HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-10-25 Public hearingA�
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE
DISPOSITION OF VACATION ITEMS V-8301 (ALLEY
RIGHT-OF-WAY BETWEEN LINCOLN AVENUE AND
VALLEY AVENUE); V-8303 (ALLEY RIGHT-OF-WAY
ABUTTING THE REAR OF 522 SOUTH DUBUQUE
STREET) AND V-8304 (DES MOINES STREET RIGHT-
OF-WAY).
Notice is hereby given that a public
hearing will be held by the City Council of
Iowa City, Iowa, at 7:30 p.m. on the 25th
day of October, 1983, in the Council
Chambers in the Civic Center, 410 E.
Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa; at which
hearing the Council will consider the
disposition of three parcels of vacated
public right-of-way which include an alley
right-of-way located between Lincoln Avenue
and Valley Avenue, an alley right-of-way
abutting property located at 522 South
Dubuque Street and a portion of the Des
Moines Street right-of-way located
immediately west of Gilbert Street and north
of the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific
Railroad tracks. This notice is given
pursuant to Chapter 362.3 of the Code of
Iowa, 1983.
4' 7�2
Mar an K. Karr, City Clerk
J
3036
L1 -
j
City of Iowa Cit
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 19, 1983
To: City Council
From: Bruce A. Knight, Associate Planner
Re: Disposition of Vacated Parcels of Public Right -of -Way
In accord with the City's standard procedure for disposition of property,
appraisal reports have been completed on three parcels of vacated public
right-of-way. The parcel locations and appraised values are as follows:
1. The north -south alley right-of-way located between Valley Avenue and
Lincoln Avenue. (V-8301)
4,040 square feet at $5 per square foot = $20,200
Rounded to $20,000
2. Alley right-of-way abutting the rear of the property located at 522
South Dubuque Street. (V-8303)
800 square feet at $1 per square foot = $800
3. Des Moines Street right-of-way located immediately west of Gilbert
Street. (V-8304)
4,935 square feet at $0.25 per square foot = $1,234
Rounded to $1,200
The applicants for the above vacations have all expressed interest in
purchasing all or part of the property in question. In addition, interest
in purchasing a portion of the vacated right-of-ways has been voiced by
other adjoining property owners. The applicants for all three vacation
items, and all property owners adjoining the vacated land have been
notified of the land values arrived at by the appraiser and the date of
the public hearing.
bj3/5
3036
i
Ci
kV
l
City of Iowa Cit.
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 19, 19
To: City Coun
From: Don Schm rector, Planning & Program Development
Re: Roomers Ordinance
At the October 11, 1983, meeting of the Council, the ordinance regulating
roomers was revised to delete sections referring to multi -family
residential zones. The Council expressed three concerns:
1. The elderly, who supplement their incomes by renting out rooms, would
be adversely affected by the ordinance.
2. A lower-cost, alternative form of rental housing would be
significantly decreased by the ordinance.
3. A problem existed in single-family zones, in which single-family
houses were being converted, practically speaking, to rooming'
houses.
In making the revisions, it is the staff's understanding that the Council
intended to address the problems specific to single-family zones by
decreasing the number of roomers allowed in those zones and to provide for
the elderly and alternative housing by leaving the multi -family zones with
the roomer density currently permitted.
However, due to the structure of the Zoning Ordinance, the action of the
Council on October 11th did not carry out this intent. The Zoning
Ordinance is pyramidal in structure, i.e. the uses permitted in the less
dense zones are permitted in the progressively higher density zones.
Therefore, if two roomers are permitted in duplexes in an R2 zone, then
duplexes in R3B zones are permitted only two roomers, unless specified
otherwise.
The attached chart outlines the differences between what is permitted for
each use in each zone under the current ordinance, under the ordinance
given first consideration on October 11, and under a revised ordinance
attached.
The revised ordinance addresses three technical points:
1. Consistency between single-family and duplex uses in the R2 zone;
2. Maintaining exactl the number of roomers currently permitted in
multifamily zones for single-family and duplex uses; and
3. Increasing the number of roomers in the RNC -20 zone to conform to the
other multi -family zones.
