Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-04-13 Info PacketCity of Iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE: April 9.:1982 TO: City Council FROM: City Manager RE: Informal Agendas and Meeting Schedule April 12 1982 Monday 4:30 - 6:30 P.M. Conference Room 4:30 P.M. - Discuss zoning matters 4:45 P.M. - Weed Ordinance Amendments 4:55 P.M. - Council agenda, Council time, Council committee reports 5:10 P.M. - Consider appointments to Housing Commission and Board of j Library Trustees 5:15 P.M. - Meet with Committee on Community Needs j 6:00 P.M. - Discuss North Branch Dam j 6:15 P.M. - Discuss bus advertising policy April 13 1982 Tuesday 7:30 P.M. - Regular Council Meeting - Council Chambers April 19 1982 Monday 4:30 - 6:30 P.M. Conference Room 4:30 P.M. - Executive Session 4:45 P.M. - Discuss zoning matters 5:00 P.M. - Complete CIP Decisions (including Melrose Court) 6:00 P.M. - Council time, Council committee reports April 20 1982 Special Informal Council Meeting Tuesday 7:00 - 9:00 P.M. Conference Room 7:00 P.M. - Discuss City Forestry Program 7:30 P.M. - Historic Preservation Task Force Update PENDING LIST Meet with Parks and Recreation Commission regarding parkland acquisition Transit Fare Policy Meet with Riverfront Commission regarding Stanley Plan Recommendations regarding Traffic Signal Flashing Mode Electrical, Plumbing, and Mechanical Permit Fees Appointments to Committee on Community Needs and Airport Commission - April 27 Appointment to Resources Conservation Commission - May 11 } Appointment to Planning and Zoning Commission - May 25 6`f3 t 141CROFILMED BY I I_ -JORM MICR#LAB I f CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES i I ,... _ - _ •' /jam\ _ I City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: April 2, 1982 To: City Council From: Citk ryenager Re: Position of Forester During FY83 budget consideration we discussed the possibility that a vacant Senior Maintenance Worker position in the Parks. Division could be reclassified as a forester if a decision was made to hire a full-time forester. Since that time the person holding the position of horticulturist has resigned. The Director of Parks and Recreation and the City Manager believe that this position should more logically become the position of forester. Accordingly, a job description change has been prepared for that position. Recently, I met with representatives of Project GREEN and other interested parties concerning a citywide program for protecting, planting and nurturing trees. As a result of that discussion the Committee reviewed the job description to insure that the person employed will, in fact, be able to carry out such a program, if the Council provided increased funding and an expanded service level. If the City Council does not authorize an expanded program, the forester will• perform the same level• of service as is currently being provided. Recruitment for the position is proceeding. Enclosed is the position description and the information which the group prepared for discussion with the City Council at the special informal Council meeting of April 20. tp/sp r 141CROFILIIED BY -JORM MICROLAB' CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES I tWl 1 J_. _;N r MICR0 ILMED BY JORM MICR#LAB 1 CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES I _y ��1 TITLE: FORESTER/HORTICULTURIST DEFINITION: Under direction, performs work of considerable difficulty supervising the City tree program and horticultural activities in the city parks and other city properties; and performs related duties as required. EXAMPLES OF DUTIES: i Initiate prepare, and supervise contracts for tree trimming, removal planting i and pest control. I Develop and work cooperatively with citizens in community programs; develop public information; support and expand citizen volunteer efforts in community beautification and forestry programs. Inspect complaints of violations of forestry ordinance and *instigate proper I enforcement procedures. Prepare and maintain an inventory of city street trees; develop and implement a master tree planting plan and maintenance program. Design and direct the implementation and maintenance of flower beds, determines the selection of plants, flowers, and shrubs. Interview, select, assign and evaluate the performance of support staff. Designs, directs, and participates in tree trimming, maintenance, and planting programs. i Maintains proper forestry, horticulture and employee records. Serves as technical consultant to city departments on plant materials, plant design, selection, identification, and maintenance. j j Assists in developing division goals and budget requests. TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE: b f c B.S. degree in forestry, horticulture, landscape architecture, arborculture or S a related degree, or an equivalent combination of education and experience. Three years experience in administering or supervising a municipal forestry program. Experience in grounds maintenance and nursery work is desirable. KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS: t Considerable knowledge of: all aspects of a municipal forestry program. methods and techniques of gardening and tree care, including propagation, planting, fertilization, and disease and insect control. MICR0 ILMED BY JORM MICR#LAB 1 CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES I _y ��1 1'r a; n G Considerable skill in: designing floral displays. supervising subordinates. Working skill in: recordkeeping. REQUIRED LICENSES AND CERTIFICATES Must have or be able to obtain: Iowa Pesticide Applicator License, Iowa driver's license. s 1 141CROFILMED BY MICR+LAB' CEDAR RAPIDS •DES MOIRES I� #ey -Y i MI r i I _ S i b. r March 11, 1982 Mayor Neuhauser and Members of the City Council 410 East Washington Iowa City, Iowa 52240 We encourage the Council to develop a new approach to the problems of pro- tecting, planting and nurturing trees in Iowa City. In the past it has been an accepted procedure to cut severely or even to eliminate from the budget the funds needed for the forestry program. Today we consider our urban forest as a civic treasure, highly valued by owners of home and business properties. To help protect and enhance it, we offer the following constructive contribution to widen the scope of forestry program deliberations. We shall be glad to discuss the implications and potential of these new dimensions -with you at an informal meeting. EXISTING NEEDS TO BE FULFILLED BY AN ARBORIST IN IOWA CITY 1. Prepare or update an inventory of the City's existing overstory street tree canopy, identifying (at•a minimum): size, condition and maintenance needs, voids, etc. 2. Develop and implement a Master Planting Plan. This should be coordinated with an inventory of the existing utility service locations and street right-of-way variances. 3. Develop and implement a Master Maintenance Program (including protective tree surgery, fertilization, trimming and disease prevention) that can be budgeted for in future years. 4. Develop professional specifications for contracting services for tree removal, trimming and pest control. These specifications also should be accompanied by.an adequate quantity of construction observation hours by a professional arborist. This person should be qualified and have past experience in construction observation in the above areas during the implementation of the contract. 5. Review compliance with the tree planting ordinance and with the protection of existing trees in new developments. 6. Review all new construction (preliminary plans) and evaluate the condition and quality of existing trees so as to be able to recommend procedures to lessen impact on them. 7. Be able to advise home owners on size, type and location of trees that may be planted. Be able to make available information about proper maintenance, disease and pest control measures. 8. Maintain certification in the use of disease and pest control chemicals. MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR6LAO CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES i i _y Mayor Neuhauser and Members of the City Council March 11, 1982 Page 2 am I ti 9. Maintain budget books on records of yearly maintenance work and. street 1 tree plantings, updating annually the Master Plan from this data. a , 10. Oversee protection of existing trees during various types of public works construction (i.e., utility service expansion). i 11. Enter application for FY 84 "Tree City USA" and continue work associated with this program. 4 12. Initiate innovative programs (i.e., a cost effective method of selling byproducts of tree trimming operations to generate forestry department i funds. 13. Communicate with the public in a variety of ways to foster understanding, appreciation and support for funding a strong forestry program. Respectfully, Jim L. Maynard Leon Lyvers ! Dan J. Cleland Don Sinek Bonnie Sierk Nancy Seiberling Gretchen Harshberger Ed Mickelson Kathryn L. Gillies Emilie Rubright Mary Parrott Lucy Koontz I i r c i r i i' i{t 4 a 4 ' t i l y� f MICROFILMED BY I �' 1 "DORM MICR(#IL'AB�" - ..� � �.. J CEDAR RAPIDS •DES MOI4E5 r City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Oate: April 9, 1982 To: City Council From: Ci01.anager Re: Evaluation. Enclosed is information relating to the evaluation of the City Manager. Time has been scheduled at the informal session of April 12 to have a preliminary discussion. At that time the Council may desire to discuss the process to be followed, additional information you might find useful, and whether the evaluation is in open or closed session. If you have any questions, please call. bc4/6 1' i MICROFILMED BY ,. -JORM MICR+LAB` { CEDAR RAPIDS •DES MOINES J� i( ' 1 1 I I. i i i 1 J� /t r1 Evaluoting the Chief Administrator This handbook was prepared by Christine Schwarz Becker, Project Director, International City Management Association. The cartoons were created by Peter Clarey, Englewood, New Jersey. Handbook design by Virginia Sheard, Washington, D.C. MICROFILMED BY i I - JORM MICR#LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES I i P— s —id 1'r Contents A Positive Look At Evaluation ........................ 1 Principles Of Evaluation .............................. 3 Roles And Responsibilities ........................... 6 Evaluating: The Mechanics ........................... 13 AndSo .......................................... 22 Appendices....................................... 23 Resources ......................................... 29 i i 141CROFILMED BY _�_.. .. _..._I. -"JORM--MIC R#C40-� _CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES I I I i i i i I I I I t t i. i I i 1 . i 4 bye J,� r Q pomow 1@@h Lath EdaOUmbn Evaluation is a touchy subject—whether it's evaluation of a product or of an individual. Traditionally, personnel evaluation has meant a critical and often negative look at an indivi- dual's performance—putting the employee's every move under a microscope and determining what's wrong. In the public sector, evaluation has gradually become a part of staff relations and development. But when it comes to the relationship of chief administrator to elected governing body, evaluation causes some particular uneasiness. You evaluate an administrator because there are problems and you want to take a closer look at what's wrong—or you avoid the process entirely. But wait—why does evaluation have to imply something negative and unpleasant? Why not think of evaluation as a process to find out what's right and what has been going well. A positive attitude toward evaluation will help both you, the governing body, and your admini- strator begin to accept and appreciate the value of the process. First, let's think about what evaluation is. Of course, it IS a critical look at what an em- ployee (the chief administrator) has accomplished during a given time. But it's also a communi- cations process—a method for permitting discussion apart from the formal decision-making pro- cess. And, despite the close working relationship between the administrator and governing body, opportunities for that kind of frank and personal discussion are very rare. Evaluation is also a learning process. Through a regular evaluation, you can begin to learn more about what everyone is doing, what everyone expects from each other and where there are strengths or weaknesses in the relationship. At the same time, evaluation is a difficult and sometimes time consuming process. You �r have to think about what's happening in your community, what you want to happen, and why things are oraren't going as you hope. You have to do more than scratch the surface. And, evaluation is threatening—a risky process for both the evaluator and the person being evalua- ted. Some will say it's harder on the evaluator because the benefits are less clearcut. If an ad- ministrator is doing a bang-up job and knows it, evaluation will only reinforce the strengths of that administrator. But what does it do for the governing body—the ones who have to agonize through the process? For one thing, it can help you see yourself in a new light. It forces you to spell out your expectations and needs in terms of the administrator's performance. And, if it's done well, it can help you determine how you're doing as an elected official—what you're contributing to the organization and how you might improve YOUR performance. This handbook is designed for you, the governing body or the evaluator, as well as your appointed administrator, the one who's being evaluated. It won't tell you the perfect way to conduct an evaluation, but it will get the wheels turning toward a thoughtful, effective, sensi- tive, and POSITIVE evaluation process. MICROFILMED BY i t I -JORM MICRbLA13 CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES '/3 J �r An evaluation must have a defined purpose. ! 141CROFIL14ED BY CEDAR RAPIDS PO.CR +LOA13 r pQow¢op0g d EVdU@d@fl A good way to start talking about evaluation is to consider some basic principles which should go into any evaluation process. While there isn't one pie in the sky way to carry out a perfect evaluation, some common concepts will help you reach a satisfactory end. The most important principle is that there aren't any absolutes when it comes to evalua- tion. There are many systems, formats, approaches, criteria, and designs. What works is what's acceptable. What feels best is what's right for youl LITTLETON, COLORADO has an informal semi-annual evaluation process for its city manager— largely just a general discussion about what's happened and how both the council and manager are doing. "The process is very infor- mal and the success is largely dependent upon the personalities of the Coun- cil and Manager involved." explains Littleton City Manager Gale D. Christy. "It could be more formalized if we chose to make it so, but why argue with success? ? ?" g Once you realize there isn't one right way, one recommended approach, you'll be well on your way to developing a good approach for your community. t. Here are some additional principles to help you think through the evaluation process: i' • AN EVALUATION MUST HAVE A DEFINED PURPOSE: That's obvious, you're probably thinking Everyone knows the pur- pose of an evaluation. But, sometimes misconceptions about what the evaluation's purpose is can lead to the unpleasant, negative eval- uations you want to avoid. So start by thinking it through—why do you want to go through a process which is time consuming, risky, and threatening? Try to define your reasons —spell them out Are you evaluating strictly to see if a raise is appropriate? Or does it go deeper than that? To find out what the administrator's strong and weak points are so you can work to improve them? To improve the working relationship between administrator and governing body? To help define goals and objectives for future performance? Don't assume everyone "understands" the purpose. Spell it out when you're plan• ning the evaluation process and make sure your process meets that purpose. 3 141LADr ILRED BY 11 "DORM MICR6LA13 ...J CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MMES I i 1 y _y r • EVALUATION SHOULD BEGIN WITH MUTUAL AGREEMENT AND AC—NSE: Ideally, starting and developing the whole Motets should be a joint undertaking. That means both the admini• strator and governing body want to do it and have a hand in figuring out how. It won't work if the process is railroaded through by an individual or by either the administrator or governing body. Work on it together— coming up with some mutual understandings about why YOU want to evaluate and how you're going to do it • THE EVALUATION PROCESS SHOULD BE REGULAR: Once you start, stick with it A one shot deal ("hey, let's evaluate our chief admini• strator tomorrow") is ineffective, threatening, and suspicious Regular doesn't necessarily mean stiff and formal. It means you evaluate period• ically, at an agreed-upon interval. When you jointly define the purpose and process, also define the interval and make sure you stick with the schedule. • AN EVALUATION SHOULD BE OPEN AND CONSTRUCTIVE: When you'ro evaluating you should be sharing— Admittedly, that's hard to do. But it you g talking openly. 1 You'll make the process infinitely more bene tial oir evnk eryone. Look L ok or the strop g ones. Look ) g points without concentrating on the weak ones. And when you do raise weaknesses, focus on what can be done to eliminate them. Try not to waste time on areas the administrator can't do any thing about— like the administrator's personality. At all costs, both you and the administrator should avoid going on the defensive. Talk, share, be open' and positive. you're communicating—not facing head•to•head combatl *EVALUATION SHOULD BE BASED ON OBJECTIVE CRITERIA: The criteria will give evaluation the needed direction. And, if your criteria aro well thought out and positive, you'll end up with a positive and effec. tive evaluation. The best criteria are comprehensive— identifying skills, achievements, and results. In other words, you try to look at and evaluate every dimension of your chief administrator. It's hard to come up with Objective criteria when you think about the many hats a chief administra• for wears. But you can begin by thinking about expectations—and then expanding those expectations into criteria. • EVALUATION SHOULD FIT INTO THE GENERAL STREAM OF THINGS: An evaluation shouldn't be an Isolated, unrelated interruption. It's an integral part of everything that's going on. When you're developing an evaluation process, think about the way you do things, what you're already doing, and how you can fit evaluation in. It might become part of an annual retreat where you hammer out goals and objectives. Or it might fit best some. where in your budget cycle. But integrate it into what is already happening. 0 141CROFILIIED BY JORM MICR;L AS j CEDAR R...D5 •DES IdO1TES 6 it's J [r a l � r SUCCESS / 2. UCCES S uCCE S S SUCCESS Look for strong points without concentrating on the weak ones. • AN EVALUATION SHOULD LEAD TO POSITIVE ACTION: Follow-through is critical to the success of evaluation. Make sure you plan on something hap- pening after the evaluation—action steps or a governing body -administrator improvement plan. Then, when you come to the next evaluation, you'll be able to look at progress, "How'd we do?" An evaluation should lead to change. Even if there's nothing wrong, think about specific ways to make strong points even better or to develop now skills. 