HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-02-22 Info Packetr
1
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM --1
Date: February 19, 1982
To: City Council C'aL
From: Assistant City Manager
Re: Informal Meeting Pending List
Please note that the Pending List of items to be discussed in informal
session has become rather lengthy. This is mainly due to the fact that
most of these items were deferred in order to devote more time to budget
discussions during January and February. Most of these items are in need
of discussion and resolution in the next few weeks. You may wish to
consider the possibility of scheduling one or two additional informal
sessions in order to address these issues. The most desirable
alternatives would be to schedule such sessions for either Tuesday nights
when regular Council meetings are not held or to meet in the late
afternoon once or twice in addition to your regular informal sessions
during the next few weeks.
If you agree that the scheduling of additional meetings is desirable,
please offer your suggestions at the informal meeting on February 22.
-w
bdw5/2 I I
I �
I MIrFAG 11 MFA RV
1_ -
JORMP 'MIC R(�I.A B"' l ,
CEDAR RApI DS • DES MDIIJES
'1 lam,
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 19, 1982
To: City Council
From: Clonager
Re: Update on Block 64
Mr. Ted Strader, a design architect in Mr. Zuchelli's firm, will be in
Iowa City on the 24th and 25th of February to view the site, have discus-
sions with City officials, including members of the Design Review
Committee, and start preparing various design concepts which wi•11 provide
for integration of the hotel and department store on the site. Mr.
Zuchelli's staff has started to revise the prospectus consistent with your
direction. Mr. Zuchelli and Mr. Strader will be back in Iowa City on the
3rd and 4th of March to meet with the City Council, the staff and
prospective project bidders concerning a final decision concept. We may
have to have.a special Council meeting at that time. In the interim Mr.
Zuchelli and the City Manager will continue to contact prospective
bidders. The City has been contacted by a number of parties -expressing
interest in the hotel.
In the interim, if.you have any additional questions or concerns, please
contact me.
bdw/sp
I
L4�
1 uirnnnimm ov
_i
JOR M'-MIQR�LAEl .'
CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES
aqq
i
i
-y
l�
February 18, 1982
I
. 1 �
Ms. Margaret A. Bonney, Chairperson
Committee on Community Needs
1021 Wylde Green Road
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
I
iDear Ms. Bonney:
I indicated at your February 3, 1982, meeting that I would like to
visit with the Committee on Community Needs prior to your meeting
with the Council at an informal session. I brought this matter
before the Council at our February 8, 1982, informal session and
Council members concurred that such a meeting is desirable.
Councilor Larry. Lynch indicated that he would be pleased to attend
that initial meeting also.
In view of my previous involvement with the Committee on Community
.. Needs over the past seven years, the Council feels that I can provide
a valuable historical perspective regarding past activities and
decisions of your Committee. In addition, I would appreciate the
opportunity to provide information and perhaps clarify the Council's
current concerns relating to the funding of various projects. I hope
this exchange will be beneficial to both Council and Committee on
Communty Needs members at the upcoming meeting in informal session. `
I would appreciate your contacting me to schedule a time when I, and
perhaps Mr. Lynch, can meet with your Committee to discuss the issues
related above. I will then advise the City Manager to schedule a
time at an informal Council meeting soon thereafter for Council
discussion of these matters with your entire Committee.
Thank you for your consideration regarding this request.
Sincerely yours,
Clemens Erdahl.
City Council Member
cc: City Council
Jim Nencin
bdw/sp
i
i IATFDIKIIIACn DV `
...... l
JORM..--M IC R#LAB"
I CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES I :�
February 18, 1982
Mr. Nathan B. Hopkins, President
Local 11610, Iowa City Association
of Professional Firefighters
108 Bon Aire
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Dear Mr. Hopkins:
The purpose of this letter is to reply to your letters'of February 9
to the City Council, Larry ' Kinney and Mike Kucharzak. Your
suggestions concerning these matters have previously been considered
and we look forward to receiving your suggestions in the future. The
ability to provide adequate professional training to the Fire
Department is improved by specific positive suggestions which you
might have in this area. We look forward to increasing the level of
professional training so that the Fire Department may provide
aggressive fire fighting, fire prevention, inspection and other
community services.•'
Sincerely yours,
Neal G. Berlin
City Manager
b f/sp
cc: City Council
4iPCIK II IArn PV i
1 L. -JORM - MICR+LAB l
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MDIYES
;r
I
i
kL�
ip
F IOWA CITY ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS
LOCAL 610 Nathan B. Hopkins
President, Local 610
108 Bon Aire
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
February 9, 1982
Ms. Neuhauser
Council Member
Civic Center
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
I am writing on behalf of the Iowa City Association of. Professional
Fire Fighters regarding the projected use of Fire Fighters as
Housing Inspectors.
This is not the first time that the Iowa City Association of
Professional Fire Fighters has addressed the members of the
City Council on this topic.
There is an important point that I feel has been overlooked by
all parties on this impending move. I would like to share this
with you and would hope that you will give what I have to say
the serious thought that it deserves.
My point is to ask you this question -
Do you think that an action wiich will have a negative impact*
on an emergency service (which provides service to all citizens
in the community) taken to have a positive impact on a
non -emergency service (which provides service to a select segment
of the citizens in the community) is a proper and responsible
action to take?
*We base the negative impact on the conditions which resulted
in the last change within the department (elimination of the
Training Officer). At this time hours spent in training
declined affecting performance of the department. We predict
an adverse affect in our ability to provide our prime function
(fire protection) in the event we assume Housing Inspection
duties which will effectively deprive the department of two (2)
Fire Fighters.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
� Nathan B. Hopkin
uvonpn Mrn pv
'..�._ -JORIM-MICR¢LAS - I
( CEDAR RAPIDS DES MDIYES f
r','
301
_;0
ep
F IOWA CITY ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS
LOCAL 610 Nathan B. Hopkins
President;Local 610
108 Bon Aire
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
February 9, 1982
Larry Kinney Fire Marshal
Michael Kucharzah Housing Inspection Services
Civic Center
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Dear Sir;
I would like to brink to your attention a few of the concerns of
the members of the Iowa City Association of Professional Fire
Fighters in connection with the on-going program of instruction
for Housing Inspection.
To date we have received two (2) classes related to housing
inspection duties.
At a recent meeting of members of the Iowa City Association of
Professional Fire Fighters the instruction program was discussed
i as a result of a disturbing report by one of the people acting
as an instructor. To save time allow me to list with comments
our concerns at this time.
1. Frequency of Instruction. It is our contention that with
the present program of instruction we will not receive enough
'in house' instruction to become proficient in housing
inspection duties. For example.the first session consisted
of viewing video tapes which for the most part delt with
the format for the establishment of a housing inspection
service, targeting of neighborhoods, etc. Essentially
wasted time and of little or no use to us.
2. Quality of Instruction. Specifically legal presentation
by Assistant City Attorney. The concensus of those present
was that this person was ill prepared to give a talk on the
legal matters of housing inspection. The talk was disjointed•
and as a result of apparent lack of preparation was not of
much value. The only topic everyone seems to be clear on is
that you will receive a minimum of administrative support
and a maximum of administrative harrassment if you goof -up
in the field. Perhaps the legal aspects of housing
inspection are of some value and if so perhaps the Assistant
City Attorney would care to spend some time in preparing
material(s) and organizing the talk so that it may be
presented in an organized and lucid manner. If indeed the
legal aspects of housing inspection are important this class
should be repeated.
I � i
i
i
'C
F uvonniurn av
J
-� "JORM-MICR4LAE3
CEDAR RAPIDS DES hfD IBES �
.r
Page 2
3. Tone of Instruction. Because of the recent problems with
the Assistant City Attorney we are concerned about the
atmosphere in which instruction is to be given. Essentially
we feel that if there is a lack of 'openness' in the
instruction the program will suffer. Without an 'open'
learning environment critical discussion will not take
place. If an instructor becomes defensive, evades answering
questions that rainees feel are important for their
understanding of phases of their instruction the level of
learning will be reduced. If an instructor refuses to
answer questions a vital portion of the instruction process
will be lost.
4. Instructors. The calibre of instructors should be of
concern. -The last think the program needs is a person
who has a thin skin or delicate ego who will blow up
and walk out during a heated discussion. While we realize
the strain and instructor may be under (either in actuality
or psychological) it is necessary to have instructors who
are cool, calm, collected, and knowledgeable. I guess the
bottom line would be that we need someone with a bit of
maturity.
We will of course tender further comments regarding this phase of
the housing inspection issue as time progresses.
Thank you for your consideration of these matters.
0
Incere
1
a an B� op "ns d
1'
M(ronon urn av
'-JORM-MICR#LAB-
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MDIMES
361
_y
I
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATE: nuary 22, 19�
TO: Mike Kucharzak
FROM: Glenn Siders �rjl
C'/ ?
RE: January 18, 1982 Department Referral
Mike, at your request I have investigated the smoke detector
requirement for mobile homes.
On Thursday, January 21, 1982, I tallied with Mr. Peter Green
with the Iowa Building Code Commissioner's Office. Mr. Green
informed me that the smoke detector requirement has been in
effect since January 1975. He also mentioned that he thought
that most manufacturers actually installed two detectors
instead of just the one that is required.
As you are well aware, mobile homes must carry a State Seal.
A seal cannot be
whichsisdthethout same codelwence of enforce. Iowa State
If ybu need any further information, let me know.
I
__ _ i
111/`011[11 M[I, OV
_-I
1 -'DORM MICRk�L AB' l
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES I
36 OIL)
r
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 9, 1982
To: City Council and City Manager
From: Dale Hell ing, Assistant City Manager
Terry Reynolds, Equipment Supt.
Re: Status of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) System
All Police squad cars have been converted to run on Compressed Natural Gas. We
had intended to start converting some trucks last month, but, due to the
weather, we are behind schedule. We will start on these trucks in the very near
future.
We have encountered some problems with the equipment beyond what we originally
expected with the system. During the winter we have had occasional "icing" in
the compressor unit. We have determined that this problem is caused by the
extremely cold weather in combination with moisture in the system. The moisture
is either coming in the gas or is collected from the compression process, or
both. It has been recommended that we install a methanol injector on the unit to
eliminate the moisture and thus keep the.compressor valves from freezing and
shutting down the system. We will be doing this before next winter. In addition
to the compressor freezing, the "quick fill" valves on the vehciles have frozen
at times due to this same moisture problem. When this occurs, the refilling
process takes an extra two to three minutes to let the fill valve warm up so that
the refilling line may be disconnected. It may also be disconnected by shutting
off the tank valve in the trunk long enough to disconnect the filler line,
taking only an additional minute or so.
On the vehicle side of the system, we have had to replace four gas regulators
(three on one car) due to pin holes in the regulator diaphram. Replacement
regulators were furnished by the manufacturer at no charge. We have found no
reason for the regulator malfunction but the manufacturer is investigating and
will advise us. We have had some complaints of the vehicles "not running right
on CNG." We have found this to be a mixture adjustment on the gas regulator,
much the same as the idle adjustment on a gasoline carburetor, that takes about
five minutes to readjust. We have also had complaints of "not enough power."
This situation only occurs under full throttle acceleration and is helped by
letting up slightly on the accelerator pedal to let the vehicle shift gears. We
have also installed an electronic spark advance unit on one car for test
purposes. This unit automatically changes the ignition's timing when switching
from gasoline to CNG and helps the power problem. We are considering installing
these units on the 1982 Police cars but that will depend on the make and model of
the new cars.
The original installation of the CNG kits took longer than we had thought
because we were using just one mechanic to do the change over. In the future we
Will use a sufficient number of people to get the job done faster and get the
vehicles back on the road. Our goal will be to retrofit three new police
vehicles per week for a 3-4 week complete changover period.
