HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-02-05 CorrespondenceThe Honorable Mayor and City Council
Civic Center
410 East Washington
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
CIVIC CENTER.410 E. WASHINGTON ST.
IOWA
CITY. IOWA 52240
319-354-1800
January 28, 1974
The Parks and Recreation Commission members and the citizens
of Iowa City wish to express their thanks and appreciation
to Mr. Jim Roegiers for his work during 1973, as Chairman of
the Parks and Recreation Commission. Mr. Roegiers has served
admirably in his position as Commission Chairman and provided
a fine example to the citizens by serving in the best interest
of all the community.
Sincerely,
Sarah Fox
Chairperson
Parks and Recreation
SF:pw
Commission
'l
February 13, 1974
Mrs. Sarah Fox
Chairperson
Parks and Recreation Commission
Civic Center
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Dear Mrs. Fox:
The Iowa City City Council at its February 5, 1974
meeting officially received and placed on file your
correspondence expressing thanks to Mr. Jim Roegiers
for his work, during 1973 as Chairman of the Parks and
Recreation Commission.
The City Council concurs in your appreciation to
Air. Roegiers and thanks you for bringing this matter to
their attention.
Very truly yours,
Ray S. Wells
City Manager
RSW/mj c
0
1aCity of Eugene V. Eugene Fire Fighters As-
smiation No. .851 .and AFSCME`Local 1724A,
F,
Cate No. 100756 Lane County -Circuit Court,
ugcnc, ortgon.
Ix cause the pngn'1'ty tax rale nes
ce:"y to�fulnl
the budget has exccetled a h'glsla ed Illllllallall.
--"'The distinction 1jetWe'.11 ••1)Il'Illtllllaly dis•
eussions" and "bi-lateral llegotialions" is pri.
warily a semantic one designed to cope will[
rho language of the lire lighlers' charter amend.
FINAL -OFFER ARBITRATION
- -,
• gered, nonpartisan, uncompensated, (lis-.-
trier basis
191
the
the more general languap�c
for four. city's
in the
charter
administrative branch handles the labor
amendment. The city council
relations function. The personnel direc-
passed the ordinance (which was sup.
for is the chief negotiator and contract
ported by city administrators and two of
the three
administrator, and lie reports to the city
unions) in September 1971,
and it is
manager. The city council plays a mini-
this ordinance which estab-
lished Eugene's
mal role in labor relations. Council mem-
unique final -offer
hrocedures.tr
bers, by _ordinance, have delegated the
responsibility for labor. relations to the
The ordinance establishes a bargain.
city manager and the personnel director.
ing-arbitration timetable so that union -
The council limits itself to reviewing
management contracts will be geared to
a fiscal
privately the city's bargaining position
year basis and will be finalized
before
and to deciding ort tentative contracts
the annual budget -adoption
deadlines in May
submitted by rite manager.
May and )une.l" Conse-
The legal framework
the ordin;ntce provides that be -
governing these
bargaining relationships was developed
tween October 1 and 15 of any year in
which a
-
with inputs from both sides. As the city
party wants to negotiate it con -
tract for the
council was studying tile
e wisdom of es-
next fiscal year, that party
must send a "letter
tablishing a collective bargaining
of intent" to bar-
system
in 1969-70, the IAFI and AFSCME lo-
gain to the other party. After such noti-
fication,
cats circulated among the voters an ini-
the period between October 15
and December 15 is
tiative petition to amend the city
to be "sell for "pre-
linlin;try discussions" during
charter to require collective bargaining
and "compulsory
which time
the participants shall "meet
binding arbitration"
and confer
it good faith" on
to resolve impasses, In May 1970, the
contract terms. If, by
December 15, the
voters narrowlyadopted the initiative,
two sides have not
reached "tentative
and bargaining began shortly thereafter
a agrecnterlt,,, the
city m:urager shall
with the fire fighters, the only
request mediation as -
sistance
group
that was well organized at that time.
from the state (this require -
ment
The negotiations halted, however, be-
may be mutually waived) . If ei-
cause of disputes over the interpretation
titer party then wishes to proceed to
"bi-lateral
of, the charter amendment. The two
a
negotiations," it must send a
letter
sides went to court to resolve the mat -
of intent the other party be
ter, and in March 1971 the court up-
tween January 2 and 5, and such nego-
held the amendment's validity and sug-
tfations shall contrrtence within ten cal-
gested that it be implemented by
endardays (by January 15).19
ordinances in a manner to ensure its "See Bureau of National Allairs, Govern-
eonstitutionality.1e' Consequently, dur- Client F.n,ployee
Relations Re(lort, No. 423
ing the spring and summer of 1971 cit (Washinglo": October 18, 1!171)
1 g' for a descrip-
,
and fire fir Y tion
ghter representatives drafted
,
of and the text of the ordina-
Chill
rece"t years, the city I,Iltlg,.t Ilsllally Ila3
an ordinance that clarified anti defined beell subttlirted to the votrrs for weir a
0
1aCity of Eugene V. Eugene Fire Fighters As-
smiation No. .851 .and AFSCME`Local 1724A,
F,
Cate No. 100756 Lane County -Circuit Court,
ugcnc, ortgon.
Ix cause the pngn'1'ty tax rale nes
ce:"y to�fulnl
the budget has exccetled a h'glsla ed Illllllallall.
--"'The distinction 1jetWe'.11 ••1)Il'Illtllllaly dis•
eussions" and "bi-lateral llegotialions" is pri.
warily a semantic one designed to cope will[
rho language of the lire lighlers' charter amend.
0
merit, which limits "Iii -lateral negotiations' to a
thirty -day period in January and February. In
order to colic with this overly rigid require.
mens, those who drafted the ordinance added a
"preliminary. -discussion" period Prior to the of-
ficial negotiation period in order to have mord
time to reach an agreement. In effect, the Eu.
gene ordinance calls for a negotiation process
that begins in October and ends in February
(except. in cases in which the parties mutually
agree to deadline extensions), with most of the
hard bargaining occurring during the official
"bi-lateral negotiations" period.
-)See the source cited in footnote 17 for the
complete criteria language.
ztFor the text of that proposed legislation,
see Bureau of. National Affairs, Deify l-abor Re-
port, No. 40 (February 27, 1970) pp. FI -176.
Perhaps the most important difference between
that proposal and the Eugene procedure is that
the former provided final -offer arbitration as
one of three alternatives in an "arsenal of
weapons," whereas in Eugene, the final -offer
procedure is the only impasse resolution mecha.
nism available. In addition, the administration
proposal requires sharing of the arbitration
costs; in Eugene, the city picks up the entire
192 I ND 1.IS I7It1AI. ANI) LABORRELATIONS REVII(W
Thc• official negotiation period is
four (tc., by approxint;ct(,ly March 15
short. If Ille twit sides have not reached
the process should he completed) . The
wgreernew t,ithin It,•cnty-five days from
arbitrators shall hold at ]cast one hear-
tt f• a :., of official licnotations,
ing to discuss the offers submitted and
r.IJt I•.t (. .h.tll suhutit a final offer
then shall select "the most reasonable"
.utd Ill-ty at tht sante time submit one
of the offers submitted. The board
alternative offer to the other party."
can -
not make any changes in the offer
These four offers may constitute a com-
se -
lected, and the selection must be baser]
plete proposed contract or may be Jim-
solely "on the content of that offer."
ited to the sftecifcc items still in dispute.
The board is to determine which offer
In either c;Ise, these offers are filed with
is the most reasonable according to four
the city recorder and _preserved for the
criteria: the bargaining history of the
arbitration board. If only the disputed
parties, relevant market comparisons in
items are submitted, all items previously
the private sector, relevant market com-
agreed on also shall be filed with the re-
parisons in the public sector, and the
corder. This filing of final offers does
city's ability to pay.2n The ordinance
not end negotiations, for after the filing
also provides that the city shall pay all
the parties are mandated to continue
of the arbitration
their negotiations. If, after five more
panel's expenses.
It shotld he noted that the Eugene
days, agreement has not been reached
procedure was based on the Nixon
on a complete package (i.e., by Febru-
administration's propose(] legislation for
ary .15) , the arbitration procedure shall
dealing with national emergency disputes
be invoked. Negotiation is again encour-
in the transportation industry. This was.
aged at this point, by a provision that
"parties
due to the fact that the Nixon proposal
the may continue to discuss
was one of the few (and perhaps the
these offers until agreement isreachedonly)
specific final -offer procedural pro -
or a decision is rendered" by the arbitra-
posal then in circulation, and it conven-
tion panel.
iently suited the city administration's
The arbitration board is tripartite,
desire to avoid implementing a conven-
consisting of a representative from each
tional arbitration system. Although there
side and a chairman. When arbitration
are significant differences between that
is invoked, the ordinance provides ten
proposed legislation and the Eugene sys-
clays for the selection of the panel, ten
tem, the latter is closer to that proposed
more days for the panel to convene, and
by. President Nixon than are the other
ten more clays for the panel to make its
final -offer systems now in effect."
selection of one final offer from among
merit, which limits "Iii -lateral negotiations' to a
thirty -day period in January and February. In
order to colic with this overly rigid require.
mens, those who drafted the ordinance added a
"preliminary. -discussion" period Prior to the of-
ficial negotiation period in order to have mord
time to reach an agreement. In effect, the Eu.
gene ordinance calls for a negotiation process
that begins in October and ends in February
(except. in cases in which the parties mutually
agree to deadline extensions), with most of the
hard bargaining occurring during the official
"bi-lateral negotiations" period.
-)See the source cited in footnote 17 for the
complete criteria language.
ztFor the text of that proposed legislation,
see Bureau of. National Affairs, Deify l-abor Re-
port, No. 40 (February 27, 1970) pp. FI -176.
Perhaps the most important difference between
that proposal and the Eugene procedure is that
the former provided final -offer arbitration as
one of three alternatives in an "arsenal of
weapons," whereas in Eugene, the final -offer
procedure is the only impasse resolution mecha.
nism available. In addition, the administration
proposal requires sharing of the arbitration
costs; in Eugene, the city picks up the entire
tab. Finally, there are differences it, the selec.
tion criteria, particularly a "catch-all” criterion
Ill the Nixon proposal that would give more
discretion to the arbitrators than do the more
rpeeitic criteria in the Eugene procedure.
22 "*"(!Sc cost estimates are thoseused by the
city and as such Include: an increase, mandated
by the state public Employees Retireuteut Sys-
r�
-Ubui., pp. 7-13. The city a(lolinistrution and
the fire fighters duagl"eed about the continued
existence of [lie civil service system. Tile city's
Position has been that [Ile bargaiuing•arbina.
Bort charier anterniment elinlinattA civil scrv-
ice; that is, the employers have either batgain-
3ng orcivil. service rights, but not both. The
city's position has been upheld in (uurt. Flank
I). Jackson v. City of Eugene. c -ase No. 72.159,
la lie County Circuit Court, Eugene, Oregon.
I
•
FINAL -OFFER ARBITRATION
The Eugene ExPei
rence
195
•
The city and the
b oth its proposals. In addition, both
union
unions have negoti-
ated
proposals contained the disputed
a total of seven contracts since
collective
manning and civil service provisions.
bargaining was introduced
into
A majority of the arbitration
city government—three with the
panel
(tile chairman and thecity
fire fighters. and two each with the po-
lice
representa-
five) selected the city's first
and AFSCME. Six of these contracts
offer pri-
mal"ly because
were negotiated under the auspices of
of the chairman's objec-
tions to the manning requirement
the final -offer ordinance. (The initial
fire
(that
a three -than crew of designated
fighters' contract was agreed to in
February -March
rank be
used on certain fire vehicles) in both
1971 under the threat
of a court -imposed conventional
union offers: "If it heti not been for the
arbitra-
tion procedure.)
inclusion of the mandatory manning re -
The first final -offer
quirement clause in both Association
experience in-
volved the
offers, the Chairman would have voted
negotiation in 1971-72- of
the second fire fighters'
to select (the alternate] Association
contract. During
these negotiations, the
offer ... as the most reasonable " s The
city and the
union tentatively agreed on
chairman also objected to file union' s
several
items, but because of significant disa-
inclusion of civil service provisions.=s
The
greements on selected items, they de-
city's first offer was selected, even
clared the entire package in dispute.
though the size of the increase was
The major disputed issues included the
smaller than in its alternate offer, be -
incorporation into the contract of man-
rause its across. tile -boa r(I wage increase
ning standards and civil service proce-
was Preferred by tile union over the
duces (both of _which the union wanted
included) longevity
tem, of ).15 Percent in boll, 1971 and 1972.
i • pity, which the
The City's liositloll IS that allhougb
union also demanded, and the size of
suds I(97Z.
the increasesmay clot have been bargained
the economic adjustment. Each side sub-
la theyat
city'staa they are a very teal portion of ole
milted two offers (a final. offer, plus an
costs and co,u,yuently must be in-
cluded in ally calculations
alternative offer) to the arbitrators. The
of allnual economic
adjust "cuts. Naturally, the unions have not
economic packagesoffered b
.`y_[he.Ci[y to-
ell.
thusiasticany°agreed with this Position, and in
a. later
taled 6.0 percent and 6.5 percent in its!
rase (AF•SCAfE in 1972_73), [itis issue
was an ire ror[rnt .bonr of coutentimr.
two offers, with the first offer consisting
with the
arbitration chairman a rreeiu r
b 6 with the city',
mostly an across-the-board wage in.
position,
lyl'aul 1). IfJulon, "Explanation
n
crease and the Second cml)llasizing an
of the
Se ltt[le)II Of Filial Offer." /le f/Ie
increasc in health and retirement bene-
fllnffer a/ Ar-
bilr"tion between tnrenmtiou„i q„ociation
o/
fits. The union asked Co
Fire Fighters, Erugene Fire Fighters Association
r economic ad- No. xsf, AFI. Cf0
justments of 8.6 percent and 7.4 per-
a„d t.ity of Eugene Oregon
(American Arbitration As
s.
toCase No.
cent,== with longevity pay included in
75-75490)04-72, Mattfi B, 1972) , pp. 1.
0.
tab. Finally, there are differences it, the selec.
tion criteria, particularly a "catch-all” criterion
Ill the Nixon proposal that would give more
discretion to the arbitrators than do the more
rpeeitic criteria in the Eugene procedure.
22 "*"(!Sc cost estimates are thoseused by the
city and as such Include: an increase, mandated
by the state public Employees Retireuteut Sys-
r�
-Ubui., pp. 7-13. The city a(lolinistrution and
the fire fighters duagl"eed about the continued
existence of [lie civil service system. Tile city's
Position has been that [Ile bargaiuing•arbina.
Bort charier anterniment elinlinattA civil scrv-
ice; that is, the employers have either batgain-
3ng orcivil. service rights, but not both. The
city's position has been upheld in (uurt. Flank
I). Jackson v. City of Eugene. c -ase No. 72.159,
la lie County Circuit Court, Eugene, Oregon.
I
•
irrnge ucnent Increases to the alternate
offer.
The second final -offer experience in-
volved the negotiation of an initial con-
Lract with lite p0licc union during the
lx•riod 1971-72. As in lila case of the
fire fighters. all, items were declared in
dispute, and each side submitted two
final offers for consideration. The major
disputed items included the scope of
management rights and the -size of the
economic adjustment. The city offered
package increases of 6.2 percent and 6.7
percent, and the union asked for 15.9
percent and 13.0 percent." As a result
of feedback from its arbitration repre-
sentative about the third party's reac-
tion to the size of its proposals, the
union approached the city about a ne-
gotiated agreement. Consequently, dur-
ing the second day of arbitration hear-
ings, the two sides mutually requested a
recess, reached agreement on all items,
and the arbitration process was fermi.
nated. ']'lie final settlement was based
largely on [lie city's alternate offer and
the financial adjustment was slightly in-
creased (to 6.8 percent). The noneco-
nomic clauses in the final agreement fol-
lowed the language in the city's alternate
offer. -
The third final offer experience in-
volved the negotiation of an initial con-
tract with the AFSCME local. Both
sides wanted to avoid_ arbitration of this
first contract, and as a result they
agreed on all items with the single ex-
ception of union security. The union
wanted an agency shop (labeled a "fair
share" arrangement) , and the city of-
fered a maintenance of membership pro-
vision. The city believed it could not
voluntarily agree to the agency shop
zsThese are the city's calculations and as such
include the 1.15 percent legislatedincrease in
retirement contributions.
proposal, because a sizeable number of
employees in the AFSCME unit were
opposed to being represented by the
union and were not members. The city
representative did not oppose the
agency shop in principle, however, and
lite union representatives recognized
that the city's maintenance of member-
ship offer would strengthen the union's
position over the existing open shop sit-
uation. Roth sides were therefore will.
ing told a third party decide the issue.
7nslead of ulilizing the city's arbitration
procedure on this one issue, the parties
agreed to use the fact finding services
provided free by the state and to be
bound by the fact finder's decision. Al-
though the parties officially labeled this
procedure "binding fact finding," it was
actually final -offer arbitration since they
agreed to be bound by the decision,
and, as a practical matter, the third
party had almost no choice other than
to select either the union or city posi-
tion. In this case, the union's position
was selected.
The 1972-73 round of bargaining
also yielded a variety of results. In early
1973, the city and the police union
reached a two-year agreement without
resorting to the arbitration procedure.
In addition to an overall 12.0 percent
economic adjustment, the agreement in-
cludes a new promotion hierarchy,
from patrol officer to police agent,
with advancement based on a combina-
tion of advanced education, training,
and above-average performance. Shortly
thereafter, the city and the fire fighters'
local reached agreement on almost all
items in a two-year contract with the ex-
ception of the form of part of the pay
package, which was another manifesta-
tion of the continuing dispute over the
establishment of longevity pay. The two
sides took this single issue to arbitra-
0
FINAL -OFFS
tion, with the union proposing a lon-
gevity pity plan estillia(ed to cost 9.1
percent n
anually 'fill the city offering
a tax-sheltered annuity benefit of 3.0
percent in its first offer and an across-the-
board increase of 2.8 percent in its al.
ternate offer.=0 The majority of the ar-
bitration panel (i.e., the chairman and
city representative) selected the city's
across-the-board increase as the most rea-
sonable offer and rejected the other pro-
posals primarily because of the scarcity
of similar pay plans in the relevant
labor market.
In their second contract negotiations,
the city and. AFSCME reached agree-
ment on the noneconomic clauses in the _
contract (which amounted to little
more than a continutation of the first
contract's language) , but they could not
agree on the size -of -tile economic adjust-
ment. Each side submitted two one-year
final offers to the arbitrators, with much
disagreement over the calculation of the
value of each side's offers. The arbitra-
tor's figures put the city's offers at 5.9
and 6.2 percent :IIIc] the union's offers at
10.9 and 10.0 percent." The arbitration
board received tile. parties' testimony,
convened in executive session to make a
selection, and tentatively decided in
favor of the city's alternate offer—that
rsThese figures do not include the 1.15 per
cent legislated increase in retirement contribu-
tions. In addition to longevity pay, the Union's
offer proposed to eliminate all the pay steps in
several ranks except for the highest step.
2lThe city calculated the cost of its olfers to
be 6,1 and 6.4 percent; and the cost of the un.
ion's offers to be 10.8 and 10.4 percent. The
union's calculations of the city's olrets were 4.6
and 4.7 percent, and of its own offers, 9.0 and
8.6 percent. The Union's figures did not include
the legislated, increase in retirement contribu.
tions, a position the arbitrator rejected. If.
Kenneth tenger, In the Matter of the Arbilra.
tion Between the City of Eugene Local 1724-A,
American Federation of -State, County, and Mu-
niciYal Empfoyres, -- AFC -CIO, ' Affiliated with
Council 75 (March yl, 1979) pp, —z
R. ARBITRATION -
195
is, the chairman intlicatetl he favored
that offer. The tw0 adversary represent.
:'lives 01: the board then communicated
this tentative decision to their princi-
pals, and the two sides resumed direct
negotiations. Before :n formal arbitration
award was served on the parties, they
reached direct agreement on a three-
year contract containing a 13 percent
economic adjustment over the first two
years and a wage reopener for the third
year.
The results of the Eugene experience
are summarized in Table 1.
Effects on the Negotiation Process
As noted previously, the most salient
criterion by which to evaluate the Eu-
gene experience is whether or not this
particular form of arbitration induces
the parties to reach their own agree.
ments. Since the evidence offers 51111)01•[
to both opponents and proponents of
final -Offer arbitration, any conclusions
reached must be tentaive :uul will de.
pend in part on one's prefcrences antl
vantage pciint.
The initial contract negotiations with
the police were unsuccessful in produc-
ing an agreement prior to arbitration,
but the actual arbitration proceedings
show how this procedure can induce the
parties to reach an agreement. After the
arbitration hearings commenced, the as.
sociation's representative on the board
informed his principals that their pro.
posals would not meet the arbitrators'
criteria for selecting the most reasonable
Offer." As a result, associ:[tion and city
representatives conferred, mutually re.
juested a recess, and then negotiated all
lgreeutent.
As a consequence of this first-rottnd
=`The union representative w:u a Portland
attorney. This statement is baud on couvrtsa.
tions with him and with union le;1dcrs.
