HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-10-22 Info PacketCity of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 17, 1985
To: City Council
From: Neal Berlin, City Manager Rosemary Vitosh, Director of Finance ?-V
Re: Fee Study
The attached fee study was prepared at Council's direction to review the
sufficiency of all current fee structures and to identify new user fees.
Although this document is one of the "pre -budget reports," the recommended
rates should be seriously considered by the City Council at this time. In
view of the current funding shortfall, it is essential that other -revenue
sources be identified as soon as possible. At your informal meeting, we will
be reviewing each individual fee and asking for the Council to determine
which revised fees are acceptable at this time. The immediate implementation
of the revised fees will not only help to alleviate the current year's
funding needs, it will also facilitate the preparation of and balancing of
next year's budget.
bf4/14
/9Gs
r
BY
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
OCTOBER 1985
/9Gs
INTRODUCTION
The five-year financial projections, presented to Council in December 1984,
showed a growing dependence on property taxes. This is due to the fact that
federal and state monies are decreasing and user fees have not been increas-
ing at the same rate as expenditures.
In reaction to that report, the City Council requested a study of user fees
and the costs related to providing the service for which the fee is estab-
lished. This study identifies the costs directly related to each service,
explains the service and recommends a fee that will more adequately cover the
costs. In addition, new user fees and other sources of revenue are explored,
including local option taxes.
The FY86 Budget includes Financial Policies for the Operating Budget. One of
those policies addresses Fees and Charges: 'The City will establish fees and
charges in accordance with revenue bond requirements or for covering all or
part of the related costs of providing the service. The City will review
fees and charges, at a minimum, on a bi-annual basis." This study is
intended to set a precedent for subsequent reviews of fees and charges.
This report contains 1) an explanation of the study process, 2) schedules of
revenue which show the overall effect of the recommendations, and 3) a
detailed listing and description of each recommended fee increase.
The general rationale behind each recommended rate takes several items into
consideration. First, the fee is set to cover the direct costs that are
identifiable. Second, if the charge is intended to penalize abusers of city
regulatory processes, the rate must be higher than the costs. Third, in
those areas where the*comnunity as a whole benefits from the service pro-
vided, the fee covers a reasonable portion of the costs with property taxes
funding the remainder. Fourth, where the direct costs are difficult to
identify, the fees are intended to fund a portion of the operating costs of
the division and are set at a rate to maintain that level of funding by
increasing at the same rate as those costs. Finally, for those using City
property and not a service, the fee is set at a level comparable to private
sector fees for similar uses.
/9Gs
VA
2
All recommendations were reviewed by the departments and are supported by the
respective departments unless otherwise indicated.
THE STUDY PROCESS
I. FEE INCREASES:
The fee study included collecting information about each fee which the
City currently charges, i.e. background information, cost data, and
suggestions from departments. The background information consists of
the current fee structure and the date it was established. The data on
directly related costs includes staff position, labor hours, materials,
supplies and equipment. Department and division heads provided sugges-
tions on both the portion of the costs that each. fee should cover and
also any new fees that should be considered.
It is apparent that every fee does not need to be raised. In the
General Fund, fees which currently. cover their direct costs and need no
revision are taxicab licenses, peddlers' permits, dance hall permits,
going out of business permits, sound permits, police reports, police
records checks, animal trap rentals, sale of animals, spay and neuter
deposits, and some cultural arts classes in Recreation.
For the Enterprise Funds, fee recommendations were made for only the
iAirport because:
1. Parking fees were addressed in the Hansen, Lind, Meyer study in
1984. The results remain valid.
2. A separate fee study will be prepared for water and sewer rates.
3. Refuse Collection fees were raised July 1, 1985. The revenue
from the increased fees should fund operations through FY87.
/9�s
M
3
4. The landfill can operate on the existing fee structure through
FY87. However, on January 1, 1986, 25t per ton will be added to
the fee. Beginning that date, the State requires that 25t per ton
be remitted to the Department of Water, Air and Waste Management
for research and clean-up of landfills with leachate problems.
5. Transit fares were increased July 1, 1985. A study is now
underway which includes the system's services, costs and reve-
nues. This report will be presented to the Council in the next
several weeks.
The costs for labor are based upon FY86 budgeted wages. The costs of
materials, supplies and equipment are from the actual expenditures in
FY85.
Revenue from these recommendations has been calculated by multiplying the
new fee by the expected volume. The expected volume is one of three
figures: 1) the number of units available, like 152 garden plots, 2) the
actual number of units in FY85, as in 68 encessive false alarms in the
Police Department, 3) an average number of units used by the department,
for example, 25 applications for zoning and subdivisions. The difference
between actual FY85 revenue and the projected revenue. 1s the additional
revenue attributed to fee changes. The schedule on page 6'shows the
total additional revenue from fee changes to be $265,432.10.
This amount is less than 1% of the $30,000,000 total operation budget. So
why do an extensive study and review these charges bi-annually? The
reason is that all of these fee changes will offset property taxes. This
additional revenue amount represents '2.5% of the FY86 tax levy ($.277 of
$10.885 per $1,000 assessed valuation). It is a. substantial amount of the
6% property tax increase that Council has established as a maximum and
therefore could serve to reduce future property tax increases.
/9WI5
a
a
II. NEW SOURCES OF REVENUE
Adoption of either the local option sales or vehicle tax would provide
considerable additional revenue. For this year, a notice of election
would have needed to be published on September 5, 1985 (60 days prior to
election) in order for the tax to be effective on January 1, 1986. Sales
tax revenues would first be received by the City in May for the quarter
ending March 31. Taxes from vehicle registrations would be received in
February for collections in January.
Should the Council decide in another year to vote on a local option tax,
it must appear on the ballot of a regularly scheduled election. A
special election cannot be held for local option taxes.
Several new charges for services are recommended in the General Fund
because it is believed that the user of services rather than citizens
generally should pay for the direct costs of providing the services.
Examples are the investment of pension and retirement system funds,
.multiple building and fire reinspections required because of lack of
compliance, and the unlocking of cars.
A new fee is suggested for Airport parking in an effort to reduce
property tax support. Other revenue sources for the Airport could be
raised by leasing airport lands for commercial or industrial enterprises.
If the City Council concurs with these recommendations for the airport,
staff will work with the Airport Commission and the Airport Manager to
implement these changes.
Sales proceeds from certain City -owned property have been held in trust
since 1979. The Assisted Housing Program intended to use the money for
the local portion of a public housing project. The money has not been
required. Council should reallocate these funds to the General Fund.
/9G5
5
Endowment funds for the Senior Center and the Parks and Recreation
Department are possible additional revenue sources. If Council decides
I
these are desirable and feasible, then Council will need to work with the
respective departments to decide if the funds will be used for property
tax relief, supplemental operating income or expanded program financing.
SUMMARY
Fee increases, with a potential of $265,432.10 in added revenue, are strongly
recommended for approval by Council. The new fees listed on page 7, exclud-
ing the local option taxes, are also recommended for approval by Council.
These new fees would generate $74,234.50 in additional revenue. The ration-
ale for the fees to fund the related costs, or portions thereof, is discussed
for each fee in the following section, Fees and Charges, beginning on page S.
The revenue projections may be higher than actual revenues because some users
may not use the service as a reaction to the fee increase. However, use
usually returns to the same level as before a fee increase after about a
year.
If possible, the City probably should wait a year before considering a local
option tax. By then, the Iowa -Illinois Gas & Electric franchise fee may have
been determined, the status of federal funds might be more predictable, and
the procedures for implementing the local option taxes will be clarified.
Activity
GENERAL FUND
City Clerk
Finance
PPD
CBO
Patrol
Records & ID
Fire
Animal Control
HIS
Cemetery
Parks
Library
Recreation
6
1985 Fee Study
Schedule of Revenue from Fee Changes
Revenue from Fee Revenue from Increase
Name Recommendations Current Fee (Decrease)
1.
Circus, Carnival License
$ 0
$ 0
Fortune Teller license
0
0
Junk Dealer License
0
25.00
Advertising Permit
0
10.00
2.
Taxi Driver Permits
330.00
261.25
3.
Trailer Court licenses
720.00
450.00
4.
Rental of Taxicab Stands
720.00
450.00
S.
Parking Fines
221,234.00
147,489.00
6.
Sale of Maps
600.00
400.00
7.
Zoning & Subdivision Fees
16,200.00
8,005.00
7.
Board of Adjustment Fees
9,000.00
6,025.00
8.
City Plaza Permits
2,335.00
1,750.00
9.
Escort Service
15.00
10.00
10.
Housemove
55.00
60.00
11.
Alarms to PO
5,544.00
4,194.00
12.
Excessive Alarms
1,490.00
1,330.00
13.
Fingerprinting
116.00
87.00
14.
Fire Reports
99.00
26.25
15.
Animal Licenses
22,563.00
13,511.00
16.
Reclaim & Board Fees
7,587.00
5,687.00
17.
Acceptance Fees
5,599.00
2,127.00
18.
Rental Permits & Inspections
74,883.00
36,496.00
19.
Building Permits
63,210.00
50,176.00
20.
Electrical Permits & Insp.
21,386.00
19,442.00
21.
Plumbing Licenses, Permits
12,076.00
10,978.00
& Insp.
22.
Interment Fees
17,465.00
9,670.00
23.
Lot Sales
11,234.00
6,063.00
24.
Garden Plots
1,216.00
380.00
25.
Recommendation does not specify increased
revenues.
26.
Physical Fitness
55,712.00
44,275.00
27.
Aquatics
163,012.00
107,770.00
28.
Sports Leagues
62,945.00
49,286.00
29.
Cultural Arts
3,002.60
2,548.00
30.
Social & Educational Programs
9,105.00
6,296.00
31.
Other
22,671.00
11,415.00
Total General Fund. !8124124.60 1546,692.50
vvu vo u• •vvuvvvv
E 0
0
(25.00)
(10.00)
68.75
270.00
270.00
.73,745.00
200.00
8,195.00
2,975.00
585.00
5.00
(5.00)
1,350.00
160.00
29.00
72.75
9,052.00
1,900.00
3,472.00
38,387.00
13,034.00
1,944.00
1,098.00
7,795.00
5,171.00
836.00
11,437.00
55,242.00
13,659.00
454.60
2,809.00
11.256.00
1MA2.112
2.110
/'ns
7
1985 Fee Study
Schedule of Revenue from New Source
Activity Name
Revenue
GENERAL FUND
Treasury
ry 32. Compensation for Investing Pension & Retirement Funds $ 5,647.50
Patrol 33. Fee to Unlock Cars 13,225.00
Fire 34. Fee for Two or More Reinspections 1,500.00
HIS 35. Fee for Two or More Reinspections 1,500.00
General 36. Local Retail Sales Tax*
3 2,593,928.00
7. Local Vehicle Tax**
OTHER FUNDS 207,602.00
Airport 38. Parking 1,750.00
Assisted Hsg. 39. Sales proceeds of City -owned properties
50 612.00
Total
!?.;875,176 4.50
*Apportioned revenue from local sales tax per chart on page 38. Based on information for
four quarters, ending September 30, 1984, of taxable sales from the "Retail Sales Tax
Report by County and, town" as prepared by the Iowa Department of Revenue, Research and
Management Services Division.
a
Department of Transportation, Motor Vehicle Division.. 1984- from the Iowa
'*Based on number of registrations by vehicle type at November 30, ,
8
FEES AND CHARGES
I. Fee Increases
General Fund - Administration
1• Name Year Established
Current Fee
i
i Circus, carnival license 1962
Fortune teller license E100 or $50 per day
1964 $3 per day !
Junk dealer license 1960 $25/year or $5/day
Advertising permit 1965
$10 per year
These fees should be deleted. Circuses, carnivals and fortune tellers
are very infrequent. In the past eight years, there have been none. In
the past five years, few advertising permits and
licenses have been sold. The totare revenue that 3will beunk elo tpais about
$35 each year. The fees have been set in the Code. An ordinance
deleting the fees should be considered.
The City Clerk recommends that the laws regulating each of these be
repealed.
2. Name: Taxi driver permits
Year Established: 1983
Current Fee: $4.75 per driver per year
Recommended Fee: $6.00
i
The City registers drivers of a taxicab. A file is kept containing a
COPY of the driving record from the State, the Police Department reviews
the record and the City Clerk prepares an identification card. Average'
costs to the City total $6.03. The drivers should pay for the time of
the Clerk's office• and materials to make the identification card and
permit and for the costs of the Police Department to review the records.
/9G s
9
3. Name: Trailer court licenses
Year Established: 1984
Current Fee: $50 per court for the initial license
$25 per year for renewal
Recommended Fee: $60 per court with 1-100 lots, for initial license &
each subsequent renewal
$90 per court with 100-200 lots for initial license &
each subsequent renewal
$150 per court with more than 200 lots for initial
license & each subsequent renewal
The purpose of this fee is to cover some costs of assuring adequate
living conditions for residents of trailer courts. For example, the City
inspects electrical wiring in each lot. The graduated fee structure is
recommended based on the fact that inspections take longer for larger
trailer courts. The recommended fee does not make a distinction between
initial and renewal licenses. For each trailer court, either application
is routed to both the City Clerk and Housing and Inspection Services
(HIS). Initial applications are also routed to Public Works, Legal and
PPD. The minimum cost to the City for licensing a trailer court with
1-100 lots is $57.97, $87.97 for 100-200 lots, and $147.97 for over 200
lots. The trailer court should pay for the inspection by HIS and for the
City Clerk's paperwork involved with the application.
There have been no new trailer courts for several years and no extensions
to existing course are anticipated in the near future. Since initial
applications are so infrequent, property taxes could absorb the costs of
Public Works, Legal and PPD.
44S-
10
4. Name: Rental of taxicab stands
Year Established: 1977
Current Fee: $150 per year per space
Recommended Fee: $240 per year per space
Taxicab companies may rent a parking space in the Central Business
District for a year. A parking space could bring in $483.20 if it were
used and the meter paid every day all day. A permit in a metered lot has
a rate of $20 per month, this recommendation is based on that rate. By
renting this space to the taxicab company for a lump sum,it is guaranteed
a parking space and the City receives the money in advance.
