Department of State's Office of Intergovernmental Affairs for their benefit and consideration. I sincerely appreciate your sharing your views with the Administration. Sincerely, onald L. Alvarado Special Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs The Honorable John McDonald Mayor of Iowa City Civic Center 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 /906 Mxtrll 9". Fora C.p W DM*WMOM WP. Ctmr . end Ray situation. First CaPhol president. m 1w $M of ins Mlme 11WkwWCdWm plat in Co rsionle. Firm Cisprol. brined to promos acawmk derelopin d l in Ne Cortlblle Bray win instrulMnil in ErirgYp Pr plant to tlr arew. Growth doesn't `just happen' Firm says irs very OWACrrY—A carefully 'Prnsbgw plotted b7oheam Crary. �- AyntaFgemnomk bwbPmmt wet feat. mlopmp.pec, mullet , ortby mmmWtyhtlrroflime b tiod.h major seise r u. uN Rorty d Ip..a.a hold ..mast, .Few props. knew what rim GNlol Davebpmain loo 1.IXwMt ted Pm'. I.eden wetFl c(DoGymitlrkwntlFcoi'•wmRto uw brrno d1b Oreacor poet Ciry CtumbecW Cmmsm d lificup ors t Ylrn oras ft L"dwa them load .rrNlMunl Am fl.rn Uod Mrywr. Aorinnll IrrmYlaml Gry. SMular Saha Inc ad NstbW ComlMxS/meiu tlrpss.r"I mkd.Rlopn.m'nWly MughtmbbM.mcmntF.uidykm GPnI 4rslopmm Lie r W hu lured moR Uun ]SP Mr, Into 6N IX form to meet In .Mese. lJanmIXed.ne.P.MIm IAatwlllcre.r IN lobi in the nen Iwo yr.. 'SUCCESS ANY hive gatheried withaul us, but we wet Caere to help'tad Martin Kelly, tom. d the rim GpsW Denlopmxt Inc. Road at dinars. The pints. MnpnN Am was atomized In troy I IN to pramIX. ecanomk g.rbpmal In 7duum Cmnry atl blurt IdWitch bdusmn b Cern between law. CIry.M Cady MpMs. arta u Or, Udll who now ries ru oMndemk Mystery or MrrU.. •mdiaSrd ast FLYC pubut. Last sge db Mm. Mx Wr" In late THM. HEAIrDOT11ER tivk radon cbuled. court fated fulun. W Presented A to ted Johnson Cauoly D.ddS prmnn end IoW Wry muRAn At am I was I.M-ups Dmnr MngentM,. darl.twit itIYbosNdsuPMpR MnoribeR caverns Ad Wm M1mnlal gorsmm.oW saver as etrumdMa INII�J.peepu Now M.yt a has generatthepco.rMy trose.d by rL toren Rmnees ham .aPnllrs.saeso. of er rimmry aflkWh Nrsirtlmwr. roora-dln In Mtl rim- to p.nM. atmomle dnNopcounL no aunts anmbmed S b Fpm Capitol far die.mnr neem Aecal them. no City Cmnall of laws CIIs aMpped $40.0W Ws year, ad is d tp.n.three 11,10000 u dy during uw n1budget you. Ryhufall It irmelpblow Wr oa ham, r 1. I.. city Mawr conelit We, 011ier area citiors also Mn jumped ad IM rconamk develop .at bstlnon. The I, providinalmils g $6.3 o7 Como me0r b Dnvo" Ndpo b rho 11.50. ad NJul IJ ad added NAPe Mporr July 1 and pldthe aonlMr g.SPp had each d 1M rm Its cilY bud.. rr.. '"than'. • .newts test sty amongtM pMuDnow lMl everyIXr b o mens MPI. likely Til are cont I Ir,. b bwomr andbr glkan o Tut w slit ;mk iMN Nab terminate,C..Us. art omrlNy IMI Pn u. the unnglY W Dr unim,rsity: Reny W d. na N. Jerry Mum, sub It mit Md to M %V .bout la. City. Jonston County am Iowa. ^We're pivtl of whit . hers. 7MnY to prtnNst Ion a1Wr among lows Cluxa' Clues In lore mum market urmrlm,. U tlry a.t b.uMrs uw whanomk challenger of She 'pW. Kelly said. You Mm, to declds wilt Sou hcv. to alar a l rU 11 to Warr. trust bet N Fast xtls.' Whsh FIM Capita Devolutionary Formed. lead. Mped to rep U W 1 mourcec atl bring In clean. high- tech pbtech Industries that mold Mna1t Mm unlrsnlry technology aed x undrrtmplyN What pal. 'WE WAh 1. broad. dr r.nnmk bar. sips we at. wast to MIP ur unlm,nity (by eating .nutlet, lob.).' Kelly ..it. About MU the, PaaPOY Incite. lows Cly. xrparsH P.Ir Wan, b ted.nteawPd unlnnlryywhiab .cludn K Iran ted W .IIs bet not won rrmving city retie... no papect, d declining ..Ib meat at ted U of 1 dr monied ollccols brom r the Imps .moony depends an YOlvenity'gaMnlld Mune.. Muslx .id M Me meds :P pnuniati.. In br Pet ". to try &hal b .Nor c1UrM at br Dibrell Retirement Resident.. merest.[ the Ped ray, etmomk nlity. Flt esM ham ert hea r tat lid .y . Imo . col. owns d ,. .Limy rev. WI PIX otMn MR plan bre... • Me d mMdemm ..We dont line mountatnr. Maaha. IX ted Stai W aurb re aside 'Atli.WeMPmoLr agrtulm,, prAlm, ups PIMaL' ,it RICHARD HANSEN, a founder and president of Hansen Lind Meyer, noted Iowa City has been ., "very, very good" for his business when the rim announced Its expan• ' Sion in July. Kelly said First Capitol's job is to show prospective businesses "ev. erything we have, and help them ' make the decision." The group's goal Is to "take care . or' existing businesses and prevent layoffs, as well as -bringing new industry to the area. ,. "We're not planning on bidding wan or giving away free land," - Muston said. But there are incen• ' tives like property tax abatement policies that forgive Dome local taxes new businesses normally An Incubator of sorts for new businesses is located on the U of 1's Oakdale campus, providing shelter and advice new businesses and to survive economic growing pains. Muston said this is just one example of the university's commit- i; ment to Iowa's future. Dorsey Ellis Jr., vice president of finance and university services, said the U of 1 strives to transfer technology from the laboratories to Industries. , A thriving local economy also helps in recruiting faculty members because jobs arc avallable for their spouses. Ellis sold. "We've got a IM going for us." Kelly said. He said he likes the way his . children are growing up In Iowa City,, and wants them and other young people to have the choice of staying here. We can't compete with Texas on some planes, but we can compete with them on receptiveness," Mus• ton said.