Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-09-23 Info PacketCity of Iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE: September 19, 1980 TO: City Council, City Manager, Department Heads, Planning and Zoning Commissic FROM: David Perret 'bm<4 RE: Johnson County Council of Governments (JCCOG) Wednesday night, September 17, 1980, was the last regular and formal meeting of the Johnson County Regional Planning Commission (JCRPC). The Commission as we have known it for the last sixteen years will cease to exist on October 1, 1980, and will be succeeded by the new Johnson County Council of Governments. At the meeting Wednesday night we discussed the accomplishments and failures of the JCRPC as well as the cooperation and understanding which.developed between the member governments of the Commission. I am attaching the written comments of J. Patrick White who has played a major role in the development of JCRPC and who has done much to foster inter- governmental cooperation. I believe his remarks are very important and useful as we embark into the new organization. Recently several small communities in Johnson County have voted to join JCCOG while some others are expressing deep reservations. One of the reserva- tions is a distrust of Iowa City - the feeling that Iowa City will attempt to monopolize, dominate, manipulate, and/or ignore the smaller member governments of JCCOG. I believe that there exists a duty on the part of Iowa City to alleviate such reservations and to demonstrate our willingness to work fully, openly, and cooperatively with all the members of JCCOG. I trust that the City staff, City Council, and board members designate concur. MICROFILMED BY v. JORM MICR+LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES I I City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE: September 19, 1980 TO: City Council, City Manager, Department Heads, Planning and Zoning Commissic FROM: David Perret 'bm<4 RE: Johnson County Council of Governments (JCCOG) Wednesday night, September 17, 1980, was the last regular and formal meeting of the Johnson County Regional Planning Commission (JCRPC). The Commission as we have known it for the last sixteen years will cease to exist on October 1, 1980, and will be succeeded by the new Johnson County Council of Governments. At the meeting Wednesday night we discussed the accomplishments and failures of the JCRPC as well as the cooperation and understanding which.developed between the member governments of the Commission. I am attaching the written comments of J. Patrick White who has played a major role in the development of JCRPC and who has done much to foster inter- governmental cooperation. I believe his remarks are very important and useful as we embark into the new organization. Recently several small communities in Johnson County have voted to join JCCOG while some others are expressing deep reservations. One of the reserva- tions is a distrust of Iowa City - the feeling that Iowa City will attempt to monopolize, dominate, manipulate, and/or ignore the smaller member governments of JCCOG. I believe that there exists a duty on the part of Iowa City to alleviate such reservations and to demonstrate our willingness to work fully, openly, and cooperatively with all the members of JCCOG. I trust that the City staff, City Council, and board members designate concur. MICROFILMED BY v. JORM MICR+LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES CIVIL -JUVENILE DIVISION J. Patrick Whitt First Assistant Daniel L. Buy Anna M. Lahey Col OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CRIMINAL DIVISION qT O P.O. Boa50 O 328 S. Clinlon Street e Iowa City, Iowa 52244 318.337-9888 JACK W. DOOLEY - County Attorney September 17, 1980 Members, Johnson County Regional Planning Commission Board Members Designate, Johnson County Council of Governments Dear Colleagues: The soon to be accomplished transition from the existing .Johnson County Regional Planning Commission to the new Johnson County Council of Governments is an appropriate time to reflect on the progress of intergovernmental co-operation within this county. We still hear ipate in our joint "we don't need it" it." Even many of often do so silent politically disass some local officials who wish not to partic- efforts--their arguments being generally that or that "we haven't gotten anything out of you who have been and remain supportive too ly-;hoping, I imagine, that you can remain :)ciated from "those planners." The answer to our critics is that we truly need a joint agency today more than ever. Joint or co-operative solutions tend to be overlooked or to fall too often into neglect absent an institutionalized vehicle for addressing them. The real value of this agency, both past and in the future, can never be measured by a list of grants received. Nor will such an agency truly succeed if its plans are given a passing acknowledgment without a serious effort at implementation. Since its inception in 1964, the Commission certainly has (Many tangible accomplishments and, doubtless, some failures-- the absence of a joint law enforcement facility being one that will now not readily be overcome. Likely, both success and failure will be experienced by JCCOG as well. However, the single most substantial accomplishment of the Commission is the co-operative working relationships that have been fostered and nurtured over the years among our member agencies. That basic accomplishment is all the more significant when you consider that its institutional basis is 16 years old whereas the individual members, our cities and the county, have existed for 100 years and.more as institutions. MICROFILMED 8Y JORM MICRf�ILAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES 1803 William L. Yeller epR. Patter Ralph Kevin vin B. Struve Janice M. Backer P.O. Boa50 O 328 S. Clinlon Street e Iowa City, Iowa 52244 318.337-9888 JACK W. DOOLEY - County Attorney September 17, 1980 Members, Johnson County Regional Planning Commission Board Members Designate, Johnson County Council of Governments Dear Colleagues: The soon to be accomplished transition from the existing .Johnson County Regional Planning Commission to the new Johnson County Council of Governments is an appropriate time to reflect on the progress of intergovernmental co-operation within this county. We still hear ipate in our joint "we don't need it" it." Even many of often do so silent politically disass some local officials who wish not to partic- efforts--their arguments being generally that or that "we haven't gotten anything out of you who have been and remain supportive too ly-;hoping, I imagine, that you can remain :)ciated from "those planners." The answer to our critics is that we truly need a joint agency today more than ever. Joint or co-operative solutions tend to be overlooked or to fall too often into neglect absent an institutionalized vehicle for addressing them. The real value of this agency, both past and in the future, can never be measured by a list of grants received. Nor will such an agency truly succeed if its plans are given a passing acknowledgment without a serious effort at implementation. Since its inception in 1964, the Commission certainly has (Many tangible accomplishments and, doubtless, some failures-- the absence of a joint law enforcement facility being one that will now not readily be overcome. Likely, both success and failure will be experienced by JCCOG as well. However, the single most substantial accomplishment of the Commission is the co-operative working relationships that have been fostered and nurtured over the years among our member agencies. That basic accomplishment is all the more significant when you consider that its institutional basis is 16 years old whereas the individual members, our cities and the county, have existed for 100 years and.more as institutions. MICROFILMED 8Y JORM MICRf�ILAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES 1803 Members, Johnson County Regional Planning Commission Board Members Designate, Johnson County Council of Governments September 17, 1980 Page 2 The formal development of these inter -agency relationships is literally, in Johnson County as elsewhere, in its infancy. It is, therefore, predictably weak institutionally --with natural- ly resulting obstacles to measurable, objective accomplishments. Those who would construct a numerical balance sheet as the sole evaluation of the merit of this agency overlook the primary ac- complishment. It was clear from the steering committee discussions that transporation and community assistance are the substantive areas of greatest interest to the metropolitan and rural agencies re- spectively --and those areas will certainly need JCCOG's attention. It should be kept in mind, however, that other substantive problems and needs cross jurisdictional boundaries and lend themselves to an intergovernmental approach. One which should be considered by JCCOG within a very few years is solid waste. Our communities are fortunate to have adequate systems in place; however, they are short term. The time to address future solid waste systems is within the next few years before the next crises arrives. JCCOG is the logical agency to do so as the successor to the Commission. The Governor's office should be notified of the change in name so that our designation under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act will be maintained as current. As we reach the actual point of transition to JCCOG, I would like to suggest, not just to those who will serve as representatives to the new agency but to all elected officials in this county, that it's time for some serious; pointed soul-searching on our commitment to intergovernmental co=:operation. The steering committee has recommended and you have concurred in an approach which relies exclusively on elected officials for the decisions. The merit of such an agency is an obvious increase in accountability and a hoped for narrowing of the gaps between plans and implementation. But along with that change comes a rather marked additional responsibility for those elected officials. While they are elected by a single constituency, they must begin to view matters from the perspective of the welfare of the entire metro- politan area or the entire county. That is a perspective and an element of leadership in local government that, to -date, has been all too frequently lacking on the part of many local elected officials. I am confident that those serving on JCCOG's boards have the capacity for that type of leadership. I hope they will quickly develop the will to lead in that fashion. MICROFILMED BY DORM MICR+LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES j 1803 Mvmbcr�;, Johnson County Rol;ionnl Planning Commission lioa nl Members Designate, Johnson County Council of Governments September 17, 1980 Page 3 More of our local elected officials need to realize that the total governmental decision-making process --local, state, federal --requires a real partnership between cities and the county. Local governments within this county will be fully effective in this process only to the extent that they are supportive of intergovernmental co-operation and JCCOG. Absent such support, home rule itself and the quality of the decision- making process will suffer. Our failure to mobilize meaningful co-operative efforts locally usually will result in increased state action with its attendant inability to address uniquely localized situations. Most elected officials I believe still do not fully realize the promise and potential of joint or intergovernmental efforts. That full realization will finally come only when each city and the county demonstrate a willingness to subordinate portions of their individual will and responsibility to the collective will and responsibility of all local government in the county. We cannot move forward together and maintain for each city or the county a completely autonomous posture. That day will sooner come when it is, properly, seen as an enlargement of the potential of local government. With the two-year funding forecast in the JCCOG articles, we have taken a small yet significant step in that direc- tion. In the eleven years that I have been a part of this organization, I have attended approximately 125 Commission meetings and countless, probably several hundred, executive board and various committee meetings. I have, as is probably quite obvious, enjoyed every minute of it. I will continue, in the remaining time of my term on East Central and the NARC Board of Directors, and, doubtless, in future endeavors as well, to advocate and work for the co-operative intergovernmental decision-making process which our problems demand and our citizens deserve. Thank you for considering these thoughts, for the accomplish- ments of the Johnson County Regional Planning Commission and for the future success of the Johnson County Council of Governments. JPi4/kr Siinnc elyy,, n'J J. Patrick White First Assistant County MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES Attorney i Mvmbcr�;, Johnson County Rol;ionnl Planning Commission lioa nl Members Designate, Johnson County Council of Governments September 17, 1980 Page 3 More of our local elected officials need to realize that the total governmental decision-making process --local, state, federal --requires a real partnership between cities and the county. Local governments within this county will be fully effective in this process only to the extent that they are supportive of intergovernmental co-operation and JCCOG. Absent such support, home rule itself and the quality of the decision- making process will suffer. Our failure to mobilize meaningful co-operative efforts locally usually will result in increased state action with its attendant inability to address uniquely localized situations. Most elected officials I believe still do not fully realize the promise and potential of joint or intergovernmental efforts. That full realization will finally come only when each city and the county demonstrate a willingness to subordinate portions of their individual will and responsibility to the collective will and responsibility of all local government in the county. We cannot move forward together and maintain for each city or the county a completely autonomous posture. That day will sooner come when it is, properly, seen as an enlargement of the potential of local government. With the two-year funding forecast in the JCCOG articles, we have taken a small yet significant step in that direc- tion. In the eleven years that I have been a part of this organization, I have attended approximately 125 Commission meetings and countless, probably several hundred, executive board and various committee meetings. I have, as is probably quite obvious, enjoyed every minute of it. I will continue, in the remaining time of my term on East Central and the NARC Board of Directors, and, doubtless, in future endeavors as well, to advocate and work for the co-operative intergovernmental decision-making process which our problems demand and our citizens deserve. Thank you for considering these thoughts, for the accomplish- ments of the Johnson County Regional Planning Commission and for the future success of the Johnson County Council of Governments. JPi4/kr Siinnc elyy,, n'J J. Patrick White First Assistant County MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES Attorney City of Iowa Cid = MEMORANDUM Date: September 17, 1980 To: City Council t From: Cit Re: Solid Waste/Sludge Incineration Feasibility Study At the informal Council session of September 8, 1980, the City s Council authorized funding for the preparation of a proposal for a feasibility study by Stanley Consultants, Inc., on behalf of the City and the University. The estimated cost of the proposal was $10- 15,000. It was agreed that the City would split the cost 50/50 with i the University. Since that time, Stanley Consultants has undertaken additional investigation. The conclusions are provided in letter #1, enclosed. Based on this information, it appears that it would be preferable for the City to consider the actual preparation of the feasibility study. A proposal which details the scope of services is provided in letter M2, enclosed. Articles discussing incineration of solid waste and sludge also are enclosed. , One of the issues to be considered in the study is the incineration of waste water treatment plant sludge. This process has the potential for reducing both the capital and operating costs of the new waste water treatment plant. A couple of years ago the City Council had preliminary discussions with Jim Kimm concerning the disposal of waste water treatment plant sludge. At that time it appeared that the only feasible disposal method for treatment plant sludge was use of the landfill. Although the engineer has continued to consider land application, which also was discussed at that time, this does not appear to be a viable alternative. The Manager has discussed this matter with Jim Kimm of Veenstra & Kimm and we recommend that the City approve the proposal presented by Stanley Consultants. As proposed previously, the City will split the cost 50/50 with the University. $7,500 of the City's share will be funded, as the Council approved on September 8, 1980, from operating n revenues for the solid waste system and the other $10,000 of the cost will be provided from EPA funds for the design of the waste water treatment plant and the interceptors. At the informal Council session of September 22, 1980, the City Council will be requested to authorize the study in accordance with the recommendations of this memorandum. tp/sp cc: Jim Kimm Randy Bezanson _.: 180q MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES 1 C STANLEY CONSULTANTS, INC. STANLEY BUILDING, MUSCATINE. IOWA 52761 TELEPHONE: 319/264.6600 CABLE: STANLEY MUSCATINE IOWA September 11, 1980 TELEX: 468402, 468403 TWX: 910.5254430 Mr. Neal Berlin City Manager 410 Washington Civic Center Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Mr. Berlin: In recent weeks, the University Energy Committee has expressed interest in developing a feasibility study to evaluate the incineration of municipal solid waste to produce steam for use in the University low-pressure system. Initial discussion addressed the possibility of pursuing funding for such a feasibility study from the Department of Energy (DOE). Stanley Consultants was requested to provide information with respect to the level of effort and cost associated with submittal of such a proposal. The cost was determined to be approximately $12,500. Upon further discussion and evaluation, we feel nn option to submitting a proposal to DOE should be considered; namely, moving ahead with the feasibility study itself. There are many items that lead us to this recommendation. 