196 INDl1STRIAL AND WOR RELATIONS REVIEW
Table l: rngenc Negotiation -Arbitration Experience in the Public Sector, 1970-73.
r,
LA
Arbitration
Item, Submitted
Employre Croup
_. Invoked...
to Arbitrator, Outcome
1970-71 negotiations
(under conventional
arbitration):
Fire Fighters
No
- — Negotiated agreement
1971-72 negotiations
(under final -offer
arbitration):
Fire Fighters
Yes
Entire contractual City first offer selected
package
Police Patrolmen
Yep
Entire contractual Direct agreement
package reached during arbitra-
tion proceedings
AFSCME
Yes
Union security; all Union position (agency
(binding fact finding)
other items agreed to shop) selected
in negotiations
1972-73 negotiations
(under final -offer
arbitration):--
-
Fire Fighters
Yes
longevity pay dispute; City alternate offer
all other items agreed selected
to in negotiations
Police Patrolmen
No
— - Negotiated agreement
AFSCME
Yes
One-year economic City alternate nffer
package; noneconomic selected but was moot
issues agreed to in because of three-year
negotiations agreement negotiated
during arbitration
-
proceedings
tiations. Consequently,
the two sides ne-
dure in February -March 1971, the city
gotiated a two-year contract that in-
and the union (lid not formally agree
eluded the innovative
promotion hier-
on anything in their next negotiation,
archy referred to earlier. Both sides
and each took two complete contract
have indicated their
satisfaction with
packages to arbitration. Although the
this contract, and it seems fair to give
two sides were not very far apart on the
substantial credit to the
previous year's
size of their economic proposals (6.0
arbitration _experience
as .providing the
and 6.5 percent versus 8.6 and 7.4 per -
incentive necessary for,
this negotiated
cent) , they differed widely on noneco-
agreement.
nomic issues, and the chairman selected
The experience with
the fire fighters
one of the city's offers because he ob-
does not lead to any
clear-cut conclu-
jetted to the manning requirements in
sion. After negotiating
a first contract
both union offers. This outcome appar-
under a conventional arbitration prose-
ently had a salutary effect on the incen-
r,
LA
0
FINAL -OFFER ARBITRATION `
arbitration explctience.197
• police associa- by their arbitration
rcprescnl;alivcs lh t tion leaders .indicated) their' desire to
infers
avoid arbitration during 1972-73
_ their would fail (.as in the case of
ncro-
b
five to bargain, for the
the police uegoliations) or had failed
'text year the
two sides agreed on a two-year package
- (;is in the case of the AFSCME) the
most
with the exception of longevity
reasonable' tests.
pay,
which was submitted for arbitration.
One call conclude, after examining
Negotiations with the AFSCME local
these experiences, that the incentive to
reflect a mixture of bargaining incen-
bargain is increased primarily because
tives, the importance of informal con-
of the "sudden death" nature of the
munications, and internal union pout -entire
either party may "lose the
ical considerations. The first set of
entire ball game" if the arbitrators
negotiations resulted in a direct
deem its offers less reasonable than one
agree-
g
ment, and union leaders' comments in-
those made by the other party.
dicate that the incentive to bargain was
T
The 1971-72 arbitration
experiences
increased because of the police and fire
, with police and fire fighters and the
unions' experiences a few months
1972-75 experience with AFSCNIE dent-
previously.zU The second round of
onstrated this possibility. The police and
AFSCME negotiations went to arbitra-
AFSCME•' experiences revealed the futil-
tion on the economic adjustment pack-
ity of asking for economic gaills that
age, in part because of internal union
considerably exceed prevailing; market
political considerations. Selected por-
and the fire fighters'
tions of the bargaining unit: were un-
elcndaeve,
ence revealed that if is possible to lose
to los-
happy with union representation, in
an entire package because of the indu-
part because of the imposition of fite
Sion of one objectionable provision.
agency shop a few months previouslysC
These ex
experiences have uaaele all the
Union representatives_ felt constrained
fi s - Eugene acne awioil that :t 5Us
to ask for a relatively large package in
fill arbitration strategy is the
the
order to defend their own . organiza-
ant thesiotl f
antithesis of a successful convetaional
tional position. It was only after the
arbitration strate gy: instead of main -
union leaders learned from their associa-
"'ll"119 wale areas of disagreement in
tion representative that the arbitration
hope of a more favorable comploulise
chairman had tentatively decided in
'award, each side tltust elevelop tlutre rea-
favor of the city that they negotiated an
proposals than the other side,
agreement. The result was a three-year
which,
�on economic issues in Eugene,
contract that provides increased security
translates into "arl-Owing the areas of
for both sides. This outcome is similar
disagreement around it Genual figure
to that of the initialolice experience,supplied
PIt
by market comparisons.
in that both agreements were negotiateedd
can be seen why this record offers
after the unions involved were informed
comfort to both supporters and critics
21)'I'he serious bargaining with AFSCME
of final -offer arbitration: proponents
over
this first contract was conducted in tate summer
may stress that only one of six cases re -
Of 1972. The initial police and fire fighters- ex-
-filial-offer
sulted in all arbitration decision cover-
. perienc , with Inucedures occurred in
February and May 1972.
in f, = the entire contractual package; op -
34)Arbitr2tiou was invoked in February 1979;
the agency
ponents may argue that arbitration was
shop award was issued in November
1972.
invoked in five out of six cases. Consid-
ering the parties' almost total lack of
0
0
h:u-gaining :Iod arbitration experience,
howcVer, :uuPIhc fact that.the city pays
all arbitration costs, we believe that
final -offer arbitration has been at least
moderately successful in Eugene in Pre-
serving the parties' incentive to bargain.
Procedural Characteristics
Selected aspects of the Eugene final -
offer procedure deserve examination for
their contribution to (lie workability of
the process. To the extent thecae pro-
cedural characteristics have unifying
themes, these themes are flexibility and
uncertainty.
Probably the most unusual aspect of
the Eugene _ final -offer framework, as
compared to final -offer procedures
adopted elsewhere, is the fact that each
side may submit two final offers. This
dual opportunity greatly increases each
side's flexibility in its presentation to
the arbitrators, and this flexibility is
especially evident with multi -item
packages." This was > demonstrated in
the first fire fighters' arbitration case, in
which the economic portion of the city's
first final offer consisted largely of an
across-the-board pay increase, and the
city's alternate offer consisted primarily
of fringe benefit increases. The second
AFSCME arbitration provides a similar
example. This dualopportunity also al-
lows both sides more flexibility in acced-
ing to constituent pressures. For exam-
ple, union leaders may load one offer
with many "goodies in order to satisfy
membership pressures, but they may
also make another offer that is struc-
tured in a more realistic manner.
An equally important result of the
dual offers is that they increase uncer-
stGrodin argues in favor of multiple offers
in multi -issue casts as one way of providing
flexibility. ,Grodin, "Either-or Arbitration for
Public Employment Disputes," pp. 264-265.
tainty on both sides of the table. If a
party only had to present one offer, it
seems reasonable to expect that this offer
would approximate its final negotiating
Position and the other party would be
aware of that. This relative certainty is
substantially reduced when each side
may present two offers, for even if one
offer.does approximate the final negotia-
tion position, the other may not. Not
only docs this uncertainty put pressure
on both parties to be more "reasonable"
in their offers, it increases the probabil-
ity that each party might have one offer
so close to an offer of the other party
that the two sides can reach their own
agreement.
The second procedural aspect worth
emphasizing is the maintenance of the
flow of communications—between the
parties directly and between the parties
and the arbitration chairman—once the
arbitration procedure is invoked. As
noted, the ordinance mandates negotia-
tions for five more clays after the parties
have exchanged final offers, and it also
invites negotiations after the arbitration
procedure has begim. The tripartite
form of the arbitration board has also
assisted significantly in maintaining the
flow of communications, and in both
the first police and second AFSCME
cases, union representatives on the
board were instrumental in conveying
information to their principals, about
the chairman's tentative decision, which
resulted in negotiated agreements.''
Used in this manner, the Eugene proce-
dure becomes a form of "med-arb" in
which the arbitrator uses his decision-
making power to pressure the parties
into reaching their own agreement.
SzStevens speculates on the usefulness of this
kind of. communication. in his discussion of
"Type 11" one -or -the -other arbitration. Stevens,
"Is Compulsory Arbitration Compatible with
Bargaining?' p. 47.
Is
F:
F1IVALOFFER ARBITRATION
199
,may leguunatelyquestion
.:
cantly reduces the possibility that
ether
whether in-, a most situations.` there would
file
arburatois may stake a derision
be an incentive for a lxrrty to negotiate
kill the
basis of factors unknown to
further- if it knew it was going to be
o, not ckin-
sidered by the panics. Consequently.
awarded the decision. For instance, in a
there is little incentive
city where:'union-management relations
to use :I strategy
of "let's take it all to the arbitrator
are hostile, internal political constraints
and
he might find a way tojustify us
normally would not -permit union lead-
giving
the award." Also, if the parties know in
ers to negotiate away anything achieved
advance the criteria the arbitrators
as a result of an arbitration award. The
will
use, they can
fact remains, however. that in Eugene
use these same criteria to
reach a negotiated settlement.
most of the arbitration chairmen have
- - The final procedural aspect to be con
perceived the city's offers as most rea-
-
sidered involves Eugene's
sonable, and yet city representatives
negotiation-
arbitration timetable described
have been willing to resume negotia-
earlier
in this article. In the 1971_72
tions.ss
negolia-
The third aspect of the Eugene
tions anti arbitrations with police and
AFSCME,
proce-
dure ;north emphasizing is the extent to
this timetable was waived be-
which the arbitration criteria reduce the
cause the ordinance permits such waiv-
arbitrators' discretion and consequently
ers in initial contract negotiations. Sinli-
larly, in 1972-73
the parties' uncertainty about which
negotiations, the union
and tile city in the
final offer will be selected. The ordi-
police :laic! AFSChIE
fiance was purposefully fashioned
negotiations inuttially waive[l the pro -
.to
include only four specific criteria—
cedural deadlines, but in the case of
bargaining history, private market com.
the fire fighters, there was no mutual
parisons, -public market comparisons,
waiver and negotiations -incl arbitration
and the city's ability to The
procceded as required by the ordinance.
pay.
interests of both sides can thus be
Although there needs to be a hard -and -
con-
sidered, but the arbitrators do not have
List deadline it, ;city negotiation setting,
"catch-all"
there also needs to be some flexibility to
a criterion on which to base
allow the parties additional negotiating
their selection." Such specificity signift-
time, if such
time can be used to
ssCity representatives place a high value on
achieve a settlement. This flexibility is
negotiated settlements because they believe that
such agreements
not built into the Eugene procedure,
are time likely than imposer!
settlement to reflect both parties' objectives
and if the two sides cannot agree [o mu -
and that .needed innovations call be imple-
tually waive the time constraints, the
mented successfully .only if voluntarily agreed
to. and also because
timetable's rigidity may operate to in-
they desire to avoidthe
negative impact on union -management relations
htbtt a negotiated settlement.
that may result when one party loses in arbi.
tradou.
Environmental Characteristics
"Consider. for instance, file linal criterion
in the Michigan public safety arbitration law:
"Such
Any examination of the Eugene sys.
otter tactors .. , which are normally or
tem would be incomplete without men-
fraditionally taken into consideration in the de.
tion of two salient characteristics of the
termination of wages, hours and conditions o[
employmuit through voluntary collective bar.
negotiation-arbitration cnvit'onurettt:
gaining, mediation fact-findiu•- b'
---
, airoration or 912 (1969) , as attended by Public Act 127
I otherwise between the partias, in [tic public (1972), in Bureau of National Allairs, Govern.
service or in private. employment." Sabscctiou -----tint--P.tipluyee
--1[e/utions ![rpurt HrJrrrnce
(11) of Section 425.299 of Micltiban Public Act Pile, 51: 9115.
?tj
4
Y
200---1:,1NDUSTXIAL: 1.A
• the union-nranagcmrnt attitudinal rola
tionships and the rclaiionship.between
city labor relations and city politics. In
terms of Walton and McKcrsie's typol-
ogy, interactions between the city and
its three unions probably are best (le -
scribed as accommodation: the parties
accept each other's legitimacy, .are will-
ing to trust each other up to a point,
and are reasonably friendly _ in their
flay-Urday dealing.' with each other.'"
Allhinigh varh parly proMcts its rights
and itilerrsts, hothhave displayed a fair
amount of goodwill in their dealings
with cacti other.
A second important factor is the rela-
tive absence of "distributive" or compet-
itive elements in the city's political situ-
ation, at least with respect to labor
relations. Elected city officials serve on
an uncompensated part-time basis and
are relatively removed from the union-
management interaction system. Also,
these officials have not attempted to use
municilml labor relations as a vehicle
for the advancement of their political
careers. On the financial side, the city's
financ-al position is strong enough that
the city has not relied on an "inability
to pay" theme in negotiations or arbi-
tration, so there has been almost no dis-
tributive competition among the parties
over the allocation of scarce resources.
Finally, the city is overwhelmingly
white," so the racial tensions that have
affected labor relations in other cities
have been absent.
The fact that the negotiation -arbitra-
tion system docs not have to cope with
distributive political pressures and ov-
ertly hostile union -management interac-
tion patterns has contributed to the
35Richard Walton and Robert McKersie, A
Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations (Neto
York: McGraw-Hill, 1965) , pp. 185-189.
34Approximately 2 percent of the city's -pop-
ulation are members of racial minority groups.
parties' willingness to seek direct
agreements instead of insisting on
pursuing the complete arbitration route
over all issues in each negotiation. In
addition, the existence of the bargain-
ing -arbitration ordinance has tended to
de-li-oliticize the city labor relations sys-
tem. The ordinance gives elected
officials a legitimate reason for refusing
access to union leaders, and the final -of-
fer process prevents matters within the
scope of bargaining from being resolved
in political arenas, such as the floor of
the city council.',
Concluding Observations
In this concluding section, the Eugene
experience will be used as a base from
which to respond to the following criti-
cisms of final -offer arbitration: the need
for bargaining sophistication, the lack
of face-saving quality in final offers, and
the almost complete elimination of the
arbitrator's discretion.
The Eugene experience offers some
support to both proponents and oppo-
nents of Grodin's view that the final -of-
fer procedure "appears best suited for
parties fairly sophisticated in the bar -
.lilt is difficult to present "before and after"
evidence regarding the de -politicization of bar.
gaining, since very little bargaining occurred
prior to the implementation of the filial -offer
system. Prior to Lite introduction of bargaining,
however, the city employee organizations regu-
larly lobbied with city council members con-
cerning pay and other personnel matters. With
the introduction of formal collective bargaining
in September 1971, the council designated the
city manager or his appointed representative to
handle all ,natters within the scope of bargain-
ing. Since then, the council has rebuffed at-
- tempts by city union representatives to discuss
bargainable matters and has referred them to
the city manager and the personnel director.
The ordinance also preempts any role the
council might play in dispute resolution by
mandating that all impasses be referred to the
arbitrators. This same effect, of course, might
have been achieved by a conventional arbitra-
tion system.
FINAL OFFER ARBITRATION
gaining process, fairly well able to ud a 201
• judge eled at final -offer arbitration is that the
the reasonableness of their own 'posi- procedure "lacks the face-saving quality
cions in relation to the standards likely available in conventional arbitration
to be applied by the arbitrator." J8 Pro- where one of the parties, or both, feels
ponents of this view can point to the it must assert certain positions which it
first police, second fire fighters, and sec- knows to be 'out of the hall park',
for
k', fo
and AFSCME cases for support. Cer- political or idcolop,.ica1 reasons. -:19r
tainly the 1$-16 percent economic ad- conventional arbitration the arbitrator
justments proposed by the police union can excise these unreasonable proposals,
would not have met the arbitrators'
" but in final -offer arbitration he cannot.
most reasonable" criteria, especially This criticism seems faulty for at least
with city offers in the 6-7 percent three reasons. First, indirect settlement
range, and the AFSCME case presents a-- is going to be reached in any negotiat-
similar although less clear-cut example. ing setting, these "out of the ball park"
The fire fighter's manning proposals proposals must be dropped. This criti-
were found so objectionable_ that both cism seems to imply that conventional
their offers were rejected. One might arbitration should be the end point of
argue that the union representatives in all negotiations so that adversary repre-
these cases lacked the bargaining sophis- sentatives will be free to advance unrea-
tication necessary to participate success- sonable proposals. it is difficult to see
fully in final -offer arbitration and thus why final -offer arbitration should be sin -
were penalized unfairly. Bled out for criticism on this dimension,
This argument, however, has a hollow especially when one considers that the
ring when one considers the [act that "loss of face" question is integrally in -
city representatives also had almost no volved in all strike -resolved impasses.
experience in bargaining or arbitration. Second, the dual•ofler franlework allows
Also, it must be remembered that ill an escape valve for these sinlations. The
other cases the same parties either did "out o[ the ball park" denlarrds can be
not go to arbitration or went to arbitra Out
in one olrer, and the second offer
tion with Only one issue after agreeing can be made more realistic. Third, in
to all the others. One must also realize the second AFSC1*vIL? ;Ind first police
that in the second fire fighters case, the final -offer experiences, a union clung to
parties were not very far apart on eco- extreme oilers until it received negative
nomic issues. Consequently, the Eugene feedback from its p:ulel representative,
experience does not necessarily support after which the Panics negotiate(, their
the contention that sophisticated and own agreement. Thus, this process per -
experienced practitioners are needed to "lits the union leaders u, tell the mem-
make the final -offer mechanism function bership that the negotiated agreementproperly. Furthermore, we believe the was the best they could do, given the
Eugene experience suggests that actual unfavorable decision.
immersionit,the final -offer process fa- Perhaps the most widespread and dis-
cilitates sophistication in the most rapid turbing criticism is th;It the linal•olfer
manner possible. procedure too severely rll'C111115C1'Ibl'S the
Another criticism that has been lev- arbitrator's discretion. For instance,
Grodin's primary objection to having an
ssGrodin, "Either-or Arbitration for Public _
Employee Disputes," p. 269, su/bid.,p. X49 , •
•
E
INOIIS'1'RIAL.,-ANT) LAISOR.:REI,A'I'IONS REVIEW_
ubitralor select an entire package of is-
lite final -offer procedure, however, is to
sues is That he wituld liot-have file Ilexi-
' inclnce the parties to make their own
bility necessary to effectuate the priori-
compromises by posing potentially sc-
tics he considers sippropriate.4" Another
vere costs if they do not agree. In other
example is the complaint by one of lite
words, a successful final -offer procedure
neurals in a recent final -offer case in
is one that is not cued; one Ihat induces
Indianapolis, who has said that the arbi-
direct agreement during the proceedings;
tration panel in that case slid not have
or, using a less rigorous definition of
the necessary flexibility to -"fashion a
success, one that substantially narrows
labor agreement which, in its judgment,
the arca of disagreement. And when the
would have been workable and equita-
procedure is used, the function of the
ble and which would have met the
arbitrator is to operationalize its poten-
needs of the parties." 41 Finally, the ar-
tial costs by deciding against the party
bitrator,in one of the Eugene cases also
that advocated the less reasonable
criticized the fact that he was not in a
offer (s) . In other words, the final -offer
position to use his discretion to fashion
mechanism is intended to promote the
what he considered to be the most desir-
give-and-take of good -faith bargaining by
able award.42
acting as a "strikelike" substitute rather
This kind of criticism is disturbing
than to serve as a mechanism by which
because it suggests a misconception of
arbitrators may exercise their discretion.
the function of - the final -offer
Consequently, arbitrators' complaints of
procedure." In conventional interest
a hick of discretion suggests that the
arbitration, the arbitrator issues an
final -offer procedure is functioning as it
award in which he effectuates his judg-
was designefl to function.44
mens of the compromises that the par-
-Ihis criticism stems in part from the
tics could not sir would not effectuate at
difficulties a final -offer arbitrator would
cite table. The overriding purpose of
presumably have in trying to resolve a
multi -issue impasse. In response, sonic
401Gid., p. 265.authors
have proposed that in multi-
41Witney, "Final Offer Arbitration: _Tile -In-
issue disputes the arbitrator might choose
dianapolis.Experience,'* p. 25. The criticisms of
among the final offers on an issue -by -
final -offer arbitration offered as a result of this
experience seem exceptionally misplaced. For
issue basis," and the Michigan public
final offers to be effective as a "strikclike" im-
safety arbitration statute docs provide
passe resolution mechanism, negotiations must
place in a context in which the artier
for that type Of SC1eCt10R On economic
P
know in odtx[nce that if they do not agree, an
arbitrator will select one - party's final _ offer. In
Indianapolis, the parties decided to use a final -
offer procedure after they had negotiated to im-
passe. The parties' lack of understanding of
what final -offer arbitration is designed to do is
exemplified further by their selection of two ar-
bitrators to hear the case.
4211anlon, "Explanation of the Selection of
Final Offer," p. 10.
-43We are assuming that these criticisms are.
genuine and are not offered simply as face-sav-
ing solace to the losing party. If this assump-
tion is incorrect, our responses to the criticisms
are misplaced.
44These complaints may stem in part from
arbitrators' objections to the win -lose nature of
the final -offer process. It is understandable that
a third party would prefer to fashion an award
that gives something to both sides rather than
issue an award that is identified solely with one
side or the other. See Byron E. Calame, "'Best
Offer' Arbitration's Critics," {Voll Street Jour-
nal, June 14, 1972, editorial page.
45Scc..Lev, "Strikes by Government Employ-
ers: Problems and Solutions," pp. 771-777; and
Gilroy and Sinicropi, "Impasse Resolution in
Public Employment: A Current Assessment," p.
511.
r11vAL�otrE>K,
issues 44—The Eugene experience with
entire package selection suggests that is-
sue -by -issue selection would permit the
arbitrator to substitute his judgment for
the compromises the parties could not
or would not makeat the table and to
balance a multi -issue award with some-
thing for each side, thus reducing the
incentive to avoid final -offer arbitration.
As such, issue -by -issue selection seems
conceptually more, similar to the com-
promise -by -third -party -fiat nature of con-
ventional arbitration than to the compro-
mise -across -the -table nature of the
Eugene final -offer procedure.
The experience in one city obviously
does not establish a prima facie case ei-
ther for or -against the workability of
the final -offer concept, and much more
empirical.evidence is needed before any
accurate_ conclusions can- be formulated.
There is no perfect final -offer proce-
dure. Instead, final -offer procedures can
be built in a variety of forms (entire
Package _ versus issue -by -issue selection, t
one versus two offers, tripartite board t
versus single arbitrator, sl3ecific versus t
general selection criteria, shared costs
"Michigan Public Act 512 (1 9G9) , as
amended by Public Act- 127 0972) , section
425.238; and Bureau or National Airairs. Govern-
ment Employee. Relations lteporl ReferenceFile, 51: 3115.
