HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-10-23 Correspondence1 FUND/
3 ACCOUNT
CITY OF IOWA CITY
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
SEPTEMBER, 1979
BEGINNING
FUND BALANCE RECEIPTS DISBURSEMENTS
ENDING FUND _ INVESTMENT + CHECKING
BALANCE BALANCE ACCOUNT BAL.
GENERAL
$ 497,669.54 $
810,637.40
$ 646,334.21
$ 661,972.73 $
521,887.22
$ 140,085.51
DEBT SERVICE
18,786.75
25,199.75
1,200.00
42,786.50
42,000.00
786.50
CAPITAL PROJECTS
10,759,683.89
58,614.49
1,150,137.98
9,668,160.40
9,665,238.62
2,921.78
ENTERPRISE
4,653,530.34
472,495.93
276,845.08
4,849,181.19
4,833,486.50
15,694.69
TRUST & AGENCY
782,231.42
24,675.95
120,342.90
686,564.47
677,147.84
9,416j"�
INTRAGOV. SERVICE
16,983.63
612,511.12
606,961.89
22,532.86
--
22,532.E._
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
1,497.53
934.86
478.04
1,954.35
--
1,954.35
SPECIAL REVENUE
749,222.10
162,087.40
529,047.36
382,262.14
650,916.32
(268,654.18)
SUBTOTAL
$ 17,479,605.20 $ 2.167.156.90
$ 3.331.347.46
$ 16.315.414.64 $
16.39n 6u6_Fn
$ (75 Pf;i_n6,)
PAYROLL
(1,772.65)
438,306.00
441,833.10
(5,299.75)
--
(5,299.75)
URBAN RENEWAL R-14
R-14 ESCROW
243.44
--
--
243.44
--
243.44
JOHNSON CO. REHAB.
LEASED HOUSING I
LEASED HOUSING II
107,114.39
50,180.00
46,466.00
110,828.39
112,208.44
(1,380.05)
IOWA CITY HOUSING
1,194.76
--
--
1,194.76
1,038.45
156.31
FIREMAN PENSION
17,641.69
--
1,107.99
16,533.70
25,807.58
(9,273.f —,
-FIREMAN RETIREMENT
1,807,115.51
14,509.26
10,207.20
1,811,417.57
1,801,992.52
9,425.6„%
POLICE PENSION
41,890.98
--
514.00
41,376.98
40,067.57
1,309.41
POLICE RETIREMENT
1,639,778.73
14,780.79
7,925.55
1,646,633.97
1,648,899.84
(2,265.87)
SUBTOTAL
$ 3,613,206.85 $
517,776.05
$ 508,053.84
$ 3,610,424.45 $
3,630,014.40_$
(7,085.34)
GRAND TOTAL
$ 21,092,812.05 $ 2,684,932.95
$ 3,839,401.30
$ 19,938,343.70 $
20,020,690.90$
(82,347.20)
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
i_
$ 192,935.27
I
i
I
11,199.97
}
r
i
i
i
i
i
I
1. i
I
I'
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE
i
USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY
123,045.57
i
409,077.33
$ 1,297,109.97
LEASED HOUSING
50,180.00
OTHER HOUSING
I
i_
$ 192,935.27
LICENSES & PERMITS
11,199.97
}
r
26,333.15
1. i
I
323,114.09
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE
i
USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY
123,045.57
i
409,077.33
SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS
SEPTEMBER, 1979
TAXES
$ 192,935.27
LICENSES & PERMITS
11,199.97
FINES & FORFEITURES
26,333.15
CHARGES FOR SERVICES
323,114.09
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE
211,404.59
USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY
123,045.57
MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS
409,077.33
$ 1,297,109.97
LEASED HOUSING
50,180.00
OTHER HOUSING
TOTAL SPECIAL 50,180.00
GRAND TOTAL $ 1,347,289.97
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOINES
■
CCL. &L LISTING
FUNC: GENERAL FUNC
C9/79
VENOCR NAME
PROCUCT DESCRIPTION
AMCUNT
A.C.C.U. UNLIMITEC
GENERAL EQUIPMENT
30.63
AIR CCCLEC ENGINE SERVICES
OPERATING EQUIPMENT
184.71
M.B. ALLEN INC.
PRIOR -YEAR ENCUMBRANCES
174.5C
AMACCM
BOOKS
34.43
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATICN
DUES E MEMBERSHIPS
20.00
AMERICAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
PRINT
40.60
AMERICAN LAFRANCE
GENERAL EQUIPMENT
252.46
AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOC.
L
PAMPHLET FILE MATERIALS
44.80
AMERICAN PLANNERS ASSOC.
BCCKS
7.95
AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSN.
DUES E MEMBERSHIPS
330.00
AM. SOCIETY FCR TRAINING E DEV
REGISTRATICN
15.13C
ANCCNCO
ANIMAL SUPPLIES
51.42
ANIMAL CLINIC
VETERINARY SER.
68.50
ANSWER ICWA INC.
PAGING
15.85
APPLEBY E HORN TILE CO.
SANITATION C IND. SUP.
445.00
FORREST F. ASHCRAFT
COURT COSTS E SER.
20.00
ASSOCIATES CAPITOL SERVICE
TCCLS E ECUIPMENT RENT
965.52
ASSOCIATICN OF TRIAL LAWYERS
DUES E MEMBERSHIPS
10.00
ATHENA INTERNATICNAL
L
ART REPRCCUCTIGNS
8.00
B.J. RECORDS
L
DISC
106.00
BABE RLTF LEAGUE
SCCIAL SERVICES
1,284.00
BACCN PAMPHLET SERVICE
L
PAMPHLET FILE MATERIALS
37.92
EAKEk C TAYLOR CO.
L
BOOKS CATALOGED
2,284.34
BAKER C TAYLOR CO.
L
PRINT
210.87
BANKERS ADVERTISING CO.
PRICR-YEAR ENCUMBRANCES
92.5C
EARRCN'S ECUCATIONAL SERIES
L
BOOKS CATALOGED
13.00
BARTCN SCLVENTS
BUILDING C CONST. SUP.
68.35
MATTHEW BENDER E CO.
BCOKS
15.00
A.M. BEST CO.
L
PRINT
15.0C
A BETTER CAB CO.
EQUIFMENT SERVICE
351.7[
BICYCLE FORUM
SUBSCRIPTION
10.00
BIG BEALTIFLL WOMAN
L
PRINT
12.00
BLUE CRUSS/BLLE SHIELD OF ICWA
HEALTI- INSURANCE
22,803.66
80131S RACIO G TELEVISION
L
GENERAL EQUIPMENT
14.55
R.M. BOGGS CO.
REP. CF BLDG. CCCL.EQUI
71.25
R.M. BOGGS CO.
REP. CF BLDG. CCCL.EQUI
99.15
BCNTRAGER MACFINE E WELDING
BUILDING E CONST. SUP.
28.CC
TFE BCOKMAN INC.
L
BOOKS UNCATALCGEC
31.2E
BOWERS RECORC SLEEVE E EAG
MISCELLANEICUS SUPPLIES
185.22
BRANCY'S VACUUM SALES
GENERAL EQUIPMENT
6.GC
BROTHERS TREE SERVICE
HAULING
588.50
BROWN TRAFFIC PRODUCTS
PRICR-YEAR ENCUMBRANCES
2,768.88
BUREAU OF LABOR
L
PROFESSICNAL SERVICES
5.CC
BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS
BCOKS
3.00
C.N. ASSOCIATES
L
PRINT
36.25
THE CALL
ADVERTISING
25.2C
CALLAGHAN E COMPANY
REFERENCE MATERIAL
72.5C
CARTWRIGHT'S CARPETS
REP. E MAINT. TO BUILCI
59.74
CATALOG CARO CORP.
L
TECHNICAL SERVICE
111.74
CECAR RAPICS GAZETTE
ADVERTISING
71.28
CENTER FOR CASSETTE STUDIES
CASSETTE
5.9C
CENTRAL POOL SUPPLY
RECREATIONAL SUPPLIES
20.97
CERTIFIEC LABCRATORIES
SANITATICN SUPPLIES
43.84
CHENOWETh-KERN ELEVATOR
REP. E MAINT. TO EUILCI
40.CC
CHICAGO CAILY DEFENDER
ADVERTISING
28.8C
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
' CEDAR RAPIDS -DES IIOIIIES
L'
FUND:
GENERAL FUNC
VENDOR NAME
CCU. L LISTING
CHILOCk AFT EDUCATION CORP. L
IOWA CI1N PETTY CASH
IOWA CITY PETTY CASH
PETTY CASE LIBRAkY
PE77Y CASH LIBRARY
PETTY CASH -RECREATION CENTER
CLARK FCAM PRODUCTS
CLERK OF U.S. DISTRICT CCLRT
CLERK OF U.S. DISTRICT COLRT
CLINE TRUCK E ECLIPMENT
COLE PUBLICATICNS L
JIM COLLINS
THE CCMICLCGUE L
COMMERCIAL TOWEL L
COMPREFENSIVE VICEO SUPPLY L
CCNSLMERS UNION
CCNTRACTORS TCUL E SUPPLY
COOPER ELECTRCNICS
MRS. V.E. CCRCORAN
COUNCIL CN MUNICIPAL PERFCRMAN
D E J INDUSTRIAL LAUNCRY L
DEPT. OF HIGHWAY SAFETY
DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY
DIAMCNOSTEINS BCCK EXPRESS L
UIVLRS PRU ShLP INC.
DO IT NEW FCUNDATIGN
BILL UCLLMAN
ELIZABETF C. UGNNAN
DOUBLECAY E CC. INC. L
OUNNIS MYSTERIES OF CHOICE L
EAS FHOTGGRAPFIC LAB, INC.
EBSCO SUBSCRIPTICN SERVICE
EOISCN RECORD CLEARANCE L
ELUCATCRS PROGRESS SERVICE
SANDRA ECWAROS
ELBERT E ASSOCIATES
ENERGY LSER NEWS
RCN EVANS
THE F STOP L
FAYS FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.
FEDERAL EXPRESS
DAN R. FESLER
FIDELITY PRCUUC7S CO.
FIRETAL SYSTEMS
FLEETNAY STORES
FORTUNE
FRAME HOLSE
FRChWEIN SUPPLY CC. L
GALE RESEARCH CC. L
GARCIA RIVER PRESS L
J.P. GASWAY CC.
CARL GAUMER REFERENCE SER. L
GERMAIN 8COKS L
GOODFELLOW CO. INC.
BILL GRELL CCNSTRUCTION
PROCUCT DESCRIPTICN
C9/7S
TCYS
CASFIERS SHORTAGES
REFUNC
BUILDING E CONST. SUP.
REGISTRATICN
TCCLS E MINOR ECLIPMENT
BUILDING E CONST. SUP.
DUES E MEMBERSHIPS
DUES E MEMBERSHIPS
TCCLS G EQUIPMENT RENT
BCOKS CATALOGED
HAULING
OTHER UNCATALOGED MAT.
LAUNDRY SERVICE
BOOKS CATALOGED
SUBSCPIPTICN
RENTALS
ECUIFMENT REPAIRS
PROFESSICNAL SERVICES
BOOKS
LAUNDFY SERVILE
TECHNICAL SERVICE
TRACIS
BECKS UNCATALCGEC
RECREATICNAL SUPPLIES
PAMFhLET FILE MATERIALS
MISCELLANEOUS
MEALS
BCOKS CATALOGED
BCOKS CATALOGED
PRIOR -YEAR ENCUMBRANCES
PRINT
DISC
PRINT
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
CCMPLTER PROCESSING
PRIOR -YEAR ENCUMBRANCES
MEALS
PHOTO SUPPLIES E EQUIP.
GENERAL EQUIPMENT
MISCELLANEOUS
VEHICLLAR EQUIPMENT
OFFICE FURNITURE/EQUIP.
PRIOR -YEAR ENCUMBRANCES
SANITATION E IND. SLP.
SUBSCPIPTICN
ART REPRCOUCTIONS
OFFICE SUPPLIES
PRINT
BCOKS CATALOGED
PAPER STOCK
BCCKS CATALOGED
BCOKS CATALOGED
OUTSIDE PRINTING
ECUIFMENT REPAIRS
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES I401NES
AMOUNT
101.36
L87.23
161.1E
28.44
93.15
18.75
43.88
20.00
20.00
70.00
43.5C
590.CC
21.14
13.50
10.00
11.CC
729.91
45. CC
1B.CG
15.S6
22. OC
1.5C
15C.CC
21.18
30.00
4.8C
300.00
28.92
42.6S
37.85
15.00
9.00
269.13
17.6C
38.05
3,662.25
30.CC
11.0E
27.20
10.40
63.87
58.00
75.78
275.15
53.82
40.00
27.50
74.52
64.60
5.45
409.6C
177.50
10.6C
37.5C
655.00
CCU. IL LISTING
FUND: GENERAL FUND
VENDCR NAME
GRINGEk fEEL C GRAIN
GROSSET t DUNLAP INC.
HACK BP.CThEFS
HACH BROTHERS 1
HALOGEN SUPPLY CC.
HARRY'S CUSTCM TROPHIES
HARVARC BUSINESS REVIEW
BILLIE PAUBER
HAWKEYE MEDICAL SUPPLY
HAWKEYE PEST CONTROL
HAYEK, HAYEK, t hAYEK
HEIMAN INC.
HELM INC. L
HOUSE OF COLLECTIBLES L
ROBERT R. HOWELL
18M
INFO PRESS INC. L
INST. FOR MANAGEMENT
INSTITLTE FOR RESEARCH
INTERNATICNAL ASSOCIATICN
INTERNATICNAL CITY
INTERNATICNAL PERSCNNEL MGT.
INTL. SCHOLARLY 800K SERVICESL
IOWA BOCK E SUPPLY
IOWA BYSTANCER
I.C. ASSN. OF TNCEPENDENT
I.C. ASSN. CF INCEPENOENT
IOWA CITY CRAFTSPERSONS CLUB
IC CRISIS INTERVENTION CENTER
IC CRISIS INTERVENTION CENTER
IOWA CITY PRESS CITIZEN
IOWA CITY TYPEWRITER CO. L
IOWA CIVIL LIBERTIES UNICN L
IOWA ILLINOIS GAS t ELECTRIC
IOWA ILLINOIS GAS t ELECTRIC L
IOWA LUN8ER CO.
IOWA STATE EAR ASSOC.
IOWA STATE INDUSTRIES
KENNETH IRVING
KENNETH IRVING
IRWIN VETERINARY CLINIC
JANUS BOOK PUBLISHERS L
JOHNSCN CONTROLS INC.
JO. CO. COUNCIL CN AGING
JO. CO. COUNCIL CN AGING
JOHNSCN COUNTY RECORDER
JChNSCN COUNTY S.E.A.T.S.
JOHNSCN COUNTY SHERIFF
JCHNSON PUBLISHING CO. L
JCRM MICFOLAB
K MART L
KCJJ RADIO
K.R.N.A. COMMUNICATIONS INC.
K.X.I.C. RACIU STATION
ROBERT KEATING
C9/79
PROCUCT DESCRIPTICN ANCUNT
PRIOR -YEAR ENCUNERANCES
45.00
PRINT
4.95
SANITATICN t IND. SUP.
607.67
SANITATION t IND. SUP.
47.00
WATER/SEWAGE CHEMICALS
13.20
RECREATICNAL SUPPLIES
441.00
BCCKS
21.00
TRAVEL
586.81
FIRST AIC t SAFETY SUP.
10.25
ECUIPMENT SERVICE
25.00
ATTORNEY SER.
1,547.36
MISCELLANEIOUS SUPPLIES
93.27
BOOKS CATALOGED
13.25
BCOKS CATALOGED
4.6E
TRAVEL
79.55
TYPEWRITERS
841.5C
BECKS CATALOGED
12.41
BOOKS
54.95
PRINT
12.54
BCOKS
54.0C
REGISTRATION
146.75
DUES E MEMBERSHIPS
286.50
PRINT
31.15
EOUCA7IONAL/TRAINING SU
94.45
ADVERTISING
12.CC
FIRE t CASUALTY INS.
39415.00
CITY VEHICLE -INSURANCE
28,063.CC
DUES t MEMBERSHIPS
25.CC
SOCIAL SERVICES
19875.0[
SCCIAL SERVICES
1,875.0C
LEGAL PUBLICATICNS
747.1C
OFFICE EQUIPMENT REPAIR
55.00
BCCKS CATALOGEC
14.25
NATURAL GAS
1,819.44
ELECTFICITY
1,E45.CC
BUILDING C CONST. SUP.
568.C6
DUES C MEMBERSHIPS
75.00
CUTSICE PRINTING
726.C3
FCGC ALLCWANCE
25.CC
FOOD ALLOWANCE
25.0C
VETERINARY SER.
9.00
BCCKS CATALCGEO
3.60
REP. t MAINT. TO BLILCI
160.11
SCCIAL SERVICES
29268.83
YOUTH SERVICES
1,217.75
RECCRCING FEES
111.00
SCCIAL SERVICES
5,104.76
SHERIFF FEE
6.6C
PRINT
11.0C
TECHNICAL SERVICE
950.90
GAMES
4.34
ADVERTISING
360.0C
ADVERTISING
440.00
ACVEPTISING
200.CO
TRAVEL ACVANCE
60.00
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES IIOIIIES
i
I
M,
e
CCU L LISTING
FUND: GENERAL FLING
09/79'
VENOUk NAME
PROCUCI DESCRIPTICN
AMCUNT
KEENE COIN HANCLING
GENERAL ECUIPMENT
KELLY hEATING SERVICE
REP. E MAINT. TO BUILCI
954.C7
P.J. KENNEDY& SCNS
L BCOKS CATALOGED
194.50
KEN'S
LAWRENCE H. KINNEY
BUILDING C CONST. SUP.39.50
203.81
KIFLINGER WAShINCTCN EDITCRS
MEALS
LBCGKS CATALOGED
22 62
KLINGER OFFICE SUPPLY E ECLIP. ECUIFMENT REPAIRS
5.00
KLIFTG PRINTING & OFFICE SLP.
BOOKS MAGAZINES NEWSPAP
31.CO
ARTHUR KLGOS
FCCD ALLCWANCE
45.00
ARTHUR KLOOS
FCGC ALLOWANCE
25.CC
CENNIS KRAFT
TRAVEL
25.00
PAUL LALRITZEN
CCNSULTANT SERVICE85.30
LAWYERS COOPERATIVE PUB. CC.
