Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1974-02-05 Regular Meeting
2 ' i .e Ys �`..� .Si yti ,t 'S 5�)�$y. X ia^..f� �.\ i �� 5A c � i . , �:�._�.� - - , , .--j�l1i�-�2_ R 0 L L C A L L Regular MEETING OF BRANDT CZARNECKi DAVIDSEN dePRDSSE WHITE 7:30 P.M. Feb. 5, 1974 ■ PREF T ABSENT v U thw,5th Chamber HMe ,the.min subjgct chil&- c se'ddfidd Motion Rules -.,C J�t rft1hufes Board 'o sse- --:White grandt -L id d( 1. i d.y Ib 'Davidsen.-to adopt is ermi+_.Application for t,'1'i3 Muscatine Ave. Upon - 5 -B andt -Czarnecki voted d seconded Davidsen to adopt s'C-",,Be`erPbrrnIt Application for outbRiv&rs'fde,.. Drive. . Upon roll Czarnecki,-:". Davidsen-, voted 'aye'. L th °.7 COI[lIi] .Roel lette Milwa ferre back: tette Comca; = rider; and . f: for ri Job = CDnj�ai City r ,as -.--apF incree the„ and, re back. M Board for-TAd at.nex Davids readin, by :Bra: Davids -- - -....,..... IMLIL �a.LUII curing X6ceived 'and filed., Motion''carred. ' was moved=byx{White and seconded by'deProsse that the romrD D. Lew 'stoh; Mayor,:''Ierr Iowa, concerning sen er,sery ce_,throug 'cen—tra-l- Iowa y C icago, 8"'&-""St'Paula Railroad be rn eceived and filed `are- the CouncilLegislative Committee for a report anon carried s i -.✓ 9o- _ d _ � r aas;movedNbylWhite aridFseconded by deProsse ,that the St vhnoth Iowa IllinoisGas and Electric Davenvort Iowa,r<concerning.a proposed new_ contract widingrfbr+interruptiblpow.er service be received i and re€erredK.to the City Manager, and City Attorney t back as appropriate {-MOt on;.carried: z gas moved-.by�White and seconded by::deProsse that the "Illinois :Gas ;and; Electric Iowa C t��, IOWa concern hQ pLOpOSe a ectrlc and increases be received and filed ah&'referred to the ager and City€Attorney for consideration and report 1riate in aonjunct`on with previous :request` on 'rate Motion :carzaed: as moved 'by ;L�avidsen and seconded. by Brandt that r fromGeorae` Cole; Mayor, 'Sioux 'Cit Iowa,,-con- -be owa, con- be received an —filed: redto'the Co+unci s Legis ative-co mmittee or report �� tion` carried. ;` r Czarnecki noted that the ,Chairperson for the Library ed ;that -the r'e'quest' from. the :Library Board o T� rustees ' conal Fundina.beudered and scheduled for discussion ednesday informal sessson.� tiA as movedby Brandt and" seconded. by_ White that the suspended and ;the;.third readiiicr of the Ordinance Part of Section 210.7�of;:the Rational Electric `Code -title 'only.` Upon roIlycahl White,<Brandt, Czarnecki, deProsse„ voted 'aye' . `Motion carried; and third wea: byy title only:. It Fwas moved , by White., and seconded to adoutxtheOrdinance: ";Up call Czarnecki, deProsse; White , Brandt;,voted"'aye',- Motion carried. � .. h.r < .sx..... .t- .i".�"�!!��v. w..e�a'm�e4 aaiaa4 VG rl - - -' r " February 5; 1974 y It was move d`byRWHite and se'conded,by:Brandt that the rules be° suspended.' and :the ythird.:readn-of-the-.`Ordinance- to Vacate a orHutoh �nson'. Avenue ;North of Park Road be given -by title only.;r-Up on -.roll ca u:v dsen; deProsse, White, Brandt., ;Czarneckir�Voted 'aye' . Motion `carried and third reading;: given $by title' only=. It`_" was moved by White and l seconded: by deProsse4f-o adopt the:oidnance Upon roll call deProsse, White, Czarnecki,:Davidsen,voted.:aye'-, Brandt :voted ' YMGr_- on ,carried, 4/1`. Zt was' moved: by deProsse and seconded no, by Brandt to set a c_�Heariilahe Ds ostion of a vacatedportion of Hutch nson Avenue --:f or 5th Motion = carri.ed.;, S After discussion of ,procedures a t. was moved by deProsse an d secoidedr by White, to defer, actionon .;the; Ordinance for Vacation'' -of a<.Portion of Lower:..WestF=Branch :Road- so Council can meet�_wi P annina andrZonsn for'r:di"scussionT of this matter on February 19th. Cipson,roll�call Czarnecki,; Davidsen, ,deP.rosse` :.' voted !aye' , ,Brandt voted ' no' , White 'abstained.' -Motion -carried 4 4 r L It was moved by Brandt andSseconded by White that the rubes bei suspended and, the third-=read.na="of- the Ordinance Vacating aan =Easement 'in -W ashrngton`:Park; `Part -VTI be given y tit �e _ on y: Upon roll t ca31's White Brandt Czarnecki,, . [ +. 5,., .. r Davidsen deProsse voted u'aya'., Motion"carried and third readinggiven.by title only. It was moved _by Brandt and seconded"by T�avidsenY`toadopt the:=Ordinance' Upon roll call Brandt; .Czarnecki, David. '.Brandt White voted 'aye'. . Motion carried. 4 Mayor Czarnecki<pointed.out two objections, one from Kathie Grissoia;Church 'and. a..letter' from. Gertrude En lest, 413"E..Church; 1nreQard to prohbltln arkin on church an Gilbert .t It was moved b White' and seconded by: Davidsen that Y the; letter, be recei2ved:and filed and referred'to the City` Manager Motionjcarr'ied�` It'was moved by. `Brandt and seconded by Davi'dseni to` adopt tie Res"olutron `Prohibtin Parkin on the South�Side of=_Churc �" reett' or a Distance:o 150 eet West o Gilbert 'And'100 ;feet East of<. Gilberts Upon: ro11 ca11, Davidsen,- White, Brandt .voted aye', Czarnecki and-deProsse voted ;'no'. r Motion carried 3/2 r - It was moved byWhite and seconded by. Brandt to adopt the Resolution Awarding Contract to•LinColn Develo ment,_Inc.,- Marshalltown;=Lowa<:-in`the ;:airiount=:of' $°31,0:60.00 for the 1974 y h S l r F 16 IRM - �, r x ger 4 ;� i N� Council Minutes uary `5 , { ra 1974 ` Sanitary Sewer Improvement Pro ect 1' deProsse, White„ Brandt, Czarnecki votedUponeroll call Davidsen, r ' } ' . Motio n carried. The following>threeuresolutions vitiated'the 1974 Concrete Repair Program #1 zs It= was4 moved by 'Brandt and econded by deProsse to--ado t.the;ReS71ut1on Setzin Public Hearing on the Resolut on` of Mecesslt or, Februar 6 1119./4 at 7:30 P,M, m the Councilr,Chambers. Upon roll call deProsse White,Brandt, White voted #.aye t'' `C arneck ,abstained. was moved br'Whzteeand`seconded'by BrandtMtoladoptrtheaResot 1'„' lution Director En 'inset o Prepare'Plans`and Specifications, .. ► :._. C Upon ro'1 callLWhite Brandt Davidsen, .deProsse voted 'aye! Czarnecki abstained: `2 Motion carried. It-was-mo ved by White and seconded by Brandt;ao adopt=.:the :;Resolution Seftin Public Hearin non rPlans and'S °ecificationSk, Februa 2,6 ' 1974:` and and .Form of Contract for ►$ r _Receive Bids on:Februar .28, 1974 at oon ro ca i3ran t, Davidsen, deProsse, White voted 'aye!,; Czarnecki,abstaihe Mofion;carried. ti �� It was moved =by 8randt.and;seeonded.by Davidsen to adopt the Re's olution>tProh'm :1Par km om:ithe;West Side of Johnson Street 'f orf a'-Distance7=of -A roximatel 15 feet Between-Two DePross s, ust south°of Burling"ton St` Upgn roll`ca11 Davidsen�- tieprnee r _ - r'� �, ••.=ate, Brandt- voted ' aye , Czarnecki voted 'not. •_ , Motion carried 4/ = s t1�. It was moved by Davidsen and: seconded by Brandt to adopt the: ResolutAut ion 'horizn .:thesMa '.sr'Si nature on an Ease- ment m Favor.:?o a Un Ease =Iowa, for; installataEa e a a ,sensor tcabie „Court St ° and Front',St:` � Davidsen; deProsse` White L �UPon roll call abstained Motioncarried,Brandt voted aye., Czarnecki It 6kias moved by yBBrandt and seconded by. White to adopt the,_Resoluton Fixing Date.;for,.a;Meet`ing, ;February 26, 1974, on t ssuance oIll.; Urban: Renewa - Bon s o o xcee Notice an Provi mQ for Publication of Thereof Upon,zoll{call deProsse,ite, WhBrandt, Czarnecki, Davidsen voted 'aye'. ;Motion carried. Rev. Welsh,/ y Chairman .YCitzens:` for °;a -Better- ;Iowa ,Cit , resented a letter concernm a e i ion an o 'ere : o e secure si natures '.It was moved by Brandt and seconded by,Davidsen that the letter be recesved and filed: ;'Motion carried:. t - Y r f f ✓Y Y 'Y i( 4 77,777 - rFy.r s jftY+r r 4r S 'Ij t:Y+.Gr'.e ^m !3'�- l♦ `SN� x� h' rm'.''fiv µv.ro-.•a"te.}i l!r+t +aYj t' ;"—��i7}`1 vPr•l L Ji.f f X- l 't`r CSaA6kse.+•.n r"v-I'HMI.xtIej4 �•L Y .T t it{5. •J Ly,F i`F1_ri..O Y _ ! '1 A council.Minu t; es F e bruary 5, 1974 It was moved by White dseconded by Da vidsen to amend - the .,Resolution-Estabng_,,thd'-*Urb� 'Renewal Design Review --Committew_, )y,�dingto:paragraph ;4 -_.t6serve as an ad hoc d ' -r.,,_qoMm1tte`e.11 . carried It was 'moved by white, a v Is0 y� er',, ;ecoh ddi - - _1 - _ - andf- �hded:7--by. 5jto-delete 'to the City ` 146'fidri,.'aiif'e�iitedBrariA t,,�Czarn6cki,,Davidsen, s.�m6v 4' .,-It. wa 4 ;ossej itiad edby White and seconded by evz-:6- to,,"rea'that : the City Manager be authorized to take whatever :adminstra'tive action necessary e. -per ormance, in' 'f of duti th committee'. 6 Motion carried. d'-dbDavidsen-,to add to was -%:mdvd itd6fid'.sdcon e y� number 1 2',' 3 and;5, 'and ad3acent to! in front of the words, ticiI,buslhessdistrict'.'" Davidsen, deProsse �4- White voted 'aye',=Brandt and - zarnecki voted 'no'. Motion carried.--Iy2z4It.`-,was i;L-moved byWhite -.and -seconded by deProsse o adopt s amended. Uponiroll call White, d- --'Brcindt-.'-.'--Czair'jiecki!�,-, -Day.idsdzv-t-' deProsse !vote . .. ... aye'. motion -carried. City Manager--Ray-j,,--W -1 - ; -.. � discussed i " his m' em -- o reg,a rdin g neciotiAtina �a" contract '.for essi servi,ces for the _ C i t UniversityPk6i6bt4,-R.14 14= -and recommended a -contract withWelton Beckett <Assoc. `tow include 'the:': following of services=, informati o n B) - Parking "ramp!southernFpor, Block-83'and-generally the air` irights of,-'remainder`-ofComprehensive amenities program streat ,and -walkway lighting, pavement treatments,. landscape se.pq ion'graphL --Water features, drainage;` ease ,use Rp ;x -fig t7o 7.wayj�,pdd6sfrian,closures and bi eways; Ov d :by White that _g 6k,bdith6riidd"tbn6j6tiata7cont'act with Welton - Beckett &Assoc:S &S r -a- Reri6wal Program design. jorothyLDouglassappearedzconcerningthe- et6rs Martinson contract: rawn and White. It was`t6en,moVed bwB=,an&"s6co 6J64.White'to defer the matter _"until' -30-A. .smeetnjWedhesqaMotion carried, eProsse4roting Afterspme-discussi6fi- V' :---- . , - from Dennis nnis Kra ft, Director, irector, Community —DeV61bmert,-on�thPZoriho Subdivision Fee Study, Atmovedkbye'kapanc66"6&*by"White'refer the report *o..Plannng and .,rorcommentWafidlxecommen ation.. Motion defeated;"C arneckk;'DAV!ds6n.andIePtosse;Vbting 'no' it was2movoi�'5y�Brandtranseco eProsse to an infc,rinal public hear ng on Ma10i�a6feated] 1/4,Czarnecki, Dav:idsen Brandt, White _voting, "Po It -was moved by Brandt -,sedphd6d-,A ;�to -�Studv� t and, ,by�ideprqssie �;.�to. he to `Planning and. Zoninc-f 6r. recommendation and fback-oft March 5th. Motion 6� -Z- Sz 6 Council" Page r __ 1 Minutest` February;5, 1974 City "Attorney:= John -Hayek .submitted al `rho.erni ng Iowa.?"Ctv`Ar 'ort `Commi'ssion's fecal= authority and power to se13 airport:<property,":noting that .,,the' ---Airport Commission does note have' the'" -power-; for sell said',airport :property. It was; moven by .Branda� and_ seconded by' "deProsse that the City -Manager.:::'communicate the content �to;the.'Arport".Commiss'ion of; the -,City. P:ttorneys !;opini:on.. •::Motion carriee . Councilman White questioned ,thememo receivedconcerning the r ght.of=Way.at'T nion.P1 intersection with Bloomington ', Street, Yreauest r g-�=a`_atop or:.y el'd sign. Itwas moved by r White and seconded -by deProsse that the 'memo and, suggestion67 be-referredr°to- ttie° Civ''=Attorney 'for ``further consideration, Motion carried, Brandt -voting no ,_4%1: _ Councilman White suggested that folloo�ing their discussions on Senate -File •.531`, zthe' Council should. 'formalize their position and requested thatathe:CityManager draft a proposed position .,to vote''on and submit to4our legislators. sIt was. moved by White and seconded :by, 3eProsse that the< City" Manager- be instructed to :provide a recommendation=to Council on senate :File 531 to submit to the=Legi'slato"rs of Johnson County. Motion carried. Councilman Whyte commented on the Ride. and Shop Plan delay ; ri connection`.w :th_ ahs `Rededelopment' Proposal. It was moved�by_White and„"seconded_:; by Davidsen that the. City; manage r.~be :requested to.-contact.'`the Chamber :of Commerce and Downtown City Center' Association ;and others as.he deems appropriate,- and;:=sport _on :'status .of .;Ride and -Shop. proposal: Motion carried,,.Czarnecki voting'no' Mayon Czarnecki presented a lgtter he received from Carl -Goetz'; Johnson "County,Attorney,;-prusuant to property on Street..=sold.'atY"the.;ScayengeY=Tax ."-Sale`: It was moved by Brandt and secondedf by>;deProase that;'the..letter be received and filed ;arid referred ao the City and City Manager _• ,Attorney -for report back to'Council._ Motion carried. Mayor.•Czarnecki'announced=the"reappointments of Tom Wegman, Mrs. Margaret xeyes. William Nusser,-=Mrs.: Joyce Summerwill, and • tkl- a! ` Nowvsz -to `the='Urban=-Renewal -Design-'Review Committees it.was<moved by Brandt and seconded by white to approve the Mayor's`appontments Motion`cariied: _ _ t J IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 5, 1974 7:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CIVIC CENTER 410 EAST WASHINGTON • AGENDA REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING a I FEBRUARY 5, 1974 7:30 P.M. Item No. 1 - MEETING TO ORDER ROLL CALL AllP�'rek7 Item No. 2 - READING OF MIn*UTES OF JANUARY 29REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF r 19 7 4. e - Item No. 3-�PUBLIC DISCUSSION.`' I'p A t o QagA C2- iv. 0-t-,".CC4� Item No. 4 - RECEIVE MINUTES OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. a- Board of Appeals minutes of December 11 b• Board of 1973 meeting. Ad' stment minutes of December meeting. . 6cJ !�1-t,� �lt.��i�� 19 , 1973 Action: Item No. 5 - ISSUANCE OF PERMITS. a• Consider resolution approving Class C beer gle Discount -Supermarket permit 600 North Dodge Street. #157, Action: t; Item No. 1 - MEETING TO ORDER ROLL CALL AllP�'rek7 Item No. 2 - READING OF MIn*UTES OF JANUARY 29REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF r 19 7 4. e - Item No. 3-�PUBLIC DISCUSSION.`' I'p A t o QagA C2- iv. 0-t-,".CC4� Item No. 4 - RECEIVE MINUTES OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. a- Board of Appeals minutes of December 11 b• Board of 1973 meeting. Ad' stment minutes of December meeting. . 6cJ !�1-t,� �lt.��i�� 19 , 1973 Action: Item No. 5 - ISSUANCE OF PERMITS. a• Consider resolution approving Class C beer gle Discount -Supermarket permit 600 North Dodge Street. #157, Action: •page 2 Work Agenda February 51 1974 Item No. 5 - Action: :,3 Action: Action: (Continued) b. Consider resolution approving application for Eagle Discount 1101 South Riverside Drive. 4)4- / Gcj C z / // a e, of Class C beer permit Supermarket #220, C. Consider resolution approving Class C beer permit applicationforSeaton's Cash and Carry Market, 1331 Muscatine Avenue. (,JC/ 1 41 d. Consider resolution approving Class C beer permit application for May's Drug Store #198, 1101 South Riverside Drive. � l pe� dc�,, ( e,- Item No. 6 - CORRESPONDENCE TO THE CITY COUNCIL. Action: Action: a. Letter from Sarah Fox, Chairperson, Parks & Recrea- tion Commission, expressing thanks and appreciation to Mr. Jim Roegiers for his work as Chairman of the Commission during 1973. b. Letter from D. D. Lewiston, Mayor, Perry, Iowa, concerning rail passenger service through central Iowa e'41e-o9c, Nli1�ur. J Si. P4.1- R,(i' F) 0, -A G C. Letter from D. R. Stichnoth,'Iowa-Illinois Gas and P Electric Company, Davenport, Iowa, concerning a pro- posed new contract rider providing for interruptible power service. Action: Ly _ .� 1 JLC I C."( 0 f c t r r d. Letter Letter from D. G. Findlay, Iowa -Illinois Gas and • Electric Company, Iowa City, Iowa, concerning pro.- po ed electric and gas rade increases.- Action: W Ltd-G•C� �Y1En-"[, C'-c....i_ ✓1��_ ti.h/--/ ,A.'[Y��""' Item No. 6 - (Continued) e. Letter from George Cole, Mayor, Sioux City, Iowa, concerning financial pp dile/m�na of Iowa cities. Action: _�J6 �l�1 ��_� /L� ,Le �C�rti.>,,, �_. �,e 1 , _ . ' GLGre a. ,�4. Item No. 7 - CONSIDER REQUEST FROM THE LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING. Comment: Representatives of the Library Board will be attending the Council meeting to make this request. The Library Board wishes to request additional funding to provide for a cost of living salary increase for Library employees. This item was deferred from the January 22, 1974 Council meeting. r % Action: Item No. 8 - CONSIDER ORDINANCE AMENDING PART OF SECTION 210.7 OF - �2 (,- 67 & THE NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE. (THIRD READING) Comment: Part of Section 210.8 of the 1971 National Electric Code requires that "all 15 and 20 ampere receptacle outlets on single phase circuits for construction sites shall have approved ground -fault circuit protection for person- nel. This requirement shall become effective on January 1, 1974." The above mentioned paragraph is in conflict with the standards imposed by OSHA. Therefore, it is recommended that the Council consider amending the 1971 National Electric Code by deleting this particular section until such time as OSHA has an opportunity to make a decision on th�is� particular requirement. Action:7"0 ' �3 "' 'Cs � tv Item No. 9 - CONSIDER ORDINANCE TO VACATE A PORTION OF HUTCHINSON .71/ �/ 9 l AVENUE NORTH OF PARK ROAD. (V-7308) (THIRD READING) Comment: Mr. & Mrs. M. Rosenbaum have requested a vacation of a portion of the Hutchinson Avenue north of Park. Road because a portion of their home is constructed in the 0 =` 1 page 4 Work Agenda February 5, 1974 Item No. 9 - (Continued) right-of-way. The Planning and Zoning Commission on November 29, 1973 recommended vacating the east 10 feet of the Hutchinson Avenue right-of-way for a distance Of 80 feet north beginning at a point 40 feet north of I/ Park Road by a 7-0 vote. The City Manager and staff concur. Public hearing was held January 15, 1974. Action: Item No. &jl�e dzec. �hv� a r 10 - CONSIDER ORDINANCE FOR VACATION OF WEST BRANCH ROAD. (V-7309) (THIRD A PORTION READING) OF LOWER Comment: The Planning and Zoning Commission on December 13, 1973 recommended vacation of a portion of Lower West Branch Road from its intersection with Rochester Avenue eastward to a line extended north from the western boundary line Of Oakwoods'Addition, Part 6. The staff had recommended vacation of the entire portion of Lower West Branch Road between Amhurst Street on the east and Rochester Avenue on the west, and the ordinance would vacate this section. As part ofthe construction contract approved by the City Council, curbs have been placed on Amhurst Street and on Rochester Avenue blocking direct access to that portion of West Branch Road considered for vacation. Public hearing was held January 15, 1974. The Commission also recommended that a curb cut be made at the intersection of Lower West Branch Road and Amhurst Street to the west. JLSCOS.Siok a'� �avbc �%1Vv8 Action: kc,�uJ ((�. ±�c" �c� t_..� N'v. ^ r"i t t r Item No. 11 - CONSIDER.ORDINANCE VACATING AN EASEMENT IN WASHINGTON PARK, PART VII. (THIRD READING) Comment: The City has an easement for a sanitary sewer on Lots 147 and 148, Washington Park Addition, Part VII which is not required for the sanitary sewer as constructed for these lots. Since the City has no need for this easement, it has been requested that it be vacated. Public hearing was held January 15, 1974. Action: (J� ��� /� a . 3 '` D-� ( O CJ a (Ca �t d 3 Af . Item No. 12 - CONSIDER RESOLUTION PROHIBITING PARKING ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CHURCH STREET FOR A DISTANCE OF 150 FEET WEST OF GILBERT AND 100 FEET EAST OF GILBERT. Comment: The Engineering Division of the Department of Public Works has reviewed the sight distance problem at the intersection j5c'? of Gilbert and Church. Northbound traffic on Gilbert which is stopped at the Church Street intersection has difficulty seeing traffic on Church Street due to vehicles parked on the south side of Church. The removal of this parking should alleviate the sight distance problem. Approximately 12 parking spaces would be removed by this resolution. A letter notifying the property owners and/or residents of the residence immediately adjacent to these proposed parking restrictions has been delivered. The City Manager and staff recommend adoption of this resolution �q 2 _�i,z.o� _ 3zq 674 / 3 Action: et% DA-- -4 0.IAJ 3 C /ei .. (i - & L e p r r Item No. 13 - CONSIDER RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE 1974 SANITARY y / SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT #1. Comment: This resolution approves the award of bid to Lincoln Development, Inc. of Marshalltown, Iowa, in the amount of $31,060.00. This project was discussed at the City Council meeting held on January 29, 1974, as Icem No. 14. The following is a tabulation of the bidders: Lincoln Development, Inc. $ 31,060.00 Marshalltown, Iowa Sulzberger Excavating $ 54,925.00 Muscatine, Iowa It can be seen, the bid submitted by Lincoln Development, Inc. was the lowest of the two bidders submitting bids on this project. The Engineer's estimate for this project was $34,158.50. This bid is approximately 9% below the Engineer's estimate. The City Manager and staff recommend adoption of this resolution. • Action: cw I /Q c ? l ( , , i. a e 6 •P g Work Agenda February 5, 1974 Item No. 14 -CONSIDER RESOLUTIONS INITIATING THE 1974 CONCRETE REPAIR PROGRAM #1. A. CONSIDER RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON THE RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY FOR FEBRUARY 26, 1974, AT 7:30 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS. 131L/&_t_ Gt.faov B. CONSIDER RESOLUTION DIRECTING ENGINEER TO PREPARF,� PLANS AND SEPCIFICATIONS . 601at._. &-)/ �, n:. L C. CONSIDER RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND FORM OF CONTRACT FOR FEBRUARY 26, 1974, AND RECEIVE BIDS ON FEBRUARY 28, 1974, AT 10: 00 A.M. W / iC2_" lin Comment: The above resolutions are necessary to initiate the 1974 Concrete Repair Program #1. Under this project streets on Windsor Drive, Prairie du Chien Road, Eastwood Drive, Southlawn Drive, and Hollywood Boulevard will be repaired. It is estimated that this project will cost approximately $45,000. The City Manager and staff recommend adoption of these resolutions. Action: ' 1 1 Gt.t'-Gc_—r—t-fC.- �`^1 I�-r.�.J�.-.l,.c ...o (,..p -..i a..r ' Item No. 15 -CONSIDER RESOLUTION PROHIBITING PARKING ON THE WEST SIDE OF JOHNSON STREET FOR A DISTANCE OF APPROXIMATELY 15 FEET BETWEEN TWO DRIVEWAYS. Comment: On the west side of Johnson Street just south of Burlington Street, two driveways to separate residences are spaced approximately. 15 feet apart. Vehicles are continually attempting to parkin this small space and often partially block one of the driveways. Although the drivers of these vehicles could receive a citation for blocking a driveway, itis recommended that no parking signs be erected be- tween the driveways. The City Manager and staff recommend adoption of this resolution. Action: I A %Q - I� I\t page 7 Work Agenda February 5, 1974 Item No. 16 5z2— Comment: Action: CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR'S ON AN EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF THE SIGNATURE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA. This easement will allow the University of Iowa to install a sensor cable as part of their water facility in the alley bounded by Prentiss and Court on the north and south and Madison and Front on the east and west, as well as in the Court Street right-of-way for a distance of 160 feet east of Front Street: also in the Front Street right-of-way north of Court for a distance of 340 feet. This easement will require the University to relocate at the University's cost anytime the City of Iowa City requests. The City Manager and staff recommend adoption of this resolution.______ ! Item No. 17 - CONSIDER RESOLUTION FIXING DATE FOR A MEETING ON THE PROPOSITION OF THE ISSUANCE OF URBAN RENEWAL BONDS, NOT TO EXCEED $61000,000.001 AND PROVIDING FOR PUBLICA- TION OF NOTICE THEREOF. Comment: In order to comply with the provisions of Section 403.12 (5ir Code of Iowa 197? r�,.,I , , and the provisions of Chapter f` 408A and 23, _Code of Iowa, 1973, it is necessary to establish a meeting time for the issuance of Urban Renewal L Bonds and public notification of such meeting. F,j ,.Action:CVS G"L! rt. LG i. (� �. Q Q / :^ I\ (.�l c / /� I J -d-'- �•-�rr--L"(�ii \ 1 Q ., tt / (' !I Y G !� IN 1 I C V titAf� 7- �j c� 1cj0 U I b. t 1 , W ! I h o ..c V%e 'CtR G o-rft . rk . - p I $cu [ )Cf � � 4V.G ,)—�F-.c.c7�.._ `, P.. t� �,� 'P � 'a CN, S,s I o r C :' rraotiva.t'. a. cSir '"� Nc�• 18 - CONSIDER RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING HTHE URBAN RENEWAL DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE. A Comment: This resolution expands and formally establishes the Urban Renewal Design Review Committee in order to carry out the .design functions discussed at the informal Council session on February 1, 1974. Action: t (� Cw+i.t.wfi� fGv i Of w 1 W v G t t(�� – GLR.0 Z-Crill i,_r u s 4� _. - .._ __. --------_-_ ---.._.. __ __``'tzc•G-! .. 'v--�<•�._ __ u--.�.�•�i.r�jwrti...�/-.--1�i�y...lr(_' •, � G` - _ _ . �.-%—�--��j.//�--- L j V -11 _ .._ ._... - - - __�.t.`-.t• �iL{�-'Y._�...-_ _-�-'-Via.'_'_-� �-l_.',��.-."S- -t.. (•L'. < - ` r �� 1� _ "_. Ll l -)DA i • _._ v��'[' 2-'<'4y�yw�tl�Rl.{ � 4/{. {'r'� Y-L„{ �.. i. .4!✓ Ll •...• / .1�L� . - ... ... .:.. .... �'���-�"'4.=F-•'Y«-r�-�-a-+._.. �'`'�___GC. 4'41.. �.(: �r.-+�L--7-o t�L� .�C-� 19 11 _ { - - d a�� d� �ii - bw - c- hh� Q Q_- U R-.� - !` 1 2 Ar a„ _ .L1 •;.< k.L:,.-2'2:., _ i..:TY - "., . :u-, i x .t...1- e .y. y - {jj�� �i /((��f%%'' J} Jj/ - -�L�'--� t�'Y•--•--- �..L-1-� L�.tiC�t�;f .a._.. �.--�--,. v L� �/1 _ ��' •_fit lLr.-w Zvi --jj r J J f`-..t_r; ....- __ _ - I /a✓\ / ice,' �l.�t-_ � t __ C...'A �:. f,.. ., F w t_ -J 1 - -._ r I/ 1:-f83- - .��^j•(_i'�'Y.-A--C.�C .. _V V w•C..�•� � —.,&Z.'iC/(Y ^!'.i � '�j`�1 - f�',� � Ile- _..(�{���Lr.._.F2t�.�t, _2 �p sc-t-_'-;,.Gc� ..2�yt� � �..-�.1.�. 1.- - r-• c� _��_._a..:._Z.J .. s- / -- . - . � 1 - �`.11�^".i /�//f (V ' V lX/`�" GG'i'i� �':i ba-c•�.... ee, {jj�� �i /((��f%%'' J} Jj/ - -�L�'--� t�'Y•--•--- �..L-1-� L�.tiC�t�;f .a._.. �.--�--,. v L� �/1 _ ��' •_fit lLr.-w Zvi --jj r J J f`-..t_r; ....- __ _ - I /a✓\ / ice,' �l.�t-_ � t __ C...'A �:. f,.. ., F w t_ -J 1 - -._ r I/ 1:-f83- - .��^j•(_i'�'Y.-A--C.�C .. _V V w•C..�•� � —.,&Z.'iC/(Y ^!'.i � '�j`�1 - f�',� � Ile- _..(�{���Lr.._.F2t�.�t, _2 �p sc-t-_'-;,.Gc� ..2�yt� � �..-�.1.�. 1.- - r-• c� _��_._a..:._Z.J .. s- / -- , _ --- 1-�-;_� C,cJ e , r� 4 k r J _-- . _. LOU : /,r_4'�'�s�}l.•te^:..�'4\7 i•'_i.. �!. �.t Tyr �/ .LL^L�� .�r•-�'C� ._:lt•i�'i 4 .ter _1..{" / � � � Q.t �. - - �`v r Item No. 19 - DISCUSSION OF THE ZONING AND SUBDIVISION FEE STUDY. Comment: This report has been prepared for the purpose of provid- ing information to the Council on suggested fee amend- ments for zoning ordinance amendments, subdivision plats 5 Y reviews, vacations and Board of Adjustment activities. - Report. is attached. � f I , Q Action: / , % LtJ - y� , �� Z'Q �- e. ��l'�,zt r. (.. a� Item No. 20 - CITY'ATTW`NEY'S REPORT CONCERNING IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION'S LEGAL AUTHORI/T�Y AND POWER TO SELL AIRPORT PROPERTY y" Ct ..> t�.vT l 1 12 PiwP li( 4 ,5"" �21 (�'""' `„ ° ad et opt a,�w V-1 Comment: See attached letter. _ Action:�Y1 t /� �"I/G( tee. ,,z��y�� �,ti 1 (7 All Item No. 21 - BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL. Da- 1 l 1 12 PiwP li( 4 `•^rLa.-ywG l.�"'yt�-ttit .L: p. ("'.�. 1-t.. �.. r" r. r ('t=U•tcJ /'��%O �" �vv�� ��w �,ta,=..�/J—� IY i�� .".., .. f // qt{,� _J ..J- � e' i a ii l7 \_C. {l • /h ' �, / / Y Il.'�•w f. I - ,., .� :l ,S..rt-. t'.t.�,:..l...z�.—t�--^_lt_et_I.,:...�_I,S� ♦:l. -o T-/ J Item No. 22 - REPORT ON MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS FROM THE CITY MANAGER AND THE CITY ATTORNEY. ' • page9 Work Agenda February 5, 1974 Item No. 23 - PUBLIC DISCUSSION. Item No. 24 - EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS FAIR MARKET VALUE of URBAN RENEWAL LAND. Item No. 25 - ADJOURNMENT. I! _ _ _ r;• - t t ♦ f 'VG _. _ _ / f ' �� _ - ----Com.-C�-�..Ca-G.✓ . _ �..C.c.r-f!�-� -- .__ _... _ ' (_� _ _ � 1 r� �.� __ -_ .. �.��._✓t�l�F--^'C���'.. _.-- _—Y �c..... � G' j G�r—n� �Y't--s% (?�°'C �s.s �r..'Gs�'^c-n. y 1 i � 7 Sj . _ ... _._ __�.�•_Ct_w-.�-_.....�'L _'—.J.C.��. �.(r-t cam..:},-> i...fi .✓�... �..t.� _- - ---- ►-fit- _ 1'i-c� _ -- �-� ` 1�..a Council; Minutes January 29, 1974 Councilman---_ BrtLn-dt,'nQted-,-re(:miB �brida-t-ibns 1) The-Riverfront - CommItss"i'brilliarecommends defer action on all requesjtsr4to5 s* f f any parcel of land now ing:,� c as i ication:o f:rontingon ;the Iowa----�Rl After July 1, 197.4 pend ng.f, compI etioft,p iver rc Further, the Com mission: recommends,-I'Qun,t141.1,_July- a 19'74, of the issuance: of building permit ,for ,construction of improvements ;permanent 3. mprove . b-nt.s_any..:pdrc- .&- lZron InjI _x on,th -Iowa River; 2) The Rlvbkf , the_;-City. Council to be aware - 'that the '_Commissions11is Fin &,--,serlous - pia, nning stage concerning h a -River � . the ',�"Cltyl",sta f will be needed to assist 'COmmission-in developing a , po, icy plain in the -minutes of the Iowa City Riverronl f Ell--Commission.-� ayor- Czarnecki advised-. ,�� istied'-.--withd-r'a-wal,'-'�-of -.the second sentence that the reque . .. .. ... X�l 1: -0 d was moved byWhite and seconded 'byBrandt _d'_:;:�tb�FmakeQ rec ommen&ftion- ,-.part .,-o .the public hearing n_Stre '-;nNztibnalB y;7P rbdtc t xezoning*reques t. Motion carried It was moved�by;Brandt and dy " b Vffii te to refer the re- ��, commendation 1; regari zohin4rclassi ica ich-to the City Manager andCity Attorney to -'i�i v stig te-j s legality. motion carried. Cour then; discussed study. The Mayor noted` he-would-write allboar s and commissions concerning minutes: d4drdsted,'�--discuss ion of the, and �7 re :co Ing.,:-lan 'mifie_hdatx.6n��c-,,f iqk0thd"t4.1,a*-n' fil'- d--,,Zoning -�L�Commission approving j.j--.--�Park1hg-,,-.and": Side Yards Stu th dyl, and - d ",`boards - ... este C',,,.an commissions s-minutes sugg ...... !'�,�ta eon the-agenda. ;.- After discussiobe n k ;--,,,up �;Jif t6f h5vi' N y Brand t and seconded. tetfehindZoning_recommendatio n bereceived _ the. �jAa "y'dr_:'schedule che ule a meeting, possibly at tfib-nforma sessxon-on-t f sVebruaryrwith Planning n 'Zonlhg.��-Cdidmis-b�i'oii;,'�,t*-'o�'-d -s-cu's, i� d,- --.�parkin4iind'..sideyard study It was moved .�-i d6d,lby-white to adopt the Res,6luti6nApproving, An secon -Liquor Permit appli-_ ',,,. Iuh.;'Bder-;And cation,fx riang IOWAr� Memor Union, of Iowa.` Upon roll flgBran'd t�'CzArhedk hite. Voted 'aye' Davidsdii'--`"and',,d'e-Prosse absent. Motion .'carried. It was moved by White & ---i'seconded ,by .-Brandt that the lettery from 'Ray BY niver -Ah slityi_:of ,-Iowa,, requesting '-U �t e 4116y7' ihj�,Bl _k":6 Seat AdditionIowa .- oc �.-5.County. _7 h �b -r rece i - led and erre t6.'Planning and rid - el. -ve �-.�zn i Zoning. Motion car Mi nutiesm -January. 29 1974 t- 11 was cmoved_�.77 byBrandt,and n tqed..,by. White that the from,,.-V,.iv J - an, Dom Klotz ,concerning sidewalk construction- Fe o "'i P_rov1b16hS%f be-received handicapped ef e'r* and Md"r City re o�: th'd.. ,for report. Motion carried! ......... . was moved" 1 ya randtseconded L r e - by., White that the letter- I 'Gas concerning rning the pro por io f Dli�b n' 6 erre _Cit, form Mr. md referred uqUe:, Street be received and. -.,-,,.Y�Mand4er� to ar_`,`f dr__�_ -Jn 1�dfg' - Grueskin cusslon�'--oh -F February--5th ruary--Sth.at 7:30-P.m. ::arridd meeting. was mo-v6d�-"by,-�,-.Br-a-ndt-�'�-,a'nd�-i'-"s-e-d-c')ncie'-.d 'b�'y' white that th e from .,Agnes :,.R Kuhn, T815..J_'J6fferson,,-j. -concerning parking weekendnd be received,and 0 -��`suqh",- di- nd"-,.referred i f or, -report back on the --.�Motion �,,carried. V. :was � mov_ed'A�:by'-,'.'. Brandt d,by-Czarnecki: that the -ja from ,'. Mar. Milkman„ i e s ommittee of Project concerninq�,: annIng,-t be I ...... e received and filed and .,.t6;.- .the t a recommend direction o Ilocate staff nl.ng the Council for a] plan . to sent-to- Regional Planning ion.'e- i�Upon "-;roll-4" Brandt-i:and : Czarnecki voted 'aye-' _d )te no. - an e k6sset4hsent. Motion carried. was '-wh— n seconded ?Brandt m ... o'vedab r that the om? So.h,*ator-i, arbld U es: concerning various housing :Ion�:' s J, .,proposdi, '�b'- eing,_,,,kdii by!��-Congress be,received r %r ewe ,d--_,A h d,"'Vd-",c6py_:-ref referred _`1 r_ - - -,`--the'--Hou ' ' -C e ommission.- sing Motion was moved by White e, and�.__sebondedl.. by �Brandt that the Hanna ann-a-�B,��.,Veist6n:_ aw eye;�'Arda,-Ch6pter of the Iowa b, n i concerning ertieg�,.Unlo the-sign_ordinance be re- e'&If wil-th" discussion of other amend- the .-ion5.-carried. was d.,- B T" randt--,-.an ��seconded-_ by White that the rom .... .. d of ecrietar ng the y,re, . oar Education, appointment�.-_,�,q, ecreation Commission be re- t a serve as their the and nd fi-led. .Motion carried: It was -moved by White nae YBr e---:: ayor . s ...-Appoin tMent of,Robin C&mmfs s fori'.:be, approved.:Motion carried. qa Manager M January 29:, 1914 It 'was moved by White rand seconded by iCzarnecki that the. second reading; of the Ordinance mf or Vacation of a Portion of •Lower_West:Branch Road be given: Upon roll call Czarnecki and White voted 'aye',Brandt,voted 'no', deProsse and David - sen° absent Motion carried• and second reading ,given_ by City Attorney;; Hayek. _ It was moved 'by=White and seconded by Czarnecki that the third reading: of thekx Or"dinance Vacating .a sPortion of MacBride Addition:; Part I be given. Upon roll-call,'Czarnecki and White' _ : aye , Brandt voted 'no', Davidsen.and deProsse absent. Motion carried and, third. .,given by City Attorney; Hayek. It was movedby`Wh`te and seconded by Czarnecki to adopt the Ordinance. Up = roll call Czarnecki, White', Brandt voted 'aye', Davidsen:and-:deProsse absent. Motion' carried. Y It was moved -by White and seconded by Czarnecki that the • second reading of ::the Ordinance Vacating ani Easement in; Washington Park, Part VII be'given. Upon, roll call White, Brandt, Czarnecki voted; 'aye;', Dav_idsen and deProsse absent. Motion carried, and second, readin g.given•by'City Attorney Hayek. It was moved;`by,Brandt.•�and,seconded by White to adopt the Resolution Prohibiting_Parking ow the South Side of Church Street for a %Distance of 150`' Feet West; of Gilbert and` 100 Feet - East of .Gilbert: After discussion, motion; and second with drawn It was moved by Brandt an. sec.nded`by White thattheCity Manager apprise`property owners in the>Gilbert and Church Street area of proposed' -action ah,d reschedule the-Resolution,on Tue'sday,=_February 5'th: Motion carried. <' Mayor Czarnecki,noted that this' was,the"time set for the Public -Hearing on ;Plans; Specifications and -Form of -Contract for:: the 1974 ;Sanitary SewerImprovement Project:#1. _There being no �interested,persons'to appear,-`-the,`Mayor- declared, the hearing ;closed. It was='moved by seconded by Branto adopt,'' %Whiteand the:Resoluti : Planet Upon roll call •Brandt, Czarnecki, White voted Aye deProsse absent. Motion carried. ,,...rid Council discussed the February 7th, ,4:00 P.M. meeting and requested theCity:'Manager to straighten out. arrangements and -` appointments j, It -was,:-moved by 'White and seconded by Brandt that the problem concerningiSidewalk-on Melrose`Avenue and Mormon Trek Blvd , specifically Sartelt:property, be referred to the City Attorney.! Motion carried. t , S ' . 1.'t N1 R r�.� W. ..��.. S ISLL:I``Iut"'IT Gi-L'LJz:/ ( �7� UCt:.tjp rl: 3K I`:Ji\C�: r -r - ..J,,.. .7 :�" 'P, -\rte•,. rte, st ill 'thy. rs Iu1i377eF• POOPIC's . �.. % CGi.L1Ci 1 - cosi .c _ CU 1I,i O )3.E' 'CO utf Ent(! } Jose CC, u(zcile ,)mss s V• GIl OILU Of i:i7n�0 C•;."Trr .. 1_ t.0 nt1:3711.77 c: ' - t,;o�-,• In „� axe ,. Vial.. i2t.( :,.. ON _ ISi)fi7Li%i:_�].' _ '��•^ n;,�„-;• ..'. ,...< 011i Secor.C{ Prof-)OSaJ•, in Octoberthe PCOP10's Alliance JE �2L•I !)T T.,',_;'•;-7 i;” r' city COU171--il se '"Lenin 5-' s ti}::�_ - � - .i 1. LitoS: CiLLi ;o: :: -:a'_I ._l i'Jo.• cfl7pd for. %trS.l'O rawalYti . es �..,r 1I•.'. Qrte: ?'O i &M ie. r Task k _'C- i c, r -r ,_ _. ;LS opr.t MCI Cr a_, ussiblo af:i.lrli ..o "Li'v YS:!�..(. �.. .. this .l n 5:`S�J' My) CH'til s, I:t`O'? the �:. aud Conti, )uz! i=7.a�•131531'.I'o �j1i 7 rr 7 o Tri.)Y Church S <s7i.Oxi:e! p"rim I......_. it0 taii7i:,- to cC:.,i7 r ' ti Z IO Vii' - ''iIC C:. LV could'. }? - tile ' s ^iii On l:'Oi'1: -•t.. s' port.-_zt iic city r s'sould --. t7Ubl ci.ze ,f r ..,. ;� ymmi'loi-, i1:i re 1:0t b• j b la Lo feel he 7-1.: 712'• 712C L _ r to egAlasize to 1vCnjtjn qjjil I)JOi', use this >:xr`}:.s to do that. December 11, 1973 The Board of Appeals of Iowa City, Iowa, met in regular session on the 11th day of December, 1973, at 8:30 a.m. in the Conference Room of the Department of Community Development in the Eastlawn Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Handrails Max Selzer Bob Burns Charles Ruppert Harold Breeder Lane Mashaw Charles Gillett Mr. Burns brought up the subject of handrails at 36" height versus 42" height as required in the Code Book. It was felt by Mr. Selzer and Mr. Ruppert that this was a Uniform Building Code and -therefore the Board should not ammend the 1973 Code to reflect the 36" height. Fee Schedule The subject of fee schedules was brought up. As per requested by the Board on November 27, 1973, Mr. Gillett investigated the total moneys taken in versus total disbursements of the Division. -These figures were given on December 11, and they indicated that during the year of 1972, 75% of the total costs of operation were deferred by building permits and fees. In 1973, the percentage has dropped to 53% of total disburse- ments versus moneys collected. A discussion was then held and it was felt by all members present,that the new 1973 Uniform Building Code should be adopted and the building valuation data be taken from the Uniform Building Code magazine published bimonthly with the up -date on data coming out every four months. It was also recommended that we strike out the existing require- ment that all -multi -family dwellings be built as fire zone 2 and adopt what is provided for in the Uniform Building Code. This passed unanimously. is Uniform Building Code Magazine After much discussion, a motion was made by Mr. Selzer that all the Uniform Building Code be adopted plus quarterly Uniform J • Building Code magazine current up -date, unless proof of other -costs predicate that the building did not cost this much. Per- mits would be issued on this basis. - Ground Fault Indicator A discVssion was also had on the subject of ground fault in- dicators. Mr. Selzer related the fact that OSHA people have thrown out the ground fault indicator circuits. He has volunteered to supply the Board with the -appropriate litera- ture stating this as soon as it arrives. Mr. Gillett was directed to give this information to Mr. Bowers, the electrical inspector, so that he may relay it on to his Electrical Board. drs Respectfully submitted, Z � � _. /il �I' d- V" ar esi ett, ecretary The Board of Adjustment of Iowa City, Iowa met in regular session on December 19, 1973 at 10:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers at the Civic Center. MEMBERS PRESENT; MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Kenneth Dueker Vern Goe dken Richard Malcolm Dan Perry Paul Hoeferle Charles Gillett Omer Letts Doris Schornhorst The members of the Board elected Mr. Dueker Mr. Dueker called the meeting to order. as their chairman. Mr. Malcolm made a motion that the minutes of the September 26, 1973 meeting of the Board of Adjustment be approved. Mr. Goedken seconded the motion. The minutes were approved. FRONT YARD VARIANCE AT 330 SOUTH SUMMIT STREET Mr. Philip Leff appeared as Aydelotte who reside at this counsel for Mr. & Mrs, W. 0. address Mr. Leff felt that the Staff Report and attached documents clearly set out the location of the property and the section of the Code that the fence violates. Mr. Leff submitted to the Board an affidavit by the building contractor to which was attached a letter to the Department of Community Develop- ment and a copy of the plans and specifications for the fence. Mr. Leff stated that he and his client felt that the issue did not involve an interpetation of the ordinance. The por- tion of the fence that abuts Court Street is clearly in vio- lation of the technical language of the ordinance in that it is 6 feet rather than 4 feet because it was a -corner lot, and consequently -a front yard. The fence was erected for a two -fold purpose: 1. To screen the yard from -an apartment building con- structed to the rear. of Mr. Aydelotte's property and constructed to close 'to'the boundary line by mistake of the builder. • 2. The Court Street portion was to provide privacy and to keep pedestrians from cutting across his yard. Also Mr. Aydelotte had some problems with theft and burglary and thought the fence would help with this situation, ,too. It was pot crucial to Mr. Aydelotte as -to the height of the particular fence, however since he was erecting the fence, he felt that he should put-up the best that would comply with the Ctiy Ordinance. Mr. Aydelotte instructed his contractor, Mr. Tommy Henderson, to get whatever necessary permit from the City, as he believed it was a prerequisite for installing the fence. Mr. Henderson prepared elaborate plans and wrote the letter to the Department of Community Development. He took this letter to the City offices and talked with Mr. Omer Letts. Mr. Leff assured the Board that both he and his client and Mr. Henderson believed that there was a lack of communication and not a malicious attempt at misinformation. Mr. Leff stated that it was clear to him how this misunderstanding came about. Mr. Henderson came prepared to obtain a building permit, but was told by Mr. Letts that a building permit was not necessary and that he could place his fence at a ineight of 6 feet as long as it was not in the front yard. Mr. Aydelotte and Mr. Henderson assumed that since Mr. Letts had been to the pro- perty several times concerning the apartment house, he was aware of the precise location of the lot and that he knew it was a corner lot, as defined in the City Ordinance. Mr. Aydelotte asked Mr. Henderson to again check with the City to be sure no building permit was necessary. Mr. Henderson called and talked to two other individuals in the City, neither of which he remembers their names nor was it Mr. Letts. Again they assured him that a building permit was not necessary and a 6 foot fence was permissible. Therefore, the fence was in- stalled. The cost of redoing the fence to _reduce it from 6 feet to 4 feet would be approximately $200. Also it would weaken the fence because the fence would have to be sawed off. This would completely change the style and design of the fence. Mr. Leff stated that it appeared to the Staff seemed to be recommending was that it wopld set precedence for same situation. Mr. Leff felt that was a unique one in that he did make ply with the City Ordinance. him that the only reason that the variance be denied others faced with the Mr. Aydelotte's situation a sincere effort to com- It was brought out that there are two fences on One is.a chain link fence at the rear of the lot is a board fence, which is the one in question. the property. and the other Mr. Malcolm questioned Mr. Henderson as to how long he had been in the construction business. Mr. Henderson stated that he is not in the construction business, but more in the property manage- ment business. Mr. Henderson has work in the Iowa City area during the summers for about six years. He stated his work as taking care of property of absent owners. Mr. Henderson explained that the reason he had such detailed specifications is that he feels he must let the absent owner know in as much detail as possible what he is doing with their property. The fence was constructed by the Swenson Fence Company of Davenport and the chain link fence was put up by Nagle Lumber of Iowa City. Mr. Goedken asked Mr. Henderson when exactly the fence was erected. Mr.Henderson stated that a temporary fence was erected of number 9 wire and orange posts and left up for approximately _1h months prior to 'erecting the permanent fence. The permanent fence was startedinlate August and finished the first part of September. Mr. Aydelotte stated that for his purposes, a 4 foot fence would have worked as well as a 6 foot fence, but since they decided to go to the expense of erecting one, he wanted it to be as good as possible. Now that the fence is up, Mr. Aydelotte feels that it is a bit of a hardship for him to have to saw it off and rebuild it according to Code. No one was present to speak against the appeal. Mr. Dueker reminded the Board that they had three means by which to view this case: 1. As a hardship. 2. A mistake on the part of the Building Official. 3. Granting the variance in the public interest, A discussion was held between the Board members as to how this situation could be avoided in the future. It was felt by the Board members that a letter should be sent to the fencing contractors stating the specifications for fences in Iowa City. Mr. Letts acknowledged that he had visited with Mr. Henderson about the fence before it was constructed. Mr. Malcolm made a motion that the variance be granted. Mr. Goedken seconded the motion. Mr. Dueker and Mr. Goedken voted the variance be granted. Mr. Malcolm voted the motion be denied on the basis the he has a feeling of responsibility to the City and to the property owner in respect to all contractors that if they are in proper attitude with the City Code, they must know that they are the only source a private individual has in order to understand the Codes of the City. It is impossible for an • average citizen to know what is going on with all of the codes. Mr. Malcolm.stated that he believes that the buck must be stopped some where and -that it is in the hands of the contractor. It is also in the hands of the City Staff to make sure that all codes are known as much as possible and that all contractors be advised in such a matter that they will be held responsible for any corrections.Mr.Malcolm also stated that he believes that a property owner has a right to go to the contractor and demand corrections. lie The variance at 330 South Summit Street was denied by the Board as the variance must be approved by three members of the Board. Mr. Leff questioned whether it- had _to be a majority of the mem- bers present or a majority of the members of the entire Board. lie asked that the Staff get a ruling from the City Attorney on this matter and that he be contacted with the results. He also asked that if the variance was denied, that he be able to pre- sent his case before the entire Board. FRONT YARD VARIANCE AT 836 KESWICK DRIVE Mr. James Roelofs, the owner of this property, was present to speak in favor of this variance. He stated the following rea- sons for erecting the fence: 1. He has a two year old child and a black labrador dog. 2. He wants to construct a barrier along Benton Street. Mr. Roelofs called the City offices and described the fence as a wooden fence, but does not recall describing it as a 6 foot high fence. The information given him was the specified feet he would have to remain from the curb, and with this he complied. The fence was constructed in the last week of June. It is a wooden fence on the Benton Street side with a rail fence around the remainder of the back yard. Mr. Roelofs stated the following reasons for desiring to keep the existing fence: 1. Time and expense involved. 2. Benton Street makes the visual and noise barrier from the back _yard is convenient. The fence is, at 6 feet high, much _better since at 4 feet high the people walking on the sidewalk could see over a 4 foot fence. Also because a public park, Willow Creek, Park is being.constructed across the street. 