- -- - - 203
versus employer paid, etc.) , and the out.
comes under any procedure must be
evaluated against the provisions con.
rained in that particular procedure. In
addition, any evaluation of the final.
offer process must consider the issues
involved in the various disputes. The
Eugene experience suggests that the
final -offer procedure is effective in nar-
rowing the area of disagreement around
many monetary and nonmonetary issues
but may be less effective in bringing the
parties together on certain issues requir-
ing "yes or no" positions (e.g., the first
fire fighter arbiu•ation concerning the
union's insistence on the inclusion of
manning standards in the contract and
the city's insistence on their exclusion,
or the first AFSCME arbitration con-
cerning the union's demand for the
agency shop and the city's offer of main-
tenance of membership) . In all, the Eu.
gene experience suggests, but certainly
does not prove, that final -offer arbitra-
ion. as compared to conventional arbi-
ration, can increase the probability of
negotiated setticmcuts by requiring the
Parties to bargain in the context of all
Ifective "strikelike" impasse resolution
rocedure. Accordingly, it is the recom-
iendation of the authors that the Urprocedureprocedure be used more widely in
lace of conventional arbitration.
vv vim a,iVVVVVI Vl
FEBRUARY 1, 1974
11:30 A.M.
The Iowa City City Council met in informal session on the
1st day of February, 1974 in the Conference Room at the Davis
Building. Mayor Czarnecki presiding.
Councilmembers present: Brandt, Czarnecki, Davidsen,
deProsse.and White. Others present: Wells, Klaus, Hayek,
Pugh, Kraft, Bonnett.
Mayor Czarnecki announced discussion of the question on
the ballot for the $6,000,000 bond issue.
City Manager Ray Wells noted the need for Council to
resolve the statement of the question. Attorney John Hayek
read the question as proposed and in alternate form, noting
that the alternate form;included buildings and parking facilities,
and that the bond attorney was satisfied with either.
The City Manager commented on his concern over the restriction
in the expanded statement, and requested retaining flexibility
by being general, not too explicit, there being a possibility `
of acquiring money under new Federal laws for some of the project
uses.
Mayor Czarnecki favored the original language, #1, focusing
on approval or disapproval of the proposal on Urban Renewal.
Councilwoman Davidsen also favored #1 as #2 was more restrictive.
Councilman Brandt supported #1, as it is a question on the urban
renewal proposal; therefore, it was the general concensus of the
Council to use #1.
The Mayor announced that Project Green would present slides
on amenities for Old Capitol urban renewal proposal. Others
present were members of old Capitol Associates,Freda Hieronymus,
Don Scatena, Mike Williams, and Peter Pomnitz; the Design Review
Board, Margaret Keyes and Bill Nowysz.
Project Green co-ordinator Jim _Maynard commented on the
design for urban renewal, for amenities including decorative
pavement,plantings, street fixtures, sidewalks and pedestrian
ways, stating that the slides would show some vision of how
things can be when carried out. Brian Gutheinz commented on
the slides.
:R I
Council Discussion
February 1, 1974
Council discussed how design would be incorporated into
the proposal. The City Manager noted Council attention to be
divided by 1) citizen input and 2) mechanical problems. Under
1) citizen input, he recommended enlargement of the Design
Review Committee and redefinement of the role it plays, also
indicating where input should occur; under 2) mechanical
problems, he noted street problems south of Burlington; Wash-
ington Street; tie together of old and newer and Council authority
to hire consultant.
The City Manager discussed a chart showing the flow of input
between the Council,Staff, Public,Developer and Design Review
Board. Mike Williams of Old Capitol Associates and Nancy
Seiberling of Project Green commented on importance of communication.
Council discussed need for architectural design;expanding
the Design Review Board and guidelines for it; residency in Iowa
City not a limitation; Citizen input; systematic review.
LKarl Meyer suggested that the purpose of the design
review group be structured as a positive approach or feeling,
not just to criticize.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
JOINTMEETINGWITH
JOHNSON COUNTY COMMISSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
FEBRUARY 5, 1974
4:00 P.M,
The Iowa City City Council met in informal session on the
5th day of February, 1974 in the Conference Room at the Davis
Building. Mayor Czarnecki presiding.
Councilmembers present: Brandt, Czarnecki, Davidsen,
deProsse, White 4:10 P.M. Others present: Wells, Hayek,
Klaus, Pugh, Kraft, Maune, Taylor, Stolfus.
Mayor Czarnecki announced discussion of 1)Noise Ordinance
with members of the Johnson County Commission on Environmental
Quality, 2)financial report from Staff on Urban Renewal and
3) presentation by Earl Grueskin of Dividend Bonded Gas Company.
Mr. Grueskin explained his concern over the Urban Renewal
plan as it affects his property. He noted that they were the
only downtown business from the urban renewal area to relocate
downtown and at that time did not know of the planned vacation
of the portion of Dubuque Street south of his station. Bob
Stevenson from the New Process Laundry appeared advising of his
concern also and of that of several property owners in the area.
Attorney Hayek pointed out that street closures would have
to meet the necessary legal requirements, such as public hearings.
Mayor Czarnecki outlined previous action taken on the Noise
Ordinance. Skip Laitner of Johnson County Commission of Environ-
mental Quality, commented that the sound levels suggested were
realistic and could be enforced and that the training of personnel
to operate the equipment to measure noise was a small problem,
as it was not difficult. Art Vetter was also present. Council
discussed 1)measurement at 50' distance,2)construction noise,
variance permit,3)cost for enforcement, 4)cost of meters and
training,5)problems of Legal Department if Ordinance is on the
books, right to have it enforced, 6)violation a misdemeanor,
7)question of whether it would be a zoning amendment_
Jim Roegiers of Iowa -Illinois Gas and Electric Company
appeared objecting to several words and sections and pointed
out the proposed Federal Noise Control Act.
Page 2 '
Council discussion then included l)whether Planning and
Zoning would review 2)whether a public hearing would be needed.
It was decided to put the Noise Ordinance on the agenda for
the February 26th meeting for an informational public hearing
at 7:30 P.M.
Mr. Laitner noted that their commission, with the new
replacements, will be establishing their work program includ-
ing 1)question energy planning, consumption and production
2)and nuclear energy,
The City Manager announced discussion of the memorandum
presented on recommendations on Urban Renewal Financing Plan.
Finance Director Joe Pugh noted use of 204 per hour as Mall
ramp fee, and use of 20 year projection
were: . The recommendations
1. The referendum on the issuance of $6,000,000 in
general obligation bonds be scheduled for March
28, 1974.
2. That the entire amount of bonds be issued and
delivered prior to July 1, 1974.
3. That investment interest and parking revenues be
used to pay interest and/or principal on the
$6,000,000 bond issue until such time as tax
allocation becomes fully available.
4. That plans continue for the use of $1,600,000
in general obligation bonds to supplement the tax
allocation bonds for public improvements.
5. That 'revenue bonds be used for the construction
of additional parking facilities as may be required.
6. That management of parking system include a rate
structure sufficient to produce revenue that will
operate and maintain the present system and create
reserves in an amountthatwill facilitate the
total program as outlined.
Mr. Pugh pointed out that savingsusing the call provisions of
the bonds would amount to $423,000.
The City Manager explained that they had not taken into
account any growth except the developer's building, not the
investments insidethe Mall, a conservative projection. He
stated that the tax allocation money will be invested too.
_Discussion of the number of members to appoint to the
Design Review Committee and the proposed resolution was
announced. After discussion, there was general concensus
to have 15 members, and to reappoint the existing five
members.
In answer to the question on who is responsible for the
commissioning of work on the statuary contemplated in the
Federal Grant, the City Manager explained the funding of the
grant from National Endowment for the Arts as $88,000; 50$
Federal and 50$ City, the City share coming from the $12,500
allowed for Chauncey Swan Plaza, $12,500 match by Project
Green, a difference of $19,000. He explained that the
responsibility was on the committee composed of the city
representatives, (Mayor and City Manager) Project Green and
campaignindividuals. This committee decided the major piece
of statuary would-be in the Chauncey Swan Plaza, $60,000 and
the minor piece in the Urban -Renewal project, $24,000, and
there was one stipulation, that only American artists be
considered.
The Mayor reminded all of the Thursday meeting, February
7th, at 4:00 P.M. with the School Board; the 13th meeting
with the Library Board, also discussion of Amerex rezoning and
Parking Policy Review; the 19th, -a joint meeting with Planning
and Zoning; and the 26th, discussion of Transit and a possible
annual meeting with Department Heads and Boards and Commissions
early in March.
' MEETING OFTHECITY COUNCIL
FEBRUARY 5, 1974
' RECOMMENDATION
URBAN RENEWAL FINANCING PLAN
1
TO:
City
Council
FROM:
City Manager
RE:
Urban
Renewal Financing Plan
DATE:
February 5, 1974
The purpose of this memorandum is to present for consideration a specific
financing plan recommendation for the required supporting facilities associated
with the Offer to PurchaseUrban Renewal Land, as revised, submitted by Old
Capitol Business Center Company on October 18, 1973. This proposal takes into
consideration the negotiation process between the City and the developer, as well
as previous conclusions by the City Council with regard to the amount of debt to
be incurred, tax allocation financing, and referendum.
As a result of final negotiations with the developer, the City's committment
to supporting facilities will include the immediate construction of a 1,200 space
parking facility in blocks 83/84 -and the eventual construction of a smaller facility
of 800 spaces in block 64; construction of new water and sewer facilities in the
project area; and the reconstruction and paving of various streets to include street
tree planting, pedestrian ways, and open spaces. A summary of the current cost esti-
mate for these project improvements is as follows:
Parking Facilities Construction $8,000,000
Streets, Utilities, Signals, Lighting 2,600,000
Malls, Pedestrian Ways 260 000
Sub Total $10, 0, 0
Financed by Federal Government 2600000
Net City Requirement $10001000
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
Of primary importance to the structure of the City's financing plan will be the
issuance of $7,600,000 in general obligation bonds. In previous discussions, the City
Council has determined that $6,000,000 in general obligation bonds would be issued
under the terms of repayment that would utilize the tax allocation procedure discussed
later in this report. The remaining $1,600,000 in general obligation bonds would be
issued for various utility and street improvements as outlined in the City's Capital
Improvements Program 1973-77. These bonds would be issued on an annual basis as needed
and would be combined with other issues for other City projects.
In 1969, the year in which the City's renewal process was formally approved for
execution, the properties to; be acquired in the project area carried an assessed
value of $965,803,` or 1.41% of the total City tax base at that time. As a result of
clearance and redevelopment, it is estimated that the same properties will have an
assessed value of at least= $6,649,583 by 1980, or 5.32% of the estimated base in that
year.
Chapter 403.19 of the'Code of Iowa permits the City to enact an ordinance divid-
ing the revenue produced from the taxation_ of the incremental addition to the tax
base brought about.by the renewal process and directing the proceeds from such taxa-
tion to the repayment.of obligations incurred in supporting redevelopment. This
Memo to: City Council -2- February 5, 1974
allocation of taxes is not restricted only to the incremental assessed value in-
crease of properties acquired, but also extends to those properties not acquired,
and therefore to the entire project area. It is estimated that by 1980 the incre-
mental increase from all properties available for allocation will be least $796,705
per year. See Schedule 1 attached.
The advantages of allocating taxes in this manner are as follows:
1. The annual cash flow from allocation would permit the issuance of
$6,000,000 in general obligation bonds to finance public improvements.
The allocation continues until the full amount of principal and interest
have been recovered.
2. The entire debt service on bonds issued would be paid from taxes on those
properties in the renewal area most directly benefited. No taxes for debt
service would be collected from the 1969 base, nor would the individual
homeowner be affected by this procedure.
' 3. The allocation does subordinate the County and the School District's
interest in the incremental increase until such time as the City's obli-
gations have been repaid. However, taxes for debt service are protected,
and because the City is making this investment, future benefits to all
taxing bodies will be substantially greater.
In order for the City to commit long-term contractual obligations to the
developer, and to insure financial feasibility for the Urban Renewal Project it-
self, a referendum on the issuance of $6,000,000 in general obligation bonds to
be repaid from tax allocation is desirable. Topermitthe City Council to legally
act in setting a referendum, a petition must be presented requesting a vote on the
issuance signed by registered voters exceeding 2% of the number voting for Governor
' at the last general election.- The minimum number of signatures is 486. A schedule
for the required legal proceedings and notices for the referendum is found on
Schedule 2. Approval of the question requires a 60% majority of those voting.
Assuming approval of the voters is obtained, it is recommended that the full
amount of the $6,000,000 be issued as soon as possible. This action would offer
the advantage of producing the maximum amount of invested interest on the proceeds
to be used for debt service in the early years of the scheduled maturities. In
addition, sale and delivery prior to July 1, 1974, would eliminate conceivable
problems associated with the legal struggle over Home Rule legislation and would
' provide a measure of safety in having the cash in hand prior to construction committ-
ments. Finally, there appears to be no advantage in second-guessing the municipal
bond market in this case when the overriding concern of the City involves the re-
development of the central business district.
In anticipation of a $6,000,000 bond issue that would be dated May 1, 1974,
Schedule 3 was prepared which indicates a projection of the tax allocation as well
as the projected debt service on the full issue for twenty years at 4.75% interest.
This illustration uses only tax allocation proceeds from the developer's indicated
investment and does not consider the incremental increase of other properties in
the project area although they will be.included in the allocation ordinance. Also
shown are the benefits of a call provision beginning May 1, 1987, and the possible
reduction in interest expense of $422,750.
C I
1-1
Memo to: City Council
February s, 1974
To determine.the flow of funds, Schedule 4 was prepared which indicates
that the maximum cumulative deficit to be financed from other than investment
interest and allocated tax would be $229,990 by May 1, 1977. This amount can
be funded by reserving current parking revenue in a manner similar to that
which would exist under a revenue bond ordinance, as well as using first
available excess revenues from the initial parking facility. To accomplish
this objective, it will be necessary to maintain an annual income from parking
of at least $265,000 in order to pay operating and maintenance expense, finance
minor reconstruction projects, and provide the necessary reserve accumulation
prior to November 1, 1976._ This use of parking revenue then becomes a key ele-
ment in the total financing plan and proper management of the parking system
will be of primary importance. A graphic illustration of the flow of funds is
presented on Schedule S.
The issuance of $6,000,000 at one time will have an important impact on
the City's general obligation debt margin. Schedule 6 indicates that this issue,
together with all of the other bonded requirements anticipated in prior financial
planning, will leave a minimum legal debt margin of $2,167,366 in 1976. However,
the fiscal policy margin will be exceeded by $1,788,607 in the same year. This
temporary encroachment into the margin reserve established by the fiscal policy
will be mitigated by the rapid recovery of margin brought about by substantially
increased assessed values, and by some modification in the current approved
Capital Improvements Program.
REVENUE BONDS
As the financing plan is anticipated, Parking Facility #2 would be funded
solely and only with revenue bonds to be retired from parking revenue. The
maturity schedule on this issue can be structured in such a way as to use both
available excess ,revenue from Facility #1 as well as Facility N2. The timing
of the need for funds for the second structure should allow for adequate prediction
Of sufficient revenue to provide necessary debt service coverage over the life of
a revenue bond issue at rates compatible with previous local experience. However,
rate structures will need to be evaluated periodically by the City Council to insure
adequate protection for the needs of the parking system.
FEDERAL AID
The $260,000 now scheduled for malls, pedestrian ways, and other amenities is
to be funded as part of Item 1 costs in the financing plan that is a part of the
City's contract with the Department of Housing and Urban Development. This amount
will be drawn from that source as needs require; however, any costs associated with
these improvements in excess of $260,000 must be supported from City funds as a part
of the total financing package.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A summary of the estimated costs and recommended financing for those costs
is outlined in Schedule 7. This ,financing planrepresents the most feasible solution
for funding that can be put .together at this 'time considering the City's need for
1 committments to the developer and financial estimates on construction of improve-
ments now available. In summary, it is recommended that the following program be
approved:
[I
I
1-1
1. The referendum on the issuance of $6,000,000 in general obligation bonds
be scheduled for March 28, 1974.
2. That the entire amount of bonds be issued and delivered prior to July 1,
1974.
3. That investment interest and parking revenues be used to pay interest
and/or principal on the $6,000,000 bond issue until such time as tax
allocation becomes fully available.
4. That plans continue for the use of $1,600,000 in general obligation bonds
to supplement the tax allocation bonds for public improvements.
S. That revenue bonds be used for the construction of additional parking
facilities as may be required.
6. That management of a parking system include a rate structure sufficient
to produce revenue that will operate and maintain the present system
and create reserves in an amount that will facilitate the total program
as outlined.
I
I
11
Property Valuation
Project Area; 1969
Less Acquired Property Value $ 2,463,538
965 --03
Net Property Value
$ 1,497,735
Project Area; 1980
Acquired Property (.27%) (24,628,087) $ 6,649,583
Net Property Value @ 5% yr. growth rate 21561,636
Projected Assessed Value
$ 9,211,219
Tax Allocation Financin Determination
Project Area; 1969
Total Area Tax Levy
Debt Service Levy 135.000 mills
T. A. F. Applicable Levy 16.929
118.071 mills
Tax Yield Calculation $ 2,463,538
X1�1
Project Area; 1980
Total Est. Tax Levy
Estimated Debt Service Levy 135.9mills
---29 29
T. A. F. Applicable Levy
118.071 mills
Tax Yield Calculation
Incremental Increase Available for Allocation
$ 9,211,219
— .118071
$ 290,872.40
$1,087,577.84
$ 796,705.44
SCHEDULE 1
I
Schedule
February 5, 1974 - Announce Intention to Issue
February 71 1974 - Public Notice of Meeting on Issuance
February 26, 1974- Meeting on Issuance and Set Date for
Referendum
February 28, 1974- First Publication of Notice
March 7, 1974 - Second Publication of Notice
March 14, 1974 - Third Publication of Notice
March 28, 1974 - Date of Referendum
Question
Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation
bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,000,000 for the purpose of
aiding in the planning, undertaking, and carrying out an urban renewal
project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?
SCHEDULE 2
N N
b ro� tnmlD
I+ OOO V bt rQfr
1 1 I Cp
V
V
_
A
WN�pbmVO\N
O WVIV mbb mV Pi�Nb
btOb\O
O QO.V bt0
OA 4-W V m '�
N'
LLLL Lt_t.
_
mmmmm�w mmmV VVV VV
WNrOb mV PVI UbO]VPVIy-
is
c
LL
C C C C C C C GC
n.YJ,n Mo n -n
N
4
I.LLf...LL [.L1.. LLL LK tLLL L t
c c c c c c cc c c c c
^
pp�
�
\ob•a bb b�Dbbbb btD r^
�iD iD
r� c c c c
4
�� O
V�Du�w
IobblO bb.
N O %D A
<..
l
N N
b
)O
WN..
p�
bV�D IO�Vp\Ob bbbbbb bbbbbb
W Ivb Ob mV TVm1rW N
'OqN
�N•C
-' P N W! V I P V m �\pp O •+ - N W W F t«< X 3 t
+O WVIV mbbmV O\<N'aVN VON
ryjr�
ro:�Vl mV PVVIt
O O O O O O O O
�^
O
blbGbVlb1�a%D \O IOr
O
N
Y
tW Nr pb �•V
V N
ID b\Obbb\O \O \O \O tObID \Obbb\Ob\p
bbb bb mmmm
�
P
'f1_n n n n n n n n
n n
O O p 0 0 0 0 p O 0 0 0 0 0 0
mmm mm VVVVV
-tW N•.•OID mV PVI<W Nom. p\D
>
a3>
O ON ON ON p 1
OOVNi vwi Oawil SOaViIOO O G ?
n
n n n n �•. n
0 0
n n n n n n n -n n n n n n 0 p 0. n'n n
mV PVI
N
OOOVwwWWw
n n n n
J
n
R
�r�WN�W.w
-
Y N
p J^
N N
b ro� tnmlD
I+ OOO V bt rQfr
1 1 I Cp
V
V
_
A
WN�pbmVO\N
O WVIV mbb mV Pi�Nb
btOb\O
O QO.V bt0
OA 4-W V m '�
N'
LLLL Lt_t.
_
mmmmm�w mmmV VVV VV
WNrOb mV PVI UbO]VPVIy-
plr
O
LL
C C C C C C C GC
n.YJ,n Mo n -n
N
4
I.LLf...LL [.L1.. LLL LK tLLL L t
c c c c c c cc c c c c
^
Ips
\ob•a bb b�Dbbbb btD r^
�iD iD
r� c c c c
0-
V
�n O 4 y
C4
yp
IobblO bb.
N O %D A
rp
CV
N
O O O O O O O O O O O O
-' P N W! V I P V m �\pp O •+ - N W W F t«< X 3 t
+O WVIV mbbmV O\<N'aVN VON
ryjr�
NNN n W.H
O O O O O O O O
�^
O
blbGbVlb1�a%D \O IOr
O
N
Y
tW Nr pb �•V
V N
ID b\Obbb\O \O \O \O tObID \Obbb\Ob\p
bbb bb mmmm
�
N__
_
O
V
mmm mm VVVVV
-tW N•.•OID mV PVI<W Nom. p\D
>
a3>
O ON ON ON p 1
OOVNi vwi Oawil SOaViIOO O G ?
O 0 V
0
mV PVI
N
OOOVwwWWw
N
1 1 I bbb bbb bbbbWVtVbN
n
N
�r�WN�W.w
-
1 1
OOOVWW WWW WWWWOP<VIPOO
p J^
N
mmmmmm
N
�w Ww.r� b<ryl l 1
.J. Ti
O
Vl Op
PP tN mWV ONbb «\p t�Pmmm Y
�
mmm mm0 mmmmV wv mo
"
\D\D"mVVO\
pp 0 n
ppO
p
--0 0 0 0 8 0 O O O O g O 0 0 O o 0 o C g o
ti
bb mVV
-1
1. 1 NWbylWyl:
b dPmO N tPmO NN dp t
p
•
tO\O m000 !CCCN
-Wb PW m V t �D N N 1 1
-
- rNtOPWO
PW
OPW O NP -.POO
� Y
N\OV PtN.
\n VID -WN
rNbPWOVW OVt�DOTyI 1 1
Nb VPtN O
V..
