HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-07-20 Info PacketCity of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM -'
.DATE: July 9, 1982
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
RE: Informal Agendas and Meeting Schedule
July 12 1982 Monday
7:00 - 9:00 P.M. Conference Room
Special Informal Council Meeting
7:00 P.M. - Discuss County Home Water Service
7:30 P.M. - Discuss Area Studies
July 19 1982 Nbnday
4:30 - 6:45 P.M. Conference Room
4:30 P.M. - Discuss zoning matters
4:45 P.M. - Meet with Board of Supervisors re. Old Library
5:15 P.M. - Discuss revisions in budget process
5:40 P.M. - City Landfill Projections
5:50 P.M. - Hotel -Motel Tax
6:00 P.M. - Transit Maintenance Facility Update
6:10 P.M. - Discuss pending list priorities
6:20 P.M. - Council agenda, Council time, Council committee reports
6:30 P.M. - Consider appointments to Board of Adjustment and Committee
on Community Needs
July 20 1982 Tuesday
7:30 P.M. - Regular Council Meeting - Council Chambers
PENDING LIST
Discuss Cable TV Commission Recommendations
Transit Fare Policy
Evaluation of City Attorney
Meeting with Riverfront Commission
Melrose Court Improvements
Dubuque Street Improvements
Resolutions regarding Non -City Issues
Iowa -Illinois Utilities Franchise
Meeting with CCN regarding Citizen Participation Plan
Waste Water Treatment Plant Update
Benton and Riverside Reconstruction
Hotel/Department Store Projects - Update
Inspection of Owner -Occupied Duplexes
Discuss Job Evaluation Studies
Residential Manufactured Housing Zone
City Council Salaries
Staffing of Resources Conservation Commission
Appointment to Mayor's Youth Employment Board - August 17, 1982
1x56
111CRUILMED BY
JORM MIC R¢LAB
i✓\�� r � � CEDAR RAPIDS . DES t401NE5
� � I
i
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 9, 1982
TO: City Council, City Manager, and Staff
FROM: David Perret
RE: Change of Address
I have a new apartment in my present apartment building. My new address
is:
932-C Oakcrest
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
(351-5350)
MICROFILMED BY
�- 'JORM MICF146LAB-*
CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES I�
1
r
LF...
r\ �
City of Iowa Litt"
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 9, 1982
To: City Council
Chairpersons, Boards and Commissions
Department and Division Heads
From: Citoanager
Re: Procedures for Administrative Rules
For several years I have thought that it would be beneficial to have an
administrative procedure ordinance with provisions similar to those
provided in Chapter 17A, Administrative Procedure Act, Code of Iowa, and
provided by the Model State Administrative Procedure Act (1981). The
reasons for such an ordinance are included in Section 2-25.0, Purpose, of
the proposed ordinance. Background information about the history of
administrative procedure legislation in the U.S. is provided in the
attached Commissioners' Prefatory Note from the Model State
Administrative Procedure Act (1981).
At the time the ordinance was
any City which had adopted an
to this proposal. Therefore,
for U.S. cities.
initially considered, I was unable to find
administrative procedure ordinance similar
it appears that this will be an experiment
In the ordinance I attempted to create a simple process while utilizing,
intact to as great extent as possible, those portions of the State law and
the Model Act which appeared relevant for City needs. In addition,
modifications and innovations are provided which I believe are necessary
to make such a process work in local government.
Arthur Bonfield, Professor of Law, University of Iowa, has provided
considerable valuable assistance in this effort. Professor Bonfield is
the "father" of Iowa's Administrative Procedure Act and was a member of
the committee that acted for the National Conference of Commissioners on
Uniform State Laws in preparing the Model State Administrative Procedure
Act (1981). Robert Jansen, City Attorney, also assisted in this effort.
Please send your written comments and suggestions concerning this
proposal to me before August 1, 1982. Professor Bonfield will meet with
us late in August to discuss the proposal and respond to comments.
cc: Arthur Bonfield
tp/sp
MICROFILMED BY
' JORM MICRbLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES
125?
1
J
r
STATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE (1981)
Commissioners' Prefatory Nola
The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws fine adopt.
ed a Model State Administrative Procedure Act in 1049, A revised version of that
Madel AM was adopted In 1991. Today, more than half of the states have an
administrative procedure mat based, at leer[ in part, on either the original Madel
AR or Its 1981 revfslon.l
The rase for a Complete revision of the Conference', 1991 dludel Act in very
strong. State administrative law has grown enormously in Bite and complexity
since 1081. In the last twenty years, there has also been a great deal of exper.
fro" with the provisions of the Model Act me enacted in the several states, and
also a peat deal of state legislative experimentatiou with additional or different
administrative procedure requirements. Scholars in the field have also been ev.
pecially active during the tut twenty years, proposing new solutions to old pmb.
lease as well as new evaluations at old solutions.
Then Is mrninly ample Indication that state legislatures will be very receptive
to new Iden on administrative procedure legislation. The volume of such legield-
tion Considered by state leglslaturm annually hen dramatically Increased In recent
yon, u had, the amount of legislative time spent Considering state administrative
procedure reform generally. It Is also significant that the movement for admin-
istrative procedure reform in currently well underway at the federal level. This is
evidenced In pan by Congress' recent serious Consideration of several comprehen-
Act.$bills that would And the AmedttinlfBara Asantially socdationt recentlyrcompleted mar ProceduremWrsttof
the process of federal administrative regulation and proposed a number of impor.
nat changes in national administrative procedure legislatistO Against this back.
ground, and the substantial tuning derived from the experience of the lest twen-
ty years, a complete reexamination of the 1981 Model State Administrative Pro-
cedure Am rams essential.
The history of administrative Procedure legislation of the type proposed In this
Model Act is relatively short. The Initial Impetus for such legislation was, not
surprisingly, the New Deal of the 1930s.4 An the federal bureaucracy multiplied In
an effort to deal with the many serious problems of the Depression, the public and
the argaaised bar become alarmed at what they perceived to be, in many "a". an
unfettered, hence dangerous, exercise of authority by administrative agencies. The
American Bar Association Issued a series of reports between 1934 and 1938 decry
log exceeds of the federal administrative proceed to It was then being operated.
In 1037, the President's Committee on Administrative Management suggested a
very substantial reordering of the federal agencin to cure alleged excesses. Thin
sou followed In 1930 by the appointment of the Attorney General's Colonialism on
Administrative Procedure, which was charged to ascertain the new for reform to
the procedures utilised in the federal administrative process. Before the work of
that Committee was Completed. Congress passed the Walter -Lagan Bill, which was
chiefly a product of the initiative of the American Bar Association. Some people
believed that the Walter -Logan Bill would make the federal administrative process
weak, Inefficient. sod Ineffective. Because he shared that view, President Bound.
sale vetoed this 1940 effort. At the time of his veto, the President stated that lie
wanted to await the outcome of the work of the Attorney General's Committee be-
fore he approved any legislation in thin complex field. The Final Report of the
Attorney Gmrrars Committee on .4dministrafice Procedure was filed In 1941.
By that time, the Second World War preoccupied the country. In 1949, with war
distractions out of the wry, both houses of Congress unanimously approved the
Federal Administrative Procedure AMA
I A.R.A. Commission an law and the Economy, Federal Regulation: Roble to
Refarm (Final Report 1979).
e The following discussion of the history of the federal legislation Is based We -
ma ily on 1 X. Davis. Administrative Law Treatise, Sections 1:7 (2d ad. 1973) and
Vanderbilt. 'Legielattve Background of the Federal Administrative Procedure
Act."
1 In The
ren ed l Administrative Procedure Act and the Administrative Anen-
t 1 R. David, Administrative law Treatise, Section 1:7, at f1 (2d ed. 1971): 6
U.S.C. Act off clunes 1161 69, 101-08.
1 7S1120661a1,6217j e. 6262. 7621 (1976) (originally enacted
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB ?
CEDAR RAPIDS a DES 'MOVIES
1a58
J
r
The Feder:, ..or was a fair compromise between extremes. It _either shackled
the adndnlacrative process its a way that rendered it unduly cumbersome, inefficient,
or ineffective, nor retained totally unfettered agency discretion In the procedures by
which ageacin Implemented their legislative mandates. The Federal Act established
uniform minimum procedums for federal agency decision makint, whether that de•
chion making assumed the form of rule mukiug or adjudication. It also attempted
to ensure greater openness for agency action of all kinds by assuring the public
laermsed access to lafommrion In the hands of government that affected their
rights. An additional check on the administrative process was sought to be pro
vided through a broadly applicable judicial review provision. "The major effeme
of the Act were to satisfy the political will for reform landl to improve and
strengthen the administrative prueeng . . . ." a
During the late 1930a and early 194N, a parallel development was occurring with
respect to state administrative procedure Ivgislatlon.t las 1938, the American Bar
Association Committee on Administrative Agencies and Tribunate Issued a report
dealing with judicial review of state administrative action In state courts. The
following year, the tame Committee produced a proposed act dealing with some of
the major phases of state administrative procedure. It Intended this draft to be a
model for future state legislation on the subject. In 19..39, this proposed statute
was submitted to the National Conference of Gummhslonem on Uniform State
Laws, which undertook to study the matter. In the following three years, the
National Conference produced several drafts of a state administrative procedure act.
From 1942-48, the draft state administrative procedure act produced by the Can.
fsrenes was held In abeyance white Vonalrrss and the President agreed on a federal
statute. When the federal law was finally enacted in 1946, the National Conference
of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws approved its Model State Administrative
Procedure Act
Even before the National Conference of Commissioners approved Its 11148 Model
Act, state administrative procedure note began to appear. North Dakota was the
first in the field. That state enacted a law in 1941 booed an an Incomplete and
early tentative draft of the 19M Model Acts It set out basic procedures for state
agency role making and adjudication. Wisconsin followed in 1943. It adopted a
statute modeled more closely on • complete version of a tentative draft of the origi-
ad Model Aces In the dozen yeah after the 1948 Model Act was adopted by the
Conference, other states enacted administrative procedure acts based In whole or
In part at its final text10
In 1935, the Conference undertook a revision of Its Model State Administrative
Procedum Act This revision was completed and approved In 1981. After that
revision, mora elates adopted administrative procedure acts, many of them based at
Inst In part on the 1981 Revised Model Act.11 Today, mom than half of the grain
have general and comprehensive administrative procedure acts that em based in
whole or In part on the 1948 Model Act or the 1981 Revised Model AeLIZ Thee
state laws am "general' in the sense that they apply to all state administrative ager.
cis save those specifically excepted therefrom, sad "comprehensive' In the seam
that they cover all of the mato subjects dealt with by the IM and 1981 versions
of the Model Act—public information, rule making, adjudication, and judicial re•
view. Many other steres have vdoptnl general sdminixtrative procedure seta dealing
with only game of these suhjrrtx,
Of mum, each of these states has used the Model Act only an a starting point.
While some stats have adopted the Model Act with only few changes. meet of
them have altered It in various wap, and some of them to a very substantial ex.
tent Them changes, engrafted auto the Model Act when It wan enacted by the
several states, have provided a major new mum for proposed improvements to
Its tett
• I :L Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, Section 1:7, at It (Sd ed, 1971).
T This discussion of the Modal Act and state developments miles primarily on
Stamp. 'Tho Model State Administrative Procsdum ACI. 33 Iowa L.Rev. its
Noto' * K Davis lAdministrative ellAW Treatise tSections 1:10-1:11 olid Me]YIU
1 P. Coopr, State Adminletmtive Lw, 7-13 (19551.
I4ICROFILIIED BY
JORM MICROLA13
CEDAR RAPIDS a DES'40MES
as Act of March 17,
eta Gads In Admin.
Act of June 29, 1943,
Administrative Pro -
or
Can.
1as8
1
J
r
Lr..
