Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-06-08 Correspondence4 6 $�-, E'IJ(1` League of Women Voters 2271/, EAST WASHINGTON STREET IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 To: City Council of Iowa City From: League of Women Voters of Johnson County Shirley C. Sixt, President June 4, 1976 The League of Women Voters of Johnson County began its study of Urban Renewal for the CBD in 1960. League members studied sewers, marketing, the effect of urban renewal on the tax base, the level of city staffing, [IUD regulations, capital ialnrovement plans, and many other related subjects. In January, 1966 the League reached a consensus which stated our commitment to Federally funded urban renewal for the CBD, including carefully planned commercial redevelopment, high quality design, and shopper and pedestrian amemities. This consensus emphasized our belief, based on extensive studies, that commercial redevelopment of the CBD would have a beneficial effect on our local economy, provide more tax revenue for the city, provide better service to consumers in this area, and benefit the general public. This position has been reevaluated in light of recent events and found to be still sound, and it is on the basis of this position and our consistent support for urban renewal for over ten years that we write to you today. We urge the city council to recommit the city to the overall plan for commercial redevelopment of the CBD, and to reaffirm the wise decision made in March, 1973 to adopt the single developer concept. It is urgent that this be done soon, and that the work begins at once to prepare the necessary bidding documents. Why this urgency? Announcements of new shopping facilities in the area in the aftermath of the court decisions should be reason enough to work to retain a plan and a concept that have shown they could work, and not go searching around for still another. The long term financial implications for the city dictate a carefully planned and coordinated redevelopment which will produce the kind of quality construction and leases that will assure that the CBD will finally pay its fair share of property taxes in this community. That kind of tax base will not be produced if 11.5 acres in the heart of Iowa City is sold in small parcels to many developers. With no real plan and multiple developers the pressures on the council members will grow tremendously. Even the prime pieces will be hard to sell, as has already been proven, for quality development, unless there is real assurance of total development. In addition, city staff would have to increased tremendously to deal with parcel by parcel disposition. Iowa City has a really good bus system. Its viability depends upon the CBD being in reality the center of the city --not just physically, but culturally and commercially too. This project began to take shape in Iowa City over 16 years ago. It has survived more court battles than we care to remember, and it may have to survive more. This community is tired of delay, tired of law suits, tired of high taxes , and we want to see the downtown rebuilt. But we are not so tired that we will stand by and watch many years of work by hundreds of people dismissed so easily. It is not easy to pick up and begin again. It is even more difficult to do so when the stakes are high and the pressures mount. But that is where we are today, and that is what you must do. The future of this city depends on your ability to act wisely, and at this point whatever is built will be your monument. Will it be a well planned, high quality commercial center that benefits the entire community, or will it be a string of fast food shops and uncoordinated, small parcels much like we tore down? 0 July 12, 1976 (s. Shirley C. sixt President League of Womcn Voters of Johnson County 22Ts East Washington Street Iotaa City, Imia 52240 Dear Shirley: The City Council of IOwa City would like to thank you and the League for Your continuing interest in Urban Renewal in Iowa City. It is through efforts of gmups such as the League of Women Voters that worthfiril e projects are undertaken and completed in this commrmity. �, AS of this time, the City Council has hired appraisers to begin reappraisal work for Urban Renewal lands i•1ltich are to be sold, and the City staff is also in the process of hiring, a marketing consultant to provide the Council with updated economic information. 