5. Name: Parking fines, expired meter
Year Established; 1976
Current Fee: $2 per overtime violation
Recommended Fee: $3
A parking fine's purpose is to encourage turnover of prime parking spaces
in the Central Business District. Some meters cost a user 201 per hour
and some cost 301 per hour, that's $1.60 and $2.40, respectively, for
eight hours. The recommended fine would be more of an incentive for
parkers to pay money into the meter. In FY85, there were 103,569
overtime parking tickets issued, of which 29% or 30,035 tickets were
never paid. The parker has control over whether he/she receives a
parking ticket. In addition, they can park in a parking ramp and avoid
parking tickets completely.
Two dollar parking fines are receipted into the Parking Fund throughout
the year. This is done to provide revenues at the proper debt coverage
level as required by the parking bond resolution. If parking revenues
result in an operating surplus at year-end, then the $2 fines are
transferred to the General Fund.
Staff is continuing to pursue with County officials the collection of
unpaid parking tickets in conjunction with vehicle license plate renew-
als. Such a process is projected to generate approximately $45,000
additional revenue annually.
/9GS
11
6. Name: Sale of maps
Prices have not been set by resolution or ordinance.
Current Recommended Rate
$.50 for 18" x 24" City or zoning map $.50
$1.00 for 24" x 30" City or zoning map $1.00
$2.00 for 42" x 60" City or zoning map $3.00
$1.00 for 42" x 60" Precinct Map $3.00
The charge for maps is intended to cover the cost of printing them. On
an average, there are 150 42' x 60" City and zoning maps printed each
year. It costs approximately $2.17 each. Zoning maps of the same size
are printed outside at a cost of $2.47 each. The price charged for the
smaller maps is sufficient and is not recommended to be changed at this
time.
V
12
General Fund - Planning and Program Development
7, Name: Zoning and subidivison fees
Board of Adjustment fees
Year Established: 1982
i
Current
Recommend
I
Subdivisions: Preliminary Minor
$150 + $10
$450
per lot
Preliminary Major
$250 + $10
$450 + $10
per lot
per lot
Final
$150
$450
Combined (Prelim/
$300 + $10
$S00 + $10
Final)
per lot
per lot
Planned Area Preliminary
$250 + $10
$450 + $10
Development (PAD)
per lot
per lot
6 Combinations - Final
3150
$450
PAD, LSRD, LSNRD Combined (Prelim/
$300 + $10
$500 + $10
E Subdivisions Final)
per lot
per'lot
Large Scale Preliminary
$250
i
$450
Residential or Final
$150
$450
Non-residential Combined
$300
$500
Dev. (LSRD)/(LSNRD)
Rezoning 8 Volun-
$200
$300
tary Annexations
Vacations
$500
$100
Disposals
Covered by
$50 + appraisal
vacation
and land costs
Board of Adjustment: Variance
$75
$250
Special Exception
$200
$250
Other
$75
$100
/9G s
a
13
The Planning and Program Development Department studied costs and
proposed a fee structure based upon actual costs in 1981. The recom-
mended fees included here are essentially the same as those included in
the 1981 study; fees for vacations, disposals and Board of Adjustment
variances are modified. Zoning & Subdivision fees and Board of Adjust-
ment fees are charged to applicants for the purpose of evaluating
development plans to see that they coincide with the City's Comprehensive
Plan and comply with all policies and ordinances of the City.
The current fee structure is the one that has been used in Iowa City for
i
several years. At the time of the fee structure's adoption, the City
Council decided that the cost of development should be subsidized by tax
monies since development was seen as a public benefit as well as a
private good. The proposed rates are based on identifiable average costs
of processing the applications. Two advantages of a tailored flat fee
structure are that the applicant knows immediately what his/her costs
will be and that it is simple to work with.
Planners spend an average of 25 hours on one application. Expenses
incurred by planners that are directly related to an application include
legal publications in the newspaper, copying of reports, vehicle opera-
tions (to post signs in neighborhoods) and word proressing. Applications
for subdivisions are routed to the Public Works, Housing and Inspection
Services, Legal and the Fire departments. On an average, the $450 fee for
an application would pay for all the direct costs of planners ($320) and
about eight hours of an engineer's time ($130).
Property taxes could pay the remaining costs by Engineering, HIS, Legal
and Fire since there is some general community benefit from this service.
The fees were last increased in 1982 to cover PPO's costs. This recom-
mendation maintains that level of funding.
/9`s
14
General Fund - Central Business District
8. Name: City Plaza permits
Year Established: 1982 (1984 mobile vending)
Current Recommend
Mobile vending $300 per year $400
j Ambulatory vending $100 per year $135
Occasional $10 per day $20
Exhibits and events No charge No charge
These permits allow private enterprises to use City property for private
gain. The recommended fees pay for the cost of processing the applica-
tion and permit as well as the police and fire protection and sidewalk
maintenance that are paid for by other businesses in their property
taxes. Using an average commercial land value in the CBO, the mobile
vending fee is based upon 20 square feet at $20 per square foot, a total
of $400.
There is a limit to the number of mobile vendors, it is five at a time.
Each year there are more than five applications; some must be denied.
Another potential source of financing for the Central Business District
is the creation of a self -supported municipal improvement district,
according to Chapter 386 of the Code of Iowa. Property tax from the
properties within the district would be used to fund maintenance,
development or improvements to the district. There are a number of
specific requirements for such a district including support by 25% of the
property owners of the district.
/9ws
General Fund - Patrol
9. Name: Escort service
Year Established: 1980
Current Fee: $10 for one unit for 30 minutes
Recommended Fee: $15
This allows citizens to have special policing. The cost of one patrol
officer and one car for 30 minutes is $7.94 and $3.75, respectively.
10. Name: House move
Year Established: 1980
Current Fee: $12.50 per hour per officer
$17.50 per hour per vehicle, 2 hour minimum
Recommended Fee: $20.00 per hour per officer
$7.50 per hour per vehicle, 2 hour minimum
This allows citizens to have special policing when moving a house within
City limits. The officers control traffic! and lead the procession: along
the safest route. Theaverage hourly cost of an officer is $15.88 and of
a car is $7.50. There is also a cost to the community for that officer
not patrolling; that cost is not estimable.
11. Name: Alarms to Police Department
Year Established: 1982
Current Fee: $3 per month per alarm
Recommended Fee: $3.50
Alarms ending in the Police Department provide special policing. It
takes about 15 minutes for an officer to check an alarm and determine if
it is real or false. The average cost of 15 minutes for an officer is
$3.97. $3.50 would pay for one alarm check by an officer.
15
General Fund - Patrol
9. Name: Escort service
Year Established: 1980
Current Fee: $10 for one unit for 30 minutes
Recommended Fee: $15
This allows citizens to have special policing. The cost of one patrol
officer and one car for 30 minutes is $7.94 and $3.75, respectively.
10. Name: House move
Year Established: 1980
Current Fee: $12.50 per hour per officer
$17.50 per hour per vehicle, 2 hour minimum
Recommended Fee: $20.00 per hour per officer
$7.50 per hour per vehicle, 2 hour minimum
This allows citizens to have special policing when moving a house within
City limits. The officers control traffic! and lead the procession: along
the safest route. Theaverage hourly cost of an officer is $15.88 and of
a car is $7.50. There is also a cost to the community for that officer
not patrolling; that cost is not estimable.
11. Name: Alarms to Police Department
Year Established: 1982
Current Fee: $3 per month per alarm
Recommended Fee: $3.50
Alarms ending in the Police Department provide special policing. It
takes about 15 minutes for an officer to check an alarm and determine if
it is real or false. The average cost of 15 minutes for an officer is
$3.97. $3.50 would pay for one alarm check by an officer.
r
16
12. Name: Excessive false alarms
Year Established: 1982
Current Recommend
5 False Alarms No charge No charge
6th False Alarm $15 $15
7th False Alarm $20 $20
8th False Alarm $25 $30
9th and each after $30 $45
Charging for excessive false alarms is intended to encourage subscribers
to keep the equipment in proper working condition. For officers to check
the 68 excessive false alarms in FY85 and for the billing of those, it
cost $1,467.12. By raising the fees for the eighth and ninth false
alarms, the costs will be recovered but more importantly will impact more
heavily on those places that have several false alarms and refuse to take
corrective action.
General Fund - Records and Identification
13. Name: Fingerprinting
Year Established: 1980
Current Fee: $3 per set
Recommended Fee: $4
I
i
Persons applying for some jobs or aliens applying for visas and inmigra-
tion are required to send a set of fingerprints along with their applica-
tions. Some parents have their children's fingerprints made for local
files. It takes about 15 minutes for a detective to make a set; that
costs $3.97. The fee should cover the whole cost.
1
/9Gs
17
General Fund - Fire
14. Name: Fire reports (fees are not set by resolution)
Current Fee: First copy $1 and each additional $.25
Recommended Fee: $3 per copy
These are official reports that are sent to the State about a fire.
Insurance companies are the largest user of these reports. The police
department charges $3 per copy of an official report; the.Fire Department
should charge the same amount. The fee covers the time to find a report,
make the copies and then mail it.
General Fund - Animl Control
15. Name: Animal licenses
Year Established: 1980
Current Recommend
Altered $2 $5
Unaltered $10 $15
Pup or Kitten $.25 $1
Delinquent Fee $15 $15
50% Discount for Senior Citizens
Expenditures for Animal Control have increased an average of 7% annually
since FY81: $85,709 in FY81 to $110,342 in FY85. Conversely, the
revenues from licenses have decreased an average of 5% each year since
FY81: $16,689 in FY81 to $13,399 in FY85. In order for revenues to keep
up with expenditures, the fees must increase.
Licensing pets was established to protect the community from diseased
animals. No license is issued until the pet has had its rabies shots. A
small charge for altered animals is intended to encourage spaying and
neutering pets.
I V1.6
I
18
16. Name: Reclaim and board fees
Year Established: 1980
Current Recommend
Dog/Cat Dog/Cat
First Impoundment
$10/$5
$10/$5
Second
$20/$10
$20/$10
Third
$30/$15
$30/$15
Fourth and each after
$30/$15
$40/$20
Boarding daily
$5/$3
$8/$6
The reclaim or impound fees pay for keeping the pet for 24 hours, each
day after is charged for based upon the daily boarding fee. The fees are
intended to support the leash and licensing laws. By adding a higher fee
for the fourth and subsequent impoundments, the habitual offenders will
hopefully watch their pets more carefully.
Impounded animals are kept in the Animal Shelter. The owners are charged
for the boarding. Boarding involves feeding and exercising the animals
and cleaning the kennels. It costs $13.21 per day per animal. The
prices may be higher than commercial kennels; that's because the City
does not wish to be in the business of boarding animals. The City's
kennels are used for enforcement purposes, for example, holding strays
and lost pets.
17. Name: Acceptance fees
Year Established: 1980
Current Fee: $5 per animal
Recommended Fee: $15 per dog and $10 per cat
$20 per litter of puppies and $15 per litter of kittens
Animal Control provides a service for taking unwanted pets. The fee must
be low enough so the pets are not set loose but, on the other hand, it
must be high enough to cover some of the boarding costs and/or euthanasia
costs.
/9G.S
e.
19
General Fund - Housing Inspection Services
18. Name: Rental permits and inspections
Year Established: 1981
Current Fee: $20 per structure plus $4 per unit
Recommended Fee: $40 per structure plus $8 per unit
The total.FY86 budgeted expenditures for this division is $119,535. The
total expected revenue at the recommended rate would fund about 62% or
$74,883. The owners of rental housing and the City could share costs.
Since rental properties produce income for their owners, they should pay
a higher percentage of the costs than is funded from property taxes.
Therefore, the fees are set at a level to provide funding at approximate-
ly 60% and 40% property taxes. The owners benefit by being able to
assure tenants of adequate and safe living conditions when they do meet
the City's standards. Since such a large portion of Iowa City's resi-
dents are tenants, the City's share of the costs go to serving the
interest of its population. The tenants and home owners both enjoy
quality housing neighborhoods.
/9GS
20
19. Name: Building permits
Year Established: 1984
Current Recommended
Building Permits
Total Valuation
$1-$500 $5.50 $15.00
$501-52,000 $5.50 + $1.00 per $100 $15.00 + $1.50 per $100
over $500 over $500
$2,001-525,000 $20.50 + $4.25 per $32.50 + $6.00 per $1,000
$1,000 over $2,000 over $2,000
$25,001-550,000 $118.25 + $3.25 per $170.50 + $3.00 per $1,000
$1,000 over $25,000 over $25,000
5501001-51001000 $199.50 + $2.15 per $245.50 + $2.75 per $1,000
51,000 over $50,000 over $50,000
$100,001-5500,000 $307.00 + $1.60 per $383.00 + $2.50 per $1,000
$1,000 over $100,000 over $100,000
$500,001 and up $947.00 + $1.00 per $947.00 + $1.50 per $1,000
$1,000 over $500,000 over $100,000
In FY83 and FY84,.the Building Inspection Division was funded totally by
fees from the great volume of new construction in those years. In FY85,
fees provided funding for 85i of the division's total expenditures. The
drop in fees is due 'to permits being issued more for remodeling than for
new construction.
/,�s
21
20. Name: Electrical Permits and Inspections
Year Established: 1982
Current
Recommended
For each electrical permit:
1 meter setting
$4.00
$4.00
2 meter settings
$6.00
$6.00
Each meter setting in excess
of two
$1.00
$2.00
Temporary service with total
permit
$5.00
$8.00
Temporary service
$10.00
$15.00
Outlets, switches, light fixture
openings:
1-30
$5.00
$5.00
Each over 30
$.20
$.20
Electrical range, water heater,
furnaces, dryers, air condition-
ers, electric signs, or outlets
for them
$3.50
$3.50
Electric heat per kilowatt
$.75
$.75
Non-residential installations:
Value of work
$1-200
$6.50
$15.00
$201-800
$10.00
$15.00
$801-1,000
$15.00
$15.00
Each additional $1,000 or
fraction of
$10.00
$10.00
Minimum fee for any permit
$10.00
$15.00
Reinspection fee
$10.00
$15.00
The HIS director has identified
the permits
and inspections that are very
low in comparison to the cost.
The fees are based on one hour of time
for the inspection. The average
cost for
one hour of the electrical
inspector is $13.98.