3. All lots which are directly to the east of Mr. Roelofs' lot have back yards on Benton Street and these people would be able to build fences as high as his'on their lots. Mr. Roelofs. also stated other locations on Benton Street where people have put up barriers to Benton Street. However, Mr. Gillett pointed out to the Board that several of these fences were in University Heights, which operates under a different code than Iowa City. Mr. Dueker asked Mr. Roelofs if the fence could be cut down 2 feet. Mr. Roelofs stated that due to the construction of the braces on the fence, it would be impossible to cut the -fence off 2 feet without reconstructing the entire fence. Mr. Roelofs also brought to the attention of the Board that he had done the work without the aid of a contractor Mr. Dueker read a letter from 0. J. Gode, Jr, opposing the fence as he felt it was an obstruction .to traffic. Mr. Roelofs submitted four letters to the Board which speak in favor of letting the fence remain as it is. These letters are on file with the Building Official. Mr. Gillett stated that the fence type and construction are within Code. Mr. Dueker stated the issues as being as follows: 1. The extent to which there was error in the interpre- tation conveyed over the telephone. 2. The extent to which the 6 foot fence violates the spirit which provides for 4 foot fences on property lines which abut streets. Mr. Malcolm made a motion to defer the decision of the Board until the next meeting. Mr. Goedken seconded the motion. It carried unanimously. The next meeting is set for January 16, 1974 at 9:00 a.m. The members decided to change the meeting time from 10:00 to 9:00 a.m. A discussion was held and names weresubmittedto Mr. Gillett for new Board members. These names will be submitted to the City Council for their approval. The meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Secretary ' BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, that a Class "C" Beer Permit Applicationis hereby approved for the following named per- son or persons at the following described locations: Eagle Discount Supermarket #157, 600 N. Dodge St. Said approval shall be subject to any conditions or restrictions hereafter imposed by ordinance or state law. The City Clerk shall cause a recommendation for approval to be endorsed upon the application and forward the same together with the license fee, surety bond and all other information or documents required to the Iowa Beer and Liquor Control Dppartment. It was moved by wh; tP and seconded by dpprnGGP that the Resolution as read be adopted, and -upon -roll call there were: Brandt Czarnecki Davisen eProsse White AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: X X X X Passed this 5th day of Feb. 19 74 ■ n �y 'ICN, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, that a Class Beer Permit Application is herebyapproved for the following named per- son or persona at the following described locations: Eagle Discount Supermarket #220, 1101 S. Riverside Drive Said approval shall be subject to any conditions or restrictions hereafter imposad by ordinance or _state law. The City Clerk shall cause a recommendatior: for approval to be endorsed upon the application and forward the same together with the license fee, surety bond and all other -information or documents required to the Iowa Beer and Liquor Control Dopartrment. It was moved by and secondedResolution as read be adopt' —"ed, and u by White that the upon roll call there were: Brandt AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Czarnecki Davidsen x deProsse - x White -x Passed this 5th_ day of Feb. , 19 74 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, that a Class "C" Beer Permit Application is hereby approved for the following named per- son or persons at the following described locations: Seaton's Cash & Carry Market, 1331 Muscatine Ave. Said approval shall be subject to any conditions or restrictions hereafter imposed by ordinance or state law. The City Clerk shall cause a recommendation for approval to be endorsed upon the application and forward the same together with the license fee, surety bond and all other information or documents required to the Iowa Beer and Liquor Control DpparAtment. It was Resolution moved by _hi to and seconded by Davidsen that the as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: Brandt Czarnecki Davidsen deProsse White AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: X v �r _X Passed this 5th_ day of Feb. , 19 74 RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL OF CLASS "C" BEER PERMIT APPLICATION BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, that a Class "C" Beer Permit Application is hereby approved for the following named per- son or persons at the following described locations: May's Drub Store #198, 1101 S. Riverside Drive Said approval shall be subject to any conditions or restrictions nereafter imposed by ordinance or state law. The City Clerk shall cause a recommendation for approval to be endorsed upon the application and forward the same together with the license fee, surety bond and all other information or documents required to the Iowa Beer and Liquor Control Dopartment. It was moved by whit P and seconded by David G n that the Resolution as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: Brandt Czarnecki Davi sen eProsse White AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: -x Y - v v v Passed this ! 4th day of Feb. ig 74 The Honorable Mayor and City Council Civic Center 410 East Washington Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: CIVIC CENTER.410 E. WASHINGTON ST. IOWA CITY. IOWA 52240 319-354-1800 January 28, 1974 The Parks and Recreation Commission members and the citizens of Iowa City wish to express their thanks and appreciation to Mr. Jim Roegiers for his work during 1973, as Chairman of the Parks and Recreation Commission. Mr. Roegiers has served admirably in his position as Commission Chairman and provided a fine example to the citizens by serving in the best interest of all the community. Sincerely, Sarah Fox Chairperson Parks and Recreation SF:pw Commission 'l February 13, 1974 Mrs. Sarah Fox Chairperson Parks and Recreation Commission Civic Center Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Mrs. Fox: The Iowa City City Council at its February 5, 1974 meeting officially received and placed on file your correspondence expressing thanks to Mr. Jim Roegiers for his work, during 1973 as Chairman of the Parks and Recreation Commission. The City Council concurs in your appreciation to Air. Roegiers and thanks you for bringing this matter to their attention. Very truly yours, Ray S. Wells City Manager RSW/mj c January 28, 1974 Loren Hickerson, City Hall Iowa City, Iowa Mayor 52240 Dear Mayor Hickerson: The City of Perry and the Central Iowa Regional Association of Local Governments is attempting to obtain support for the re-establishment of rail passenger service through central Iowa. The most logical and feasible route would be the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railroad which is already a member of the Amtrat system. The establishment of the proposed route would best serve the central portion of Iowa. We feel that the first route es- tablished is to far south to benefit the greatest number of Potential rail passengers. We would appreciate any help and support that you might give to this proposal. Thankiug you, Vjt ulours, D.. D. ew'ston , Mayor DDL:cb Mr. D. D. Lewiston Mayor City of Perry 1102 Hillis Avenue Perry, Iowa 50220 Dear Mayor Lewiston: The Iowa City City Council at its February 5, 1974 meeting officially received and placed on file your correspondence concerning the re-establishment of rail passenger service through central Iowa. Your letter was referred to the legislative committee for review and report back. Thank you for bringing this matter to the attention of the City Council. RSW/mj c Very truly yours, Ray S. Wells, City Manager - - DAVENPORT, IOWA OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT January 28 1974 To: Mayor of Iowa City Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Subject: Notice of Revisions to Electric Rate Schedules Notice is hereby given that on January 16, e 1974, we filed with the Iowa StatCommerce commission a proposed new contract rider providing for interrup- tible power service, scheduled to become February 17, 1974. effective DRS:nb POST_ OFF Very truly yours, D. R. Stichnoth Vice President and Secretary X 450, 206 EAST SECOND STREET, DAVENPORT, IOWA 52808 319-926-7100 2 -15�-, K —.? RFs r E< it Eair , .. . ........ ...... 4t, :j7- x1t .. .... .......... sj. W. Q1- lk ir. fT V.tnl- C > Vice President Z Secreta {i �$ va-x- erk Davenpo D. G. FINDLAY VICE PRESIDENT -DISTRICTS Dear Customer: COMPANY January 30, 1974 On January 25, 1974, we filed proposed electric and gas rate increases with the Iowa State Commerce Commis- sion, replacing filings made November 29, 1973. The November 29 filings have been withdrawn. The proposed higher rates, identical to the proposed rates contained in the November 29, 1973, filings (about which our customers were previously informed by letter of December 26, 1973) are designed to produce approximately $2,722,000 or 6.8 percent of additional annual electric revenue and $2,892,000 or 6.3 percent of additional annual gas revenue based on actual 1973 sales quantities. The proposed effective date is March 3, 1974. The proposed increases are in addition to rates currently being collected under bond and subject to refund. If you have any questions or want additional information about the proposed increases, please contact our business office (telephone 338-9781) and we will be happy to help you. We expect the Iowa State Commerce Commission to hold a public hearing to consider our request. You may file with the Commission (Valley Bank Building, Des Moines, Iowa, 50319) written objection to our proposed increases and may request that a public hearing be held to determine if they should be allowed. DGF:aa Very truly yours, I 0 February 13, 1974 Mr. D. G. Findlay Vice President —Districts Iowa -Illinois Gas and Electric Co. 211 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Mr. Findlay: The Iowa City City Council at its February 5, 1974 meeting officially received and placed. on file your correspondence concerning proposed electric and gas rate increases. This letter was referred to my office and to the office of the City Attorney for review and report back. Thank you for bringing this matter to the attention of the City Council. RSiV/mj c Very truly yours, Ray S. 'Wells City Manager The Honorable Edgar Czarnecki 230 Windsor Drive Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Mr. Czarnecki: TELEPHONE 277.2121 AREA CODE 712 PO. BOX aa7 Attached is a copy of a letter sent last week to Governor Ray which ex- presses our profound disappointment at his apparent inability or unwill- ingness to understand that cities in Iowa also share in the financial di- lemma facing schools, counties and state government itself. We hope that before too much time has passed in the 1974 Legislative Ses- sion, you and your colleagues on the City Council will join with us in forcefully carrying this message to Governor Ray and our State Legislators. Our biggest problem, it seems to us, is the need to bring home, not only to the Governor, but also to our representatives in the Legislature and to our constituents, the severity and magnitude of the fiscal crisis of all of Iowa's Cities. We need, together, to devise a strategy for meeting and solving this severe challenge to the health of the largest cities in Iowa who are most severely burdened by the fiscal inattention we seek to remedy. We, in Sioux City, believe local option taxation authority is the best solu- tion to consider, but are willing to discuss any and all alternatives as well as strategies for getting legislative and gubernatorial acceptance. Please help us in our efforts to prevent city government from becoming the forgotten stepchild of Iowa politics. We believe a well publicized meeting between representatives of the elected councils and mayors of Iowa's largest cities and the Governor and key legis- lative leaders will be the best way to prevent city government from succumb- ing to fiscal inattention in 1974 and the years ahead. Please let us know if you share our concern and if you wish to participate in such a mseting. Sincerel Mayor -G rge Cole for t" City Council Sioux City, Iowa f /139 COUNCIL - MANAGER GOVERNMENT Enol:.. - ITy, IOWA January 24, 1974 The Honorable Robert D. Ray Governor of Iowa State Capitol Building Des Moines, Iowa 50319 Dear Governor Ray: • TELEPHONE 277-2121 AREA CODE 712 PO. BOX 447 Having searched your "State of the State" message in vain for any mention of those local governing bodies called upon to provide more services than any other, namely Iowa's cities; and representing, as we do, the people of one of Iowa's larger cities, we feel compelled to call to your attention the needs of cities in Iowa. We respectfully request your understanding and your leadership in creating in this state an atmosphere which would allow our cities to begin to solve their problems for themselves. The problems of cities in Iowa are real. They stem from state imposed restrictions and requirements, including state mandated reliance on prop- erty tax, the tax which is least responsive to the inflation you recognize as so seriously impeding the effective operation of state government and local school districts. Inflation affects the operation of municipal government as well, putting Iowa's cities in the unenviable position of attempting to provide services which cost 8 to 10 per cent more each year with revenues which grow at a much slower rate. Our employees, as well as state and school district employees, have been hit by inflation. Our city departments are as pressed as the governmental subdivisions you mention to absorb inflationary costs. But cities, re- stricted as are our school districts by mill levy limitations and reliance on the unresponsive property tax, have not been emphasized as worthy re- cipients of increased state aid to deal with inflation. Yet the problems of the local school districts and their staffs have been so highlighted. Perhaps we have failed previously to communicate our needs to you. Or perhaps you have failed to recognize the urgency of the complex financial problems the cities of Iowa, particularly the larger ones, are facing and will continue to face. Or perhaps you have failed to understand the im- pact of the deteriorating financial condition of our cities upon the en- tire state of Iowa. COUNCIL MANAGER GOVERNMENT For we are a state of cities. Iowa's population, involved as it is in agricultural pursuits, is nevertheless predominantly urban. City serv- ices affect directly and immediately the lives of a majority of Iowans. A high percentage of the sales tax which finances many state services is collected in cities, by businesses using city services, from people driving on streets paved by city expenditure. Without local health programs, transit services, low-income and leased housing programs, and recreational and cul- tural services, the quality of life for a majority of Iowans would be greatly diminished. A state which systematically prevents,_ through state restrictions, its cities from effectively meeting the needs of their citizens inevitably will see itsownviability reduced. Iowa has chosen torestrictgreatly the financial health of its cities, apparently without recognizing the responsibility which must accompany control. We do not ask for cities more state assistance than equity would dictate. But we do question the equity of state assistance as it exists between the various subdivisions and the state in relation to the services provided. We do not ask for cities more attention to our needs than concern for the health of the total state would dictate. But we do question complete disregard, in a "State of the State" message, for the problems of our cities whose financial solvency is important to the economic viability of the state and whose citizenry represents in excess of 67 per cent of the entire state population. We do ask for an opportunity to review with you our problems and those of other municipalities as well as a chance to explore alternative solutions with you and with representatives of -other concerned city governments. We feel the necessity of this request because you have apparently excluded from your legislative program any recommendations for legislation aimed at cities. We feel we must ask for your concurrence in our belief that there is a problem in Iowa's cities today and for the force of your leader- ship in creating the public climate and new legislation needed to solve that problem. -- Respectfully, THE CITY COUNCIL OF SIOUX CITY Mayon Ge r e Cole bertson dblom . S2 -(A / C Councilman G. Gross Cou--C.Lxwoman Margaret / Pra hl J /534 cc: Chairmen and Members of the Iowa Senate and Iowa House Cities and Towns Committees Woodbury County Legislative Delegation , Mayors of Ten Largest Iowa Cities Officers and Board of Directors, League of Iowa Municipali Officers and Board of Directors, Northwest ties Iowa Municipal League t ORDINANCE NO. 74_gr AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CODE OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, BY DELETING PART OF -SECTION 210.7, NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE, 1971 EDITION, ADOPTED BY REFERENCE BY MUNICIPAL CODE OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, SECTION 9.20.22. BE IT ENACTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF IOWA CITY, IOWA. SECTION I PURPOSE. The purpose of this amendment is to delete from Section 210.7, National_ Electrical Code, 1971 Edition, the requirement that all 15- and 20 -ampere receptacle outlets or single; -phase circuits for construction site shall have approved ground -fault circuit protection for personnel. SECTION II AMENDMENT. The National Electrical Code, 1971 Edition, Section 210.7 as adopted by reference through Municipal Code or Iowa City, Iowa, Section 9.20.22 is amended by deleting the following paragraph, All 15- and 20-amphere receptacle outlets on single- phase circuits for construction sites shall have approved ground -fault circuit protection for personnel. This requirement shall become effective on January 1, 1974. SECTION III REPEALER. Section 210.7, paragraph 3, National Electrical Code, 1971 Edition as adopted by reference by Municipal Code of Iowa City, Iowa, Section 9.20.22 is hereby repealed. All other ordinances or_parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION IV SAVINGS CLAUSE. In the event any section, provision, or part of this Ordinance shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of this Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged, invalid, or unconstitutional. MA`. ATT_ E_ S_ T_ :_ _ City Clerk Passed and approved this 5th day. of —February , 1974. 1st Reading 12 2-/7.q, T� 2nd Reading 3rd Reading�� I BE IT ORDAINED BY THECITYCOUNCIL OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: Section 1. That the S4-11ff �— _ in Iowa City, Iowa, hereinafter described be and the same is hereby vacated: Portion of Hutchinson Avenue Right-of-way for a distance of 80' north and south beginning at a point 40' north of Park Road. Section 2. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect when published by law. It was moved by White and seconded by deProsse that the Ordinance be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Brandt 7Cb&YDM Davidsen Czarnecki d e P r o s s e x White 1974 Passed and approved this 5th day of February Mayor ATTEST. �f i City Clerk / First Reading 112- 2. 7q TO'. Second Reading2-7 Third Reading -5-/- AN ORDINANCE VACATING AN EASEMENT INWASHINGTONPARK, PART VII BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: Section 1. That the a&51 M 'dvlJ-- in Iowa City, Iowa, hereinafter described be and the same is hereby vacated: Easement in Washington Park, Part VII, Lot 147 and Lot 148 Section 2. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect when published by law. It was moved by grandt and seconded by Davi d n that the Ordinance be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Brandt X CaffiUM,Davidsen y Czarnecki _x MAMe'rsWn dePresse x_ White _x 1974 Passed and approved this 5th day of February 1V W. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk First Reading 1-22--74 To. Second Reading j- 2 9- 7'-1• Third Reading �j — ,� - 7y 7-,o. February 1, 1974 Dear Property Owner or Resident: CIVIC CENTER. 410 E WASHINGTON ST. IOWA CITY. IOWA 52240 319-354-18M Re: Parking Prohibition As a result of an engineering study concerning the in- adequate sight distance for northbound traffic at the intersection of `Gilbert and Church Streets, a recommendation was made to the City Council of Iowa City to remove parking on the south side of Church Street for a distance of 150 feet west of Gilbert and 100feeteast of Gilbert. This proposed parking prohibition will be placed on the Council agenda for the February S, 1974, Council meeting which is to be at 7:30 p.m, in the Council Chambers at the Civic Center. Any individual wishing to make objections to or support for this proposed parking prohibition may address Council at that time. If you have any questions concerning this letter please don't hesitate to contact me at 3S4-1800, Eat. 252. Sincerely, George R. Bonnett, P.E. Acting Director of Public Works GRB/mjc ��g .�, - t ,L Z U i tet-._ xv •N' r s ti `ir. N e,�!, f 4 r T J f. C. J ft t}l - 413;,E., ,Church' St.: s Iowa City, Iowa February 49 1974 . Mr. Edgar Czarnecki, Mayor Civic Center Iowa City, Iowa Dear Mayor, Czarnecki I have a:;letter from George Connett, Acting Director of Public Works.regarding banning of parking on Church St. for a number of feet. Because of recent illness I-would be unable to attend the meeting on Tuesday, I called: his .office for some information but was told that the Council would make`-the 'decision. I asked these questions: 1. What hours would this-bann be in effect? 2. Where will the.-residents and.tenants park? Since parking is prohibited on the.North side of Church street, it becomes a problem for all of us and particularly the disabled and elderly who live in this area. I realize the purpose of, .:this. action is to let the traffic move smoothly- and eut down on the number of accidents at Gilbert and Church corner. There are five apartments at 528 N. Gilbert rented to students.; Two .'-of. them have an old bus and a converted truck. When these were stored _'on the street for weeks at a time without bein it became+- a g moved problem for drivers ,to see traffic on - either side of Gilbert.' I`-know that the truck is now parked six feet from the west-sideof my home and has been there for a month. Certainly fan.unsightly' view. and a fire hazard So ;I wonder why the property owners on Church Street have to be penalized for those living on"-.Gilbert. I also realize that this town is going to the students and the University but don't the older property owners who have been good residents _of :;Iowa City have any rights? V ry truly., our? 2 } 9 iitten ulyr-yourm, ry, 2 6 I9,74 nagear"L, It i F 9 iitten ulyr-yourm, nagear"L, WHEREAS, the Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, allow the City Council to prohibit parking by resolution on designated streets, and, WHEREAS, the City Council deems it in the public interest to prohibit parking on the South side of Church Street for a distance of 150 feet west of Gilbert and 100 feet East of Gilbert NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITYCOUNCILOF IOWA CITY, IOWA: 1) That parking is hereby prohibited on the South side of Church _street for a distance of 150 feet west of Gilbert and 100 feet East of _filbert 2) That the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to cause appropriate signs to be posted to effectuate the provisions of this Resolution. It was moved by _ g,-anat. and seconded by Davide n that the Resolution as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: x Brandt —� XXXN30= Davidsen X Czarnecki X NVERV09W deprosse White Passed and approved this 29th day of January , 1974 . #1 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: That the bid of Lincoln Development, Inc. of Marshalltown, Iowa in the amount of $ 31,060.00 . for the construction of 1974 SAN kol W 1 within the City of Iowa City, Iowa, described in the plans and specifications heretofore adopted by this Council on January 29 74 , 19 , be and is hereby accepted, the same being the lowest responsible bid received for said work. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby directed to execute a contract with the said Lincoln Development, Inc. of Marshalltown, Iowa for said im t be binding on the City until approved by this Council. said contract not to It was moved by un,;+o and seconded by _Brandt that the resolution as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Brandt rlqpn Czarnecki —� -XW39ftXKQIK deProsse Whit—�— e . Passed and approved this 5th day of February 19 74 ATTEST City Clem Mayor +wa i�.� r'1 V `tS1LLt;KJ FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE 1974 SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT #1 AND WORK INCIDENTAL THERETO IN AND FOR THE CITY OFIOWACITY,.IOWA Sealed proposals will be received by the City Manager or his authorized representative of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, until 10:00 a m on the 31st day of January , 1974 J, and opened immediately thereafter. Proposals will be acted uponby e the City Council at a meeting to bheld in the Council Chambers at 7:30 p.m. I on February 5 1974 time and place as may then be fixed. or at such later The proposed sanitary sewer improvements will consist of the replacement of brick manholes with concrete manholes and the construction of a vitrified clay sewer with concrete manholes and necessary incidental facilities on the following streets and property with`.n the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: BURLINGTON STREET - Construction of sanitary sewer from the existing manhole in the intersection of Madison and Burlington to existing manhole 300' east of the manhole in the intersection of Madison and Burlington as well as the replacement of miscellaneous manholes on Burlington between Madison Street and Linn Street and the installation of two new service connections to the existing sanitary sewer main between Clinton St. $ Dubuque St. LINN STREET - Construction of sanitary sewer from the existing manhole in tFe—intersection of Burlington and Linn to existing manhole 380.8' south of the existing manhole in the intersection of Burlington and Linn. The kinds of materials and estimated quantities of materials proposed to be used in constructing said sanitary sewer improvements are as follows: 10 lin. ft. 1S" V.C.P. Sanitary Sewer 20 lin. ft. 12" V.C.P. Sanitary Sewer 50 lin, ft. 10" V.C.P. Sanitary Sewer 870 lin. ft. 8" V.C.P. Sanitary Sewer 522 lin. ft. 4" V.C.P. Sanitary Sewer 94.2 lin. ft. Standard Manhole Depth 10 each Manhole Rings $ Covers 10 each Removal of Existing Manhole 1,175 cu. yds. Sand BAckfill 796 sq. -yds. Rolled Stone Base (6" Depth) 88 tons Asphalt Mat (2" Mat) 17 each Sanitary Sewer Service Connection 2 each Sanitary Sewer Service Tap ■ ■ ■ All work is -to be done in -strict compliance with -the -plans and specifications prepared by George R. Bonnett, P.E., City Engineer of Ioti<<a City, Iowa, which have heretofore been approved by the City Council, and are on file for public examination in the Office of the City Clerk. Wherever reference is made to the specification in the plans or contract proposal, it shall be understood to include the "Standard Specifications for Construction on Primary, Farm to Market, and Secondary Roads and Maintenance Work on the Primary Road System", Series of 1972, Iowa State Highway Commission. Each proposal shall be made on a form furnished by the City and must be accompanied by a check drawn on, and certified by, an Iowa bank and filed in -a -sealed envelope separate from the one containing the proposal, and in the amount of $2,500.00 made payable to the City Treasurer of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, and may be cashed by the Treasurer of the City -of Iowa City, Iowa, as liquidated damages in the event the successful bidder fails to enter into a contract within ten (10) days and post -bond satisfactory to the City insuring the faithful performance of the contract. Checks of the lowest two or more bidders may be retained for a period of not to exceed fifteen (15) days until a_contract is awarded or rejection made. Other checks will be returned after the canvass and tabulation of bids is completed and reported to the City Council. Payment will be made to the contractor for the work included in this contract on or after thirty-one (31) days after acceptance of the completed work by the City Council. By virtue of statutory authority; preference will be given to products and provisions grown and coal produced within the State of Iowa, and preference will be given to Iowa domestic labor in the construction of the improvement. The successful bidder will be required to furnish a bond in an amount equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the contract price, said bond to be issv.ed by a responsible surety approved by the City Council and shall guarantee the prompt payment of all materials and labor and protect and save harmless the City from claims and damages of any kind caused by the operation of the contract, and shall also guarantee the maintenance of the improvement for a period of two (2) years from and after its completion and acceptance by the City. The work under the proposed contract will be commenced within ten (10) days after signing _of_the contract and shall be completed April 30, 1974. Time is an essential element of the contract. Liquidated damages in the amount of fiL dollars ($50.00) will be assessed in accordance with "Base Specification" Article 1108.07 for each calendar day required for project completion after the above designated date. MA V»htP .b.^<•w: YdgeQl tl . n.��.•a _.. t. .+SAtp 1°r.. .: C•t.; •• ^• n The plans, specifications and proposed contract documents may be examined at'the Office of the City C1ork. Copies of the said plans and specifications and form of proposal blanks may be secured at the Office of George R. Bonnett, P.E., City Engineer of Iowa City, Iowa, by bona fide bidders upon payment of ten (10) dollars ($10) which will be returnable to the bidders provided the plans and specifications are returned to the City Engineer's office in good condition within fifteen (15) days after the opening of bids. The City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals and to waive technicalities and irregularities. Published upon order of the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa. 7 =e to T mus City Clerk of A-3 Iowa City, Iowa WHEREAS, preliminary plans and specifications are now on file in the Office of the City Clerk for the construction of 1974 Concrete Pavement j Repair Program #1 within the City of Iowa City, Iowa. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa: 1. That it is deemed advisable and necessary to construct street improvements within the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: Windsor Drive, Prairie du Chien Road, Eastwood Drive, Southlawn Drive & Hollywood Boulevard (the removal, replacement and/or repair of various sections of existing concrete streets, sidewalks, driveways, and storm sewer inlets and necessary incidental facilities related thereto) 2. The method of construction shall be by contract. 3. The entire cost of the improvement shall be paid from the General Funds of the City of Iowa City.and shall not be assessed against benefited property. 4. That the City Council shall meet at 7:30 o'clock P.M., on the 26th- day of February 19 74 2 in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center for the purpose of hearing objections to said improvement or the cost thereof. 5. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cause notice of this Resolution to be published as required by law. It was moved by Brandt and seconded by deProsse that the Resolution as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: YES: NAYS: ABSENT: X Brandt Ahc+-A i n Czarnecki X Davidsen X deProsse Y White Passed and approved this 5th ATTEST: City Clerk _ day of February, 1974�[�X G Mayor A RESOLUTION DIRECTING ENGINEER TO PREPARE DETAILED PLANS &.SPECIFICATIONS AND DIRECTING ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FORM OF CONTRACT AND NOTICE TO BIDDERS ON THE 1974 CONCRETE PAVEMENT REPAIR PROGRAM #1 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: That George Bonnett , City Engineer is hereby ordered and directed to prepare and file with the Clerk detailed plans and specifications for the construction of the 1974 Concrete Pavement Repair Program X61 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that.the Attorney is hereby ordered and directed to prepare, and file with the Clerk a Notice to Bidders and form of contract for the construction of the 1974 Concrete Pavement Repair Program #1 It was moved by and seconded by that the Resolution as rea be a opted, and upon rollcaa i� there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT g Brandt g 100MIN*= Davidsen abstain Czarnecki x H&U3 W deProsse t White PASSED AND APPROVED, this 19 74 ATTEST: City Clerk 5th day of February RESOLUTION ORDERING.;CONSTRUCTION, APPROVING PLANS SPECIFICATIONS AN, D.FORM OF CONTRACT AND NOTICE TO BIDDERS, FIXING AMOUNT OF BIDDER'S CHECK, AND ORDERING CITY CLERK, TO PUBLISH NOTICE TO BIDDERS AND FIXING A DATE FOR RECEIVING SAME, AND FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND FORM OF CONTRACT BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: That the construction of 1974 Concrete Pavement Repair Program #1 is hereby ordered to be constructed. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the detailed plans and specifications as prepared by George Bonnett City Engineer for the construction of said 1974 Concrete Pavement Repair Project for the City of -Iowa City, Iowa, and the form of contract and.Notice to Bidders, as prepared by the City Attorney, be and the same are hereby approved, and are hereby ordered placed on file in the office of the City Clerk for public inspection. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the amount of the check to accompany each bid shall be jtgMjkxkjx xZMx1KFxX j�X in the amount of $3,000.00 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is hereby directed to adver- tise for bids for the construction of said improvements, bids to be received by the City Manager in behalf of the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, up to 10:00 o'clock A M. on the 28thday of February 1974 to be opened by the City Manager at a public meetingto be and presided over by him at that time, and thereupon referred to the City Council for action upon said bids at a meeting to be held at the Council Chambers, Civic Center, Iowa City,. Iowa, on the 5th day of March ,1974 at 7;30 o clock P M. Notice to Bidders is to be published once each week for two consecutive weeks in the Iowa City Press -Citizen, a legal newspaper, printed wholly in the English language, the -first publication to be not less than fifteen clear days prior to the date fixed for said letting. In the absence of the City Manager said bid opening may be conducted by any city official to whom such power has been delegated by Ordinance. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council hold a public hearing on the matter of the adoption of proposed plans, specifications and form of contract for the making of said improvements, which documents are now on file in the office of the City Clerk, said hearing to be held at the place last above mentioned on the 26th day of February ,19 74 , at 7:30 o'clock P_M., and that the City Clerk give notice of said hearingb al newspaper, Y publication once in a local le g printed wholly in the English language, at least ten clear days prior to the date fixed therefor. It was moved.by White and seconded by Brandt the resolution as read be adopted and upon roll call there were: that AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Brandt X Czarnecki Abstain Davidsen X deProsse X White X Passed this 5th day of February , 19 74 � Mayor 7 ATTEST: .� j _.Z/,----l'l City Clerk ; i - --- •••^��� UN wr;ST SIDE OF WHEREAS, the Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, allow the City Council to prohibit parking by resolution on designated streets, and, WHEREAS, the City Council deems it in the public interest to prohibit Parking on Qwest side of Johnson Street fo-r NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: 1) That parking is hereby prohibited _west G;de of 7ohnGnn �.pr f1;-gi_Rne P of aTinr�v� 2) That the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to cause appropriate signs to be posted to effectuate the provisions of this Resolution. It 'was moved by Brandt and seconded b the Resolution as read ,6adopted, sad upon roll call there�werec that AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Y Brand t X OWHLXXI Davidsen X Czarnecki —% 826UMMh deProsse —� White Passed and approved this 5th day of February 19 74 Mayor y ATTEST. City Clerk RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF 00=4d}p}{ EASEMENT an easement WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City, Iowa, has negotiated yt>0Cytaud: with State of Iowa for use and easement benefit of University of Iowa, a copy of said motxxoaK being attached to this Resolution and by this reference made a part hereof, and WHEREAS, the City Council deems it in the public interest to enter into said gtgD¢Xggtb;r, easement . NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. 1. That the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed easement State of Iowa for use and benefit to execute the A&]&�Rk with of Universitv of Iowa easement 2. That the City Clerk shall furnish copies of said xgo�exK to any citizen requesting same. It was moved by _Davidgen and seconded by Brandt that the Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Brandt X?iR Davidsen Czarnecki XX0WtXNX deProsse White Passed and approved this 5thday of Feb. 19 74 JLATTEST: City Clerk E EASEMENT --s agreement, made and entered _i.nto..by_and between the City -.. - - of .Olr2 �o::r.scr: COulli}', firs- party, and the State of Iowa for the use •� Of the University of low-, second party, Wi11Ch expression Shall in- -••�=� a;;ents or assigns, witnesseth: hereby agreed as fol lows: the sum o $1.00 plus other valuable consideration, the receipt o, hereby acknowledged, first part hereby Y Y grants and conveys to scco;•.d --- easement for •Che purposes o� excavating for and the instnllnt.o:;, maintenance and use of the existing underground electric srr;sor -�=:d%or conduit, as second party shall elect t0 USC TOT C071V8}`in4 ClC•Ct: iC: . neCeSSar` appliances „d f't�' f - f pP a' = pings or use in connection with sa:' ;nth adequate protection therefore, and also a right-of-way, will: t)iO o_ ingress and egress thereto, including all the area located witl,i.n live to either side of the lire described as follows: at a point which is at the intersection of the southt- o-z-;ay line o�. Prentiss Street and t' -e centerline of the alley 4,n 'lock S-C.S.A.; thence northerly across Prentiss Street SO - feet ;,tore or _ess and then 320 feet more or less along the centerline of the -ay in 31ock :S-C.S.A.; thence Sn feet more or less across liar riso;; atr_aet on a lire which is the extension of the centerline of the a'_ley _n -lock "4-C.S.A.; thence- 320 feet more or less along the centerline O`tIc .;,ley o -loc r4-C.S.A.; thence across Court Street 70 ,_ - feet more or less cele centerline of the alley in Block ;4-C.S.A. to a point 10 feet r,.ore or -ess south of the north right-of-way line of Court Street; thence :as erly 160 feet more or less to the east right-of-way line of Fro-nt 57_ezt; thence northwesterly SS feet more or less to the centerl:;.e Or Front Street; thence northerly 3340 feet more or lessin Front Street to a i:niversity Of Iowa steam tunnel manhole in Front Street at the sou-c,•. --;,_t-of-t,,ay line of Burlington Street. The above described line is =_ended to be the centerline of the sensor _cable. party further grants to second party: T;,e right of ingress om said fr to and egress id strips over eT and aCTGSS c -s:-s by means of roads and lanes thereon, if such there be; other,:ise, Y :` mate or routes as shall occasion the least practicable damage ar, _=. o_:;'e1. ei:ce to first party; provided that such right of ingress and e- cess "'•-'- c•t extend to any portion Of said lands which is isolated fro,.. sai.c] strip .:blic road or highway now crossing or hereafter crossing said la;:as; The right to install, maintain and use gates in all fences i•rhich r.o,•; crc,6s or shall hereafter cross said strips; Te riPub to mark the location of said strips by suitable markers set --• rot:nd;rovided that said markers shall be placed in fences or oti.or :;z_ i:hich will not interfere with any reasonable use first party s ail 3f said strips: . a) Second party shall not fence said strip; Cb) Second party shall promptly backfill any trench made by i.t or. said strip and repair any damage it shall do to first party's public roads or lanes on said lands. (c) Second party shall indemnify first party against any loss a;;d damage which shall be caused by the exercise of said inhress and et`".,ress, construction, and maintenance or by any wrongful or negligent act, omiss�''on of second party or of its agents o employees in the, cat,rse of their employment. J (d) Second party shall, at its cost and expense, relocate its installations in, on, over or under any public street in the City in such manner as the City Council may at any time reasonably require for the purposes of facilitating the construction, re- co-astruction,amainterance, or repair of the street or any nublic improvement therein or to promote the efficient operation of any such improvement. _='st party does hereby covenant with second party that they are iai•:fu.i�r =_z.c and possessed of the real estate above described; that they have a good r41TArl t to convey it, or any part thereof. e provisions hereof shall insure to the benefit of and bird the sw c ss rs and assigns of the respective parties hereto, and all covenants s :__1_ -_•ply to and run with the land. ec pis day of ATTEST: 0. IO:;r. ) SS ... vl.. ... �:•, L.liil� T YJ CITY OF IOIiA CITY `ia o- / i City C. A. D. t11iS" day Of , A.D. 19 /, before me, till: llnCers:",iiCG, Public in and for said County, i.n saki Spate, per appe::regi and Abbie Stolfia, to me personally known, who, beim; by me -o siro_n, c_c that they are the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of said corno.ation ii: cia i::" t5?e within anal foregoing instrument to Which this is attached, that _ nstru;.:er.t was signed Cand scaled) on behalf of said corporation by authority Co'lncil, and that the said Edgar Czarnecki and Abbie Stolfus as such rS acknol.,ledged the execution of said instrument to be the voluntary act 3 O-- said corporatic::, by it and by them voluntarily executed. 'Notary Public in and for Johnson County •> i... 1 T f - •: .. :. .5.. :=lY -NOTICE OF_MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CI -TY -..OF. . IOWA CITY,' IOWA;, ON THE MATTER OF THE PROPOSED ISSUANCE.OF.NOT T'O EXCEED $6,000.,000.00 PRINCIPAL;;WUNT_ 2OF GENERAL -OBLIGATION URBAN= RENEWAL BONDS 'OF' THE CITY OF IOWA ,CITY, IOWA, AND HEARING ON THE ISSUANCE OF SAID BONDS Public Notice rs hereby given that the Council of the City'bf Iowa City, Iowa, will hold a public hearing on the day of Fehri:Ig-y ,,1974, at 7:30 o'clock _pz_M., in the Council Chambers in the Ca.vic Center in ;Iowa City, IOWa, at. which said meeting the Council of Iowa City, Iowa, proposes to take action for the issuance of not to 'exceed $610001000.,00.of general obligation Urban`. Renewal' Bonds of said City,, bearing interest at the rate of'not to exceed seven per centum per annum, said'bonds';to be issued for the -purpose of providing funds to pay a.part.of the cost of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an'urban renewal project of said -City designated as -number Iowa R-14. This `Notice is ,given, by order of the Council of the City of,Iowa City, Iowa, as provided by Chapters 408A`and:23, and Section 403.12,`Code of Iowa, 1973. At any time before the date of said meeting petitions asking that the question of issuing such bonds be submitted to the legal voters of.said city may be filed with the`City Clerk of said City pursuant to the provisions of Section 408A.2 of the ,Code of Iowa, 1973. At any time prior .to the.`date fixed for said hearing petitions may be filed objecting to the issuance of said bonds as provided for by Section 23.13, Code of Iowa, 1973, Dated,, :at Iowa City, Iowa, this 5th day of February -1974. AHLERS. COONEY. DORWEI LER. ALLBEE B VHAYNIE. LAWYERS. DCS MOINES. IOWA C RESOLUTION NO. 74-47 RESOLUTION FIXING DATE FOR A -MEETING ON THE PROPOSITION OF THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $61000,000.00 OF URBAN RENEWAL BONDS AND-PROVIDING'FORPUBLICATION OF NOTICE THEREOF WHEREAS, the Municipality of -Iowa City, Iowa, proposes to aidin'the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-1.4, and it is deemed necessary that said Municipality should issue general obligation urban renewal bonds to the amount of not _t exceed.$6f000,000,00 as authorized by Chapter_ 4030.,,.Code of .Iowa, :1.973, for the purpose of providing:funds to pay,a part of the cost of the urban renewal.>project designated-as;number Iowa R-14; and WHEREAS, before said bonds may be issued, it is necessary; to comply `with-_ ..provisions of Section 403.12 (5) , Code :of ;Iowa, 1,973 and the provisions of Chapters 408A and 23, of the: Code. of Iowa, 1973, and to publish a Notice of the proposal to..issue such `bonds and of the hearing on issuance of``such bonds and>to receive and consider objections and/or petitions as;therein_provided. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT;RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY _OF_ -IOWA CITY, _IOWA: That_ -this Council meet in the Council Chambers, in the Civic Center, in'Io_wa City, Iowa, at 7:30 O'clock P. M , on the. 26�t�_day of ._Februar , 197 , for the purpose of taking action on the matter of t e issuance of not to exceed --$6 000 o 09'. 0 0 of. general obligation Urban Renewal Bonds for the, of providing funds to pay a part of -the 'cost of aiding, in the -planning, undertaking and carrying .out an urban renewal project,.of said City designated as nuinberr Iowa:,R 14=,thFat the 11 maximum. rate of .interest which saad'.bonds'' shall 'bear, shall; not `'exceed the rate - of seven: per.._centum per annum. BE IT;:FURTHER,.RESOLVED,•that..the Clerk be and she is hereby directed to cause,anotice.of said meeting to be published once at` least 'fifteenclear days prior to the time -of said meeting in alegal newspaper, printed wholly in the English language.,, .of general circulation in the "Municipality of; Iowa City, Iowa, said notice to be in the form hereto attached`: ' - PASSED AND APPROVED, -this` 5th 1974, day of February - —LZ— / U ATTES n Cler - -3- AHL ERS GOONEY DORWEILER. ALLBEE.& HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES, IOWA 1 Iowa City, Iowa, Feb. 5 , 1974 The Council of Iowa City, Iowa, met on the above {z date in regular session pursuant to law and the rules of said Council and in accordance with the terms of a notice of meeting, a copy of which was served on each member of the Council within the time required by law and accepted in writing by each member thereof, said notice of meeting being as follows: NOTICE Iowa City, Iowa, Feb. 5 , 1974 T0: Edgar Czarnecki, C. L. Brandt, Penny Davidsen Carol deProsse, Patrick White Councilmen Iowa City, Iowa Dear Sir: You are hereby notified that a meeting of the Council of Iowa City, Iowa, will be held on the 5th day of FPhr,iar� , 1974, at the Civic Centeri In owa City, Iowa, at 7,. o'clock _p, M., for the purpose of considering the adoption of a Resolution Fixing Date for a Meeting on the Proposition of the Issuance of Not to Exceed $6,000,000.00 of Urban Renewal Bonds and Providing for Publication of Notice Thereof, and for such other business in connection therewith as may come before the meeting. Respectfully submitted, S/Edgar Czarnecki Mayor Service of the foregoing notice is hereby acknowledged. SIF. K. Davidsen S/J. Patrick White AHLERS.. GOONEY. DORWEILER. ALLSEE Oi HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DEs MOINES. IOWA The meeting was called to order by Edgar arnecki Mayor, and on roll call the following Council members were present: Absent: None * * * * * * * * * * Councilman Brandt ge, white introduced the follow - Ing Resolution entitled "RESOLUTION FIXING DATE FOR A MEETING ON THE PROPOSITION OF THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $6,0001000.00 OF URBAN RENEWAL BONDS AND PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION OF NOTICE THEREOF" and moved that the same be adopted. Councilman White seconded the motion to adopt. The roll was called and the vote was, AYES: Brandt, Czarnecki, Davidsen deProsse, White NAYS: none Whereupon, the Mayor declared the resolution duly adopted as follows: -2- AHLERS. GOONEY. DORWEILER. ALLBEE & HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA UrYILE 1973-74 STEERING COMMITTEE Rev. Hobert Welsh President Dorothy Douglass Vice -President John Harper Secretary -Treasurer Eleanore Bowers Donald Bryant Linda Dole Flo Beth Ehninger Jack Esbin Henry Fox William Gillespie Barbara Haring Frieda Hieronymus Dallas Hogan Joseph Howe John Kamp Faith Knowler Dean LaMaster L. H. Lundquist Leslie Moeller Warren Paris Clayton Ringgenberg Janet Shipton Richard Summerwill Rev. Roy Wingate 1 Fe City Council City of Iowa City Iowa City, Iowa Members of the Iowa City City Council: The attached petitions ere presented to the Council with the followina understanding: 1. They are presented in response to the City Council's request and are not intended to bind the council to any action or actions it does not feel is in the best interest of the com- munity. 