1',11ile the City Council has several hard decisions to be rade in the weeks iraeediately ahead, ale are optimistic that Urban Renewal in Iona City will he well tndenray by this fall. If the League has any other ideas relative to Urban Renewal in Ior.,a City, alease contact either me or the City Council directly. Sincerely yours, ideal C. Perlin City ALanager is cc: City Clerk ,. ® RECEI\'F�'Q! 2 5 1976 `�cJ ,.., 9. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING ANO URpAN DEVELOPMENT ,'1�IIII�IJ� 96 OMAHA AREA OFFICE ` UNIVAC BUILDING, 7100 WEST CENTER ROAD 5,��,e �.•' OMAHA, NEBRASKA 68106 REGION VII (Room 300 Padv1 0111c9 Building 911 WInut Stet E•n•o City, Mbmml 61106 REGISTERED -SPECIAL. DELIVERY RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Honorable Mary Neuhauser Mayor of Iowa City Civic Center 410 East Washington Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Mayor Neuhauser: May 24, 1976 IN REPLY REFER 101 7.2CMR (B -75 -HN -19-0005, Iowa R-14) This will follow up the site visit on May 18 and 19, 1976, by William ShoeeaY.er and John Lloyd of this office in connection with your Community Development Block Grant program and Urban Renewal project Iowa R-14. As discussed during the site visit and as stated in our letter of May 13, 1976, our office finds it necessary to withhold 20% ($412,200) of your second year block grant program for purposes of defraying in part your Urban Renewal indebtedness. This action is under authority of Section 112(a) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 and has been made necessary by the recent court ruling reversing the sale of R-14 project land to Old Capitol Associates. This represents the maximum amount which HUD may deduct from a given program year for repayment of an Urban Renewal loan, but as noted during the site visit the resulting $412,200 deduction is far short of the total amount of approximately $2,200,000 needed to cover the presently unsold land in R-14. Consequently, it would be advantageous to the City as well as in the Federal government's interest in R-14 to apply substantially more than the 20% toward purchase of the land in the R-14 project. A suggested option to the 20% deduction is outlined below. 1. It is suggested that the City consider as its objective the total coverage of the price of unsold R-14 land over the next two program years. In order for this to be accomplished a possible breakdown of funds to be applied would include funds from the presently approved program year (Fiscal Year 1975) plus the second and third program years: 2 0 0 Fiscal Year 1975 $ 551,200 Fiscal Year 1976 824,400 Fiscal. Year 1977 824,4-0-0- Total 24,400Total $2,200,000 2. The use of $551,200 in your currently approved (FY 1975) block grant program would require a program amendment. The $824,400 from each of the subsequent program years represents 40% of the annual block grant amount. Ibis amount is somewhat arbitrary but does allow for a workable means coupled with FY 1975 funds, as identified above, of purchasing all of the unsold R-14 land over a two year period while making it possible for continued community development activities at a reduced but functional level. 3. Should the City choose to employ this type of purchase schedule to the R-14 land deficit it would realize certain financial advantages over the 20% deduction by HUD. a. The 20% deduction alone over a two year period without additional voluntary participation by the City would not completely resolve the $2,200,000 land deficit. At time of R -14 -closeout there would still remain the need to make-up whatever deficit remained with the only available sources of funds being either the third year block grant or city funds. Possibly this would severely curtail the third year block grant program or activities scheduled for city funds since the deficit at that time could easily exceed $1,000,000. b. If the City voluntarily applied substantially more than the $412,200 (20%) per year it would not be necessary for HUD to deduct the 20% from the block grant program. The money received by the City from the block grant program for the purchase of R-14 land would not have to be paid to HUD immediately as it would be with the 20% deduction, but would be credited to the R-14 loan repayment account and could be invested until the maturity on December 10, 1976, of the private market urban renewal notes now in process. Interest derived from such investment accrues to the loan repayment account for use in reducing the project deficit thus permitting a greater expenditure for community development activities. It must be understood that the foregoing suggested method of reducing the R-14 land inventory with the use of block grant funds does not take into account a possible urban renewal deficit which may occur between now and