5 r" 1 i 141CROFILMED BY I. _-JORM MICR+LAB- CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES ! � I ye R@k�Afld a¢�powdUbU*H@3 Every time evaluation of the chief administrator is mentioned, at least ten questions pop up about who does what, how do I start it, what should I do, where does the public fit in .. ? So it's important to think about the process in those terms—roles and responsiblities in evaluation process. There are really three important actors to consider in the process— the governing body who does the evaluation; the administrator who is being evaluated and the citizens who want to know what's going on. Where, if anywhere, do they all fit in? THE GOVERNING BODY: Why Bother? Everyone always assumes an evaluation process is roughest on the person being evaluated. . There's also a great deal of pressure on the evaluator and, in most cases, the benefits of the process are less apparent. So, what's in it for you, the evaluator? An evaluator probably has to be a little more magnanimous and a little less self serving than the person being evaluated. A good evaluation pointing up some of the administrator's strengths can be beneficial on both sides. Obviously, it can strengthen your working relation- ship with the administrator because you'll know more about the person you're working with. But it can also help you in your role as the administrator's employer—a role some elected offi- cials forget about until they decide it's time to fire the administrator. A good employer needs to know if an employee is satisfied with the job, the working conditions and the challenges. A good employer also needs to be able to pinpoint strengths and weaknesses, and, more impor- tantly, let the employee know about those strengths and weaknesses. And, a good employer owes an employee regular feedback—whether it's a reprimand or a pat on the back. In your policy making role, an evaluation can put you and the administrator on the same wave length when it comes to issues, ideas, concerns, and Interests. When you're evaluating an administrator, you're bound to look at some of the issues which concern both of you—the goals you and the administrator are trying to achieve. And a common awareness of goals and expectations will lead to a more satisfying and more productive working environment for both you and the administrator. More simply, evaluation provides an outlet—a regular forum for airing issues, problems, needs, concerns, frustrations, or anxieties. If you're dissatisfied with the way your administra- tor handled a certain issue, evaluation gives you a chance to air that dissatisfaction and deter- mine if it was the issue or the administrator that really bothered you. 141CRDr ILMED BY JORM MICR6LAB j 1 CEDAR RAPIDS •DES MOINES 6 V5 _10 r You can get a more direct benefit from evaluation if it's a two way process—governing body evaluates the administrator and the administrator evaluates the governing body. That way you can get the kind of feedback you might need to strengthen your end of the team. Are you articulating your needs, concerns, and interests clearly and effectively? Are you giv- ing the administrator the kind of policy leadership needed to carry out the day-to-day business of running a city or county. Are you getting too involved in day-to-day administrative business? Your administrator is in a good position to evaluate how well you're doing as a policy making body. Then, after the total evaluation process you and the administrator will be able to improve the way you carry out your respective jobs. Another beneficial element of the general evaluation process might be a chance to do some SELF EVALUATING. When you think about how well your administrator is doing and how well the governing body as a whole is functioning, you can also take a look at what you're doing as an individual. Are you communicating well with the administrator and govern- ing body members; are you working as a member of the team; are you accomplishing some of your own goals? It can be helpful to turn the process inward—to make it introspective. Two MAINE councilmen who have worn the hats of evaluators admit the process can be difficult— but feel strongly that it can also be most rewarding and beneficial. Richard Walker, of CUMBERLAND, MAINE, says a planned evaluation annual, establishes a sound working relationship between the coun. cil and manager. It also provides an opportunity to review the manager's job description, council expectations of the manager, and the manager's own satisfaction. Similarly, Robert Adam of FALMOUTH. MAINE, sees evalua- tion as a way to achieve "a healthy two-way communication." Both the manager and council must discuss problems, expectations, and needs. 'The evaluation process should facilitate careful consideration of Council and Manager roles in municipal government and how effectively each has func. tioned." Now, as the evaluator, what are you supposed to do? That's not easy to define. Your responsibilities will depend on the evaluation structure you and your administrator choose. It might mean filling out a form, or talking with the administrator or both. "Eyeball -to - eyeball" contact with the administrator is often the hardest part of the evaluation. But direct contact—an open and honest discussion—is usually the best and most thorough way to evaluate. It adds a certain amount of credence to what comes out in a written form. And it can give both you and the administrator a chance to question, clarify, or elaborate on what you feel. Your primary responsibility in evaluation is to be HONEST. Think first about what you ex- pect from an administrator and then think about what you're getting from YOUR administrator? Do they coincide? Remember, it's best to focus on RESULTS—what the administrator set out to achieve 6 �S 1 MICROr ILMED BY JORM MICR6LAS f L' I CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES i 7 i 1 _�M r and what's been achieved. Personality, or better yet, STYLE will have some impact on your im- pression of the administrator. The way a public administrator carries out a job can be an im- portant part of what he or she accomplishes. Nevertheless, it's important to look primarily at results—not at personality traits. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR: Why Met ? ? So you're the chief administrator—why on earth would you want your governing body to evaluate you? It seems like a perfect way to let them take pat shots at you and put you on the chopping block. Few administrators who've gone through the process will tell you that's the way it is. Of course, it's threatening and sometimes risky. After all, you're dealing with an elected body, usually at least five people, all with different ideas about what you're supposed to be doing and different opinions about how well you're doing it. There are, however, some very definite benefits for you in an evaluation. Think about it: • Evaluation gives you a chance to talk openly and frankly with your governing body—a way to deal with them away from the decision-making table. • Regular evaluation can help you avoid crisis confrontation with your governing body. If there are problems, you have a way to get them out. If there are serious conflicts, you'll know about them and together you can find a way to handle them. It helps avoid surprises! • Regular evaluation gives you a chance to show how well i you're carrying out the governing body's directives. If you're doing an outstanding job, you have a right to know. Evaluation gives the governing body an excuse to pat you on the back. • Evaluation can force you and the governing body to define i; roles and expectations so you'll know what you're supposed to be doing. Ideally, roles and expectations should be defined BEFORE an evaluation, but if that doesn't happen, evaluation is a perfect place to agree on a process to spell them out. • Evaluation can give you more confidence— in both yourself and your work. After a good evaluation you have a clearer idea of whet the governing body wants. Even if the evalua- tion points up problems or weaknesses, at least you know where you stand and why. In a more general way, evaluation gives you a better handle on things. You'll begin to know more clearly what individual governing body members want and expect from you and you'll be better equipped to meet those expectations. It puts the governing body into perspective for you. E3 6115 141CROFILMED BY -JORM MICR46LAB a j CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MO HES 1 �� -y �r i r -ti r\ ( I I �JPI.UATi0N 4_J t 1 fl Evaluation is a touchy subject) And, if you and the governing body agree to make the evaluation process a two-way i street, you'll have a chance to talk about how well the govering body is meeting your ex- pectations and what changes are needed. From your perspective, it's not easy to take on the evaluation of an entire governing body. There area lot of sensitive areas. But you're probably in the best position to give the governing body some constructive feedback, so it's worth a try. Some of the "tender" areas worth discussing include: • Is the governing body providing the necessary leadership? • Is the governing body facing critical community problems and coming up with solutions to those problems? • Is the governing body stepping too much into administrative affairs—are they concentrating enough on policymaking? • Is the staff getting a clear direction from the governing body? i I It's not easyto focus on these kinds of issues unless you have a fair) f y y good working re- lationship with the governing body. But if you agree you want to evaluate each other, then do it. i 9 i i i I MICROFILMED BY I J CORM MICR( LAB J CEDAR RAPIDS •DES MOIYES r Let's assume you're sold on evaluation. What role do you play in developing and imple- menting the process? You may be in a position to sell the governing body on the process. If you're starting a new job, you might ask the governing body to set up an evaluation as a condition of employment. That approach has worked for some administrators because it gets the process started off on the right foot. In other cases, you could build an evaluation process for yourself into an employee evaluation system for your own staff. You evaluate the city staff and your governing body evaluates you as part of a broad process. Either way, there's some advantage if you initiate the idea of evaluation, particularly if the governing body members don't have any individual experience in employee evaluation. They might need and welcome guidance from a professional administrator on the mechanics of evaluating employees. Once you're both sold on evaluation, it's a joint effort. In VANCOUVER. WASHINGTON, the manager and council spent some time defining the managerial duties and then implementing an evaluation system. City Manager Alan Harvey believes that the concept of evaluation is worth pursuing. "To maintain effective Council and Manager relationships, it is essential that the Council establish specific measurable objectives with the City Manager and periodically review those objectives. To do otherwise creates the situation where both are operating without the advantage of knowing the other's expectations." He says defining the manager's duties has been the "hardest part of the process." MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA, has a comprehensive Management Perform- ance Program which includes evaluation for department heads, city attorney, city clerk, and city manager. Each individual is reviewed semi-annually by the respective supervisor based on a general approach to employee appraisal for all levels. The city manager goes through the process with his supervisor—the coun- cil. In all, about 50 management level employees in the city participate in the evaluating process. The Mountain View approach is based on the premise that "careful planning and implementation of a Performance Evaluation System is an essential management element to insure that all personnel are effectively used" —including the City Manager. The "Performance Evaluation System" was designed by the administrator and staff, but specific objectives for the manager's review are developed jointly by the manager and the council. In FALMOUTH, MAINE, City Manager David Whitlow requested an evaluation as a condition of employment. The first evaluation would take place six months after he started in Falmouth and then annually thereafter. 10 1 141CRUILMED BY I -JORM MICRbLAB I CEDAR RAPIDS - DES IdDIYES 6 die J r L� I Once the process is moving, you become a participant in it—not a victim of it. That means working with the governing body to maintain the positive approach needed to carry out a worthwhile evaluation. If the governing body puts you on the defensive, try to work your way out of that position. And, if the process seems to be waning or the governing body wants to forget about it, work to keep it regular. The first crack at evaluation usually won't be your best shot. Don't give up the CONCEPT of evaluation before you've had enough time to work the kinks out of your PROCESS. THE CITIZENS: Hey, what's going on? 11 A few years ago, the role of citizens in evaluation wouldn't have been an issue. After all, personnel evaluation is usually private and confidential even in the public sector. But with the rise of open meeting laws—Sunshine Laws—it's impossible to forget about the citizens. "Evaluation in the sunshine" makes the process even more threatening and intimidating. The open and frank dialogue so critical to evaluation's success is harder to achieve under the watchful eye of the public and the press. How do you handle the public? If you shut them out deliberately and completely, they may get suspicious. But, if you open the door to anyone and everyone, you may also.be opening up a Pandora's box of misunderstandings and misconceptions. It's important to start by convincing yourselves that evaluation is best conducted in pri. vate. Think about it. What is evaluation? It's primarily a personnel process—a systematic review of an employee's performance. And while the kind of issues discussed may affect what happens in the community, you aren't making any formal decisions or setting speci. fic policies. You're looking more at your ability to make decisions as governing body and administrator rather than actually making decisions. Few administrators would be willing to go through a public evaluation. Even fewer elected officials would want to evaluate in a goldfish bowl. It's hard to be completely honest, critical, and objective when a lot of out- siders are watching you. Most sunshine laws allow closed sessions for personnel issues. That's usually the best route for justifying a closed evaluation. Look to your city attorney to find the right exemp- tion for justifying an executive session for the evaluation. If there Isn't any exemption— some states like Florida have rigid sunshine laws which permit very few closed sessions—the best way to handle evaluation is a one-to-one process, based on written forms. Each govern- ing body member completes the written evaluation and then the mayor or a selected repre- sentative compiles the forms and meets with the administrator to discuss the findings. Other members of the governing body may also want to talk to the administrator individually. There are some flaws inthis approach. It cuts down on the sharing which is sometimes so im- portant in evaluation and which can only come at a meeting with the entire governing body. Nevertheless, if it's the only legal way, it's better than no evaluation at all. Assuming you can evaluate in private, what, if anything, should the public know about it? Your biggest challenge will be to convince the public that the process is POSITIVE and 11 MICROFILMED BY i JORM MICR46LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES G 1Kf F1 Mi r BENEFICIAL Evaluation is a suspicious process- particularly the first time you do it. Some- how it implies there's something wrong. Regularity will reduce the suspicions but there's still a first time. The best way to deal with the public is to bring them into the evaluation at the develop- ing stages -when you're deciding to do it and figuring out how. If they understand what you're doing and how you're going to do it, chances are they'll realize that the actual eval- uation should be done in private. Most of your dealings with the public on evaluation will probably be through the press. They'll set the tone for how the evaluation will be viewed by the public. So it's important to keep them informed as much as possible. Again, the best way is to let them in at the de- veloping stages. Give them the criteria you'll be using or the format you plan to use. And talk about it -tell them what you'll be doing when you evaluate the administrator. You're taking a big risk if you keep the evaluation completely secret and the press finds out. The more they know and understand about the concept of evaluation, the more likely they are to agree that the evaluation discussion is best conducted in private. AFTER the evaluation, the same thing goes -let the public and press know what hap- pened. That doesn't mean giving a play-by-play of everything that was discussed with all the specifics. It means simply telling them what you decided to do -keep going in the same direction, make a few changes here and there, or whatever. Several communities in MAINE have conducted evaluations with assistance from the Maine Municipal Association and the Bureau of Public Administration at the University of Maine. One part of all those evaluations is a council-mana- ger development plan which -spells out what they plan to do as a result of the evaluation. Although the actual evaluations have been conducted In private, the post -evaluation development plan is released to the public -so everyone knows what the council and manager plan to do over the coming period. And, at the same time, the public and press get a pretty clear idea of what evaluation is all about. The key issue is to think about the public and press when you decide to evaluate -what they'll expect and what you owe them. Some communities have found it's enough to say simply an evaluation will be held and it was held and all important issues discussed. Other communities find they have to say a little more. You'll have fewer problems if evaluation is defined at the time you hire a new administrator -as something you both want to do to make sure the relationship works well. In any case, think positively and the public and press will too. 12 1 141CROFILMED BY I 'JORM MICR6LAO I 1 I CEDAR RAPIDS - DES MOINES i 6 VS 1 t �r Ew6umbfigo Uh@ bft( flo¢o Talking about the concept of evaluation is one thing. Actually doing it and doing it well is another) It is also particularly difficult to generalize about the mechanics of evalua- tion—the steps needed to complete the process. But, with the basic principles firmly in mind and a clear understanding of the roles you should play, you already have many of the tools you'll need to get the process started. GETTING STARTED Getting started might mean talking and thinking through the process. It's not some- thing you can say this is the way to do it and then dive in. Some governing bodies have found that a retreat setting—away from the day-to-day details of running the local govern- ment— is a good way to brainstorm about the process. The retreat could be devoted entirely to the evaluation issue, or it could focus on other areas such as team building or goal setting. i It's important to take it slow, at the start, to make sure you're both ready to do it. k - 13 MICROr ILMED BY I JORM MICRbLAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES t 1 _V a r •EVACUATION' n '•.. PKOCESS Evaluation: a communication process. 13 MICROr ILMED BY I JORM MICRbLAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES t 1 _V a The first specific step in designing a process is to develop an "evaluation instrument." It might be a list of general questions to guide the discussion. Or it could be a detailed criteria form which defines management duties—or defines what the governing body and administrator believe are primary management duties. Developing criteria isn't easy. Ideally, criteria for the administrator's job should re- flect the goals and objectives of the governing body and staff. If you already have some clearly defined goals and objectives, you also have what you need to evaluate your admini- strator and yourselves. How effectively has the administrator worked to achieve those goals? Which goals haven't been accomplished? Why not? If you don't have in hand a list of governing body goals and objectives, it is important to develop some evaluation guidelines before tackling the task. First, what are criteria? Most simply, they're specific standards against which you can measure someone's performance. The most effective criteria are framed in terms of re- sults—what should have been achieved. It's difficult to come up with messureable criteria or objectives for a public administrator. The job usually has such a wide range of duties which are often radically different from community to community. And you can't count the number of "Widgits" produced and then rate the manager. There really aren't any "recommended" criteria. "Recommended" criteria for all administrators would be so broad they'd become meaningless. Yet there are general areas which you can use to build your own specific criteria. • PLANNING: anticipating needs, recognizing potential problems, looking ahead • ORGANIZATIONAL SKILLS: running the day-to-day business, hiring staff, "managing" the community • BUDGETING: managing resources, preparing and carrying out the budget._ • PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT: skill in designing, organizing and carrying out programs to meet policy directives • RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE GOVERNING BODY, THE PUBLIC AND THE STAFF: meeting the requirements of those relationships' • PROFESSIONAL AND PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT: expanding capabilities, developing and refining skills • PERSONAL QUALITIES/STYLE: working style, aggressiveness, flexibility, ability to handle crises. Usually it's best to develop the guidelines together—governing body and administrator trying to spell out what they expect an individual in that job to accomplish. It might be valuable for you each to prepare separate criteria lists before you come together. Then you can look for common areas and discuss the different issues until you reach an agreement. 