2. Although the petitions contain wordinc proposed by the City Council, it is not the intent of the petitioners to tie the Council's hands-on this matter and it is our understanding that the presentation of these petitions is not contrary to this intention. We welcome this opportunity to be of service. Sincerely, Robert L. Welsh }� (+ vy_ i t�x> ��� ih cif, .:. Ui xip 'F*' q-.� a'• .a _ vitt l tax { i 7.7 �y1 17 �1_ti,u 73Y 0, 0.e e_►C_���--- ------ _ -g�- �977- -C, 86_y 3 _8 --?!T -77-- '- fid. �, , .a.•,s .,?. ,l . , � .. -.*$b . ` ��.:>; ';, S �Yrr .�s n� ,,n,�F-y,t`" ?-F�,l,:z', �-� ^`-•- � - - .. `. .. .- IS TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City Of Iowa City, Iowa, constituting a -number in excess of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Governor at the last general election in said City, do hereby petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?" NAME 2 t ADDRESS Ll 4 77 AHLERS. COONEY. DORWEtLER. ALLBEE 6 HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA O�aT� c, S, lg7yI t.x�Uy 1 X97 `j - . IS TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City Of Iowa City, Iowa, constituting a -number in excess of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Governor at the last general election in said City, do hereby petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?" NAME 2 t ADDRESS Ll 4 77 AHLERS. COONEY. DORWEtLER. ALLBEE 6 HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA O�aT� c, S, lg7yI t.x�Uy 1 X97 `j 1 TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of - Governor at the last general election in said City, do hereby petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following.proppsition to.the.,voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?II NAME ADDRESS +ATC 7_ /7 1106 V, GAle �K z��l7y a31 vLRIQ) 72, 6 Pd 3a2- z�/- Ath '74/ /1&4.2-z���.. &-(keld b a - "a . 2,5,e d -,.;t - , V ANLERM. COONCY. DORWEILER. ALLBEE 6 HAYNIE. LAWYERS: DES MOINES. IOWA i TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, constituting a number in excess of two (2) percent ofthose who voted for the office of Governor at the last general election in said City, do hereby petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?" NAME ADDRESS i RVEA11 0 ,�' �►� • 109 ME MWO, n IFi r y / . Mew �� .. VFW Ms•i wN e I 10� /C/ O/z yg 1/7 -, AHLERS. GOONEY. DORWEILEN. ALLBEE & HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Governor at the last general election in said City, do hereby petition the City Council of said. City to call a special election pursuant to the provi3ions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?II NAME ADDRESS Ok ( 5q &V'uo� i , S,5� 11.�1 7�2� /3 �a 712cc2c� �cr� . a� Z c 3� Gj'n'7Ff ' 33' bo- a -71 �/Z/7 Y AHLERS. GOONEY. DORW[ILCR. ALLOKE & HAYNIE. LAWYERS. Des MOINES, IpwA a- 7` ` -7y �/Z/7 Y AHLERS. GOONEY. DORW[ILCR. ALLOKE & HAYNIE. LAWYERS. Des MOINES, IpwA 1 TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, constituting a number in excess of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Governor at the last generalelection in said City, do hereby petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: "Shall_ the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6-1000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the.planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?" NAME - C L/ ADDRESS /1/7 Ll i a1 �.;•�� Z-1/ / 7 zf /J 1 . INA -1 A -ICA &rjS Z�//.S t a A47 1A Al TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa,City, Iowa, constituting a number in excess of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Governor at the.last'general election in said City, do hereby petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: "Shall the City, of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, -undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14? kco-L�, o -44 n ADDRESS I'Z.Z. �A�✓KQ�rC, b'p`i ✓C� `�.�' I' / / C:��r9wq v N. DHhu � rr� lily zzY Of Z// 7 � �1 800 I,U, ''l - 13 y3v s, �fiDr�ivsd•�/ �3 ��. 7y JIoe5- Ph /, -t S -f AMLERB. GOONEY. DORW[ILER. ALLBEE d HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES, IOWA 1 TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA - We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, constituting _a number in excess of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Governor at the last general election in said City, do hereby.petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: "Shall the. City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,0001000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?" NAME ADDRESS 9,17 2 i2 % 7 "1 OA YG (� g 3 /7 CK Z -�,- /02- 7y 913 AHLERS. GOONEY. DORWEILER. ALLBEE & HAYNIE. LAWYERS, DES MOINES. IOWA 7L/ - �z -7y <�t TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess of two (2)percentof those who voted for the office of Governor at the last general election in said City, do hereby petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,0000000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning', undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?" NAME cCA 04 7/rl 211 z /i) �- ANLafte. COONEY. DORW[ILKO. ALL969 i HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWr TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa city, Iowa, constituting a number in excess of two (2) percent of those who voted for the Office of Governor at the _last general election in said City, do hereby petition 'the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,000,000.00_for -the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?" NAME oR `moi "-�'`•�``.�; .. rl� ` 4��� 1� ZIPM ,1 ADDRESS bR T C_ (9 N• (-,A_tri LV 7 �z /,32-9sf��} AHLERS.. COONEY. OORWEILER. ALLSEE 6 HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA ■, TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Governor at the last general election in said City, do hereby petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $60.0001000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa.R-147" NAMEADDRESS ' 31,2 y 7Y P 1111 4(?S 3E�F sav, �> 7� C / 1' ele. 29 hN AK TP_(_- cf�� _Y, -C--617 4 ANLI[RS..COON[V. DORWNILKA. ALLIRKE i MAVNI[. LAWYQRU. DEs MoINEs, IOW., TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL Oi' THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Governor at the last generalelectionin said City, do hereby petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $60000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the`planning;.undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?1° ADDRESS 61Y . 7k 210 7°1.ir5T �,95b s tz3 _ou't fj�e ,�e6 ZI ,c4l PJ ANLINS. COONZY, DORWBIL[w. ALLINE a riwvNIV. SAW ViiRY. Des NMomEu. +ow.. 2-11,41-17 I TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa Citv,_Iowa# constituting a number in excess of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Governor at the last general election in said City, do hereby petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408AI, Code of. Iowa; 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,00001000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?" j NAME ADDRESS 72- /1/ , soot V't 64 9KC , 046.Slate- c J6, •ju \=ct b y V4 AHLEIIS. GOONEY, DOIIW[ILCM. ALL8EE 6 HAYNIi. LAWYENS. DES MOINES, IOWA TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA -CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa City, .Iowa, constituting a number in excess of two (2) percentofthose who voted for the office of Governor at the last general election in said City, do hereby petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa; 19730, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6„000,000,00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?° NAME I ADDRESS (� C2Qi 6�nCC� e �p CJ G�+✓LiL � e�/2� � I I> F% �I/2'iL�-� z�,L, Ze- __4 3 e5e(z,-V V r\ it W ,JZ/i�S� J- '7212 757z- Aq DHT L J,C� -71 e/1 7 yy AHLER/. GOONEY. DORWEILER. ALLREE d HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA _7'e, If S' i 7 Y i 7y yy AHLER/. GOONEY. DORWEILER. ALLREE d HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned,'qualified electors of the City Of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess Of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Governor at the last general election in said City, do hereby petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of, Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, -to -wit: "Shall the, City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?11 NAME 1 ADDRESS / 10 / �kwr�t 3 L �C k"WUU f ANLER{. GOONEY. DORWEILER. ALLBEE & HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IpWA F-e�. � V�b Pit 7q - l3) Iq 7� -7 Foo, (3, i i � TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, constituting a number in excess of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Governor at the last general election in said City, do hereby petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed *6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?" NAME ADDRESS C e�e�� 3 3 ( kuL �Z Lk S S U.w\ (A o1 Z/ 71<,' RQ s AHLERS. COONEY. DORWEILER. ALLSEE 6 HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DEB MOINES. IOWA - _ TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersignedr qualified electors of the City of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Governor at the last general election in said City, do hereby petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?" NAME ! ADDRESS I a %.fir:. l✓ , ��2�. , ,� 23 I /���, c r l�n� c /Z d Fc --e/ �� y z —1 co I , �� ref- iifj, . ?i /;, �- �- S �J P,6) i'T 2, ? /d04 61e,,JJ-t, d /-/ & Sy.- cl- .-- D r C7 f X0_9A, 0-oLe-- 7y i - t L- 7y ANLERS. GOONEY. DORWEILER. ALLBEE 6 HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA 7f -Iy-7y TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, constituting a number in excess of -two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Governor at the last general election in said City, do hereby -petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,0001000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?" NAME ADDRESS 019 TE -3 12 - led— .0 7�1 A t), 3 L (91 (LV 0,3v I Wt k1 741" 45 V7 (141 Tell t cc K) In n 14 C> FF �AHLERS. CO C DORWICILER. ALLREE & HAYNIV. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA -2- /V I 1 TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, constituting a number in excess of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Governor at the last general election in said City, do hereby petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: NAME "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general oblication Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?" �ADDRESS 7i 7 735- 7 3S7 3 2" AHLERS. COONEY. DORWEILER. ALLBEE & HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA /7, /97�/ TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, constituting a number in excess of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Governor at the _last _general election in said City, do hereby petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, _to -wit: "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding in -the -planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?" NAME ADDRESS 30S 3-r � /.2 3 /� C� >Pu�✓ 3i$ �taesv RW[IL[R. ALLeL1rdY _,_ A' DYERS. DEB MOINES. IOWA L''//2_l 7� 7> a /ia17y z-1ZTf ZV L_i -�// 7/7,�11 TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, constituting a number in excess of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Governor at the last general election in said City, do hereby petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:: "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bondsin the amount of not to exceed $6,0001000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa -R-14?" NAME ADDRESS ,B 0 Fk g,,�z 7-6q -� (V, Q Rrxn� A,P"' ) � tep 1 i� MIA- E2 /./ - e % <:`% %1 i 7/5 AHLERS. GOONEY. DORWEILER. ALLBEE & HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA ,; - ,/ 7- 21V X37-4'.r`D-/ i TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, constituting a number in excess of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Governor at the last general election in said City, do hereby petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:: "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bondsin the amount of not to exceed $6,0001000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa -R-14?" NAME ADDRESS ,B 0 Fk g,,�z 7-6q -� (V, Q Rrxn� A,P"' ) � tep 1 i� MIA- E2 /./ - e % <:`% %1 i 7/5 AHLERS. GOONEY. DORWEILER. ALLBEE & HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA ,; - ,/ 7- 21V X37-4'.r`D-/ TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City Of Iowa City, Iowa, constituting a number in excess Of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Governor at the last general election in said City, do hereby petition the City Council of said City to call a -special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in theamountof not to exceed $610001000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?" NAME ADDRESS �I c6ALG�,� / rma— d l _'`� / Ai d _ .i AHLERS. COONEY. DORWEILER. ALLBEE & HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IQWA to 90 - �Z- ::(X ■ TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR A14D CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa Citv, Iowa,.constituting a number in excess of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Governor at the last general election in said City, do hereby petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa!City, Iowa, to -wit: "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-147" NAME ADDRESS DATE a��_ . �%sem, ���Y ANLERS. GOONEY. DORWEIL611. ALL8EE S HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA I TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa City, Iowa ,.constituting a number in excess of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Governor at the last general election in said City, do hereby petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-147" NAME y� ADDRESS DATE t�/IZL'/ lJ ' eii��--�'� lij o�"/L(�7'�7' �� • :�/ate/�� AHLERS. COONIY. 00RWi1LE11. ALLEEE • HAYNIE. LAWYE/I/. DES MOINES. IOwA M<; j TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess of two (2) percent of those ,who voted for the office of Governor at the last general election in said City, do hereby petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?" NAME ADDRESS DA, LOL 17 7 z,z �. Z- 1-/7 it } C�Q,�Qrca- 21, V/�, 17 AHLERS. COONEY. DORWEILER. ALLSEE 6 HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, constituting a number in excess Of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Governor at the last general election in said City, do hereby petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for, the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6100011000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal,project of said City designated as number Iowa-R-14?II NAME ADDRESS AHLERO. GOONEY. DORWEILER. ALL069 i HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DEO MOINES. IOWA DATE 07 sp TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Governor at }he last 'general election in said City, do hereby petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuantto the provisions of Chapter 408A, CodeofIowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:_ "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa -R-14?" NAME 1 0�,V,44- W - &a" ■ ADDRESS L)ATL- < rz� a :12 7 f ANLERS. COONEY. DORWEILER. ALLBEE 6 HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DEA MOINES. IOWA TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, constituting a number in excess of two (2)percentof those who voted for the office of Governor at the last general election in said City, do hereby petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?" NAME ADDRESS 1� -,:�1 a_,e, 5- 441 441 S 67 ',S-0 7 o ,r a� �J5C�� -�' ° 3 4,.a- '-�-�� u �4_ Cy ..�_" J h S AHLER6.. COONEY. RWEILER. ALLBEE d HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA _41 Tp i' J 7 /a3/7� all /a/�� `6 y AA Feb -74 _._-■ L TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL Or THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified'%blectors of the City of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Governor at the last general election in said City, do hereby petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation -Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewalproject` ofsaidCity designated as number Iowa R-14?" NAME r ((Ixrz(Swyu anArymL J_ ADDRESS v tAJ6.__ 30 r �2 7�1 1-2 S. y 7%` X17 /lL CJ LCR6. COON[Y. D 2/ALLSE�AYNI N�/fis. DES MOINES. IOWA �� �s It TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Governor at the last general election in said City, do hereby petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: NAME "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-147111 T ADDRESS C31 <7 0 TL Z4.4l,2 d r� � AHLERS. C.00NEY. DORWEILER. ALLSEE S HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA i n m O n m 70 = cl v r D 4 r� � v z n TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified',electors of the City Of Iowa City, Iowa, constituting a number in excess Of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Governor at the last general election in said City, do hereby petition.the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: NAME JAI �I crime. i 9 k- "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general"obligation•Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,000,000,00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?" V-AKCens. COONEY. ADDRESS 72 -2c- - c,?-�3--2y 7y -a�-77 2-2-11-9,4 r 31D C-1-*- S 0z ' r� DO W �/C EILERyALLBEE b HAYNIE. LAW YEgIi. D "% ES MOINES, IOWA / 12 2,E a/IJ-/717 y 1 ■ :_Y TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, constituting a number in excess of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Governor at the last general election in said City, do hereby petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: NAME "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?" ADDRESS r �a.E AHLERS. COONEY. DORWEILER. ALLBEE 6 HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA /�7 2,� TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Governor at -the last general election in said City, do hereby petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?" IMuL ADDRESS �./7 %E- �� -'�-7 oz po a qrI A-vt 217aZ �-is-7Y- ,;2 30 72, �1c. vyw 1MV ,�u.a�� �,,,�• J��N �-�-# 428 �� Aix A-u.�L,..e V AHLER6. GOONEY. DORWEILER. ALLBEE d HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA _ yr TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Governor at the last general election in said City, do hereby petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the followingpropositionto the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?" NAME ADDRESS R �� H ghwoocl fed CL . 8 /909 �� � ��l/.G� srcJ /�/ � /%L� • 1��2i � ori c�> , �,�.� � rl - Z EY S, o ✓6a , -x /lam LQ,c� �J AHL Rt. C ONEY• DORWEILER. ALLBEE 6 MAY IE. LAWYE S. DES MOINES IOWA TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, constituting a number in excess of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Governor at the last general election in said City, do hereby, -petition. the .City -Council -of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?"` NAME - N`< G«, ADDRESS OO RTE:- ay- /Joa c�2-to-7Y Jo Aq"A_P Id, 7 �� / 9/0 te��l / 7� goy c5VO y,,p, 1 I 73Z COONEY. DORWEILER. ALLBEE 6 HAYNIE. LAWYERS. Des MOINES, IOWA TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a numk.er in excess of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Governor at the last general election in said City, do hereby petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 4083, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,0001000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?" NAME I� cly nil o1: 07 11�'Xr1� u ADDRESS s o 3 S_ V c.. Q ,,,�,,� 9Q� J.� 0ATE ;2--03-7Y 12- /19-7`11 a -to -� L{ a'0,71571 %tel Lc't �� °�"�a--l/ 4 z z ��atd . sf . -,� --7V w 3 �,,�,�,•,,,�t 71-1 /0/ -2 P (I3L a 1 kee_ 2/ /o / 1V AHLERS. GOONEY. DORWEILER. ALLOEE It HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City Of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Governor at the last general election in said City, do hereby -petition -the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,000,000,00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?" - ADDRESS I I S I'i'i Ut.�a_4,9, 7 / 7 o f� TC o Ce Zia r 7 F- r 7��. �-_ J,5; -2r 7e� /o / p> _ ;, QA,%a-t�-r� C IG ; j`,eC(� ANL[Rs. GOONEY, DORWCIL[R. ALLBE[ tr HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES, IpWA ;E- P4 �J/��7 lie, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Governor at the last general election in said City, do :.ereby petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa. 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue ics general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,000,000.00 for,the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14? ;AME - w V / — i lice, Cti i�2u� A C ADDRESS d J z l �I&Z4 �Z 41 J AHLEg0. COO EY. DOQWc^I6E%1. ALLBfiE 61i AYNIE. LAWYERS. UES MOINES. 1pW i 0-K 0-K v` • - - ' v -HEM iiONORABLE �1�`,YOR ASD CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY Or IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified electors z the City O._ Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess OZ two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Governor at the last general election in said City, do !.-oreby'petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 08A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting she following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: "S :all the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed '$6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as nu,,mber Iowa R-14?" NA:?EADDRESS -- -._._/7 Z aL it 1. gojq 1 E Leib Soh /n u�f��� (Yri- �G'L- X3(7 4 7 � Wo- a \H &-ERS. GOONEY, Dnp�6 H Wmura. ALI_Ei AYN/I\E. I- S. DE9 MOINES, IOWA ov J r ;.,Ie, t.1C i.:i:c:erSigned,- qus.lified electors of the City o_ Iowa City, Iowa, constituting -a nurber 1n excess o wo (2) percent of those who voted for the office of uo'orzor a:. the last general election.'in said City, do ht!rtby pctittion the City Council of said City to call a _:retial election pursuant to the provisions of Chap -or ,G A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition t the_ oters of the City of Iowa C.i cy l IOW,, c' -wit: the CityofIowa City, Iowa, issue its obligation -:Bonds in the amount of not to a.:cead $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urian renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?" ME ADDR::SS �.� �criv� 3S S . S L) n.M /}� f'vc�,lra�� a.n, - ay `% S . c�.�ttc�►ti�1 AHLER'3. GOONEY. DORWEILER. ALLBRE 6 HAYNIE. LAWYZRS. DE9 MOINES. IOWA &7 .� / 23 / 74- _'/2 3 / 2 </ ¢ _/23/2y Y �YOR A\D CT_TY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF C --T'-', IOTA - ;.,Ie, t.1C i.:i:c:erSigned,- qus.lified electors of the City o_ Iowa City, Iowa, constituting -a nurber 1n excess o wo (2) percent of those who voted for the office of uo'orzor a:. the last general election.'in said City, do ht!rtby pctittion the City Council of said City to call a _:retial election pursuant to the provisions of Chap -or ,G A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition t the_ oters of the City of Iowa C.i cy l IOW,, c' -wit: the CityofIowa City, Iowa, issue its obligation -:Bonds in the amount of not to a.:cead $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urian renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?" ME ADDR::SS �.� �criv� 3S S . S L) n.M /}� f'vc�,lra�� a.n, - ay `% S . c�.�ttc�►ti�1 AHLER'3. GOONEY. DORWEILER. ALLBRE 6 HAYNIE. LAWYZRS. DE9 MOINES. IOWA &7 .� / 23 / 74- _'/2 3 / 2 </ ¢ _/23/2y r.. r tm:�Ioa. 3LEI MAYOR AND CITY COU\CIL OR THE CITY Or 10:11A CITY, IOWA fve, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Gov,:�rnor at the last general election in said City, do notchy petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter lc -A Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of _owa City, Iowa, to -wit: "S:.all the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its gene.al obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?" NAME i ADDRESS AHLER3. GOONEY. DORWEILER• ALL"EE Ih HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DER MOINES. IOWA .A� TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa Citv, Iowat constituting a number in excess of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Governor at the last general election in said City, do hereby, petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A. Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: NAME "Shall the City of Iowa Cityr Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of -said City designated as number Iowa R-147" 4- -4- /+ �o LLa r ii e r 2 - lit' �-,,&f J;. 7 ANUIRS. COONEY. DOnWKILCM. ALLE61 & HAYNIE. LAWYaPts. OEM MomFv. lowk TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Governor at the last general election in said City, do hereby petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: NAME "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?11 ADDRESS C �'��✓r1.t1 9L-Uf&IU t J 1 FG GUc.I �Lw4 -CC�`4 . I)S ',1,6L:.CIi` Cveo l!DD 0�t.4f' "q �.� Busst-Tjai r>?u, ��,�,�° 'ZII old mQ r ! r 1I <a�C�i /CrT2. a t/� �L� 1 .,• . , l i / /� t r rls c� tA r\0.,n�, i Z -7�� 4:� 7 3ti� 73S 0 %� 2 - ;/ `f a -a3 -7y .41 /7 AHLERS. GOONEY. DORWEILER. ALLSEE 6 HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA 1917 1 M TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, constituting a number in excess of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Governor at the last general election in said City, do hereby petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City Of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: `I►iTuia "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,0001000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?" I -A j G L r I 0 -IS oa►f mu r\ i V _ I lj ADDRESS �y-�7cl i AHLER/. GOONEY, DORWEILER. ALLBEE 8 HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, constituting a number in excess of two (2) percent of 'those who voted for the office of Governor at the last _general election in said City, do hereby petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?" NAME Oe n0 Awl -•^U'" L 4%t7� li° '.A(!�, r� ptl" h ADDRESS 3 JZ -7. = y3s s. 606 S _ f_- 'lv`, z(z z/7`I 7; crl Ge At i• AHLERs. GOONEY. DORWEILIER. ALLBEE d HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DE9 MOINES. IOWA I TO THE'NONNORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF Tii E CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA ' j i•ie, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Governor at the last general election in said City, do I ereby petition the City Council of said City to call special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter :06A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting she following proposition to the voters of the City of T_owa City, Iowa, to -wit: "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?" 2AME :.: ADDRESS /13 . Uars Gj v�1,Er" 14V7 ?�4z 3/7 c�. f J ■ 1 LVAchie r- s�RU1sE ec J3 SSL � }h,Lr X� 3/3 . - r - rRuSry _l � `�,,� •tel..-.�z�,.J!' � .�`�{-�. r U J /G J r,7 AHLERS. GOONEY. DORW£ILER. ALLFIEE i. HAYNIE. LAW YLRs. DF4 MOINES, IOWA TO THE. i10aORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY O: IO:qA CITY, IOWA lie, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa City Iowa constituting a nus _ , , number in excess o� two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Gov:-rnor at the last general election in said City, do hereby petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general,obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,000,000.00 for,the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?I" NAME r'. L ADDR.r::SS J AMcS fr L ANSDON j G� tel\ MAN'AN/YA d "gin) 15,-�� . l 3.� 3174 I s17 /23 7� C �:_� umin j C�4- Leh AmtI R3. GOONEY, DoRWEILCA. ALLB¢fi b HAYNIE. I..AWYLRS. DER �'IOINES. IOWA i TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF T CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA we, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, constituting a number in excess oL two (2) percent of those who voted for -the office of Governor at the last general election in said City, do hereby petition the City Council of said City to cal.'_ z, special election pursuant to the provisions of Cha?ter 08A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,000,000,00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban -renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa.R-14?" :LAME L� ADDRESS e c S / J ID5/-7L _:/� j/7 AHLERS. GOONEY. DORWEILER. ALLOSE & HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA 3 w O � n y a �i 7Do o Z � D O O m � v 3 w O � n �m 7Do o Z � D O O m � v z n TO THE HONORABLE ZU%YOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Governor at the last general election in said City, uo hereby petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 08A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban -renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa.R-14? ; NAME ADDRESS �Le /eel. L' 7 G 6 We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Governor at the last general election in said City, do hereby petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: IIQho•i l Ll. .. nC L.. ..G T-_._ n1 . __ � _ �A � / • Q ,moi 2 f. (vo�/.r.,.. �, 7 Lj 1 , i A// .:' 7-�UG��✓ ✓ 6 / I Y AHLERS. GOONEY. OORWEILER. ALLBEE 9 HAYNIE. LAWYERS. OES MOINES. IQWA e � z r 1.. ,i.JA Y h jaw ✓'aC-h ,.y ... .. We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Governor at the last general election in said City, do hereby petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: IIQho•i l Ll. .. nC L.. ..G T-_._ n1 . __ � _ �A � / • Q ,moi 2 f. (vo�/.r.,.. �, 7 Lj 1 , i A// .:' 7-�UG��✓ ✓ 6 / I Y AHLERS. GOONEY. OORWEILER. ALLBEE 9 HAYNIE. LAWYERS. OES MOINES. IQWA r 1.. TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA —T We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Governor at the last general election in said City, do hereby petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 403.x, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project -of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?"..s' v J �� L 6E r— . mss/ 2As cp TO THEE HONORABLE XAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF TH-E, CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA Pie, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City Of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess o:: two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Governor at the last general election in said City, do hereby petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chanter ,.-SA, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?" / 1 NAME ADDRESS r�GLJ� 17, Por C) 11 0 AHLeA3. GOONEY. DOn WEILEA. ALLURE 6 HAYNIE. LAWYjLAs. DE9 MOINES. IOWA °/ X012 G"�, -1 arc C�Q\ TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Governor at the last general election in said City, do hereby petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?" NAME ADDRESS 0 aao� b�� Rot . al�yl�y VLO -27 ZfL 17 -6-4���� ANLER6. GOONEY. DORWEILER. ALLBEE & HAYN2AWYER9. Drs MOINES. IOWA G z. u � i TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Governor at the last general election in said City, do hereby petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: - "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bondsinthe amount of not to exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?11 NAME ADDRESS I! 302-3 C43 �'y 171 n �^ a L -a, 2-1J/-Iy a/9171 -/.z 7 V AHLERS. GOONEY. DORW[IL[R. ALLOSE & HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA M1 ir.1N i'J :'iz :iJ;iO3A1 :LAYOR AND CITY COU`CIL OF THE CITY O:• CI'='I', IOGJA the undersigned, qualified electors of the City Zowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess of Lwo (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Go',�raor at the last general election in said City, do petition the City Council of said City to call special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter SUuA, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting _ tha To-llowing proposition to the voters OT the City Of Io,aa City, Iowa, to -wit: "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,000,000.00 for'the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as nu,-nber Iowa R-14?" \AME A f ADDRESS W AW .2 Cid AHLEAS. GOONEY, DORW%ILER. ALLBRE & HAYNIE. LAWYZRS. ()Eq MOINES. IOWA 0A OR TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City Of Iowa City, _Iowa, constituting a number in excess of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Governor at the last general election in said City, do hereby petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed 5610001000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?" NAME /-")T_—G {{ s' V ADDRESS / L/ � � � ...._ .LLC •- �. ,,0/4 TL AHLERS. COONEY. DORWEILER. ALLSEE & HAYNIE.. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA Y Q -ZT-?� ■'- TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa Cit.v, Iowa, constituting a number in excess of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Governor at the last general election in said City, do hereby petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: NAME - J/U "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $610001000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?" ADDRESS %ooli 4" < /. /. _ - sa AtiCu L .-4+ OP Tf g/ 11/7V I f /71 r c i CLCJIJ AHLERS. GOONEY. DORWEILEP. ALLBEE 6 HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA 7-� `�?� - //, i, 2 V TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Governor at the last general election in said City, do hereby petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: ":Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $61000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking _and _carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?" -NAM�E/[//� rK' _:2 �. �j ADDRESS -(— �� 1)7_ ,7 /? r J16 Q- -- - --i C 6104 117Z 1- 13 Pf c__ 31z3 WRvbC.- ST VIC AHLlRs. Co &.ab ONEY. DORWEILER. ALLSEE S HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA `l/ D /7Y /C12 z/ C;2Z � L/ 71 L_,�-/!-7� ?-,,-ry ,� -11-7Y ._-//-7� Z -i/-71-1 ■ TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THF CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Governor at the last general election in said City, do hereby petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?" RUM J(si�Y \f�earv�+ ADDRESS 5' 3 3 mo 166( otd 323/ I D'-� 9'r av\&v i _� �Jka_ A Gri\ e pcttz�7_ �� L //:2 Ii,I�"7t 1�t� �17� L lY IIJ -C'.TWI// ` L9R9. CO Y. DORWEILER. ALLBEE 6 HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA G' -t\ C�'\ ,z TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, constituting a number in excess of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Governor at the last general election in said City, do hereby petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?" NAME ADDRESS Q IJq Tc �`✓!/'" �J )1Y� \'I_] f ':.�1�✓VJ��1�'v��l'./�IL�ti �/ ��I I" { t ��1 �. . -" / ) /1 r /r (/ 6 �F qI G 3 N3/7 �. Zl, 3 3 /`Gc q/r5- G/aY-)V, AHLERS. GOONEY. DORWEILER. ALLSEE 6 HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA Y7Y TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Governor at the last general election in said City, do hereby petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?" NAME 3aC_ ADDRESS 0 qT& tCL,l.,, N �o io LU. 9,��� r AHLERG. GOONEY. DORWEILER. ALLREE R HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DER MOINES. IOWA TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, constituting a number in excess of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of - Governor at the last general election in said City, do hereby petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to=wit: "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?" NAME ADDRESS r�6 i -/_: I. 1 �, c3 7 l AHLERS. GOONEY. DORWEILER. ALLSEE 6 HAYN IE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA i TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, constituting a number in excess of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Governor at the last general election in said City, do hereby petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?" NAME /y��� �� � l�--_ {ice • ,iEn1K5 i< 1 RC II-n�E rZ rAL_sL�r 4 DI�J�RK/A/ ADDRESS �3 - E. r�z s , tr Ile �o l C cu 1_2-;,c v\_4,ov1. ANLERS. GOONEY. DORWEILER. ALLSEE & HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA 71v - 7y l -�y- .:�_j«k /'\� TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Governor at the last -general -election in said City, do hereby -petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa. R-14?" NAME ���� J AA c 1 It j emr-1 " B EST -(2-WV_3 -A ADDRESS N X30 w a -b , + 4-I Yy o A T_F '1 �. //J 121 P�77�1- i2- ff:,513 14, 1 q - C) -19=7 /_,J_e_kQ QC7. � � 7y �1i.�z/T� n-(AHLER{. COONEY. DORWLILER. ALLBEL b HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA �XXQi� R2 1� /30r i �,I,,� <iZ -7 211 Y (7 TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, constituting a number in excess of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Governor at the last: general election in said City, do hereby petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?" NAME ADDRESS 13 1100 F y_3 T E v,7 Z kmtor a I_KV GNU Cy a.3 v AMLERS. GOONEY. DORWEILER. ALLBEE & HAYAm. LAWYERS. DES MOINES, IOWA T-�.1.,T- ( /11 ..T - r/ ,�- ff�- 1` -Gk. l8 J,z4 It ,! a TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Governor at the last general election in said City, do hereby petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?" NAME ADDRESS % C ONV l_ I Thr i -n t S A167 r v r s oc- -3 0 ?� cn7` � S AHLERS. COONEY. DORWEILER. ALLISEE & HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES, IOWA TO THE HONORABLE_ MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, constituting a number in excess of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Governor -at the last general election in said City, do hereby petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, CodeofIowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,000,000,00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewalproject of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?" NAME ADDRESS O./� J -E lGl 9 P h��,rl�� ��y I AHLERO. GOONEY, DORWSILSR. ALLOSE 6 HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES, IOWA 74 7y TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Governor at the last general election in said City, do hereby petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition tothevoters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?" NAMEG fADDR``ESS C Civ ice, t ;'�1 J-2 �'�//t ��r :_� ,'c 7z- �lGLLuC C'i /i . //� �G4L�[ ✓ 4" AHLERS. COONEY. DORWEILER. ALLBEE h HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of - Governor at the last, general election in said City, do hereby petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to eed ose of incthe planning undertaking and.00 for the carrying out planning, g Y g an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?" iINfTINFO f/V71 A L? ADDRESS A -e. 020 a -J? /�o-c�i.�c ✓ �Z . o"I Sd a �P L''Z4_e_49yc, Clc-4-4e-� ZD 161-7 a /97 V 7y U -/- -7 -751 L AHLER8. COONEY. DORWEILER. ALLB__EE IS HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA 0 S SCJ 0,(,U 1 -3 �)-/a-71 -7Y 2- -ia - 7V -2 �21 //-/- 71 TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, constituting_a number in excess of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Governor at the last general election in said City, do hereby petition -the ``City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa`, to -wit: "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,_000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?" NAME �j ...-�GLyCl•�2fil/fit Cl"% C � l5-i•reb� 641 ADDRESS C4 14 Ci s oG- %03 61- 0 lvxr . /9-0 iti. /a -41-t. /✓�� T .� 1 �etw�I �a1y , (fit Z-/�i?�/ 9 A IW., 3 a � Z%,XA&W� /�L z 6p E%) / 3 Cf�ir� . DORWEILER. ALL9EE S HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA a - 3- '74- z--31117 / 7/3/7 %3 /7 zll3 J7y �/i v /7 y TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, constituting a number in excess of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Governor at the last general election in said City, do hereby petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,0001000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?" NAME ,aaz 1 Af ADDRESS �z v sa Ale, Cat AzC, 02- ��4- 7/4Z 0_1 _;I 61",� 47� Y.2 MILERS. GOONEY. DORWEILER. ALLBEE 6 HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOIIIES. IOWA TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY-, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of Governor at the last general election in said City, do hereby petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the p!.3rpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: NAME "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?" ADDRESS AHLIRS. GOONLY, DORWEILCR. ALLBEE d HAYNIE- LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA r r�5: TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, constituting a number in excess of two (2) percent of _those who voted for the office of Governor at the last general election in said City, do hereby petition the City Council of said City to call a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: "Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?" NAME p ADDRESS \�� 4L --e AHLER{. GOONEY, DORWEILER. ALLBEE 6 HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA CITIZENWOR Aff, B 1973-716 SI'EEHING COMMITTEE Rev. Robert Welsh President Dorothy Douglass Vice -President John Harper Secretary -Treasurer Eleanore Bowers Donald Bryant Linda Dole Flo Beth Ehninger Jack Esbin Henry Fox William Gillespie Barbara Haring Frieda Hieronymus Dallas Mogan Joseph Howe John Kamp Faith Knowler Dean LaMaster L. H. Lundquist Leslie Moeller Warren Paris Clayton Ringgenberg Janet Shipton Richard Summerwill Rev. Roy Wingate City Council City of Iowa City Iowa City, Iowa 52240 :ITER IOA CITY Members of the Iowa City City Council: February 5, 1974 Citizens For A Better Iowa City trusts that the City Council will provide citizens of Iowa City with the following type of information relating to the bond referrendum. 1. What are the funds to be used for? We understand the rational for flexibility. We also realize, however, that persons wish to know the purposes for which bonds are being sold. 2. What are the fiscal implications? A statement concerning amortization schedule and sources of repayment is vital to the interpreta- tion of the referrendum. 3. Why does the council desire a petition? There is some question on our part as to it's necessity. If there is a valid need for a peti- tion, C.B.I.C. will be happy to secure the nec- essary signatures, if such assistance is needed and desired. 4. What are the alternatives? Persons need to know the implication of their vote. If, for example, there is another way of carrying out the proposed redevelopment, persons need to know this. If there is no other alternative, they need to know this. We trust that the City Council will address itself to these considerations and share this information. Sincerely, Robert L. Welsh RLW:rew WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City, Iowa, acting as Local Public Agency, is in the process of carrying out an urban renewal project known as Iowa R-14, and, WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City is in the process of disposing of urban renewal property for; private redevelopment and is also in the process of formulating plans --_for public improvements in the downtown Iowa City area, and,, WHEREAS, the City,of Iowa City deems it necessary and appropriate to establish a Design Review Committee for the purposes set forth in this resolution to assist the City of Iowa City in the carrying out of this urban renewal project. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, that a Design Review Committee be and the same is hereby established consisting of 15 members to be appointed by the advisory Mayor with the consent of the City Council, to serve as an ad hoc/committee. St4�a�xtat3a3ex The purpose and duties of the Design Review Committee shall be as follows: 1. To encourage and promote the acceptability, attractiveness, cohesiveness, ` and general design compatibility of new construction and and adjacent to rehabilitation, where feasible, both public and private within/the central business district of Iowa City; 2. To elicit the thoughts and comments of individual citizens and formal citizen organizations concerning design, aesthetics, landscaping, and adjacent to art forms and architecture withiWthe central business district; 3. To meet with, when necessary, the City staff, the City's design consultant, the redeveloper or redevelopers, and appropriate University struction in both the private and public sectors; 5. To make recommendations to the City Manager as to the architectural, aesthetic and general design aspects of all proposed public and private improvements within and adjacent to the central business district redevelopment area. 6. That the City Manager be authorized to take whatever administrative action necessary in performance of duties of the committee. The Design Review Committee established by this reso- lution shall be in place of the City's previous Design Review Board which shall stand dissolved. It wasmovedby White and seconded by Davidsen that the resolution as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: Brandt Czarnecki Davidsen deProsse White Passed and approved this 91 X X ABSENT: 5th day of February , 1974. Mayor ATTEST: ":& L-, ') City Clerk gg t of Iowa staff to convey, and receive comments regarding design withinihe central business district; 4. To review preliminary plans of development and construction in both the private and public sectors; 5. To make recommendations to the City Manager as to the archi- tectural, aesthetic and general design aspects of all proposed public and private improvements within the central business district redevelopment area. The Design Review Committee established by this resolution shall be in place of the City's previous Design Review C-©mmit+" which shall stand dissolved. It was moved by and seconded by that the resolution as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Brandt Czarnecki Davidsen deProsse White Passed and approved this day of Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk , 1974. 