project clol-oout, due to possible cost increases or budget overruns. It is suggested that you confer with City Comptroller Ms. Debbie Rauh for an estimate of prrjected cost- overruns in the urban renewal program. • 3 As discussed with you during the site visit, you are encouraged to market any R-14 land purchased with block grant funds as expeditiously as possible since the proceeds from such sale accrue to the City for use on community development activities. Consequently, the proceeds from land sales serve to reduce the amount of block grant funds which must be spent on paying off the urban renewal loan. Whatever action your City Council chooses to take in regard to the completion of the urban renewal project will necessitate the reprogramming of activities and a revised budget im your second year block grant program. Pursuant to the discussion betwe>_-a Messrs. Dennis Kraft and John Lloyd on May 19, 1976, you were advised to su�3st your revised block grant program material on or before June 1, 1976. Your submission must also include the additional information pertaining to the rehabilitation and project improvement activities and the necessary revisions to the Housiag Assistance Plan as indicated in our letter of May 13, 1976. Should you have any questions or desire further assistance regarding the foregoing, please contact your Community Planning and Development Representative, Mr. Shoemaker, at (402) 221-9461. Sincere i arry J� Iie�ren Pro gr$ Manager cc: lir. Dennis Kraft Ms. Julie Vann RECEIVED JUN 3 1976 Johnson County Council on Aging 538 South Gilbert Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 June 2, 1976 Mr. Neil Berlin, City Manager City of Iowa City Civic Center, 410 Bast Washington Street Iotira City, Iowa 522LI0 Dear Mr. Berlin: This is in reply to your letter of May 26 regarding funding to the Johnson County Council on Aging. The Council on Aging acknowledges the City's recog- nition of our organization as the official agency to serve senior citizens in Johnson County, and we accept the funds allocated by the City for this purpose. The Council on Aging, as instructed by the City Council, will forward the matching funds requested by Heritage Agency on Aging for planning purposes. It is requested that funds or contracts be submitted to Johnson County Council on Aging, Treasury, 538 South Gilbert Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52240. Thank you very much for your assistance, we are deeply grateful to the City Council for support of our organization as we strive to meet some of the needs of our senior citizens in the community. Most sincerely yours, eo&ic� Mary R President Doris F. Bridgeman, Executive Director MR:DEB/be cc: Mayor Mary Neuhauser Robert Robinson, Director Heritage Agency on Aging Harold Donnely, Chairperson Task Force ® • 4� LAb CITIZENS FOR A BETTER IOWA CITY 1975-76 June 1, 1976 snEli1VG COMMPITF:E John llarpps TO MEMBEIRS OF THE. I014A CIT`! COUNCIL: Pttaident In your forthcoming actions with respect to the completion of. Rev. lloy Wingate Urban Renewal Project R-14 (approved originally by the City Council Vi.e-Pmsident on October 2, 1969), we strongly urge the Council to retain the concept of a single overall plan of project area redevelopment, Sister Mary Venarda made subject to City contract with a single development authority. SetMtary-Treasurer This seems to us the best and surest way -- and quite possibly Harace Amidon the only way -- to accomplish these very important objectives: Lester Be.. F.leanm,! Rowers 1. Local residents and taxpayers will know in advance what Michael Cilek general land uses are planned, and in what relationships. Flo Beth Elntinger Louis Eichler 2. Prospective owners and tenants of project area properties Henry Fax willhave some assurance of the location of their planned Donna Friedman business operations with respect to other businesses, park - Richard Gibson ing facilities and public rights-of-way. William Gilpin Barbara Haring 3. All of us will know the general nature of the City's com- Loren Hickerson mi Lments to the overall plan. Dallas Hogan Faith F:nawler 4. All land, not simply the most economically desirable por- JohnAozo tions, will. be committed to redevelopment, as provided in Jean Lloyd -Jones the contract documents. Jeanette Madsen Emilie Rubright 5. Redevelopment can continue in an orderly way, on a reasonable Shirley Si:t time -table, with a minimum of time-consuming delay to the Robert Wilson City Council, to developers and prospective owner -tenants, Jerry Zniser and to all the residents of Iowa City. We urge the Citv Council to proceed, with