/96-s
22
21. Name: Plumbing Licenses, Permits and Inspections
Year Established: 1983
Current
Recommended
Licenses:
Master Plumbers License
iExamination/Annual fees $80/35
$80/35
Journeyman Plumbers License
Examination/Annual fees $27/20
$40/20
Apprentice Plumber's Registra-
tion, annually $10
$10
Sewer and Water Service License
Examination/Annual fees $0/0
$20/20
Inactive License, annually $0
$10
Permits:
Fixtures, traps or future openings
First $6.00
$6.00
2-10 (each) $3.00
$3.00
j 11 or more (each) $2.00
$2.00
Water softeners and heaters, and all other
water connected appliances not connected to
sanitary sewer
Each $3.00
50 gallons or less
$3.00
More than 50 gallons
$5.00
Building sewer and/or water service, non-residential
fees
Value $1-$1,000 $0
$15.00
Each additional $1,000 or
fraction of $0
$10.00
Minimum fee $10.00
$15.00
2 or more reinspections, ea. $10.00
$15.00
i
The HIS director has identified the licenses, permits and inspections
that are very low in comparison to the cost. The fees are based on one
hour of time for the inspection. The average cost for one hour of the
plumbing inspector is $12.15. The Plumbing Board of Examiners is adding
licenses for water and sewer service and for inactive plumbers on January
1, 1986; this would establish a fee for each of those.
19(o -T-
.6
23
General Fund - Cemetery
22. Name: Interment fees
Year Established: 1978
Current
Recommend
Infant Weekday
$35
$75
Saturday
$45
$85
Sat. and Sun. emergency
$55
$95
Holiday emergency
$90
$130
Child Weekday
$60
$115
Saturday
$90
$130
Sat. and Sun. emergency
$135
$155
Holiday emergency
$220
$235
Adult Weekday
$130
$240
Saturday
$165
$270
Sat. and Sun. emergency
$200
$290
Holiday emergency
$325
$400
tremains (Ashes) Weekday
$25
$55
Saturday
Not -Available;
$75
Tent and Equipment Weekday
$20 combined
$30 tent
$50 equipment
Saturday
Sat./Sun. emergency
$30
$40 tent
$60 equipment
Holiday emergency
$40
$60 tent
$90 equipment
Extra Maintenance (no vault).
$60
$75
Lot Locating Weekends & After
Hours
0
$35
Holidays
$55
J
/96s
24
Non-resident fees currently are an additional 100% for everything. The
recommended non-resident fees for opening and closing are the appropriate
resident charges plus an additional interment weekday charge, and for lot
purchases an additional 100% of the price. (A resident has an Iowa City
mailing address, or owns property, or is a registered voter, or purchased
a lot while being a resident. Resident fees shall extend to spouses and
children of a resident.)
These recommended fees pay for only the direct costs of a burial: labor
and equipment. Saturday rates include overtime pay for labor with some
I
work being done .on a weekday. Saturday and Sunday emergency rates
include overtime pay and all work being done on Saturday or Sunday.
Emergency holiday rates are figured with holiday overtime pay and all
work being done on the holiday.
i
The recommended rates are closer to the rates of other area cemeteries
but are still lower (for comparisons, see page 39).
23. Name: Lot sales
Year Eitablished: 1978
Area Current Recommend
Cedar View $225 $250
Rose Hill* $250 $280 (4'x10')
$336 (4'x12')
Glenview $175 $250 (4'x10')
$300 (41x12')
Babyland* $50 $56 (21x4')
Sunnyslope $55 $56 (3'x3')
Oak Green* $200 $336 (4'x12')
Block 29* 0 $250 (41401)
*Monuments may be above ground.
I
i
I
/9G.s
25
Lots in monument areas' are priced at $7 per square foot. Lots in other
areas, where the marker must be flush with the ground, are based on $6.25
per square foot. These prices are also comparable to other private
cemeteries but are still lower (for comparisons, see page 39).
General Fund - Parks
24. Name: Garden plots
Year Established: 1985
Current Fee: $2.50 per year
Recommended Fee: E8
This fee lets people use public property for personal gain. The Parks
Division discs, fertilizes and tills the plots at the beginning of the
season and then cleans up at the end. The cost to the Parks Division is
at least $774 (56 hours of work plus fertilizer). There are 152 plots,
at $8 each, the fees cover the costs.
General Fund - Library
25. Name: Property tax funding
Currently, property taxes fund whatever the library does not cover by its
fines, fees and donations. It is recommended that the City use the
property taxes intended for funding in the FY86 Budget (85% of the
budgeted expenditures) as a base for future funding. Then, for FY87 and
subsequent years the property tax funding for the Library will be set by
Council. Each year the property tax funding could increase at a rate
equal to the average increases among the General Fund divisions.
a
During the FY86 Council budget discussions, the Library Board expressed
its willingness to have the Council set the level of property tax
funding. It would then be the Board's responsibility to generate other .
revenues to fund library operations and expanded programs.
/ 96.s
J
■
Ti
The Library Board of Trustees did increase existing fines and fees July
1, 1985. Some ideas for new sources of revenue that were not pursued are
room rentals and equipment rentals. It should be noted that room rental
fees are now charged at the Recreation Center. Another possible revenue
source is contracting with area towns for service in the same manner as
Johnson County. Finally, Library operations could expand upon its use of
gifts and donations as funding sources; the Endowment Fund now being
established may provide a revenue source for operations.
The Library Director does not concur with some of these recommendations
and says the Library Board will need to make their own review and formal
response to them.
• i
i
I
/?Ar
NA
General Fund - Recreation
These recommendations should be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commis-
sion before being finalized. Property taxes funded 56% of expenditures in
both FY84 and FY85. However, the amount in FY85, $458,946, was 25% more than
the amount in FY84, $366,724. All of the recommended fees are intended for
property tax relief, not for expansion of programs.
a
i
It is evident that general guidelines and policies are needed for fee
ischedules for recreation. The Finance Department will, in the next few
months, assist the Recreation staff in examining policies regarding levels of
funding from property taxes and also the methods by which fees and charges
are set. The results of this review will be discussed with the Parks and
Recreation Commission before being presented to Council.
One area that may be focused on in examining general policies is methods of
providing financial assistance to those who cannot afford the fees. Another
will involve equating fees among users of the Recreation Center swimming
pool. For example, according to the -1985 fall brochure, there are 55 hours
each week designated for those who pay a fee: public, lap, family and senior
citizen swims and various lessons. Meanwhile, there are 5 hours each week
that the Swim Club (a private organization) uses the pool without paying any
fee.
/9Gs
28
26, Name: Physical fitness
Year Established: 1985
Current
Recommend
Aerobics Drop-in
$1.00 per hour
$1.25 per hour
Structured classes
$10 for 10 hrs.
$12 for 10 hrs.
20 -pass
$18 for 20 drop-
$22 for 20 drop-
in classes
in classes
Aquacising
$7.50 for 10 hrs.
$12 for 10 hrs.
Fitness
$10 for 10 hrs.
$12 for 10 hrs.
Pre-school Gymnastics
$7.50 for 7 1/2
$10 for 7 1/2 hrs.
hrs.
Youth Gymnastics
$7.50 for 7 1/2
$10 for 7 1/2 hrs.
hrs.
Racquetball Lessons
$10 for 10 lessons
$12 for 10 lessons
Tennis Lessons
$7.50 for 10
$10 for 10 lessons
lessons
Ice Skating Lessons
$2 per hour
$2.50 per hour
Cross-country'Ski Lessons
$2.25 per hour
$2.75 per hour
These have proven to be popular
programs. On an
average, the recommended
fees are recommended to be $1.20 per hour. The
costs for these activi-
ties average $1.18 per hour.
Attendance may decrease initially after fee
increases.
/9G.s
r
/9GS
29
27. Name: Aquatics
Year Established: 1982
Current
Recommend
Admissions
Outdoor Pools:
All pools:
Children 3-12 years
$.25, includes tax
$.75, includes tax
Youth 13-15 years
$.50, includes tax
$.75, includes tax
Adults Over 16
$1.00, includes tax
$1.00, includes tax
Rec Center Turnstyle
$.50
$.75
Swim Passes - (non-residents add 50% to listed
fees)
Annual Pass (12 months):
Family of 4
$75, includes tax
$90, includes tax
add 1, 2 or 3 children
$20, 30 or 35
$24, 36, 42
Adult
$45, includes tax
$54, includes tax
Youth
$35, includes tax
$42, includes tax
Lap swim, 1 person
$80, includes tax
$96, includes tax
add 1 or 2 substitutes
$40 or $80
$48 or 96
Season Pass (June -August
or September -May):
Both seasons
Family of 4
$40, includes tax
$48, includes tax
add 1, 2 or 3 children
$10, 15 or 17.50
$12,18, 21
Adult
$25
$30
Youth
$20
$24
June -August season
Lap swim, 1 person
$40
$48
add 1 or 2 substitutes
$15 or 30
$18 or 36
September -May season
Lap swim, 1 person
$60
$72
add 1 or 2 substitutgs
$25 or 50
$30 or 60
The total expenditures
in FY85 for aquatics
was $152,054. The total
revenues were $107,749.
With the fee increases, revenue is projected to
be $163,012. Attendance
always drops immediately after a fee increase so
the projected revenue may be high. Fees
for swim lessons are not
recommended to increase because
they cover the
costs of the instructors.
r
/9GS
30
The Recreation Superintendent recommends adult admissions to be $1.50.
From data based on prior years, the jump in children and youth fees will
raise revenue significantly so this study does not include that increase.
Attendance at the outdoor pools is mainly children under the age of 13.
This study incorporates revenue from increasing those fees from 25t to
751 because that is still cheaper than most activities for children. And ;
again, if a child needs financial assistance, staff will work out a
program that the Parks and Recreation Commission would support.
28. Name: Sports Leagues .
Year Established: 1985
Current Recommend
Youth
Basketball $4.25 per person, includes tax $6.25, includes tax
Football $4.25 per person, includes tax $6.25, includes tax
Volleyball $4.25 per person, includes tax $6.25, includes tax
Adult
Basketball $115 per team, includes tax $130, includes tax
Volleyball $37.50 per team, includes tax $45.00, includes tax
Softball $235 per team, includes tax $295, includes tax
Football $140 per team, includes tex $160, includes tax
I
i
FY85 expenditures for sports leagues totaled $62,991. The projected
revenues at the recommended fees is $62,945.
The Recreation Superintendent recommends youth league fees to be $6.00.
This study adds the 4% sales tax to that and rounded the tax to 251 for
preliminary projections.
The Recreation Superintendent recommends $250 per softball team in order
to -have a smaller increase in the fee. The recommended fee of $295 per
team is a 25% increase, but it would be needed for the costs of sports
leagues to be totally funded.
/9Gs
IA
31
29. Name: Cultural Arts
Year Established: 1984
Current Fee Recommended Fee
Afternoon Arts, children $5 for 5 hours $6
Arts Exploration $5 for 5 hours $6
Ceramics $22 for 20 hours $25
Parent/Tot Craft $5 for 5 hours $6
Drawing & Life Drawing $22 for 20 hours $25
Printing $30 for 30 hours $36
The recommended fees are set at $1.20 per hour like those -for fitness.
Fees not mentioned for changes are wee works, wings in motion, dance,
drama, photography and darkroom instruction; their fees are already at
least $1.20 per hour.
30. Name: Social Activities, Education Programs
Year Established: 1984
Current Recommend
Afternoon recreation $6 for 7 hours $8.40
Summer Camp, 8 hr. per day $95/2 -wk. session $95
Child care, per session $8/2 hrs. per day $12.00
.Supervised play $1 per hour $1.25
Afternoon recreation, summer camp 'and supervised play are activities
offered to schoolage children as alternatives for child care. These
rates are $1.20 per hour which is comparable to commercial child care
rates. Activities for which fees are not being raised are kindergrounds
(the rate is $1.50 per hour) and special events (the rate is $1 per.
participant).
Sumner playground and playday do not have fees. Sumner playground
provides general guidance at parks during the summer. Playday lets
school age children use the Rec Center for free on school holidays.
Neither include structured activities nor direct supervision but they do
give the children places to go when school is not in session.
M
32
Education programs - Nature
awareness -
does not need a fee increase,
because the costs are covered.
31. Name, year established
Current
Recommend
Darkroom User Card, 1984
$1.50
$3.00
Farmer's Market, 1985
$2.50 per
stall $5.00
All Saturdays
$40
$80
All Wednesdays
$30
$60
Shelter Reservations, open
$2
$4
enclosed shelter
$5
$10
Room Rentals
Craft and Meeting Rooms
$2.50
$5.00
Social Hall
$15
$25
Gymnasium
$10
$25
Pool
$25
$50
Santa Suit Rentals
$1.00
$2.00
These revenues do not cover
their total
costs, however, they do fund a
larger portion of them. Fees
were not mentioned for Special Populations
Involvement programs. SPI
programs are among the only recreational
activities available for SPI
participants
in the Iowa City area, so fees,
If charged, are nominal and
the costs can be borne by other Recreation
funds.
/9Gs
33
II. New Fees
General -Fund - Finance
32. Name: Compensation for Investments
Recommended Fee: $15 per hour
The Finance Department handles the investment of police and fire pension
and retirement funds. An aggressive investment practice was started in
j the beginning of FY85. The Treasurer, Assistant Finance Director and
Accountant together spend about 1.5 hours each day an these particular
investments. To charge the actual time spent on investing these funds,
the pension and retirement systems would pay approximately $5,648 each
year (average salary cost of $15 per hour times 376.5 hours in a year).
The total interest earned in FY84, before these practices changed, was
$790,195. The total interest earned in FY85 was $1,166,123, that is
$375,928 more than in FY84.
The pension and retirement systems do benefit from having this.much time
spent on the investment of their funds in such an aggressive manner by
maximizing the interest earned on their assets.
General Fund - Patrol
33. Name: -Fee to Unlock Cars
Recommended Fee: $5
From June 1984 to May 1985, there were 2,645 cars unlocked by police
officers (an average of seven per day). This fee is intended to offset
the cost of the time a patrol officer is not patrolling. Some police
departments do not provide this service. The alternative is for a
private locksmith to make a service call and the charge would be around
$23.
/9G,s
34
It takes 5-10 minutes for an officer to unlock a car. The cost of a
police officer to do that task is about $1.70. The parking ticket
envelope can have an item added for the officer to check the box labeled
"car unlock" and the envelope can be left for the person to put money in
and then drop in the mail. The recommended fee would cover the time of
the officer.