The original estimate on payback for the system was 2.06 years from the start of
service in May 1981. Because of the amount of time consumed in the installation
I
irnn rn urn nv
JORM MICRbLAB-
1
CEDAR RAPIDS DES MDIYES i
I i
303
i
i
til
of the kits and problems with the compressor, the payback period is extended
about twelve months to a total of three years. Any fluctuation in the
difference between the price of gasoline and equivalent natural gas would impact
this figure.
In conclusion, we have had some mechanical problems with the Compressed Natural
Gas system as a whole but we are getting these "bugs" worked out. The idea of
the system is sound and can be cost effective in the future. The final analysis
will reflect not only our success in working out the above problems, but also
the attitude of the employees who use the vehicles. The CNG alternative must be
utilized to a maximum by vehicle operators. This has not occurred in the past `
but we will make every effort to provide a system which can accommodate usage at
or near 100% by the Police Department as well as other future user divisions.
.. i
bj/sp
I
i
}
j 303
_,.
JORMIVIICR;I:AB"
1 CEDAR R4RID5 •DES MDIYES
r
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 19, 1982
To: Neal Berlin, City Manager
From: Bette Meisel, Senior Center Coordinator -
Re: Second Floor Senior Center
There is a space problem on the ground floor of the Senior Center problems is
result not of usage, but rather due to available equipment. The problem
twofold. Ta�cfirst essibles the room fact
thetgame Center. oomBecauseent hes in a Centerioften has no
extremelyause
desknandrann the pen doorrlevel, and beci policy, non -elderly can wander I able
the street and "attractive
the game room equipment. It appears that a pool table is an "attractive
d older people have left
abuse our table games. The cue sticks are all broken an
nuisance" No one ever bothers our equipment in the other rooms, but they do
the game room because young people were using the tables.
The second part of this problem is the fact that wonderful equipment for
lapidary work was donated to the Center.. Because the wood working tools take up
d dirty and smelly so the
would have been fine except that some cutting, etc., is
the major part of one craft room we placethe lapidary tools in the other. That
people working on clean crafts, sewing, crotcheting, etc. now are in the game
room. At this point there is no conflict in scheduling of the game room for
craft classes but obviously the potential is certainly there. Taking bate the
h of
e to mov
the problems into account, table and bumper pool tableatoothe�southon eastht bcorner of the
pool table, ping P 9 ui mbum would then be inaccessible to the general
second floor. The game eq p
Public and the present
or whatever This wouldbe ameanfttiatlthe seniors would
crafts including quilting
oom
be using the northeast corner room for exercise and the southeast corner rd extra janitorial
for games. If only these two rooms are used, we would not beyond this would
neea
hours. Any increase in room use on the second floor
necessitate extra hours on the part of our cleaning staff.
If the Planning Department does not move into the second floor Department wmove in
ould solve
our game room/clean craft problem. If the Planning P „ ace. Rather
there is another possibly more workable solution for "shared space.
ither end of the second floor we could use a
than use the two largest rooms on e
bank of roams on the south side of the building from east to west (see attached).
201 would
209e texehe rcroseroom,
room.oIn�thii way alldsenior activitiem, office s would be
clustered in on area near the restrooms, water fountain
in nthelexercise Planning
would lose offices 208 and 209, however,
comparable. The only City offices eliminated from the scheme are those of 202.
the
housing assistance program which were to havewhocuseet he offices
services ofdHouse
Although it would be nice for the elderly they are, a the negative side,
Assistance to have them right in the building e,
the only city activity being considered for this space with a high percentage
of
nonelderly traffic. for'it through
Since assisted housing prefers grounwouldonotpbeepayingafora duplicate space.
their agreement with HUD, the City
turn that amount of funds to CDBG for the
Also, the City would only have to re
. � u::".Df ::HE4 BY
CORM MIC R�L AB
ti..
J � CEDAR RANI • DES td01 YES
_y
r
Jd
J/
i
1
f
I '
.f
_y
16
fl
percentage of the second floor space which they occupy. Similarly the Planning
Department budget would only be expected to cover the utilities and maintenance
care for the area of the second floor used by them.
As the Council is discussing this matter before the Senior Center Commission
meets again,- I have informally polled the members in town: M. Clover, M.
Kattchee, L. Carlton, J. Williams, A. Arneson and they agree that this appears
to be a workable solution if the Council votes to move the Planning Department
into the second floor of the Senior Center. {
tp4/11
• 11
C 11
i
i
I
i
i
i
1
i
36V
- i
I-JO'M -rvIICR�C"AB-" ....__�._.�
CEDAR RAPIDS •DES MOIRES ,�
Int _ • .. _ � _ _._ �.. .- - - _ 1✓ _ � _ ..il�i_
/RALIIN4
•O'e.O.,MAR. • - IOP �F
se
TRIM G
HCAO-
OT 011. _ - �r�•
)A K. hfbO I� IB•8'
IETROGK
: TRIM c
N8A0.
'RAMC
ILL 6 hTOP•
STOOL
WRTER
M0La1N4
�Al
.A"
Fa4
LLAT
TOI
1
MIiC}I
I
A
(TT/iC.b) "--
S E
C
0 N
D
F
L
0
0
R
P
L A
I"JORM„V•MIC Rl LA6 _1
CEDAR RAPIDS •DES MDINES
aaSt
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 18, 1982
To: Neal Berlin, City Manager
From: Doug Boothroy, Senior Plannerj
Re: Land Acquisition for Extension of Foster Road West
of Prairie du Chien Road
The City Council at their informal meeting of September 8, 1981,
affirmed that Foster Road would follow a more "northerly" alignment
as shown on the attached map. The land acquisition figure of $25,000
shown in the CIP assumes that the City will acquire a maximum of four
acres at $6,000/acre. This property would provide enough land in
order to ensure the greatest locational flexibility for the future
construction of Foster Road. Land not used for the right-of-way
would be marketed to defray some of the City's costs. In accordance
with the comprehensive plan, Foster Road is considered to be a
secondary arterial street and would be constructed with a paved width
of 31 feet back of curb to back of curb with a right-of-way width of
60 feet.
If you require any additional information, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
bc2/11'
_y
3 05'
. u.rnnniurn ov ���
_�.
JOR MMICR+CAF!
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES M0114
and •h Ix. : «:•;.;:...+ ..,•: j::; ; <::': G 9
�,;;:.,�..,:�4.`•i%!i •`,•:fig:>.;�....:> .:
FUMIAOLSIA
Prcviousld�scur
al�rnah'v�
.p .
I. '-
ic)MIC R�LAB J
CEDAR RAPT •DES MDIYES
i
of • -
l
^.,r ; i rte; i�u� �a ti , ��} 1
Date: February 10, 1982
To: Chuck Schmadeke ��%%
From: Frank Farmer WIg
Re: Estimated Overwidth Paving Requirement for CIP Budgeting
Purposes
Overwidth paving agreements already exist for Sunset Street and Aber
Avenue amounting to $8,700 and $15,400, respectively.
Additional streets that require overwidth paving and may be
developed in the near future are Keokuk Street from existing at K -
Mart south to Sandusky Avenue, and Sandusky Avenue continued west
from existing to Keokuk Street. Keokuk Street is now 42 feet in
width and Sandusky Avenue is now 36 feet in width.
There are also other streets that would require paving in excess of
28 feet in width but their development is not foreseen within the 5 -
year time frame for budget purposes.
Listed below are ,the years and budgeted amounts for overwidth
pavement projects.
FY82 $8,700 Sunset Street
FY83 15,400 Aber Avenue
FY84 35,000 $23,000 - Keokuk Street
12,000 - Sandusky Avenue
FY85 • None
FY86 None
FY87 None
bc3/2
j.
� uvonc �i urn ov
I.—DORM...-MICR4� AB_
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOIRES
J�
�r
F,
City of lovas City
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 17 1982
To: Chuck Schmadeke, Director of Public Works
From: Frank Farmer, City Engineerp�
Re: CBD Alley Paving Improvements
Costs that have accrued and estimated future costs for additional improvements for
CBD alley projects are as follows:
CBD Alley Paving Phase I, Blocks 102 and 103 O.T. $29,974.22 completed
10/81
CBD Alley Paving Phase II, Block 82 O.T. $28,737.50 completed 11/81
CBD Alley Paving Phase III, Blocks 65 and 81 O.T. $65,000 to be completed by 7/82
(estimate)
CBD Alley Paving Phase IV, Block 62 O.T. $30,000 to be completed by 7/83
(estimate)
Expenditures FY82 - $123,711.62
FY83 - $ 30,000.00
Total expenditures: $153,711.62
CBD alley paving projects were first introduced as part of the CIP in FY80. The
actual alleys included in this program were not listed in the CIP booklet but were
listed on a CIP worksheet (attached) prepared by the Department of Planning and
Program Development. The alley behind the Press -Citizen (Block 62, O.T.) was
included on that worksheet. Blocks 102 and 103 O.T. were the first alleys
completed as part of this project and never were listed in the CIP. Pages from CIP
referring to CBD alley project are attached.
I have visited with Iowa -Illinois Gas & Electric Company concerning the
undergrounding of electric facilities in the alley behind the Press -Citizen and at
this time they have no plans to do any undergrounding work in the alleys in Blocks
61, 62 or 66 O.T.
The alley behind the Press -Citizen is in very poor condition and does need
reconstruction. Because of driveways, railroad rails, etc., it would be very
difficult and costly to overlay or patch the alley temporarily. If undergrounding
of electric facilities in these alleys is anticipated, Engineering recommends
scheduling the reconstruction of the alley to coincide with electrical
undergrounding. If electrical undergrounding is not contemplated, paving of the
alley in Block 62 O.T. behind the Press -Citizen could be completed in FY83.
bdw3/4
i
IIIfOM 114C0 PV
'1.
RM "'"JO"MIC _LAB- -,
I CEDAR RAPIDS DES MD1YE5
307
01
PROJECTS . TOTAL COST
.FYi980-84
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ALLEY PROJECT
The purpose of this project is to provide for upgrading
and replacement of alleys in the Central Business
District (CBD). Due to extensive streetscape improvements
the alleys serve as major goods delivery areas. The
paved surfaces have deteriorated seriously. The
project cost estimate includes removal and replacement
of deteriorated pavement, removal of encroachments,
and modest aesthetic improvements including security
lighting.
NORTH BRANCH STORM WATER DETENTION STRUCTURE
The purpose of this project is to construct a dry
bottom detention dam to provide for water detention
during heavy rainstorms. Under existing runoff
conditions and based upon preliminary hydraulic
computations, implementation of the proposed detention
project will lower projected rural or rural equivalent
north branch 100 year storm flows at Jefferson
Street from 3500 cubic feet per second to 1400 cubic
feet per second, a 60% reduction. Reduction rates
attributed to this project would be greater at
points closer to the project and diminish at points
downstream from the uncontrolled urbanized areas as
the watershed becomes greater.
RIVER CORRIDOR LAND IMPROVEMENT
The purpose of this project is to acquire land
adjacent to east and west side of Iowa River as part
of the goal to preserve riverfront land for public
use area.
FA - FEDERAL AID
SA - STATE AID
IN2�
126,000
300,000•
[FI�
{W
GRS - OENERAL REVENUE SHARING
RUT - ROAD USE TAX
307
I
1'
u,rOMfIUM PV -
JGRM'' MICRO LAB
CEDAR RAPIDS •DES M018E5 j
rYBI - F 7 8 S'
*Prior years cost not included in total.
utrnnniurn av
-'DORM;""MIC REICA B" '
I LEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES I
J
CBD ALLEY PROJECT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project will replace
and/or resurface
alleys in blocks
61, 62, 65, 81, and 82.