1. Time is short for submitting the DOE proposal. Proposals must he in Washington, U.1:., by September 30, 1980. Many proposals that were unsuccessful on the previous round have had the advantage of months of time to revise, improve, etc. 2. The prospects of obtaining funds are marginal. Currently, the legis- lation establishing these funds do not provide for the consideration of municipal solid waste programs. There is interest but no ennbling legislation at this time for consideration of n proposal such rin LIIIIL envisioned by the University Energy Committee. 3. If the proposal is successful and the feasibility study In funded, there is the prospect of repaying the grant funds if the prn.jecL proves economically feasibile. 180 __.... -._.. _. _.__. QII1TANTA IN FNnINPFAINn AAf:HITR:TIIAF PI,ANNINn..ANn, MANAnFMFNT__... .. FAN AT AI !:(1N ,r... . MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LAE3 CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES R From STANLEY CONSULTANTS, INC. To _Mr. Neal Berlin, City Manager Date 9/11/80 4. There is in process the establishment of an Office of Energy From Municipal Waste within DOE. It is intended that rules and regulations governing this office will be promulgated approximately November 1, 1980, and that it will be operating by approximately January 1, 1981. It would appear that this is a more viable vehicle for possible funding than the current DOE solicitation which is more in line with synthetic fuel, gas conversion, and biomass type projects. 5. The cost for preparing the feasibility study itself would be $35,000. We feel serious consideration should be given to expending $12,500 on an application that would result in this level of funding. It should be pointed out that there are previous studies completed by Stanley Consultants for the University that provide extensive back- ground for the feasibility study being considered. 6. It is estimated that the feasibility study itself could be completed by sometime in January, 1981. There may be some advantage to this in that many applicants will be requesting feasibility funds from the Office of Energy From Municipal Waste, probably few will have a feasibility study in hand. This most likely would enhance chances for implementation of funds should the project prove economically justified. 7. Stanley Consultants has made some preliminary contacts with Iowa DEQ, Region VII EPA, and others as to possible funding sources. Although funds are limited at this time, the type of project envisioned by the University and City is viewed very favorably by the groups and funding is expected to be available in the next 24 months. We feel that the undertaking of this feasibility study is certainly in the hest interests of the University of Iowa and the City of Iowa City. However, considering the above, Stanley Consultants suggests that you pursue the option of simply preparing the feasibility study as outlined under separate cover. We look forward to working with you on this project. Sincerely, STANLEY CONSULTANTS INC. Michael E. Hunzinger, ! E. Project Manager MEH:bc _2 Page MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LA19 CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES So � i i j September 11, 1980 Mr. Neal Berlin, City Manager Civic Center AID East Washington Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Mr. Berlin: Re: Solid Waste Incineration Feasibility Study 41'.•iill. STANLEY CONSULTANTS, INC. STANLEY BUILDING, MUSCATINE, IOWA 52761 TELEPHONE: 319/264.6600 CABLE: STANLEY MUSCATINE IOWA TELEX: 468402, 468403 TWX: 910-525.1430 The University of Iowa Energy Committee has expressed interest in a feasibility study of incineration and steam production from the municipal solid waste (MSW.) which is presently disposed of in the Johnson County (:r c Landfill. 'This is not a new concept. Similar installations are pre- sently converting waste to energy throughout the world. It has become especially attractive in the last few years with the energy cost spiral and increased difficulties associated with acceptable solid waste management. The Energy Committee is not proposing to investigate a facility similar to Ames, Iowa, where MSW is processed by shredding to produce a supple- mentary fuel for coal-fired boilers. Experience has proven that type of facility only to be feasible for much larger waste loads than Iowa City could supply. Instead, the feasibility study would focus on an unpro- cessed "mass incineration" system specifically designed for that purpose. The primary function of the facility w0u d @@ to reduce Iowa City MSW to ash thereby extending the life of JohnsoSLo(tnty landfill. The major secondary objective would be to produce steam for the University distribution system. A great deal of information has already been compiled, by the experience of similar communities and by the University from a study published In 1972 by Stanley Consultants entitled "Prefeasibility Study: Refuse Incineration - Steam Generation." The latter document was requested by the University Physical Plant Department and is available for city review. Several major factors have instigated this proposal. First, the 1972 study had difficulty defining an acceptable site. It appears that prob- lem may be resolved if a facility is considered for the old sewage treatment plant location. There the facility would he strategically located within the MSW collection system and steam could be piped a reasonable distance to the University Low pressure system. The site Is also well screened within commercial development and the Iowa River. MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR¢LA13 CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES 18 D q r. I September 11, 1980 Mr. Neal Berlin, City Manager Civic Center AID East Washington Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Mr. Berlin: Re: Solid Waste Incineration Feasibility Study 41'.•iill. STANLEY CONSULTANTS, INC. STANLEY BUILDING, MUSCATINE, IOWA 52761 TELEPHONE: 319/264.6600 CABLE: STANLEY MUSCATINE IOWA TELEX: 468402, 468403 TWX: 910-525.1430 The University of Iowa Energy Committee has expressed interest in a feasibility study of incineration and steam production from the municipal solid waste (MSW.) which is presently disposed of in the Johnson County (:r c Landfill. 'This is not a new concept. Similar installations are pre- sently converting waste to energy throughout the world. It has become especially attractive in the last few years with the energy cost spiral and increased difficulties associated with acceptable solid waste management. The Energy Committee is not proposing to investigate a facility similar to Ames, Iowa, where MSW is processed by shredding to produce a supple- mentary fuel for coal-fired boilers. Experience has proven that type of facility only to be feasible for much larger waste loads than Iowa City could supply. Instead, the feasibility study would focus on an unpro- cessed "mass incineration" system specifically designed for that purpose. The primary function of the facility w0u d @@ to reduce Iowa City MSW to ash thereby extending the life of JohnsoSLo(tnty landfill. The major secondary objective would be to produce steam for the University distribution system. A great deal of information has already been compiled, by the experience of similar communities and by the University from a study published In 1972 by Stanley Consultants entitled "Prefeasibility Study: Refuse Incineration - Steam Generation." The latter document was requested by the University Physical Plant Department and is available for city review. Several major factors have instigated this proposal. First, the 1972 study had difficulty defining an acceptable site. It appears that prob- lem may be resolved if a facility is considered for the old sewage treatment plant location. There the facility would he strategically located within the MSW collection system and steam could be piped a reasonable distance to the University Low pressure system. The site Is also well screened within commercial development and the Iowa River. MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR¢LA13 CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES 18 D q I From STANLEY CONSULTANTS, INC. To . Mr. Neal Berlin _ Date Socondly, recent yenrs have seen the development of multichambered modular Incineration nymLems which arc factory built and nssambled on sl Le. The mudulnr concept is attractive to lower economics or scale and may be readily extended no waste load increases demand. The new technology is also designed to minimize flue gas emissions well within the regulatory requirements. The third major factor effects the city primarily. Mass incineration decreases the volume of MSW by 80 percent or more. This factor trans— lates into a potential five fold increase in continued service of the (_ 7 L)Johnson County Landfill and a direct annual savings in transport cost which is a major factor in MSW management. If the concept is applicable to Iowa City its citizens could stand to save tax dollars and the com— munity would be spared the near—future headache of establishing a new landfill. Another potential benefit is a sleeper. The new Iowa City wastewater treatment plant will produce thousands of pounds of sludge that will demand sophisticated and costly technology to dewater and stabilize. It may be very realistic to alter the sludge handling technology at the new treatment plant such that sludge can be used as supplementary fuel in the MSW incineration facility. This is also a proven technology which may Improve the cost effectiveness of both systems. There are many other reasons for pursuing a feasibility study. All aspects appear to deserve attention. A factual investigation of the technical, economic, and environmental constraints could be provided beginning from the foundation laid by past investigations. However, in this case the scope of study would focus on several specific assumptions which will increase the sensitivity of conclusions and reduce the cost: 1. Mass incineration of MSW (and possibly wastewater sludge) in modular systems. 2. Continued disposal of combustion residuals in the existing landfill. 3. Location at the old wastewater treatment plant. 4. Transport and sale of steam to the University. 9/11/80 Stanley Consultants, Inc., proposes that Iowa City and the University of Iowa jointly fund a feasibility study of MSW incineration an previously described and as outlined in the attached Scope of Services. If agree— able to both parties the study would be funded on an equal basis. The total cost of the study will be $35,000. Stanley Consultants will be prepared to commence work immediately and present a draft report no later than December 31, 1980. After review by both parties the report would be modified as needed to present a final document by January 30, 1981. MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LAfi CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES r i P 1 from STANLEY CONSULTANTS, INC. To Mr. Neal Berlin Dole 9/11/80 If Iowa City wishes to pursue this proposal, a suitable contractual agreement will be prepared for adoption by the City Council and by the University. Meanwhile if you have any further questions please call and a meeting will be arranged. Sincerely, STANLEY CONSZULTTS, INC. Michael Ilunzinger, P.L. MNM:ssf Attachment 3 IS�� i MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LAS CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES n d Scope of Services Stanley Consultants, Inc., proposes to make a feasibility study of Municipal Solid Waste Incineration to produce steam for sale to the University of Iowa. The following major assumptions will be the basis of the study: 1. Municipal Solid Waste presently directed to the Johnson County I Landfill would be hauled to the site of the old wastewater treatment plant. 2. The Municipal Solid Waste would be used to fuel a modular incineration system sized to handle the entire waste load for a five year period with future consideration of modular expansion .as the waste load increase demands. 3. A 20 -year planning period. 4. All combustion residuals would be hauled to the existing Johnson (re-) County Landfill for disposal. 5. Steam production from the incineration system to be piped to the University low pressure distribution system and sold to the University on a metered contractual basis to be determined in the study. 6. The incineration system must be capable of flue gas emission which comply with all applicable regulatory requirements. 7. Iowa City is interested in incineration of wastewater treatment sludge as an alternative for the presently proposed technology where cost effective and consistent with guidelines of the EPA Construction Grants Program for wastewater treatment facilities. Other major technical, economic, and environmental assumptions will be approved by technical staffs of the University of Iowa and Iowa City as well as appropriate regulatory agencies. Stanley Consultants proposes that Iowa City and the University make necessary resources available so as to insure the projects success. Such resources shall include but not be limited to associated studies, maps, drawings, and accounting records pertaining to municipal solid waste management and operation of the University heating plant. The objectives of the feasibility study will be to determine technical, economic, and environmental feasibility within the constraints of the general assumptions previously listed and to provide a guideline for sub- sequent joint activity regarding implementation. If the study determines 1 MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES 180 I i 1 i . n d Scope of Services Stanley Consultants, Inc., proposes to make a feasibility study of Municipal Solid Waste Incineration to produce steam for sale to the University of Iowa. The following major assumptions will be the basis of the study: 1. Municipal Solid Waste presently directed to the Johnson County I Landfill would be hauled to the site of the old wastewater treatment plant. 