14 1 MICROFIL14ED BY �i I JORM MICR+LAB f CEDAR RAPIDS • DES 14014E5 6 lys 1 r k L ';, 1 In VANCOUVER. WASHINGTON, the Governing Body and City Manager together came up with a criteria list based on what they agreed were the manager's major areas of responsibility. These were: • organizational management • fiscal management • physical plant management • program development and follow-through • relations with mayor and council • long range planning • relations with public • intergovernmental relations Within.each major area, several general performance guidelines were spelled out to specify what the responsibilities were. Then each council member had to rate the manager in that area an a scale of 1.10—ane, that the manager doesn't meet the council member's expectations; five, that he meets the expectations to some degree, and ten, that he meets all ex- pectations. For each category, the council member could elaborate on specific strengths and weaknesses. When you're developing your evaluation guidelines, don't confuse criteria with formality. An evaluation based on specific written criteria isn't necessarily a formal process. And, if you opt for an informal type of evaluation, it doesn't mean you don't need criteria. Criteria are what make an evaluation process something other than a gripe session—or a testimonial dinner. MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA, uses two sets of objectives for evaluating its managers. First, there are normal performance objectives—the broad objectives expected of every manager or basic requirements. Then, there are Incentive objectives—something beyond the normal requirements which are used as a basis for extra compensation. And, there is a third level for evalua- tion — personal development objectives which look at the individual's person. al development and plans for the future. All objectives are developed by the manager and governing body at the beginning of the fiscal year and then re- viewed at the end. ! Additional sample criteria are Included in the appendices. 15 MICROFILMED BY JORM. MICR#LAB 7 J I CEDAR RAPIDS • DES M014ES I � -w r EVALUATING Once you have the criteria, you're already well along the way to an effective evaluation process. Your criteria will help determine the process. There are three general approaches to consider: 1. Use your criteria as a discussion tool. The criteria provide guidelines, but the evaluation isn't limited to those areas. 2 Develop a written rating system to use with your criteria. For each area, individual governing body members rate the administrator's performance either on a numerical scale or as satisfactory/unsatisfactory. A section for addi- tional written comments is useful with the rating scale. Then, all the forms are compiled to develop an overall picture of the administrator's performance. 3. Use a combination of both—a written evaluation form followed by a general discussion. E While all three approaches have been used with varying degrees of success, the combi- nation written -discussion is usually the most effective. It has the advantages of individual, i thoughtful, and written evaluation as well as of open and frank discussion. With the written approach, you also have a written record to keep for comparison. Sometimes a freewheeling, unrecorded discussion can become "you said," "but I thought you meant" and "didn't we agree?' after the evaluation. When looking for the right approach, it's best to start simply. A long and detailed evalua- tion instrument and a gruelling follow-up discussion can tum everyone off to the process before anything positive happens. A simple start might mean talking through the process the first time—almost a dry run. In FALMOUTH, MAINE, the manager and governing body started the evalua- tion process with six simple questions. Developed by the manager, they were used to lead the discussion. The first evaluation wasn't very satisfactory, largely because the council hadn't worked long enough with its new manager. But, the group did agree to try again in another six months. By that time, the six questions had been expanded somewhat, drawing on experiences in the private sector, and the council was more prepared to handle the task. The evaluation discussion is the most personal part of the process, so it's difficult to generalize. How well it goes during the discussion will depend somewhat on the individuals involved. Your ability to communicate with each other, the rapport you already have with each other, and your individual and group commitment to the process will contribute to the success of the discussion. 16 MICROFILMED BY i I JORM MICR46LA13 I j I CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES 6 flS 1 J ,I r MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA, in its Management Performance Program offers some tips on carrying out a successful "evaluation interview" no matter who is being evaluated. Here are some ideas to make the discussion work: 1. PREPARATION: Both sides should think about what's going to be discussed beforehand and be ready to discuss. That means really thinking about performance, including a self. assessment before the discussion. If you use a written instru. ment, It deserves time, attention, and thought to make sure you know what you feel and why. It's helpful for the admini. stator to complete the some written form as a self evaluation. L PRIVACY: That moons no interruptions and a dear understand. Ing that what's said is confidential or, at least, will be handled with discretion. It's important, therefore, to decide in advance what the public will be told about the discussion so everyone feels free to alk openly. 3. TIME: The feeling that you're being rushed through the evalua. tion discussion makes it more threatening. Make sure you have enough time to alk things through and to finish what you start. You should try to set aside a spedal time just for the evaluation— NOT after the regular governing body meeting. 4. PROPER PHYSICAL SETTING: The interview should be held in a place that's physically comfortable—where the environment Is cordial, but businesslike. A noisy restaurant isn't private or comfortable. An office, conference room, or governing body do nbws are usually fine. S. PROPER EMOTIONAL SETTING: This is harder to define, but It's important. The discussions should be open and honest—and allow for gin and take between the manager and supervisor. It mans talking and listening on both sides. Again, this is a matter of positive genus negative—open discussion versus a grips session. Once you've got your criteria, decided on a process, and found the right setting, what actually happens at an evaluation discussion? It will vary depending on the process and the people involved. At its best there will be a lot of discussion—a lot of give and take. In order to make it work, however, the mayor or governing body president probably should serve as a dis- cussion leader. That way you'll have some guidance or leadership to make sure the discus- sion goes somewhere. While you don't want the discussion to be stiff and formal, you do need some organization and direction. The success of your discussion will depend a lot on how comfortable you are with each other and with your process. So it might take a little time before everyone opens up and talks freely. The administrator should participate actively— that means contributing to the general discussion rather than responding only when asked. Give yourself a little time, though, and gradually you'll improve your ability to talk openly with each other. BRINGING IN AN OUTSIDER Another variation on the evaluation process you might consider is using an outside facilitator—sort of an evaluation moderator. The approach tries to minimize the threat and make sure the important issues are covered. It's most useful if there's a communica- tion gap which is hampering evaluation. The outsider can bridge that gap. 17 nICROr ILMED BY JORM MICREsLAB � CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOMES r This approach was tried in Maine to evaluate the executive director of the Maine Municipal League. It worked like this: • the executive committee and director met to agree on a process and chose a facilitator. • the facilitator met individually with each member of the executive committee (comparable to a governing body) to discuss the executive directors performance. An evaluation checklist was used. • the facilitator then met with the executive director, using the same checklist for self-assessment. • then the facilitator compiled the findings of all of these Interviews, pulling out common issues, special concerns, and coming up with an agenda for the evaluation discussion. • the executive committee and director met to discuss these findings and came up with a performance improve- ment plan—with the outsider acting as discussion leader. The approach, according to officials in Maine, worked well, particularly in compari- son to an earlier evaluation process without a facilitator. Both sides were unhappy with the results of that first evaluation. Several other communities have also tried this approach: In BRUNSWICK MAINE, the executive director of the Maine Municipal League served as facilitator for an evaluation of the manager. 'Officials in the city say the facilitator helped "keep the whole process in perspective" and helped the council and manager focus on "important issues". The facilitator also helped the council and manager concentrate on developing an improvement plan as a result of the evaluation. PHOENIX, ARIZONA, also used a discussion leader the first time the council eval- uated the city manager there. The Council, Manager, and discussion leader met at a day -long retreat to hammer out major goals they agreed the manager should be striving toward and then discuss how well they thought he was doing in achieving those goals. Both the manager and councilmembers felt the discussion leader played a key role in the first evaluation session. He provided valuable guidance when the council and manager were dealing with a new and somewhat unfamiliar process. He also helped put the manager and all council members in the same position — all PARTICIPANTS in the evaluation discussion with no one serving as the appointed-Fe—age—r. In considering this approach, it's critically important to find someone who you and the administrator trust and feel comfortable with. Without that kind of trust and confidence, the process simply won't work. Basically, the idea behind bringing in the extra person is to eliminate the problems which sometimes interfere with effective evaluation—inability to communicate, failure to address the issues, personality conflicts, personal vendettas, general griping, failure to come up with an act - H 6 ys 1 MICROFILMED BY j I. -JORM MICR+LAa j CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES � r ion plan. So, it's probably most useful when all else fails. If, after some effort, you can't get an evaluation process moving by yourselves, the third party approach might be your next option. Most will agree that something much simpler is best at the start. wunVUCO VAn1ATInN NAPERVILLE, ILLINOIS, handles evaluation of its manager from a different perspective. There, the management staff evaluates the manager's performance from their vantage point as employees. The written forms are completed by all department heads and compiled by the Personnel Officer. Then the Person- nel Officer and Manager meet to discuss strengths and weaknesses and help the manager work better with his staff. This approach emphasizes the mana- ger's capabilities as a supervisor and staff leader. In addition, the department heads weigh the manager's overall performance as a manager and his relations with the council as they see it. FOLLOW-UP The real success of an evaluation comes in what happens after it's done. You might come up with a WORK PLAN for the period before the next evaluation ora DEVELOPMENT PRO- GRAM to strengthen the weak points and make the best of the strong ones. Or you might de- cide that a broad team building program using some outside resources is really what's needed to strengthen the overall working relationship. Be sure your evaluation includes an element for action steps—changes to be made, special tasks to be done, or decisions to follow as a result of what the evaluation showed. If you already have a good working relationship, evaluation probably won't bring up any major surprises—like discovering that an administrator isn't satis- fying ANY of your needs and should be dismissed. But it will help you identify areas to work on. Then, the next time you evaluate, you should be looking for progress—improvement in the weak areas and even more advancement in the strong areas. You can also consider some special development options as part of the evaluation—courses, conferences, training programs which you (governing body and/or administrator) might want to attend. Remember, formulate action steps and schedule the next evaluation. TIMING Another important element in a successful evaluation—and one of the frequent questions which comes up—is HOW OFTEN to evaluate and WHEN to fit it in. The frequency will vary. Annually is usually enough because it gives you and the ad- ministrator a chance to do something to evaluate. And it gives you a broader area of issues to cover so you won't concentrate on a particular crisis. Some communities feel semi-annually is better because it keeps the communication process going more regularly. It might be worth- while to start on a semi-annual basis while the process is evolving and then spread It out to annually once you're comfortable with the concept and approach. It's important to try more often—perhaps even quarterly—if you're having trouble with the process. Otherwise, you might find yourself letting it slide, if you wait too long. 19 jr - , 141CROFTL14ED BY JORM MICR#LAS CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES 1 J r Even more critical than how often, is WHEN. The day after a major crisis is definitely not the right time to evaluate. You'll end up focusing entirely on that one conflict rather than on overall performance. Ideally, you should decide to evaluate six months or a year after hiring a new administrator. That way you'll be starting with a clean slate and will be evaluating in your mind all along. But if you're starting mid -stream, there are several issues to consider when deciding on WHEN. Your most important decision will be whether to tie the evaluation process to the budget cycle—and, at the same time, to salary. There are some obvious advantages to evaluating with or around budget work. That's when you have your closest working relationship as governing body and administrator. That's also when you're both carrying out your most important job responsibilities. But salary adds another dimension to the evaluation process and can pose some extra problems. When you talk money and performance, you also have to think about budget constraints, tax increases, other salary hikes, and the general pay scale. You run the risk of mak- ing evaluation a negotiating process—more than a communicating process. For that reason, it's more effective, particularly when starting out, to separate the actual evaluation process from salary issues. 20 r'-_..- 1 MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR6LAB` CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES 6115 J, _y You should also think about your election schedule—try not to set your evaluation short- ly after an election when some of the elected officials haven't had a chance to work with the administrator and form an opinion. Right before an election, when a change in the governing body make-up is expected is also a bad time to evaluate. Another issue you might consider is ongoing programs which could be tied to evaluation. Goal setting is a perfect example. If you meet annually to set goals and look at accomplishments, i you could evaluate at the same time. Once you find the right time and the best interval, REMEMBER to make the process a i { REGULAR part of your activities. Set the time and do it. 4 I � � I . E i 21 j i -.6'fs Ijjr�---- MICROFILMED .BY._. i ......_) _..l 1,.,. JORM-MICR+L:AO S CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES I !� And �@ a o 0 Are you ready to evaluate? 7 7 Probably not yet. But you should feel a little more comfortable about the questions to ask yourselves and the issues to address before evaluating. It's too bad evaluation has had such a bad reputation. With only a little care and plan- ning, the process can be remarkably constructive. Even going through the exercise of devel- oping a system and defining some criteria can begin to strengthen your working relationship. A regular evaluation process won't eliminate all conflicts—but it will help you keep those conflicts in perspective. More importantly, it will give you a regular outlet for dealing with conflicts. Evaluation is a very personal and interpersonal process. It can help you learn more about the people you're working with and how you can work together better. On a more practical level, evaluation gives you a chance to talk about what's been done, what should have been done and what you'd like to see done. Without it, you don't have many chances to talk about things in general—you're always facing so many major decisions and specific issues. There haven't been many post evaluation casualities. In fact, most administrators and governing bodies who've gone through the process said they felt better when it was over. And their relationship worked better. The key is to think positively and design an evaluation system which will produce positive results. CSL D 141CROFILMED BY - ........