1 I February 51 1974 Mr. Ray Wells City Manager City of Iowa City Civic Center 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Re: Professional Services City/University Project Iowa City, Iowa Dear Mr. Wells: This letter resulting from our meeting of February 1, 1974 is to informally set forth the scope of services we are prepared to render and our compensation for the scope of work outlined below relative to city improvements within the project known as City/ University Project'- 1, Iowa R-14, Iowa City, Iowa Urban Renewal Program. It is_understood that our scope of work will include the following A. Referendum documents - documents representative of the City of Iowa City funded portions of the urban renewal programa nd described in paragraphs B and C following. These documents ,will be used for public information prior to the referendum of March 28, 1974 and must be available no later -than March 14, 1974. The exact scope of this work will be defined in further discussion with your office. B. Parking ramp,- provide complete professional services for a parking facility utilizing the southern portion (approximately 120 feet ,by 320 feet) of Block 83 and generally the air rights of the remainder of Block 83 and -,all of Block:,84 in a multi-level structure to accommodate -.approximately_ 1200 cars. Coordinate this work with the work being done on the two story mall to be constructed by, the developer Adjacent to and below the parking ramp. C. Comprehensive.amenities program - provide complete profes- sional services for city funded amenities within the urban renewal area to be constructed on city owned streets, vacated rights-of-way, ,etc. and to include; but not be limited to: 1. Street and walkway lighting. 2. Pavement treatments - materials. patterns. tPxt„rPc_ G K i • ' i f '{t 111 f�f'tl.. - y} SSAGE 1 I February 51 1974 Mr. Ray Wells City Manager City of Iowa City Civic Center 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Re: Professional Services City/University Project Iowa City, Iowa Dear Mr. Wells: This letter resulting from our meeting of February 1, 1974 is to informally set forth the scope of services we are prepared to render and our compensation for the scope of work outlined below relative to city improvements within the project known as City/ University Project'- 1, Iowa R-14, Iowa City, Iowa Urban Renewal Program. It is_understood that our scope of work will include the following A. Referendum documents - documents representative of the City of Iowa City funded portions of the urban renewal programa nd described in paragraphs B and C following. These documents ,will be used for public information prior to the referendum of March 28, 1974 and must be available no later -than March 14, 1974. The exact scope of this work will be defined in further discussion with your office. B. Parking ramp,- provide complete professional services for a parking facility utilizing the southern portion (approximately 120 feet ,by 320 feet) of Block 83 and generally the air rights of the remainder of Block 83 and -,all of Block:,84 in a multi-level structure to accommodate -.approximately_ 1200 cars. Coordinate this work with the work being done on the two story mall to be constructed by, the developer Adjacent to and below the parking ramp. C. Comprehensive.amenities program - provide complete profes- sional services for city funded amenities within the urban renewal area to be constructed on city owned streets, vacated rights-of-way, ,etc. and to include; but not be limited to: 1. Street and walkway lighting. 2. Pavement treatments - materials. patterns. tPxt„rPc_ 4. Graphics. 5. Water features. 6 Drainage considerations. 7. Leased use of vacated r.o.w. 8. Pedestrian closures and stations. 9. Bikeways. Work under this phase would be in four parts: 1. Scope and procdure determination. 2. Conceptual design. 3. Preparation of implementation standards. 4. Contract documents. Compensation for the scope of work outlined above will be as follows: A. Referendum documents - we would be compensated on the .basis; of 2 1/2 ;times our direct personal expense. At the time we commence work on these documents we would agree upon a fee budget maximum, which would not be exceeded without prior approval of .the city. B. Parking ramp - wewould be compensated on the basis of a fee.equal to 5% of the cost of construction. C. Comprehensive_ amenities program - 1. Scope and -procedure determination, we will be compensated -;on the basis of 2 1/2 times our direct personal expense. It is anticipated this part will be accomplished within approximately 30 days. 2. Conceptual design,.lump sum _fee_ 3. _Preparation of implementation standards, lump sum fee. 4. Contract documents for specific work program, lump sum fee. In addition to the compensation outlined for A, B, and C, we would be compensated on a reimbursable basis -for all normal out-of-pocket expenses. I tt page , 2 4. Graphics. 5. Water features. 6 Drainage considerations. 7. Leased use of vacated r.o.w. 8. Pedestrian closures and stations. 9. Bikeways. Work under this phase would be in four parts: 1. Scope and procdure determination. 2. Conceptual design. 3. Preparation of implementation standards. 4. Contract documents. Compensation for the scope of work outlined above will be as follows: A. Referendum documents - we would be compensated on the .basis; of 2 1/2 ;times our direct personal expense. At the time we commence work on these documents we would agree upon a fee budget maximum, which would not be exceeded without prior approval of .the city. B. Parking ramp - wewould be compensated on the basis of a fee.equal to 5% of the cost of construction. C. Comprehensive_ amenities program - 1. Scope and -procedure determination, we will be compensated -;on the basis of 2 1/2 times our direct personal expense. It is anticipated this part will be accomplished within approximately 30 days. 2. Conceptual design,.lump sum _fee_ 3. _Preparation of implementation standards, lump sum fee. 4. Contract documents for specific work program, lump sum fee. In addition to the compensation outlined for A, B, and C, we would be compensated on a reimbursable basis -for all normal out-of-pocket expenses. I 1 Special consultants may be required for certain portions of the work previously outlined: Wherever possible special consideration will be given to consultants either based in Iowa City or with previous experience working in the Iowa City area. We are keenly aware of the need for coordination of the public and private interestsassociatedwith this project. This can be accomplished through mutual cooperation, review and evaluation, and we will assist in'everyway possible to help assure this project is reflective of the needs of the city and the citizens of Iowa City. We recommend.that the city delay, if possible, specific implementation of such acute items as Burlington Street improvements, Washington Street improvements, Clinton/Washington bus stop until such time as the scope and procedure and conceptual design phases of the comprehensive amenities program can be completed. Peter Pomnitz AC 312-346-4460 (Ester Butrick, Secretary) A t• Y� page 3 1 Special consultants may be required for certain portions of the work previously outlined: Wherever possible special consideration will be given to consultants either based in Iowa City or with previous experience working in the Iowa City area. We are keenly aware of the need for coordination of the public and private interestsassociatedwith this project. This can be accomplished through mutual cooperation, review and evaluation, and we will assist in'everyway possible to help assure this project is reflective of the needs of the city and the citizens of Iowa City. We recommend.that the city delay, if possible, specific implementation of such acute items as Burlington Street improvements, Washington Street improvements, Clinton/Washington bus stop until such time as the scope and procedure and conceptual design phases of the comprehensive amenities program can be completed. Peter Pomnitz AC 312-346-4460 (Ester Butrick, Secretary) _ in.r^p^'T^T"n.T?^�"^. Xn..Y �v'r'f0'.'s"4T^�swt 3.'I'�+i^?.SM'N i,+z Kms. �•, it _.."�;yry r. _s Introduction....................................1 Methodology .............. ........................1 Zoning Ordinance Amendment Requests...............2 Subdivision Reviews...............................3 Other Fee Charges.... .........................4 A. Vacations.... ... B. Annexations.................................5 C. Board of Adjustment -- Variances, Exceptions and Interpretations..............5 Chart I, Resume of Recommended Fees...............7, 8 Chart II, Resume of Current Fees..................9 APPENDIX A, Rezoning Requests Not Considered by City Council ....................... 10 APPENDIX B, Rezoning, Requests Considered by City Council .......................]] APPENDIX B-11 Commentary onGeneralGrowth Properties' Rezoning Request..............12 APPENDIX B-2, Commentary on Braverman - West Planned Area Development............ .....14 APPENDIX Cr Subdivisions .........................15 APPENDIX D, Projected 'Cost Recapitulation of Study Submissions Using Recommended Fee Structure........ . ..................... .......16, 17 APPENDIX E 18 EXHIBITA ............. .........................28 EXHIBITB ........................................ 31 EXHIBIT C ................ ............. .34 This report has been prepared for the purpose of providing documentation for a series of recommended increases in appli- cation fees for various activities processed by the Department of Community Development. Fee increase recommendations were initially made to the City Council in December, 1972. At that time the Council indicated a desire for more information prior to making a;decision. The Department of Community Development subsequently initiated. a_ comprehensive study of all of the costs incurred for zoning ordinance amendments, subdivision plat reviews, public right-of-way vacations and annexation activities. The fee charge recommendations contained in this report are based on the concept:of having.the individual developer or property owner pay .for a'majority of the costs related to these activities, rather than have these costs heavily subsidized by all of the property tax payers in Iowa City. Methodology Charts were prepared to record the time and materials used for the various subject activities. Exhibits A and B following depict the form in which the information has been collected. Hourly earnings of personnel involved during the various steps of the processing of the submissions were obtained, and time was allocated for five-minute increments by individual employee class. Costs of materials used were obtained from purchasing records. In order to compare fees charged by Iowa City with those of other communities, a letter was mailed to the appropriate agencies in 50 communities. (A copy of this letter is included in this report as Exhibit C.) Response to the letter was good. Of the 50 letters sent, 37 replies were received. This is a 74% response. Numerous replies indicated that either fee charges have recently been revised or that new fee charge schedules were being considered as of this time. It also appeared that, in those instances where new fees were recently put into effect, the fees were appreciably higher than those presently being charged in Iowa City. Another conclusion drawn was that most of those -_communities with fee charges as low or lower than Iowi: City's have notreviewed their charges for some period of time. Many of those in the latter mentioned category have expressed an interest in this study and have requested a copy once it has been completed. The original cost data did not include a figure for overhead costs. Additional researchinthis area indicated that two different studies made by -other communities have indicated that overhead costs run approximately 15% of the cost processing. z Consequently, a 158 surchikge has-been added to each of the calculated costs. Ideally,y the most desirable way to fairly levy costs for these various activities would be to keep an accurate record of all the times and materials involved and then to bill each applicant accordingly. However, due to the size and complex- ity of some requests and in that the costs of tabulating these fees would dramatically increase the cost of the application itself, it is recommended that it would be most equitable to make charges based upon certain predetermined parameters. The first category to be considered is that of rezoning requests which were either,approved or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission and which were subsequently transmitted to the City Council for their consideration. In all of these instances the requests also included publication costs, public hearings, and recording costs. The second set of recommendations includes those petitions which were .withdrawn `before being submitted to the City Council for action. In these instances, there were no costs incurred for publications, public hearings, and recording. The subdivision fees which are recommended include a sliding scale depending upon the size of the submission. Additional research -has indicated that there does appear to be a relatively direct correlation between the amount of work required to process a subdivision submission, and the size of the submission. There- fore, the recommendations made in this area do reflect this correlation. Zoning Ordinance Amendment Requests A complete _study was made of all of the Zoning Ordinance amendment requests received.during the period of time running from January 1, 1973 through June 30, 1973. It was necessary to go beyond the June 30, 1973,date in order to obtain complete cost data for those petitions which were initiated during the six-month study period but which were incomplete. During the six-month period for which cost records were kept, four rezoning requests were denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and were not --requested to be forwarded to the City Council. Costs for these requests are shown in Appendix A. All other rezoning requests were forwarded to the City Council, even though two were, denied by P & Z. These requests are recorded in Appendix B. (Requests forwarded to the City Council result in additional City expenses: i.e., public hearing notices and publication, staff preparation and presentation to the Council, ordinance preparation and publication, recording costs with the County Recorder, map -changes, etc.) The present fee<.which the City Clerk collects is $55.00, $30.00 of which is earmarked for publication purposes and $25.00 for ;.■ Ask -------- -- -•.W. y�4.v aavprea-_on ..Marc,l 4, 1969. It should be_j noted that of the $30.00 collected for publication purposes, any portion which is not used for that purpose is refunded to the applicant. Conversely; if publication costs amount to more than $30.00, a statement for the difference is sent to the applicant. Records are kept by the City Clerk and calculations of publication costs are made by the same office. Refunds or billings must be handled by the Finance Department and involves extra bookkeeping; postage :and materials, thereby adding to the cost of a rezoning request. For -this reason the fees recommended later in this study involve no refunds unless the request is withdrawnafter P & Z action and then a flat percentage of the original fee is recommended to be refunded. As a result of the ,review of our costs and the research of fees charged by other communities, it is recommended that the following fees be charged for allrezoning requests: 1. Less than 1 acre _ _ 2. 1 acre or more _ _ _ - - $100.00 3. Requests approved by P &-z - o ref 4. Requests denied by P &,Z but applicant - no refunds requests hearing by City Council - - no refunds 5. Requests denied by P & Z and withdrawn - - 6. Change of zoning quested re after 30% refund - submission - - - - - 25% surcharge - Subdivision Reviews The letter to other communities (Exhibit C) also requested information on subdivision fee charges. Almost all responses show a flat review charge plus a minimal charge per lot. Thus, the developer of a large subdivision pays a correspondingly larger fee than does the developer of a smaller area. Subdivision plats, unlike zoning ordinance amendments, do not require public hearings, placard postings and published notices and, therefore, avoid the.c.osts incurred for those actions. However, there are other expenses involved, some of which can be quite costly. All submissions are reviewed by the offices of the City Engineer and the Fire Chief. Some are also reviewed by the Director of Parks and Recreation. Most subdivision plats are returned for corrections or revisions. Quite often a developer will bring in a revised plat after much time and expense have already been incurred on the original submission. Errors and omissions tend to add to the cost of a plat review. An analysis of the subdivision plats that were filed during the six-month study period are shown in Appendix C. ■ Recommendation of .fee charges for subdivision plat reviews are based.upon the actual costs of `the plats reviewed plus a 15% surcharge for overhead costs. Perusal of fee charges made by other communities show that these recommendations are fairly moderate. Recommendations: 1. Preliminary, minor* - - 2. Preliminary, major** - - 3. Final, majorandminor - - 4. Preliminary Planned Area Development - 5. Final Planned Area Development 6. Preliminary Large Scale Residential Development - 7. Final Large Scale Residential Development 8. Where combinations of Preliminary Plat, Planned Area Development, and/or Large Scale Residential Development are filed as one plat 9. Where combinations of a Final Plat, Planned Area Development, and/or Large Scale Residential Development are filed as.one 'plat 10. Preliminary Large Scale Non - Residential Development 11. Final Large Scale Non - Residential Development - - 4- $50 + $1 per lot $100 + $1 per lot $40 + 5044, per lot - $100 + $1 per lot and/or dwelling unit - $40 - $100 + $1 per dwelling unit - $40 $150 + $1 per lot and/or dwelling unit $60 $100 $40 * Minor -- no streets involved in plat. ** Major -- includes one or more new streets, selective access drives, or street extensions. Other Fee Chares In addition to revising the fee charges for zoning amendments and subdivisions, fees collected for other requests brought before the Planning andZoning -Commission were also evaluated. Because some of these requestsaremade so infrequently, it is almost impossible to make -a complete study of costs unless it is done over a long period of time. However, by evaluating past experi- ence, and by noting charges made by other communities, a reasonable set of recommendations was drafted. A. Vacations Vacations of streets, alleys or other publically owned land areas require some expenses not commonly associated with other requests. Expenses involved include survey, recording and publication costs, however, the major expense incurred in a vacation is the appraisal cost. At.the present time the fee for a vacation request is $200 -- which is the cost of; the appraisal._ It issuggestedthat the cost of publication notices for vacating and disposal of streets, alleys and other areas, as well as staff analysis and review time, be recovered by an additional $100 fee. Thus, a $300 fee for vacations is recommended. - B. Annexations At the present time there is no fee charge for annexation requests. This is the case because the Iowa Code does not mention that a municipality may charge a fee for annexations. However, with the adoption of the Home Rule Charter this may change and the feasibility of a fee charge for voluntary annex- ations should be reviewed at that time. Voluntary annexation requests in the past have been fairly simple because all land annexed came in with R1A zoning. However, with the passage.of.ordinance No. 73-2665 on March 6, 1973, voluntary annexation becomes amore complicated process. Under this new ordinance an applicant may designate the zoning classi- fication he.wishes to have for the annexed property. In effect, this is tantamount tO a'complete rezoning request involving the various research and review studies, approval by the Planning and zoning Commission, a public hearing before the City Council to- gether with publication of same, Ordinance passage and publication, recording fees, etc. Althoughnofees may be charged for annexation at the present time, it is our recommendation that regular zoning amendment fees be charged for all petitions for annexation. C. BoardofAdjustment -- Variances, Exceptions and Inter- pretations At the present time an appeal to the Board of Adjustment for an exception or a variance requires a fee of $15.00. This fee does not cover the costs involved. Some of those costs are research and review.by members of the staff and the resultant Staff Report and other allied work, a publication in a news- paper and the posting of a sign or signs on the subject property. 1. Variances - $50.00 2. Exceptions to Zoning requlations - - $50.00 3. Other actions filed with the Board of Adjustment _ - $50.00 It is recommended that no refund be granted once any petition has been filed with the Board of Adjustment. ZONING AMENDMENTS: 1. Less than one (1) acre - - - $100.00 2. 3. 1 acre or more - Requests approved by P - - - & Z - - $200.00 4. Requests denied by P & Z but brought no refunds 4. before City Council at -applicant's request - $100 + $1 per lot 5. Request -s _ denied by P & - - - Z and no refunds 6. withdrawn 6. Change of zone district - requested 30% refund 7. after each submission - - - 25% surcharge SUBDIVISIONS: 1. Preliminary, minor* - - - - $50 + $1 2. Preliminary, major** - - - $100+ per lot $1 3. Final Minor & Major _ _ _ $40 Per lot 4. Preliminary Planned Area Development - - - - $100 + $1 per lot 5. Final Planned Area Development - _ and/or $40 dwelling unit 6. Preliminary Large Scale Residential Development - - - $100 + $1 per lot 7. Final Large Scale Residential and/or dwelling unit Development - $40 8. Where confirmations of Preliminary Plats, Planned Area Developments and/or Large Scale, Residential Developments are filed as one plat, the fee is - _ - - - $150 +1 $ per lot 9. Where combinations of a Final Plat, and/or dwelling unit Planned Area Development, and/or Large Scale Residential Development 10. are filed as one plat, the fee is - Large Scale Non -Residential $60 Development, Preliminary - - - $100 11. Large Scale Non -Residential Development, Final - - - $40 VACATIONS: 1. Vacation of street, alley or other publically owned areas ANNEXATIONS: Same as Zoning Ordinance amendments. $300 I I BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: 1. Variation in Regulations 2. Exceptions to Zoning Regulations _ $50.00 $50.00 3. Other actions filed with the Board of Adjustment - $50.00 It is recommended petition has been that no refunds be filed granted once any with the Board of Adjustment. * Minor -- no streets involved in plat. ** Major -- includes one or more new streets, selective access drives, or street extensions. 1 OT Im rt D. * Ln w ,� m EEni C a rt `° 3 N H lD O rt F• ranw rt r• �(D rt W m m0 fi rt, O m cn rn a N m r - >f (n G ph oP rt (n m 00 rn r- n m m E In r - O tJm m ww wW w a 0 H (D 0 0 0 0 O I I I W Q. N ww 0 En ww W m a' m r- 0 to u• Q1 v J rt - 0• m cn co r• a (n co 0 a w u, Ln O rt In a w Im rt D. Ln w m N N lD O Fi r• W r - a N G r- In r - O (D I I I 0 m ro Irl rt Ln 0 m rt rt n rn P_ O d (ten (n co 0 0 � � M o r, U1 rt - a% • n>m 00 I� a • N O z H z c� 0 C [TJ m H cn z 0 H n O z U3 H d cM� L•J 0 to K f7 H H �-C C) 50 G n H r Ma O, MJ r, ~ * j A rt Ort 0 Eby 1-0 F% (xD cD0 PVrul to ,.- a C` C3 `rG� k � 0 0 ... W H.�.0 Q W r� F., a (D $5 F' ti a M N• F, ro 3 x ( w ro ro Ln H (D rt,n Q P. K HC7'� rn a� a� 11 °P K K rt, m rt,o v m F n rt- N N N Q K •'3 .7 O Fes' N rt (D rt, rt, pro� ON)O O O O O n C (D p, N N N N. N tcl (D 0 R. Cr Ow r N is "C to i° w w FC 0 m 0D � w 00 00 OD �, ao m ao 0 �•00 F✓ F� N Lyln F✓ o 1w rt Im K m En rt H Q aJ O (D rr (GD p O m Fl- rt, - rtw N K O ODlEn(D Fih z O m rt, N a w H t -h n (D NN Fr N (n 1-i to 00 Fj � K � K x K K K Ln Ln to N to W o I� Ln A to Ja in W Ln N O z H z c� H C'] O z W H b M 0 tclk C] H H FG n O z H r i ASI ro r� z d H x ':• ro 21 W J W J N W O W Ja .P F� lJl Cn N H N w .A co �i K O In 'P OD ZO In O J N W J N v CO 0 O UI rt G fi' _ N 01 O F -'•:Li Ul O �• ro U1 O N O 01 Cl J W Li N M J O P O O 00 �. J J �! N W N a% ft K U1 F... o ro N to N w w pp `� rn coo � (� F • Ow O H• w w Ol J 00 rt a O J W w UI rt, - F,. O OD OD co W ODD N F~r I J Ln F OJ C] H • O • N ' In N %D N rt J TT 0% co OD o► o ' � ' w °J° .FN, rt - N ON ro., N O z H z c� H C'] O z W H b M 0 tclk C] H H FG n O z H r i ASI ro r� z d H x ':• COMMENTARY ON GENERAL GROWTH PROPERTIES' REZONING REQUEST This particular submission is being treated separately in that the application was submitted several months prior to the January 1, 1973 starting date of the study and, therefore, the costs included reflect only a partial enumeration of the expenses incurred. Initial contact was made with the City Staff early in 1972. Prior to the submission of the actual rezoning petition, several conferences were held between representatives of the developer and Department of 'Community Development Staff personnel. It is also known that at least two additional conferences were held with Department of Public Works personnel. Subsequent to these conferences, two applications were sub- mitted. They were as follows: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Z-7214. This was a rezoning request submitted by General Growth Properties and Frantz Construction Company to rezone property in southeast Iowa City from R1A to C2. This was officially filed on June 14, 1972. 12 The second application was a large scale non-residential development submission (LSNRD), 5-7215. This was for the same parcelofland and listed Frantz Construction Company as the owner of the property and General Growth Properties as the developer. This was filed on June 12, 1972. Subsequent to this submission, Planning Staff personnel processed the application in the typical manner and answered numerous requests for information from area residents. This initially came before the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 27, 1972. Several conferences of considerable length were held with the developer at this time. At the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on June 27, -- 1972, representatives of the developer appeared, urging the rezoning of the land, and many property owners in the area appeared, with a petition containing over 200 signatures opposing the rezoning. The Planning & Zoning Commission then moved to defer action on the request. This -item reappeared on the Planning & Zoning Commission agenda on July 11, 1972. The action arising from this meeting was a request by the developer for another deferral of the petition for the purposes of amending the petition. Subsequent to this action,_periodic-conferences were once again held between staff personnel and the developer. An amended rezoning request was submitted to the City on April 18, 1973. This request was to rezone the property from RlA to PC (Planned Commercial) zone. (The earlier request was to rezone the property from R1A to C2.) A conservative estimate as to the costs incurred on this submission during_ 1972 was $300, however, as was indicated earlier, no detailed records were kept. subsequent action revolved around only the Planned Commercial (PC) rezoning request. No additional time was spent on the large scale non- residential development submission because of the prerequisite to first rezone the property. 13 The fees paid by the developer for the rezoning requests included $25 for application processing and $30 for publication costs. This resulted in a total payment of $55, and of this amount, $12.14 was refunded because of the entire $30 not being spent on publication costs. This results in a net expenditure by the developer for both 1972 and 1973 of $42.86. Resume of Partial Costs for General Growth Submission Z-7214. Frantz Construction Company S-7215. Hawkeye Plaza Shopping Center (General Growth Properties) Date filed: Type of request: Attorney: Architect: Engineer: Representative: Landscape Architects: Number of acres: Staff number and time: Resubmitted 4/18/73 Planned Commercial Zone Philip A. Leff Derwood J. Quade Derwood J. Quade Marvin Christensen John Crose & Associates 31.54 acres 11 -- 68 hours Costs Costs Through After Publication Total P&Z Action P&Z Action Costs Costs $396.43 $39.53 $17.86 $453.82 15% overhead 68.07 $521.89 If the $300 estimated expenditures incurred during 1972 is added to the above amount, the total cost would be approximately $821.89. Subtracting the total fee paid by the applicant of $42.86 would result in a City subsidy in the amount of $779.03. It should also be mentioned that time spent in meetings by other City administrative personnel, including the City Manager: was not computed in this total. It would probably be accurate to say that costs associated with this particular application would be in the area of $1,000. COMMENTARY ON BRAVERMAN-WEST PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT Like the General Growth Properties submission, the PAD and LSRD submitted for the Braverman -West Development fell Outside the six-month time parameters established for this study. In this particular instance, the records are not even as complete as those for General Growth Properties, however, upon discussion with staff personnel involved, it was discerned that this particular development probably resulted in a greater expendi- ture to the City than did the General Growth submission. It would be safe to ;assume that the approximate cost of this particular submission was approximately $1,000 or slightly more. It is not uncommon for other work items to be generated by large developments such as the Braverman -West PAD. For example, in this particular instance, it was necessary for the developer to acquire yard, lot and use variances. All of these actions required additional time. There was also an additional assign- ment for Community. Development Department personnel which was generated as a result of this submission. Specifically, a study of private ways was assigned -to -the Staff as a result of one of the approaches being used by the subdivider which was incon- sistent with the provisions of the existing ordinances. The cost of this -latter -mentioned study, although attributable to the Braverman -West -submission, was not included in the above- mentioned cost figure. Another observation of relevance to this subject is that many of the larger Planned Area Developments, Planned Commercial Developments, Large Scale Residential Developments, and Large Scale Non -Residential Developments, can take in excess of six months or even one year to complete. These larger developments tend to frequently have more allied problems which need to be resolved. If total figures were available for the two latter mentioned projects, and if these were included with the costs incurred for the other activities as listed in Appendices A. B, and C, it would result in a higher average cost per submission. This information should be considered when fee structure adjustments are being considered. * � cn N ro ro tcl 0 01 w H 11 (D n c 0 ;o o N N ft __N .T C a h W W U1 w m P - C71 p p rn JF' F, 0 rt' (D rt 0 C I Ln m a N m dP O N CO P F w O O A N Ul 01 r* C rt (D Ul N p %D tr ajz ro roEnro WKJ romro m c fn s a r (D" c a m r-r•F- rtp.F- r•w rtR.r E tl r r- a r r• C El U) r - r- r - n O d~ C G U) rt an d:3 o•a P) (n r• a U) roman r & roo • w i d�C rt a rt w FP J N J r N N N N Ol 01 w H N N N ;o o N N r w FP J N J r N N r F' N r w H N N N 00 o m 00 tr __N .T y._._ h W W U1 w w P - C71 p p rn JF' 00 ~ 0 0 N OD �D O N CO P F w w rn A N Ul 01 Ul Ul N p %D ro (D .a G 0 In rt H n a a En ro Q' N y Y Fy O 00(a rtG rt r•w (n O t7• t$ ro a) N4o �rtm (D rt, rt H N r - o ty Fr N F Q H v N J J O O 0 0o m ,t rt A) W J O 00 N F_ v N N W a ST En C to d H C H G) H 0 z w As a means of measuring the impact of the recommended fees on recent zoning and subdivision submissions, a brief compara- tive analysis was made by using selected data from this study. In categories -I and II below, (I) rezoning requests not con- sidered by the City Council, and (II) rezoning requests con- sidered by the City Council, the second highest, second lowest and average costsofall submissions were used. The highest and lowest amounts were not used because of the assumption that this would statistically not be as valid as the data used. However, the average amounts listed were the result of a compilation'of all cases listed in Appendices A and B. Category III (subdivision costs) used only average amounts because of the longer time periods involved and the two-part (preliminary and final plat) submissions required for sub- division plats. Preliminary plat data for Penny Bryn was excludedaswas the final plat tabulations for both Court Hills - Scott Boulevard and Village Green. Additional costs, due primarily to inflation, will be experienced in 1974 and during subsequent years. Therefore„ the small surpluses projected for some of the submissions based upon 1973 costs will readily diminish and most likely a balance situation will be reached in the near future. Actual Costs Per Submission Name Total I or Average Projected Costs Per Submission Total I or Average I. Rezoning Requests not considered by City Council (see A A) . Fanny Duffy 84.78 70.00 Edward Thomas 56.68 70.00 Average Costs 267.58 66.90 70.00 II. Rezoning Requests considered by the City Council (see A B). Hollywood Manor Part V 182.86 200.00 F. E. Tisinger 83.88 100.00 Average Costs 1231.64 123.16 1500.00 150.00 Net Gain or (Loss) (14.78) 13.32 3.10 ndix 17.14 16.12 26.84 III. Subdivisions (from Appendix C) (Using average amounts cnjZ)* Average Costs 585.94 146.49 476.00 119.00 (27.49) APPENDIX E Initially it was intended that a chart would be prepared which would enumerate the fee charges made by other communities as reported by their responses to the mailed questionnaires, however, because of the wide variation in the nomenclature and breakdown of fee schedules it became impractical to list them in any kind of a standardized manner. Therefore, a more detailed recapitulation of the communities and/or agencies involved and the fees charged is included in this report. Wherever possible, wording has been handled in a manner to fit in with the Iowa City fee schedule. The numerical figure after the name of a community indicates the population of that community as listed in the 1970 census. If the replies mention when, or if, up -dating of their fee schedules has taken place, that is also included. DES MOINES, IOWA 201,404 New fee schedule -- 1973 Rezoning Petitions: R11 R2, R31 R41 CO, C2, C3, M1, M2 and M3 One acre or less in area - _ _ - $ 75 over one acre in area - - - - 150 Site Plan Review R5, R61 C4 (PAD) one acre or less in area - - - 50 Over one acre in area - - - - 250 Subdivision Ordinance: Preliminary minor* plat - - - - " major** plat - - - _ 50 100 Final minor plat - _ - _ 50 Final major plat - __ _ _ 200 Auditors plat _ _ _ _ 50 *Does not include a new street **In which a new street is being designed COUNCIL BLUFFS, IOWA 60,348 New fee schedule -- 1971 $35 60 60 M Rezoning: Single family and two family $65 Commercial and multi -family 80 Industrial 95 Plus: $2 per acre.for residential $3 per acre for commercial $4 per acre for industrial Planned Residential or Planned Commercial Pre -preliminary $115 Preliminary 50 Final 30 Board of Adjustment $35 Subdivision: Preliminary plat - - - - $ 1 per lot or $50, whichever is greater. Final Plat - - - $50 Street and Alley Vacations: Initial fee - - - - $40 (Plus 54-a square foot on passage). i - Annexation -- none INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 744,624 Rezoning request - - - - $65 Subdivision plats Preliminary: Up to 50 lots - $50 plus $1 per lot. Over 50 lots - $100 plus 500 per lot. Final: Up to 50 lots $65 plus $1.25 per lot. Over 50 lots - $125 plus $1 per lot. Planned Area Development - - - $100 Street, alley & land vacatin s - - $155 SPRINGFIELD, MISSOURI 120,096 Fee schedule under study. Rezoning request - - - - $50 Subdivisions: Preliminary plat - $50 for first 20 lots plus $1/lot for additional lots. Final plat - $40 for first 20 lots plus 50t/lot for additional lots. Community Unit Development - - - $50 Vacation of .alley or street - - $25 Annexation request - - - - None A Community U t Development must also be platted with fees paid for a subdivision. MASON CITY, IOWA 31,951 Rezoning request - - - - $25 Subdivision plats, preliminary or final -each $25 Planned Area Development - - - - $25 Vacations, street or alley - - - None Annexation - - - - None MOLINE, ILLINOIS 46,237 Rezoning request _- - - - $25 Subdivision plats, final only - $25 plus 25C/lot Planned Area Development - - - - $25 Vacatings - - - - None Annexations - - - - None Variance requests - - - - $10 DAVENPORT, IOWA 98,469 Under study Rezoning request - - - $75 Subdivisions - - - - None Planned Area Development - - - - $75 Street & Alley Vacations - - - - None Annexation requests - - - None ROCK ISLAND, ILLINOIS 50,166 Planning Commission - - - - $40 Board of ,ZoningAppeals - - - $20 TiMal Subdivision -P ats-- 1-25 lots --$1 per lot. 26 or more --$25 p us 50C/lot over 25 lots. No other fees charged. ■ ■ ' UvLirrr, 1L1j1NU16 80,378 New schedule - March, 1973 Zoning map or Zoning Ordinance amendment - $100 Planned Unit Development - - - $100 Sub ivisions: Pre iminary plat review - - - $35 Final plat review -- $10 plus $2 per lot. Vacation of public right-of-way - - $50 Boar o .Adjustment appeal - $50 Annexation: Pre -annexation agreement - - - $200 Annexation petition - - - - $50 RAPID CITY, SOUTH DAKOTA 43,836 Rezoning request - - - $50 Subdivision - $50 plus $2 per lot. No other fees charged. LINCOLN, NEBRASKA 149,518 Fee schedule under study. Rezoning request Change of zone - - - - $30 Special permits - - - - $20 Subdivision Plats Preliminary - - - - $25 Final - $1 per lot Planned Area Development -- same as zone change. Vacations O er-to buy and appraised value deposited .with City before passage of ordinance. Annexations - - - - No charge. SIOUX CITY, IOWA 85,925 Rezoning _ Subdivision _ Planned Area Development -- Vacations _ Annexation DEKALB, ILLINOIS 32,949 $20 plus publication cost. $30 plus $15 engineering cost. same as rezoning. $20 plus publication cost. None Rezoning petition - - - - $25 Subdivision lats - - - - No charge Planned Unit Development - - Anne$25 xat'i,on petition - - _ - $25 I Rezonin re uest - - $25 Subdivision—plats - 500/lot for first 100 lots; 25 lot thereafter -- $10 minimum. Same charge for preliminary and for final. Planned Area Development - - - $25 Vacations - - - $25 Annexation request - - _ _ $25 CINCINNATI, OHIO 452,524 Rezoning. request - publication charge only. Subdivision -plat City Engineer rate of $11 per hour for review time. Planned Area Development - - - $10 unit Vacations -- land sold at fair market value. Annexa on request - - - - No charge. DULUTH, MINNESOTA 100,578 Rezoning requests -- $100 plus publication costs. Su ivision-p ats: Preliminary plat - - - - $25 Final plat =- $35 for 5 or less lots. $75 or $1 per lot (whichever is greater if more than 5 lots involved.) Planned Area Developments - - - $100 Plan a teration review - - - $50 Special use permits - - - $60 Vacations Less than 200 feet in length - $200 Over 200 feet in length - - - $250 Annexation requests - - - - No fee CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA 110,642 Rezoning -- $15 filing fee, Publication. Subdivision plat - no fee Planned Area Develo ment $1 for 2 signs, $40 for for reviewing. No fee AMES, IOWA 39,505 Rezonin No of er fees charged. under discussion. SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA Fee schedule under study. - - - $30 Review of fee schedule 70,215 Rezoning requests - - $200 plus $10/lot. Subdivision plats - preliminary or final or both -- $100 plus $10/10t. Vacations -- $100 minimum plus extra depending Annexations upon square footage. Inhabited area: 1. All residential lots regardless of zone classification and less than 7500 sq. ft. -$200 2. All commercial property regardless of zone classification - - - $1000 3. Lots classified as SF residential zone and between 7500 and 10,000 sq. ft. $250 4. Lots over 10,000 sq. ft. in SF residential area - - - $300 Uninhabited area - - - - $1000 per acre MARION, IOWA 18,028 Rezoning request - - - $25 Subdivision plat Preliminary: 1. SF and 2F residential -- to five lots -- $15 2. Six lots and over -- $15 plus $1/lot. 3. Multi -family and non-residential -- $5 per acre or fraction thereof -- minimum of $15 Final: 1. SF and 2F residential -- to five lots -- $25 2. Six lots and over -- $25 plus $2.50/lot. 3. Multi -family and non-residential -- $10 per acre or fraction thereof -- minimum -- $25 CLINTON, IOWA 34,719 Rezoning requests - - - - $50 -- no refunds - - - No charge. DECATUR, ILLINOIS 90,397 Under study Rezoning requests Subdivision lats _ -_ - $10 Planne Area Development _ _ - fee $1 Vacations _ - - S10 Anne— x on _ - - $10 No fee PEORIA, ILLINOIS 126,963 Rezoning ruests Subdivisieqon Plats Street Vacation -- Annexation DUBUQUE, IOWA 62,309 - - $50 $30 plus $1/lot Cost determined by actual full value appraisal. No charge Rezoning requests -- publication and mailing costs Subdivision plats _ _ _ Planned Area Developments - No fees Vacations - - No fees Survey & recording Annexations costs Recording costs. Petitioner must provide a boundary survey and plat Of property to be annexed. ARLINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS 53,534 Rezonin renest Z ino n Boar o A eals - No charge Request or specia exceptions or variances -$40 Request for special exceptions in a new building -- 30 sq. ft. of floor area with maximum of $200 Subdivision plats No subdivision control so no charge. Planned Area Development -- cost included in building permit ee of - 3 per thousand with maximum of $3,500. Annexations -- entire land area of state is incorporated, therefore, no annexations. i CHAPEL HILL, NORTH "CAROLINA 25"537 25:. t, New fee schedule under study. Rezoning requests �S ec_ial Use Permits 5ubdivisi.onplats: Preliminary Final MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 434,400 _ - - - $100 $100 $5 per lot $2.50 per lot Rezo_nin1requests -- $35 filing fee plus $10/lot hearing fee. For unplatted land, the hearing fee is based on units of 5000 square feet. Subdivision plats Preliminary $10 per lot or $30 per acre, whichever is greater. Final -- $25 plus $5 per lot or $25 plus $20 acre, whichever is greater. Per Planned Area Develo meet Street and Alle Vacation - - $200 or a le re ueste $100 per section of street or "T".alley would count aast2osections). an "L" Annexations -- not authorized to annex. DAYTON, OHIO 243,000 Rezoning request Planned Developments _ _ - $100 Subdivisions. - $150 Preliminary Final - - - $50 Vacations _ - $25/acre Annexation-- Full cost of engineering drawings $150 and advertising costs. LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA 57,000 New fee scheduled being con- sidered. Zoning Ordinance Amendment Zoning Hearing Boar Variance Special exception Appeal of decision Subdivisions Final plan COMPTON, CALIFORNIA 78,000 $25 _- - - $15 _ - - - $10 $10 $12 plus $2 per lot. Rezoning request _ - - $200 Subdivisions Tentative land divisionparcelmap - $50 plus.$1/lot. Revised tentative parcel maps -- one half original price. Final map - - - No fee Planned Area Development -- treated as conditional zone variance - - - $150 Vacations - - - - Publishing Cost Annexations - - - No fee Environmental impact studies required where applicable with sliding scale of fees for specified categories. SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 445,000 New fee schedule - 1973 Rezoning or Zoning Planned Development - - $400 plus $10/lot Other than PD - $300 plus $10/lot Subdivisions Preliminary or tentative map -- $100 plus $1/lot Final --includes map and plan checking and City inspections: 7h$ of first $30,000 of estimated construction costs of improvements required by- City _to_be constructed by subdivider. 5h% of next $50,000 of above. 4h$ of all estimated costs over $80,000. Cluster and LDC permits - - - - $400 Vacations - - - - $100 Conditt nal Use Permit - - - - $100 Variance and Exception application - - $50 Appeal rom decision of varianceapplication $40 Site Development permit - - - - $100 Annexation - - - No fee LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 2,816,000 Zoninq Chancre First block or portion thereof - - $350 Each additional block or portion thereof $175 Planned Development — residential First block or portion thereof - - $500 Each additional block or portion thereof $250 Zone Use Variance First block or portion thereof - - $500 Each additional_block_or portion thereof $250 Area and Height Variance First block.or portion thereof - - $200 Each additional block or portion thereof $100 I 27 Subdivisions Tentative map - $150:plus $5/lot or $25/acre, whichever is greater. Appeal to City Council on ruling of Commission -- one-half of filing fee. Request to Advisory Agency for modification of Code after action has been taken on tentative map -- $75 plus $5 for each additional lot being requested. Modification or revision of a subdivision approval -- $75 Appeal to Appeal Board -- one-half of filing fee. Appeal to City Council from determination of Appeal Board -- one-half of filing fee. Fee schedules for special services are reviewed annually. Four othe- replies are on file and not enumerated here. They are county or regional agencies and have sliding scales of fee charges that are not readily applicable to our use. Rezoning Request Time & Cost Record Name: Date Filed: Time a Pre -filing conference. Filing with City Clerk. Make file folder, record in P & Z book, assign number. DCD assignment of Code Number and set-up of file. Status report posting. Preparation & posting of signs. Car mileage at 120 per mile. Review and research: a. In-house b. In field C. Car mileage Writing of Staff Report. Preparation of graphic materials. Typing of Staff Report. Duplication of Staff Report and graphics. Materials used. Assembling report. Distribution. Materials used Personnel Cost Staff present at regular meeting. Notification of P & Z action to requestee. Retrieve signs. Car mileage @ 12C per mile. Minutes of P & Z meeting: typing, duplication, assembling, distribution. Materials used Preparation of graphic material for Council presentation. Staff presentation at Council meeting. Notification to requestee of public hearing. Preparation & posting of signs announcing public hearing. Car mileage @ 124� mile. Preparation of notice of public hearing. Publication cost. Retrieve signs after public hearing. Car mileage @ 12C mile. Preparation of Ordinance to Council. Notification to .requestee of Council action. Preparation of publication. Time Personnel Cost 1 Publication cost. Recording in Ordinance Book. Recording with County Recorder. Changing of base map. Changing of various colored maps. Computation of costs and notifi- cation to Purchasing for refund or billing. Purchasing time for refund or billing. Variables: Meeting with requestee. Meeting with objectors. Review of petitions. Time spent on phone calls and answering questions.. Other: Other costs: Supplies Postage Car use Other: Time Personnel Cost SUBDIVISION REQUEST -TIME -& COST RECORD Name: Date Filed: Type of Request: Owner: Attorney: Architect: Engineer: Representative: Pre -filing Conference Filing Clerical work in Clerk's office DCD assignment of Code Number and set up of file Status report posting Preliminary review against forme Distribution of plat copies Fire Chief City Engineer P & R Director Preparation of Graphics Review of plat In house In field Car mileage Writing of Staff Report File No.. Time Personnel Ccs t n Time Duplication of Report & Graphics Assembly of Staff Report Distribution of Staff Report Staff present at informal meeting Staff present at regular meeting Notify requestee of P i Z action* Minutes of meeting, typing, duplication, distribution Graphics for Council meeting Staff preparation and presentation at Council meeting Notify requestee of Council action Preparation of Resolution Recording of Resolution Adding to Maps Variables: Meeting with requestee Meeting with objectors Review of petitions Time spent on phone calls and for information purposes Conferences Other Personnel Cost Other costs supplies Postage Car Use Other EXHIBIT C CIVIC CENTER. 