RELATIONSHIP TO
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: This project
is consistent with
is
the stated goals
and objectives of the Urban Renewal
Plan - which a
part of the City's
adopted plan.
FUTURE YEAR BUDGET IMPACTS: N/A.
PRIOR COUNCIL ACTION: Continue project as is.
$
SOURCE OF FUNDING
YEAR
10,000*
Prior FY81
30,000
G.O.
FY81
40,000
G.O.
FY82
40,000
G.O.
FY83
FY84
FY85
After FY85
Total 110,000
-
*Prior years cost not included in total.
utrnnniurn av
-'DORM;""MIC REICA B" '
I LEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES I
J
FY82 - FY 86
CBD ALLEY PROJECT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project will replace and/or resurface alleys
in blocks 61,62,65, 81, and 82.
RELATIONSHIP TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: This project is consistent with the
stated goals and objectives of the Urban Renewal Plan - which is a part
of the City's adopted plan.
FUTURE YEAR BUDGET IMPACTS: N/A.
PRIOR COUNCIL ACTION: Continue project as is.
$ SOURCE OF FUNDING
YEAR
Prior FY82
40,000 GO
FY82
120,000 GO
fY83
40,000 GO
FY84
FY85
FY86
After FY86
TOTAL 200,000
F - i rnvonrn urn av
"-"[CEDAR
JORM`MICRf�LAB-� -� 1--�
L RAPIDS • DES MOINES
� r
i
_y
307
J
I
i
i.
307
J
August 3, 1979 ^
DEPARTMENT: Planning B Program Development DIVISION: Develo ment
PROJECT TITLE: CBD Alley Project:
DESCRIPTION: 61 and 62
Resurface alleys and remove encroachments in blocks 6S, 81, 82, 66,
in the Central Business District.
Alleys will be resurfaced in conjunction with installation of underground
utilities.
G
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST: $116 000
FUNDING SOURCES: Local \Czr
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE: FROM TO
I \
I 1
Impact Evaluations - a/Rn —
Design & Planning 1/80
- -
Land Acquisition 180 0/Bo
Construction j
-7
Unknown
PROJECT tMNAGER y-� •"
8
Soy
II
mlroncn men nv I
JORM- MICR+L-AB l
CEDAR RAPIDS •DES M014E5 I
I
J�
City of Iowa City^
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 12, 1982
To: Neal Berlin and City Council
From: Frank Farmer, City Engineer,
Re: Melrose Court Curb and Sidewalk Improvement Estimate
The resolution approving Melrose Corridor Committee recommendations and a
memo from Daug Boothroy to the City Council regarding Melrose Court
recommendations are attached.
The attached cost estimate refers to Item 3 of the resolution and Items 3
and 5 of Doug Boothroy's memo. For all practical purposes, it is
necessary to do both curb and sidewalk repair at the same time north of
Brookland Park Drive, therefore the estimate has not been broken down
separately for curb work and sidewalk work and is based on doing the
complete project. The preliminary estimate includes adding curb and
gutter on both sides of Melrose Court south of Brookland Park Drive and
replacing deteriorated curb as needed on the west side of Melrose Court
north of Brookland Park Drive. The sidewalk would be replaced on the west
side of Melrose Court north of Brookland Park Drive with addition and
replacement of retaining walls and driveways as needed. The walk south of
Brookland Park Drive on both sides of Melrose Court would be -rep -laced as
required to match curb or maintain the sidewalk four foot in width. 'The-.
cost estimate for the entire project is estimated at $85,000. •
bdw5/1
Enclosure
I,
I
(J0R-M"-'M'1'CR+LA9'
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES
308
_y
CITY OF IOWA CI'T'Y, IOWA
ESTIMATE OF COST r
Date /-&draat
Project /rlcl�✓re C "t Sdeti^Ih. ".;a•
,�/, II /� / / C.^tb SrnProv�+^e-•'t �I
Location'Mj/ .5a. lc+Tt< - �CCwCa-n Allose 4, -e -.e o -.c/
Quantity
x(700
7890
o
L7.
200
Unit
L. t.
Item -
P.0:C. Hvb J (r ttw
•� k
k eYl
!tomyL• v^�t'�r '^Ct r CJR. sWOS"f'L�'dl "w l
M.t6.
Unit
Price Cost
/3.00 '"22,/00. 00
/.000. UJ
4.o0..o00
vvu,vo
3o,.S00O _ -1 -2r:3��6r.
.200 5uJ
2 37
00,PC.Cw
0. 00
zs0�
DDa. OU .S JDD. UU
6 666.00
_._
/O%
✓ �:eS
7666.00
.ade by S
---11'1.l�nc APProved by r- .. _._.—.
--�,•,. ' JORM MICR#LAB
/ 1 J CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES �
r
r,
RESULUTION N0. 81_115 _
NING
RESOLUTION
OFCTTHEENDATION OF THE MELROSE CCORRIDORLANNING COMMITTEEDBEO141SSION
ACCEPTED.
WHEREAS, the Melrose Corridor Committee, a subcommittee of the Planning and
Zoning Commission, has made certain recommendations regarding traffic needs in
the Melrose Avenue Corridor; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a regular meeting held April 16,
1981, recommended to dissolve said committee and by a unanimous vote to forward
the following recommendations of the Melrose Corridor Committee for approval.
The Committee finds, based on information presented to us including traffic
counts and films, -and our ensuing discussions, that theredoes not appear to
be an unacceptable traffic congestion in the Melrose Corridor at this time.
Therefore, the Committee makes the following recommendations:
1. That the implementation of the Melrose traffic circle not be considered
as a future option to solve traffic problems in the area.
ue
2 sectionetoutwontly laneslanned would appearntoobesantadequateoimprovementninter
That to meet
the current traffic needs.
3. That further improvements need to be considered to accommodate pedestrian
traffic on Melrose Court and across Melrose Avenue at Melrose Court and
to specifically reconsider our previous recommendations concerning these
issues.
4. That if in the future increased traffic demands on the Melrose Corridor.
would necessitate a major new traffic facility, then the Committee would
recommend that the Melrose diagonal without median should be 'included
among the options considered to remedy the traffic congestion. This
should be considered an acceptable option only at such time as there are
no longer private properties fronting on Grand Avenue Court.
NOW, THEREFORE, RE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA, that the recommendations regarding traffic needs in the Melrose Avenue
'Corridor be approved.
It was moved by Ferret and seconded by Vevera that the
resolution as rea e a opi:eand upon roll cal t ere were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
X —Bal mer
x _ Erdahl
x —_Lynch
x Neuhauser
xPerret
Abstain Roberts
x vevera
all
Passed and approved this 19tlday of Ha 1981.
ATTEST: CISfi �IFHir—/ 3y it
wrP��,LuE� oy
I_ "-JORM MICR#LA8` .�
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES
I I
r-
308
City of Iowa City
DATE: June 25, 1980
TO: City Council
v '
FROM: Doug Boothroy, Acting Senior Planne�
RE: Recommendations on Melrose Court
Included in the Council's packet are recommendations
from the Melrose Corridor Committee to reduce traffic
levels on Melrose Court (specifically' 1;000 to 1,500
cars daily). The Committee also recommended that
these improvements be completed prior to the reopening
of Melrose Court_ The Planning and Zoning Commission
will review said recommendations at their informal
meeting of June 30, 1980.
Attached to this memo are comments from the staff
regarding the implementation of the Conmittee's
recommendations.
Melrose Court was closed by ordinance, therefore, the
Council should follow the same procedures in reopening
Melrose Court, i.e., by passing an ordinance repealing
the previous ordinance.
0
h J
If i wronrumrn Rv
/ 'JORM -MIC R#LICB
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES
h '
I
JV
of Melrose Court and Myrtle Avenue. The sight distance
for turning cars would be significantly reduced. The
grade for the connecting link between Greenwood Drive
and Melrose.Court would be undesirably sharp.
5. The Committee recommends that the curve on Melrose Court be banked to
the inner radius of the curve.
Discussion: Superelevation is a design element used by highway engineers
to allow vehicles to negotiate a curve at speed. Super—
elevation may reduce the potential for cars sliding out•of the
curve into the park when ice is present on the surface.
However, under dry pavement conditions it will allow cars
to negotiate the curve at speed.
A more appropriate remedy for the concern of cars sliding
into the park during icy conditions would be the installation
of a six inch curb on the outside of the curve.
\ MtfRnrll mrn RV
ICEDAR RAVI DS • DES MOINES
_V
?og
I
it
.,I.."..,.. I ..... .... .
MEI ROSF Ull, tr -W
-11
)RIVE
WAY
mironrupArn Pv
i. �.JI-JORM :F�ICR4C-Aff-
CEDAR RAP
MYRTLE AyE
_y
INTERIM REPORT - IOWA CITY STREET LIGHTING IMPROVEMENI PROJECT
James P. Curry, Ph.D., Research Consultant
February 1982
The mail questionnaire survey is behind schedule.due to circumstances
which were unforeseen at the time that the project began. However,
the questionnaire is being constructed and will be ready for review
and pretesting by the middle of February. We have assembled the
necessary materials for drawing the samples of residents in the study
areas. Kathy Ward has contacted volunteers who will stuff envelopes
when the final questionnaires are ready for mailing.
Copies of a coding sheet for the police department complaint reports
and a coding manual are attached. These will be used to code the com-
plaints received by the Iowa City Police Department for computer
analysis. At the present time, we plan to code complaints for 1980-81
if we have sufficient funds for research assistant help. If not, we
will code only 1981 complaints. These data will provide a baseline for
complaint activity in the study areas prior to the installation of
the street lights. It should also be noted that we will not be coding
all types of complaints. Those which will not be coded are indicators
of offenses which are not likely to be affected by improved street
lighting and therefore are not relevant to the project. Some of the
complaints which will not be coded involve such things as shoplifting,
fraud, stolen property, and domestic problems. We hope to have these
complaints coded within the next month; it will probably take another
month to enter the data into the computer and perform some initial
analyses.
We have hired a research assistant to code the complaint reports and i
a computer programmer to perform the analyses.
The RVAP data through 1975 are in the computer and ready for analysis.
In addition, We have just recently received the RVAP data for 1976-81
and these will be prepared for computer analysis. Due to changes over
time in RVAP's reporting format and the requirements for manual
coding, these data will require a certain amount of careful coding
to achieve comparability through the years in terms of consistent
codes. It should also be emphasized that the RVAP data are not strictly
comparable with the police department complaint report data. They
do, however, provide a valid data base for analyzing trends over time
which is one of the goals of the project.
j
3og
F uvonmurn ov .
DORM-MICR#LAB
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOIIJES '
J
CITY . OF IOWA CITY
CHIC CENTER 410 E. WASHNGTON ST. IOWA CIN, IOWA 52240 (319) 356-5000
PRESS RELEASE
Date: February 16, 1982
Re: National Register of Historic Places
Contact Person: &Ooug Hillstrom, Planner
356-5246
On February 9, 1982, the State Review Board for National Register of
Historic Places nominations met and considered two districts
nominated by the City of Iowa City to the National Register of
Historic Places. The two districts are the North Side Commercial
District and the North Side Residential District. The boundaries of
the two districts are illustrated on the attached map.
The State Review Board unanimously approved both district
nominations. As a result, the two North Side district nominations
will now be forwarded to the U.S. Park Service for review. If the
nominations are approved by the Park Service, the two districts will
be officially listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
Listing would enable owners of historic structures to qualify for the
favorable tax provisions of the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981.
Listing on the National Register would protect property owners from
federally assisted projects which might threaten the neighborhood.