all deliberate speed, to update the land value appraisals, prepare bidding documents and re -advertise for bid proposals from any and all prospective developers. We also urge that the Council authorize the employment of compe- tent, experienced staff to deal with the day to day administrative responsibility this program entails and fund to the level required to retain that kind of staff. The newest delays in the urban renewal program are costly to evervone in Iowa City, But those costs cannot compare with long-range costs to future generations here if a comprehensive, integrated, over- all plan for the future quality, attractiveness and economic strength of downtown Iowa Citv were now to be abandoned. CITIZENS FOR A BETTER IOWA CITY Jo n Har per, Pre ident P • 0 July 12, 1976 Mr. John tlarncr, Pres;idcnt Citizens for a Better Iowa Cit 427 Ferson Iowa City, Imia 522A0 Dcar Dur. Harper: Thank you for your decent letter to the City Council relative to CvIC's concerns about the R-14 Urban Renewal Project. The City Council shares your concern in wanting to have an exT)editious re-initiation of Urban Penewal in Iowa City. As of this time, COMCil has directed the City staff to secure additional land appraisals al_ activities are also undenaay to hire a marketing consultant to give the Cotmcil needed information on marketing conditions. Any other comments you might have on the Urban Renewal program will be sincerely appreciated. Sincerely yours, ;;cal G. Berlin City hSanaver Is rc: Cit-: Clerk OWA CITY OHNSON COUNTY RTS COUNCIL May 21, 1976 To: The CLty Council of Iowa City: tie understand that the Federal Government after considerable delay is finally taking bids on the old Post Office. The Iowa City/Johnson County Arts Council has consistently urged the City Council to purchase the site and structure to meet a community need. Preliminary results of the Arts Resource Survey directed by Dr. Michal McCall (a survey made possible by a City Spirit Grant from the National Endowment Fund) show that the primary need in the art comunity is for space of all types --studio, rehersal, exhibition, performance and meeting. Other organizations have suggested worthwhile uses for this landmark, but we feel that they can better present their own cases. We can how- ever, envision a shared community utilization of the Post Office. Once the Council determines that the structure can meet a community need by providing a centralized and convenient location, then the next ques- tion is what is the best method of securing funds. The question of maintenance will also be raised (and it is a real concern) but certainly not an insurmountable one for the community and the Council to resolve. The City in the past did offer a bid for the property approximately equivalent to the market value of the land. They could do this again, but this minimum bid has little chance of success based on past discus- sions with the General Service Administration. Also, it may well be that other potential buyers may offer similar low bids just to demolish the site for private purposes. A better solution it seems to us is to make a realistic offer for the land and structure between the minimum land value and the figure the government earlier suggested as its "asking price". How the City's bid offer could be funded is a crucial question. We feel that the Council needs to at least determine whether Community Development and Housing funds may be considered for the non -exhibit uses of the building. But rather than get into the argument of the reasons for the present financial crisis of the City, it seems to the Arts Council that one possibility is to make the bid contingent upon a vote approving the bonding of the cost. The total cost involved including rennovations would be less than one million dollars. A year or so ago, this seemed to some members of the Council to be an exorbitant amount. Yet the community will shortly be asked to approve a structure for six and a half times as much for admin- istrative and law enforcement purposes. P.O. Box 375 Iowa City, Iowa 52240 • City Council Page 2 May 21, 1976 It seems to the Iowa City/Johnson County Arts Council that the real value of Iowa City rests with its human resources and the environment that they provide. We are proposing that the City Council make a realistic bid for this site and then give the community an opportunity to determine whether they feel this is a priority need. Sincerely, -GlU (L) lv cc4w -) Donn.Y-Ycfedman, Chairperson Ed C neck Vice -Cha rperson Iowa City/J nson County Arts Council Board of Directors DF/EC:dd RESOLUTION NO. 76-169 RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL LARGE SCALE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR MIDSTATES DEVELOPMENT, INC. WHEREAS, the purchasers, Midstates Development, Inc., have filed with the City Clerk of Iowa City, Iowa, an application for approval of a Final Large Scale Residential Development covering the following premises located in Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa, to -wit: Commencing at a point which is the N-1/4 corner of Section 13, T79N, R6W of the 5th P.M., thence S 0° 09' 56" W, 1556.84 feet; thence S 4° 16' 48" W, 30.00 feet; thence S 85' 43' 12" E, 410.78 feet; thence S 00 37' 13" E, 166.47 feet to the Southwest corner of Lot 341, Part Six Court Bill Addition to Iowa City, Iowa; thence S 0° 37' 13" E, 350.85 feet; thence S 42° 37' 10" W, 41.14 feet to the point of beginning; thence S 66° 18' 01" E, 149.91 feet; thence S 15° 43' 03" 11, 68.80 feet; thence Southerly 151.40 feet on a 530.00 foot radius curve concave easterly; thence S 0' 38' 57" E, 154.95 feet to the north R.O.W. Line of American Legion Road; thence S 890 09' 34" W, 109.45 feet; thence S 890 30' 34" W, 202.75 feet; thence N 0' 23' 16" W, 201.24 feet; thence N 420 37' 10" E,' 315.87 feet to the point of beginning. Said tract contains 2.56 acres more or less. WHEREAS, the Planning Division and the Engineering Division have examined i the proposed plans and have made recommendations as to the same; and, WHEREAS, said plans have been examined by the Planning and Zoning Commission of Iowa City, and after due deliberation, said Commission has recommended that said Large Scale Residential Development plans be accepted and approved; and WHEREAS, said plans are found to conform with the requirements of the City Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, with respect to the establishment of Large Scale Residential Developments; CITY, IOWA: NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA 1. That said Final Large Scale Residential Development plans for said premises above described be and the same is hereby approved by the City Council of Iowa City,Iowa. - 76" -i4y da 2. That said plans shall conform with all requirements of the Large Scale Residential Development ordinance of the City of Iowa City, Iowa. 3. That the City Clerk of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this resolution to the office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa,, after final passage and approval as authorized by law. Passed this 8th day of June 1976. -t"Ll PU C MAYOR CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA ATTEST: PaL ABBIE STOLFUS, City Clerk City of Iowa City, owa It was moved by Foster and seconded by Perret that the resolution as read be adopted, and upon roll call, there were: i AYES NAYES Neuhauser x deProsse x Balmer x Fo:: ter x Ferret x Selzer x Vevera x ABSENT • STAFF REPORT Planning and Zoning Commission May 20, 1976 SUBJECT: 5-7612. Autumn Park Apartments. Final plan of a Large Scale Residential Development (LSRD) under Section 8 Elderly Housing proposed to be located on the northwest corner of Willow Street and American Legion Road. Submitted by Midstates Development, Inc., Alan Leff, Attorney. Date filed: May 7, 1976; 45 -day limitation: June 21, 1976. STAFF The developer, Midstates Develop - ANALYSIS: ment, Inc., proposes to construct 64 apartment units for the elderly on an approximate 2.5 acre site. The proposed development is located in an area zoned R3A on the northwest corner of American Legion Road and Willow Street. The Planning and Engineering Division reviewed the subject plan. Dis- crepancies with Chapter 9.51 of the Municipal Code were noted and the following changes should be made: 1. The plat should be drawn to the scale of one (1) inch to one hundred (100) feet. 2. A graphic or bar scale should be provided. 3. A certification stamp by a registered land surveyor of the State of Iowa should be provided. 4. Accurate references to known or permanent monuments should be shown. S. The street labeled Muscatine Road should be shown as American Legion Road. 6. The chord length and bearing and delta angle of the 530 -foot radius along Willow Street should be indicated. 7. The centerline of streets existing and proposed should be dimensioned to the property line and back of curb. 8. A cross section detail of the proposed north drive and parking should be shown. 9. The warp allowed on proposed drives should not exceed four tenths of a foot. 10. Driveways through sidewalks should not have curbs. 11. Before final approval, signatures by the utility companies should be provided. 