^„
NmpO <W��<pp pOB no
VIV SV\O mmOVlmD OOO WL'vN N NmO
r
VI V b -W W VI V�
� W V I m V l m 0
60 .Yi
80$88`6880000000$$00
�nn
n
14 N : g V m
I+tDV-V \nV
G N Vth GI VIo
,Y 000O
b
41 tis
11
1I
11
1
V
_
1 I 1 f;h IJ. Q QI V W
O WVIV mbb mV Pi�Nb
0~
O QO.V bt0
OA 4-W V m '�
VNV ON NNN 3 S
y tp V V V1 V
:4
to
H
O
CA
fh bl 0 O
tl
O
tl
N
4
O
Q•ap`VtWn --i
OOOtn O%A
1 1 1
\ob•a bb b�Dbbbb btD r^
�iD iD
Qop QNOpQ q8QO
0 0Qu
0 0 0
0-
V
�n O 4 y
C4
yp
IobblO bb.
N O %D A
rp
CV
N
11
1I
11
1
•4 rn to V 1 N -
V to er O Vl 41
1 I 1 f;h IJ. Q QI V W
O WVIV mbb mV Pi�Nb
� W V VVI V
WVtnNON.-
yl
VNV ON NNN 3 S
thp+00 O pp
O O O O O p
-iP PWO mV PPV mO•N•.W PpptN�0�00 J D
N NrPV VImmVIV OmV ND\Pm0
N
P
g
00 J
W V I u t N N ll O V V O V I O V V I V I N n
— be t++'
ro roNw
p1y�
N V 0 0 0 0
P
\ob•a bb b�Dbbbb btD r^
�iD iD
.OA to -ft
PC} -
0-
\o \o \Ob n
b\Ob\Ommmmm mmm mmy
N - wN-OID mV D\VIdWNrO�mV �IV/1r Y
�n O 4 y
C4
yp
rp
pm
-- r. C.
h
tJ
-' P N W! V I P V m �\pp O •+ - N W W F t«< X 3 t
+O WVIV mbbmV O\<N'aVN VON
ryjr�
NNN n W.H
+W
�^
O
4Vi to H tViI � Ob P
00 00•� .�
O
yopm oO
o 0 o cOi n u 0 0 0
Y
y
V N
b
wa O
O
V
1 I I 1 I 1
cl
V
a3>
O ON ON ON p 1
OOVNi vwi Oawil SOaViIOO O G ?
O 0 V
0
pppp8888 88 SSpppp 88SS
O 000 n
N
O
0000`tVI1
�W m� �bbbtDbbb bbb 1
`troll
0 O 8 S V
I\C
N�O
V P
11
1I
11
1
O WVIV mbb mV Pi�Nb
�
VNV ON NNN 3 S
-iP PWO mV PPV mO•N•.W PpptN�0�00 J D
N NrPV VImmVIV OmV ND\Pm0
N
P
00 J
W V I u t N N ll O V V O V I O V V I V I N n
p1y�
N V 0 0 0 0
•
\ob•a bb b�Dbbbb btD r^
�iD iD
0-
\o \o \Ob n
b\Ob\Ommmmm mmm mmy
N - wN-OID mV D\VIdWNrO�mV �IV/1r Y
O
J
rp
tJ
-' P N W! V I P V m �\pp O •+ - N W W F t«< X 3 t
+O WVIV mbbmV O\<N'aVN VON
y
k
NNN n W.H
O
p IO VI VI O O VI VI N O V VI VI N N V 0 0 0 0 �
goovlo�vltnvlooao
n
Y
^
P
N
J
ON
O
V
a3>
O ON ON ON p 1
OOVNi vwi Oawil SOaViIOO O G ?
O
pppp8888 88 SSpppp 88SS
O 000 n
N
�W m� �bbbtDbbb bbb 1
D
I\C
N�O
V P
N
b vl vl vl �i P O\ Vl yl <\n r P
N V V V t< d W N N N a
V
Vl Op
PP tN mWV ONbb «\p t�Pmmm Y
t
_J O VI V1 VI O
0
N NPmW VbbVW <m-. } OO
jY
Lot
V V I W W V I V 8 W V N S S
VI VI N N Np V V O VI r
V V1 VppI N N V p 0 0
pp 0 n
ppO
p
--0 0 0 0 8 0 O O O O g O 0 0 O o 0 o C g o
1 ,,, ♦+ + + ++ + + + + + + 1 1 li a c
�N�11VVV NNW iVIW dNW r
dm<W Vi mm
PPttt\D Vt N��op•dppwppmb ON Nv,�pm vSl v8l R �y
-
G1 Jc
VINNV O��mW mOWW Y
tO\O m000 !CCCN
pppp pp pp
0 0 0 S.S O O S O 000 S O.O O
} y}}}+++ 1 1 1 1 1 1 N
< 3❑❑J�O
_. - V VIN �V l��pOWD<mN ayyvl1V
N V m D �•C
O P N V= P V N b m< O V V V O W m O V 1
1
+\�O/b�PV Wlnb rV
NmpO <W��<pp pOB no
VIV SV\O mmOVlmD OOO WL'vN N NmO
60 .Yi
80$88`6880000000$$00
�nn
N
O
o O O o O O O o
00
0 0 0 0 r
I
-.
W ddJVt VI V1 Vl VIPPP
r-yN1
Y -wN
ff yN.1 yxpN�NW
OOV VO aNVNi0O.6N OW VIV�D8880 nn
R" Vi
Mt
V
\ l VVVNI 0 0 S 1- I'- p n%
QQ QQ QQ QQ QQ QQ QQ QQQQQ QQ QQ QQ QQ
2SE75752SS75�Z52S252S82SSS25 r ��
'< b^
d
_
11
1I
11
1
11
1-1
1
Bond
Proceeds
Annual
Interest
Earnings
$199,500
189,000`
105,000
105,000
-0-
•._• •
CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA
Indicated Flow of Funds
Investment Earnings and Tax Allocation
Only
Tax
Nov.
1,
1974
Annual
Surplus
'
May
1,
1975
-Surplus
$+ 57,000.00
Nov.
1-2
1975
142,500.00
142, 00.00
S
+ 46 00.00
'S
-
May
1,
1976
142,500.00
'
Nov.
1,
1976
142,500.00
142,500.00
May
1,
1977
197,554
197,554
Nov.
it
1977
237,203
May1,
217,500.00
t978
-194,882.00
Nov.
1,
1978
- 53,5$5.75
May
1,
1979
3379156.25
+191,314.75
- 8,685.25
Nov.
1,
1979
132,406.25
+232,827.75
May
1,
1980
357,406.25
127,062.50
Nov.
it
1980
396,660
427,062.50
may
1,
1981
Nov.
1,
1981
May
1,
1982
11
1-1
1
Bond
Proceeds
Annual
Interest
Earnings
$199,500
189,000`
105,000
105,000
-0-
•._• •
CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA
Indicated Flow of Funds
Investment Earnings and Tax Allocation
Only
Tax
Allocation
Amount
Total
Avai_ 1__ able_
Debt Service
payments
Annual
Surplus
Cumulative
$ -0-
$199,500
$142,500.00
-Surplus
$+ 57,000.00
$+
_0-
-0-
189,000
10 000
5'
142,500.00
142, 00.00
S
+ 46 00.00
'S
-
57,
+10 000.00
3,500.00
-0-
13,255
105,000
142,500.00
37,500.00
- 37,500.00
+ 66,000.00
+ 28,500.00
13,255
13,255
13,255
142,500.00
142,500.00
-129,245.00
-129,245.00
-100,745.00*
197,554
1979554
197,554
197,554
142,500.00
+ 55,054.00
-229,990.00**
-174,936.00
237,203
2379203
217,500.00
- 19,946.00
-194,882.00
237,203-
328,471
237,203
328,471
290,718.75
137,156.25
- 53,5$5.75
-1518,913.50
328,471
328,471
3379156.25
+191,314.75
- 8,685.25
+ 39,401.25
365,234
365,234
365,234
365,234
132,406.25
+232,827.75
+ 30,716.00
+263,543.75
396,660
396,660
357,406.25
127,062.50
+ 7,826.75
+269,597.50
+271,370.50
396,660
396,660
427,062.50
- 30,402.50
+540,968.00
+510,565.50
* First Ctm,r.tZaliva Deficit - Source of .Temporary Funding Until Repayment to be Determined.
** Mar -i r.vm Cwnulative Deficit.
Note: Interest earnings ass woes:
707, - (.5`600, 000) of $6 1�llion expended during period
5/1/74-5/1/75 available for 3 months @ 7%
40% - ($2j400,000) of $6 -Mi Z Zion expended_ . during period
5/1/75-5/1/76 available then for I year @ 7% .......
509 - ($3,000,000) of $6 Million expended during period
5/1/76-5/1/77 available then for 2 years @ 7% .....
0
$ 10,500 - AZ7. avail. 11/1/74
168,000 - 1/2 each on 11/1/74 and
5/1/75
4202 000 - 1/4 each first four
$598,000 periods
SCHEDULE 4
�1
v
69
a,
H p
r o
q O H
oyo.'�C
CD
aH
y O t
m n O a
cn
� H y
o -<
'�7 Z
E O
z
O.
00
49
V
00
A
Cn
�
V
C
fO
V
00
v
y
r
V
tD
CD
Fa„
'iy
t..
w
>
o
CD
r
ty
0
00
N
M
al
O
OD
N
\
m
W
Cv1
m
00
w
w
C.
si
OD
V
m
4a
o
I
o
A
00
Om
to
w—
a+
— —A
[7y
OD
V1
a
o�
v
C-)
X
'<
00
C�
w
m
V
'o _
—
V
En
�
w
O
OD
�{
to
w
�
to
w
o
P.
o
-a
J
to
to
A
to
W
�1
v
69
a,
H p
r o
q O H
oyo.'�C
CD
aH
y O t
m n O a
cn
� H y
o -<
'�7 Z
E O
z
w
w
N
00
O
Ln
W
C)
fli
Ul
v
gip.
0 ►!
O
O
'
A
v
N
.0 F+
��
^D
Ln 00
-n
N. C)
vc�
< w
G
N
may'
o�
o
w
H.
m w
n w
o�
o'er
a -v
a o
A
Ln
A
O
a~
00
OD
Q�
ow
�`�
�0
p
o
W
A is A N
N
C 'Sy
V n
��
b
A
v CD v �.
�"
CD 1-�
Cr suCD
A `fi
v fri.
V CD
ON
+ rt + rt
�
r}
v
v
N
cn wl„ y
CD
4.
rt
<
vOq "0N°.
CD
00
00
n
r
1-+
H
,
to I �O
CD
~
N
t0
V Ch
v
m
O
00 tp
W
O
W
N
00
w
rt
►-+
N
N
►~+
p~',
v
h7
n
a
H
0
o a
T�xn
r D H
m r
roo
d N H
O
Z a
O H
J
n
w
N
00
O
Ln
W
C)
fli
Ul
CD
f-+
W
W
00
O
O
A
v
N
Cl
O
O
O
Ln 00
ON
A
N
W
rl
{1
FrLO
N
Ot
t0
A
Ln
A
O
00
OD
Q�
�•
1~+
O
p
�
W
N H
tf)
N
_ Ot
tAD
r0
O
„
A
�.� V
W
to
.v.J
p"'
C)
O
C
Ut
ON
N
GS
tn
00
00
O
1-+
V
to I �O
O
W
t0
V Ch
v
m
O
00 tp
W
O
W
N
00
►-+
N
N
►~+
p~',
~
CA00
to
ON
..
W
N
UI
W
Lq
Cn
,P Ito
N V
Ot
H
F--
��+
00
O
00
A
N
-
to
Ln
N
O
~
N
N
I
00 t0
A
rO
00
-
fn
W
V I�
00
N
W
O
O
O
N
�
O
O
p
N
O
V
0
v
h7
n
a
H
0
o a
T�xn
r D H
m r
roo
d N H
O
Z a
O H
J
n
rI
4)3,000,000 3,000,000
44-1 R-14 Street 6 Storm Sewer 1,275,000 1,275,000
44-2 R-14 Pedestrian Ways 4 Malls $260,000 260,000
44-3 R-14 Street Trees $ Plantings 75,000 75,000
.,
45-1
46-1
CITY OF IOWA CITY
47-1
'
47-2
TAX ALLOCATION BONDS
SOURCE & APPLICATION OF FUNDS SUMMARY
'
C.I.P.
NO.
Federal Revenue Gen. Obl.
Project Est.
Aid Bonds Bonds
1973-1977
20-4
Parking Facility #1 $5,000,000
$53000,000
20-5
Parking Facility #2
rI
4)3,000,000 3,000,000
44-1 R-14 Street 6 Storm Sewer 1,275,000 1,275,000
44-2 R-14 Pedestrian Ways 4 Malls $260,000 260,000
44-3 R-14 Street Trees $ Plantings 75,000 75,000
.,
R-14 Sidewalks
R-14 Water Improvements
R-14 Sanitary Sewer
R-14 Signalization
R-14 Street Lighting
PROJECT TOTAL
285,000 285,000
365,000 365,000
190,000 190,000
245,000 245,000
165,000 165,000
zziil �0 $3,000,000 $7,600,000 $10,860,000
SCHEDULE 7
45-1
46-1
47-1
'
47-2
R-14 Sidewalks
R-14 Water Improvements
R-14 Sanitary Sewer
R-14 Signalization
R-14 Street Lighting
PROJECT TOTAL
285,000 285,000
365,000 365,000
190,000 190,000
245,000 245,000
165,000 165,000
zziil �0 $3,000,000 $7,600,000 $10,860,000
SCHEDULE 7
11
1-1
11
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council FROM: City Manager
RE: Urban Renewal Financing Plan DATE: February 5, 1974
The purpose of this memorandum is to present for consideration a specific
financing plan recommendation for the required supporting facilities associated
with the Offer to Purchase Urban Renewal Land, as revised, submitted by Old
Capitol Business Center Company on'October 18, 1973. This proposal takes into
consideration the negotiation process between the City and the developer, as well
as previous conclusions by the City Council with regard to the amount of debt to
be incurred, tax allocation financing, and referendum.
As a result of final negotiations with the developer, the City's committment
to supporting facilities will include the immediate construction of a 1,200 space
parking facility in blocks 83/84 and the eventual construction of a smaller facility
of 800 spaces in block 64; construction of new water and sewer facilities in the
project area; and the reconstruction and paving of various streets to include street
tree planting, pedestrian ways,.and open spaces. A summary of the current cost esti-
mate for these project improvements is as follows:
Parking Facilities Construction $8,000,000
Streets, Utilities, Signals, Lighting 2,600,000
Malls, Pedestrian Ways 260,000
Sub Total $10, 0, 00
—
Financed by Federal Government 260,000
Net City Requirement $10,600,000
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
Of primary importance to the structure of the City's financing plan will be the
issuance of $7,600,000 in general obligation bonds. In previous discussions, the City
Council has determined that $60000,000 in general obligation bonds would be issued
under the terms of repayment that would utilize the tax allocation procedure discussed
later in this report. The remaining $1,600,000 in general obligation bonds would be
issued for various utility and street improvements as outlined in the City's Capital
Improvements Program 1973-77. These bonds would be issued on an annual basis as needed
and would be combined with other issues for other City projects.
' Chapter 403.19 of the Code of Iowa permits the.City to enact an ordinance divid-
ing the revenue produced from the taxation of th.e:incremental addition to the tax
base brought about by the renewalprocess and directing the proceeds from such taxa-
tion to the repayment of obligations incurred in supporting redevelopment. This
In 1969, the year in which the City's
execution, the properties to
renewal process
was formally
approved for
.be acquired
value of $965,803, or 1.41% the
in the project area
carried an
assessed
of total City tax base at
clearance and redevelopment, itis estimated
that time. As
a result of
'
assessed value of at l`east $6,649,583:;by
that the same
1980, or 5.32% of
properties will
the
have an
year.
estimated
base in that
' Chapter 403.19 of the Code of Iowa permits the.City to enact an ordinance divid-
ing the revenue produced from the taxation of th.e:incremental addition to the tax
base brought about by the renewalprocess and directing the proceeds from such taxa-
tion to the repayment of obligations incurred in supporting redevelopment. This
' Memo to: City Council _2_
February 5, 1974
' allocation of taxes is not restricted only to the incremental assessed value in-
crease of properties acquired, --but also extends to those properties not acquired,
and thereforetothe entire project area. It is estimated that by 1980 the incre-
mental increase from all properties available for allocation will be least $796,705
per year. -See Schedule 1 -attached.
11
11
11
.1
The advantages of allocating taxes in this manner are as follows:
I. The annual cash flow from allocation would permit the issuance of
$6,000,000 in general obligation bonds to finance public improvements.
The allocation continues until the full amount of principal and interest
have been recovered.
2. The entire debt service on bonds issued would be paid from taxes on those
properties in the renewal area most directly benefited. No taxes for debt
service would be collected from the 1969 base, nor would the individual
homeowner be affected by; this procedure.
3. The allocation does subordinate the County and the School District's
interest in the incremental increase until such time as the City's obli-
gations have been repaid. However, taxes for debt service are protected,
and because the City is making this investment, future benefits to all
taxing bodies will be substantially greater.
In order for the City to commit long-term contractual obligations to the
developer, and to insure financial feasibility for the Urban Renewal Project it-
self, a referendum on the issuance of $6,000,000 in general obligation bonds to
be repaid from tax allocation ,is desirable. --To permit the City Council to legally
act in setting a referendum, a petition must be presented requesting a vote on the
issuance signed by registered voters exceeding 2% of the number voting for Governor
at the last general election. The minimum 'number of signatures is 486. A schedule
for the required legal proceedings and notices for the referendum is found on
Schedule 2. Approval of the question requires a 60% majority of those voting.
Assuming approval of the voters is obtained, it is recommended that the full
amount of the $6,000,000 be issued as soon as possible. This action would offer
the advantage of producing the maximum amount of invested interest on the proceeds
to be used for debt service in the early years of the scheduled maturities. In
addition, sale and delivery prior to July 1, 1974, would eliminate conceivable
problems associated_ with the legal struggle over Home Rule legislation and would
provide a measure of safety in having the cash in hand prior to construction committ-
ments. Finally, there appears to be no advantage in second-guessing the municipal
bond -market in.this case when the overriding concern of the City involves the re-
development of the central business district.
In anticipation of a $6,000,000 bond issue that would be dated May 1, 1974,
Schedule 3 was prepared which indicates a projection of the tax allocation as well
as the projected debt service on the full issue for twenty years at 4.7S% interest.
This illustration uses only tax allocation proceeds from the developer's indicated
investment and does not consider the incremental increase of other properties in
the project area although they will be included in the allocation ordinance. Also
shown are the benefits of a call provision beginning May 1, 1987, and the possible
reduction in interest expense of $422,750.
■ To determine.the flow of funds, Schedule 4 was prepared which indicates
that the maximum cumulative deficit to be financed from other than investment
' interest and allocated tax would be $229,990 by May 1, 1977. This amount can
be funded by reserving current parking revenue in a manner similar to that
which would exist under a revenue bond ordinance, as well as using first
available excess revenues from the initial parking facility
ccom
this objective, it will be necessary to maintain an annual income afromplish parking
of at least $265,000 in order to pay operating and maintenance expense, finance
minor reconstruction projects, and provide the necessary reserve accumulation
' prior to November 1, 1976. This use of parking revenue then becomes a key ele-
ment in the total financing plan and proper management of the parking system
will be of primary importance. A graphic illustration of the flow of funds is
' presented on Schedule S.
The issuance of $6,000,000 at one time will have an important impact on
the City's general obligation debt margin. Schedule 6 indicates that this issue,
' together with all of the other bonded requirements anticipated in prior financial
planning, will leave a minimum legal debt margin of $2,167,366 in 1976. However,
the fiscal policy margin will be exceeded by $1,788,607 in the same year.
' temporary encroachment into the margin reserve established by the fiscal poThis
licy
will be mitigated by the. rapid recovery of margin brought about by substantially
increased assessed values, and by some modification in the current approved
. Capital Improvements Program.
REVENUE BONDS
As the financing plan is anticipated, Parking Facility H2 would be funded
solely and only with revenue bonds to be retired from parking revenue. The
maturity schedule on this issue can be structured in such a way as to use both
available excess revenue from Facility 111 as well as Facility 112. The obo
Of the need for funds for the second structure should allow for adequatetiming
of sufficient revenue to provide necessary debt service coverage over the life of prediction
a revenue bond issue at rates compatible with previous local experience. However,
rate structures will need to be evaluated periodically by the City Council to insure
adequate protection for the needs of the parking system.
FEDERAL AID
The $260,000 nowscheduledfor malls, pedestrian ways, and other amenities is
to be funded as part of Item 1 costs in the financing plan that is a part of the
., City's contract with the Department of Housing and Urban Development. This amount
will be drawn from that source as needs require; however, any costs associated with
these improvements in excess of $260,000 must be supported from City funds as a part
of the total financing package.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A summary of the estimated costs and recommended financi
is outlined in Schedule 7. This financingng for those costs
1
for funding that can be put together at:thistime econsidering ethe sCity'slneed sfortion
1 - Memo to: City Council
-4-
committments to the developer and financial estimates on construction of improve-
ments now available. In summary, it is recommended that the following program be
' approved:
I. The referendum on the issuance of $6,000,000 in general obligation bonds
be scheduled for March 28, 1974.
2. That the entire amount of bondsbeissued and delivered prior
1974. p or to July 1,
3. That investment interest and parking revenues be used to pay interest
and/or principal on the $6,000,000 bond issue until such time as tax
allocation becomes fully available.
4. That plans continue for the use of $12600,000 in general obligation bonds
to supplement the tax allocation bonds for public improvements.
S. That revenue bonds be used for the construction of additional parking
facilities as may be required.
. 6. That management of a parking system include a rate structure sufficient
to produce revenue that will operate and maintain the present system
and create reserves in an amount that will facilitate the total program
as outlined.