3039
2
The first two points are revisions to carry out the intent of the Council
within the context of the current Zoning Ordinance structure. The third
point is to provide consistency within the ordinance. If you compare
column I in the chart (current ordinance) with column 3 in the chart
(revised ordinance), you will find that the number of roomers permitted in
single-family and duplex zones is reduced by one roomer and that the
number of roomers permitted in the multi -family zones remains the same,
with the exception of the RNC -20 zone.
bdw3/7-8
3031 ,
r,
1 '
I
ROOMERS PERMITTED UNDER CURRENT AND PROPOSED ORDINANCES
CURRENT 1ST CONSIDERATION ORDINANCE
R1A/R1B-SF 2 1 1
Single Family (SF)
R2 SF 3 3 2 and Duplex Zones
Duplex 3 2 2
R3 SF 3 3 3
Dup 3 2 3
MF 3 3 3
RNC20 SF 2 2 3
Dup 2 2 3
MF 2 2 3 Multi -family (MF)
Zones
R3A SF 3 3 3
Dup 3 2 3
MF 3 3 3
R3B SF 3 3 3
Dup 3 2 3 j
MF 3 3
3038
C ('
Proceedings to Hold Public Hearing
Iowa City, Iowa
October 25 1983
The City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, met in Regular Session on
the 25th day of October, 1983, at 7:30 o'clock p.m. at the Council Chambers,
in the City pursuant to law, to published notice, and to the rules of said
Counci� a meeting was called to order and there were present David Perret ,
Mayor(R Chair, and the following named Council Members:
Dickson Erdahl Lynch, McDonald Perret
Absent: Balmer. Neuhauser
This being the time and place specified for the adjourned public
hearing on the proposal to issue Industrial Development Revenue Bonds, Series
1983 (Systems Unlimited,..'Inc. Project) in an aggregate principal amount not to
exceed $375,000, Council Member inch moved that the hearing be
adjourned to the 22nd day of November, 1983 at 7:30 o'clock p.m. at the
Council Chambers, in the City. The motion was seconded by Council Member
Dickson The Mayor put the question on the motion and upon roll
being called, the following named Council Members voted:
AYES: Dickson Erdahl Lvnch McDonald.,Perret
NAYS: None
Pro Tem
Whereupon the Mayor/declared the motion carried and the hearing
adjourned to the said time and place.
MAYORPro tem
ATTEST:
DQLA 'il TQ %Al
CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
,3054
11
1
NOTICE OF INTENTION TO ISSUE
Housing Revenue Bonds
(Systems Unlimited, Inc. Project)
The City Council of the City of Iowa City,
Iowa (the "Issuer"), will meet on the 2dtlL
day of October , 1983, at Civic
Center in Iowa City, Iowa, at 7:30
o'clock, P .m., for the purpose of
conducting a public hearing on the proposal
to issue Housing Revenue Bonds, Series 1983
(Systems Unlimited, Inc. Project) of the
Issuer, in an aggregate principal amount not
to exceed $375,000 (the "Bonds"), and to
loan said amount to Systems Unlimited, Inc.
(the "Company"), an Iowa nonprofit
corporation, for the purpose of defraying
the cost, to that amount, of the acquisition
of land and the construction thereon of two
4,000 sq. ft. buildings to be used to
provide housing for the handicapped (the
"Project") to be located at 1918-1924-2004
Hollywood Boulevard, Iowa City, Iowa. The
Bonds, when issued, will be limited
obligations and will not constitute general
obligations of the Issuer nor will they be
payable in any manner by taxation, but the
Bonds will be payable solely and only from
amounts received by the Issuer under a Loan
Agreement between the Issuer and the
Company, the obligation of which will be
sufficient to pay the principal of and
interest and redemption premium, if any, on
the Bonds as and when the same shall become
due.
At the time and place fixed for said
public hearing all local residents who
appear will be given an opportunity to
express their views for or against the
proposal to issue the Bonds, and at the
hearing or any adjournment thereof, the
Issuer shall adopt a resolution determining
whether or not to proceed with the issuance
of the Bonds. Written comments may also be
submitted to the Issuer at City Clerk's
office, Civic Center, 410 East Washington
Street, Iowa City, Iowa. Written comments
must be received by the above hearing date.
By order of the City Council, this
;rd day of Ortnbpr 1983.
City -Clerk
U
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
A public hearing will be held on October 25,
1983, at 7:30 p.m. before the City Council
at the Civic Center, 410 E. Washington
Street, Iowa City, Iowa, to provide
opportunity for the public and Hawkeye
CableVision Corporation to be heard
regarding the latter's requested rate
increase of two dollars per month for basic
cable service and the recommendation made by
the Broadband Telecommunications Commission
upon review of said request that said rate
increase be limited to ninety-five cents per
month. Members of the public may also
respond in writing on the proposed rate
increase by submitting such written
responses or comments to the City Clerk at
the above address on or before October 19,
1983.
MARIAN KARR, CITY CLERK
J
I
NICHOLAS JOHNSON BOX 1676 IOWA CITY IA 52244 319-337-5555
October 23, 19B3
Re: Cable rate.hike
Please share with the other Council Members a copy of
this letter and enclosed statement (in the form of a column
I have authored an the subject) prior to your meeting this
evening, and include it as a part of the record of your
hearing on the matter tomorrow evening. Thank you.