12 • -2- 11 An asphalt apron should be provided at the entrances of the and located between the sidewalk and the existing street. It is the Staff's recommendation that consideration of the subject plan be deferred pending submittal of the information requested above and submittal of the Legal Staff's comments. drives STAFF RECODLENDATION: NORTH t4FF'CER Q 600 120.0 18QO FILE NUMBER: GRAPHIC SCALE : 1"= 660' S-761 Iowa City HOME OF UNIVERSITY OF IOWA ,'line 7, 1976 Chamber of Commerce ------ -- : P.O. BOX 2358 CITY, IOWA 52240 :.PHONE 337.9637 It :seems rather incredible that here we are again discussing the future of Urban Renewal in Towa City. lord knows this project has probably been cussed and discussed more than any other single project ever in this City, and frankly, the Chamber believes that this is great. Any project, of this magnitude, merits the careful and diligent consideration of the entire community. Because we once aaain seem to be back to the discussion phase of urban renewal, the Chamber feels again compelled to provide our input. We are not here to talk about the single developer concept, though we have long supported it. we are not here to talk about Old Capitol Associates, in spite of the fact that the Chamber has worked closely with them and has supported their position many times. What we are here to talk about is the PLAN for the redevelopment of downtown Iowa City. On October 2, 1969, the City Council of Towa City adopted the Iowa City Urban Renewal Project R14A by a four to one vote. This action represented the culmination of at least five years of work and study dating back to December 18, 1963, when the City first asked the Federal Government for planning funds. The City's actions during that time were tested in court and the Iowa FIVE YEARS Legislature modified state statute so that the City's actions could stand. The net result of all this activity was the ACCREDITED formulation of the PLAN. `"'.....I ""`"" It is the opinion of the Chamber that the best course of action for the City to take at this time, would be to stick with the October, 1969 plan and procede with its implementation as quickly as possible. It would appear to us that if the plan were to be abandoned at this point- in time, everything that has gone into this Project would be lost. All of the planning by the Utility Companies would be wasted. Pedestrian orientation would be lost. Washington Street would be a disaster. The buildings that are planned and under construction might not fit in with a new plan. The environ- mental impact statement may be invalidated. The property involved will not produce tax revenues for a longer period of time. In short, then, the Chamber of Commerce is urging you to maintain the integrity of the 1969 Urban Renewal Plan and address yourself immediately to the best method or methods of implementation. To the City Council of Iowa City: We, the three plaintiffs in the recent urban renewal case, Charles Eastman, Harold Bechtoldt, and Jeanne Smithfield, wish to state publicly, that we do not intend to appeal the decision handed down by Judge Carter which invalidated the Iowa City Urban Renewal contract with Old Capitol Associates. This decision is based on the understanding that neither the City nor any of the Intervenors are planning to appeal. For at least four reasons, we have decided not to sign a waiver of our right to appeal. In the first place, we brought this suit against the City because of our belief that the contract was illegal --illegal in part because of the way the contract was arranged and in part because of the repeated and extensive revisions made at the request of Old Capitol Associates. To waive a legal right without careful study of all possible implications of such action seems unwise. In the second place, many people of Iowa City have expressed their thanks to us for giving the citizens of the community a chance to influence the development of a new urban renewal plan, more representative of the Iowa City community than was the one involved in the Old Capitol Associates contract. We cannot now sign an agreement of the kind requested by Old Capitol Associates and at the same time be representing the interests• of the many citizens of Iowa City not directly associated with Old Capitol Associates. In the third place, we are publicly stating our desire to see the construction of Plaza Center One resume and are publicly stating that 11 we have no intention of hindering the development of that project; con- struction can proceed at once. Neither the working people of Iowa City nor Old Capitol Associates need lose money because of our actions. 