2. The Municipal Solid Waste would be used to fuel a modular incineration system sized to handle the entire waste load for a five year period with future consideration of modular expansion .as the waste load increase demands. 3. A 20 -year planning period. 4. All combustion residuals would be hauled to the existing Johnson (re-) County Landfill for disposal. 5. Steam production from the incineration system to be piped to the University low pressure distribution system and sold to the University on a metered contractual basis to be determined in the study. 6. The incineration system must be capable of flue gas emission which comply with all applicable regulatory requirements. 7. Iowa City is interested in incineration of wastewater treatment sludge as an alternative for the presently proposed technology where cost effective and consistent with guidelines of the EPA Construction Grants Program for wastewater treatment facilities. Other major technical, economic, and environmental assumptions will be approved by technical staffs of the University of Iowa and Iowa City as well as appropriate regulatory agencies. Stanley Consultants proposes that Iowa City and the University make necessary resources available so as to insure the projects success. Such resources shall include but not be limited to associated studies, maps, drawings, and accounting records pertaining to municipal solid waste management and operation of the University heating plant. The objectives of the feasibility study will be to determine technical, economic, and environmental feasibility within the constraints of the general assumptions previously listed and to provide a guideline for sub- sequent joint activity regarding implementation. If the study determines 1 MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES 180 I r N /'1 the concept to be feasibile then a search for financial asista*ce from governmental sources will be conducted. The feasibility however will not be based on supposed assistance unless Iowa City and the University subsequently wish to pursue available assistance as determined during the study. A specific outline of the proposed study follows as determined as the basis for the cost estimate: CHAPTER I GENERAL OBJECTIVES Technical, Economic, and Environmental Feasibility Assumptions. CHAPTER II ANALYSIS OF MSW LOADS Update 1972 Prefeasibility Study. Prepare Projections for Planning Period. Combustion Criteria. Co -incineration of Wastewater Sludge. CHAPTER III SITE EVALUATION Determine Land Constraints. Determine Accessibility of Collection System. Determine Site Availability, Timing, Cost. CHAPTER IV STEAM SALES EVALUATION Establish Quality Criteria and Quantity Limitations. Evaluate Seasonal Aspects. Establish Sales Mechanism and Contractual Basis. CHAPTER V EVALUATE INCINERATION TECHNOLOGY Investigate Co -Disposal Contrainta. Performance Specification for Equipment Properties. Establish a Representative System. Design Outline of Facilities. Process Schematic. Site Plan. Steam Connection Plan. Capital Cost Estimnte. Operation and Maintenance Cost Estimate. CHAPTER VI LANDFILL EVALUATION Existing Landfill Life for MSW vs. Incineration Residuals. Future Landfill Alternatives, Contrainta and Costs. Evaluate Residual Landfill System. Life Cycle Cost Annlysis for MSW vs. Residual Disposal. CHAPTER VII ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Continued MSW Landfill Alternative. Incineration and Residuals Landfill Alternative. Special Air Pollution Assessment of Incineration. I 2 MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES Igoe 0 N /'1 the concept to be feasibile then a search for financial asista*ce from governmental sources will be conducted. The feasibility however will not be based on supposed assistance unless Iowa City and the University subsequently wish to pursue available assistance as determined during the study. A specific outline of the proposed study follows as determined as the basis for the cost estimate: CHAPTER I GENERAL OBJECTIVES Technical, Economic, and Environmental Feasibility Assumptions. CHAPTER II ANALYSIS OF MSW LOADS Update 1972 Prefeasibility Study. Prepare Projections for Planning Period. Combustion Criteria. Co -incineration of Wastewater Sludge. CHAPTER III SITE EVALUATION Determine Land Constraints. Determine Accessibility of Collection System. Determine Site Availability, Timing, Cost. CHAPTER IV STEAM SALES EVALUATION Establish Quality Criteria and Quantity Limitations. Evaluate Seasonal Aspects. Establish Sales Mechanism and Contractual Basis. CHAPTER V EVALUATE INCINERATION TECHNOLOGY Investigate Co -Disposal Contrainta. Performance Specification for Equipment Properties. Establish a Representative System. Design Outline of Facilities. Process Schematic. Site Plan. Steam Connection Plan. Capital Cost Estimnte. Operation and Maintenance Cost Estimate. CHAPTER VI LANDFILL EVALUATION Existing Landfill Life for MSW vs. Incineration Residuals. Future Landfill Alternatives, Contrainta and Costs. Evaluate Residual Landfill System. Life Cycle Cost Annlysis for MSW vs. Residual Disposal. CHAPTER VII ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Continued MSW Landfill Alternative. Incineration and Residuals Landfill Alternative. Special Air Pollution Assessment of Incineration. I 2 MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES Igoe 0 CHAPTER VIII FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS Define Parameters. Cash Flow Analysis. Sensitivity Analysis. Financing Arrangements. CHAPTER IX INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS _ Ownership and Operation. Permit Requirements Implementation Alternatives. CHAPTER X CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS Technical Feasibility. Economic Feasibility. Environmental Feasibility. - I J ' 3 1W MICROFILMED BY _ JORM MICR+LA13 CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES i ■ COINCINERATION in municipal solid waste Incinerator with optional waste heat bolter. CODISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE AND SLUDGE THE CONCEPT of codisposal is based on the idea that the simul. taneous disposal of solid waste and wastewater treatment sludges can be more efficient under proper circum- stances than two separate disposal ac- tivities. Interest in the concept has in- creased as the volumetric proportion or the sludge handling problem has I, grown with inure widespread sewage treatment, laid its IundGll has become a less obvious disposal method in many areas for both solid waste and sludge. Cudisposal can be aceomplisl_ed in yuUiuu"ays..ahhnl!g there ore throe basic approaches: Landfilling, comn(sling and thylm;il dgstrtgt on. rvedfuel (}iDF'I use in mulliple- hearth or fluidized -bed sludge in- cinerators; sludge in municipal solid waste (MSW) incinerators; sludge in MSW dedicated boilers; and sludge in MSW starved -air combustors. Multiple llcarth/Fluidized-Bed Incinerators. For traditional sludge disposal, multiple -hearth and fluidized -bed furnaces burn oil to dry the dewatered sludge (20-40 percent solids) to the point of self-sustaining combustion. For codisposal, the sys- tem is essentially the same except that processed MSW is used as the fuel. Raw MSW must be passed through an RDF processing train to produce 3 to G -inch pprticles. Processed refuse and dewatered sludge can be mixed prior 88 to injection or red separately into the furnace. The rale of mixing depends upon moisture content, heal value trod other variables; but it appears that 2.5 or 3 parts RDF to tine part sludge will work well. If incoming air is reduced below stoichiometric proportions, the in- cinerator will operate as a pyrolysis reactor. The resulting gas has a heat value of up to 130 Btu per standard dry cubic fool and is suitable for com- bustion for energy recovery. Existing multiple-hem•lh furnaces and fluidized -bed furnaces can be re- !rofilted to accommodate RDF. The Feed system must be adapted to RDF and the air emissions equipment must be modified to handle different and increased off -gas volumes. MSW Dedicated Butlers. Dedi. cated boiler systems, where incoming MSW is processed into RDF prior to combustion, are gaining popularity as an MSW disposal option. The most significant differences between this system and the walerwall system lie in the higher costs and grader revenue potential of the dedicated boiler, both of which relate to the higher energy transfer efficiencies of the semi. suspension combustion unit. MSW Incinerators. Experience in Europe has shown that cuincineration in a walerwall furnace is feasible. Preprocessing of the MSW is not re- quired. Sludge can he pumped or trucked to the incinerator site as it liq. uid, then dewalered (20 percent sol- ids) and fed into n steam -healed drier. At 85 percent solids, it is then fared in the combustion chamber. According to one manufacturer, this process can effect it net energy gain. MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LA13 CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES The refuse -lo -sludge ratio in this case is influenced more by practical and economic, rather than technical, considerations. Sludge drying is usu- ally a net consumer of steam, and re- ductions in steam output from ally large settle resource recovery facility would have to be carefully planned. Only ratios greater than 10 parts of MSW to one plat of sludge have sub- stantial energy recovery potential. MSW Starved -Air Combustors. This approach differs from other waste incinerators options in both scale and technology. According to systems vendors, codisposal is viable. Ilowever, one consideration for codisposal in modular starved -air combustor systems is that the fairly low energy transfer efficiency of the combustion unit would lower the op. timum refuse -to -sludge ratio. Thus, the amount of energy left over from Sludge drying would also be less than For w;derwall systems. From is technological standpoint. thermal codisposal Is generally a vi. able process, although it cannot yet be considered ready for an orf•thu•sheir label, Many of the remaining yues• lions concerning codisposal lcchnol. ugy tare based on environmental is. sues. The primary concerns tare po• lenlial problems with air emission and leachute from the landfilling of cum. huslion residue materials. Economics of Codisposal Ely combining disposal operations, codisnosal also inlearates the ven. nomics n res(arra rrr•nvery and wEislewoler treatment. In resource recovery, the economic (1'ective is to maximize act ural. t revenues, P, L 19 PUBLIC WORKS far February, 1980 s.. r ■% nr Combined a MSS MSW;MSS Coale MSW Costs Coelse Multiple Hearth/ Purpose Costs � r ' Dedicated Dedicated 1000:100 5.600 2,100 4,295 5.420 Boilerul 1000:100 Motiular 6.212 2,700 4,295 6,395 Incinerator 100:10 636 61995 330 747 Pyrolysis 1000:100 6,794 4,200 1,077 4,295 1, Costs are shown in thousands 8,495 and date fromof 1978 dollars and include Capital amortization weice. Revenues from recovered energy and materials 2. Ratios aro In dry have been i Based on a full s recovery RDF Imultiple 4. Based on a ""OrPress, earth rnacestem Incineration system. i �i 0 Wolfe Nwl Boiler Feed system Feed System Combustion Air Fort Cooling Air Fon ■ COINCINERATION In multiple hearth furnace. where the costs ofconstruct! own• ins , ;slid ouureline a rte •1, nv Ay, offet U revenues evadable from li - oal , Ict's, sa e o recovers X •earl %ice of recovered enemalena s 'bullosa ins s lou c a lineae ally selfsufficienl facility with a lipping fee that is lowir than any Other (Cosi. bIC "hernulive. In general, these facilities must product' sufficient fi- nancial rclurns tO liquidate their Cn- fire capital debt.. Wastewater treatment, on the (after bund, generally produces no rove. nut's apart frum the user charges levied within the system. These charges must be sufficient to ever all current costs, Its well as to repay the locsl uctshare of tile systemcbThe federto can. al share of capitol costs need not be repaid, as grant Cover funds s cable: part or lh costs or treatment plant planning, design and Construction, Depending on lho scale of the proj. est, codisposal can bring together the revenut's avuilable from materials/ energy recovery and the grunt ff nanc. Ing available for wastewater treal- ment projects. For example, where RDF is used as fuel in a multiple. hearth or fluid -bed sludge In- cinerator, it is possible that the wastewater treatment plant can gen. erate enough energy to supply some Of its own needs or even be an energy exporter. Al the least, using RDF as n fuel can help to avoid the rapid in• crease in fossil fuel costs for sludge incineration. Where udge to be rned in a large.'-scalt:IMSW sresource urecovery facility, the service of sludge disposal �/01efry acility,asdoes thesoleofsIc moes another source of revenue o costsaof sludge transplort, dewalcrioal g and drying can be borne in part by PUBLIC WORKS jos February, 1980 ■ COINCINERATIO visiis EPotsnof thant e Clean Waller Actter [lie ho• Could be as much as 85 , percent, if it can be demaistrated as innovative or • lte•rnative technology for the Portico. lar situation. Otherwise, the funding eon amount to 75 percent. Criteria for funding are detailed in 'Innovative laid Alternative Technology meat Manual," 0/9 Asxoss• available from EPA's Muniespal Ea. vironmental Research Labe atony. Fact shoals contained in this Menuai, Pages A-172 to A-175 describe proces- ses that are being used and contain cost data. In osal, the same ve is sought bypboth the solid wastes lou sew, treatment agencies: To carry out the disposal operauions as the low- est cost. Unfurtunately, there are little empirical cost data for planning and N In fluldlzed-bed furnace. 1 a ever, [lie codisposal options. flow. V he findings of several recent f studies indicate lh:d codisposal costs arc generally campt'lilivC with qac 0. L.• combined costs Of Calnpat•alyle sopa �0. rale single -purpose syslc•ms and ,� under some conditions, could be ,S -V, lower. A I979 General Aecumnling O(. fico report, "C to litinaa:d t f Curbugc 7 n!_nd Srwit Slud —��— ' Solutmn to 'fwu YroUlenIN, lastrizc,, sen revious studios slhal show)CO(lspe,tialhto be k'•. more eenomicully ullractiv'ethan of. L tcrnativc single -purpose options. The EPA manual referenced above inch• cafes a Capital cost of $28,000 par fon and tan operating cost of $9.39 for op- cration of a refractory refuse in. cinerator incorporating sludge dews luring and drying and a conveying t... I (Continued on page 98) Table 1 — Comparison of Annual Costal of Major Thermal r Codisposal Options vs Comparable Single Purpose Alternatives p Single Purpose le C Oplpon el Ratio Codlapose, Purpose Combined a MSS MSW;MSS Coale MSW Costs Coelse Multiple Hearth/ Purpose Costs WatFluered Bed 250:100 5,250 1,1250 4,295 Dedicated Dedicated 1000:100 5.600 2,100 4,295 5.420 Boilerul 1000:100 Motiular 6.212 2,700 4,295 6,395 Incinerator 100:10 636 61995 330 747 Pyrolysis 1000:100 6,794 4,200 1,077 4,295 1, Costs are shown in thousands 8,495 and date fromof 1978 dollars and include Capital amortization weice. Revenues from recovered energy and materials 2. Ratios aro In dry have been sludge (MSS). weights of municipal solid waste (MSW) and municipal sewage 3. Based on a full s recovery RDF Imultiple 4. Based on a ""OrPress, earth rnacestem Incineration system. MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LA13 CEDAR RAPIDS a DES MOINES c gritted motorists information system wm munilur traffic conditions in it 35 -mile long • corridor on Lanlg Island, New York. Calif. Paler analysis or field data will determine use Idnunp:Ipprl.aehl's, sartus of inessnge signs and AM radio output In Inuturu,is. Puhlir Works. Nnvonlhol'. 