� i. L _.DORM._MICR46LAB _ 7- CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES I _�o r � 11 L- Appendix A EVALUATION IN EL CERRITO, CALIFORNIA Because of the many variables and issues to consider in evaluation, it's helpful to look at the way one city carried out the process from start to finish. In EL CERRITO, a suburban community of 25,000 in the San Francisco Bay area, evaluation is one element of a broad team building pro. gram. The city got involved in team building early in 1974 when the mayor and city manager at- tended a retreat. After the retreat, the manager shared the elements of the conference with his staff and the mayor introduced the rest of the council to the concepL One ongoing part of the program has been evaluation — both for the city staff level and the city manager. in fact, it became a "matter of policy" that the council would evaluate the city manager "not less than once yearly". Evaluation in EI Cerrito Is a TOTAL process, including written evaluation forms, a discussion between the manager and full council, followed by individual conferences between the manager and city council members. As part of the individual interviews, the manager also evaluates the per. formance of the council member, particularly in terms of the role the individual wants to assume on the city council. So evaluation becomes a two-way street. The entire process takes about a month to complete from the time the mayor distributes the written forms until all individual discussions are completed. Officials in EI Cerrito view evaluation as primarily a "communications process" and an important part of their team workings. Salary isn't an issue during the evaluation. The goal of the process is to discuss what the council expects of the manager, how well he is meeting those expectations and what the manager and staff expect of the city council and how well they are meeting the expectations. Salary levels don't fit Into that scheme, so evaluation has been deliberately separated from wage adjustments. The written form used in EI Cerrito has two parts. The first section lists PER FORMANCE categories which the council feels are most important to the manager's job. The council and manager spent a lot of time developing this list—to make sure it was comprehensive and usable. The second section deals with SKILLS the manager should have to carry out the job. In the first section, council members evaluate thethe manager's work according to the RESULTS that have been achieved. It's a narrative -type evaluation. Then, when it comes to the "managerial skills", coun- cil members rate the manager on a 1 to 5 scale— unsatisfactory to outstanding. There's also a section for brief comments to explain the rating. After all the forms are completed, the mayor compiles a total picture of the manager's performance. After the evaluation, the council and manager together develop goals and objectives which will provide a framework for the next evaluation. The goals provide an action plan to make sure some progress is made between evaluations. Evaluation in EI Cerrito isn't static The council and manager periodically review their approach to evaluation to make sure it's still timely. Recently, the evaluation format was changed, drawing on the experiences of one council member who is a manager in private business. The new form emphasizes areas which the council and manager agreed were critically important In the manager's job. The process has worked well In EI Cerrito. A key to Its success, according to the City Manager Richard Brown, has been the team building program. "Before evaluation can be performed success- fully, the council must prepare itself by developing rapport among themselves and with their chief administrator," Brown explained. "Retreats participated in by all council members and the City Manager are a common device for this purpose. It's important to develop rapport to the point where council members and the city manager can articulate their feelings about their working relationship." t 141CROEILI4ED BY i JORM MIC R(SL AB 1 CEDAR RAPIDS • DES t401`IES 1 J _y AL1 EL CERRITO, CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT EVALUATION Section I EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE RESULTS A. JOB RESPONSIBILITIES 1. Coordination of City Departments 2. Preparation and Review of Staff Reports 3. Budget Development—Preparation and Monitoring 4. Press Relations 5. Professional/Personal Development 6. Personnel Development—Subordinates 7. Communication with Employees 8. Communication with City Council 9. Communication with Public 10. Project Accomplishment 11. Priority and Organizational Goal Setting 12. Supervisory Ability Section 11 EVALUATION OF MANAGERIAL DIMENSIONS A. ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 1. Organizing and Planning 2. Quality of Decisions 3. Decisiveness 4. Creativity 5. Written Communications B. INTERPERSONAL SKILLS 6. Leadership 7. Behavior Flexibility 8. Oral Communication C. STABILITY OF PERFORMANCE 9. Tolerance of Uncertainty 10. Resistance to Stress D. WORK MOTIVATION 11. Inner Work Standards 12. Energy 24 i I MICROFILMED BY 'JORM"MICR+LAB. CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES 1 6 YS J,� r I V Appendix B e—IN /I SAMPLE CRITERIA, FALMOUTH, MAINE Evaluation of the Town Manager In Falmouth, evaluation is limited to an open discussion based on some general questions and criteria prepared by the manager and council. The questions are used to provide direction for the discussion. All councilmembers are expected to review the questions before the process, sothey're well prepared, even though no form- al written form is used. Councilmembers are also encouraged to send written com- ments to the manager before the evaluation if they want to. These six questions were prepared by the manager: 1. Is the manager providing the council with adequate information to make decisions? Is the council provided with sufficient alternatives to avoid being forced Into a decision? 2 Is the technical data and other information presented in an understandable manner? 3. Is the manager effectively communicating the council's positions to the public? 4. Is the manager able to resolve problems under strained or unpleasant conditions? 5. Is the manager approaching the job from a day -today standpoint or are his/her efforts directed toward broad organizational obleotives? 6. Is the wager able to recognize and deal effectively with the distinction between policy and administration? Is he/she too engaged in policy? Not enough? These additional questions were prepared by the council to evaluate specific managerial performance: 1. How well did the manager independently recognize problems, develop relevant facts, formulate alterative solutions and decide on the appropriate conclusion? 2 How effective were the manager's letters, memoranda, and other forms of written communication? 3. Don the manager make the most effective use of available talent to get the work done? Don the manager develop staff members? Is the manager readily accepted as a leader? ' 4. Does the manager respond in a positive way to suggestions and guidance from the council? Is each assignment undertaken with enthusiasm and zest? 5. Can the manager be depended upon for sustained, productive work? Does the manager readily assume responsibility? Don the manager meet time estimates and document work papers properly? And, for general guidance, the council added these criteria for the manager: a is visible in the community through participation in various social, athletic and cultural affair a originates ides and program Improvements a attempts to economize whenever possible (especially important in a small New England community) a makes recommendations on Issues as often as possible to provide a benchmark and starting point for council action. 25 MICROFILMED BY I -JORM MIC R4ILAB I CEDAR RAPIDS - DES MOINES I 1 J� _y r ____ _ _ _ _ _ -iH%,r y+'��e ;^' ...Ya —'.i i _ _ _ _ _�tw�'••r r ti`cv:^!rtwr c_v� _ -- Appendix C SITUATIONAL STANDARDS FOR NORMAL PERFORMANCE MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA The Basic Requirements For Any Management Position PLANNING: To anticipate future needs and make plans for meeting them. 26 i (o ffs =RAPIDS- BY� �. --� j _;0 J_� To recognize potential problems and develop strategies for averting them. ORGANIZING: To efficiently and economically organize and carry out the operation for which you are accountable. COORDINATING: To coordinate all activities related to work goals. To maintain cooperation and coordination with other departments and divisions. LEADERSHIP: To createa•leadership climuie providing challenge and . motivating employees to high performance. BUDGETING: To prepare operational and capital budgets and to expend within adopted budgeted limits. PUBLIC To maintain a high level of contact with the public and RELATIONS: meet the needs of the public within available resources. EMPLOYEE RELATIONS: To equitably adjust grievances among subordinate employees. PERSONNEL DEVELOPMENT: To train and develop subordinate employees. MANAGEMENT: To provide quality achievement in your job. To make sound judgments and decisions. To be creative and decisive. To set and achieve goals and objectives. To adjust plans to accommodate unforeseen and uncon- trollable factors. PERSONAL To remain aware of current developments and wriiings in DEVELOPMENT: the field of public administration and your career field. To develop personal traits and characteristics necessary to make your performance effective. 26 i (o ffs =RAPIDS- BY� �. --� j _;0 J_� r Appendix D EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: COACHELLA VALLEY (CALIFORNIA) ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS ADMINISTRATION (Factor N: 1. Manwar Da ment: Does he appoint and train effective subordinates) Has he retain exce ant peop a who were tempted to go elsewhere? 2. Su vidon: Does he direct his group and control their efforts? Does he encourage their Inibat w? Can he know what is going on with all CVAG projects? Is he available to his employee for guidance and counselling? Does he evaluate his key personnel and suggest ways for them to improve? 3. Execution of Poll : Dan he understand and comply with the overall policy, laws an phi osophy o the organization? Do his efforts lead toward successful accom• plishment of goals? Does he measure results against goals and take corrective action? d. Rud eft: Is his budget realistic? Is it prepared in a good format? Is it reasonable? Does he control expenses within the set levels of the budget? 5. RRee�ti • Does he submit accurate and complete Staff Reports on schedule? Are they rdable? Are Staff Reports concise, to the point and submitted with appro• priate recommendations when necessary? 6. Pla�nnir�: Is he familiar with the Association's policies, objective and practices? Don he,translate these policies, objectives and practices Into specific programs? 7. Leadership: Don he'motivate others to maximum performance? Is he respected n amen utg but fair? Does he get enthusiastic response to new ideasand needed reorganizations? S. Jobb Gr ization: Does he delegate responsibility but handle job details efficiently? U0111 hD a use lima productively? Doe he program activities in an orderly and systematic way? 9. Communication: Don he keep appropriate people informed? Don he present it t oug is in an orderly understandable manner? Is he able to convince people to adopt his viewpoint? Is his written correspondence clear and concise and an accurate representation of Association policy? EXTERNAL RELATIONSHIPS (Factor III: 10. Community Reputation: What is the general attitude of the community to this man? Is he regarded as man of high integrity, ability and devotion to the Coache- Ila Valley Association of Governments? 11. Professional Reputatlnn:' How don he stand among others in the Public Acimini• stration profession? Don he deal effectively with other City and County Managers? Is he respected by other professional and staff representatives of the Cities and County? Does he enthusiastically and constructively attend seminars and conference conferences? 12. Intsergovea mensal Relations: Don the Executive Director work closely with other Federal, State an oca government representatives? Is Ms relationship with others friendly? Does he provide requested assistance to other Cities and the County? 13. Community Relations: Does he skillfully represent the Coachella Valley Association of Governments to the press, radio and television? Does he properly avoid politics and partisanship? Does he show an honest interest in the community? Does he pro• perly defend CVAG and Its reputation? PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS (Factor 111): 10. Imagination: Don he show originality in approaching problems? Does he ceatei�ctivesolutiom? Is he able to visualize the implications of various approachn? 15. Dblechvity: Is he unemotional and unbiased? Don he take a rational, impersonal viewpoint based on facts and qualified opinions? 16. Drive: Is he energetic, willing to spend whatever time is necessary to do a good job? Does he have good mental and physical stamina? 17. Decisiveness: Is he able to reach timely decisions and Initiate action, ut not be compulsive? 18, Attitude: Is he enthusiastic? Cooperative? Willing to adapt? 19. Firnms: Don he have the courage of his convictions? Is he firm when convinced, but not stubborn? 27 ys l 141CROFILMED BY JORM MICR6LAEs CEDAR RAPIDS r DES k101NES, � I J ti 141CROFIL14ED BY -JORM MICR6LAB j CEDAR RAPIDS DES M0114ES INGTON t established by past and Council and developed its or areas of concern documentation, etc. pproved revenues and manpower, materials. ides most up-to-date Icings, and equipment. buildings, facilities, and necessary, or wom out y Government. Igestions by Council and area of services being pro• e in program suggestions ; completed with dispatch adopted or approved by with Council. designated subordinates. urent plans and activities le I, .either verbally or orally, Is, etc. in relation to developments in the area ition of future needs and wring within other cities ties. munity goals to be eportin . sct with the public, either and sensitivity to public iblic. unity that represents ental agencies, organize• ervices or activities of the City. dictlons that may relate jurisdictions in those areas vith which the City is 6 V"r 1 J _w r L°�QgOMQQC° J -y ORGANIZATIONS: j • American Society for Training and Development, Madison, Wisconsin, 608/274.3440 • American Management Association, 135 West 50th Street, New York, New York 10020, 212/586.8100 i • Institute of Government, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602 404/524.1328 - • Institute of Public Affairs and Community Development, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045, 91*64-3288 - - - t • Intemational City Management Association, 1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036, 202/293-2200 €€V • National Association of Counties, 1735 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, OC 20006, 202/785.9577 • National League of Cities, 1620 Eye Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006 202/293.7330 • National Municipal League, 47 East 68th Street, New York, New York 10021 t 212/535.5700 fWashington, • National Training and Development Service, 5028 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, OC 20016, 202/966.3761 ., • New England Municipal Center, P.O. Box 39, Durham, New Hampshire 03201 603/868.5000 . f • U.S. Conference of Mayors, 1620 Eye Street, NW, Washington, OC 20006 202/293.7300 1 • Your State Municipal League or State County Association I i t f k I 29 � f ! MICROFILMED BY Y 1 I—JORM S DES j CEDAR RAPIDS DES M014E5 II J -y r clTy OF ]nwn crTr PERSONAL VALUATION FORM �/ 1 'Ibis form is intended as an aid to formulating a carefully considered and fair appraisal of a supervisory employee's job performance and potential for greater responsibilities. The following evaluation for management performance is divided into four general headings: a) Management, b) Technical Skills and Abilities, c) Personal Performance and d) Community and Intergovernmental Relations. The comments under these headings contain one or two word descriptions of various aspects.to be considered in the evaluation. This is followed by longer discriptions of criteria to aid in evaluating an employee. comments should address the employee's current performance in his/her present position. Additional comments may suggest how an employee may improve performance in his/her present position. After completing the evaluation, a personal interview should be held with the individual who has been evaluated. 'Ihe scale and definitions below provide a rating of the employees being evaluated. Outstanding - A select number merit this classification. These people's performance exceeds that required by the job description. They are eager, creative, fair, prudent, economically efficient, highly motivated - and able to convey these characteristics to their subordinates. Meets the expectation of the rates. Commendable - Often exceeds expectation of job description. He/She is responsive to change in the administration of ordinances and policy decisions, handles himself/herself and his/her subordinates well during stable as well as crisis periods. Is a responsible and dedicated Ieader of the city operation Satisfactory - Meets and sometimes exceeds job descriptions and duties. He/She can handle almost anything that might develop and can be a very effective participant in decision-making. Makes good use of tools available to him/her but occasionaly falls short of goal achievement. Potential. Needs Improvement - Doesn't always do what needs to be done in his/her area of responsibility.. Lacks consistency in doing his/her job, may find change hard to accomodate, wastes time and can't always communicate the right ideas at the right time. Needs occasional supervison or direction. Unsatisfactory - Consistently fails to do what is required of him/her. Itis/Iter performance falls short all the time. Needs constant supervision or correction. Unable to make decisions on his/her own or follow directions. l 141 CROFILMED BY JORM MICR6LAB`� ,I CEDAR RAPIDS • DES I401NE5 6 '/5 1 J_. _4 �r GUIDELINES FOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CITY MANAGER AND DEPARTMENT IM.ADS PERFORMiANCE CITY OF IOWA CITY Employee: Division/Dept.: Current Monthly Salary: 'This Evaluation is: A. Position: Anniversary Date of Employment: Period -Covered by Evaluation: Annual: Promotional: Probationary: Other: 1. Mara iHunan Resources 01234 > qty to a ecuve y train and motivate employees to secure .optimum results and cooperation from others. Does he/she develop and evaluate employees; handle grievances, affirmative action complaints; maintain discipline; monitor employees records, receive few complaints?) 2. Or anization 01234 l ity to maintain control and manage all city functions effectively; Organize as well as maintain on-going programs offered by the city.) 3. Settin Ob'ectives 01234 st nese a to achieve goals by using MBO guidelines consistant with the present City and Council goals and priorities?) =RAPIDS - i b ye F \ _y J�� -2- 4 Mans in Information 01234 1 1 o communicate verbally and in writing in a concise understand- able manner, effective in informal talks and conducting meetings; coomamiciates with community groups and public; keeps staff informed.) s. Decision Making 01234 s he/she ae to assume responsibility for those decisions which are his/hers to perform and any alternatives which may be developed that affectagainst goals and if needed correcr administration of tive stepsand tosolve thoseces? Are esults problems?jured 6. Pol1cV Making 01234 (Does he/she recognize the bawds of policy making, policy coercion, policy administratim and'enforcenent caused by political interruptions? Does he/she cemnamicate policy decisions determined by Council to all other employees?) f i 7. Delegation of Authority 01234 I rty to ecuveiy control events through -proper delegation of authority and responsibility.) MICROFILMED BY JORM"MICR#LAB'- CEDAR RAPIDS •DES MO1NE5 I J 6 V.5 i /i i -3- B. lin 10 ,tent Re elation 01234 gu ut nns ( Miming personnel (Vederal Regulations, Union Contracts, Arrirnntivo Action, Civil Rights Acts) Imown mid follow d. Aro the regulations know by the Council and staff?) 9. Acc lishments/Results 01234 LAbility to work at a professional level comparable with past accomplish- ments/results or professional standards.) 10. Inur 7wimental Act* i 01234 Meg ste a e to work with other local county, regional, state or federal governmental representatives in administering ordinances and appropriates to the City?)' B. TECMICAL SKILLS AND ABILITIES 1. M%A enda 01234 e to provide accurate and complete reports that are readable and comprehensive? Are recommendations timely, fit into the agenda, provide possible solutions to problems which may arise?) MICROFILMED BY 1 ± - ""JORM. MICRbLAB- CEDAR RAPIDS DES M014ES I /r. . b'YS J� .4- 2. Budg�of 01234 f?Md`s/her budget accountable and realistic? Does it provide for maximum city service to the public, adequate financing of these services and achieve economic utilization of monies provided to the proper agencies? Is the budget balanced?) 3. Ke,,%ing Current (Up with the times) 01234 e s eeble to stay abreast of new developments in management of cities? Are problems which may come up able to be dealt with by using the existing system and not result in duplication of effort?) 4. Quality Of Work s the quality of his/her work able to serve as a model for continued accuracy and thoroughness and study by colleagues? Are the results up to current professional standards?) 