National Register status would also provide recognition of the large
number of historically and architecturally significant structures in
the neighborhood which should be preserved.
i
utrunctiurn nv
11 f
JOR M" -"MIC R4�CAB
CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOIYES f
3/D
i
�_ 1
_y
HISTORIC STRUCTURES INVENTORY SURVEY AREAS
PROPOSED NORTH S -IDE HISTORIC DISTRICTS
1. North Side Neighborhood Survey Area
0 North Side Commercial District
M North Side Residential District
2. "Goosetown" Neighborhood Survey Area
3. College Hill Neighborhood Survey Area
3/D _
I
i
y J 1A If Dn_r is mrn Pv
14
JORM MICR4ILAB !
r I I CEDAR RAPIDS DES M019ES
L;
MINUTES OF STAFF MEETING
February 3, 1982
Copies of the referrals from the formal and informal Council meetings
were distributed to the staff for review and discussion (copy attached).
Items for the agenda of February 16 include:
Public hearing on taxicab services - four applications
Public hearing on Grantee Performance Report
Set public hearing on electrical code
Day care contract
The Directors of Planning and Program Development and of Housing and
Inspection Services will draft a letter for the City Manager's signature
to Mercy Hospital requesting a meeting regarding Mercy's project.
The City Manager announced that the agenda for the Council budget meeting
tonight would be changed. The Capital Improvement Projects were scheduled
to be discussed. Instead operating budget decisions will be discussed.
The City Manager reminded the staff to be as considerate as possible when
dealing with the numerous phone calls from citizens concerning problems
associated with winter weather.
The Assistant City Manager reminded the staff that an intern is working on
administrative policy for the City. All departments should make their
files available to him.
Prepared by:
>�� ��
Lorraine Saeger
r'"
r'—
iulronc turn ay
JORM
I I CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOIRES j / '
1 J
I 'D
� `D
Informal Council Meeting
February 1, 1982
DEPARTMENT REFERRALS
W
SUBJECT
r
Y .I�ron[a u[n Ov
-JORM -M;C_M 1 LAS—
h CEDAR RAPIDS DES MDINES
informal510 en
r
J'!
DATE
REFDATERRED
TO
DUE
� �
EN
COMMTS/STATUS
W
Discuss with Council after P&Z
Rezoning - 1014 Hudson
2-1
POD
minutes are on agenda. Doug
discuss with Mike Kucharzak prior
Vacation - Maiden Lane
2-1
P&PD
Revise ordinance to include
.retention of all easements.
Discuss with Cit Attorney.
Mercy Hospital - IDRBs
2-1
City Attorn
y
Legal opinion for Council.
Mercy Hospital Ramp
2-1
Traffic
Engineer/
Review plans (ongoing) for
Transportat
on
traffic circulation patterns,
Planner
problems, etc.
Mercy Hospital Helipad
2-1
Airport
What would Commission recommend
re. approach direction? How will
Commission
aircraft movement in this area
relate o suchtraffic a
Airport and U of I helipad?
What FAA input/approval is
needed?
How will this issue impact
4ercy Hospital IDRBs
2'-1
Finance
3-2-82
City policy re. bonding? Relate
to non profit category of bonding.
avis Building
2-1
P&PD
Don discuss with Neal.
ermit Fees
2-1
H&IS
J
Resolution for mechanical,
plumbing, and electrical permit
fees defL erred until
1.
r
Y .I�ron[a u[n Ov
-JORM -M;C_M 1 LAS—
h CEDAR RAPIDS DES MDINES
informal510 en
r
J'!
I:)
L
Informal Council Meeting
February 1, 1982 DEPARTMENT REFERRALS
page 2 M
SUBJECT
DATE
r FTO T
DUE
W
P
W
COMMENTS/STATUS
Burlington Street signals
2-1
Public Worl
Chuck discuss with Neal.
Engineering Project Chart
2-1
Public Wor
Next chart for conference room
to use color coding, etc., as
last year.
Melrose Court
2-1
Public Wor
Resurrect sidewalk improvement
memo and send to Council in packet.
F - i uvrnru urn nv
-'DORM `MICRI�IL A[i- '
I CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES
L1�
REFERRALS
1'
A rronniurn ny
I'DORM-MICF:I+LAB'- I'
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOIRES
.I
J�
W
DATE
W
COMMENTS/STATUS
4
ou
DUE
W �
Three ceiling lights are out -
replace.
Passed and adopted - waived
two considerations.
Ordinance passed and adopted -
waived two considerations.
Passed and adopted.
Notify County immediately of
Council recommendat on.
Has notice been sent out?
Repair floors and ceilings.
Information for Council at 2-3
meeting. Include comparison of
automatic tax increase percentage
action to increase levy as proposed.
1'
A rronniurn ny
I'DORM-MICF:I+LAB'- I'
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOIRES
.I
J�
V
Regular Council Meeting
February 2, 1982
Page 2
DEPARTMENT REFERRALS
SUBJECT
GATE
RECD
REFERRED
PD
DATE
DUE
H
U
W
COMMENTS/STATUS
Fee Increases/Policy
2-2
HAIS
Include survey of comparable
fees for a sample of comparable
cities - as a matter of policy
change recommendations using the
same cities for comparison.
Block 64-1
2-2
City Manage
Notify Zuchelli of Plaza Towers'
withdrawal.
Public Convenience - Ordinance amendment
2-2
City Clerk
What kinds of additional
information will be solicited?
Snow on sidewalks
2-2
Parks
Clear walks on Lower Muscatine
near Job Service of Iowa.
1
mrmrnurn ov
JORMM
'V IC R�C'AB-
I CEDAR RAPIDS OES MOINES
I
1
r,
MINUTES OF STAFF MEETING
February 10, 1982
The City Manager reminded the staff of the meeting with Don Zuchelli
on Tuesday, February 16, at 2:00 P.M. in the Conference Room.
Referrals from the informal Council meeting of February 8 were distributed
to the staff for review and discussion (copy attached).
Items for the agenda of February 16 include:
Resolution resetting public hearing on Industrial Revenue
Bonds for Mercy Hospital
Recommendation from Planning and Zoning Comnission regarding
Waldon Square
Recommendation from Planning and Zoning Commission regarding
Aspen Lake Subdivision
Recommendation from Planning and Zoning Conmission regarding
Highlander Subdivision
Set public hearing on Highlander rezoning for March 16
Set public hearing for Country Kitchen rezoning for March 16
Set public hearing on rural mobile home zone and standards. for March 16
Set public hearing on conveyance of Maiden Lane on March 2
Set public hearing for conveyance of alley in Ralston Creek Village
for March 2
First consideration of an ordinance vacating Maiden Lane
Resolution approving Bryn Mawr Heights, Part 13
Public hearing on 1981 Grantee Performance Report
Public hearing on Metro Entitlement Program
Appointment of City Council member to City Fringe Committee
Public hearing on four taxicab applications
Public hearing on revocation of beer permit for Kerr McGee
Appointment to Board of Examiners of Plumbers
Resolution reclassifying Maintenance Worker position
Prepared by�.�au.
�orr eger 4
r^"
1
u,nnnen urn ov
............... ...
"DORM:-MICR¢UA B-_
CEDAR RAVIDS DES MDI4E5 -
� II
3//
J�a
J
Informal Council Meeting
February 8> 1982
DEPARTMENT REFERRALS
—lIl
r
1r
pF r uvvArmArn ov - •,
-JORM "MICR#LAB .....�
�
� CEDAR RAPIDS � OES M019E5 I
W
o
REFERRED
DUE
�Wj
I
COMMENTS/STATUS
SUBJECT
.
W cc
Balmer will not attend. When did
City Clerk/
Annual Report go to council?
Boards/Commission Annual Meeting
2 8
Lorraine
Iowa -Illinois Franchise Review
2-8
Legal
Status of review?
Send Melrose Corridor report to
2-8
PUB
City Council with cost estimates
Melrose Avenue
included.
Library Trust Fund
2-8
Finance
Report to Council current
financial information.
Schedule for future informal
Budget process critique
2-8
Assistant
City Mgr.
discussion.
Space Study
2-8
City Mgr.
Obtain more detailed proposal
from Neumann regarding alternatives
2 and 3.
Provide information to Council
2-8
Public Wks
regarding our commitment for FY 83
Overwidth Paving
on Aber Drive.
Information for Council regarding
2-8
P&PD
ROW acquisition priority between
Foster Road
Dubuque and Prairie du Chien.
Assistant
Defer until Clemens meets with
Council meeting with CCN
2-8
City Mgr.
CCN.
r
1r
pF r uvvArmArn ov - •,
-JORM "MICR#LAB .....�
�
� CEDAR RAPIDS � OES M019E5 I
1
Informal Council Meeting
February 8, 1982 Page 2
DEPARTMENT REFERRALS
1'
wroncumm ov !
1. "JORM. -MICR+LAB.
CEDAR RAPIDS DES MO@;ES
0
W
SUBJECT
DATE
RECD
REFERRED
To
DATE
DUE
~
F
COMMENTS/STAl11S
ac
Plans for Dubuque and Clinton
Street Reconstruction
2-8
Public Wks/
in CBD to be reviewed by Design
PgpD
Review Committee.
Report to Council regarding alley
Alley Reconstruction
2-8
Public Wks
'behind Press -Citizen.
Iowa Avenue Restoration
2-8
City Mgr
Contact University of Iowa re.
alternative parking.
CIP Discussion
2-8
Assistant
Schedule Airport projects for
City Mgr
2-22-82, Notify Airport Commission.
Report to Council on need for
Accessible Vans
2-8
POD
additional Vans - how this relates
to 504 compliance, grants, etc.
Small buses
2-8
Public Wks
What dollar figure is appropriate
for FY 83 CIP based on grant
Service certificates for Boards and
2-8
Assistant
Draft policy memo regarding full
Commissions.
City Mgr.
term and partial term.
Senior Center Space
2-8
Assistant
Schedule for informal discussion.
City Mgr.
1'
wroncumm ov !
1. "JORM. -MICR+LAB.
CEDAR RAPIDS DES MO@;ES
n n.
STAFF MEETING MINUTES
February 17, 1982
Referrals from the formal Council meeting were distributed to the staff
for review and discussion (copy attached).
Items for the agenda of the March 2 Council meeting include;
Appointments to Committee on Community Needs, Airport Commission,
and Broadband Telecommunications Connission
Public hearing vacating alley in Lot 25
Public hearing on conveying vacated alley
Public hearing on FY 83 budget
Award bid for Ralston Creek Improvements Program, Phase 2
The Director of Human Relations advised that she has reviewed the job
questionnaires. A meeting of the job evaluation committee will be held
on Wednesday, February 24.
Prepared by;
Lorraine Saeger
-y
MIrpmi MCO YV
1--JORM -'-M-JC-RI
LAB' l -�
CEDAR RAPIDS DES MO1NE5 I ;��
M�
Regular Council Meeting
February 16, 1982
DEPARTMENT REFERRALS
O
DAT
SUBJECT o rREFEWEDD DATE I W �MENTS/STATUS
TO ouE
L
Conference Room Clock
Highlander Project
RMH Zoning Amendments
Reponse to Letter
Financial Statement on disposition of
urban renewal proceeds
Board of Plumbing Examiners
Records
to Vic Belger
re. Cab Company
r,
2-16 11 Parks & Rec
2-16 11 P&PD
2-16 Assistant
City Mgr/
2-16 1 City Mgr
2-16 Finance
2-16 City Clerk
Invoncn urn av
I.. JORM MICRbLAB!
I CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MD]YES 1
Replace battery
Send Council packet of previous
information regarding lift station,
development, etc.
Informal discussion before 3-30-82.