1!17!1. • • al Codisposal of Sludge (Continued fro" pine 89) system, with a MSW:MSS ratio of about 3 to 2. The same reference gives the cost of a multiple hearth sludge incinerator with provision for shred. ding refuse and pneumatic conveying as $35,200 per ton capital cost and $12.58 per ton operating cost. The ratio of refuse to sludge is also 3 to 2. in research carried out by Gordian Associates lac. for the U. S. EPA, the generalized costs of single -purpose disposal and co -disposal were earn - Pored for equivalent weights of total solids. Table 1, taken from the unpub- lished report by Gordian Associates entitled "Codisposal of Municipal Solid Waste and Sewage Sludge: An Analysis of Constraints," shows a summary of this comparison. Codis. posal cast estimates are generally lower fill", comparable separate ":"'Citing options. These comparisons ore bused un cost daut derived from secondary sources and accepted cost estimating methods. As such, they do nut necessarily renecf the oulcumo ul• any site•specilio Cost comparison. Until uwrc empirical dada' bvcuntt' :lvailablo, it is inlpnssiblr to uunkp if I!eIII.1 :II n1a11'nlll'III bi l0 I)'1' r•J'UJ1a N1111' ;dh'nclivellVSS of rudispus:ll. [low. ever, studies la date show cudispns;d to be worth considering in any situa- tion where landfill options are not available for sludge find solid waste. Coastal communities now facing the ban on sludge disposal and solid waste disposal at sea under the ocean dumping statutes no doubt will pursue the methods, especially with the prospect of EPA funding of a portion of the cost. The General Accounting Office re- port referenced above states the fel• lowing regarding EPA funding: I, _ the grant eligible portion of a codis. post'] project which employs innova. five or alternative technology, would be 115 percent of the ratio of the most cost-effective sludge option's present cost. In some cases applying the for- mula may result in a grant eligible amount for cudisposal which is less than the sludge -only option's capital cost. If this occurs, the minimum eligibility figure (115 percent of the least costly sludge disposal option's /"MINI capital cost) would be used. Using this approach, the grant eligible amount for the codisposaal project would be sig- nificnuly higher than under life cur. renl prur;ded formula." 1'ul'linns fir 111""1'la-h- lulw• bran Inks It 1' prrsrnadinll in Ill.' NCRIJ 6u11rniu ISeptl'odwr NMI. Vulmoe 9. Number ;1, National Center fur Hc•suun'e Recovery, Ino., 1211 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Wash. inglon'DC 20030) entitled "Codisposal: A Practical Approach to Integrated waste hla nagement," by Richard A. Baldwin, Thomas M. Barnett, and Havey W. Gersh - man from the consulting staff of the Washington, DC office of Gordian As. socialcs, Inc. Four -Day Work Week (Continued from page 03) ever it is. All of these factors tend to create a tense environment. The three-day weekend allows the men to gel away from it long enough to re- store their vitality. Productivity We did not publicize the change in Ilse work week, but the public realizes that there are men uvaailable to pro. vide services after hours and on Saturday. The reduction in calls for .after hour service leads the to believe ' NOW cover -all truck covers are 3 times BETTER: SAFER: Covering your loads safely and securely helps prevent accidents and littering fines! FASTER: Faster co vering Increases your' profits with more cycles per day! Besides boosting employee morale, T.111011EASIER: easy covering insures that your loads will be covered/ tfS3w "Plonoers o/At .•'-_/ 11% Model G2000 Dson,ad Inslallifaunl SOmnAuamm,Oc For Trucks and Tatilms F atly AulOmalic. CIasssisrl Pa4000 Maitland for 4nun•Top n01b011 Contains oil"If COVIP-all manufactures a com- plate line of truck covering systems in a wide variety of models, sizes, and prices. Route 20, North Oxford, Mass. 01537 • (617) 987.8438 98 For details Circle No. A•47 on card MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LA6 CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES Conla4i P10010nr COVor'All for Ihadi it, nonrov you PUBLIC W(1HKS for F'ebroanl, 1080 190 A i c gritted motorists information system wm munilur traffic conditions in it 35 -mile long • corridor on Lanlg Island, New York. Calif. Paler analysis or field data will determine use Idnunp:Ipprl.aehl's, sartus of inessnge signs and AM radio output In Inuturu,is. Puhlir Works. Nnvonlhol'. 1!17!1. • • al Codisposal of Sludge (Continued fro" pine 89) system, with a MSW:MSS ratio of about 3 to 2. The same reference gives the cost of a multiple hearth sludge incinerator with provision for shred. ding refuse and pneumatic conveying as $35,200 per ton capital cost and $12.58 per ton operating cost. The ratio of refuse to sludge is also 3 to 2. in research carried out by Gordian Associates lac. for the U. S. EPA, the generalized costs of single -purpose disposal and co -disposal were earn - Pored for equivalent weights of total solids. Table 1, taken from the unpub- lished report by Gordian Associates entitled "Codisposal of Municipal Solid Waste and Sewage Sludge: An Analysis of Constraints," shows a summary of this comparison. Codis. posal cast estimates are generally lower fill", comparable separate ":"'Citing options. These comparisons ore bused un cost daut derived from secondary sources and accepted cost estimating methods. As such, they do nut necessarily renecf the oulcumo ul• any site•specilio Cost comparison. Until uwrc empirical dada' bvcuntt' :lvailablo, it is inlpnssiblr to uunkp if I!eIII.1 :II n1a11'nlll'III bi l0 I)'1' r•J'UJ1a N1111' ;dh'nclivellVSS of rudispus:ll. [low. ever, studies la date show cudispns;d to be worth considering in any situa- tion where landfill options are not available for sludge find solid waste. Coastal communities now facing the ban on sludge disposal and solid waste disposal at sea under the ocean dumping statutes no doubt will pursue the methods, especially with the prospect of EPA funding of a portion of the cost. The General Accounting Office re- port referenced above states the fel• lowing regarding EPA funding: I, _ the grant eligible portion of a codis. post'] project which employs innova. five or alternative technology, would be 115 percent of the ratio of the most cost-effective sludge option's present cost. In some cases applying the for- mula may result in a grant eligible amount for cudisposal which is less than the sludge -only option's capital cost. If this occurs, the minimum eligibility figure (115 percent of the least costly sludge disposal option's /"MINI capital cost) would be used. Using this approach, the grant eligible amount for the codisposaal project would be sig- nificnuly higher than under life cur. renl prur;ded formula." 1'ul'linns fir 111""1'la-h- lulw• bran Inks It 1' prrsrnadinll in Ill.' NCRIJ 6u11rniu ISeptl'odwr NMI. Vulmoe 9. Number ;1, National Center fur Hc•suun'e Recovery, Ino., 1211 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Wash. inglon'DC 20030) entitled "Codisposal: A Practical Approach to Integrated waste hla nagement," by Richard A. Baldwin, Thomas M. Barnett, and Havey W. Gersh - man from the consulting staff of the Washington, DC office of Gordian As. socialcs, Inc. Four -Day Work Week (Continued from page 03) ever it is. All of these factors tend to create a tense environment. The three-day weekend allows the men to gel away from it long enough to re- store their vitality. Productivity We did not publicize the change in Ilse work week, but the public realizes that there are men uvaailable to pro. vide services after hours and on Saturday. The reduction in calls for .after hour service leads the to believe ' NOW cover -all truck covers are 3 times BETTER: SAFER: Covering your loads safely and securely helps prevent accidents and littering fines! FASTER: Faster co vering Increases your' profits with more cycles per day! Besides boosting employee morale, T.111011EASIER: easy covering insures that your loads will be covered/ tfS3w "Plonoers o/At .•'-_/ 11% Model G2000 Dson,ad Inslallifaunl SOmnAuamm,Oc For Trucks and Tatilms F atly AulOmalic. CIasssisrl Pa4000 Maitland for 4nun•Top n01b011 Contains oil"If COVIP-all manufactures a com- plate line of truck covering systems in a wide variety of models, sizes, and prices. Route 20, North Oxford, Mass. 01537 • (617) 987.8438 98 For details Circle No. A•47 on card MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LA6 CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES Conla4i P10010nr COVor'All for Ihadi it, nonrov you PUBLIC W(1HKS for F'ebroanl, 1080 190 A 11: ""o-1+ are goof to be is" t Ju6Qvu2red that there is a jlivrn a ver), Coinprehereave test probl "We are going to be educating its 2�5�"~rnbers, for organization docs list policiesInd infti;dly," he saiJT that will In- condus...,g sum° Tests on cures to whom It conducts' Iinars, dis• standards that members are ex- rluJe IuaJ testing and measuring determine i(lhere is any degrada• scminalcs literature, and pro, effici rise." a factor of how much tion," he said. vides consultation. P Pecled-lu recognize. rail Jocy a motor Ives u "Where we find out that one of hr,d Jos during swill go vice president of the Zeller fir vides a consulting service that somewhere we will lay to an g p l0 7.cller, a member of rASA and Bacchle said EASA also pro, our members is falling down 'Then the rums will go info laic Cum an a burn -out evens, and be tested that rebuilds motors, said that boas who encounter technical shape u ," P' Y, Sl. Louis firm helps rewinders in distressservice that whatever a can to get him to again for their magnetic proper, ..,,�._.,.. Iles." Walker said. t ^'•' >,.r„ P p Baechlc said. After tlu'ee lasts KASA "will , ,,„..•�.,. :,..... t n•Inulalthe Hotels and perform a New �•(1K'—��114(n 1)!'ll('�I%!:(� —'— CIIICA(;O--A new biomass fuel 1111 �I1�1'I1(�lll'('(� i wbiL•h is xaid In significant. trolly Iswitnc�h lo ll(hr have pass 10(1 natural '.. Y E•u! fool L•usl'• and eliminate rrellet include furnihrre factories, Thus° rn;lnufaclur°rslrll al ing lu sulfur uul3ul (Lr f Gentry weal on to •add Thal 1 certain mane• a ric processors, brick, textile, convert to pellets from gas, oil. WILL TRAVEL (valuable has recently been made lywood and Pape available by Guaranty Fuels Inc. mg Ib Gentry, the biomass pellet recoup !heir investment in three P p mills, Accord• or electricity ought to be able bl ,1'he h el I I I ed BO 'M('r• y di U” " fr__ an lylstec and Is most ecmanufactureroal whin the led does hold ars. Although ahrnuarani l wise worthless byproducts such within 100 miles of a RO • ler s llicip as peanut hulls, Ince bark, sewage distillery—therefore avoiding try was careful to stress that the aal' ChICC waste reclamation process. Gem and municipal refuse. According $ he 7` .� to arre (.ental•. assistant to the lion costs. g gmJCON prohibitive (ran portal use of the pellets will probably he els .. {FST,r J .a president of Guaranty, (he Gentry made the following fuc concentrainglnnti timberland ,fares ! ,et} biomass pellets can b° used comparisons. One ton of bion, like sin, Idaho, and New a t;, he directly In boilers, gasifiers and cllels at 8 0 j er. l0 fur yes. j "Gxrep1 for air adjustments,,, cos s 9. That Is the energy Ilmdquar(cred in Indepcnd• ; �' %•" �—"'„s Gentry said, "anyboJ who is n knl'0f 114 gallons of heal- once Kansas, Guarantyy Fuel. Inc. j generating sham lhrouj h a coal pe�rolwm76 gallons of liquified has also oppmod a dislilkry In { JY,': •• +• ,� stoker burner or a E•oyl boiler can cubic feel fnmturei gas, 16.608080 Fuelwa.ler I flex Associates) ant 3 t;'�•1- ._=-'�y'^ o directlylu ftOl•:AICC.^ kwh of cleclricil and ml° cord b ? tIa '�'� other distillery under cunelruc +a• . play added that the pellets, woo . ° es unvlcd Ihat the tion in Cleveland, North Carolina : ]}:: ;�r•v due to their low moisture content equivalent amount of Senod would is expecled to open This winter. 'r'; "• `;.•M1; la isun far less Just (in cam• run about 590, whit° healing oil 1 • •' �`• '`}�'"' jlarisun lu wnudl when used in wmdJ nm about EIiO, Li'G would i gasI tern. "Idmfly of cnnrse we'd like to reel about 1150, blectricily 1210 see a naliunwide network Id•lhese distilleries," Gentry said. -Bight ' now we are waiting for 1.1.5 roil• t lion Inn guarantees from Ole d �ovenunem. That will determine. + 0 Flue low far and hul. quickly we my I Gas Analyz ye s sliccecool(! see the next advent (I Analyzer. , � years could xnc the advent of �SCIeI energy inv farms through the n energy manage NnrlhwEsl and the spread of j moot. energy parks generally." r Guaranly Fuels Inc. is located •n won't wait. It's become a at P.O. Box 749 �•••, . , 1120 F:Main, �_"� Independence, Kan. 67301.. I t every bit as important a h `• sl o of resource management and 0 Operates on to. chargeable NICd 0 Dep Dn long 3 the only truly portable flue sobs; batteries IIID Smeree main. 0 Direct mater rood-' IanancD free irgy manager that pays forModel L". 980. It's designed toin system dilution 0 ❑ weight: 17 lbs.; efficiency, ensure safety, — I % full scale tough loughConsl, ion caused by your process.r accuracy compabl It you're really serious balance sheet against rising 0 Operates on to. chargeable NICd 0 Dep Dn long 3 the only truly portable flue sobs; batteries IIID Smeree main. 0 Direct mater rood-' IanancD free ,e market, II measures both outs 0 semplinga and air ❑ Integral sampling lslibles. Vital statistics are system dilution 0 ❑ weight: 17 lbs.; yet it's be simple to operate — I % full scale tough loughConsl, 7. Over 10,000 satisfied cus- accuracy compabl It you're really serious Inlries —can give you a les- about energyuctlon conserva• tion, ask for a free demonstration still 2 weeks ARO. Chock of the Model 980. Buill by Teledyne: the energy management people. TELEDYNE ANALYTICAL INSTRUMENTS '"'SSIDNDAIVE SAN GABRIEL, CALIrenNIA 61776 121]r2a]•7I61 376.16]] iWX910.369•1603 MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LAE3 CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES If you haven't read today's i Classified Ads, ou haven't ,really read all t !;;fonews. ! EUN is news 'Cover to covet i .. Insight David Sussman, Environmental Engineer, EPA: Promising Future for Waste -to -Energy Technology /)avid ylitsialal, all errvironnrenml engineer n•idt rite Resource Recovery 11runch of the OfTre of Solid Waste, U.S. I:PA, has rerpon.sihilip' for evahtating dentolrsratiotl and commercial resource re•i•overy s7•sreuts to develop technical information. Ile it -as Project I)irectorfor u resource reroveq demonstration project in Buhinrure, hlurtdmnd, and has also mmlluged oauit• pro.kers evaluating waste- ro-energ y .1.t•stenrs. He has-onutleted projects on small nodular waste -lo -energy ./Patents and European rfnsr-firer/ s;ra'tem.r and is /he Ojjire etj' Solid Waste's representative lo the air ennissions svamlurl seeing group. lie also works elos'eh• with the Water q/lire of la'A on co-elisposal projects. Prior nt joining lil'A, Sussman spe•ni 20 rcros with the U.S. Air hirre. His last asrigmnent trate us Director of Public Work's of ('ars"e/I Air l"itr"e Race is -here he drre/epee/and operated the Air Tome k first .surres.sj'ul rte yding program. Perspeclh'e: 01' the currently viable technological alternatives for energy recovery, which are the most economically feasible! Sussman: 'there are three basic ap- proaches to waste-to-cnergy systems. One is the direct combustion of solid waste in a mass burning, European -style device. A variation on this approach is the small modular incinerator, strictly of American design, which is applicable tosmallcr com- munities and institutions. The second approach is to process the solid wastes into a refuse -derived fuel for use in a large furnace as a supplement to coal and oil or in a smaller furnace as a primary fuel. RDF is strictly an American approach. It's new and there's not as much experience with it as with mass burning systems, but it can replace fossil fuels in utility boilers, sewage sludge incinerators, cement kilns, and in industrial boilers. The third alterna- tive, pyrolysis, has wide application but the technology isn't yet adequately developed. Until it is, a community really can't use pyrolysis to solve its garbage disposal and energy shortfall problems. 2 I'erspeclive Are tiny of these systems more advantageous than the others! Sussman: The first alternative, mass combustion, is the most proven tech- nology. It has wide application because communities can always use energy. Refuse-derivcd fuel is an available technol- ogy that doesn't have the track record of mass burning, but ItI)F does have its place, because a fuel is produced rather than steam or electricity, and that fuel can be used in lieu of fossil fuel in a variety of applications. You can't burn garbage in a mass burning plant to generate steam, then use that steam to power a cement kiln, but you can make rcfuse-derived fuel and then use it in the kiln. Perspective: The processing of munici- pal wastes to produce energy has met with only limited success and despite 10 years of development, apparently has lot had widespread commercial use. Why? ,Sussman: If you look Int all waste -to - energy technologies, there have been many successes. One type, the mass burning of unprocessed solid wastes as practiced in Europe, is very successful. 