BCCKS
200.CC
LEE COUNTY ShERIFF#S OFFICESHERIFF
FEE
31.50
RICHARD LEE
& CILEK
MISCELLANEIOUS SUPPLIES
4.OG
104.CC
iLENOCH
LENOCH & CILEK
MISCELLANEIOUS SLPPLIES
239.13
L
A.M. LECNARC
BUILDING & CONST. SUP.
9.55
TC CLS
LEWIS MOTOR SUPPLY24.00
GENERAL EQUIPMENT
L10RARIES UNLIMITEDPRINT
6.29
LINO ART SUPPLY L
MISCELLANEIOUS SUPPLIES
24.95
LIND'S PRINTING SERVICE
OUTSICE PRINTING
6.16
OLIN LLOYD
BLILCING RENTAL
322.00
HENRY LCUIS INC.
PHOTO CHEMICALS & SUP.
550.CC
j HE NRY.LOUIS INC. L
MISCELLANEIOUS SUPPLIES
30.86
MCKLVEEN & SCNS INC.
MAC MILLAN CIL CC.,
TCCLS & MINOR ECUIPMENT
3.82
426.30
INC.
MAINTENANCE ENGINEERING LTC. L
SURFACING MATERIAL
MISCELLANEICUS
365.40
THE MANET GUILD L
SUPPLIES
BCCKS CATALOGED
49.71
MANFCWER INC.
MANPCWER INC.
PROFESSICNAL SERVICES
16.95
102.30
i MERCY HCSPITAL
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
220.10
MERCY HCSPITAL
X-RAYS
X-RAYSMECICAL SER.
47.25
MERRIMACK BCOK SERVICE L
BCCKS CATALOGED
22. BC
MICWEST CALCULATOR
OFFICE EQUIPMENT REPAIR
10.49
MIDWEST JANITCRIAL SERVICES
TECHNICAL SERVICE
39.32
MIDWEST METAL PRCOUCTS
BUILDING & CCNST. SUP.
287.00
MICWESTERN RAPER CO.
OFFICE SUPPLIES
192.00
P.J. MIETH MFG. CC.
3 M
PRIOR -YEAR ENCUMBRANCES
9.99
145.29
2.P.S,1. LSB 2643 L
PRINTING SUPPLIES
3M CC. LS02643 L
3M CO. LSB2122
MISCELLANEICUS SUPPLIES
84.75
Lr575.00
MINNESOTA SIGNAL
REP. & MAINT. SUP.
241.70
RUSS MISHAK AGENCY
PRIOR -YEAR ENCUMBRANCES
MCNTGOMERY WARD & CO.
CCMPREHENSIVE LIAR. INS897.12
2272.86
MOCK G ELANCHARC
OFFICE FURNITLRE/EQUIP.
L
HUGH MDSE, JR.
BOOKS CATALOGED
26.70
MOTT5 DRUG STORE L
ECUIPMENT SERVICE
22.5C
MULFCRO PLUMBING E HEATINGREP.
PRINT
CF ELECT./PLBG.
60.60
MUNICIPAL CCOE CORP.
PRIOR -YEAR ENCUMBRANCES
62.50
MURDER INK L
BCGKS CATALOGED
594.04
NATIONAL CHEMSEAFCh
T&T
38.64
NATIONAL CIVIL SERVICE LEAGUE
DUES MEMBERSHIPSSUP.
106.72
NAT'L. FIRE PROTECTION ASSCC.
BOOKS
90.CC
NATICNAL RECORD PLAN L
DISC
33.60
65.36
FIICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
0
a e
i
CCU, tL LISTING
FUND: GENERAL FLNC
VENUGR NAME
NAT'L. TECH. INFUR. SEkVICE
6.5C
NATICNAL TEXTBOCK CO.
4.56
NEW RtACEHS PRESS
L
NORTHWESTERN BELL
L
OSCO URUG
L
PALS PHCGRAM
3944C.75
PALS PRCGRAM
39440.75
L.L. PELLING CO.
69261.23
PETERKA'S ANTIQLESECARE SFOP
L
PETERSEN'S COURT REPURTERS
32.52
PETERSENS PhOTOGRAPHIC
L
PHCTOGRAPHIC SPECIALTIES
L
ROY M. PITKEN M.C.
120.00
PITNEY ECWES
26.25
PITNEY BOWES
L
PLEASANT VALLEY ORCHARCS
29295.35
PLLS PUBLICATIONS
111.00
POPULAR SCIENCE BOOK CLUB
L
PRATT ECUCATICNAL MEDIA
L
BCNNIE FRUOCEN INC.
L
PYRAMID FILMS
47.00
QUALITY ENGRAVEC SIGNS
5.40
QUILL CORP.
29.51
QUILL CORP.
L
RAINTREE PUBLISFEPS GROUP
L
RECREATICN E AThLETIC PRCDUCTS
71.00
RECENT BCCK CC.
L
REGENTS CF TI -E U. OF CA.
6.00
REGNERY GATEhAY INC.
L
RESEAkCh TECFNOLCGY INC.
39.55
ROCCA WELDING E REPAIR
30.CC
RCCKING CHAIR
9.85
RUSSELL'S TCWING
66.50
SAFLEY MCVING G STCRAGE
73.5C
SAN VAL INC.
174.90
SCHOLASTIC BOCK SERVICES
L
SCHWAN(v RECCRO GLIDES
L
SEAMAN NUCLEAR CORP.
112.43
SECURITY ABSTRACT CO.
262.5C
SHAY ELECTRIC
234.18
SILVER EURCETT
L
CARCL SPAZIANI
5.CC
GEORGE SROCA
L
STANOARC E PVCR'S
L
STATE LIORARY CCMMISSICN
475.CC
STEVE'S TYPEWRITER CO.
34.4C
CAkCLE STEVENS
L
STILLWELL PAINT STORE
208.36
A661E STULFUS
12.00
JCHN R. SUCFCMEL
214.00
SUNSET MAGAZINE
3.00
SUPT. OF COCUMEKTS
105.00
TAX FCUNDATICK INCGRP.
IO.CC
TECHNIGRAPHICS INC.
367.20
C.S. TEPLER PL8LISHING CC.
L
CS/7S
PRUCUCT DESCRIPTION AMCUNT
BCCKS
6.5C
BCOKS CATALOGED
4.56
BCOKS CATALOGED
4.00
TELEPhCNE LINE CHARGES
410.4C
FIRST AID SUPPLIES
1.89
SCCIAL SERVICES
3944C.75
SOCIAL SERVICES
39440.75
ASPHALT
69261.23
BCCKS CATALOGED
4.CC
PRCFESSICNAL SERVICES
32.52
PRINT
19.CC
MISCELLANEICUS SUPPLIES
93.00
APPRAISEC SER.
120.00
OFFICE EQUIPMENT RENTAL
26.25
OFFICE EQUIPMENT REPAIR
88.50
AGRICULTURAL MATERIAL
29295.35
SUBSCFIPTION
111.00
BCOKS CATALOGED
25.IC
EQUIPMENT REPAIRS
28.CC
BECKS CATALOGED
5.95
L01) FILMS
47.00
OUTSICE PRINTING
5.40
MINOR OFFICE EQUIPMENT
29.51
OFFICE SUPPLIES
51.99
SCOKS CATALOGED
20.56
RECREATICNAL SUPPLIES
71.00
BOOKS CATALOGED
18.82
BCCKS
6.00
BCCKS CATALOGED
4.99
MISCELLANEIOUS SUPPLIES
39.55
REP. E MAINT. TO IMPROV
30.CC
PRINT
9.85
TOWING
66.50
MISCELLANEOUS
73.5C
TECHNICAL SERVICE
174.90
BCCKS CATALOGED
1.50
PRINT
4.95
PRIOR -YEAR ENCUMBRANCES
112.43
PROFESSICNAL SERVICES
262.5C
REP. E MAINT. TO EUILCI
234.18
PRINT
47.01
REGISTRATION
5.CC
BOOKS CATALOGED
4.70
PRINT
49.CC
DUES E MEMBERSHIPS
475.CC
EQUIPMENT REPAIRS
34.4C
BOOKS CATALOGED
22.5C
PAINT G SUPPLIES
208.36
EDUCATIONAL/TPAINING SU
12.00
TECFNICAL SERVICE
214.00
PRINT
3.00
BCCKS
105.00
PRINT
IO.CC
OFFICE SUPPLIES
367.20
OTHER UNCATALCGEC MAT.
5.55
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOVIES
0
CCU.^.L LISTING
FUND: GENERAL FUNC
VENDOR NAME
THCRARC CO.
TIME
U.S. COMMITTEE FOR UNICEFF
U.S. DEPT. CF CCMMERCE
U.S. LEASING
U.S. POST OFFICE
U.S. POST OFFICE
U.S. POST OFFICE
U.S. RADIO CATA INC.
UNIFLRM DEN, INC.
UNION BLS CEPGT
UNITEC ACTICN FOR YOUTH
UNITED ACTICN FCR YCUTF.
UNIVERSITY CF IOMA
UNIVERSITY OF ICMA HOSPITALS
UNIVERSITY CF 1G6A HOSPITALS
WAGNER-FCNTIAC
WALL STREET JOURNAL
WASHINGTCN PARK INC.
WEE WASh IT
WEE WASH IT
WELT AMERISCO INSURANCE
WELT AM8RISCG INSURANCE
WEST PUBLISHING CO.
WHCLESALE TURF CORP.
WITT'S FIRE ECUIPMENT
WOLF CCNSTRLCTICN
RAYMCND E. WOMEACHER
RAYMCND E. WCMEACHER
WORLD BLSINESS iEEKLY
YOLTF FLMES INC.
NELLE NEAFIE
DENNIS CALLAS
HARRIET CEAN
HARRY FCREST
MAkICN JCNES JR.
PAULETTE SHULTY
HILDA HOWELL
ROBERT CAVIL SCOTT
JEFF LEAMAN
HAMER LTC.
RICHARD HANSEN
DENNIS CLAIRE ELLIS
PAUL GILROY
MRS. ICA SLEEKER
TCM BOGS
JIMSA-LCVETINSKY9 LTD.
JCE JCHNSTCN, ATTCRNEY
CS/7S
PRODUCT UESCRIPTICN AMOUNT
RENTALS
3.72
SUBSCRIPTION
29.5C
SLICE'_ 6 SLICE SETS
4.00
PAMPHLET FILE MATERIALS
50.00
L OFFICE ECUIPMENT RENTAL
30.06
POSTAGE
95.00
BULK MAILING
216.4C
POSTAGE
6920O.CC
L POSTAGE
95.00
PRICR-YEAR ENCUMBRANCES
29478.7C
MISCELLANEOUS
31.55
SOCIAL SERVICES
5,COC.CC
SOCIAL SERVICES
29500.CC
L WCRK STUDY WAGES
311.37
JUDGEMENT E CAMAGES
58.00
MEDICAL SER.
32.92
VEHICLE REPAIRS
19263.94
SUBSCRIPTION
99.00
BUILDING RENTAL
L9463.00
LAUNDRY SERVICE
164.70
LAUNOFY SERVICE
179.7C
NCTARV BOND
75.00
NOTARY BOND
55.CC
ADVERTISING
312.45
AGRICLLTLRAL MATERIAL
120.CC
PRIOR -YEAR ENCUMBRANCES
92.39
OPERATING EQUIPMENT
16,500.00
FOOD ALLOWANCE
25.CC
FCCC ALLCWANCE
25.CC
SUBSCFIPTICN
19.95
SOCIAL SERVICES
49CCO.CO
PROF-eSSICNAL SERVICES
100.00
WITNESS FEE
5.00
REFLNC
2•CC
REFLNC
9.CC
REFLNC
40.CC
REFUNE
30.00
LANG PRUCHASE
80.00
JUDGEMENT C DAMAGES
150.CC
REFUNC
6.00
REFLNC
75.00
REFLNC
40.CC
REFLNC
18.75
PROFESSIGNAL SERVICES
65.00
REFUNC
56.00
WITNESS FEE
5.00
REFLNC
211.25
JUDGEMENT 6 DAMAGES
69599.00
FLND TOTAL
1819462.13
FIICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOIIIES
i
i
CCIn IL LISTING C9/79
FUND: CERT SERVICE FUNC
VENDLk NAME PROCUCT DESCRIPTION
IST N ATIL BANK OF S10W CITY GENERAL MID. BCNC INT
IOWA STATE BANK GENERAL 08LIG. BDNC INT
FUND TCTAL
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES IIOIIIES
AMCUNT
318.75
881.25
Lr200.CC
i
1
i
i
I
1
i
f
1
1.:
I
i
r
1
i
1
�
1
1
i
i
f
i
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES IIOIIIES
AMCUNT
318.75
881.25
Lr200.CC
i
I .
CCU. ^.L
LISTING C9/79
FUND: LAPITAL PROJECT FUKCS
VENOCR NAME
PRODUCT DESCRIPTICN
AMCUNT
AMES ENGINEERING E TESTING
MANANGMENT SERVICE
99219,52
ASSUCIATED ENGINEERS
CCNSULTANT SERVICE
149158.3C
BEFNARL BELL
L REP. E MA1NT. TC BLILCI
48.78
BROThER5 TREE SERVICE
ECUIFMENT SERVICE
19920.5C
RObERT BURNS E ASSCC.
ARChITECTURAL SEF.
59373.47
G.L. SYSTEMS, INC.
L OPERATING EQUIPMENT
19.36
JIM COLLINS
ECUIFMENT SERVICE
19340.00
DES MOINES REGISTER L TRIBUNE
LEGAL PUBLICATICNS
244.CC
HANSEN, LINC G MEYER
ARCHIIECTURAL SER.
229287.9C
HANSCN CCNCRETE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
709414.74
j VIGGO M. JENSEN CC.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
7869840.29
JACK E. LEAMAN
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
44.5C
METRC PAVERS
CAPITAL IMPRCVEMENT
2689355.36
OZARK AIRLINES
MISCELLANEOUS
4.50
PLEASANT VALLEY CFCHARCS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
436,42
ROBERT I-. RCHLF
CCNSULTANT SERVICE
19205.18
ROBERT h. ROHLF
ARCHITECTURAL SER.
39240.CC
SUIL TESTING SERVICES CF ICMA
ENGINEERING SER.
335.00
D.L. TAYLOR CO.
CAPITAL IMPRCVEMENT
531.00
UNITED CCNTRACTCRS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
59791.85
VEENSTRA G KIMM
ENGINEERING SER,
39698.36
CARL BALKER G ASSCC.
ENGINEERING SER.
149443.01
WINEGAR APPRAISAL CO.
APPRAISEC SER.
920.CC
WINEGAR APPRAISAL CO.
APPRAISED SER.
360.CC
MAYNE YODER SAWMILL
APPRAISED SER.
50.00
FUND 70TAL
192119282.04
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOINES
L :
CCU. .L LISTING (39/79
FUND: ENTERPRISE FLNDS
VENUCR NAME
PRODUCT CESCRIPTICN
AMCLNT
AERO RENTAL INC.
TCCLS E ECUIPMENT RENT
729.32
AIR CULLED ENGINE SERVICES
EQUIPMENT REPAIRS
10.85
ALLIED CHEMICAL CCRP.
ALUMINUM SULFATE
39412.5f
hARRY ALTER C SCNS
PRICR-YEAR ENCUMBRANCES
106.CC
ANSWER ICWA INC.
PAGING
31.7C
APACHE HOSE C RUE8ER INC.
PRICR-YEAR ENCUMBRANCES
214.06
APACHE HCSE E KU28ER INC.
MISCELLANEIOUS SUPPLIES
219.37
AUTCMATIC SYSTEM
EQUIPMENT REPAIRS
148.56
BCNTkAGER MACHINE C WELDING
GENERAL ECUIPMENT
16.35
CEDAR RAPICS GAZETTE
ADVERTISING
162.36
CERTIFIEC LABCRATCRIES
SANITATICN C IND. SLP.
262.65
CHICAGO RCCK ISLAND E PACIFIC
RENTALS
54.CC
IOWA CITY PETTY CASH
TECHNICAL SERVICE
42.63
IOWA CITY PETTY CASH
TEChNICAL SERVICE
54.84
SEWER RESERVE ACCT.
BCNO CROINANCE TRANSFER
129000.00
WATER BGNC E INTEREST kESERVE
BCNO CROINANCE TRANSFER
309COO.00
COMMERCIAL TCMEL
LAUNDFY SERVICE
204.65
COMMERCIAL TOWEL
LAUNDFY SERVICE.
41.70
CCNTFACTGRS TCOL E SUPPLY
MISCELLANEIOUS SLPPLIES
105.93
CCNTROL CATA COPP.
EQUIPMENT REPAIRS
L931LOC
CULLIGAN WATER CCNCITICNING
TOOLS E ECUIPMENT RENT
32.00
DEECC INC.
MISCELLANEIOUS SUPPLIES
215.4C
ALBERT CCLEZAL
SAFETY SHOES
15.00
ECCNCMY ACVERTISING
OUTSICE PRINTING
29780.65
ELBERT C ASSOCIATES
CGMFUTER PROCESSING
220.CC
ELECTRIC MCTORS OF
ECUIFMENT REPAIRS
230.06
FANUEL ELECTRIC
ECUIPMENT REPAIRS
29.5C
FLEETWAY STCRES
BUILDING 6 CCNST. SUP.
162.60
INC.
AGRICLLTLRAL MATERIAL
66.96
iFOSTER'S
GOODWILL INCUSTRIES
MISCELLANEIOUS SUPPLIES
39.00
CECIL GCRSH G SCNS
PRICE -YEAR ENCUMBRANCES
49403.73
l GRAPHIC CCNTFCLS CORP.
MISCELLANEIOUS SLPPLIES
56.95
I GRIFFIN PIPE PRCCLCTS
IMPROVEMENT MATERIAL
89224.50
HACH CHEMICAL CO.
LAB. CHEMICALS G SUPPLI
111.56
IBM
OFFICE ECUIPMENT REPAIR
41.17
1I
IOWA HEARING CO. INC.
GENERAL ECUIPMENT
67.65
j
IOWA 800K E SUPPLY
OFFICE SUPPLIES
3.35
i
IOWA BYSTANCER
LEGAL PUBLICATIONS
24.0C
R
ICWA CITY FLYING SERVICE A.