410 E WASHINGTON ST. IOWA CITY. IOWA 52740 :119354 1RINI We are in the; process of reviewing our fee charges for various requests, and in particular, for the following items: 1. Rezoning requests. 2. Subdivision plate, preliminary or final or both. 3. Planned Area Developments and other large scale developments. 4. street,alley or land area vacations. 5. Annexation requests. Preliminary and incomplete results show that our costs are significantly larger than the fees we collect. We would like to compare our fees with communities. Please direct this letter could send me the information. Please direct all replies to: those charged by other to the person who Morris Dicker Planning Technician Civic Center Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Your cooperation is appreciated. Sincer ly, rVV� L -C4 Morris Dicker Planning Technician MD:sc HAYEK, -.HAYEK & HAYEK JOHt �. HAYEK ATTORNEYS AT LAW C. Pro w. HAYEK 110 EAST WASHINGTON STREET C. PETER HAYEK IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 January 30, 1974 T Dnorable Mayor and City Council of Iowa City I,-)wa City Civic Center Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Mayor and Council Members: At your regular meeting on January 15, 1974, you referred to me the question of whether or not the Iowa City Airport Commission has legal authority and power to sell airport property. I have reviewed this issue and wish at this time to report back- to the Council. The Airport Commission does not have power to sell airport property. The powers and duties of the Airport Commission are set forth in Section 3. 22. 2 of the City Code of Iowa City. That section provides in part, "Said Airport Commission shall have and exercise all of the powers granted to cities and towns under Chapter 330 of the Code of Iowa, 1950, except the power to sell said airport. " (Emphasis added. ) In addition, Section 330. 21 of the 1973 Code of Iowa provides that an airport commission, legally established, may exercise all of the powers granted to cities and towns under Chapter 330 except the power to sell said airport or airports. In my opinion this restriction on the power to sell the airport would extend to any part thereof. I hope that this answers the questions you had. I will be happy to visit with you about this further if you desire. Respectfully submitted, 4 --- 7'L Hayek JWH:vb 1 DATE: January 28, 1974 TO: Ray S. Wells, City Manager FROM: George R. Bonnett, Acting Director of Public Works RE: Union Place During a recent Council meeting Councilman White requested that a study be made of right-of-way assignment at the intersection of Union Place with Bloomington, Rochester and Jefferson. lle9lveKi5T You will find attached to this Memorandum a diagram of this somewhat complex intersection. The Engineering Division of the Department of Public Works has reviewed the traffic movements at this intersection and has concluded that there is no particular problem with conflicting movements. The only change which could be made at this intersection with respect to assignment of right-of-way would be to erect a stop sign at the intersection of Rochester and Union Place. It should be noted that this is a T intersection with the right- of-way already being assigned to the through movement. For this reason it is recommended that this stop sign not be erected. If you have any questions concerning this Memorandum or wish to discuss this matter in greater detail please don't hesitate to contact me. BLOOMIN& TON ST. 11 1• i ROCHESTER AVENUE MARKET STREET February 4, 1974 Mr. Edgar Czarnecki Mayor of the City of Iowa City Civic Center Iowa City, Iowa Dear Mayor Czarnecki: Pursuant to Chapter the Johnson County Board property acquired by a 'S< 1821 "I" Street and lega: 44 East Iowa City, Iowa, plat. The highest bid�rec however is less than the costs, etc. It is=there City Council,--pdrsuant%t sale of said oroterty tc Would::you ;plea Council, and .f,the a Resolution,approu 569 'of the Code of Iowa, 1973, of -.-Supervisors has sold a :avenger_Tax Sale, known as -1y described as Lot 7, Block aceording'to the recorded ived:,was $ 250.00, this sum daliiquent taxes, interests and ore necessary to have the Iowa Section 569.8, approve of the theliighest bidder ent this 'matter to your City ove the sale,.; have them execute "e sale of said property to John for the s`um of`:-=$ 25.0` 00 For further-information.please contact the Johnson Auditor. CJG/amt and pass Sales County JOHNSON COUNTY ATTORNEY REPORT ON PRESENT CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE RESTORATION AND REMODELING OF THE COLLEGE BLOCK BUILDING_ 127 EAST COLLEGE STREET IOWA CITY, IOWA Photo taken in 1895 for H Grandrath WLLIAM N 3fv)(SZ AND ASSOCIATES SUITE NO.t PAUL' HELEN BUILDING IOWA CITY. IOWA TEL. 337-0439 1-0 REPORT ON PRESENT CONDITIONS. AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE RESTORATION AND''REMODELING OF THE COLLEGE- BLOCK BUILDING AT 127 EAST COLLEGE STREET, IOWA CITY, IOWA The general condition of this structure at the present date is described in the following paragraphs, followed by rec- ommendations for complete restoration of the building front and remodeling of the building interior. Our approach and conclusions were based on thorough investi- gation of existing conditions with special emphasis on finding the exact cause of existing deterioration. The recommendations for restoration were based on methods of repair which if ach- ieved would stabilize the structure and, through normal main- tenance arrest further severe deterioration. All necessary investigation was made to fulfill all require- ments as set forth by the State Historic Preservation Officer and by the National _Parks Service requirements for the execu- tion of a Historic Structures report dated Dec. 21, 1971. 1 Statement of historical significance of the structure and its setting. A. The."College Block" building is the only late nine- teenth century commercial building in downtown Iowa City designed by an architect. It was designed by Chauncey F. Lovelace who proacticed architecture in Iowa City from about 1866 to ]goo. DESCRIPTION OF BUILDING EXTERIOR (FACADE) The building measures 41'x70'. It is two storied and finished with heavy, rich, bracketed cornice. Alternating large and small brackets are ended by massive scroll brackets at each corner, supporting single roof ornaments. On top of the cornice is an ornamental crest with the words "College Block". There are eight windows at the second story level, four with segmented arches and richly ornamented pressed tin hoods. The other four winrinwc fh^ second and third from either end are coupled under a heavy gabled hood supported by heavy brackets. W Another, less massive and more rectangular cornice separates the second and first stories. The east side was the dividing wall to a building which no longer is standing. There are presently five en- gaged truss remnants from the adjacent structure and one small window on the second _level. The south wall facing the alley is face brick with the first floor containing three delivery doors, two with transoms, and one basement access in the south east corner. There are four tall windows on the second floor with one small square window over the back stairway. At present a flat roofed concrete block addition attached to the building on the west half of the south well. The west side of this addition is against the adjacent party wall. The two remain- ing'.south'and east sides are exposed and contain one door on the south side and a filled in door and window on the east side. PERSONAL HISTORY OF ARCHITECT Chauncey F. Lovelace, architect and builder, Iowa City; was born June 23, 1828, in Cincinnati, Ohio. He was of Welch origin; his ancestors immigrated to America early in the last century. At sixteen years of age he was apprenticed to Andrew Clyde, a drafts man and house builderofCincinnati, and after three years, faithful serving, he immigrated to Iowa City and engaged at his trade. He has drawn the plans for many public buildings, including the New State University building; the Johnson county court house, the college for the blind at Vinton, etc. He was married in 1851 to Miss Sarah L. Clark of New Jersey. He was a republican in politics. In 1862 he enlisted in the 22nd Iowa Infantry and was made lst lieutenant and assistant quartermaster, in which capacity he served until the fall of Vicksburg, when he resigned on account of sickness in his family. He re-enlisted in 1864, and was made commissary of subsistence with the rank of captain in the army of the Cumberland headquarters at Nashville; he served until January, 1866, then returned to Iowa City. He was one of the stockholders and directors of the Johnson County Savings Bank. The architect's home was at 928 Kirk- wood Avenue irk- wood_Avenue and in the College Block building. I for commercial and office use using materials unique to today's construction methods. To attest to the building's importance in its own time, Chauncey Lovelace not only designed this building, but chose it as the location for his own office. Lovelace was one of the few architects of the nine- teenth century living and working in Iowa City. Until 1880 he was part of the architectural Firm of Finkbine and Lovelace. His partner, Robert :ipencer Finkbine, left Iowa City in 1880 to be the superin- tendant of construction of the State Capstol building in Des Moines. After 1880, Lovelace continued as an architect in his own business. CONCLUSION The main building structure will provide an extremely interesting example of late nineteenth century Victor- ian Architecture and will be a fine contrast to present day structures. The building, when restored, will have great value to an appreciative person. The subjective value will be enhanced by the restoration of the facade and the fair market value could be increased consider- ably through the remodeling of the interior commercial spaces. • -- -� �ya {.I V11 6ndL Lne oui i ai ng was used as commercial space on street level, upper level as offices or apartments. This use has been the intent in the original design and has been so until present. The abstract has been reviewed for the ownership history of the property. The total parcel initially included a rectangular area 80'xl50.9' from the corner of College and Dubuque Streets to the alley on the south and the adjacent property party wall on the west side. The photograph, obtained from the Iowa State Historical Society was taken in 1895 for the owners of; the corner grocery store, H. Grandrath Co., shows the College Block building much the same as it exists at this time. The building was probably built FZAM n wat • in 1883. We know, according to the abstract that it was standing in 1887. The earliest photograph we find is dated 1895 and shows the building when it was twelve years old. We find no major physi- cal changes to the facade except at the street level and then only to the store front glass and arrangement of the entrance doors. At present the face brick of the front elevation is painted. The enlargement of the 1895 photograph shows the mortar joints lighter than the brick and the brick is a crisp and clean outline. This leads us to believe that when the building was twelve years old, the brick was not yet painted. The store fronts of both stores extended full height from the sidewalk to the first floor cor- nice. Each store was divided into three bays hor- izontally, the center bays containing the entrance flanked by diagonal glass walls and the side bays by tall glass display windows. ing from the first floor cornice to the corner posts of the three bay store front enclosures. White paint- ed brick columns with pressed trim capitals divided the first floor building front into the two distinct retail spaces. The entrance to the second floor was located to the east of the center dividing column as it is today, with a tall transom light above it bear- ing the building street number, 127 and words reading "Office Rooms". SOURCES CONSULTED: I. Iowa State Historical Society 4. Iowa City Press 2. Historic American Building Survey Citizen Inventory dated April21, 1970 5. Property Abstract 3. Professor Robert Alexander School of. Art University of Iowa KfIde- I �j a ME Page 9 • I I I I 0 .' \0 9 A 41 --'.'-71 ,�'� ink! ���� aw 05 - I �e ��!�� ii�� ®res trr® Odor Corr ��r■ to/ �Rcv - t' a IN Ilk 11 == NP Ili r1FNI 111i U11 T_ 3 2l zz 2-5 Ltd Map taken from Abstract shows location of property on south- west corner of Dubuque and College Streets. The College Block building is located on the northwest corner of Lot 1 of Block 82, Iowa City, Iowa. z 5 ABSTRACT SUMMARY Territory to Reed by Patent Reed to County by fault 1842 County to Lyon by Tax Deed Lyon to Will 1846 Lyon to Estate (Lyon died 1884) Reed(?) to Stover Stover to Reno by Warranty Deed Reno to Lovelace by Warranty Deed 1847 Lovelace vs. Reed 1852 (Action to Quiet Title) -- default of Reed,court found Lovelace absolute Wilde to Lovelace by WarrantynDeedn fee simple 1880 1/2 interest in W. wall and ground upon which it stands upon E. 1/2 of Lot l w/ condition that Lovelace erect 2 story brick building suring 1878 Lovelace died July 19, 1909 Lovelace's grandsons: Chauncey A. Moon Bert L. Moon to Ringland by release of J. Thoelecke Mortgage 1915 Houser to Ringland by release of mortgage Ringland to L. Thoelecke by 1915 estate L Thoelecke to J. Thoelecke by estate J.T. 1817 1918 to Houser, et Beal al by Warranty Deed 1919 Houser & Chansky (Strand) Brown (Strand) 192 Houser, Chansky, Williams (Rebecca) 1923 1933 Racine (Cigar Store, Access) 131 E. College Fannie Braverman - 1/2 interest in 1936 215 S. Dubuque - Musack (Tavern) Barbara Houser to Paul J. Houser -1/6 1944 Alice B. Lewis -1/6 -Lot 1 Gen D. Storer=1/6 Anna & Ralph P. Chaunsky - from C.J. Chansky 1955 estate - 1/2 interest in Lot 1 Anna to Ralph Chansky - 1/4 interest in Lot 1 1957 Milo Pecina-leased 127 E. College 1955 1957 Chansky, et al to Aaron & Fanny Braverman by contract Aaron & Fanny Braverman to City Urban Renewal 1961 1972 • Footing Walls The existing basement runs the full length and width of the building, the space, however; is divided longitudin- ally into two equal areas following the floor plan of the street level floor. The street level floor of the west half of the building has recently been reinforced to carry additional floor load by the installation of a beam on columns running north and south and dividing the simple span floor into two bays. This we assume was necessary since the last tenant of this space re- quired the additional floor strength to store heavy shelf loads as may be required by a paint retail store. The exposed footing walls were examined for structural failure and deterioration. No significant visible deterioration was found. The typical sandstone footing walls are sound, there are, however; areas where mois- ture has entered recently since the structure is in literal abandon and no significant maintenance is being given. The water entering in an area on the northwest corner of the west basement is due to improperly sealed utility lines. The outside access to the east basement permits the flow of water into the basement proper since the access doors to the steps • are no longer in place. EXTERIOR MASONRY WALLS The appearance of the exterior brick is generally good for a 90 year structure. There is, however; extensive damage to the south wall. The wall shows some buckling along the east side near the second floor line. Some outward movement has occurred, not due to excessive load or to foundation failure, but possibly due to thermal expansion. There is evidence of water leakage into the wall cavity caused by poorly maintained flashings and gutters at the parapet line and from leakage at the window sills. The present condition if left unchecked will lead to rapid deterioration of the east half of the south wall of the structure. This portion of the wall should be re -built. At the time of this survey, the structure is not being heated. The severe temper- ature changes of the winter months are extremely damag- ing to an unheated building of this age, especially when moisture is allowed to enter the wall cavities and the interior living spaces. The result of this condi- tion, if unchecked, could prove severely damaging to i �r •`�Tr. i5 a� %gums ., sa - r. ■ 1-0 be stabalized to above freezing in the 500 to 600 range and that all repair be made to the roofing and flashing membranes of the building. All other repair should be performed as needed to make the building weather tight. The north side or "facade" of the building facing College Street is of prime importance in the preservation of this structure. The condition of the _brick and the tin work is basically good, however; extensive repair and maintenance is required to stop further deterioration. The pressed tin needs to be repaired, re -fastened, re - seated, stripped and re -painted to match an original color. Determination of original color scheme should be determined through_a color chip analysis. The paint- ed brick has, to be stripped using a chemical method of paint removal., since originally the facade was not painted 0 i•• 0 LI STORE FRONT Remove entire store front installation up to the first floor cornice. _ Rebuild to match original installation. Reconstruct design as shown in early photographs of the building. This work may not be feasible in view of contemporary merchandising and retail requirements, however; in order to complete a proper restoration of the facade the original store front glass installation must be considered a very important feature of this structure. Page 15 ROOF AND FLASHING Replace entire roofing and flashings installation. First remove existing roofing, flashing, gutters, etc. Install new hot bitumen built up felt roofing membrane over new flashing on the entire roof area. Rebuild parapet and fire walls, install new metal parapet caps and new gutters and new downspouts. Correct all roof effluent to existing city storm sewers. Install 6" fiberglass batten type insula- tion to underside of roof sheathing, allow for air circulation and ventilation by installing properly sized screened vents to assure removal of condensation moisture in the air cavity of the roof sheathing and the insulation. SKYLITES Rebuild all skylites, replace all deteriorated wood members. Reglaze with wire glass where required - match glass pattern if possible, otherwise replace glass in all lites. Reseal all glass to assure leakproof condition. Replace all mechanical devices used for the operation, of hinged skylite panels. M _ WOOD STRUCTURE We find no marked deterioration of the wood structure in the walls,. roof members, and the floor structure sufficient to contemplate replacement of these members. There are, however; a few areas where exterior wood trim is in need of replacement. WOOD, SASH AND DOORS - The windows and exterior doors show marginal deterior- ation, due to wet and dry rot. This condition was caused in part by the drying of window glazing putty which permitted the moisture to accumulate behind the glass. We propose the following work be considered for the restoration repair to the trim and sash: 1. Disassemble all windows where repair is required, replace all deteriorated wood sections, and re - glaze existing glass. 2. Treat all exposed wood window sections with wood perservative. Strip all exterior paint, primer, and repaint. 3. Scrape out all existing caulking. Apply new 0 4. Apply final coat of paint to all exterior surfaces. 5. Match interior of new sash work to existing. Finish new wood to match existing. The stairs and landings to the second floor and base- ment must be rebuilt to satisfy Uniform Building Code and OSHA requirements New toilet rooms must also be constructed for the retail spacesonthe first floor and for the office space on the second floor. Code requirements state that each retail store must provide one toilet for up to four employees. These toilets must be able to accomodate handicapped individuals. This means that each floor of this structure must have at least two toilets. 1® The following work must be done in order to insure proper repair to the interior fabric of the structure to meet code requirements and satisfy tenant comfort. Remove all new partitions, remove all new wall panel- ing and coverings. Repair all plaster walls on origin- al partitions. May be necessary to remove plaster from entire walls to assure proper, permanent repair. Reglaze all original office partitions where required. Strip paint from entire partition system, restain and varnish to match original. Strip and refinish all other original wood base, casings, and other trim. Paint all walls, use primers where required for proper adhe- sion. Replaster areas where "Calcimine" paints have been used since proper adhesion of new finishes is impossible over such surfaces. EXISTING AND NEW CEILINGS The present condition of the ceilings on the first floor will not satisfy code requirements since formed r — -,., I0 slam' burncient material for required fire protection. The second floor ceilings are plastered and minor repair will bring them to code. We suggest the following work be performed in order to bring the structure to code requirements and in- sure sufficient space requirements for mechanical electrical distribution. 1. Remove existing formed tin ceilings, place 6" fiberglass insulation into joint cavities. 2. Apply new 5/8" fire code gypsum board or 3/4" Plaster to entire ceiling surface. 3. Place new suspended ceilings (fire rated one hour) where required (mostly first floor). Plenum area above suspended ceilings may be used for air distribution ducts and electrical raceways. FLOORS The existing floors are wood and are covered with a variety of "linoleum" type coverings on both floors. The basement is concrete__ slab. s �„1Yfi�%• � � ing surface is also soft wood (fir or pine) T&G Flooring Our recommendation is to repair all areas of the original softwood.floor where required in prepar- ation for a new floor covering. This new floor covering in the rental or lease spaces to be by the tenant. The hallways and new stairs to be carpeted or restored to original condition by placement of new wood flooring, stained and finished to match samples of original stairs and -the installation of hall and stair carpet runners. The new toilet floors must have an impervious floor material such as resilient tile or quarry tile to satisfy code require- ments- consisting of a 5 year old 3609000BTU furnace located in the southeast corner of the east half of the base- ment space. The first floor of the west half of the building was cooled since a gas condensing unit is on a slab outside the concrete block addition. The heating system would be adequate if made opera- tional, but would be severly limited in its flexi- bility to accomodate todays, standards of comfort. We propose that the existing furnace be used to supply heat to.heat exchangers in the plenum distribution spaces providing more zone control. Since a forced air system willbe be most desirable to combine both heating, cooling, humidity control, and ventilation such a system could be considered for all the spaces on the first and second floors. We propose that the electrically operated condensing units be located either on the roof or on the ground at the alley side of the building. Each heat exchanger to be perly balance the heat and cooling_ control in the building. PLUMBING } The existing plumbing is inadequate in terms of having sufficient number of toilets to meet code requirements. Since there are only three minimal toilet installations, all on the second floor and one in each basement, two additional toilets must be installed. Code requires that one toilet be provided for retail stores having no more than four employees. Only revisions to the pre- sent sanitary sewer are needed to install the new toilets And update the existing. Existing water piping and water heater must be revised and replaced to facilitate new requi remen is . ELECTRICAL Presently there is an existing 200 AMP service at the building. It is divided into three panels serving respectively the west half of the first floor at 100 The existing plumbing is inadequate in terms of having sufficient number of toilets to meet code requirements. Since there are only three minimal toilet installations, all on the second floor and one in each basement, two additional toilets must be installed. Code requires that one toilet be provided for retail stores having no more than four employees. Only revisions to the pre- sent sanitary sewer are needed to install the new toilets And update the existing. Existing water piping and water heater must be revised and replaced to facilitate new requi remen is . ELECTRICAL Presently there is an existing 200 AMP service at the building. It is divided into three panels serving respectively the west half of the first floor at 100 Ull, ,CLunG rioor at approx- imately 60. This does meet current code requirement in terms.of capacity, however; it will be necessary to re -distribute the power to allow for more flexi- bility if the second floor is divided into offices. The light fixtures are non-existant, therefore; new fixtures in the whole building need to be properly wired and installed. There is a great amount of sur- face conduit wiring present in the building, especially on the second floor. To accomodate more contemporary office needs, more distribution is necessary within the existing partitions. All surface wiring should be removed. for aesthetic reasons. Although for minimal requirements this existing wiring may remain. Emer- gency lighting must be installed to meet code require- ments and OSHA Standards. Toilets without natural ventilation must have exhaust fans. Depending on the building use, additional electrical energy may be re- quired and the existing 4 wire, 3 phase, 200 AMP service could ho 1 • uanuary 4, IY/4 ESTIMATE OF COST FOR THE RESTORATION -REMODELING OF THE COLLEGE BLOCK BUILDING AT 127 EAST COLLEGE STREET, IOWA CITY, IOWA El I. North Elevation Building Front (Facade) A. Remove paint from brick, use chemical means, tuckpoint and restore brick, seal with silicone waterproofing. $2,100.00 B. S,crape out all existing caulking at windows, tin work, etc., refasten tin work where required, re -caulk and seal $ 960.00 C. Remove paint from pressed -trim, ornamen- tation -window hoods, window brackets, etc. Prime and paint. D. Replace glass where required - rebuild store fronts to near original design. Widen entry to second floor. E. Replace sidewalk where Irequired. F. Replace windows, whole or in part where required. Replace glass in original masonry openings. Provide new storm sash to match original. TOTAL FOR BUILDING FRONT RESTORATION $1,400.00 $8,000.00 $ 760.00 $2,200.00 $16,420.00 I • II. Total Building Structure Except Building Front A. Demolition Remove walls, wall surfacings, par- titions and other enclosures. Remove rubish in preparation for new con- struction B. Footing Walls Waterproof and repair walls. Re- build exterior basement access retaining walls. C. Exterior Masonry Walls Rebuild south wall. Repair and cement plaster,, east wal 1 . Rebuild parapet walls. $ 1,300.00 $ 2,600.00 $11 1600.00 D. Wood Structure, General Carpentry, Insulation Rebuild stairs and landing to satisfy code requirements. Construct new toilet rooms and all other partition changes. Insulate ceilings and walls with 6" and 4" fiberglass insulation respectively in all accessible cavi- ties. Use blown in insulation for all closed cavities. $ 81500.00 E. Wood Sash and Doors Replace interior doors and frames. Replace and re -glaze interior and exterior sash where required. Place new doors and frames where required Install new hardware. $ 4,550.00 F. New Rated Suspended Ceilings Place new suspended ceilings on first and second floors. $ 2,400.00 • G. Interior plaster Repair all damaged plaster. Re - plaster all walls as required. Make all walls ready for painting. H. Roof, Flashings, Gutters, and Downspouts Replace new built-up roof on structure. Replace all flash- ings as needed. Replace gutters and downspouts. Connect all drains to storm sewer. I. Heating, Cooling, and Ventilating Install new ,forced air heating, cooling ventilating system. Us- in,g_present gas boiler for heat source for heat exchanger type heating system. With roof mount- ed- condenser units for cooling. New air, distribution system us- ing ceiling cavity for duct runs when possible. Present boiler is rated at Estimate no new capacity, nee. ed to heat the structure. Estimate need 12 tons of cooling. J. Electrical Install new additional service wiring, update to code, all areas of building. Remove existing sur- face wiring and conduit. Install new light fixtures suitable for commercial use on first floor and basement storage and office type use on second floor. K. Plumbing Install and or revise plumbing to facilitate new toilets. Page 2 Section $ 3,500.00 $ 4,600.00 $21,600.00 $18,600.00 $ 8,000.00 • L. Sprinkler System Since no sufficient water sup- ply is available in the street, a letter of intent will have to be written by the owner to the city that the sprinkler system for the basement floor will be installed when the water main is' enlarged sufficiently to supply the sprinklers. TOTAL COST ON REMODELING LESS BUILDING FRONT $879250.00 TOTAL FOR BUILDING FRONT RESTORATION $16,420.00 TOTAL FOR COMPLETE RESTORATION -REMODELING $103,670.00 III. MINIMAL.WORK REQUIRED For the minimum work required on the interior and exterior of the building to facilitate normal use and meet all code requirementswemust recommend that the following items be completed: 1. A. Demolition $ 1,300.00 2. C. Exterior masonry walls $119600.00 3. D. Rebuild stairs and construct toilets $ 39500.00 4. E. Install new doors and hardware $ 29500.00 5. F. Rated ceilings (first floor only) $ 1,200.00 6. G. Interior plaster Repair with plaster board $ 29000.00 7. H. Roof flashings, gutters, and downspouts Re -tar roof - repair flashings $ 29300.00 8. I Heating, cooling, and ventilating Use existing hot water system Add new cooling only 9- J. Electrical Update to code, run sur- face wiring -where required 10. K. Plumbing Use existing toilets on second floor. Place new toilets on first floor only 11. Restore front to accept- able standards TOTAL $16,000.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $16,420.00 $69,820.00 These costs are subject to change according to prevailing market price at the time of construction. The above esti- mates we approximate and actual bid prices will vary. I. hereby certify that this specification, plan, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that --I am a duly Registered AAWilliam nder the laws e of owys.z Reg. N 1177 • January - 1974 v_} $16,000.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $16,420.00 $69,820.00 These costs are subject to change according to prevailing market price at the time of construction. The above esti- mates we approximate and actual bid prices will vary. I. hereby certify that this specification, plan, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that --I am a duly Registered AAWilliam nder the laws e of owys.z Reg. N 1177 • January - 1974 OF CERTAIN URBAN RENEWAL PROPERTY WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City, acting as the Local Public Agency, hereafter referred to as the LPA, has entered into a contract for loan and grant with the United States of America for the implementation of an urban renewal project known as Project Number Iowa R-14, and, WHEREAS, in order to accomplish the goals and objectives of that urban renewal project -and -in, -furtherance of the public welfare, the LPA deems it necessary and in the public interest to acquire the property described below, either by purchase or by the exercise of the powers of eminent domain, and, WHEREAS, the LPA has received appraisals, staff reports and recommendations concerning the fair market value of certain property contained therein, and has reviewed the appraisals, and reports, and being familiar with the property identified below, desires to establish the fair market value of said property for the purposes ,of_acquisition. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF IOIVA CITY, IOWA, thattheprices and.amounts opposite each parcel of land, and all interests therein, including improvements, build- ings, and fixtures, identified below, is hereby declared to be the fair market value for the purpose of acquisition of each said parcel and all other interests. The Staff of the LPA is hereby authorized to begin negotia- tions for the purchase of said property and the Mayor and City Clerk are authorized to contract for the purchase of said pro- perty. In the event negotiations for purchase are unsuccessful, the LPA Staff and the Urban Renewal Attorney are hereby author- ized to institute condemnation.proceedings for the acquisition of said property. This resolution certifies that the work of the appraisers and the review appraiser with respect to each property has been performed in a competent manner in accordance with applicable State Law, Public Law 91-6-46, and Department of Housing and Urban Development policies and requirements. Parcel 93=16 None REAL ESTATE INTEREST Owner Mrs. Nora Novotny It was moved by OTHER INTERESTS Brandt F.M.V. $24,500.00 and seconded by deProsse that the resolution as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES NAYS: ABSENT: Brandt X Czarnecki._ X Davidsen X}QgAXMd& X deProsse X)t�� X White X Passed and approved this 5th day of February 4nyM 1974 'VI Mayor i ATTEST: City Clerk__,-..- I, C.L. Brandt, the duly elected, qualified, and acting Mayor of the City of Iowa City, herein called the "Local Public Agency," hereby certify that I have been authorized by Resolution No. 70-438, duly adopted by the City Council of the Local Public Agency at a regular meeting on December 1, 1970, as set forth in the minute book on file at the office of the City Clerk, to make the following certification -and that the statements contained herein are true andcorrectto the best of my knowledge ar.•3 belief: 1. Each parcel, City-University Urban Renewalrea, Project No. Iowa R-14, listed in the attachment to this proclaimer certificate has been appraised by at least two qualified, independent, professional real estate appraisers and a written and signed copy of each such appraisal is con- tained in the Local Public Agency files. 2. Each such appraisal has been reviewed by E. Norman Bailey, a qualified review appraiser under contract to the Local Public Agency, and all corrections, revisions, or additions requested by such reviewer have been made by the original appraisers. 3. The reviewer has prepared a written report which indicates that the appraisals are complete and consistent in the factual data contained therein, comply with existing statutory and administrative requirements of the Depart- ment of Housing and Urban Development, and are acceptable for the determination of fair market value. 4. Based upon such appraisals and the review thereof, the Local Public Agency has established the fair market of each parcel listed herein and'all documentation related to such determination is contained in the Local Public Agency files. 5. The latest budget amount allowable for real estate acqui- sition including amounts available in contingencies as approved by HUD on March 1, 1971 is not exceeded by the sum of the following: a. Cost of property.previously-acquired. b. Acquisition prices previously approved by HUD for properties not acquired. J C. Pair market value determinationspreviouslymade by the LPA for properties not acquired but included in prior proclaimer certificates. d. Fair market value determinations for properties included in the proclaimer being filed. e. The acquisition prices of the remaining properties to be acquired as those prices were estimated for the purpose of the above mentioned budget amount allowable forrealestate acquisition. 6. This certificate is issued pursivant to and consistent with HUD Omaha Area Office letter 7.2 PTR(ET), dated April 27, 1971, regarding use oftheproclaimer system by the LPA. LISTING OF PARCELS TO BE ACQUIRED e United States Code and, if such statements are made willfully and knowingly, to conviction for a felony under section 1001 of Title.18 of the United States Code. Date Mayor'/ ` ! CitW'Of I City, Iowa LJ FF� lm�n, :..: W iA �y /VAI rn 0 C � d VI . rn zi w r+ x cD � a r _ rn m H FJ - o C G w z �+ Co M W N H F, w�a. O\ H c+ trJ O r+ r• z Fa10 OIQ N Eli t7l w O ;o P.< "� . . .. N. Fh � ao O (n CD C w n ^s] ►� w .� r+ K o ., C) xco CD azo H t7ia o w to �zn dK N F -i w A. r+CD r• r r C) z -� a � r7l _ N K a ao L �w•r9 N• CD O N C b C) 1.w �• o +-• H p o r+ CD C-4 a M n H t7 w r+ 'r1 CD H- X r+ C CD y n February 4, 1974 ^x� CIVIC CENTER. 4f0 L WASHINGTON ST //`. (J'J. IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 �tB•054-i500 Ms. Sarah Fox, Chairman Iowa City Parks & Recreation Commission Civic Center Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Re: Questions submitted to me at the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting of January 9, 1974 Dear Sarah: The following comments are in response to the unanswered questions contained in your list which was submitted to me at the last P & R meeting. #1. What will the study cost and who is funding it? This study, which is a watershed planning program, will be prepared by the Watershed Planning Section of the U.S. Soil Conservation Service. Virtually the entirecostof the study will be paid for by the Soil Conservation Service. It is possible that the City will incur some expenses relative to the provision of data or maps for this study. #4. Does the small watershed program still exist and can the SCS participate in the funding of both dams and tunnels? Specifically, this program is established under public law 566 and was designed to be administered by the Soil Conservation Service., It is described as a watershed program which intends to provide for total land treatment. It is a continuing program with a continuing level of funding from the U.S. Congress. Also, there are funds available for 1974. The intent of the program ,is a broad one and it includes a thorough study of the entire watershed, including environmental erosion controls which relate to decreasing water runoff. It could include consideration of such technique;: as terracing and contour plowing in the upper reaches of the watershed as well as the construction of facilities or structures which would provide for an effective soil conservation effort. #5. What has happened to the Corps of Engineers participation? The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers did do a reconnaissance study based upon information submitted by the Soil Conservation Service. It was the decision of the Corps that apparently a program on Ralston Creek would be economically feasible, but that additional study would need to be undertaken before this could be definitely ascertained. As of this time, the City has not requested that the Corps do a second and more extensive study. Most likely, this decision will not be made until such time as the SCS has gone fairly well into their study. V. If turned down by the SCS, does the Corps have funds to participatein the funding of both dams and the tunnel? This is a question that is unable to be answered at this time. it would be the responsibility of the Army Corps of Engineers to do so, however, at this time they probably do not have adequate data on the subject. #9. What are the latest figures on floodplain land costs? The latest data the City has on this are the assessed values of property for February, 1973. This information was gathered for both the floodway and the floodway fringe areas in the Ralston Creek` floodplain. Preliminary numbers indicate that there are 44 major structures located on 54 land parcels in the floodway. The total assessed value for these properties is approximately $230,000. There.are also approximately 176 structures on 188 parcels of land which are partially located in the floodway. These have an assessed value of approximately $850,000. The total number of properties located in the Ralston Creek floodplain is approximately 575 structures located on 631 parcels of land with an approximate total assessed value of $3,411,000. It should be emphasized that these do not reflect true market values and that they also do not necessarily reflect the price the -City, would have to pay should they decide to purchase properties in the floodway or the floodway fringe. Before this.could be done it would be necessary to have an appraisal made of each parcel. (Assessed value = 27% of market value) #14. The Des Moines Register of January 8, 1974 listed Ralston Creek as approved by the Natural Resources Council for inclusion in the state's Open Space Program. What does this mean? At the request of the Iowa Natural Resources Council, the Resources Council staff prepared a list of flood problem areas in the state where` floodplain acquisition might be a feasible solution to the -problem. This information was prepared in Ms. Sarah Fox February 4, 1974 Page 3 the absence of any contact with local governmental officials in the areas delineated. Also, it was not determined by the Natural Resources Council at that time whether there would be local interest in these programs or whether it would be feasible from a local perspective. This preliminary list was then sent to the State Conservation Commission for inclusion in an Open Space Acquisition Program. The latter mentioned program was designed to somewhat fill in for the deficiencies created by a lack of money in the Department of Housing and Urban Development Open Space Program. To the best of our knowledge at this time, there is currently no funding available for the acquisition of land along Ralston Creek. Also, as of this time, the list in the paper has not been formalized into anything more than a list of potential flood prone areas which could be included in an Open Space Acquisition Program by the State Conservation Commission. As presently envisioned, land acquired under this program would be under state rather than local juris- diction. A question was also asked relative to funding levels of programs relating to Ralston Creek as contained in the 1973-1977 Capital Improvements Program. The levels established are as follows: (1) For Ralston Creek planning, $30,000 in 1973 and $60,000 in 1974; (2) For potential construction, a total of $14,000,000 beginning in 1976p including 1.5 million dollars in 1976, 1.5 million dollars in 1977, and an additional 11 million dollars for those `years beyond 1977. It should be emphasized here that although the Capital Improvements Program is for a five-year period, in some instances costs were identified which were anticipated to be expended beyond the 1977 ending year of the Capital Improvements Program. These estimated costs were rough calculations which were not based on any specific construction program nor any specific facility. At the time these figureswerederived, it was hoped that they would represent_a maximum limit which would have to be spent for the purposes of curtailing flood damage on Ralston Creek. If the above answers are unclear, or if you would like additional information, please contact me and I will attempt to provide this information. very truly yours, 9 Dennis R. Kraft Director, Department of Community Development DRK:sc } 10 History The Act was passed by both Houses of Congress on December 20, 1973, and signed into law by the President on 12)31j 73. Scope The Act substantially expands the National Flood Insurance Program, in order to provide better protection to the public and to reduce annual disaster assistance outlays through the increased availability of floodinsurance. The Act extends the emergency program through December 31, 1975, and addresses three key areas: insurance, flood plain management, and local community consultation and appeals procedures. Insurance Coverage. Available limits of both subsidized and unsubsidized flood insurance coverage for all types of properties have been increased as follows: Subsidized Coverage Total Coverage In addition, for Alaska, Hawaii, and the Territories of Guam and the Virgin Islands, the Act increases the limit of structure coverage, in the case of one family residential properties, to $50,000 subsidized coverage, $100,000 total coverage and, in the case of all other resi- dential properties, to $150,000 subsidized coverage and $300,000 total coverage. The Act replaces the present $6 billion ceiling on the amount of insurance coverage which may be outstanding with an insurance contract authority expiration date of June 30, 1977, and broadens the scope of insurance coverage to include erosion losses caused by abnormal water levels -and similar unforeseeable conditions, and to make it clear that all flood -related mudflow losses are covered, regardless of unrelated pre-existing conditions. Actuarial rates. The Act defers, as to the first layer of coverage on all construction, the application of actuarial p?�•emium rates until December 31, 1974, or the official publication dai:e of the initial Flood Insurance Rate Map and elevation data for the area, whichever is later and, until such time, makes subsidized insurance available for the first layer of coverage. Old New Old New Limit Limit Limit Limit Single familv residential $179500 $ 35,000 $35,000 $ 70,000 Other residential - 309000 100,000 60,000 200,000 Nonresidential 309000 100,000 60,000 200,000 Contents, residential 59000 10,000 10,000 209000 Contents, nonresidential 59000 1009000 109000 2009000 In addition, for Alaska, Hawaii, and the Territories of Guam and the Virgin Islands, the Act increases the limit of structure coverage, in the case of one family residential properties, to $50,000 subsidized coverage, $100,000 total coverage and, in the case of all other resi- dential properties, to $150,000 subsidized coverage and $300,000 total coverage. The Act replaces the present $6 billion ceiling on the amount of insurance coverage which may be outstanding with an insurance contract authority expiration date of June 30, 1977, and broadens the scope of insurance coverage to include erosion losses caused by abnormal water levels -and similar unforeseeable conditions, and to make it clear that all flood -related mudflow losses are covered, regardless of unrelated pre-existing conditions. Actuarial rates. The Act defers, as to the first layer of coverage on all construction, the application of actuarial p?