Property Valuation
Project Area; 1969
Less Acquired Property Value
Net Property Value
Project Area; 1980
Acquired Property (.27%) (24,628,087)
Net Property Value @ 5% yr. growth rate
Projected Assessed Value
Tax Allocation Financing Determination
Project Area; 1969
Total Area Tax Levy
Debt Service Levy
T. A. F. Applicable Levy
Tax Yield Calculation
Project Area; 1980
Total Est. Tax Levy
Estimated Debt Service Levy
T. A. F. Applicable Levy
Tax Yield Calculation
Incremental Increase Available for Allocation
$ 2,463,538
965.803
$ 1,4972735
$ 6,649,583
2,561,636
$ 9,2111219
135.000 mills
16.929
118.071 mills
$ 2,463,538
X .118071
135.000 mills
16.929
118.071 mills
$ 9,211,219
.118071
$ 290,872.40
$1,087,577.84
$ 796,705.44
SCHEDULE 1 '
1.1
11.
February 28, 1974 -
March 7, 1974 -
March 14, 1974 -
March 28, 1974 -
Question
First Publication of Notice
Second Publication of Notice
Third Publication of Notice
Date of Referendum
Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation
bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,000,000 for the purpose of
aiding in the planning, undertaking, and carrying out an urban renewal
project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?
SCHEDULE' 2
Schedule
February
5, 1974 -
Announce Intention to Issue
February
7, 1974 -
Public Notice of Meeting on Issuance
February
26, 1974-
Meeting on Issuance and Set Date for
Referendum
1.1
11.
February 28, 1974 -
March 7, 1974 -
March 14, 1974 -
March 28, 1974 -
Question
First Publication of Notice
Second Publication of Notice
Third Publication of Notice
Date of Referendum
Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its general obligation
bonds in the amount of not to exceed $6,000,000 for the purpose of
aiding in the planning, undertaking, and carrying out an urban renewal
project of said City designated as number Iowa R-14?
SCHEDULE' 2
E H'I(1QHiflS
y
N
lD tPmO N I6, N\nmr
v
NNNWtVI VIPVVmVI\ONN 1 1
•-• W V) P W O P W O P W N P r
H
P 0 0
�N\GPWOVWOVtV)OPVI I r
Oa
1.-1._1_m-QWWVm
w
N
N H H O
NV0000
0
O
W
D
_p'.
�
r\\\pGp
N
o
�
'
oo
AV
V
4
ttrppr rr
GGGG GG
►`G
N
I l l � 4 w
OOO Vtp lO .q mr.
N O
—�V PN
I I I Q g G W V OD
WN�O\D O)V S!V�ItWNmp
a
V� V V VI V
N
0
na V fIl U
•�d+0080
C'l
`4
N
_,4
b
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ti ON O1V/10
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
v N
1 1 1 V 8ppppp8o
OS 10./800
0
000
0 0
m\n iGr�"
N
0
r .'
r- - r r r. : :'.
. . . . . .
C N
_
n
•
rrr
�D \O �D Tw�pp W \O �D \D V -
.
\D \O to %D
\D 1G to mmmmm
I� ..
m ODm DamVVVVVV
?Y
N
L L L L L L L L
-
C C C C c C O p L L
J J J J J J J
L L L L L L L L L L L L l L L L L L L L
C L C L L L Cp L CJ pp C C C C C pp C C L C
1 J J J
J J
J J O J J J J J J J J J
nDoneDnne enoGnGnnI�G
<
n
W W W W W W W W W
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
O -n
6
W W W
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N
n
'
l0 \O \O •��\pD lOVVV0
\O tD \O \D \O \D \O \O \D \O O\O\D \D \D \D \O \O l0
L
D
W
V)mmmmmmmmm VVVVV
W
N
N
O
vv
O O O V W
to
N
n
W W W y
1 1 1 .•..
r
O O O V W W W W W W W W W O P r VI P O
a
1 1 1. O
C C
to
mOD Oi Oi ODm
VI
- m010amm0DmmmmV W V
m0
%0%0 cc
\D trPOJON
I l l y N N W tryy11
W �D PWp
N\OV PtrN
Va V W + W VI
V 4�i IGiONl
OOO�O
1 1 1 [A 100 mV W
tv V H H O VI
I►M NNN N
I+ b v O tr Vt
b`G O q N 0
1 N W �► y V I�p
Ga0 ry P1•
tn0 GG mW
W N O O p p
0 0 0 0 0 0
� Y r► rC r � O Y � pp
N I'O +DNna00Nr w-
V V V V V V\ ti g N P
H HN HH0 OA r VI
O 00 p0y.� y m0
O 00 00 rr
O o 0 0 0 0 p p g g
y N
b �
O O I v 1
O 1 1
U
O O O^
� qM VWp
OOOOfVII
C.'. p
1 1 1
8888
4
b
y
N
lD tPmO N I6, N\nmr
v
NNNWtVI VIPVVmVI\ONN 1 1
•-• W V) P W O P W O P W N P r
H
P 0 0
�N\GPWOVWOVtV)OPVI I r
Oa
1.-1._1_m-QWWVm
w
N
N H H O
NV0000
0
O
W
D
�
y
N
o
�
'
O
V
4
Nr HOD
y V O\
►`G
N
I l l � 4 w
OOO Vtp lO .q mr.
N O
m'
V
I I I Q g G W V OD
a
V� V V VI V
N
0
na V fIl U
•�d+0080
C'l
`4
N
_,4
000
ti ON O1V/10
1 1 1 V 8ppppp8o
OS 10./800
0
000
m\n iGr�"
N
V 4�i IGiONl
OOO�O
1 1 1 [A 100 mV W
tv V H H O VI
I►M NNN N
I+ b v O tr Vt
b`G O q N 0
1 N W �► y V I�p
Ga0 ry P1•
tn0 GG mW
W N O O p p
0 0 0 0 0 0
� Y r► rC r � O Y � pp
N I'O +DNna00Nr w-
V V V V V V\ ti g N P
H HN HH0 OA r VI
O 00 p0y.� y m0
O 00 00 rr
O o 0 0 0 0 p p g g
y N
b �
O O I v 1
O 1 1
U
O O O^
� qM VWp
OOOOfVII
C.'. p
1 1 1
8888
4
b
lD tPmO N I6, N\nmr
C
NNNWtVI VIPVVmVI\ONN 1 1
•-• W V) P W O P W O P W N P r
H
P 0 0
�N\GPWOVWOVtV)OPVI I r
C b
J..
N\GVPlN OODV VIW PN-
�
e.�
o
- �V —W VI V\DrWVI m\nm0 A
V1 N
O W VI V m\G V) m V Oa t N V) V N V O N N N N 03 S
-�vl-o\ncPa.. i�G mrvl i.l iGoip��I VI VpIvI VI c n
N NW a�IVIImm\VnV OmV N0\Pm0 00 0 n � J
W Vl VI N N \n O V V O V1 0 V V1 \n N N V 0 0 0 0� O
V)tG \GW G b V)\O V)l0 \G V)V):O G VaZD- b A r
\G \G \G \GmmmppDp COmmmm�VVVVVV Ib
N W N� O \O OD V O\V1 tW N lD m V PVI t r0
V,
N F
P NNW trVl PV m\OO� NNW \.I tFttr X 3 t
O W\nV CD\G \G QOV P F N•.GV N V O N N N N n d V
_+� O Vf r Pw trb m
P PWp IbV PPV mO�wpO.p \nV00�p0 A <
-N-Nrp\V \n �\L \nVOmVNPPmOOCO Y
Vi N N N V1 0 V V O Vl O V V1 N N N V 0 0 0 0 l
O O VI ut 0 0 VI V• C O O W O� \n VI yr 0 0 0 0
O �NOVVFINOV\W!1 \Wl1NNONNVIV 1 l l �
O OV818O \n 8O O N8O ut 00W\JOn O VI SO Vt00 0 C 0888888808888088$111^ J
n
CO
r �\pp ppDp �yD
w w wag m d
�WN�O\p OlV O\ OVDVaI I\m
N
V) N �
VI VI �\n \I1 yy�I\n \n V1 \n Vr Vl VltyIW NNN Q
IV V V V V P O\VI VI tVf r P N m V W P m m m Y -�
�• PPtrNmWVON\pp V)FtV)FrO�VI� O
- N NP� V ViWWVIV 8WVN��WSOOS Y
V I V I N N Vp 1 0 V V O V t O V Vp 1 Vp i N N V 0 0 0 0 n
O O o O O S O o S o o o 8 8 0 0 0 o S S O
2
1 1 1 1 4 + + + + + + + + + + + + 1 1 H D C
1 O\Psllb ywi N�\lOpp••YWpp ;G ONNVI\pm VOpQ1�VpQm1 O C7 C
O N �NV OD I+�mV/m8WWF0\D W000 (-�1 SIN
r V
SooSSooSS ooSS000SSSg
+ 'f .. + . + + + + + + Itn
1
r mm r r <
VVIN pVlr�PWtmNPyyVff \ONVm DtlC
I PNVrPV N\G OD�OVVVOWmOV1 r
G rrOM\p VI NPV W VI \OrV _tW�trp 0pO !0a P.Y.
-VIV SV\pO yOD pmOV\O mL•V NNpNOSO n n
N
O
O O O O O I I I 1 I I I I I I I I
I l r l l 0 0 0 0 0 O O O
r •� N N N W W t t Vtr V1 Vf VI VI VI 8\88P P b -Dil N� y
�yVyaIONO�yp1 Vw pV OVNi00\Vi1 \Vi1 \NI1800 ne
ONVVIO OVNI VN18o
8888888W988888�8e?-
1
n
H
x <
o
,n
R=
D
O n
J
�
'
O
J
N O
a
1
Nov.
1 ,
1974
May
1,
1975
Nov.
1 ,
1975
May
1,
1976
Nov.
1 ,
1976
May
1,
1977
Nov.
1 ,
1977
May
1,
1978
Nov.
1 ,
1978
May
1,
1979
Nov.
1 ,
1979
May
1,
1980
Nov.
1 ,
1980
May
1,
1981
Nov.
1 ,
1981
May
1,
1982
Bond
Proceeds
Annual
Interest
Earnings
$199,500
189,000
105,000
105,000
-0-
Tax
Allocation
Amount
Total
Available
Debt Service
Payments
Annual
Cumulative
SurplusSurP
lus
$ -0-
-0-
$199,500
189,000
5142,500.00
142,500.00
$+ 57,000.00
+ 46,500.00
$+ 57,000.00
-0-
105,000
142,500.00
- 37,500.00
+103,500.00
+ 66,00o.00
-0-
13,255
1059000
139255
142,500.00
142,500.00
- 37,500.00
-129,245.00
+ 28,500.00
13,255
13,255
142,500.00
-129,245.00
-100,745.00*
-229,990.00**-
197,554
197,554
197,554
1979554
1429500.00
217,500.00
+ 55,054.00
- 19,946.00
-174,936.00
237,203
2379203
140,718.75
+ 96,484.25
-194,882.00
- 98,397.75
237,203
328,471
2379203
328,471
290,718.75
137,156.25
- 53,515.75
+191,314.75
-151,913.50
328,471
3b5,234
328,471
365,234
337,156.25
- 8,685.25
+ 39,401.25
+ 30,716.00
365,234
365,234
132,406.25
357,406.25
+232,827.75
+ 7,826.75
+263,543.75
396,660
396,660
396,660
396,660
-127,062.50
427,062.50
+269,597.50
-
+271,370.50
+540,968.00
30,402.50
+510,565.50
*F•i.rst. Ctum.clativa. Deficit - ,Source of .Temporary Funding Until Repayment to be Determined.
** Ma:ri.mum Cwnulative Deficit.
Npte:
Tnterec-(' earnings assumes:
10%, - ($600,000) of $6 MilZion expended during period
5/1/74-5/1/75 available for 3 months @ 7°' .........,
�'0% - ($2,400,000) of $6 Million expended during period
5/1/75-5/1/76 available then for -1 year -@-7% .....
50- - ($3,0001000) of $6 Million expended during period
5/1/76-5/1/77 available then for 2 years @ 7% ......
Paul D. Speer b Associates, Inc.
January 29,1974
RVN:mk
8 10,500 - AZ7. avail. 11/1/74
168,000 - 1/2 each on 11/1/74 and l
5/1/75
4202000 - 1/4 each first four
$598,500 periods
SCHEDULE 4
,
N
I
v
Lei
w
W
t
v
1
0
1
to
14
V
w
m
W
On
Do
H
tp
W
-tis
J
rt
tVp
—
cn
.fir
is
Up`
fD
t✓
V]
n
00
n
o
w
r
ri
(D
H.
'S7
00
N
o
m
.'fl
o.
-.
p00
N
C71
Z
v
W
rri
`
o
w
v--
C,
�''
o
S,
rT1
A
w
0
�
Go
to
ou _
W
ob
m
O0
a,
a
n
z
v,
-�-40
co
V
C7]
W
.r
00
G
v
00
t0
b - -
v
�• k" W
S
to
to
�D
A
N
�
t0
W
N
w
W
v
1
0
1
to
V
1
�
W
On
W
O
J
An
v'
cr,
Q-
^
w
�,,c
b.y
o v
crH
.. ^n
r, r
..
..
v
�c
N<
;a W.
CD(n
am
CD OQ
Ao
o d
oo H.
w w
w
r• ..
<rt
F,, sr
w
W W
N
.'a
wo
N C
W�-
CD
to
rn ~
v N
v 00
..O
o
a
(D t7
a
CD
CL c
w
I w
o�
o
a,
�-
•
O a
o t
o `�
• •-
•- rt
�- o
Av
ACCDD
vN
v �°
�.
V!7
V r
V N
cr
+ rt
rt
+
~
Pf
v
N
N
Q•
rr•
3
^ w
C
t].
rf
n
N w
Ln y
_
w
0o
W.
r.C
CD
P.
fD
7
CD
y
rt
w
w
^
N
a%
N
to
W
Ot
00
00
tV0
to
Q`
p
~
N
to
14ItD
CA
to
o
Qo
ao
to
rn
�?
v00
O
W
C11
N
W
n
z
N
Ot
to
A
O
D
„F-'
oo
C71
•l7
X
N
Ln
A
f-.
O
O
O
N
-
/--�
QD
t•-.
n
M
►"
V'-
O
W
�-
.p
tra
o
W
V
I
to
r
Ln
n
r
Atp
p
O
00
t-
n
0
ITI
v
r...
p
O
W
W
to
N
N
b
�•-�
M
H
Q
Co
O
E
a
`
to
..
Ln
V
r
O
C71
^i
00Ul
CT
V
O
O
1•-�
N
V
to
I v
H
N
W
to
V
O
Ot
O
O
O
W
Q
-
v
O
O
t�D
W
O
H
--3
z
to
�„+
Ot
ON
N
W
tD
00
tD
Ot
A
W
`
A
tD
N
W
W
W
Vl
O,
V
r
V
V
f-•
~O
W
M
00
O
W
O
N
O
O
tAp
89
Ln
o
CD
1. V4
N
A
N
V
W
O
r-+
`tn
V
O
W
tp
to
►
�
O
y
W00
to
to
W
-4V
0p
00
N
A
O
Oy
p
p
`
O
`
O
N
W
- CD
O
tQ
N
O
W
V
p
{a9
A
-- -
W
V
to
OD.
~
N
A
O
00
N
to
00
`V
v
N
to
00
Oo
- to
a%
t�D
l-S�D
W
ttDD
- N
to
Cl
O
to
O
V
CT
H
4
to
O
O
N
V
to
to
tD
N
C.I.P.
NO.
Federal
Revenue Gen. Obl.
Project Est.
Aid -
Bonds Bonds
1973-1977
20-4
Parking Facility #1
$5,000,000
$5,000,000
20-5
Parking Facility #2
$3,000,000
3,000,000
44-1
R-14 Street $ Storm Sewer
1,275,000
1,275,000
44-2
R-14 Pedestrian Ways & Malls
$260,000
260,000
44-3
R-14 Street Trees $ Plantings
75,000
75,000
44-4
R-14 Sidewalks
285,000
285,000
45-1
R-14 Water Improvements
_
365,000
3652000
46-1
R-14 Sanitary Sewer
190,000
190,000
47-1
R-14 Signalization
245,000
245,000
47-2
R-14 Street Lighting
165,000
165,000
PROJECT TOTAL
$ 260,000
$32O�Op,Opp@ $7,600,000
$10,860,000
SCHEDULE 7
1
I February 51 1974
Mr. Ray Wells
City Manager
City of Iowa City
Civic Center
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Re: Professional Services City/University Project Iowa City, Iowa
Dear Mr. Wells:
This letter resulting from our meeting of February 1, 1974 is to
informally set forth the scope of services we are prepared to
render and our compensation for the scope of work outlined below
relative to city improvements within the project known as City/
University Project'- 1, Iowa R-14, Iowa City, Iowa Urban Renewal
Program. It is_understood that our scope of work will include
the following
A. Referendum documents - documents representative of the
City of Iowa City funded portions of the urban renewal
programa nd described in paragraphs B and C following.
These documents ,will be used for public information
prior to the referendum of March 28, 1974 and must be
available no later -than March 14, 1974. The exact
scope of this work will be defined in further discussion
with your office.
B. Parking ramp,- provide complete professional services
for a parking facility utilizing the southern portion
(approximately 120 feet ,by 320 feet) of Block 83 and
generally the air rights of the remainder of Block 83
and -,all of Block:,84 in a multi-level structure to
accommodate -.approximately_ 1200 cars. Coordinate this
work with the work being done on the two story mall
to be constructed by, the developer Adjacent to and
below the parking ramp.
C. Comprehensive.amenities program - provide complete profes-
sional services for city funded amenities within the urban
renewal area to be constructed on city owned streets,
vacated rights-of-way, ,etc. and to include; but not be
limited to:
1. Street and walkway lighting.
2. Pavement treatments - materials. patterns. tPxt„rPc_
G K
i •
' i f '{t
111 f�f'tl..
-
y}
SSAGE
1
I February 51 1974
Mr. Ray Wells
City Manager
City of Iowa City
Civic Center
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Re: Professional Services City/University Project Iowa City, Iowa
Dear Mr. Wells:
This letter resulting from our meeting of February 1, 1974 is to
informally set forth the scope of services we are prepared to
render and our compensation for the scope of work outlined below
relative to city improvements within the project known as City/
University Project'- 1, Iowa R-14, Iowa City, Iowa Urban Renewal
Program. It is_understood that our scope of work will include
the following
A. Referendum documents - documents representative of the
City of Iowa City funded portions of the urban renewal
programa nd described in paragraphs B and C following.
These documents ,will be used for public information
prior to the referendum of March 28, 1974 and must be
available no later -than March 14, 1974. The exact
scope of this work will be defined in further discussion
with your office.
B. Parking ramp,- provide complete professional services
for a parking facility utilizing the southern portion
(approximately 120 feet ,by 320 feet) of Block 83 and
generally the air rights of the remainder of Block 83
and -,all of Block:,84 in a multi-level structure to
accommodate -.approximately_ 1200 cars. Coordinate this
work with the work being done on the two story mall
to be constructed by, the developer Adjacent to and
below the parking ramp.
C. Comprehensive.amenities program - provide complete profes-
sional services for city funded amenities within the urban
renewal area to be constructed on city owned streets,
vacated rights-of-way, ,etc. and to include; but not be
limited to:
1. Street and walkway lighting.
2. Pavement treatments - materials. patterns. tPxt„rPc_
4. Graphics.
5. Water features.
6 Drainage considerations.
7. Leased use of vacated r.o.w.
8. Pedestrian closures and stations.
9. Bikeways.
Work under this phase would be in four parts:
1. Scope and procdure determination.
2. Conceptual design.
3. Preparation of implementation standards.
4. Contract documents.
Compensation for the scope of work outlined above will be as follows:
A. Referendum documents - we would be compensated on the
.basis; of 2 1/2 ;times our direct personal expense. At the
time we commence work on these documents we would agree
upon a fee budget maximum, which would not be exceeded
without prior approval of .the city.
B. Parking ramp - wewould be compensated on the basis of
a fee.equal to 5% of the cost of construction.
C. Comprehensive_ amenities program -
1. Scope and -procedure determination, we will be
compensated -;on the basis of 2 1/2 times our direct
personal expense. It is anticipated this part will
be accomplished within approximately 30 days.
2. Conceptual design,.lump sum _fee_
3. _Preparation of implementation standards, lump sum fee.
4. Contract documents for specific work program, lump sum
fee.
In addition to the compensation outlined for A, B, and C, we would be
compensated on a reimbursable basis -for all normal out-of-pocket
expenses.
I
tt
page
, 2
4. Graphics.
5. Water features.
6 Drainage considerations.
7. Leased use of vacated r.o.w.
8. Pedestrian closures and stations.
9. Bikeways.
Work under this phase would be in four parts:
1. Scope and procdure determination.
2. Conceptual design.
3. Preparation of implementation standards.
4. Contract documents.
Compensation for the scope of work outlined above will be as follows:
A. Referendum documents - we would be compensated on the
.basis; of 2 1/2 ;times our direct personal expense. At the
time we commence work on these documents we would agree
upon a fee budget maximum, which would not be exceeded
without prior approval of .the city.
B. Parking ramp - wewould be compensated on the basis of
a fee.equal to 5% of the cost of construction.
C. Comprehensive_ amenities program -
1. Scope and -procedure determination, we will be
compensated -;on the basis of 2 1/2 times our direct
personal expense. It is anticipated this part will
be accomplished within approximately 30 days.
2. Conceptual design,.lump sum _fee_
3. _Preparation of implementation standards, lump sum fee.
4. Contract documents for specific work program, lump sum
fee.
In addition to the compensation outlined for A, B, and C, we would be
compensated on a reimbursable basis -for all normal out-of-pocket
expenses.
I
1
Special consultants may be required for certain portions of the
work previously outlined: Wherever possible special consideration
will be given to consultants either based in Iowa City or with
previous experience working in the Iowa City area.
We are keenly aware of the need for coordination of the public and
private interestsassociatedwith this project. This can be
accomplished through mutual cooperation, review and evaluation,
and we will assist in'everyway possible to help assure this project
is reflective of the needs of the city and the citizens of Iowa
City.
We recommend.that the city delay, if possible, specific implementation
of such acute items as Burlington Street improvements, Washington
Street improvements, Clinton/Washington bus stop until such time as
the scope and procedure and conceptual design phases of the
comprehensive amenities program can be completed.