As noted earlier, however, a new Model State Administrative Procedure AM must
aim adequately reflect the tremendous recent growth in state government in general
and of state administrative agencies in particular. In the lost twenty years, vast
social changes In the United States have greatly Increased and altered the functions
of state government- For exsmPlr, to 1961 Issues such an environmental preserve.
ion. energy conservation, and safety in the workplace were rarely even mosldered
by the legislatures of the states. Yet today, these Issues are m Important that most
states have separate agencies to deal with them. The number and extent of public
welfare programs have aim grown ninm 1961. State now usually have several
large agencies administering such benefactory programs, which nine more new and
difficult procedural questions. This growth in state government, and change In
the nature of its responsibilities must, therefore, be reflected Ia the provisions of
MY new Madel Act
A new Model Act must also reflect certain Judicial developments of the jut twen-
ty years. In many state mum them has been a distinct shift away from an earlier
Inalmence on clear standards in legislative delegations of authority to administrative
agencies. Instead, many state courts now permit legislative delegations of authority
to administrative agencies subject to only very general stsutory standards, if those
delegations are aim surrounded by adequate procedural safeguards, such an those
fogad in a well -drafted and comprehensive administrative procedure acLlt This,
too, has heightened the significance of state administrative procedure act$ and the
admituay of their provlalona. Any new Model Act will have to deal with this
anlaRed Importance of the o,mmuta of such state acts. It will also have to reflect
the drastically changing nature of due praer requirements announced during the
last twenty years In the decisions of the United States Supreme court.
The fallowing Model State Administrative Procedure Act Is entirely new; but
It as the general stmMure of the 1961 Revised Model Act an Its starting point.
Like that earlier effort, thin Am bar four main subjects: freedom of information,
rate making, adjudication, and judicial review. But the draftees of this proposed
Model Act did not feel boned to follow the provisions of the 1961 Act when they
ware Inadequate to light of mora recent experience, scholarship, or cbmac" that
have occurred In government or society. In addition, the drafters of this effort
have produced an act that Is more detailed than the earlier Model Act. There are
several reasons for this. First. virtually all state administrative procedure seta are
mach mora detailed than the 1961 Revised Model Act. Second, the stain badly
need and want guidance an this subject in more detail than the earlier act provided.
Third, substantial experience under the oma of the several states suggests that
much mon detail than is provided In the earlier Model Act Is In fact necessary
and workable In light of current conditions of state government and society. Since
this is a Model Act and not a Uniform Act, greater detail in this act should aim be
oars acceptable because each state la only encouraged to adopt as much of the act
u is helpful in Its particular circumstancem.
Of course, this proposed art does not deal with minor details. Like the earlier
Model Am, It too "deals primarily with Ithe] major principles [of administrative
Procedure], not with matters of minor detail." on the assumption that In the state
administrative process "then an certain basic principles of common sense, justice.
and fairness that can and should Prevail universally." 14 The point is. however,
that mon "elaboration of detail to support the essential major features" is of
each a scheme Is Justifiable today than In 1961, In light of changed circumstenees
and experiences since then. Tet, that mmewhat greater detail in this proposed art
is drafted m On to assure a fair balance between the urxent need for efficient, eco-
nomlcet, god effective government on the one hand, and a responsible administrative
Pews in which persons may adequately protect their Interests against Improper or
unwise government action on the other.
This Model Act, like the 1961 Revised Model Act, creates only procedural rights
and imposes only procedural duties. It seeks to simplify government by assuring
■ uniform minimum procedure to which all agencies will be held In the conduct
of their functions. Further, this act seekx to Increase public access to all of the
sources of law used by agencies, and to facilitate and encourage the Imunnee of
reliable advice by agsucles an to the applicability to Particular cireamstancrs of law
within their primary jnrisdiction. In addition, It attempts to facilitate public
Participation in the formulation of the law adopted by agencies, ensure accounta-
bility Of ageucin to the public, mod enhance legialetive and gubernatorial ovenight
of soncies. An effort in aim made In this 1961 Model Act to simplify the proreas
of Judicial review and civil enforcement of agency action, and to Increase Its availa.
bility. All of the rights created and duties imposed by the provisions of this en-
timIr new Model Act would be In addition to those created or Imposed by other
statutes. And, except to the extent another ntamte expressly provides that it
shall take precedence over this Act, the new Model Act would take precedence over
ell other statutes, including those subsequently enacted, that appear to diminish s
right emoted or ■ duty Imposed by the Model Act. Lastly, an noted earlier, this
Model Act ants to strike a reasonable balance between the need for efficient, eco.
oomleal, and effective government administration, and the need to provide Persons
adequate procedural Pmtmtlan when agencies take action affecting them,
Is Sas 1 R. Davis. Administrative Law Tremiss, Section 1:15, at 209-211 lid ed.
IM).
1. If 1911 Revised Madel Stale Administrative Procedure Act, "Prefatory Note;' el
/. it 1951 Revised Model Stab Adminlxtmtlre Prueedure Act. "Prefatory Sole;. et
/ 111CRDrIWED By
JORM MICROLAB J
CEDAR RAPIDS e DES '40IMS
J
r
f'
s
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF IOWA CITY, CHAPTER 2, ADMINISTRA-
TION, BY ESTABLISHING ARTICLE XI, ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES.
ARTICLE XI. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
Section 2-25.0. Purpose.
This ordinance is intended to provide a minimum procedural code for the
operation of all City agencies when they take action affecting the rights
and duties of the public. Nothing in this ordinance is meant to
discourage agencies from adopting procedures providing greater
protections to the public or to abrogate in whole or in part any statute,
ordinance, or rule prescribing procedural duties for an agency which are
greater than or in addition to those provided here. This ordinance is
meant to apply to all rule-making and declaratory rulings not specifically
excluded from this ordinance or some portion thereof by its express terms
or by the express terms of another ordinance.
0
The purposes of these provisions are:
(a) Provide the City Council oversight of powers and duties delegated to
administrative agencies.
' I
I4ICROEILMED BY
\ 1 JORM- MICR6LA9
CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES
J
12.$81
r
Ordinance No.
Page 2
(b) Increase the public accountability of administrative agencies.
(c) Simplify government by assuring.a uniform minimum procedure to which
all agencies will be held in the conduct of their most important
functions.
(d) Increase public access to governmental information; and,
(e) Increase public participation in the formulation of administrative
rules.
In accomplishing its objectives, the intention of this ordinance is to
strike a fair balance between these purposes and the need for efficient,
economical and effective government administration. The ordinance is not
meant to alter the substantive rights of any person or agency. Its impact
is limited to procedural rights with the expectation that better
substantive results will be achieved in the everyday conduct of City
government by improving the process by which those results are attained.
Section 2-25.1. Definitions.
(a) "Agency" means each board, commission, department director, or the
City Manager of Iowa City.
(b) "Rule" means each agency statement of general applicability that
implements, interprets, or prescribes law or policy, or that
rncaornwco BY
JORM MICR46LA13
( CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES
I
1
J�
A
Ordinance No. ^_
Page 3
describes the organization, procedure or practice requirements of
any agency. The term includes the amendment or repeal of an existing
rule, but does not include:
(1) A statement concerning only the internal management of an agency
and which does not substantially affect the legal rights of, or procedures
available to, the public or any segment thereof.
(2) A declaratory ruling issued pursuant to section 2-25.5, or other
I
j interpretation of particular applicability issued by an agency with
respect to a specific set of facts and intended to apply only to that
specific party and set of facts.
(3) An intergovernmental, interagency, or intra -agency memorandum,
directive, manual or other communication which does not substantially
affect the legal rights of, or procedures available to the public or any
segment thereof.
(4) A determination, decision, or order in an agency adjudication
that is of particular applicability.
(5) An opinion of the City Attorney.
(6) Those portions of staff manuals, instructions or other state-
ments which set forth criteria or guidelines to be used by staff in
auditing, in making inspections, in settling commercial disputes or
negotiating commercial arrangements, or in the selection or handling of
iag8
I i
1111CROFILlIED BY
JORM MICR6LA9 �
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOIRES !�
!L
r
Ordinance No.
Page 4
cases, such as operational tactics or allowable tolerances or criteria for
the defense, prosecution, or settlement of cases, when the disclosure of
such statements would:
(i) Enable law violators to avoid detection; or,
(ii) facilitate disregard of requirements imposed by law; or,
(iii) give a clearly improper advantage to persons who are in an
adverse position to the City.
(7) A specification of the prices to be charged for goods or
services sold as distinguished from a license fee, application fee, or
other fees.
(8) A statement concerning only the physical servicing, maintenance
or care of publicly owned or operated facilities or property.
(9) A statement relating to the use of a particular publicly owned
or operated facility or property, the substance of which is indicated to
the public by means of signs or signals.
Section P-25.2. Rule Making Requirements.
(a) Each agency shall adopt reasonable rules to elaborate, explain and
implement its powers and duties, including rules that elaborate,
explain and implement any legal responsibilities delegated to the
agency by ordinance, resolution, administrative directive, statute
or other law.
1
tAICROFILRED BY
11 _JOR M� MIC RbLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINCS I
A'
lass,
-J
Ordinance No. ^_
Page 5
This section is intended to require agencies, as far as practicable and
feasible, to adopt rules which fully elaborate, explain and implement
substantive agency policy and provide adequate procedures by which
members of the public may protect their rights.
Section 2-25.3. Process for Adopting, Amending, and Revoking Rules.
Each agency shall follow the procedures followed in this section when it
adopts a rule. Except to the extent Section 2-25.4 provides otherwise, a
rule that is not adopted in substantial compliance with the procedures
provided in this section is void.
(a) Distribution of Proposed Rule
i
i
(1) A proposed rule shall be posted by the agency in the same
location where notices of public meetings are posted. Copies
shall also be provided to the news media who usually receive the
notices of public meetings, and to each department head and each
Chairperson of a City Board or Commission. The notice shall
include:
(i) A short explanation of the purpose of the rule;
(ii) The specific legal authority authorizing the rule;
(iii) The text of the proposed rule; and
(iv) Where, when and how persons may present their views on the
proposed rule.
M59
J
r
MICROTILMED BY
-CORM MIC RbLAB
1 CEDAR RAPIDS • DES M019E5 I
LL
Ordinance No.
Page 6
(b) Public Participation
(1) For at least ten (10) calendar days after posting of the notice
of the proposed rule adoption, the agency shall afford an
opportunity for the public to provide, in person or in writing,
comments on the proposed rule.
(2) The agency shall consider all comments received.
(c) City Council Consideration
(1) After the requirements of subsection b have been satisfied, a
written copy of the proposed rule shall be filed by the agency
with the City Clerk. The City Clerk shall place the proposed
rule on the agenda of the next regularly scheduled meeting of
the City Council.
(2) The City Council shall provide an opportunity for public
comment at the Council meeting.
(3) The City Council may take the following action:
(i) Instruct the agency not to proceed with implementation of
the proposed rule; or
i
(ii) Suggest that the agency make certain specific
modifications in the proposed rule; or
(iii) Refer the proposed rule to the agency for adoption,
without modification.
lass
M1cRo(ILMED BY 1
J
I'\��.•, � JORM MICR¢LAO- I
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES Id014c5
r
f�
r
Ordinance No.
Page 7
(d) Adoption of Proposed Rule
(1) After compliance with subsections a, b, and c, an agency may
adopt the proposed rule by formal action. The rule adopted
shall be in writing, dated, and signed by the agency.
(2) An agency may not adopt a rule that is substantially different
from the proposed rule distributed according to the
requirements of subsection (a) without commencing and
completing a new rulemaking proceeding for that purpose.
(3) In determining whether an adopted rule is substantially
different from the proposed rule distributed according to the
requirements of subsection (a), the following factors shall be
considered:
(i) The extent to which all persons affected by the adopted
rule should have understood that the distributed proposed
rule would affect their interests;
(ii) the extent to which the subject matter of the adopted rule
or the issues determined by that rule are different from
the subject matter or issues involved in the distributed
proposed rule; and
(iii) the extent to which the effects of the adopted rule differ
from the effects of the distributed proposed rule had it
been adopted instead.