TECHNICAL SERVICE
120.CC
IOWA ILLINOIS GAS E ELECTRIC
ELECTRICITY
11,835.95
IOWA ILLINCIS GAS E ELECTPIC A
ELECTRICITY
468.47
IOWA LUMBER CC.
MISCELLANEIDUS SUPPLIES
184.75
JOHNSON CCUNTY TREASURER
PROPERTY TAX
3020.54
K MART
SURFACING MATERIAL
39.8E
KEN'S
SANITATION E IND. SUP.
66.91
LINWOOD STCNE PFCCUCTS
HYCFATEO LIME
2,101.71
MCCA8E ELUIPMENT CC. INC.
OPERATING EQUIPMENT
493.75
MCKESSLN CHEMICAL CO.
PRIOR -YEAR ENCUMBRANCES
882.5C
MCNTGOMERY WAFU 6 CO.
BUILDING 6 CONST. SUP.
88.2C
NORTHWESTERN DELL A.
TELEPHCNE LINE CHARGES
7.60
RCNALD PERRY
SAFETI SHOES
15.00
PICNEER CO.
PRIOR -YEAR ENCUMBRANCES
231.82
PRO SPECIALISTIES INC.
WATER/SEWAGE CHEMICALS
461.17
QUAD CITY'S TIMES
ADVER71SING
113.22
SARCENT-WELCH SCIENTIFIC
PRIOR -YEAR ENCUMBRANCES
238.77
IIICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOVIES
i
I
I
I
i
y
FUND: ENTERFRISE FUNDS
f
�
�
SEARS RCEBUCK E CO.
I
2.9C
I
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOINES
i
i
I
CCUi tL LISTING 09/79
FUND: ENTERFRISE FUNDS
VENOCR NAME
PRODUCT DESCRIPTICN
AMCUNT
SEARS RCEBUCK E CO.
GENERAL ECUIPMENT
2.9C
SHAY ELECTRIC
REP. E MA1NT. TO IMPROV
247.93
SPARLING ENVIROTECF
GENERAL EQUIPMENT
242.61
STATE TREASLRER CF IOWA
SALES TAX
2.678.E5
STCCKMAN APPLICATCRS
HAULING
510.00
UNIVERSITY OF IOWA
PRIOR -YEAR ENCUMBRANCES
340.CC
WALLACE 6 TIERNAN
ECUIPMENT REPAIRS
343.15
WATER PRODUCTS
PLRCHASES FOR RESALE
98.46
WATERLOO DAILY CCURIER
ADVERTISING
105.75
M.B. WATSON
TECHNICAL SERVICE
125.0C
JAMES A. WELLS
SAFETY SHOES
15.0C
WENGER REFRIGERATICN
REP. C MAINT. TO BLILCI
28.00
WESCO
GENERAL EQUIPMENT
189.0C
ZIMMER E FRANCESCCN
MINOR EQUIPMENT
332.63
STEVE STIMMEL
REFUNC
1.51
EVELYN SNYDER
REFLNC
5.C8
BURTCN FFANTZ
REFLNC
2.13
FRED MCCRE
REFUNC
2.54
ELANCR WARNER
REFLNC
3.60
MYRTLE AVE. PFOP.
REFUNC
6.16
FRANK SEIBERLING
REFUNC
2.30
MICHAEL WAVERING
REFLNC
51.52
M.H. AFRA
REFLNC
46.20
W.L. CCNKLIN
JU'OCEMENT L CAMAGES
52.CC
JIM CLARK
REFUNC
7.31
MARLA GLY
REFUNC
48.00
CFERYL WALTERS
REFUNC
17.27
CHUCK MELIEN
REFLNC
14.C6
JOHN ECKRICh
REFUNC
10.49
RANDY KASTENCIECK
REFLNC
1.57
BEVERLY NUECFTER
REFUNC
3.86
DAVID SHLTT
REFUNC
I.E6
RICHARD GALLAGHER
REFUNC
9.25
TCM MARTIN
REFUNC
2.57
EMMETT.FCTTER
REFLNC
38.52
EARL YODER
REFUNC
3.C3
DICK BREAZEALE
REFUNC
3.15
BURT FFANTZ
REFLNC
11.93
ANCREW FUMPFRIES
REFUNC
3.C4
FUNC ICTAL
929534.2C
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOINES
i
i
I
LCU'.l�;L
LISTING 09/79
f
FUND: TRLST G AGENCY FLN'DS
VFNUCR NAME
PROCUCT DESCRIPTION
AMCUNT
SARA UATEMAN
PRGFESSICNAL SERVICES
35.GC
BEANS QUALITY BILLIARDS
OFFICE FURNITLRE/ECUIP.
1.100.00
CLARKOS CARPETS
OFFICE FURNITURE/EQUIP.
4#8OO.CC
FROHWEIN SUPPLY CC.
OFFICE FURNITLRE/ECUIP.
11996.00
FROHWF.IN SUPPLY CC.
OFFICE FURNITLRE/ECUIP.
26#C18.8E
MARILOU GAY
MISCELLANEIOUS SUPPLIES
62.24
hAGENIS FURNITURE E TV
PRICP-YEAR ENCUMERANCES
333.00
HARVEY W. hENRY
ARCHITECTURAL SER.
69CCO.00
IBM
OFFICE FURNITLRE/EQUIP.
780.CC
INTERSTATE SFCPPER
ADVERTISING
48.26
ICWA MACHINERY E SUPPLY
OFFICE FURNITURE/EQUIP.
3#489.00
I.P.E.R.S.
IPERS
17#910.CC
I.P.E.R.S.
FICA
23#734.76
L. H. JACQLES# M.G.
MEDICAL SER.
15.CC
JC. CO. ABSTRACT E TITLE CC.
-INC.
TECFNICAL SERVICE
77,06
LA RUE CISTRIEUTINC
MISCELLANEIOUS SUPPLIES
133.56
LA RLE DISTRIBUTING INC.
MISCELLANEICUS SUPPLIES
16.94
LENOCH S CILEK
PRIOR-YEAR ENCUMERANCES
71.58
LINO ART SUPPLIES
OFFICE FURNITLRE/EQUIP.
19285.00
hENRY LCLIS INC.
OFFICE FURNITLRE/ECUIP.
482.78
MEANS AGENCY
APPRAISED SER,
250.CC
MEDICAL ARTS SURGICAL SUPFLY
OFFICE FURNITURE/ECUIP.
1#454.10
PIERSON WHOLESALE FLORIST
MISCELLANE[CUS SUPPLIES
168.40
PIGOTT INC.
OFFICE FURNITLRE/EQUIP.
49993.CC
PICKER Co.
OFFICE FURNITURE/ECUIP.
2#519.89
PLANNED ENVIkCNMENiS
ARCHITECTURAL SER.
174.84
PLEASANT VALLEY CRCHARES
OFFICE FURNITURE/ECUIP.
29489.00
i ASHA PUV
TREE TRIMMING
100.00
PRATT ECUCATICNAL MEDIA L
PRIOR-YEAR ENCUMBRANCES
484.00
I+
SAXTON INC.
OFFICE FURNITURE/EQUIP.
9#870.00
. SLAGER'S HARCWARE E APPLIANCE
OFFICE FURNITURE/ECUIP.
960.00
WEFNER NOWYS2 E PATTSCHULL
ARCHITECTURAL SER.
827.6C
i ! WEST MUSIC CO.
OFFICE FURNITURE/EQUIP.
1r350.CC
WEST SIDE SEWING MACHINE
OFFICE FURNITLRE/EQUIP.
1#112.00
YOUNKERS
OFFICE FURNITURE/EQUIP.
179317.5C
i
f
FUND TOTAL
132.459.33
i
1 I
i
i f
I
j
1
I
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
I
CEDAR RAPIDS-DES IIOINES
CCL,` iL LISTING C9/79
FUND: INTRAGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE
FUNCS
< VENOCR NAME PROCUCT CESCRIPTION
AMCLNT
RALLY ACAMS
TRAVEL ADVANCE
119.50
ACVANCEC AUCIC ENGINEERING
RENTALS
61.00
AHERN-PERSHING CFFICE SLPFLY
OFFICE SLPPLIES
416.45
JAMES W. BELL CC -9 INC.
GENERAL EQUIPMENT
1,102.24
NEAL G. BERLIN
TRAVEL ACVANCE
50.00
BOATELS
REIMBLRSABLE TRAVEL
285.00
BOATELS
REIMBLRSABLE TRAVEL
60.60
JIM BRACHTEL
TRAVEL ACVANCE
E4.
CEDAR RAPICS GAZETTE
ADVERTISING
477.5522
i CHARTER COACHES INC.
REIMBLRSABLE TRAVEL
1,156.60
PETTY CASH-RECREATIGN CENTER
REIMELRSABLE TRAVEL
34.42
CLINE TRUCK C EQUIPMENT
BUSES
32.68
CCNTRACTCRS TCCL L SUPPLY
TCCLS C MINOR EQLIPMENT
168.1E
CAVENPORT SPRING CC. INC.
GENERAL ECUIPMENT
129.70
CICTAFHCNE
OFFICE EQUIPMENT REPAIR
33.33
EUGENE A. DIETZ
TRAVEL ACVANCE
420.00
j MARYLEE DIXCN
LCCAL MILEAGE
49.55
CWAYNES
ALTOS -LIGHT TRUCKS
75.0C
ELBERT L ASSOCIATES
CCMFUTER PRCCESSING
400.GC
GARY EMBREE
TOOLS C MINOR EQLIPMENT
50.00
ERBS OFFICE SERVICES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
35.70
FLEETwAY STORES
TCCLS C MINOR EQLIPMENT
22.39
DAN FOUNTAIN
TCOLS C MINOR EQLIPMENT
50.0C
JOHN FUHPMEISTEk
TCOLS C MINOR EQUIPMENT
50.0C
CHARLES GAELS FORD
BUSES
97.64
GRUMMAN FLXIBLE CO.
BUSES
370.45
THCMAS HANSEN
REFUNC
75.CC
HARRY•S CLSTCM TROPHIES
RECREATIGNAL SUPPLIES
280.50
HARTWIG MCTCRS INC.
VEHICLE REPAIRS
95.31
HALSMAN BLS PARTS CO.
BUSES
569.73
HAWKEYE STATE BANK
TRANSFER
215x459.96
HAWKEYE STATE BANK
TRANSFER
215x855.25
HICKLIN POWER CO.
BUSES
7x984.92
4.51
TFE HIGHSMITH CO. L
OFFICE SUPPLIES
67.5C
IBM
OFFICE SUPPLIES
IBM
1
OFFICE ECUIPMENT RENTAL
753.35
i'
INTEFNATICNAL HAFVESTER CC.
2 TCN TRLCKS
104.04
IOWA ELECTRIC WELLING CO.
VEHICLE REPAIRS
1,127.34
IOWA LUMBER CC.
TOOLS
9.35
IOWA SSTP UNIV. CF IOWA
REIMBURSABLE TRAVEL
230.00
K MART
2 TCN TRUCKS
2.15
KAR FROCUCTS
MISCELLANEIOUS SUPPLIES
1,412.47
KENS
MISCELLANEIGUS SUPPLIES
208.23
i"KRALL CIL CO.
FLELS
159665.66
GREGG KRLSE
1 I I DCN JUJACZYNSKI
REFUNC
TCCLS C MINOR EQUIPMENT
75.0C
50.CC
H.B. LEISEROWITZ CO.
MISCELLANEIDUS SUPPLIES
138.80
MAC TCLILS
TCCLS
161.10
" OCNNAPLL MAC CANN L
PRGFESSICNAL SERVICES
150.CC
MAINLINE ECUIFMENT INC.
GENERAL EQUIPMENT
68.27
• MARV'S GLASS
BUILCING C CONST. SUP.
107.43
'i MIDWESTERN P06ER PRODUCTS
STREET/SANITATICN EQUIP
222.52
MODERN BLSINESS SYSTEMS
OFFICE ECUIPMENT RENTAL
865.53
JERRY MLMFORD
REFLNC
75.GC
120.16
t NATIONAL CHEMSEARCH
FLUICS, GASES, OTHER
1 MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 1401IIES
r
CCLi :L LISTING
09/79
FUND: INTRACOVEkNMENTAL SERVICE FUNCS
VENDCR NAME
NOkMCYL E -BERG
OLE CAPITOL MCTCkS
OLD DCMINICN NRLSH
BILL PEAK
FICNEER CO.
POWER ECUIPMENT INC.
PkGFESSICNAL MUFFLERS INC.
CULL CCPP.
STEVE REICHARL'T
TERRY REYNOLDS
ROCCA WELDING G REPAIR
RUSSELLOS TOWING
ANGELA RYAN
KIRK SCHRCCK
SEARS ROEBUCK G CO.
I DENNIS E. SHOWALTER
STANCAR.0 STATIONERY SUPPLY CO
GARY STEVENS
DARWIN SMARTZENDPUBER
TELHNIGRAPHICS INC.
VUELKERS OFFICE FRCOUCTS
WECO E14GINEERING SALES
HAZEL WESTGATE
XEROX CCPP.
XEROX CORP.
XEROX CCRPORATICN L
COLLEEN SCHCO
MARK R. HENNING
KEVIN EARTLING
FRANK DEPIRRU
PETE EIERE
MARTIN BERANEK
JANICE GNADE
JACQUELINE CUNBAP
PAUL S. JCHNSCN
AVERY T. SHARP
MARIANE SALCETT
PAUL ZACCh
MARY PRANCY
JEFF BELL
PETER FRCEHLICH
RCBERT MOLSBERRY
GLGRIA WENTfE
ARCHIE KUEHN
CCNALO TCMPKINS
MARK DAVIOSCN
CANDY RITLMAN
PATRICIA CAkRGLL
BETH HOOVER
KAREN L. TYNEI
PAUL POSEY
DAN NOLLSCH
JGHN D. NEWLIN
CHAC SELLERS
BRAD BEATTY
PROCUCT DESCRIPTIGN
CAPITAL IMPRCVEM.ENT
PRIOR -YEAR ENCUMBRANCES
STREET/SANITATICN ECUIP
TCOLS G MINOR EOLIPMENT
OFFICE SUPPLIES
GENERAL ECUIPMENT
VEHICLE REPAIRS
OFFICE SUPPLIES
TCCLS C MINOR EQUIPMENT
TCCLS C MINOR EQUIPMENT
GENERAL ECUIPMENT
VEHICLE REPAIRS
TRAVEL ACVANCE
TCCLS
MISCELLANEIOUS SUPPLIES
TRAVEL ADVANCE
OFFICE SUFPLIES
TCCLS G MINOR EQUIPMENT
TCCLS G MINOR EQUIPMENT
OUTSICE PRINTING
OFFICE SUPPLIES
GARBACE TRUCKS
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
PAPER STOCK
nFFICE ECUIPMENT RENTAL
OFFICE EQUIPMENT RENTAL
REFUNC
REFUNC
REFLNC
REFUNC
REFUNC
REFLNC
REFLNC
REFLNC
REFUNC
REFLNC
REFUNC
REFUNC
REFLNC
REFUNC
REFUNC
REFUNC
REFLNC
REFUNC
REFLNC
REFUNC
REFLNC
REFLNC
REFUNC
REFLNC
REFLNC
REFUNC
REFLNC
REFLNC
REFUNC
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES 110IRCS
AMCUNT
129802.23
Sr945.89
789.75
50.00
89.75
96.76
B.00
452.25
50.00
50. CC
155.50
7.50
534.00
50.CC
31.56
15.0C
46.18
50.00
50.CC
102.77
130.65
12.32
300.60
698.60
660.12
520.48
7.56
13.48
3.21
6.1C
17.72
15.18
17.29
20.54
32.C5
16.70
10.94
6.16
5.42
19.24
19.24
18.56
20.26
2.30
2.03
3.18
L3.06
7.64
10.26
21.83
10.95
3.15
20.09
14.10
20.94
N
a
!1
CCU,. IL LISTING
FUND: INTRAGOVERN MENTAL SERVICE FLNOS
VENOCR NAME
JOHN D. ANUERSCN
NANCY PELECFEK
CCNALO ELHF.RT
ALI NOURIAN
GLENCA GILL
FRED L. GODCAR
CAVIC STOODARG
MIKE RASMUSSEN
JERRY CILEK
ANDREW hUMPhRIES
EULENSPIEGEL FUFFET TFEATRE
COMMEDIA THEATRE CC.