Public hearing set for 3-30-82
instead of 3-16.
Response to residents on South
Dodge from Mayor - copies of
draft to Council.
Provide statement to City Manager.
Readvertise
Do we check driving records of
all City applicants including bus
drivers?
Draft letter from Mayor
Reply
Regular Council Meeting
February 16, 1982
Paoe 2
DEPARTMENT REFERRALS
f
I ;
uvonon urn nv
1" _DORM--MICR�LAB"
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MDIYES C
W
.
SUBJECTREc•D
DATE
REFERRED
DATE
DUE
COMMENTS/STATUS
TD
W Q
Potholes on highways
2-16
Public Work
Fill potholes - note Governor and
Dod e.
Provide copy of letter from early
Trash Collection
2-16
City Clerk/
childhood centers to City Manager.
Public Wks
.Public Works send memo to Council
Benton & Riverside Project
2-16
Public Wks
Will be scheduled for informal
discussion to include issues of
and pedestrian controls. Invite
IDDT1
Sunday library hours
2-16
City Mgr
Notify Library Board of Council
discussion.
IDRB Policy/Procedure
2-16
City Attorn
y
Report to Council on stages of
commitment.
I ;
uvonon urn nv
1" _DORM--MICR�LAB"
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MDIYES C
RYECCIIvE0 Fr,i192
TO: The Mayor
FROM: John J. Gunther
Executive Director #r�
DATE: February 5, 1982
SUBJECT: Boulder Colorado Cable Television Antitrust Case
On January 13, 1982 the United States Supreme Court handed
down a decision concerning the potential liabilities cities
and other substate governmental entities may face under the
federal antitrust laws. The case, Community Communications
Co, v. City of Boulder, may well be the framework for signi-
ficantly expanded litigation against cities to challenge the
anticompetitive nature of their cities.
While the ruling arose out of Boulder's attempts to regulate
its cable franchisee, the language in the decision is very
broad and would seem to reach virtually every activity a city
may undertake. The traditional "state action exemption,"
which until 1978 was available to cities, will only be avail-
able when they are operating under a "clearly articulated and
affirmatively expressed" -state policy to displace competition.
A coalition of local government organizations has been formed
in Washington to assess the possible impact of the Boulder
case and to begin the search for solutions to the problems the
case will generate for cities.
I have attached to this Reporter two items: first, a longer
statement of the Boulder case for your review as Mayor, and,
second, a memorandum from our General Counsel to your city
attorney which includes an analysis of the Boulder case pre-
pared by the law firm of Wald, Harkrader & Ross of Washington.
In addition, we are requesting that the city attorney complete
and attached survey of antitrust claims which have been asserted
against your city.
/ O -L.,
UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF MAYORS • 1620 EYE STREET, NAV. • %VASHINCTON, D.C. 20006 • TELEPIION 17: (202)293-7330
1'
amronnimm ov I
"CORM" MIC R#LN J
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOIYES
i
-_10
IF
2
The survey will be used to assess the current impact of the
federal antitrust laws on local governmental activities and
will allow us to begin to confront the issues raised by
Boulder both in the courts and in the Congress.
For further information you should call Stephen Chapple, the
Conference's General Counsel, at (202) 293-7330.
I
u�conc�i ucn av
----
,
dORM-'"MICR�Cdi B'- )
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES 1
I
r'
3 /P.
71
I
i i
i
I
�
j
I `
i
i-,
UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF MAYORS
,lil, EYE STREET, NOICI'I IIVi:CI'
%MSH1NG1'ON, D.C. 21RMRi
'ITLEPIIONE: (2112)298.7350
ANTITRUST LIABILITY OF CITIES, Community Communications Co. v. Citv
of Boulder, Colorado, U.S. Supreme Court, January 13, 1982
The Supreme Court in a ruling last week expanded the
potential for liability of cities under Federal Antitrust laws.
In the Boulder case the Court ruled, 5 - 3, that the "state action
exemption'' ss available to cities and other sub -state entities
only when they are operating under a "clearly articulated and
affirmatively expressed" state policy to displace competition. j
The Court did not address a third standard it has established in
municipal liability cases which is that the state policy must
also be "actively supervised" by the state.
The City of Boulder had attempted to impose a 90 day
moratorium on further construction by a cable company which was
operating on a 20 year non-exclusive, revocable permit while the
City Council undertook a complete review of the.city's policy on
cable television. The company sought an injunction under the
Federal Antitrust laws which would stop the city from enforcing
the moratorium. The U.S. District Court granted the injunction, i
the Court of Appeals reversed, and the Supreme Court reversed the
appellate court.
The City argued that as a home rule city under the
Colorado Constitution, it possessed all the powers'of the state as
to enactments of local concerns. In fact, the Supreme Court of
Colorado has ruled the Home Rule Amendment vested in the City of
Boulder 'revery power theretofore possessed by the legislature .
in local and municipal affairs." Justice Brennan, writing for the
majority, rejected this contention on the basis of Federal anti-
trust policy which recognizes only the sovereignty of the states
and the Federal government; "there is no place for sovereign cities."
The Colorado legislature had not adopted any policy on
cable television and the majority found that this "neutrality" on
the part of the state simply failed to meet the tests of clear
articulation and affirmative expression required to secure the
protection of the "state action" exemption.
a ia-
r
F
re,roncn ncn cv
-` t" JORM - MICR#LAB _ I
J1 I CEDAR RAPIDS •DES MDINES I
• l I ..
L
J
_y
UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF MAYORS
,lil, EYE STREET, NOICI'I IIVi:CI'
%MSH1NG1'ON, D.C. 21RMRi
'ITLEPIIONE: (2112)298.7350
ANTITRUST LIABILITY OF CITIES, Community Communications Co. v. Citv
of Boulder, Colorado, U.S. Supreme Court, January 13, 1982
The Supreme Court in a ruling last week expanded the
potential for liability of cities under Federal Antitrust laws.
In the Boulder case the Court ruled, 5 - 3, that the "state action
exemption'' ss available to cities and other sub -state entities
only when they are operating under a "clearly articulated and
affirmatively expressed" state policy to displace competition. j
The Court did not address a third standard it has established in
municipal liability cases which is that the state policy must
also be "actively supervised" by the state.
The City of Boulder had attempted to impose a 90 day
moratorium on further construction by a cable company which was
operating on a 20 year non-exclusive, revocable permit while the
City Council undertook a complete review of the.city's policy on
cable television. The company sought an injunction under the
Federal Antitrust laws which would stop the city from enforcing
the moratorium. The U.S. District Court granted the injunction, i
the Court of Appeals reversed, and the Supreme Court reversed the
appellate court.
The City argued that as a home rule city under the
Colorado Constitution, it possessed all the powers'of the state as
to enactments of local concerns. In fact, the Supreme Court of
Colorado has ruled the Home Rule Amendment vested in the City of
Boulder 'revery power theretofore possessed by the legislature .
in local and municipal affairs." Justice Brennan, writing for the
majority, rejected this contention on the basis of Federal anti-
trust policy which recognizes only the sovereignty of the states
and the Federal government; "there is no place for sovereign cities."
The Colorado legislature had not adopted any policy on
cable television and the majority found that this "neutrality" on
the part of the state simply failed to meet the tests of clear
articulation and affirmative expression required to secure the
protection of the "state action" exemption.
a ia-
r
F
re,roncn ncn cv
-` t" JORM - MICR#LAB _ I
J1 I CEDAR RAPIDS •DES MDINES I
• l I ..
L
J
-�d
r
Page 2
The court did not address the issue of remedies against 1
municipal officials, although monetary damages are required to be
trebled under Federal law. In addition, the Court did not consider
other antitrust liability issues and quoted from an earlier case
that it "may be that certain activities, which might appear anti-
competitive when engaged in b
complexion when adopted by a local vgovernment." ate parties, tItewike llatake
different
significant future litigation to clarify this language.
The apparent result of the Boulder case is that every
activity engaged in by local governmental units will now be subject
to antitrust scrutiny and the exemption available to states will
only be available to sub-state units where the state has acted
affirmatively and clearly to protect the units in the conduct of
that activity. The question of "active supervision" needs
clarification. further
Justice Rhenquist, in a dissenting opinion, points out
isome of the difficulties the Court's decision will present:
The decision today effectively destroys the "home rule"
movement in this country, through which local governments
have obtained, not without persistent state opposition,
a limited autonomy over matters of local concern.
The municipalities that stand most to lose.by the deci-
sion today are those with the most autonomy. Where the
State is totally disabled from enacting legislation
dealing with matters of local concern, the municipality
will be defenseless from challenges to its regulation
of the local economy. In such a case, the State is
disabled from articulating a policy to displace competi-
tion with regulation.
Applying this and an earlier case concerning regulation
by private entities, Justice Rhenquist writes:
would mean that an ordinance could not be defended
on the basis that its benefits to the community, in
terms of traditional health, safety, and public welfare
concerns, outweigh its anticompetitive effects. . Thus,
a municipality would violate the Sherman Act by enacting
restrictive zoning ordinances, by requiring business
and occupational licenses, and by granting exclusive
franchises to utility services, even if th
mined that it would be in the best e city deter-
interests of its
inhabitants to displace competition with regulation.
Competition simply does not and cannot further the
interests that lie behind most social welfare legislation.
i
i
J
r IA1fROF 111AFf1 RY
JORM--MICRI,LA B'�
A
..� I
CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES '
' - - - r
Page 3
Conference of Mayors policy, adopted in 1981, on
antitrust issues calls on the Congress to enact legislation to
reduce the potential for spurious litigation against cities and
that the legislation should recognize that in many of their
activities, particularly regarding public health, welfare and
safety, cities are and should be natural monopolies. As such
they should have the full benefit of the "state action" exemption.
The policy also asks that monetary damages only be available
against cities when they are operating in a commercial forum in
direct competition with private markets. Finally, the policy
would not allow monetary damages against cities when they are
operating in good faith reliance on state enabling legislation.
Conference of Mayors policy on cable television, adopted
in 1973 and expanded in 1981, calls for minimal Federal involvement
in determining the relationship between cities and their franchi-
sees and for Federal recognition of the essential role cities play
in protecting the public interest as it relates to cable televi-
sion; in such regulation, cities are operating in their true,
governmental capacities. The Conference of Mayors calls for
cities having full freedom of contract in the cable arena with
regard to, among others, the following areas: franchise fees,
governmental access to channel time, regulation of the public right
of way, the assurance of diverse views in programming, and full and
continuing disclosure by the franchisee.
One last item of note: the Attorney General of Colorado
on behalf of the State of Colorado and the Attorneys General of 21
other states filed a friend -of -the -court (amicus curiae) brief in
the Supreme Court opposed to the position taken by the City of
Boulder.
20 January 1982
Stephen Chap -pre-
1
i Id If.ROF❑MFfI NY
1. DORM" MICR+CA B....
CEDAR RAPIDS DES M014ES I
3/C�_
r
1
TO: The City Attorney ry/,
FROM: Stephen Chapple, General Counsel '
DATE: February 5, 1982
SUBJECT: Community Communications Co. v. City of Boulder,
50 U.S.L.W. 4144
As you may be aware the U.S. Supreme Court handed down on
January 13th a very important decision regarding the antitrust
liability of cities and other substate units of government.
Clearly the Boulder decision is the most significant pronounce-
ment on this issue since the City of Lafayette case in 1978.
What makes it particularly troublesome is that there now
appears to be five solid votes on the Court which will allow
antitrust scrutiny of almost all governmental activities thus
obviating the "governmental -proprietary" distinction drawn by
the Chief Justice in the City of Lafayette case. The uncertainty
of the Chief Justice's test may have served to discourage
plaintiffs from challenging city activities on antitrust grounds.