General Fund - Fire
34. Name: Fee for Two or More Reinspections
Recommended Fee: 115
Firefighters inspect all commercial buildings and university buildings
for compliance with the Uniform Fire Code and the State Fire Code. This
fee should be an incentive for compliance with the Fire safety codes. The
City can reasonably provide an inspection and one reinspection. But if a
place needs two or more reinspections, then they may be avoiding compli-
ance and they should pay for the time of the firefighters to reinspect.
General Fund - Housing Inspection Services
35. Name: Fee for Two or More Reinspections
Recommended Fee: 115
Construction of buildings and rental housing buildings and units are
inspected for compliance with the Uniform Building Code and the City
Housing Code, respectively. This fee should be an incentive for compli-
ance with these codes. The City's fee structure and property taxes can
reasonably provide an inspection and one reinspection. But if a struc-
ture needs two or more reinspections, then they may be avoiding compli-
ance and they should pay for the time of the reinspection.
/9�S
35
Local Option Taxes
36. New Revenue Source: Retail Sales Tax
Recommended Fee: 1%
This tax would provide revenues for property tax relief and also for any
other use as determined by Council. The City Council must designate a
portion of property taxes to be replaced by this tax as well as identify
a purpose for the remainder of the revenue raised by this tax. This
information must be included on the ballot when the tax is voted upon.
Contiguous cities are treated as one unit. That means Coralville and
University Heights must also vote on the proposal and, initiate the tax if
a majority of the total three cities votes it in. (If a vote passed in
Iowa City, the tax would go into effect for all three cities, because
Iowa City's number of voters is the majority of the three combined.) The
county Board of Supervisors may or may not decide to participate.
Based on taxable sales recorded by the State Sales Tax Division, the
total sales tax paid on sales in Iowa City for one year's time at 1%
would be $3,309,980. The sales tax is then allocated to the participat-
ing governments in the county based upon the formulas found in the state
law. Iowa City's estimated share of the sales tax would be $2,593,928.
The chart on page 31 shows the computation of sales tax.
The local sales tax would be charged on sales subject to State Sales tax,
for example, sales of tangible personal property, gas, electricity,
water, renting a room for less than 31 consecutive days. The sales tax
is not considered a regressive tax because some of the sales exempted
from sales tax are food, prescription drugs, medical devices and used
motor vehicles. A portion of the sales tax collections must be used as
property tax relief. For Iowa City, there are many daily commuters to
the City who use City services that are funded by property taxes. A
local sales tax would ease the burden on property tax payers.
To show the effect of a sales tax on property tax, an assumption will be
made of designating 50% of the sales taxes to property tax relief. The
tax askings of $10,441,924 would be lowered by $1,296,964, the difference
/9Gs
.-
KI
is $9,144,960. In turn, the levy, $10.885/$1,000 valuation, would be
reduced by $1.352 for a levy of $9.533. For the average home with an
assessment of 565,754 and the taxable valuation of $47,661, the taxes of
$518.79 would subtract $64.44 for a total tax payment of $454.35.
37. Name: Vehicle Tax
Recommended Fee: $5 per registration
This tax would be voted on by the whole county and it would be imple-
mented county -wide. The proceeds
from this
an
streets maintenance and construction and/or on public transportatiospent The
taxes collected are apportioned to the address on the registration.
Based on 67,185 registrations in November, 1984, Johnson County would
collect $335,925. Of that, it is estimated that $207,602 would be
apportioned to Iowa City (based on population, no estimates are available
for registrations identified to Iowa City).
38. Name: Fees for parking in the Airport public lots
Recommended Rate: $1 per day
This idea has not been presented to the Airport Commission but has been
reviewed with the Airport Manager. If the Council decides to pursue
this, staff will work with the Airport Commission and the Airport
Manager.
It is possible to purchase a'meter box for honor system parking lots. The
meter box has slots for money that are numbered in correspondence to
numbered parking stalls. The meter box can be set up on a pole or
attached to a building. One meter box with 20 slots costs $400.
The Airport has two public parking lots: one immediately to the east of
the main terminal and one directly to the north. There are 22 and 18
stalls, respectively. An initial investment of at least $1,200 would be
required for two meter boxes, installation and numbering stalls. If
seven cars pay $1 per day from Monday through Friday (excluding holi-
days), the annual revenue would be $1,750.
/9G.s
37
Parking meters were considered; however, it costs about $250 to purchase
_ one meter. For 40 spaces, it would mean $10,000 fust for meters while
installation, maintenance and enforcement costs would be substantial
also.
i
I
39. Name: Sales Proceeds of City -owned Properties
The City's Assisted Housing Program was authorized in 1979 to sell
City -owned properties and use the sales proceeds for local funding for
the City's first Public Housing Project. $50,261 remains unspent from
those sales proceeds as it was not needed to fund the project. The City
authorized local funding of $55,000 for the public housing sites pur-
chased this summer. However, this money also was not required. Since
Assisted Housing currently has a surplus balance of over $130,000, it is
recommended that the surplus balance of $50,261 be deposited in the
General. Fund and used to cover the projected FY86 funding shortfall.
/9 4-5--
/9G.s
38
1985 Fee
Study
Apportionment of
Projected
Sales Tax Collections
1% Tax
University
Johnson County
Total
Heights
Coralville
(Unincorporated) Iowa City
Projected Collections
$4 190,514
$ -0-
$680,664
$199,870
$3,309,980
sfsacasas
sasasas
aasesss
asssacc
acasssssss
I. Apportionment of Taxes Collected
75% of taxes by population*:
Johnson County,
unincorporated
f 149,902
f 2,098
$ 15,290
$ 31,630
$100,884
Coralville
510,498
7,146
•52,070
107,716
343,566
Iowa City
2,482,484
34,754
253,214
523,804
1,670,712
II. 25% of taxes by total
taxes
levied FY83, FY84 and
FY85.**
Johnson County,
unincorporated
49,968
250
3,448
23,436
22,834
Coralville
170,166
850
11,742
79,808
77,766
Iowa City
827,496
4,138
57,096
388,096
378,166
Total
$4
51a,sa4v,492
H.,22.,
so,saaav14
s4ta6
a3a,86
*Population, per 1980
Census
75,111
1,069
7,687
15,847
50,508
(100%)
(1.4X)
(10.2%)
(21.1%)
(67.3%)
**Total Taxes Levied
FY83, FY84, 8 FY85
59,228,600
287,979
4,088,377
27,756,703
27,095,541
Per County Auditor
(100%)
(0.5%)
(6.9X)
(46.9%)
(45.7%)
University Heights
and Coralville
/9G.s
39
1985 FEE STUDY
COMPARISON OF CEMETERY FEES AND CHARGES
AS OF SEPTEMBER 4, 1985
-Call by Friday noon or add $50.
-Oakland Cemetery's proposed non-resident fn, for opening and closing, It the appropriate resident fee
plus an additional resident weekday charge. The proposed non-resident tot prices are twice the resident
Prices. Currently, �-midente Pay double the ,extent Charged to awe nddant for everything. Mowery
Darden and St. Joseph Ceaeteries have no special rates for non-residents.
Otsinterwante, at all Nm cawtaries, are twice the weekday charge for in intereent. Oakland Cowrtery
has higher rates for intereents on Sundays or holidays. This Chart short weekends - which would be Saturday.
/9�s
I
i
--------------OAKLAND
CEMETERY --------------
NON-RESIDENT"
RESIDENT
ST. JOSEPH
•
CURRENT PROPOSED
CURRENT PROPOSED
MEMORY GARDEN
CEMETERY
INTERMENT FEES
Intent - reekdsy
70 150
35 75
60
50
- rekend
90 160
45 65
60e
70
Child - weekday
120 230
60 115
175
150
- weekend
160 245
90 130
175•
175
Adult - weekday
260 460
130 240
250
300
- weekend
330 510
165 270
25P
325
Crteeins - weekday
50 110
25 55
60
50
- weekend
not available 130
not available 75
75
70 1
Tent - weekday
40 30
20 30
Included in
no tent
- ne=
60 40
30 40
Insentient fees
j
Epripeent- weekday
Included with 50
Included with SO
Included in
No aguipeet '
the tent 60
the tent - 60
Intervent feet
'
Extra Maintenance (adult, no
vault)
-
- anyday,
120 75
60 75
not available
50
Finders Fat- weekday
no charge no charge no charge no charge
no charge
no charge
- weekend
no charge 35
ha charge 35
no charge
no charge
LOT PRICES
Infant
100 112
'SO - 56
50
70
Child 6 Adult
350.500 500-672
175.250 250-336
250.350
500
Creoains
110 112
55 56
250
200
-Call by Friday noon or add $50.
-Oakland Cemetery's proposed non-resident fn, for opening and closing, It the appropriate resident fee
plus an additional resident weekday charge. The proposed non-resident tot prices are twice the resident
Prices. Currently, �-midente Pay double the ,extent Charged to awe nddant for everything. Mowery
Darden and St. Joseph Ceaeteries have no special rates for non-residents.
Otsinterwante, at all Nm cawtaries, are twice the weekday charge for in intereent. Oakland Cowrtery
has higher rates for intereents on Sundays or holidays. This Chart short weekends - which would be Saturday.
/9�s
I
i
r
I
City of Iowa City
I-- MEMORANDUM
Date: October 18, 1985
To: City Council
From: City Manager } ..� /
Re: Intersection of Friendship, Wales and Seventh Avenue
A resident of the area recently raised questions regarding traffic control
and movement at the intersection of Friendship, Seventh Avenue and Wales.
It was agreed that staff would establish a time when Councilmembers, staff
and the interested neighbor could meet at that intersection to discuss
these concerns.
I will be present along with the Public Works Director and the Traffic
Engineer at this intersection at 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, October 22, 1985.
The individual from that neighborhood who expressed concern in this matter
will also be notified.
A copy of a memorandum from the Traffic Engineer addressing the accident
history of this intersection is attached for your information.
cc: Public Works Director
Traffic Engineer
George Nickelsburg
1713 E. Court'St.
dh/sp
a
/9GG
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 15, 1985
To: Dale Melling, Assistant City Manager
From: James Brachtel, Traffic Engineer
Re: Accident Experience at Friendship Street/Wales/Seventh Avenue
There has been one recorded property damage accident in 1981. There have
been no other reported accidents since 1980. Should you require additional
accident information for this location, please don't hesitate to contact me.
bj2/11
l
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 18, 1985
To: Members of the City Council
From: Anne Carroll Qn....t' 4N'X
Re: Employee Benefits Questions
In response to questions raised regarding employee
benefits information
presented at your meeting of October 15 the following additional
information is
provided.
1. Life Insurance
Life insurance provided to University of Iowa Professional and Scientific
employees is 2 1/2 X annual salary as originally indicated in the survey
information, however, there is a maximum of $140,000 coverage and the
coverage reduces with age, i.e. age 50-54 - $100,000,
age 55-59 - $64,000,
age 60 - $60,000, age 61 - $59,000, etc.
The City provides life insurance coverage equal to annual salary, rounded
to the next highest thousand dollars.
2. Lang Term Disability Insurance
Both the City and the University pay the full cost of the long term disa-
bility insurance premium. Benefits for Administrative
and Professional and
Scientific employees are as follows:
City of Iowa City
Univ, of Iowa
Years
Service
Benefit equal to % of salary 60%
0-1 no coverage
1-2 14%
2-3 28%
3-4 42%
4-5 56%
5+ 70%
Salary cap $50,000
$87,000
Maximum monthly benefit $ 31000
$ 5,075
Waiting period Greater of 90 work
Greater of 90 work
days or exhaustion
days or exhaustion
of sick leave
of sick leave
/7I
4
3. Tuition Reimbursement
University Professional and Scientific and Merit employees are eligible for
S10n staff tuition grants
which are administered through a Staff Council.
280 grants are available
for Fall and Spring semesters and 140 for the
Sumer. To be eligible employees must be employed for one continuous year
at a minimum of half—time
employment.
City employees are not eligible for tuition reimbursements.
4. Confidential/Clerical Employee Benefits
VACATION ACCRUALS
UNIVERSITY CITY OF
LENGTH OF SERVICE
OF IOWA IOWA CITY
FIRST YEAR
13 days/year 12 days/year
FIVE YEARS
18 15
TEN YEARS
18 18
FIFTEEN YEARS
23 21
TWENTY YEARS
25 24
TWENTY-FIVE YEARS
28 24
HOLIDAYS
UNIVERSITY CITY OF
OF IOWA IOWA CITY
11 per year 11 per year
SICK LEAVE ACCRUAL
UNIVERSITY CITY OF
OF IOWA IOWA CITY
18 days/year 12 days/year
LIFE INSURANCE
UNIVERSITY CITY OF
OF IOWA IOWA CITY
2 1/2 x annual 1 x annual
salary, maximum salary
$140,000 which City pays full
reduces after age 50 premium
University pays full
premium
f7 w
3
HEALTH INSURANCE
IPERS
TIAA
UNIVERSITY
CITY OF
10% Salary
OF IOWA
IOWA CITY
Single coverage
University pays
City pays full
full premium
premium
Dependent coverage
University
City pays full
pays $108.43
premium
(max.) towards
single 8 family
OTHER INSURANCES
U OF IOWA
CITY OF IOWA CITY
Dental - single coverage
University pays
City pays full
full premium.
premium
family coverage
University pays
No contrib.
$6.31 (max.) towards
single b family
Optical
No
No
Prescription
No
No
Long Term Disability
University pays
City pays full
full premium
premium
EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE
U OF IOWA
CITY OF IOWA CITY
Yes through
No
Staff Council
Program
LONGEVITY
LENGTH OF SERVICE
U OF IOWA
IOWA CITY
Five Years
Ione
$200/year
Ten Years 275
Fifteen Years 375
Twenty Years 475
Twenty-five Years 475
Thirty Years 475
RETIREMENT CONTRIBUTION
U OF IOWA IOWA CITY
/907
IPERS
TIAA
Employer Contribution
5.75% Salary
10% Salary
5.75% salary
Employee Contribution
3.7% Salary
5% Salary
3.7% salary
/907
City of Iowa City
- MEMORANDUM
(fA 1 / DATE: October 16, 1985
Y
TO: Neal Berlin, City Manager
FROM: Harvey D. Miller, Police Chief
RE: Cliff Apartments: Parking On Apron
Department members have observed this area for a two week
period.and noted no violations.