GOOD MUSIC AGENCY
GREG 8RChN
STEVE LAMPE
DAVE FIARICE
TOM FERRING
I PINK GRAVEY
i MARGE GURLL
DAVE OLIVE
COLLEGIUM MUSICUM
STEVE BISSELL
BUB SLATER
JOHN SWINTON
DAVID LhRATKIEWIAZ
MARK ADYNIEC
SALT CREEK
WARREN hANLCN
MARY MLCARTNEY
DAVID A. CHRISTENSCN
BOB SOL13ERG
JEFF KRUKCSKI
ROD GALLO
NANCY COLRTNEY
KANES DEFCT
GREG GROSS
LEROY FCRTMANN
DAN GOGERTY
KAThY J. CGYLE
PHIL BRENNEMAN
DAVE RENTER
ERUCE AEAMS
ANGIE O#RCUPKE
MANFCRD STEFFER
KEVIN KANYA
CINDY HARRI SCN
TRACY L. LAIR
RONALD JACOPS
JERRY REESE
ALLEN HANNAY
JERRY P.ARNES
ANN CHRISTIANSEN
FRANK CUMMINGS
WM. T. BCWEN
LYNN MCLAURY
C9/7S
PRODUCT DESCRIPTION
ANCUNT
REFUNC
6.71
REFUNC
4.17
REFLNC
13.31
REFLNC
7.C5
REFUNC
14.25
REFUNC
7.84
REFLNC
16.20
REFUNC
14.84
REFUNC
40.00
REFUNC
14.14
PRCFESSICNAL
SERVICES
60.00
PPOFESSICNAL
SERVICES
350.0C
PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES
80.00
PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES
30.00
PRCFESSICNAL
SERVICES
30.CO
PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES
30.CC
PROFESSICNAL
SERVICES
I5O.00
PROFESSICNAL
SERVICES
200.00
PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES
30.CC
PRCFESSICNAL
SERVICES
125.00
PROFESSICNAL
SERVICES
75.CC
PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES
30.00
PROFESSIChAL
SERVICES
125.CC
PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES
30.00
PROFESSICNAL
SERVICES
30.00
REFUNC
19.64
PROFESSICNAL
SERVICES
320.00
PROFESSICNAL
SERVICES
200.CC
REFUNC
L0.80
REFLNC
19.33
REFUNC
16.02
REFUNC
20.34
REFLNC
12.66
REFLNC
8.78
REFUNC
13.01
REFLNO
9.71
REFUNC
6.9C
REFUNC
13.18
REFLNC
11.96
REFUNC
I.E1
REFLNC
13.31
REFUNC
18.5E
REFUNC
11.75
REFLNC
16.39
REFLNC
24.64
REFUNC
30.6C
REFLNC
3.61
REFUNC
10.10
REFLNC
6.71
REFUNC
15.18
REFUNC
17.47
REFUNC
L5.18
REFLNC
15.18
REFLNC
10.10
REFLNC
8.4C
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
R
■i
a c
I
t
i
I
CCL..IL LISTING
C9179
FUND: INTRAGOVERNMENTAL
I
SERVICE FUNDS
1
I
!I
i
I
i
REFUNC
u
MARY BREKKE
REFLNC
f
I
f
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES IIOIRES
AMCUNT
16.02
9.24
20.14
17.56
4.64
17.54
13.15
19.24
3.72
6.C3
17.55
6.27
8.4S
15.01
30.CC
60.CC
50.00
104.73
36.CC
44.62
25.00
30.00
25.CC
4989997.50
CCL..IL LISTING
C9179
FUND: INTRAGOVERNMENTAL
I
SERVICE FUNDS
VENDCR NAME
PRODUCT DESCRIPTICN
PETER HAKES
REFUNC
MARY BREKKE
REFLNC
MIRIAM FOFFMAN
REFLNC
CHARLES N. CUNCAR
REFLNC
HERBERT M. LYMAN
REFLNC
KAREN HOPP
REFLNC
GREGCRY WATKINS
REFLNC
CHRISTOPHER MERRITT
REFUNE
WENOELL LEISINGER
REFUhC
LINCA VECEPO
REFLNC
STEVEN KLINE
REFLNC
KATHLEEN MANGAN
REFLNC
KEVIN MIMMS
REFLNC
JAMES WEYH.ENMEYER
REFUNE
CIANA BARTLETT
REFLNC
MARK EVANS
PROFESSICNAL
SERVICES
GREG BROWN
PROFESSICNAL
SERVICES
GEORGIA LCCKINGBILL
REIMBLRSABLE
TRAVEL
BE77Y MAHER
REFUNE
NORLCSTCO
RENTALS
TIM BELLOWS
PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES
JEFF LEAMAN
PROFESSICNAL
SERVICES
CARCL TFCMAS
PROFESSICNAL
SERVICES
FUNC TOTAL
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES IIOIRES
AMCUNT
16.02
9.24
20.14
17.56
4.64
17.54
13.15
19.24
3.72
6.C3
17.55
6.27
8.4S
15.01
30.CC
60.CC
50.00
104.73
36.CC
44.62
25.00
30.00
25.CC
4989997.50
CCU'. iL LISTING
FUND: SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FUND
VENDOR NAME PROCUCT DESCRIPTION
AHLERS,CCCNEYP DOR%EILER ET.AL ATTCPNEY SER.
FUND TOTAL
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES 140114ES
C9/79'
AMOUNT
478.04
478. C4
m o
i
i
i
MISCELLANEIOUS SLPPLIES
I
PRICR-YEAR ENCUM2RANCES
50.00
REGI51RA71GN
19.50
CCUI�L LISTING
FUND: SPECIAL REVENUE FUND
VENDOR NAME
IOWA CITY PETTY CASH
IOWA CITY PETTY CASH
ECCNCMY ADVERTISING
MIKE FLAHERTY
JC. CO. ABSTRACT D TITLE CC.
JORM MICPOLAB
EUGENE OR CLARA PARSONS ANC
QUAD CITY'S TIMES
SECURITY ABSTRACT CO.
SONDRA SMITH AND
STANLEY CCNSULTANTS
SUPT. OF DOCUMENTS
WHOLE EARTH GENERAL STORE
MARTIN HISCOCK
MARGUERITE GINGERICH
ANNA OR MELVIN GREAZEL ANL
RUTH CURER ANC
HILCA LCNG ANC
LARRY RICINGER
JAMES PARSCNS
ANDY HUNTER
CARL FREEMAN
ASSISTED HOUSING - SECTION 8
VARIOUS LANDLORDS
DALLAS MEIER
LAKESIDE PARTNERS
PAUL CHRISTIAN
JOSEPH FENNELL
ROBERT FOX
ROBERT FOX
DWIGHT HUNTER
LAKESIDE PARTNERS
LAKESIDE PARTNERS
LAKESIDE PARTNERS
Le CHATEAU APARTMENTS
MARISSA APARTMENTS
MARISSA APARTMENTS
LOIS PETERSON
VIOLA SPRINGER
ROOT. WOLF
09/79
PROCUCT CESCRIP71ON AMCLNT
FILM
4.1E
MISCELLANEIOUS SLPPLIES
36.1C
PRICR-YEAR ENCUM2RANCES
50.00
REGI51RA71GN
19.50
APPRAISED SER.
45.00
TECHNICAL SERVICE
19271.0E
BLILDING IMPROVEMENTS
19406.00
ADVERTISING
103.23
APPRAISED SER.
750.00
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
49688.00
ENGINEERING SER.
700.21
BECKS
7.50
MISCELLANEIOUS SLPPLIES
23.12
REFUNC
28.00
BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS
622.78
BUILCING IMPROVEMENTS
19498.00
BUILCING IMPRCVEMENTS
980.CC
BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS
291C9.00
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
6.91
CAPITAL IMPRCVEMENT
11.18
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
13.33
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
13.33
FUND TOTAL
149588.45
RENT
44,830.00
RENT
96,00
RENT
100.00
RENT
141.00
RENT
140.00
RENT
56.00
RENT
20.00
RENT
11.00
RENT
134.00
RENT
145.00
RENT
101.00
RENT
30.00
RENT
185.00
RENT
185.00
RENT
148.00
RENT
68.00
RENT
76.00
FUND TOTAL $46,466.00
GRAND TOTAL $ 2,179,467.69
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOINES
e
CITY OF IOWA CITY
CIVIC CENTER 410 E. WASHINGTON ST. IOWA CITY IOWA 52240 (319) 354.180
NOTICE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF IOWA CITY
IS CONSIDERING AN APPOINTMENT
TO THE FOLLOWING BOARD:
UNITED ACTION FOR YOUTH BOARD
One vacancy - One-year term
October 23, 1979 - June 30, 1980
United Action for Youth is an agency which plans
and conducts an Outreach Program to locate youth
who are alienated from the traditional approaches
to youth services and helps them identify their in-
dividual needs and facilitates meeting the same in
the best interest of the individual and the commun-
ity.
Iowa City appointed members of Boards and Commis-
sions must be qualified voters of the City of Iowa
City.
This appointment will be made at the October 23.1979
meeting of the City Council at 7:30 P.M. in the
Council Chambers. Persons interested in being con-
sidered for this position should contact the City
Clerk, Civic Center, 410 East Washington. Appli-
cation forms are available from the Clerk's office
upon request.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
1
i
October 23, 1979
UNITED ACTION VOR YOUTH BOARD - one vno.nney for n ono -your
F I term From October 23, 1979 to .limo 30, 1980.
Nina Hamilton
1173 East Court St.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAS
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES FIOIIIES
.I
AUVISi� BOARD/COMMISSION APPLICATION ' M
i Individuals serving on Boards/Commissions play an important role in advising the Council
on matters of interest to our community and its future. Applicants must reside in Iowa City.
the City Council announces advisory board vacancies 60 days prior to the date the
appointment will be made. This 60 -day period provides for a 30 -day advertising period and a 30 -
day training period for new members. The training period allows new members to become familiar
with the responsibilities and duties of the advisory board before becoming a full voting
member.
After a vacancy has been announced and the 30 -day advertising period has expired, the
Council reviews all applications during the informal work session. The appointment is
announced at the next formal Council meeting. Appointees serve as unpaid volunteers.
All applications must be submitted to the City Clerk no later than one week prior to the
announced appointment date.
THIS APPLICATION IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT AND AS SUCH CAN BE REPRODUCED AND DISTRIBUTED FOR THE
i 1111BLIC. ALL NAMES WILL BE DROPPED FROM THE LIST AFTER A ONE-YEAR PERIOD.
DATE October 19, 1979
ADVISORY BOARD/COMMISSION NAME United Action for Youth TERM 1 It .
:
NAME Nina Hamilton
I ADDRESS 1173 East Court St.
OCCUPATION Social Work Faculty EMPLOYER University of Iowa
PHONE NUMBERS: RESIDENCE 351-5212 BUSINESS 353-4852
EXPERIENCE AND/OR ACTIVITIES WHICH YOU FEEL QUALIFY YOU FOR THIS POSITION: Group work,
counseling and teaching with young people
WHAT IS YOUR PRESENT KNOWLEDGE OF THIS ADVISORY BOARD? Not a governing body; provides
linkage to the community and assistance to the agency through the expertise of
its members.
WHAT CONTRIBUTIONS DO YOU FEEL YOU CAN MAKE TO THIS ADVISORY BOARD (OR STATE REASON FOR
APPLYING;)? Knowledge of the community,• liaison to the School of Social Work counseling
___and organizational skills.
Specific attention should be directed to possible conflict of interest in Urban Renewal project
or as defined in Chapters 362.6, 403A.22 of the Code of Iowa. Should you be uncertain whether
or not a potential conflict of interest exists, contact the Legal Dept. Will you have a
conflict of interest? YES .. NO
Knowing the length of term, are you willing to serve this term? ,A_YES _NO
If you are not selected, do you want to be notified? X YES _NO
If you are not appointed for the current vacancy, do you wish to be considered fora future
vacancy? X YES NO
January 1979
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
3
W
CITY
OF
CIVIC CENTER 410 E. WASHINGTON ST.
IOWA CITY
IOWA CITY IOWA 52240 (3191354-78(3D
NOTICE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF IOWA CITY
IS CONSIDERING APPOINTMENTS
TO THE FOLLOWING BOARD:
BOARD OF APPEALS
One vacancy - Unexpired term
October 23, 1979 - December 31, 1980
Two vacancies - Three-year terms
November 27, 1979 - December 31, 1982
It is the duty of members of the Board of Appeals
to hold appeal hearings on matters concerning the
uniform building code. Members must be qualified
by experience and training to pass upon matters
pertaining to building construction.
Iowa City appointed members of boards and commis-
sions must be qualified electors of the City of
Iowa City.
The appointment to this Board for the unexpired
term will be made on October 23, 1979, at the
Council meeting at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chamb-
ers. The appointments for the three-year terms
will be made at the November 27, 1979, meeting of
the City Council. The actual terms will begin on
December 31, 1979. This will allow the appointees
an opportunity to attend meetings of the Board of
Appeals in order to become familiar with the
duties before assuming full responsibilities.
Persons interested in being considered for these
positions should contact the City Clerk, Civic
Center, 410 East Washington. Application forms
are available from the Clerk's office upon request.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOINES
MM
A
i
r
i
i
i
r
CITY
OF
CIVIC CENTER 410 E. WASHINGTON ST.
IOWA CITY
IOWA CITY IOWA 52240 (3191354-78(3D
NOTICE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF IOWA CITY
IS CONSIDERING APPOINTMENTS
TO THE FOLLOWING BOARD:
BOARD OF APPEALS
One vacancy - Unexpired term
October 23, 1979 - December 31, 1980
Two vacancies - Three-year terms
November 27, 1979 - December 31, 1982
It is the duty of members of the Board of Appeals
to hold appeal hearings on matters concerning the
uniform building code. Members must be qualified
by experience and training to pass upon matters
pertaining to building construction.
Iowa City appointed members of boards and commis-
sions must be qualified electors of the City of
Iowa City.
The appointment to this Board for the unexpired
term will be made on October 23, 1979, at the
Council meeting at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chamb-
ers. The appointments for the three-year terms
will be made at the November 27, 1979, meeting of
the City Council. The actual terms will begin on
December 31, 1979. This will allow the appointees
an opportunity to attend meetings of the Board of
Appeals in order to become familiar with the
duties before assuming full responsibilities.
Persons interested in being considered for these
positions should contact the City Clerk, Civic
Center, 410 East Washington. Application forms
are available from the Clerk's office upon request.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOINES
MM
A
CITY OF
OWA CITY
CIVIC CENTER 410 E. WASHINGTON ST. IOWA CITY IOWA 52240 (319) 354.18010
NOTICE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF IOWA CITY
IS CONSIDERING AN APPOINT14ENT
TO THE FOLLOWING BOARD:
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
One vacancy - Unexpired term
October 23, 1979 - January 1, 1984
Duties: In appropriate cases an su6Ject to appro-
priate conditions and safeguards, make special ex-
ceptions to the terms of the ordinances in harmony
with general purpose and intent and in accordance
with general or specific rules therein contained
and provide that any property owner aggrieved by
the action of the Council in the adoption of such
regulations and restrictions may petition the said
Board of Adjustment directly to modify regulations
and restrictions as applied to such property owners.
It can only act pursuant to the zoning ordinance.
It has no power to act upon any ordinances other
than the zoning ordinance. It cannot grant a vari-
ance unless specific statutory authority provides
for granting a variance. Variances granted under
Iowa Code, Chapter 414.2 (3) and Iowa City Munici-
pal Code 8.10.28H 1(d) may only be granted in the
case of "unnecessary hardship.” The hardship must
be substantial, serious, real, and of compelling
force, as distinguished from reasons of convenience,
maximization of profit or caprice.
Iowa City appointed memebers of boards and commis-
sions must be qualified voters of the City of Iowa
City.
This appointment will be made at the October 23, 1979
meeting of the City Council at 7:30 P.M. in the
Council Chambers. Persons interested in being con-
sidered for this position should contact the City
Clerk, Civic Center, 410 East Washington. Appli-
cation forms are available from the Clerk's office
upon request.
2OOa
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES tdORIEs
October 23, 1979 ✓
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT- one vacancy for unexpired term, expiring
January 1, 1984
Karl Stundins
520 Ernest St, #107
Clyde 0, Hanson
324 4th Avenue
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES 140111ES
I
I
I
s
I
I
I-
I
i
'i
i
i
�
d
October 23, 1979 ✓
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT- one vacancy for unexpired term, expiring
January 1, 1984
Karl Stundins
520 Ernest St, #107
Clyde 0, Hanson
324 4th Avenue
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES 140111ES
I
..
ADVISORY BOARD/COMMISSION APPLICATION FORM
Individuals serving on Boards/Commissions play an important role in advising the Council
'Tr matters of interest to our community and its future. Applicants must reside in Iowa City.
The City Council announces advisory board vacancies 60 days prior to the date the
appointment will be made. This 60 -day period provides for a 30 -day advertising period and a 30 -
day training period for new members. The training period allows new members to become familiar
with the responsibilities and duties of the advisory board before becoming a full voting
member.
After a vacancy has been announced and the 30 -day advertising period has expired, the
Council reviews all applications during the informal work session. .The appointment is
announced at the next formal Council meeting. Appointees serve as unpaid volunteers.
All applications must be submitted to the City Clerk no later than one week prior to the
announced appointment date.
THIS APPLICATION IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT AND AS SUCH CAN BE REPRODUCED AND DISTRIBUTED FOR THE
PUBLIC. ALL NAMES WILL BE DROPPED FROM THE LIST AFTER A ONE-YEAR PERIOD.
i
DATE 23 September 1979
ADVISORY BOARD/COMMISSION NAME Board of Adjustment TERM Oct. -.Ian. 1980
NAME Clyde G. Hanson ADDRESS 324 4th Avenue
OCCUPATION Graduate Student EMPLOYER University of Iowa
PHONE NUMBERS: RESIDENCE 337-7172 BUSINESS 353-5633
s -ERIENCE AND/OR ACTIVITIES WHICH YOU FEEL QUALIFY YOU FOR THIS POSITION:
Member:American Planning Association, Eastern Iowa Planning and Zoning Officials Association
National Trust for Historic Preservation
iPrevious Employment: Community Planner, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Program Analyst, Minnesota State Planning Agency Planning Assistant, City of Muscatine
WHAT IS YOUR PRESENT KNOWLEDGE OF THIS ADVISORY BOARD? I. Road the portions of the Icwa
Code dealing with the Board of Adjustment and Variances, the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan
and zoning ordinance. I aip familiar with the role and purpose of the Board.
WHAT CONTRIBUT]ONS DO YOU FEEL YOU CAN MAKE TO THIS ADVISORY BOARD (OR STATE REASON FOR
APPLYING)? Membership on the board would help me become a better professiional planner by
allowing me to experience the role of the voluntary appointed official. I wish to contribute
to the just administration aregulations on private property in Iowa City.
Specific attention should be directed to possible conflict of interest in Urban Renewal project
or as defined in Chapters 362.6, 403A.22 of the Code of Iowa. Should you be uncertain whether
or not a potential conflict of interest exists, contact the Legal Dept. Will you have a
conflict of interest? YES xx NO or -
Knowing the length of term, are you willing to serve this term? xx YES NO I ^ E D
tryou are not selected, do you want to be notified? xx YES _NO SEP 2 4 1919
If you are not appointed for the current vacancy, do you wish to be cor1���o+� a 'futUr�
vacancy? _YES NO h U
C1TynGLSW79
IIICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
ADVISORY BOARD/COMMISSION APPLICATION FORM
Individuals serving on Boards/Commissions play an important role in advising the Council
o..matters of interest to our community and its future. Applicants must reside in Iowa City.
The City Council announces advisory board vacancies 60 days prior to the date the
appointment will be made. This 60 -day period provides for a 30 -day advertising period and a 30 -
day training period for new members. The training period allows new members to become familiar
with the responsibilities and duties of the advisory board before becoming a full voting
member.
After a vacancy has been announced and the 30 -day advertising period has expired, the
Council reviews all applications during the informal work session. The appointment is
announced at the next formal Council meeting. Appointees serve as unpaid volunteers.