(4) An agency may terminate, at any time, a rulemaking procedure and
begin a new rulemaking proceeding for the purpose of adopting a
substantially different rule.
3
141CROFILlIED BY -1
I` JORM MICR46LA13*
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES i
iaa8
Ordinance No.
Page 8
(e) Effective Date
An adopted rule shall become effective five (5) days after a copy of
the adopted rule is filed by the agency in the office of the City
Clerk.
Section 2-25.4. Petition for Rulemaking Where Agency Rules Have Not Been
Properly Adopted.
Any person may file a dated written petition with an agency requesting
that the agency 1'econsider a specified policy, interpretation, practice,
procedure, directive, or any other action of the agency, on the ground
that the particular agency policy, interpretation, practice, procedure,
directive or other action is. a rule that has not been properly adopted in
accordance with the provisions of Section 2-25.3. A copy of that petition
shall also be filed in the office of the City Clerk. For a period of 45
days following the filing of such a petition the specified agency policy,
interpretation, practice, procedure, directive or other action in
question shall be enforceable as if it had been properly adopted as a
rule. Thereafter it shall not be enforceable against any person or relied
on by the agency for any purpose unless it was properly adopted as a rule
in accordance with the procedures of Section 2-25.3.
Section 2-25.5. Declaratory Ruling.
(a) Any person may file a written request with an agency requesting a
declaratory ruling determining the applicability of any statutory
i a58
f ,
r
141 LAOFILId[D 64'
CORM -MIC ROLAB , f
1
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES t401YE5
r
r.
t
Ordinance No. _
Page 9
r~�
provision, ordinance, rule or other written statement of law or
policy, decision or order, to a particular set of circumstances. The
petition shall be mailed by certified mail return receipt requested
or delivered in person.
(b) Written data or arguments may be submitted along with the petition.
Any person filing such a petition shall also be offered an
opportunity to present oral comment to the agency on that petition.
(c) A petition for a declaratory ruling shall contain the following:
(1) Petitioner's name and address.
I
(2) The question or questions upon which the petitioner requests a
declaratory ruling, clearly stated.
(3) The particular statute, rule, written statement of law or
policy, decision or order and the specific part thereof, to
which the request pertains.
(4) The facts which give rise to the request for a declaratory
ruling, stated fully, clearly, and precisely.
(5) The specific nature of petitioner's interest in obtaining the
declaratory ruling.
141CROEILMED BY
I l JORM MICR46L
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES M014ES
I
l
IL
1299
J�
1
r
r�
Ordinance No.
Page 10
(6) The signature of the petitioner or a duly authorized agent of
the petitioner.
The agency shall issue the requested delcaratory ruling after
the filing of a petition that complies with all the requirements
of subsections (a) and (c), unless one or more of the following
circumstances exist:
(1) The agency has no authority to issue a binding ruling on
the particular subject matter to which the petition
pertains.
(2) The petitioner's interest in the ruling is insufficient to
justify its issuance.
(3) Under the particular circumstances issuance of the
declaratory ruling at the time would be contrary to the
public interest or infeasible or impractical.
(4) The declaratory ruling could substantially prejudice the
rights of a person who would be a necessary party and who
does not consent in writing to the determination of the
matter by a declaratory ruling.
(d) Each agency shall respond to a petition for a declaratory ruling by
providing a written response to the petitioner in person or by mail
within 30 days following the date on which the petition was received
i
M1fILROf ILMED DY .J
1 -JORM MICR46LAS .�
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES M0MES
� I
Mi
ia5r
Ordinance No.
Page 11
rte.
by the agency. The response shall contain a statement of reasons for
the action taken and if the response is a declaratory ruling, that
ruling shall contain the name of the petitioner to whom it is
directed, and the facts and law upon which it is based.
(e) A declaratory ruling is binding on the issuing agency only with
respect to the specific facts and law contained therein, and only
with respect to the petition.
(f) Declaratory rulings shall immediately be filed in the office of the
j
� City Clerk, and shall become effective five (5) days after that
filing.
Section 2-25.7. Appeal Process.
Any person aggrieved by any rule or declaratory ruling may appeal in
accordance with Section 2-184 of this Code.
Section 2-25.8. Public Access to Rulings and Rules.
(a) The City Clerk shall maintain a file of all agency rules and declara-
tory rulings. In addition, each agency shall maintain a file of all
rules and declaratory rulings issued by that agency. All files shall
be available during regular business hours for public inspection.
(b) All rules and declaratory rulings, and all other written policies,
interpretations, procedures and directives, orders or decisions of
i
m icR0(ILMED BY
1 JORM MIC ROLA a 1
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES h1019E5 L
M69
J
�S_ . __A
I
� 4
'II
i
r 4/
n
Ordinance No. _
Page 12
an agency, shall be indexed by subject and shall be available for
public inspection and copying.
Section 2-25.9. Severability.
If any portion of this ordinance shall be declared invalid, unenforceable
or unconstitutional, such invalidity, unenforceability or unconstitution-
ability shall not affect any other portion of this ordinance.
Section 2-25.10. Repealer.
All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with this ordinance
hereby are repealed, including Sections 15-5 and 23-16(b) of this Code.
i
Section 2-25.11. Effective Date.
This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and
publication as required by law.
Passed and approved this
MAYOR
1
141CROFILMED BY
� JORMMIC ROLA9" Z
CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOIRES
LL
ia5?
J�
r
^-=S!bi�t
NORTHEAST AREA STUDY 7/1/82
STUDY AREA
The Northeast Area is bounded on the north and east by the City boundary
line, on the south by Rochester Avenue, and on the west by North Dodge
Street/Highway 1. The Northeast Area remains largely undeveloped and is
either vacant or in agricultural use, with Hickory Hill Park and its new
extension accounting for 141 acres. Lack of sewer service to a majority
of the area has contributed to the undeveloped nature of the Northeast
Area. An assessment, therefore, of development potential and appropriate
land uses will be addressed in this study, suggesting long- and short-
range plans for the Northeast Area.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Comprehensive Plan has envisioned the Northeast Area land use as
primarily low-density residential with higher -density areas along the
major trafficways on the south and west borders of the area where accessi-
bility is not a problem and neighborhood commercial areas are located. To
the north and south of the I-80 interchange with Highway 1, large areas of
land have been designated as Office Research Park. The development
sequence indicates Phase III development for the western sections of the
Northeast Area while Phase IV development is slated for the eastern half.
This study will consider the continued appropriateness of these land use
and development proposals for the Northeast Area as part of the
Comprehensive Plan update.
ISSUES
1. Sewer Availability
In the short-range, approximately 260 acres in the Northeast Area,
generally located adjacent to the north and east borders of Hickory
Hill Park and the Ralston Creek Storm Water Detention Area, will be
sewerable. (See Figure 1) This figure includes land which is
presently sewered and land which will be sewerable after completion
of the North Branch Ralston Creek Dam project. At that time,
developers will be able to extend sewer lines eastward and northward
from a 21" sewer line constructed as part of the dam project.
Currently, available sewer service has not stimulated much develop-
ment due in part to the rough terrain and inadequate access into the
interior of the study area. The dam project/sewer extension, coupled
with the proposed First Avenue extension discussed later in this
report, make development in the study area more feasible.
Capacity in the Northeast Trunk which services this area is not a
constraint. However, prior to construction of the new Water
Pollution Control Plant (WPCP), a surcharge problem does exist
downstream in the Jefferson Street section of the "horseshoe." If it
is assumed that the wet -weather surcharge conditions will continue
to be tolerated until the WPCP is built, development can occur. Full
development may not be possible, however, until the post-WPCP time
period if the surcharge problem becomes intolerable.
MICRor ILMED DY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES
19,59
J
r
The remaining 595 acres of sewerable
of the study area,
to the area. This
range time -frame
experienced.
2. Annexation
can develop only
full development
as demand for
land, generally the eastern half
after major capital improvements
may not occur until the long -
additional growth areas is
As discussed in previous area studies, the new WPCP has been sized
for a service area based on watersheds. As with the East Area, an
additional 418 developable acres lying outside the present corporate
boundary could be sewered by a gravity -flow system once the new plant
is finished and major capital improvements are extended eastward
along Ralston Creek. (See Figure 1) If the entire watershed is
annexed and served, the density of development for the Northeast Area
will be 15 people/acre. If development is contained within the
present corporate limits, density increases to 22 people/acre for
the 855 developable acres.
Normally a city would consider annexation either for needed growth
areas or in order to better control development. As the Developable
Land Report found, additional land for residential growth purposes
is not needed. Controlling development may be desirable. However,
if the alignment of Scott Boulevard (an issue in the East Area) does
not follow the eastern city border as first envisioned on the
Comprehensive Plan Map, pressures for development in this area may
not be as strong as along Scott Boulevard in the East Area.
Annexation of the entire watershed
However, increased densities can be
corporate boundary if the area in
furthering the goals of compact
efficiency of service provision.
Committee should consider this ar
development.
Trafficways
must be a policy consideration.
accommodated within the present
question is not annexed, thus
and contiguous growth and the
The City -County Urban Fringe
!a in its discussion of fringe
The Comprehensive Plan currently proposes two secondary arterials
for the study area, the First Avenue extension and Scott Boulevard
extension. Whether both of these trafficways continue to be accepted
in concept and whether their alignments as indicated on the
Comprehensive Plan Map need revision must be decided.
First Avenue
A section of First Avenue is scheduled to be built by late 1984 by a
private developer in order to gain access to his properties.
Therefore, a commitment to extend First Avenue a certain distance has
already been made. Whether this extension should be continued and,
if so, whether it should 1) continue straight northward to the A.C.T.
property along a ridge line, 2) follow the ravine alignment on the
Comprehensive Plan Map, or 3) curve to the east to join a realigned
Scott Boulevard must be resolved. (See Figure 2)
I1ICROERMED BY
JORM MICR6LAE3 1
( CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES
11
J
r
Presently, a traffic problem does exist on portions of First Avenue.
Extending this street as a secondary arterial (two-lane facility)
may exacerbate the current situation. An increase in traffic
problems will depend on whether First Avenue Extended is perceived as
an attractive north -south link by users outside the developing area
and on the trip patterns generated by the area's residents.
If a decision is made to extend First Avenue, a preferred alignment
must be selected. The December 1979 study, Corridor Analsis:
es the
Foster Road and First Avenue Extended, addressissues of
alignment for both First Avenue and Scott Boulevard. An alternative
alignment which follows a ridge line is proposed which may more
successfully protect the attractive park -like ravine through which
the current alignment runs and also be a less expensive road to
build. After considering these alternatives, a ridge alignment has
been selected. First Avenue will be constructed as development
dictates.
Scott Boulevard
Should Scott Boulevard be extended, the engineering staff considers
the improvement of the present alignment north of Rochester Avenue to
be undesirable due to topographical constraints. If extended, a
preferred alignment would also follow a ridge line and curve westward
to intersect with First Avenue at the A.C.T. property. This
trafficway would develop as growth and demand dictate.
4. Schools
The Comprehensive Plan recommends one elementary and one junior high
school site be reserved in the study area. As the School Board
envisions building no new schools in the future, these sites should
be removed from the Comprehensive Plan Map.
While both Lemme and Hoover Schools have additional capacity which in
the short-range may adequately serve development in the study area,
the recommendation to remove the sites from the Comprehensive Plan
Map should not be construed as a recommendation for no additional
schools. Full residential development in the long-range may dictate
building new structures if busing becomes impractical or capacity is
reached city-wide.
Parks/Open Space
With new extensions to Hickory Hill Park and the wooded, hilly nature
of the Northeast Area, additional parkland may not be needed in the
short-range. While the long-range need for, or exact location of,
parkland is difficult to determine, a future study of recreation and
open space needs is intended to ascertain the specific needs of Iowa
City.
Cluster development and open space preservation in this hilly,
wooded area should be encouraged. A lineal greenbelt along North
Ralston Creek may also be appropriate for this area.