'There are 280 mass-hurning plants worldwide, though only a few in the United States. Onc of the reasons for the limited success of wase -to - energy systems is that we have spent a lot of time working with technologies that were very ncwand very little timcon imple- menting the proven systems. We have had limited success with some of the new tech- nologies, such as rcfuse-derived fuel and pyrolysis, and they have not gained wide- spread commercial use because we haven't developed them enough to eliminate the technological risks. It all boils down to economics. If the system doesn't operate as predicted, it can always be fixed with some money. That, however, is a risk that most communities don't want to take. 'rhe processing of municipal wastes to produce energy is ready for widespread Will nercial use, plot icularly Ilie Fill opcau- typc muss burning systems. 1 wish that more communities weic lookiug toss implementing these proven Iedmolu and less time looking at new, less proven technologies. Perspective What are the primary dif- ferences between European and American waste -to -energy systems! Sussman: Basically, European systems burn unprocessed municipal wastes while American systems convert the waste into a refuse -derived fuel. The Europeans have been burning garbage in energy recovery incinerators for over 50 years. It's not a new technology. It was first developed i in the late I800s. Although we call them European systems, there's a question about where the first one was built, because several were built in this country and in Europe about the same time. As fossil fuels became %tore abundant, we gave up rn waste-to-cnergy systems while the Europeans continued. Because the C•ur- opeans spent so many years developing the technology, it has become well imple- mented. In the United States, during the late 60s and early 70s, we looked at developing mass burning systems but decided AVAV would be too expensive because the ce, ^ they produced wasn't really worth much in those days. The systems were also thought to be loo complicated, so we didn't build any. As garbage disposal in this country became more difficult and more expensive, and with the first Arab nil embargo which drove up the price of energy, all of the waste-to-cnergy systems became more cost effective, but America leaned Inward ItI)F systems which, in those days, appeared to be more economically viable and more applicable to Americans. And there were other reasons why we leaned toward R I)F rather than the European systems. We didn't have much experience with RDF so we were very optimistic about it. We thought that every power plant in the country would want to buy this fuel and that we'd have no trouble making it. Further, we believed It OF systems were not proprietary designs and any American architectural and engineering firm could build u RI)1: plant. As we began working with the technology, we found that many of the perceived advantages of 100 over mass burning simply were not there- We found that the systems were not necess cheaper and burning rcfuse-derivcd hip an electric utility boiler wits the wrrngt application. So, as webecamcnureawauc of the real cuss of refuse -derived fuel, we became more interested in the experience of the Europeans with their mass burning systems. ...... . _ ... •� - .li.i_ .. ...._...,Jo-.. ._. ....,. ,..,. .. .. MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LA6 CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES i I Ugforlunalcly, there has been a In. bad press in the U.S. on "incinerators," the ';.Yropean name for mass burning, heal � covery systems. In the 50s there were a lot of municipal "incinerators" built in the U.S., not for heat recovery but simply to dispose of garbage and file cost of disposal rose because these systems tended to be more expensive than landfill. Further, the systems polluted because they had no air Pollution control equipment. People still remember those smoke slacks that belched black smoke, smelled like garbage and made everything in the surrounding neigh-borhoods lihhy. Then file Clean Air Act came along and the owners of these facili- ties were required to clean them up. Hy then, the clean-up cost was usually more than the plant's cost in the first Placc. So Owners began shutting them down. American engineering firms began to focus on the L'urupcun systems in the mid - seventies and a few decided to transfer sOme Of the technology back from Europe. fly then, the Europeans had taken that early concept from the Ig00s and optimized it. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency began recognizing the potential of the European approach, and the Eur- Opcans started actively marketing their l ;nems in this country. Today, there arc -,;,men Europcad system vendors in business here. Ilerspectit'e: Whin needs to be done to implement European technulugy in the U.S.? Sussman: I think it's primarily a com- munications job. European IcchoOlogy is still perceived to be the most expensive wasto-tu-cnergy technology although I don't believe that's true. Many limes, I?uropcan systems arc compared to tech- nologies that are not its well developed and which, consequently, don't reflect their truccust. Untilveryrecenlly,whenamass- burning system was compared with a RDF I system, location remaining constant, the RDF system always appeared less expen- sive. But if you look at some of [he RDF plants actually operating, the final cost including modifications to correct tech, I nicaI problems is much greater than originally anticipated. The way in which European systems are sold is another factor which hinders life transfer of Eur- opean technology to the U.S. European Systems are sold by a vendor who does rn%r,rything. Inc designs tile system manages yconstruction, starts it up, shakes it of, and turns over a completely work- ing Plant to the city, In the United States, an engineering firm is hired to design the system, then the city buys all the little bits and Pieces that are needed to build if, on competitive bids. Someone manages the construction and tile" the owner, whit^I usually the city, shakes it down and starts established themselves arc going to be the it up. This procurement method works most successful. fine when the city buys such things a schools, hospitals, roads or bridges, bu it doesn't seem to work well when purchas ing a new and veryconhplicaled technology So, the procurement issue is very int portant. In this country, we do have engi ncering firms with experience in building mass burning heal recovery plants. But these firms simply don't have file experi- ence that a European systems vendor would have, There are European com. panics that have built 3110 furnaces compared with U.S. companies who have built two or three. Perspective: Although there have been many organizations working on different pyrolysis systems, only a few have evolved to the demonstration stage. Why has the popularity of pyrolysis diminished? sussman: The popularity of pyrolysis teas associated with the fact that it was a new technology. It had a lot of promise because the solid waste could be convened into a flew foci source. The system pro- duces a gas or a liquid that can be shipped fir stored and, in the early days, it appeared that pyrolysis would be more economical and environmentally viable than mass burning. As pyrolysis technology became commercialized, we found that the large. scale systems didn't work as well as life Systems' developers had predicted. The systems showing the most Promise required I[ great amount of feed preparation, and were very complicated. It was a technology way aheadofilsclf Peopleare now looking at pyrolysis a little more pragmatically. 'There are waste materials other than mix- ed municipal wastes that are well suited for pyrolysis, such as certain agricultural and industrial wastes. Sewage sludge has more potential as a feedstock for pyrolysis than mixed municipal wastes. 'There arc still a number of organizations working on pyrolysis systems in this country, and Japan is doing a lot Of work with pyrolysis fOr specific wastes. Perstlecllt'l': Wiall'v in score for waste. to -energy technoingy in file future? Sussman: I think we'll sec more waste. to-energysysterns implemented cveryycar. I ImPc there is a bend towards macs burn- ing in the next 10 years -- mol away from It 1) bol enough of a trend In create a better balance bclwecn the proven syslcros find newer technologies. What we need in the next few years are more good, solid successes, and the way to get these is til j build something that was proven years ago, and get them operating so that people can sec the plants that work well. Gncc this is accomplished, we'll have time m develop newer technologies. I„.... l e” •... -'mew.,-rw.a"�ngRglIA7Y•f Ilf4.uY, .. ".�y... s Perspective: What considerations should t city planners keep in mind whenevaluating.: different waste-to-cnergy technologies? Sussman: The first thing city planners have to keep in mind is that they must find a market for their energy product before they find the system. They must determine where they will use this energy before firer gel locked into of technology. They*must also remember the most important goal of their system is garbage disposal. There has never been a system built in Europe whose Primary goal is energy production. City planners must also recognize that every i System will have something left over that will eventually be disposed of in a sanitary landfill. Some technologies will have more fir less residues than other technologies. For instance, mass burning will leave a residue, but the residue is a biologically inert ash that can be used in road building, or simply disposed of in the ground. In an ItDF system, even after everything sale- able has been recovered, a residue greater than that of mass burningsystem remains. This residue is not biologically inert, but is basically a shall amount of a special kind Of garbage. Also, a communitvshould determine what kind of reliability they need. Do they need a system that has a 99,70 reliability? Garbage comes every day. If the community has no landfill, no back up, then they need it system that's very reliable. City planners should always look of file experience of the supplier. Is this the first system this supplier has ever built? Or is it the 83rd? A community should determine, too, who is going to bear Elie technical risk of the system. 11' it doesn't work as anticipated, who fixes it? Who bears the costs? Finally, I think it is wrong to make revenue generation fhe prime consideration when looking at waslo-to- cnergy systems. The primary goal is to get rid of file garbage. Perspective: Why have so many major corporations withdrawn from the waste- to-cnergy business? Sussmall: 1 think each company with. drew for slightly different reasons. Same withdrew when they found Ibe technology they were developing couldn't be sold. Another factor was that companies who entered the garbage business for the first time found it might take 10 years before they even started to rculizca return on their investment. 'fits[ was loo slow and it wouldn't pay off. Thecompanics that have been in this business It long time find have MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES City of Iowa Cif, MEMORANDUM Date: September 19, 1980 To: City Council From: City Manager Re: Policy - Industrial Revenue Bonds Attached to this memorandum is a draft of procedures to be utilized in the processing of industrial revenue bonds. This proposal is a compilation of procedures used by other communities and recommended by bond and legal counsels as being an acceptable process for assuring adequate consideration of any proposal. The second part of any industrial revenue bond policy should be related to a definition of public interest or public purpose. At this time a recommended policy describing the purposes for and/or the circumstances under which industrial revenue bonds will be issued is not being provided. Our research into this matter, to date, has led us to the conclusion that there is not an acceptable policy elsewhere which has worked. However, we are continuing to investigate this matter. During the month of October it is expected that the Congressional Budget Office will issue a report on industrial revenue bonds. The position probably will be that industrial revenue bonds have been grossly abused because certain issues are not in the public interest or barely serve a public purpose. It is our understanding that this report will advocate new and more stringent controls. It is expected that shortly after the issuance of the report Congress will seriously consider legislation which will provide a more restrictive definition for the issuance of industrial revenue bonds. In addition, the Iowa Office of Planning and Programming has in preparation a report on economic development techniques, including industrial revenue bonds. The report is being withheld until release of the work of the Congressional Budget Office so that those recommendations may be incorporated into the report of the Office of Planning and Programming. It is the recommendation of the staff that the City Council review the attached draft procedures at this time and that the staff provide to the City Council, as soon as the additional information is available from the Congressional Budget Office and/or the Office of Planning and Program- ming, appropriate public purpose definitions. bj/sp 1 X05 MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LAB '< CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES n DRAFT INFORMATION FOR INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BOND FINANCING FOR THE CITY OF IOWA CITY I. PROPOSED PROJECT INFORMATION: 1) Name of Company: Address: Phone Number: _ Local Contact: 2) Please explain why Industrial Revenue Bond financing is being requested. 3) Complete explanation of how bond issue proceeds will be used: 4) Description of products to be produced as planned: 5) Type, number of products produced and/or type, amount of services to be provided by the subject project: 6) Number of local employees currently employed at local plant (if plant exists at this time) on a full-time and part-time basis: 7) Number of new jobs to be created on full-time and part-time basis: MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES i i i - 1 DRAFT 2 F7 8) Will new jobs be on a seasonal or on an annual basis? 9) Number of people expected to reside in Iowa City: a) Number of people moving to Iowa City. b) Number of people already living in Iowa City. 10) Skill type and salary levels of jobs created and/or retained by this project: 11) Demographic profile of workforce (age, sex, educational achievement, salary, etc.). 12) Number of management level employees at Iowa City location: 13) A. Current payroll if already located in Iowa City (monthly/annual): B. Projected payroll (monthly/annual): 14) Will new jobs be seasonal or on an annual basis? 15) Projected appraisal/assessed property value in Iowa City: MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES 1965 0 .. i 1 DRAFT 2 F7 8) Will new jobs be on a seasonal or on an annual basis? 9) Number of people expected to reside in Iowa City: a) Number of people moving to Iowa City. b) Number of people already living in Iowa City. 10) Skill type and salary levels of jobs created and/or retained by this project: 11) Demographic profile of workforce (age, sex, educational achievement, salary, etc.). 12) Number of management level employees at Iowa City location: 13) A. Current payroll if already located in Iowa City (monthly/annual): B. Projected payroll (monthly/annual): 14) Will new jobs be seasonal or on an annual basis? 15) Projected appraisal/assessed property value in Iowa City: MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES 1965 0 .. DRAFT ' ' 3 16) Will company rent or own equipment? 17) Number of years which applicant has been in current business: 18) Date and location of other facilities currently operated by applicant: 19) Location of headquarters of applicant (address, phone number, and contact person): 20) Number of plant relocations since 1955: II. ECONOMIC FACTORS 1. Prospectus and report(s) used in connection with any recent debt or equity financing. 