HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-06-05 Info PacketCity of Iowa CIO
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 31, 1979
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Assistant City Manager �t
Re: League of Iowa Municipalities Policy Determination
providing input to the League of Iowa Municipalities regarding
June 4, 1979, is the date set for informal discussion by Council for Policy Determination for the next legislative sessionLeague
. received a
You rec
memo several weeks ago from me regarding this issue and
You consider those issues which you msuggesting that
ight wish brought before the Legis-
lature in 1980. This specific request involves issues or concerns which
we would wish the League to support or oppose but which were not before
the Legislature during the last session. I am advised that the LIM
staff intends to seek additional input regarding those items which were
addressed during the past legislative session and that this solicitation
will be forthcoming later this year. As a practical matter, it would
seem appropriate that we might discuss issues included in both of the
above categories at the June 4 informal session.
At the May 30, 1979, staff meeting, the City Manager asked staff members
for suggestions concerning areas in which they felt the League should be
active during the next session. In response, the following suggestions
were made.
1. State Housing Code Amendments.
2. Civil Service legislation (considered during last session).
3. Community Education Act.
4. Update Chapter 414 -- This should conform more closely with
the Standard Enabling Act adopted by many other states in the
recent past. This would provide explicit authorization for
municipalities to employ land use techniques in conjunction
with a much more contemporary philosophy. Such things as
mandatory park dedication and establishing historic preser-
vation districts by ordinance would be included.
5. Amend Public Records Law to make library records an exemption.
6. State assistance to local libraries.
7. Increase $100 limit for simple misdemeanor fines.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
Z
8. Simplify special assessment procedures.
9. Oppose mandatory separate bidding of electrical and mechanical
Portions of public contracts.
The purpose of the June 4th discussion is to allow Council time to discuss
these and any other issues which you feel are of importance. At your
direction, we will prepare the necessary information and explanation
regarding those issues we feel deserve League attention, either as a
matter of determination of new policy or as they might relate to issues
which will be resurrected during the next legislative session.
cc: City Manager
Department Heads
jm4/3
t'r
I
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOINES
N
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATE. May 29, 1979
TO: Mayor Vevera & City Council Members
FROM: Harvey D. Miller, Police Chief 14AM
RE: Hearing for Revocation of Liquor Permit
As a result of the attached complaint received on
May 18, 1979, officers are investigating and will
in all probability file charges against the Copper
Dollar (d.b.a. Copper Connection) for dispensing
alcoholic beverages to minors.
The occasion was a party at the tavern. On
May 18, 1979, Mr. David Doane, then manager of the
establishment, visited with Deputy Chief Stock and
me about 2:15 P.M. and admitted that underage service
had,in fact, occurred. He also stated that the
bartender permitting service had been advised by
several employees that such service was illegal and
to stop. However, he did not and the complaint
was received of drunken minors on the premises.
Doane, then manager, and the bartender permitting
service have subsequently been discharged by the
owner of the establishment.
This is the third violation of liquor law by employees
Of this establishment that I have brought to Council's
attention within the past calendar year Conse-
quently, I respectfully request that Council schedule
a public hearing on the revocation of the establish-
ment's permit. I further recommend if Council agrees
to the revocation, that the license should be revoked
for a one (1) year period to start at a date set by
Council,
SNA
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 140111ES
'1 City of Iowa Cit=I
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 1, 1979
To: Neal Berlin, City Cou cil
From: Dick Plastino
Re: Council Referral 9, 1979
I. The 200 block of North Gilbert. What can be done to discourage
traffic from cutting the corner north of Gilpin Paint in the alley?
2. Street repair. Concrete is broken up in the intersection of Woodside
Drive and Woodside Place.
The north radius of the alley directly north of Gilpin's has been run
over by vehicles. One corrective measure is to widen the radius.
Past experience with widening the radius has indicated it is not
foolproof since vehicles simply start cutting the corner even
tighter. The alley is wide at this point and it appears a second -
solution would be for the property owner to rake the area, plant seed
and put up a few sticks with string between them to get the area
looking better. It appears it has not been.maintained in sometime.
Public Works will write a work order to widen the radius with low
priority. We have a severe backlog of more pressing work orders and
this will prohibit early action on this request.
Inspection has been made at Woodside Drive and Woodside Place.
Streets in this area are suffering from under -the -slab erosion and
there are numerous minor failures throughout the area. The area has
been patched with asphalt and represents no -immediate problem.
A work order will be written on a low priority basis. This means
that it may not be done until late fall or next spring.
bdw3/9
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
0413
413
") City of Iowa c;r oy
MEMORANDUPA
Date: May 31, 1979
To: Neal Berlin and City ncil
From: Richard Plastino
Re: Council Referral k
g of Conklin Lane
The road oiling program is scheduled to start the week of July 9.
This assumes equipment availability allows other programs which
precede road oiling to stay on schedule. It also assumes that there
will be few unanticipated repairs which would throw the summer's work
program off schedule.
Public Works would strongly resist rescheduling of the
program. This will call for major adjustments in many otheoiling
r work
Programs for the summer.
bj4/13
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
O LI
I
CIty of Iowa C�Ay
MEMORANDUM
l
I
Date: June 1, 1979
To: Neal Berlin an C
1 1y Council
From: Dick Plastino
4
1 Re: First Avenue S
j The old sidewalk on First Avenue near Southeast Junior High has been
removed. No sodding is planned for the area and we will depend upon
natural rainfall to water the area.
Jm3/19
I
i
i
I
f
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 1101RES
City of Iowa Cir -1
7 MEMORANDUM
Date: June 1, 1979
To: Neal Berlin
City Council
From: Dick Plastino
Re: Current StreetLi ting Policy
Council Referral May 21, 1979
To aid Council
of events leading toathe present policy will bel listed.,
the sequence
1• August 1971 - City Manager reports on need for upgrading the
street lighting system. Public Works Department Outlines test
areas on Washington Street, Linn Street, Clinton Street,
Melrose Avenue and Van Buren Street. Test period to run six
months. The lighting levels are as follows:
a. Linn from Washington to Iowa - 5 foot candles
Washington from Linn to Gilbert - 5 foot candles
Clinton from Bloomington to Fairchild - 1.2 foot candles
Linn from Market to Bloomington - 0.9 foot candles
Melrose from Melrose Circle to Woolf Avenue - 0.9 foot
candles
Van Buren from Bloomington to Fairchild - 0.2 foot candles
2. November .1974 = Council takes bus tour of experimentallighting
project. The following decisions were made by Council:
a• All of urban renewal district to be. lighting to 2 foot
candles with sodium vapor lamps.
b• Fringe area around downtown to be lighted to 1 to 1.2 foot
candles with sodium vapors.
C. The remainder of town shall be lighted on the basis of one
light per intersection and one in mid -block if the block is
over 600 feet and one light at the end of all cul-de-sacs.
d. Street lights will no longer be installed automatically
upon the request of one person. When a request is made for
street lights, we shall notify the property owner that
he/she must talk with adjacent property owners to
determine general feelings about a light. The property
owner contacts City second time; City does survey. If all
neighbors in agreement,
could Iowa -Illinois will be directed to
install alight if it complies with City standards. Lights
possibly be installed at other locations if an
engineering study shows that there is a valid reason for
such installation.
// L16
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
I
2
3. May 1975 - Council adopts subdivision standards as attached.
Section 2.2 of those standards governs most street lighting
installations in the community.
ADDITIONAL:
1. Street lighting costs now paid to Iowa -Illinois are $8,751 per
month, or $105,000 per year. A 175 watt mercury vapor lamp on a
wooden pole cost $4.85 per month, or $58 per year. A 100 watt
sodium vapor lamp costs $6.75 per month, or $81 per year. These
rate structures are set by the Iowa Commerce Commission. All
rates are subject to power supply cost adjustments.
2. Every one to two years the City goes through a cycle of
examining its street lighting policy, based upon requests from
residents.
3. Additional street lighting and reduced electrical demand/energy
costs are obviously not compatible.
4. Discussion should be held with informed sources about the
effect lighting has on reducing crime and/or transfer of crime
to alternate non -lighted locations.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOINES
SECTION IX
IX -LO Average horizontal !footcandles
1.1 The following values of street lighting intensity are design
objectives which should be met:
Average horizontal Footcandles
Roadway Classification Area
Classification
Downtown Intermediate grtlying
Arterial 2.0
1.2 0.9
Collector 1.2
0.9 0.6
'
local
0.9 0.6
F
0.2
1.2 The area classifications are defined as follows:
a. Downtown
'
That portion of a municipality in a business development where
ordinarily there are large
�.
numbers of pedestrians and a heavy
demand for parking space during periods
of peak traffic or
a sustained high pedestrian volume and a continuously heavy
demand for off-street
parking space during business and in-
dustrial employment hours. This definition
applies to
densely developed industrial and business
_
'
areas outside of,
as well -as those that are within, the central part of the
municipality.
r
b. Intermediate
'
That portion of a municipality which is outside of a down-
town area, but
generally within the zone of influence of a
business or industrial development,
i
characterized often by
a moderately heavy nighttime pedestrian traffic
and a some-
what lower parking turnover than is found is a downtown
area.
c. Outlying and Rural
3.
A residential development, or a mixture of residential and
commercial establishments,
I
characterized by few pedestrians
and a low parking demand or turnover.
1.3 All street lighting systems suffer loss of light output due to
1
toe furtherllossndueftohlight itself,
theaccumulationofdustnandrdirtlonuthect
fit,
luminaire. The design should allow for
a normal maintenance
factor in the sizing of the street lighting system.
w'f
IX -1
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINEs
a
1.3.2 The Horizontal footcandles can be calculated by the
equation:
Lamp Lumens(initial) x Coefficient
Avg Horizontal Footcandle - of Utilization x maintenance factor
Luminaire spacing x Road width
The coefficient of utilization can be determined from the
following graph:
RATIO TRANSVERSE DISTANCE
MOUNTING HEIGHT
IX -2.0 Current installation Practice
2.1 The required lumen output and mounting height is as follows:
Roadway Classification Luminaire Mounting Height
Local 7000 lumen ASA Type III 26 ft.
Collector 10,000 lumen ASA Type I11 28 ft.
Arterial 20,000 lumen ASA Type III 30 ft.
2.2 The general criteria for the location of street lights are as
follows:
2.2.1 A street light at all intersections.
2.2.2 Street lights at mid -block locations if the blocks are
more than 600 feet in length.
2.2.3 Closer spacing of street lights in problem areas such
as major arterials or high pedestrian areas, as determined
by an engineering study.
IX -2
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOINES
City of Iowa Cid
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 30, 1979
To: Neal Berlin andC't Council
From: Dick Plastino
Re: Cost of Melrose Closure
A tabulation has been made of the total amount of labor equipment and
materials used for the construction of the island to close off traff
Melrose Court. The figures are as follows: ic on
Labor - - _ $1,316
Equipment $ 152
Materials - $ 520
GRAND TOTAL - $1,988
bdw3/6
/^ MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
� City of Iowa Ci'�
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 30, 1979
To: Neal Berlin and City Council
From: Dick Plastino, Director of Public Works
Re: Council Referral -- Street Lighting at Me ro Court and
Myrtle Avenue
There is a street light at Brookland Place and Myrtle. It does not
shine on the island at Melrose Court and Myrtle Avenue.
The traffic control devices which call the motorists attention to the
island are (1) red and white reflective barricades facing to the west
and (2) a black arrow on yellow background facing to the east. Both
vicesehaveare
considerablycmorenimpactOf uthanbalstreetlligght.Thisis due to rom the car's head -
in the and
these
the fact that the light is reflected directly back f
lights into the driver's eyes. It is not felt that additional lighting
is needed in the area. Public Works will not provide any additional
street lighting in this area unless directed otherwise by Council.
jm2/2
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
City of Iowa Cf^r
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 29, 1979
To: Neal Berlin and City Counci l
From: Gene Dietz, City Engineer
Re: Salvage of Bricks
It was requested that I inform you as to the disposition of the
bricks for the corridor sewer project and also the Streetscape Phase
2 project. The specifications for the corridor sewer project
specifically state the contractor shall salvage the bricks and haul
them to the service building site. The specifications for the
iCaptiol and Washington Street phase of Streetscape Phase 2 have not
een completed as of yet. nform the consultant that the carbon of this
bricksshall b salavagedein the same
fashion as for the corridor sewer project.
cc: Paul Glaves
Jack Leaman
bj2/5
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOVIES
11
I
City of Iowa C1 - y
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 1, 1979 To: City CouncilFrom: Dennis Kraft, Director of Planning &Program Development 401 e: Problems with the Fifth Year CDBG Application
On Tuesday, May 29, 1979, we received a letter from the Omaha Area
Office of HUD informing the City that the Fifth Year Hold -Harmless
application would not be approved as submitted and noted deficiencies
remedied. Three problems were identified:
1. The program area is too large. HUD officials do not feel that
there are sufficient resources to provide substantial long-term
improvements, providing substantial reduction of problems to
the area within the program year. In the letter HUD advised
reducing the project area to be more compatible with the time
and funds available.
2. Housing rehabilitation as an interim repair program is
ineligible. Interim assistance is eligible as a prelude to more
comprehensive treatment, however since this is the final year
of hold -harmless funding, interim improvements are not
eligible.
The letter continued to say that if a acceptable Housing
Rehabilitation Program was not carried out, that the Code
Enforcement Program would be ineligible.
3. Minor data problems with the Housing Assistance Plan were to be
identified and reported to us by separate correspondence.
The above problems were to be remedied, with additional information
submitted to the Omaha office within 15 days (June 8, 1979).
After several phone calls, on Thursday, May 31, the staff met with
HUD officials to resolve the problems and expedite approval of the
application. The results are as follows:
I. If the application clearly demonstrates that we are completing
a five year program of community development projects which
have been planned and implemented to provide substantial impact
to the program area, the CDBG project area will not need to be
reduced during the fifth year. The strategy section of the
application has been amended to reflect required changes and is
included in the Small Cities grant application to be approved by
the City Council on June 5, 1979.
2. The Housing Rehabilitation Program and the Minimum Housing
Inspection Program will be eligible with the following changes:
1/fie
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 1401NES
a, Houses participating in the Housing Rehabilitation Program
will meet standards established by the Section 8 program.
These are minimum standards to assure a safe and sanitary
unit. If rehab projects comply, no follow-up program will
be required.
The $4,000 grant limit will be removed from the Fifth Year
application. Typical housing rehabilitation cases cost
$6,000-$9,000. We can administratively handle the maximum
grant amount later without having it formally approved by
HUD as a part of the Fifth Year application. HUD prefers
this.
C. The original application indicated that funding for single
purpose emergency repairs would be made available by this
program. It was HUD's position that if other significant
structural deficiencies were identified that they also
needed to be remedied. The staff agreed with this position
and agreed to amend the intent of this program, so as to
provide funding for necessary repairs to structures to allow
them to attempt to meet Section 8 minimum requirements and
to eliminate all major safety and health hazards. It was
also agreed that the marketing element of the program would
i be reviewed, and amended if necessary.
d. The City will process 312 loans to provide financial
assistance to moderate income homeowners. This program
might bring additional $200,000 in federal funds to Iowa City
for housing rehabilitation. Depending on federal FY80 budget
allocations (to be determined in October 1979) and the amount
of funds thereafter available to Iowa City, staffing needs
might change.
3. In order to meet HUD goals, the project timetable will show all
hold -harmless CDBG projects to be completed by June 30, 1980.
They expect us to develop administrative capability to carry
out programs in a "timely manner".
The budget sheets for individual projects will be combined onto
fewer forms, to communicate a comprehensive approach to solving
neighborhood problems. Housing rehabilitation, code enforcement,
Ralston Creek, energy conservation, and site improvement activities
will -be listed on one project sheet entitled Neighborhood Improve-
ment Program.
Revised materials will be submitted to HUD on Wednesday, June 6, 1979.
Most of the materials are included in the Small Cities application to
be reviewed by the City Council June 4 & 5. After HUD receives the
revised information from Iowa City, they will continue processing the
application. We optimistically expect notification of grant approval
on June 25.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES Ido INEs
City of Iowa Cir'
DATE: May 31, 1979
TO: City Council �f�
Dennis Kraft, Director of Planning h Program Development
FROM: Pat Keller, Planner/Program Analyst
RE: Neighborhood Site Improvement Program
As part of the total CDBG program for Iowa City, $410,000 has been allocated by the
City Council for neighborhood improvements. The CDBG Area was broken down into six
distinct smaller areas. These areas are: Northside, Longfellow, Creekside, Hickory
Hill, Highland, and South Central. Each area was granted an allocation based upon
density and size. City Planning staff then held various meetings in each of the
six areas to determine what improvements residents felt they needed. This package
includes a tabulation and listing of projects which residents expressed interest
in developing with these funds. It is requested that the City Council review the
overall Neighborhood Site Improvements Program and the specific projects which
residents have selected to be implemented.
Two specific areas of Council interest requiring action are listed below.
1. Two areas participating in the CDBG program, Hickory Hill and Northside, have
established a sidewalk program to assist residents in completing comprehensive
sidewalk repair programs in their areas. The Northside and Hickory Hill areas
have both decided to set aside money to assist moderate and low income residents
in helping to pay for sidewalk repairs. Decisions requested to be made by the
City Council regarding this program are:
(a) Review the program for acceptance or comments.
(b) Review Option 4 regarding assistance to landlords.
2. The Neighborhood Site Improvements packet for the Hickory Hill area contains
a project under Topic 2, alley repair, for the north -south alley which connects
the Burlington Street -Muscatine Avenue intersection and the Court Street -Oakland
Avenue intersection. The staff is currently taking traffic counts in this
alley, studying travel patterns, and conducting a postcard survey of residents
of the block. We request that approval of the $8,020 set aside for this project
be delayed until results of the residents survey have been compiled.
DK/PK/ssw
Attachment
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
('1
r-.
CDBG NEIGHBORHOOD
SITE IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM
11 .`
r,r. • .d •y-^ ---�;'%III �� 5&7/ Tj elf
'.'M1t
Department of Planning & Program Development
June, 1979
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
i
Introduction
Neighborhood Areas
Area I -- Longfellow
Area II -- Northside
Area III -- Creekside
Area IV -- Hickory Hill
Area V -- Highland
Area VI -- South Central
i
i
' Special Projects
Washington Street Mall
Tree Planting
Appendix
Sidewalk Program
,j
j
j .
i
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 110111ES
ft
0
B.
INTRODUCTION:
A. NEIGHBORHOOD SITE IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
Neighborhood Site Improvements Program is funded through
Community Development Block Grant program. In 1977 the City
Council designated portions of the central City as neighbor-
hood strategy areas to be targeted for housing rehabilitation
and general physical improvements. CDBG area was divided into
six smaller areas designated as neighborhoods. These areas
are Northside, Longfellow, Creekside, Hickory Hill, Highland,
and South Central. The NSI program was established to uplift
and revitalize some of the older areas of the City through
physical improvements.
The NSI program allocated $410,000 to achieve the primary goal
of improving some of the older residential areas. Funding was
divided between areas based on, footage of sidewalks, length
of streets, and the number of residents in each area. Special
funding for projects such as trees, Washington Street Mall,
and administration expense were separated from the main budget
due to the specific nature of these projects.
NEIGHBORHOOD SITE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BUDGET ALLOCATION
$75,000
Northside
$48,500
Longfellow
$48,500
Creekside
$60,000
Hickory Hill
$75,000
Highland
$48,500
South Central
$370,500
$15,000
$15,000
Washington Street mall
$11,000
Trees
Administration
$13,500
Cost overrun
$410,000
Program Total
PROCESS
Neighborhood Site Improvement Program has been divided into
six distinct areas. Each area was treated as a separate
entity with special concern and projects initiated by the
residents of each area. Staff was assigned to aid each neigh-
borhood to:
1.
Find out
what residents'
concerns were.
2.
Formulate
projects based
upon these concerns.
3.
Carry out
and implement
the residents' projects.
Planning staff provided information and resources which were
not readily available to residents. The staff provided infor-
mation and input which the residents used to decide which
FIICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES 1401RES
2
projects were applicable and feasible under the NSI program.
The Neighborhood Site Improvements Program has taken an eight
step process.
1. Residents input meeting is held to discuss NSI and improve -
i, resents would like.
2. City staff formulates ideas into projects and alternatives
adding estimated costs.
3. Household surveys are sent to all residents (a) to determine
what project alternatives they prefer; and (b) to prioritize
the types of projects in case not all can be completed.
4. Residents priority meeting is held to discuss priority
of projects and alternatives.
5. City staff prepares a final report on projects compiled.
6. CCN reviews project proposals and makes recommendations to
the City Council.
7. City Council makes final decisions after reviewing proposals
of each area's projects.
8. Project implementation.
C. IMPLEMENTATION
Once approval by City Council is granted work will begin
immediately on carrying out the projects designed in the
Neighborhood Site Improvements Program. Planning staff will
be assigned various project tasks to complete. Meetings with
City staff, i.e. Parks and Recreation, to establish dates and
time schedules for project completion will be conducted.
Projects will be completed in a timely and comprehensive
manner tentatively scheduled for early fall, but no later
than spring 1980. Residents will be notified by mail of
progress -- twice for each neighborhood.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 110RIES
LONGFELLOW AREA
PROG RAM UPDATE
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOIRES
1
STATUS REPORT
LONGFELLOW AREA
The Longfellow area selected five projects in the Neighborhood Site
Improvements Program. Total funding for this area was $48,500 with a
recommended project total of $25,600. Tree planting, alley repair,
mini -park, bus stop benches, and sidewalk repair were the five
projects in the Longfellow area which were funded. A status report
on the progress of each of these projects is listed in order of
resident preference. Consequently Project '1 had the highest
priority and Project 5 has the least priority to residents.
I. Trees:
A. Project Description
The Longfellow area has set aside $6,000 for the specific
task of planting trees throughout the neighborhood.
Residents felt that a concentrated effort of tree planting
would enhance the neighborhood ambience.
B. Status
The $6,000 which was allocated for tree planting in the
Longfellow Area has been transferred to the City Forester.
Billie Hauber will be running the tree planting program in
the Longfellow area. Residents have been sent a mailing
soliciting requests for trees. Once all the requests have
been received and the specified locations checked, trees
will be delivered for planting. Tree planting has been
P scheduled for fall 1979.
2. Alley Repair:
A. Project Description
A comprehensive alley, rock and grading program was
requested by residents and approved by City Council. All
non -paved alleys in the Longfellow area will be rocked and
graded for an estimated cost of $4,000.