My name is Nicholas Johnson. I serve as a member of your
Broadband and Telecommunications Commission. Because I am so
thoroughly opposed to granting any rate increase as this
time, and because my reasons for doing so are unlikely
otherwise to be brought to your attention, and because I
believe the Council genuinely wants to hear a diversity of
views, I am taking this means of sharing them with you.
The "bottom line" (as they say in the cable biz) is that
the company has simply not demonstrated a case for an
increase. If and when they do so I am not congenitally
opposed to granting one. To insist on a fuller presentation
from them can in no sense be characterized as "anti -cable."
It's just common sense and prudent public business.
Hawkeye CableVision is transferring enormous sums of
money from this community to its parent corporations (ATC
and Time, Inc.) in the name of "expenses." The other
problems are endless, if you really want to pursue them. I
urge you not to grant this "compromise" without doing so. I
hope you find the column useful.
Respectfully,
4,Qq
Nicholas Jo
Ci
4A` Comm eri t Iowa City Press-Citizen—Monday, September 19, 1993
What s 'reasonable for cablo�.
In..,California; rate increases are.based on inflation
formulas npplled Is phone and electric com- _
.. • able companies have wired our cities J antes. The Inveslmenl, capital or "rale
and turned lila spigot. Afoney's [lowing. base" Is calculated. Expenses are examined
Now they want rate hikes.{,
You Install a cable company like a new star- Nicholas for reasonableness. (Customers shouldn't be
eo. You need money and components. Then buying hunting lodges for executives ) A per'
wire It up, plug It In, bistaB an antenna, andtentage "rate -of -return" Is determi ted (not
as high as for
learn how to operate It. Johnson
lioao of that Is easy. But once done, It will Rate of return limes investment Is profit. .
rurt for years with only occasional mande- Add reasonable expenses and that's the total
nance.Cable's the same. tJ customers must pay. Divide by number of
j says cities can't regulate pay-cable rates, Just cable subscribers and that's the yearly rate.
i So what are we paying tor. The costs of em- those for basic service. Sounds easy. A Job for a pocket calculator.
plo�ees carrying our money to the bank — Not quite.
an• return on Investment. After all, $3 million most communities use marketplace compe- Iowa City is a fairly typical cable communi-
In;a mane •market fund would earn, Say, titian to set milk and gasoline prices. That ty, Its company, Rawkeye, Is owned by ATC,
! $2@0,000 a year. Cable's owners expect no less. doesn't work for cable. a table's c a monopoly. In Denver, whlch is, In turn, owned by Time
f 94•What should cable reception cost? Cable So what to dol I! a cable company s lucky,
P It can charge whatever It wants. The fron- Inc., N New York.
601111fnles have franchises, t or contracts, Bawkoyc buys eyo movies from Time —
sp0l(ling out obligations to lila titles. They chlse says so. Or lila city council's too' Its pparent. Ilaw•kcyo borrowed construction
mtlyspecify initial rates. pro-business or overwhelmed to do anything fonds from Time's ATC. Whom do you sup -
But now suppose they want a rate hike — pose It pays for management services? You
fo!•,rff litever reason. Maybe costs hnve gone (The standard ploy Is for the cable company guessed It.
up'; rbfits aren't meetingto ask for twice what It wants and then "com- Ra ed It. s books say nearly $1.5 million of
o her. tcompanieai or pure gwants cash
to acquire prBut tif a city council takes the job seriously, eacse" at half thaW h year. Of l course, ow nATC tw nits tookeep file
ddrds'bnd procedures -should be used? The IL must start with a theory of rate regulation. details of this self-dealing to Itself. "Trust us"
franchlse may not say: I — It can pretend ca le's not a monopoly. they any.
(Customers can buy $5,000 satellite dishes and Meonwldle, Elie cable Indtistry wants Con.
�14 systems offering 30 to 100 channels tall TV towers or go out to the movies.) "Rate gress to ban any local rule regulation. There
charge for "tlers," or packages of service. A regulation" comes from Ute customers' option has to be a better way. Next week we'll look
basic Uei might have 20 channels of conmu- to cancel cable. at one.
ill programming, over -the -air stations, and 2 — It can Ignore profits, assume the origl-
popte free satellite progratps — for under $10 not basic rate was appropriate, and grant rnte If you have questions for Nicholas Johnson,
a month. "Pay cable" services, like NBO's hikes based on the company's Increased costs, write to him at Box 1076, Iowa City, ]own 52244.
GI mbvies, may cost as mush per channel, as all or measures of general Inflation. (A California Nicholas Johnson of Iona City Is a former
O basic channels combland. law uses this Idea.) member of the Federal Comnnnncatfons Coal -
The Federal Communications Commission 3 — It can use conventional "rnte of return" mission and the author of several books.