2. SEC filings (10 -K's or 10 -Q's) 3. All reports to shareholders for immediate past 3 fiscal years. 4. Audited financial statements of immediate past 3 fiscal years. 5. Evidence of valid contractual arrangements with other established businesses which indicate the probable financial success of the proposed project. MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES -i j , DRAFT 4 n 6. Financial statements and records applicable to bond financing. III. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS 1. Exact location of proposed project (plat, map, or diagram) 2. Size of project facilities (sq. ft.) 3. Amount of land required (acreage) 4. Compliance with existing zoning 5. Pollution criteria: A. Water 1. Project requirements (gallons per day) 2. Use of water (heating, for product use, etc.) 3. Flowage rates (hourly, daily, seasonal, annual) 4. Water line requirements for fire protection 5. New and/or enlarged lines required from existing mains? MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR¢LAB CEDAR RAPIDS - DES MOINES 19 o; a .. ri i 1 a DRAFT 4 n 6. Financial statements and records applicable to bond financing. III. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS 1. Exact location of proposed project (plat, map, or diagram) 2. Size of project facilities (sq. ft.) 3. Amount of land required (acreage) 4. Compliance with existing zoning 5. Pollution criteria: A. Water 1. Project requirements (gallons per day) 2. Use of water (heating, for product use, etc.) 3. Flowage rates (hourly, daily, seasonal, annual) 4. Water line requirements for fire protection 5. New and/or enlarged lines required from existing mains? MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR¢LAB CEDAR RAPIDS - DES MOINES 19 o; I, DRAFT 5 1 B. Sewerage 1. Compliance with Clean Water Act 2. Effluent constiuents (type and amount) 3. Toxic or hazardous wastes (as defined by EPA) 4. On-site pre-treatment necessary? 5. Final treatment -- on-site or municipal treatment? 6. New and/or enlarged lines required from existing mains? C. Air 1. Compliance with Clean Air Act 2. Impact on State Implementation Plan (SIP) w t ' 3. Air pollution constiuents (types and amounts) ,s 4. Odor(s) 1 �go5 MICROFILMED BY DORM MICR+LAB r CEDAR RAPIDS - DES MOINES I : i 1 . i DRAFT N 5. Visual impact (smoke plume, haze, fog, water vapor, etc.) D. Noise L Compliance with Noise Control Act 2. Change in noise and vibration levels 3. Impact on near -by properties (can be shown diagramatically) E. Other I. Compliance with Stormwater Management Ordinance 2. Visual appearance of plant and landscaping IV. COMMUNITY SERVICE FACTORS 1. Ability of existing trafficways to carry additional traffic load. 2. Projected number of vehicles due to: MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES X05 i e 1 a DRAFT N 5. Visual impact (smoke plume, haze, fog, water vapor, etc.) D. Noise L Compliance with Noise Control Act 2. Change in noise and vibration levels 3. Impact on near -by properties (can be shown diagramatically) E. Other I. Compliance with Stormwater Management Ordinance 2. Visual appearance of plant and landscaping IV. COMMUNITY SERVICE FACTORS 1. Ability of existing trafficways to carry additional traffic load. 2. Projected number of vehicles due to: MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES X05 i e a . I DRAFT N 5. Visual impact (smoke plume, haze, fog, water vapor, etc.) D. Noise L Compliance with Noise Control Act 2. Change in noise and vibration levels 3. Impact on near -by properties (can be shown diagramatically) E. Other I. Compliance with Stormwater Management Ordinance 2. Visual appearance of plant and landscaping IV. COMMUNITY SERVICE FACTORS 1. Ability of existing trafficways to carry additional traffic load. 2. Projected number of vehicles due to: MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES X05 i e DRAFT N 5. Visual impact (smoke plume, haze, fog, water vapor, etc.) D. Noise L Compliance with Noise Control Act 2. Change in noise and vibration levels 3. Impact on near -by properties (can be shown diagramatically) E. Other I. Compliance with Stormwater Management Ordinance 2. Visual appearance of plant and landscaping IV. COMMUNITY SERVICE FACTORS 1. Ability of existing trafficways to carry additional traffic load. 2. Projected number of vehicles due to: MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES X05 i n a. workers b. manufacturing process and c. other transportation modes to be used by plant (rail, air) 3. Utilities (other than water and sewerage) a. natural gas b. electricity (detail load requirements) i C. use of alternative energy sources (solar, co -generation, etc.) i "-� City of Iowa Cif-` MEMORANDUM Date: September 15, 1980 To: City Council From: Ci Wager Re: Gilbert Street Rail Crossing Since the completion of the Gilbert -Highway 6 intersection, a number of people have commented upon the very desirable rail crossing installed on Highway 6. This has led them to inquire as to why a similar crossing could not be installed on Gilbert Street. Proposals for installation of a new railroad crossing at Gilbert Street have been obtained. A material similar to that used on Highway 6 would cost around $29,000. A timber crossing which would last for about 18 years would cost about $17,000 and an asphalt crossing would cost around $13,500. To each must be added another $5,000 in concrete work for pavement reconstruction so that there will .be a level grade crossing. This project tentatively has been included in a preliminary CIP for next year. If the Council desires to expedite the project, there would have to be funds allocated to the program. tp/sp MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LAB CEDAR RAPIDS - DES MOINES I i i 1. i "-� City of Iowa Cif-` MEMORANDUM Date: September 15, 1980 To: City Council From: Ci Wager Re: Gilbert Street Rail Crossing Since the completion of the Gilbert -Highway 6 intersection, a number of people have commented upon the very desirable rail crossing installed on Highway 6. This has led them to inquire as to why a similar crossing could not be installed on Gilbert Street. Proposals for installation of a new railroad crossing at Gilbert Street have been obtained. A material similar to that used on Highway 6 would cost around $29,000. A timber crossing which would last for about 18 years would cost about $17,000 and an asphalt crossing would cost around $13,500. To each must be added another $5,000 in concrete work for pavement reconstruction so that there will .be a level grade crossing. This project tentatively has been included in a preliminary CIP for next year. If the Council desires to expedite the project, there would have to be funds allocated to the program. tp/sp MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LAB CEDAR RAPIDS - DES MOINES I i "-� City of Iowa Cif-` MEMORANDUM Date: September 15, 1980 To: City Council From: Ci Wager Re: Gilbert Street Rail Crossing Since the completion of the Gilbert -Highway 6 intersection, a number of people have commented upon the very desirable rail crossing installed on Highway 6. This has led them to inquire as to why a similar crossing could not be installed on Gilbert Street. Proposals for installation of a new railroad crossing at Gilbert Street have been obtained. A material similar to that used on Highway 6 would cost around $29,000. A timber crossing which would last for about 18 years would cost about $17,000 and an asphalt crossing would cost around $13,500. To each must be added another $5,000 in concrete work for pavement reconstruction so that there will .be a level grade crossing. This project tentatively has been included in a preliminary CIP for next year. If the Council desires to expedite the project, there would have to be funds allocated to the program. tp/sp MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LAB CEDAR RAPIDS - DES MOINES I i i i i MICROFILMED BY DORM MICR+LAB i CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOVIES City of Iowa Co4y MEMORANDUM Date: September 5, 1980 To: City Manager and City Council From: Larry Chiat, Development Coordinator Re: Proposed Budget Carryover for Disposition of the Old Library Parcel Because of staff vacancies in the Development Division during much of j FY80, funds were not expended at the level indicated in the FY80 budget. The °i staff proposed in June, 1980, that these unexpended funds be paid to IDOT as the City's share of the Ground Transportation Center study., The City Council did not approve the GTC proposal, but did indicate an interest in using these funds for purposes related to downtown redevelopment. This memorandum proposes that these funds be reserved for use in FY81 for the special purpose of planning and administering the disposition of the Old Public Library parcel. This a aone-time, special project which, of necessity, should be completed in FY81. Staff is proposing that the sum of $16,884.39 (unexpended funds from FY80) be carried over and targeted for use in disposing of the Old Library site. Further details of this proposal are presented below. If the Council wishes to proceed with the disposition of the Old Library parcel, there are two essential objectives which should be achieved: 1. The City should receive the maximum feasible price for the sale of this property. r 2. The City should market and dispose of this property in such a manner as to exercise appropriate control over the ultimate redevelopment of the Old Library parcel. With respect to.the objective of receiving the maximum feasible price, the following information is relevant. On November 30, 1979, the sum of $155,000 was transferred from the library to the CDBG program account as payment for Urban Renewal Parcel 65-4, the new library site. This transfer was required by HUD regulations, and was paid out of proceeds of the library bond issue. The assumption has been that this sum of money would be repaid to the Library Board in mid -1981 from proceeds of the sale of the Old Library parcel. This would allow the Library Board to make final payment to the contractor for the new library building. Therefore, it is important that the sale of the Old Library parcel net at least the sum of $155,000. I Staff believes, however, that this parcel has a fair* market value in excess of $200,000 for the land alone. The parcel is approximately 48,000 square feet in size and is a prime downtown development site. In order to obtain an accurate estimate of fair market value, staff recommends that part of the budget carryover \ be allocated for an appraisal. This cost is included in the estimated budget set forth below. i i 4107 MICROFILMED BY DORM MICR+LAB i CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOVIES 2 The second essential City objective to be achieved is to dispose of the Old Library parcel in a manner which will allow appropriate City control over the type of private redevelopment which occurs on this site. It is vitally important that the disposition of this land results in private redevelopment which is both 'compatible with, and an expansion on the base of, the downtown redevelopment that has now been assured through the Urban Renewal Program. In short, the disposition of the Old Library parcel + provides the City with a rare golden opportunity to further the goals of downtown redevelopment in the post -Urban Renewal period. y In order to assist the City to achieve optimal results, staff proposes that the City retain the services of a consultant. The consultant would p be directed to identify possible uses for the Old Library site, investigate the market feasibility of preferred land uses, and develop a land marketing strategy for the City to follow in disposing of this parcel. It is expected that the consultant would render services similar in nature to those provided by Zuchelli, Hunter & Associates for the Urban Renewal Program. However, the scale of services would be less than for Urban Renewal, since only one parcel would be studied and the composition of the balance of the downtown is substantially known at this time. The estimated cost of the consultant's services is also included in the budget set forth below. Staff also recommends as part of a coordinated land disposition strategy, that there be an investigation into the advisability of preserving the present Library building in whole or in part. It may be desirable for the City to encourage the adaptive reuse of the present structure, particularly the original portion of the library. To evaluate the structural integrity of the Old Library building and the feasibility of adaptive reuse, staff proposes that a preliminary architectural/ engineering study be performed. This A&E study would analyze the technical .design .and structural characteristics of the Old Library and their effect on redevelopment options. The estimated cost of this item is included in the proposed budget set forth below. Estimated Project Budget Consulting Services, $10,000 Land Marketing Study Consulting Services, 2,500 Architectural & Engineering Appraisal Services 2,000 Preparation and Printing of Land 1,000 Marketing Documents \1 Advertising/Publicity 1 000 16,500 19617 MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LA9 •� CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES ji ,I. schedule for the above items, leading up to the actual is set forth =i f, October 15, 1980 Order Appraisal. Distribute s 3 n A tentative time land disposition, schedule for the above items, leading up to the actual is set forth below. f, October 15, 1980 Order Appraisal. Distribute requests for proposals for Land .Marketing Study and A&E Study. November 25, 1980 Select Land Marketing Consultant and A&E p4 December 15, 1980 Receive Appraisal. February 1, 1981 Receive Land Marketing Study and A&E Study. March 15, 1981 Conclude preparation of prospectus; solicit offers Y to purchase land for redevelopment. private r5c a a Deadline for receipt of redevelopment proposals. „q Y, City Council selection of preferred developer. cc: Don Schmeiser Lolly Eggers bj/sp �i M Yi Y S r- Ia �� , i j I 1 i I s 3 n A tentative time land disposition, schedule for the above items, leading up to the actual is set forth below. Tentative Schedule October 15, 1980 Order Appraisal. Distribute requests for proposals for Land .Marketing Study and A&E Study. November 25, 1980 Select Land Marketing Consultant and A&E Consultant. December 15, 1980 Receive Appraisal. February 1, 1981 Receive Land Marketing Study and A&E Study. March 15, 1981 Conclude preparation of prospectus; solicit offers 1 to purchase land for redevelopment. private June 15, 1981 Deadline for receipt of redevelopment proposals. July 10, 1981 City Council selection of preferred developer. cc: Don Schmeiser Lolly Eggers bj/sp MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES /074 In i 1 j I 1 ,1 City of Iowa C(my �/ LMORANOUM Date: September 19, 1980 To: City Manager and City Council From: Rosemary Vitosh, Director of Finance Re: Parking Ramp Hours of Operation Completion of the Dubuque Street parking ramp is scheduled for the end of October. It is staff's recommendation that we start charging for evening parking in the ramps when the second ramp is open. Significant amounts of revenue are now lost because parking is free after 5:00 P.M. Recent counts have shown that, on some evenings, 100-150 vehicles were parked in the Capitol Street Parking Ramp at 11:00 P.M. Much of the littering in the ramps seems to occur in the evening and late night hours while the vehicles parking in the ramp after 5:00 P.M. do not generate any revenue to cover maintenance costs for the cleaning the ramp. Specifically, we recommend that the 254 hourly fee be charged from 8:00 A.M. through 10:00 P.M., Monday thru Saturday, with a flat parking fee of 504 for parking between 10:00 P.M. and 8:00 A.M. Parking from 8:00 A.M. on Sunday to 8:00 A.M. on Monday would be free of charge. The flat parking fee of 504 would be collected through the use of a coin operated gate located at the exit. In this way, those parkers who leave after the ramp cashier has gone off duty at 10:00 P.M. will still need to pay 504 to exit from the ramp. Now, any parker who leaves after the attendant goes off duty is able to drive out without paying any parking fee. A resolution is needed to set the 504 late night rate. If Council now approves of this rate, the resolution will be prepared for Council action when the effective date is known. It is also staff's recommendation that the municipal parking lot surfacing be removed when the Dubuque Street Parking Ramp is open. Removal of the surfacing then is necessary for two reasons. First, the lot will not be needed when the second ramp is open and it would be too costly to have cashiers in both ramps and the lot at the same time. Secondly, it is less expensive to remove the surfacing before frost is in the ground. For example, the Washington Street lot, which is similar in size to the municipal lot, was removed after the frost was in the ground at a cost of $14,000. It is estimated to cost approximately one-half that or $7,000 if the surfacing is removed in early November. Council approval is needed on the following recommendations: 1. A 254 hourly fee would be charged from 8:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M., Monday thru Saturday, with a flat 504 parking fee charged between 9:00 P.M. and 8:00 A.M. 2. The municipal lot surfacing should be removed as soon as the Dubuque Street ramp is opened. MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LAS CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES i n I CITY OF CIVIC CENTER 410 E. WASHINGTON ST. September 8, 1980 Iowa -Illinois Gas & Electric 1630 Lower Muscatine Road Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Attn: Mr. Mel Schweer 1 1 IOWA'CITY IOWA CI Y IOWA 52240 (319) 354.180D C, Re: Northside Street Lighting - Test Sites Dear Mel: This letter is to authorize and request the installation of four 175 ' watt mercury vapor street lights with the following orientations at the locations noted below. 