B. Status
The alleys in the Longfellow area have not been rocked or
graded. This project is scheduled to be completed with the
other neighborhood site improvement areas sometime this
summer, tentatively scheduled for completion in fall 1979.
3. Mini -Park:
A. Project Description
Residents allocated $3,000 for the creation of a mini -park
with benches and limited recreational facilities on the
.-
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES Mo1NEs
Longfellow School property. By combining school and
neighborhood uses on the playground, residents felt the
playground could be used more effectively. This project
was jointly funded with residents' and NSI money.
B. Status
This project has been completed.
4. Bus Stop p Benches:
A. Project Description
The Longfellow area with the approval of City Council
allocated $600 for the placement of twobus stop benches.
These benches are to be located at:
1. corner of Muscatine and Court Streets,
2. corner of Fifth Avenue and F Street.
B. Status
The two benches requested by the Longfellow area have not
been placed. The bench at Court and Muscatine cannot be
placed until construction is completed on the Court Street
bridge. A bench at Fifth Avenue and F Street was not
Placed because the bus route will soon be changed back to
Muscatine Avenue with the completion of the Court Street
bridge. This summer benches will be ordered and placed,
final work tenatively scheduled for fall 1979.
5. Sidewaypair:
A. Project Description
Residents with the approval of City Council allocated
$12,000 for sidewalk repair. Estimation of needed repairs
Plus additional suggestions support this figure.
B. Status
No sidewalk repair has been done in the Longfellow area.
The sidewalk inspector will evaluate sidewalks in the
Longfellow area and repair work will be completed. Work is
tenatively scheduled for completion by fall 1979.
Successful completion of all sidewalk repair is dependent
upon inspection services being supplied in a timely
manner.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 110111ES
i
NORTHSIDE AREA
PROGRAM UPDATE - -
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOINES
i
STATUS REPORT
NORTHSIDE AREA
The Northside Area selected three projects in the Neighborhood Site
Improvements Program. Total funding for this area is $75,000 with a
recommended project total of $73,100. Sidewalk repair, alley
repair, and bus stop equipment were the three projects in the
northside area which were funded. The status report on the progress
of each of these projects is listed below in the order of resident
preference. Consequently, Project 1 had the highest priority or was
of the "greatest importance" to residents, and Project 3 had the
least amount of importance to area residents.
I. Sidewalk Repair:
A. Project Description
In the Northside Area $40,000 was recommended to be set
aside by residents and the City Council for a
comprehensive sidewalk repair program. City Housing and
Inspection Services Department personnel will be making
sidewalk inspections this summer to inventory all
sidewalks which are in need of repair. $30,000 has been
set aside in this program to aid low and moderate income
residents. A sidewalk program has been established and is
included in the appendix of this report for review by the
City Council. $10,000 has been set aside in this project
for crosswalk repairs.
B. Status
This project has not yet been started. It is anticipated
that with the timely services of the Housing and
Inspection Services Department this project will be
started and completed by the fall of this year.
Alley Repair:
A. Project Description
Two alleys in the northside area were scheduled to be paved
in the Northside Neighborhood Site Improvements Program.
Residents and City Council agreed that 1h alleys in the
Northside Area (in the two blocks bounded by Johnson,
Dodge, Fairchild and Bloomington Streets). which had an
excessive amount of traffic should be paved. Total cost
for this project was estimated at $30,000. Both of these
alleys receive a high amount of traffic all week due to
activities from Zion Lutheran Church and St. Wenceslaus
Catholic Church.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 1101RES
B. Status
Planning staff have been working with Frank Farmer of the
City Engineering Department on implementing this project.
This project has not yet been completed but the alley
paving project will be completed by fall 1979 with the bulk
of the Neighborhood Site Improvement projects. With this
project the staff hopes that A) costs will be defrayed with
the churches bordering the alleys contributing to
expenses, and B) project completion by fall 1979 will be
carried out in a timely and comprehensive manner.
j 3. Bus Stop Benches and Shelters:
A. Project Description
The Northside Neighborhood with the approval of City
Council allocated $3,100 for the purchase of bus stop
benches and shelters. The benches and shelters were to be
located at: 1) Johnson County Social Services on
` Governor, 2) corner of Church Street and Dodge Street by
Eagles, 3) Market and Van Buren at Mercy Hospital, 4)
II Governor and Jefferson by Medical Associates, and 5)
� I
Dubuque and Church Streets.
I Benches would be placed at all locations with the one
exception of Dodge and Church Street which would have a
shelter.
B. Status
No bus stop benches or shelters have been placed in the
Northside Area. City staff will include all bus stop
shelters for the Northside Area with the other
Neighborhood Site Improvement projects. One comprehensive
package for bus stop equipment will be submitted for all
neighborhoods participating in the NSI program. 'The bus
stop bench location at the Johnson County Social Services
building needs to be reassigned due to the placement of a
bus stop shelter at this location by the Transit
Department. An alternative location is currently being
selected by Hugh Mose for the Northside Area.
I
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES FIOIRES
II
CREEKSIDE AREA PROPOSALS
PREPARED BY PAT KELLER
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES rfolrlES
CREEKSIDE AREA
1970 CENSUS DATA
HOUSEHOLDS —489
MEAN INCOME — 410,655
HOUSEHOLDS BELOW
POVERTY LEVEL — 5%
OWNER OCCUPIED HOUSING
UNITS — 71%
PERSONS AGE 65 AND OVER— 6%
MICROF ILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
c[nnv unrnls•ur�. wi•us
mom so III
MINI
III III
c:
III�
■W
iii 1llmc
ulu um
v -E 1
r-.
TOPIC 1
SIDEWALK REPAIR
Adequate sidewalks are an important consideration in planning for
neighborhood improvements. In addition to being pedestrian
pathways, sidewalks are safe play areas for children, they provide a
place for neighbors to meet and a place for physical recreation for
older residents of the neighborhood. Although sidewalk repair and
new construction was brought up at the initial meeting,
overwhelmingly residents responded as not wanting sidewalk
construction or repair in their neighborhood.
CITIZEN COMMENTS FROM MEETING:
1. Pedestrian traffic is so light in our neighborhood that new
sidewalk construction is unnecessary.
2. New sidewalk construction is too costly.
3. Curbs are broken at the corner of Court and Second Street; curb
repair is needed there.
SURVEY RESULTS: (from meeting and returns by mail)
49% Install just curb cuts along the south side of Court Street.
E 46% Nothing be done about sidewalks.
5% Repair sidewalks along the south side of Court Street and
install curb cuts.
COST:
1
Placement of curb cuts (suggested above) along the south side of
1 Court Street cost approximately $3,750. Fifteen curb cuts would be
placed at a cost of $250 per curb cut.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the construction of curb cuts along the south side
of Court Street. Sidewalk repair should only be undertaken with the
unanimous consent of all residents. Residents did not agree that new
sidewalk construction was a high priority, nor that areas suggested
were highly travelled by people. Therefore, staff does not recommend
a project for new sidewalk construction or repair in the Creekside
Neighborhood. In addition, the cost of new construction exceeds the
amount allocated for improvements.
Theastaff recommendsious allocation
be spread among several projects
f the
neighborhood.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES P10IREs
TOPIC 2
BUS STOP BENCHES AND SHELTERS
This project would be relatively inexpensive to implement. Benches
can be purchased for an estimated cost of $100 each and shelters
including benches are approximately $2,500 depending upon design.
Four locations were suggested by residents and transit staff for
placement of shelters:
I. Creekside Park (F and 5th Avenue);
2. Second Avenue and Muscatine Avenue;
3. Second Avenue and Court Street (Hoover School);
4. Morningside Drive and Court Street.
CITIZEN COMMENTS FROM MEETING:
I. Shelters smaller than the one downtown should be purchased.
(Yes, they wi11 be. Smaller size is 5' x 7'),
2. The shelters are too expensive, there must be a cheaper way to
make them?
3. There should be a shelter located at 4th Avenue and Muscatine.
(The shelter at Creekside Park will only be one-half a block
away).
4. Will the bus shelters have benches in them? (Yes).
SURVEY (from meeting and returns by mail)
13% Suggested just purchase of benches and
locations. shelters at fewer
18% Suggested purchase of benches only.
59% Suggested purchase of shelters (with benches).
10% Suggested funds not be spent on this project.
COST:
Placement of four bus shelters with benches as suggested above will
cost approximately $10,000. If residents concerned with the high
cost of bus shelters can find a contractor who will meet
specifications of the bus shelter construction standards and do the
work for less than $2,500, the overall cost of this program will be
reduced.
MICRor ILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAP IDS -DE S 'IDI!!Es
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff (Hugh Mose) agrees that four shelters with benches be
located at:
I. Second Avenue and Court Street
2. Fifth Avenue and Court Street
3. Second Avenue and G Street
4. Creekside Park
The bus shelter at Creekside Park should not be placed until the
transit staff has made final determination on the bus route which
will probably be changed to the previous route along Muscatine Avenue
once construction at Court Street and Muscatine Avenue is completed.
Money, however, may be set aside for a bus shelter to be placed once
a permanent route is chosen.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -Des MDIOES
TOPIC 3
MINI -PARK
At the input meeting residents expressed interest in repairing and
Planting around a road barricade located at 4th Avenue and A Street.
Residents expressed a desire to develop and enhance the area as a
neighborhood recreation site with picnic facilities.
CITIZEN COMMENTS FROM MEETING
The residents expressed unanimous consent that developing a mini -
park at 4th Avenue and A Street would be too small and not benefit
all neighborhood residents. Access and parking to the area were also
viewed as potential problems. Consequently, the residents felt the
$2,000 allocated for this park should be transferred to improving the
picnic facilities at Creekside Park. Residents however, also felt
that some improvement should be made on the barricade.
SURVEY RESULTS (from meeting and returns by mail)
51% Suggested the funds for the mini -park transferred to upgrading
Picnic facilities at Creekside Park.
43 Suggested that the barricade be painted and landscaped.
8% Suggested that funds not be spent on this project.
' COST:
Landscaping and cleaning up the barricade will cost approximately
$200. The $2,000 allocated for picnic facilities at the mini -park
will be transferred for improving the picnic facilities at Creekside
Park. Total cost for these projects will be approximately $2,200.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: (Dennis Showalter)
Since the mini -park will be constructed on a street right-of-way,
their exists the possibility of a street being constructed sometime
in the future. Facilities at the mini -park would have to be limited
and constructed of equipment which can be removed with minimum
difficulty. The mini -park would have to be established as a
temporary park.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS- D', '10111[;
TOPIC 4
PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT
At the neighborhood meeting residents expressed the value of
Creekside Park as a playground for children. Residents expressed a
desire to upgrade existing equipment (repair or replace) and
construct a new wooden jungle gym. By replacing or repairing the old
equipment and constructing new wooden equipment, residents felt that
the playground area of Creekside Park could become a safer and more
attractive for children and adults.
CITIZEN COMMENTS FROM MEETING
I. What type and size of new equipment would be added to Creekside
Park? (A larger piece of wooden equipment similar to the one
placed in City Park).
2. Will the asphalt be removed from around the swings and play
equipment? (Yes).
3. What equipment will you be replacing? (Whirl which goes around
in circles).
4. There should be signs warning cars to slow down at Muscatine and
F Street.
STAFF COMMENTS: (Dennis Showalter)
If money is available, Creekside Park does need repair of equipment
j and removal of asphalt from around swings.
SURVEY RESULTS: (from meeting and returns by mail)
93% Suggested purchasing and replacing equipment.
7% Suggested not funding the project.
0% Suggested purchasing just one piece of new equipment.
COST:
Buying one piece of new wooden equipment and replacing the whirl as
well as asphalt removal will cost approximately $2,500. The
Department of Parks and Recreation will aid in the assembly and
construction of the equipment.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: (Dennis Showalter)
Since the existing playground equipment is in poor condition and
constructed over an asphalt surface, the Department of Planning, and
the Department of Parks and Recreation both recommend purchase of new
playground equipment and the replacement or repair of existing
structures.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
UDAR RAPIDS.DC`. flo IRCS
TOPIC 5
ALLEY REPAIRS
Neighborhood residents have expressed much concern about the
condition of the alleys both at neighborhood meetings and through
individual contact with City staff. In some cases, gravel washes
from alleys causing ruts, while in other locations potholes and dips
create problems in using the alleys. Residents also suggested
improving one alley with asphalt.
CITIZEN COMMENTS FROM MEETING:
I. The alleys are in bad shape with potholes and ruts.
2. Drainage in the alley between Muscatine and C Street is very
bad.
3. The alley between Friendship and Morningside needs paving.
Rock and gravel wash out, we have done spot work but the
residents are elderly and cannot afford the cost of paving. The
alley is also heavily travelled.
4. Do not rock our alley between 1st and 2nd and Friendship. Alley
just needs rolling to smooth out the grass.
5. Do not rock the alley south of G Street between 3rd and 2nd
Avenues and 1st Avenue and 2nd Avenue. Also don't rock the
alley between 1st and 2nd Street, Friendship and D Street.
STAFF COMMENTS (Dick Plastino)
If money is going to be spent paving alleys I would prefer concrete
rather than asphalt. (Craig Minter) I would try to encourage
residents to rock and grade all the non -paved alleys because the City
now has a program which provides scraping and grading if the
residents buy the gravel.
SURVEY RESULTS:
64% Suggested that all alleys be gravelled.
5% Suggested that all alleys be gravelled with the exception of
those alleys noted above.
8% Suggested no improvements at all.
2% Suggested to pave the alley between Friendship and Morningside.
55% Are against the paving of the alley between Friendship and
Morningside.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDSOES '1011115
COST:
The highest percentage group of voters favor the option to fund the
grading and rocking of all non -paved alleys. The total estimated
cost is $9,500.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends that all non -paved alleys be graded, scraped and
rocked with the exception of those alleys between 1st and 2nd south
of D Street, 2nd and 3rd south of D Street, and the alley between 2nd
and 3rd Street, D and Friendship, which have been listed.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MDUIES
TOPIC 6
PROJECT PRIORITIES
Priorities decided at the neighborhood meeting (with '25 residents in
attendance) differed slightly from those expressed on the return
questionnaires (27), therefore, the priorities are listed
separately.
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING:
1. Playground $4,500 ($200 from Mini -Park) $ 4,500
2. Bus stop equipment $10,000
3. Alley repairs $9,500 10,000
4. Sidewalk repairs (curb cuts) $3,750 9,500
5. Mini -park (barricade) $200 3,750
200
27,9
NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY PRIORITIES:
1.
Alley repair $9,500
2.
Playground $2,500
$ 9,500
3.
4.
Bus stop equipment $10,000
Mini -park $2,200
2,500
10,000
5.
Sidewalk Repair
2,200
-0-
24,2 0
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
1.
Playground $4,500
2.
3.
Bus stop equipment $10,000
Alley repairs $9,500
$ 4,500
10,000
4.
5.
Sidewalk repairs (curb cuts) $3,750
Mini -park (barricade) $200
9,500
3,750
200
V27 W6
The recommended budget leavesa surplus of $20,550. Creekside
Neighborhood Site Improvements allocation is $48,500.
Staff recommends that a) $16,000 be allocated to fund paving the
alley between Garden Street and 5th Avenue which is on an incline and
does not hold gravel; b) the north side of Court Street should
receive complimentary curb cuts like those being requested for the
south side of Court Street.
RECOMMENDED PROJECTS:
$27,950
SUPPLEMENTAL PROJECTS:
a. Alley
b. Curb cu�
ts(north�si0de Court St.) $3,500 $13 500
47,450
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CIDAP RAP IDS. DL`, 110111[5
TOPIC 7
0711ER CONCERNS
The Neighborhood Site Improvement meeting generated a considerable amount of input
and discussion from those residents in attendance. Though many of the suggestions
for improvements did not easily fall within the scope and purpose of this program,
all of the neighborhood concerns have been earnestly considered and channelled to
appropriate programs and departments. The following summary covers frequently
mentioned items of discussion which were not included in a project proposal. It
further explains the decisions made about each suggestion and how the City staff is
responding to your concerns.
1. Animal Control -- There has been an increased effort by the City staff to provide
improved animal control. If any of you are still experiencing problems, please
call the Animal Shelter to tell them your specific complaint, 354-1800, ext. 261.
2. Street Cleaning -- The Department of Public Works has been cleaning streets for
approximately six weeks. They will clean every street in the City and are working
according to a specific schedule. There has been an increased amount of dust and
dirt in the streets due to the use of sand this past winter.
3. Tree Planting and Removal -- Tree planting and removal is handled by the City
Forester, Billie liauber. If you have any questions, requests, or proposals for
tree plantings, removals, or tree ordinances, please feel free to contact her.
Also please see the attached information about tree planting programs.
4. Storm Sewer Flooding -- Concern was expressed over flooding of storm sewers in the
area south of E Street. The City is currently undertaking a program to control
flooding along Ralston Creek. Although it might take time before direct results
can be seen, this project is underway and the problems of Ralston Creek flooding
along several areas of the Creek are being addressed.
S. Construction Work -- Residents were concerned about sidewalks being replaced
after the completion of the construction work taking place around Court Street
and Muscatine Avenue. Steps, sidewalks, curbs and yards along the area have
been affected by the constructions. All contractors are responsible (by law)
to successfully replace or repair any damage that they cause during the course of
their work. If any repairs or construction do not meet standards, i.e., poor drainage
on steps, inadequate fill in yards or sidewalks, please report these problems to
the Public Works Department. Construction and repair of your property or sidewalks
in front of your house must be successfully completed to your satisfaction. The
construction work, should be completed by mid-May and City engineers and consultants
are monitoring all work.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
I',[ DAP RAP IDS. `)r1, %0IRES
u
COMMENTS FROM SURVEYS
I would like to see you do something about the alley that goes
between Muscatine and C Street.
Thank you for the opportunity to air our views on the questions of
neighborhood improvement.
I think the bus service should be moved back on Muscatine Avenue.
Please remove asphalt surface under the playground equipment in
Creekside Park. How about a sand box and some wooden equipment like
City Park.
I agree with residents. We don't need new sidewalk construction
along B Street.
Our alley needs paving between C Street and Muscatine Avenue.
Our alley needs rock and grading. It is
done. about time something was
A lot of the sidewalks have depressions that need to be fixed. Will
these,be included in sidewalk repair?
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPT DS -OP, HDIDES
MINUTES
NEIGHBORHOOD SITE IMPROVEMENT
PRIORITY MEETING
HOOVER SCHOOL
MAY 8, 1979 7:30 P.M.
CREEKSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD
ATTENDANTS: 25 Neighborhood Residents; Pat McCormick, CCP!
STAFF: Pat Keller, Bruce Knight, Rosemary Carey,
Planner/Program Analysts; Julie Vann, CDBG Program
Coordinator.
Pat Keller explained the Site Improvement Program was intended to
upgrade neighborhoods through providing funds for repair of
sidewalks and alleys, tree planting and general public improvements
which will enhance the entire neighborhood environment.
Approximately $48,500 was allocated to the Creekside neighborhood
for this purpose. In addition, it was explained that before
proposals for improvements were submitted to the City Council for
their final decision, the staff wanted to know how neighborhood
residents prefer the projects to be implemented and also which
projects they thought were most important from those that they
suggested. Each topic was discussed before residents voted upon
implementation alternatives. Subsequently, each project was
prioritized in order of importance, further suggestions were taken
for possible projects in the future and any changes in projects which
residents would like to make.
TOPIC. 1: SIDEWALK REPAIR
� AL the previous meeting, residents of Creekside suggested areas
where they felt sidewalk repair was needed. Also mentioned were the
l location of streets which did not have sidewalks and residents felt
f that new sidewalk construction was needed. At the priority meeting,
residents did not favor new sidewalk construction or repair.
Residents felt that there was no need for sidewalk construction or
repair. The residents did favor curb cuts, however, because there
are a lot of elderly residents in the area. The vote was as
follows:
A) Repair sidewalks and install curb cuts
along the south side of Court Street. 0
B) Install just curb cuts on the south
side of Court Street. 16
C) Construct new sidewalks along B, D,
and E Streets. 0
D) Do not submit sidewalk proposal. 3
MICROFILMCO BY
JORM MICROLAB
CCDAP RAP 1"-9[S 101NCS
NEIGHBORHOOD __'E IMPROVEMENT
MAY 8, 1979
PAGE 2
TOPIC 2: BUS STOP SHELTERS AND BENCHES
At the input meeting, residents suggested possible locations for bus
stops. With the help of the transit staff four bus stop locations
were pin pointed for the placement of shelters or benches. One
resident suggested an additional spot, but staff pointed out that
this stop would only be half a block from one of the proposed
locations. Residents felt that bus shelters would be desirable but
not an absolute necessity.
A) Suggested different locations from
staff I
8) Suggested purchase of benches only. 2
C) Suggested shelters only (with benches). 13
D) Do not submit proposal for benches
or shelters. 0
The residents overwhelmingly felt that the cost for bus shelters was
too expensive. One of the individuals present suggested
investigating the possiblity of acquiring cheaper shelters.
TOPIC 3: PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT
The upgrading of Creekside Park, i.e. purchasing new equipment and
removing asphalt from around the swing set and whirl was a concern of
most of the residents present. Residents wanted to know what work
would be specifically done under this program. A new wooden piece of
playground equipment would be purchased along with a new whirl.
Asphalt would be removed from around the play equipment and replaced
by sand. The vote on this topic was:
A) Upgrade the Creekside Park. 19
8) Just buy one piece of new wooden equipment. 0
C) Do not improve Creekside Park. 0
TOPIC 4: MINI -PARK
Development of the mini -park behind the barricade at Fouth Avenue and
A Street was questioned on several points. Since the park would be
built on a street right-of-way only a few temporary pieces of
equipment could be purchased. Accessibility to the picnic spot would
pose a parking problem on the street in front of the park. Residents
also felt that the park location near the high school would draw
students into the area. Due to the lack of neighborhood enthusiasm
for this project, a fourth alternative was established which moved
the $2,000 allocated to the mini -park into the development of
Creekside Park. Residents were allowed to vote twice on this topic.