141CROFIL14ED BY
� JORM MIC R6LA B' �
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES
M59
J
r
5. Land Use
The short-range land use map
generally the western half of
of the remaining developable
until sewer lines are extended
recommends residential development in
the study area. Long-range development
area in residential use cannot occur
into this area.
This recommendation deviates from the Comprehensive Plan's designa-
tion of an office Research Park development located south and east of
is
a by
sthe prent A.C.T. everee5topogr phicalmpconditinslex. ccessmaki gstresidential ricted to this reusesmore
appropriate.
A more suitable area for ORP development may be a 118 acre area just
south of I-80. (See Figure 1.) The Comprehensive Plan suggests that
"land in close proximity to I-80 in northeast Iowa City (may be)
suitable for industrial or light industrial lannd An ORP rather than
as more e at such a time
land is needed for these uses." (P• ) policy
an industrial designation for this location must be a p Y
consideration but would compensate for the reduction of ORP area in
other parts of the study area.
This 118 acre area along I-80 is presently not sewerable and would
require a lift statioriaccess
the sewer ity all catedft station if eto edthe
thereby expending a pton
watershed. One option might be to take the capacity allocated to the
418 acres located outside the corporate limits but within the
watershed and allocate that to the lift station. This would reduce
the people/acre density for the remaining gravity -sewer areas from
22 to 15 people/acre.
Another option involves the construction of a lift station north of
I-80 and directly east of Prairie du Chien to serve those portions of
the Northeast Area which currently cannot be served by gravity
sewers. The installation of this one lift station would eliminate
the need for separate lift stations for the North and Northeast Areas
(the land south of I-80, the Highlander
lift
instation
oeenstraeand Oakes
o the
lift station). This lift station, p po
Kimm
sewer study and formally adopted by Council, would flow to the River
Corridor Sewer thus freeing capacity in the Neo Trunkheast d nsand
having the beneficial effect of raising the p ple/acre
ty
possible in the Northeast Area. Construction of this station would
require annexation of approximately 154 acres between Prairie du
Chien and the city boundary line.
If additional sewerable land outside the corporate limits is
considered for future ORP or industrial development, the annexation
amore
and development of the Prairie du Chien property Y' b
advantageous to the city than the 418 acres east of the study area
and bounded by I-80 and Rochester Avenue. Preference
efor the Prairie
du Chien property is based on the following •
1. Adequate access - although a frontage road may be needed, better
roads are available and less upgrading is needed.
MICRo(IL14ED BY
I
JORM MICROLAB-
j CEDAR RAPIDS • DES 1401YES
►aO
J
r
5
2. Poor agricultural land - based on soil conservation data, this
property is not prime agricultural land while the 418 acres east
of the city is rated as prime land with high corn suitability
ratings.
3. Increased people/acre densities for the study area - with the
Prairie du Chien lift station flowing into the River Corridor
Sewer, downstream densities would not be significantly affected
while a significant increase in density could be realized in the
Northeast Area.
4. Centralized ORP areas - the I-80/Highway 1 interchange would
serve to focus all ORP uses at one location.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Pre-WPCP, development in the Northeast Area must be carefully
monitored to avoid exacerbating downstream surcharge conditions.
2. Annexation of the entire watershed should not be encouraged.
Annexation would reduce development density for the whole study area
from 22 people/acre to 15 people/acre, and any benefits derived from
annexation may not outweigh the costs.
3. The City -County Urban Fringe Committee should consider the develop-
ment issues along the eastern border of the study area.
4. Final alignments for the First Avenue extension and Scott Boulevard
extension have been selected. The long- and short-range maps
delineate ridge alignments with construction taking place as
development dictates.
5. No school sites should be reserved in the study area.
6. Potential park sites should be removed from the Comprehensive Plan
Map pending a reevaluation of parkland needs. The natural features
of the area, however, make cluster development and open space
preservation an option which should be encouraged. A lineal
greenbelt along North Ralston Creek is also recommended.
7. The Office Research Park area located south and east of the present
A.C.T. complex should be deleted from the Comprehensive Plan Map.
The long-range land use map proposes ORP areas directly north and
south of I-80 which would require one or more lift stations if
developed.
8. A policy consideration must address the use of lift stations in the
Northeast Area.
141CRONUIED BY
1
1� JORM MICR6LAB ?
iCEDAR RAPIDS DES MOVIES i
I
a-59
J
1a
i i e ,.t.
r-1
00
2.60 Inc.
J Jt
w •W�
W/m
I
111CROERMED DY
i
-JORM MICR46LAB 1
CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES
I
FIGURE 1
Developable Areas
J�
G
F
FIGURE 2
Proposed Alignments
111CROEIEMED BY
I
-� I -CORM MICR6LA9 7 f
CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOIYES
� � I
'1
r
W'.
F
it
'HEAST AREA - LONG RANGE
RESIDENTIAL
COMME20,01.
0 PARKS/OPEN SPACE
AG/RR1
ORP
mi
mcp.oriLmEq By
8
JORM MICROLAF3
L
CEDAR RAPIDS - DES '101NES.
it
'HEAST AREA - LONG RANGE
RESIDENTIAL
COMME20,01.
0 PARKS/OPEN SPACE
AG/RR1
ORP
mi
r
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 9, 1982
TO: City Council
FROM: City Attorney W
RE: Johnson County Home Watermain and Development Policy
As the Council is aware, the City must proceed from the premise that the City
cannot permanently deny residential growth in this area. However, several
recent court decisions in New York and California indicate that cities may be
permitted to defer development until the development of adequate public services
in the area. Golden v. Planning Board of Ramapo, 30 Ny2d 359, 285 NE 2d 291;
Construction Assn Sonoma Cty, v City of Petaluma, (9th Cir. 1975) 522 F.2d
897. See also Village of Belle Terre V. Boraas, 416 U.S.I.
The proposed water line to the County Home will be sized sufficiently to pro-
vide drinking water and fire protection but will not permit lateral tap -ons
which would reduce flows and pressure. In effect, a water tap -on moratorium
is imposed.
It is important to examine whether a water tap -on moratorium policy is then
implemented for the primary policy of achieving objectives which are not per-
missible. In particular, a challenge to the policy may be that the moratoria
on tap -ons implements a no -growth policy in the area. Municipalities must deal
with the problems of population growth. They may not refuse to confront the
future by adopting policies or zoning regulations that effectively restrict
population to near present levels. However, Ramapo holds that development demand
may be properly impeded where growth restrictions are imposed pursuant to well -
reasoned, comprehensive plans for the improvement of the infrastructure of the
area.
The staff's recommended development policy to you is, of course, predicated
upon implementation of the City's comprehensive plan which designates this area
as agricultural and low density residential. The policy is designated not to
impose permanent restrictions on land use. Its purpose is to prevent premature
subdivision development in the absence of essential municipal facilities. A
more basil• purpose is to insure compact and contiguous growth commensurate with
the City's obligation to provide municipal services which is consistent with
the policies of the comprehensive plan.
The City tap -on moratoria policies therefore impose temporary restrictions on
land use in this area. At the same time the City must commit itself to a program
of development of municipal services and amendment of the comprehensive plan to
implement the timing oontrols to provide for the sequential, orderly development
of the land in the area. The proposed policy articulates these requirements.
cc: Neal Berlin City Atty. Opinion file
Don Schmeiser .
Doug Boothroy
Karin Franklin
incROEILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB 1
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES 11014ES
I '
10160
r
City of Iowa Cit.
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 8, 1982
To: City Council
From: Douglas Boothroy, Senior P
Karin Franklin, Planner
Re: Watermain to the Johnson County Home
Since the Council has determined that municipal water service should be
extended to the Johnson County Home, the question remains of the size of
the pipe which will be provided. Sizing is determined by the minimum
flows and pressures required to provide a certain level of fire service
and quantity of drinking water. Determination of pipe size should also
consider the development potential made available by construction of the
line.
Assuming that the Council elects to provide the County Home with equal or
comparable service to that which is provided to similar facilities within
the City, a minimum flow of 1700 gpm at 20 psi is necessary (see attached
memo from Chief Keating). Given this requisite flow, the Engineering
department (memo attached) has calculated that the smallest line feasible
is a 12" main.
The proposed line would run west from an existing 12" line on Melrose
Avenue to the Johnson County Home and would dead-end at the Home. In
order to maintain the necessary flows and pressures within a dead-end line
the length of that proposed, no lateral lines can tap on to the main
feeder. Therefore, development could not take place which would require a
lateral tap -on to the proposed feeder line, since to do so would decrease
the flows and pressures within the line and effectively diminish the
minimum level of service being provided.
Development can and should currently occur east of Highway 518 along the
Mormon Trek Boulevard 12" feeder line, which is part of an existing loop
system. Development west of 518 could occur, however, only if a loop were
provided between two feeder lines such as between the proposed extension
and the line to be extended to Hunters Run.
Therefore, with provision of a 12" dead-end feeder line, the City can
effectively sequence development at this time by not providing a loop
system in its capital improvements program or by not allowing the private
provision of such a loop. Provision of a loop would be deferred until
such time as development had taken place contiguous to existing
development east of 518 and development to the west was appropriate.
Projected growth can be accommodated in a compact manner and costly
scattered development avoided. At the appropriate time, the Council may
include in its Capital Improvements Program the necessary loop to
facilitate development to the west. This sequence is consistant with the
short and long-range development projected in the Southwest Area Study
update of the Comprehensive Plan.
tucRor ILMED BY
JORM MICROLAS
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES
I X61
J
r
Recommendation:
2
Development Policy
Based upon the policies stated in the Comprehensive Plan of encouraging
compact and contiguous growth and providing adequate municipal services,
the staff recommends:
1. that a sequence of development be adopted which will accommodate
projected growth and provide for future development,
2. that decisions involving subdivision approval, development plans,
public improvements, and other development issues shall be
consistent with the development sequence adopted,
3. that the development sequence will be implemented through a staged
capital improvements program, and
4. that policies governing the provision of water would follow the
current policies governing sewer service provision, with the
extension of the existing systems being governed by the capacities
available.
Johnson County Home Watermain
Consistent with the policy stated above, the staff recommends:
I. that the provision of minimum fire flows and adequate drinking water
to the Johnson County Home be accomplished through the construction
of a 12" watermain along Melrose Avenue,
2. that in order to maintain minimum fire flows to the County Home, tap -
ons to the 12" watermain shall not be permitted until the system can
be adequately looped, consistent with the development sequence
adopted and the goal of compact and contiguous growth, and
3. that a 28E agreement, which is consistent with the development
sequence, be adopted with Johnson County regarding the development
of the County land.
bj4/2-3
cc: Donald Schmeiser
Chuck Schmadeke
Neal Berlin
Robert Jansen
Robert Keating
� abr
r
mcRon u4ED BY
J
JORM MIC R6LA B- -�
j
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOI, ES
i
^City of Iowa Cite;
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 8, 1982
To: City Council and City Manager
From: Frank Farmer, City Engineer 'J\�✓'J \✓
Dan Holderness, Civil Engineerfl'A
Re: Melrose Avenue Water Main Extension
The Engineering Division recommends a 12 inch water main be extended
out Melrose Avenue to the Johnson County Home.
Fire Chief Keating and Fire Marshal Kinney state the minimum fire
flow for this area should be 1,700 to 2,000 gpm. The Iowa Department
of Environmental Quality requires water mains to be sized to allow
the removal of the required fire flows while maintaining a 20 psi
minimum residual pressure in the main. A 12 inch main is the minimum
size that meets both of these requirements.
IDevelopments tapping this main should be restricted until the main is
looped sufficiently to insure the above mentioned criteria at the
j County Home are maintained.