318 North Linn, 12 foot arm over street Between 314/320 Fairchild St., 6 foot arm over sidewalk Between 511/515 Ronalds St., 12 foot arm over street Between 420/424 Davenport, 6 foot arm over sidewalk It is requested that 175 watt mercury vapor street lights be installed at these four locations. It is further requested that the installation be completed by September 19, 1980. This request is being made so that an adequate evaluation of the impact upon local trees can be made. It is also important to the City to know how much tree foliage will limit sidewalk lighting when these installations are complete. Should you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please don't hesitate to contact me. Sincerely yours, James Brachtel Traffic Engineer cc: Neal Berlin Billie Hauber Cathy Ward bjl/5 MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES r x 'y v September 15, 1980 !'1 RECE!FF1_0 SEP 1 5 1980 Neal G. Berlin City Manager 1 City of Iowa City 1 Civic Center 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 RIVER CORRIDOR SEWERS PROJECT WEEKLY PROGRESS SUMMARY NO. 9 This is to report progress on the River Corridor Sewers project for the Meek ending September 13, 1980, and to provide information regarding the contractor's plans for the weeks ahead. Rain on Monday and Friday of last week hampered pipe laying operations. Both crews continued to lay 42 -inch pipe in rock north of Jefferson in Madison. As soon as the new pavement at Iowa and Madison hes cured (this Wednesday), Eby will be moving one crew to Iowa Avenue to begin laying 42 -inch pipe north toward Jefferson. The other crew will be laying pipe south from Jefferson toward Iowa. We plan to complete all underground work and pave Madison between Iowa and Jefferson by November 15. Iowa Avenue was paved under the railroad bridge. Madison Street, from Prentiss to Court, remains ready for paving. We hope to get this reach pav�is week or next. AKKimmm C. / I JWK:jk 11648 cc: Charles J. Schmadeke W. L. Levay 10 /� i MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LA6 CEDAR RAPIDS . DES MOINES I MINUTES AFFIRMATIVE ACTION TASK FORCE SEPTEMBER 9, 1980 ENGINEERING CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Eggers, Jones, Keating, Kucharzak, Marcus, McCartt, Meisel, and Miller. MEMBERS ABSENT: Orelup and Yates. STAFF PRESENT: Woito. GUESTS: None. RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None. RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY MANAGER AND STAFF: None. SUMMARY OF RELEVANT DISCUSSION: 1. The meeting was called to order at 10:05 A.M. by Chairperson Bette Meisel. 2. Review of the Minutes: The minutes of the meeting of September 2, 1980 were approved as presented. 3. Review of Compiled Drafts on Policy and Responsibility; a) The draft prepared by Yates and Marcus on dissemination was reviewed; Bette Meisel agreed to redraft the proposal, with some additional suggestions from Mike Kucharzak's sections on dissemination. b) Woito agreed to redraft Lolly Eggers' proposed draft on Establishment of Goals and Timetables, to be combined with portions of Mike Kucharzak's suggestions. 4. There was some discussion of possible recommendations to the City Council; participants agreed to put these into writing for discussion at the next meeting, and be placed on the next meeting's agenda. MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LAB ii j CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES 8 I I ,r r, I MINUTES AFFIRMATIVE ACTION TASK FORCE SEPTEMBER 9, 1980 ENGINEERING CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Eggers, Jones, Keating, Kucharzak, Marcus, McCartt, Meisel, and Miller. MEMBERS ABSENT: Orelup and Yates. STAFF PRESENT: Woito. GUESTS: None. RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None. RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY MANAGER AND STAFF: None. SUMMARY OF RELEVANT DISCUSSION: 1. The meeting was called to order at 10:05 A.M. by Chairperson Bette Meisel. 2. Review of the Minutes: The minutes of the meeting of September 2, 1980 were approved as presented. 3. Review of Compiled Drafts on Policy and Responsibility; a) The draft prepared by Yates and Marcus on dissemination was reviewed; Bette Meisel agreed to redraft the proposal, with some additional suggestions from Mike Kucharzak's sections on dissemination. b) Woito agreed to redraft Lolly Eggers' proposed draft on Establishment of Goals and Timetables, to be combined with portions of Mike Kucharzak's suggestions. 4. There was some discussion of possible recommendations to the City Council; participants agreed to put these into writing for discussion at the next meeting, and be placed on the next meeting's agenda. MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LAB ii j CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES 8 I I i i 'i I: f n n Affirmative Action Task Force September 9, 1980 Page 2 5. Set Agenda for Next Meetin Discussion of dissemination and timetables and goals will occur at the next meeting; and each participant is to present two items to the group, preferably in writing, in order to strengthen the proposed Policy Statement on Affirmative Action. 6. The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 A.M. The next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, September 16, 1980, in the City Manager's Conference Room, at 10:00 A.M. MICROFILMED BY JORM MIC R+LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES I j i I i 'i I: f i � MICROFILMED BY .� - CEDAR RAPIDS - DES MOINES] M � ` '- ` - � Y Date: September 22, 1980 To: JCCUC Bnarectors From: Don Schme�s '| Re: First Meeting Intorder tto transfer the assets and the staff of the JCRPC the JCCOG t enter into a 28E mus agreement with the City of Iowa City and' Johnson C o »» »»»�y� To effectuate the transfer � prior to October l scheduled f ' a meeting has been u' , 29� R Ln Room of the �� �� Center to consider the agrpement. �-----`—~`^--^-`-`^��+ � . . The legal staffs are ar ecurr*ntly developing a Prnpose� agreement for yourauthur�zationand will be mailed out for your reviewl t a er this week. Please be prepared to discuss the ,. agreement and any necessary to adopt the agreement next Monday night. y amendat»ry action � Other business will include election of officers' discussion of future uremcetings"a status reporton the reorganization effort, and where vnfrom her, bjl/7 ° � MICROFILMED BY .� - CEDAR RAPIDS - DES MOINES] M '1 City of Iowa CV"1 MEMORANDUM Date: August 22, 1980 To: City Manager and City Council From: Rosemary Vitosh, Director of Finance 2.0 Re: Financial Status as of June 30, 1980 GENERAL FUND The comparison between budget and actual for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1980, is as follows: Receipts Expenditures Amended Budget $9,817,818 $9,832,106 Less Contingency 251.938 251 938 9,565,880 9,580,166 Actual for Year 9,542,846 8,851,134 Actual Under Budget $ 23,034 $ 729,034 The major elements making up the variance in expenditures are shown on the attached Exhibit A and occurred because of the following: Aid to Agencies: The Council on Aging was not in operation for the entire year. The Mayors Youth Program is given only the actual amount needed for operations during the fiscal year. Subsidy to Refuse Collection: When budget amendments were done this past June, it was anticipated that an amendment of $46,935 would be needed to cover a costs foretheirefuseted trucks. However,ilby thecreasefiinalddeficit as alessn amount of minteance expected. than e Postage Costs: A postage rate increase which had been budgeted for did not materialize. Street Maintenance: The asphalt resurfacing and street repair and capital. outlay budgets were purposely underspent by $191,616 because of an remainder anticipated s erwasduee the ear. The in Road Use tolowe pendituresTax for revenue valibeca se of the mild winter. Recycling: The low usage of this program resulted in lower costs than expected in addition to the decision of not purchasing a truck for the program as had been originally budgeted. MICROFILMED BY JORM MICRI�LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • OES MOINES 1713 f 4 i '1 City of Iowa CV"1 MEMORANDUM Date: August 22, 1980 To: City Manager and City Council From: Rosemary Vitosh, Director of Finance 2.0 Re: Financial Status as of June 30, 1980 GENERAL FUND The comparison between budget and actual for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1980, is as follows: Receipts Expenditures Amended Budget $9,817,818 $9,832,106 Less Contingency 251.938 251 938 9,565,880 9,580,166 Actual for Year 9,542,846 8,851,134 Actual Under Budget $ 23,034 $ 729,034 The major elements making up the variance in expenditures are shown on the attached Exhibit A and occurred because of the following: Aid to Agencies: The Council on Aging was not in operation for the entire year. The Mayors Youth Program is given only the actual amount needed for operations during the fiscal year. Subsidy to Refuse Collection: When budget amendments were done this past June, it was anticipated that an amendment of $46,935 would be needed to cover a costs foretheirefuseted trucks. However,ilby thecreasefiinalddeficit as alessn amount of minteance expected. than e Postage Costs: A postage rate increase which had been budgeted for did not materialize. Street Maintenance: The asphalt resurfacing and street repair and capital. outlay budgets were purposely underspent by $191,616 because of an remainder anticipated s erwasduee the ear. The in Road Use tolowe pendituresTax for revenue valibeca se of the mild winter. Recycling: The low usage of this program resulted in lower costs than expected in addition to the decision of not purchasing a truck for the program as had been originally budgeted. MICROFILMED BY JORM MICRI�LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • OES MOINES 1713 2 Senior Center: The FY80 Budget had been based on the assumption that the Senior Center would be open for operation early in calendar year 1980. Salaries: Total actual salaries were 3.8% less than budgeted. Typically, salaries run approximately 4% less than the budgeted amount each year. This is due to turnover which results in both a temporary vacancy and the fact that a new employee will usually start at a lower pay rate than that of a former employee. In FY80, turnover was down somewhat but this was balanced by the hiring freeze on filing new positions and the director vacancies. Carryover Items: These are budgeted expenditures which were not expended or encumbered prior to the end of FY80, but which will be expended early in FY81. This includes funding for items such as: 1. Computerization of traffic ticket billing and collection and of personnel records and needed enhancements to other computer applica- tions. Bids on a new computer system were taken August 12, 1980. 2. Tree trimming: The FY80 contract was defaulted on and work was rebid in July, 1981. 3. Animal licensing computerization and the initiation of a new licensing program: a January 1, 1981 implementation date is planned. 4. Purchase of master maker equipment for the Print Shop: this equipment will be ordered in the fall of 1980. 5. Additional financing of the Melrose Avenue Sewer Special Assessment Project. Since the total cost of this project was only $14,000, the cost of marketing special assessment bonds was not justified and it is being financed by a loan from General Fund. This loan will be repaid as the special assessments are collected. During the budget discussions for the FY82 Budget, it was decided to maintain an unreserved ending fund balance in the General Fund at June 30, 1981 of approximately $700,000. Exhibit B shows that the projections made during budget preparation indicated that the unreserved balance at June 30, 1980 should be $678,692. This chart also shows the actual June 30, 1980 figures which resulted in an ending balance of $1,030,270. Exhibit C shows that $351,578 in the ending balance is available for reappropriation. The chart also lists several FY81 funding needs which will require budget amendments and which will reduce the unappropriated balance significantly. In FY80, Transit was charged bus maintenance costs based upon 404 per mile. This includes repair, preventative maintenance and fuel costs. the FY80 Budget had to be amended by $48,000 but even then all actual costs were not charged back to the Transit Division but were absorbed by the Equipment Division. Actual costs averaged approximately 604 per mile for MICROFILMED BY JORM MIC R+LA Ia CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES X8/3 i 2 Senior Center: The FY80 Budget had been based on the assumption that the Senior Center would be open for operation early in calendar year 1980. Salaries: Total actual salaries were 3.8% less than budgeted. Typically, salaries run approximately 4% less than the budgeted amount each year. This is due to turnover which results in both a temporary vacancy and the fact that a new employee will usually start at a lower pay rate than that of a former employee. In FY80, turnover was down somewhat but this was balanced by the hiring freeze on filing new positions and the director vacancies. Carryover Items: These are budgeted expenditures which were not expended or encumbered prior to the end of FY80, but which will be expended early in FY81. This includes funding for items such as: 1. Computerization of traffic ticket billing and collection and of personnel records and needed enhancements to other computer applica- tions. Bids on a new computer system were taken August 12, 1980. 2. Tree trimming: The FY80 contract was defaulted on and work was rebid in July, 1981. 3. Animal licensing computerization and the initiation of a new licensing program: a January 1, 1981 implementation date is planned. 4. Purchase of master maker equipment for the Print Shop: this equipment will be ordered in the fall of 1980. 