One vote was for option 8 which simply repaired the barricade. The
second vote was for option D which transferred the picnic funds to
Creekside park. The vote was as follows:
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAP RAPI:A-:)E°.-1014E6
NEIGHBORH000 SITE IMPROVEMENI
MAY 8, 1979
PAGE 3
A) Develop mini -park. 0
B) Landscape and repair barricade. 16
C) Do not develop mini -park. 0
0) Transfer funds to develop Creekside Park. 20
TOPIC 5: ALLEY REPAIR
Many of the residents expressed concern about the condition of their
alleys. Pot holes and ruts caused by the winter had left many alleys
with poor drainage. Residents were very receptive to alley repair
with the exception of those residents who did not want any
improvements on their alleys. The vote was:
A) Rock and grade all alleys. 14
B) Rock and grade all alleys except mine. 3
C) Do not rock and grade alleys. 2
D) Pave the one alley requested. 3
E) Do not pave the alley requested. 11
TOPIC 6: PROJECT PRIORITIES
A review of the majority vote on alternative implementation for each
of the project proposals showed that each of the projects could be
implemented within the $48,500 allocated to the Creekside area.
Nevertheless, residents voted on their priorities among each of the
projects, as follows:
Priority 1 2 3
Sidewalks 8
Bus shelters 1 17 1
Play ground 12 2 6
Mini -park (funds transferred)
Alley 10 1 4
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CFOAR RAP IOs•DF; TOIuFS
HICKORY HILL AREA PROPOSALS
PREPARED BY ROSEMARY CAREY
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
LLDAR RAPIDs.')r 'IOIIIrS
1970 CENSUS DATA: HICK? CITY-WIDE
Households
Mean Income $10,199 .$11,080
Households below poverty level 24.5% 18.7%
Owner -Occupied Units 50.0% 54.0%
Persons Age 65+ iq na < L%
NICROFILMCD By
JORM MICROLAB
2.
3
I�1 . 4
5
ton St --
approxi-
mately
200' fro
Governor
Street t,
Pleasant
Reno St.
approxi-
mately
1.50' fro
Blooming
ton to
Pairchil,
Muscatin
Ave. 50
at inter
section
of Burl-
ington
Court St
approxi-
mately
200'
around
inter-
section
of Court
and Mus-
catine
HICKORY HILI. NBICIIRORHOOD
TOPIC 1 -- PROPOSED SIDCwALK REPAIRS
+IICPOFIPED B,
JO RM MICROLAB
TOPIC 1
SIDEWALK REPAIR
Adequate sidewalks are an important consideration in planning for
neighborhood improvement. No field survey has as yet been done in the
Hickory Hill neighborhood to determine the total amount of sidewalk which
needs to be repaired or replaced. Preliminary cost estimates have been
compiled only for those sidewalks which were discussed in the neighborhood
meeting: parts of Governor, Reno, Bloomington, Muscatine and Court
Streets. Repair of sidewalks costs approximately $2.00 per square foot.
Survey Results
Thirty-eight residents (4%) of the Hickory Hill neighborhood returned
their surveys.
15% favored Alternative A, replacing only the damaged sidewalks shown on
the map. These repairs, requested at the neighborhood input meeting,
would cost approximately $1,600.
12% favored Alternative B, requiring all property owners to replace
damaged sidewalks in front of their property at their own expense. This
would require staff salary for a part-time sidewalk ordinance enforcement
inspector, costing approximately $2,000.
39% .favored Alternative C, requiring all property owners to repair
sidewalks (same as B), however, also setting up a $20,000 grant fund to
assist lower income property owners.
24% favored Alternative D, doing curb cuts on 40 corners in the
neighborhood. Curb cuts cost $250 each, so the total cost would be
$10,000.
9% favored Alternative E, not doing anything at all about the sidewalks.
Priority Meeting: Citizen Comments
1. Sidewalks all over the Hickory Hill neighborhood area in bad shape,
with numerous cracks and areas of complete breakdown of the concrete.
This detracts from the overall quality of the neighborhood.
2. Sidewalks benefit the whole community, especially the non -driving
elderly.
3. Residents questioned whether the $20,000 grant fund was adequate to
assist all who need it. Staff responded that no survey had been done
of the total amount of sidewalk needing repair nor had any
information been collected on the low-income people who would take
advantage of this program. However, according to estimates, $20,000
should be quite adequate.
4. The grant fund should be administered using the same income
guidelines as those of the Housing Rehabilitation Program, under the
guidance of Mike Kucharzak.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPI:JS- )[ .!()I ;i: }
Priority Meetinq: Citizen Vote
Residents attending the priority meeting voted in the following way: 8
for Alternative C, 4 abstained. Residents also supported curb cuts, if
there was money available.
Staff Comments
Enforcement of the Code would require staff time. The Department of
Housing and Inspection Services will assume sidewalk inspection
responsibilities July 1, 1979, if staff is hired.
The Department of Planning and Program Development is drafting a sidewalk
grant program to assist lower income households. This program will be
submitted to Council for review.
The Department of Public Works will write the bid specifications for
sidewalk repair contracted by the City. They will also monitor the
construction.
Staff Recommendation
The City staff recommends a sidewalk and curb cut budget totalling
$32,000.
During the last few years, the Department of Public Works did not have the
staff or money to rigorously enforce the sidewalk ordinance. NSI money
could facilitate these repairs, providing up to $2000 direct salary cost
for the sidewalk inspector assigned to this program. At the same time
under Alternative C, $20,000 would be placed in a special grant fund to
provide financial assistance to eligible low-income homeowners, making
sidewalk repairs in front of their property.
NSI money could also be used to provide curb cuts in the amount of $8000.
Current City policy requires that all sidewalk intersection curbs, be
replaced with a curb cut, however; this is a slow process. 32 curb cuts
could be done under the modified Alternative D, thus effecting the City's
long-term policy of removing barriers to all pedestrians. The staff
recommends 32 rather than 40 curb cuts, in order to balance the Hickory
Hill NSI budget.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CPAP RANDI .•)f'. "%)pIf5
HICKORY HILL NEIGHBORHOOD
Topic 2 - Proposed Alley Repairs
MICROTIL4LO B-
JORM MICROLAB
TOPIC #2
ALLEY REPAIR
At the neighborhood meeting residents expressed much concern about the
condition of the alleys. Heavy traffic in a hard winter have caused large
potholes in several alleys. Residents said that in the summer, the dust
generated from traffic produces an environmental nuisance. Residents
suggested grading and regraveling several of the alleys in the
neighborhood.
Cost estimates for this project can vary depending on the length of the
particular alley, the depth of the gravel application, and the location of
stormwater drainage facilities. For a typical one block alley with no
drainage problems, the cost of graveling has been estimated at $250 (the
City will grade the alley, the only cost is for purchase and delivery of
gravel). For comparative purposes, the cost of laying concrete on the
same length of alley has been estimated at $15,000-$20,000; a concrete
surface lasts 50 years with no maintenance. Suggested alley improvements
from residents appear on the map.
SURVEY RESULTS
Thirty-eight residents, (0) of the Hickory Hill Neighborhood returned
their surveys.
19% favored alternative A, graveling only those alleys identified at the
` input meeting and listed on the survey's map. Total cost would be $2,000
in NSI funds.
I
59% favored alternative B, buying rock through the NSI program and making
all needed repairs on gravel alleys in the neighborhood, with the City
providing the scraping and grading. Estimated cost is $.10,250 (for
approximately 12,300 feet of alleyways).
No one favored alternative C, gravelling only write-in alleys.
19% favored alternative D, not graveling any alleys as part of this
program.
3% favored alternative E, which was grading, filling potholes, and oiling
for dust control only. The cost per alley, $170.
PRIORITY MEETING: CITIZEN COMMENTS
1. Alleys all over the Hickory Hill neighborhood are problematic. Most
often cited problems are chuckholes, high levels of traffic,
shortcutters and dust.
2. Discontinuing alley pickup of garbage will help preserve the alleys.
Garbage trucks, because of their heavy loading, are hard on gravel
alleys.
3. The north -south alley from Burlington and Muscatine to Court Street
was badly torn up this winter, because motorists used it as a
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
".CPAP 10AP I f)S.!jl 9d1-11 ,
shortcut while the new Court Street Bridge was being constructed.
This is a concrete alley, with some asphalt overlay at the north end.
The north end is in especially bad shape: there is a large pothole
about 4 feet long and 2 feet wide right at the point where cars stop
before pulling onto Burlington. When they start up, they escavate
this hole a little more each time. What could be done about this
alley?
There is a two -block long alley due east of Governor and between
Market and Jefferson Streets. Residents say that because Jefferson
and Market are both one-way streets, people use this alley to go
either direction to or from Hotz Avenue. Residents would like to see
this become a one-way alley east.
PRIORITY MEETING: CITIZEN VOTE
Residents attending the priority meeting voted in the following way:
1 for alternative A, 3 for alternative B, 2 for alternative D, and 1
abstention.
STAFF COMMENTS
The Department of Public Works is prepared to scrape and grade alleys
throughout Iowa City. If NSI funding is used, all neighborhood alleys can
be repaired in the Hickory HIll area at no cost to property owners.
According to Dick Plastino, the problem in the concrete north -south alley
between Burlington and Court can be addressed in the following way: the
northernmost 80 feet of concrete in the alley (from the intersection of
the east -west alley north) could be removed and replaced at a cost of
$2900. This concrete repair could last as long as fifty years. The
second problem in this alley, that of shortcutting from Burlington to
Court, could be solved by closing the southern half of the alley (from the
intersection south to Court Street). This would be effected by removing
the concrete pavement (160 feet) and filling in the alley with dirt and
sod. A three foot walkway would be left on the east side of the alley.
The City would retain ownership of the right-of-way. Total cost for this
solution is $5120. Adjacent property owners would have to be contacted
first.
According to Jim Brachtel, Traffic Engineer, the problem identified in
citizen comment 4 does not lend itself readily to a solution. Although
the City could convert the alley to one way east bound traffic by posting
a sign, problems of enforcement would result. Because of the added
enforcement burden, this is not a viable solution to the traffic problem
there.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Department of Public Works and the Department of Planning and Program
Development recommend alternative B: graveling all alleys. If gravel is
purchased with NSI funds, the City could scrape and grade at no cost.
Graveling adequately controls potholes where there is normal traffic,
i.e. no large heavily loaded trucks.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CE UAP RAP I:)S.:)I.'. 'PJ1Ili 5
The staff further recommends repairs described above for the north -south
alley between Burlington and Court Streets. The proposal would address
both serious problems encountered on this alley: 1) the deteriorating
physical condition in the north end, and 2) high speed shortcutters not
willing to use Muscatine Avenue, Further, a 160 foot long grassway would
be created as a new and interesting neighborhood amenity. The total cost
of this project would be $8,020.
All alley repair would cost $18,270.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
C[DAP RAP IDS•DF.° 'hI IM[s
2.
HICKORY HILL NEIGHBORHOOD
'I'opic 3 - Proposed 'Traffic Signs
'IICROFILMEO Or
JORM MICROLAB
TOPIC 3
TRAFFIC SIGNALIZATION
The concern about speeders and traffic accidents prompted several
neighborhood residents to request stop signs. A two way sign is requested
at Reno and Davenport, and a four way sign at Center and Davenport. The
cost of purchasing and installing stop signs is $50 apiece.
Survey Results
Thirty-eight residents (4%) in the Hickory Hill neighborhood returned
their surveys.
25% favored alternative A, submitting a proposal to purchase six signs for
the above locations. Total cost would be $300.
17% favored alternative B, submitting a proposal to purchase only the two
way sign at Reno and Davenport.
42% favored alternative C, not submitting a proposal to install stop
signs.
17% favored alternative D, installing traffic diverters at the above
locations, rather than stop signs. Total cost would depend on design.
i Priority Meeting: Citizen Comments
1. Residents felt that the problem on Davenport Street was speeding,
rather than safety. Greater police surveilance was requested.
Priority Meeting: Citizen Vote
Residents attending the priority meeting voted in the following way: 7
voted for alternative. C, and 5 abstained.
Staff Comments
After the original neighborhood meeting, the Traffic Engineering Division
gathered data in an attempt to measure the traffic conditions at the two
intersections where stop signs were requested. A twenty-four hour traffic
count on Davenport just east of Center showed 524 vehicles or
approximately 22 per hour. Clearly, this vehicular volume loading is
typical of a quiet residential street.
The Traffic Engineering Division also attempted to conduct a speed study
on Davenport Street. Results of that study are inconclusive as a
statistically meaningful population sample was not obtained (35 cars in an
hour and one-half). However, from the 35 cars that used this facility in
the hour and one-half observation period the following comments can be
made. Two vehicles were measured at 16 miles per hour; one vehicle at 18
miles per hour; one vehicle at 19 miles per hour; one vehicle at 32 miles
per hour; one vehicle at 30 miles per hour; one vehicle at 29 miles per
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
crnnu RnrloS•lil , innits
hour. The rest of the sample fell between 20 miles per hour and 27 miles
per hour. This is typical of residential streets.
Staff reported the findings of this count at the neighborhood priority
meeting, showing that the two intersections in question had neither high
speed, restricted views, nor a serious accident record which would warrant
placement of stop signs. Residents then voted not to request any more
stop signs.
Staff Recommendations
The Department of Public Works Traffic Engineering Division and the
Department of Planning and Program Development recommend against stop
signs at the above locations because objective review has shown that the
existing conditions do not require stop signs. Furthermore, the oc-
casional speeder is not deterred by stop signs. If the driver perceives
excessive delay caused by the stop sign, there is a tendency for him to
drive faster to compensate for this delay. Police enforcement of speed
limits is the only practicable solution.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CFDO RAN f7 -:)[ , ':ii 1InS
Gu
ra
Bu
to:
Mu:
til
2. Cor
at
and
cat,
HICKORY HILI. Nf•IGHBORHOOU
Topic 4 - Proposed Beautification sites
IacennvaED B,
JORM MICROLAB
TOPIC 4
BEAUTIFICATION
Neighborhood residents expressed the desire for some beautification work
in different areas of the neighborhood. The following ideas were sug-
gested:
1. Beautification of the barricade at Burlington and Muscatine and new
street trees on Muscatine between College and Court Streets. The
existing barricade is quite stark; it could be converted to a
landscaped barrier by adding plantings. Elms which were formerly on
Muscatine were taken out due to Dutch Elm disease. Replacement of
these trees would improve the aesthetic quality of this area. Total
cost for this project is hard to estimate, as the number of trees
bplanted t trees can
eplantedimtedetermination
smadeby the CityFoester,ba ed on above and below
ground from corners and
driveways. tilThe high ity sestimate and fortheproject
specified distances
$2,000; the low
estimate is $1,000.
The southwestern corner of the Court Street -Muscatine Avenue
intersection (adjacent to the new bridge) needs beautification. The
City had purchased and demolished the corner house on Court Street;
this area -- approximately 40 feet wide by 125 feet long -- could be
planted with shade or ornamental trees. The cost for these plantings
would be approximately $1,000.
Survey Results
Thirty-eight residents (4%) of the Hickory Hill neighborhood returned
their surveys.
52% alternative A, funding both of the above beautification projects with
neighborhood site improvements money. Total cost could vary from $2,000
to $3,000 depending on the number of trees planted.
13% favored only funding project H1, barricade beautification and tree
planting on Muscatine Avenue at a cost ranging from $1,000 to $2,000
depending upon the number of trees planted.
9% favored only funding project N2, the minipark or beautification of the
Court Street intersection, costing $1,000.
22% favored alternative C, implementing as much of the above projects as
possible with the $15,000 available for City-wide tree planting; using no
other NSI money for beautification. Because of the tree planting program
design, no guarantee can be made that the above projects will be completed
as part of the tree planting program. The $15,000 is intended for
distribution throughout the CDBG area.
4% favored alternative 0, funding no neighborhood
projects.
MICROFILMED By
JORM MICROLAB
1nAi' N'A F I : , % . : i f , '10191`,
beautification
Priority Meeting: Citizen Comments
Dirt and powdered concrete from construction of the Court Street
bridge are problems for Muscatine Avenue residents. Residents also
alleged that the contractor's machinery ran all over the parking,
thereby killing the grass and "muddying up" the place. Neighbors
asked that the street cleaners be sent around once more to clean up
this extra dirt.
One resident adjacent to Reno Park told how effective citizens
organizing was in creating that park. She stressed that it was a
lovely neighborhood amenity, much used and much appreciated espec-
ially since it was created by the residents themselves. She thought
it would be more appropriate if the lot on the southwest corner of
the Court Street -Muscatine Avenue intersection was organized into a
park by neighborhood action, rather than City action. Residents on
Muscatine Avenue argued that theirs was a highly transient neigh-
borhood with little social interaction. They thought that the
neighborhood would support and use the minipark if it were first
established by the City.
The addition of a bench was suggested for the minipark at the
intersection of Court and Muscatine.
Priority Meeting: Citizen Vote
Residents attending the priority meeting voted in the following way: five
voted for alternative A, one voted to fund only project 2, two voted for
alternative C, two voted for alternative E (which was other) suggested:
removing plastic grass in the neighborhood, and 2 abstained.
Staff Comments
The Department of Public Works has required the contractor on the Court
Street bridge to restore the area to its original condition. The parkings
in front of the stone houses near the Muscatine -Court Street intersection
were in poor shape, prior to the construction of the new bridge, due to
people parking in their front yards.
A bench in the minipark at the intersection of Court Street and Muscatine
would be a nice feature. Approximate cost for six foot long, concrete
anchored benches is $100.00. This can be worked into the original mini -
park budget estimate, buy different tree types or quantities.
Staff Recommendation
Generally, the Department of Planning and Program Development staff
recommends neighborhood beautification projects as an appropriate use for
neighborhood site improvements money. The planting of street trees would
definitely enhance the visual, aesthetic and biological character of the
neighborhood, as would the minipark across from Seatons.
In talking with Billie Hauber the staff does not recommend the barricade
beautification project, because that barricade is struck by automobiles
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
several times a year. The cost of continually replacing shrubs and
planters would be prohibitive. Moreover, money to defray these costs
would have to be drawn from the general fund since Neighborhood Site
Improvements funding provides for one time capital improvements only.
The planting of street trees on Muscatine Avenue between Court Street and
College is recommended. The City Forester has not yet checked this
stretch for the presence of underground utilities or minimum width,
factors which could prevent planting. It is anticipated that sections of
the east side of Muscatine Avenue will meet the minimum width requirements
of 8.2 feet; nothing is known about utilities placement. $2,000 has been
allotted for planting trees.
Establishment of a minipark at the intersection of Court Street and
Muscatine Avenue is highly recommended by the Department of Planning and
Program Development. The minipark, consisting of some trees and shrub
plantings and six foot long concrete anchored bench, could be done for
$1,000.
MICROFILMED DY
JORM MICROLAB
f.EDAN PAP INS•fii. 'i,)pli
G.
ton
HICKORY 1111.1. NEIGHBORHOOD
TOPIC 5 -- PROPOSED STIMET AND CURB REPAIRS
141CROFIL1410 81
JORM MICROLAB
TOPIC 5
STREET REPAIR
Residents expressed concern over the condition of E. Washington Street,
between Pearl and Muscatine. While the street is structurally adequate,
it could use an asphalt overlay which would cost about $8,500.
Survey Results
Thirty-eight residents (4%) of the Hickory Hill neighborhood returned
their surveys.
Thirty-three percent favored alternative A, submitting a proposal to have
E. Washington Street reasphalted, at a cost of $8,500.
Sixty-seven percent favored alternative 8, not submitting a proposal for
street repair on E. Washington.
Priority Meeting: Citizen Comments
I. E. Washington Street and adjacent sidewalks have not been repaired in
over 30 years. Both have deteriorated tremendously.
Priority Meeting: Citizen Vote
Residents attending the priority meeting voted in the following way:
seven voted for alternative A re asphalting E. Washington Street at a cost
of $8,500, and five abstained.
Staff Comments
The staff of the Department of Public Works and the Department of Planning
and Program Development agree that street repairs on E. Washington could
be an NSI project. Because E. Washington has no bus routes and has a low
traffic load, it is not ranked in the Capital Improvements Program
(C.I.P.) for resurfacing in the near future. It should be noted that few
nonresident drivers use limited access streets such as E. Washington;
therefore the major benefits of resurfacing will accrue to street
residents.
Staff Recommendations
The staff recommendation is to reasphalt E. Washington Street as it is
indeed riddled with chuckholes. Reasphalting now will preserve the
concrete understructure which is sound.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
COAP RAPIM.:)I, '1u19f;
TOPIC 6
PROJECT PRIORITIES
The priorities decided at the neighborhood meeting (with 12 residents in
attendance) differed from those expressed on returned questionnaires (38),
therefore the priorities for each are listed separately.
Survey Priorities: -Ranked
I. Beautification
2. Sidewalk Repair
3. Alley Repair
4. Traffic Signalization
5. Street Repair
Project Alternatives Chosen
Full funding $ 3,000
Inspector and grant fund 22,000
All neighborhood alleys repaired 10,250
No new signs 0
No 0
$35,250
Meeting Priorities:
Ranked
Project Alternatives Chosen
I.
2..
Beautification
Alley Repair
Full funding
3.
Sidewalk Repair
All neighborhood alleys repaired
Inspector
4.
5.
Street Repair
Traffic Signalization
and grant fund
Reasphalting E. Washington Street
No
Staff Recommendations
1.
Sidewalk Repair
$30,000
2.
Alley Repair
$18,270
3.
Beautification
$ 3,000
4.
Street Repair
$ 8,500
5.
Traffic Signals
-0-
$59,770
The remaining $230 could be used for any cost overruns on concrete.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
i. I0 AP RAPiDS.;l1` 9()1(l1S
$ 3,000
10,250
22,000
8,500
0
43,750
TOPIC 7
OTHER CONCERNS AIRED AT NEIGHBORHOOD INPUT MEETING
The Neighborhood Site Improvements input meeting generated a considerable
amount of discussion from those residents in attendance. Although many of
the suggestions for improvements did not easily fall within the scope and
purpose of this program, all of the neighborhood concerns have been
earnestly considered and channeled to appropriate programs and
departments. The following summary covers frequently -mentioned items of
discussion which were not included in the project proposal. It further
explains decisions made about each suggestion and how the City staff is
responding to your concerns.
1. Ralston Creek Improvements:
Most residents at the input meeting agreed that Ralston Creek is a
neighborhood amenity which should be enhanced as much as possible.
Public projects which could accomplish this are limited because the
creek is privately owned for the greater part of its course. This
has long created a dilemma for City planners and decision makers; the
question of how to deal effectively with problems along the creek has
never been resolved. In an attempt to gain a clear understanding of
the problems on Ralston Creek, the City will soon be releasing a
final Ralston Creek Watershed Management Plan. This Plan will
describe existing problems and possibe solutions. No projects are
being considered under the Neighborhood Site Improvements Program
pending release of the long-term plan.