01234 S. ti (Work load) 01234 s e s e able to adapt his/her work schedule if needed and maintain a record of consistently high productivity when his/her schedule is amended?) MICROFILMED BY J 1_ `JORM MICR6LAB" " CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES I 1 6 Y� _y Lf, In. C. PEILSONAL CRITERIA ON PERFORMANCE EVALUATION I. Objectivity 01234 (Arc the development of his/her ideas logical and professional, no biases or commitments? Information used in his/her recommendation is based on objective and factual material.) I 2. Personal Attributes 01234 s use energetic, enthusiastic, cooperative, willing to change? Is he/she personally co witted as well to the sound functioning of the City?) 3. Professionalism 01234 s e s e e to execute the duties of his/her position in regards to educational background, the professional ethics of a manager/department head, and leadership?) j a D.. COMUNITY RELATIONS 1. Citizen Interests 01234 s he/she able to handle citizen complaints promptly and in a manner which is satisfactory to the citizen and the City?) MICROFILMED BY MICR+LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES 695 _y J� -6- 2. Ci ty Interest 01234 n+s w s o del'ond the (:ity, the GOWIC H , employees and their respective reputations to mnlntain Integrity, trust and ability in the Ructions ul• the City government?) � 1 3. CitY As An Example For Others 01234 (Are other city governments able to look at the present operations and see how they can improve their own positions and services? Is the administrator able to provide imaginative and proper suggestions to professional consultant or associations [CMA]?) i 4. CommImig ActivijZ 01234 tDoes the manager department head get out and personally see what is going on to get a first-hand idea of what might be recolmvcLded or continued in departmental operations?) � 1 A i i j 6 YS I MICROFIL14ED BY -.JORM- MICROLAB --� -1 CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES � i /I- I f' MICROFILMED BY ' -�"-JORM:-MICR¢LAB- ..1. Z CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MDIRES I c5 �l MANAGERIAL EVALUATION DIMENSIONS ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 1. OrgQanizing and Planning No what extent does the individual effectively organize and plan his/her work?) 2. quality of Decisions (To what extent does the individual make decisions of high quality?) i 3. Decisiveness (To what extent is this individual willing to make decisions when required?) tfII 4. Creativity !!! 1 (To what extent is the person able to solve a management problem in I - II a unique way, departing from standard solutions?) 5. Written Communication (To what extent does the individual effectively express his/her ideas in writing?) I ! � INTERPERSONAL SKILLS I 6. Leadership (To what extent does the individual get people to perform a task ? effectively without arousing hostility?) i 7. Behavior Flexibility t' (To what extent does the individual, when motivated, modify•his/her i 1 behavior to reach a goal?) I 8. Oral Communication (To what extent does the individual effectively present an oral report to a small conference group?) I i i I , I f' MICROFILMED BY ' -�"-JORM:-MICR¢LAB- ..1. Z CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MDIRES I c5 it v STABILITY OF PERFORMANCE 9. Tolerance of Uncertainty (To what extent does the individual's work performance stand up under uncertain or unstructured situations?) 10. Resistance to Stress (To what extent does the individual's work stand up in the face of unusual pressures?) WORK MOTIVATION 11. Inner Work Standards (To what extent does the individual want to do a good job, even if he/she could get by with doing less?) 12. Energy '(To what extent does the individual maintain a -continuous high level of work activity?) I 141CROFILMED BY l._ _.._1 L� JaRM CEDAR RAPIDS • DES DES MOINES � I _40 6Y5 r City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE: April 2;:1982 TO: City Council FROM: Cit$Wnnager RE: Senior Center - Second Floor I believe that it is in the best interest of the City that the proposal for use of the second floor of the Senior Center by the Department of Planning and Program Development be withdrawn. Accordingly, the resolution will be removed from the Council agenda and the staff will proceed to negotiate a new lease for the Davis Building. In addition, it is suggested that the City Council give no further consideration to the Proposal. An informal session to discuss this matter will not be scheduled unless the Council requests otherwise. The concept will not be presented to you again, including during budget discussions, unless requested by a majority Of City Council members. These actions are recommended for the following reasons: 1. It is clear that the City Council is reluctant to approve the proposal. 2. Even if the City Council ultimately decides to move the Department to the Senior Center, the consternation which continues, both as a result of this issue languishing unresolved and because of legitimate concerns by individuals opposed to the move, is counter- productive to the best interests of the City and the long-term goals of the Senior Center program. 3. The amount of time and effort devoted to this matter by the City Council and the staff far outweighs any benefit to be derived from the move. The concerny s which are of Council and yManager the City amany Cityother deserve our attention. 4. Because of the change in proposed space allocation on the second floor of the Senior Center, the Department is not satisfied with the proposal because of limited space and the lack of private offices. The City Council inquired about the letters of August 6, 1980, and October 30, 1980, by Mr. Hencin and Mr. McKinney. The Council questioned whether the information had previously been provided to the City Council: The matter was discussed with the City Council at the meeting of December 8, 1980. Councilpersons Lynch and Erdahl were absent. At that meeting the two options offered by HUD were mentioned. Also, the issues are neither as clear as the response from Mr. McKinney would seem to indicate nor are the time elements as significant. As a result of the correspondence, the City staff had follow-up conversations with HUD. This resulted in a decision to pay a lump sum for the remodeled space rather than rent. I4ICROEILMED BY j JORM MIC R46LAB CEDAR RAPIDS - DES MOIRES i 6 S�6 J _V City Council April 2, 1982 Page 2 Exhibit C, which was provided to the City Council by Bob Welsh at the City Council meeting of March 30, 1982, is not the applicable HUD regulation. It is a regulation for another Federal agency. The appropriate HUD regulation is provided as Exhibit A with this letter. Under Federal regulations, those P&PD functions which are eligible Community Development Block Grant activities.and those other Federally funded city services, such as the Federally assisted.housing program,.are not required to pay market rent in a facility -which was funded with Federal funds. In fact, no costs may be included in the rent for construction which was financed with Federal funds (see Exhibit B). If market rent was required, Federal.programs would, in effect,be paying twice for the space. Therefore, if the City elected to pay rent for use of the second floor of the Senior Center, only those portions of the P&PD programs which are not CDBG eligible activities would pay market.rent. The CDBG eligible activities of the P&PD Department together with the subsidized housing program would have paid only to -cover the proportional operating -expenses of the building. Under these circumstances and because it was thought that the occupancy of the Senior Center would be for a limited period of time, it appeared that a lump sum payment for the cost of remodeling the space (as specified in the bidding documents and the individual contracts) would be more beneficial to the CDBG program and the entire funding would be -available sooner for. other CDBG activities. Mr. Jim Hencin discussed this proposal directly with the HUD program manager, Mr. William Clement. HUD had no objections to the plan. cc: Bette Meisel Robert Welsh Lucy Luxenberg L, + MICROFILMED BY "JORM MICRd/LAS 1 CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES I ,,4" b Y6 _y r L the activities in this subpart doe Itself, however, reader aped activitles. propoaad to be co Individual applicants, eligibl grant. assistance. There am i requirements that must also qualify a specific activity fm An activity may be assisted those instance$ when It con the eligibility criteria of this with all other applicable iiq this Part as they may apply a model cities program about be engibp ...° used on an Incidental basis, Ih•;;.�. , .. for funding undei this Partfrom that..':_ - applicant shill at • mfnimum•� • ; portion of the hold --harmless amount demonstrate that • ,- Y`r attributable to such model cities. =; - (i Mar school hour . nroaram until the:aoallcanl'bei reeeivad:.' `..__,.__,..... 7tia`'=,_;.' thio paragraph, the term "ongoing: �IIJ During esti If:.,-" ,.7 _t •: aetlWty7maaos any model d0ee.',:! : -' _• not used for schi of by-:_" aetivityunderwray a of January 1, 1975,, . C'D /.S G. 'that was approved and funded by HUD (a) Act(vitlea c Inked 50250 Federal Register / Vol. 44,'No. 107 /'Monday, August 27, 1979 / Rules and Regulations ilea - (UDAG) program as provided for In building that happen to be available on - 5702a1 Eligible activities by private'.. .' 1570.451 She provisions of 11570.207 . ; a less than permanent basis) and the - .•. r �"=� nonprofit entities, neighborhood-bssed , `.'regarding Ineligible activities apply lo' � applicant can determine the cost ++-•'::; :. 1 'senior. ' nonprofit organriatians.. coal'_. `;:"" :' ' development corporations. and small the ADAC program, except where aa' activity dactivity etermined to be consistent ` _ associated with providing the center ai distinct from those costs _"`--1' ;,•� ` ' business Investment compmlei. -i .- -- . '/Lith the statute objectives of the, •- "� ' .. 570=5 Eligible planning and urban design.:.>. statutory ( .::• UDAG program pursuant to § 570.453,.': associated with all remaining Ineligible;•:. � ;;'.:; • - portions of the building. ;..'•- coetw- •.-.::_...,.:�: „h:^; -�;., ,,,_ ' s7o2a , t7lglhle ■dminhlrativa ails.::.>-� • .. 570207 Ineligible activities.. + -� �,;;. : the limitations set forth In § 570.207 dal ;-:-� not apply: ';. ' •"' • ,(2) FarJlitles locate on school: .•'+: •y.. y;.' , ` property,. Any facility eligible for ' ' Authodty; TIUe L Housing and Community • 'in making detemdnations of eligibility. - + ' assistance pursuant to J 570201(6), •which is deeignedPrimedty for apubUc Development Act of 1$74 (42 UaG.53m, at,.'.. with'regard to Urban Development • '.';-.:.-r. ' • other then educdtion, Is not purpose seq.); 7109 L Hawing and Community Development AU of 190 (Pub. L at -in): and Action Grants, for the purposes of. , if 570201-207, the term "Communl h; considered to be a school or educational • ' + r sec l6prDepartment of Hawing and Urban Development Aa (42 U.S.C. 3s3s(d)). •., ';:.; Development and Housing Plan" as used lets to sc where, ealthoughccontrolled - located located on a alta controlled bye school ti s' IL•Subperi G. Eligible Activities b' . In this subvert pme also mean the ••?' • •• •Tlr6en Development Action Prograrn." '. -� district, school board or almiler bad y responsible for public education. " revised to read as follows: �, •�`„ - • (c) Model titles activitles: • facility will only be used by any, Subpart C—Eligible Activities - _ Natwlthsiendln8 anything to the: contraryin this ad)acenl school or educational facility.,,: •onan �.: § mme� 0anorw po0cwa •' •' ... ... _ be ng carried'ou In _ ' incidental bads. In order m; .:: _'.;{ -,•... . • ' determine whether the facility Vto be the activities in this subpart doe Itself, however, reader aped activitles. propoaad to be co Individual applicants, eligibl grant. assistance. There am i requirements that must also qualify a specific activity fm An activity may be assisted those instance$ when It con the eligibility criteria of this with all other applicable iiq this Part as they may apply a model cities program about be engibp ...° used on an Incidental basis, Ih•;;.�. , .. for funding undei this Partfrom that..':_ - applicant shill at • mfnimum•� • ; portion of the hold --harmless amount demonstrate that • ,- Y`r attributable to such model cities. =; - (i Mar school hour . nroaram until the:aoallcanl'bei reeeivad:.' `..__,.__,..... 7tia`'=,_;.' thio paragraph, the term "ongoing: �IIJ During esti If:.,-" ,.7 _t •: aetlWty7maaos any model d0ee.',:! : -' _• not used for schi of by-:_" aetivityunderwray a of January 1, 1975,, . than four hours e -by:.: ' 'that was approved and funded by HUD (a) Act(vitlea c Inked on oibefore June 30.1974, Upon. ..- expiration of the eligibility of activities' boundaries. APP rr blank; ; W. . • ' under this paragraph, applicants should' activities which for block grant ■ met to' refer to the other requirements of thin' - their boundaries alstanee.: subvert which mat be satisfied fe order to 'inconsistent wilt y In; = ;, r: Tor block grant amistanbe to continue -be for model cities activiUes:...' which ale not p11 es with provided .:, meet IdentI n •�! (d)SpeciolpollaJago 5::'•- -� epari;—' . vemmg J? fo0owlog epedel policies,: • This mry. emects oi., Ppllceab• ply to: (2) 'aPPly to: Facilities conrBining'both;c-..Mthid othe carryingout oche out a metrop; : eligible and ineligible uses. Where a .:'..• .grant assistance applicant's ,y . sy condom ^ vim eligible outsidIgible s sot': " local kw andpropel to ie applicant: I county Ohio actfvltlea with block • r r activities are . . Ihase rotting to egi sl'opputnirUt9'� and'. badentsmtory of Is,, .. ,facility, otherwise eligible for essistana. - under the block giant program ia,;� • t-- :'- not plainly Inappropriate to mating: ^.._ identified needs the orbs county.'. - the r..� . in Alia - block grant program. in pertieula,"' ' _•: conduced by entitlement'. ' ' § 570.201(6], L to be provided ae�e part, of a multiple -,tie building and/or facility " (n Special assessments under the y-;• _ (f)Sc es block grant program. The following activities recipients under Subpart D must comply with the set ionto -_ . that also cantaide otherwise Ineligible. uses, the portion of the costa attributed olfdes relate to the use of b add. . assessment under the block P ant . - gr regarding be . § 570.302 regarding bene9l to low• end' -income persons of elimination '� to the eligible grant fun racy re assisted' -, with block grant f ,.. Program t i (I) Definitlan'o�special assesamenL ' - moderato of alums and blight. and small city. discretionary recipients must comply hick Is oth (p The fadtity;, whlett le otherwlae . " eligible and proposed for assistanaa ; , T'he term.."apecia assessment" means S fee or charge levied or filed'as a (len with similar requirements eel forth in " will occupy a designated end discrete .: • area withia the larger facility;,and " a einst-e parcel of real estate is a direct' g of benefit deftived from the N . Subpart F. Further, there must be compliance with a0 .' '•' (ti) The applicant an determine the - result . installation of a public Improvement. P P ' w and leable n environmental review and dearence.c'.S , ' . codsee far able to.the facility '• proposed far and tie sts each tit of the f curbs, and gutter. Thete of the fee represents the pro rata. procedures eat forth in 24 CFR Part 51L (b) Urban Development action grants, the of the • distinct from the overall costa c lite • 'multiple -use bullding end/or facitityi .:• eharo of the capital caste of the public-, -^ sham of Improvement, levied against the•- -�.: •.' . _ Grant assistance may be provided with Urban Development Action Grants :,• :.,;;^ For example, a senior center, which is to bene0lting propertles. This term does. . pursuant to Subpart G for. ' - occupy space.within a building t-hel is not relate to taxes, or the establishment • - (1) Activities eligible for anslstancie pursuant to this Sbbparh and *,:- otherwise wed for the conduct of general governmental business, may be of•the value of real estate for the • . ' purpose of levying real estate, property, (2) Such other activities. Including new housing construction, as the assisted when itlxclusively occupiesa seperele end deetgneled area within the or ad valorem taxes... , (2) Special assessments to recover Secretary may datermine la ba .. - consistent with the statutory objectives building (I.e, the senior center does nal "float., m diDerent locations within the capital costs funded in whole or in pan - with blackgront funds. (1) Tha general of the Urban Development Action Grant -•• MICROFILMED BY JORM MICROLAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DCS '401: 6116 F1 J _y r OM r3 C,,PcuimlL - P -J7 10 COST Lds fol S>�1>E 40Z)LocAL Co V.,. l gTTF16 rM. ENT 13, •SEDT. C. Z. W , J nonoccupancy, without authorization of the grantor Federal agency. > a. Rental cost. The rental cost of 'space ' in a privately -owned building is allowable. Similar costs for Publicly owned buildings newly occupied on or after October 1, 1980, are allowable where "rental rate" systems, or equivalent systems that adequately reflect actual costs, are employed. Such charges must be determined on the basis of actual cost (including depreciation based on the useful life of the building, interest paid or accrued, operation and maintenance, and other allowable costs). Where these costs are included in rental charges, they may not be charged elsewhere.. No costs will be included for b. Maintenance and operation. The cost of utilities; insurance, security, janitorial. services,., elevator service, upkeep of grounds, normal repairs and.alterations and the .like, are allowable to the extent they.are not otherwise included 'in rental or other charges for space.:.,_ .. j c. Rearrangements and alterations. Costs incurred for rearrangement and alteration of facilities required specifically. for the grant program or those that materially increase the value or useful life of the -facilities (Section C.3.) are allowable when specifically approved by the grantor agency. d. Depreciation and use allowances .on ,publicly -owned buildings. The costs are'allowable as providedin Section 5:11. e. Occupancy of space under rental-purchase'or a lease with option -to -purchase agreement. The cost of space procured under such arrangements is allowable when specifically approved i by the Federal grantor agency. 3. Capital expenditures. The cost of facilities, equipment, other capital assets, and repairs which materially increase the value or useful life of capital assets is allowable when such procurement is specifically approved by the Federal grantor agency. When assets acquired with Federal grant funds are (a) sold; (b) no longer available for use .in a federally -sponsored program; or (c) used for purposes not authorized by the grantor agency, the Federal grantor agency's.equity in the asset will be refunded in the same proportion as Federal participation in its cost. In case any assets are traded on new items, only the net Cost of the newly -acquired assets is allowable. (No. A-87) MICROFILMED BY JORM MIC R(SL AB , � CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOI4E5 , 696 J _y L to meet the special needs of the acs' Dopuletians of older panoaa d the low lnoame and matt' aalsting faeUitte• Part a will be given In 1�� /`� itis m thou parts of r d high contentRttma 5 e� mltarlb older Derr n i N' (e) A MWUPur Z Ram will be dr J` �• any facilities ,,' n��. Pregma N* C,• stated mt'J� n �, Atm / \` Ott grar P J RULES AND REGULATIONS under this part shall comply, before the •ultlpurpoee senior center program is �ted in such facility. with an en - 'I State and local health, Are, 'onmg. and sanitation codes. ,l regard to life/safety con. n will comply with the pm •; •ational Pyre Protection w CO`C.e Safety Code for the dIpaty CJ r!x whichever -[agent t in abler to com. t As requirementsbf the Davis. EXHIBIT C 31433 §1326.9 Special assurances appUWe a structural changes in the altering or taeovating of fsc lttlr. Where snuctufal changes will be un- dertaten a the course of altering or renovating a facility. the applicant shall assure compliance concerning Wy app11- cable local or State ordluen'lama or building codes. In me absence o1 such u codes, such strucnat changes must con.. for=- W Chapter 23 Of the Uniformde, Building Caor Article 7 or the Hua BSu ding Code, or Chapter 12 of me O j t and other mandatary Federal Building Code. cS shall assure that BZW &*wt F- 0serai RpWen nmb Ci; W to for ledaraLLy Assisted . 