Peter Pomnitz
AC 312-346-4460
(Ester Butrick, Secretary)
A
t•
Y�
page 3
1
Special consultants may be required for certain portions of the
work previously outlined: Wherever possible special consideration
will be given to consultants either based in Iowa City or with
previous experience working in the Iowa City area.
We are keenly aware of the need for coordination of the public and
private interestsassociatedwith this project. This can be
accomplished through mutual cooperation, review and evaluation,
and we will assist in'everyway possible to help assure this project
is reflective of the needs of the city and the citizens of Iowa
City.
We recommend.that the city delay, if possible, specific implementation
of such acute items as Burlington Street improvements, Washington
Street improvements, Clinton/Washington bus stop until such time as
the scope and procedure and conceptual design phases of the
comprehensive amenities program can be completed.
Peter Pomnitz
AC 312-346-4460
(Ester Butrick, Secretary)
_ in.r^p^'T^T"n.T?^�"^. Xn..Y �v'r'f0'.'s"4T^�swt 3.'I'�+i^?.SM'N i,+z Kms. �•, it _.."�;yry r.
_s
Introduction....................................1
Methodology .............. ........................1
Zoning Ordinance Amendment Requests...............2
Subdivision Reviews...............................3
Other Fee Charges.... .........................4
A. Vacations.... ...
B. Annexations.................................5
C. Board of Adjustment -- Variances,
Exceptions and Interpretations..............5
Chart I, Resume of Recommended Fees...............7, 8
Chart II, Resume of Current Fees..................9
APPENDIX A, Rezoning Requests Not
Considered by City Council ....................... 10
APPENDIX B, Rezoning, Requests
Considered by City Council .......................]]
APPENDIX B-11 Commentary onGeneralGrowth
Properties' Rezoning Request..............12
APPENDIX B-2, Commentary on Braverman -
West Planned Area Development............
.....14
APPENDIX Cr Subdivisions .........................15
APPENDIX D, Projected 'Cost Recapitulation
of Study Submissions Using Recommended
Fee Structure........
. .....................
.......16, 17
APPENDIX E
18
EXHIBITA ............. .........................28
EXHIBITB ........................................
31
EXHIBIT C ................ .............
.34
This report has been prepared for the purpose of providing
documentation for a series of recommended increases in appli-
cation fees for various activities processed by the Department
of Community Development. Fee increase recommendations were
initially made to the City Council in December, 1972. At that
time the Council indicated a desire for more information prior
to making a;decision. The Department of Community Development
subsequently initiated. a_ comprehensive study of all of the
costs incurred for zoning ordinance amendments, subdivision
plat reviews, public right-of-way vacations and annexation
activities.
The fee charge recommendations contained in this report are
based on the concept:of having.the individual developer or
property owner pay .for a'majority of the costs related to
these activities, rather than have these costs heavily subsidized
by all of the property tax payers in Iowa City.
Methodology
Charts were prepared to record the time and materials used
for the various subject activities. Exhibits A and B following
depict the form in which the information has been collected.
Hourly earnings of personnel involved during the various steps
of the processing of the submissions were obtained, and time
was allocated for five-minute increments by individual employee
class. Costs of materials used were obtained from purchasing
records.
In order to compare fees charged by Iowa City with those of
other communities, a letter was mailed to the appropriate
agencies in 50 communities. (A copy of this letter is included
in this report as Exhibit C.) Response to the letter was good.
Of the 50 letters sent, 37 replies were received. This is a 74%
response. Numerous replies indicated that either fee charges
have recently been revised or that new fee charge schedules were
being considered as of this time. It also appeared that, in
those instances where new fees were recently put into effect,
the fees were appreciably higher than those presently being
charged in Iowa City. Another conclusion drawn was that most of
those -_communities with fee charges as low or lower than Iowi:
City's have notreviewed their charges for some period of time.
Many of those in the latter mentioned category have expressed
an interest in this study and have requested a copy once it has
been completed.
The original cost data did not include a figure for overhead
costs. Additional researchinthis area indicated that two
different studies made by -other communities have indicated that
overhead costs run approximately 15% of the cost processing.
z
Consequently, a 158 surchikge has-been added to each of the
calculated costs. Ideally,y the most desirable way to fairly levy
costs for these various activities would be to keep an accurate
record of all the times and materials involved and then to bill
each applicant accordingly. However, due to the size and complex-
ity of some requests and in that the costs of tabulating these
fees would dramatically increase the cost of the application
itself, it is recommended that it would be most equitable to
make charges based upon certain predetermined parameters.
The first category to be considered is that of rezoning
requests which were either,approved or denied by the Planning
and Zoning Commission and which were subsequently transmitted
to the City Council for their consideration. In all of these
instances the requests also included publication costs, public
hearings, and recording costs.
The second set of recommendations includes those petitions
which were .withdrawn `before being submitted to the City Council
for action. In these instances, there were no costs incurred
for publications, public hearings, and recording.
The subdivision fees which are recommended include a sliding
scale depending upon the size of the submission. Additional
research -has indicated that there does appear to be a relatively
direct correlation between the amount of work required to process
a subdivision submission, and the size of the submission. There-
fore, the recommendations made in this area do reflect this
correlation.
Zoning Ordinance Amendment Requests
A complete _study was made of all of the Zoning Ordinance
amendment requests received.during the period of time running
from January 1, 1973 through June 30, 1973. It was necessary to
go beyond the June 30, 1973,date in order to obtain complete
cost data for those petitions which were initiated during the
six-month study period but which were incomplete.
During the six-month period for which cost records were kept,
four rezoning requests were denied by the Planning and Zoning
Commission, and were not --requested to be forwarded to the City
Council. Costs for these requests are shown in Appendix A. All
other rezoning requests were forwarded to the City Council, even
though two were, denied by P & Z. These requests are recorded in
Appendix B. (Requests forwarded to the City Council result in
additional City expenses: i.e., public hearing notices and
publication, staff preparation and presentation to the Council,
ordinance preparation and publication, recording costs with the
County Recorder, map -changes, etc.)
The present fee<.which the City Clerk collects is $55.00, $30.00
of which is earmarked for publication purposes and $25.00 for
;.■
Ask
-------- -- -•.W. y�4.v aavprea-_on ..Marc,l 4, 1969. It should be_j
noted that of the $30.00 collected for publication purposes,
any portion which is not used for that purpose is refunded to
the applicant. Conversely; if publication costs amount to more
than $30.00, a statement for the difference is sent to the
applicant. Records are kept by the City Clerk and calculations
of publication costs are made by the same office. Refunds or
billings must be handled by the Finance Department and involves
extra bookkeeping; postage :and materials, thereby adding to the
cost of a rezoning request. For -this reason the fees recommended
later in this study involve no refunds unless the request is
withdrawnafter P & Z action and then a flat percentage of the
original fee is recommended to be refunded.
As a result of the ,review of our costs and the research of fees
charged by other communities, it is recommended that the following
fees be charged for allrezoning requests:
1. Less than 1 acre _ _
2. 1 acre or more _ _ _ - - $100.00
3. Requests approved by P &-z - o ref
4. Requests denied by P &,Z but applicant - no refunds
requests hearing by City Council - - no refunds
5. Requests denied by P & Z and withdrawn - -
6. Change of zoning quested re after 30% refund
-
submission - - - - - 25% surcharge -
Subdivision Reviews
The letter to other communities (Exhibit C) also requested
information on subdivision fee charges. Almost all responses show
a flat review charge plus a minimal charge per lot. Thus, the
developer of a large subdivision pays a correspondingly larger
fee than does the developer of a smaller area.
Subdivision plats, unlike zoning ordinance amendments, do not
require public hearings, placard postings and published notices
and, therefore, avoid the.c.osts incurred for those actions.
However, there are other expenses involved, some of which can
be quite costly. All submissions are reviewed by the offices
of the City Engineer and the Fire Chief. Some are also reviewed
by the Director of Parks and Recreation.
Most subdivision plats are returned for corrections or
revisions. Quite often a developer will bring in a revised plat
after much time and expense have already been incurred on the
original submission. Errors and omissions tend to add to the
cost of a plat review.
An analysis of the subdivision plats that were filed during the
six-month study period are shown in Appendix C.
■
Recommendation of .fee charges for subdivision plat reviews
are based.upon the actual costs of `the plats reviewed plus a
15% surcharge for overhead costs. Perusal of fee charges made
by other communities show that these recommendations are fairly
moderate.
Recommendations:
1. Preliminary, minor* - -
2. Preliminary, major** - -
3. Final, majorandminor - -
4. Preliminary Planned Area
Development -
5. Final Planned Area Development
6. Preliminary Large Scale
Residential Development -
7. Final Large Scale Residential
Development
8. Where combinations of Preliminary
Plat, Planned Area Development,
and/or Large Scale Residential
Development are filed as one plat
9. Where combinations of a Final
Plat, Planned Area Development,
and/or Large Scale Residential
Development are filed as.one 'plat
10. Preliminary Large Scale Non -
Residential Development
11. Final Large Scale Non -
Residential Development - -
4-
$50 + $1 per lot
$100 + $1 per lot
$40 + 5044, per lot
- $100 + $1 per lot
and/or dwelling unit
- $40
- $100 + $1 per
dwelling unit
- $40
$150 + $1 per lot
and/or dwelling
unit
$60
$100
$40
* Minor -- no streets involved in plat.
** Major -- includes one or more new streets, selective access
drives, or street extensions.
Other Fee Chares
In addition to revising the fee charges for zoning amendments
and subdivisions, fees collected for other requests brought before
the Planning andZoning -Commission were also evaluated. Because
some of these requestsaremade so infrequently, it is almost
impossible to make -a complete study of costs unless it is done
over a long period of time. However, by evaluating past experi-
ence, and by noting charges made by other communities, a reasonable
set of recommendations was drafted.
A. Vacations
Vacations of streets, alleys or other publically owned land
areas require some expenses not commonly associated with other
requests. Expenses involved include survey, recording and
publication costs, however, the major expense incurred in a
vacation is the appraisal cost.
At.the present time the fee for a vacation request is $200 --
which is the cost of; the appraisal._ It issuggestedthat the
cost of publication notices for vacating and disposal of streets,
alleys and other areas, as well as staff analysis and review
time, be recovered by an additional $100 fee. Thus, a $300 fee
for vacations is recommended. -
B. Annexations
At the present time there is no fee charge for annexation
requests. This is the case because the Iowa Code does not
mention that a municipality may charge a fee for annexations.
However, with the adoption of the Home Rule Charter this may
change and the feasibility of a fee charge for voluntary annex-
ations should be reviewed at that time.
Voluntary annexation requests in the past have been fairly
simple because all land annexed came in with R1A zoning. However,
with the passage.of.ordinance No. 73-2665 on March 6, 1973,
voluntary annexation becomes amore complicated process. Under
this new ordinance an applicant may designate the zoning classi-
fication he.wishes to have for the annexed property. In effect,
this is tantamount tO a'complete rezoning request involving the
various research and review studies, approval by the Planning and
zoning Commission, a public hearing before the City Council to-
gether with publication of same, Ordinance passage and publication,
recording fees, etc.
Althoughnofees may be charged for annexation at the present
time, it is our recommendation that regular zoning amendment
fees be charged for all petitions for annexation.
C. BoardofAdjustment -- Variances, Exceptions and Inter-
pretations
At the present time an appeal to the Board of Adjustment for
an exception or a variance requires a fee of $15.00. This fee
does not cover the costs involved. Some of those costs are
research and review.by members of the staff and the resultant
Staff Report and other allied work, a publication in a news-
paper and the posting of a sign or signs on the subject property.
1. Variances - $50.00
2. Exceptions to Zoning requlations - - $50.00
3. Other actions filed with the
Board of Adjustment _ - $50.00
It is recommended that no refund be granted once any petition
has been filed with the Board of Adjustment.
ZONING AMENDMENTS:
1.
Less than one (1) acre
- - -
$100.00
2.
3.
1 acre or more -
Requests approved by P
- - -
& Z - -
$200.00
4.
Requests denied by P &
Z but brought
no refunds
4.
before City Council at -applicant's
request -
$100 +
$1 per lot
5.
Request -s _ denied by P &
- - -
Z and
no refunds
6.
withdrawn
6.
Change of zone district
-
requested
30% refund
7.
after each submission
- - -
25% surcharge
SUBDIVISIONS:
1.
Preliminary, minor* - - - -
$50 +
$1
2.
Preliminary, major** - - -
$100+
per lot
$1
3.
Final Minor & Major _ _ _
$40
Per lot
4.
Preliminary Planned Area
Development - - - -
$100 +
$1 per lot
5.
Final Planned Area Development - _
and/or
$40
dwelling unit
6.
Preliminary Large Scale
Residential Development - - -
$100 +
$1 per lot
7.
Final Large Scale Residential
and/or
dwelling unit
Development -
$40
8.
Where confirmations of Preliminary
Plats, Planned Area Developments
and/or Large Scale, Residential
Developments are filed as one plat,
the fee is - _ - - -
$150 +1
$ per lot
9.
Where combinations of a Final Plat,
and/or
dwelling unit
Planned Area Development, and/or
Large Scale Residential Development
10.
are filed as one plat, the fee is -
Large Scale Non -Residential
$60
Development, Preliminary - - -
$100
11.
Large Scale Non -Residential
Development, Final - - -
$40
VACATIONS:
1. Vacation of street, alley or
other publically owned areas
ANNEXATIONS:
Same as Zoning Ordinance amendments.
$300
I
I
BOARD
OF ADJUSTMENT:
1.
Variation in
Regulations
2.
Exceptions to
Zoning Regulations
_
$50.00
$50.00
3.
Other actions
filed with the
Board of Adjustment -
$50.00
It is recommended
petition has been
that no refunds be
filed
granted once any
with the Board
of Adjustment.
* Minor -- no streets involved in plat.
** Major -- includes one or more new streets, selective
access drives, or street extensions.
1
OT
Im
rt
D.
*
Ln
w
,�
m
EEni
C
a
rt
`°
3
N
H
lD
O
rt
F•
ranw
rt
r•
�(D
rt
W
m
m0
fi
rt,
O m
cn
rn
a
N
m
r -
>f
(n
G
ph
oP
rt
(n
m
00
rn
r-
n
m
m E
In
r -
O
tJm
m
ww
wW
w
a
0
H (D
0
0 0
0
O
I
I
I
W
Q.
N
ww
0
En
ww
W
m
a'
m
r-
0
to
u•
Q1
v
J
rt -
0•
m
cn
co
r•
a
(n
co
0
a
w
u,
Ln
O
rt
In
a
w
Im
rt
D.
Ln
w
m
N
N
lD
O
Fi
r•
W
r -
a
N
G
r-
In
r -
O
(D
I
I
I
0
m
ro
Irl
rt Ln
0 m rt
rt n rn
P_
O
d
(ten (n
co 0 0
� �
M o r, U1 rt -
a%
•
n>m 00 I� a
•
N
O
z
H
z
c�
0
C
[TJ
m
H
cn
z
0
H
n
O
z
U3
H
d
cM�
L•J
0
to
K
f7
H
H
�-C
C)
50
G
n
H
r
Ma
O,
MJ
r,
~ * j A rt Ort 0 Eby 1-0 F% (xD
cD0 PVrul
to
,.-
a C` C3 `rG� k � 0 0
... W H.�.0 Q W r� F.,
a (D $5 F'
ti a M N• F, ro
3 x (
w
ro ro
Ln H (D rt,n Q P. K HC7'�
rn
a� a� 11
°P K K
rt, m rt,o v m
F n
rt- N
N N Q
K
•'3 .7 O Fes' N
rt (D rt, rt, pro� ON)O O
O O O
n
C (D p, N N N N. N
tcl
(D 0
R. Cr Ow r N
is "C to i° w w
FC 0 m 0D � w
00 00 OD �, ao m ao
0 �•00
F✓
F�
N
Lyln
F✓
o 1w
rt Im
K
m
En
rt
H
Q
aJ O (D
rr (GD p
O m Fl-
rt,
-
rtw
N
K O
ODlEn(D Fih
z
O
m
rt,
N a
w H t -h
n (D
NN
Fr
N
(n
1-i
to
00
Fj
�
K
�
K
x
K
K
K
Ln
Ln
to
N
to
W
o
I�
Ln
A
to
Ja
in
W
Ln
N
O
z
H
z
c�
H
C']
O
z
W
H
b
M
0
tclk
C]
H
H
FG
n
O
z
H
r
i
ASI
ro
r�
z
d
H
x
':•
ro
21
W
J
W
J
N
W
O
W
Ja
.P
F�
lJl
Cn
N H
N
w
.A
co
�i K O
In
'P
OD
ZO
In
O
J
N
W
J
N
v
CO
0 O UI
rt G fi'
_
N
01
O
F -'•:Li Ul
O �•
ro
U1
O
N
O
01
Cl
J
W
Li
N M
J
O
P
O
O
00
�.
J
J
�!
N
W
N
a%
ft K U1
F...
o
ro
N
to
N
w
w
pp
`�
rn
coo
�
(� F
•
Ow
O H•
w
w
Ol
J
00
rt a
O
J
W
w
UI rt,
-
F,.
O
OD
OD
co
W
ODD
N
F~r
I J
Ln
F
OJ
C] H
•
O
•
N
'
In
N
%D
N rt
J
TT 0%
co
OD
o►
o
'
�
'
w
°J°
.FN,
rt -
N
ON
ro.,
N
O
z
H
z
c�
H
C']
O
z
W
H
b
M
0
tclk
C]
H
H
FG
n
O
z
H
r
i
ASI
ro
r�
z
d
H
x
':•
COMMENTARY
ON GENERAL GROWTH PROPERTIES' REZONING REQUEST
This particular submission is being treated separately in
that the application was submitted several months prior to the
January 1, 1973 starting date of the study and, therefore, the
costs included reflect only a partial enumeration of the
expenses incurred.
Initial contact was made with the City Staff early in 1972.
Prior to the submission of the actual rezoning petition, several
conferences were held between representatives of the developer
and Department of 'Community Development Staff personnel. It is
also known that at least two additional conferences were held
with Department of Public Works personnel.
Subsequent to these conferences, two applications were sub-
mitted. They were as follows:
Zoning Ordinance Amendment Z-7214. This was a rezoning
request submitted by General Growth Properties and Frantz
Construction Company to rezone property in southeast Iowa City
from R1A to C2. This was officially filed on June 14, 1972.
12
The second application was a large scale non-residential
development submission (LSNRD), 5-7215. This was for the same
parcelofland and listed Frantz Construction Company as the owner
of the property and General Growth Properties as the developer.
This was filed on June 12, 1972.
Subsequent to this submission, Planning Staff personnel
processed the application in the typical manner and answered
numerous requests for information from area residents. This
initially came before the Planning and Zoning Commission on June
27, 1972. Several conferences of considerable length were held
with the developer at this time.
At the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on June 27,
-- 1972, representatives of the developer appeared, urging the
rezoning of the land, and many property owners in the area
appeared, with a petition containing over 200 signatures
opposing the rezoning. The Planning & Zoning Commission then
moved to defer action on the request.
This -item reappeared on the Planning & Zoning Commission
agenda on July 11, 1972. The action arising from this meeting
was a request by the developer for another deferral of the
petition for the purposes of amending the petition. Subsequent
to this action,_periodic-conferences were once again held between
staff personnel and the developer.
An amended rezoning request was submitted to the City on
April 18, 1973. This request was to rezone the property from
RlA to PC (Planned Commercial) zone. (The earlier request was
to rezone the property from R1A to C2.)
A conservative estimate as to the costs incurred on this
submission during_ 1972 was $300, however, as was indicated
earlier, no detailed records were kept. subsequent action
revolved around only the Planned Commercial (PC) rezoning
request. No additional time was spent on the large scale non-
residential development submission because of the prerequisite
to first rezone the property.
13
The fees paid by the developer for the rezoning requests
included $25 for application processing and $30 for publication
costs. This resulted in a total payment of $55, and of this amount,
$12.14 was refunded because of the entire $30 not being spent on
publication costs. This results in a net expenditure by the
developer for both 1972 and 1973 of $42.86.
Resume of Partial Costs
for General Growth Submission
Z-7214. Frantz Construction Company
S-7215. Hawkeye Plaza Shopping Center
(General Growth Properties)
Date filed:
Type of request:
Attorney:
Architect:
Engineer:
Representative:
Landscape Architects:
Number of acres:
Staff number and time:
Resubmitted 4/18/73
Planned Commercial Zone
Philip A. Leff
Derwood J. Quade
Derwood J. Quade
Marvin Christensen
John Crose & Associates
31.54 acres
11 -- 68 hours
Costs
Costs
Through
After
Publication
Total
P&Z Action
P&Z Action
Costs
Costs
$396.43
$39.53
$17.86
$453.82
15% overhead
68.07
$521.89
If the $300 estimated expenditures incurred during 1972 is
added to the above amount, the total cost would be approximately
$821.89. Subtracting the total fee paid by the applicant of
$42.86 would result in a City subsidy in the amount of $779.03.
It should also be mentioned that time spent in meetings by other
City administrative personnel, including the City Manager: was
not computed in this total. It would probably be accurate to
say that costs associated with this particular application would
be in the area of $1,000.
COMMENTARY ON BRAVERMAN-WEST PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT
Like the General Growth Properties submission, the PAD and
LSRD submitted for the Braverman -West Development fell Outside
the six-month time parameters established for this study. In
this particular instance, the records are not even as complete
as those for General Growth Properties, however, upon discussion
with staff personnel involved, it was discerned that this
particular development probably resulted in a greater expendi-
ture to the City than did the General Growth submission. It
would be safe to ;assume that the approximate cost of this
particular submission was approximately $1,000 or slightly
more.
It is not uncommon for other work items to be generated by
large developments such as the Braverman -West PAD. For example,
in this particular instance, it was necessary for the developer
to acquire yard, lot and use variances. All of these actions
required additional time. There was also an additional assign-
ment for Community. Development Department personnel which was
generated as a result of this submission. Specifically, a study
of private ways was assigned -to -the Staff as a result of one of
the approaches being used by the subdivider which was incon-
sistent with the provisions of the existing ordinances. The
cost of this -latter -mentioned study, although attributable to
the Braverman -West -submission, was not included in the above-
mentioned cost figure.