Green Belt:
At the neighborhood meeting, residents discussed and supported a
green belt along Ralston Creek. It was felt that a green belt would
provide a unique City amenity, and that it should include a bike path
and walkway. The green belt would also encourage residents to care
for their creek front property.
A green belt along Ralston Creek is one of the long-range goals of
the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan; however, this will not be
accomplished for many years in the future. Land acquisition and open
space easements are difficult and costly to implement, and these
actions are outside the scope of the Neighborhood Site Improvements
Program. In addition, a green belt requires unanimous participation
by creekfront owners so that a continuous stretch of land is
available for public use.
Neighborhood residents wishing to hasten development of a linear
greenway along Ralston Creek would best be advised to organize a
neighborhood action. Neighbors, as a group, could dedicate
creekfront property to the City for a walkway, thus setting in motion
the Ralston Creek green belt. (Note: The Ralston Creek Coordinating
Committee is an already organized group, interested in Ralston Creek
issues.)
MICROFILMED Be
JORM MICROLAB
tnt:, PAPc,s.A ..c..'.
2. Hickory Hill Park Expansion:
Many residents value Hickory Hill Park and would like to see it
expanded when the opportunity arises. As land acquisition is
extremely expensive and complicated, it falls beyond the scope of the
Neighborhood Site Improvements Project. This citizen interest will
be passed along to the City Council for future reference. The Iowa
City Comprehensive Plan does indicate that an addition to Hickory
Hill Park will be desirable to adequately meet future recreation
needs if population growth continues as projected.
3. Traffic Patterns Truck Routing Parking Problems:
These issues involve complex planning problems for which successful
solutions are not readily apparent. The concerns have been referred
to the Department of Planning and Program Development for
consideration in finding solutions through the City's Comprehensive
Plan (area studies). The staff will also refer your concerns to the
City Council and appropriate City commissions.
Street Lighting:
Several residents requested increased street lighting for night time
safety. Only a small percentage of the street lights are run by the
City, most of which are located in the downtown area. The majority
of the lights are installed and operated and maintained by Iowa -
Illinois Gas and Electric Company at an annual cost to the City of
about $50 per light. This creates a long-term obligation to the
City. The Neighborhood Site Improvements Program provides capital
improvements with one time cost. Residents should direct inquiries
to the Department of Public Works.
5, Garbage Pickup:
This past winter, garbage pickup in alleys was discontinued because
of snow removal problems. This provided workload data to prove that
garbage pickup can be more efficiently carried out using only street
pickup -- 15% of time is saved. Alleys will not deteriorate as
quickly if heavy garbage trucks remain on streets. Therefore, the
policy is to continue the street pickup program.
Some residents were concerned that garbage pickup might be reduced to
twice monthly. At this time the City has no plans to make this
change.
6. Animal Control:
Iowa City has a dog ordinance which is enforced by the City Animal
Shelter. Dogs picked up cannot be reclaimed without owners paying a
$35 fee. Citizens are encouraged to call the animal shelter if stray
dogs are a problem.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
IPAP. RAPI;,�01 •lolnts
7. Property Maintenance:
i
Other concerns voiced by neighborhood residents can be handled by
contacting the appropriate City staff. The following departments
handle these specific problems:
Junk cars -- Police Department.
Junk on residential property -- Housing & Inspection Services.
Overgrown bushes or trees in a public right-of-way -- City Forester.
Garbage, refuse -- Johnson County Health Department and Iowa City
Department of Public Works.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CCOAil RAP17S.!)f 'g1lq�y,
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOIIIES
HIGHLAND AREA
HOUSEHOLDS � I,q'il
MEAN INCOME � ;8,018
HOUSEHOLDS BELOW POVERTY LEVEL � 5%
OWNER OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS � 58%
PERSONS AGE 6S AND OVER � 4%
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
annR RAPIDS -ors nouirs
TOPIC 1
ALLEY REPAIR
At both neighborhood meetings, residents expressed much concern
about the condition of the alleys. Heavy traffic and a hard winter
have caused large potholes in many alleys. This alternative proposes
grading and graveling of all alleys which need repairs in the
Highland neighborhood.
CITIZEN COMMENTS:
1. Many residents already maintain their alley pretty well and
this program should only do those alleys which need to be done.
2. Prefer that remaining money be put toward repair of potholes on
Summit Street bridge... that area receives far more traffic than
any alley.
3. The alley one-half block east of Summit that runs from Kirkwood
to Walnut does not need any repairs or gravel... on this
particular alley,hands off" please.
4.. There are no alleys in my immediate area.
5.: Alleys should be graveled o
all alleys is wasteful. n a case-by-case basis. Graveling
STAFF COMMENTS:
(Craig Minter) I would recommend graveling all alleys if possible.
If gravel. is purchased with Neighborhood Site Improvement funds,.the
City crew will scrape and grade as part of the program,. Graveling
adequately controls potholes where there is normal traffic, i.e. no
large trucks.
SURVEY RESULTS:
(From meeting and returns by mail)
5% Suggested graveling only the one alley which had been named.
70% Suggested that all alleys which needed repairs be gravelled
(with the exception of the alley named above).
4% Suggested graveling only those alleys named (however, none were
named).
21% Suggested that no alley repairs be made at all.
COST:
The highest percentage group of voters favor the option to fund
grading and rocking of all non -paved alleys which need repair. The
total estimated cost is $10,000.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDs•DF.s 11011jEs
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that all non -paved alleys which are in need of
repair be graded, scraped and rocked with the exception of the alley
between Kirkwood and Walnut and one-half block west of Summit.
i
i
I
i
i
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES HOMES
TOPIC 2
CURB AND PARKWAY REPAIR
At the first meeting residents brought up a concern about the
condition of the curb and parkway along Kirkwood Avenue. The curb
along this street is sagging and broken in many locations. The
parkway has been victimized by the use of salt on the roads during
the winter, which has been pushed along with the snow onto the
parkway and soaked into the ground. This situation has made it very
difficult to grow grass in the two feet of parkway next to the curb.
In addition to this problem, the parkway has also been damaged in
many locations by the replacement or repair of utility lines.
Another problem along the same line which was brought up at the first
meeting was the condition of Highland Avenue. This avenue is
scheduled for some street repairs as part of this year's City capital
improvement program and improvements are expected to be implemented
this summer. These improvements will be aimed at repairing some of
the deeper dips along Highland Avenue.
This project will be broken into two parts. First, funds would be
provided to repair the curb and gutter and parkway on Kirkwood
Avenue. Second, a sum of money would be allocated toward more
comprehensive repairs of Highland Avenue.
CITIZEN COMMENTS FROM MEETING:
1. Gas lines were installed last and that is what ruined much of
the parkway. The gas company should be forced to do these
repairs.
2. If they are going to continue to use salt on the roads during
the winter, it is probably a waste of time to replace the soil
in the parkway. (This would have to be done anyway to replace
the curb.)
3. The alternatives to repair curb and gutter and do repairs on
Highland should read "as needed."
4. City snow plows were partially responsible for the current curb
condition.
5. I live on the corner of Highland and Lukirk and part of the
grass in my yard was ruined by the salt.
6. Residents along these streets can take care of their own section
of parkway. This problem will happen every winter, you just
cannot expect the City to do the parkway digging every year with
or without funding.
7. We would also like to see Kirkwood and Highland Avenues be made
one way.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES tI01MEs
B. If we want to repair curb and gutter on major streets, let's use
road use tax. Do not use Neighborhood Site Improvement funds
for improvements to major streets!
9. Keokuk Street curb is also in bad repair.
STAFF COMMENTS:
(Craig Minter) Repair of the curb and gutters along "main drag"
areas, such as Kirkwood and Highland Avenues will provide the
greatest benefit to all residents of the area.
(Dick Plastino) Curb and gutter repair is considered a low priority
item in budgeting for City-wide street repairs, so it probably will
not be done for many years unless under a program such as the
Neighborhood Site Improvement.
SURVEY RESULTS:
27% Want to repair those sections of curb and gutter which need it
along Kirkwood Avenue.
7% Want to do needed repairs to Highland Avenue.
47% Are in favor of doing both Highland and Kirkwood Avenues.
11% Do not want any curb and gutter replaced under this program.
COST:
The highest percentage group of voters.favor the option to do both
Kirkwood and Highland -Avenues. These projects would have an
estimated cost of $40,000.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The curb :and gutter along Kirkwood Avenue is lin. extremely. poor
condition, and in fact does not even exist in many locations. Also,
the City is planning to do some work on Highland Avenue, however,
additional funding. would allow them to make more comprehensive
repairs. Because of these facts, the staff recommends that repairs
be carried out along both Kirkwood and Highland Avenues and that
iNeighborhood Site Improvement funds be used for these repairs.
i'
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
.-r
TOPIC 3
IMPROVED RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES
Strong interest was expressed by residents in improving recreational
of
discussedswere ttheHdevelopmentaof ah mini pakointTwain
majortwo on the snSchool
Property, and the installation of some new playground equipment at
Oak Grove Park.
The mini -park would involve setting up a committee with
representatives from the Twain School administration, PTA,
Developments rThis encommitt a ts, and hwould abeein chargent of of developing and aa
proposal to present to the School Board.
The new ark
azebo
shelter andiammulti-usepwould
piece of woodenplayground equip entg(tree
house, climbs, slides, etc.).
CITIZEN COMMENTS FROM MEETING:
1. Is there any curfew in the Iowa City parks? (Only in major
parks.)
e should be no
2. asifar as the Twain Scschool islconcerned. ITamrvery excited about the
idea.
3. An excellent idea!
4. We feel that both benefit the entire of these proposals are excellent and would
STAFF COMMENTS:
h
ed
(Dennis Showalter) There isn theneighborhood. Be ause of t
thisit
in this (Twain School) part
o
is "a ,good idea to put a mini -park here. Oak Grove Park could use
additional 'equipment such as a small gazebo and a new piece of
playground equipment.
SURVEY RESULTS:
(From meeting and returns by mail)
21% Are in favor of developing a mini -park on the Twain School prop"
erty.
6% Want to install new equipment in Oak Grove Park..
73% Want to do both projects.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIB.DF.S 11011IEs
.-r
COST:
The alternative chosen by the most residents is to do both projects.
The mini -park will contain picnic facilities, and some wooden
playground equipment. Additional equipment in Oak Grove Park would
include a piece of multi -use wooden playground equipment and a small
- 'shelter. Both of these projects can be completed for $10,000.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The completion of both of these projects will prove beneficial to the
entire neighborhood. The Department of Planning and Program
Development and Parks and Recreation recommend the implementation of
both proposals. -
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES 110111ES
TOPIC 4
PEDESTRIAN CROSSING
Another area of concern mentioned at the residents meeting was a
pedestrian crossing at the intersection of Highway 6 and Keokuk
Street. In order to totally improve this crossing it would need
sidewalk repair, painting of a pedestrian crossing, and installation
of a pedestrian cycle in the traffic cycle.
CITIZEN COMMENTS FROM MEETING:
1. Many residents felt that a lot of children crossed over here to
go to K -Mart, and also that many adults crossed to catch the
bus. For this reason they felt that the amount of pedestrians
justified a pedestrian cycle. They also felt that more people
would cross if they felt they could get across.
2: With HyVee going in south of Highway 6, more residents will be
wanting to cross.
3. Ideally there should be a pedestrian bridge put up over Highway
6. This should be investigated by the City along with the Iowa
Department of Transportation.
4. Many residents felt that a crossing should be installed at.the
intersection of Highway 6 and Sycamore (because of this
discussion, another alternative was added concerning this).
STAFF COMMENTS:
(Jim Brachtel) The amount of pedestrian traffic crossing at this
intersection probably does not justify changing the signal timing
(which is what a pedestrian cycle would do).
(Planning Staff) Even if residents vote for the complete pedestrian
crossing and the Council approves it, we cannot guarantee it will be
done. Traffic counts and pedestrian counts are necessary, and
approval from the Iowa Department of Transportation will be
necessary.
SURVEY RESULTS":
29% Wanted to install all items listed above to make a complete
improvement.
48% Suggested only doing the sidewalk repair and painting a
pedestrian crosswalk.
5% Did not want to improve any crosswalk.
18% Wanted to improve both the crosswalk at Keokuk and the crosswalk
at Sycamore.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
crone RAPIDS -0[s SIOIIlcs
*Since the last alternative was added during the second neighborhood
meeting it was not included in the household survey.
COST:
The alternative which received the most votes included sidewalk
repair and painting of pedestrian crosswalk. This project would only
cost $400. However, since the votes at the meeting were divided up,
special considerations must be made. Therefore, we should also keep
in mind the cost of all items. That cost is $2,400. If both Sycamore
and Keokuk were done it would be $4,800.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Due to those special considerations named before, the Department of
Planning and Program Development recommends that studies be carried
out on these two crossings. If it is justified, complete pedestrian
crosswalks should be installed. If not, the sidewalk repair and
painting of, the crosswalk will be done at a minimum. Possibly it
would be feasible to put a full pedestrian crosswalk at one location,
while merely improving the physical aspects of the crosswalk at the
other.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES I401fIEs
TOPIC 5
RAILROAD BRIDGE SCREENING
At the meeting held with residents, concern was expressed for the
safety of children crossing over the Dodge Street railroad bridge.
The bridge currently has guardrails 42" in height. The construction
of protective screening similar to that used on Summit Street was
suggested.
CITIZEN COMMENTS FROM MEETING:
1. The existing railing is not safe for children, and in the future
the Engineer should specify another type of railing for bridges
in Iowa City.
2. The railing on the Summit Street bridge is "ugly as hell".
3. A chainlink fence 4 feet high would provide enough added protec-
tion.
- 4. Please do not do this!
STAFF COMMENTS:
(Dick Plastino) The screening on the Summit Street bridge was
installed due to the poor condition of the guardrails. This is not a
problem on the Dodge Street bridge.
(Craig Minter) The screening on the Summit Street bridge creates a
problem for snow removal since the snow will not push through it.
SURVEY RESULTS:
i
35% Were in favor of purchasing and installing protective screening
along both sides of the Dodge Street railroad bridge.
65% Did not want a proposal for construction of protective
screening.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Since a majority of the residents do not want this project to take
place, and there is a standard railing on the bridge; the Planning
staff recommends that the Dodge Street railroad bridge be left as it
currently exists.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES 1101rJES
TOPIC 6
DIVISION OF COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL AREAS
During the residents meeting it was pointed out that openings exist
in the fence line between the commercial area along Highland Court
and the residential area to the east. A comprehensive project to
improve this situation would include enforcement of the fence
ordinance where possible, and installation of a chainlink fence and
plantings for the remaining open areas.
CITIZEN COMMENTS FROM MEETING:
I. Several residents felt that if the fence ordinance could handle
this problem, why should Neighborhood Site Improvement monies
be used.
2. Would this project include the railroad tracks? (No.)
3. No matter how this problem is handled, the fence ordinance
should first be enforced.
4. Enforcement of the fence ordinance should be added to "do not
install barriers . . .".
5. We believe that the property owners can put up their own
chainlink fence and plantings to screen out the .commercial
buildings, etc., I know we did.
SURVEY RESULTS:
22% Wanted to install chainlink fence and plantings in open areas
between the residential and commercial neighborhood. .
51% .Wanted only to put in plantings, thereby improving aesthetic
appearances.
27% Do not want to install any barriers between the residential and
i commercial properties but instead, want to rely on the fencing
ordinance.
COST:
The most popular alternative overall was to only put in plantings.
This alternative would cost about $2,000.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Although the residents overall voted for the plantings, at the second
meeting there was much discussion of how much the fence ordinance
could accomplish. The Planning staff therefore recommends that the
fence ordinance be used to as great degree as possible first. If
more protection is needed, then plantings can be put in.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES Ito IrICS
TOPIC 7
PROJECT PRIORITIES
The priorities chosen as the second neighborhood
meeting (with 17
residents in attendance) differed from those expressed in the return
i questionnaire (with 31 filling out the priority listing). Because of
this, the priorities of each group are listed separately below, along
with a staff recommendation.
i
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING:
1. Improve Recreational Opportunities.
$10,000
2. Pedestrian Crossing•
$ 4,800
3. Curb and Parkway Repair.
$20,000
4. Division of Commercial and Residential Areas.
--
5. Alley Repair.
$10,000
6. Railroad Screening. t
$ 2,000
. TOTAL
$46,800
E NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY:
i
1. Improved Recreational Opportunities.
i
$10,000
2. Pedestrian Crossing.
$ 400
3. Curb and Parkway Repair.
$40,000
{ 4. Alley Repair.
j
$10,000
5. Railroad Screening.
--
6. Division of Commercial and Residential Areas.
i
$ 2,000
TOTAL
$62,400
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
1. Improve Recreational Opportunities.
$10,000
2. Pedestrian Crossing.
$ 2,800
3. Curb and Parkway Repair.
$40,000
4. Alley Repair.
;10,000
MICROFILMED BV
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES I401HES
5. Division of Commercial and Residential Areas. $ 2,000
6. Railroad Screening. --
TOTAL $64,800
The recommended budget leaves a surplus of $10,200. The Highland
Neighborhood Site Improvement allocation is $75,000.
Staff recommends that the additional $10,200 be used to do a more
comprehensive curb program on Kirkwood Avenue.
RECOMMENDED PROJECT: $64,800
SUPPLEMENTAL PROJECT: $10,200
TOTAL PROJECT COST: $75,000
i
r
j,
j
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOINES
TOPIC 8
OTHER CONCERNS
1. Street Liahtin
Several residents requested increased street lighting for nighttime
safety. Only a small percentage of the street lights are operated by the
City, most of which are located in the downtown area. The majority of
lights are installed, operated, and maintained by Iowa -Illinois Gas and
Electric Co. at an annual cost to the City of about $50 per light. This
creates a long-term obligation to the City. The Neighborhood Site
Improvement Program provides capital improvements with one time cost.
Residents should direct inquiries regarding increased lighting to
Department of Public Works.
2. Property Maintenance:
j Property maintenance concerns voiced by neighborhood residents can be
handled by contacting the appropriate City staff. The following depart-
ments handle specific problems:
junk cars -- Police Department
junk on residential property -- Dept. of Housing & Inspection Services
overgrown buses or trees in the public right-of-way -- City Forester
garbage and refuse -- Johnson County Health Department and Iowa City De-
partment of public Works
Department of Housing and Inspection Services will do a spot check of
property maintenance in your neighborhood during the month of June. If you
have any specific locations which you feel should be checked, please list
them below:
' 3. Animal Control:
Iowa City has a dog ordinance which is enforced by the City Animal Shelter.
Dogs picked up cannot be reclaimed without owners paying a $ l0'fee.
Citizens are encouraged to call the Animal Shelter if stray dogs are a
problem.
.4. Garbage Pick Up:
This past winter, garbage pick up in alleys was discontinued because of
snow removal problems. This provided workload data to prove that garbage
pick up can be more efficiently carried out using only street pick up (15%
of time is saved). Alleys will not deteriorate as quickly if heavy garbage
trucks remain on the streets. Therefore the policy is to continue the
street pick up program.
Some residents were concerned that garbage pick up might be reduced to
twice monthly. At this time the City has no plans to make this change.
5. Street Cleaning:
The Department of Public Works has been cleaning streets for approximately
six weeks. They will clean every street in the City and are working ac -
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DEs MOIREs
cording to a specific schedule. There has been an increased amount of dust
and dirt on the streets due to the use of sand this past winter.
6. Tree Planting and Removal:
The City Forester, Billie Hauber, is responsible for tree planting and
removal on City properties. If you have any questions, requests, or pro-
posals for parkway tree planting, removals, or tree ordinances, please feel
free to contact her. Also, please see the attached information about the
currently available tree planting program.
7. Stop Signs:
Many City residents have recommended the installation of stop signs for the
purpose of slowing down traffic. The Department of Public Works recommends
against this policy. Research shows that when unnecessary stop signs are
placed in residential neighborhoods, 'many vehicles do not come to a com-
plete stop and therefore pedestrians are given a false sense of security.
This creates a dangerous situation. If you feel a stop sign is needed in
your neighborhood, to control traffic at an intersection rather than traf-
fic speed, please contact Jim Brachtel, the City Traffic Engineer.
6. Parking:
For those residents who requested one side of the street parking, during
our neighborhood meeting, you are in luck. Many of the streets in the
Highland Neighborhood have already been slated for this type of parking
regulation this year. In order to find out if your street will be changed,
contact Jim Brachtel, the City Traffic Engineer. If your street is not one
of those slated for one side parking, Mr. Brachtel will help you with your
request. He will take a postcard survey of residents in your area, to
determine if the demand is high enough to warrant the change.
9. Railroad Property at Dodge and Page:
The Department of Public Works is aware of the problem in this area. They
have made numerous attempts to contact the railroad and remedy the situa-
tion. Because of your requests, the railroad will be contacted once again,
asking them to remove the overgrown brush and concrete blocks in that area.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPT DS.DLS 110IMLS
COMMENTS FROM SURVEYS
We feel that both of these proposals are excellent and would benefit
the entire neighborhood. (Improved Recreational Opportunities)
Can anything be done about the Summit Street Bridge? The pavement
is filled with potholes (which are continually fixed but only work
temporarily) and the bridge shakes whenever a car goes over it.
We believe the fencing proposal would benefit only a few property
owners in the neighborhood rather
fencing shouldan ce the be providedby
neighborhood environment. ownersus,
the individual property arkin on one
live. on Broadway Street.
I I am very pleased that p 9
side of the street is being Put in. I would hope that Broadway is
one of those streets. Improve the
Added recommendation: end 5ebumps, the( ; Improve the uneven
nd to (1) P
Highland Avenue dips
intersections of Kirkwood and Summit Streets and Sycamore Street
and Mall Shopping Center west entrance.,
for
' Many thanks to all of you on the new signsgns for street corners, play
grounds, and for the, new garbage cans p in the playgrounds.
I will be out of town at time of meeting. But residents do care and
are, oin to be heard. the City
In regards to the railroad property at Dodge anddo
Page,
should sue the railrone and enforce
ad or do as Cedar Rapids has Their tracks are
unsafe ce against
thtantlir raderaiffic �ntil they !comply.
their
Force Iowa -Illinois Ga
Belt Telephone tos cleaneup theirctric omess intthe goo block. Also
fo
tough. airs
Why didn't you force the asphalt contractor to make these
r care.
when they tore it up. We complained then and the City
(curb and gutter along Kirkwood Avenue). but I believe some
There may not be many people crossing Highway
of the drivers on the highway act like they would love to run over
someone or scare them to death. It is very dangerous to walk across
that intersection,
We believe that the property owners can put up their own ch einI
fence and plantings to screen out the commercial building
s,tc
know we did. potholes on
Prefer that remaining money be put towards repair of p
Summit Street bridge. That area receives far more traffic thin any
alley.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES Mo LIES
An excellent idea! (Improved Recreational Opportunities)
Great! We walk here often with our child and as of now the speed of
light change doesn't permit us to cross in one change. (Pedestrian
Crossing Highway 6 and Keokuk Street)
Adds to children's safety for those using Oak Grove Park. (Railroad
Bridge Screening)
Sidewalk needed on Highland between Sycamore and Spruce.