It is of the utmost importance that the municipal bar be
prepared to address the new challenges cities will be forced
to confront in the wake of Boulder. The Conference of Mayors,
along with other local government organizations, including the
National Institute of Municipal Law Officers, have formed an
ad hoc working group to begin to review the implications 'of
Boulder.
Accordingly, I have attached a short synopsis of the Boulder case
which includes a summary of Conference of Mayors Policy, and an
enlightening piece by Thomas W. Brunner of the Washington law
firm of Wald, Harkrader and Ross containing some original and
initial thoughts on the response to Boulder for your perusal.
Many questions, of course,remain unsolved. For example, how can
you as the city attorney protect any "antitrust audit" you might
conduct for the Mayor and Council from discovery given the "open
meeting" and freedom of information requirements cities face?
UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF MAYORS' 1620 EYE STREET. N.W. 'WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006' TELEPHONE: (202) 293.1330
lelcannnnan Ry !
I
JORM MICROLAB )
I CEDAR RAPIDS ' DES MOINES
f
3 /,;1,
i
I
r
r,
MT i
1
u,ronru urn av
"JORM MICR#LAO
Ij CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES l
r -
y
• How can litigation strategies be designed to assure that the
•E
questions reserved by the Court, such as the "active supervision"
test and availability of -remedies against municipal corporations,
,
are raised and advanced in the best possible manner?
Our ad hoc working group has determined that it would be valuable
'
to us and to our members to undertake a short survey on the
extent of antitrust activities against cities. I would therefore
ask that you or one of your associates prepare responses to the
following questions on all antitrust cases currently pending
against your jurisdiction. You may well receive the same 'survey
through NIMLO and a response to either NIMLO or the Conference
of Mayors would be most appreciated.
-
SURVEY
I. The number of antitrust actions filed against local
governmental ,entities in your jurisdiction within the
last five years, specifying as to each:
I
A. The case name. Specify government officials, and j
their offices, who were named as defendants.
H. The court 1n which the case was filed.'
C. The antitrust law under which the action was brought,
e.g., Sherman Act Section 1 or Section 2, Robinson-
Patman Act, I
D. The local governmental action which prompted the suit, t
e.g., a zoning decision or a franchise matter.
E. Plaintiff's claimed damages when trebled and other
relief sought.
F. The status of the action as of the date of reporting,
including citation to any decision rendered, e.g.,
pending, settled, dismissed. If the case was settled
j or otherwise disposed of, did the city make any
i payment to plaintiff, or alter the action which prompt-
ed the suit?
.
G. What are the estimated legal costs of defense to date?
Projected legal costs if estimable would be helpful.
II. Any other costs incurred as a consequence of antitrust
exposure? For example, actions altered, delayed or
s.
otherwise influenced by a concern for antitrust exposure.-
xposure_III.
III.Person completing the survey, title and phone number.
I
I.
i
i
u,ronru urn av
"JORM MICR#LAO
Ij CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES l
r -
r uvDnEnurn Gv
-
-JORMIMICR�L AiO
CEDAR RAPIDS •DES MDI4E5
I
3 /1;)-
I
a
J�
LAW O1r1CCs
• WALD, HARKRADER
6
ROSS
1000 NINETEENTH STRCCT, N. W.
•
WASHINGTONI D. C. 70036.1697
- C..IL[S C.ASCLCS
DONALD N. Get[-
INOIAS .. SC -.AS
To G+LLCM
J73[•N I. CaIIIIM
post... IS.
J[aaI D.AN.C!
41LI[ti L ... a,
STCa-CN.,TSI lM
CACO.CSSrA0
UILC AOOe Lt I. wALNYf
ECO. -+C �IvCa•
..fua LALL
LAWMCC I. NCACI. III
JOCL C. NOI'INAN
INO.Af .. }IIJII•
SOLCH LY+LJ
• ISLE,(NDAp 1. t S 0,(N. A)
JYN:[lDC1 fpNSC[Ix
JJDII. uCNA.DS.ON[
C.T.•I. Its:.
pA.:C ..fEt1
S.C.-C. 1.IVLf,J1.
GV14 A. ACIN a[.i
1600 CNC DALLAS CCNTl1C
C. CO:IIAN M.:
Y.1. A.JOCLSON
•ILLY. LNC is.,.
DALLAS,TCNAS 7520I
.10.AAC A. S.C..
.II.0 LIAC.AIR
JA..Cf DDJ4VS NCLC.
(SI.)
I.D.A1 V. INY+YCR
N3•CSI Y. LICNIYAN
JOIN A.NLS-2t.Z .•
.
DONALD L SVC.LIN
JCrI.R I. LISP
4C..GO LwCLALIC.
JO.N LSW..L..IL
J. SAI.. YOLL01
STCVCN L IAALO.S.1
HILLOAT[ NOYSC
No ICS.. Al. CO.AY.•
TCNCNCC NOC IC YVNMT
.1.0.1 LIONNG
SD OLD LAILR
U.}.., D. IAS.AN
LC.•p AJOnCR
CNAALCS..[ICUNS.I u•
LONDON, LCA.. TNS. ENGLAND
.NY. N. 60101[.4
YY. N.NIILlD A033
TEL OI•S.!•]]AA
4. CC. S. GOLD...
YAM. SCNATTNC.
TELEX (051) ..4-33 ITA41v4
..C.AtL J. ALSyY
.AIA S.rISCNC.
LUCY L.CCD
SCIAA N. LM.0 DIL.•I•TS)
LOACTIA COLLINS ANG.RT
D.IIC.AIINCCDYA.
YT 1.CS.IC.1
TNOYAS C..ATTNCMS(cf•..Is)
I.e."A. SALNCA
=.,ND C. NCNNOLD
YNR N. "INS
Y.A. RL....
SICILY J. IASL
JANE Selo".
SVC Y.I.IGGYY
SUSAN J. ASSCLL
NTNICY L SNA.II
AGAIYISTAATON
DC6o,.. A. ULIDN.T
YAII11. C. l CAST
RA.LCT Y.f INACICA
"Dec., Y.1CNAC.
YIC.A4 N.U..OA
DANIEL L.OIIS.,
OAN.CL..SOYIAC
.1011000.SS
rata A. LARON
DC10... STI.Du0N0
CN10. COUNSCL
,An Ka N. CONUS.AN.
U
NOIt. LLCSI..a!TEAM
Y
UNIRON L....A.1..GLN
JOIN L DAILY
RAN04L J. LCIS"
CYCA.CTN TgSYAw
JANCS N. DAVIT
6NANIl}ON LOCI
.NI CD.. S wCSSTEN
INTIICI. S. ICLLNLN
A. AICNA.O MCCCCCkJA.
.CLC. aI--CAa
Or COUNSEL
V.Y6.A. FINN
JALOUCUI.0 LSI.S
..,up CLU..
C.MLC! ..OUST✓SON
.►WV.KL
NMAPAINL
-NAN AOANNA IN E.G
CON YALLACLJ..
January 25, 1982
Municipal Antitrust
Liability: Prospects After
the Boulder Case
Thomas H. Brunner
I.
The Supreme
Court's recent decision in Community
Corinunications Co. v.
City of Boulder (Jan. 13,
1982) casts
cities adrift
on the dangerous
and murky shoals
of the federal
antitrust
laws: Municipalities
must now fear that their fran-
chising,
licensing and
zoning actions as well as their public
utility
operations and
purchasing activities will be attacked
as part
of anticompetitive.conspiracies
or unlawful monopolies.
Should such
challenges
be successful, local agencies can be
enjoined
from continuing
the unlawful practices
and may also
be required
to pay, damages equal to three tines
the plaintiffs'
r uvDnEnurn Gv
-
-JORMIMICR�L AiO
CEDAR RAPIDS •DES MDI4E5
I
3 /1;)-
I
a
J�
r,
&a
actual ,loss plus reimbursement of their attorneys' fees. Crim-
inal prosecution of city officials is theoretically possible
though highly unlikely.
The Boulder case will have to be analyzed and refined
by the lower federal courts before its full impact becomes clear.
Boulder, a seemingly sweeping and ambiguous opinion decided by
a divided Supreme Court, is also unlikely to be the final word
on this subject from the high court. Until the courts provide
further guidance, cities should understand -Boulder's implica-
tions and may wish to institute some precautionary measures in
response to this new concern.
Liability of governmental bodies under the antitrust
laws is a new concept. In 1943, the Supreme Court held that,
in our federal system, state governments are not subject to
the strictures of the federal antitrust laws. Although many
observers assumed the same rule applied to local governments,
the Supreme Court did not pass on the issue for 35 years.
In the 1978 case of City of Lafayette v. Louisiana
Power 8 Licht Co., the Supreme Court rejected a suggestion of
blanket antitrust exemption for cities. But that case involved
a municipal electric utility operating beyond. the city limits,
a quasi -commercial activity far removed from the central respon-
sibilities of municipal government. Pour of the Justices con-
cluded a municipality's activities were not exempt from anti-
trust attack unless the action was in furtherance or implemen-
tation of clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed state
uvoncn urn av 1
'JORM '- MICR+LAE3
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MDIYES
_M
-3-
policy. But four Justices disagreed. To Chief Justice Burger,
who cast the deciding vote against immunity in that 5 to 4
decision, the fact that Lafayette's activities were "proprie-
tary" rather than "governmental" was crucial. The plurality
opinion also mentioned the proprietary -governmental distinction
and subsequent decisions by lower federal courts stressed that
point.
The City of Boulder case, however, made clear that not
only proprietary actions of local governments will be vulnerable
to antitrust attack. In City of Boulder, Boulder's long-time
j CATV franchisee challenged the City's adoption of an emergency
t
ordinance prohibiting cable installations for a period of three
months while the City negotiated with alternative cable operators.
I
According to the current franchisee, that ordinance -was enacted
in furtherance of a conspiracy unreasonably to restrain trade in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The City ill
responded that since its ordinance was authorized by the Home
Rule Amendment of the, Colorado Constitution, it was acting pur-
suant to the state mandate required by City of Lafayette. The
Supreme Court concluded "that Boulder's moratorium ordinance can-
not be exempt from antitrust scrutiny" as either "the action of
the State of Colorado itself in its sovereign capacity" or "muni-
cipal action in furtherance or implementation of clearly articu-
lated and affirmatively expressed state policy." The generalized
I
Ill
I I
I �
F - wrmriiurn ov
�._JORM j
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOIN
�L
-4—
home rule provisions of the Colorado 'Constitution were insuf-
ficient to satisfy either criteria. Accordingly',.the trial
court's preliminary injunction against the ordinance's enforce-
ment was uoheld.
Disparate Treatment of Cities and States
After Boulder, the positions of state and municipal
governments under the.antitrust laws are very different. Even
brazenly anticompetitive actions by state governments are safe
from antitrust attack. State legislatures can, if they follow
proper procedures, also immunize similar.actions by municipali-
ties or semi -governmental bodies like property owners associations
and professional organizations. By contrast, in -the absence
of legislative protection, cities seemingly are vulnerable under
the antitrust laws though perhaps not to quite the same degree
as private businesses.'
The disparity between the two levels of government is
initially puzzling. City of Boulder stresses the sovereignty
of the.states in our federal system but rejects the suggestion
that cities deserve comparable respect. The Court observes "[w]e
are a nation not of 'city-states' but of States." As Justice
Rehnquist's dissent notes, however, this formal distinction,
makes little practical sense since municipal and state anti-
trust liability are equally likely to tilt the federal -state
balance.