All applications must be submitted to the City Clerk no later than one week prior to the
announced appointment date.
THIS APPLICATION IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT AND AS SUCH CAN BE REPRODUCED AND DISTRIBUTED FOR THE
PUBLIC. ALL NAMES WILL BE DROPPED FROM THE LIST AFTER A ONE-YEAR PERIOD.
DATE 1121179
MW+MW BOARD/COMMISSION NAME &AP.0 OF AbJIA5I MEIJT - lowo [i7r TERM 1/MooFiok O TEKH- 61 JW'
I led
NAME KARL. STL+NDIN S ADDRESS 570 ERNEsf ST. 0107
OCCUPATION '5TuDENT EMPLOYER J00OW,+ 4ko" 164ICNAL&MUNIN4 ,
CwWIr,slo �vnfYMw/rIW/.
PHONE NUMBERS: RESIDENCE 331-1,61-1, BUSINESS
ERIENCE AND/OR ACTIVITIES WHICH YOU FEEL QUALIFY YOU FOR THIS POSITION: (arse wW k
iM I Vr17lw p14NNiI+1 pZ.MiNy oad tONIN� (•W Wo✓k G}PevleN[e with 11'1
IA 401 e4 Envi�oN �n.NFi.I 9u�liiy >D t� J.su.ti+ln Ca+N17 µe�I OH,.I PIaN NiM�
(iuM(Ssiot- -
WHAT IS YOUR PRESENT KNOWLEDGE OF THIS ADVISORY BOARD? I how ,1tN jj, kow it -4 6A
%,,ciirws {rows iRlkuy w�il� * ►+`CM1�`y WAO Mrov11. V41yer!•iF7 d4'V% a work
WHAT CONTRIBUTIONS DO YOU FEEL YOU CAN MAKE TO THIS ADVISORY BOARD (OR STATE REASON FOR
APPLYING)? 1'M a 9j.
vote ffAC0&Vt iA JW UVW41 ti ReLirN�l ?IrNHiH Fbaru �t Uof�-
ZONINy s 4N IM�Creai Of M,Me. I wi4n fo 6e"*%c 'Moolue/L N INa (oWr. etiy [ownwif�
1{.,r4 'A.� b~A r+ 'Uit Nr•w1 IS clrh.. too k1 nw. • I
..SII �� r.ItYyn�.Y�c W,r rte' �aY
Specific attention should be directed to possible conflict of interest in Urban Renewal project
or as defined in Chapters 362.6, 403A.22 of the Code of Iowa. Should you be uncertain whether
or not a potential conflict of interest exists, contact the Legal Dept. Will you have a
conflict of interest? _YES _✓NO
Knowing the length of term, are you willing to serve this term? -S'ES _NO
c, -you are not selected, do you want to be notified? YES _NO
If you are n9t appointed for the current vacancy, do you wish to be considered for a future
vacancy? ✓ YES _NO January 1979
IIICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOIIIES
r
'I
I.
�
I
I
I�
j
I j
I
i
1
i
I
L'
IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR JOHNSON COUNTY
I
OAKES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,
Plaintiff EQ. No. 44218
VS.
FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
CITY OF IOWA CITY, DECISION AND JUDGMENT
I'
Defendant.
i
This case came on for trial before the undersigned Judge
of the Johnson County District Court on September 19 and 20,
1979. The plaintiff was represented by Marion R. Neely and
i
James H. Martinek; the defendant was represented by John W.
Hayek. The evidence of the parties was received and the cause
submitted.
tem� -�' •---,
FINDINGS OF FACT Z •--
A i
This case involves an appeal by plaintiff from a ial of;ll
approval of its preliminary subdivision plat. The app_-.
e,,;
a¢
taken b filing a L'n
Y 4 petition with the Clerk of this Court entitled
"Appeal from Denial of Subdivision Plat" which the Court takes
to be a petition in equity seeking reversal of.the defendant's
action. Subsequently, plaintiff filed an amendment to its
petition adding a Division II seeking declaratory relief.
Plaintiff filed a subdivision plat with the City of. Iowa
City in September of 1977 seeking to have the same approved
pursuant to the Iowa City Subdivision Code. The proposed I
I
subdivision, Oakes Meadow Addition, was then reviewed by the
Iowa City Planning staff and Planning and Zoning Commission.
On October 6, 1977, the Planning staff issued a staff report
expressing serious concerns about the street layout of. the
;v
MCROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 110111ES
3005
-2 -
Proposed subdivision and the problems of access from the sub-
division to the existing street system of Iowa City. There-
after, a minor revision was made in the proposed plat by
plaintiff, renaming the main north -south street Carver Street
and extending the right-of-way of the same to the south line
of plaintiff's land. This amended plat was then approved by
the City's Planning and Zoning Commission.
As is.provided in the Iowa City Subdivision Code,
plaintiff's preliminary plat was thereafter submitted to the
Iowa City Council for further action. The Iowa City City
Council held several meetings during January and February of
I
1978 to consider plaintiff's proposed subdivision and t}
access problems mentioned above. The Court finds that,;ller i
were ten meetings of the City Council held during Janu�
February of 1978 at which this matter was discussed ori:"
groom C7 ;
sidered
prior to the meeting on February 14, 1978, at w'fi46h —
final action was taken. The Court further finds from the
i
evidence that one or more representatives of plaintiff
attended seven of those ten meetings. The Court further finds
that plaintiff, through its officers and representatives, was
aware and did have knowledge of the fact that the Council was
planning to take final action on the subdivision plat at its
I
formal meeting on February 14, 197.9.
j
At the City Council meetings the City's planning staff
continued to offer strong objection to approval of the sub-
11 '
division plat without providing a second means of access to
the subdivision. The City planners, along with the City
i
traffic engineer and several members of the City Council, were
i
concerned that this subdivision had insufficient vehicular
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
' CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
I
t
L
i
I
I
I
I
-3-
access both because of the existing street layout in the area
of the subdivision and because of the relatively large number
of dwelling units, 44 in number, which would be served by only
one street. With the exception of one other subdivision
developed in Iowa Ctiy over 20 years ago, none of the
witnesses testifying for either party could recall any
subdivision with this many dwelling units being served on any
Permanent type of basis with only one means of vehicular access.
The Court finds that the City's concern about the lack of
a secondary means of access to a subdivision of this density
and in this location was reasonable and supported by the
evidence. r
The tract of land owned by plaintiffs was originn-q� ally. p�Tt
o•. N
of a larger parcel of ground. Court finds that CourtcX0st,-,Ine.i,I
ca
purchased several acres of ground from St. Marks Unite=-:
Methodist
�..�
Methodist Church in 1972. In May of 1973 Courtcrest, Inc.,T
conveyed a 2.4 acres portion of that tract to the Moose Lodge
of Iowa City. In August of 1977 Courtcrest conveyed 7.1 acres
to Oakes Construction Company, plaintiff in this case, for
development purposes. Courtcrest has retained a remaining
parcel for future potential development purposes. The Court
finds that over the period of time from 1972 through 1977
Courtcrest, Inc., has divided its original tract of ground into
i
three parcels for development purposes.
On February 14, 1978, the Iowa City City Council, by
unanimous vote, denied approval of plaintiff's preliminary sub-
division plat. Approval was denied for the reason that the
plat did not provide sufficient vehicular access and was not
consistent with the general plat of Iowa City and for the
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOIIIES
a >
-4-
further reason that subdivision of a portion of a larger
subdivision of ground was contemplated without full compliance
with Chapter 409 of the Code of Iowa.
i
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Plaintiff argues in its petition that it is entitled to
record its subdivision plat because the City of Iowa City did
not approve or reject its proposed plat within 60 days of the
date of application. The defendant City, on the other hand,
argues that because the plat was only preliminary in nature
and was therefore not a recordable plat, the 60 -day requirement
i
I of Section 409.15 of the Code of Iowa did not apply. Tbp
Court finds that thelat filed b i
p y plaintiff was a pre�Xmineiy �.
plat and did not meet the requirements of Section 409,x.Oa
06:J
N i
Section 409.31 of the Code of Iowa. Further, the cern€ ices—
^^ co
abstract, and other matters required by Sections 409.1 and' i
~
409.9 of the Code did not accompany this preliminary plat.~
It is obvious that the plat was intended as a preliminary plat
only under the terms of the Iowa City Subdivision Code and no
recordable plat or plat intended for recording has yet been
filed with the City or submitted to the Court for consideration.
The Court concludes that the 60 -day limitation, provided
i
in Section 409.15 of the Code of Iowa, applies to recordable
plats or plats intended for recording,which plats must at least
be in substantial compliance with the provisions of Chapter 409.
The Court notes that the procedure followed by the City of
Iowa City providing for filing of a preliminary plat and
review of the same is intended to help reduce engineering and
legal expense in the development process by providing a
rP.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES HOMES
WE
i
j
'i
I
I
-s-
mechanism by which preliminary plans may be reviewed and
revised as appropriate before preparation of the final plat.
Had plaintiff elected to file a combined preliminary and final
plat in substantial compliance with the requirements of
Chapter 409, then the 60 -day limitation period in Section
409.15 of the Code of Iowa would have applied. Plaintiff did
not so elect and gave no indication to the City that it
regarded the preliminary plat as a recordable document. As
a further reason in support thereof, the Court notes that
Section 409.15 provides that if the City Council fails to
either approve or reject a plat within 60 days, the person
proposing said plat shall have the right to file the same.
Court believes that this provision
P provides for the r�'coff.dinj;g r-
;r
of a plat in the face of Council inaction. Here the Ebncii
n-• N `
acted on February 14, 1978, before any attempt to rec6rd.arly
plat. Once the Council has acted, plaintiff's remedy`'.S;aopea1
rather than recording as provided in Section 409.15 of the -
Code of Iowa.
Plaintiff complains that it was not provided with notice
of the Council's action on its application. The Court does
not find any requirement in Chapter 409,nor have cases been
called to the Court's attention by plaintiff,requiring City
Council notice before taking a legislative action such as the
one involved in approving or rejecting a subdivision plat.
Further, whether or not notice of such an action is required,
the Court finds that actual notice was given to plaintiff on
j February 13, 1978, at the informal Council meeting held on that
i
j date. The Court finds that plaintiff had ample opportunity to
i
participate in the Council discussions concerning its proposed
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
I
-6-
i
subdivision plat.
The City Council of Iowa City made a legislative deter-
mination that this subdivision was served by insufficient
` vehicular access and that the street layout of the sub-
division was not consistent with the general plat of the City.
Section 409.14 of the Code of Iowa gives the City Council
authority to review subdivision plats as follows:
With a view to ascertaining whether the same conform to
the statutes relating to plats within the City and
within the limits prescribed by this section, and
whether streets, alleys, boulevards, parks and public
places shall conform to the general plat of the City
and conduce to an orderly development thereof, cannot
conflict or interfere with rights-of-way or extensions
of streets or alleys already established. . .
This broad grant of legislative authority is intended to
Provide municipalities with a mechanism to control growth and
development of real estate in the community and adjacena=
FS
thereto. See Note, Subdivision Regulation in Iowa, 54 tlta c
i �'
L. Rev. 1121 (1969). The Court concludes that the Cit�i-_'-
N
action in den
i Y 9 approval of the subdivision plat wasS-Feasmn-
in
able, that the City Council could and did find that the^same
did not conform to the general plat of the City and did not
conduce to an orderly development thereof and that under those
circumstances the City Council could deny approval of the sub-
I
division plat.
j r
jAs a further ground for denying Y' g a pproval of the plat, the
j; City claimed that this property was a part of a larger sub-
division created by Courtcrest, Inc., and that the City had
the authority to deny approval of the plat for that reason also.
Section 409.1 of the Code of Iowa requires every proprietor of
i
any tract of land located within a city who shall subdivide the
same into three or more parts shall cause a subdivision plat
i
i
I,
' MICROFILMED BY
i
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 140ItIES
I
M
. t.
_7_
to be filed. Although the subdivision of the original St.
Marks Methodist Church tract, by Courtcrest, Inc., took place
over an extended period of time, the Court concludes that the
division of the tract of ground into three parcels was under-
taken for development purposes by Courtcrest, Inc., and that a
subdivision plat should have been filed.
i
The Court believes that under Chapter 409 of the Code, the
City could properly refuse to permit further subdivisions of
land until such time as the platting requirements of Chapter 409
have been complied with.
DECISIO14 AND JUDGMENT
The defendant has established that the action of%the '
Council of the City of Iowa City in denying approval ° N
plaintiff's preliminary subdivision plat on Februarywx4'g78:!
was a reasonable exercise of the City Council's powex9:::under
the laws of the State of Iowa and the City Ordinances of. the
City of Iowa City.
It is the judgment of the Court that the action of the
City Council of the City of Iowa City in denying approval of
plaintiff's subdivision plat on February 14, 1978, was legal,
and said action is upheld by the Court.
It is the further judgment of the Court that plaintiff's
appeal is dismissed and plaintiff shall pay the court costs of
this action as taxed by the Clerk of this Court.
Dated this"d ♦
nY day of October, 1979.
h
i'
I
j '
The u !rmi¢n•� crr' •i Ih! C• I•••••in?in•' :menlwe. I"
ed up• i;¢ P311 es H 1':
"•�•t':^" teo:Y I- lin
,.....f
i
I
I
G sn vt p:e4e c:l
i
_7_
to be filed. Although the subdivision of the original St.
Marks Methodist Church tract, by Courtcrest, Inc., took place
over an extended period of time, the Court concludes that the
division of the tract of ground into three parcels was under-
taken for development purposes by Courtcrest, Inc., and that a
subdivision plat should have been filed.
i
The Court believes that under Chapter 409 of the Code, the
City could properly refuse to permit further subdivisions of
land until such time as the platting requirements of Chapter 409
have been complied with.
DECISIO14 AND JUDGMENT
The defendant has established that the action of%the '
Council of the City of Iowa City in denying approval ° N
plaintiff's preliminary subdivision plat on Februarywx4'g78:!
was a reasonable exercise of the City Council's powex9:::under
the laws of the State of Iowa and the City Ordinances of. the
City of Iowa City.
It is the judgment of the Court that the action of the
City Council of the City of Iowa City in denying approval of
plaintiff's subdivision plat on February 14, 1978, was legal,
and said action is upheld by the Court.
It is the further judgment of the Court that plaintiff's
appeal is dismissed and plaintiff shall pay the court costs of
this action as taxed by the Clerk of this Court.
Dated this"d ♦
nY day of October, 1979.
h
Fib0�0�R
rE
The u !rmi¢n•� crr' •i Ih! C• I•••••in?in•' :menlwe. I"
ed up• i;¢ P311 es H 1':
"•�•t':^" teo:Y I- lin
,.....f
the eR:^
JI
G sn vt p:e4e c:l
JUDGE, SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF
IOWA
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES FIoiNES
a a
WILL J. HAYEK
JOHN W. HAYEK
C. PETER HAYEK
C. JOSEPH HOLLAND
HAYEK, HAYEK 13 HAYEK
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
110 EAST WASHINGTON STREET
IOWA CITY, IOWA 62240
October 22, 1070
The Honorable Mayor and
City Council of Iowa City
Civic Center
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Re: Amerex Corporation v. City of Iowa City
Mayor and Council Members:
AREA CODE 319
337.9806
Attached you will find a copy of the trial brief and chronology of
events filed by Assistant City Attorney Linda Cook in connection with
this case. Ms. Cook along with Roger Scholten of our office and Mr.
Roger Witke from our insurance carrier's firm in Des Moines represented
the City in connection with this lawsuit,
While I realize that many of you may not be interested in the
particular details of this lawsuit and while further I hesitate to burden
you with any more paper than you need, I did want each of you to receive
a copy of this brief so that you can see the quality of work performed by
your Assistant City Attorneys and also so that you can get some idea of
the time demands that litigation of this sort plays on the Legal Department.
I think that Ms. Cook's brief is first-rate and I think you can see obviously
the great amount of time and work that has to go into the preparation of
such a document.
Very truly yours,
4W Hayek
JWH:vb
Onclosures
cc: Ms. Linda Cook
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
caoe4
M.
C
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF IOWA IN AND FOR JOHNSON COUNTY
AMEREX CORPORATION, ) LAW NO. 42541
LAURENCE R. SHORT, and ^,;, •.7"'
FIRST NATIONAL BANK,
IOWA CITY, IOWA, AS EXECUTOR ) s xN
OF ESTATE OF KENNETH I. BELLE, �.ot
DECEASED, �� 4;
Plaintiffs, )
<—'1,•, it
VS.
CITY OF IOWA CITY,)
EDGAR CZARNECKI, ) DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM
J. PATRICK WHITE, C. t. BRANDT, TRIAL BRIEF
CAROL DEPROSSE and FLORENCE )
DAVIDSEN, )
Defendants. )
** R R R R)R R* R**
I
This brief is submitted by Defendant City of Iowa City as final
i
argument to the trial court in the above -entitled action.
I
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
i
j A. PROCEDURAL POSTURE AT TRIAL.
This action was originally filed by Plaintiffs herein against the
j City of Iowa City and individual City Councilmembers in October 1974,
claiming damages resulting from Defendants' alleged delay in rezoning
Plaintiffs' property pursuant to court order. Plaintiffs further claim
that these alleged delays were arbitrary and capricious acts on the part
of the City, resulting, inter al_ia, in increased construction costs. In
the earlier case, Amerex Corporation,' et al_ v_ Cid of City, et al. ,
docket number 41548, Judge Schaeffer found the R1A zoning of the subject
property to be invalid, and ordered the City to rezone.
In the instant case, Judge Carter's ruling in June 1976 on
Defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissed all divisions of the
i
Petition against individual Councilmembers, and dismissed all allegations
against the City except Division III for a damage claim totalling $93,000.
Plaintiffs' request for Interlocutory Appeal on the dismissal was denied
by the Iowa Supreme Court September 1976.
aoO
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOIRES
9
a
2
In June 1979 Plaintiffs sought to amend their petition, but said
motion was denied July 31, 1979. Only Division III claiming damages for
increased construction costs between March and July 1974 is at issue for
trial. Trial to the court was held before the Honorable Judge Swailes in
Iowa City, Iowa on August 20-23, 1979.