111326.10 Federal and ocaoFedual perms ,L% �y a � For O• t. te .y O` , w two (a . �� or con. O program �, a f �` 1122"" fee s0 be G&W eA club (u la those. / whom; the Stats Avesta Wats zm,w apply fa'tha !red• reeeved for the State, Otho W916le y aaonlr or aaniaa m in rh.•etm toner Vara Proems ,mtgtiW swur- a() Mw faciRb for which funds an reguaw L•alaptable for serving as a ,err A m uapmpee s /ales center pre. Ram will be operated In the facility: (2) the ovum or Orgamstlon which win operas the multipurpose senior cater program In the facility for which funds an regudst d le Quadded to oper- AW such a Program: (4) 'file facility for which funds. an raVnerted L heard No ago be accessible to a' high MvPwtlm err miamty and lewdao®v OWN persons; and (6) The agency or oepnistlon which will operate the multipurpose senior center asdsW mut- this Part will da reloo a plan designed to obtain written Uaaamianmta. from. other public• and p-19aae oumpemt age ore to use the fi- c111b te da Iver serrlsa to older persons er to contribute, resource to expand the Program of the center. (b)• Pbr such applications. the Area AaancT an Agin. if annarrshis_ afn .t« Hsveding Faber Stand - and Ewa" Employment OOpoPtu- Pbrm BZW -014 (July 1976) are In. Id a all. construction contracts for atlm and renovatlam of facMdes, the purpose of title Part the term em dructlon- is limited to altering er vallair existing facilities. The applinat shall assure that if seMy to be'atquind, altered or reno+ voted Will be shared with other stye Rotme, that Ands under this part will zeal only for that Portloa of the fM that will be used by oiler persms. where the same floor soon is. to be eband with differmt ap amps. St 4 radar style part may be used Proportion. for aquidag. alter m or recovat. Us facility only W the slant that floor span will be used by older ML The appiltaot ahan asute that the tpolleable ravia menta contained In the fo0owtag stamtoo and eneutln Or. dr an satisfied: (1) Uniform Relocation det.Pub. L 914"• (2) Flood Protect)m Act Pub. L 93- 234: (21 Nadong Mstorio PSwnation Act Pub.L e9-663: and (4) Executive Order an Flood Plana, Z.O. law § 1 f�Spedet arwr � apolieble . ` (u The applicant shall aaeure that aa therm an oro elle fo fa antis a the community suitablefar leasing u a mui- UPUrPossenior center. (b) The applicant shall assure that any facility to be acQuired ,under this .any wlu conform with the Architectural Barriers Act of 1969 (41 CPR- 101-17 702). dP— Yr�Paea Sm We tended to be d• tart of tis Comers. tionor a s p Of the Area Agency an fel Th. Ficift eg Fl� Under Applicable Feet 913)6 7 cilldAwarenes n applicable re a (a)' The applicant shall acture that, any facility tar which funds are awarded out abwl aware that the sed for the Purposes for red fot��e thin ton daft ant shad assure that the be.used, and In not a- d foe ssotortim aauuc- t for raUgaaa worship. Cant 'shall assure that rill be andable to most . sban of the east of (O The applicant shall secure that suftlefmt hinds will be available when PUrebas is camplstad, for effective use of the facility for the purpose for which It Is being purchased. fldpelisu, 72e Commissioner L authorized to M UP to 76: petMt of the each Of AOQUir- brg, altering or fmovating fadutLe to serve as multipurpose senior centera.The non -Federal share of proposed cost, un- der this part shall be ldmtlffed by the applicant m the appllcatiom § IS2611 Unallowableerpondlmss. Pelletal financial �VAtIon. and thapproprL - yyrs, may net be used for any of the foUnte ag: (a) New construction or the canple- don of a PutallY COmPlated facility; (b) Mw putrbsu of bred not related to the'ae¢ulrmv of an'esfstfae feodlty; . (0) Expanding doable Na quan�oota�q off the aty in�rlgiui. facility: and (4) Any coal; amod todwiththeoper- atin at the multipmpOn senior ember. InrAMI. ' at ntsiatesssoee, peraosinci 9 ISM12 Admin a radve cash, dndm�s.busef administrative cc" isori std with Wmattaias Rant under this Pall Such costs must be set -fora•: I the propouL 113211413 [ aist(ewsth, . r, All of the pgortainsis of 45 CpR pan 74 apply to grants awarded under this pari § 132614 M9S Clearinghouse require,. aa•er AR Applleatlma submitted Under this Part ars sublect to reQuIrements of Part I.OME Circular A-96. 9 IS261S Reports and racaads. (A) Agendas or organizations recely. Ing ands Under this Dart shall mate suchrIPM in such form and containing such.aformation as the Commissioner may determine. (b) Agencies or organizations recely- ag awards shall' maintain such records and afford such access thereto u the Commissioner mission. may find neecnary W an - sun Use correctness and vertiffcatlon of such reports, 9 132616 Civil rights. The applicant shall assure that all activities undertaken under this part shall conform to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 aud'all applicable poucia9 and pro- F®Illi 1101582, VOL 42, NO. 120.-hRmAY, JULY a, 1977 111CRO:ILI.IED D1' JORM MICROLAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES HOMES 6V4 1 J _y �r _y City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: March 29, 1982 To: Department and Division Heads'}(' From: Assistant City Manager I Re: Appointments to Boards and Commissions In the future Board and Commission vacancies will be announced approximately three months in advance of the expiration of a member's term. This will allow the City Council to appoint a successor six to s eight weeks prior to the time the actual vacancy occurs. Once an appointment is made, you should contact the new member immediately and encourage him/her to begin attending meetings. All agendas and accompanying materials which normally are sent to ¢ Board/Commission members should be sent to each appointed new member k as well. Please keep in mind that vacancies arising from resignations are generally not advertised until a formal resignation is received. Therefore, in order to insure that all vacancies are filled as i expeditiously as possible, you should encourage all Board/Commission members to give as much advanced notice as possible once they have made.a decision to resign. In the future we will be making every effort to publicize upcoming vacancies on all Boards and Commissions. We anticipate some expansion of our character generator capabilities for cable television so that all vacancies may be regularly listed. In addition, some thought is being given to a promotional production for t: the government access channel. At such time as this occurs, some staff or members of each Board/Commission may be asked to contribute . to, this effort. k' Your cooperation in these matters, now and in the future, is appreciated. r cc: City Council City Manager tpl/5 t I I r I i i 6 y7 I . MICROFILMED BY _.. 1. ) "JORM MIC RdL A 13 -- CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES _y r 6 y8 MICROFILMED BY JORM MIC R#LA8 1 1 j CEDAR RAPIDS • DES 140HES 1 J City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: April 2, 1982 To: Neal Berlin and the City Council From: Chuck Schmadeke 01 Re: Benton Street - Riverside Drive Intersection Project Several issues were raised at the informal discussion of the Benton Street - Riverside Drive intersection project on March 8, 1982. They include: 1. Access to the Professional Muffler, Inc. shop off Benton Street; 2. A protected walk phase for pedestrians; 3. A check of accident information for, Riverside Drive and Burlington Street; 4. U-turns around the median; S. Extension of the median through the Sturgis Corner Drive intersection, and 6. The cost of, a raised median versus a fifth lane and no median. Access to the Professional Muffler Inc. sho off Benton Street.' Additional access to the muff er shop can be provided off Benton Street without adversely t affecting traffic flows. However, it is not apparent .to Public Works that this t additional access will benefit the muffler shop. In addition, the State would purchase the access in the name of the city and it would then become city right- of-way. This is not desirable. Driveway approaches should be owned by the benefitting or adjacent property owner. Public Works does not recommend providing an additional access to the Professional muffler, Inc. shop off Benton Street. Protected Walk Phase. See attached memo from Jim Brachtel concerning the t proposed protected walk phase at Benton Street and Riverside Drive. Accident Information for Riverside Drive and Burlington Street. The attached chart provides the accident experience in the area of the proposed Riverside Drive reconstruction and along Burlington Street. U-turns Around the Median. At several locations on Riverside Drive where medians now exist, u -turns have not presented a problem. Drivers do not perceive that they can make a safe u -turn maneuver where the median width is only four feet. Also, a medium sized passenger car requires a 42 foot diameter to make a u -turn. Extension of the Median Thrh the Sturgis Corner Drive Intersection. An tension of the �versideou Dr exive median through the Sturgis Corner Drive intersection would effectively create a right turn in and a right turn out only condition. Public Works does not feel that a right turn only restriction is i necessary since left turn storage will be provided with the reconstruction of Riverside Drive. The Cost of a Raised Median Versus a Fifth Lane. The Iowa Department of Transportation does not agree with the fifth lane concept and desires to build the median during initial project construction. Therefore, it is questionable' 6 y8 MICROFILMED BY JORM MIC R#LA8 1 1 j CEDAR RAPIDS • DES 140HES 1 J 2 if they will participate in any costs in constructing the median at a later date. There will be additional costs associated with the construction of a fifth lane because of the necessity to provide a longer transition zone at the north end of the project. IDOT and national criteria require a transition length equal to the speed limit times the lane offset. In this case, the speed limit is 30 miles per hour and the lane offset is 16 feet (the southbound traffic lanes are relocated 16 feet to the west). The transition zone, therefore, would be 480 feet in length instead of the proposed 285 feet. Additional costs for the fifth lane would include $30,000 in additional construction costs and $5,000 in additional right of way costs. The IDOT is very concerned about the fifth lane concept. The attached note from Robert Henely, IDOT District Engineer, to the City staff lists those concerns. Public Works supports the installation of a raised median along Riverside Drive, as it is the most effective method of insuring safe vehicular movement through the Benton Street - Riverside Drive intersection and it provides two uninhibited traffic lanes in each direction on Riverside Drive. tp3/8 � JI MICROFILMED BY "DORM. MICR+LAO_ .-._ j CED 0.R R0.RID5 •DES MOINES ' -;A City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: March 31, 1982 To: Charles Schmadeke, Director of Public Works From: James Brachtel, Traffic Engineer Re: Pedestrian Signalization at Benton St.'/Riverside Dr. i This memo is to respond to the inquiry concerning the effect of pedestrian movement concurrent with vehicular movement vs. an all j pedestrian scramble phase at the above -referenced intersection. There are two basic signalization configurations which could be used at this intersection. The first and most desirable is an eight phase signalization scheme. In this scheme, the first phase would be north and south left turning movements turning concurrently, then north and south ments the third phase -through douldbe eanst and wht est left turning.movementsrturning concurrently, and the fourth phase east and west through and right turning traffic moving concurrently. In this signalization scheme, pedestrian movements would be accommodated with through moving traffic. They would not receive a signal during the protected left turning phases. A second signalization configuration would include the four step sequence noted above, with the addition of a fifth all pedestrian scramble phase. In this scheme, pedestrians would not receive a walk signal with through traffic, but would receive a walk indication both north and south and east and west after the fourth step noted above. In order to determine the times for pedestrian movements regardless of which signalization scheme is selected, the following calculations were made: i East & West The width of the proposed Riverside Drive will be 64 feet. If we assume a walking speed of 4 feet per second, it will require a pedestrian 14.5 seconds to leave the curb and arrive at the st driven 1ane. Therefore, we would want midpoint of the farthe to provide 14.5 seconds of flashing "don't walk" indication. We are required to provide a minimum of 7 seconds of "walk" for pedestrians at the beginning of a walk phase. Therefore, the minimum amount of time that would be required for pedestrian } movement would be 14.5 + 7 or 21.5 seconds. Our experience on irobjection ble to mostlinton Street of pedestrians nito n. Therefore, we would want to consider no less than 25 seconds for the pedestrian movement east and west. i i 6 yl? I MICROFILMED BY _I JORM MIC R#I.AB I CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES I North & South The distance across the new Benton Street will be 37 feet. Using the same assumptions noted above, it would take a pedestrian nearly 8 seconds to leave the curb and arrive at the middle of the farthest driven lane. The minimum amount of time that we would be required to provide would be 15 seconds for the pedestrian movement. But again, given our experience on Burlington Street, we should consider no less than 18 seconds for the north -south walk phase. On the accompanying page is a sketch which indicates the various phase sequences and the times required for vehicular movement based upon the volumes projected by the Iowa 00T after the project is completed in 1983. These numbers are based upon a fully actuated intersection with pedestrian movements also actuated by push button. The first column shows the eight phase configuration, the second column shows an eight phase configuration with pedestrian actuation. As can be seen, the time for the pedestrian movements would be accommodated in the amount of time necessitated by vehicular volumes. The third column shows the time required for the second signalization option which was described above. In this option, 25 seconds is allotted for the all pedestrian scramble phase. The 25 seconds is necessitated because we must provide for the longest walking path in the ihtersection. M _V J_I As demonstrated on the attachment under the second signalization scheme, a pedestrian waiting for a walk indication would have that opportunity only once in a cycle, that is, if a pedestrian arrived at the worst possible time, he would have to wait over 2 minutes before receiving a walk indication. Should you have any additional questions or comments regarding this s 1 matter, please don't hesitate to contact me. bc3/1 i i 4 I I I i CROFILMED BY AICR#LAB CEDAR RPD S M _V J_I SIGNAL TIMES AT BENTON ST/RIVERSIDE DR I ST SIGNAL SCHEME 2N SIGNAL SCHEME 8 0 VEHICULAR 8 0 W/PEDESTRIAN 9 0 W/ PEDESTRIAN 1 22 SEC 22 SEC 22 SEC CIO45 SEC I I 45 SEC I 45 SEC I I 27 SEC 27 SEC 27 SEC 25- _ _ 37 SEC 37 SEC 37 SEC---- - - --- ----- - - - - � 25 SEC 131 131 156 ry -�—.—�.........ccs,:s:,<:cry;.:�..�.,...::..,...:.....,....—.__._.. r jMIC10EI0E1 BY --JORM," MICR#LA9-" CEDAR RAPIDS • DES M014ES I 14'_ F1 orf__ 1 I•� I / 1 / 1 � 1 z 0 F- U u W N C W H 2 W IN ACCIDENT EXPERIENCE ON BURLINGTON FROM MADISON TO GILBERT P.D.* P.I.* PED.* BIKE FAT.* TOTAI VFAa 3 3 1979 i 9 2 11 1980 4 1 5 1981 27 2t23 34 1979 20 4 25 1980 26 7 35 1981 *Property Damage *Personal Injury *Pedestrian *Fatality i MICROFILMED BY �- "'"JORMMIC R+LA B'- \' .. CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES, j ACCIDENT EXPERIENCE IN THE AREA OF PROPOSED RIVERSIDE DRIVE RECONSTRUCTION P n * P.I.* PED.* BIKE FAT.* TOTAL YEAR 3 1 1 5 1981 5 3 8 1980 5 3 8 1979 11 3 14 1981 11 1 12 1980 9 ' 2 11 1979 8 '1 9 1981 9 4 13 1980 12 4 1 17 1979 10 5 15 1981 20 6 26 1980 26 9 35 1979 I * Property Damage * Personal Injury * Pedestrian * Fatailty i i MICROFILMED BY l1 -I '-DORM--MIC R+LAO. 1 CEDAR RAPIDS DES M019ES I R i NOTE TO: Neil Berlin and Charles Schmadeke Here is our concept for the fifth lane approach with widening on the west side only. Also, we have the following thoughts and concerns on the fifth lane concept vs the raised median. Bob Henely f MICROFILMED BY }-A- �-`JORM-'MICR#LAO� ' !+ CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES ! J� I I " 1 i f I J� BENTON-RIVERSIDE INTERSECTION F-6-7(22)--20-52 JOHNSON I Widen on West side only 1. For northbound Riverside traffic to find the fifth lane would be confusing and dangerous. 2. South of Benton there are six entrances on both sides within 300+ feet. The fifth lane would allow opportunity for left turns from both directions (three on each side). At times there will be vehicles in the fifth lane wanting to turn left coming from opposite directions. This would create confusion to the motorist and increase potential for a poor accident experience. 3. The same is true north of Benton.. However, only four entrances both sides. 4. practically all the entrances on Riverside serve the high turnover type clients which would generate a high.volume of left turns in the fifth lane. 5. With widening only on west side how do you design resulting typical section on Riverside to provide proper crown on street? II Widen equally on both sides of Riverside would need approximately •8 feet to 9 feet both sides. 1. The 8 foot to 9 foot requirement on the east side of Riverside would be devastating to adjacent businesses. We do not believe the fifth lane concept will provide a comfortable environment for the motorist to drive and certainly will create an increased accident potential compared to the raised (barrier type) median 141CROFIL14ED BY MICR#L AB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES I _ Z; --- _�o N 1,� S City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: April 1, 1982 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Bill Terry, Acting Chairperson BTC Re: Triannual Review Public Hearing The BTC is holding a public hearing on April 6, 4:00 PM in the Civic Center Council Chambers. This public hearing is part of the Triannual Review process, which will enable citizens to have input to the BTC on any subject (financial, programming, technical, and or service aspects) regarding the cable TV franchise in Iowa City. The BTC is attempting to carryout this proceps in as cooperative and constructive vein as possible with Hawkeye. The BTC would very much like to hear any suggestions and or comments the Mayor or Councilpersons may have regarding the cable TV franchise. As a reminder, this process allows Hawkeye the opportunity to make their own suggestions and or comments for possible changes in the system or franchise which may benefit the cable system and community of Iowa City. Please feel free to contact me by phone or mail.with your comments or suggestions. tp4/6 ' i1 WILnED BY i- JORM MICR#LAfl CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MINES I � 6 r9 _y �_l r 1 MICRDEILMED BY jJORM MICROLAO j I CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOVIES 6 5D _y City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM - Date: March 26, 1982 To: City Manager, Neal Berlin City Council Commitee on Community Needs Housing Commission From: Michael Kucharzak, Director, HIS Re: Status of Housing Rehabilitation through the HUD Section 312 Loan Program We have recently been advised by the local HUD area office that the Section 312 Loan Program is currently "in transition" or in other than Federal jargon, it appears Congress will not be allocating new monies for the Section 312 Loan Program. As a result, the area office will be returning all submitted single family loan packages; however, multi- family loans might be available by using loan paybacks from 312 loans previously made by HUD. If indeed multi -family money would be available, the interest rate would be 11%, significantly higher than the current 3%. The interest rate could be reduced to 5 if 50% of the cost of rehab were leveraged with private cash. CDBG monies would not be allowed for interest reduction and private Home Improvement loans, currently in I i excess of 11% would not enhance a leveraging program. In today's economy for a property owner to come up with 50% of the cost of rehab in cash will be difficult especially if the cost of rehab is great. Also the eleven percent interest rate doesn't look as inviting as the past three percent. Therefore, staff doesn't believe that Iowa City will be processing 312 loans in FY83. However, there has been some literature out on a possible new HUD program called Rental, Rehab. This proposed program is intended to replace several existing programs including the Section 312 and Moderate Rehab Section 8. Rental Rehab has not gone to Congress and no firm regulations have been f established but'•early information indicates that the program is very . similar to the low interest/Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation loan program developed by City staff, preliminary approval by the CCN and the Housing Commission and awaiting funding as part of the delayed CDBG monies for Iowa City. yI -will keep you posted as information does become available. i t I l bj/sp 1 MICRDEILMED BY jJORM MICROLAO j I CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOVIES 6 5D _y Lit, City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE: April 2., 1982 TO: City Council 1 FROM: Rosemary Vitosh, Director of Finance RE: Budget Critique t + During the April 6, 1982, informal meeting,.time has been j allocated for your input on what you liked or disliked about t the FY83 Budget review process•for both the Operating Budget and the Capital Improvements Budget. Your feedback an items, such as what additional information would be useful and the scehduling of the Budget review meetings, will be helpful as we begin to plan -the FY84 Budget preparation process. 