�•emium rates until December 31, 1974, or the official publication dai:e of the initial Flood Insurance Rate Map and elevation data for the area, whichever is later and, until such time, makes subsidized insurance available for the first layer of coverage. The Act requires HUD to publish information on known flood -prone communities and to notify them within six months of enactment of their tentative identification as such, following which the community must prompt application either make plication for participation in the flood insurance program Or satisfy the Secretary that it is no longer flood -prone. Communities having identified flood -prone areas are required to participate in the flood insurance program by July 1, 1975, or Federally -related financing for projects that would be located in such areas will be denied. Consultation With 1 Cosi Officials The Secretary, in carrying out his land use responsibilities under the Act, is required to establish procedures assuring adequate con- sultation with appropriate elected officials of local governments, including those whose eligibility under the program has been sus- pended. Such consultation is specifically required,'VfM respect to many areas of local concern and the Secretary is required to encourage local officials to disseminate information widely on any study he undertakes, in order to permit submissions of relevant data by interested members of the public. A eals _ The Act establishes explicit appeals procedures for both individuals and communities desiring to challenge the Secretary's proposed determinations relating to minimum construction elevation standards, and sets out the scope of judicial review of such determinations. The Act assures to individuals and the community a full opportunity to be heard and to appeal, if aggrieved. It sets forth a comprehensive system of providing actual notice to persons affected by elevation determinations not only through publication in the Federal Reg' but also through direct notification to the chief executive officer in the communitybaster, and publication of proposed determinations in a prominent local newspaper. E Sec. 1. Enacting clause. Sec. 2. Findingsanddeclaration of purpose. States as purpose of Act to (1) substantially increase limits of flood insurance coverage, (2) provide for expeditious identification of flood -prone areas, (3) re- quire States or local communities, as a condition of future Federal i financial assistance, to participate in the flood insurance program, and (4) require the purchase of flood insurance by property owners who are being assisted by Federal programs or by federally supervised, regulated, or insured agencies in the acquisition or improvement of land or facilities located or to be located in identified areas having special flood hazards. Sec. 3. Definitions. TITLE I -- EXPANSION OF NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM :.ection 101. Increased limits of coverage. This section amends section 1306(b) of the Act to provide increased limits of coverage as fol 1 o,•rs Subsidized Coverage Total Coverage Old New Old N a Limit Limit Limit Limit Single family residential $17,500 $ 35,000 $35,000 $ 70,000 Other residential 30,000 100,000 609000 2009000 Nonresidential 30,000 100,000 60,000 200,000 Contents, resi-_ential 53000 10,000 10,000 20,000 Contents, nonresidential 5,000 100,000 10,000 200,000 or the new limit of available coverage, which is less. (b) Federal instrumentalities responsible for the supervision of lending institutions must direct such institutions to require flood insurance in connection with their real estate or mobile home and personal property loans in such identified areas, up to the same maximum limit or the balance of the loan, whichever is less. Both subsections would take effect 60 days after the date of enactment of the bill. (c) State-owned properties are exempt from this section if they are adequately covered under a State insurance fund satis- factory to the Secretary. Sec. 103. Establishment of Chargeable Rates. Revises subsection 1308(c) of National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to defer the application of actuarial premium rates until the later of two dates: (1) December 31, 1974, or (2) the publication of the initial rate map for the area. Sec. 104. Financing. Amends subsection 1309(a) of National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to permit Treasury borrowing up to $500,000,000 instead of $250,000,000, plus an additional $500,000,000 with the approval of the President and notice to the Congress. Sec. 105. Program Expiration. Revises section 1319 of National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to replace present $6 billion ceiling on insurance coverage outstanding with contract authority expiration date • of June 30, 1977. 1 program authority of section 1336 of National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 for an additional two years from present expiration date of December 31,_1973. Sec. 107. Definition of Flood. Inserts word "proximately" before "caused" in definition of mudslide in section 1370 of National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to indicate that all flood -related mudflow losses will be covered, regardless of unrelated preexisting conditions. Sec. 108. Extension of Flood Insurance Program to Cover Losses From Erosion and Undermining of Shorelines. Amends purpose clause (section 1302) and flood definition (section 1370) of National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to extend coverage to erosion losses caused by abnormal water levels and similar unforeseeable conditions. Sec. 109. Estimates of Premium Rates. Amends section 1307 of National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to provide special relief in the form of reduced premium rates to four.Louisiana Parishes adversely 1 affected by the Atchafalaya Levee System. i Sec. 110. Appeals. Establishes explicit appeals procedures for both individuals and communities desiring to challenge the Secretary's j proposed determinations relating to minimum construction elevation standards. Sets out scope -of judicial review of such determinations. 1• -Sec. 111. Flood Insurance Premium Equalization Payments. Amends section 1334 of National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to delete subsection (b) requiring use of specific loss sharing formula bet�•reen the Secretary and the insurance industry, without regard to actual experience under the program. 0 cul. noun cation of flood -prone areas. (a) Requires HUD to Publish information on known flood -prone communities and to notify them within six months of their tentative identification as such. (b) Upon notification, community must either (1) promptly apply for participation in flood insurance program or (2) satisfy the Secretary within six months that it is no longer flood prone. A hearing may be granted to resolve disputed cases, but Secretary's decision is final if supported by the record as a whole. (c) Additional flood -prone communities subsequently notified of their status must then meet the requirements of subsection (b) but are allowed at least one year in which to qualify for the flood insurance program before section 202 applies. Sec. 202. Effect of non-oarticioation in flood program. (a) Prohibits Federal financial assistance for acquisition or construction purposes within the identified flood -prone areas of communities that are not participating in the flood insurance program by July 1, 1975 (in most cases, about 18 months after the identification is made). (b) Federal instrumentalities responsible for the supervision of lending institutions are directed to prohibit such institutions from making real estate or mobile home loans after July 1, 1975, in areas identified as having special flood hazards unless the community in which the area is situated .is participating in the flood insurance program. Sec. 203. Repeal of Disaster Assistance Penalty. Repeals the provision of the existing Flood Insurance Act -that would deny disaster assistance after December 31, 1973, to persons who for a period of a year or more could have purchased flood insurance but did not do so. A / 1 W the Secretary to make grants, provide technical assistance, eliminate competitive bidding requirements, and make progress payments, if necessary to accomplish that objective. (b) Agencies doing the technical work for HUD are directed to give highest practicable priority to these studies. Sec. 205. Authority to issue regulations. Authorizes the Secretary and Federal agencies administering financial assistance programs and those supervising lending institutions to issue any regulations necessary to carry out the Act. Sec. 206. Consultation with Local Officials. Requires the Secretary, in carrying out his land use responsibilities under the Act, to establish procedures assuring adequate consultation with appropriate elected officials of local.governments, including those who eligibility under the program has been suspended: Sets out specific areas in which consultation is required, and requires Secretary to encourage local officials to disseminate widely information on any study undertaken in order to permit submissions of relevant data by members of the public. NAL u TO: (1) Mayors and Managers of Principal Cities (2) Executive Directors of State Municipal Leagues (3) Other Municipal Officials SUlijlzcr: Congressional -City, Conference, March 3-5, 1974, Washington, D. C. Forms for advance registration and hotel reservations for the Eighth Annual Congressional - City Conference sponsored by the National League of Cities and the United States Conference of Mayors are attached. The Congressional -City Conference brings city leaders to Washington in a concerted effort to implement the established legislative and administrative policies of the NLC and IJSCM. The Program will be devoted largely to briefing city leaders on the current priority issues before the Congress and helping bring city influence to bear on municipal objectives in the Congress. 'fie first session of the 93rd Congress produced several significant pieces of city legislation, particularly the Comprehensive Employment Training Act, the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1973, and the Flood Disaster Protection Act. Much, however, remains to be done. The continuation of basic federal aid programs in the community development field is very much at issue. The Administration is expected to advance new legislative initiatives in the President's State of the Union Message. The Fiscal Year 75 Budget will require a detailed analysis for its impact on city programs. The attached registration form should be mailed directly to League of Cities and Conference of Mayors, 1620 Eye Street, N. W. , Washington, D. C. 20006. The hotel reservation card should be sent directly to the Washington Hilton Hotel, Connecticut Avenue at Columbia Road, N. W., Washington, -b. C. 23069,- by February 18. Also enclosed is a copy of the tentative Congressional -City Conference Program. /10?tI7 Allen E. Pritchard, Executive Vice Preside 1 J J. Gunther National League of Cities ecutive Director United States Conference of Mayors 1620 Eye Street, N.W., Washington D. C. 20006 / 202_293-7300 i y CONGRESSIONAL -CITY CONFERENCE March 3-5, 1974 Washington Hilton Hotel Washington, D. C. Sunday, March 3, 1974 11:00 a.m. Registration begins 6:30 p -m. Welcome Reception -for delegates Monday, March 4, 1974 9:00 a. m. Opening General Session 9:30 a. m. Address: Mayor Roy Martin, Norfolk, Virginia President, U. S. Conference of Mayors (Keynote_ Address) Address: The Cities' Role in the FY 75 Budget A graphic analysis of the impact of the FY 75 Federal Budget on the cities Address: "Community Development in National Perspective" Address: "Community Development: City Dynamics" Noon- •,�:._.._..:r .: _General Luncheon Session 2:00 p, M. Address: "Energy and the Environment" Concurrent Congressional Workshops A. Community Development --Community Development Block Grant Legislation --Housing Legislation --Transition Funding/FY 75 Appropriations C. Summer Youth --NYC --Recreation --Transportation D. Environment --Solid Waste --Air Pollution --Water Pollution --Land Use E. Transportation --Congressional Proposals --Administration Proposal --Operating Subsidy F. Health --National Health Insurance --Comprehensive Health Planning • This year Monday night has been left open so that state groups _y more effectively use their time by arranging meetings or other functions with their Congressional delegations. These separate arrangements should be planned as soon as possible. You may contact your state municipal league for further information. Tuesday, March 5, 1974 0 8:00 a, m. Issues and Priorities Breakfast 10:15 a.m. General Session Address: Congressional Reorganization and Its Effect on the Cities (Speaker to be Announced) 11:30 a. m. Congressional Conferences Tuesday afternoon is set-aside for delegates to confer with members of their Congressional delegations. Bus transportation between the. Washington Hilton Hotel and Capitol Hill will be provided and assistance in arranging appointments and transportation to Nouse and Senate Office Buildings will be available beginning at 11:30 a, m. 0 Nixon's latest plan would let the cities choose where to spend federal funds Americans worried about -and con- fused by—the-energy crisis have in- creasingly been turning to an old rally- ing cry of environmentalists and city planners: mass transit. But except in a dozen or so major urban areas, there is very little left of the extensive mass transit networks that were available as recently as during World .War 11. The comfort and convenience of ` the au- tomobile have -made it the over- whelming favorite of the 'American public for personal travel—to work and for shopping as well as for pleasure. Now, spurred by the gasoline short- age and the possibility of rationing, the Nixon Administration is launching new efforts to make mass trans- portation more appealing -The Admin- istration is preparing new programs of federal aid. A new Unified Trans- portation Assistance Program (UTAP), scheduled to he announced soon, will provide about $15 -billion over six years for urban transit and highway needs. Most of this money comes from the consolidation of existing programs, but about $3 -billion could be new money. Currently, -the Urban Mass Trans- portation Administration (UMTA) has $1 -billion per yearforcapital assist- ance to cities for buying buses and building rapid transit systems. Mass transit, as it now exists, serves two quite distinct functions: It pro- vides transportation within urban areas for city dwellers and workers, and it provides transportation between jobs and shops in the cities and homes in the suburbs. Very rarely is public transportation available between jobs and shopping in one suburb and hous- ing in another, at least in part because the automobile has provided so much greater flexibility and comfort. A minority mass. Transit systems almost invariably operate at a deficit because, given freedom .of choice,.their market chooses the personal flexibility and comfort of the automobile. When new expressways in and around most cities were added to the equation with the gradual completion of the Interstate Highway system, mass transit found it impossible to compete economically on its own merits, and transit deficits be- gan to soar. According to the 1970 cen- sus, more than half of all commuting workers in every major urban popu- lation center in the U. S. travel to their jobs by automobile (table, page 53). And the great majority of those who use public transportation rely on buses, which also benefit from the highway system. Only in the New York metro- politan area, which includes parts of New Jersey and Connecticut, does the percentage of workers traveling by rail exceed that traveling by bus. And even there, political considerations—such as the Metropolitan Transportation Au- thority's subsidy program—have helped tip the scales in favor of rail. With this in mind, the new Adminis- tration proposal is designed to give metropolitan areas a good deal of free- dom in deciding how to allocate funds. Here is how UTAP—an offshoot of the Administration's 1971 special revenue- sharing proposal -will work. The Ad- ministration. will ask Congress to take urban transportation programs out of the Highway Act (where they total about $1.1 -billion a year) and will seek to combine them with the UMTA capital assistance program (totaling about $1 - The next question: Can bus manufacturers step up output?They say'no' billion a year). Then an amount of money that is as yet unspecified will be added to cover operating assistance for transit systems, representing a rever- salof the Administration's long-stand- ing opposition to this form of aid. Added to the basic pot of $2.2 -billion per year will be a discretionary fund of about $500 -million. The government will dish this out to special high-prior- ity projects that need more cash—such as Atlanta's expensive new rail transit system. The rest of the money in the UTAP account will be apportioned to states according to population on a matching basis of 80% federal, 20% state. Funds for urban areas of 400,000 or more people will pass directly to the cities, making it easier for them to get their hands on the money and to decide whether to build an urban highway or a transit system. This is consistent with the Administration's desire for "flexi- bility" at the, local level. Opposing lobbies. The money for the program would come almost exclu- sively out of general revenues instead of the highway trust fund, which should defuse some traditional opposi- tion from rural states. A special rural transit program will provide aid di- rectly to rural areas in hope of swaying a few Congressional votes. - 52 BUSINESS WEEK: January 26, 1974 Still, the fight will pit big -city inter- ests against rural interests that tradi- tionally oppose transit projects as an assault on money that might otherwise be used for country roads. The big -city lobbyists, too, have their own political axes to grind. A current example is New York City, whose mayor has teamed with the governor of the state in a campaign in Washington for oper- ating subsidies from some program such as UTAP to retain the 35¢ fare. Administration officials predict that the net effect of the new program .should be to make about 30% more money available for urban trans- portation. One result, if the new pro- gram passes Congress, will be a dra- matic increase in the demand for buses. The government might spend $300 -million to $400 -million on buses and support facilities this fiscal year. Buses are now being produced at a rate of about 3,000 a year. Administration sources say that the greater avail- ability of government transit money could boost that number substantially. Building the buses. "We think the indus- try could produce 14,000 buses a year if they went on double shift," says a gov- ernment transit official. And a White House source adds: "Production capac- ity could be doubled in six months if a massive effort is made.... If you start getting serious unemployment in the auto industry, it will be an obvious trade-off." Industry sources note, however, that even a doubling in bus production would not absorb more than a tiny fraction of auto workers now on layoff, so they cannot see much of an unem- ployment trade-off. They also say it would be difficult in some cases to add a shift because such critical parts as en- gines, transmissions, and axles, are in short supply. Still, Bass Dyer, marketing vice- president for Flxible Co., a Rohr Indus- tries subsidiary that is in the Big Three of bus manufacturing (along with Gen- eral Motors' rmc Truck & Coach Div. and AM General Corp., a subsidiary of American Motors), says: "Just last week, we got through buying a new building that gives us a chance to double our production capacity." Flxible is currently producing six buses a day, working one shift plus a few men on a second shift. "We're experi- encing a 9- to 10 -month lead time right now," Dyer says. "Even if Uncle Sam broke it open, we wouldn't immediately be able to do better than that. Avail- ability of materials is the big restric- TRAWWOWATION way to°do it is Old as well as cash grants. gention,'=:Bays a ",You've got to loo k at transit man official: "That ;, agement ,in Berms of .peoplo, Her- rnment b'- _- .. - ---- _-••-e -_ __ _� a month through April. If we _.. .. 6 uys a buses, or orders a speedup under the ringer says. T e mdusiry has been in a decline since World War 11, and an •gives could get more engines, transmissions, Defense Production Act." industry that has a bad public image and axles, we probably could step up Legislative hassle. The Administration's isn't going to attract bright young production a little faster. But the way UTAP proposal will be sent to Capitol managers. There is tremendous dearth it is now, we couldn't hope to fill:a new Hill in the form of specific legislation of good middle and upper managers in order until September or October.. With early in February,, Congress has al- the transit industry." the new plant, if we can get materials, ,ready passed a bill providing transit UMTA plans to expand its manage - our long-range plan, two years away, is systems,with $800 -million over two rial-training grants program, now lim- to be able to get out 15 or more buses a years fooperating subsidies, but con- ited to 100 grants per year and budg- day." Flxible estimates that transit ferees have held off sending the bill to eted at $500,000. "The marketing area systems will buy 4,000 buses in this fis- the President because of his announced has also been neglected," Herringer cal year, if they are available, at intention to veto it. Administration op- feels. "It takes more than a shiny new $40,000 to $50,000 apiece. position to operating subsidies in block rail car to attract riders—it takes ser - Edward R. Stokel, director of public grants—as opposed to operating sub- vice." He admits that it is hard to get transportation for GMC Truck & Coach, sidies as an optional use of the single industry people thinking about mar - Mass transit vs. the auto in some key cities In these selected .. this many people ride ... but most people metropolitan areas... public transit every day... drive to work Units available Travel preference Aute Rall Bus 50.6%..26.7% Urban pe/elation limber at fillers Trailer i Elevated & Commuter' 74.7 .. area (ndtsns) (tbnsaeds) Bases . troller bens sebrrry sans rail cars 73.2 .. New York .......-...16.3 9,000 ... ....8,200 ........ 30 ....... 7,300 ...... 2,400 84.2 .. Chicago ........... 6.7 1,600 ... ....3,100........ ........ 1,100...... 850 tion," Stokel says. That would amount Philadelphia ........ 4.0 1,000 ... .:.1,850. , .550....... 575...... 400 shift. declined to bid on the single San Francisco ...... 2.9 850'... ....1,600 . .. .400....... 250.,.... 100 ington Metropolitan Area Transit Au- Los Angeles ........ 8.3 530 ........ 1,900........ ........ ....... — couldn't go on second shift," he says. Boston ............ 2.6 430 ......... 1,200 ........ 400....... 350...... 125 double that of a year ago. Washington ........ 2.5 400 ........ 1,800........ ........ ....... — ton order that CMe says it could not bid Baltimore .......... 1.6 350 ........ 800........ ........ ....... — bus plant near South Bend. Sources i Cleveland .......... 1.9 330 ........ 80o........ 55....... 120...... — close to capacity, • Atlanta ............ 1.2 200 ........ 600........ ........ ....... — cials say that if _a serious ;gasoline •Flgurs for 1970, before BART opened. lose." This man adds: "Somebody is shortage develops, the government it- new Office of Transit Management in smoking opium when he says we should - Data: Urban Mass Transportation Administration: 1970 Census _.... -... _ get out of our cars and into transit—it bus production. "If we needed 20,000 Travel preference Aute Rall Bus 50.6%..26.7% fund—will not change with the advent 66.3 .. 9.3 66.2 .. 8.6 74.7 .. 0.7 88.8 .. 0.1 67.4 8.1 73.2 .. 0.2 74.5 .. 0.2 79.0 .. 0.8 84.2 .. -0- ..12.3% ..15.1 ..16.0 ..15.3 .. 4.7 ..12.0 ..17.4 ..16.7 ..13.3 . 10.4 _ - J says that the division sold 1,850 buses fund—will not change with the advent keting when they are worried about domestically last year and has pro- of UTAP, so a veto of the $800 -million the energy crisis and a flood of new rid- duced 1,800 to 1,900 buses per year for bill can still be expected, ers. "That reaction has disappointed the past five years. The biggest re- As UTAP wends its way through Con- me," he adds. "Here's an opportunity straining factor for GMC, he says, is gress, the test will be how the highway to attract new riders, and the transit availability of components. "If we bloc greets it and how much money people are groaning." could get an adequate supply of critical Congress adds to the $15 -billion pot. To old Washington hands, UMTA'S components, we could double-produc- Transit advocates are likely to welcome new program has both good and bad tion," Stokel says. That would amount the idea of UTAP but may well feel that features. "The Administration is still to about nine buses a day on a single "We itdoesnot provide enough money. resurrecting old programs and putting shift. declined to bid on the single There are hints that the Adminis- new names on them," one man says. biggest bus contract last year [a Wash- tration will go along if Congress tacks "But that's not necessarily bad, be- ington Metropolitan Area Transit Au- on only a moderate increase. cause the 1971 proposal was a good idea thority order for 620 units] because we Broader *frorL Beyond this, UMTA Ad- when [ex -Transportation Secretary couldn't go on second shift," he says. ministrator Frank C. Herringer says John A.] Volpe first proposed it, and it crtc's bus order backlog is 1,300 units, that his agency has several short-term still is. But they still talk mostly about double that of a year ago. efforts under way to ease the impact of buses and 'low -capital -intensive im- AM General, which won the Washing- the energy crisis on commuters. "We provements,' which is just a euphe- ton order that CMe says it could not bid are developing a -nationwide comput- mism for 'political improvements.' The on, is just starting up production at a erized car-pooling program with the problem with the fund concept is that bus plant near South Bend. Sources Federal Highway Administration," he it can't guarantee that an urban area said the plant will begin operating says. "We will be holding seminars in will receive as much money as it did close to capacity, • urban areas to show, people how to use under a categorical grant program. Privately, some Administration offi- the tools of car pooling." Also, UMTA They could gain, and they could also cials say that if _a serious ;gasoline was recently reorganized to create a lose." This man adds: "Somebody is shortage develops, the government it- new Office of Transit Management in smoking opium when he says we should self may have to step in and crank up recognition of the need of city transit get out of our cars and into transit—it bus production. "If we needed 20,000 systems for management and market- just isn't there." ■ TRANSPOgTA710N BUSINESS WEEK Janumy 29, 1974 Ir FINAL -OFFER ARBITRATION: "SUDDEN DEATH" IN EUGENE GARY LONG and PETER FEUILLE TIIF.IIF.9REMENDOITS expansion of collec- tive bargaining that occurred in the public sector during the 1960s and early 1970s has fostered a continuous, often heated, and probably unresolvable de- bate over the type of collective bargain- ing system that would be most appropri- ate for the public sector. As might have been expected, the most controversial issue has been the role of work stop- pages. Since the majority of public employ- ees do not have the do jure right to strike, much attention has been focused Final -offer arbitration—requiring an arbitra- tor to select one of the last offers made bythe parties to a negotiation—was first proposed less than ten years ago, but it has already become the source of considerable controversy, a major clement in President Nixon's 1970 proposal for handling national emergency strikes in trans- portation, and the prescribed method of resolv- ing certain public sector disputes in three states and two cities. This study reports on the cxpc- ricnce with final -offer arbitration in Eugene. Oregon,.onc of the first jurisdictions, to adopt this procedure. Based on an analysis of the first six sets of negotiations under Eugene's final - offer system, the authors conclude that this pro. celurc has been rc12tivcly successful in preserv- ing the parties' incentive to negotiate their own agncmctns. Crary Long isPersonnelDirector of the City of Eugene, Oregon and Peter Feuille is Assist- ant Professor of Management in the College of Ilusiacm Administration at the University of Oregon. They are grateful for the support pro. vided by the -Institute of Irtdustrial and labor Relations at the University of Oregon from funds provided by a gran,' from the Manpower Administration of the U.S. Department of La- bor.—Eurrott 186 0 on the question of a balancing of inter- ests: how can bargaining impasses be re- ,olved in a manner that protects the in- terests of both parties at the table, if public employees arc denied the right to effectively manipulate management's costs of disagreement, and at the same time protect the public's interest in continuously receiving essential govern- ment services? In the private sector, in- terests are balanced by the relative abili- ties of the two sides to take a work stoppage, since the marketplace affords the consumer some freedom -of -choice protection from the results of bargain- ing. To a limited extent, this approach is undergoing experimentation in se- lected . public jurisdictions as some em- ployee groups are granted the right to strike.' In most public sector jurisdic- tions, however, the strike is banned and some kind of formal impasse -resolution machinery is provided, under which a third party assists the employer and .'Alaska, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, and Oregon legislation grant most state and local govern- meut employees (except police and fire fighters or "emential employees) the right to strike, except in all -four states this right can be abridged if such a strike endangers public health, safety, or welfare. Vermont legislation prohibits local government employee strikes but saes they are enjoinable only if they endanger the public interest or welfare. Montana legisla- tion allows nurses to strike only if no other health care strike is In progress within 150 miles and after 90 days' notice is given of in- tent to strike. • FINAL.OFFER ARBITRATION union `iii reaching agreement without a 187 work stoppage, most substantial experience with this Various types of third -party interven- procedure, at least in a single cit tion (all of which are some form of me- occurred in Eugene, Oregon, where has diation, fact finding, or arbitration) contracts have been negotiated under a have been used in public sector im rls_ fillal-offer ordinance passed in 1971. In ses in recent years, and each has been addition, s the litrgene final -offer frame - acknowledged to be useful in one con- work is significantly different from final - text or allother.2 The newest method offer sys(enrs in effect elsewhere. The purpose of this ;u•ticle is to examine :uul and one that has attracted much atten- assess the experience in ]utgene with tion, is known variously as •'final-olfer," thisunesolu- ique method of impasse r efther-ar," "last -best -offer," or 'one -or- tion. the -other" arbitration. Although this Before proceeding further, we believe kind of interest arbitration has been it appropriate to alert the part of the industrial relations literature reader to our preferences fur prejudices) on this since 1966,3 actual bargaining impasses subject. We start wit have been resolved under this procedure that negotiated h the basic premise only since 1972. Final -offer arbitration agreements are highly has recently become part of Wisconsin Preferable to settlements imposed by a Michigan', and Minnesota legislation third. party. Consequently, neither au - and is being g aper is enamored with compulsory inter- s est arbitration in ally fo (, employed ithose states, rm. We stronly gSo- although" in Wisconsin and -Michigan - - believhat no completely satisfactory this legislation applies only to impasses lulie toll to the impasse problem in to - involving public safety employees. Fi- nal -offer arbitration also has been used public sector has been found (and prob- on an ad hoc basis in a few other best solution is either will not be) aid farther that the jurisdictions.' "1'o her no solution (i.e., date, however, the allow work stoppages) =For a annprehcauivc review of ur ;a variety of regarding the evidence solutions aimed at inducing the parties Public -sector il"Passe 111 te'rven i ion. scc Thomas P. Gilroy and: Anthony V. Sini- to effect their own direct compr•olnises crept, "Impasse Resolution in Public Employ- and settlements. meat: A Current We believe that final_ ,Assessment," Industrial and offer arbitration Labor Jtclations Review. Vol. 25, No. 9 - - goes f:u'lhel' tow,.,,.(, this 1972), pp. 496-511. (July latter objective than conventional arbi- 3Carl M. Stcvcus, "is Compulsory Arbitra- tration, and we offer the 1•.tlgcrte experi- tion Compatible with Itargainiog?• /ndurlrial ence as tentative anti pal9ial evidence. Itelalians, Vol 5, No. 2 y(February.If.ills tej), pp.ute y case the f )HU%viug 98-52;� more recently Harry If. Rains• "llispute Irl any ' material Settlement in the Public Sector,' should be read ill the context of these Review, Vol. 19, No. / BuQa/o Lnw reprinted in 2 sewenb0), PP, 279-287, e Joseph Locwcnbcrg and. Michael H. Dfoskow, ads., Collective Bargaining in Gov eminent(Englewood Cliffs, N.j.: Prentice -Hall, 1972); and Edward R. Lev, "Strike's by Govern. ment Employees: Problems and Solutions," Areer_ icon Bar Association Journal, Vol, 57, No. 8 (August 1971), pp. 771-777; and joscp11 R. Grodin, "Either-or Arbitration for Public Em- ployee Disputes," Industrial Refatiorlt, Vol. 11, No. 2 (May 1972) . pp. 260-2W. 4An experiment with final offers in Indian- apolis is rclwrted by Fred; witney. "Fin.1- 0 preferences. Conventional Versus Filial -Offer Arbitration Before examining the particulars of the Eugene experience, it would be use. ful to compare conventional and fanal- Olfer Albnralloll: f ala• rlllllallallUtl\ F: Prricuc'e," Munfflly Labor /tevirlo, Vol. 9f. No. 5 (Afay 1'979) . pp. 20-25. 10 0 1NH IND 11S IAIAl. ANI) I,All()R REL.A,riONS REVIEW ()iffy arl?iu•alion. will, partic-ulac• atten- tion focused on the ell 'ect these two pro- ccdures Il:rvc on the negotiation process.& Conventional arbiIratiott—I he submis- sion of a h:u•I;aining impasse to an arbi- tralor who Own fashions tilt _binding award h:: devIlls proper for the issues in dispute—has beet; used in this country in both the private and public sectors. Its limited use in the private sector has tended to be in impasses that threat- ened work stoppagcs Perceived as na- tional emergencies, such as railroad disputes." Interest arbitration has been used more extensively in the public sec- tor, especially in impasses involving public safety employees., The apparent rationale of these laws is that police and 5111 the interests of readability and brevity, we will not always use the adjectives "compul- wry," "bindiug." :,nd."interest" in the remain- der of the paper. It should he understoo,l, how- cvcr, that our discussion is limited to interest arbitration 'hat is both compulsory and bind- iug, unless otherwise noted. o l -he recent Uniled Steelworkers—steel in- dustry agrLemeut to arbitrate 1974negotiation differences is a significant departure from the traditional reluctance Of parties in the private sector to uliliie interest arbitration. It remains tut be seen, however, whether the steel decision is a harbinger of the "wave of file future" or is only a single iudustry:s response to its own par titular bargaining and product market condi- tions. See The Wall Street Journal, 24 Anril 1973, p. I a. ,Alaska, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Michi- gan. Wisconsin, and Oregon have legislation mandating arbitration of police and fire bargain- ing disputa. The current Michigan and Wis- consin laws provide for a -form of final -offer ar- bitration: the previous Michigan law provided fpr conventional arbitration. Wyoming has an arbitration law applicable to fire fighters. Min- nesota permits the Public Employment Rela- tions. Board . to .invokefinal-offer arbitration, and the atbitration decision is binding on "es- sential" employees. Several states, including Ha- waii, Kansai, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, and South Dakota, have legislation that permits compulsory 'arbitration for various ` groups of employees. At the municipal level, New York City and Vallejo. California have a conven- tional arbitration framework to resolve impasse with all city employee groups; Oakland, Cali- fornia voters recently amended the city charter fire servires are too essential to the pub - lie hc--Ilth and safety to be interrupted, and arbitration provides a peaceful nscaus of resolving bargaining disputes involving those services while protecting the interests of both parties to the nego- tiation. Compulsory arbitration has been touted as the "wave of the future" in Public sector impasse resolution," and certainly it has been used increasingly since 1968. Interest arbitration in its conventional form, however, has re- ceived its share of criticism. Perhaps the bulk of these critical comments focuses on conventional arbitration's deterrent or "chilling" effect on the bargaining process. In the typical private sector ne- gotiation, the parties are presumed to engage in sincere attempts to reach agreement because of the significant costs they will incur if they remain in disagreement, These costs of disagree. ment;ire usually associated with a work stoppage: no revenue for the firm, no paychecks for the employees, and a re- duccd treasury for the union. Perhaps equally important is the fact that each party is able to make only relatively un- certain estimates of what its costs of (lis. agreement will be if a work stoppage oc- curs, in either absolute terms or relative to the other party's costs. The fact that these costs, if incurred, are substantial, to provide for arbitration of police and fire fighter disputes; and Moulder, Colorado recently adopted a final -offer arbitration ordinance. Probably the most complete analysis of pub. lie sector interest arbitration has been made by J. Joseph Loewcnbcrg, "Compulsory Bindiug Arbitration in the Public Sector" (Paper deliv- ered at the International Symposium on Public Employment Labor Relations, New York City, May 4, 1971) . An abridged version of this paper can be found in International Sympos- ium of - Public Employment Labor Rclations, New York, Proceedings (New York: New York State Public Employment Relations Board, 1971). sSee Gilroy and Sinicropi, "Impasse Rcsolu- tion in Public Employment;' p, 503. i.. ■ 0 parties towarda voluntary settlement. the: employer has offered :Incl less than The same reasoning applies to public the union has asked for. Consequently, sector disputes in which the employees it can be argued that it will '•be to isle have a right to strike, although I com- advantage of each puffy to ester the ;!r. plicating factor is the political rather bitr:tion proceeding williout Iruviog than economic nature of the costs of this- given away tau flinch in advance"'' To agreement (especially un the manage- the extent that this reasoning is vali(j, mentside) . .� conventional arbitration has a "chill - These strike -associated costs of disa- ing" effect on good -faith bargaining as greement are dramatically reduced when each side holds back in anticipation of bargaining takes place in a context handing the dispute to an arbitrator. culminating in conventional arbitration. Although the available evidence shows Not only will there usually be no that conventional arbitration "sloes not strike -induced costs of disagreement, but immediately and inevitably destroy also the uncertainties associated with collective bargaining,"to there is evi- disagreement , are significantly reduced. (fence that conventional al bit-ation has Conventional arbitration awards tend to often reduced the incentive to bargain." sGrodin, "Either-or Arbitration for Public Mollie Bowers, "A Study of Legi,latcd Arbit•a. Employee Disputes." p. 202. , tiro! and Collective Bargaining in the Public taLoxwenberg. "Compulsory Binding Arbitra- Safety Services in Michigan and Pell nsyha n ill - tion in tile--Publfe Sector," p. 99. -- (1110), dissertation, Connell University. 1973). a llLol:weubcrg concludes that the arbitration version of which is swill to be publishod by experiences he examined do not prove the 1'renlice•Ilall. skeptics' predictions about its inevitable use, yet The "chilling" elfect of conventional arbilla- he prI)VIIIs evidence that it Is used rather fre- tion oo tegoliatious in the I'liv:(c sector bas fluently. (/Girl., pp. 37-10.) Ji riN and Feuille in often been noted. See Slevcns. "Is Ctlnl)nllsitly 1971 examined police laborrelit orifi ill.sist lit- Arblli'ation 0mipallbie• will, 1t111'ga,llnlg?" 111). les -timing -conventional arbitration and found 4.1-45; and (:art Ill. Stevens, stilltegy ll)Itl that police bargaining lregularly ended fn the Gollertive ltargninitig Negotiation (Nely Yolk: arbitrator's lap in five of these cities. Ilervey McCraw -Hill. 190). p. Citi. Kaufman presents Juris and Peter Feullle•, Pollee Unionism: all interesting examination of impasse 1'esolll- Power and Impact in Public Sector Bargaining tion (including de jure and lir Ja(to a,'ll,tla. (Lexington. Mass.: D. C. Hcath, 1973),.ehap. S. tion) and the erosion of genuine collective bar - Hines examined the use of interest arbitration gaining in life railroad industry. Jacob J. fn Ont:srio hospital disputes from 1900 through Kaufman, "Procedures Versus Collective 1131-- 1970 and found the incidence of arbitration in- - l;aining in Railroad L;ilxlr tisputes,•• lndusnial creasing over time. Robert J. Hines, "Maeda- and lwibar Relntimis Br•iliew, Vol. 25, No. 1 tory Contract Arbitration—Is It A Viable Proe- (October 1971), pp. 59-70. Probably the most ess?" Industrial and Labor Relations Review, complete examination bf lonccnlional interest Vol. 25, No:4 (July 1972), pp. 533-544. Proba- arbitration in the private sector has been per. bly the most complete study of public safety in- formed by Northrup. After reviewing the exile - forest arbitration has been done by Bowers, Hence with wartime adjustueot procedures, who examined police and fire fighter negotia- state compulsory arbioatihu laws, national tion outcomes under the Michigan and Pcunsyl- emergency disputes under the Railway I.alxlr vania arbitration statutes from the statutes' im- allot Taft-flal'lley Acus, and setet'tett foreign ple)- plementation (111 1919 and INN. respectively) eedures. lie concludes I11:11 his all:dysis "rUllblllls through 1971, and found that approximately 19 beyond a snggestioll of doubt that tolulbill'oly percent of Michigan public safety negotiations arbitration . . , idliscouragt� colleetie a• balgaiu- aud 45 to 50, percent of Pennsylvania public ing." Herbert R. Northrup. ComJmbaly arbi- safety negotiations culminated in an arbitration tration and Govn,unent Inti„•.,rn,m in Labor award. One of her conclusions is that the de- Disfnilrs (Washington: I.all.,r sign of an arbitration procedure may result in 1!ki(i) , p. 207. a deleterious effect oil tileincentive to balgaill. 1!N) INI)IISTRIAI. AN_ 1) h,A11OR KI{I,A"PIONS Olhct -tI Wisnls of Conventional arbi tration can he Illade: it II My involve an onconstinitional delegation of legislative or executive decision-making power; elected officials shordd not pel•tnil an ar- hill-ator to determine issues they were elected to th-Cide: arbitration may in- hibit the bal�ainill < REVIEW costs of disagreement in a manner that t'ouvenm li<:tl arhiiraiion does not. It is primarily this incentive-to.bar- gain criterion, and only secondarily the Other criteria just described, that will be used to assess live final -offer arbitration experience in Eugenc. !,• g compromises and innov:uions necessary to cope with changing :conditions; and it tends to The Eugene Setting prcvcnt the parties from coming to grips with efficiency versos equity ques- tions. It is in response to these criticisms, es- pecially the deterrent effect of conven- tional arbitration on bargaining, that final -offer arbitration has been pro- posed. As Gradin explains, under the final -offer procedure, "an arbitrator would nor be free to compromise be- tween the Itositions of the parties but would be required to accept one posi- tion or the other in toto . The theory is that the process, instead of chilling bargaining, will induce the par- ties to develop their most 'reasonable' position prior to the arbitrator's deci- sion."= The possibility that either party •' may lose the entire ball game" in arbitration -is intended to act as a psy- chological, economic, and political in- centive for Lite parties to reach their own agreement: "This [one-or-thc-other] criterion generates just the kind of un- certainty about the location of the arbitration award that is well calculated to recommend maximin notions of prudence to the parties and, hence, com- pel them to seek security in agree- ment."ts In other words, the final -offer procedure functions as a "strikelike" mechanism by posing potentially severe, tzGrodin. ."Either-or Arbitration for Public Employee Disputes,,, p. 263_ tsStevens, '•Is Compulsory Arbitration Com- patible with Bargaining?' p. 46. Eugenes approximately Soo public service employees provide the city's !10,000 citizens with the usual range of municipal services. The city has three bargaining units, each represented by a different union. The Fugcne Police Pa- trolmen's Association (an independent organization) represents a total of 145 nonsupervisory police officers and civil- ian records clerk.1 employed in the police department. The Eugene Fire Fighters Association, International Asso- ciation of Fire Fighters Local 851, AFL-CIO, rcprescnts the 140 nonsuper- visory fire fighters. The American Feder - anon of Statc, (,()runty, and Municipal Employees Local 1721A represents a unit of 300 civilian employees from the re- maining city departments." None of the city's _ professional employees have se- lected union representation, and the city bargaining ordinance denies representa. tion rights to confidential and supervi. sory employees." The city has a council- manager form of government, with an eight -member council elected on a stag- t+The AF.SCME unit consists of blue-collar and white-collar, public works, parks mainte. nance, clerical, and technical employees. tsUnder previous Oregon labor legislation, local jurisdictions hail great latittule in struc- luring the bargaining aelationship anti also could elect not to be covered by the law and thus have no legal obligation to bargain. A new law, passed in July 1973, mandates bargaining rights for all state and local government em. ployees, but it also includes a grandfather clause that protects existing bargaining arrange. ments. 0 1aCity of Eugene V. Eugene Fire Fighters As- smiation No. .851 .and AFSCME`Local 1724A, F, Cate No. 100756 Lane County -Circuit Court, ugcnc, ortgon. Ix cause the pngn'1'ty tax rale nes ce:"y to�fulnl the budget has exccetled a h'glsla ed Illllllallall. --"'The distinction 1jetWe'.11 ••1)Il'Illtllllaly dis• eussions" and "bi-lateral llegotialions" is pri. warily a semantic one designed to cope will[ rho language of the lire lighlers' charter amend. FINAL -OFFER ARBITRATION - -, • gered, nonpartisan, uncompensated, (lis-.- trier basis 191 the the more general languap�c for four. city's in the charter administrative branch handles the labor amendment. The city council relations function. The personnel direc- passed the ordinance (which was sup. for is the chief negotiator and contract ported by city administrators and two of the three administrator, and lie reports to the city unions) in September 1971, and it is manager. The city council plays a mini- this ordinance which estab- lished Eugene's mal role in labor relations. Council mem- unique final -offer hrocedures.tr bers, by _ordinance, have delegated the responsibility for labor. relations to the The ordinance establishes a bargain. city manager and the personnel director. ing-arbitration timetable so that union - The council limits itself to reviewing management contracts will be geared to a fiscal privately the city's bargaining position year basis and will be finalized before and to deciding ort tentative contracts the annual budget -adoption deadlines in May submitted by rite manager. May and )une.l" Conse- The legal framework the ordin;ntce provides that be - governing these bargaining relationships was developed tween October 1 and 15 of any year in which a - with inputs from both sides. As the city party wants to negotiate it con - tract for the council was studying tile e wisdom of es- next fiscal year, that party must send a "letter tablishing a collective bargaining of intent" to bar- system in 1969-70, the IAFI and AFSCME lo- gain to the other party. After such noti- fication, cats circulated among the voters an ini- the period between October 15 and December 15 is tiative petition to amend the city to be "sell for "pre- linlin;try discussions" during charter to require collective bargaining and "compulsory which time the participants shall "meet binding arbitration" and confer it good faith" on to resolve impasses, In May 1970, the contract terms. If, by December 15, the voters narrowlyadopted the initiative, two sides have not reached "tentative and bargaining began shortly thereafter a agrecnterlt,,, the city m:urager shall with the fire fighters, the only request mediation as - sistance group that was well organized at that time. from the state (this require - ment The negotiations halted, however, be- may be mutually waived) . If ei- cause of disputes over the interpretation titer party then wishes to proceed to "bi-lateral of, the charter amendment. The two a negotiations," it must send a letter sides went to court to resolve the mat - of intent the other party be ter, and in March 1971 the court up- tween January 2 and 5, and such nego- held the amendment's validity and sug- tfations shall contrrtence within ten cal- gested that it be implemented by endardays (by January 15).19 ordinances in a manner to ensure its "See Bureau of National Allairs, Govern- eonstitutionality.1e' Consequently, dur- Client F.n,ployee Relations Re(lort, No. 423 ing the spring and summer of 1971 cit (Washinglo": October 18, 1!171) 1 g' for a descrip- , and fire fir Y tion ghter representatives drafted , of and the text of the ordina- Chill rece"t years, the city I,Iltlg,.t Ilsllally Ila3 an ordinance that clarified anti defined beell subttlirted to the votrrs for weir a 0 1aCity of Eugene V. Eugene Fire Fighters As- smiation No. .851 .and AFSCME`Local 1724A, F, Cate No. 100756 Lane County -Circuit Court, ugcnc, ortgon. Ix cause the pngn'1'ty tax rale nes ce:"y to�fulnl the budget has exccetled a h'glsla ed Illllllallall. --"'The distinction 1jetWe'.11 ••1)Il'Illtllllaly dis• eussions" and "bi-lateral llegotialions" is pri. warily a semantic one designed to cope will[ rho language of the lire lighlers' charter amend. 