Although not expressly pleaded as such, Plaintiffs are apparently
proceeding on an intentional tort theory, claiming that the City's alleged
delays were intentional acts and were motivated by a malicious purpose to
harm. The issues are whether the City's conduct was motivated by a
malicious purpose to harm; whether the City is therefore liable for an
intentional interference with Plaintiffs' business opportunity by reason
of alleged delays in complying with the court order; and if so, whether
'Plaintiffs have met their burden of proof for actual damages resulting
from increased construction costs between March and July of 1974.
Initially, however, the court must decide whether the City acted in a
timely and reasonable manner under the circumstances, in which case
Defendant would be entitled to dismissal as a matter of law.
B. FACTS.
1. Historical Background.
In 1964, Plaintiff Amerex Corporation received a building
i permit from Johnson County for construction of 108 apartment units for a
total of nine buildings, on a 7.05 acre tract located on a lot south of
Interstate 80 and west of North Dubuque. Plaintiffs successfully
completed 24 units, or two buildings, and erected footings of three
t additional buildings. However, Plaintiffs lost their financing but
expected to regain lending support and complete construction of at least
36 additional units (see Preamble of Plaintiffs' Original Petition).
In late 1965 the City annexed a large area in the North Dubuque
area, including Plaintiffs' entire 26 t acre tract. By virtue of a then -
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOINES
d
I
existing provision of the Iowa City Code, Plaintiffs' parcel was
automatically zoned R1A, the most restrictive density 'classification
requiring 10,000 square feet per unit for construction. Plaintiffs
i
welcomed annexation into the city. (See Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 38). The
combined result of the annexation and automatic zoning was to cause
Plaintiffs' buildings to become non -conforming uses.
After a series of unsuccessful attempts to obtain rezoning, the
Plaintiffs filed a declaratory judgment action in October 1972, docket
number 41548. A trial to the court was held in June 1973; and on January
24, 1974, Judge Schaeffer ruled that the City's refusal to rezone was
arbitrary and capricious and that the City provision was declared null and
void. Further, the City was directed to take steps "immediately" to
rezone Plaintiffs' property to allow 108 apartment units not to be a non-
conforming use. The City was also directed to issue Plaintiffs a building
permit. Mr. Jay Honohan represented the City in this first case, and Mr.
Jerry Lovelace represented the Plaintiffs.
2. Highlights of Chronology of Events.
Rather than belabor the sequence of events after Judge
Schaeffer's Original Order, which events are matters of public record and
are thus largely undisputed, I have appended a Chron2IM prepared for
trial and hereby do incorporate said Appendix into the City's statement of
facts.
In January 1974, Judge Schaeffer issued his ruling directing the City
to rezone the Amerex property and to issue a building permit.
In February 1974, City Attorney John Hayek advised the City Council
not to appeal, and the Council agreed.
The Council further directed Mr. Hayek to seek clarification of
the Order, and Plaintiffs agreed to a stipulation for such purposes.
The Council was unsure whether the City could require compliance with
other city codes, such as building and electrical codes, the Large
Scale Residential Ordinance (LSRD), and whether the Order was to
rezone the entire 26 t acres or only the 7.05 acre parcel. Attorneys
for both sides were present for oral argument on the City's Motion to
Clarify. (See Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 38).
In March 1974, Judge Schaeffer issued his Ruling on clarification
h h ndicated that,the Plaintiffs were in fact still required
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOVIES
4
to comply with the City plumbing, electrical, fire and building
codes, that the LSRD did not apply, and that the City was to
take actions "immediately" to rezone the 7.05 acres and to issue
building permits. (See Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 38).
In April 1974, the City Council referred the matter to the Planning
and Z n ng Commission for review and report, as recommended by
City Attorney John Hayek.
In t!ay 1974, the Staff Report prepared by the City's Planning
Department recommended rezoning the 7.05 acre Amerex tract from
RIA to R3A, and the Planning and Zoning Commission formally
approved this recommendation in their report to the City
Council. The Council subsequently set a public hearing for June
18, 1974.
In June 1974, the public hearing was held, and one week later the
�:ounc i voted to suspend the rules and give the first reading of
an ordinance to rezone the Amerex 7.05 acre tract from R1A to
R3A. The first reading was given.
In July 1974, one week later, the second reading of the ordinance
rezoning Plaintiffs' property was given; the next week the
Council deferred action for one week; the third and final
reading was given by title only the following week.
The ordinance rezoning the Amerex 7.05 acre tract from R1A to
R3A was adopted J� 16, 1974. After adoption of the amendment
and following discussion regarding the density differential
between R3A zone (300 units permitted) and R3 zone (102 units
permitted), the Council referred a portion of the Amerex
property to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review and
possible rezoning to R3. Councilmembers inquired and were
assured by the City Attorney and by the head of the Community
Development Division, Mr. Kraft, that the 108 units would be
permitted based on the amendment just passed rezoning the
property to R3A.
Also upon inquiry, the Councilmembers were assured that the
Plaintiffs, as of July 16, 1974, were entitled to a building
permit, upon application. (See Transcript of Tapes, pp. 28-
29.)
Between Mich 24 and J� 16, 1'974, one written contact was made by
Plaintiffs w tF Clty, which was a letter from their attorney,
Mr. William Meardon. There were no appearances made by the
Plaintiffs or their attorneys before the City Council or the
Planning and Zoning Commission, either formally or informally.
From July to November 1974, the R3A zoning did not change. The
Planning and Zoning Commission in October 1974 reaffirmed their
original recommendation of May 1974 that no rezoning take
place. Plaintiffs' property has remained 113A to the present.
In October 1974, in response to a letter from Mr. William Meardon,
C— yAttorney John Hayek explained that the City stood "ready,
willing and able" to issue a building permit, upon application
by Mr. Meardon's clients. Mr. Hayek further indicated his
willingness to explain the rezoning to any lending institution,
which zoning allowed the construction of the 108 apartment
units as of July 16, 1974. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 6.
In November 1974, a motion to take further action on rezoning a
portion of the Amerex tract to R3 was defeated.
In sum, the City proceeded to refer the matter of rezoning subject
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 1101DES
a;
3
property to Planning and Zoning, to set a public hearing, to hold a 2ublic
hearing, to suspend the rules and read the amendment by title only on
three separate occasions, and to adopt the Amendment Rezoning to R3A
within aep riod of four months. Proposed amendments for rezoning portions
of said tract were defeated three months later.
II. SUMMARY OF CITY'S ARGUMENTS
It is the City's contention herein that the four months needed to
rezone Plaintiffs' property was reasonable under the circumstances, and
not inconsistent with the pace of legislative bodies; that the City was
required by law to carefully follow certain procedures, and that the City
at all times acted impartially and in good faith in complying with Judge
Schaeffer's Order. It is the City's further contention that the frequent
meetings, discussions and inquiries which surrounded the City's rezoning
bespeak an honest and legitimate effort to satisfy its three -fold duty:
(1) to comply with the Court Order and protect Plaintiffs' private
interests; (2) to protect the interests of the community, which included
the due process rights of surrounding property owners as well as the
integrity of the neighborhood; and (3) to comply with state and local
procedural zoning requirements. The City is therefore entitled to
dismissal as a matter of law for failure to state a cause of action, since
the City acted reasonably under the circumstances.
Even assuming a claim has been stated, Plaintiffs have failed to
satisfy their burden of proof that the City acted with malice - i.e.,
spite or ill -will; and further, that there is no evidence whatsoever that
the City's purpose was to cause harm to the Plaintiffs. The testimony at
trial reveals the City Council acted with an honest belief that Plaintiffs
were entitled to proceed with construction as of July 16, 1974. These
good faith beliefs negate any inference of wrongful purpose. The fact
that Plaintiffs waited four years to build their apartments also raises a
question of Plaintiffs' own good faith efforts under the circumstances.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
It is the further contention of the City that Plaintiffs have failed
to prove actual damages, or even a causal link to the City's actions. The
state of the economy is beyond the control of the City and liability
should not attach. Plaintiffs' use of hypotheticals at trial was
decidedly inappropriate in this context, since actual harm must be shown
for successful recovery under Iowa case law.
Even assuming liability is found, the City argues herein that
Plaintiffs failed to mitigate injury and are therefore entitled only to
nominal damages. Further, Plaintiffs' failure to move to conform evidence
to the pleadings restricts any assessment of damages after July 16, 1974.
Finally, it is the City's position that Plaintiffs' application of
tort theory in a zoning context is singularly inappropriate and against
public policy. The potential harm and chilling effect which such recovery
would have on local governments are ominous indeed. Public policy
concerns require rejection of such a tort theory herein, since the proper
remedy is the undoing of the wrong, not money damages.
III. ARGUMENTS
A. PLAINTIFFS HAVE FAILED TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION IN INTENTIONAL
TORT, SINCE CITY'S REZONING OF SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS REASONABLE UNDER
THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
Plaintiffs challenge in Division III of their Petition that the City
wrongfully refused to rezone their property in a timely fashion, and that
this refusal caused delays resulting in increased construction costs.
Plaintiffs further contend that the City, acting by and through its
agents, employees and officials, conducted its affairs with an evil,
purposeful and malicious intent to harm the Plaintiffs. The Defendant
strongly urges the court find that no such intent ever existed, nor can
�i
any be found under the circumstances.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
f CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOINES
,
i
In order to state a claim for intentional interference with business
opportunity under Iowa law, a plaintiff must show that (1) the defendant
was aware of plaintiff's business opportunities; (2) that defendant acted
with a purpose to harm or destroy plaintiffs; (3) which purpose
interferred with plaintiff's business opportunity; and (4) resulted in
actual damages. E q., Farmers Co-op Elevator, Inc., buncombe v. State
Bank, 236 N.W.2d 674 (Iowa 1975). Such egregious conduct is tantamount to
malice or ill -will. W. PROSSER, LAW OF TORTS Section 130 (4th ed. 1971).
It is the City's position that although the Council did not rezone
the subject property "immediately" in a literal sense, that the City did
in fact comply with a court Order in good faith and in a reasonable and
timely manner. In other words, some "delays" were inevitable. Even so,
such delays do not rise to the level of negligence, and indeed fall far
j short of the degree of culpability required to find a malicious purpose to
harm or destroy.
1. Plaintiffs a reed to and participated in a motion to enlarge
time to seek clarification - January to March 1974.
Judge Schaeffer's Order directing the City to rezone the Plaintiffs'
property was filed January 24, 1974. City Attorney John Hayek recommended
the City not appeal the decision. As a result of some confusion over the
court directive, the City Council requested Mr. Hayek to seek clarifi-
cation. Pursuant to an agreement with Mr.William Meardon, the City
entered into a stipulation enlarging time to seek clarification. Hearing
was had before Judge Schaeffer on February 19, 1979, with Attorneys
Meardon and Hayek present for argument. As stipulated, the appeal period
for the motion to clarify was limited to three days. Judge Schaeffer's
Ruling on clarification was filed March 24, 1974. The City did not appeal
the Ruling.
It is clear that from January until March of 1974, there was no delay
whatsoever on the part of the City. Plaintiffs in essence agreed to
postpone action pending Judge Schaeffer's decision. Case law also
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOIIIES
B
substantiates that the City had every right to seek clarification on
applicability of other local codes. Anundson v. Chicago, 256 N.E.2d 1
(Ill. 1970).
' 2. City followed zoning procedures as required �y law - March to
July 1974.
During the four month period between Judge Schaeffer's Ruling on
clarification in March and the rezoning of Plaintiffs' property in July,
the City of Iowa City followed the procedural requirements for rezoning in
a methodical and cautious manner. The City Council referred the rezoning
matters to Planning and Zoning within three weeks from the Ruling (April
16). As both Mr. White and Mr. Hayek testified at trial, there was some
delay in forwarding the Ruling to Mr. Hayek, apparently due to the fact
the Clerk of Court sent the Ruling to Mr. Jay Honohan, former City
Attorney. This certainly cannot be construed as purposeful delay.
Mr. Hayek also spoke of other "pressing" matters. See Transcript of
Tapes, page 3. Knowing full well the heavy workload and pressure of
deadlines under which lawyers frequently labor, surely it cannot be said
that the City had any intent whatsoever to cause Plaintiffs harm. There
is no evidence that the three-week period between the Ruling (March 24)
i
and the City Council's referral to the Planning and Zoning Commission
(April 16) was the result of any willful or malicious purpose to harm.
Such conduct on the part of the City does not rise to the level of
i
'• negligence, to say nothing of malice or ill -will.
` I a. Zoning procedures must be strictly followed.
It is the cardinal principle of construction in connection with
zoning ordinances that zoning enactments under the City's police power
must be pursuant to the enabling statute. 2 YOKELY, ZONING LAW IN
PRACTICE Section 9-4, at 32 (3d ed. 1967); B & H Investments, Inc. v. City
of Coralville, 209 N.W.2d 115 (Iowa 1973). Under Iowa law, the zoning
power as delegated from the state must be strictly construed. E. g.,
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES IIOMES
"
M,
9
Granger v. Board of Adjustment, 44 N.W.2d 399, 402 (Iowa 1950). Sections
414.1 through 414.5, Code of Iowa (1979) establish the City's powers, and
". . . prescribe the requirements for adoption of zoning
ordinances and define procedural requirements for amending zoning
ordinances." Velie Outdoor Advertising v. City of Sioux City, 252
N.W.2d 408 (Iowa 1 -
Sections 414.4, .5 and .6, Code have remained substantially
unchanged since 1939. Section 414.4 requires that the City Council
provide for zoning restrictions and boundaries, and that no such
regulations
" .shall become effective until after a public hearing in
relation thereto, at which parties in interest and citizens shall
have an opportunity to be heard."
Section 414.4 also requires adequate notice of hearing be given:
"At least fifteen days notice of the time and place of such
hearing shall be published in a paper of general circulation in such
city."
Section 8.10.32 of the Iowa City Code of Ordinances (1962) also contains
the same notice and hearing requirements. See Defendant's Exhibit "A".
In addition, Chapter 414 provides for a "zoning commission"
f
i which in Iowa City is a combined Planning and Zoning Commission. Section
414.6 sets forth the duties of this commission, and requires the Council
1 to refer zoning matters to the commission. The commission, in turn, must
". . .with due diligence, prepare a preliminary report and hold
public hearings thereon before submitting its final report, and such
council shall not hold itsup blit hearings or take action until it
has received the final report of such commission." Section 414.6,
Code [emphasis added].
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES I40IIIES
0
The procedural requirements for amendments as well as original enactments
are the same. Section 414.5, Code. There is no Iowa case law on "due
diligence" under Chapter 414.
This lengthy and complex procedure was not designed for rapid change.
Indeed, the rationale behind zoning procedures is to deliberately
discourage sudden change. One noted authority on municipal law explains:
"However, to protect zoned areas against capricious, sudden or
ill-considered chances, whether district boundaries oI of the
classl— ifi— 'cation of permissible and prohibited uses, there are
statutory requirements governing procedure in the enactment,
amendment or repeal of zoning ordinances. ."
[emphasis added]. 8A MCQUILLIN, LAW
OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS Section 25.245, at 173 (3d ed. 1967),
b. City strictly complied with zoning rocedures under advice
of legal counsel.
In the case at bar, the City had no choice but to strictly
follow procedural requirements, notwithstanding Judge Schaeffer's
direction to take action "immediately." Indeed, these procedural
restraints cut against hasty action. It was the City's understanding that
the Order did not mean to rezone immediately, but to take immediate action
to rezone, which in fact was done. It should also be remembered that
Judge Schaeffer had roundly chastised the City for not holding hearings
prior to ,the original zoning of Amerex to RIA. As the Councilmembers
i
testified, they wanted to do it right this time.
i
j
Therefore, the referral to the Commission in April, the staff —
re ort and hearing before the Commission in May, the re ort back to the
Council May 21 .recommending R3A zoning, the notice for setting a public
hearing May 21, and theuP blit hearing on June 18 were cautiously and
meticulously carried out. This procedure was'also recommended by City
h I
Attorney John Hayek. Plaintiffs should not now be heard to complain that
the City was acting according to law.
In addition, testimony presented by the City demonstrates that
the three-month period between referral and adoption of the ordinance
1
i
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES II010ES
. !
■
amendment was entirely consistent with the usual custom and practice of
the City. Councilmember Brandt testified that the Council rarely chose to
give all three readings of an ordinance on one night, and certainly did
not do so for controversial properties such as Amerex. The fact that the
City was acting upon advice of counsel in following these procedures
negates any inference of ill -will or wrongful purpose.
Failure to comply with these statutory procedures would have
left Plaintiffs' rezoned property again subject to challenge. A
Connecticut court explains the dangers:
"Failure to comply with any of the required steps
constitutes a jurisdictional defect. . .it would result in a
lack of due process of law. . .this [public hearing] is not a
technical requirement difficult of performance by the unwary.
It is dictated by common sense for protection of an established
neighborhood to be subject to change only after fair notice."
Hutchison v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Stratford, 83 A.2d 201
onn. 1 5iT.
See also MCQUILLIN, Section 25.251; B & H Investments, supra. Judge
Schaeffer's Order did not relieve the City of these procedural
constraints.
Iowa law has also recognized that protecting the due process
rights of surrounding property owners, preserving the character of the
neighborhood, stabilizing property values and considering the aesthetics
of an area are legitimate exercises of the police powers pursuant to
zoning. Plaza Recreational Center v. Sioux Com, 111 N.W.2d 758, 764
(Iowa 1961); Stoner McCray System v. City of Des Moines, 78 N.W.2d 843
(Iowa 1956); see also Section 414.3 which sets forth zoning
considerations.
Failure to follow these procedures may well have subjected the
City to due process challenges. See also Village of Arlington Heights v.
Metropolitan Housing Development, 429 U.S. 269 (1977) where the United
States Supreme Court recognized density restrictions and reliance on such
restrictions by neighboring property owners as proper policy concerns.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES I110111ES
M�
12
The Court also held that no inference of improper purpose was found where
the Village refused to rezone based on such concerns. Arlington Heights,
supra, at 269-70.
In the case at bar, the City proceeded to consider rezoning of
Plaintiffs' property on four consecutive meetings after the June 18 public
hearing. The rezoning Amendment was given its third and final reading on
July 16 and was adopted by the City Council that same evening. Thus, the
Council had actually rezoned the Plaintiffs' property within a three-
month period between April 16 and July 16, 1974. Considering the
constraints within which governmental bodies must operate, this time
period is entirely reasonable.