The flows that could be expected at the Johnson County Home fire
hydrant, based on a 20 psi residual pressure in the water main, for
various sizes of pipes are as follows:
6" 190 to 275 GPM
8" 420 to 575 GPM
10" 740 to 1025 GPM
12" 1200 to 1800 GPM
The Iowa Department of Environmental Quality Construction Criteria
require the minimum flows for water mains serving fire hydrants to be
500 GPM with 20 psi residual pressure.
Flow rate values for the various sizes of pipe were determined using
the Hazen -Williams formula for pipe flow. This formula accounts for
the following factors: lenght of pipe, size of pipe, elevation
difference, pipe surface roughness, fittings, velocity, and
pressure.
tp2/5
i
iaipar
I MICROMME0 BY
J.
JORM MICR4LA13
J �
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES I
I
r
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 7, 1982
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Robert Keating, Fire Chief •'1<
RE: Johnson County Care Facility
To assist in determining the minimum gallon per minute
flow for the Johnson County Facility, I contacted the
Insurance Service Office in Des Moines. The Insurance
Service Office is a nation-wide organization formed by,
supported and subscribed to by fire insurance companies.
The Insurance Service Office has served fire insurance
companies in Iowa for many years - over 50 years from
their Dresent office location in Des Moines. They are
the recognized authority in the area of flow requirements
for fire insurance ratings. I talked with Mr. Steve
Bunce of that office on the matter and he informed me
that if I had the necessary information he could figure
out from their schedule and give me the information right
away.
I was able to give Mr. Bunce the needed information as
to the type of construction, occupancy, and total square
footage of the building and exposures. With this in-
formation, Mr. Bunce was able to make the -determination
that 2000 gallon per minute would be needed for complete
credit in their fire rating schedule. This would put the
Johnson County Care Facility on a comparative level with
other similar care facilities located within the City
limits.
I have attached a follow-up letter from Mr. Bunce ex-
plaining the considerations and process used in arriv-
ing at the needed gallon per minute flow. As stated by
Mr. Bunce, no consideration was given to life safety or
property loss prevention, In this case, with life safety
a primary concern in the event of a fire, it is my
professional opinion, and from past experiences, that
from 1700 to 2000 gallon per minute should be the minimum
flow to the Johnson County Care Facility.
111CROE1LMED 6Y
1 JORM MIC R(DLAa
CEDAR RAPIDS DES 1d01AES
I
I
1
r
I.
a INSURANCE SERVICES OFFICE
OF IOWA
C 414 INSURANCE EXCHANGE BUILDING, DES MOINES, IOWA 00308
TELEPHONE 16101 260.0207
ROBERT L rANCLAIR, CPCU
MANAGER
July 1, 1982
Robert Keating, Chief
Iowa City Fire Department
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Dear Chief:
C�7
In response to your recent request, we have determined the Needed Fire Flow for
the Johnson County Nome using the information you provided. Our calculations
show that 2000 gpm is needed for a duration of 2 hours for complete credit in
the Fire Suppression Rating Schedule.
Needed fire flows are developed by ISO for selected locations throughout a
community during a regular survey for public protection classification of a
community. Maximum credit is given for this factor when the water supply avail-
able at a location is equal to, or exceeds, the needed fire flow as determined
by our Schedule.
Most communities have areas where the water supply available for fire protection
purposes is less than that indicated as needed by our Schedule. The final deci-
sion for the provision of fire flows sufficient to meet the needs of that Schedule
must be based on local priorities and financial capabilities.
Our calculations are based on the method prescribed by the Fire Suppression
Rating Schedule, Sections 300-340, and only take into consideration the size,
occupancy, construction and exposures of the building.
These comments refer only to fire insurance rating. Our comments are not for
property loss prevention or life safety purposes, and no life safety or property
loss prevention recommendations are made.
scb:sjd
Very truly yours,
e
zl- J�1.
Step en C. Bunce
Field Rating Representative
Public Protection
MICROrIENEO BY
JORM MIC REILAB
CEDAR RAPIDS - DES MOINES
I
Z
ia6a
IRA
r
^aty of Iowa Citj''',
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 28, 1982
To: City Council & City Manager ��y✓/
From: Frank Farmer, City Engineer .o".
Re: Structures in Alley Between Johnson Street and
Dodge Street from Court Street to Bowery Street
Attached are pictures of retaining walls and a concrete slab that
extend into the above mentioned alley right-of-way. The two stone
retaining walls at the north end of the alley have been constructed
for many years, even before the alley was paved in 1970. The
concrete slab was constructed sometime after the paving was
installed. The retaining wall around the tree had just been
constructed this year in conjunction with the construction of the
apartments by Mark Furman Construction Co. in order to attempt to
save the tree.
To move the stone retaining wall, located on the east side of the
alley, out of the alley right-of-way would be very difficult due to
the close proximity of the house to the property line. To move the
retaining wall closer to the tree would definitely kill the tree.
All three retaining walls could potentially cause problems for
careless drivers; however, these walls should not be a problem for
those drivers who are alert.
bc5/3
r'� C' -'J
UL 6- '19K
111CROEILMED BY
_!
"JORM MIC RfSLAO 1
CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES
iaIlly
r
"amity of Iowa City -
MEMORANDUM.'
Elk
Date: June 29, 1982
To: Charles Schmadeke, Director of Public Works
From: James Brachtel, Traffic Engineer 31t,
n Zone at Linn Street/Iowa Avenue I _
Re: Loading '�
The Council has asked that feasibility of a loading zone at the above referenced
intersection be investigated. Attached is a drawing of the south face of the
200 block of Iowa Avenue.
As can be seen in the sketch for the south face of the 200 block of Iowa Avenue
there is an existing loading zone at the west end of this block. The
installation of a loading zone could require the loss of a number of metered
parking stalls. If the loading zone were placed immediately in front of 229
Iowa Avenue it would require that the City dispense with the four diagonal
stalls and the handicapped stall. If it were placed on the east side of 229 the
three parallel stalls on the west side of Linn Street would be lost. The City
does have on record a letter from Kent Studios expressing concern about the
depletion of metered parking in this area.
I would suggest that 229 Linn Street can receive shipments using either the
commercial vehicle loading zone at the west end of the 200 block of Iowa Avenue
or by double parking on Linn Street. In the event that the proprietors of 229
Linn Street would receive a large shipment of merchandise they could coordinate
the unloading of a large truckload of merchandise and obtain meter hoods from
the Parking Systems Division for the period of time which they would be
unloading a large truckload of goods.
At this time it appears that the trade off between increased loading zones and
decreased on -street parking is undesirable. I will be happy to meet with you at
your convenience to discuss this matter further.
tpl/2
1
t41CROEILIIED BY
JORM MIC RbLA9 1
CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOIYES '.
� I
1
1
m,
IMA AVE
SCALE: 1" :40'
F- \ 4 DIAGONAL
FCOMMERCIAL VEHICLES L.Z.I \7 DIAGONAL + I HANDICAPPED
\ I HANDICAPPED
211T
5 225
COPPDA 217 229
DOLLORTS APARTMENTS
/ FIR:T 4F%mALLEL
} STALL!
THE CIIIST1411 CHURCH FU
LOFT APTS J
1 a J
I ,
I _
} I
w I
OFFICE
J I 3 f.J: 'SLI Fl
;TALL.^.•
FUIIERAL HO,',1'c I
ALLEY
I
HICROFILI4E1) BY
-�
DORM MIC R+L:4 B--
- I
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES
J�
r
0•r
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 16, 1982
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
RE: Material in Friday's Packet
Memoranda from the City Manager:
a. Bids - Old Library
b. River Landscape Project/Renovation of Blackhawk Mini -Park
c. Industrial Revenue Bond Policy - Proposed Amendment
Memoranda from the Department of Public Works:
a. FY83 Asphalt Overlay Program - Benton Street from Dubuque
Street to Iowa River and Prentiss Street from Dubuque Street
East to Creek
b. Sidewalk Vaults on Dubuque Street from Washington Street to
Iowa Avenue
Memoranda from the Finance Director:
a. Insurance Bids
b. Changes in Proposed Budget Format
Memorandum from the Legal staff regarding Home Town Dairy LSNRD Plan.
Memorandum from the City Clerk regarding Beer/Liquor License conditional
approval. /I
Copy of press release regarding transit ridership for FY 82.
r r.. .x�:f Orn \ .t; 41 'ai.'e . +:f l n+':+Jy:Pi:�!4hsFY.9tR4W,.ip.7yMii4S[N4t . uw .•: , ...n.. _...... .
. •,.., t, _e4�!"k w ..ern: r.,i,x au tis�k•�rF r:�a.�{�.�:, — -
MICROEIUIED BY
✓\�_-, --CORM MIC R4r1LAB -?
1 CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES I
s - -
J
1
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 14, 1982
To: Cityouncil
From: City nager
Re: Bids - Old Library
Enclosed is a staff report which reviews the Glasgow -Wolfe proposal for
the Old Library. In addition, a copy of a letter to the other bidder is
provided.
i
This matter will be discussed at the informal Council session of July 19.
Both bidders and the County Board of Supervisors have been notified.
bdw3/7
I
i
I
I
i
i
I
iacb
IdICRONUIED BY
.-JORM MICR6LA6 _..�
'\ � ;
CEDAR RAPIDS DES MDIYES Ii �
r
City of Iowa Cite
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 13, 1982
To: City Council
From: Doug Boothroy, Senior Planner,''JS
Re: Evaluation of GWG Investments Bid for the Old Public Library
Property
Recommendation
This memorandum presents the staff response to the bid from GWG
Investments for the Old Public Library property and adjacent parking lot.
No recommendation for or against the GWG proposal is made here. Their
proposal, while basically meeting the "bare -bones" requirements of the
City, does not offer enough specific information necessary for a complete
evaluation of the bid.
Due to lack of specific use information submitted, the GWG proposal will
be evaluated on the basis of the developer's background and experience to
a greater extent than dependence on the bid proposal. The developers
associated with GWG are well -reputed, have had extensive local
experience, and have given assurances of sufficient financial backing.
Other projects developed by this group are similar in nature to the
library proposal in that the projects involved the renovation of older
buildings for commercial and office uses.
As was stated above, the lack of detailed information provided to meet the
criteria in the offering make it difficult to evaluate this proposal. The
comments offered below are an effort to review the GWG Investments
proposal in the context of those criteria, to the extent possible.
In essence, GWG Investments proposes to renovate the library for a number
of as yet undetermined uses. The intended renovation appears to be a
minimal one with tenants responsible for over half of the projected costs.
The renovation as proposed seems to provide only that which will meet
minimum standards for a habitable structure. The intent of the developer
appears to be to retain ownership of the building for a period of time and
lease out the available space.
Minimum bid prices have been met although the minimum investment
requirement for renovation has not.
The principals in the development partnership are local developers of good
repute with sound financial credentials. They have shown reliability in
past investment and renovation projects. The Council can probably rely on
a sound development given the developers' past performance. However,
there is some risk taken with this proposal in terms of the actual uses of
the building and the contribution these undefined users will make to the
downtown.
iucRonuaED BY
JORM MICR46LAB J
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MD14ES
1
I
166
J
r
Comments with Regard to Bid Requirements
The bid offering indicated that a proposal would be evaluated with regard
to four specifications: (1) evaluation criteria that included the quality
and creativity of the design, project time schedules, and the potential
property tax return; (2) developer experience and qualifications; (3)
implementation ability; and (4) other criteria such as leasing
commitments and proposed uses. The remainder of this memo details staff
evaluation of the GWG Investments proposal with regard to these criteria.
A. Project Quality
Quality and creativity of the proposed development.
Comment: With regard to the quality or creativity of the
proposal, very little comment can be made because the developer
has indicated only potential uses and lessors of the space.
2. ' Project Time Schedules.
Comment: GWG Investments indicates that it wishes to proceed
with the project as soon as is possible. It is reasonable to
believe that the GWG development would be completed in a much
shorter time period than the 18 month maximum granted by the
City.
3. Price Offered and Terms.
Comment: The City required a minimum bid of $155,000 for the
library site and $205,000 for the adjacent parking lot or a
mutually agreeable long-term lease for all or a part of the lot.