It appears that if the line of sight from Ridge Road to the
northbound lanes of North Dubuque Street is obstructed that the
cars parked on the north lot of the Mayflower Apartments may be
responsible for this.
Let me know if you want more done on this. We will keep an eye
on the apartments.
OW
City of Iowa City
= MEMORANDUM
Date: October 16, 1965 {
To: Neal Berlin, City Manager
From: Chuck Schmadeke It
Re: Virginia Drive
The Street Division is correcting an erosion problem at the end of
Virginia Drive adjacent to Ridgewood Lane. This work involves the removal
of brush, the placement of rip -rap, and necessary grading from Ridgewood
Lane•to approximately 100 feet north. All work is within the Virginia
Street right-of-way.
tp3/1
City of Iowa City
I►U4A reIrz-7.i 1 1 , '► ',I
Date: October 11, 1985
To: Charles Schmadeke, Director of Public Works
From: James Brachtel, Traffic Engineer
Re: Signalization of Mormon Trek Boulevard/ Benton Street
Recently the City received a letter requesting that the intersection of
Mormon Trek Boulevard and Benton Street be studied to determine if
signalization would be appropriate at this time. The Traffic Engineering
Division completed a 16 -hour count on September 24, 1985. In addition, on
October 8, 1985, the Traffic Engineering Division conducted a spot speed
study of this location. It was found that the 85th percentile speed for this
location was in excess of 40 miles per.hour. The Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control DevicesMUTCD) stipulates that when the 85th percentile speed of the
i
major street is n excess of 40 miles per hour, the numerical warrants should
become 70% of the stated values. Based upon the results of these studies and
the warrants as reduced, I am recommending that signalization be installed at
this location. I have prepared a capital improvements program sheet for the
FY87 budget. If Council approves this project, work can camnence in the
summer of 1986.
Should you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please don't
hesitate to contact me.
bj5/9
/'7e)
WARRANTS FOR
SIGNAL INSTALLATION
Warrant I -Minimum vehicular volume.
Warrant 2. interruption of continuous traffic.
Warrant 1 Minimum pedestrian volume.
Warrant a-Schtwl crossings.
Warrant 5—Progressive movement.
Warrant O --Accident experienre.
Warrant 7 --Systems.
Warrant y—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, thrtnfric volumes given in the
table below exist on the major street and on the higher.volume minor.
,street apprnsch to the interaction. An "average' day is donned as a
weekday representing traffic volumes normally and repeatedly found at
the location.
MINIMUM VKHWU.AR VOLUMES FOR WARRANT 1
Nwu,lw d Lena fw mareng trarrwVAKI. Iver Men on
V
YII fern Own." .him is per hear M AlaAer•vaAlnw IM•
major Mr." (tow K roc. µMeet appnrrh
Marr Street Minor Street hath apWwhnl Imw direetiro a Jy)
1 ................ 1................ aoD dao
................ ROD ISO
Sr oewe........ . 2 r etwe........ - am 2m
1 ................ 2 r mon........ Sao 200
These major -street and minor -street 'volumes are for the same 8
hours. During thew a hours, the direction of higher volume on the minor
street may be on one approach during some hours and on the opposite
approach during other hours.
When the R5 -percentile speed of major -street traffic exceeds 40 mph
in either an urhan or a rural area, or when the intersection lies within
the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less
than 10.011. the Minimum Vehicular Volume warrant is 70 percent of
the rwluirementa above.
Warrant 2, Interruption of Continuous Traffic
The interruption of Continuous Traffic warrant applies to ulcerating
conditions where the traffic volume on a major street is w heavy that
traffic on A minor intersecting street suffers excessive delay or haiatni
in entering or crossing the major street. The warrant is satisruwl when,
fur each of any A hour of an avenge day, the traffic volumes given in
the table below exist on the majur street and on the higher-vulume
minurstreet approach to the intersection, and the signal installation will
not seriously disrupt prugressive traffic flow.
Intersection of Senien
Street and ,Oformpa
Trek 8/yd'
Observed z4 Seor RT -rvf +y ,
i
I
Intersection does comply
(see attachleent /1)
i
1"d
•
iI
MIS1.14t:U V[RIOCLAR VOLUMES FOR lfaRRAKT 2
V,hiel— Lr h,wr on
Samher of Lnen fur mo.me tnf(r YehKlr. 1wr h,wr on mi•
an..h.pyn.h n,apu wren meal of rwn•tr. apl'n..ch
Nrjor Street Aimr jlrrr Iran q,yn,.ohol L,ne dirw,iun unlpl
1 ................ I................ ;:a, 75
3 or m........... 1 ................ 9u
or news........ : ar coon........ MU Ira
t................ Sar coon........ l:al IIU
These major -street and minor -street volumes are for the same S
hours. During those S boon, the direction of higher volume an the minor
street may be on one approach during some hours and on the opposite
appnlach during other boon.
When the 115 -percentile speed of major -street traffic tacreds 40 mph
in either an urban or a rural arra, or %hen the intersection lies within
the built-up area of An iodated community having a population of less
than 10.000. the Interruption of Continunus Traffic warrant is 70 per-
cent of the requirements above.
Warrant 3, alinimum Pedestrian Volume
.The Minimum Pedestrian Volume warrant is satisfied when, for each
of any A hours of an Sverige day, the following [raffle volumes tint
1. On the major street. rMl or more vehicles per hour enter the
intersection (Local of both approaches): or where then is a raised mt-
dian idaml a feet or more in width, 1,000 or more vehicles per hour (total
of both approaches) enter the intersection on the major strtet and
2 During the same A hours vain paragnph (1) then are 150 or mon
pedestrians per hour an the highest volume crosswalk crossing the ma-
jor nurser.
When the m pe contile speed of major-Atreet traffic exceeds 40 mph
in either an urban or a rued ares. or when the intersection lies within
the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of lens
than 10.000, the Minimum Pedestrian Volume warrant in .0 percent of
the requirements above.
A signal installed under this warrant at an iAalate,l Intersection
should be of the trufrrc•uetuatrl type with push buttons for pe,lestians
crussing the main strveL it such A signal is installed At an intersection
within a signal system, iL should be equipp,nl and operate,) with control
,Itrices which provide proper coordination.
Signals inaWled according to this warrant shall be equipped with
prdestrian indications conforming to requirements set forth in other
sections of this Manual.
Signals may be installed at nonintenection locations (mid -block) pro-
vide( the requirements of this warrant are met, and provided that the
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, courdinution, and
installation must conform to standards set forth in this Manual. Special
attention should be given to the signal head placement and the signs and
markings used at noninterstctfon locations to be sure driven are aware
Of this tyecial application.
Intersection does not comply.
(See attachment 82)
Intersection does not comply.
(See attachment /3)
/P0
i
Warrant A. School Cru+sina
A trufnc control signal may be warranted at An emabli.hed schunl
crnn.ing when a traffic engineering study of the frequency and Ade-
quacy of gaps in the vehicular traffic stream us related to the number Intersection does not comply.
:md site or groups of school children at the school cros.mg shuws that
the number of adequate g•tps in the traffic stream during the perlutl
when the children are usinv the erasing is less than the numbnr of
nnnutea in the, same penal (sec. 7A •:n.
When traffic control <ignals are in.tallnl entirely under this wArr�nt:
I. Pedestrian Indications %hall he provide.l at leu.t for each cross.
wall, emut,1 N11ed us • !choral cru.sing
'S. At an intersection. the .ignal normally shun6l be trufric accuxtvd-
As a minimum• it shuuid be semi•trufnc•actuated, but full actuation with
detectors on an apprmches may be drsirable. Inter.ectiun installations
that can be fitted into prugressive signal systems may have pretimed
control.
3. At non -intersection cros.ings. the signal should be pedestrian -
actuated, parking and other obstructions to view should be prohibited
for At lease loll feet in advance of and 20 rest beyond the crosswalk, and
the installation should include suitable s:andur:l signs and pavement
markings. Special police supen•isdon anllor enfurtement should be pro-
vided for it new non-inter•wctiun instailution.
Warrant S. i'n:xressise Mnsemenl
rrogrea.iva movement enntt•ul enmetirue% necessitates traffic signal
in.Lllatiuns at inter.ectiun. where they would not otherwise be war•
ranttwl, in order to main6tiu pngw•r grouping of vehicles mol effectively
rex7datr grimy spetel. The I'npreii.tye 1Ln•enent w:u•nnt is citit'n"I
w hen.
1. lla a our•.wr• arn•t or a nU•ert whish Ivo p:v+luatioaullr• uuidin•a••
Intersection does not comply.
timed trafnc. the mijuvrnl .igmtls are ett rar :ltut that they dw nut
provide the utvarosarc dt•gn+• tar vrhirlr pl:tuemiug ad .14191 cunll'nl. rar
2. On a two -war straet. adjacent signals do not provide the neves.
Bary degrre of plawoning and speed control and the proposed and ulja-
cent signals could constitute a prultre%sive signal system.
The installation of a signal according to this warrant should be bused
on the M -percentile spawl 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
fee'—
Warrant 6. Accident E%perienee
The Accident Experience warrant Is satisfied when:
1. Adequate trial of less restrictive remedies with satisfactory ob-
servance and enforcement has failed to reduce the accident frequency;
and
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•
ent extent of SI00 or more; and
1. There exists a volume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic not less
than N percent of the requirements spvcined either in the Minimum
Vehicular Volume warrant. the Interruption of Continuous Traffic war•
rant. or the Minimum pedestrian Volume warrant: and
1. The signal installation will not seriously disrupt progressive tnf-
neflow.
Intersection does not comply.
(See attachment 04)
/91a
Any traffic signal installed solely an the Accident Experience war•
rant should be semi•traffir•aetuated (with control devices which provide
Proper coordination if installed at an intersection within a cnurdinated
system) and normally should be fully traffic -actuated if installed at an
isolated intersection.
Warrant 7, Systems Warrant
A traffic signal installation at some Interseetions may be warranted to
encourage concentration and urganiutiun of traffic now 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 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
i
following characteristics:
1. It is pan of the street or highway system that serves as the
principal network for through traffic now;
2 It connaeti areas of principal traffic generation;
3. It includes rust or suburban highways outside, entering or lra•
cersing a city;
e. It has surface street frerway or rsprersway ramp terminals;
5. It apprars as a major route on an official plan such as a major
street plan in an urban area traffic and tranalwnation sturdy.
Warrant N. Combination of Warrants
In •ac.ptionai csses, signals occasionally may be justified where no
single warrant is satisnerl but where two or more of Warrants 1. 0_ and
3 are satisfied W the eatrnt of Bra percent or more of the stated values.
Adequate trial of other remedial measures which cause less delay and
i inconvenience to traffic should precede installation of signals under this
l warrant
Intersection does not comply.
Intersection does not comply.
/foe
VEM69CLE 'VOLUME
GRAPHIC SUMMARY SHEET
Location maz..no T¢ax�4FNT4.^ ... 4t'i . .. Date..z'f. F.F.SS.. ................
/Z3
-.
,Time:........ ................ Hours from
°P.....Aorth 1: y ' .;
N ' . •. ....a.: m. to ....... __...„..A m.
• North F� �
Arrow vi �. ................P.M....
Weather .......................... .._....:...........
M r Road Surface Condition ................. _.
• N -v,) ............................ _..... ............
CZu.K T j zoury;100 1
DlhrYC N
I
i y0lo zoG. a.1caJ '
of 5 � c{•7 i,5 I i
. •� �� /°100
S50/ -s zr eyl
' sow
N u BE.V7bn/ ST
N Ir
N nyh
i N d
N
-. -%•�%rr� .�luin8s.�-t ,ZEPsEN'T P6.tJeSrzirtUS-
VEHICLES COUNTED
• CLASS I OIRCCTION"
All
Pets.
Comm.
Othcr
REMARKS
"`sit DATE'3O-=COMPILED BY
/97d
1
"`sit DATE'3O-=COMPILED BY
/97d
1
INTERSECTION Of MORMON TREK Wlth_BENTON ST
CLASSIFICATION BY
TYPES AND TIME
ACCIDFFaNIT TYPES
sloE
SWIPE
REAR
I END
RIGHT
ANGLE
LEFT
TURN
PEDESTRIAN
BICYCLE
OTHER
6.00AM - 10:00 AM
FATAL
PERSONAL INJURY
PROPERTY DAMAGE
.
TOTAL
10:OOAM - 4:OOPM
FATAL
PERSONAL INJURY
PROPERTY DAMAGE
TOTAL
4:OOPM -7100 PM
FATAL
PERSONAL INJURY
PROPERTY DAMAGE
TOTAL
7;OOPM - 12 MID.
FATAL
PERSONAL INJURY
PROPERTY DAMAGE
TOTAL
12 MIO - 6:OOAM
FATAL
PERSONAL INJURY
PROPERTY DAMAGE
TOTAL
TOTAL
FA TX
PERSONAL INJURY
I
PROPERTY DAMAGE
3
TOTAL
I
3
WEATHER
CONDITION NO OF ACC.
PAVEMENT TIME OF YEAR
CNOTTON NOOF4CC. PERIOD NO OF ACC.
DRY 1 2 1 WIN. (DE.-FEI 2
WET SFR. (MR. -MY,) I
ICY SUM (JE. -AW
FALL(SE.-NO) I
CLEAR 2
CLOUDY
FOG
RAW
SLEET
SNCw
/970
0
COLLISION DIAGRAM
I INDICATE NORTH
BY ARROW
G.T. SOUTH DRIVE
BENTON ST
\ lr�
P
� MOVING
VEHICLE
REAR ENO
D: DRY I: ICY
� BCHIKIN CLE
HEAD ON
W:WET
NEZ""OLM
VEHICLE
SIDE SWIPE
WEATHER
--� PEOESTR" ` UA A A6
OUT OR CONTROL
C: CLEAR F: R00
CM ED
VEHICLE ���
LEFT TURN
S: SLEET R : RAIN
��{
C3 FI%EO OSJEC7
RIGHT ANGLE
CL: CLOUDY
• FATALITY
S: SNOW
0 INJURY DATE:
SEPT 15, 1984 TO
SEPT 15. 1985
INTERSECTION MORMON TREK 2rd BENTON ST
/ 970
i
rd
Y
SIGNALIZATION STUDY Iowa CITY
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING.
DISPLAY OF WARRANT NO. I VOLUMES.