3. City had discretionary responsibility to selectrp oper zoning
classifications.
i
Based on a separation of powers theory, the majority rule is that
zoning is a legislative act which should be accorded every deference
unless arbitrary or capricious. In Iowa, there is a strong presumption of
validity afforded zoning ordinances; and if the classiciations are
"...fairly debatable, the legislative judgment must be allowed to
control." E. g., Brackett v. City of Des Moines, 67 N.W. 2d 542, 547 48
(Iowa 1954). Local governing bodies are generally in a better position to
assess the particular needs of the community. E. g., City of Miami v.
Woolin, 387 F.2d 893 (5th Cir. 1968). Zoning boundaries and classifica-
tions are therefore regarded as the task of the local zoning body, and a
court has no authority to actually rezone. E. q., City of Richmond v.
Randall, 211 S.E.2d 56, 61-62 (Va. 1975); see also MCQUILLIN, Sections
25.298, 25.299 and 25.300, and cases cited at 390-93.
In Iowa, where rezoning is regarded as a legislative act, the rules
stated in MCQUILLIN would apply:
"In some jurisdictions, a judicial decree may compel an
amendment of a zoning ordinance, or the rezoning or reclassification
I
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES td01tIES
■ +
13
of areas or properties, although, where such a doctrine is in effect,
usually the actual zoning or rezoning is regarded as the function of
appropriate zon nq authorities, not a ro er function of a court.
Id., at 391. (Emphasis added.
MCQUILLIN goes on to explain:
"A decree of this character may order the convening of the
municipal legislative body without undue delay to take legislative
action in compliance with the decree." Id.
However, selection of specific zoning classifications remains within
the discretion of the zoning authority. Wood v. Twin Lakes Mobile Homes
Village, Inc., 123 So.2d 738, 744 (Fla. 1960); City of Richmond, supra, at
61; Orange County v. Butler Estates Corporation, 328 So.2d 864, 865 (Fla.
App. 1976). A limited exception has developed in a few states where it
appears the zoning authority could reasonably reach only.one conclusion,
or where local authorities flatly refuse to comply. Pascack Association,
Ltd. v. Mayor and Council of Township of Washington, 329 A.2d 89 (N.J.
1974); see also MCQUILLIN, Section 25.98 at 390.
In the case at bar, Judge Schaeffer implicitly recognized the court's .
limited power to intervene in city government by leaving it up to the city
to select the appropriate zoning classification. As explained to the
i
Council in a letter from John Hayek dated April 15, 1974, the City was
required to rezone the 7.05 acre tract to allow construction of the 108
apartment units. Questions of density, however, were raised by City
Councilmembers, since the R3A zoning of the entire 7.05 acres would have
permitted almost three times the number of units. The next "higher" zone
of R3 would only have allowed 102 units. It was this dilemma with the
"mathematics," as Mr. Pat White described it, that led the Council to
refer aop rtion of the Amerex property back to the Planning and Zoning
Commission for study on July 16, 1974. This referral in no way
jeopardized the 108 units.
As presented in testimony before the trial court and as revealed in
the tapes of the City Council meetings, the Councilmembers had long -
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
.,
a;
14
standing and genuine concerns for the effect of multiple dwellings
generally in the North Dubuque area. The specific concerns articulated at
trial include: traffic, complete lack of schools in the area, no public
transportation, fire protection problems, sewer deficiencies, and the
goal of maintaining North Dubuque as a non-commercial area. All these
concerns center ultimately on density. Based on these factors, plus the
overriding desire to protect the one remaining unspoiled natural entrance
to the City, it is little wonder the Council struggled once again with
density. This struggle, however, was in no way intended to prevent the
Plaintiffs from constructing their apartments. After the decision not to
appeal, it was a given that Plaintiffs would in fact build the 108
apartments
Case law supports the City's contention that considerations of
density and community interests are properly the role of the zoning
authority, even where rezoning is done under court order. , Thus, for
Plaintiffs to argue that the City improperly considered' community
interests is patently contrary to case authority. In Orange County,
supra, the court held that where a local authority had been ordered to
rezone and had in fact rezoned an area to a density lower than the
plaintiff originally requested, the county had nonetheless acted
properly.
The plaintiff in Oran a County had successfully challenged the
zoning ordinance, and on remand the county held several public hearings
before rezoning. The Florida Court of Appeals stated:
"Notwithstanding this figure [6.1 units per acre] is less than
the 19.1 units per acre permitted the adjacent property,. . . the
zoning authority has presented ample evidence of considerations that
affected its decision and made it a fairly debatable one." Orange
County, supra, at 866.
These considerations included density, use, similarities to adjoining
property, soil, flood area, shape, proximity to commercial zone, and
graded density.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
■
I :
I
15
Although the dissenting judge disagreed with the decision on other
grounds, Judge Downey in his dissenting opinion did agree that rezoning to
a lower density was nonetheless proper. Judge Downey noted:
"But there is no suggestion here of bad faith on the part of the
appellants [county]. On the contrary, the record is replete with
evidence that all of the parties have extended themselves in an
effort to resolve this controversy in a manner consistent with their
divergent views. So we have no reason to believe that the appellants
would not once again in good faith attempt to follow the instructions
of the court and exercise their legislative discretion fa�irland
reasonably." Orange County, su ra, at 868. Empha added].
In other words, the Florida court recognized - indeed expected - that
the local body would be concerned with density in complying with the court
order to rezone. The court also realized the natural but valid conflict
between private and public interests, to be resolved "...in a manner
consistent with their divergent views." Id.
I
4. Case law indicates City acted in timely manner to rezone and
thereby complied with Order in0000d faith.
There is no case law directly on point as to how much time is
I
reasonable for complying with a court order to rezone. Plaintiffs did not
request a specific time for compliance, nor did Judge Schaeffer set forth
any particular deadline. However, several courts have faced the question
of reasonable compliance in the context of deciding what relief should be
afforded a successful challenger in a zoning conflict.
Most courts agree that a local body is entitled to a reasonable time
in which to comply with a court order, and to resolve the conflict between
public and private interests. Pascack, supra, at 95-96. In Alcorn v.
jLty of Rochester Zoning Board of Adjustment, 341 A.2d 269 (N.H. 1975),
the court reasoned that one (1) year was sufficient time to respond, and
the Board's complete inaction justified granting plaintiff's request. A
New Jersey court found that nine (9) months was sufficient time to rezone
a plaintiff's property; and held that by reason of the township's default,
the court was justified in intervening to compel compliance and retained
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES t101REs
16
equitable jurisdiction. Pascack, supra, at 92-93. In Pascack the
township was ordered to rezone January 1973 and no action had been taken
by October 4, 1973.
In Burns v. City of Des Peres, 534 F.2d 103, 111-12 (8th Cir. 1976),
i
the court of appeals found that the five (5) months which elapsed between
plaintiff's request for a variance and the Board's rejection was not
sufficient to raise an inference of animus or bad faith. In Megel v. City
of Papillion, 207 N.W.2d 377, the city had been ordered to construct
drainage facilities within six months of the decree issued January 7,
1971. Upon an Order to Show Cause in a contempt proceeding, the court
held that failure to comply within one L11 year was "willful contempt" but
that mitigating circumstances made it inappropriate to impose a penalty
(January 1971 to December 1971).
An old Massachusetts case is cited for the proposition that contempt
is a proper method to force recalcitrant cities to comply with a court
order. Commonwealth v. Town of Hudson, 52 N.E.2d 566, 574 (Mass 1943).
However, the Massachusetts court decided that even though the town had
failed to chlorinate its water in eleven months, the defendant was
entitled to a second chance.
i
i
As discussed above, only complete default on the part of the local
body would constitute bad faith and justify judicial interference by way
of injunction. Orange County, supra.
Based on a review of these decisions, the periods running from five
months to one year were held reasonable. In the case at bar, the City
actually rezoned the subject property in four (4) months and therefore
complied with the court Order in a reasonable and timely fashion. Even
considering the July referral to the Planning and Zoning Commission for
possible rezoning of a portion of the property, this proposal was rejected
October 24 and November 5, 1974. These time frames are well within what
other courts have held to be reasonable for purposes of complying with the
court order.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS-DES MOIIIES
M,
17
In addition, these later actions by the City were never intended, nor
did they in fact, interfere with Plaintiffs' rights and abilities to
commence construction of the 108 units. In light of the policy concerns
of density restrictions and adjoining property values which are
recognized by the courts as valid, the seven M month period from March
24,1974 to November 5, 1974 falls clearly within the bounds of
reasonableness. Such compliance also constitutes good faith as discussed
in the cases, for the City at no time sat back and did nothing.
Conversely, it cannot be said that four months or even seven months are
clearly unreasonable under the circumstances.
Therefore, the City respectfully requests the trial court find that
Plaintiffs have failed to state a cause of action for intentional
i
interference with business opportunity, since the City rezoned the
j property in a reasonable and timely fashion. Thus, the City is entitled
i
to dismissal as a matter of law.
I
B. PLAINTIFFS HAVE FAILED TO PROVE A MALICIOUS PURPOSE TO INTERFERE WITH
I
PLAINTIFFS' BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY.
� I
Interference with a prospective business opportunity is a relatively
new cause of action sounding in tort. Clark v. Lige, 181 N.W.2d 211, 213
i(Iowa 1970). The elements for such torture as follows:
1. the existence of a valid business expectency;
2. knowledge of the expectancy on the part of the interferer;
3. a purposeful intent to bring about such interference; and
4. actual damages resulting from the interference.
Stoller Fisheries, Inc, v. American Title Insurance Company, 258 N.W.2d
336, 340 (Iowa 1977). Mere interference is not sufficient to state a
claim, even when the defendant knew or had reason to know that the
interference was certain to follow. Farmers Co-op. Elevator, Inc. v.
State Bank, 236 N.W.2d 674, 681 (Iowa 1975). Thus, a specific ur ose to
inure must be shown, since the defendant
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES Mo10ES
18 ^
11 .must have acted in part at least for theuur ossee of
brim ing it [ the interference] about."' Id., quoting from
RESTATEMENT OF TOUTSS (SE OND 5 766A, Coi nt d (OT7).
The Iowa Supreme Court explained:
"To give rise to a viable cause of action, however, the actor
must have as at least one of his objects theuD rpose to injure or
destroy the plaintiff." Id. [Emphasis added].
i
See also PROSSER, Section 130, at 953-54.
In addition, actual loss or resultant damage to the plaintiff is an
essential element. In Stoller Fisheries, supra, at 341, the court stated:
"It is our view that the mere possibility, or even probability,
that an event causing damages will result from the mere breach of
American's [defendant's] duty not to intentionally interfere... does
j not render American's alleged wrongful act actionable."
And again, a breach of duty not to interfere
" causing only nominal damages, speculative harm, or the
threat of future harm - not yet realized - will not ordinarily
suffice to create a cause of action under this tort." Id.
Iowa has therefore adopted the RESTATEMENT'S higher degree of
culpability, namelyup rpose to in.iure. This purpose to injure or destroy
is not required for interference with an existing contract. Simple intent
to act with consequences substantially certain to follow is sufficient for
the older tort. Farmers Co-op, supra, at 679. Regarding this higher
degree of culpability, Mr. Prosser points out that ". . .some element of
ill will is seldom absent from intentional interference;...." PROSSER,
supra, at 953.
In other words, Plaintiffs herein are required to show by a prepond-
erance of the evidence that the City of Iowa City, acting through its
agents, employees and officials, held feelings of spite, hatred or ill -
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
1 r
19
will, or common law malice; and by reason of these feelings, acted to
purposely interfere with Plaintiffs' business. There is no showing of a
spiteful purpose to harm Plaintiffs, nor any personal spite, hatred or
ill -will. Nor can any such purpose be inferred under the circumstances.
As discussed above, although John Hayek counseled against
considering rezoning a portion of Amerex to R3 in the July 16, 1974
meeting, the Councilmembers' comments nevertheless indicate that their
concerns over density were bona fide concerns and honestly held. The
reasons articulated by the Councilmembers dispel any notion of an improper
motive, as shown by the questions and comments by Pat White, Carol
deProsse, Dennis Kraft, John Hayek and Mayor Czarnecki found in the
Transcript of Tapes for the July 16, 1974 meeting.
Indeed, the two Councilmembers who were most reluctant to leave the
property entirely 113A articulated that their actual intent was to insure
Plaintiffs' ability to proceed with construction of 108 units. There is
no reason to question the integrity of these beliefs.
The City's only purpose in this referral.back to the Commission was
to restrict density to 108 rather than 300 units. Pursuant to the court
Order, the City acted lawfully in so doing. As noted above, Iowa
recognizes density as a proper zoning consideration. So also, the United
States Supreme Court has explicitly held that density is a legitimate
criterion for rezoning decisions. Arlington Heights, supra, at 269-70;
see also Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1, 9 (1974), and Orange County,
supra, at 865 ff. It is therefore the City's position that these purposes
were proper zoning concerns in the case before us.
1. No Improper Motive.
The ordinary standard of review for social and economic legislation
is rational basis. Belle Terre, supra. However, where racial discrimi-
nation is alleged, inquiry into motives for zoning decisions is required.
Even applying a closer standard of judicial scrutiny, the United States
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS- DES MOVIES
M
20
Supreme Court concluded that zoning decisions motivated by a "'legitimate
desire to protect property values and the integrity of the Village's
zoning plan"' was proper. Arlington Heights, supra, at 273 (White, J.,
dissenting). While inquiry into motivation is required in the context of
alleged racial discrimination, even here the Court has held that a city's
refusal to rezone which resulted in a racially disparate impact is not
unconstitutional. Challengers must now prove that the underlying
motivating purpose was racially discriminatory. Id.
In Arlington Heights, where the Village had consistently applied its
buffer policy of graduated densities in refusing rezoning requests, the
Court held that such consistency negated any inference of discrimination.
Realizing full well the issue of race discrimination is not before us
here, the Court's analysis of improper motives is nevertheless
instructive. It is the City's contention that in an inquiry of the
Councilleelnbers' motives herein the only logical finding is that the
density and other policy concerns were proper; and in the absence of any
other invidious or malicious purpose, this court must conclude the City
has not acted with a "purpose to injure or destroy." Farmers Coop,
i
1
supra, at 681.
The City respectfully requests this court find that the City has not
i,
acted to purposefully injure or harm Plaintiffs or interfere with their
business opportunity, and that Plaintiffs have failed to prove an
essential element of the tort.
2. Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate cause in fact or
I
proximate cause.
Historical trends in the law of tort have been premised on the theory
of no liability without fault. PROSSER, Sections 7-8. So also, fairness
requires that liability cannot attach where no causal link exists between
the actor's conduct and the victim's injury.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 1101HES
M,
21
In the case at bar, there is little or no evidence that the City's
actions were the cause in fact of Plaintiffs' alleged harm. Plaintiffs
contend they were ready to build in February 1974. However, Mr. Paulson
testified for Plaintiffs that the purpose of his trip to the Civic Center
in February of 1974 was to get information on new specifications in the
plumbing and electrical codes. Plaintiffs would also have us believe that
the original 1963 design plans were ready to be used in February but were
obsolete in July of that same year. This argument stretches one's
imagination. In addition, Mr. Byron Ross testified that Plaintiffs had
sufficient assets to proceed in 1974 by carrying their own project, as
other developers were then doing. However, he advised against it.
Common sense dictates that the 1963 construction plans were outmoded
long before January of 1974. Mr. Paulson testified that he advised
Plaintiffs to "scrap" the old plans in July 1974. He also testified he
would have had to spend several weeks or even months in drawing up new
j
plans using different (materials. There was nothing preventing Plaintiffs
j
from doing just that after July 16, 1974. Although of dubious probative
weight in this case, even Mr. Fisher's response to hypothetical question
number three was that financing would be available once the ordinance was
passed and a building permit available. This was in fact true as of July
16, 1974. However, Plaintiffs' testimony made clear that there were no
applications made for financin at 2ny time Burin 1974.
The truth is that the Plaintiffs were not prepared to proceed with
construction in July of 1974, there were no plans being prepared, they had
in fact discarded the 1963 plans, and had not even started putting a loan
I! package together. Surely no lending institution would seriously consider
a loan of $750,000 to $800,000 without specific design plans which
included cost estimates, construction schedules, etc.
Mr. Radcliffe testified that this size loan was simply too big for
local banks, and that the inflationary economy impacted heavily on
construction starts in 1974-75. The Plaintiffs would have us believe that
their difficulties were the direct result of the City's conduct. Such a
conclusion is not only untenable but grossly unfair.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
n
^; 22
A more logical explanation is that the Plaintiffs were somewhat
caught by surprise when they won the first case, could not get permanent
financing locally because the job was too big, the money market was tight
and construction slow, and the 1963 plans were simply obsolete. It would
be completely unreasonable under this set of circumstances to find that
the "efficient producing cause" of Plaintiffs' difficulties was the
City's action. Iowa Security Company v. Schaefer, 126 N.W.2d 922, 925
(Iowa 1964). It would also be grossly unfair to the City to attach
liability for the economic and business variables which are beyond the
City's control. Through no doing of the City, the financial climate had
changed. Surely the Plaintiffs cannot in good conscience attribute this
change to the City. And it certainly cannot be said that the City was
either the cause in fact or even the proximate cause of such changes.
In sum, it would be unconscionable to place the blame on the City for
the circumstances presented here.
C. PLAINTIFFS HAVE FAILED TO PROVE ACTUAL DAMAGES.
The Iowa Supreme Court recently held that actual loss or resultant
damage is an essential element to state a cause of action for intentional
interference with a business opportunity. Stoller Fisheries, supra, at
341. "[T]he mere possibility, or even probability, that an event causing
damages will result" is not sufficient to render the event actionable.
Id. [Emphasis added.] It is the City's contention that Plaintiffs have
failed to prove an essential element, and are therefore barred from
recovery.
Even assuming arguendo that the City is liable, Plaintiffs have
completely failed to prove any actual damages by competent and reliable
evidence, and at best are entitled only to nominal damages. Construction
was not in progress at any time during 1974, so any attempted measure is
pure guesswork. Indeed, Plaintiffs did nothing to take advantage of the
July rezoning which they so earnestly desired.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 140111ES
23
In addition, most if not all Plaintiffs' case was based on responses
to hypothetical questions, resulting in purely theoretical and
speculative evidence. This was not the proper method of proof under the
circumstances. Only Mr. Paulson had any personal knowledge of the
situation in 1974. His testimony was based on rough estimates without any
supporting documents. He admitted he had never made formal application
for a building permit at any time during 1974. He also testified that
July was too late to bid out a construction project because winter costs
were too high. Yet, Mrs. Hillman earlier testified that Plaintiffs broke
ground in January 1978 for their new buildings.