Due to the increased number of joggers of all ages in this area, it
would be a good recreational facility to make a one-fourth mile
track at Mark Twain. South East Junior High has no track and so
that school could make use of it as well.
Street lighting is very important, suggest a staff study for a long
term improvement project.
The curbing and parkway on Kirkwood is in a terrible condition. A
few years ago the telephone company buried a cable and it was a long
time before parkway was leveled and seeded. The company finally did
a good job. Last year the gas company put in a new gas main. The
trench wasn't filled in time and there was a mudhole in which a
tractor was stuck. The trench was never leveled. Late this winter
the Coralville Excavating Company dug a trench for a telephone
repair. Two crosswalks on the south side of Kirkwood were broken by
' the backhoe or a heavy tractor. They have not been repaired. Just
in the last few days the parkway was finally leveled and seeded. I
try to keep my yard looking half decent but the parkway has been in
terrible shape for the last four or five years. I know the parkway
is City property but I have to keep it mowed and cleaned. I don't
know about easements or franchises but the utility companies should
be required to repair any damage they make. Thanks for getting
something started.
This will be a big help to bicyclists as well. Right now, to ride a
bicycle down Kirkwood is to take one's life in one's hands. Any
chance of a bike lane? (Curbing and Parkway Repair)
While contacting the railroad, you might mention that the tracks
down Maiden Lane are in atrocious condition.
Sidewalk repairs have not been mentioned except in the cover letter.
My sidewalk is beyond repair and needs replacement. I am not aware
of the need for replacement of other sidewalks, but I would
appreciate your consideration of this need. (Marcy Street)
We would also like to see consideration given to making Kirkwood
Avenue and Highland Avenue one-way.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOIDrS
Install a street light at Highland and Gilbert Streets.
I would like to have a "slow"
Street. sign in alley at Euclid and Ridge
Curbing wascut up when gas line was installed along 900 block of
Roosevelt.
If safety is a problem, narrow Dodge Street to two lanes.
Street curb is also in bad repair. Keokuk
i
Several spots along Keokuk Street need repair.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES nOLucs
MINUTES
NEIGHBORHOOD SITE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PRIORITY MEETING
TWAIN SCHOOL
MAY 16, 1979 7:30 P.M.
HIGHLAND NEIGHBORHOOD
CITIZENS PRESENT: Tas Anthony, Rick Hollis, John Dyson, Marilee
Dyson, Ray Lewis, Rose Spaulding, Mrs. Paul Holland, Mrs. Mary
Donohoe, Dick Hovet, Keith Hora, Janet Driscoll, Dorothy Armens,
Teresa Finley, Elaine Shepherd, Helen Schneider, John Weede, and
Mary Masher.
STAFF PRESENT: Bruce A. Knight, Planner/Program Analyst, Pat
Keller, Planner/Program Analyst, and Julie Vann, Community
Development Block Grant Coordinator.
Bruce Knight explained that the Neighborhood Site Improvement
Program was designed to assist in upgrading neighborhoods by
providing funds for the repair of public facilities which are
growing old. Mr. Knight then explained that at the first meeting he
received ideas for various projects and since that. time, more
information had been gathered and various alternatives developed
for each topic. These had then been sent out in the household
surveys.
Mr. Knight then reviewed the process being used to complete this
project. The first step was the input meeting at which time ideas
were gathered, the second was to further refine that information,
the third was to hold the priority meeting at which time the
alternatives laid out would be chosen, the fourth step was review by
the Committee on Community Needs, and the fifth step was the City
Council meeting at which time a final decision would be made on
which projects would be implemented.
Mr. Knight pointed out that the purpose of this meeting was (1) to
pick which alternatives the residents would like to see done on each
topic, and (2)• to prioritize the topics so that if all of them could
not be done, those which the residents felt were most important
would be done first. The Highland Neighborhood has been budgeted
for $75,000.
TOPIC 1: ALLEY REPAIR
At the first meeting, a comment was made that the alley between
Kirkwood Avenue and Walnut Street off of Dodge Street was in very
bad shape. Due to this comment, a variety of alternatives were
developed from repairing only that alley, to doing all alleys in the
area. It was brought up that many residents already maintain their
alleys pretty well and that this program should only do those which
need to be done. Because of this comment, alternative "D" was
changed to read "buy rock and gravel all alleys which need it . . ."
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES 11011us
Another resident was concerned about whether this project would or
would not be completed. He commented that frequently the Council
promises to do a project and then changes its mind and does it
someplace else. Mr. Knight explained that the money for this
project had already been allocated and that on June 5 the. City
Council would be making a final decision on what projects were done.
In general, most residents favored the idea of a complete program of
gravel repair for those alleys which needed it. It was felt that
this would provide a benefit to more people in the area. The vote
on alley repairs was as follows:
A. Gravel only those alleys listed on the map. 0
The total cost would be $2,000 in NSI funds.
B. Buy rock through the NSI program and make all
needed repairs on gravel alleys in the neighbor-
hood with the City providing the scraping and
grading. Estimated cost is $11,000 (for approxi- 13
mately 12,300 feet of alleyway).
C. Gravel only the following alleys (resident 0
`should list location below):
D.: Do not gravel any alleys as a part of this 1
program.
0
E. 'Other.
TOPIC 2: CURB AND PARKWAY REPAIR
Rose Spaulding of 1407 Plum Street (351-1814) was highly concerned
about the water problem on Keokuk Drive to Highway 6. She explained
that she -felt that the Neighborhood Site Improvement monies was not
being used to solve real problems. Mr. Knight explained that it was
unfortunate, but that there were only limited funds for this program
and that not all problems could be handled. He then promised to try
to find out if there are any plans to do anything about this
particular problem.
Another resident explained that gas lines were installed last
summer and that is what ruined much of the parkway, and that he felt
the gas company should repair the parkway. Mr. Knight explained
that it would be difficult at this point in time to get the gas
company to make repairs, however in the future each resident should
call the Department of Public Works if the gas company does not
repair what they have damaged.
A resident then asked if they were going to continue to use salt on
the roads in the winter. Mr. Knight explained that most likely they
would. The resident then stated that it was probably a waste of
time to replace soil in the parkway if the same thing would happen
again next year. Mr. Knight explained that hopefully the curb would
help protect the
this yearadueato the sevand that the erity extent of the problem
ver ty of he winte
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOIMES
One resident expressed concern that by running the Neighborhood
Site Improvement Program in her neighborhood the City was calling
the area low income and thereby causing devaluation of her property.
Mr. Knight explained that in no way were we calling the area low
income, we were just trying to provide funds to repair various
Public facilities which were becoming rundown and which the normal
City budget could not handle. The Neighborhood Site Improvement
Program should have no reflection on the residents or their
property.
Several residents felt that the alternatives to repair curb and read "as
gutter on both Kirkwood and Highland Avenues should
needed". This change was made and the vote on curb repairs was as
follows:
A. Repair those sections of curb and gutter which need
it along Kirkwood Avenue at an estimated cost
of $20,000 ($15.00 per foot).
9
B. Repair those sections of curb and gutter which need
it along Highland Avenue at an estimated cost
of $20,000 ($15.00 per foot).
1
C. Do both Kirkwood Avenue and Highland Avenue.
5
D. Repair curb and gutter at the following loca-
tions:
0
E. Do not repair any curb and gutter as a part of
this program.
0
TOPIC 3: IMPROVED RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES
The residents of the neighborhood expressed much concern over
whether there was,a curfew on the parks or not. Many residents had
experienced problems with teenagers hanging around the parks late
at night. Mr. Knight promised to investigate this further to
discover what the current rules were and how they could be changed.
A discussion was held on how the school would react to the mini -park
suggestion. Dick Hovet, Twain School principal, was present and
stated that he did not foresee any problems and that he was all for
the mini -park. The vote on the alternatives was as follows:
A. Develop a mini -park on the Twain School property
at an estimated cost of $6,000.
4—
B. Install a small gazebo shelter and a piece of
multi -use wooden playground equipment (tree
house, climber, slide, etc.) in Oak Grove
park at an estimated total cost of $6,500.
1
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAP IDS -DES MOIDEs
C.
a
Do both proposal "A" and proposal "B". 11
Do not install any park equipment as a part of
this program. 0
TOPIC 4: PEDESTRIAN CROSSING
There was a discussion on the amount of pedestrian traffic crossing
the intersection of Highway 6 and Keokuk Street. Many residents
felt that a lot of children crossed to go to K -Mart, as well as many
adults catching the bus. Additionally, it was felt that with HyVee
going in across Highway 6, pedestrian traffic would increase. Also,
the residents felt that more pedestrians would cross at this
intersection if the pedestrian crossing was improved.
The residents also felt that a problem existed at Sycamore and
Highway 6. This is due to children and adults crossing over to the
Mal 1. It was decided that the pedestrian crossing at Sycamore
should. be added as another alternative, and that an additional
alternative to do both the pedestrian crossing at Sycamore and
Keokuk Drive should be added.
Julie Vann, Community Development Block Grant Coordinator, pointed
out that even if residents voted for the complete pedestrian
crossing we could not guarantee that it would be implemented.
Traffic count, pedestrian counts, and Iowa Department - of
Transportation authorization would be required before anything
could be done. This will take a good deal of time and Iowa
Department of Transportation may not approve. The vote on this
topic was as follows:
A. Install all items listed above for a pedestrian
crossing at the intersection of Highway 6 and
Keokuk Street. Total cost will be $2,400. 3
B. Only do the sidewalk repair and painting of the
pedestrian crossing at an estimated cost of
$400. 1
C. Do not change this crossing. 0
D. Improve the pedestrian crossing at Sycamore. 0
E. Do both Sycamore and Keokuk Street at Highway 6. 11
TOPIC 5: RAILROAD BRIDGE SCREENING
A discussion was held on whether this screen was needed, and how it
would look if installed. One resident felt that the existing
railing was not safe for children, and that in the future the
Engineer should specify another type of railing for bridges in Iowa
City. Another resident stated that the railing on the Summit Street
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES 1101NE5
bridge was "ugly as hell". Many of the residents felt a four foot
fence would probably be high enough. The vote on this topic was as
follows:
A. Purchase and install protective screening along
both sides of the Dodge Street bridge. Total cost is estimated at
$2,000. 7
B. Do not submit a proposal for construction of
protective screening at the Dodge Street railroad
bridge. 4
TOPIC 6: DIVISION OF COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL AREAS
Several residents felt that if the fence ordinance could handle this
problem, why should Neighborhood Site Improvement monies be used to
solve it instead. Another resident felt that at a minimum,
plantings should be put in. This would block out some of the noise
as well as provide a visual separation.
One resident wondered if this project would include the railroad
tracks which border the area. Mr. Knight explained that although
that would be nice there just was not enough money budgeted to carry
out such a comprehensive program.
It was generally felt that the ordinance should be enforced first in
any case. Mr. Knight explained arrangements were being made to take
care of that already. It was requested that enforcement of the
fence ordinance be added to alternative "C" -- do not install any
barrier." A vote was taken with results as follows:
A. Install a chain link fence and plantings in
open areas between the residential and com-
mercial neighborhoods. The estimated cost
is $7,000. 6
B. Only install plantings, thereby improving
aesthetic appearance. The estimated cost
is $2,000 2
C. Do not install any barriers between the
residential and commercial properties as
a part of this program, but enforce the
fence ordinance. 7
TOPIC 7: PROJECT PRIORITIES
Due to the nature of the projects which were chosen, it seemed
possible that the Highland Neighborhood budget might be fairly
tight. Because of this, a vote was taken to determine which
projects had the highest priority according to the residents
present.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES 1101NCs
The residents voted on their first, second and third priority with
the results as follows:
1st Priority 2nd Priority 3rd Priority
D O 4 Alley Repair
3
4
2
2
Curbing and Parking Repair
8
2
Improved Recreational
3
Opportunities
1
3
2
Pedestrian Crossing
2
1
3
Railroad Screening
3
1
Division of Commercial
i
and Residential Neighborhoods
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES HOMES
SOUTH CENTRAL AREA PROPOSALS
PREPARED BY PAT KELLER
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
'i DAP 'I:iI:Ir,
SOUTH CENTRAL
MEAN INCOME- $7,706
HOUSEHOLDS BELOW POVERTY LEVEL - b 12
OWNER OCCUPIED UNITS - f57
PERSONS AGE 65 AND OVER - %45
"ICROF IL14ED B,
JORM MICROLAB
TOPIC ONE
PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT
At the previous meetings residents expressed the value of College Hill
Park as a playground for children. Residents expressed a desire to
upgrade existing equipment (repair or replace) and construct a new wooden
jungle gym. By replacing or repairing the old equipment and constructing
new wooden equipment, residents felt that the playground area of College
Hill Park could become a more attractive place for children and adults.
CITIZEN COMMENTS FROM MEETINGS:
1. What kind of equipment is going to be added or replaced at College
Hill Park? (A piece of wooden equipment like the type in City Park
will be purchased and the whirl needs replacement).
2. The basketball nets need replacing. You should buy the kind that are
made from metal and rope. These seem to last"longer.
3. More trees are needed in the park to replace those which were
destroyed last summer. I realize that smaller trees are often
vandalized.
STAFF COMMENTS:
(Dennis Showalter) College Hill Park could use some new equipment, and
some of the existing equipment is in poor shape.
SURVEY RESULTS:
86% - suggested purchasing and replacing equipment.
7% -suggested purchasing just one piece of equipment.
7% - suggested not funding the project.
COST:
Buying one piece of new wooden equipment and replacing and repairing the
whirl, swings, and basketball nets will cost approximately $2,500.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
The staff recommends that a new piece of wooden equipment be purchased and
the older existing equipment be either repaired or replaced.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
TOPIC TWO
SIDEWALK REPAIR
Adequate sidewalks are an important consideration in planning for neigh-
borhood improvements. In addition to being pedestian pathways, sidewalks
provide a place for neighbors to meet and a place for physical recreation
for older residents of the neighborhood. Sidewalk repair was mentioned at
*the first meeting and many residents felt strongly that certain problem
areas should be addressed in this program. At the second South Central
meeting, residents supplied additional problem areas and these have been
included in extra option F.
CITIZEN COMMENTS FROM MEETING:
1. On Dodge Street just south of Burlington there are some low places in
the sidewalk which collect water. (Included in option F).
2. The sidewalk between Lucas and Dodge on Bowery needs repair badly.
(Included in option F).
3• Are sidewalks put in low on purpose; they just seem to collect water.
Is there any reason for this?
4. Sidewalks need repair on Johnson, Dodge, Lucas, and Bowery Streets.
SURVEY (From meeting and returns by mail)
32% - repair sidewalks along north side of Bowery between Gilbert and
Johnson plus the two extra problem areas mentioned above.
20% - repair sidewalks along the north side of Bowery between Gilbert
and Johnson and do as many curb cuts as possible along Burlington.
5% - repair sidewalks along north side of Bowery between Gilbert and
Lucas.
13% - do a comprehensive sidewalk repair program throughout the
neighborhood (Johnson, Dodge, Van Buren, Burlington).
30% - do not repair sidewalks.
COST:
Sidewalk repair work on the problem areas selected by neighborhood
residents will cost approximately $12,000. Repair work includes curb cuts
where damaged sidewalk meets the corners of streets.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends repairing all sidewalk areas suggested by residents.
In many of these problem areas the sidewalk dips below ground level and
MICRDf ILMED 3�
JORM MICROLAB
collects water. Due to the number of elderly residents in this area and
the area's proximity to central city, this project would benefit many
residents.
MICROFILMED By
JORM MICROLAB
�.f ntu un t�i;,s•'u •�.�l a��.
TOPIC THREE
DOG SIGNS
At the previous meetings residents expressed interest in the placement of
signs at the entrances to College Hill Park reminding dog owners of the
City leash and poop -scoop laws. This project would be easy and relatively
inexpensive to implement. Four wooden signs could be constructed and
placed at the entrances to College Hill Park.
CITIZEN COMMENTS FROM MEETING:
I. There are a lot of times when I see dogs running loose in College
Hill Park.
2. I think that there should be a law which won't let any dogs in the
College Hill Park.
3. When the dogs come into the park they bring disease and children
playing in the park are susceptible to this.
4. Poop -scoop and leash laws for dogs should be enforced in College Hill
Park, or at least could we get signs made up to remind people about
it.
SURVEY RESULTS:
37% - favored the placement of four signs at entrances to park.
37% - favored the placement of one sign in the center of College Hill
Park.
25% - favored no sign(s) be placed.
COST:
Since the majority of residents favored the placement of either one or no
signs, cost was determined for the placement of one sign in the center of
the park. Estimated cost of the placement of one sign is approximately
$100.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Due to the amount of citizen concern for this project staff recommends
that one sign be placed in the middle of the park. It must be noted that
the placement of a sign does not constitute physical enforcement but
rather a conscientious reminder to dog owners.
MICROF ILI4ED BY
JORM MICROLAB
TOPIC FOUR
RAILROAD SCREENING
At the meetings held with residents, concern was expressed for the safety
of children crossing the Dodge Street bridge over the railroad tracks.
The bridge currently had guardrails 42 inches in height.
the Summit
of protective screening similar to the typeu
Street
bridge was suggested.
CITIZEN COMMENTS FROM MEETING
1. There needs to be protective screening at Dodge Street where it
crosses the railroad track. The bridge isn't safe for children to
cross. .
2. I've seen children playing on that bridge.
3. A lot of children cross the Dodge Street bridge to go to Oakgrove
Park.
4 The sidewalks are too close to the street on
hDodge
walk across the bridge cars go sp ed ngright ysbridge.
me. When
5. The screening at the Summit Street bridge looks bad. If we put up
screening, could it be lower?
' STAFF COMMENTS:
(Dick Plastino) Screening on the Summit Street bridge was installed due
to the poor condition of the bridge.
I
` (Craig Minter) The screening on the Summit Street bridge creates a
l problem for snow removal because the snow piles up against the screening.
Ij SURVEY RESULTS:
5% - favored the placement of protective screening.
52% - favored the placement of protective screening with the Highland
area sharing the cost.
43% - suggested nothing be done.
COST:
The cost for implementing the screening project on the Dodge Street bridge
will cost approximately $1,000.
Fn CRJFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
The staff recommends that screening along the Dodge Street bridge should
be placed if a safety or hazard problem truly exists. The Dodge Street
bridge is a newly constructed bridge with protective guardrail along
either side raised to three feet. It is the feeling of the staff that a
safety problem does not exist at this bridge.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
JDAu s
TOPIC FIVE
ALLEY REPAIRS
Neighborhood residents have expressed much concern about the condition of
the alleys both at neighborhood meetings and through individual contact
with City staff. In some cases, gravel washes from alleys causing ruts,
while in other locations potholes and dips create problems in using the
alleys. Residents also suggested improving two of the alleys by paving
them.
CITIZEN COMMENTS FROM MEETING:
1. Gravel won't last long enough on our alley because of the number of
apartments and businesses which use it. Our alley needs to be paved.
2. It is the City's responsibility to take care of the alleys, and I
would like to see the City do it.
3. Some of the alleys need fill as well as gravel. I would like to see
everyone benefit, not just a few alleys that would be paved.
4. Our alleys are in bad shape and need some gravel.
5. Our alley between Johnson and Dodge south of Bowery needs paving
because we get too much traffic from the apartment building.
6. Our alley between Gilbert and Van Buren needs paving. We get a lot
of dust and dirt from the businesses, apartments and Senior Center
located near us.
STAFF COMMENTS:
(Dick Plastino) If money is going to be spent paving alleys, I would
prefer concrete.
(Craig Minter) I would try to encourage residents to rock and grade all
non -paved alleys because the City is currently engaged in a program which
will provide scraping and grading if the residents purchase the gravel.
SURVEY RESULTS:
50% - suggested rocking and grading alleys.
0% - suggested rocking all alleys with the exception of their alley.
41% - suggested no improvements be done.
9% - suggested hard surfacing the two requested alleys.
0% - suggested paving the requested alleys and rocking the rest of
the alleys.
MICROFILMED By
JORM MICROLAB
,JJ)AP ;,�,:�s•;i .,��i•n.
COST:
The highest percentage group of voters favored the option to fund the
grading and gravelling of all non -paved alleys. The estimated cost for
this project is $9,500.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that all non -paved alleys be graded, scraped and rocked.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
C1 DAP RAPIDS•UE+014(5
TOPIC SIX
PROJECT PRIORITIES
Priorities decided at the neighborhood meeting and from the surveys were
tallied to evaluate which projects the residents felt were most important.
Projects are listed below in order of importance with one being the most
important and five being the least important.
MEETING AND SURVEY PRIORITIES:
1.
Playground equipment
-2,500
2.
Sidewalk repair -
12,000
$ 9,500
3.
Alley repair -
$ 1,000
4.
Railroad screening -
5.
Other concerns -
$ 0
6.
Dog signs -
$ 100
TOTAL
$25,100
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Playground equipment - $ 2,500
Sidewalk repair - $20,000
Alley repair - $ 9,500
Other concerns - $ 0
Dog signs - $ 100
TOTAL 32,100
Since the South Central Area had project priorities which when totalled
equalled less than their allocated $48,500 staff recommended boosting the
sidewalk repair program to a more comprehensive level.
The staff does not feel that paving alleys is a project which benefits a
large percentage of residents in an area. Since, however, some alleys are
more heavily travelled due to the location of apartments or businesses
along them, staff recommends that $16,000 be set aside as matching funds
($8,000 per alley) for residents of the two problem alleys to use, if
they can raise the supplemental financing to pave their alleys.
I1ICROEILMEO 91'
JORM MICROLAB
TOPIC 7
OTHER CONCERNS
The Neighborhood Site Improvement meeting generated a considerable
amount of input and discussion from those residents in attendance.