GWG has satisfied the minimum bid requirement for the library
parcel with a bid of $165,000. GWG proposes to execute a long-
term lease for a ten year period for all or part of the lot at a
rate comparable to present rates. They also state that they
would like to retain a first purchase option on the lot because
of a potential future development on the parcel. It would
appear that GWG has tentatively satisfied minimum bid
requirements for the adjacent lot.
The City, as a condition in the offer -to -purchase, required a
300% minimum of the Buyer's bid as the minimum dollar amount
necessary to repair and renovate the property. Three hundred
percent of $165,000 yields a $495,000 minimum investment figure
for GWG.
GWG has not satisfied this minimum investment requirement. In
its offer -to -purchase, this clause has been excised. While GWG
has not explicitly indicated why it removed this clause, the
partnership appears to be saying that $495,000 is not necessary
to bring the building up to code and tenant requirements. In
r
111CRUILMED BY
JORM MICR6LA9 I )
�
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOIRES
I
iabto
r
3
its June 29th letter to the City which contains additional bid
proposal information, the partnership indicates it will spend
approximately $135,000 for repairs with the tenants responsible
for an additional $175,000 for repair and renovation. This
totals approximately $310,000 or $13.50 per square foot.
This figure is well below what the Zuchelli, Hunter & Associates
(ZHA) report in September 1981 identified as being necessary
for repair and renovation costs. The ZHA report indicated
between $800,000 to $1.1 million ($35 to $45 per square foot)
was necessary. To contrast the two sets of figures, GWG states
it will spend about $50,000 for plumbing, heating, and
electrical repairs while the ZHA report stated about $200,000
was required for the same repairs and a fire protection system.
It is not clear from the GWG document whether their estimated
costs include labor costs or a fire protection system; if not,
an estimate of these costs may considerably increase the GWG
investment figure for the building.
If the Council chooses to designate GWG as the developer, staff
recommends that the conditions in the offer -to -purchase be
retained with only the minimum investment figure readjusted.
The other offer -to -purchase provisions such as documentation of
the repair and renovation costs with the documentation
available to the City upon request should be retained.
4. Potential Property Tax Return.
Comment: Based on FY83 tax rates, the following revenues can be
expected, based on the proposed conveyance price of $165,000
for the property.
Taxing Agency Revenue Received
City of Iowa City $1,832.17
Johnson County $ 783.74
Iowa City School District $1,987.56
Other $ 121.00
These revenues would not be due for payment until mid -1984. Work
performed upon the building will increase the taxable value of property;
however, basic repair and renovation will not proportionally add to the
assessed valuation because this work is required to make the building
habitable. Once the building is habitable, additional improvements will
considerably increase the building's value.
IU(D
i
MICROrILMED BY
�J
' -JORM MICR6LAB J
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES
I �
r
_.
4
B. Developer Experience and Qualifications
As was stated previously, GWG Investments is composed of experienced
local developers (Bruce Glasgow, Allen Wolfe and Joseph Glasgow) who
have worked on several adaptive reuse projects: the Me -Too grocery
store which was renovated into the Salvation Army store and the New
Pioneer Cooperative Society, and the former Iowa -Illinois power
generating plant was gutted and brought up to habitable condition
with a restaurant operator then purchasing the building from GWG and
converting it to its present use as the Iowa River Power Company
restaurant.
C. Implementation Ability
1. Experience working with Municipal Government
The City has not had experience with GWG Investments. However,
one of GWG's principals, Bruce Glasgow, has been involved with
several different development entities that have extensive
contact with the City.
Mr. Glasgow has had much practical experience with the City and
is very aware of the City's process and procedures necessary for
development. He is responsible for the administration and
coordination of the different development groups' projects as
well as overseeing the construction and completion of the
project. Mr. Glasgow has worked with City staff and is often
responsive to staff's comments.
While it is not possible to predict with certainty the
relationship GWG and the City would enjoy, it would appear that
Mr. Glasgow's extensive experience would be of assistance.
2. Financial Ability and Managerial Capability
Comment: GWG Investments indicated in its bid proposal (June 4,
1982) that it had sufficient funds to perform all necessary
work. In its additional information letter (June 29, 1982), GWG
again indicates it has sufficient funding available. It did not
directly answer the question of whether it would request
Industrial Revenue Bond financing but did indicate that some
tenants might request Industrial Revenue Bonds for tenant
improvements.
D. Other
1. Land Use Relationships.
Comment: The offering required that the usage of the building
should be consonant with other downtown activities as well as
being compatible with other developments in the immediate area.
111CRof ILI1ED BY
� JORM MIC REIL AB - 1
j CEDAR RANDS • DES 1401NES
I
Iab6
it
J�
r
s
The GWG bid does not make any specific statement as to who
exactly are to be tenants in the building. A range of uses
including a restaurant, a bar, retail space, health club, and
offices were put forth by GWG as likely tenants, but
correspondence indicates there are no binding commitments on
the part of any tenants at this particular time.
A mixed use development such as this is difficult to evaluate in
terms of the effect it will have on the local commercial
community. While the impact of a mixed use development is
likely to be less than a single -use development such as a
restaurant, the risk of a failure is more spread out in a mixed
use development than in a single -use development. On the other
hand, the role impact of a single -use development as an entity
within the downtown economy can be greater and far more visible.
As was suggested by GWG, staff and/or City Council members may
wish to discuss who and/or what the probable tenants and leasing
commitments are with GWG at an informal meeting.
2. Exterior Renovation and Landscaping.
bdw/sp
Comment: GWG proposes to renovate and rehabilitate the
existing structure. If the building receives National Historic
Registry designation and the developer wishes to exercise the
tax advantages that accompany such designation, the building's
exterior appearance must be repaired and renovated in a
historically valid manner. GWG proposes to reopen one of the
building's original entrances on Linn Street. •The partnership
has also allocated $3,000 for landscaping.
Staff suggests that exterior and landscaping plans be made
available to the Design Review Committee for their comment.
i
MICROFILMED BY
I
JORM MIC R(SLAB- ?
J CEDAR RAPIDS • OES MOINES
I i
ia(0o
July 7, 1982
Ms. Jo Anne Neuzil
R.R. #1
Riverside, Iowa 52327
Re: Old Public Library Site Bid
Dear Ms. Neuzil and Mr. Kerf:
/I
Mr. Donald Kerf
Box 144, R.R. #4
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
This letter is to inform you that the City staff will not recommend
to the City Council further consideration of the AGRI Services and
Information Services, Inc. and AGRI Library Associates, Inc. bid for
the Old Public Library site and the adjacent parking lot. This
recommendation is based on the fact that both information and
financial data requested in the letter of June 17, 1982, have not
been met. In addition, it is felt that sufficient time has been
available from the start of this offering in February 1982 to the
present date for the assemblage of information on this bid. Thus,
the City staff will not recommend an extension of time as requested
in your letter of July 1, 1982.
On June 19, the City Council is meeting to discuss disposition of the
Old Library property. The staff recommendation regarding both bids
will be made available at that time.
Sincerely yours,
Neal G. Berlin
City Manager
bj/sp
J'
141CROFILIIED BY
f1. JORM- MICRdCA13
CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOMES Ii
M(O4
V
r•.
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 16, 1982
To: Cit Council
From: Cij� Manager
Re: River Landscape Project/Renovation of Blackhawk Mini -Park
Recently, I have had discussions with Project GREEN concerning possible
participation with the City in a program which the University of Iowa is
developing for landscaping of the river north of the Union and adjacent to
the water plant, and a project for "permanentizing" Blackhawk Mini -Park.
If the hotel is constructed on the Plaza, there will be quantities of
plant and construction materials which could be used for the renovation of
Blackhawk Mini -Park. The City Manager and Project GREEN have agreed that
the best way to proceed is to have a local landscape architect develop a
plan for the renovation of Blackhawk Mini -Park partly using whatever
construction and plant materials that might be available from the Plaza.
Any excess materials from that area and/or Blackhawk Mini -Park could be
used for plantings adjacent to the City's water plant. In addition,
Project GREEN would agree to provide other plant materials that may be
necessary for Blackhawk Mini -Park and/or the water plant project.
At this time I do not have any definite time schedule for these projects
or costs, but as either project proceeds the Council will be kept
informed.
cc: Nancy Seiberling
Emily Rubright
bdw/sp
MICROFILMED BY
- JORM MIC FibLAB ��
� -
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES '
i
j
1,W
I
all
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 15, 1982
TO: City Council
FROM: Ci tS11�(onager
RE: Indu1strial Revenue Bond Policy - Proposed Amendment
It is recommended that the industrial.revenue bond policy be amended
to require any party, for whom the City Council issues tax exempt
bonds, be required to give preference to local contractors, provided
that costs are comparable.
If the Council concurs, a policy amendment will be drafted for your
review.
MICROFILMED BY
"DORM MICR6C 40�-
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES
la68
J�
r
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
City of Iowa City
EMORANDU
�L
July 12, 1982 U�l
City Council and City Manager 'y
Frank Farmer, City EngineerZ./\,eg I,ZL�
FY83 Asphalt Overlay Program - Benton Street from Dubuque
Street to Iowa River and Prentiss Street from Dubuque Street
East to Creek
For each asphalt overlay program over 50 streets are driven and rated for
possible overlay. The rating system consists of two factors, 1) traffic
volume and 2) condition of street on a basis of one to five with condition
of street being worth twice that of traffic volume. The higher the
number, the greater the need for an overlay. All streets on the overlay
list had a rating of eight or greater. The rating for Prentiss Street and
Benton Street were five and six, respectively, and under guidelines set,
did not qualify for an overlay.
I have driven both streets again and notice several chuckholes and though
an overlay is still not warranted, I have notified Streets to repair the
chuckholes.
cc: Chuck Schmadeke
bil/3
iab9
i"
141CRUILMED BY
1 -JORM-MICRIJLA13
CEDAR RAPIDS DES MDI NE5 ��
0-4
City of Iowa Cite
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 13, 1982
To: City Council and City Manager
From: Frank Farmer, City Engineer
Re: Sidewalk Vaults on Dubuque Street from Washington Street to Iowa
Avenue
As noted in a previous memo from May 11, 1982, there are twelve sidewalk
openings on the west side of Dubuque Street from Washington Street to Iowa
Avenue. Ten of them are vaults for entrances to the basement area and two are
old coal shoots. Following are updated cost estimates that will be used to
establish the 50% cost to be picked up by the property owner.
Rehab Remove
Business (50% of cost to owner) (City expense)
Best Steak House vault - Not to be reconstructed unless street narrowed
• from 51 feet. If reconstructed, it's to be at
City's expense.
*Felix & Oscar's vault $1,200
*Catherine's vault 1,202
***Paul's Heros vault -- $1,046
*Micky's vault 2,925
*Comer's Pipe Shop 2,371
***Bicycle Peddler's 1,000
(coal shoot)
***Dean's vault 1,695
• i
*Mott's Drug vault 2,474
***Mott's Drug 1,000
(coal shoot)
***Discount Records vault 2,461
*Meyer's Barber Shop vault 2,937
*Use and want vault or entrance to remain and have verbally committed to pay
50% of cost to rehab.
***Do not use and do not want vault or entrance to remain.
I a -7o
�r MICROEILMED BY
J
`JORM MICR46LAS 1
j CEDAR RAPIDS • DES M019ES I
2
An agreement between the property owners and the City, which provides for the
payment of the property owner's share of said vault rehabilitation is being
prepared by Legal and will be submitted to Council upon attaining appropriate
signatures.
A meeting with the Design Review Committee has been scheduled for July 21, 1982,
at 4:00 P.M. Design to be presented will implement maintaining a street width
of 51 feet with parking on both sides, new street lights, trash receptacles,
bike rack, and trees with grates. All sidewalk is to be removed and replaced
except along the First National Bank and the vault top for the Best Steak House.