After the property was rezoned in July 1974, Mr. Paulson testified he
advised Plaintiffs to start over and did not in fact have any new plans
drawn up to present to the City or to a lending institution until many
years later. Thus, there is no basis on which to assess damages at any
time during 1974, and none whatsoever as of July 16, 1974.
This is not a case where the City absolutely refused to comply, or
where construction was already underway and actually delayed. In the only
case found where increased construction costs were awarded as a result of
i
I
delays, the basis for recovery was a supersedeas bond issued on a motion
i
i to stay the construction. Weiner v. 222 East Chestnut Street Corporation,
303 F2d 630, 634 (7th Cir. 1962). However, in that case construction was
I
commenced in August 1956 and continued until the supersedeas and stay
i
order of September 1956. Thus, construction was stopped by order of the
court and recovery was based on contract rights under the bond. We have
no such situation here.
D. PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO MITIGATE DAMAGES.
Plaintiffs are claiming damages for a period during which they made
little or no good faith effort to mitigate. This duty to mitigate damages
is a fundamental principle of law, based on the premise that one should
not be allowed to profit from another's wrong. Plaintiffs' Petition
claims damages only to July 1974. Even assuming the City is liable, which
MICRDFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES 110IRES
24
we justly contest, the evidence is clear that the Plaintiffs in essence
"rested on their rights" as follows:
- no plans were left with City staff to review during
1974 for compliance with plumbing, fire, electrical
and building codes;
- no formal applications were made for a building
permit;
- no inquiries were made to the City Council, the
Planning and Zoning Commission or the City Attorney
regarding construction schedules;
i
I - no requests were made to Judge Schaeffer to compel
compliance;
i - no requests were made to Judge Schaeffer to set a
specific time limit for compliance;
i
- no proposed completion dates were ever negotiated;
- only two written communications were sent to the
City, the first received the date of rezoning July
16, and the second just prior to filing this lawsuit
September 25;
- no new plans were designed in 1974, after the 1963
plans were deemed obsolete.
I
I
In a word, Plaintiffs sat back and did little or nothing until
October, when they apparently realized how bad the economy was; and now
attempt to attach liability for their own lack of diligence and the
inflationary difficulties. This raises the issue of Plaintiffs' own good
faith efforts.
The principles behind tort theories for compensation in order to make
the victim whole is simply inapposite in the case at bar. On July 16,
1974, Mr. White asked, "Why can't we go ahead and issue a building
r permit?" Mr. Hayek responded: "We could do that, Mr. White, and I assume
that one of the reasons we have not is that they have not applied for a
building permit." See Transcript of Tapes, page 28.
The inevitable conclusion is that the Plaintiffs were not in fact
prepared to proceed with construction at any time during 1974, and that
even assuming the City had immediately rezoned, the Plaintiffs were simply
not in a position to take advantage of such a situation. In the Weiner
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOINES
W
25
case discussed above, damages were allowed because construction had
commenced, construction completion dates had been established, and
financing had been obtained on the basis of expected completion. The
construction in Weiner was forced to stop under court order, and recovery
was allowed on the basis of the bond provided. We have no such situation
here.
It is respectfully submitted that the court find that Plaintiffs have
failed .to prove actual damages. Alternatively, only nominal damages are
in order. Further, damages cannot be assessed after July 16, 1974, since
Plaintiffs at no time made a motion to conform their pleadings.
C. MONEY DAMAGES SHOULD NOT BE AWARDED IN ZONING CONFLICTS AS AGAINST
PUBLIC POLICY.
An award of money damages in the case at bar would set a dangerous
precedent for local authorities with zoning responsibilities. The City
argues herein that money damages for unreasonable delay, or for
intentional interference with business opportunities, are simply not the
proper relief for a successful challenger of a zoning ordinance. Such
relief would thrust the courts into the realm of pure speculation and
would impose an intolerable legislative and fiscal burden on cities.
Damages should therefore be rejected on public policy grounds.
Damages based on lost business opportunities should be rejected in a
zoning conflict based on problems of proof, especially where no actual
construction is underway. Such expectancies are by nature speculative
because they are based on business acumen, to say nothing of variables
such as the "cost" of money, the health of the construction industry, and
fluctuating prices due to inflation. All of these variables are outside
the control of a city, and indeed are often beyond the control of the
entrepreneur himself, to say nothing of the business community in general.
In the case before us, to attribute increased construction costs
resulting from obsolete plans and the changing money market to the City is
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES IIORIES
26
speculative at best and specious at worst. A finding of culpability
herein would set a dangerous precedent, and would work economic hardship
on local governments and place an unwarranted burden on Iowa City. It
would also have a chilling effect on legislative responsibilities.
Further, this court should carefully and cautiously weigh the
ramifications of awarding damages in a zoning context, especially where
the issue of relief for successful zoning challengers is now being
i
heatedly debated. Even the most ardent proponents of "site-specific
relief" for discriminatory zoning do not condone damages. E.
Developments -Zoning, 91 HARV. L. REV. 1427, 1692 ff. (1978); see also
Exclusionary Zoning Relief, 12 URB. L. ANN. 21, 24 ff. (1976). Perhaps as
i
one court has put it, contempt proceedings are not the proper method to
enforce compliance against a city. Pascack supra, at 96. Cf. Hudson,
supra, at 574; and Meael, Supra, at 379. Other courts have preferred
remand to the appropriate zoning authority while retaining jurisdiction.
Wood v. Twin Lakes Nobile Nome Villa es, Inc., 123 S2d 738, 744 (Fla. App.
1960). This latter procedure seems preferable.
i
i
A few states have recognized a cause of action in inverse
condemnation for damages to real "confiscatory"
property resulting from confiscatory
zoning.
The California courts which pioneered the inverse condemnation action,
however, now seem to be retreating from their original approach to such
damage claims. In HFH, Ltd., v. Su erior Court of Los Angeles County, 542
P.2d 237 (Cal. 1975), the plaintiff sought damages in inverse condemnation
for diminished property values for the city's refusal to rezone. The
plaintiff also sought interim damages during the pendency of their mandate
action. The court held that plaintiff had failed to state a claim for
inverse condemnation, as well as for interim damages. The court rejected
the tort theory as insufficient to state a cause of action in damages by
reason of an invalid zoning ordinance, stating:
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES
M,
27
"In so arguing, however, they (plaintiffs) overlooked the
distinction between a tort suit and a mandate action; the former
enables the wronged plaintiff to recover compensatory damages; the
latterep rmits a party suffering from improper overg_ nmentel action
to correct administrative abuse. The cases have long acknowledged
This idsting, one deeply rooted in the theory of our polity."
HFH, Ltd., supra, at 244. [Emphasis added].
Judge Tobriner continued:
"Courts have thus recognized that.'[o]f course, it is not a tort
for government to govern. ' [citations omitted] Both
constitutional and institutional understandings require the legisla-
tive acts, even_ if improper, find their iudicial remedy in the
Id. Ltmpnasts
One commentator argues against awarding money damages in a zoning
challenge, and cites compelling public policy concerns for this position.
Inverse Condemnation, 26 STAN. L. REV. 1439, 1449 ff. (1974). The onus
of money damages in making policy decisions would indeed have a chilling
effect on legislation and place an impossible and unpredictable financial
burden on local government. The commentator points out correctly that the
governing body is in a better position to weigh social costs and benefits,
and concludes:
"Invalidation, rather than .forced compensation, would seem to
be the more expedient means of remedying legislative excesses." Id.,
at 1451.
Even California is now taking a stricter approach by requiring an election
I
of remedies in zoning challenges. A concern for separation of powers is
also evident. E. g., Eldridge v. City of Palo Alto, 124 Cal. Rptr. 547,
I
559 (1975) (Sims, J., dissenting).
The City respectfully requests the court find that an action for
money damages for delays in rezoning be barred in Iowa as against public
policy, especially where the delays were reasonably and rationally
explained under the circumstances.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOIRES
I
28
IV. CONCLUSION
In the case at bar, the trial court should not lose sight of the fact
that the City's duty to act in 1974 ran not only to the individual
Plaintiffs but also to the surrounding neighborhood, the community in
general, and to complying with zoning requirements. As a result, the City
had little choice but to strictly follow the state and local zoning
procedures, as well as to respect due process rights. The Council had
consistently been concerned over density in the North Dubuque area, and
thus the City's purpose in referring the matter back to the Planning and
Zoning Commission was to limit density to 108 units, rather than the 300
units permitted under R3A.
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the City staff, the
Councilmembers or other agents ever acted to willfully, purposefully or
maliciously harm or destroy Plaintiffs' business opportunity. The
dialogue found in the Transcript of Tapes for the July 16, 1974 City
Council meeting demonstrates that no such wrongful or spiteful purpose
existed. If Plaintiffs had come in the following week with plans and
application for a permit, there is no question the construction would have
proceeded.
Dialogue which followed on July 16, 1974 was, in pertinent part, as
follows:
"MR. WHITE. . .I don't see any jeopardy to the 108 unit plan by
going that route. . . .the problem, of course, is the differential we
have between R3 and R3A is so great that the mathematics just work
out badly for the rezoning;. . .
MR. WHITE: Why can't we go ahead and issue a building permit?
We have been ordered to issue a building permit.
MR. HAYEK: We could do that, Mr. White, and I assume that one
of the reasons we have not is that they have not applied for a
building permit.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES IIOIRES
r
29
MS. DEPROSSE: John, the whole thing would have to go back to
P&Z, or just that portion we plan to zone R3?
MR. HAYEK: That portion.
MS. DEPROSSE: Then they could still get their building permit.
MR. HAYEK: . . .They could go ahead and build that.
MAYOR CZARNECKI: Well, procedurally, they could yet a building
permit if we did that tonight, to allow for 108 units. Go ahead
(inaudible).
MR. HAYEK: That would be correct.
MS. DEPROSSE: I think it is a matter of finding something we
can legally (inaudible) while at the same time preserve something of
the character, whatever you care to call it, that we need to be able
to preserve in that area."
This discussion clearly demonstrates there was no wrongful purpose
to interfere with the construction of the permitted 108 units, nor to harm
or interfere with Plaintiffs' rights to proceed with construction.
The City respectfully submits that Plaintiffs have failed to state a
cause of action for intentional interference with business opportunity.
The City's actions were reasonable under the circumstances, and thus as a
matter of law there was noup rpose to harm or destro . Alternatively,
Defendant requests judgment for the City for failure to prove the
essential elements of the tort, since there is no evidence whatsoever of
malicious or spiteful ill -will.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROIAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOIIIES
30
Finally, if the City is found liable, Defendant requests that
recovery be denied on public policy grounds; or alternatively, that
damages be nominal, since Plaintiffs have failed to prove actual damages.
copies to:
A. Roger Witke
1400 Central National Bank Bldg.
Des Moines, Iowa 50309
Reardon Law Firm
122 South Linn
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
John Hayek
110 West Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Jay Honohan
330 East Court
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Respectfully submitted,
LINVA WOITO COOK
Assistant City Attorney
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MINES
i
f
I
1
i
i
i
I
4
30
Finally, if the City is found liable, Defendant requests that
recovery be denied on public policy grounds; or alternatively, that
damages be nominal, since Plaintiffs have failed to prove actual damages.
copies to:
A. Roger Witke
1400 Central National Bank Bldg.
Des Moines, Iowa 50309
Reardon Law Firm
122 South Linn
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
John Hayek
110 West Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Jay Honohan
330 East Court
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Respectfully submitted,
LINVA WOITO COOK
Assistant City Attorney
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MINES
APPI'NU I X
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS
October 1972 - Amerex I - First case against City
filed -Belle & Short, Plaintiffs v.
City and individual Councilmembers.
June 1973 - Trial - Amerex I -
J. Lovelace, attorney for Plaintiffs
J. Honohan, attorney for Defendants
January 1974 - J. Schaeffer's decision - City must
rezone Amerex tract to permit comple-
tion of 108 units (24 units already
in place).
i i i i i i i
*P.Ex. #.18 January 24, 1974
P.Ex. # 1 February 4, 1974
P.Ex. #20 February 13, 1974
i
P.Ex. #13 February 19, 1974
& #21
i
I
March 12, 1974 -
P.Ex. # 2 April 16, 1974 -
P.Ex. #14 April 16, 1974 -
& #22
P.Ex. #23 April 23, 1974 -
April 26, 1974 -
P.Ex. #24 April 30, 1974 -
P.Ex. #18 May 9, 1974
P.Ex, # 8
*Plaintiff's Exhibit
Judge Schaeffer's Order - Amerex I -
filed; docket #41548.
J. Hayek's letter to City Council
recommending no appeal.
City Council meeting - MINUTES.
J. Hayek referred to the letter of
2/4/74 regarding no appeal; Council
discussed implications of decision;
consensus of Council to request
clarification by court.
City Council meeting - MINUTES & TAPES.
J. Hayek presented report on follow-up
to Amerex I litigation and that 1) had
entered into stipulation with Plain-
tiffs regarding time to request clar-
ification and 2) recommend no appeal.
"There was no instruction to appeal
from Council."
J. Schaeffer Clarification ORDER.
LETTER to City Council from J. Hayek -
1) reported file Motion to Clarify;
2) court has clarified judgment;
3) recommends referran to P&Z (Plan-
ning and Zoning Commission).
City Council meeting - MINUTES &
TAPES.
J. Hayek recommends referral to P&Z
for report.
City Council meeting - MINUTES.
Referral of Amerex to P&Z for report
and'further action of Council.
Forwarding letter from Abbie Stolfus
to P&Z.
City Council meeting - MINUTES.
- J. Hayek presented copies of
Amerex I.
STAFF REPORT regarding Amerex Rezoning.
MINUTES - P&Z Commission meeting. Recom-
mendation to City Council to rezone
Amerex tract R1A to 113A.
- _ . _� A°o�
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 140111ES
HICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES M01DES
-2-
P.Ex. #25
May 21, 1974 -
CiLy Council meeting; - MINUTE'S.
Council set public hearing to rvzono
Amerex 111A to R3A, as approved by
P&Z - set for 6/18/74 at 7:30 p.m.
P.Ex. #26
June 18, 1974 -
Public Hearing - Amerex Tract - MINUTES.
P.Ex. #27
June 25, 1974 -
City Council meeting - MINUTES.
Rules suspended and first reading of
ordinance given by title only - Amerex
tract from R1A to 113A. First read-
ing given.
P.Ex. #28
July 2, 1974 -
City Council meeting - MINUTES.
Rules suspended and second reading of
Amerex rezoning to R3A by title only.
Second reading given.
P.Ex. #15
July 9, 1974 -.
City Council meeting - MINUTES & TAPES.
& #29
Third reading deferred one week.
P.Ex. # 3
July 15, 1974 -
LETTER from J. Hayek to City Council.
P.Ex. #4
July 16, 1974 -
LETTER to City Council from Bill
j
Meardon, attorney for Amerex.
P.Ex. q15-
July 16, 1974 -
MINUTES - City Council and TAPES.
side 2
- Receipt of letters from Hayek and
& #30
Meardon;
- Rules suspended and third reading
Amerex rezoning by title only.
- Third reading given.
- Moved by Brandt and seconded by
Davidsen to adopt ordinance re-
zoning Amerex R1A to R3A.
- Brandt, Davidsen, Czarnecki - aye;
- deProsse and White - no. !
Motion carried 3-2 to ADOPT.
- Moved by White and seconded by
deProsse that 7.05 acre tract
(Amerex) less 24,000 square feet
immediately surrounding and ad-
jacent to existing 24 units be
referred to P&Z for review and
recommendations on rezoning to R3.
- Carried 4-1 (Brandt - no).
P.Ex. #19
August 8, 1974 -
i
STAFF REPORT.
- R3A zone permits a possible 254
units on Amerex 7.05 acres at a
minimum lot size of 1,000 square
feet/unit and density of 43.6
units per acre. Alternatives for
reducing maximum allowable number
of units on'tract presented, as
requested. Staff made no recom-
mendation regarding alternatives.
P.Ex. # 9
August 8, 1974 -
MINUTES - P&Z Commission meeting.
P.Ex. #10
September 12, 1974 -
MINUTES - P&Z meeting.
- Unanimous decision to request legal
opinion from City Attorney regard-
ing legality of rezoning Amerex
tract to R3; deferred decision
pending advice.
P.Ex # 5
September 25, 1974 -
LETTER to City Council from B. Meardon,
HICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS•DES M01DES
R
October 1, 1974 -
P.Ex. # 6 October 4, 1974 -
October 9, 1974 -
October 15, 1974 -
P.Ex. #11 October 16, 1974 -
P.Ex. #12 October 24, 1974 -
P.Ex. #17 November 5, 1974 -
& #32
I P.Ex. # 7 November 7, 1974 -
-3-
City Council meeting - MINUTES & TAPES.
Receipt of B. Meardon letter and re-
quest for City Attorney to draft re-
sponse.
LETTER to Meardon from J. Hayek, City
Attorney.
LETTER to P&Z from J. Hayek, City At-
torney.
MINUTES - City Council meeting.
- City Attorney informed Council of
litigation against City (Amerex II -
filed 10/15/79).
MINUTES - P&Z meeting.
J. Hayek opinion discussed re-
garding rezoning portion from
R3A to R3.
Action to be taken at next meeting.
MINUTES - P&Z meeting.
- Recommendation to City Council to
-reaffirm P&Z's earlier recommen-
dation to approve R3A zoning for
entire 7.05 acres.
City Council meeting - MINUTES & TAPES.
- After discussion of P&Z recommen-
dation not to rezone Amerex tract,
moved by White and seconded by
deProsse to set public hearing on
11/26/74,
- Motion defeated - White and
deProsse - aye; Czarnecki, Brandt,
Davidsen - no.
LETTER to Meardon from J. Hayek.
- City Council voted down motion to
set public hearing on rezoning
Amerex and in effect accepted,P&Z
recommendation to leave zoning as
Is - i.e., R3A.
L�
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 110111ES
I