1 One area in which it is becoming -apparent that more time should be spent and more information needs to -be provided is that of property taxes. It may be helpful to make a presen- tation to Council sometime in November -when preliminary assessed.valuation figures are available from the County and when the rollback factors are available from the State. This could provide staff with some early guidance from Council on acceptable levels of property tax levies. i • i i f I • I' I4ICROFILI4ED BY I '-JORM MICR#LAB -J � CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES .I tf -_ 66/ _;o r LEGISLATIVE BULLETIN <�r . 32 ��GUQ C WN N UNICIQ� 900 On Moines Street Suite 100 Des Moines. Iowa 50316 (515) 2659961 March 26, 1982 STEERING COM1,1ITTEE APPOINTED A five -member steering committee has been named in the Senate for the purpose of directing specific bills to the calendar for debate. The members of the commit- tee are: Sens. Hultman, Junkins, Hutchins, Nystrom and .Jensen. GASOHOL LEGISLATION ADVANCES The Iowa Senate has passed SF 2091, an Act relating to the rate of excise tax on gasohol. The Senate proposal would remove the 7 -cent a gallon tax break now allowed on the sale of gasohol but also provides that grain alcohol remains a part of the state's overall gasoline supply. Under the Senate version, the current 6 - cent a gallon tax now charged on gasohol sales would be increased to 13 cents on .July 1. The (louse Ways and Means Committee has passed IIF 2458, an Act to increase the rate of excise tax on gasohol. This version provides for extending the period of the phaseout through .June 1986. During this period the tax rate on gasohol will increase from six cents to eight cents on July 1, 1982, from eight cents to ten cents on July 1, 1983 and one additional cent each year until 1986 when the tax rate will equal 13 percent. t The Senate bill was rejected by the [louse Ways and Means Committee on Tuesday g in favor of an amendment which would make the Senate version consistent with IIF 245fi. Passage of a gasohol bill is seen as a key to adjournment and a final version may be different from either the House or Senate proposal. i PENSION LEGISLATION ADVANCES The Senate has passed on a 45-0 vote SF 2178, a bill relating to public pen- sion and retirement programs. As passed the bill would require an increase in the employer's contribution to IPERS beginning January 1, 1984 of 1 of 1% from 5.75 to 6.25 percent. The bill also increases the covered wages from $20,000 to $22,000. Amendments to delete cost increase from the bill were ruled out of order. The Senate -passed bill also contains language which would bring 600 employees in cities under 8,000 under the same pension provisions of Chapter 411. This change will increase costs because pensions are payable over a longer fu- ture lifetime and because the funds to pay pensions must be accumulated over a shorter span of time. For this group the additional cost was estimated to be 3.1% of salary. If this were allocated to member and employer in the same proportions as the present total contributions, it would be 4.9% for employee and 7.65'. for the employer. As reported in the last Legislative Bulletin, the House has been working on their version of a pension bill which would exclude most of the changes in the Senate version to Chapter 411 and would hold the covered wages to $20,000 but raise benefits to 50'.. On Thursday the full House State Government Committee voted to substitute their version for the Senate -passed bill. Several attempts to increasethe covered wages and the contribution rate were rejected on close votes. It would appear that should the House version pass, the Senate will insist on their position and the bill would then be sent to a conference committee for the differences to be resolved between the two chambers. Please contact House members and urge them to support the House version and to resist attempts to reinstate Senate provisions which would require increased costs to cities without any appropriation to offset the cost. HOUSE PASSES WATER BILL The House has passed and sent to the Senate a bill which will consolidate the regulation and management of water resources by creating and transferring to the 1' MICROFILMED BY II_ "JORM MICR6LA13 1 CEDAR RAPIDS r DES MOINES ' I 1 _NIN t. -2- Iowa Water Council all of the powers and duties of the Iowa Natural Resources Coun- cils, DEQ and Health departments These duties relate to the regulation, construction, maintenance and abandon- ment of non-public water systems and wells and those relating to water pollution control and water quality. COST OF LEGALIZING ACTS The House has passed 51-43 HF 2452, a bill which would require a city, county or school district which requests a legalizing act to pay for all of the personnel, administrative and printing costs of the legislation. A motion to reconsider the vote has been filed by Rep. Swartz (Marshalltown). SENATE PASSES LAND USE Following several weeks of amendment and procedural motions, the Senate has finally passed SF 2218, a land use bill, on a 31-19 vote. Final action came after a compromise amendment was adopted which combined the original bill with procedures contained in the Waldstein amendment which had been defeated and then reconsidered earlier in the week. As written, the bill establishes a procedure for the development of an inven- tory of land uses in each of the 99 counties which shall be submitted to a state land use council by July 1, 1983 which in turn shall adopt guidelines for the de- velopment of county land use plans no later than December 31, 1983. The bill goes beyond just an inventory of land in each county. It also calls for the establishment of agricultural districts. Once established, the ag districts or areas would tie provided certain benefits and protections including limitations on special assessments, nuisance actions,etc. The House has also developed its own version of a land use .bill, HF 2471, and the future of the Senate proposal is uncertain at this time. Those voting yes were: Bisenius, Carney, Carr, Colemen, Comito, De Koster, Doyle, Drake, Dreeszen, Gallagher, Gentleman, Goodwin, Gratias, Hester, Husak, Hutchins, Jensen, Miller, A.V., Miller, C.P., Murray, Nystrom, Priebe, Ramsey, ! Rodgers, Schwengels, Slater, Tieden, Vande Hoef, Van Gilst, Waldstein and Yeager. 1 j Voting no included: Anderson, Baugher, Briles, Brown, Craft, Deluhery,Holden, Hulse, Hultman, Junkins, Kinley, Kudart, Lura, Palmer, Readinger, Rush, Small,Tay- for and Wells. SENATE COMMITTEE ADVANCES ACIR The Senate State Government Committee has passed the ACIR (Advisory Commission f on Intergovernmental Relations) bill and sent it to the Senate calendar for debate. The bill, which had already passed the full House and the Senate Cities Com- mittee, had been sent to the Senate State Government Committee because of a proce- dural question regarding the creation of a new agency. 1 The Senate version contains an amendment which will allow elected and appointed ' officials from cities to be eligible to serve on the state commission. HOUSE PASSES WATER BOND LEGISLATION The House has passed and sent to the Senate HF 2403, a bill relating to bonds for waterworks and water -related issues in cities. As passed, the bill would provide that the acquisition, construction, recon- struction, improvement, repair and equipping of waterworks, water mains, and ex- tensions and real and personal property useful for providing potable waterto resi- dents of a city be defined under essential corporate purpose of Chapter 384 rather than under general obligation issues of the same chapter. On Wednesday of this week, the Senate Cities Committee voted the bill without amendments to the Senate floor for debate. 4 SENATE PASSES PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT BILL The Senate has passed and sent to the House SF 2281, a bill relating to the contract price for construction of a public improvement which requires a bond. As passed, the bill would require that a contract for the construction of a public improvement of which the cost equals or exceeds $25,000 be accompanied by a bond. Present law requires that a contract equal to or exceeding $5,000 be accom- panied by a bond. �r I _ 1 r i t IdICROFILtAEO BY � t_ -JORM MICR46LAS ) J CEDAR RANDS • DES M014f5 a � I i SENATE PASSES BUDGET BILL The Senate has passed and sent to the House IF 2283, a bill to revise thepro- cedures for the state appeal board in the consideration of the budgets of local governments. As passed, the bill would shorten the time before a budget may be protested i and provides that a budget amendment is void if there is not adequate time for a hearing and decision before June 30. -4 The bill further states that if a budget is certified after March 15, all appeal time limits shall be extended to correspond to allowances for a timely filing. Finally, the bill provides that the bill is effective upon publication. Assum- to ing the House acts on the legislation soon, some cities which had not intended nsider assumm have any budget amendments until later in the summer may want to reco- i ing this bill will have immediate impact. The companion bill in the House is HF 2371. SENATE COMMITTEE ADVANCES CURB AND GUTTER BILL The Senate Cities Committee has voted out HF 2394, an Act relating to the ng through the use of special assessments in replacement of curbing and gutteri cities under 10,000. The bill provides that in cities of less than 10,000 population, the replace- ment of curbing and guttering may be done without the use of engineers and permits the city council to levy special assessments on a lineal foot basis. SENATE COMMITTEE ADVANCES INSPECTION BILL 4 The Senate Cities Committee has voted out HF 800, an Act relating to city housing codes and inspection procedures. � The bill, which passed the house last session, makes it optional to include a program of regular rental inspection as part of the city enforcement procedures. NEW BILLS OF INTEREST k k SENATE ( IF 2238 TAX LEVY FOR FIRE PROTECTION (COUNTY GOVERhT1ENT) Bill provides that a town- ship which has a common boundary with a city may continue to levy up to sixty-seven and one-half cents per thousand dollars of taxable valuation for fire protection or j ambulance or both. This bill specifically affects the Saylorville Township which has a common boundary with the City of Des Moines. IF 2234 WELL INTERFERENCE (NATURAL RESOURCES) Bill would establish that the owner of a well used for a non-regulated household or livestock use would have a rightto 1 damages if a water withdrawal regulated by the Iowa Natural Resources Council or combination of regulated withdrawals caused failure of the pumping system in the affected well. i 5F 2289 HOTEL-MOTEL TAX (WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE) Bill extends until November 1, 1984 the time before which bonds payable from a hotel and mote] tax authorized at an election held before July 1, 1979 may be issued for memorial buildings, civic facilities and related facilities without a bond centers, auditoriums, convention election. SF 2264 VOLUNTEERS (HULTTIAN AND .IUNKINS) Excludes from the defini.tionef a "chauf- eur" a vo]unteer ambulance or rescue squad attendant who operates the emergency I vehicle. The bill further provides that if a volunteer fire fighter, ambulanceor S rescue squad operator receives no compensation, the person is classified asa volunteer. This bill would exempt this class of in from the requirement that the person possess a chauffeur's license to operate fire apparatus or an am- bulance or rescue squad vehicle. SF 2273 UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCL (LABOR RELATIONS) Provides for an emergency tax in t e trst quarter o 1983 o no more t an one percent of the taxable wages to repay any loans made by the federal government to Iowa for the payment of unemployment compensation benefits. Government entities, non-profit organizations andemployers i assigned a zero contribution rate for calendar 1983 are exempt from the tax. HOUSE HE 2443 ROAD h1AINTENANCE EQUIPMENT (TRANSPORTATION) Allows the operation of road maintenance equipment in the right hand lane and left-hand lane while engaged in specific maintenance operations on roads open to traffic. , MICROFILMED BY J -JORM MICR46LAB CEDAR RAPIDS DCS M018ES se HF 2468 RATE REGULATORY DECISIONS (COMMERCE) Provides that judicial review of rate - regulating decisions of the Commerce Commission must take place in the county in which the public utility maintains its principal place of business unless the Su- preme Court adopts rules of civil procedure authorizing venue elsewhere. The bill further provides that district court decisions in judicial review proceedings in- volving interim action of the Commerce Commission are subject to appeal by the Supreme Court only if the Supreme Court grants discretionary review. MICROFILMED BY I JORM:"MICR LAB- ' CEDAR RAPIDS •DES MOINES__ I I � ' J I � I ti City of Iowa City f MEMORANDUM Date: April 8, 1982 i To: City Council From: Assistant City Manager Re: North Branch Dam + Council's informal agenda for April 12, 1982, includes discussion.of the North Branch Stormwater Detention Facility. Attached please find copies of memoranda from Jim Hencin and Chuck Schmadeke which as well as cost estimates for land acquisition and provide current information regarding available CDBG funds for reallocation construction of the facility. Also included is a memo indicating the latest recommendation from CCN regarding the allocation of funds for this project. tp2/4 f 1 � 1 ' I � i I i I ii I MICROFILMED BY 1_..7 DORMMICR ' #LAB- �--�- -1 • CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES �, ^' City of Iowa CIt,& MEMORANDUM Date: April 6, 1982 To: City Council From: Anne Carroll, Director of Human Relations Re: Employee Service Awards Annually we recognize employees who have attained 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 years of service with the City. Recently we have experimented with a format for these awards in an attempt to provide a form of recognition which is most meaningful and valued by the employees. This year's group of 47 employees has collectively served 505 years - fighting fires, plowing snow, driving buses, repairing water mains, designing engineering projects, dispatching police calls, answering public complaints and inquiries, checking out library books, typing memos - performing all kinds of public services. These employees will be honored at a "coffee" to be held in the Council Chambers, Wednesday, April 14, at 10:30 AM. Employees will attend with their immediate supervisor who will present the award with remarks about ,the quality of the employee's service and accomplishments. Members of the City Council are cordially invited to attend. tp2/1 ,l MICROFILMED BY -"JORM MICR(�LAB-- J _I t , CEDAR RAPIDS DES MDIMES I tf —�o r r=te r City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: April 9, 1982 To: Neal Berlin, City Manager From: Robert W. Jansen, City Attorney Y{Lo 6 - Re: New Wave Posters on Buses The Council has asked whether or not the request by the New Wave organization to place their posters on the City buses advertising an event to be held on April 16th violates the City's policy banning all Political advertising on the Iowa City buses. Since 1978 City policy bans all political advertising on the Iowa City Transit System buses insofar as the advertising relates to candidates for office. This policy was formally expressed in contracts with the City's advertising agent. Also, an opinion by Assistant City Attorney Linda Woito dated September 4, 1980, stated that the City could constitutionally impose a ban on all political advertising on City buses under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The opinion makes clear that although City policy is aimed primarily at banning sale of advertising to candidates for public office, the constitutional analysis- equally applies to a ban on political public issues as well. At that time persons interested in the ERA state constitutional amendment requested permission to purchase advertising space on the buses in the form of a sample ballot. Permission was denied. Thus, the opinion held that the City may ban all political advertising whether in support of or against a candidate or a political issue. I have examined the New Wave poster. It announces a "Night Against the Right" in large letters and underneath in much smaller letters the wording "a new wave phenomenon". The poster lists three entertainment groups who will appear at Old Brick this event. on April 16th for Press accounts have indicated that the New Wave is a coalition of left-wing groups in Iowa City largely centered on the campus. Although this is a political group sponsoring an event that clearly has political overtones, the poster does not contain any explicit wording comprising a political message or statement, although the Politically sophisticated may certainly infer one. However, it is my opinion that the nebulous wording of the poster does not rise to the level of the kind of political advertising banned by City policy. bc5/6 ! i I 141CROFILMED BY "JORM MICR46LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES 9 rte. City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: April 2, 1982 To: City Manager and City Council From: Hugh Mose, Transit Manager r V Re: Free Fare Saturday Over the months of January, February, and March ridership and revenue on Iowa City Transit has been up about 22% over 1981. To show appreciation to those riders who have patronized the system this winter, we propose a hold a Rider Appreciation Day on Saturday, May 1. On that day we would operate the busses and charge no fares. By operating free fare that day, the system will lose about $500 in cash revenues. However, the State DOT appears willing to reimburse us for a portion of the lost revenue. Also, any funds spent for marketing will be reimbursable under our State transit grant. Unless directed otherwise, we will proceed with plans to hold a free fare Rider Appreciation Day on Saturday, May 1. tp5/1 MICROFILMED BY IJES► , "DORM -� MIC R�L CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MD I il i i i `i i I f 1 j . 