Comment
.L:.
'own Clty Pre3aC1tlre4—M0nd8Y, October 3, 1663
The case, for -cable co-ops
What's the answer to private profiteer -
Ing Irum
tablet
Recently to looked at the twisted Issues of=Nicholgcable TV rate regulation. The company's enti-
tled toa fair
profit for Its efforts and Invest•nient. But what's fair?
local
;Many companies ate owned by largge
conglomerates. Money flows between them Ilka
cattle through an open gate. Fancy' accounting
creates (or Wdes) "funny money' faster than
You cuumt:288 for paanlug "Go" In a Monopoly
game.
What are reasonable Interest payments on
loans from the parent corporation? What are
reasonable payments for program services It
owns? Are the "management fees" appropri.
ate? Should customers pay for waste and exec-
utives' high living?
;Row can the Interests of cable subscribers be
ptotected when companies demand rate hikes?
Oil :Once city can do la:(1) insist on as much Ment
tial disclosure as possible, (2) hire the public
utility ratemaking experts to look It over and
argue the consumers case, and (3) refuso to
budge until the cable company meets Its burden
of proof.
But isn't there a better way? Davis, Ca lf.,
and Regina, Saskatchewan, think so, It's called
a "cable coop."
:You don't hear, much' about coops, certaWy
not cable coops. They don't advertise much
(they don't have to), and TV programs spon-
sored by conventional corporations aren't
about to publicize them.
A consumers cooperative, or co-op, 1s sim.
Ply a way of gettlhg people together to do bust•
ness better, or chewer, than a for-profit cor-
poration would do If for them.,
Virtually every business Imaginable Is
operated, somewhere, as a coop. There are
coop milk producers and as,
stores, banks
and Insurance companies, oil refineries end fill.
Ing stations, hospitals and bousing.develop-
ments.
Fact 6, you may very' well belong to a coop
without having thought about It. Credit unions
arecoopi .
In many ways, coops aren't that different
from their for-profit competitors. They borrow
money, hire professionals, use computers and
meet payrolls.
The difference Is that those who create and
use the coop are Its shareholders, Its owners.
rof-
It") Is returned to the members.in of Income over ne meor mber
gets one vote, regardless of "shares." Because
owners are also users, their participation In
co-op management Is much more active than
usual shareholders.
Because a co-op's customers are already
members, there's Hills need to advertise to
them.
Eliminating profit, advertfsing, fancy pack-
eging and other frills drives down prices. The
rolled oats my supermarket sells for 72 cents a
Pound are less than half that at my food co.
op.
A cable co-op Is no different. Customers band
together to plan the system, hire the staff, raise
the capital, and reap the benefits, The benefits
areftany.
For 'starters, customers can decide how
many channels, and which programming ser-
vices, they went.
Customers can decide how much money,
equipment, and time they want to put into com-
munity programming channels.
And when It comes time to set the rates,
everything's out in the open. There are no se.
crets; noparent corporatlons syphoning off
profits In the name o 'expenses. ' The coop
either has to cut Its expenses, raise Its isles, or
reduce Its services. And every cable subscriber
gets to vote as to which It wW be.'
Evenwith the National Consumer Coopera-
tive Bank, funding and running cable coops
Isn't easy. Cable companies' political opPosl-
tlon Is formidable. But Davis and Regina (lave
done It. Row about your town?
Send questions to Nicholas Johnson, P.O. Box
1878, Iowa City, Iowa 52244.
Nicholas Johnson of Iowa city is a former
member of the Federal Communications Com.
mission and the author of several books.
u
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
A public hearing will be held on October 25,
1983, at 7:30 p.m. before the City Council
at the Civic Center, 410 E. Washington
Street, Iowa City, Iowa, to provide
opportunity for the public and Hawkeye
CableVision Corporation to be heard
regarding proposed amendments to the
"Broadband Telecommunications Franchise
Enabling Ordinance." Copies of the proposed
amendments shall be available at the office
of the City Clerk at the above -stated
address. Members of the public may also
respond in writing on the proposed
amendments by submitting such written
responses to the City Clerk at the above -
stated address on or before October 19,
1983.
MARIAN KARR, CITY CLERK
i
0
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER
THE PROPOSED 1983 ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP.
Notice is hereby given that a public
hearing will be held by the City Council of
Iowa City, Iowa, at 7:30 p.m. on the 17tH
and the 25th days of October, 1983, in the
Council Chambers in the Civic Center, Iowa
City, Iowa; at which hearing the Council
will consider the proposed 1983 Zoning
Ordinance and Map. This notice is given
...--+ ♦n rh.n4nr AIA A of th. rnd. of