MAJOR STREET: 'nO mlt' 77ta-_ NO.OF LANES: 7 -
MINOR
MINOR STREET: 6'5"7-0. dT NO.OF LANES: /
MAJOR —MINOR
WARRANT COMPLIED WITH.
YES ®NO
AAJ0RIZ PLUS LANES
10°/aMAJ0R(2 PLUS
.ANE!)
70%MAJ0R(ZPLUS
LANES)
IINOR(ILANE)
100/a MINOR(I LANE)
N)%MINORDL.ANE)
80% OF WARRANT COMPLIED WITH.
❑ YES ® NO -
/970
■t
A
milmommilln
I
■�g��3��i.�l�7443iu
XWEIRIMPIX
RN
iiism-1XV!
MAJOR —MINOR
WARRANT COMPLIED WITH.
YES ®NO
AAJ0RIZ PLUS LANES
10°/aMAJ0R(2 PLUS
.ANE!)
70%MAJ0R(ZPLUS
LANES)
IINOR(ILANE)
100/a MINOR(I LANE)
N)%MINORDL.ANE)
80% OF WARRANT COMPLIED WITH.
❑ YES ® NO -
/970
II(
SIGNALIZATION STUDY IFIC E EN "
TRAFFFIC '
GINEERING.
DISPLAY OF WARRANT NO. 2 VOLUMES.
MAJOR STREET: d"Am'na[J 7teC NO.OF LANES:
MINOR STREET: ,8EJ✓r2.12 NO. OF LANES:
MAJOR - -MINOR
WARRANT COMPLIED WITH.
❑ YES ®NO
2 PLUS LANE
%JOR(2PLUS
I
1 LANE)
NOR O LANE
80% OF WARRANT COMPLIED WITH.
C3YES 8 NO 1
/970
NONNI
MEN
oma.
MAJOR - -MINOR
WARRANT COMPLIED WITH.
❑ YES ®NO
2 PLUS LANE
%JOR(2PLUS
I
1 LANE)
NOR O LANE
80% OF WARRANT COMPLIED WITH.
C3YES 8 NO 1
/970
1 1-
SIGNALIZATION STUDY IOWA CITY
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING.
DISPLAY OF WARRANT NO. 3 VOLUMES.
MAJOR STREET: NO.OF LANES: Z
MINOR STREET: NO.OF LANES:
MAJOR ST,
-- --+ PEGS
/EHICLES BOTH MAJi
IPPROACHES
10% OF VEHICLES
IOTH MAJOR
IPPROACHES
:DS XING MAJOR
'R EETS
)% OF PEDS XING
WOR'STREETS
WARRANT COMPLIED WITH. 80% OF WARRANT COMPLIED WITH.
O YES NO O YES ® NO
/97a
milli
Nazism
s�
1111111,
xe
MAJOR ST,
-- --+ PEGS
/EHICLES BOTH MAJi
IPPROACHES
10% OF VEHICLES
IOTH MAJOR
IPPROACHES
:DS XING MAJOR
'R EETS
)% OF PEDS XING
WOR'STREETS
WARRANT COMPLIED WITH. 80% OF WARRANT COMPLIED WITH.
O YES NO O YES ® NO
/97a
TIN
INTEL
AM
6-7
7-8
8-9
9-1
10-1
1 I - li
PM
b - i
3- 4
4 -
5-6
6 - 7
7-8
8-9
9- 1
VEHICLE VOLUME TABULATION
SHEET
INTERSECTION,mo�.nnir•'LM/BEvrn.�s�so.oYe�iva
o,E4.-T'
rLe+s.
DATE
OF
COUNT
TIME INTERVAL
NORTH LEG
SOUTH LEG
EAST LEG
LEFT THRU
RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT
WEST
LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT
LEG
THRU
707AL
6 -7 AM
35 3�1
S �`I 13
3
-1
RIGHT
7 -a
q
17-
1
Ig za8 .58
13
I II3
y
/'f
�i/
.1-53 5°►
1.10)
Lv7
j
-1
78oLi/
U
9 -10
1'8
3
41 co
a -
7
H
a
7-1/
S
�{ 73 `
H - 12
I z I
zlo
I
I 85�
I
15
/p
.S7 5� L
03 it.
z
Co 12/p Zoj
0
/D o► I
13
5
11
d, I �'�
�
I 2
/O !3�
z`%
z Z
Ig0
Iz
13
13
z-a
4
s
!03
o1
z5'
I z
(sJ
i+�I
/SO 20�
q 1-70 3�
/!�� 117
0
�
4 -5
3
3
!O 11
�j
//
0110 a
5-g
/77 z33
/
IS .19
I
6 7
Ito3 5
y
11 1 3 4z
e
z o
z-
zo
z, c>7
_/
13
13
s�z s�
8 - 9
401)
pl Z of �
�
8 85� /K
z8
72-
6
e -10
7/) 1 /D '
—
to lb
c)
(0 1 Z
*+7
z7
/57�
1 z t
z
µZL
/9eo tt3h 3Co
//ov e® Sol Vag
zoo isi7 ''/Y /95 tI/
i9S .ins
O
,
INTERSECTION,
TOW INTERVAL
AM 6 - 6-15
6,15 - 630
6-30- 6,45
6,45- 7.00
7,00-7,15
7,15-7-30
7130- 7445
7-45 -0,00
6-00-8,15
9.15 - 8-30
830 • 845
8-45-9-00
900-9,15
9-15 -9-30
9130-9145
9.45-10.00
VFFllrl c
F4
VEHICLE
VOLUME TABULATION
SHEET
PAGE 3 OF q
INTERSECTION,
•n,.4=nlo rea�c/H��roo
sr/ dl•T
SeWM OQ.
TIME INTERN �L
NORTH
DATE
OF
COUNT,«� ,ess
LEFT
LEG
THRU
SOUTH LEG
RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT
EAST LEG LEG
TOTAL
200- 2-15
s/Z
LEFT
THRU RIGHT
EFTT
THRU
fbGH7
Z z
3
e
2'13 -•2130
2170.2-95
�
167
2145-3,00
3
_S
Z�
/
3
/7S.
3,00-3.15
3
/75
315 -3,30
2-S
z'
.3-530
y
3
igv S
3-30
7'
—
5
/b
3 43
-
- 345
is
345 400
t�c1L
LLD
400
_
- 415
7
7
-7
4-15 - 4130
4-7[a
k
l0
33
Z
Z
-3
z.,M
430
z
- 9+95
`i''Z
SS Z Z �
4 45 - 5 00
5.7
Z qS'1L
—
/
500 - 515
�
J'
414.
SCIS - 530
�8
5
'o
z.'7 ID
5,30-5-45
4-7_
3 so
/Z
Sz zy
S
d7
107—
s
�
Z.17
5-45- s•oo
3z
s
IS
Zid
/I
VEHICLE VOLUME TABULATION SHEET
PAGE q OF q !
INTERSECTION, .»na.sc.✓ i..ae� )xv..w.s,/ M:, sa.o,+ t�z.
DATE OF COUNT 1:✓i'�i�
TIME INTERVAL NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG
EAST LEG WEST LEG
IGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL
LEFT THRU R
6100- 6,15 Zg s
3 `s CL 3S y /8n d
643 - 6130 s �
!o Z V 7 3 Z 5l rZ� s
6-30-6-45 -56
6,45- 7100 3 3d 3 .3 Z zoft !
.300) 3� / s �3 Co 1p 8 33 z .1 5
7100 -7-15 30SBS -
7115 - 7130 3 32 /5/ 3 173
s/
730 - 7145 z/ 30 /s8
7145 - 6100i
Z z. Z7 1
6100- 8,15 / S Zo / a 5 /18
zB 3a — 3 30 !0 8•
6 I5 B 30
------ u
630 - 9-45 ' Z
zz 3 8 /7 S
6145-9-00 /01
�3 Z _
z/ `'1
9.00.915 _
Z3
9,15- 9-50 Zo
s
930 • 9,4s A- Z1J — 3 LS
9445, 10.00 PM // L
September 19, 1985
Bill Ambrisco
6 Ht. Vernon Drive
Iowa City, IA 52240
Dear Mr. Ambrisco:
I am writing to you in reference to•a great concern of numerous Westside
residents in Iowa City. There is definitely a need from the taxpayers viewpoint
for traffic signal lights at the intersection of West Benton Street and Monson
Trek Boulevard.
There have been 13 accidents at this intersection in the past 8 months of
which there has been not only property damage but personal injuries to those
involved. I can cite 5 possible reasons for these accidents.
1) Speeding vehicles in north -south bound traffice on Mormon Trek. There
have been numerous speeding tickets issued on Mormon Trek this past year alone,
as reported by the Iowa City Police Department.
2) There is a large electric pole on the north corner of West Benton/Mormon
Trek intersection, which totally obliterates a view of southbound traffic unless
one advances into the intersection.
3) There is a Quik Trip driveway very close to the intersection where
drivers all too often fail to atop as they are exiting.
4) As one is approaching Mormon Trek Boulevard from West Benton and
preparing to turn after stopping at the present stop sign, it is difficult to
view all 4 lanes of traffic.
5) There is a knoll on Mormon Trek Boulevard, just south of the
intersection. It is a relatively short distance between the knoll and the
intersection. Northbound vehicles come over the knoll, often exceeding speed
limits and approach the interesection as vehicles are making turns from West
Benton. This has proven to be a potentially dangerous situation.
Carelessness of all drivers can also be a reason. But often there are
judgement errors that are made because we all are human. That is my point
exactly. The accidents at that intersection could happen to any one of us.
I know that the Department of Transportation, the Iowa City Traffic
Engineer, and at least one member of the City Council have been notified of this
concern prior to my letter. Car counters have recently been placed on Mormon
Trek and West Benton perhaps to evaluate if criteria for traffic signal lights
are fulfilled. I am told that this is one of 8 warrants that could demonstrate
a definite need for traffic light construction. Certainly that number of
accidents, the thousands of dollars spent on property damage and personal injury
should also be contemplated in this decision. The Iowa City taxpayer would
rather pay for construction of signal lights at $35,000, than pay higher
insurance premiums and other financial and emotional prices due to personal
injury, even death. If for some reason, the traffic engineer and city feel
lights are not warranted, then should not the taxpayers request shed some
bearing on this decision? After all, it is the Iowa Citian who wil be paying
for the lights and he/she knows that when they make the request.
/97e)
-amber 19, 1985
Mr. Ambrisco
Page 2
There can only be an inevitable increase in traffic on Mormon Trek Boulevard
due to the interstate exchange, new residential construction in the Lyle Miller
addition, the Kessler addition, Ty'N'Cae subdivision, Walden Ridge Construction
on Rohret Road, and business construction on Highway 1. More children are using
this intersection on their way to and from the elementary schools and high
school as well as other pedestrians. There are school bus stops near this
intersection, as well.
Before any more accidents occur at this intersection causing property
damage, personal injuries, or even death, and before the City of Iowa City
possibly entertains the thought of a lawsuit for negligence in view of the fact
that it's citizens want a signal light and are willing to pay for 1t, I would
encourage you as a council member to be aware of this problem. I also urge you
to place this issue on an upcoming City Council agenda. The residents of
westside Iowa City will be providing you with a petition of names of those wtio
sincerely feel that traffic lights are a necessity at the Mormon Trek/West
Benton intersection. In addition, we would like to discuss this issue with you
at a future date.
As I said, these tragedies can happen to anyone. I should know. I was
involved in an accident at that intersection on Friday, September 13, 1985 and
my seven year old son and the driver of the other vehicle suffered injuries.
I would appreciate your action on this matter, and will look forward to
hearing from you.
Sincerely, yy��
ks.Uhtta_.. AVtu.tyrci %4
Maureen Swingle, R.N.
4030 Kessler Drive
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
354-1429 Home
356-2876 Work
MS/phm
cc: Iowa City Traffic Engineer
Iowa City, IA
/99V
,■
1
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 11, 1985
To: Charles Schmadeke, Director of Public Works
From: James Brachtel, Traffic Engineer
Re: Iowa Highway 1/Sunset Street Signals - Status
The Traffic Engineering Division is in the process of preparing plans,
specifications and estimates for this signal project. When the plans,
specifications and estimates have been completed, they will be forwarded
to the Iowa DOT. The Iowa DOT will be asked to approve the project for
installation and fund the project as a USTEP project. If a project is
approved as a USTEP project, the State will pay for 50% of the cost of
this project.
If funds can be found in FY86 the project could start in April of 1986. If
funds cannot be found until FY87, the project could be started in July of
1986. The Traffic Engineering Division does not have money in its budget
to fund this project in FY86. Should you have additional questions or
comments, please don't hesitate to contact me.
tp5/6
1971
CITY
OF IOWA CITY
C ` IC CRITER J 10 E. W:SI-NGTON s-1. O4VA CIN C'�V� «_0 ; Zi(„ -
October 18, 1985
Ms. Maureen Swingle, R.N.
4030 Kessler Drive
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Re: Signalization of Mormon Trek Boulevard/Benton Street
Dear Ms. Swingle:
Thank you for your letter of September 19, 1985. The Traffic Engineering
Division has completed its studies of this location. The data has been
compared to the signalization warrants of the Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices. Based upon its studies, the Traffic Engineering Division
is recommending that -signals be installed at the intersection.
The project will be recommended for funding in FY87 and construction in
.the summer of 1986. The City Council will be considering the project in
its capital improvements program deliberations.
Should you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please
give me a call.
Sincerely yours,
N I G. Berlin
City Manager
/sp
cc: City Council-
�9�z
City of Iowa City
�- MEMORA�N UM
Date: October 17, 1985 �x
iTo: Neal Berlin, City Manager `
From: Doug Boothroy, Director of Housing 8 Inspection Services
Re: Recovering Court Costs for Code Violation Charges
The following is a proposal for changing HIS procedures related to dismissal
of court charges.
Background Information
The primary goal of enforcement is to achieve correction of Code violations
as opposed to punishment. E
ordinance in a timely manner bvery effort is made to fairly enforce the
y making good faith efforts to bring notice of
violation to the land owner's attention and offer numerous opportunities to
correct the violation prior to taking any legal action. Bringing legal action
against the violator is resorted to when the violator is no longer coopera-
tive with the City in trying to resolve the violation in a timely manner.
It has been the City's practice to dismiss court charges when a viola-
tor's/defendant's property has been brought into compliance with City codes.