1 i J� The Cedar Rapids Gazette, Son., April 4, 1982 � �­ mrof­ 'It's tough on the kids — they'll never be able to afford our housing standard!' (Mary Neuhause.r Rezonin s urged ed so', manufactured units can fit housing need Manufactured housing is coming to Iowa. City Councils should prepare for it as 3 housing option in their communities. Manufactured housing is one response to the nationwide need for more affordable homes. The thorny issue of how In provide affordable housing has been simmering on the bac4 burner and rant be Ignored any longer. ZA(st people, not involved in the proftuctian fir sale of housing, are unaware of what has taken place in the housing market recently. The typical hitir.elawmr sees only that the vaiuL of his or her hone has risen sharply in the past decide and Is aware that Interest rates on mortgages hrl-te alsil risen sharply. The person who bought a house 10 or 20 years ago knows that he or she is sitting pretty. Until recently. every American could Expect to buy :o dreamilouse. It Would have three or four bedrooms, a living and dining .,;not. a kitchen with all new appliances, a family room, often with wood -burning fireplace. It would be centrally air-conditioned, be fully carpeted and have a heated, two-. car ".age. Low-interest, long-term mortgages made financing such a thearnho'" possible for anyone with a decent job. As prices rose, people no l' i� Tbc�S?were the purr base of a home as an investment as well as a dreamhoust:. ere willing to pay the increasing cost of financing to get in on the bonanza of t ' he housing boom. All these dreams came In a hall when would-be purchasers found that mortgage money had dried up and what was available could be had only -it rates that were ton high for the typical hotrcbuyer. Builders stopped building. because there were no purchasers. Now, for many, thaCilreambouac is more dream than house. They still need a plan to live, but dreams are being adjust,:(I to fit the 11, & of 1110 piesi-ni And the realities if the porketbo:i. 141CROFILMED BY 'DORM MICR6LAB CEDAR RAPIDS - DES M0114ES a I 657 ...r housing industry is responding to the changing needs of home. !rvo-rs, q'hile many families will still need and desire tmaitinnal horses. many nther others -.-;ill step alternative,. They mayprrfer moa, cumpat i, envrgy-c•fffc:cnt dwellings. A couple without children ma:: prefer n house Mill only one or two bedrooms on a small lot. A•first-horne huyer might de ore a starter home with second floor to be fic!shed lacer or he added to sometime. The buyer m:.y require a iower•cost alternative to a traditional home, agw..vnhouse. a rov: house, a tnanufartuced home or a imft!r• home. mining restrictions in many American communities prevent var!aura from the traditional single-family detached house, built on site. Two-family hooses Are not n!!owed in mznv ateas. Mobile homes are either banished ultugelher or must be located in the most undesirable .sections of aanntercird areas. where schools and parks are unavailable. The tlexibiiily tl+al would allow lawer-rost alternatives and varied lyres cf housinq does not exist in mc,t cumtnimties. Changieg zoning ordinances to permit alternatives to traditional rou:ac is not an easy task. 'Phase who arc happily established protest any chanes. ar;N,. that property values will be ruined, that safety and herdth will Ile endangered and that peace and quiet will be dcstroved. It Is no serprMing that cities have resisted stirring up that !cornets' nest. R is precisely because change can disrupt a neighborhood that city councils must he'the ones to guide those changes. They can establish criteria which will allow alternative housing types with minimal disruption to the neighborhood. If the cities refuse to deal with these realities, the Legislature or the courts may impose far less palatable solutions on communities that exclude alternative housing. Already the courts In other stales have required cities to allow mobile homes in residenlial neighborhoods. A bill has been introduced in the Iowa Legislawre which would permit manufactured housing In residential areas. Cities should begin at once to review their zoning ordinances and to change them where necessary to reflect the changing needs and desires of the people who are seeking homes. Affordable housing for all can and should be a goal for all cities. Y .. periodic observations from same thought. ful Eastern Inwans invited to express them• selves here. The topics are unlimited. The views are fheirs Mary Seubau• ser of Iowa City, a law student at the University of Iowa, serves as Iowa City's mayor and has been a Chy Coun• cll member since 1075. She is vice president of the League of Iowa Municipalities, 657 r 1 MICROFILMED BY l i ! -"DORM- MICR46LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES I �� _y '� City of Iowa Cit? MEMORANDUM Date: April 7, 1982 To: Dale Helling, Assistant City Manager From: Chuck Schmadeke, Director of Public Works Re: Ralston Creek North Branch Detention Project The estimated cost of the Ralston Creek North Branch Detention Project is as follows: Land Acquisition = $ 787,000 Dam Construction = 760,000 Total.Project Cost $1,546,730 bc3/1 +L4� JMICROFILMED BY _I -�" "JORM' MICR+LA B - CEDAR RAPIDS •DES MOIRES f`f sri_ r _V City of Iowa Cit, MEMORANDUM Date: April 12, 1982 To: Neal Berlin and City Council From: Chuck Schmadeke. Re: Ralston Creek North Branch Detention Structure The construction of the Ralston Creek North Branch detention structure is scheduled to be completed during the 1982 construction season. Several questions have arisen concerning project costs. They are as follows: (1) what was the final cost of the South Branch detention structure; (2) compare the original estimate of the North Branch detention structure to the present estimate; (3) compare the acreage acquired for the South Branch detention structure with the acreage acquired for the North Branch detention structure; and (4) what are the benefits of constructing the North Branch detention structure. Final Cost of the South Branch Detention Structure The final cost was $507,000. This amount does not include the costs associated with the paving of Scott Boulevard across the detention structure. Estimated Cost of Construction. The original cost estimate for the North Branch detention structure was $527,000; the revised cost estimate is $760,000. The revised estimate is higher for the following reasons: (1) A sewer extending east from the northeast trunk sewer through the project area has been added (estimated cost $61,000). (2) The surface restoration of the 3:1 slopes on the face of the dam and on the cut slopes at the ends of the spillway have been changed from seeding to sodding (estimated cost $30,000). (3) Changes required by the I.N.R.C. (estimated cost $20,000). (4) Inflation. The original estimate assumed construction would be complete in 1980 (estimated increase $122,000). Land Ac_guisition Total were $481,OOOQacquisition r the South Theacquiisiti nsincluded45.67nacresdetention in �feessimple,,e13.52 acres of permanent flowage easements, damaged crops, and fill material for the dam construction. Total estimated acquisition costs for the North Branch detention structure are $782,730. The acquisitions include 92.22 acres in fee simple and 7.2 acres of permanent flowage easement. I - 141CROFIL14ED BY ' � J JORM MIC R46L A 13 1 CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES j I 2 Benefits k The South Branch detention structure provides storage for excess storm water runoff from 900 upstream acres and the North Branch detention structure will provide storage for excess storm water runoff from 1780 upstream acres. The net benefit of the installation of the two detention structures is a reduction in the total flow at the mouth of Ralston Creek from 5000 c.f.s. to 3400 c.f.s. and a substantial reduction of the area inundated during a 100 year return frequency storm. bjl/17-18 1 I I MICROFILMED BY -�" 'JORM- MICR#LAB - J CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOMES f i 661 111 `City of Iowa Citj MEMORANDUM Date: April 8, 1982 To: City Manager and City Council From: Jim Hencin, CDBG Program Coordinator Re: Recommendations from the Committee on Community Needs At the April 7, 1982, meeting of the Committee on Community Needs, the Committee made the following recommendation to the City Council: "CCN recommends the allocation of $71,205 to the North Branch Dam project provided that the project is under contract by August 1, 1982." The Committee also reaffirmed its previous recommendation, made February 3, 1982, to reallocate $181,600 to various projects as reported in the Council's March 2 agenda packet. Those projects are also outlined in my memorandum to CCN dated March 31 (attached). CCN's recommended budget is therefore the "Revised Estimate 3/82," with the "unallocated" $71,205 now going to the Ralston Creek North Branch project. bdw4/6 Attachments 1 ' i I41EROFILMED BY ' 1 DORM -MIC R#L AFi �� CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES MR 14r- 1 ti r City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: March 31, 1982 To: CCN Members From: 4 Jim Hencin, CDBG Program Coordinator Re: 1982 Metropolitan Entitlement Grant The City has received formal approval of the 1982 metropolitan entitlement grant from HUD in the amount of $671,000. Now that we have full authority to undertake projects and activities, including those which were outlined in the December 1981 Program Statement, the reallocation of monies "saved" from the Lower Ralston Creek and other projects must be addressed. The Committee should be prepared to make its final recommendations on reallocation at the April 7 meeting. After its recommendations are forwarded and discussed with the City Council, it will be necessary to initiate a formal amendment of the 1982 program budget. In order to assist the Committee in making its final recommendations, we have prepared a table (attached) outlining the 1982 program budget: First, we show the budget as it was approved by HUD, reflecting a $27,400 reduction from the amount the City actually requested in December 1981. This reduction was taken from the Lower Ralston Creek project. Second, the budget is shown as it was revised in the Committee's discussions on February 3. Finally, we show other revisions (the March 1982 estimate) to reflect cost savings in, various activities, totalling $71,205, which are described below. Additional Cost Savings Because of the three month delay in the 1982 grant award, general program administration and community development planning were effectively funded from January to March by a carryover from the 1981 metro entitlement grant. Total savings: $26,615. On March 2, the City Council awarded the final contract for completion of the Lower Ralston Creek project at a considerably lower cost than was estimated by the City's engineers. Even allowing for project contingencies, there are additional savings of $43,200. The Department of Housing and Inspection Services has solicited proposals to repair the roof at the Spouse Abuse Shelter. (See Mike Kucharzak's memo to the City Manager, attached.) We now estimate $2,610 to repair the roof, build a wheelchair ramp, and allow for contingencies. Net savings: $1,390. The combined savings for all of the above is $71,205 and should be reallocated to other projects. Funding Needs of Ralston Creek North Branch Project We have received new information about this project. The final engineer's estimate for construction is $760,000. There is currently about $435,000 from the 1979 hold -harmless CDBG program to pay for the construction. Thus, the balance needed to complete the North Branch dam is $325,000. Enclosures bdw/sp MICROFILMED BY DORM MIC R1i1LA B' , CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOVES j Gd/ J _y � r � COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT BUDGET PROGRAM YEAR 1982: CDBG NO. B -82 -MC -19-0009 6 G f MICROFILMED BY --` ' 1" -"JORM MICR#LAB CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES L 1 � ..I Project Approved Revised Revised or Activity Budget 1 Estimate 2/82 (2) Estimate 3/82 (3) 1. General Program Administration $106,493 $106,493 $ 89,847 2. Community Development Planning 26,924 26,924 16,955 3. Economic Development Planning 5,080 5,080 5,080 4. Lower Ralston Creek Improvements 303,100 121,500 78,300 5. Housing Rehabilitation and Weatherization 129,000 145,300 145,300 6. Housing Code Enforcement 12,000 12,000 12,000 7. Public Housing Site Acquisition & Development . 75,000 75,000 75,000 8. Spouse Abuse Shelter -- 4,000 2,610 9. Rental Rehabilitation -- 75,000 75,000 10. Independent Living Center -- 70,000 70,000 11. Congregate Housing -- 16,300 16,300 12. Contingency 13,403 13,403 13,403 13. Unallocated -- -- 71,205 TOTAL $671,000 $671,000 $671,000 NOTES: (1) Budget as approved by HUD, based on the December 1981 Program Statement. (2) Incorporates February 1982 CCN recommendations to reallocate $181,600 from the Lower Ralston Creek project to activities M5 and N8-11. (3) Incorporates February 1982 CCN recommendations and additional savings from activities l/1, 2, 4 and 8. 6 G f MICROFILMED BY --` ' 1" -"JORM MICR#LAB CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES L 1 � ..I r 66/ _y J ,� CHRONOLOGY OF CCN BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS FOR iU82 CDBG PROGRAM April 1, 1981 CCN makes final recommendations on a three year (1982-84) program based on HUD allocating $776,000 per year to Iowa City (see attached). These final recommendations followed three months of intensive discussion and review by CCN, staff, and Iowa City residents in the following meetings: Regular meetings: January 7, February 4, March 4, and April 1, 1981. Special meetings: February 11 and March 16, 1981. Community meeting: January 22, 1981. Neighborhood meetings: February 23 and February 26, 1981. CCN's priorities were discussed with the City Council at the March 25, 1981 informal meeting. August 11, 1981 City Council authorizes submission of the CDBG/Metro Entitlement Application for 1982, based on CCN's April I recommendations. Fall, 1981 HUD advises the City that entitlement grants are to be cut 10% and, due to CDBG program changes mandated by the Congress, a "program statement" (formerly called application) must be submitted 30 days before the January 1 start of the 1982 program year. October 5, 1981 City Council discusses revising the 1982-84 CDBG budget in the context of funds needed to complete the Ralston Creek North Branch dam. CCN later discussed this possibility at its meetings on October 7 and December 2, 1981, and January 6 and February 3, 1982. November 24, 1981 City Council authorizes submission of the CDBG/Metro Entitlement Program Statement for 1982, based on CCN's April 1 recommendations. The City's request for $698,400 was subsequently forwarded to HUD. iFebruary 3, 1982 CCN recommends allocating $181,600, saved as a result of certain properties not being acquired for the Lower Ralston Creek project, to other projects. Funding for repairs at the spouse abuse shelter is a new request; other projects are consistent with CCN priorities included in the 1982-84 three year plan. March 26, 1982 HUD formally approves 1982 metro entitlement grant j for $671,000; three months late and $105,000 (13.5%) less than originally planned. I April 7, 1982 CCN recommends $71,205 for the Ralston Creek North Branch project - funds which resulted from savings in other projects or activities. CCN reaffirmed its other recommendations made on February 3. I F l I-0ICRDf ILI4ED BY .. JORM MICR#LAB CEDAR RAI'1D5 DES F101NE5 j I 66/ _y J ,� S CDBG BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS: 1982 - 84 ti Program Year 1982 CCN Recommendations Lower Ralston Creek NSA $481,300 - channel improvements* Housing Rehabilitation & Weatherization 129,000 1 Housing Code Enforcement 12,000 Community Development Planning 26,924 N Economic Development Planning 5,080 General Program Administration 106,493 Contingency 15,203 Total $776,000 *Project underruns are anticipated. The following is recommended { as a priority optional project: , 3 Public Housing Site Acquis. & Dev. $ 75,000 i Program Year 1983 Lower Ralston Creek NSA $ 15,000 - property disposition North Dodge NSA - sidewalk construction 26,350 Creekside NSA - sidewalk construction 75,858 - drainage improvements, Phases I & II 120,000 Housing Rehabilitation & Weatherization 158,000 Housing Code Enforcement 13,200 Public Housing Site Acquis. & Dev. 75,000 Independent Living Center 70,000 Family -Life Home 55,000 Economic Development Planning 5,588 Community Development Planning 31,393 General Program Administration 115,615 Contingency 14,996 Total $776,000 Program Year 1984 j Creekside NSA 1 - drainage improvements, Phase III $329,000 it Housing Rehabilitation & Weatherization 180,000 1 Housing Code Enforcement 14,520 Public Housing Site Acquis. & Dev. 75,000 Community Development Planning 29,426 General Program Administration 125,774 Contingency 22,280 Total $776,000 (Prepared 4/81) I 1 I MICROFILIIED BY ' .-JORM-MICR+LAB.. y CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOIYES � / I GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FUND: SPECIAL REVENUE DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM: COMMUNITY DEVELOP- UNIT: COMMITTEE ON COMMUNITY MENT BLOCK GRANTS NEEDS UNIT DESCRIPTION: Advises the City Council on the use of Community Development Block Grant funds from a citizen viewpoint. UNIT GOAL: Discern the needs of the community and make recommendations on community development programs and priorities to City Council. UNIT OBJECTIVES: 1. Evaluate and interpret the City's programs that affect human needs and community development. 2. Provide a systematic communication interchange between citizens and policy makers with regard to all Community Development Block Grant applications and programs. 3.' Facilitate neighborhood meetings to identify needs of neighborhoods and otherwise assist citizens in articulating community needs. 4. Assist citizens to develop programs, where possible, to meet community needs. UNIT MEASUREMENT: 1. Approval of Block Grant applications by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2. Successful implementation of all Block Grant funded programs. 3. Programs directly benefit low and moderate income persons or the elderly and handicapped; prevent or eliminate slums and blight; improve and conserve neighborhoods and housing conditions. THE CITY MUST CERTIFY THAT IT HAS DEVELOPED ITS FINAL STATEMENT OF PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS SO AS TO GIVE MAXIMUM FEASIBLE PRIOITY TO ACTIVITIES WHICH BENEFIT LOW AND MODERATE-IN&E FAMILIES OR AID IN THE PREVENTION OF SLUMS OR BLIGHT. 1 MICROERMED BY II "JORM:-MICR#LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES ' f I r city Of lOWa MEMORANDUM Date: October 9, 1981 I To: City Council ��]]�'„ From: Committee on Community Needs, Margate E Bonney, Chairperson Re: Use of CDBG Funds in 1982 At a meeting on Wednesday, October 7, 1981, at which all eleven members were present, CCN discussed the funding of the Ralston Creek North Branch Dam at considerable length. As a result of this discussion, the following motion was Passed unanimously: "The Committee on Community Needs feels that there are no programs which can be eliminated from the budget at this time in order to provide additional funds for the Ralston Creek North Branch Dam." This motion was based on the following considerations: 1. Over the past six years approximately 40% of CDBG funds have been allocated to Ralston Creek improvements. This includes over $1.5 million for the dams on the north and south branches of Ralston Creek. 2. Since MUD procedures have not been followed for land acquisition, CDBG monies can only be used for construction of the North Branch Dam. CDBG• funds in the amount of $87,400 have already been expended on preliminary designs for this dam, and an additional $310,000 are available to help fund construction. It was always the Committee's understanding that part of the costs of this dam construction would be funded with G.O. bonds or by other means. 3. The number of low and moderate income persons who benefit from the dam is very small, contrary to the intent of the CDBG program. 4. Over 50% of the 1982 CDBG funds are already allocated to the Lower Ralston Creek Project, with the remaining funds allocated for a variety of housing programs directly benefitting low and moderate income persons. 5. It is particularly important to retain"seed" monies for future congregate and public housing programs. 6. The metro -entitlement application for 1982-84 is the result of 5 months of work by the Committee, including numerous public and neighborhood meetings. Great care was taken. in setting priorities, and for the first time we feel we are addressing the concrete needs of low and moderate income persons. tp5/8 141CROFIL14ED BY I I. -JORM MICR46LAB _..� CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES GGA _io