Another observation of relevance to this subject is that many
of the larger Planned Area Developments, Planned Commercial
Developments, Large Scale Residential Developments, and Large
Scale Non -Residential Developments, can take in excess of six
months or even one year to complete. These larger developments
tend to frequently have more allied problems which need to be
resolved. If total figures were available for the two latter
mentioned projects, and if these were included with the costs
incurred for the other activities as listed in Appendices A. B,
and C, it would result in a higher average cost per submission.
This information should be considered when fee structure
adjustments are being considered.
*
� cn
N
ro
ro
tcl 0
01
w
H
11 (D
n
c 0
;o
o
N
N
ft
__N
.T
C
a
h
W
W
U1
w
m
P
-
C71
p
p
rn
JF'
F,
0
rt' (D
rt
0
C I
Ln
m
a
N
m
dP
O
N
CO
P
F
w
O
O
A
N
Ul
01
r*
C
rt
(D
Ul
N
p
%D
tr
ajz ro
roEnro
WKJ
romro
m
c fn s
a r (D"
c
a
m
r-r•F-
rtp.F-
r•w
rtR.r
E tl r
r- a
r r•
C El
U)
r -
r- r -
n
O
d~ C
G
U)
rt
an d:3
o•a
P)
(n
r• a
U)
roman
r &
roo
•
w i
d�C
rt
a
rt
w FP J
N J
r
N
N
N
N
Ol
01
w
H
N
N
N
;o
o
N
N
r
w FP J
N J
r
N
N
r
F'
N
r
w
H
N
N
N
00
o
m
00
tr
__N
.T
y._._
h
W
W
U1
w
w
P
-
C71
p
p
rn
JF'
00
~
0
0
N
OD
�D
O
N
CO
P
F
w
w
rn
A
N
Ul
01
Ul
Ul
N
p
%D
ro
(D
.a
G
0
In
rt
H
n a
a
En
ro
Q'
N y
Y Fy O
00(a
rtG rt
r•w (n
O t7•
t$
ro
a)
N4o
�rtm
(D rt,
rt H N
r -
o
ty
Fr N F Q H
v N J J O O
0 0o m ,t
rt A)
W J O 00 N F_
v N N W a
ST
En
C
to
d
H
C
H
G)
H
0
z
w
As a means of measuring the impact of the recommended fees
on recent zoning and subdivision submissions, a brief compara-
tive analysis was made by using selected data from this study.
In categories -I and II below, (I) rezoning requests not con-
sidered by the City Council, and (II) rezoning requests con-
sidered by the City Council, the second highest, second lowest
and average costsofall submissions were used. The highest
and lowest amounts were not used because of the assumption that
this would statistically not be as valid as the data used.
However, the average amounts listed were the result of a
compilation'of all cases listed in Appendices A and B.
Category III (subdivision costs) used only average amounts
because of the longer time periods involved and the two-part
(preliminary and final plat) submissions required for sub-
division plats. Preliminary plat data for Penny Bryn was
excludedaswas the final plat tabulations for both Court Hills -
Scott Boulevard and Village Green.
Additional costs, due primarily to inflation, will be
experienced in 1974 and during subsequent years. Therefore„
the small surpluses projected for some of the submissions based
upon 1973 costs will readily diminish and most likely a balance
situation will be reached in the near future.
Actual Costs
Per Submission
Name Total I or Average
Projected Costs
Per Submission
Total I or Average
I. Rezoning Requests
not considered
by City Council (see A
A) .
Fanny Duffy
84.78
70.00
Edward Thomas
56.68
70.00
Average
Costs 267.58
66.90
70.00
II. Rezoning Requests
considered by
the City Council (see A
B).
Hollywood Manor
Part V
182.86
200.00
F. E. Tisinger
83.88
100.00
Average
Costs 1231.64
123.16
1500.00 150.00
Net Gain
or
(Loss)
(14.78)
13.32
3.10
ndix
17.14
16.12
26.84
III. Subdivisions (from Appendix C) (Using average amounts cnjZ)*
Average
Costs 585.94 146.49 476.00 119.00 (27.49)
APPENDIX E
Initially it was intended that a chart would be prepared which
would enumerate the fee charges made by other communities as
reported by their responses to the mailed questionnaires,
however, because of the wide variation in the nomenclature and
breakdown of fee schedules it became impractical to list them
in any kind of a standardized manner. Therefore, a more
detailed recapitulation of the communities and/or agencies
involved and the fees charged is included in this report.
Wherever possible, wording has been handled in a manner to
fit in with the Iowa City fee schedule.
The numerical figure after the name of a community indicates
the population of that community as listed in the 1970 census.
If the replies mention when, or if, up -dating of their fee
schedules has taken place, that is also included.
DES MOINES, IOWA 201,404 New fee schedule
-- 1973
Rezoning Petitions:
R11 R2, R31 R41 CO, C2, C3, M1, M2 and M3
One acre or less in area - _ _ -
$ 75
over one acre in area - - - -
150
Site Plan Review R5, R61 C4 (PAD)
one acre or less in area - - -
50
Over one acre in area - - - -
250
Subdivision Ordinance:
Preliminary minor* plat - -
- -
" major** plat - - - _
50
100
Final minor plat - _ - _
50
Final major plat - __ _ _
200
Auditors plat _ _
_ _
50
*Does not include a new street
**In which a new street is being designed
COUNCIL BLUFFS, IOWA 60,348 New fee schedule -- 1971
$35
60
60
M
Rezoning:
Single family and two
family
$65
Commercial and multi -family
80
Industrial
95
Plus:
$2 per acre.for
residential
$3 per acre for
commercial
$4 per acre for
industrial
Planned Residential or
Planned Commercial
Pre -preliminary
$115
Preliminary
50
Final
30
Board of Adjustment $35
Subdivision:
Preliminary plat - - - - $ 1 per lot or
$50, whichever
is greater.
Final Plat - - - $50
Street and Alley Vacations:
Initial fee - - - - $40
(Plus 54-a square foot on passage).
i -
Annexation -- none
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 744,624
Rezoning request - - - - $65
Subdivision plats
Preliminary: Up to 50 lots - $50 plus $1 per lot.
Over 50 lots - $100 plus 500 per lot.
Final: Up to 50 lots $65 plus $1.25 per lot.
Over 50 lots - $125 plus $1 per lot.
Planned Area Development - - - $100
Street, alley & land vacatin s - - $155
SPRINGFIELD, MISSOURI 120,096 Fee schedule under study.
Rezoning request - - - - $50
Subdivisions:
Preliminary plat - $50 for first 20 lots plus
$1/lot for additional lots.
Final plat - $40 for first 20 lots plus 50t/lot
for additional lots.
Community Unit Development - - - $50
Vacation of .alley or street - - $25
Annexation request - - - - None
A Community U t Development must also be platted
with fees paid for a subdivision.
MASON CITY, IOWA
31,951
Rezoning request
-
- - - $25
Subdivision
plats, preliminary
or final -each $25
Planned Area
Development -
- - - $25
Vacations, street or alley
- - - None
Annexation
-
- - - None
MOLINE, ILLINOIS
46,237
Rezoning request
_-
- - - $25
Subdivision
plats, final only
- $25 plus 25C/lot
Planned Area
Development -
- - - $25
Vacatings
-
- - - None
Annexations
-
- - - None
Variance requests
-
- - - $10
DAVENPORT, IOWA 98,469
Under study
Rezoning request - - - $75
Subdivisions - - - - None
Planned Area Development - - - - $75
Street & Alley Vacations - - - - None
Annexation requests - - - None
ROCK ISLAND, ILLINOIS 50,166
Planning Commission - - - - $40
Board of ,ZoningAppeals - - - $20
TiMal Subdivision -P ats-- 1-25 lots --$1 per lot.
26 or more --$25 p us 50C/lot over 25 lots.
No other fees charged.
■
■
' UvLirrr, 1L1j1NU16 80,378 New schedule - March, 1973
Zoning map or Zoning Ordinance amendment - $100
Planned Unit Development - - - $100
Sub ivisions:
Pre iminary plat review - - - $35
Final plat review -- $10 plus $2 per lot.
Vacation of public right-of-way - - $50
Boar o .Adjustment appeal - $50
Annexation:
Pre -annexation agreement - - - $200
Annexation petition - - - - $50
RAPID CITY, SOUTH DAKOTA 43,836
Rezoning request - - - $50
Subdivision - $50 plus $2 per lot.
No other fees charged.
LINCOLN, NEBRASKA 149,518 Fee schedule under study.
Rezoning request
Change of zone - - - - $30
Special permits - - - - $20
Subdivision Plats
Preliminary - - - - $25
Final - $1 per lot
Planned Area Development -- same as zone change.
Vacations O er-to buy and appraised value deposited
.with City before passage of ordinance.
Annexations - - - - No charge.
SIOUX CITY, IOWA 85,925
Rezoning _
Subdivision _
Planned Area Development --
Vacations _
Annexation
DEKALB, ILLINOIS 32,949
$20 plus
publication cost.
$30 plus $15
engineering cost.
same as rezoning.
$20 plus
publication cost.
None
Rezoning petition - - - - $25
Subdivision lats - - - - No charge
Planned Unit Development - -
Anne$25
xat'i,on petition - - _ -
$25
I
Rezonin re uest - - $25
Subdivision—plats - 500/lot for first 100 lots;
25 lot thereafter -- $10 minimum. Same charge
for preliminary and for final.
Planned Area Development - - - $25
Vacations - - - $25
Annexation request - - _ _ $25
CINCINNATI, OHIO 452,524
Rezoning. request - publication charge only.
Subdivision -plat City Engineer rate of $11 per hour
for review time.
Planned Area Development - - - $10 unit
Vacations -- land sold at fair market value.
Annexa on request - - - - No charge.
DULUTH, MINNESOTA 100,578
Rezoning requests -- $100 plus publication costs.
Su ivision-p ats:
Preliminary plat - - - - $25
Final plat =- $35 for 5 or less lots.
$75 or $1 per lot (whichever is
greater if more than 5 lots involved.)
Planned Area Developments - - - $100
Plan a teration review - - - $50
Special use permits - - - $60
Vacations
Less than 200 feet in length - $200
Over 200 feet in length - - - $250
Annexation requests - - - - No fee
CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA 110,642
Rezoning -- $15 filing fee,
Publication.
Subdivision plat - no fee
Planned Area Develo ment
$1 for 2 signs, $40 for
for reviewing.
No fee
AMES, IOWA 39,505
Rezonin
No of er fees charged.
under discussion.
SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA
Fee schedule under study.
- - - $30
Review of fee schedule
70,215
Rezoning requests - - $200 plus
$10/lot.
Subdivision plats - preliminary or final or both
-- $100 plus $10/10t.
Vacations -- $100 minimum plus extra depending
Annexations upon square footage.
Inhabited area:
1. All residential lots regardless of zone
classification and less than 7500 sq. ft. -$200
2. All commercial property regardless of
zone classification - - - $1000
3. Lots classified as SF residential zone
and between 7500 and 10,000 sq. ft. $250
4. Lots over 10,000 sq. ft. in SF
residential area - - - $300
Uninhabited area - - - - $1000 per
acre
MARION, IOWA 18,028
Rezoning request - - - $25
Subdivision plat
Preliminary:
1. SF and 2F residential -- to five lots -- $15
2. Six lots and over -- $15 plus $1/lot.
3. Multi -family and non-residential -- $5 per
acre or fraction thereof -- minimum of $15
Final:
1. SF and 2F residential -- to five lots -- $25
2. Six lots and over -- $25 plus $2.50/lot.
3. Multi -family and non-residential -- $10 per
acre or fraction thereof -- minimum -- $25
CLINTON, IOWA 34,719
Rezoning requests - - - - $50 -- no
refunds
- - - No charge.
DECATUR, ILLINOIS 90,397
Under study
Rezoning requests
Subdivision lats _ -_ - $10
Planne Area Development _ _ - fee
$1
Vacations _ - - S10
Anne— x on _ - - $10
No fee
PEORIA, ILLINOIS 126,963
Rezoning ruests
Subdivisieqon Plats
Street Vacation --
Annexation
DUBUQUE, IOWA 62,309
- - $50
$30 plus $1/lot
Cost determined by actual full value
appraisal.
No charge
Rezoning requests -- publication and mailing costs
Subdivision plats _ _ _
Planned Area Developments - No fees
Vacations - - No fees
Survey & recording
Annexations costs
Recording costs.
Petitioner must provide a boundary survey and plat
Of property to be annexed.
ARLINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS 53,534
Rezonin renest
Z ino n Boar o A eals - No charge
Request or specia exceptions or variances -$40
Request for special exceptions in a new
building -- 30 sq. ft. of floor area with
maximum of $200
Subdivision plats
No subdivision control so no charge.
Planned Area Development -- cost included in building
permit ee of - 3 per thousand with maximum of $3,500.
Annexations -- entire land area of state is incorporated,
therefore, no annexations.
i
CHAPEL HILL, NORTH "CAROLINA 25"537 25:. t,
New fee schedule under
study.
Rezoning requests
�S ec_ial Use Permits
5ubdivisi.onplats:
Preliminary
Final
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 434,400
_ - - - $100
$100
$5 per lot
$2.50 per lot
Rezo_nin1requests -- $35 filing fee plus $10/lot hearing fee.
For unplatted land, the hearing fee is based on units
of 5000 square feet.
Subdivision plats
Preliminary $10 per lot or $30 per acre, whichever
is greater.
Final -- $25 plus $5 per lot or $25 plus $20
acre, whichever is greater. Per
Planned Area Develo meet
Street and Alle Vacation - - $200
or a le re ueste $100 per section of street
or "T".alley would count aast2osections). an "L"
Annexations -- not authorized to annex.
DAYTON, OHIO 243,000
Rezoning request
Planned Developments _ _ - $100
Subdivisions. - $150
Preliminary
Final - - - $50
Vacations _ - $25/acre
Annexation-- Full cost of engineering drawings $150
and advertising costs.
LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA 57,000 New fee scheduled being con-
sidered.
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Zoning Hearing Boar
Variance
Special exception
Appeal of decision
Subdivisions
Final plan
COMPTON, CALIFORNIA
78,000
$25
_- - - $15
_ - - - $10
$10
$12 plus $2 per lot.
Rezoning request _
- - $200
Subdivisions
Tentative land divisionparcelmap - $50 plus.$1/lot.
Revised tentative parcel maps -- one half original price.
Final map - - - No fee
Planned Area Development -- treated as conditional zone
variance - - - $150
Vacations - - - - Publishing
Cost
Annexations - - - No fee
Environmental impact studies required where applicable
with sliding scale of fees for specified categories.
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 445,000 New fee schedule - 1973
Rezoning or Zoning
Planned Development - - $400 plus $10/lot
Other than PD - $300 plus $10/lot
Subdivisions
Preliminary or tentative map -- $100 plus $1/lot
Final --includes map and plan checking and
City inspections:
7h$ of first $30,000 of estimated
construction costs of improvements
required by- City _to_be constructed
by subdivider.
5h% of next $50,000 of above.
4h$ of all estimated costs over $80,000.
Cluster and LDC permits - - - - $400
Vacations - - - - $100
Conditt nal Use Permit - - - - $100
Variance and Exception application - - $50
Appeal rom decision of varianceapplication $40
Site Development permit - - - - $100
Annexation - - - No fee
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 2,816,000
Zoninq Chancre
First block or portion thereof
- -
$350
Each additional block or portion
thereof
$175
Planned Development — residential
First block or portion thereof
- -
$500
Each additional block or portion
thereof
$250
Zone Use Variance
First block or portion thereof
- -
$500
Each additional_block_or portion
thereof
$250
Area and Height Variance
First block.or portion thereof
- -
$200
Each additional block or portion
thereof
$100
I
27
Subdivisions
Tentative map - $150:plus $5/lot or $25/acre,
whichever is greater.
Appeal to City Council on ruling of Commission --
one-half of filing fee.
Request to Advisory Agency for modification
of Code after action has been
taken on tentative map -- $75
plus $5 for each additional lot
being requested.
Modification or revision of a subdivision approval -- $75
Appeal to Appeal Board -- one-half of filing fee.
Appeal to City Council from determination of Appeal
Board -- one-half of filing fee.
Fee schedules for special services are reviewed annually.
Four othe- replies are on file and not enumerated here. They
are county or regional agencies and have sliding scales of
fee charges that are not readily applicable to our use.
Rezoning Request Time & Cost Record
Name:
Date Filed:
Time
a
Pre -filing conference.
Filing with City Clerk.
Make file folder, record in
P & Z book, assign number.
DCD assignment of Code Number
and set-up of file.
Status report posting.
Preparation & posting of signs.
Car mileage at 120 per mile.
Review and research:
a. In-house
b. In field
C. Car mileage
Writing of Staff Report.
Preparation of graphic materials.
Typing of Staff Report.
Duplication of Staff Report and
graphics.
Materials used.
Assembling report.
Distribution.
Materials used
Personnel Cost
Staff present at regular meeting.
Notification of P & Z action
to requestee.
Retrieve signs.
Car mileage @ 12C per mile.
Minutes of P & Z meeting:
typing, duplication,
assembling, distribution.
Materials used
Preparation of graphic material
for Council presentation.
Staff presentation at Council
meeting.
Notification to requestee of public
hearing.
Preparation & posting of signs
announcing public hearing.
Car mileage @ 124� mile.
Preparation of notice of public
hearing.
Publication cost.
Retrieve signs after public
hearing.
Car mileage @ 12C mile.
Preparation of Ordinance to
Council.
Notification to .requestee of
Council action.
Preparation of publication.
Time Personnel
Cost
1
Publication cost.
Recording in Ordinance Book.
Recording with County Recorder.
Changing of base map.
Changing of various colored maps.
Computation of costs and notifi-
cation to Purchasing for refund
or billing.
Purchasing time for refund or
billing.
Variables:
Meeting with requestee.
Meeting with objectors.
Review of petitions.
Time spent on phone calls and
answering questions..
Other:
Other costs:
Supplies
Postage
Car use
Other:
Time Personnel
Cost
SUBDIVISION REQUEST -TIME -& COST RECORD
Name:
Date Filed:
Type of Request:
Owner:
Attorney:
Architect:
Engineer:
Representative:
Pre -filing Conference
Filing
Clerical work in Clerk's office
DCD assignment of Code Number
and set up of file
Status report posting
Preliminary review against forme
Distribution of plat copies
Fire Chief
City Engineer
P & R Director
Preparation of Graphics
Review of plat
In house
In field
Car mileage
Writing of Staff Report
File No..
Time Personnel
Ccs t
n
Time
Duplication of Report & Graphics
Assembly of Staff Report
Distribution of Staff Report
Staff present at informal meeting
Staff present at regular meeting
Notify requestee of P i Z action*
Minutes of meeting, typing,
duplication, distribution
Graphics for Council meeting
Staff preparation and presentation
at Council meeting
Notify requestee of Council action
Preparation of Resolution
Recording of Resolution
Adding to Maps
Variables:
Meeting with requestee
Meeting with objectors
Review of petitions
Time spent on phone calls and for
information purposes
Conferences
Other
Personnel
Cost
Other costs
supplies
Postage
Car Use
Other
EXHIBIT C
CIVIC CENTER. 410 E WASHINGTON ST.
IOWA CITY. IOWA 52740
:119354 1RINI
We are in the; process of reviewing our fee charges for various
requests, and in particular, for the following items:
1. Rezoning requests.
2. Subdivision plate, preliminary or final or both.
3. Planned Area Developments and other large scale
developments.
4. street,alley or land area vacations.
5. Annexation requests.
Preliminary and incomplete results show that our costs are
significantly larger than the fees we collect.
We would like to compare our fees with
communities. Please direct this letter
could send me the information.
Please direct all replies to:
those charged by other
to the person who
Morris Dicker
Planning Technician
Civic Center
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Your cooperation is appreciated.
Sincer ly,
rVV�
L -C4
Morris Dicker
Planning Technician
MD:sc
HAYEK, -.HAYEK & HAYEK
JOHt �. HAYEK ATTORNEYS AT LAW
C. Pro w. HAYEK 110 EAST WASHINGTON STREET
C. PETER HAYEK IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
January 30, 1974
T Dnorable Mayor and City Council of Iowa City
I,-)wa City Civic Center
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Mayor and Council Members:
At your regular meeting on January 15, 1974, you referred to me
the question of whether or not the Iowa City Airport Commission has legal
authority and power to sell airport property. I have reviewed this issue
and wish at this time to report back- to the Council.
The Airport Commission does not have power to sell airport
property. The powers and duties of the Airport Commission are set forth
in Section 3. 22. 2 of the City Code of Iowa City. That section provides in
part, "Said Airport Commission shall have and exercise all of the powers
granted to cities and towns under Chapter 330 of the Code of Iowa, 1950,
except the power to sell said airport. " (Emphasis added. ) In addition,
Section 330. 21 of the 1973 Code of Iowa provides that an airport commission,
legally established, may exercise all of the powers granted to cities and
towns under Chapter 330 except the power to sell said airport or airports.
In my opinion this restriction on the power to sell the airport would extend
to any part thereof. I hope that this answers the questions you had. I will
be happy to visit with you about this further if you desire.
Respectfully submitted,
4 ---
7'L
Hayek
JWH:vb
1
DATE: January 28, 1974
TO: Ray S. Wells, City Manager
FROM: George R. Bonnett, Acting Director of Public Works
RE: Union Place
During a recent Council meeting Councilman White requested
that a study be made of right-of-way assignment at the
intersection of Union Place with Bloomington, Rochester
and Jefferson. lle9lveKi5T
You will find attached to this Memorandum a diagram of
this somewhat complex intersection. The Engineering
Division of the Department of Public Works has reviewed
the traffic movements at this intersection and has concluded
that there is no particular problem with conflicting movements.
The only change which could be made at this intersection with
respect to assignment of right-of-way would be to erect a stop
sign at the intersection of Rochester and Union Place. It
should be noted that this is a T intersection with the right-
of-way already being assigned to the through movement. For
this reason it is recommended that this stop sign not be
erected.
If you have any questions concerning this Memorandum or wish
to discuss this matter in greater detail please don't hesitate
to contact me.