1 Due to time commitment of personnel during the construction season it is
doubtful that plans, specifications and the agreement with property owners can
be completed in time for construction in the 1982 construction season, in which
case construction would take place in the spring of 1983.
bj2/5-6
1a7o
L
i
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICR6LA9 .1
x
r
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 15, 1982
To: City Council r 1
From: Rosemary Vitosh, Director of Finance r
Re: Insurance Bids
The City recently took bids for its property and liability insurance. As
a result, the City will be spending between $48,381 and $133,241 less on
insurance premium costs in FY83 than was originally anticipated when the
FY83 budget was prepared. Since these costs are funded from the Tort
Liability Levy, the savings will not free up funds for other uses as those
tax dollars are restricted in use. The end result of the savings will be
that excess funds in the Tort Liability balance should be available to be
carried over to FY84 and will enable the City to reduce the Tort Liability
Tax Levy for that year. Since the City's losses in past years have
typically been very low, the chances for a carryover balance of
approximately $75,000 is very good.
The savings on insurance costs is due to both a "soft" insurance market at
this time and to the competitive nature of the bidding process. The
insurance market is "soft" because insurance companies are now getting a
large rate of return on their investment and are able to lower premium
costs and still maintain a level profit margin.
Not only will the City pay less for its insurance coverage in FY83, it
will also benefit from improved coverage. Liability coverage was
increased from $5 million to $10 million, real property will be insured on
replacement basis instead of actual cash value (depreciation) basis,
vehicle coverage will include collision coverage (for losses exceeding
$10,000) where previously this coverage was self-insured. The emphasis
used in developing the specifications was to maximize the City's coverage
for large dollar, catastrophic losses, while attempting to retain or self -
insure small dollar losses. The specifications were developed and bids
were reviewed by City staff and Professor Michael Murray from the U of I,
College of Business Administration. The end result has proven most
beneficial to the City both in terms of costs of premiums and future
protection from large dollar losses.
The attached chart details the bids received for property and liability
insurance coverage for the City of Iowa City. Three bids were not
considered in the final analysis. Those bids were eliminated for the
following reasons:
1. Buxton Insurance Agency - Bids were submitted only for property,
boiler and fidelity coverages. These bids were identical to the bids
submitted by the Iowa City Association of Independent Insurance
Agents, Inc.,
MIcRDE1LMED SY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES M018ES
I a:*7r
J
I/
2
2. Vinton Insurance Agency - The umbrella insurance bid was withdrawn.
The remaining premiums which were bid substantially exceeded those
of other bidders.
3. Wausau Insurance Company - Bids were submitted only for property and
boiler coverages and the premiums bid exceeded those of other
bidders.
Cost comparisons of the remaining three bids were prepared and included
the following cost items:
1. Premium amount.
2. City's retained share of expected losses.
3. Finance charge on installment payments.
The cost comparison resulted in the following projections of total cost to
the City:
Iowa City Association of Sentry
Frank B. Hall Indep. Insurance Agents Insurance
Premium costs (subtotal
from Bid Schedule) $121,978 $135,059 $140,678
Retained losses and/or
retrospective
premium adjustment 37,867 4,917 37,867
Finance charges 7,479 -- --
Total $167,324 $139,976 $178,545
Since the bids did not provide for the same.types of loss bearing on the
part of the City, it was necessary to make some assumptions about loss
levels. This projection was based on the past losses as shown in the
specifications. Obviously, there is no guarantee that future losses will
follow this pattern. However, it was the best guide available and was
applied consistently to those bids being considered.
The retrospective plan that was bid for liability coverage by the Iowa
City Association of Independent Insurance Agents, Inc., provided for
first dollar coverage (no deductible). By applying the loss projection
amount used in the cost comparison analysis, the total retrospective
premium exceeded the estimated premium amount submitted with the bid.
This additional amount was included in the cost comparison analysis as a
"retrospective premium adjustment."
The cost comparison analysis showed that the bid from the Iowa City
Association of Independent Insurance Agents, Inc., yielded the lowest
expected cost to the City. Since this bid also substantially met the
n ICROf ILMED By
1 CORM MIC RE/L AB 1
CEDAR RAI'105 DES MOINES,
J
ia7l
r
specifications, the Association was awarded the bid for all coverages
excluding the Public Officials Liability, Police Professional Liability
and Airport Liability.
Coverage for Public Officials Liability and for Airport Liability are not
being awarded at this time. Bids submitted for these coverages did not
sufficiently differ from the City's current costs for its coverage now in
effect.
Further review of the coverage for the Police Professional Liability as
bid by the Iowa City Association of Independent Insurance Agents, Inc., is
being conducted and a decision will be made in the near future as to
whether or not to remain with our current coverage or to accept that bid.
Actual insurance premium costs for the City's property and liability
insurance excluding Airport Liability, Public Officials Liability and
Police Professional Liability amounted to $234,553 in FY82. The FY83
budget provides $237,500 for these coverages. As a result of the bidding
process, the City's FY83 actual cost will be between $104,259 and
$189,119. The range exists because of the minimum and maximum premiums
possible on the retrospective plan which was bid for liability coverages.
The restrospective rated plan that was bid for liability coverage by the
Iowa City Association of Independent Insurance Agents is a form of self-
insurance which includes reinsurance for excessive losses. The final
premium will be determined based upon the City's actual losses during the
year.
A deposit premium is charged at the inception of the coverage year, but
this deposit is adjusted after the year has ended. The final premium is
arrived at by adding to the cost of actual losses the basic premium charge
and the premium taxes. In effect, a restrospective plan is very much like
a cost plus contract, the major difference being that the premium is
subject to a maximum. Viewed from a slightly different point of view, a
retrospective plan is like a self-insurance program up to the maximum
premium. The lower the losses of the City,,the lower will be the premium;
the higher the losses, the higher will be the premium. The self-insurance
feature of course stops at the maximum premium, and the insurance company
pays all losses in excess of that maximum premium.
Under this retrospective plan the minimum premium amount that can be paid
is $56,573 and the maximum amount is $141,433. In order to hit the
maximum premium amount total liability losses for the year would need to
exceed $80,760. Based upon past trends, annual losses for FY83 are
projected at approximately $39,000, which would result in a premium cost
for the liability coverage of approximately $92,000. This amount was what
was used in the final analysis of all bids received as the estimated
premium cost for this bid.
bj/sp
MIEHDEILMED BY
JORM MICROLABi
CEDAR RM
'IDS • DES MOINES
la7/
J
CITY OF IOWA CITY
BID SCHEDULE
PROPERTY AND LIABILITY INSURANCE
PROPERTY COVERAGE:
Real & Personal Property
All Risk
Difference in Conditions
Physical Damage to Vehicles
Mobile (Contractor's) Equipment
Data Processing Equipment
Transit Buses (if separate from vehicles)
LIABILITY COVERAGE:
General Liability
$10 Million Umbrella
Combined General & Umbrella
Vehicles
Transit Buses (if separate from vehicles)
BOILER & MACHINERY COVERAGE:
FIDELITY BOND:
Subtotal
PUBLIC OFFICIALS LIABILITY:
POLICE PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY:
AIRPORT LIABILITY:
IOWA CITY
BUXTON FRANK B. ASSOC. OF SENTRY VINTON WAUSAU
ArrNry 14AI1 INOFP. INS. AGTS. INSUR. INSUR. INSUR.
--------------------------
Iowa City
Cedar Rapids
-------------
Iowa City
-------
Cedar Rapids
Vinton Cedar Rapids
j lv, i
GJ,U71
I
D ly,b i
ri,4U6
i
Lu, you y su,olu _
NIB
4,577
I 3,529
*
N/B NIB
NIB
3,465
**
7,366
12,935 NIB
3,103
*
3,103
*
1,439 4,418
910
*
910
2,800
* 7,843
NIB
*
*
9,269
29,661
NIB
47,400
I 87,373(1)
32,557
57,070 NIB
NIB
17,000
15,000
18,239
NIB NIB
NIB
--
--
--
-- B
NIB
23,600
*
8,631
18,372 NIB
NIB
*
*
30,515
40,080 NIB .
974
i 974
974
974
1,400 i 2,032
4,619
1,271
4,619
2,921
6,034 NIB
$ p
I $121,978
$135,059
$140,678
$ N $ N
NIB
6,500
NIB
12,150
7,400 NIB
NIB
11,311
8,750
91518
10,000 NIB
NIB
7,099
NIB
NIB
8,250 NIB
NIB = No bid submitted.
(1) = Submitted two options, bid estimates for the one year retrospective policy option is used here.
* = Included above.
** = Included in liability quote.
N = Subtotal not computed because all coverages were not bid upon.
MICROEILMED DY
i
"DORM MICRdLAB- .�
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES
■
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 15, 1982
TO: City Council n
FROM: Rosemary Vitosh, Director of Finance Y'
RE: Changes in Proposed Budget Format
Attached are examples of format used for the FY83 Budget
and the same information in the new format proposed for
the FY84 Budget. Attachment A is a page out of the FY83
Budget for Traffic Engineering's Expenditure Budget
Detail. Attachment B-1 and B-2 shows the same informa-
tion but is expanded to show receipts, salary amounts,
and chargebacks or transfers between City departments.
Attachments C-1, C-2, C-3, and C-4 are the pages from
the FY83 Proposed Budget which listed the Expanded Ser-
vice Level Requests. Attachments D-1 and D-2 show the
Expanded Service Level Request from Traffic Engineering..
These provide more comprehensive explanations and show
whether or not each was approved and included in the
FY83 Proposed Budget.
In addition, the Proposed Budget will include two tables
of contents. One will be by the State Program groupings,
as done in past budgets. The other will be by department
groupings. This should provide for cross-referencing and
for more ease in locating the individual budgets.
Work has begun on the preparation of five-year revenue
and expenditure projections. A summary report will be
submitted to Council approximately one week before the
November 5, 1982, Goal Setting Session. The report will
discuss projected trends and any potential revenue short-
falls expected. The projections for FY84 will be discussed
in detail so that information on the financial status and
problem areas for FY84 will be known prior to the Goal
Setting Session.
The report will also include an analysis of year-end
balance figures for the past five years. This will include
comparative information on budget/projected balances and
actual balances in addition to a justification for the size
of the year-end balance that is necessary.
iai,-
/ j...
MICROFILMED BY - -_
JORM MIC ROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS DES MDI4E5
l
fF
J
I,
CI'T'Y OF IUwA (:1TY
FYI13 IIPF.NA'IJhL; F,000ET
F.XPk. NI) 1 TIME S
14100 1kAF'F'IC EIvCIIIF.F'HING
FYbl
ACTUAI,
FY82
F'S7ImA'f F.
E%Pt.NSE SDMPARY
159,143
173,829
PF:kSUNAL SFRVICFS
54,387
211x1103
751930
753,964
C(JP.IWD1TIF:5
SEHYICFS AND CHANGES
'23x335
4r 130
CAPI'T'AL LIU'TLAY
0
0
TRAI:SFF:HS
--447,868
507,852
'TOTA1.
AUTHORIZED POSITIONS
pEHSUNI)N,'L FYb2 FY 03
MAINT. WURhFR 11 2.UU 2.UU
MAINT WURKEN 111 1.00 1,011
ELECTRICIAN 2.001.00 11
F1.F.CI'R0NIC6 '1'ECII• 1,00 1.00
oo
SH. ENGH. TECH.