Though many of the suggestions for improvements did not easily fall
within the scope and purpose of this program, all of the
neighborhood concerns have been earnestly considered and channeled
to appropriate programs and departments. The following summary
covers frequently mentioned items of discussion which were not
included in a project proposal. It further explains the decisions
made about each suggestion and how the City staff is responding to
your concerns.
1. Animal Control -- There has been an increased effort by the
City staff to provide improved animal control. If any of you
are still experiencing problems, please call the Animal
Shelter to tell them your specific complaint, 354-1800, ext.
261.
2. Street Cleaning -- The Department of Public Works has been
cleaning streets for approximately six weeks. They will clean
every street in the City and are working according to a
specific schedule. There has been an increased amount of dust
and dirt in the streets due to the use of sand this past
winter.
` 3. Tree Planting and Removal -- Tree planting and removal is
` handled by the City Forester, Billie Hauber. If you have any
questions, requests, or proposals for tree plantings,
removals, or tree ordinances, please feel free to contact her.
A Also please see the attached information about tree planting
programs.
4. Trash -- During the past winter the City suspended trash
removal in most alleys, consequently trash accumulated in
various alleys throughout the City. Emergency trash pickup
for the leftover garbage can be obtained by contacting Don
Stoddard of the Sanitation Department. The Sanitation
Department is currently making emergency trash pickups to
alleviate this problem.
Streets -- The City is currently in the process of changing the
parking regulations for many of the streets in the South
Central Neighborhood to one-sided parking. This will remedy
the crowded street and parking problem the neighborhood is
experiencing.
Lighting -- Street lighting is considered a long-range
project. Downtown lights are owned by Iowa -Illinois Gas &
Electric, power and light are rented to the City fora fee of
$50 per year. Inquiries to obtain lighting should be directed
to the Department of Public Works.
MICROFILMED P
JORM MICROLAB
7. Crosswalks -- The placement of crosswalks on streets is
handled by the Department Public Works. The Public Works
Department views crosswalks as more of a danger than an aid to
pedestrians because few motorists understand their driving
responsibility at crosswalks.
8. Exterior Building Maintenance -- All exterior building
maintenance violations such as trash on parking, rubbish or
junk in yards, should be reported to the Housing Inspection
Services located at the Civic Center.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
..FUAP 4APIDt•a! ,, 1.1!
MINUTES
NEIGHBORHOOD SITE IMPROVEMENT
PRIORITY MEETING
SABIN SCHOOL
MAY 17, 1979 7:30 P.M.
SOUTH CENTRAL NEIGHBORHOOD
ATTENDANCE: 6 neighborhood residents; Jim Hall, CCN
STAFF: Pat Keller, Bruce Knight, Planner/Program Analysts
Pat Keller explained the Site Improvement Program was intended to upgrade
neighborhoods by providing funds for repair of sidewalks and alleys, tree
planting and general public improvements which will enhance the entire
neighborhood environment. Approximately $48,500 was allocated to the
South Central Area for this purpose. In addition, it was explained that
before proposals for improvements were submitted to the City Council for
their final decision, the staff wanted to know how neighborhood residents
prefer their projects to be implemented and also which projects they
thought most important from those that they suggested. Each topic was
discussed before residents voted upon implementation alternatives.
Subsequently, each project was prioritized in order of importance,
further suggestions were taken for possible projects in the future and any
changes in projects which residents would like to make.
TOPIC ONE: PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT
At the previous meeting residents of the South Central Area expressed
interest in improving or upgrading existing playground equipment and
purchasing a new piece of wooden playground equipment in College Hill
Park. All residents present at both meetings felt that something should
be done to improve or upgrade the park. Residents' primary concern was
what type of equipment would be repaired or purchased. The vote on this
topic was:
A. Purchase and upgrade equipment - 6
B. Purchase just one new piece of equipment - 0
C. Do not improve College Hill Park - 0
TOPIC TWO: SIDEWALK REPAIR
At the previous meeting and through personal correspondence residents of
the South Central Neighborhood suggested areas where they felt sidewalk
repair was needed. This project is a major concern of most residents
especially since the neighborhood had a large percentage of elderly
residents. At the priority meeting residents suggested further areas
requiring sidewalk repair. Consequently, an additional option was added
which accounted for these extra problem areas. The vote was:
MICROFILMED Bl
JORM MICROLAB
Neighborhood Site Improvement
Priority Meeting
Sabin School
May 17, 1979
Page 2
A. Repair sidewalk on the north side of Bowery between Gilbert and
Johnson - 0
B. Repair sidewalks on the north side of Bowery between Gilbert and
Johnson and do as many curb cuts as possible along Burlington
Street - 0
C. Repair sidewalks on the north side of Bowery between Gilbert and
Lucas - 0
D. Do a comprehensive sidewalk program, repairing Bowery, Johnson,
Van Buren, Dodge and Burlington Streets - 0
E. Do not repair sidewalks - 2
F. Do option A. plus Dodge Street just south of Burlington, and the
sidewalk between Lucas and Dodge on Bowery - 2
TOPIC THREE:DOG SIGNS
At the previous meeting residents expressed interest in the placement of
dog signs at College Hill Park reminding owners the City leash and poop -
scoop laws. Some residents at the priority meeting felt very strongly
about loose dogs running in the park. Most people felt something needed
to be done. The vote was:
A. Place four dog signs at the entrances to College Hill Park - 0
B. Place one sign at the center of the park - 4
C. Do not place sign(s) - 2
TOPIC FOUR: RAILROAD SCREENING
At the meetings held with residents, many people expressed concern over
the safety of the Dodge Street bridge. Many people felt protective
screening should be placed along the edges to protect children from
falling off the bridge. Staff felt that if a safety problem did indeed
exist, something should be done. The vote was:
A. Purchase screening for Dodge Street bridge - 0
B. Share cost of screening with Highland area - 4
C. Do not place screening - 1
IIICROFIL14ED BY
JORM MICROLAB
Neighborhood Site Improvement
Priority Meeting
Sabin School
May 17, 1979
Page 3
TOPIC FIVE: ALLEY REPAIR
Many of the residents
alleys. Potholes expressed concern about
Residents at the ruts, and dust were the the condition
The vote on al h meeting specificallyPrimary Of of of their
y repair was: requested that two residents.
alleys be paved.
a• Rock and grade all non -paved alleys - 1
b. Rock and grade all alleys except mine - 0
C. Do not rock and grade alleys - 0
d• Put hard surface on:
I. Alley between Gilbert and Van Buren
e' Z• Alley between Dodge and Johnson south of Bowery - 3
Put hard surface on requested alleys
plus rock and grade all
other alleys - O
TOPIC SIX: PROJECT PRIORITIES
A review of the
the project majority vote on alternative implementation for
the budget proposals showed that alternatives selected slightly their g allocation of $86,500. The each of
priorities among each of the South Central residents ex eede
Projects as follows:
Priority
d on
No. 1
Sidewalks -
0
Dog signs -
0
Playground equipment - 1
Railroad screening - 1
Alley repairs -
4
Other -
0
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
tus:' nnrin�.•',�i •I �rll
i
I
WASHINGTON STREET
PROGRAM UPDATE
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOVIES
WASHINGTON STREET
PROGRAM UPDATE
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOVIES
i -
WASHINGTON STREET MALL
I
$15,000 was set aside for the Washington Street Mall Project. In this
project three (3) street divider planters were constructed and landscaped
on Washington Street between Dodge and Van Buren Streets. The Washington
Street Tree Planter Project was established as a special program due to the
distinct nature of the project. Since the project was targeted for a
specific location and task, it was felt that the cost for this project
should not have been appropriated from one neighborhood's budget. Con-
sequently a special allocation was established to specifically fund this
project. The Department of Parks and Recreation handled this project which
has just been completed. Costs for this project have fallen well within
the budgeted allocation. Bob Howell, of the Parks and Recreation Department,
is submitting the final figures for the costs involved in this project during
the first week of June. This project was completed in a timely manner
j
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOVIES
TREE PLANTING PROGRAM
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOINES
TREE PLANTING
Since tree planting was such a major concern with all of the areas in
CDBG Program, a special tree plantin
Planting Program is a $15,000 program withethe wexpliciitainthe Tree
the
entTOf planting
trees throughout the CDBG Area. The six CDBG Areas, Longfellow, Northside,
Creekside, Hickory Hill, Highland, South Central, are all involved in the
Tree Planting Program. Billie Hauber, the City Forester, is handling the
Tree Planting Program. Each area was sent a comprehensive mailing to solicit
specific locations where residents felt that they would like a tree planted.
As soon as all requests are received and compiled for each area, the City
Forester will eliminate all the incompatable locations, i.e., width of area
between curb and sidewalk, underground utilities, overhead telephone lines,
etc. Once locations have been selected, trees will be purchased and delivered
to the respective spots. Planting of trees will not be provided in the Tree
Planting Program but the Planning Department is organizing Boy Scouts, Girl
Scouts, and various groups who will be available to assist anyone who needs
help in planting trees. The actual tree planting has been scheduled for
early this fall. The City Forester is currently engaged in the tabulation
of requests from the residents. During the beginning of July, all incompatable
locations will be eliminated. In the next step, the utility companies will
be informed on the proposed locations of the trees. Finally in early fall,
residents will receive trees to be planted.
MICROFILMED BY
DORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 1101NES
TREE PLANTINGS
The Community Development Block Grant Program has provided $15,000 for tree plantings
in the older neighborhoods of Iowa City (the Community Development Block Grant Area).
The City Forester is now taking requests from neighborhood residents who would like
trees for the parking in front of their homes and apartments. IF THERE ARE UNDERGROUND
UTILITY LINES IN THE PARKING, TREES CANNOT BE PLANTED, however, the City Forester will
check this for all residents after requests for trees have been submitted.
Each resident will be responsible for digging the hole and planting the tree. The
City will deliver balled trees - tentatively scheduled for the first Friday in
i November - to residents who have requested trees and dug holes. In September, those
who have requested trees will be contacted about where to dig the planting hole and
when to dig so that it will be ready when the tree arrives.
A minimum of 200 trees will be available; residents may select three varieties from
the following list. The City Forester will determine which one of the 3 choices is
most appropriate for your neighborhood based on the mix of species, width of the park-
ing and placement of utility lines (both above and below ground). All plantings will
be in compliance with the Iowa City Tree Regulations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PLEASE CIRCLE THREE CHOICES
Overstory or Shade Trees Small Ornamental Trees
Redmond Linden Flame Crab
Littleleaf Linden Marshall Oyoma Crab
Greenspire Linden Lemoine Crab
Marshall's Seedless Ash Radiant Crab
Summit Ash Redbud
Red Oak Washington Hawthorne
Scarlet Oak Bradford Pear
Gingko
! Hackberry
Name: Telephone Number:
Address:
Return to Billie Hauber, City Forester, Dept. of Parks A Recreation, Civic Center,
410 East Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52240.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOINES
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOINES
SIDEWALK REPAIR
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
INTRODUCTION:
Through the Neighborhood Site Improvements Program money in two
neighborhoods has been set aside to aid low and moderate income
residents in paying for sidewalk repairs. Residents of these
areas in neighborhood meetings expressed concern over the condition
of sidewalks and decided that they wanted sidewalk programs established
in their areas. A grant system has been established to assist
individuals who cannot afford the cost of sidewalk repair. This grant
system applies only to the residents of the North Side and Hickory Hill
areas (as defined by boundaries of enclosed map). During the months of
June, 1979, through September, 1979, a sidewalk inspector has been
tentatively scheduled to begin making assessments on sidewalks in these
j areas to determine what sidewalk repair is needed. Obtaining a sidewalk
inspector by June, 1979, will be dependent upon the Department of Housing
and Inspection Services' ability to hire and situate an individual in
the department. Final sidewalk repair will be completed by the spring
of 1980. A sidewalk inspector will visit each neighborhood to determine
which pieces of sidewalk need replacing or repairing. The homeowners
will be sent a notice from the Department of Housing and Inspection
Services informing them that they have sidewalks which need repairing.
The individual homeowners have a thirty day option in which they may
either hire a contractor to repair the sidewalks or fix the sidewalks
themselves according to City specifications. If residents decide that
they do not want to become actively involved, the City will repair the
sidewalks and assess the homeowners. Homeowners will be charged for the
cost of sidewalk repair by the City over a ten year period. Those people
who will be eligible for financial assistance are: elderly, Section 8
participants, and residents whose income falls within the program
regulations.
II. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS:
All residents are eligible for financial assistance if they fall into
one of these categories:
1. Section 8 participants:
Any landlords or households who are participating in the Department
of Housing and Urban Development's Section 8 program are eligible
for a full grant payment of $2.00 per square foot for sidewalk
repairs.
2. Elderly:
Residents who are 65 years of age and older are entitled to a grant
payment of $1.00 per square foot. Elderly residents who are 65 years
or older and earn less than $8,500 a year, including interest from
any assets, are eligible for a full grant payment of $2.00 per
square foot for sidewalk repairs.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
3. Income Level:
Any resident whose total income, (including interest accumulated
from assets), and falls into one of these categories is entitled
to a full grant payment of $2.00 per square foot for sidewalk
repairs.
Family Size
I2 3 I 4 1 5 or over
All applicants for grant assistance must:
(1) Present a copy of the latest federal income tax form plus
(2) Proof of residency or ownership in neighborhood.
(3) Certificate of Assets
Applications will be processed through the Housing and Inspection
Services Department located in the lower level of the Civic Center,
410 East Washington Street.
Eligibility Option: (To be decided by the City Council).
4. Renter Occupied Units:
A sidewalk subsidy will be paid to landlords to aid in the reduction
Of cost for sidewalk repair. The amount of subsidy available to
landlords will be $1.00 per square foot.*
*It is important to note that the City Council will have to make a policy
decision regarding option 4. Factors determining if landlords should receive
subsidy should be based upon:
1. Are there a substantial number of moderate and low income residents
residing in these neighborhoods who are renting?
2. Will rents be raised due solely to the assessment for sidewalk repairs?
(Will the raise in rent be substantial?)
3. Will the sidewalk repair have adverse impact on the renter market as a
whole through this program?
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
n
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES 1401NES
IUNI) General FUNCTION City Council
VIMILIM Legislative ACTIVITY City Council
ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION:
The function of the City Council, as the elected representatives of the citizens,
is to formulate City policy and to provide general direction to the administrative
staff to carry out Council policies.
ACTIVITY GOAL:
o appoint, direct, and evaluate the City Attorney, City Clerk, City Manager, and
boards and commissions.
2. To represent citizens of Iowa City by considering and acting upon citizens' concerns
and proposed ordinances and resolutions.
3. To provide for orderly community growth by providing leadership in the formulation
and adoption of a comprehensive city plan.
ACTIVITY OBJECTIVES:
I. omp e e ran Renewal Project.
2. Develop Senior Citizen Housing and Center.
3. Develop plans for Waste Water Treatment Plant and reduce sewer insufficiencies
throughout the City.
4. Plan for economic development.
5. Plan for future City facilities.
6. Develop and implement transportation plans to improve vehicular traffic movement
throughout the City and parking in the C.B.D.
ACTIVITY MEASUPINEUr:
1. Construction of new buildings and parking in the urban renewal area.
2. Completion of Housing Projects and Senior Center.
3. Complete plans for waste water treatment plant.
4. Completion of Economic Plan.
5. Review and revise the Capital Improvements Program.
6. Completed intersections improvements and long-range traffic study.
ACTIVITY ANALYSIS:
Minor problems that come up on a day-to-day basis sometimeSdistract from the overall
goals of the Council.
0
13
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
//5_3
0
MINUTES
CITY -UNIVERSITY MEETING
May 18, 1979
PERSONS IN ATTENDANCE:
RIVER CORRIDOR SEWER
Gene Dietz, Dick Gibson, Dennis Kraft,
Ray Mossman, Dick Plastino, Rosemary Vitosh
Gene Dietz reported that on June 13, 1979 at 1:30 p.m. there
will be a pre-bid conference in the City Manager's conference
room. He invited the University to send representatives to
that meeting to answer questions that may be asked by the
contractors relative to University installations. Mossman
agreed that there would be representatives there probably
from his office, the Physical Plant and
Planning. the office of Facilities
The bid date for this project has been set for June 28, 1979 with
contract awards to be scheduled for the Council either the 3rd or
10th of July. This would permit construction to commence on or
about the first of August with 540 calendar day completion.
Assuming this schedule can be met the project would be completed
January 1981.
URBAN RENEWAL
Gibson presented to the group the conceptual layout that has been
Prepared
hedevelopCrouse-Gardner
mentof theCapitol-Washington Street larealtogetherlwith
the entire Lindquist area which includes the Library, the Lindquist
block and the Engineering block. This concept has been agreed to
by all University constituencies and is being reviewed by the
central administration. It has also been agreed to in principal
by Jack Lehman and Paul Glaves. The next step will be to prepare
a project which integrates the City's proposal and the University's
Proposal for presentation to the Design Review Committee. In
addition, negotiations will begin on cost sharing, timing, etc.
Plastino reported that the parking ramp is scheduled now for
partial completion October 15, 1979 and to be complete by November
15, 1979. If weather conditions improve the scheduling may be
accelerated somewhat.
It is now anticipated that bids for the road work on Washington
Street: from Clinton to Capitol and Capitol Street from Washington
and south to Burlington will be received at the earliest June 15, 1979
scheduled Possibly first
uledto tuntil e
becompletedconcurrentlyowithlthe compl. This etioncofithe
parking ramp.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
i
MINUTES
CITY -UNIVERSITY MEETING
May 18, 1979
Page Two
SHORT PROPERTY
Mossman reported that there is a minor correction to be made
prior to final payment to the City for this property. It
involves an amount of $891.26 taxes for 1977 which show as
unpaid in the County Treasurer's Office. As soon as this
item is cleared the University stands ready to pay the balance
due of $39,000.00
STORM TIATER INFILTRATION
Mossman reported that the University has negotiated a contract
with Veenstra and Kimm to define more precisely buildings that
will result in maximum benefit if removed from the sanitary
sewer system. It will also outline a sequence for removing
all buildings from the sanitary systems.
SLUDGB TREATMENT
Mossman reported that Shive Hattery has been retained to review
their report on the treatment of water plant sludge which was
dated August 18, 1977. The purpose of this review will be to
determine what, if any, changes have occurred in the interim
either in terms of the City's plans for the disposal plant,
Federal regulations or any other factors that could alter the
conclusion in that report.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES I40111Es
FEBRUARY, 1979 -- HUMAN SERVICES FUNDING
Program Subcommittee - JCRPC. The Program Subcommittee met three
times during the month of February. Discussion centered around an
ongoing human services program. The major points covered were where
the program would be located, who would fund, working relationships
and the work program.
Presentations for FY80 Human Service Program were made to the JCRPC
full commission and the Board of Supervisors. The Subcommittee
revised the staffing and program aspects to an acceptable level to
receive financial support from the City of Iowa City and the Johnson
County Board of Supervisors with United Way and Regional Planning
contributing in-kind services. The final proposal calls for a
coordinated program effort from the major funding bodies and JCRPC.
Agency Funding. Contact was made with the School of Social Work to
conduct a program evaluation of one of the City's agencies.
Mayor's Youth Board met once in February. The bylaws governing
membership on the Board were discussed and amended to rotate agency
membership and reflect enrollee and public representation.
I The Hawkeye Area Community Action Program requested a transfer of
IIII Mayor's Youth enrollees to one of its CETA training programs.
i Because enrollee requirements vary, the Board decided not to pursue
I the change. Enrollments in the Mayor's Youth program had not met
anticipated levels. The Director was instructed to follow-up with
publicity and awareness of the program information after Board
�. discussion.
Miscellaneous meetings were held with the City Manager concerning
` the Human Services Program, County funding, and unfair labor
practices violation (3 meetings). The City Manager requested an
investigation of the activities relating to a tenant at the Autumn
Park facility. Several meetings were scheduled with the Council on
Aging Director and Outreach workers and staff of Congregate Meals.
j
Total of 38.5 hours.
Linda Schreiber
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
i
MARCH, 1979 -- HUMAN SERVICES FUNDING
Program Subcommittee - JCRPC. The Program Subcommittee met three
times during the month of March. This committee met with the
Johnson County Board of Supervisors twice to request program and
financial support. Presentations for an on-going human services
program were presented to the City Council.
Agency Funding. Met twice with Chair of Aids and Alternatives for
Spouse Abuse Victims and its director to discuss its programming ef-
forts. Discriptions of AASA services and the shelter in Cedar
Rapids were distributed to the City Manager and City Council in a
report.
I
Agency contracts were preliminarily reviewed for FY80 and sent to
the Legal Department for further comment.
Memo to the Finance Department concerning handling human services
contracts was prepared.
Miscellaneous. Staff meetings with the City Manager were held fre-
quently to discuss aspects of the Autumn Park investigation.
Further interviews were held with the Leased Housing Authority
staff, apartment manager, Visiting Nurses Association staff, the
tenant and his family members and attorneys for the tenant as well
as the City's Assistant Attorneys. A draft summary report of my
findings was prepared for the City Manager.
As a result of the investigation mentioned above four meetings were
held with the employees of the Housing and Inspection Services
Department and Stanley Good, School of Social Work - U of I, to
` develop a.consistant human services Referral Policy to use as a
guide for City employees.
i
Other staff meetings were held with the City Manager to discuss
Human Services efforts. Youth Programs were discussed in a meeting
with Dan Bray, County Attorney, and the City Manager.
At the Manager's request, Development Coordinator Paul Glaves and I
discussed a public relations project for the CBD during the summer
months.
In addition I worked one day for the Personnel Secretary.
Total of 64.5 hours.
Linda Schreiber
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 1401NES
APRIL, 1979 -- HUMAN SERVICES FUNDING
Program Subcommittee - JCRPC. The Program Subcommittee met once in
the month of April to discuss the funded program for FY80. Emphasis
has been placed on upgrading skills of management techniques within
the agencies. These goals may possibly be accomplished within an
existing mechanism, Agency Director's Luncheon.
Agency Funding. Met with the new director of Willowcreek
Neighborhood Center, Debi Prince Lowery to explain contract
requirements and reporting. Ginny Alexander, former director, has
moved to the Davenport area to work in a youth shelter.
Completed drafts of agency contracts for FY80 and sent to the Legal
Department for review.
Met with Ron Larson, Department of Social Services, to discuss its
spouse abuse program for FY80. A report was sent to the City
Manager and City Council.
A meeting of all service providers to spouse abuse victims was held
with three funding bodies to discuss programs and responsibilities.
City Manager and Councilmember Clemons Erdahl also attended. As a
result of this meeting the City Manager recommended a task force be
developed to assist AASA.