Ir
F -� urnnrn urn n
--- JO
L~1� CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MDI4E5
r
• -5
Two other factors are more likely explanations of
the Court's divergent approach. First, the courts'are in-
creasingly hostile to claimed exemptions of any kind,from the
antitrust laws. Electric utilities and learned professions
have recently failed to establish their immunity, for example.
State governments, on the other hand, are shielded by an ex-
pensive 1943 decision that constitutes a controlling precedent.
Parker v. Brown. The cities were simply unfortunate in the
timing of the key cases.
Second, the Supreme Court apparently concluded that
-- in the words of the Lafayette decision -- cities were more
prone than states *to make economic choices counseled solely
by their own parochial interests" and thereby introduce •a
serious chink in the armor of antitrust protection.' City
officials may dispute that they are any more inclined than
their counterparts at the state level to pursue "parochial"
anticompetitive policies but we suspect the Court made this
assessment.
Achieving Immunity
A more,practical question after Boulder concerns the
action a state legislature must take in,order to spread the
protective umbrella of immunity. Several lower courts had con-
cluded, before the Supreme Court Boulder decision, that the
state's specific constitutional or statutory delegation of
i uv"nni urn ov
............. .. i
"JORM "MICR6L AB_
CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES '
r�
I.
authority over a subject area would suffice. In Hybud Equipment
•
Corp. v. City of Akron, for example, a federal appellate court
upheld Akron's ban on waste disposal operations in competition
with its energy -from -garbage facility. Authorization of sanitary
regulation by the state constitution and statute was sufficient,
the court concluded, to provide antitrust immunity.
After Boulder, the Akron approach is no longer viable.
The Supreme Court held that immunity is not available "when the
State's position is one of mere neutrality respecting the muni-
cipal actions challenged as anticompetitive." The possibility
that two cities could adopt opposite policies consistent with
the same state authorization dooms the claim for immunity under
Boulder. A specific authorization of an area of activity --
like sanitary regulation -- should be treated no differently
than a broad home rule.provision under this test.
Another lower federal court has suggested that immunity
could be available if the state requires, rather than merely
permits, certain municipal regulatory activity without specifying
the particular policies the city is to apply. But this approach
also cannot survive the "mere neutrality" test of Boulder.
A statute requiring cities of a certain size to adopt a zoning
scheme, for example, is equally compatable with an "anticompeti-
tive" arrangement prohibiting new commercial development and
with a "procompetitive" one permitting numerous business dis-
tricts. No state policy concerning competition is reflected.
m rnnrn urn "v
'DORM. MICRbCAEi
CEDAR RAPIDS DES MDINES
/_. I J
1
f
-%-
• Instead, it appears that after Boulder the state
statute must itself envision the limitation on cooperation to
provide immunity. For example, Community Builders, Inc. v. City
of Phoenix, a recent appellate case, involved an allocation
of customers between the water systems of Phoenix and Scottsdale,
Arizona. A comparable arrangement between private firms would
have been a•flagrant antitrust violation conceivably punishable
by a jail sentence. However, the courts last year held that
a state statute expressly prohibiting competition by municipal
utilities authorized the agreement and no antitrust liability
was found. Although the Phoenix case predates Boulder, its
approach should continue to be valid.
Moreover, in both Lafayette and Boulder, the Supreme
Court concluded that "a state properly may . . . direct or autho-
rize its instrumentalities to act in a way which, if it did not
reflect state policy, would be inconsistent with the antitrust
laws." The phrase "or authorize" may prove to be important.
Apparently, itis sufficient for immunity that the state specifi-
cally gives cities the option of adopting an anticompetitive
policy; it need not rigidly mandate that policy. in the zoning
situation discussed above, for example, a statute allowing but
not requiring a zoning board to consider the existence of ade-
quate facilities elsewhere in a passing on a variance would
probably establish a basis for immunity.
1
u, r7l1 rn .
JORPA 1 l
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES M011ES
01,
ME
Ironically, despite the Supreme Court's assurances
that the states can provide immunity where they believe prudent,
many home rule cities may have little realistic prospect of
obtaining that protection regardless of the sympathies of state
legislators. Constitutional home rule provisions may in some
instances render legislatures powerless to adopt legislation
establishing policies for home rule jurisdictions. In those
instances, legislation that "affirmatively expresses and clearly
articulates" anticompetitive state policy may be struck down as
an unlawful exercise of authority in a matter of local concern.
Only the cumbersome, slow and extreme procedure of constitutional
amendment may be available 'and rarely.will that be feasible.
Moreover, Professor Phillip Areeda of Harvard has
suggested that even the most clear-cut state authorization
of limitation's'on competition may be undercut by claims that
required procedures were not followed. 'Under this approach,
the plaintiff would charge that a state statute authorized the
allegedly anticompetitive action he opposes only after the city
followed the proscribed decision-making process. The state
authorization would assertedly be inapplicable because of a
failure to follow this process, either due to some procedural
irregularity or as a result of a secret "conspiracy" between
officials and firms that will benefit from the city's action.
By this device, Areeda warns, routine judicial review of muni-
cipal procedures may be transformed into high stakes federal
antitrust litigation.
31O -L
r--- i
I iF u,ronrn urn ov
l1
JORM' "M ICR< CAB_ ' --
j CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MDI9E5 '
i�
ME
No firm predictions are possible about the scope
of,municipal antitrust immunity based on the ambiguous and
broad language of Boulder. Aside from the legal theories,
the facts of particular cases will be important in shaping
the courts' interpretation. Notwithstanding Boulder's
rejection of a governmental -proprietary distinction, cities
I �
whose traditional governmental functions are at issue may fare
better than those whose business -type activities are challenged.
Unspoken judicial appraisals of the reasonableness and propriety
of the cities' actions may also be important. while Boulder's
implications are being worked out by the lower courts, caution
will clearly be required. The case in which municipal immunity
can be safely assumed will be quite rare.
Antitrust and the Cities
Since immunity is uncertain at best, prudent city
officials will now need to understand at least the rudiments
of antitrust law. The first two sections of the Sherman Act,
enacted in 1890, will be crucial.
Section 1 prohibits a "contract, combination .
or, conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commence." The courts
quickly recognized that this sweeping prohibition, read literally, -
applied to almost all contracts and business arrangements. As
a consequence, only unreasonable restraints are prohibited.
But certain types of restraints have been determined to be un-
reasonable per se, that is, without particularized consideration
3/ca—
r—
I
mi�o„,r.iurn ay
-�- JORM "-MICROLAB- �_1] CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES ! �'
J =.
-10 -
of their effects. Price-fix_no and allocation by competitors
of customers or selling territories are the key per se viola-
tions. In flagrant cases, such as the recently exposed cases
of bidricging on highway construction projects, criminal prose-
cution and jail sentences can result from per se offenses'. Where
per se conduct is not involved, the legality of a combination
turns on the imprecise 'rule of reason" which balances procom-
petitive and anticompetitive effects of the challenged arrange-
ment. If the anticompetitive impact predominates, the arrange-
ment is usually unlawful. In any case, multiple players -- a
combination, contract or conspiracy -- are a prerequisite for
Section 1 liability.
The most common type of Section 1 charge against a
city government involves an alleged conspiracy between city of-
ficials, typically city council members, and a favored business
firm. In recent years, as in Boulder, the affected industry
has often been cable television. Other cases have involved
developers seeking zoning advantages and taxi -cab, bus and
parking lot operators. The purported conspiracy usually in-
volves an improper preference.in licensing or zoning or an un-
justified increase in a regulated price. Occupational licensing
is another field in which allegations of unlawful conspiracies
are likely; a plumber whose license is revoked for unfair sales
practices by a city -sanctioned board of his competitors may well
charge that the licensing arrangement is a conspiracy violating
3/y
------- ------ -------
. r i um"nnlurn "v
�.
L� I JORM MICR 1 LAB
CEDAR RAPIDS •DES MINES
� I
I
Section 1. City purchasing, decisions have also been challenged
under this approach.
Other Section 1 charges may involve allegations of
tying. Unlawful tying arises when a seller having "market power"
over a particularly desirable product requires that purchasers
i
also buy other products in order to obtain the prized one. In
one classic case, a patented salt dispenser was sold only to
those who agreed to buy all their salt from the seller. In
another, a railroad sold desirable land only to farmers who
agreed to ship their crops via the rail line. In the muni-
cipal area, tying allegations most often involve utilities.
Typically, a suburban resident is forced to buy electricity
from the city electric system in order to get water and sewer
service even though a nearby REA cooperative or private
utility will sell him electricity for less. This was the
central issue in the City of Lafayette case, for example.
The second crucial antitrust provision, Section 2 of
the Sherman Act, prohibits monopolization, the acquisition or
maintenance of monopoly power. A true 100 percent monopoly
of a market is not required; a monopolist for Section 2 pur-
poses is someone who can control prices or restrict entry into
the marketplace. Although a monopolist does not violate Section
2 if his monopoly power is "thrust upon" him, conduct that pro-
tects a monopoly position may be sufficient to constitute a vio-
lation. In addition, Section 2 can be violated by "an attempt
3l�
` 1
ov
ulrroncli urn
,
JORM:� MIC Rl�LA B� -
I CEDAR RAPIDS DES PoDIVES
J_
.r'
4,
-12-
to•monopolize": a specific intention' to obtain a monopoly coupled
with a mere "dangerous probability' of achieving monopoly power
is sufficient.
In the private sector, ronopolization cases are
rare and difficult. The Government just ended its massive
case against IBM by conceding defeat. However, cities fre-
quently have monopoly power. Cities often operate the only
public transit, water and sewer systems and the only waste
disposal sites, for example. Moreover, cities through fran-
chise and licensing powers or as landlords in a sense have
i
monopoly power over other activities in which they are not
J
- - engaged themselves. r
Accordingly, superficially plausible charges of mono-
polization can often be made against cities that keep others
from competing with municipal activities or designate•a single
firm to provide a service. Exclusive taxi -cab franchises or
zoning actions based on the existence of existing activities
might be challenged on this theory. Although this has not
yet borne out in the cases, we suspect that instances in which
city monopoly power benefits a private firm (e.g.., awarding a
CATV'franchise) will be more vulnerable than those where the
city preserves to itself a monopoly (as by taking over an in-
adequate transit system).
This litany of possible antitrust theories does not
mean that all or most antitrust suits against cities will be
,AI-PCnriprn Av
1.
DORM:"MIC R+CAB
CEDAR RAFI DS • DES MDIYES I
I
J:�
Ell
-13-
successful. Even in convenEional commercial settings, there are
numerous defenses to such theories. In entering novel areas,
such as regulated industries or the professions, the -courts
have usually recognized that "easy labels do not always supply
ready answers." Indeed, the Supreme Court in Boulder reiterated
its conclusion in Lafayette that "[i]t may be that certain I
activities, which might appear anticompetitive when engaged in by
private parties, take on a different complexion when adopted
by a local government." The Court went on to note.that it had
not determined what kinds of remedies are appropriate in anti-
trust cases against city officials.
On the other hand, in future municipal antitrust i
cases, courts will be concerned with effects on competition
and not other public policy justifications for a governmental
action. The Supreme Court has stated:
"The Rule [of Reason governing Section 1 of
the Sherman Act) does not open the field of
antitrust inquiry to any argument in favor
of a challenged restraint that may fall with-
in the realm of reason. Instead, it focuses
directly on the challenged restraint's impact
on competitive conditions.^
The cases decided to date have included a significant number
in which cities have failed to satisfy that test and have been
found liable.
Moreover, city officials may derive little comfort
from eventual vindication after years of expensive litigation
f
i
I ielronrniarn Rv
I`JORM'MICR+LAB , -J
CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES
E
�J
_y
-14-
during which the city's freedom of action may be severely re-
stricted. Validation of a 1982 licensing decision in 1986 may
be an empty exercise.