5. Additional financing of the Melrose Avenue Sewer Special Assessment Project. Since the total cost of this project was only $14,000, the cost of marketing special assessment bonds was not justified and it is being financed by a loan from General Fund. This loan will be repaid as the special assessments are collected. During the budget discussions for the FY82 Budget, it was decided to maintain an unreserved ending fund balance in the General Fund at June 30, 1981 of approximately $700,000. Exhibit B shows that the projections made during budget preparation indicated that the unreserved balance at June 30, 1980 should be $678,692. This chart also shows the actual June 30, 1980 figures which resulted in an ending balance of $1,030,270. Exhibit C shows that $351,578 in the ending balance is available for reappropriation. The chart also lists several FY81 funding needs which will require budget amendments and which will reduce the unappropriated balance significantly. In FY80, Transit was charged bus maintenance costs based upon 404 per mile. This includes repair, preventative maintenance and fuel costs. the FY80 Budget had to be amended by $48,000 but even then all actual costs were not charged back to the Transit Division but were absorbed by the Equipment Division. Actual costs averaged approximately 604 per mile for MICROFILMED BY JORM MIC R+LA Ia CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES X8/3 N 3 i all bus maintenance during the fiscal year. It will be necessary for jTransit to pay full costs in FY81 and it is now estimated that the budget will need to be increased by $140,000. i The new telephone system planned for installation in February, 1981, will require a budget amendment of $20,000 for installation fees and additional monthly rates. It will be necessary to amend the total data processing budget by $13,000 because of a recent increase received from the City's data processing service bureau. The City has not received a rate increase on these services since 1976. Although bids are being reviewed for a new computer system, the City will continue to use the service bureau in FY81 while the new system is implemented. Council has already approved funding for the SEATS supplemental taxi service. Funding for this program was not included in the original FY81 budget. The termite treatment and painting touchups in the Civic Center -- - — will cost $5,500. The air conditioning units in the Fire Department are not included in the Civic Center main HVAC System because they operate independently and did j not require engineering services. However, the units are beyond their useful life and are no longer reliable. They should be replaced next spring. The State's budget reduction of 3.6% will reduce municipal assistance and transit assistance by that amount. Local property tax receipts will also be reduced. The transfer payments from the state to the county which distributes them to cities to make up for homestead and elderly property and special assessment property tax credits will also be reduced by the 3.6%. Because property taxes have already been certified, the taxes due from property owners receiving the tax credits cannot be increased. Therefore, the reduction will have to be absorbed by the cities, counties and schools. The 3.6% reduction may change as the Governor can increase or decrease the percentage as needed. The figures used on Exhibit C were based on a 3.6% reduction. The most recent projection for Road Use Tax revenue is $28.50, per capita. This reduces our original budgeted revenue amount. Since all Road Use Tax is being used this year for Street Maintenance and Traffic Engineering in the General Fund, any reduction in revenue will need to be funded by the General Fund, fund balance. This leaves $65,208 of unallocated funds in the fund balance. In \1 addition, the FY81 Budget included an expenditure of $96,160 from the General Fund for the reconstruction of the Plate Glass Building which was located on the Gilbert Street right-of-way. Since reconstruction was determined not to be economical, this amount can be added to the General Fund Balance. 1113 MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LA6 s CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES 4 !°r� I recommend using at least $3,500 of the balance to fund cost overruns on the Service Building Modular Project and that funding of approximately $35,000 be set aside for additional remodeling of a portion of the original Service Building for Traffic Engineering. The $3,500 will pay for lockers, plumbing supplies, plantings, and a wheelchair ramp. Detailed cost estimates for the Traffic Engineering remodeling are not available but could be prepared if Council indicates an interest in this project. The funds budgeted for the Plate Glass Building reconstruction were for improvements to the Equipment Service Building complex and these remodeling costs would be for the same basic purpose. It does not appear as if funding will be available in the foreseeable future for further improvements to the Service Building Complex and this funding would complete the basic remodeling. Additional possible uses for the available balance are the acquisition of property for the construction of Foster Road, the acquisition of the private drive to ACT Circle and the conversion of at least a part of the City's vehicle fleet to compressed natural gas. I would recommend maintaining as much of the balance as possible to cover any unanticipated costs which may occur during this fiscal year. There is little room in the FY81 budget to absorb any unanticipated costs or cost increases. Any portion of the balance which is not needed during this fiscal year should be maintained to offset any funding needs in the FY82 Budget. The departments have done an excellent job in keeping costs down and working within their budgets as much as possible. The Streets Division did an excellent job in holding costs down in FY80. It is as a result of conscious efforts to reduce expenditures that much of the balance is available and both staff and the Council need to be commended for this effort. ROAD USE TAX Exhibit D shows a comparison of budget and actual figures for FY80 and a budget and a revised budget projection figure for FY81. The Road Use Tax revenue in FY80 came in short by about $200,000. The cutbacks in the Street Maintenance Division did allow us to avoid a funding shortage. As stated above, the Road Use Tax revenue figure for FY81 is approximately $48,000 less than we had originally projected. We will continue to monitor this figure throughout the fiscal year and will keep you informed as to any further potential reduction in revenue and/or any need to cut back on costs in the street maintenance or traffic engineering areas. GENERAL REVENUE SHARING Exhibit E shows the financial status for general revenue sharing funds. It gives information on both budget and actual FY80 and a new projected budget estimate for FY81. Although the ending balance in FY80 is $336,583, there are carryovers amounting to $201,603 which will need to be added to the FY81 budget and this in addition to a projected reduction in revenue sharing reduces the ending balance to $129,782 which will be available for reappropriation. MICROFILMED BY DORM MICR�LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES / 9/3 5 The Council has indicated that a portion of the $30,000 that was budgeted for the Willow Creek Tennis Courts will be reallocated to finish the Hickory Hill Shelter. The new projection for FY81 Revenue Sharing revenue is based on our best estimate at this time. The City will receive funding however it is not known at this time what formula will be used to compute that funding. The ending balance in the new projected FY81 budget less the $30,000 to be reappropriated by the Parks and Recreation Commission result in $99,782 that is available for reappropriation by the Council. SUMMARY Because of both the Council's and the City Staff's efforts in holding expenditures down and in making cutbacks, the City did not have a problem with its financial condition at June 30, 1980. Only through effective advanced planning and working to maintain a healthy ending fund balance, can the City avoid financial problems and/or cash flow problems in the future. The Finance Department will be monitoring actual expenditures and revenues very closely during this fiscal year and will be reporting to Council on a quarterly basis on the City's financial condition. It is anticipated that this will keep the Council better informed and will enable the staff to work with Council in monitoring the current situation. bj/sp cc: Management Advisory Panel MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES lV3 fl I i s i ' I 1 I I 1 1 5 The Council has indicated that a portion of the $30,000 that was budgeted for the Willow Creek Tennis Courts will be reallocated to finish the Hickory Hill Shelter. The new projection for FY81 Revenue Sharing revenue is based on our best estimate at this time. The City will receive funding however it is not known at this time what formula will be used to compute that funding. The ending balance in the new projected FY81 budget less the $30,000 to be reappropriated by the Parks and Recreation Commission result in $99,782 that is available for reappropriation by the Council. SUMMARY Because of both the Council's and the City Staff's efforts in holding expenditures down and in making cutbacks, the City did not have a problem with its financial condition at June 30, 1980. Only through effective advanced planning and working to maintain a healthy ending fund balance, can the City avoid financial problems and/or cash flow problems in the future. The Finance Department will be monitoring actual expenditures and revenues very closely during this fiscal year and will be reporting to Council on a quarterly basis on the City's financial condition. It is anticipated that this will keep the Council better informed and will enable the staff to work with Council in monitoring the current situation. bj/sp cc: Management Advisory Panel MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES lV3 i i EXHIBIT A GENERAL FUND FY80 EXPENDITURES, ACTUAL UNDER BUDGET Aid to Agencies: Council on Aging Mayors Youth Transfer -Out, Subsidy to Refuse Coll Postage Costs Street Maintenance Recycling Senior Center Salaries Carryover Items Other MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES $ 6,300 9,500 30,900 11,600 240,000 26,000 41,400 217,045 78,304 67,985 $ 729,034 /1/3 i i I a Aid to Agencies: Council on Aging Mayors Youth Transfer -Out, Subsidy to Refuse Coll Postage Costs Street Maintenance Recycling Senior Center Salaries Carryover Items Other MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES $ 6,300 9,500 30,900 11,600 240,000 26,000 41,400 217,045 78,304 67,985 $ 729,034 /1/3 i n i a n GENERAL FUND FY80 ENDING FUND BALANCE PROJECTED VS. ACTUAL BEGINNING BALANCE, 6/30/79 FY80 Receipts FY80 Expenditures ENDING BALANCE, 6/30/80 Reserved Amount: Litigation Escrow FY79 Encumbrances Transit Funding Reserve FY80 Amendments Needed: General Liability Insurance Sibsidy to Airport Tort Liability Balance FY80 Encumbrances FY80 Carryovers TOTAL UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE EXHIBIT B in FY80 PROJECTIONS MADE DURING FY81 BUDGET DISCUSSIONS $ 1,068,263 9,737,818 9,413 ,514 $ 1,392,567 174,000 54,339 150,000 134,028 17,318 184,190 8_ 678,692 MICROFILMED BY r JORM MICR+LA9 CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES ACTUAL_ $ 1,068,263 9,542,846 8— 851,134 $ 1,759,975 174,000 194,930 205,031 77,440 _78,304 $ 1,030,270 /f/3 j' 1 i, i GENERAL FUND 6/30/80 FUND BALANCE UNAPPROPIATED BALANCE 6/30/80 UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE PROJECTED NECESSARY UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE BUDGET AMENDMENTS NEEDED: Transit Bus Maintenance New Telephone System Data Processing Rate Increase Special Taxis Program Termite Treatment Fire Dept. Air Conditioning REVENUE REDUCTIONS, STATE'S CUTBACKS: Municipal Assistance Transit Assistance Property Tax ROAD USE TAX REDUCTION SUBTOTAL EXPENDITURE CANCELLED: Reconstruction of Plate Glass Bldg. ADJUSTED UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LA6 CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES EXHIBIT C $ 140,000 20,000 13,000 3,600 5,500 4,000 $ 10,025 5,580 36,921 $ 1,030,270 678,692 $ 351,578 186,100 52,526 47,744 $ 65,208 96,160 $ 161,368 lPl3 i I j 1. BEGINNING BALANCE RECEIPTS: Road Use Tax Interest Income TOTAL RECEIPTS EXPENDITURES: Traffic Engineering Street System Maintenance FY80 Encumbrances TOTAL EXPENDITURES CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS: Service Building Addition City Park Bike Trail Bikeway & Handicap Curb Cut Bikeway East Side River TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS TOTAL EXPENDITURES ENDING BALANCE 1W ROAD USE TAX FY90 & FY81 BUDGET ACTUAL FY80 FY80 $ _ 174,016 $ 174,016 $1,532,582 $1,345,529 — 24,000 10,007 $1,556,582 $1,355,536 $ 383,887 $ 354,084 1,173,666 964,656 $1,557,553 $1,318,740 $ 172,825 $ 190,935 9,000 -- 6,000 -- 7,000 -- $ 194,825 $_ 190,935 $1,752,378 $1,509,675 (21,780) $ 19,877 MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LA9 CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES EXHIBIT D BUDGET PROJECTED FY81 FY81 $ (21,780) $ 19,877 $1,408,448 $1,360,704 $1,408,448 $1,360,704 $ 268,746 $ 268,746 1,139,702 1,139,702 -- 26,440 $1,408,448 $1,434,888 $1,408,448 $1__,_434,888 $ 21,780) $ 54,301 /1/3 i A it k BEGINNING BALANCE RECEIPTS: Road Use Tax Interest Income TOTAL RECEIPTS EXPENDITURES: Traffic Engineering Street System Maintenance FY80 Encumbrances TOTAL EXPENDITURES CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS: Service Building Addition City Park Bike Trail Bikeway & Handicap Curb Cut Bikeway East Side River TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS TOTAL EXPENDITURES ENDING BALANCE 1W ROAD USE TAX FY90 & FY81 BUDGET ACTUAL FY80 FY80 $ _ 174,016 $ 174,016 $1,532,582 $1,345,529 — 24,000 10,007 $1,556,582 $1,355,536 $ 383,887 $ 354,084 1,173,666 964,656 $1,557,553 $1,318,740 $ 172,825 $ 190,935 9,000 -- 6,000 -- 7,000 -- $ 194,825 $_ 190,935 $1,752,378 $1,509,675 (21,780) $ 19,877 MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LA9 CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES EXHIBIT D BUDGET PROJECTED FY81 FY81 $ (21,780) $ 19,877 $1,408,448 $1,360,704 $1,408,448 $1,360,704 $ 268,746 $ 268,746 1,139,702 1,139,702 -- 26,440 $1,408,448 $1,434,888 $1,408,448 $1__,_434,888 $ 21,780) $ 54,301 /1/3 i A it 1 1 � i Y BEGINNING BALANCE RECEIPTS: Road Use Tax Interest Income TOTAL RECEIPTS EXPENDITURES: Traffic Engineering Street System Maintenance FY80 Encumbrances TOTAL EXPENDITURES CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS: Service Building Addition City Park Bike Trail Bikeway & Handicap Curb Cut Bikeway East Side River TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS TOTAL EXPENDITURES ENDING BALANCE 1W ROAD USE TAX FY90 & FY81 BUDGET ACTUAL FY80 FY80 $ _ 174,016 $ 174,016 $1,532,582 $1,345,529 — 24,000 10,007 $1,556,582 $1,355,536 $ 383,887 $ 354,084 1,173,666 964,656 $1,557,553 $1,318,740 $ 172,825 $ 190,935 9,000 -- 6,000 -- 7,000 -- $ 194,825 $_ 190,935 $1,752,378 $1,509,675 (21,780) $ 19,877 MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LA9 CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES EXHIBIT D BUDGET PROJECTED FY81 FY81 $ (21,780) $ 19,877 $1,408,448 $1,360,704 $1,408,448 $1,360,704 $ 268,746 $ 268,746 1,139,702 1,139,702 -- 26,440 $1,408,448 $1,434,888 $1,408,448 $1__,_434,888 $ 21,780) $ 54,301 /1/3 i A EXHIBIT E t� GENERAL REVENUE SHARING FY80 & FY81 BUDGET ACTUAL FY80 1� EXHIBIT E t� GENERAL REVENUE SHARING FY80 & FY81 MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LAB CEDAR RAPIDS - DES MOINES BUDGET PROJECTION FY81 FY81 $ (13,561) $ 336,583 $ 594,000 $ 575,241 10,000 10,000 $ 604,000 $ 585,241 $ 162,615 $ 162,615 -- 14,500 277,824 277,824 150,000 150,000 $ 590,439 $ 604,939 $ -- $ 152,238 -- 34,865 $ -- $ 187,103 $ 590,439 $ 792,042 $ -- 129,782 413 1 BUDGET ACTUAL FY80 FY80 BEGINNING BALANCE $ 383,317 $ 383,317 RECEIPTS: Revenue Sharing $ 587,616 $ 607,618 Interest Income 20,000 47,823 Other -- -- Adjustment -- -- TOTAL RECEIPTS $ 607,616 $ 655,441 TRANSFERS: Operating Expenditures: General Government Operations: Aid to Agencies $ 191,513 $ 175,706 Capital Outlay 152,210 134,756 Mass Transportation 309,440 309,440 Senior Center 45,560 3,605 Recycling Truck 10,000 -- Library Conversion 13,163 13,163 Refuse Collection 50,000 50,000 TRANSFERS TOTAL $ 771,886 686,670 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS: Civic Ctr. Heating & Air Conditioning $ 167,608 $ 15,370 Mercer Park Restrooms 35,000 135 Willow Creek Tennis Courts 30,000 -- CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS TOTAL $ 232,608 15,505 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,004,494 $ 702,175 ENDING ,BALANCE $ ]3,561) $ 336,583 MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LAB CEDAR RAPIDS - DES MOINES BUDGET PROJECTION FY81 FY81 $ (13,561) $ 336,583 $ 594,000 $ 575,241 10,000 10,000 $ 604,000 $ 585,241 $ 162,615 $ 162,615 -- 14,500 277,824 277,824 150,000 150,000 $ 590,439 $ 604,939 $ -- $ 152,238 -- 34,865 $ -- $ 187,103 $ 590,439 $ 792,042 $ -- 129,782 413 1