Prepared local funding breakdowns for agencies receiving public and
private support for FY80. This information was sent to the Council,
Board of Supervisors, United Way and JCRPC United Way.
Plaza Previews, Prepared Plaza Previews newsletter for
distribution to downtown merchants and interested persons. The
newsletter is intended to keep people informed of progress and
projects in the CBD.
Attended meetings of the Downtown Association and Design Review
Committee.
Moor's Youth Board. The Mayor's Youth Board met once in April.
The summer HACAP program was discussed. Some concern was expressed
about the Mayor's Youth director assuming responsibility for that
program. A meeting was held with HACAP Director Tom MisKen to
improve transitions of program.
Miscellaneous. Met with City Manager several times concerning
Spouse Abuse programming in Johnson County and Plaza Previews.
The United Way's Planning Division met to consider agency status and
request for funding from Aids and Alternatives for Spouse Abuse.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 110111E5
Worked six days as the Manager's Secretary.
Total of 108.5 hours.
Linda Schreiber
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOINES
(REVISED AND ADOPTED 5/1/79)
IOWA CITY BROADBAND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
ARTICLE I - THE COMMISSION
Section I
The name or
he CTelecommunicationsCo mio
ssion,referredmmission is hto in theselby-lasaasband the
Commission.
j
Section
I
I The Commission is authorized by the City Council of the City of Iowa
City by municipal Ordinance No. 78-2917, effective 22 August, 1978.
ARTICLE 11 - PURPOSE
I. Sectlon I
The of
i purpose smoothand effective a Commission
t development and facilitate to operat on not rlowea City's
` Broadband Telecommunications Network (BTN) as defined in
Ordinance No. 78-2917,
I ARTICLE III - MEMBERSHIP
Section I
The Commission shall consist of five citizens of the Cit appointed
the City Council for a term of three yattef by
appointees shall be appointed (1) for a term sof one year; ea at 2) for a
first
i term of two years; and (2) for a term of three years, - and thereafter
each for a term of three years. Following system completion, it is
recommended that a majority of the members be subscribers
system at the time of their appointment. to the
I
Section 2
Vacancies shall be filled by the City Council for the remainder of the
I unexpired term.
Section 3
No Commissioner, without a reasonable explanation
than two regularly scheduled meetings within a twelve mon hmayl pe mor
odeIf more than two such meetings are missed dismissal under this
i provision shall be recommended to the City Council only upon
concurrence of the remaining Commissioners.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
-2 -
Section 4
Commissioners shall serve without compensation but shall be entitled
to the necessary expenses, including travel, incurred in the
discharge of their duties.
ARTICLE IV - OFFICERS
Section I
The Commission shall elect a Chairperson and Vice -Chairperson from
among its members who shall serve in such capacity for a period of
one year. The election of Officers shall be held during the first
regular meeting during the month of April.
Section 2
The Secretary for the Commission shall be the City's Broadband
Telecommunications Specialist. It shall be the duty of the Secretary
to keep a full record of the proceedings of the Commission.
-ARTICLE V - MEETINGS
Section I
The Commission shall meet on a regular basis at least once each
month at a time and place as shall be set by the membership of the
Commission.
Section 2
The Chairperson or any two (2) Commissioners may call a special
meeting by giving at least twenty-four (24) hours notice in advance
to each Commissioner and to the news media. Only items included on
the agenda for the special meeting may be considered.
Section 3
A quorum shall consist of three (3) Commissioners. A majority of
present and' voting members shall be necessary to pass a motion.
The Chairperson shall vote as a member.
Section 4
of
to II Chap egrs 28AthofCthe (ssion Code fallbe ) Iowa, exceptn to the where 1i4/5of
pursuant
the
Commission votes to close a meeting to the public for the purpose of
discussing business outlined in Chapter 28A.5 of the Code of Iowa.
All closed meetings shall be duly recorded pursuant to Chapter
28A.5.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES I401NES
-3- !"
f
ARTICLE VI - DUTIES
Section I
The Commission shall consider any inquiry or proceeding requiring
City Council action to be taken in regard to the BTN or franchise.
Section 2
The Commission shall conduct evaluations of the system at least
every three (3) years, with the grantee, and pursuant thereto,
make recommendations to the Council concerning system
Improvements and amendments to this Ordinance or to any franchise
agreement. One such review must take place within the twelve
months prior to the expiration of any franchise.
Section 3
The Commission, pursuant to Ordinance 78-2917, shall resolve
j disputes or disagreements - between subscribers, potential
subscribers and any BTN operator should such parties be unable
first to resolve their dispute.
Section 4
I
The Commission shall review and audit reports and correspondence
submitted to the City concerning the operation of the BTN so as to
insure that all reports are completed and fulfilled pursuant to
Ordinance 78-2917.
Section 5
The Commission shall work with the public and the news media to
assure that all records, rules, and charges pertinent to the BTN are
made available for inspection at reasonable hours upon reasonable
notice.
I
Section 6
The Commission shall confer with the BTN operator(s) and advise on
the interconnection of the City's cable system with other cable and
communications systems.
Section 7
The Commission shall solicit, review and provide recommendations to
the City Council for selection of applicants for a franchise under
provisions of Sections 14-69 and 14-70 of Ordinance 78-2917.
Section 8
The Commission shall initiate inquiries, receive requests for review
of rates charged by any BTN operator, and provide recommendations
on such actions to the City Council.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOIRES
r
1
Section 9
The Commission shall establish and adminster sanctions as authorized
by the City Council to Insure compliance with Ordinance 78-2917.
Section 10
The Commission shall make recommendations to the operator(s) of the
BTN and to the educational and governmental . users of the
educational and governmental access channels.
Section II
The Commission shall insure that any BTN operator makes the public
access channel(s) available to all residents of the City on a
nondiscriminatory basis.
Section 12
The Commission shall assure that the operation of the public access
channel(s) be free of program censorship and control.
1
Section 13
The Commission shall perform such other duties and functions in
order to maximize the use of public access channels among the widest
range of individuals, institutions, and other organizations within the
City. This shall include recommenations to the City Council for
utilization of the annual franchise payment.
ARTICLE VII - CONDUCT OF BUSINESS
Section I
The Chairperson of the Commission shall set the agenda for
i meetings. Items submitted to the Chairperson by Commissioners at
least one week in advance of a regularly scheduled meeting shall be
included. Each Commissioner and staff member shall be provided
with an agenda prior to each meeting.
Section 2
The Commission's Secretary shall record all activities and statements
made at Commission meetings and shall be responsible for the
drafting and distribution of minutes of all such meetings.
Section 3
The Secretary shall be responsible for maintaining official files of all
Commission reports, correspondence, minutes, and other materials.
These records and reports shall be made available for public
inspection and copying pursuant to Chapter 68A of the Iowa Code
except where specifically exempted from public inspection by said
Chapter.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES 110INES
Section 4
The Commission shall prepare and transmit to the Mayor and City
Council from time to time, but not less than once each year, reports
describing its proceedings, evaluations, investigations, hearings
conducted and the outcome thereof, decisions rendered, and any
other work performed by the Commission.
Section 5
The Commission shall adopt, pursuant to the Iowa City
Administrative Code, such rules, regulations, and procedures as are
necessary to carry out its duties and responsibilities.
Section 6
The Commission shall be governed In all cases by the rules in the
current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised except
where they are not consistent with these by-laws and/or any special
rules the Commission may adopt.
ARTICLE VIII - APPOINTMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEES
Sectionl
Subcommittees will be authorized by a majority vote of the
Commission. The Chairperson will appoint Commission members to
the subcommittees.
ARTICLE IX - RATIFICATION AND AMENDMENTS
Section I
These By-laws shall be ratified by 4/5 of the Commission
Section 2
These by-laws can be amended at any regular Commission meeting
provided that 4/5 of all Commissioners vote in favor of the
amendment and provided that the amendment has been submitted in
writing prior to the meeting at which it is to be acted upon and such
amendment is not in conflict with Ordinance 78-2917.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
RULEMAKING AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURES
BROADBAND.TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
I• Procedures for Rulemaking and for arriving at recommendations
for city Council.
The Broadband Telecommunications Commission shall consider any
inquiry or proceeding requiring City Council action to be taken
in regard to the Broadband Telecommunications Network or
franchise, whether upon application or request by the Grantee
or any other party or on its own motion, and shall submit such
consideration together with the Commission's recommendation to
the City Council within sixty (60) days of the receipt of such
request unless such time shall be extended by agreement between
the Commission and the requesting party.
The Commission may also consider other business, upon its own
motion or upon request or application by the Grantee or any
other party, and shall render a decision within sixty (60) days
of the receipt of such request or application unless such time
shall be extended by agreement between the Commission and the
requesting party.
A. Upon its own motion or upon receipt of a written request or
application requiring City Council action, the Commission
shall establish public proceedings leading to a
recommendation or decision. Such public proceedings shall
include but not be limited to a public hearing providing
opportunity for the public and applicant(s)
The Grantee is a necessary party to any to appear.
to
conducted
in regard to its operations.
I. Public notice shall be given clearly stating the
proposed action to be taken, the time provided for
response, including response by the public, and the
Person or persons in authority to whom such responses
shall be addressed.
2• Public notice of a hearing to be held on the request,
application, or proposed action shall include the
date, location, time, and nature of such hearing.
Public notice of a hearing shall be given h least
seven (7) days in advance of said hearing.
3. If the inquiry or proceeding is in response to a
written request or application, the Commission shall
transmit a copy of all public notices pertaining to
the request or application to the petitioner by
personal service or by certified mail, return receipt
requested.
11Sb
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES t1011JES
II.
r
z
4• If the petitioner fails to appear at such hearing,
the Commission may proceed with the hearings and make
a decision in the absence of the party.
5. The Commission shall determine the conduct of the
hearing pursuant to Article IX, Administrative Code
of the Iowa City Code.
6• Upon submission of all evidence and after the
conclusion of the hearing, the Commission shall make
its recommendation or render a decision based upon
the record. This decision may be made immediately
after the conclusion of the hearing or at a later
date, but in no case later than sixty (60) days after
the receipt of a written request or application
unless an extension of time has been agreed to by the
Commission and the petitioner.
Resolution of Disputes
A. The Commission shall receive, investigate, and resolve
complaints against, disputes with, and complaints by the
Grantee(s) of the City's Broadband Telecommunications
Network (BTN).
1• All complaints regarding service of the BTN shall
first be directed by the complainant to the Grantee
for resolution.
2. If a satisfactory resolution to the dispute cannot be
reached, a complaint may be made to the City's
Broadband Telecommunications Specialist.
a. The Specialist shall first attempt to resolve
the dispute informally through mediation.
b• If no satisfactory resolution is reached, a
written complaint may be filed with the
Specialist.
(1) The complaint must be specific as to the
grievance and when it took place.
(2) Within 48 hours of receipt of the complaint
by the complaint Specialist,
true
o
shall be sent totheGrant etor
person against whom the complaint is filed
by personal service or by certified mail,
return receipt requested.
C. The Specialist shall conduct an investigation
and render a decision within thirty (30) days of
receipt of the written complaint by the City.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOHICS
(1) Evidence
secured
City's
Ordinance
(2)
relevant to the charge shall be
and applicable sections of the
Broadband Telecommunications
(78-2917) shall be reviewed.
The Specialist shall notify all appropriate
parties in writing and by certified mail,
return receipt requested, of his/her
decision. The notice shall
action to be taken, if anyspecify the
, to satisfy the
dispute and include a statement that any
person affected by said notice shall have
the right to appeal the decision to the
Broadband Telecommunications Commission,
provided that failure to request an appeal
Within ten (10) days of service or mailing
Of the notice of decision shall constitute
a waiver of the right to appeal and that
the said notice shall become a final
determination and order.
Any person affected by any action, interpretation,
notice, or order by the Specialist or Commission
shall be granted a hearing on the matter before the
Commission; provided that, in instances where
notice or order was served or mailed pursuant a
to
these procedures, such request must be in the form of
a written petition and must be filed with the City
Clerk and Specialist within ten (10) days
the notice was served or mailedof the date
. o
which such
filed shall include a briAny petition ef statement of grounds uposn
appeal is taken. Failure to request a
hearing within ten (10) days of service or mailing of
a notice or order shall constitute a waiver of the
right to a hearing, and the notice or order shall
become a final determination.
3. Upon receipt of a timely filed petition, the
Commission shall set a time and place for such
g and shall give written notification
thereof by personal service or by certified
mail, return receipt requested, to the parties
involved. Notice of such hearings shall afford
at least seven (7) days notice. The notice
shall include a statement of the time, place,
and nature of the hearing.
If the petitioner fails to appear at such
hearing, the Commission may proceed with the
hearing and make a decision in the absence of
the party.
The hearing shall be commenced not later than
sixty (60) days after the date on which the
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 140114ES
4
petition was filed; however, this time may be
extended for a reasonable time by mutual
agreement of the petitioner and the Commission.
4. The Commission shall determine the conduct of the
hearing pursuant to Article IX, Administrative Code
of the Iowa City Code.
5. Upon submission of all evidence and at the conclusion
of the hearing, the Commission shall render a
decision based upon the record. This decision may be
made immediately after the conclusion of the hearing
or within a reasonable time thereafter. The
Commission may affirm, modify, or reverse any action,
interpretation, notice, or order of the Specialist.
Following the Commission's decision, all parties
shall be notified of the decision by personal service
or by certified mail, return receipt requested.
6. After commencement of an appeal, informal disposition
of the matter may be made by any method agreed upon by
the parties in writing.
III. Franchise Reviews and Renewal
A. Triannual Review
I. On or about the third, sixth, ninth, and twelfth
anniversaries of the effective date of the franchise,
the Commission will schedule a public meeting or
meetings with the Grantee to review the franchise
Performance, plans, and prospects. The Commission
may require the Grantee to make available specified
records, documents, and information for this purpose
and may inquire in particular whether the Grantee is
supplying a level and variety of services equivalent
to those being generally offered at that time in the
industry in comparable market situations.
2. The Commission shall first confer with the Grantee
regarding modifications in the franchise which might
impose additional obligations on the Grantee, and the
Grantee may in turn seek to negotiate relaxations in
any requirements previously imposed on it which are
subsequently shown to be impractical.
3. Within thirty (30) days of the conclusions of such
negotiations, the Commission may direct the Grantee
to show cause why specified terms and conditions
should not be incorporated into the franchise and the
Grantee may similarly file with the City a written
request that specified obligations of its franchise
be removed or relaxed. The Commission will recommend
to Council changes in the franchised rights and
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 14011JE5
5
obligations of the Grantee only if it finds from all
available evidence that such changes will not impair
the economic viability of the system or degrade the
attractiveness of the system's service to present and
potential subscribers.
B. Review of Franchise Prior to Expiration.
1. At least six (6) months prior to the expiration of the
franchise, the Commission shall schedule a public
meeting or meetings with the Grantee to review the
performance of Grantee, including the results of the
previous franchise reviews. The Commission may
require the Grantee to make available specified
records, documents, and information for this purpose,
and may inquire in particular whether the Grantee is
supplying a level and variety of services equivalent
to those being generally offered at that time in the
industry in comparable market situations.
2. The Commission shall at the conclusion of such
meetings, provide a recommendation to City Council as
to whether a Broadband Telecommunications Network
franchise or franchises should be reissued. In
making said decision the Commission shall consider
the technical, financial, and programming performance
of the franchise holder and specifically with
relation to any and all applications, promises, or
agreements made or entered into by the franchise
holder and its performance of said applications,
promises, or agreements.
IV. Power of Subpoena
The Commission may cause subpoenas to be issued for such
witnesses and the production of such books and papers as deemed
necessary for adjudicating a dispute, rendering a
recommendation to the City Council, or otherwise conducting the
business of the Commission.
A. Subpoenas may be requested by the Commission, the
Specialist, or by any complainant or respondent in any
dispute subject to the Commission's jurisdiction.
B. The subpoena will state the name of the Commission, the
purpose, name, and address of the party on whose behalf the
subpoena is issued, the name of the specific person the
subpoena is directed to, the specific material requested,
and the time and place of the hearing at which the person
is to appear.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOINES
AGENDA
BROADBAND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
JUNE 5, 1979 4:00 P.M.
CIVIC CENTER CONFERENCE ROOM
1. Call meeting to order
2. Approve minutes
3. Announcements
4. Report on specialist search
5. Public Hearing on request by Eastern Iowa Cablevision, Inc.
(EIC) for a cable franchise
6. Consideration of EIC request
7. New business
8. Adjourn
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOVIES
/l5'
I
Informal Agenda
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 4, 1979 --- 7:30 p.m.
City Manager's Conference Room
A. Call to Order.
B. Public discussion of any item not included on the agenda.
C. Consideration of the minutes of the meetings of May 14 (informal meeting)
and May 17, 1979.
D. Zoning Items:
1. Review of the Revised Tree Regulations.
E. Subdivision Items:
1. S-7913. Public discussion of'a final Large Scale Non -Residential Development
plan, final plat and tree planting plan of Hy -Vee Food Stores, Inc.., located
south of Highway 6 Bypass and east of Gilbert Street; 45 -day limitation
period: 7/12/79, 60 -day limitation period: 7/27/79.
2. S-7505. Consideration of a preliminary Planned Area Development plan of
"1750 Rochester", a proposed development of a site located north of
Rochester Avenue and east of Seventh Avenue; 45 -day limitation period: waived.
F. Adjournment.
Regular meeting -- June 7, 1979
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
City of Iowa Cif"!,
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 31, 1979
To: Senior Center Commission Members
From: Bette Meisel, Program Development Specialist
Re: Senior Center Commission Meeting
SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION
JUNE 6, 1979 -- 7:30 P.M.
CITY MANAGER'S -CONFERENCE ROOM
AGENDA
I. Meeting to Order and Roll Call.
2. Approval of Minutes.
3. Public Discussion.
4. Report on meeting with City Council - City Manager.
5. Comments regarding Senior Center's space allocation - Cora Pollock
and Mary Rock.
6. • Discussion of Senior Center kitchen lay out and equipment - John
Pfiffner.
7. Update on Senior Center Grants.
8. Adoption of by-laws.
9. Adjournment.
jm3/21
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
1
!City of Iowa Clf, ,
MEMORANDUM -
DATE: May 31, 1979
TO: Abbie Stolfus
FROM: John Hayek
RE: Thomas H. We
gman and A & A Coins, Inc., v. The City of
Iowa City
Please distribute copies of the enclosed
1 Appeal
Johnson County District Court in the Supreme Court oof
Iowa with reference to the subject action to members
of the City Council.
J1_14
FMAIY311
f91979
ABBIE STOLFUS
CITY CLERK
i
j
i
Yla
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
IN THE SUPREME couR'r or IownLFILE
MAY 3 0 1979
THOMAS H. WEGMAN and ) KSUPREME COURT
A & A COINS, INC., )
Appellants, j Filed May 30, .1979
VS. ) 86
THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
"IOWA,) 2200
"IOWA,
)
Appellee. )
d�
Appeal from Johnson District Court - Harold D. Vietor, Judge.
I
Plaintiffs appeal from order sustain'inL, defendant's speciali
appearance. AFFIRMED. II
- i
Marion R. Neely, Iowa City, for appellants.
John W. Hayek, City Attorney, Iowa city, for appellee.
f i
Considered by LeGrand, P.J., and Rees Uhlenho
� pp, McCormick,
and McGiverin, JJ.
I �
i •
U MAY311979 L'.
ABBIE STOLFU.1
CITY CLERK
)/66
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 1101NES
2 -
UHLENHOPP, J.
This case involves a dispute between land developers and a
city as to whether. streets .in a proposed subd.i.vis.l.on must be
Paved with six-inch portlandecment, The appeal turns, however,
on whether the district court was correct in sustaining a
special appearance by the City.
The developers, plaintiffs -appellants Wegman and A & A
Coins, did not make an evidentiary record in district court. In
this court they argue numerous claimed facts which lack sub-
stantiation in the record. From the record we do have, we believe
the following may be taken as established.
Plaintiffs filed with the City of Iowa City a proposed plat
of a subdivision called "Prairie view Estates." The City's
Planning & Zoning Commission reviewed the plat and voted to
recommend to the city council that the plat be refected. On
March 7, 1978, the council refected the plat. The next day the
city clerk mailed to plaintiffs notice of the council's dis-
approval on March 7, 1978, and plaintiffs received the notice on
March 10, 1978,
On March 27, 1978, plaintiffs attempted to appeal to the
district court under section 1109,15, The Code 1977• On that date
they filed with the clerk of district court an appeal document
entitled "Plaintiff's Appeal from Denial of Subdivision Plat"
alleging various constitutional and nonconstitutional grounds for
overturning the council's decision. The same date plaintiffs
delivered to the sheriff an original notice and a copy of
their appeal document, with a request- for service on the city
clerk that day. The sheriff served the city clerk two days
later on March 29, 1978,
The City filed a special appearance'in district court allegin
inter alia that the service on the city clerk was untimely.
Plaintiffs then filed an amendment to their appeal document
consisting of a second division in which they asked for a
declaratory Judgment on the grounds originally alleged and other
grounds.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES 140INES
- 3
-
After a hear.l.ng the d1:;t:r•icL
court (Vietor;
i
J.) sustained th
special appearance on the ground the court did not acquire
jur:lsdiction, citing Economy Forms Corp. v. Potts, 259 N.W.2d
787 (Iowa 1977). Plaintiffs' appeal to this court is from that
ruling.
Although not relevant to the appeal before us, the record
discloses that after the district court ruling on the original
special appearance plaintiffs moved in district court for
declaratory judgment on the pleadings. The City filed a second
special appearance and alleged that the first special appearance
disposed of the case and further, that the district court lacked
jurisdiction because of plaintiffs' appeal to this court. After ,
hearing, the district court (Shaeffer, J.) sustained this special
appearance on the latter ground.
In this court plaintiffs advance three bases for reversal of
the ruling appealed from: (1) the district court erred in sus-
taining the original special appearance on the ground of lack of 1
jurisdiction, (2) the district court erred in the same ruling
in disregarding the request for declaratory relief, and (3) the
city council's decision from which plaintiffs appealed to district
court was constitutionally infirm.
I. In support of their first proposition, plaintiffs cite
two authorities: Economy Forms and Eves v. Iowa Employment
Security Commission, 211 N.W.2d 324 (Iowa 1973).
Plaintiffs' appeal to district court from the council's
decision was under section 409.15, which provides in relevant
part:
From the action of the council refusing to
approve any such plat, the applicant shall have
the right to appeal to the district court within
twenty days after such rejection by,filing written
notice of appeal with the city clerk.