0 merit, which limits "Iii -lateral negotiations' to a thirty -day period in January and February. In order to colic with this overly rigid require. mens, those who drafted the ordinance added a "preliminary. -discussion" period Prior to the of- ficial negotiation period in order to have mord time to reach an agreement. In effect, the Eu. gene ordinance calls for a negotiation process that begins in October and ends in February (except. in cases in which the parties mutually agree to deadline extensions), with most of the hard bargaining occurring during the official "bi-lateral negotiations" period. -)See the source cited in footnote 17 for the complete criteria language. ztFor the text of that proposed legislation, see Bureau of. National Affairs, Deify l-abor Re- port, No. 40 (February 27, 1970) pp. FI -176. Perhaps the most important difference between that proposal and the Eugene procedure is that the former provided final -offer arbitration as one of three alternatives in an "arsenal of weapons," whereas in Eugene, the final -offer procedure is the only impasse resolution mecha. nism available. In addition, the administration proposal requires sharing of the arbitration costs; in Eugene, the city picks up the entire 192 I ND 1.IS I7It1AI. ANI) LABORRELATIONS REVII(W Thc• official negotiation period is four (tc., by approxint;ct(,ly March 15 short. If Ille twit sides have not reached the process should he completed) . The wgreernew t,ithin It,•cnty-five days from arbitrators shall hold at ]cast one hear- tt f• a :., of official licnotations, ing to discuss the offers submitted and r.IJt I•.t (. .h.tll suhutit a final offer then shall select "the most reasonable" .utd Ill-ty at tht sante time submit one of the offers submitted. The board alternative offer to the other party." can - not make any changes in the offer These four offers may constitute a com- se - lected, and the selection must be baser] plete proposed contract or may be Jim- solely "on the content of that offer." ited to the sftecifcc items still in dispute. The board is to determine which offer In either c;Ise, these offers are filed with is the most reasonable according to four the city recorder and _preserved for the criteria: the bargaining history of the arbitration board. If only the disputed parties, relevant market comparisons in items are submitted, all items previously the private sector, relevant market com- agreed on also shall be filed with the re- parisons in the public sector, and the corder. This filing of final offers does city's ability to pay.2n The ordinance not end negotiations, for after the filing also provides that the city shall pay all the parties are mandated to continue of the arbitration their negotiations. If, after five more panel's expenses. It shotld he noted that the Eugene days, agreement has not been reached procedure was based on the Nixon on a complete package (i.e., by Febru- administration's propose(] legislation for ary .15) , the arbitration procedure shall dealing with national emergency disputes be invoked. Negotiation is again encour- in the transportation industry. This was. aged at this point, by a provision that "parties due to the fact that the Nixon proposal the may continue to discuss was one of the few (and perhaps the these offers until agreement isreachedonly) specific final -offer procedural pro - or a decision is rendered" by the arbitra- posal then in circulation, and it conven- tion panel. iently suited the city administration's The arbitration board is tripartite, desire to avoid implementing a conven- consisting of a representative from each tional arbitration system. Although there side and a chairman. When arbitration are significant differences between that is invoked, the ordinance provides ten proposed legislation and the Eugene sys- clays for the selection of the panel, ten tem, the latter is closer to that proposed more days for the panel to convene, and by. President Nixon than are the other ten more clays for the panel to make its final -offer systems now in effect." selection of one final offer from among merit, which limits "Iii -lateral negotiations' to a thirty -day period in January and February. In order to colic with this overly rigid require. mens, those who drafted the ordinance added a "preliminary. -discussion" period Prior to the of- ficial negotiation period in order to have mord time to reach an agreement. In effect, the Eu. gene ordinance calls for a negotiation process that begins in October and ends in February (except. in cases in which the parties mutually agree to deadline extensions), with most of the hard bargaining occurring during the official "bi-lateral negotiations" period. -)See the source cited in footnote 17 for the complete criteria language. ztFor the text of that proposed legislation, see Bureau of. National Affairs, Deify l-abor Re- port, No. 40 (February 27, 1970) pp. FI -176. Perhaps the most important difference between that proposal and the Eugene procedure is that the former provided final -offer arbitration as one of three alternatives in an "arsenal of weapons," whereas in Eugene, the final -offer procedure is the only impasse resolution mecha. nism available. In addition, the administration proposal requires sharing of the arbitration costs; in Eugene, the city picks up the entire tab. Finally, there are differences it, the selec. tion criteria, particularly a "catch-all” criterion Ill the Nixon proposal that would give more discretion to the arbitrators than do the more rpeeitic criteria in the Eugene procedure. 22 "*"(!Sc cost estimates are thoseused by the city and as such Include: an increase, mandated by the state public Employees Retireuteut Sys- r� -Ubui., pp. 7-13. The city a(lolinistrution and the fire fighters duagl"eed about the continued existence of [lie civil service system. Tile city's Position has been that [Ile bargaiuing•arbina. Bort charier anterniment elinlinattA civil scrv- ice; that is, the employers have either batgain- 3ng orcivil. service rights, but not both. The city's position has been upheld in (uurt. Flank I). Jackson v. City of Eugene. c -ase No. 72.159, la lie County Circuit Court, Eugene, Oregon. I • FINAL -OFFER ARBITRATION The Eugene ExPei rence 195 • The city and the b oth its proposals. In addition, both union unions have negoti- ated proposals contained the disputed a total of seven contracts since collective manning and civil service provisions. bargaining was introduced into A majority of the arbitration city government—three with the panel (tile chairman and thecity fire fighters. and two each with the po- lice representa- five) selected the city's first and AFSCME. Six of these contracts offer pri- mal"ly because were negotiated under the auspices of of the chairman's objec- tions to the manning requirement the final -offer ordinance. (The initial fire (that a three -than crew of designated fighters' contract was agreed to in February -March rank be used on certain fire vehicles) in both 1971 under the threat of a court -imposed conventional union offers: "If it heti not been for the arbitra- tion procedure.) inclusion of the mandatory manning re - The first final -offer quirement clause in both Association experience in- volved the offers, the Chairman would have voted negotiation in 1971-72- of the second fire fighters' to select (the alternate] Association contract. During these negotiations, the offer ... as the most reasonable " s The city and the union tentatively agreed on chairman also objected to file union' s several items, but because of significant disa- inclusion of civil service provisions.=s The greements on selected items, they de- city's first offer was selected, even clared the entire package in dispute. though the size of the increase was The major disputed issues included the smaller than in its alternate offer, be - incorporation into the contract of man- rause its across. tile -boa r(I wage increase ning standards and civil service proce- was Preferred by tile union over the duces (both of _which the union wanted included) longevity tem, of ).15 Percent in boll, 1971 and 1972. i • pity, which the The City's liositloll IS that allhougb union also demanded, and the size of suds I(97Z. the increasesmay clot have been bargained the economic adjustment. Each side sub- la theyat city'staa they are a very teal portion of ole milted two offers (a final. offer, plus an costs and co,u,yuently must be in- cluded in ally calculations alternative offer) to the arbitrators. The of allnual economic adjust "cuts. Naturally, the unions have not economic packagesoffered b .`y_[he.Ci[y to- ell. thusiasticany°agreed with this Position, and in a. later taled 6.0 percent and 6.5 percent in its! rase (AF•SCAfE in 1972_73), [itis issue was an ire ror[rnt .bonr of coutentimr. two offers, with the first offer consisting with the arbitration chairman a rreeiu r b 6 with the city', mostly an across-the-board wage in. position, lyl'aul 1). IfJulon, "Explanation n crease and the Second cml)llasizing an of the Se ltt[le)II Of Filial Offer." /le f/Ie increasc in health and retirement bene- fllnffer a/ Ar- bilr"tion between tnrenmtiou„i q„ociation o/ fits. The union asked Co Fire Fighters, Erugene Fire Fighters Association r economic ad- No. xsf, AFI. Cf0 justments of 8.6 percent and 7.4 per- a„d t.ity of Eugene Oregon (American Arbitration As s. toCase No. cent,== with longevity pay included in 75-75490)04-72, Mattfi B, 1972) , pp. 1. 0. tab. Finally, there are differences it, the selec. tion criteria, particularly a "catch-all” criterion Ill the Nixon proposal that would give more discretion to the arbitrators than do the more rpeeitic criteria in the Eugene procedure. 22 "*"(!Sc cost estimates are thoseused by the city and as such Include: an increase, mandated by the state public Employees Retireuteut Sys- r� -Ubui., pp. 7-13. The city a(lolinistrution and the fire fighters duagl"eed about the continued existence of [lie civil service system. Tile city's Position has been that [Ile bargaiuing•arbina. Bort charier anterniment elinlinattA civil scrv- ice; that is, the employers have either batgain- 3ng orcivil. service rights, but not both. The city's position has been upheld in (uurt. Flank I). Jackson v. City of Eugene. c -ase No. 72.159, la lie County Circuit Court, Eugene, Oregon. I • irrnge ucnent Increases to the alternate offer. The second final -offer experience in- volved the negotiation of an initial con- Lract with lite p0licc union during the lx•riod 1971-72. As in lila case of the fire fighters. all, items were declared in dispute, and each side submitted two final offers for consideration. The major disputed items included the scope of management rights and the -size of the economic adjustment. The city offered package increases of 6.2 percent and 6.7 percent, and the union asked for 15.9 percent and 13.0 percent." As a result of feedback from its arbitration repre- sentative about the third party's reac- tion to the size of its proposals, the union approached the city about a ne- gotiated agreement. Consequently, dur- ing the second day of arbitration hear- ings, the two sides mutually requested a recess, reached agreement on all items, and the arbitration process was fermi. nated. ']'lie final settlement was based largely on [lie city's alternate offer and the financial adjustment was slightly in- creased (to 6.8 percent). The noneco- nomic clauses in the final agreement fol- lowed the language in the city's alternate offer. - The third final offer experience in- volved the negotiation of an initial con- tract with the AFSCME local. Both sides wanted to avoid_ arbitration of this first contract, and as a result they agreed on all items with the single ex- ception of union security. The union wanted an agency shop (labeled a "fair share" arrangement) , and the city of- fered a maintenance of membership pro- vision. The city believed it could not voluntarily agree to the agency shop zsThese are the city's calculations and as such include the 1.15 percent legislatedincrease in retirement contributions. proposal, because a sizeable number of employees in the AFSCME unit were opposed to being represented by the union and were not members. The city representative did not oppose the agency shop in principle, however, and lite union representatives recognized that the city's maintenance of member- ship offer would strengthen the union's position over the existing open shop sit- uation. Roth sides were therefore will. ing told a third party decide the issue. 7nslead of ulilizing the city's arbitration procedure on this one issue, the parties agreed to use the fact finding services provided free by the state and to be bound by the fact finder's decision. Al- though the parties officially labeled this procedure "binding fact finding," it was actually final -offer arbitration since they agreed to be bound by the decision, and, as a practical matter, the third party had almost no choice other than to select either the union or city posi- tion. In this case, the union's position was selected. The 1972-73 round of bargaining also yielded a variety of results. In early 1973, the city and the police union reached a two-year agreement without resorting to the arbitration procedure. In addition to an overall 12.0 percent economic adjustment, the agreement in- cludes a new promotion hierarchy, from patrol officer to police agent, with advancement based on a combina- tion of advanced education, training, and above-average performance. Shortly thereafter, the city and the fire fighters' local reached agreement on almost all items in a two-year contract with the ex- ception of the form of part of the pay package, which was another manifesta- tion of the continuing dispute over the establishment of longevity pay. The two sides took this single issue to arbitra- 0 FINAL -OFFS tion, with the union proposing a lon- gevity pity plan estillia(ed to cost 9.1 percent n anually 'fill the city offering a tax-sheltered annuity benefit of 3.0 percent in its first offer and an across-the- board increase of 2.8 percent in its al. ternate offer.=0 The majority of the ar- bitration panel (i.e., the chairman and city representative) selected the city's across-the-board increase as the most rea- sonable offer and rejected the other pro- posals primarily because of the scarcity of similar pay plans in the relevant labor market. In their second contract negotiations, the city and. AFSCME reached agree- ment on the noneconomic clauses in the _ contract (which amounted to little more than a continutation of the first contract's language) , but they could not agree on the size -of -tile economic adjust- ment. Each side submitted two one-year final offers to the arbitrators, with much disagreement over the calculation of the value of each side's offers. The arbitra- tor's figures put the city's offers at 5.9 and 6.2 percent :IIIc] the union's offers at 10.9 and 10.0 percent." The arbitration board received tile. parties' testimony, convened in executive session to make a selection, and tentatively decided in favor of the city's alternate offer—that rsThese figures do not include the 1.15 per cent legislated increase in retirement contribu- tions. In addition to longevity pay, the Union's offer proposed to eliminate all the pay steps in several ranks except for the highest step. 2lThe city calculated the cost of its olfers to be 6,1 and 6.4 percent; and the cost of the un. ion's offers to be 10.8 and 10.4 percent. The union's calculations of the city's olrets were 4.6 and 4.7 percent, and of its own offers, 9.0 and 8.6 percent. The Union's figures did not include the legislated, increase in retirement contribu. tions, a position the arbitrator rejected. If. Kenneth tenger, In the Matter of the Arbilra. tion Between the City of Eugene Local 1724-A, American Federation of -State, County, and Mu- niciYal Empfoyres, -- AFC -CIO, ' Affiliated with Council 75 (March yl, 1979) pp, —z R. ARBITRATION - 195 is, the chairman intlicatetl he favored that offer. The tw0 adversary represent. :'lives 01: the board then communicated this tentative decision to their princi- pals, and the two sides resumed direct negotiations. Before :n formal arbitration award was served on the parties, they reached direct agreement on a three- year contract containing a 13 percent economic adjustment over the first two years and a wage reopener for the third year. The results of the Eugene experience are summarized in Table 1. Effects on the Negotiation Process As noted previously, the most salient criterion by which to evaluate the Eu- gene experience is whether or not this particular form of arbitration induces the parties to reach their own agree. ments. Since the evidence offers 51111)01•[ to both opponents and proponents of final -Offer arbitration, any conclusions reached must be tentaive :uul will de. pend in part on one's prefcrences antl vantage pciint. The initial contract negotiations with the police were unsuccessful in produc- ing an agreement prior to arbitration, but the actual arbitration proceedings show how this procedure can induce the parties to reach an agreement. After the arbitration hearings commenced, the as. sociation's representative on the board informed his principals that their pro. posals would not meet the arbitrators' criteria for selecting the most reasonable Offer." As a result, associ:[tion and city representatives conferred, mutually re. juested a recess, and then negotiated all lgreeutent. As a consequence of this first-rottnd =`The union representative w:u a Portland attorney. This statement is baud on couvrtsa. tions with him and with union le;1dcrs. 196 INDl1STRIAL AND WOR RELATIONS REVIEW Table l: rngenc Negotiation -Arbitration Experience in the Public Sector, 1970-73. r, LA Arbitration Item, Submitted Employre Croup _. Invoked... to Arbitrator, Outcome 1970-71 negotiations (under conventional arbitration): Fire Fighters No - — Negotiated agreement 1971-72 negotiations (under final -offer arbitration): Fire Fighters Yes Entire contractual City first offer selected package Police Patrolmen Yep Entire contractual Direct agreement package reached during arbitra- tion proceedings AFSCME Yes Union security; all Union position (agency (binding fact finding) other items agreed to shop) selected in negotiations 1972-73 negotiations (under final -offer arbitration):-- - Fire Fighters Yes longevity pay dispute; City alternate offer all other items agreed selected to in negotiations Police Patrolmen No — - Negotiated agreement AFSCME Yes One-year economic City alternate nffer package; noneconomic selected but was moot issues agreed to in because of three-year negotiations agreement negotiated during arbitration - proceedings tiations. Consequently, the two sides ne- dure in February -March 1971, the city gotiated a two-year contract that in- and the union (lid not formally agree eluded the innovative promotion hier- on anything in their next negotiation, archy referred to earlier. Both sides and each took two complete contract have indicated their satisfaction with packages to arbitration. Although the this contract, and it seems fair to give two sides were not very far apart on the substantial credit to the previous year's size of their economic proposals (6.0 arbitration _experience as .providing the and 6.5 percent versus 8.6 and 7.4 per - incentive necessary for, this negotiated cent) , they differed widely on noneco- agreement. nomic issues, and the chairman selected The experience with the fire fighters one of the city's offers because he ob- does not lead to any clear-cut conclu- jetted to the manning requirements in sion. After negotiating a first contract both union offers. This outcome appar- under a conventional arbitration prose- ently had a salutary effect on the incen- r, LA 0 FINAL -OFFER ARBITRATION ` arbitration explctience.197 • police associa- by their arbitration rcprescnl;alivcs lh t tion leaders .indicated) their' desire to infers avoid arbitration during 1972-73 _ their would fail (.as in the case of ncro- b five to bargain, for the the police uegoliations) or had failed 'text year the two sides agreed on a two-year package - (;is in the case of the AFSCME) the most with the exception of longevity reasonable' tests. pay, which was submitted for arbitration. One call conclude, after examining Negotiations with the AFSCME local these experiences, that the incentive to reflect a mixture of bargaining incen- bargain is increased primarily because tives, the importance of informal con- of the "sudden death" nature of the munications, and internal union pout -entire either party may "lose the ical considerations. The first set of entire ball game" if the arbitrators negotiations resulted in a direct deem its offers less reasonable than one agree- g ment, and union leaders' comments in- those made by the other party. dicate that the incentive to bargain was T The 1971-72 arbitration experiences increased because of the police and fire , with police and fire fighters and the unions' experiences a few months 1972-75 experience with AFSCNIE dent- previously.zU The second round of onstrated this possibility. The police and AFSCME negotiations went to arbitra- AFSCME•' experiences revealed the futil- tion on the economic adjustment pack- ity of asking for economic gaills that age, in part because of internal union considerably exceed prevailing; market political considerations. Selected por- and the fire fighters' tions of the bargaining unit: were un- elcndaeve, ence revealed that if is possible to lose to los- happy with union representation, in an entire package because of the indu- part because of the imposition of fite Sion of one objectionable provision. agency shop a few months previouslysC These ex experiences have uaaele all the Union representatives_ felt constrained fi s - Eugene acne awioil that :t 5Us to ask for a relatively large package in fill arbitration strategy is the the order to defend their own . organiza- ant thesiotl f antithesis of a successful convetaional tional position. It was only after the arbitration strate gy: instead of main - union leaders learned from their associa- "'ll"119 wale areas of disagreement in tion representative that the arbitration hope of a more favorable comploulise chairman had tentatively decided in 'award, each side tltust elevelop tlutre rea- favor of the city that they negotiated an proposals than the other side, agreement. The result was a three-year which, �on economic issues in Eugene, contract that provides increased security translates into "arl-Owing the areas of for both sides. This outcome is similar disagreement around it Genual figure to that of the initialolice experience,supplied PIt by market comparisons. in that both agreements were negotiateedd can be seen why this record offers after the unions involved were informed comfort to both supporters and critics 21)'I'he serious bargaining with AFSCME of final -offer arbitration: proponents over this first contract was conducted in tate summer may stress that only one of six cases re - Of 1972. The initial police and fire fighters- ex- -filial-offer sulted in all arbitration decision cover- . perienc , with Inucedures occurred in February and May 1972. in f, = the entire contractual package; op - 34)Arbitr2tiou was invoked in February 1979; the agency ponents may argue that arbitration was shop award was issued in November 1972. invoked in five out of six cases. Consid- ering the parties' almost total lack of 0 0 h:u-gaining :Iod arbitration experience, howcVer, :uuPIhc fact that.the city pays all arbitration costs, we believe that final -offer arbitration has been at least moderately successful in Eugene in Pre- serving the parties' incentive to bargain. Procedural Characteristics Selected aspects of the Eugene final - offer procedure deserve examination for their contribution to (lie workability of the process. To the extent thecae pro- cedural characteristics have unifying themes, these themes are flexibility and uncertainty. Probably the most unusual aspect of the Eugene _ final -offer framework, as compared to final -offer procedures adopted elsewhere, is the fact that each side may submit two final offers. This dual opportunity greatly increases each side's flexibility in its presentation to the arbitrators, and this flexibility is especially evident with multi -item packages." This was > demonstrated in the first fire fighters' arbitration case, in which the economic portion of the city's first final offer consisted largely of an across-the-board pay increase, and the city's alternate offer consisted primarily of fringe benefit increases. The second AFSCME arbitration provides a similar example. This dualopportunity also al- lows both sides more flexibility in acced- ing to constituent pressures. For exam- ple, union leaders may load one offer with many "goodies in order to satisfy membership pressures, but they may also make another offer that is struc- tured in a more realistic manner. An equally important result of the dual offers is that they increase uncer- stGrodin argues in favor of multiple offers in multi -issue casts as one way of providing flexibility. ,Grodin, "Either-or Arbitration for Public Employment Disputes," pp. 264-265. tainty on both sides of the table. If a party only had to present one offer, it seems reasonable to expect that this offer would approximate its final negotiating Position and the other party would be aware of that. This relative certainty is substantially reduced when each side may present two offers, for even if one offer.does approximate the final negotia- tion position, the other may not. Not only docs this uncertainty put pressure on both parties to be more "reasonable" in their offers, it increases the probabil- ity that each party might have one offer so close to an offer of the other party that the two sides can reach their own agreement. The second procedural aspect worth emphasizing is the maintenance of the flow of communications—between the parties directly and between the parties and the arbitration chairman—once the arbitration procedure is invoked. As noted, the ordinance mandates negotia- tions for five more clays after the parties have exchanged final offers, and it also invites negotiations after the arbitration procedure has begim. The tripartite form of the arbitration board has also assisted significantly in maintaining the flow of communications, and in both the first police and second AFSCME cases, union representatives on the board were instrumental in conveying information to their principals, about the chairman's tentative decision, which resulted in negotiated agreements.'' Used in this manner, the Eugene proce- dure becomes a form of "med-arb" in which the arbitrator uses his decision- making power to pressure the parties into reaching their own agreement. SzStevens speculates on the usefulness of this kind of. communication. in his discussion of "Type 11" one -or -the -other arbitration. Stevens, "Is Compulsory Arbitration Compatible with Bargaining?' p. 47. Is F: F1IVALOFFER ARBITRATION 199 ,may leguunatelyquestion .: cantly reduces the possibility that ether whether in-, a most situations.` there would file arburatois may stake a derision be an incentive for a lxrrty to negotiate kill the basis of factors unknown to further- if it knew it was going to be o, not ckin- sidered by the panics. Consequently. awarded the decision. For instance, in a there is little incentive city where:'union-management relations to use :I strategy of "let's take it all to the arbitrator are hostile, internal political constraints and he might find a way tojustify us normally would not -permit union lead- giving the award." Also, if the parties know in ers to negotiate away anything achieved advance the criteria the arbitrators as a result of an arbitration award. The will use, they can fact remains, however. that in Eugene use these same criteria to reach a negotiated settlement. most of the arbitration chairmen have - - The final procedural aspect to be con perceived the city's offers as most rea- - sidered involves Eugene's sonable, and yet city representatives negotiation- arbitration timetable described have been willing to resume negotia- earlier in this article. In the 1971_72 tions.ss negolia- The third aspect of the Eugene tions anti arbitrations with police and AFSCME, proce- dure ;north emphasizing is the extent to this timetable was waived be- which the arbitration criteria reduce the cause the ordinance permits such waiv- arbitrators' discretion and consequently ers in initial contract negotiations. Sinli- larly, in 1972-73 the parties' uncertainty about which negotiations, the union and tile city in the final offer will be selected. The ordi- police :laic! AFSChIE fiance was purposefully fashioned negotiations inuttially waive[l the pro - .to include only four specific criteria— cedural deadlines, but in the case of bargaining history, private market com. the fire fighters, there was no mutual parisons, -public market comparisons, waiver and negotiations -incl arbitration and the city's ability to The procceded as required by the ordinance. pay. interests of both sides can thus be Although there needs to be a hard -and - con- sidered, but the arbitrators do not have List deadline it, ;city negotiation setting, "catch-all" there also needs to be some flexibility to a criterion on which to base allow the parties additional negotiating their selection." Such specificity signift- time, if such time can be used to ssCity representatives place a high value on achieve a settlement. This flexibility is negotiated settlements because they believe that such agreements not built into the Eugene procedure, are time likely than imposer! settlement to reflect both parties' objectives and if the two sides cannot agree [o mu - and that .needed innovations call be imple- tually waive the time constraints, the mented successfully .only if voluntarily agreed to. and also because timetable's rigidity may operate to in- they desire to avoidthe negative impact on union -management relations htbtt a negotiated settlement. that may result when one party loses in arbi. tradou. Environmental Characteristics "Consider. for instance, file linal criterion in the Michigan public safety arbitration law: "Such Any examination of the Eugene sys. otter tactors .. , which are normally or tem would be incomplete without men- fraditionally taken into consideration in the de. tion of two salient characteristics of the termination of wages, hours and conditions o[ employmuit through voluntary collective bar. negotiation-arbitration cnvit'onurettt: gaining, mediation fact-findiu•- b' --- , airoration or 912 (1969) , as attended by Public Act 127 I otherwise between the partias, in [tic public (1972), in Bureau of National Allairs, Govern. service or in private. employment." Sabscctiou -----tint--P.tipluyee --1[e/utions ![rpurt HrJrrrnce (11) of Section 425.299 of Micltiban Public Act Pile, 51: 9115. ?tj 4 Y 200---1:,1NDUSTXIAL: 1.A • the union-nranagcmrnt attitudinal rola tionships and the rclaiionship.between city labor relations and city politics. In terms of Walton and McKcrsie's typol- ogy, interactions between the city and its three unions probably are best (le - scribed as accommodation: the parties accept each other's legitimacy, .are will- ing to trust each other up to a point, and are reasonably friendly _ in their flay-Urday dealing.' with each other.'" Allhinigh varh parly proMcts its rights and itilerrsts, hothhave displayed a fair amount of goodwill in their dealings with cacti other. A second important factor is the rela- tive absence of "distributive" or compet- itive elements in the city's political situ- ation, at least with respect to labor relations. Elected city officials serve on an uncompensated part-time basis and are relatively removed from the union- management interaction system. Also, these officials have not attempted to use municilml labor relations as a vehicle for the advancement of their political careers. On the financial side, the city's financ-al position is strong enough that the city has not relied on an "inability to pay" theme in negotiations or arbi- tration, so there has been almost no dis- tributive competition among the parties over the allocation of scarce resources. Finally, the city is overwhelmingly white," so the racial tensions that have affected labor relations in other cities have been absent. The fact that the negotiation -arbitra- tion system docs not have to cope with distributive political pressures and ov- ertly hostile union -management interac- tion patterns has contributed to the 35Richard Walton and Robert McKersie, A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations (Neto York: McGraw-Hill, 1965) , pp. 185-189. 34Approximately 2 percent of the city's -pop- ulation are members of racial minority groups. parties' willingness to seek direct agreements instead of insisting on pursuing the complete arbitration route over all issues in each negotiation. In addition, the existence of the bargain- ing -arbitration ordinance has tended to de-li-oliticize the city labor relations sys- tem. The ordinance gives elected officials a legitimate reason for refusing access to union leaders, and the final -of- fer process prevents matters within the scope of bargaining from being resolved in political arenas, such as the floor of the city council.', Concluding Observations In this concluding section, the Eugene experience will be used as a base from which to respond to the following criti- cisms of final -offer arbitration: the need for bargaining sophistication, the lack of face-saving quality in final offers, and the almost complete elimination of the arbitrator's discretion. The Eugene experience offers some support to both proponents and oppo- nents of Grodin's view that the final -of- fer procedure "appears best suited for parties fairly sophisticated in the bar - .lilt is difficult to present "before and after" evidence regarding the de -politicization of bar. gaining, since very little bargaining occurred prior to the implementation of the filial -offer system. Prior to Lite introduction of bargaining, however, the city employee organizations regu- larly lobbied with city council members con- cerning pay and other personnel matters. With the introduction of formal collective bargaining in September 1971, the council designated the city manager or his appointed representative to handle all ,natters within the scope of bargain- ing. Since then, the council has rebuffed at- - tempts by city union representatives to discuss bargainable matters and has referred them to the city manager and the personnel director. The ordinance also preempts any role the council might play in dispute resolution by mandating that all impasses be referred to the arbitrators. This same effect, of course, might have been achieved by a conventional arbitra- tion system. FINAL OFFER ARBITRATION gaining process, fairly well able to ud a 201 • judge eled at final -offer arbitration is that the the reasonableness of their own 'posi- procedure "lacks the face-saving quality cions in relation to the standards likely available in conventional arbitration to be applied by the arbitrator." J8 Pro- where one of the parties, or both, feels ponents of this view can point to the it must assert certain positions which it first police, second fire fighters, and sec- knows to be 'out of the hall park', for k', fo and AFSCME cases for support. Cer- political or idcolop,.ica1 reasons. -:19r tainly the 1$-16 percent economic ad- conventional arbitration the arbitrator justments proposed by the police union can excise these unreasonable proposals, would not have met the arbitrators' " but in final -offer arbitration he cannot. most reasonable" criteria, especially This criticism seems faulty for at least with city offers in the 6-7 percent three reasons. First, indirect settlement range, and the AFSCME case presents a-- is going to be reached in any negotiat- similar although less clear-cut example. ing setting, these "out of the ball park" The fire fighter's manning proposals proposals must be dropped. This criti- were found so objectionable_ that both cism seems to imply that conventional their offers were rejected. One might arbitration should be the end point of argue that the union representatives in all negotiations so that adversary repre- these cases lacked the bargaining sophis- sentatives will be free to advance unrea- tication necessary to participate success- sonable proposals. it is difficult to see fully in final -offer arbitration and thus why final -offer arbitration should be sin - were penalized unfairly. Bled out for criticism on this dimension, This argument, however, has a hollow especially when one considers that the ring when one considers the [act that "loss of face" question is integrally in - city representatives also had almost no volved in all strike -resolved impasses. experience in bargaining or arbitration. Second, the dual•ofler franlework allows Also, it must be remembered that ill an escape valve for these sinlations. The other cases the same parties either did "out o[ the ball park" denlarrds can be not go to arbitration or went to arbitra Out in one olrer, and the second offer tion with Only one issue after agreeing can be made more realistic. Third, in to all the others. One must also realize the second AFSC1*vIL? ;Ind first police that in the second fire fighters case, the final -offer experiences, a union clung to parties were not very far apart on eco- extreme oilers until it received negative nomic issues. Consequently, the Eugene feedback from its p:ulel representative, experience does not necessarily support after which the Panics negotiate(, their the contention that sophisticated and own agreement. Thus, this process per - experienced practitioners are needed to "lits the union leaders u, tell the mem- make the final -offer mechanism function bership that the negotiated agreementproperly. Furthermore, we believe the was the best they could do, given the Eugene experience suggests that actual unfavorable decision. immersionit,the final -offer process fa- Perhaps the most widespread and dis- cilitates sophistication in the most rapid turbing criticism is th;It the linal•olfer manner possible. procedure too severely rll'C111115C1'Ibl'S the Another criticism that has been lev- arbitrator's discretion. For instance, Grodin's primary objection to having an ssGrodin, "Either-or Arbitration for Public _ Employee Disputes," p. 269, su/bid.,p. X49 , • • E INOIIS'1'RIAL.,-ANT) LAISOR.:REI,A'I'IONS REVIEW_ ubitralor select an entire package of is- lite final -offer procedure, however, is to sues is That he wituld liot-have file Ilexi- ' inclnce the parties to make their own bility necessary to effectuate the priori- compromises by posing potentially sc- tics he considers sippropriate.4" Another vere costs if they do not agree. In other example is the complaint by one of lite words, a successful final -offer procedure neurals in a recent final -offer case in is one that is not cued; one Ihat induces Indianapolis, who has said that the arbi- direct agreement during the proceedings; tration panel in that case slid not have or, using a less rigorous definition of the necessary flexibility to -"fashion a success, one that substantially narrows labor agreement which, in its judgment, the arca of disagreement. And when the would have been workable and equita- procedure is used, the function of the ble and which would have met the arbitrator is to operationalize its poten- needs of the parties." 41 Finally, the ar- tial costs by deciding against the party bitrator,in one of the Eugene cases also that advocated the less reasonable criticized the fact that he was not in a offer (s) . In other words, the final -offer position to use his discretion to fashion mechanism is intended to promote the what he considered to be the most desir- give-and-take of good -faith bargaining by able award.42 acting as a "strikelike" substitute rather This kind of criticism is disturbing than to serve as a mechanism by which because it suggests a misconception of arbitrators may exercise their discretion. the function of - the final -offer Consequently, arbitrators' complaints of procedure." In conventional interest a hick of discretion suggests that the arbitration, the arbitrator issues an final -offer procedure is functioning as it award in which he effectuates his judg- was designefl to function.44 mens of the compromises that the par- -Ihis criticism stems in part from the tics could not sir would not effectuate at difficulties a final -offer arbitrator would cite table. The overriding purpose of presumably have in trying to resolve a multi -issue impasse. In response, sonic 401Gid., p. 265.authors have proposed that in multi- 41Witney, "Final Offer Arbitration: _Tile -In- issue disputes the arbitrator might choose dianapolis.Experience,'* p. 25. The criticisms of among the final offers on an issue -by - final -offer arbitration offered as a result of this experience seem exceptionally misplaced. For issue basis," and the Michigan public final offers to be effective as a "strikclike" im- safety arbitration statute docs provide passe resolution mechanism, negotiations must place in a context in which the artier for that type Of SC1eCt10R On economic P know in odtx[nce that if they do not agree, an arbitrator will select one - party's final _ offer. In Indianapolis, the parties decided to use a final - offer procedure after they had negotiated to im- passe. The parties' lack of understanding of what final -offer arbitration is designed to do is exemplified further by their selection of two ar- bitrators to hear the case. 4211anlon, "Explanation of the Selection of Final Offer," p. 10. -43We are assuming that these criticisms are. genuine and are not offered simply as face-sav- ing solace to the losing party. If this assump- tion is incorrect, our responses to the criticisms are misplaced. 44These complaints may stem in part from arbitrators' objections to the win -lose nature of the final -offer process. It is understandable that a third party would prefer to fashion an award that gives something to both sides rather than issue an award that is identified solely with one side or the other. See Byron E. Calame, "'Best Offer' Arbitration's Critics," {Voll Street Jour- nal, June 14, 1972, editorial page. 45Scc..Lev, "Strikes by Government Employ- ers: Problems and Solutions," pp. 771-777; and Gilroy and Sinicropi, "Impasse Resolution in Public Employment: A Current Assessment," p. 511. r11vAL�otrE>K, issues 44—The Eugene experience with entire package selection suggests that is- sue -by -issue selection would permit the arbitrator to substitute his judgment for the compromises the parties could not or would not makeat the table and to balance a multi -issue award with some- thing for each side, thus reducing the incentive to avoid final -offer arbitration. As such, issue -by -issue selection seems conceptually more, similar to the com- promise -by -third -party -fiat nature of con- ventional arbitration than to the compro- mise -across -the -table nature of the Eugene final -offer procedure. The experience in one city obviously does not establish a prima facie case ei- ther for or -against the workability of the final -offer concept, and much more empirical.evidence is needed before any accurate_ conclusions can- be formulated. There is no perfect final -offer proce- dure. Instead, final -offer procedures can be built in a variety of forms (entire Package _ versus issue -by -issue selection, t one versus two offers, tripartite board t versus single arbitrator, sl3ecific versus t general selection criteria, shared costs "Michigan Public Act 512 (1 9G9) , as amended by Public Act- 127 0972) , section 425.238; and Bureau or National Airairs. Govern- ment Employee. Relations lteporl ReferenceFile, 51: 3115. - -- - - 203 versus employer paid, etc.) , and the out. comes under any procedure must be evaluated against the provisions con. rained in that particular procedure. In addition, any evaluation of the final. offer process must consider the issues involved in the various disputes. The Eugene experience suggests that the final -offer procedure is effective in nar- rowing the area of disagreement around many monetary and nonmonetary issues but may be less effective in bringing the parties together on certain issues requir- ing "yes or no" positions (e.g., the first fire fighter arbiu•ation concerning the union's insistence on the inclusion of manning standards in the contract and the city's insistence on their exclusion, or the first AFSCME arbitration con- cerning the union's demand for the agency shop and the city's offer of main- tenance of membership) . In all, the Eu. gene experience suggests, but certainly does not prove, that final -offer arbitra- ion. as compared to conventional arbi- ration, can increase the probability of negotiated setticmcuts by requiring the Parties to bargain in the context of all Ifective "strikelike" impasse resolution rocedure. Accordingly, it is the recom- iendation of the authors that the Urprocedureprocedure be used more widely in lace of conventional arbitration. vv vim a,iVVVVVI Vl FEBRUARY 1, 1974 11:30 A.M. The Iowa City City Council met in informal session on the 1st day of February, 1974 in the Conference Room at the Davis Building. Mayor Czarnecki presiding. Councilmembers present: Brandt, Czarnecki, Davidsen, deProsse.and White. Others present: Wells, Klaus, Hayek, Pugh, Kraft, Bonnett. Mayor Czarnecki announced discussion of the question on the ballot for the $6,000,000 bond issue. City Manager Ray Wells noted the need for Council to resolve the statement of the question. Attorney John Hayek read the question as proposed and in alternate form, noting that the alternate form;included buildings and parking facilities, and that the bond attorney was satisfied with either. The City Manager commented on his concern over the restriction in the expanded statement, and requested retaining flexibility by being general, not too explicit, there being a possibility ` of acquiring money under new Federal laws for some of the project uses. Mayor Czarnecki favored the original language, #1, focusing on approval or disapproval of the proposal on Urban Renewal. Councilwoman Davidsen also favored #1 as #2 was more restrictive. Councilman Brandt supported #1, as it is a question on the urban renewal proposal; therefore, it was the general concensus of the Council to use #1. The Mayor announced that Project Green would present slides on amenities for Old Capitol urban renewal proposal. Others present were members of old Capitol Associates,Freda Hieronymus, Don Scatena, Mike Williams, and Peter Pomnitz; the Design Review Board, Margaret Keyes and Bill Nowysz. Project Green co-ordinator Jim _Maynard commented on the design for urban renewal, for amenities including decorative pavement,plantings, street fixtures, sidewalks and pedestrian ways, stating that the slides would show some vision of how things can be when carried out. Brian Gutheinz commented on the slides. :R I Council Discussion February 1, 1974 Council discussed how design would be incorporated into the proposal. The City Manager noted Council attention to be divided by 1) citizen input and 2) mechanical problems. Under 1) citizen input, he recommended enlargement of the Design Review Committee and redefinement of the role it plays, also indicating where input should occur; under 2) mechanical problems, he noted street problems south of Burlington; Wash- ington Street; tie together of old and newer and Council authority to hire consultant. The City Manager discussed a chart showing the flow of input between the Council,Staff, Public,Developer and Design Review Board. Mike Williams of Old Capitol Associates and Nancy Seiberling of Project Green commented on importance of communication. Council discussed need for architectural design;expanding the Design Review Board and guidelines for it; residency in Iowa City not a limitation; Citizen input; systematic review. LKarl Meyer suggested that the purpose of the design review group be structured as a positive approach or feeling, not just to criticize. COUNCIL DISCUSSION JOINTMEETINGWITH JOHNSON COUNTY COMMISSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY FEBRUARY 5, 1974 4:00 P.M, The Iowa City City Council met in informal session on the 5th day of February, 1974 in the Conference Room at the Davis Building. Mayor Czarnecki presiding. Councilmembers present: Brandt, Czarnecki, Davidsen, deProsse, White 4:10 P.M. Others present: Wells, Hayek, Klaus, Pugh, Kraft, Maune, Taylor, Stolfus. Mayor Czarnecki announced discussion of 1)Noise Ordinance with members of the Johnson County Commission on Environmental Quality, 2)financial report from Staff on Urban Renewal and 3) presentation by Earl Grueskin of Dividend Bonded Gas Company. Mr. Grueskin explained his concern over the Urban Renewal plan as it affects his property. He noted that they were the only downtown business from the urban renewal area to relocate downtown and at that time did not know of the planned vacation of the portion of Dubuque Street south of his station. Bob Stevenson from the New Process Laundry appeared advising of his concern also and of that of several property owners in the area. Attorney Hayek pointed out that street closures would have to meet the necessary legal requirements, such as public hearings. Mayor Czarnecki outlined previous action taken on the Noise Ordinance. Skip Laitner of Johnson County Commission of Environ- mental Quality, commented that the sound levels suggested were realistic and could be enforced and that the training of personnel to operate the equipment to measure noise was a small problem, as it was not difficult. Art Vetter was also present. Council discussed 1)measurement at 50' distance,2)construction noise, variance permit,3)cost for enforcement, 4)cost of meters and training,5)problems of Legal Department if Ordinance is on the books, right to have it enforced, 6)violation a misdemeanor, 7)question of whether it would be a zoning amendment_ Jim Roegiers of Iowa -Illinois Gas and Electric Company appeared objecting to several words and sections and pointed out the proposed Federal Noise Control Act. Page 2 ' Council discussion then included l)whether Planning and Zoning would review 2)whether a public hearing would be needed. It was decided to put the Noise Ordinance on the agenda for the February 26th meeting for an informational public hearing at 7:30 P.M. Mr. Laitner noted that their commission, with the new replacements, will be establishing their work program includ- ing 1)question energy planning, consumption and production 2)and nuclear energy, The City Manager announced discussion of the memorandum presented on recommendations on Urban Renewal Financing Plan. Finance Director Joe Pugh noted use of 204 per hour as Mall ramp fee, and use of 20 year projection were: . The recommendations 1. The referendum on the issuance of $6,000,000 in general obligation bonds be scheduled for March 28, 1974. 