'1'HAF'F'1C FNMOEH 1.01) 1.00
TOTAL R.00 R.OU
NUNS
A
---------
t'Y83 BUDGET
-
DEPT
ADMIN
HF.OLIF..ST
PROPOSAL
BUDGET
194,378
192x778
192,230
80:040
74,450
74,450
287,7811
258,165
258:165
5,000
4:500
4,5000
0
0
567,198
- 529,893
529,345
TRANSFER 7'0
TOTAL
CAPITAL -OUTLAY
REPLACK ON-STRFEIHARDWARE
TUTAI-
104
i
' NICROCILFiCD BY
1J
"JORM MICRbLA13 -t
CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES
0
4,500
4,500
I
I
Ir
f,:
CITY OF IOWA CITY
FY83 OPERATING BUDGET
RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURES SUMMARIES
14100 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
B-1
1
RECEIPTS: FY83 BUDGET------
FY81 FY82 ADMIN• FINAL
ACTUAL ESTIMATE PROPOSAL BUDGET
Property Tax 179,585 361,947 384,233 383,775
! Road Use Tax 259,868 141,283 1391.946 139,856
Reimbursements 3,710 3,122 3,814 3,814
Damage Claims 3,313 900 11650 1,650 ;
Miscellaneous 1,392 600 250 250 1
TOTAL 447,868 5071852 529,893 5292345
EXPENDITURES: --- _------- FY83 BUDGET -------------
FY81 FY82 DEPT. ADMIN. FINAL
ACTUAL ESTIMATE REQUEST PROPOSAL BUDGET
Personal Services 159,143 173,828 194,378 192,778 192,230
Commodities 54,387 75,930 80,040 74,450 74,450
Services & Charges 211,003 253,964 287,780 258,165 258,165
Capital Outlay 23,335 4,130 5,000 4,500 4,500
Transfers -0- -0- -0- -0-
TOTAL 447,868 507,852 567,198 529,893 529,345
i
I
I
I '
J
MIcwILMED BY
DORM - S -DES LAB 1
I!\� 1 CEDAR RAPIDS � DES MOIRES
fr
PERSONAL SERVICES:
B-2
CITY OF IOWA CITY
FY83 OPERATING BUDGET
EXPENDITURE DETAIL
14100 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
AUTHORIZED POSITION BUDGET AMOUNT
192,230
TRANSFER TO:
None -0-
TOTAL -0-
CAPITAL OUTLAY:
Replace on -street hardware 4,500
TOTAL 4,500
CHARGEBACKS BETWEEN CITY DIVISIONS:
Word Processing -0-
Vehicle Maintenance 24,000
Vehicle Rental 25,720
Administrative Overhead -0-
TOTAL 49,720
i I
nICROFILnED BY _�
1_ "JORM MICR46LAB
CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES I
s
1
FY82
FY83
$
M.W. II
2.00
2.00
30,766
M.W. III
1.00
1.00
17,149
Electrician
2.00
2.00
35,658
Electronics Tech
1.00
1.00
18,137
Sr. Engr. Tech
1.00
1.00
21,427
Traffic Engineer
1.00
1.00
28,824
TOTAL
8.00
8.00
151,961
Temporary
7,000
Overtime
4,000
Longevity
1,150
FICA
10,908
IPERS
8,378
Health Insurance
8,432
Life Insurance
401
192,230
TRANSFER TO:
None -0-
TOTAL -0-
CAPITAL OUTLAY:
Replace on -street hardware 4,500
TOTAL 4,500
CHARGEBACKS BETWEEN CITY DIVISIONS:
Word Processing -0-
Vehicle Maintenance 24,000
Vehicle Rental 25,720
Administrative Overhead -0-
TOTAL 49,720
i I
nICROFILnED BY _�
1_ "JORM MICR46LAB
CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES I
s
1
r
C-1
EXPANDED SERVICE LEVELS
All departments/divisions were given the opportunity to request funding for expanded service levels. This
would include items such as position reclassifications, program improvement, new programs or new capital
outlay items (if the item is not a replacement of a currently owned item).
Reclassifications which would normally be considered during contract negotiations were not considered at
this time and are not included in the listing below. Those expanded service levels approved for funding by
the City Manager have been included in the proposed budget. Listing of both the approved items and those
not approved follow.
Function
EXPANDED SERVICE LEVEL - APPROVED
City Clerk
Accounting
Fire
HIS Administration
Cemetery
Recreation
Parks
Library
Landfill
Equipment
R
TOTAL APPROVED
Description
Table (2 tables were requested,
only 1 was approved)
2 computer terminals
Terminal stand
Firetruck/pumper
Calculator
Asphalt rock roads
Additional session of childrens'
swimming lessons in August
Reclassification, Maintenance
Worker I to Maintenance Worker II
Sunday service
Half-time Library Assistant,
for cable TV support
Pole building
Additional Mechanic I
1r ;
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICR6LAB
CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES
Amount
i 175
2,790
150
125,000
75
4,000
2,000
1,320
23,730
0,515
30,000
16 515.
a
IF
r. ,
C-2
' Function Description Amount
EXPANDED SERVICE LEVEL - NOT APPROVED
Civil Rights
Training for Commission members
1,000
Work Study
100
City Clerk
Table
175
Broadband Telecommunications
Reclassify temporary part-time to
1,987
permanent part-time
Lighting and sound system improve-
1,100
ments in Council Chambers
2.2% of franchise fee for Special
11,000
Access Support Fund
Engineering
Flat file cabinet
550
File cabinet
250
Energy Conservation
Data processing for community
700
energy use information
Work Study
675
Animal Control
Reclassification to Senior
,1,200
Animal Control Officer
Additional temporary employee
630
Police
Six additional police officers
140,124
Police Records
Two file cabinets
440
Creation of Senior Police
1,595
Receptionist
Fire
Air monitoring system
600
Explosion meter
700
J ... 1
MICROFILMED BY '
JORM MICR46LAB 1 1
CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOIRES I
f�
MICROFILMED BY
"JORM-MICRbLAO�
CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES j
C-3
Function
Description
Amount
Eductor
700
Carpeting - central station
1,500
Carpeting - battalion chief's office
500
Additional overtime
2,000
Traffic Engineering
Building remodeling
111,100
Street Maintenance
Truck mounted vacuum sweeper
65,000
Cemetery
Additional tree trimming
20,000
Recreation
Air conditioner for craft room
5,000
Library
Additional Library Clerk
14,572
Additional part-time Librarian 11
4,677
Additional temporary
8,172
Reclassification of a Library Clerk
757
position
Three-quarters time Library Assistant
11,888
(only half-time position was approved)
Senior Center
Additional position, Assistant to
14,706
Program Specialist
Pollution Control
Backhoe
14,000
Airport
Additional temporary salaries
750
Repairs to buildings
4,000
Local match, Master Plan
35,000
Local match, Taxiway. Runway and
17,500
Noise Abatement Plan
Parking lot repairs
18,500
r
MICROFILMED BY
"JORM-MICRbLAO�
CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES j
C-3
Y
Description
Function
Roof reconstruction
Ditch mower
Land purchase -for runway improvement
Two additional winter tripper buses
Transit
Addition to service building
Equipment
TOTAL NOT APPROVED
1
i
MICROFILMED BY
1
"-JOR M"MIC RfLAB' '
CEDAR RAPIDS DES'MO !
C-4
Amount
2,000
13,000
20,000
18,850
155.000
$721.998
I
r
CITY OF IOWA CITY
FY83 OPERATING BUDGET
EXPENDITURE SERVICE LEVEL REQUEST
14100 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
DESCRIPTION:
D-1
Remodel office area of old service building. This project would remove and replace four existing
windows with energy conserving windows. It would add one additional window in the Senior Technicians
office. It would provide for framing, sheathing and insulating all exterior walls in the office area.
The project would include replace one exterior entry door, electrical improvements and some exterior
painting.
WHY SHOULD THIS EXPANDED SERVICE LEVEL BE FUNDED:
This project is the first phase of consolidating the traffic engineering area. It will be necessary
for traffic engineering to move when the City locates its bus maintenance facility in the service
building complex. The project can be accomplished using force account labor.
COST: $ 7,400
APPROVED FOR FUNDING: No
MICROFILMED BY
1 -JORM MIC RbLA 13'�
CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES I
J�
IN;
CITY OF IOWA CITY
FY83 OPERATING BUDGET
EXPENDITURE SERVICE LEVEL REQUEST
14100 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
DESCRIPTION:
Remodel servicebay area of old Service Building. This project would provide for the construction
of a "mezzanine" level over approximately 2/3 of the existing floor area. The mezzanine level and
the remaining 1/3 would be unheated storage and assembly area. The remaining 2/3 of the ground
level would be converted to house traffic engineering's controller maintenance and sign manufacture
activities. This area would receive wall insulation, HVAC, and electrical improvement internally.
Five of the six bay garage nooks would be removed and replace with walls.
i
• i
i
WHY SHOULD THIS EXPANDED SERVICE LEVEL BE FUNDED:
This project represents the completion phase of consolidating the traffic engineering area. It will
provide space for the mechanics/bus maintenance. Mezzanine storage will free existing cold storage
to be used by equipment division for flat tire service/storage. Much of this project can be done
by force account effort.
COST: $ 103,700 APPROVED FOR FUNDING: No
r 1
MICROFILMED BY
"CORM 'MIC R(SLAB - 1
CEDAR RAPIDS DES I40IRE5
I
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 14, 1982
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
''//ll11
From: Robert W. Jansen, City Attorney
Linda.N. Woito, First Assistant /
Re: Home Town Dairy LSNRD Plan
At a formal meeting held June 14, 1982, the Planning and Zoning
Commission approved the Home Town Dairy LSNRD Preliminary and Final
Plan, subject to the Legal Department's resolution of whether the
parking area tree regulations apply to the northeast (NE) parking
area and the southwest (SW) parking area, and whether 8.10.26(3) of
the Zoning Code is applicable.
An item for approval of the LSNRD Plan was deferred from the City
Council agenda Tuesday, June 21, by mutual agreement between City
staff and Home Town Dairy, in order to allow resolution of these
legal issues.
After review of the matters, we make the following findings:
i
1
1. The parking area located in the SW corner of the Site Plan will
require surfacing and resurfacing, and thus must comply with
Section 8.10.40.7.A.1.c of the Tree Ordinance.
I
2. The parking area located in the NE corner of the Site Plan
constitutes a parking area without any additional improvements.
Thus, for purposes of the Tree Ordinance, the area enjoys non-
conforming status. No change in use is contemplated, nor will
an alteration or resurfacing be required. Hence, Sections
8.10.40.7. A.1 and .c do not apply.
3. Section 8.10.26 is not applicable to the Plan, since storage is
an integral part of the primary use of the Dairy as a creamery,
rather than a separate accessory use.
We will be available for questions, as needed.
tp3/1
cc: Don Schmeiser, PPD
Mike Kucharzak, H&IS
ia13
MICROFILMED BY
1 J
- JORM MICR46LA13
j CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOVIES
■
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 14, 1982
TO: Iowa City City Council
FROM: City Clerk Abbie Stolfus
RE: Beer/Liquor License/Conditional Approval
FOR YOUR INFORMATION --Conditional approval was given at the
3/16/82 Council meeting to The Gas Company Inn, 2300 Muscatine
Ave. for Sunday Sales Beer/Liquor permit. They have submitted,
after the 90 -day period, the required information which allows
them to retain their permit.
Also, Conditional approval was given at the 3/16/82 Council
meeting to Chuck's Clark, 504 E. Burlington, for Sunday Sales
Beer Permit. They have submitted, after the 90 -day period,
the required information which allows them to retain their
permit.
1
MICROFILMED BY
' JORM MIC RlIi1LA 6_
CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES II
1 al v
I
CITY OF IOWA CITY
CIVIC CENTER 410 E. WASHINGTON ST. IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 (319) 356-5000
July 15,1982
PRESS RELEASE
Contact Person:
Mike Prior, Acting Transit Manager
356-5154
Ridership on Iowa City Transit during the fiscal year ending June 30,
1982 was 2.4 million passengers. This constitutes a 15% increase over
I
the previous fiscal year. This'represents an --average of 46.6 trips
i
per resident of the Iowa City metropolitan area.
j Factors contributing to the increase were: an unusually severe winter, ?
increased enrollment at the University, and an increased utilization
of evening and Saturday service. Saturday ridership was up 16.4% and
evening ridership increased in excess of 29.1%.
We would like to take this opportunity to thank the citizens of
Iowa City for their continue) support of the transit system.
-0-
1-41-75
1
MICROFILMED BY
I' JORM MICR40LA13
'��mac:.
I CEDAR RAPIDS •DES MOINES. � �