The "action of the council refusing to approve" the plat
occurred on March 7, 1978. To perfect an appeal to district court,
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOVIES
plainti.fl's had to file written notice of appeal with the city
cleric Witldr; twenty days "after such rejeet;ion. " Thus their last
cloy for i'i l Ing not.](:(, of appeal w:I Lh the city clerk was March 27,
1978. § 4.1(22), The Code. plaintiffs did not however
"file" their, appeal paper, with the city clerk until March 29,
1978, the date tt;e sheriff served it. Appeal statutes of this
kind mu;;t be observed to the dhy. (faker v. City of Cedar, Falls,
185 N.W.2d 810, 812 (lows 1971).
In seeking to overturn the district court's ruling on the
original special appearance, plaintiffs argue that Economy Forms
is inapplicable and that the appropriate authority is Eves.
Economy Forms appears to us to be dircctl.y on point. That
care involved seetaon )141.38, The Code, which allows assessment
appeals within twenty days after the board of review adjourns,
by serving written notice on the board's chairman or presiding
Officer. The plaintiff filed its petition and copy of notice of
appeal vctf;h the clerk of court- on the twentieth clay after the
adjournment but did not serve the board chairman until five days
I
later. We stated in 259 N.W.2d at 788:
In challenging the trial court's order
sustaining defendant's special appearance,
Plaintiff contends the 20 -day period was tolled
by the filing with the clerk. 'Phis contention
rests on the prcndse that. ruler; 118 to 55, Rulesof CivilProcedure, ar•e applicable here. Rule 48
provides that, "A civil action is commenced by
filing a petition with the court," and rule 55
provides that for purposes of statutes of
limitations, "the filing of the petition shall
be deemed a commencement of the action."
The deficiency in plaintiff's argument is
that rules 48 -to 55, R.C.P.,,are not applicable
to appeals to district court from the board of
review. The rules establish procedures for
commencement of original actions in district court,
and an appeal from a decision of the board of
review Js not an original action. Moreover., the
Procedure for conferring jurisdiction of an assess-
ment appeal on the. district court- is specifically
Provided for, in § 4111.38. Midmoutern Realty
Company v. City of Dns Moines, 210 Iowa 9112, 945,
231 N.W. 459, 460 (1930) ("The district court has
no original jurisdiction in such case. I1;s juris-
diction, on appeal from the statutory reviewing
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
i
I
j
i
I
I
board, :Is it:se'Jf pin'rly sLat.nl.ory, and depends
fur .11.:; ex i rLonce upon cornp'I. tcu'icc w.1 Lh statutory
prere(Iu.IsII,v
The statute provides "appeals may be taken"
within 20 days of the adjournment of the board
of review. It then says haw appeals "shall be
taken." 'Appeals shall be taken by a written
notice to that effect to the chairman or presiding,
Officer of the board of review and served as an
orIgi.nal notice." This means that In order for an
app 'a] wh:i ch "may be taken" within the 20 -day
period to bo taken, the notice must be ;;orved before
expiration of th;rt per•.iod. Consequently when the
chairman or presiding, officer of the board of review
is not scr'ved with notice of appeal within 20 days
of the adjournment of the board of review, the
district court does not acquire Jurisdiction of
the appeal.
In Economy Form^ UHIrl ran under section 4111.38 from the
"adjournment" of the board. (fere time ran under section 409.151
1
from "rejection" of the plat, and time expired on March 27, 1978.
Since the notice was not filed with the city clerk until. two days
later it was too late.
Rve., dealt with an entirely different: problem. Socl::ion
96.6(3) of the Code requir-es a "reasonable opportunity for fair
hearing" on appeal from an administrative officer's decision.
Under the facts presented we found that the unemployment
insurance claimant did not receive such an opportunity. The
commission, the losing party, was in the position of pl.aintiffs
here, seeking to uphold the insufficient notice it gave the
claimant-.
Plaintiff's pose examples in which hardship could be worked
upon developers, and such cases can be imagined. An unscrupulous
and fraudulent council could conceal its rejection of a plat so
that the developer could not: filo notice_ of appeal .In tune. We
wi11 deal. with such a case if and when it arises. No such facts
exlc;t here. Section 1109.1.5 does not require a city to inform a
platter of the rejection of a plat. Cf. 116 Am. Jur. 2d Judgmentn
52, at 351. (1969); 49 C.J.S. Judgments § 112,at 236-37 (1947);
? Am. Jur. 2d Admini.ntrative Gari § 1171, at, 282 (1962); 73 C.J.S.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
I
1
- 6 -
PubZio Adminiatrntivc Ifo diol; fl I'loo eell' ra fj 1.119,'at 118P-83 (1951.)
0.111c:; on nol. I cc:1 of dec l :. I unn) . hill, wr need not, now may whether
a dovoloper must take notice of deems ons of a raty council when
no fraudulent concealment is :Involved. This statute gives the
developer twenty days to appeal and these developers admittedly
knew of the rejection three clay., after it occurred. They still
had seventeen days to fi.le their notice of appeal with the city
clerk, but they did not attempt; to do so until the twentieth day.
Then they did not file a notice of appeal diroctly with the clerk;
instead they took their papers to the sheriff who served the
papers two clays later, after the time to file with the city clerk
had expired. Untimely service by an offlcrr, wrong service, or
no service at all are hazards which attend eleventh -hour
attempts to serve. We find Economy Forms to be applicable and
Eves to be inapplicable here. The district court properly
sustained the original special appearance.
II. Plaintiffs assert that the district court erred in its
order sustaining the first special appearance when it failed to
deal with the merits of the amendment to the petition seeking; a
declaratory judgment. The district court has subject matter
jurisdiction of declaratory judlrment suits, Iowa 11. Civ. P. 261,
but the jurisdiction of the district court to entertain such
suits must be properly invoked. Here plaintiffs sought to appeal
under section 409.15 from the city council's decision, but they
did not comply with that section. Hence we need not say whether
plaintiffs could have added a declaratory judgment count by
amendment to an appeal properly taken. Since the. City appeared
specially to the appeal and the district rourt correctly su::tained
the spec.i.a1 appearance, plaintiffs had no pending proceeding to
which to attach a second count. Antrim V. Civi.Z Service Commis-
sion, 261. Iowa 396, 1.54 N.W.2d 711 (1967). Thus the merits of
the second count were not before the district court. We find no
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 1401NE5
0
1
- 7 -
evror• at this point.
III. Finally, plaintiffs assert that we have authority to
hear de novo the mor•its 01• tlie.ir con..^,Laf:ut:Lorurl chnllenfa:;.
We have the samo problem here as under plaintiffs' second
basis for reversal, since plaintiffs' attempted appeal to distri
court was under section 1109.15.
Plaintiffs had to invoke the Jurisdiction of the district
court properly before that court could consider the merits of
the appeal from the council or this court could consider those
merits on further appeal. That plaintiffs raised constitutional
challenges to the council's derision and procedures did not mean
plaintiffs could ignore the statute and rules on the procedure
for invoking the district court's
Jurisdiction. Since the dis-
trict court dial not acquire Jurisdiction of the appeal from the
council, neither the district court nor we have authority to
consider the merits of plaintiffs, constitutional. claims. our
Jurisdiction is limited to the appeal from the district court's
ruling sustaining the original special appearance. The appeal is
do novo, but a de novo appeal is a review, not an original pro-
ceeding. In re Ilead, 141 Iowa 651, 663, 118 N.W. 8811, 889 (1908)
("As the district court of Groone County had no Jurisdiction of
the matter, we do not have on appeal, and this is an end to the
controversy,").
If plaintiffs are dissatisfied with the rejection of their
plat, their course is to repeat their proceedings before the city
officials from the beginning and, if still dissatisfied with the
result achieved, to appeal to district court by observing the
requirements of section 409.15. Neither the district court's
ruling nor this opinion constitutes an adjudicat:ion upon the
merits of plaintiffo' dispute with the City,
AFFIRMED.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 140INES
rye, /979-
M
79
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOIRES
M
T
W
TH
F
S
2
i
3
4 BAM-Magistrates
5
6
7
8AM-Magistrates
8
9
Court (Chambers)
4PM-Broadband Tele
LOAM -Staff Meeting
Court (Chambers)
1:30PM-Informal
Council (Conf Rm)
Comm (Conf Room)
(Conf Room)
7(Chambers Formal
7:30PM-Council
3:30PM-Housin
(Chambers)
7:30PM-Informal
(Chambers)
Comm (Conf Room)
P&Z (Conf Room)
8AM-Mqm. Comp.
(Cont Room)
-To11
12
13
14
15
16
SAM -Magistrates
4:3OPM-ResourcesLOAM-Staff
Meeting
8AM-Magistrates
Court (Chambers)
Consv. Comm.
(Conf Room)
Court (Chambers)
1:30PM-Informal
(Conf Room)
•30PM-Pre-bid Conf
8AM-Housing Appeal
Board (Conf Room)
Council (Conf Rm)
7:3OPM-Council
(Conf Room)
(Chambers)
PM -Design Review
4:30PM-Board of
Com (Rec Center)
Adjustment (Conf
:30PM-Parks & Rec.
(Room)
Comm (Rec Center)
-.
17
18
19 4PM-Library Bd.
20
21
22
23 v
SAM -Magistrates
(Lib Auditorium)LOAM-Staff
Meeting
Court (Chambers)
4PM-Broadband Tele
(Conf Room)
8AM-Magistrates
1:30PM-Informal
Comm (Conf Room)
Court (Chambers)
Council (Conf Rm)
7:30PM-Council
7:30PM-Formal P&Z
7:30PMConfoRoom)
(Chambers)
(Chambers)
7:OOPM-United Acti
7:30PM-Airport Co
for Youth (Friend
(Conf Room)
Meeting Room)
24
25
26
27
28
29
3
8AM-Magistrates
4:30PM-Resources
LOAM -Staff Meeting
8AM-Magistrates
Court (Chambers)
Consv. Comm
(Conf Room)
Court (Chambers)
1.30PM-. npormal
Council
(Conf Room)
4PM-Design Review
10:30AM-Safety Com
(Con£ Rm
7:30PM-Council
Com (Rec Center)
(Conf Room)
7:30PM-Human Rght
Comm (Conf Room)Center)
(Chambers)
12noon-CCN (Rec
1PM-Bid opening
(Conf Room)
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOIRES
The
BuiIdie
Lag L in
e
Volume 21 May 1979
HUD APPROVES CO-OP HOUSING REHAB PROJECT
The Department of Housing and Urban Development has given the City of Iowa City
preliminary approval to rehabilitate a 17 unit, co-operative housing complex in Iowa
City. Funding for this project will be from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development by means of a 312 3% interest 20 year loan. Staff has met with the
owners, many of whom are elderly, and a repair survey has been done.
This project is unique since neither the Regional HUD office nor the City have
processed a co-operative building, which in this case means that each "apartment" in
the building is privately owned.
Because of the scope of the project, an architect will be hired to work with the
residents in developing the specifications and bidding documents. Public advertising
via newspapers for bids is expected to occur in mid-July. Watch your local papers for
notification that the owner is soliciting bids.
EMERGENCY REPAIR & WINTERIZATION
PROGRAM SHOWING GOOD START
Last month's Building Line carried an
article on the new Emergency Repair &
Home Winterization Program. This new
program provides funds for
rehabilitation of single components of a
structure which are malfunctioning or
causing an emergency or hazardous
condition. It also may provide funds
for insulation and storm windows.
Within the first few days of operation
more than 30 elderly, disabled, or low-
income homeowners called to express
interest in the program. Of these the
first 10 cases have already been
processed and let out for bidding. Two
cases have received service and are
closed.
The greatest need seen so far is for re-
roofing and winterization work. Other
major items we found were re -wire jobs,
furnace replacement, and foundation
repair and waterproofing.
Contractors in these and other trade
areas should contact us if they are
interested in participating. We think
you will find the program easy to work
with since there is no more paperwork
involved other than what you would find
in any other contracting work.
It looks as though we will be able to
service many homeowners, thus
accomplishing our goals of elderly and
handicapped remaining in their homes,
while at the same time providing
economic stimulus for the community.
Contact Steve Burns at 354-1800, X336
NEW FENCE BROCHURE
Recently the Fence Ordinance for the
City of Iowa City was changed. There is
no longer a limitation on the height of a
fence for side and rear yards; however,
certain fences do require permits. In
certain cases barbed wire and electrical
fences can now be used in the Iowa City
area. The Division of Building
Inspection, located in the lower level of
the Civic Center, has brochures
available outlining the regulations and
locations of fences. These brochures are
free of charge. We encourage everyone
who is interested in erecting a fence this
year to obtain one of these brochures,
available simply for the asking. You may
also contact Woody Kendall in the
Building Inspection Division for
additional requirements.
HOUSING INSPECTORS
The Department of Housing and
Inspection Services would like to
announce the addition of three new
employees. They were added on April
30, 1979, in order to fill vacancies left
by Housing Inspectors Phyllis Kelley,
Charles Calef and Bruce Burke.
Brian Kuebler, Housing Inspector, from
Iowa City, brings five years nail bending
experience and a degree in engineering
with him.
Kelley Vezina, Housing Inspector, from
Chadron, Nebraska, has a BGS degree
and three years of cabinet building and
thumb splitting experience.
Terry Steinbach, Senior Housing
Inspector, from Iowa City, has a fine
arts degree and 11 years of building
experience. We welcome them aboard'
114� A
FIICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES wOIREs
CONIRACTORS NEEIR
INSULATORS, ROOFERS, GENERAL CONTRACTORS, CONCRETE AND FOUNDATION
CONTRACTORS ARE NEEDED FOR THE EMERGENCY REPAIR & HOME WINTERIZATION
PROGRAM, CONTACT STEPHEN BURNS, 354-1800 EXT, 336 FOR DETAILS,
STATISTICS
MINIMUM HOUSING
During April, 1979, 245 structures
were inspected containing 1048 dwell-
ing units and 701 rooming units. 503
dwelling units and 161 rooming units
were found to be in compliance with
I the Minimum Housing Code of Iowa City
545 dwelling units and 540 rooming
units did not comply with the Minimum
Housing Code.
BUILDING INSPECTION
During the month of April, 1979, 61
Building Permits, 11 Mechanical Permits,
24 Plumbing Permits, and 38 Electrical
Permits have been issued by the City.
The total value of all April construction
in Iowa City is $3,801,493. There was
one demolition permit and one moving
permit issued.
HOUSING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
During April, 1979, 3 units were brought
into the Section 8 Program.
Total units, Section 8 = 328.
Tests for Journeyman and Master Electricians Licenses will be held
at the Civic Center on June 27 at 7:00 P.M. Applications should
be in and fees paid prior to the test. Fees are $16 for Journey—
man and $80 for Master.
•�*,t,tr+�,tR,t,r,tRrR**r***,t****,t,t*,t�,r,t,r,t,t:t*,t*,r,r�*rr,t,t :rfr*,t*,t**,t ,t ,t ,r ,t ,t**rr r,t
991 ON 11WIDd O6ZZ9 BMOI 'AgT,7 EMOj
tlM01'AIIOtlM01 uo;burysnM 'a OT6
QIV d saDTAzag uoTjoadsul pun
30tl1SOd'S'O buTsnoy 30 :)uaur;.aedaa
3JY8 3PII1H AITO eMoj ;o ALTO
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 140IRES
MINUTES
COMMITTEE ON COMMUNITY NEEDS
MAY 30, 1979 -- 12:00 NOON
RECREATION CENTER ROOM "A"
MEMBERS PRESENT: Swisher, Hall, Amidon, Pecina, Johnson, Casserly, Carter,
Clark, Lampe, Patrick
MEMBERS ABSENT: McCormick, Braverman, Owens, hard, Horton
STAFF PRESENT: Milkman, Deevers, Flaherty, Laverty, Knight, Keller
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
SMALL CITIES GRANT APPLICATION:
1. That the Committee on Community Needs recommends the inclusion of a green-
belt along the lower Ralston Creek as requested by neighborhood residents
and property owners.
2. That the Committee on Community Needs is concerned that cost estimates for
replacement of the Lafayette Street bridge and improvements to the Benton
Street culvert appear low.
3. That the Committee on Community Needs is concerned about the availability
of extra funds if acquisition costs run higher than anticipated.
NEIGHBORHOOD SITE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM:
1. That the Committee on Community Needs approves the proposed projects for the
Neighborhood Site Improvement Program.
2. That the Committee on Community Needs recommends that unallocated funds in
the Longfellow area be used for sidewalk repairs.
3. That the optional funds allocated for alley construction (with matching funds
frnm property owners) in the South Central area be used for sidewalk repairs
in the area; and that any funds remaining in other areas should also be used
for sidewalk repair.
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION:
Chairperson Swisher brought the meeting to order. Swisher introduced the new
member, Stephen Lampe, to the Committee.
The minutes of May 2, 1979 were discussed and Hall moved to adopt the minutes
as read, Amidon seconded. Minutes were adopted unanimously.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF CCN:
Swisher felt it was the Committee's responsibility to make sure the CDBG projects
were progressing as planned and to see if the citizens were pleased with the
projects. Swisher suggested inviting citizens with complaints to discuss them
with the Committee at their meetings. He also felt the CCN members needed to
be well informed about all the CDBG programs. Amidon suggested soliciting
comments from the members at all CCN meetings.
/M72
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
,
I
j
i
� I
Trees
r
i
I
�I
I
NEIGHBORHOOD SITE IMPROVEMENTS
Northside: $75,000
1. Sidewalk repair: 30,000 A. Grant Assistance
10,000 B. Crosswalk repairs
40,000
2. Alley repair: 30,000 Paving two alleys
A. Zion Lutheran Church
B. St. wenceslas Church
3. Bus Stop
Equipment 3,100 A. Johnson County Social Services
B. Church and Dodge
1 Shelter C. Market and Van Buren
4 Benches D. Governor and Jefferson
E. Dubuque and Church
73,100
Longfellow: $48,500
1.
Trees
6,000
A.
Planted throughout area
2.
Alley repair
4,000
A.
Rocking and grading
3.
Mini -park
3,000
Project completed
4.
Bus Stop
Equipment
600
A.
Corner Muscatine and Court
B.
F Street and 5th Avenue
5.
Sidewalk repair
12,000
A.
Evaluate area and repair as many sidewalks
as possible
25,600
6. Optional: Sidewalk
repair 20,000 A. Reserve additional money
45,600
South Central: $48,500
1. Playground
Equipment
2. Sidewalk repair
3. Alley repair
2,500 College Hill Park
A. New wooden piece
B. Replace whirl
C. Basketball nets
20,000 A. Dodge south of Burlington
B. North side of Bowery between Gilbert and
Johnson
C. North side of Bowery between Lucas and
Dodge
9,500 A. Rock and grade all non -paved alleys
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOIIIES
4. Dog Signs 100 A. Dog sign College Hill Park, leash and
poop -scoop
32,100
Optional Alley 16,000 A. A grant of $8,000 will be set aside to
provide incentive for residents
of two alleys to match funds for
paving
48,100
Creekside: $48,500
1.
Playground
4,500
A.
New wooden equipment
B.
Remove asphalt
C.
Picinic facilities
2.
Bus Stop
Shelters
10,000
A.
Creekside Park
B.
2nd Avenue and Muscatine
C.
2nd Avenue and Court Street
D.
Morningside and Court Street
3.
Alley repair
9,500
A.
Rock and grade all non -paved alleys
4.
Sidewalk repair
3,750
A.
Curb cuts along south side of Court Street
5.
Barricade
200
A.
Landscape and repair
27,950
6. Optional:
A. Alley repair 16,000 A. Pave alley between Garden and 5th Avenue
B. Curb cuts 3,500 B. Northside of Court Street
47,450
Hickory Hill: $60,000
1. Sidewalk repair
2. Alley repair
3. Beautification
4. Street repair
30,000 A. Governor 200 feet north from Bloomington
B. Bloomington, Governor to Pleasant
C. Reno Street
D. Muscatine and Burlington
E. Court Street and Muscatine
18,270 A. Gravel and rock all non -paved alleys
B. Alley divider, Burlington and Court Street
3,000 A. Court Street and Muscatine
B. Trees along Muscatine
C. Mini -park
8,500 A. Re -asphalt East Washington Street, east of
Muscatine Avenue
59,770
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOINES
Highland: $75,000
1. Recreation
Facilities
2. Pedestrian
Crossing
3. Curb and
Parkway repair
4. Alley repair
S. Division of
Commercial and
Residential area
6. Optional:
A. Additional curb
repair Kirkwood
10,000 A. Mini -park at Mark Twain School
B. Gazebo and wooden equipment at Oak Grove Park
2,800 A. Crossing at Highway 6 and
I. Sycamore
2. Keokuk
40,000 A. Highland Avenue
B. Kirkwood
10,000 A. Gravel and grade all non -paved alleys
2,000 A. Provide trees for screening between Highland
Court and Diana Street
64,800
10,200
75,000
FIICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES 1101NES
JYLE �. (ALLER COMPANY, INC.
PHONE (318) 337.5226 • 335 KIRKWOOD AVE.
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
June 2, 1979
Mr. John Balmer
10 Princeton Court
Iowa City, Iowa $2240
Dear John,
It has come to my attention that the City Building Department
has proposed to the City Council of Iowa City a resolution
instigating collection of a plan check fee for all building
and remodelling work valued at $ 15,000.00 or more.
I question the need for a fee to check plans other than for
major projects or important buildings. Major buildings have
had the plan checks done by officials in Kansas City, with
the outside fees being assessed directly to the applicant.
The building permit fees now being collected will very well
pay for the plan check costs within the building department.
If the present building officials cannot do this work, why
do we have them?
I would remind you that building permit fees were raised
this year about 17% (10,% from increased values and 7% from
increased rates). The proposed plan check fees would add on
another 50% or 65%, depending upon the type of work. My own
business is not large by most standards, but the additional
plan.check fee would increase my costs as much as $ 500.00 t0
S 700.00 per year,
I note a
17frm Michel
Kucharzaktoathe mCity d anagerdandyCity Councilostatesathat
the proposed resolution setting plan check fees does not in—
crease the fee or method of assessment. I submit that it
does materially affect practically all permits issued by
the building department.
I respectfully request that you do not charge the additional
plan check fee for construction other than major buildings and
that you revise the Uniform Building Code of Iowa City to
comply with this policy.
ly 1yours
Miller
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIOS•DES 1401NES
116
(V'sl
r,
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CfphN RAPI DS•UC' 'till NiS
en