Upon dismissal of the charges, all of -the courtcosts incurred have been
absorbed by the City. It appears that this practice was initiated because
court charges were minimal and the primary goal (i.e. correction) had been
achieved.
Since July 1, 1985, court filing charges have increased for misdemeanor
charges from $8.00 to $20.00 per charge, while civil charges (i.e. petition
for injunctive relief) remain at $60.00 per charge. With increasing court
costs, it is no longer prudent to dismiss charges without making an effort to
recoup these costs.
Proposed Change in Procedure
I propose that in situations where a violator/defendant corrects a violation
butagree or to tto dismiss the hargeshe court date the Citif.thenotfviolator/defendantive the courtcosts agreesntoapayathey
court costs. Notification of this procedure will be given to the vio-
lator/defendant _
uh
theviolationisa t the time fcontact. initial in ind that
orrected andconsiderationis being given to dismissingothe
charges, the violation is still valid at the time the land owner was cited.
Also, the court costs are only a small fraction of the total cost incurred by
the City in preparing a violation for court action.
This policy of not forgiving court costs will be implemented unless I hear to
the contrary. Dave Brown, Assistant City Attorney, has reviewed and approved
this procedure.
bj3/3
/9�3
CITY OF IOWA CITY
CIVIC CENTER 410 E. WASHINGTON ST. IOWA CffY, IOWA 52240 (319) 356-5COD
PRESS RELEASE
October 16, 1985
Contact Person:
Denny Gaimon
Assistant City Engineer
Telephone: 356-5142
On October 21, 1985, the Sumit Street bridge located between Sheridan
Avenue and Walnut Street will be closed to vehicular traffic in order to
facilitate needed repairs to the bridge deck.* Weather permitting,
construction is expected to be completed in two (2) weeks. .
When a City's Debt Ra
Its Costs
By ELAINz Jotn+aty
51off l?,W"110TNL W.u.Srneer Jouwnu.
Two business days before little Sleepy
Eye. Wm., (Population 3.600) was to take
$1.3 mWlon in municipal bonds to market
last June. h9)WS investors SeMce Inc.
announced It was downgrading the town's
long standing singl:A tatla9. Sleepy Eye
wasn't pleased.
Hell no. I dm't agree with them," says
Edwin V. Trcml, the city cierk and tree•
sure!. "It really gave W a grind whet, they
did that to us We tried to explain, but It
was like talking to a brick walL"
The downgrade. to Bawl—which
Mr
TreMJ sroerlyoto'
Ne town's elderly opa in
Its agricWpuat rye—ls expected to eoat
Sleepy Eye more in inreren m M. *......
Go
T-
town with a bill for g1.so0—the coat of pro-
tilYea esD1ain this thviding the ratInt. "I nute to them Nat un.
_ pial. Ea of 3& we're
not Slew Bye'thes" Mr.. inset aria
slap downgrade shows j� s riouusly
titles take their generatabllgatlon debt
ratings, the designations by which lndepen.
dent raun[ agnniq mnruuee a city's ablb
ity to rapaY debt. As a lefientlan of=
credit woctldoer,.rathtp love
much maw visible and necessary in
today's competitive municipal market
lmPafraad aura
to ]set Mody's. a unit of Duo 3t Mad.
sum Corp- a unit off McGraw ,. dowStandard & r�ngRdDM a.
total of 446 municipal rating and up.
graded 175, ib the local officials who sadd.
uutsiY iaard bight rating and mount care-
to
are
hd camWipu to Improve low ansa, the
chaoea �.rrled both political and fmua-
Race p. that fall below Investment
grade—Bea (hoe Moodies) and triPleB
(from S&P)—eliminate as hand buyers
commercial hub and other tssdhttlhas
es. But even a
small dwith ecRae�resultin millions of
dollars worth of additional interest cats
for a large city like Houma. which Issues
3100 MUBM to 3730 million in general -obit,
gatioa bonds a year.
Bram tofhra, m the other hand. will
resound happily to a savings of SU m11Bon
to borrowing oats m a recent bond offer
Ing—the turd[ of an April upgrade to Bu
hom below Invamaat grads
In Houston. Mayor Kathy Whitmire is
facing some political faf raft from the 1964
downgrade which can the city Its vaunted
triple-A rating Moody's now rales It Don-
ble•A•11. Former Mayor 1pde Welch, her
opponent in the coming mayoral election.
cites the downgrade in his campaign liters.
lure and speeches as Indicative of poor fis-
cal management. He says. ,it has an Ira•
pact on deddm•matlng in the baedmaonLL
of America wben Companies look at when
they're gdug to open en office, move their
headquarters or hdld a plot•' Pond".
'It would be foollsb of me to overlook 14"
Mr. Welch says.
ting Falls,
P,��f, fficials Get Mad
fie citydidn't eld Ne top rating with.
out a struggle, Ms. Whitmiresays, When
Moody', said that Houston's two -year-long
mayoral terra, discouraged longterm
plsnaing, the Uty formed a Utl "cora•
Rdttte to eonsider louger terms. And when
Moady's "put pressure" on the mayor to
rape roan, "1 asked Nem, weB, can we
Whirmdee rays Motlody�'s mrealmtMnoncom
mlltal, and Ms. Wnitmlrc decided a lax in•
crew ween'[ warranted.
City officials and financial advisers oars•
ned In recent yeah, inrgely
a rub of highly Publtelzed d
LLve tequlrcd more disclosure
Inforrnatlm by municipalities
Eatinjts of urjtest U.S.
Cities
Gernlabligatlaedabt rating
CITY MOOD" S&P
New York
Baa
BHS+
Ira Angeles
. Aaa
AA
CILIUM
Baa -1
BBB+
Boodon
Aa -1
. AA+
PWbdsiphla
Has
BHB+.
DwrW
Ba
BB
Dar
Asa
AM
BaaDkp
As -1
AA
Pbgalx
Aa -1
AA;
So Ass als
Aa
AA+
a..wsYdry wan C. a...
AM they encourage greater adherence W
the firs•yar Plana and generally accepted
o peledpiss
demanded of puhBc
"We. ss welLas other titles. are spend -
Ing a whole Ira or money to maintam
Wake. bring in external auditors and In-
stall computerized system for accounting,
payroll and intomLLtlm management.••
rays Phillip G Alien, director of finance
for Cleveland, which has climbed back to
Invesimaut halt in grade after a 31S million de.
Yet, the rating protea n mains by na..
ture anblgaons—and the subject of torsi•
derable second•guessing and critictsm It's
difficult W find a city official who doesn't
hetleye slut mafiosi blanc play a role.
Robert E. Whelan. cam Oar of Buffalo,
N.Y.. says the city would have at least an
A rating but for the
agencfe' blas against
Nartheasem industrtat Cities. (It Is cur,
reutlY rated Ba by MoodY.sl.
Mom Eye's CampWftt
Mr. Treml of Sheep' Eye says Moodles
analysts Put to much emphasis on the
town's agricultural laeatioa "They looked
at the Midwest altuatlm, Put us in that cu -
ciliary and didn't give a damn about our
past record." he says. "Sometimes I think
Moody, should have an office out here In
the Midwest and get out here and look
around a little bit."
Even Cedar Rapid,, Iowa, a tr1p1eA
since 1972, ls inercasingly concerned That
the stale', severe �arm,data coni )eopar,-
Ire its rating. In response, offtchls have
'stressed that Ne city draws support from
marc than agriculture. Inst year they vis-
ited Chicago and New York to make pre
sentatlons to and answer questions from
analysts and ratio¢•egency personnel.
e Maedy'-a and S&P strongly deny there is
es a regional blas in their ratings. Ratings
e are based on the assessment of Individual
credit characteristics. says Edward Ker.
3 man, an asaittaat vice praldmt in
d Moody's municipal division: One problem,
says Hyman C. Grossman. managing di.
rector of the S&P munidpal•fio nee do-
P&=1134 IA '"Iters isn't as much objet
sive criteria as one would like, and even
objective criteria are open to Interprets.
tion."
Among the variables that S&P factors
Into a rating: The number of crane silhou•
erred on the skYline and the lunch-time
bustle of a city's downtown buslow dal
Met "Now something like that daess't
ahM UPle atatlstlM" but bothare sipg of
economdG.vttallty. a&" Mr. Grosssnm,
'Keep.Your Powder Dry,
Each year S&P analyst; make about 300
Held trips and schedule some ego meeting
In New York. with visiting municipal offi-
UeIs..Moody'a figura are even larger. At
these wslons, officials—with outside a.
social advisers, lead underwriters and
Stas—make their pitches for rating up.
des and try to deflect potential down.
The timing of such requests Is crucial,
since ratings are changed Ntrequentty,
says J. Chester i imao, president of oov
emmrat Finaoee Associates lne., a Lsrloco-
ton, NJ., firm that consults on municipal.
debt Imam "You want to keep your pow
der dry. You don't wear to scream for an
upgrade H your chance is going to be bet•
ter a few years later," he says.
Detml4 the country's only major city
with a rating below inuemnam grade. is
already Preparing for a spring satins with
the rating agencies City officials will base
their presentation on as Improved eon•
omy and two consecutive ymn of budget
surpluses. "You reafiy have to demon•
ante that posting a surplus for one year is
not a gWrk," says Bella 1. Mambafl, fl•
nunce director.
Fhnuncial advisers say that the rating
agencies prefer to see cities whose pitch is
based on belaoesheet deuiLt "A P.R.
campaign can work to your disadvantage,"
Mr. Johnson says
Indeed, some elected officials simply
lack the financial acumen to dW= fiscal
nutters with rang agencies "u we rook
our mayor down there, we'd probably be
downgraded two tome steps." says a h.
nage officer of a Nortbeasern city that
recently suffered a downgrade.
/97S
IT
CAN'T
HAPPEN
HERE"
A Study of
Housing Discrimination
x
Against Blacks
Ui
in the
D Iowa City
w Rental Market
a
a
a
1985
IOWA CITY HUMAN * RIGHTS COMMISSION
1974
F
"IT CAN'T HAPPEN HERE"
A Study of Housing Discrimination
Against Blacks in the Iowa City
Rental Market
Paula Klein
Civil Rights Assistant
City of Iowa City
1985
This research was funded by a grant from the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development, which is not responsible for the findings or
conclusions of the author.
0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to thank Phyllis Alexander,
Civil Rights Specialist for the City of Iowa City,
for her direction, patience, and support for this
project. Thanks also goes to the Assistant City
Manager Dale Melling for his constructive criticism
and help throughout all stages of the audit.
A special thanks to the eight people who spent four
months working as. housing auditors, often in
emotionally -trying circumstances. Without their
commitment of time and effort, this study would not
have been possible.
■
1
INTRODUCTION
'a
Despite the increased scope of non-discrimination laws and the heightened
awareness of racial prejudice generated by the civil rights movement of the
1950's and 1960's, unequal access to housing continues to be a fact of life
for Blacks, Latinos, Native Americans and other people of color. Studies
conducted by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development from 1979
through 1984 shows ?e existence of housing discrimination to be widespread
across the country. Recent studies conducted in cities such as Houston,
Boston, Phoenix, Denver and Greeley, Colorado, and Council Bluffs, Iowa,
indicate clearly that in the 1980's there continues to be a separate housing
market for whites and for people of color.
In June, 1983, the Iowa City Human Rights Commission hired a half-time Civil
Rights Assistant to address specifically the issue of fair housing in Iowa
City. The Commission was receiving an average of three housing complaints
per year and it was felt that either because of fear of retaliation, miscon-
ceptions about the complaint process or a widespread belief that "discrimina-
tion doesn't happen here," people were simply not coming forward to talk
about unfair treatment. A public relations outreach campaign was mounted
from September 1983 through January 1985 using public service announcements
on radio and cable television, newspaper ads, brochures, newsletters, posters
and speaking engagements to inform the community about housing discrimination
and the Commission's role in investigating alleged incidents of unfair
practices. While the issue of fair housing definitely became more visible in
Iowa City, there was not a substantial increase in the numbers of complaints
filed.
It was the sense of the Commission that, while housing discrimination does
occur in Iowa City, where Blacks, Latinos, and other minority groups make up
approximately 5.5% of the population, it is subtle and therefore not always
obvious to those who are victims of different treatment. It was decided that
the Civil Rights Assistant would conduct an audit of race discrimination in
the Iowa City rental market from January 1985 through May 1985 as part of a
statewide audit being implemented by the Iowa Civil Rights Commission in Des
Moines.
SCOPE OF THE STUDY
Iowa City is a University community of approximately 50,500 population
located in the southeast corner of Iowa. Blacks, Latinos, Asian and Pacific
Islanders, and Native Americans comprise 5.5% of the population. Blacks
alone make up roughly 2% of the community. The rental market in Iowa City is
---------------
1See: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Measuring Racial
Discrimination in American Hou sin Markets, Washington, .: U.S.
Government rim ing ce, , an ew urger, Harriet, U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development, Recent Evidence on Discrimination in
Housing, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government r n ing Office, 1984.
/97G
P�
large because of the presence of the University of Iowa and most people of
color rent their places of residence. There are no neighborhoods in the
community that are made up predominantly of one or another minority group.
The Commission's study measured discrimination against Blacks in the rental
housing market of Iowa City. Three types of discriminatory practices were
measured:
1. Availability - Differences in the information offered to Black and White
apartment seekers by landlords and apartment agents. Was the advertised
unit said to be available? Did the agent offer other units as possibili-
ties? How many units were offered for inspection?
2. Terms and Conditions - Differences in terms presented to Black and White
apartment seekers as a condition for renting a unit, i.e. rent, damage
deposit, lease requirements, applications and references related to
employment, credit or past housing situations.
3. Encouragement and Incentives - Differences in tangible incentives offered
and friendliness expressed to Black and White apartment seekers as a !
means of encouraging them to rent a unit.
t i
Apartment units included in the study were efficiencies, 1, 2 and 3 -bedroom !
units in complexes, 1 and 2 -bedroom units in older homes, 1 and 2 -bedroom
duplexes, and 1 and 2 -bedroom houses. Samples were drawn from the City's two J
local newspapers on a weekly basis and an attempt was made to audit units
equally in all areas of the city. The price range of units included in the
study was $175 to $650.