2. That the entire amount of bonds be issued and delivered prior to July 1, 1974. 3. That investment interest and parking revenues be used to pay interest and/or principal on the $6,000,000 bond issue until such time as tax allocation becomes fully available. 4. That plans continue for the use of $1,600,000 in general obligation bonds to supplement the tax allocation bonds for public improvements. 5. That 'revenue bonds be used for the construction of additional parking facilities as may be required. 6. That management of parking system include a rate structure sufficient to produce revenue that will operate and maintain the present system and create reserves in an amountthatwill facilitate the total program as outlined. Mr. Pugh pointed out that savingsusing the call provisions of the bonds would amount to $423,000. The City Manager explained that they had not taken into account any growth except the developer's building, not the investments insidethe Mall, a conservative projection. He stated that the tax allocation money will be invested too. _Discussion of the number of members to appoint to the Design Review Committee and the proposed resolution was announced. After discussion, there was general concensus to have 15 members, and to reappoint the existing five members. In answer to the question on who is responsible for the commissioning of work on the statuary contemplated in the Federal Grant, the City Manager explained the funding of the grant from National Endowment for the Arts as $88,000; 50$ Federal and 50$ City, the City share coming from the $12,500 allowed for Chauncey Swan Plaza, $12,500 match by Project Green, a difference of $19,000. He explained that the responsibility was on the committee composed of the city representatives, (Mayor and City Manager) Project Green and campaignindividuals. This committee decided the major piece of statuary would-be in the Chauncey Swan Plaza, $60,000 and the minor piece in the Urban -Renewal project, $24,000, and there was one stipulation, that only American artists be considered. The Mayor reminded all of the Thursday meeting, February 7th, at 4:00 P.M. with the School Board; the 13th meeting with the Library Board, also discussion of Amerex rezoning and Parking Policy Review; the 19th, -a joint meeting with Planning and Zoning; and the 26th, discussion of Transit and a possible annual meeting with Department Heads and Boards and Commissions early in March. ' MEETING OFTHECITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 5, 1974 ' RECOMMENDATION URBAN RENEWAL FINANCING PLAN 1 TO: City Council FROM: City Manager RE: Urban Renewal Financing Plan DATE: February 5, 1974 The purpose of this memorandum is to present for consideration a specific financing plan recommendation for the required supporting facilities associated with the Offer to PurchaseUrban Renewal Land, as revised, submitted by Old Capitol Business Center Company on October 18, 1973. This proposal takes into consideration the negotiation process between the City and the developer, as well as previous conclusions by the City Council with regard to the amount of debt to be incurred, tax allocation financing, and referendum. As a result of final negotiations with the developer, the City's committment to supporting facilities will include the immediate construction of a 1,200 space parking facility in blocks 83/84 -and the eventual construction of a smaller facility of 800 spaces in block 64; construction of new water and sewer facilities in the project area; and the reconstruction and paving of various streets to include street tree planting, pedestrian ways, and open spaces. A summary of the current cost esti- mate for these project improvements is as follows: Parking Facilities Construction $8,000,000 Streets, Utilities, Signals, Lighting 2,600,000 Malls, Pedestrian Ways 260 000 Sub Total $10, 0, 0 Financed by Federal Government 2600000 Net City Requirement $10001000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS Of primary importance to the structure of the City's financing plan will be the issuance of $7,600,000 in general obligation bonds. In previous discussions, the City Council has determined that $6,000,000 in general obligation bonds would be issued under the terms of repayment that would utilize the tax allocation procedure discussed later in this report. The remaining $1,600,000 in general obligation bonds would be issued for various utility and street improvements as outlined in the City's Capital Improvements Program 1973-77. These bonds would be issued on an annual basis as needed and would be combined with other issues for other City projects. In 1969, the year in which the City's renewal process was formally approved for execution, the properties to; be acquired in the project area carried an assessed value of $965,803,` or 1.41% of the total City tax base at that time. As a result of clearance and redevelopment, it is estimated that the same properties will have an assessed value of at least= $6,649,583 by 1980, or 5.32% of the estimated base in that year. Chapter 403.19 of the'Code of Iowa permits the City to enact an ordinance divid- ing the revenue produced from the taxation_ of the incremental addition to the tax base brought about.by the renewal process and directing the proceeds from such taxa- tion to the repayment.of obligations incurred in supporting redevelopment. This Memo to: City Council -2- February 5, 1974 allocation of taxes is not restricted only to the incremental assessed value in- crease of properties acquired, but also extends to those properties not acquired, and therefore to the entire project area. It is estimated that by 1980 the incre- mental increase from all properties available for allocation will be least $796,705 per year. See Schedule 1 attached. The advantages of allocating taxes in this manner are as follows: 1. The annual cash flow from allocation would permit the issuance of $6,000,000 in general obligation bonds to finance public improvements. The allocation continues until the full amount of principal and interest have been recovered. 2. The entire debt service on bonds issued would be paid from taxes on those properties in the renewal area most directly benefited. No taxes for debt service would be collected from the 1969 base, nor would the individual homeowner be affected by this procedure. ' 3. The allocation does subordinate the County and the School District's interest in the incremental increase until such time as the City's obli- gations have been repaid. However, taxes for debt service are protected, and because the City is making this investment, future benefits to all taxing bodies will be substantially greater. In order for the City to commit long-term contractual obligations to the developer, and to insure financial feasibility for the Urban Renewal Project it- self, a referendum on the issuance of $6,000,000 in general obligation bonds to be repaid from tax allocation is desirable. Topermitthe City Council to legally act in setting a referendum, a petition must be presented requesting a vote on the issuance signed by registered voters exceeding 2% of the number voting for Governor ' at the last general election.- The minimum number of signatures is 486. A schedule for the required legal proceedings and notices for the referendum is found on Schedule 2. Approval of the question requires a 60% majority of those voting. Assuming approval of the voters is obtained, it is recommended that the full amount of the $6,000,000 be issued as soon as possible. This action would offer the advantage of producing the maximum amount of invested interest on the proceeds to be used for debt service in the early years of the scheduled maturities. In addition, sale and delivery prior to July 1, 1974, would eliminate conceivable problems associated with the legal struggle over Home Rule legislation and would ' provide a measure of safety in having the cash in hand prior to construction committ- ments. Finally, there appears to be no advantage in second-guessing the municipal bond market in this case when the overriding concern of the City involves the re- development of the central business district. In anticipation of a $6,000,000 bond issue that would be dated May 1, 1974, Schedule 3 was prepared which indicates a projection of the tax allocation as well as the projected debt service on the full issue for twenty years at 4.75% interest. This illustration uses only tax allocation proceeds from the developer's indicated investment and does not consider the incremental increase of other properties in the project area although they will be.included in the allocation ordinance. Also shown are the benefits of a call provision beginning May 1, 1987, and the possible reduction in interest expense of $422,750. C I 1-1 Memo to: City Council February s, 1974 To determine.the flow of funds, Schedule 4 was prepared which indicates that the maximum cumulative deficit to be financed from other than investment interest and allocated tax would be $229,990 by May 1, 1977. This amount can be funded by reserving current parking revenue in a manner similar to that which would exist under a revenue bond ordinance, as well as using first available excess revenues from the initial parking facility. To accomplish this objective, it will be necessary to maintain an annual income from parking of at least $265,000 in order to pay operating and maintenance expense, finance minor reconstruction projects, and provide the necessary reserve accumulation prior to November 1, 1976._ This use of parking revenue then becomes a key ele- ment in the total financing plan and proper management of the parking system will be of primary importance. A graphic illustration of the flow of funds is presented on Schedule S. The issuance of $6,000,000 at one time will have an important impact on the City's general obligation debt margin. Schedule 6 indicates that this issue, together with all of the other bonded requirements anticipated in prior financial planning, will leave a minimum legal debt margin of $2,167,366 in 1976. However, the fiscal policy margin will be exceeded by $1,788,607 in the same year. This temporary encroachment into the margin reserve established by the fiscal policy will be mitigated by the rapid recovery of margin brought about by substantially increased assessed values, and by some modification in the current approved Capital Improvements Program. REVENUE BONDS As the financing plan is anticipated, Parking Facility #2 would be funded solely and only with revenue bonds to be retired from parking revenue. The maturity schedule on this issue can be structured in such a way as to use both available excess ,revenue from Facility #1 as well as Facility N2. The timing of the need for funds for the second structure should allow for adequate prediction Of sufficient revenue to provide necessary debt service coverage over the life of a revenue bond issue at rates compatible with previous local experience. However, rate structures will need to be evaluated periodically by the City Council to insure adequate protection for the needs of the parking system. FEDERAL AID The $260,000 now scheduled for malls, pedestrian ways, and other amenities is to be funded as part of Item 1 costs in the financing plan that is a part of the City's contract with the Department of Housing and Urban Development. This amount will be drawn from that source as needs require; however, any costs associated with these improvements in excess of $260,000 must be supported from City funds as a part of the total financing package. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS A summary of the estimated costs and recommended financing for those costs is outlined in Schedule 7. This ,financing planrepresents the most feasible solution for funding that can be put .together at this 'time considering the City's need for 1 committments to the developer and financial estimates on construction of improve- ments now available. In summary, it is recommended that the following program be approved: [I I 1-1 1. The referendum on the issuance of $6,000,000 in general obligation bonds be scheduled for March 28, 1974. 2. That the entire amount of bonds be issued and delivered prior to July 1, 1974. 3. That investment interest and parking revenues be used to pay interest and/or principal on the $6,000,000 bond issue until such time as tax allocation becomes fully available. 4. That plans continue for the use of $1,600,000 in general obligation bonds to supplement the tax allocation bonds for public improvements. S. That revenue bonds be used for the construction of additional parking facilities as may be required. 6. That management of a parking system include a rate structure sufficient to produce revenue that will operate and maintain the present system and create reserves in an amount that will facilitate the total program as outlined. I I 11 Property Valuation Project Area; 1969 Less Acquired Property Value $ 2,463,538 965 --03 Net Property Value $ 1,497,735 Project Area; 1980 Acquired Property (.27%) (24,628,087) $ 6,649,583 Net Property Value @ 5% yr. growth rate 21561,636 Projected Assessed Value $ 9,211,219 Tax Allocation Financin Determination Project Area; 1969 Total Area Tax Levy Debt Service Levy 135.000 mills T. A. F. Applicable Levy 16.929 118.071 mills Tax Yield Calculation $ 2,463,538 X1�1 Project Area; 1980 Total Est. Tax Levy Estimated Debt Service Levy 135.9mills ---29 29 T. A. F. Applicable Levy 118.071 mills Tax Yield Calculation Incremental Increase Available for Allocation $ 9,211,219 — .118071 $ 290,872.40 $1,087,577.84 $ 796,705.44 SCHEDULE 1 I Schedule February 5, 1974 - Announce Intention to Issue February 71 1974 - Public Notice of Meeting on Issuance February 26, 1974- Meeting on Issuance and Set Date for Referendum February 28, 1974- First Publication of Notice March 7, 1974 - Second Publication of Notice March 14, 1974 - Third Publication of Notice March 28, 1974 - Date of Referendum Question Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,000,000 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking, and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14? SCHEDULE 2 N N b ro� tnmlD I+ OOO V bt rQfr 1 1 I Cp V V _ A WN�pbmVO\N O WVIV mbb mV Pi�Nb btOb\O O QO.V bt0 OA 4-W V m '� N' LLLL Lt_t. _ mmmmm�w mmmV VVV VV WNrOb mV PVI UbO]VPVIy- is c LL C C C C C C C GC n.YJ,n Mo n -n N 4 I.LLf...LL [.L1.. LLL LK tLLL L t c c c c c c cc c c c c ^ pp� � \ob•a bb b�Dbbbb btD r^ �iD iD r� c c c c 4 �� O V�Du�w IobblO bb. N O %D A <.. l N N b )O WN.. p� bV�D IO�Vp\Ob bbbbbb bbbbbb W Ivb Ob mV TVm1rW N 'OqN �N•C -' P N W! V I P V m �\pp O •+ - N W W F t«< X 3 t +O WVIV mbbmV O\<N'aVN VON ryjr� ro:�Vl mV PVVIt O O O O O O O O �^ O blbGbVlb1�a%D \O IOr O N Y tW Nr pb �•V V N ID b\Obbb\O \O \O \O tObID \Obbb\Ob\p bbb bb mmmm � P 'f1_n n n n n n n n n n O O p 0 0 0 0 p O 0 0 0 0 0 0 mmm mm VVVVV -tW N•.•OID mV PVI<W Nom. p\D > a3> O ON ON ON p 1 OOVNi vwi Oawil SOaViIOO O G ? n n n n n �•. n 0 0 n n n n n n n -n n n n n n 0 p 0. n'n n mV PVI N OOOVwwWWw n n n n J n R �r�WN�W.w - Y N p J^ N N b ro� tnmlD I+ OOO V bt rQfr 1 1 I Cp V V _ A WN�pbmVO\N O WVIV mbb mV Pi�Nb btOb\O O QO.V bt0 OA 4-W V m '� N' LLLL Lt_t. _ mmmmm�w mmmV VVV VV WNrOb mV PVI UbO]VPVIy- plr O LL C C C C C C C GC n.YJ,n Mo n -n N 4 I.LLf...LL [.L1.. LLL LK tLLL L t c c c c c c cc c c c c ^ Ips \ob•a bb b�Dbbbb btD r^ �iD iD r� c c c c 0- V �n O 4 y C4 yp IobblO bb. N O %D A rp CV N O O O O O O O O O O O O -' P N W! V I P V m �\pp O •+ - N W W F t«< X 3 t +O WVIV mbbmV O\<N'aVN VON ryjr� NNN n W.H O O O O O O O O �^ O blbGbVlb1�a%D \O IOr O N Y tW Nr pb �•V V N ID b\Obbb\O \O \O \O tObID \Obbb\Ob\p bbb bb mmmm � N__ _ O V mmm mm VVVVV -tW N•.•OID mV PVI<W Nom. p\D > a3> O ON ON ON p 1 OOVNi vwi Oawil SOaViIOO O G ? O 0 V 0 mV PVI N OOOVwwWWw N 1 1 I bbb bbb bbbbWVtVbN n N �r�WN�W.w - 1 1 OOOVWW WWW WWWWOP<VIPOO p J^ N mmmmmm N �w Ww.r� b<ryl l 1 .J. Ti O Vl Op PP tN mWV ONbb «\p t�Pmmm Y � mmm mm0 mmmmV wv mo " \D\D"mVVO\ pp 0 n ppO p --0 0 0 0 8 0 O O O O g O 0 0 O o 0 o C g o ti bb mVV -1 1. 1 NWbylWyl: b dPmO N tPmO NN dp t p • tO\O m000 !CCCN -Wb PW m V t �D N N 1 1 - - rNtOPWO PW OPW O NP -.POO � Y N\OV PtN. \n VID -WN rNbPWOVW OVt�DOTyI 1 1 Nb VPtN O V.. ^„ NmpO <W��<pp pOB no VIV SV\O mmOVlmD OOO WL'vN N NmO r VI V b -W W VI V� � W V I m V l m 0 60 .Yi 80$88`6880000000$$00 �nn n 14 N : g V m I+tDV-V \nV G N Vth GI VIo ,Y 000O b 41 tis 11 1I 11 1 V _ 1 I 1 f;h IJ. Q QI V W O WVIV mbb mV Pi�Nb 0~ O QO.V bt0 OA 4-W V m '� VNV ON NNN 3 S y tp V V V1 V :4 to H O CA fh bl 0 O tl O tl N 4 O Q•ap`VtWn --i OOOtn O%A 1 1 1 \ob•a bb b�Dbbbb btD r^ �iD iD Qop QNOpQ q8QO 0 0Qu 0 0 0 0- V �n O 4 y C4 yp IobblO bb. N O %D A rp CV N 11 1I 11 1 •4 rn to V 1 N - V to er O Vl 41 1 I 1 f;h IJ. Q QI V W O WVIV mbb mV Pi�Nb � W V VVI V WVtnNON.- yl VNV ON NNN 3 S thp+00 O pp O O O O O p -iP PWO mV PPV mO•N•.W PpptN�0�00 J D N NrPV VImmVIV OmV ND\Pm0 N P g 00 J W V I u t N N ll O V V O V I O V V I V I N n — be t++' ro roNw p1y� N V 0 0 0 0 P \ob•a bb b�Dbbbb btD r^ �iD iD .OA to -ft PC} - 0- \o \o \Ob n b\Ob\Ommmmm mmm mmy N - wN-OID mV D\VIdWNrO�mV �IV/1r Y �n O 4 y C4 yp rp pm -- r. C. h tJ -' P N W! V I P V m �\pp O •+ - N W W F t«< X 3 t +O WVIV mbbmV O\<N'aVN VON ryjr� NNN n W.H +W �^ O 4Vi to H tViI � Ob P 00 00•� .� O yopm oO o 0 o cOi n u 0 0 0 Y y V N b wa O O V 1 I I 1 I 1 cl V a3> O ON ON ON p 1 OOVNi vwi Oawil SOaViIOO O G ? O 0 V 0 pppp8888 88 SSpppp 88SS O 000 n N O 0000`tVI1 �W m� �bbbtDbbb bbb 1 `troll 0 O 8 S V I\C N�O V P 11 1I 11 1 O WVIV mbb mV Pi�Nb � VNV ON NNN 3 S -iP PWO mV PPV mO•N•.W PpptN�0�00 J D N NrPV VImmVIV OmV ND\Pm0 N P 00 J W V I u t N N ll O V V O V I O V V I V I N n p1y� N V 0 0 0 0 • \ob•a bb b�Dbbbb btD r^ �iD iD 0- \o \o \Ob n b\Ob\Ommmmm mmm mmy N - wN-OID mV D\VIdWNrO�mV �IV/1r Y O J rp tJ -' P N W! V I P V m �\pp O •+ - N W W F t«< X 3 t +O WVIV mbbmV O\<N'aVN VON y k NNN n W.H O p IO VI VI O O VI VI N O V VI VI N N V 0 0 0 0 � goovlo�vltnvlooao n Y ^ P N J ON O V a3> O ON ON ON p 1 OOVNi vwi Oawil SOaViIOO O G ? O pppp8888 88 SSpppp 88SS O 000 n N �W m� �bbbtDbbb bbb 1 D I\C N�O V P N b vl vl vl �i P O\ Vl yl <\n r P N V V V t< d W N N N a V Vl Op PP tN mWV ONbb «\p t�Pmmm Y t _J O VI V1 VI O 0 N NPmW VbbVW <m-. } OO jY Lot V V I W W V I V 8 W V N S S VI VI N N Np V V O VI r V V1 VppI N N V p 0 0 pp 0 n ppO p --0 0 0 0 8 0 O O O O g O 0 0 O o 0 o C g o 1 ,,, ♦+ + + ++ + + + + + + 1 1 li a c �N�11VVV NNW iVIW dNW r dm<W Vi mm PPttt\D Vt N��op•dppwppmb ON Nv,�pm vSl v8l R �y - G1 Jc VINNV O��mW mOWW Y tO\O m000 !CCCN pppp pp pp 0 0 0 S.S O O S O 000 S O.O O } y}}}+++ 1 1 1 1 1 1 N < 3❑❑J�O _. - V VIN �V l��pOWD<mN ayyvl1V N V m D �•C O P N V= P V N b m< O V V V O W m O V 1 1 +\�O/b�PV Wlnb rV NmpO <W��<pp pOB no VIV SV\O mmOVlmD OOO WL'vN N NmO 60 .Yi 80$88`6880000000$$00 �nn N O o O O o O O O o 00 0 0 0 0 r I -. W ddJVt VI V1 Vl VIPPP r-yN1 Y -wN ff yN.1 yxpN�NW OOV VO aNVNi0O.6N OW VIV�D8880 nn R" Vi Mt V \ l VVVNI 0 0 S 1- I'- p n% QQ QQ QQ QQ QQ QQ QQ QQQQQ QQ QQ QQ QQ 2SE75752SS75�Z52S252S82SSS25 r �� '< b^ d _ 11 1I 11 1 11 1-1 1 Bond Proceeds Annual Interest Earnings $199,500 189,000` 105,000 105,000 -0- •._• • CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA Indicated Flow of Funds Investment Earnings and Tax Allocation Only Tax Nov. 1, 1974 Annual Surplus ' May 1, 1975 -Surplus $+ 57,000.00 Nov. 1-2 1975 142,500.00 142, 00.00 S + 46 00.00 'S - May 1, 1976 142,500.00 ' Nov. 1, 1976 142,500.00 142,500.00 May 1, 1977 197,554 197,554 Nov. it 1977 237,203 May1, 217,500.00 t978 -194,882.00 Nov. 1, 1978 - 53,5$5.75 May 1, 1979 3379156.25 +191,314.75 - 8,685.25 Nov. 1, 1979 132,406.25 +232,827.75 May 1, 1980 357,406.25 127,062.50 Nov. it 1980 396,660 427,062.50 may 1, 1981 Nov. 1, 1981 May 1, 1982 11 1-1 1 Bond Proceeds Annual Interest Earnings $199,500 189,000` 105,000 105,000 -0- •._• • CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA Indicated Flow of Funds Investment Earnings and Tax Allocation Only Tax Allocation Amount Total Avai_ 1__ able_ Debt Service payments Annual Surplus Cumulative $ -0- $199,500 $142,500.00 -Surplus $+ 57,000.00 $+ _0- -0- 189,000 10 000 5' 142,500.00 142, 00.00 S + 46 00.00 'S - 57, +10 000.00 3,500.00 -0- 13,255 105,000 142,500.00 37,500.00 - 37,500.00 + 66,000.00 + 28,500.00 13,255 13,255 13,255 142,500.00 142,500.00 -129,245.00 -129,245.00 -100,745.00* 197,554 1979554 197,554 197,554 142,500.00 + 55,054.00 -229,990.00** -174,936.00 237,203 2379203 217,500.00 - 19,946.00 -194,882.00 237,203- 328,471 237,203 328,471 290,718.75 137,156.25 - 53,5$5.75 -1518,913.50 328,471 328,471 3379156.25 +191,314.75 - 8,685.25 + 39,401.25 365,234 365,234 365,234 365,234 132,406.25 +232,827.75 + 30,716.00 +263,543.75 396,660 396,660 357,406.25 127,062.50 + 7,826.75 +269,597.50 +271,370.50 396,660 396,660 427,062.50 - 30,402.50 +540,968.00 +510,565.50 * First Ctm,r.tZaliva Deficit - Source of .Temporary Funding Until Repayment to be Determined. ** Mar -i r.vm Cwnulative Deficit. Note: Interest earnings ass woes: 707, - (.5`600, 000) of $6 1�llion expended during period 5/1/74-5/1/75 available for 3 months @ 7% 40% - ($2j400,000) of $6 -Mi Z Zion expended_ . during period 5/1/75-5/1/76 available then for I year @ 7% ....... 509 - ($3,000,000) of $6 Million expended during period 5/1/76-5/1/77 available then for 2 years @ 7% ..... 0 $ 10,500 - AZ7. avail. 11/1/74 168,000 - 1/2 each on 11/1/74 and 5/1/75 4202 000 - 1/4 each first four $598,000 periods SCHEDULE 4 �1 v 69 a, H p r o q O H oyo.'�C CD aH y O t m n O a cn � H y o -< '�7 Z E O z O. 00 49 V 00 A Cn � V C fO V 00 v y r V tD CD Fa„ 'iy t.. w > o CD r ty 0 00 N M al O OD N \ m W Cv1 m 00 w w C. si OD V m 4a o I o A 00 Om to w— a+ — —A [7y OD V1 a o� v C-) X '< 00 C� w m V 'o _ — V En � w O OD �{ to w � to w o P. o -a J to to A to W �1 v 69 a, H p r o q O H oyo.'�C CD aH y O t m n O a cn � H y o -< '�7 Z E O z w w N 00 O Ln W C) fli Ul v gip. 0 ►! O O ' A v N .0 F+ �� ^D Ln 00 -n N. C) vc� < w G N may' o� o w H. m w n w o� o'er a -v a o A Ln A O a~ 00 OD Q� ow �`� �0 p o W A is A N N C 'Sy V n �� b A v CD v �. �" CD 1-� Cr suCD A `fi v fri. V CD ON + rt + rt � r} v v N cn wl„ y CD 4. rt < vOq "0N°. CD 00 00 n r 1-+ H , to I �O CD ~ N t0 V Ch v m O 00 tp W O W N 00 w rt ►-+ N N ►~+ p~', v h7 n a H 0 o a T�xn r D H m r roo d N H O Z a O H J n w N 00 O Ln W C) fli Ul CD f-+ W W 00 O O A v N Cl O O O Ln 00 ON A N W rl {1 FrLO N Ot t0 A Ln A O 00 OD Q� �• 1~+ O p � W N H tf) N _ Ot tAD r0 O „ A �.� V W to .v.J p"' C) O C Ut ON N GS tn 00 00 O 1-+ V to I �O O W t0 V Ch v m O 00 tp W O W N 00 ►-+ N N ►~+ p~', ~ CA00 to ON .. W N UI W Lq Cn ,P Ito N V Ot H F-- ��+ 00 O 00 A N - to Ln N O ~ N N I 00 t0 A rO 00 - fn W V I� 00 N W O O O N � O O p N O V 0 v h7 n a H 0 o a T�xn r D H m r roo d N H O Z a O H J n rI 4)3,000,000 3,000,000 44-1 R-14 Street 6 Storm Sewer 1,275,000 1,275,000 44-2 R-14 Pedestrian Ways 4 Malls $260,000 260,000 44-3 R-14 Street Trees $ Plantings 75,000 75,000 ., 45-1 46-1 CITY OF IOWA CITY 47-1 ' 47-2 TAX ALLOCATION BONDS SOURCE & APPLICATION OF FUNDS SUMMARY ' C.I.P. NO. Federal Revenue Gen. Obl. Project Est. Aid Bonds Bonds 1973-1977 20-4 Parking Facility #1 $5,000,000 $53000,000 20-5 Parking Facility #2 rI 4)3,000,000 3,000,000 44-1 R-14 Street 6 Storm Sewer 1,275,000 1,275,000 44-2 R-14 Pedestrian Ways 4 Malls $260,000 260,000 44-3 R-14 Street Trees $ Plantings 75,000 75,000 ., R-14 Sidewalks R-14 Water Improvements R-14 Sanitary Sewer R-14 Signalization R-14 Street Lighting PROJECT TOTAL 285,000 285,000 365,000 365,000 190,000 190,000 245,000 245,000 165,000 165,000 zziil �0 $3,000,000 $7,600,000 $10,860,000 SCHEDULE 7 45-1 46-1 47-1 ' 47-2 R-14 Sidewalks R-14 Water Improvements R-14 Sanitary Sewer R-14 Signalization R-14 Street Lighting PROJECT TOTAL 285,000 285,000 365,000 365,000 190,000 190,000 245,000 245,000 165,000 165,000 zziil �0 $3,000,000 $7,600,000 $10,860,000 SCHEDULE 7 11 1-1 11 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: City Manager RE: Urban Renewal Financing Plan DATE: February 5, 1974 The purpose of this memorandum is to present for consideration a specific financing plan recommendation for the required supporting facilities associated with the Offer to Purchase Urban Renewal Land, as revised, submitted by Old Capitol Business Center Company on'October 18, 1973. This proposal takes into consideration the negotiation process between the City and the developer, as well as previous conclusions by the City Council with regard to the amount of debt to be incurred, tax allocation financing, and referendum. As a result of final negotiations with the developer, the City's committment to supporting facilities will include the immediate construction of a 1,200 space parking facility in blocks 83/84 and the eventual construction of a smaller facility of 800 spaces in block 64; construction of new water and sewer facilities in the project area; and the reconstruction and paving of various streets to include street tree planting, pedestrian ways,.and open spaces. A summary of the current cost esti- mate for these project improvements is as follows: Parking Facilities Construction $8,000,000 Streets, Utilities, Signals, Lighting 2,600,000 Malls, Pedestrian Ways 260,000 Sub Total $10, 0, 00 — Financed by Federal Government 260,000 Net City Requirement $10,600,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS Of primary importance to the structure of the City's financing plan will be the issuance of $7,600,000 in general obligation bonds. In previous discussions, the City Council has determined that $60000,000 in general obligation bonds would be issued under the terms of repayment that would utilize the tax allocation procedure discussed later in this report. The remaining $1,600,000 in general obligation bonds would be issued for various utility and street improvements as outlined in the City's Capital Improvements Program 1973-77. These bonds would be issued on an annual basis as needed and would be combined with other issues for other City projects. ' Chapter 403.19 of the Code of Iowa permits the.City to enact an ordinance divid- ing the revenue produced from the taxation of th.e:incremental addition to the tax base brought about by the renewalprocess and directing the proceeds from such taxa- tion to the repayment of obligations incurred in supporting redevelopment. This In 1969, the year in which the City's execution, the properties to renewal process was formally approved for .be acquired value of $965,803, or 1.41% the in the project area carried an assessed of total City tax base at clearance and redevelopment, itis estimated that time. As a result of ' assessed value of at l`east $6,649,583:;by that the same 1980, or 5.32% of properties will the have an year. estimated base in that ' Chapter 403.19 of the Code of Iowa permits the.City to enact an ordinance divid- ing the revenue produced from the taxation of th.e:incremental addition to the tax base brought about by the renewalprocess and directing the proceeds from such taxa- tion to the repayment of obligations incurred in supporting redevelopment. This ' Memo to: City Council _2_ February 5, 1974 ' allocation of taxes is not restricted only to the incremental assessed value in- crease of properties acquired, --but also extends to those properties not acquired, and thereforetothe entire project area. It is estimated that by 1980 the incre- mental increase from all properties available for allocation will be least $796,705 per year. -See Schedule 1 -attached. 11 11 11 .1 The advantages of allocating taxes in this manner are as follows: I. The annual cash flow from allocation would permit the issuance of $6,000,000 in general obligation bonds to finance public improvements. The allocation continues until the full amount of principal and interest have been recovered. 2. The entire debt service on bonds issued would be paid from taxes on those properties in the renewal area most directly benefited. No taxes for debt service would be collected from the 1969 base, nor would the individual homeowner be affected by; this procedure. 3. The allocation does subordinate the County and the School District's interest in the incremental increase until such time as the City's obli- gations have been repaid. However, taxes for debt service are protected, and because the City is making this investment, future benefits to all taxing bodies will be substantially greater. In order for the City to commit long-term contractual obligations to the developer, and to insure financial feasibility for the Urban Renewal Project it- self, a referendum on the issuance of $6,000,000 in general obligation bonds to be repaid from tax allocation ,is desirable. --To permit the City Council to legally act in setting a referendum, a petition must be presented requesting a vote on the issuance signed by registered voters exceeding 2% of the number voting for Governor at the last general election. The minimum 'number of signatures is 486. A schedule for the required legal proceedings and notices for the referendum is found on Schedule 2. Approval of the question requires a 60% majority of those voting. Assuming approval of the voters is obtained, it is recommended that the full amount of the $6,000,000 be issued as soon as possible. This action would offer the advantage of producing the maximum amount of invested interest on the proceeds to be used for debt service in the early years of the scheduled maturities. In addition, sale and delivery prior to July 1, 1974, would eliminate conceivable problems associated_ with the legal struggle over Home Rule legislation and would provide a measure of safety in having the cash in hand prior to construction committ- ments. Finally, there appears to be no advantage in second-guessing the municipal bond -market in.this case when the overriding concern of the City involves the re- development of the central business district. In anticipation of a $6,000,000 bond issue that would be dated May 1, 1974, Schedule 3 was prepared which indicates a projection of the tax allocation as well as the projected debt service on the full issue for twenty years at 4.7S% interest. This illustration uses only tax allocation proceeds from the developer's indicated investment and does not consider the incremental increase of other properties in the project area although they will be included in the allocation ordinance. Also shown are the benefits of a call provision beginning May 1, 1987, and the possible reduction in interest expense of $422,750. ■ To determine.the flow of funds, Schedule 4 was prepared which indicates that the maximum cumulative deficit to be financed from other than investment ' interest and allocated tax would be $229,990 by May 1, 1977. This amount can be funded by reserving current parking revenue in a manner similar to that which would exist under a revenue bond ordinance, as well as using first available excess revenues from the initial parking facility ccom this objective, it will be necessary to maintain an annual income afromplish parking of at least $265,000 in order to pay operating and maintenance expense, finance minor reconstruction projects, and provide the necessary reserve accumulation ' prior to November 1, 1976. This use of parking revenue then becomes a key ele- ment in the total financing plan and proper management of the parking system will be of primary importance. A graphic illustration of the flow of funds is ' presented on Schedule S. The issuance of $6,000,000 at one time will have an important impact on the City's general obligation debt margin. Schedule 6 indicates that this issue, ' together with all of the other bonded requirements anticipated in prior financial planning, will leave a minimum legal debt margin of $2,167,366 in 1976. However, the fiscal policy margin will be exceeded by $1,788,607 in the same year. ' temporary encroachment into the margin reserve established by the fiscal poThis licy will be mitigated by the. rapid recovery of margin brought about by substantially increased assessed values, and by some modification in the current approved . Capital Improvements Program. REVENUE BONDS As the financing plan is anticipated, Parking Facility H2 would be funded solely and only with revenue bonds to be retired from parking revenue. The maturity schedule on this issue can be structured in such a way as to use both available excess revenue from Facility 111 as well as Facility 112. The obo Of the need for funds for the second structure should allow for adequatetiming of sufficient revenue to provide necessary debt service coverage over the life of prediction a revenue bond issue at rates compatible with previous local experience. However, rate structures will need to be evaluated periodically by the City Council to insure adequate protection for the needs of the parking system. FEDERAL AID The $260,000 nowscheduledfor malls, pedestrian ways, and other amenities is to be funded as part of Item 1 costs in the financing plan that is a part of the ., City's contract with the Department of Housing and Urban Development. This amount will be drawn from that source as needs require; however, any costs associated with these improvements in excess of $260,000 must be supported from City funds as a part of the total financing package. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS A summary of the estimated costs and recommended financi is outlined in Schedule 7. This financingng for those costs 1 for funding that can be put together at:thistime econsidering ethe sCity'slneed sfortion 1 - Memo to: City Council -4- committments to the developer and financial estimates on construction of improve- ments now available. In summary, it is recommended that the following program be ' approved: I. The referendum on the issuance of $6,000,000 in general obligation bonds be scheduled for March 28, 1974. 2. That the entire amount of bondsbeissued and delivered prior 1974. p or to July 1, 3. That investment interest and parking revenues be used to pay interest and/or principal on the $6,000,000 bond issue until such time as tax allocation becomes fully available. 4. That plans continue for the use of $12600,000 in general obligation bonds to supplement the tax allocation bonds for public improvements. S. That revenue bonds be used for the construction of additional parking facilities as may be required. . 6. That management of a parking system include a rate structure sufficient to produce revenue that will operate and maintain the present system and create reserves in an amount that will facilitate the total program as outlined. Property Valuation Project Area; 1969 Less Acquired Property Value Net Property Value Project Area; 1980 Acquired Property (.27%) (24,628,087) Net Property Value @ 5% yr. growth rate Projected Assessed Value Tax Allocation Financing Determination Project Area; 1969 Total Area Tax Levy Debt Service Levy T. A. F. Applicable Levy Tax Yield Calculation Project Area; 1980 Total Est. Tax Levy Estimated Debt Service Levy T. A. F. Applicable Levy Tax Yield Calculation Incremental Increase Available for Allocation $ 2,463,538 965.803 $ 1,4972735 $ 6,649,583 2,561,636 $ 9,2111219 135.000 mills 16.929 118.071 mills $ 2,463,538 X .118071 135.000 mills 16.929 118.071 mills $ 9,211,219 .118071 $ 290,872.40 $1,087,577.84 $ 796,705.44 SCHEDULE 1 ' 1.1 11. February 28, 1974 - March 7, 1974 - March 14, 1974 - March 28, 1974 - Question First Publication of Notice Second Publication of Notice Third Publication of Notice Date of Referendum Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,000,000 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking, and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14? SCHEDULE' 2 Schedule February 5, 1974 - Announce Intention to Issue February 7, 1974 - Public Notice of Meeting on Issuance February 26, 1974- Meeting on Issuance and Set Date for Referendum 1.1 11. February 28, 1974 - March 7, 1974 - March 14, 1974 - March 28, 1974 - Question First Publication of Notice Second Publication of Notice Third Publication of Notice Date of Referendum Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,000,000 for the purpose of aiding in the planning, undertaking, and carrying out an urban renewal project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14? SCHEDULE' 2 E H'I(1QHiflS y N lD tPmO N I6, N\nmr v NNNWtVI VIPVVmVI\ONN 1 1 •-• W V) P W O P W O P W N P r H P 0 0 �N\GPWOVWOVtV)OPVI I r Oa 1.-1._1_m-QWWVm w N N H H O NV0000 0 O W D _p'. � r\\\pGp N o � ' oo AV V 4 ttrppr rr GGGG GG ►`G N I l l � 4 w OOO Vtp lO .q mr. N O —�V PN I I I Q g G W V OD WN�O\D O)V S!V�ItWNmp a V� V V VI V N 0 na V fIl U •�d+0080 C'l `4 N _,4 b 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ti ON O1V/10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v N 1 1 1 V 8ppppp8o OS 10./800 0 000 0 0 m\n iGr�" N 0 r .' r- - r r r. : :'. . . . . . . C N _ n • rrr �D \O �D Tw�pp W \O �D \D V - . \D \O to %D \D 1G to mmmmm I� .. m ODm DamVVVVVV ?Y N L L L L L L L L - C C C C c C O p L L J J J J J J J L L L L L L L L L L L L l L L L L L L L C L C L L L Cp L CJ pp C C C C C pp C C L C 1 J J J J J J J O J J J J J J J J J nDoneDnne enoGnGnnI�G < n W W W W W W W W W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W O -n 6 W W W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N n ' l0 \O \O •��\pD lOVVV0 \O tD \O \D \O \D \O \O \D \O O\O\D \D \D \D \O \O l0 L D W V)mmmmmmmmm VVVVV W N N O vv O O O V W to N n W W W y 1 1 1 .•.. r O O O V W W W W W W W W W O P r VI P O a 1 1 1. O C C to mOD Oi Oi ODm VI - m010amm0DmmmmV W V m0 %0%0 cc \D trPOJON I l l y N N W tryy11 W �D PWp N\OV PtrN Va V W + W VI V 4�i IGiONl OOO�O 1 1 1 [A 100 mV W tv V H H O VI I►M NNN N I+ b v O tr Vt b`G O q N 0 1 N W �► y V I�p Ga0 ry P1• tn0 GG mW W N O O p p 0 0 0 0 0 0 � Y r► rC r � O Y � pp N I'O +DNna00Nr w- V V V V V V\ ti g N P H HN HH0 OA r VI O 00 p0y.� y m0 O 00 00 rr O o 0 0 0 0 p p g g y N b � O O I v 1 O 1 1 U O O O^ � qM VWp OOOOfVII C.'. p 1 1 1 8888 4 b y N lD tPmO N I6, N\nmr v NNNWtVI VIPVVmVI\ONN 1 1 •-• W V) P W O P W O P W N P r H P 0 0 �N\GPWOVWOVtV)OPVI I r Oa 1.-1._1_m-QWWVm w N N H H O NV0000 0 O W D � y N o � ' O V 4 Nr HOD y V O\ ►`G N I l l � 4 w OOO Vtp lO .q mr. N O m' V I I I Q g G W V OD a V� V V VI V N 0 na V fIl U •�d+0080 C'l `4 N _,4 000 ti ON O1V/10 1 1 1 V 8ppppp8o OS 10./800 0 000 m\n iGr�" N V 4�i IGiONl OOO�O 1 1 1 [A 100 mV W tv V H H O VI I►M NNN N I+ b v O tr Vt b`G O q N 0 1 N W �► y V I�p Ga0 ry P1• tn0 GG mW W N O O p p 0 0 0 0 0 0 � Y r► rC r � O Y � pp N I'O +DNna00Nr w- V V V V V V\ ti g N P H HN HH0 OA r VI O 00 p0y.� y m0 O 00 00 rr O o 0 0 0 0 p p g g y N b � O O I v 1 O 1 1 U O O O^ � qM VWp OOOOfVII C.'. p 1 1 1 8888 4 b lD tPmO N I6, N\nmr C NNNWtVI VIPVVmVI\ONN 1 1 •-• W V) P W O P W O P W N P r H P 0 0 �N\GPWOVWOVtV)OPVI I r C b J.. N\GVPlN OODV VIW PN- � e.� o - �V —W VI V\DrWVI m\nm0 A V1 N O W VI V m\G V) m V Oa t N V) V N V O N N N N 03 S -�vl-o\ncPa.. i�G mrvl i.l iGoip��I VI VpIvI VI c n N NW a�IVIImm\VnV OmV N0\Pm0 00 0 n � J W Vl VI N N \n O V V O V1 0 V V1 \n N N V 0 0 0 0� O V)tG \GW G b V)\O V)l0 \G V)V):O G VaZD- b A r \G \G \G \GmmmppDp COmmmm�VVVVVV Ib N W N� O \O OD V O\V1 tW N lD m V PVI t r0 V, N F P NNW trVl PV m\OO� NNW \.I tFttr X 3 t O W\nV CD\G \G QOV P F N•.GV N V O N N N N n d V _+� O Vf r Pw trb m P PWp IbV PPV mO�wpO.p \nV00�p0 A < -N-Nrp\V \n �\L \nVOmVNPPmOOCO Y Vi N N N V1 0 V V O Vl O V V1 N N N V 0 0 0 0 l O O VI ut 0 0 VI V• C O O W O� \n VI yr 0 0 0 0 O �NOVVFINOV\W!1 \Wl1NNONNVIV 1 l l � O OV818O \n 8O O N8O ut 00W\JOn O VI SO Vt00 0 C 0888888808888088$111^ J n CO r �\pp ppDp �yD w w wag m d �WN�O\p OlV O\ OVDVaI I\m N V) N � VI VI �\n \I1 yy�I\n \n V1 \n Vr Vl VltyIW NNN Q IV V V V V P O\VI VI tVf r P N m V W P m m m Y -� �• PPtrNmWVON\pp V)FtV)FrO�VI� O - N NP� V ViWWVIV 8WVN��WSOOS Y V I V I N N Vp 1 0 V V O V t O V Vp 1 Vp i N N V 0 0 0 0 n O O o O O S O o S o o o 8 8 0 0 0 o S S O 2 1 1 1 1 4 + + + + + + + + + + + + 1 1 H D C 1 O\Psllb ywi N�\lOpp••YWpp ;G ONNVI\pm VOpQ1�VpQm1 O C7 C O N �NV OD I+�mV/m8WWF0\D W000 (-�1 SIN r V SooSSooSS ooSS000SSSg + 'f .. + . + + + + + + Itn 1 r mm r r < VVIN pVlr�PWtmNPyyVff \ONVm DtlC I PNVrPV N\G OD�OVVVOWmOV1 r G rrOM\p VI NPV W VI \OrV _tW�trp 0pO !0a P.Y. -VIV SV\pO yOD pmOV\O mL•V NNpNOSO n n N O O O O O O I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I l r l l 0 0 0 0 0 O O O r •� N N N W W t t Vtr V1 Vf VI VI VI 8\88P P b -Dil N� y �yVyaIONO�yp1 Vw pV OVNi00\Vi1 \Vi1 \NI1800 ne ONVVIO OVNI VN18o 8888888W988888�8e?- 1 n H x < o ,n R= D O n J � ' O J N O a 1 Nov. 1 , 1974 May 1, 1975 Nov. 1 , 1975 May 1, 1976 Nov. 1 , 1976 May 1, 1977 Nov. 1 , 1977 May 1, 1978 Nov. 1 , 1978 May 1, 1979 Nov. 1 , 1979 May 1, 1980 Nov. 1 , 1980 May 1, 1981 Nov. 1 , 1981 May 1, 1982 Bond Proceeds Annual Interest Earnings $199,500 189,000 105,000 105,000 -0- Tax Allocation Amount Total Available Debt Service Payments Annual Cumulative SurplusSurP lus $ -0- -0- $199,500 189,000 5142,500.00 142,500.00 $+ 57,000.00 + 46,500.00 $+ 57,000.00 -0- 105,000 142,500.00 - 37,500.00 +103,500.00 + 66,00o.00 -0- 13,255 1059000 139255 142,500.00 142,500.00 - 37,500.00 -129,245.00 + 28,500.00 13,255 13,255 142,500.00 -129,245.00 -100,745.00* -229,990.00**- 197,554 197,554 197,554 1979554 1429500.00 217,500.00 + 55,054.00 - 19,946.00 -174,936.00 237,203 2379203 140,718.75 + 96,484.25 -194,882.00 - 98,397.75 237,203 328,471 2379203 328,471 290,718.75 137,156.25 - 53,515.75 +191,314.75 -151,913.50 328,471 3b5,234 328,471 365,234 337,156.25 - 8,685.25 + 39,401.25 + 30,716.00 365,234 365,234 132,406.25 357,406.25 +232,827.75 + 7,826.75 +263,543.75 396,660 396,660 396,660 396,660 -127,062.50 427,062.50 +269,597.50 - +271,370.50 +540,968.00 30,402.50 +510,565.50 *F•i.rst. Ctum.clativa. Deficit - ,Source of .Temporary Funding Until Repayment to be Determined. ** Ma:ri.mum Cwnulative Deficit. Npte: Tnterec-(' earnings assumes: 10%, - ($600,000) of $6 MilZion expended during period 5/1/74-5/1/75 available for 3 months @ 7°' ........., �'0% - ($2,400,000) of $6 Million expended during period 5/1/75-5/1/76 available then for -1 year -@-7% ..... 50- - ($3,0001000) of $6 Million expended during period 5/1/76-5/1/77 available then for 2 years @ 7% ...... Paul D. Speer b Associates, Inc. January 29,1974 RVN:mk 8 10,500 - AZ7. avail. 11/1/74 168,000 - 1/2 each on 11/1/74 and l 5/1/75 4202000 - 1/4 each first four $598,500 periods SCHEDULE 4 , N I v Lei w W t v 1 0 1 to 14 V w m W On Do H tp W -tis J rt tVp — cn .fir is Up` fD t✓ V] n 00 n o w r ri (D H. 'S7 00 N o m .'fl o. -. p00 N C71 Z v W rri ` o w v-- C, �'' o S, rT1 A w 0 � Go to ou _ W ob m O0 a, a n z v, -�-40 co V C7] W .r 00 G v 00 t0 b - - v �• k" W S to to �D A N � t0 W N w W v 1 0 1 to V 1 � W On W O J An v' cr, Q- ^ w �,,c b.y o v crH .. ^n r, r .. .. v �c N< ;a W. CD(n am CD OQ Ao o d oo H. w w w r• .. <rt F,, sr w W W N .'a wo N C W�- CD to rn ~ v N v 00 ..O o a (D t7 a CD CL c w I w o� o a, �- • O a o t o `� • •- •- rt �- o Av ACCDD vN v �° �. V!7 V r V N cr + rt rt + ~ Pf v N N Q• rr• 3 ^ w C t]. rf n N w Ln y _ w 0o W. r.C CD P. fD 7 CD y rt w w ^ N a% N to W Ot 00 00 tV0 to Q` p ~ N to 14ItD CA to o Qo ao to rn �? v00 O W C11 N W n z N Ot to A O D „F-' oo C71 •l7 X N Ln A f-. O O O N - /--� QD t•-. n M ►" V'- O W �- .p tra o W V I to r Ln n r Atp p O 00 t- n 0 ITI v r... p O W W to N N b �•-� M H Q Co O E a ` to .. Ln V r O C71 ^i 00Ul CT V O O 1•-� N V to I v H N W to V O Ot O O O W Q - v O O t�D W O H --3 z to �„+ Ot ON N W tD 00 tD Ot A W ` A tD N W W W Vl O, V r V V f-• ~O W M 00 O W O N O O tAp 89 Ln o CD 1. V4 N A N V W O r-+ `tn V O W tp to ► � O y W00 to to W -4V 0p 00 N A O Oy p p ` O ` O N W - CD O tQ N O W V p {a9 A -- - W V to OD. ~ N A O 00 N to 00 `V v N to 00 Oo - to a% t�D l-S�D W ttDD - N to Cl O to O V CT H 4 to O O N V to to tD N C.I.P. NO. Federal Revenue Gen. Obl. Project Est. Aid - Bonds Bonds 1973-1977 20-4 Parking Facility #1 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 20-5 Parking Facility #2 $3,000,000 3,000,000 44-1 R-14 Street $ Storm Sewer 1,275,000 1,275,000 44-2 R-14 Pedestrian Ways & Malls $260,000 260,000 44-3 R-14 Street Trees $ Plantings 75,000 75,000 44-4 R-14 Sidewalks 285,000 285,000 45-1 R-14 Water Improvements _ 365,000 3652000 46-1 R-14 Sanitary Sewer 190,000 190,000 47-1 R-14 Signalization 245,000 245,000 47-2 R-14 Street Lighting 165,000 165,000 PROJECT TOTAL $ 260,000 $32O�Op,Opp@ $7,600,000 $10,860,000 SCHEDULE 7