What then should cities do in this difficult initial
period after Boulder? Four steps that would appear prudent
to minimize potential antitrust exposure are:
1. Review the legal structures in which the city
operates to identify areas of possible exemption.
A careful examination of the state constitutional
provisions, statutes, and city charters under which a municipal
government operates is an obvious first step. Although pre-
dictions will necessarily be tentative, principles derived from
exemption cases of all types and good legal judgment should
provide some useful indications of high risk areas.
2. Analyze the city's activities under antitrust
standards.
Business firms often ask their antitrust counsel to
undertake a periodic "antitrust audit" of their practices.
In the same way, cities may wish to examine activities such
as zoning, licensing and purchasing as well as utility and sani-
tation operations both to identify apparent trouble spots and
to permit steps that will facilitate defending the city's
actions in the event of a challenge. often, minor changes or
a clear-cut articulation of the city's objectives may eliminate
or greatly reduce a problem. In other cases, the city may wish
l
In vonou urn av i
l" JORM. MICR+LAB- )
I CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES '
• 1 a
• =15-
to reconsider -- in advance -of a. suit -- the wisdom of a policy
that is vulnerable on antitrust grounds.
3. Consider the feasibility of obtaining state approval.
In many instances in which municipal antitrust exposure
may otherwise be great, state ratification may be readily avail-
able. If the action is not controversial, a limited effort in
the state capital may be sufficient to obtain legislative or
regulatory action sufficient to provide protection. The key,
obviously, is to soot the circumstance where immunity would be
helpful.
4. Resoond to anv antitrust challenge forcefully and
in antitrust terms.
An aggressive, knowledgeable response to an antitrust
i
suit may bring it to an early favorable conclusion....Efforts
to develop the pertinent facts and test legal allegations may
permit a quick motion for summary judgment or dismissal of the
the complaint. The key to success is likely to be marshalling
antitrust arguments rather than generalized defenses of a city's
policies or prerogatives. Of course, victories may have a
deterrent effect.
Antitrust exposure is a new and unwelcome burden on
municipalities, made worse by the breadth and imprecision of the
Boulder decision. In the long run, the courts are likely to
find means to assure that governmental functions are not hobbled
i Mar Fnr pmrn Ov
JORM-"MICR#LA[f_
CEDAR RAPI DS DES MDI4ES
31IX
J�
L
-16-
by overly rigid application of antitrust principles. City
officials must properly recognize, however, that the often un-
familiar limitations of antitrust law are now clearly applicable
to them. .Attention to their reauirenents will be needed to
avoid the risk of federal court injunctions and treble damages.
uvonni ucn av
t-JOR-M "MICR( L -AB--.
y CEDAR RAPIDS •DES MOINES
P'
JOINT MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL
CHAIRPERSONS -BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
FEBRUARY 17, 1982
INFORMAL COUNCIL MEETING: February 17, 1982 at 4:00 P.M. at the Highlander
Mayor Pro tem David Perret presiding.
COUNCILI.IEMBERS PRESENT: Perret, Lynch, McDonald, Dickson, Erdahl, 4:30 P.M.
Neuhauser, 4:40 P.M. Staffinembers present: Berlin, Helling, Stolfus.
Absent: Balmer
Mayor Pro tem Perret advised that the format for the meeting would be simple.
Each person representing a Board or Commission would go over the activities
of the past year, and those contemplated for the future.
Airport Commission Chairperson Jan Redick stated that the Airport had four
areas of concern; fiscal responsibility, impact on surrounding neighborhood,
safety considerations, and physical plant itself. She said the most important
thing they had done was to hire a full-time Airport Manager. She discussed
generation of income, communication with the public, grant for noise
pollution, the new weather station, designation of Runway 6-24 as preferential
runway, and commented that they are renegotiating the lease with the fixed -
base operator.
Zoning Board of Adjustment Boardmember John Mulligan explained the powers
of this quasi-judicial body, and outlined several variances requested. He
pointed out the need for the new zoning ordinance and map.
Mayor Mary Neuhauser arrived, 4:40 P.M. and presided for the rest -of the
meeting.
Board of Electrical Examiners and Appeals Chairperson Rick Chambers advised
that in 1981, 66 applicants had been tested. Their special project this
year has been the updating of the Electrical Code. In '82 they project fewer
applicants. They will be updating the licensing examinations. The overall
goal is the improvement of quality of electrical work.
Board of Library Trustees President Ed Zastrow commented on the 50% increase
ingrowth of directpublic services since the opening of their new facility
in June of 1981. Numerous efficiencies are a result of the computer. They
will reopen on Sunday afternoons starting in October to May. They have
$50,000 in the Gifts & Bequests fund, of which one-half will be used for
the collection, and one-half will be held in abeyance. Volunteers give them
the equivalent of three full-time employees. They have held the first
teleconference by satellite. They also received the Chamber of Commerce
Economic Development Award this year. An explosion of growth is unforseen.
Broadband Telecommunications Commission Acting Chairperson Bill Terry
explained the purpose of their Commission, noting that they were fortunate
to have Bill Pepper on the Commission. There have been 350 requests for
( use of the Access Channel. The City receives 3% of Hawkeye's revenue.
A national assiciation will hold their convention here in April. He com-
mented on the good cooperation between the company, the city and the conmun-
ity. Hawkeye will present CBS Cultural Channel on 18, at the end of March.
CNN news channel will be available in three or four months. Hawkeye will
be asking for a rate increase in July. Actions of the University and the
Hospital were explained.
1.
1 ulronrn urn ay
1JORM MICR#LAB ' J
I -CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES
J
Page 2
Informal Council
February 17, 1982
Civil Service Commission Chairperson Jane Anderson explained the duties
of the Commission. and how the examinations and interviews had been standard-
ized. Four days were spent in interviewing for the Police and Fire vacancies.
Impressive improvements have been made in the relevancy of the examinations.
Having an attorney as a commissioner has also aided them. Lynch related
the policy that Council will be implementing regarding public recognition
for Commissioners when they have completed a term. Several Boards and
Commissions have been using a certificate. Jane is completing her six-year
term on the Commission. She stated that the average I.Q. in persons tested
is 15 to 18 points higher than the average jurisdiction.
Committee on Community Needs Chairperson Margaret Bonney requested that
members to their committee be appointed for more than two years, so that
there is continuity on the committee. In '81 they reviewed fifty projects,
held neighborhood meetings, in preparation for the three-year grant. The
grant has now been decreased once and possibly will be again in '82. A
task force was formed for Historic Structures. In '82 they will monitor the
Lower Ralston Creek Neighborhood Project. $209,000 will need to be reallo-
cated due to houses not purchased. The major need is housing for the low
and moderate income persons. Bonney was directed to talk over proposed
change regarding length of term of members and make a recommendation to
Council's Rule Committee.
Design Review Committee Chairperson Nancy Seiberling stated the purpose of
their Committee was to make recommendations to Council. She reported on
the accomplishments for FY'81, several in the area of Old Capitol Center
She called attention to an exhibition on March 2nd -Old Buildings, New Uses.
It was pointed out that Council had tentatively made a decision'td be in-
volved with development and design of Block 64 and to work more closely
with the Design Review Committee on it, Seiberling commented that the
reason groups come to Iowa City was to make a good investment on their money.
Regarding a more formalized Committee structure, Seiberling suggested hand-
ling matters the way they are doing now.
i
Housing Commission Chairperson Goldene Haendel noted that it had been a
very busy year for the Commission and thanked Council and Staff for their
help. She recommended a session on the function of other boards and com-
missions be held by each board or commission, as the one. they held proved
very helpful. On March 10th there will be a meeting regarding congregate
housing. A central clearing house is needed to deal with problems from
the Crisis Center and Domestic Violence programs.
Parks and Recreation Commission Comnission Member David Wooldrik reported
on their goal to purchase park land, noting the tremendous number of people
who participate in their programs. A new program for basketball in the
grade schools has been started by Dr. Fred Riddle and has been so success-
ful that programs will need to be started in other schools. People are
spending leisure time closer to home. Another goal is a new swimming pool
in City Park and he stated that credit should be given to Bob Howell and
crew for keeping the old pool repaired. The Commission has discussed re-
placement of the pool just west of the site of the current pool. 168,500
persons used the city pools last year, and City Park pool was down over
the Fourth of July. He asked that Council consider budgeting $78,000 of
maintenance costs for equipment, fuel, etc. for equipment not directly
used in the parks, to some other account. Wooldrik announced a tour of
the parks on March 19th.
r
Y IA IrDArlim D NV t
JORM MICR46LAB-
ti.
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES I401:1E5
r`
_y
Page 3
Informal Council
February 17, 1982
Planning and Zoning Commission Chairperson John Seward acknowledged
that they received a great deal of support from Planning and Programming
Development staff. As terms of many Commissioners have ended, their
Commission is in the process of building experience. He outlined their
responsibilities and mentioned some of the recommendations regarding land
use including Melrose Corridor and Mobile Home Ordinance. Regarding
plans for FY'82, they will review impact of the new sewer facilities on
the east side; they hope to see fruition of the new ordinance on zoning,
noting that the date for it's review with the City Attorney has been
extended. He explained that the tree ordinance has requirements to
protect existing trees, and the zoning ordinance will be amended regarding
screening requirements. Erdahl requested an update on regulations for
trees in subdivisions. Perret suggested that P&Z work with other com-
missions on land use, mentioning the River Corridor overlay zone, mandatory
park dedication and involvement of energy conservation.
Resources Conservation Commission Vice -Chairperson Nancy Sheehan noted
they were an advisory body and have no routine issues to deal with.
They need discussion of long-term strategy on what their Commission
should be doing. She discussed several energy conservation recommendations
made including having traffic signals go to flashing mode after midnite,
and request for consideration in the new subdivision code to orient
streets east/west for south exposure for houses. Bill Terry asked why
low sodium street lights were not used more extensively. The Mayor
advised that this would be looked into as a part of the franchise dis-
cussion with Iowa -Illinois Gas & Elec. Sheehan advised that the Com-
mission had volunteered to be involved regarding energy decisions
concerning the franchise. One commissioner's employer is Ia.-I11.,
Riverfront Commission Commission member Howard Sokol related the respon-
sibilities of the Commission. They have no funding and part-time staff.
An issue is that what they recommend usually costs Parks and Recreation
money to maintain. They aim to be the conscience of the City and are
working on an ordinance to resolve conflict on uses in the river as the
present ordinance is unenforceable. They are concerned over the safety
of joggers and bicyclists on Rocky Shore Drive. Funding was discussed.
Sokol asked that the Braverman offer in the Sturgis Ferry area be firmed
up. He was directed to forward a recommendation from the Commission again.
Perret called attention to the recommendations in the Stanley Plan. Some
Councilmembers are not familiar with this plan.
Senior Center Vice -Chairperson Margaret Clover listed the Commission's
responsibi ities, and noted the Grand Opening of the Center. The
operational handbook is completed. 90 volunteers give 700 hours a
month to aid in provision of services for the Eldercraft Shop, the
newspaper and Congregate Meals. They have a concern to discuss later
with Council regarding parking for these volunteers.
There were no representatives present from the Human Rights Commission,
the Board of Examiners of Plumbers, and the Board of Appeals (Building
Code). . Mayor Neuhauser stated she was impressed with all the activities
going on in the Community. McDonald added his appreciation for all the
time and effort put in by all Commissioners, and asked that this appreci-
ation be relayed to the Commissioners not present. He also stated that
the meeting was extremely beneficial, instead of just reading reports.
rn ronnlurn ov
"JORM MICR6LAO-
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES I
� I
1
r
ti
J