METHODOLOGY
Letters describing the Human Rights Commission's study and asking for
applicants to work as auditors were sent to the University of Iowa Drama
Department, the Protective Association for Tenants, the Chicano -Indian
American Culture Center and the Black Law Students Association. The criteria
used in hiring auditors were:
1. understanding of and support for fair housing principles;
2. experience as a renter;
3. car ownership and mobility;
4. comfort with role-playing and acting;
5. ability to make a 5 -month commitment to the study.
Two Black females, two Black males, two White females and two White males
were hired to pose variously as single renters, same-sex roommates, or
mixed -sex married couples. A training session was held in which auditors
were familiarized with fair housing laws, the use of testing and auditing for
housing discrimination and its legal status, and the forms required for
recording each audit thoroughly and accurately. Auditors then participated
in role-playing so as to develop some comfort with different "apartment
hunting" situations.
197a
I
II
-1 le
3
An audit team consisted of one Black and one White auditor, or one Black pair
and one White pair. Team members were given identities and were matched for
sex, age, marital status, income, employment status, type of housing desired,
and their reasons for relocating. The Black member of each team appeared
slightly more desirable in terms of stability and income than the White
member in an attempt to eliminate the possibility of different treatment
based on factors other than race. The Black auditor would call and make an
appointment to view an apartment and was followed within 24 hours by the
White auditor. Auditors were encouraged to do everything possible to follow
each other within 2-4 hours.
After each site visit, auditors would fill out, sign and date a set of
standard forms and meet with the study coordinator for a debriefing session.
Team members were instructed not to discuss their experiences with each other
and to complete their forms separately.
i
A complete audit consisted of a site visit by both members of the audit team.
Auditors performed between three and four audits per week and were paid $15
for each completed audit.
Using the information recorded on the completed forms and received verbally I
in the debriefing sessions, the coordinator was then able to record the
details of each auditor's experience and compare treatment in the three areas
being measured. '
1
Audits in which an agent or landlord could not be reached, or where an agent i
or landlord failed to show up for a scheduled appointment, were not included
in the data.
THE LEGAL STATUS OF TESTING AND AUDITING
Where testing and auditing2 have been used by fair housing agencies and civil
rights commissions, there has inevitably been controversy about its legality.
Landlords often view auditing as entrapment and as an unethical means of
gathering information. Yet time and again the courts have upheld auditing
and testing as a legitimate practice in fair housing work and have even
i
recognized its importance in the enforcement of non-discrimination laws.
The Supreme Court ruled in 1982 in Home vs. Havens Realty P.H.E.O.H. 15, 413
that testers are instrumental in the enforcement of fair housing laws and
that they have the right to sue as private citizens. In U.S. vs. Wisconsin
supra, the court struck down a state statute that made testing punishable by
a fine, saying further thattoprohibit testing serves to "chill the right to
equal housing opportunity."
i
I
---------------
2Testing is a practice whereby a person is sent out to pose as a renter or
homeowner to "test" a specific alleged incident of discrimination. i
§uditing is a generalized study of a rental or real estate market.
Included in over 15 court rulings that support the use of testing and
auditing are Johnson vs. Jerry Pals Real Estate (CA -7), U.S. vs. Youritan
370 F. Supp. 651, Zuch vs. Hussey, 394 F. Supp. 1028, and Northside Realty
Associates vs. U.S., 605 F.2d 1348.
4
Testing is not entrapment in that a person posing as a renter is not enticing
or encouraging a landlord to violate the law. A valid test or audit is one
in which participants are specifically instructed NOT to make any remarks or
ask any questions that would lead an agent into a discussion of race. Thus,
testers and auditors are simply giving agents an opportunity to act as they
usually do when showing an apartment to prospective tenants.
Auditing and testing have been used successfully by both private fair housing
agencies and state and city human rights commissions across the country.
Studies conducted in Council Bluffs, Iowa, Fayette County, KRntucky, Greeley
and Denver, Colorado, Phoenix, Arizona, and Houston, Texas have all been
instrumental in uncovering patterns of racial discrimination that resulted in
segregation and separation in those cities.
RESULTS
Between February 3, 1985 and May 17, 1985, 93 audits were conducted in the
Iowa City rental market using Black and White auditors. Table 1 shows how
often each of the ten types of structures were audited and in what areas of
the city.
TABLE 1. Number of Audits by Unit Type and Location
Unit Type North South East West Total
Efficiency/complex
2
0
0
2
4
Efficiency/house
5
1
0
0
6
1 BR/complex
6
5
0
9
20
1 BR/duplex
0
1
0
1
2
1 BR/house
6
5
0
1
12
2 BR/complex
3
7
1
10
21
2 BR/duplex
2
9
1
1
13
2 BR/house
4
1
1
1
7
3 BR/complex
3
1
0
1
5
House
3
0
0
0
3
Total Audits
34
30
3
26
93
---------------
4See "'Don't Tell the Civil Rights People': A Study of Discriminatory
Sales and Rental Practices Toward Blacks in the Housing Market of Council
Bluffs, Iowa." Iowa Civil Rights Commission, Des Moines, Iowa, 1978.
"Apartment Discrimination Declines by Half in Fayette County, But Occurs
in One Out of Four Apartment Seekers," Staff Report, Kentucky Commission
on Human Rights, 1981. "Discrimination, Segregation and Minority Housing
Conditions in Sunbelt Cities," A Study of Denver, Houston and Phoenix,
Colorado Civil Rights Division, Denver, Colorado, 1983. "Testing for
Housing Discrimination Against Blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans in
Grand Junction and Greeley, Colorado," Colorado Civil Rights Division,
Denver, Colorado, 1985.
/q7G
5
The availability of rental housing on the east side of Iowa City was limited,
perhaps because there are generally more single-family homes in that area.
Thus, the majority of the audits were fairly evenly divided between the
north, south and west sides of the city. In 91 audits, the landlords or
housing agents encountered were white. In one audit, the apartment manager
was Black and in another the landlord was from Asia.
Out of 93 audits, auditors reported 39 cases of different treatment by
landlords and agents, or a 42% rate. In all 39 instances, Black auditors
were treated less favorably than White auditors, whether in quantity and
quality of information given, terms and conditions quoted, incentives offered
or a combination of these factors. Table 2 shows the frequency of different
treatment by unit type and area of the city.
TABLE 2. Different Treatment by Unit Type and Location
Unit Type North South East West Total
Efficiency/complex 1 0 0 1 2
1 BR/complex 2 3 0 4 9
1 BR/house 2 3 0 0 5
2 BR/complex 1 3 1 4 0
2 BR/duplex 2 4 0 0 6
2 BR/house 3 0 0 0 3
3 BR/complex 2 1 0 0 3
Nouse 2 0 0 0 2
Total Audits 15 14 1 9 39
As can be seen, 47% of the audits conducted on the north side of Iowa City,
46% on the south, 34% on the east and 34% on the west involved less favorable
treatment of Black renters.
Table 3 shows how often different treatment occurred in the areas of availa-
bility, terms and conditions, and incentives. In the majority of the 39
cases, the treatment recorded by Black auditors was a combination of all
three factors.
TABLE 3. Incidents of Different Treatment:
Availability, Terms and Conditions, and Incentives
3A. Availability Black White
i of times agent denied 1 0
the unit was available
9 of time agent showed auditor 10 0
fewer units than were shown to
other auditor
9 of times agent offered to 1 12
show additional units
1974
I
r
y.
6
3B. Terms and Conditions Black .White
# of times agent quoted a higher 6 0
price for rent than was advertised
or quoted to other auditor
it of times agent quoted higher 1 0
price for deposit than was
quoted to other auditor
3C. Incentives Black White
# of times agent appeared 26 8
indifferent or hostile
! of times agent offered B 16
auditpgr a deal on rentor
lease
A of times agent offered to 4 6
fix up a unit for auditor
t of times agent inferred that g 0
a unit may be undesirable
! of times agent made overt 2 1
racial. remarks
Results indicate that a significant amount of the time, Black apartment -
seekers in Iowa City encounter more obstacles than white apartment seekers,
and that far from manifesting itself in blatant "no Blacks" policies,
discrimination in this community takes on subtle, less readily -obvious forms.
The following are some examples of the situations encountered by auditors in
the course of the project:
1. At an apartment complex in the downtown area advertising 2 and 3 -bedroom
units, Black auditors were shown one occupied 3 -bedroom apartment and no
2 -bedroom units. The agent told them that only one 3 -bedroom unit would
be available, that the rent was $650 and that she would give them an
application "later" if they were interested. The next day the same agent
showed the White auditors both 2 and 3 -bedroom apartments, occupied and
unoccupied, offered them floor plans and information on the different
features of each and told them that a number of units were available. The
agent told the White auditors that rents were $545 and $560 per month.
2. The owner of an apartment complex on the south side of the city simply
opened the door of a one -bedroom unit for the Black auditor, telling her
only that it was small and when it would be available. When the White
---------------
5Such as one month rent-free, a tailored lease or ability to pay the deposit
in installments.
/9yG
I
I
r
y.
6
3B. Terms and Conditions Black .White
# of times agent quoted a higher 6 0
price for rent than was advertised
or quoted to other auditor
it of times agent quoted higher 1 0
price for deposit than was
quoted to other auditor
3C. Incentives Black White
# of times agent appeared 26 8
indifferent or hostile
! of times agent offered B 16
auditpgr a deal on rentor
lease
A of times agent offered to 4 6
fix up a unit for auditor
t of times agent inferred that g 0
a unit may be undesirable
! of times agent made overt 2 1
racial. remarks
Results indicate that a significant amount of the time, Black apartment -
seekers in Iowa City encounter more obstacles than white apartment seekers,
and that far from manifesting itself in blatant "no Blacks" policies,
discrimination in this community takes on subtle, less readily -obvious forms.
The following are some examples of the situations encountered by auditors in
the course of the project:
1. At an apartment complex in the downtown area advertising 2 and 3 -bedroom
units, Black auditors were shown one occupied 3 -bedroom apartment and no
2 -bedroom units. The agent told them that only one 3 -bedroom unit would
be available, that the rent was $650 and that she would give them an
application "later" if they were interested. The next day the same agent
showed the White auditors both 2 and 3 -bedroom apartments, occupied and
unoccupied, offered them floor plans and information on the different
features of each and told them that a number of units were available. The
agent told the White auditors that rents were $545 and $560 per month.
2. The owner of an apartment complex on the south side of the city simply
opened the door of a one -bedroom unit for the Black auditor, telling her
only that it was small and when it would be available. When the White
---------------
5Such as one month rent-free, a tailored lease or ability to pay the deposit
in installments.
/9yG
I
7
auditor came to view the apartment four hours later, he escorted her
through the rooms, talked with her about other tenants, showed her the
laundry room and offered to give her the month of February rent-free.
3. During the initial phone conversation with the Black auditor, the agent
for a northside building offered three possible apartments and said she
would check with an upstairs tenant about viewing his/her unit as well.
When the agent arrived for the appointment, she assumed a White woman
standing nearby was the apartment -seeker and acted diconcerted when the
Black auditor introduced herself. The agent then escorted the auditor to
the advertised apartment but offered her no information, said nothing
about other available units and did not mention the upstairs tenant she
had supposedly called. The next day the White auditor was shown the same
apartment, told about the lease, utilities and amenities, and was offered
the use of furniture the agent had available.
4. The owner of a house on the northeast side who was renting a basement
apartment told the Black auditor as soon as she stepped through the door
"this is probably not what you're looking for" and was very negative and
discouraging about the apartment. The owner told the auditor "I'm sorry
that things didn't work out and you're not interested" even after the
auditor stated that she liked the apartment and was interested. Three
hours later the owner was extremely friendly and solicitous towards the
White auditor and offered to call her at work that evening to find out
whether she wanted to move in.
5. When the Black auditor entered the office of a complex on the south end
of town, the owner told his secretary to show her the unit advertised.
The secretary acted exasperated, made no eye contact with the auditor and
gave her a silent showing. When the White auditor came to the office,
she was greeted by the owner and the secretary and the owner showed her
the apartment himself. He explained all the amenities, gave her his and
his son's phone numbers and introduced her to another tenant so that she
could ask about utility costs.
CONCLUSIONS
Since 1984, Iowa city has had one of the most comprehensive and inclusive
non-discrimination laws in the country. The Iowa City Human Rights Ordinance
states that it is illegal to discriminate in housing because of race, color,
creed, religion, national origin, age, sex, disability, marital status,
sexual orientation, presence or absence of dependents, or source of income.
The Iowa City Human Rights Commission and its staff in the Civil Rights
Division have an effective means of enforcing the ordinance through investi-
gating and conciliating discrimination complaints.
Because of the small population of people of color in Iowa City, coupled with
the lack of racially -segregated neighborhoods, there has been a tendency to
dismiss the possibility that racial discrimination in housing can or does
happen here. Yet, our study indicates that Black apartment seekers in Iowa
City encounter higher rents, fewer options, and an indifferent or hostile
reception from landlords more often than do White apartment seekers.
07G
U
The personal fears that lie at the root of prejudice and discriminatory
practices cannot easily be confronted or dispelled by ordinances and legisla-
tion, but the damage done to those who are the victims of such prejudice can
be minimized by the rigorous enforcement of fair housing laws. It will
require an aggressive and highly -visible stance on the part of the Human
Rights Commission and the City Council, along with the willingness of the
community to reassess its image as a place where discrimination does not
operate, to make fair housing a positive aspect of life in Iowa City.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Iowa City Human Rights Commission makes the following recommendations
to the City Council for confronting housing discrimination in Iowa City:
1. The City should use testing as a routine procedure in investigating
complaints of housing discrimination. The City should make known its
intent to file complaints under its own power where testing has shown
proof of discrimination.
2. The City should educate the public about the procedures involved in
filing a housing complaint. Such education could take the form of public
service announcements on radio and television, articles and advertise-
ments in the newspapers, a bus poster, dissemination of brochures to
groups and community organizations, and public speaking engagements.
3. The City should actively pursue the implementation of workshops and
in-service training on fair housing with the Apartment Owners' Associa-
tion and the Board of Realtors.
4. The City should continue to keep records of the inquiries received about
possible incidents of housing discrimination, as well as formal com-
plaints, so as to support the need to continue its fair housing work.
5. The City should work with local .groups to make more visible Blacks,
Latinos, Native Americans, Asians and other racial/ethnic groups in Iowa
City. Information on the demographics, professions and other character-
istics of racial minorities should be disseminated so that the community
is aware of who are "citizens of color" and what are their contribu-
tions..
OZO