0 There have been numerous occasions over the last few years when Old Capitol Associates asked the City Council and community to accept its word that a promise would be kept. We believe that the same standards of credibility apply to our promise. Finally, the technicalities of devising a proper waiver, one which fully assures the rights of all parties, appears to be sufficiently complex that they could not be dealt with in time for the action to be of real value to the people of Iowa City. We suggest the quickest way for the construction of Plaza Center One to resume is for Old Capitol Associates to accept this public assurance by us that we desire the prompt resumption and completion of the development of that parcel. Old Capitol Associates could recommence construction tomorrow with the acceptance of this assurance, whereas the development of an acceptable waiver would involve a further unnecessary delay. We hope that future urban renewal decisions of the City Council will take into consideration the many viewpoints that have been important in the history of urban renewal in Iowa City and that the best interests of the community rather than those of any one group will govern. It is truly the time for compromise, for a rejection of pressure tactics, and for a movement to build a downtown that will complement the other features of the Iowa City community. June 7, 1976 Respectfully submitted, v July 2, 1976 \lr. ThOrh'15 .T, iiBLlZ it President Forace -m PTO 419 Pact Fairchild Iowa City, Iowa S2240 ik.ar "r. iveu7.il: tYe are very Pleased to inforn the f!orace ttann Parent Teachers Organization that the Cit}' ��il1 provide additional fiords for Pla)'groun-d equipment in North Market Square. t•tr. De;mis Slioualter, Director of Parks and Recreation. ,;ill he in touch with you to finalize Plans for the equipment. I 1•roulrl like to conffatulate your organization for its endeavors which will benefit the children on the north side coi e: -=ty • Sincerely yours, ?.r1Iy r„ NeliliaLLser Lay or is cc: City Clerk Director of Parks and Recreation AMENDED FY 1976, 1977 (ICDA PROGRAMS ACTIVITIES LISTING AMENDED FY 1976 AMENDED FY 1977 1. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 130,000 a) comprehensive plan development 90,000 b) human resources 2,000 c) river corridor study 30,000 20,000(3) d) commercial recyling e) day care needs f) zoning evaluation g) sludge treatment h) Ralston Creek study 80,000(1) 2. NEIGHBORHOOD REIIABILITATION s4-70;000 1 a) purchase and rehabilitation b) loan and grant program 5,000 c) resource center d) site improvements, i.e., trees, bus shelters, etc. 3. CODE ENFORCEMENT 50,000 45,000 4. ARCHITECPURAL BARRIER REMOVAL 114,000 a) city -owned buildings 1,000 b) other public buildings c) housing opportunities S. NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER a) skills unlimited 2,000 b) center to meet human needs 6. RALSTON CREEK FLOOD CONTROL -125,0004) 7. PARE: IMPROVEMENT'S AND ADDITIONS 147,500 a) City Park 100,000 b) neighborhood parks 76,000 c) park additions 46,000 8. URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT 800,000 600,000 1,424, 8A. URBAN RENEWAL LAND ACQUISITION - 824,400> 9. COMMITTEE ON CU-11MUNITY NEEDS 5,000 10. RIVERFRONT ACQUISITION 2,000 - 11. ADMINISTRATION 36,000 160,000 12. CONTINGENCY - (2) HCDA ALLOCATION 2,061,000 2,061,000 HCDA CW51ITTED 1,320,000 2,802,000 HCDA UNCOIN5111 I'ED 741,000 (741,000) v L4S 000 Page 2 Footnotes: (1) An additional $30,000 was allocated from the FY 1976 contingency amount. (2) The remaining $70,000 in the contingency item for FY 1977 has been transferred to the FY 1977 program. (3) An amount of $20,000 was allocated in FY 1976 for a human resources Plan. $2,000 of this amount was spent on initial program expenses, including program delineation and interview expenses. At Council direction, $20,000 is being allocated to this item for FY 1977. (4) 'n e original amount of $390,000 was reduced to $125,000 at the direction of t -he City Council. This amount equals the figure suggested by the Ralston Creek Consultant. I r n w o z • Pt o w Z W � Na (Q O (O,- n� { Rps � rt W r1 f'f CDCD �: any 3C7 0 H N• �o rr N O M y W � r• rt w CD �H � H a f"! N m H Hl �1= to to O CD O O O v cr o fr :j 1- N r a7 �° CDCD H N• w. a n H CD !-§JI�, V! A V H N W O« % 0 W O Cf] a ag H •x7 H K P4 H to to V 1100 K N to V ... l0 LD co 0 yy 0 J H N -400 c L4 V F• L,L, O voo NP• N O O O ON 0 a O O h+ no � g S rt W N N ~ � rt 1+9 y ro 0�• w �w � ~ Q N J H N -400 c L4 V F• L,L, O voo NP• N O O O ON 0 a O O h+ no � g �{ O ff W ~ $° a� r• H• n a� fD ~ V 00 I- Cn to O 000