BLOOMIN& TON ST.
11
1•
i
ROCHESTER AVENUE
MARKET STREET
February 4, 1974
Mr. Edgar Czarnecki
Mayor of the City of Iowa City
Civic Center
Iowa City, Iowa
Dear Mayor Czarnecki:
Pursuant to Chapter
the Johnson County Board
property acquired by a 'S<
1821 "I" Street and lega:
44 East Iowa City, Iowa,
plat.
The highest bid�rec
however is less than the
costs, etc. It is=there
City Council,--pdrsuant%t
sale of said oroterty tc
Would::you ;plea
Council, and .f,the
a Resolution,approu
569 'of the Code of Iowa, 1973,
of
-.-Supervisors has sold a
:avenger_Tax Sale, known as
-1y described as Lot 7, Block
aceording'to the recorded
ived:,was $ 250.00, this sum
daliiquent taxes, interests and
ore necessary to have the Iowa
Section 569.8, approve of the
theliighest bidder
ent this 'matter to your City
ove the sale,.; have them execute
"e sale of said property to John
for the s`um of`:-=$ 25.0` 00
For further-information.please contact the Johnson
Auditor.
CJG/amt
and pass
Sales
County
JOHNSON COUNTY ATTORNEY
REPORT ON PRESENT CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
THE RESTORATION AND REMODELING OF THE COLLEGE BLOCK
BUILDING_
127 EAST COLLEGE STREET
IOWA CITY, IOWA
Photo taken in
1895 for
H Grandrath
WLLIAM N 3fv)(SZ
AND ASSOCIATES
SUITE NO.t PAUL' HELEN BUILDING
IOWA CITY. IOWA TEL. 337-0439
1-0
REPORT ON PRESENT CONDITIONS. AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE
RESTORATION AND''REMODELING OF THE COLLEGE- BLOCK BUILDING
AT 127 EAST COLLEGE STREET, IOWA CITY, IOWA
The general condition of this structure at the present date
is described in the following paragraphs, followed by rec-
ommendations for complete restoration of the building front
and remodeling of the building interior.
Our approach and conclusions were based on thorough investi-
gation of existing conditions with special emphasis on finding
the exact cause of existing deterioration. The recommendations
for restoration were based on methods of repair which if ach-
ieved would stabilize the structure and, through normal main-
tenance arrest further severe deterioration.
All necessary investigation was made to fulfill all require-
ments as set forth by the State Historic Preservation Officer
and by the National _Parks Service requirements for the execu-
tion of a Historic Structures report dated Dec. 21, 1971.
1
Statement of historical significance of the structure
and its setting.
A. The."College Block" building is the only late nine-
teenth century commercial building in downtown Iowa
City designed by an architect. It was designed by
Chauncey F. Lovelace who proacticed architecture
in Iowa City from about 1866 to ]goo.
DESCRIPTION OF BUILDING EXTERIOR (FACADE)
The building measures 41'x70'. It is two storied
and finished with heavy, rich, bracketed cornice.
Alternating large and small brackets are ended by
massive scroll brackets at each corner, supporting
single roof ornaments. On top of the cornice is an
ornamental crest with the words "College Block".
There are eight windows at the second story level,
four with segmented arches and richly ornamented
pressed tin hoods. The other four winrinwc fh^
second and third from either end are coupled under
a heavy gabled hood supported by heavy brackets.
W
Another,
less massive and more rectangular cornice
separates the second and first stories. The east
side was the dividing wall to a building which no
longer is standing. There are presently five en-
gaged truss remnants from the adjacent structure and
one small window on the second _level. The south
wall facing the alley is face brick with the first
floor containing three delivery doors, two with
transoms, and one basement access in the south east
corner. There are four tall windows on the second
floor with one small square window over the back
stairway. At present a flat roofed concrete block
addition attached to the building on the west half
of the south well. The west side of this addition
is against the adjacent party wall. The two remain-
ing'.south'and east sides are exposed and contain
one door on the south side and a filled in door and
window on the east side.
PERSONAL HISTORY OF ARCHITECT
Chauncey F. Lovelace, architect and builder, Iowa
City; was born June 23, 1828, in Cincinnati, Ohio.
He was of Welch origin; his ancestors immigrated to
America early in the last century. At sixteen years
of age he was apprenticed to Andrew Clyde, a drafts
man and house builderofCincinnati, and after three
years, faithful serving, he immigrated to Iowa City
and engaged at his trade. He has drawn the plans
for many public buildings, including the New State
University building; the Johnson county court house,
the college for the blind at Vinton, etc. He was
married in 1851 to Miss Sarah L. Clark of New Jersey.
He was a republican in politics. In 1862 he enlisted
in the 22nd Iowa Infantry and was made lst lieutenant
and assistant quartermaster, in which capacity he
served until the fall of Vicksburg, when he resigned
on account of sickness in his family. He re-enlisted
in 1864, and was made commissary of subsistence with
the rank of captain in the army of the Cumberland
headquarters at Nashville; he served until January,
1866, then returned to Iowa City. He was one of the
stockholders and directors of the Johnson County
Savings Bank. The architect's home was at 928 Kirk-
wood Avenue
irk-
wood_Avenue and in the College Block building.
I
for commercial and office use using materials
unique to today's construction methods. To attest
to the building's importance in its own time,
Chauncey Lovelace not only designed this building,
but chose it as the location for his own office.
Lovelace was one of the few architects of the nine-
teenth century living and working in Iowa City.
Until 1880 he was part of the architectural Firm of
Finkbine and Lovelace. His partner, Robert :ipencer
Finkbine, left Iowa City in 1880 to be the superin-
tendant of construction of the State Capstol building
in Des Moines. After 1880, Lovelace continued as an
architect in his own business.
CONCLUSION
The main building structure will provide an extremely
interesting example of late nineteenth century Victor-
ian Architecture and will be a fine contrast to present
day structures. The building, when restored, will have
great value to an appreciative person. The subjective
value will be enhanced by the restoration of the facade
and the fair market value could be increased consider-
ably through the remodeling of the interior commercial
spaces.
•
-- -� �ya {.I V11 6ndL Lne oui i ai ng was used as
commercial space on street level, upper level as
offices or apartments. This use has been the intent
in the original design and has been so until present.
The abstract has been reviewed for the ownership
history of the property. The total parcel initially
included a rectangular area 80'xl50.9' from the corner
of College and Dubuque Streets to the alley on the
south and the adjacent property party wall on the
west side. The photograph, obtained from the Iowa
State Historical Society was taken in 1895 for the
owners of; the corner grocery store, H. Grandrath Co.,
shows the College Block building much the same as it
exists at this time. The building was probably built
FZAM n wat
• in 1883. We know, according to the abstract that
it was standing in 1887. The earliest photograph
we find is dated 1895 and shows the building when
it was twelve years old. We find no major physi-
cal changes to the facade except at the street
level and then only to the store front glass and
arrangement of the entrance doors. At present the
face brick of the front elevation is painted. The
enlargement of the 1895 photograph shows the mortar
joints lighter than the brick and the brick is a
crisp and clean outline. This leads us to believe
that when the building was twelve years old, the
brick was not yet painted.
The store fronts of both stores extended full
height from the sidewalk to the first floor cor-
nice. Each store was divided into three bays hor-
izontally, the center bays containing the entrance
flanked by diagonal glass walls and the side bays by
tall glass display windows.
ing from the first floor cornice to the corner posts
of the three bay store front enclosures. White paint-
ed brick columns with pressed trim capitals divided
the first floor building front into the two distinct
retail spaces. The entrance to the second floor was
located to the east of the center dividing column as
it is today, with a tall transom light above it bear-
ing the building street number, 127 and words reading
"Office Rooms".
SOURCES CONSULTED:
I. Iowa State Historical Society 4. Iowa City Press
2. Historic American Building Survey Citizen
Inventory dated April21, 1970
5. Property Abstract
3. Professor Robert Alexander
School of. Art
University of Iowa
KfIde- I �j a ME
Page 9
•
I
I
I
I
0
.' \0
9
A
41
--'.'-71
,�'� ink! ���� aw 05 - I
�e ��!�� ii��
®res trr® Odor Corr ��r■
to/ �Rcv
-
t' a IN
Ilk
11 ==
NP Ili r1FNI
111i U11
T_
3 2l zz 2-5
Ltd
Map taken from Abstract shows location of property on south-
west corner of Dubuque and College Streets.
The College Block building is located on the northwest corner
of Lot 1 of Block 82, Iowa City, Iowa.
z 5
ABSTRACT SUMMARY
Territory to Reed by Patent
Reed to County by fault
1842
County to Lyon by Tax Deed
Lyon to Will
1846
Lyon to Estate (Lyon died 1884)
Reed(?) to Stover
Stover to Reno by Warranty Deed
Reno to Lovelace by Warranty Deed
1847
Lovelace vs. Reed
1852
(Action to Quiet Title) -- default of Reed,court
found Lovelace absolute
Wilde to Lovelace by WarrantynDeedn fee simple
1880
1/2 interest in W. wall and ground upon
which it
stands upon E. 1/2 of Lot l w/
condition that Lovelace erect 2 story
brick building suring 1878
Lovelace died July 19, 1909
Lovelace's grandsons:
Chauncey A. Moon
Bert L. Moon to Ringland by release of
J. Thoelecke Mortgage
1915
Houser to Ringland by release of mortgage
Ringland to L. Thoelecke by
1915
estate
L Thoelecke to J. Thoelecke by estate
J.T.
1817
1918
to Houser, et
Beal al by Warranty Deed
1919
Houser & Chansky (Strand)
Brown (Strand)
192
Houser, Chansky, Williams (Rebecca)
1923
1933
Racine (Cigar Store, Access) 131 E. College
Fannie Braverman - 1/2 interest in
1936
215 S.
Dubuque - Musack (Tavern)
Barbara Houser to Paul J. Houser -1/6
1944
Alice B. Lewis -1/6 -Lot 1
Gen D. Storer=1/6
Anna & Ralph P. Chaunsky - from C.J. Chansky
1955
estate - 1/2 interest in Lot 1
Anna to Ralph Chansky - 1/4 interest in Lot 1
1957
Milo Pecina-leased 127 E. College
1955
1957
Chansky, et al to Aaron & Fanny Braverman by
contract
Aaron & Fanny Braverman to City Urban Renewal
1961
1972
•
Footing Walls
The existing basement runs the full length and width of
the building, the space, however; is divided longitudin-
ally into two equal areas following the floor plan of
the street level floor. The street level floor of the
west half of the building has recently been reinforced
to carry additional floor load by the installation of
a beam on columns running north and south and dividing
the simple span floor into two bays. This we assume
was necessary since the last tenant of this space re-
quired the additional floor strength to store heavy shelf
loads as may be required by a paint retail store.
The exposed footing walls were examined for structural
failure and deterioration. No significant visible
deterioration was found. The typical sandstone footing
walls are sound, there are, however; areas where mois-
ture has entered recently since the structure is in
literal abandon and no significant maintenance is being
given. The water entering in an area on the northwest
corner of the west basement is due to improperly
sealed utility lines. The outside access to the
east basement permits the flow of water into the
basement proper since the access doors to the steps
• are no longer in place.
EXTERIOR MASONRY WALLS
The appearance of the exterior brick is generally good
for a 90 year structure. There is, however; extensive
damage to the south wall. The wall shows some buckling
along the east side near the second floor line. Some
outward movement has occurred, not due to excessive load
or to foundation failure, but possibly due to thermal
expansion. There is evidence of water leakage into the
wall cavity caused by poorly maintained flashings and
gutters at the parapet line and from leakage at the
window sills. The present condition if left unchecked
will lead to rapid deterioration of the east half of
the south wall of the structure. This portion of the
wall should be re -built. At the time of this survey,
the structure is not being heated. The severe temper-
ature changes of the winter months are extremely damag-
ing to an unheated building of this age, especially
when moisture is allowed to enter the wall cavities and
the interior living spaces. The result of this condi-
tion, if unchecked, could prove severely damaging to
i �r •`�Tr.
i5
a�
%gums
., sa -
r.
■
1-0
be stabalized to above freezing in the 500 to 600
range and that all repair be made to the roofing and
flashing membranes of the building. All other repair
should be performed as needed to make the building
weather tight.
The north side or "facade" of the building facing College
Street is of prime importance in the preservation of
this structure. The condition of the _brick and the tin
work is basically good, however; extensive repair and
maintenance is required to stop further deterioration.
The pressed tin needs to be repaired, re -fastened, re -
seated, stripped and re -painted to match an original
color. Determination of original color scheme should
be determined through_a color chip analysis. The paint-
ed brick has, to be stripped using a chemical method of
paint removal., since originally the facade was not painted
0
i••
0
LI
STORE FRONT
Remove entire store front installation up to the
first floor cornice. _ Rebuild to match original
installation. Reconstruct design as shown in early
photographs of the building. This work may not be
feasible in view of contemporary merchandising and
retail requirements, however; in order to complete
a proper restoration of the facade the original
store front glass installation must be considered
a very important feature of this structure.
Page 15
ROOF AND FLASHING
Replace entire roofing and flashings installation.
First remove existing roofing, flashing, gutters,
etc. Install new hot bitumen built up felt roofing
membrane over new flashing on the entire roof area.
Rebuild parapet and fire walls, install new metal
parapet caps and new gutters and new downspouts.
Correct all roof effluent to existing city storm
sewers. Install 6" fiberglass batten type insula-
tion to underside of roof sheathing, allow for air
circulation and ventilation by installing properly
sized screened vents to assure removal of condensation
moisture in the air cavity of the roof sheathing and
the insulation.
SKYLITES
Rebuild all skylites, replace all deteriorated wood
members. Reglaze with wire glass where required -
match glass pattern if possible, otherwise replace
glass in all lites. Reseal all glass to assure
leakproof condition. Replace all mechanical devices
used for the operation, of hinged skylite panels.
M _
WOOD STRUCTURE
We find no marked deterioration of the wood structure
in the walls,. roof members, and the floor structure
sufficient to contemplate replacement of these members.
There are, however; a few areas where exterior wood trim
is in need of replacement.
WOOD, SASH AND DOORS -
The windows and exterior doors show marginal deterior-
ation, due to wet and dry rot. This condition was
caused in part by the drying of window glazing putty
which permitted the moisture to accumulate behind the
glass. We propose the following work be considered
for the restoration repair to the trim and sash:
1. Disassemble all windows where repair is required,
replace all deteriorated wood sections, and re -
glaze existing glass.
2. Treat all exposed wood window sections with wood
perservative. Strip all exterior paint, primer,
and repaint.
3. Scrape out all existing caulking. Apply new
0
4. Apply final coat of paint to all exterior
surfaces.
5. Match interior of new sash work to existing.
Finish new wood to match existing.
The stairs and landings to the second floor and base-
ment must be rebuilt to satisfy Uniform Building Code
and OSHA requirements
New toilet rooms must also be constructed for the
retail spacesonthe first floor and for the office
space on the second floor. Code requirements state
that each retail store must provide one toilet for up
to four employees. These toilets must be able to
accomodate handicapped individuals. This means that each
floor of this structure must have at least two toilets.
1®
The following work must be done in order to insure
proper repair to the interior fabric of the structure
to meet code requirements and satisfy tenant comfort.
Remove all new partitions, remove all new wall panel-
ing and coverings. Repair all plaster walls on origin-
al partitions. May be necessary to remove plaster
from entire walls to assure proper, permanent repair.
Reglaze all original office partitions where required.
Strip paint from entire partition system, restain and
varnish to match original. Strip and refinish all other
original wood base, casings, and other trim. Paint
all walls, use primers where required for proper adhe-
sion. Replaster areas where "Calcimine" paints have
been used since proper adhesion of new finishes is
impossible over such surfaces.
EXISTING AND NEW CEILINGS
The present condition of the ceilings on the first
floor will not satisfy code requirements since formed
r
— -,., I0 slam'
burncient material
for required
fire
protection.
The second floor
ceilings are
plastered
and minor repair will bring them to code.
We suggest the following work be performed in order
to bring the structure to code requirements and in-
sure sufficient space requirements for mechanical
electrical distribution.
1. Remove existing formed tin ceilings, place 6"
fiberglass insulation into joint cavities.
2. Apply new 5/8" fire code gypsum board or 3/4"
Plaster to entire ceiling surface.
3. Place new suspended ceilings (fire rated one
hour) where required (mostly first floor).
Plenum area above suspended ceilings may be used
for air distribution ducts and electrical raceways.
FLOORS
The existing floors are wood and are covered with a
variety of "linoleum" type coverings on both floors.
The basement is concrete__ slab.
s �„1Yfi�%• � �
ing surface is also soft wood (fir or pine) T&G
Flooring
Our recommendation is to repair all areas of the
original softwood.floor where required in prepar-
ation for a new floor covering. This new floor
covering in the rental or lease spaces to be by the
tenant. The hallways and new stairs to be carpeted
or restored to original condition by placement of
new wood flooring, stained and finished to match
samples of original stairs and -the installation of
hall and stair carpet runners. The new toilet floors
must have an impervious floor material such as
resilient tile or quarry tile to satisfy code require-
ments-
consisting of a 5 year old 3609000BTU furnace located
in the southeast corner of the east half of the base-
ment space. The first floor of the west half of the
building was cooled since a gas condensing unit is on
a slab outside the concrete block addition.
The heating system would be adequate if made opera-
tional, but would be severly limited in its flexi-
bility to accomodate todays, standards of comfort.
We propose that the existing furnace be used to supply
heat to.heat exchangers in the plenum distribution
spaces providing more zone control. Since a forced
air system willbe be most desirable to combine both
heating, cooling, humidity control, and ventilation
such a system could be considered for all the spaces
on the first and second floors. We propose that the
electrically operated condensing units be located
either on the roof or on the ground at the alley
side of the building. Each heat exchanger to be
perly balance the heat and cooling_ control in the
building.
PLUMBING
}
The existing plumbing is inadequate in terms of having
sufficient number of toilets to meet code requirements.
Since there are only three minimal toilet installations,
all on the second floor and one in each basement, two
additional toilets must be installed. Code requires
that one toilet be provided for retail stores having no
more than four employees. Only revisions to the pre-
sent sanitary sewer are needed to install the new toilets
And update the existing. Existing water piping and water
heater must be revised and replaced to facilitate new
requi remen is .
ELECTRICAL
Presently there is an existing 200 AMP service at the
building. It is divided into three panels serving
respectively the west half of the first floor at 100
The existing plumbing is inadequate in terms of having
sufficient number of toilets to meet code requirements.
Since there are only three minimal toilet installations,
all on the second floor and one in each basement, two
additional toilets must be installed. Code requires
that one toilet be provided for retail stores having no
more than four employees. Only revisions to the pre-
sent sanitary sewer are needed to install the new toilets
And update the existing. Existing water piping and water
heater must be revised and replaced to facilitate new
requi remen is .
ELECTRICAL
Presently there is an existing 200 AMP service at the
building. It is divided into three panels serving
respectively the west half of the first floor at 100
Ull, ,CLunG rioor at approx-
imately 60. This does meet current code requirement
in terms.of capacity, however; it will be necessary
to re -distribute the power to allow for more flexi-
bility if the second floor is divided into offices.
The light fixtures are non-existant, therefore; new
fixtures in the whole building need to be properly
wired and installed. There is a great amount of sur-
face conduit wiring present in the building, especially
on the second floor. To accomodate more contemporary
office needs, more distribution is necessary within
the existing partitions. All surface wiring should be
removed. for aesthetic reasons. Although for minimal
requirements this existing wiring may remain. Emer-
gency lighting must be installed to meet code require-
ments and OSHA Standards. Toilets without natural
ventilation must have exhaust fans. Depending on the
building use, additional electrical energy may be re-
quired and the existing 4 wire, 3 phase, 200 AMP service
could ho
1
• uanuary 4, IY/4
ESTIMATE OF COST FOR THE RESTORATION -REMODELING OF THE COLLEGE
BLOCK BUILDING AT 127 EAST COLLEGE STREET, IOWA CITY, IOWA
El
I. North Elevation Building Front (Facade)
A. Remove paint from brick, use chemical means,
tuckpoint and restore brick, seal with
silicone waterproofing. $2,100.00
B. S,crape out all existing caulking at windows,
tin work, etc., refasten tin work where
required, re -caulk and seal $ 960.00
C. Remove paint from pressed -trim, ornamen-
tation -window hoods, window brackets, etc.
Prime and paint.
D. Replace glass where required - rebuild
store fronts to near original design.
Widen entry to second floor.
E. Replace sidewalk where Irequired.
F. Replace windows, whole or in part where
required. Replace glass in original
masonry openings. Provide new storm
sash to match original.
TOTAL FOR BUILDING FRONT RESTORATION
$1,400.00
$8,000.00
$ 760.00
$2,200.00
$16,420.00
I
• II. Total Building Structure Except Building Front
A. Demolition
Remove walls, wall surfacings, par-
titions and other enclosures. Remove
rubish in preparation for new con-
struction
B. Footing Walls
Waterproof and repair walls. Re-
build exterior basement access
retaining walls.
C. Exterior Masonry Walls
Rebuild south wall. Repair and
cement plaster,, east wal 1 . Rebuild
parapet walls.
$ 1,300.00
$ 2,600.00
$11 1600.00
D. Wood Structure, General Carpentry,
Insulation
Rebuild stairs and landing to satisfy
code requirements. Construct new
toilet rooms and all other partition
changes. Insulate ceilings and walls
with 6" and 4" fiberglass insulation
respectively in all accessible cavi-
ties. Use blown in insulation for all
closed cavities. $ 81500.00
E. Wood Sash and Doors
Replace interior doors and frames.
Replace and re -glaze interior and
exterior sash where required.
Place new doors and frames where
required Install new hardware. $ 4,550.00
F. New Rated Suspended Ceilings
Place new suspended ceilings on
first and second floors. $ 2,400.00
•
G. Interior plaster
Repair all damaged plaster. Re -
plaster all walls as required.
Make all walls ready for painting.
H. Roof, Flashings, Gutters, and
Downspouts
Replace new built-up roof on
structure. Replace all flash-
ings as needed. Replace gutters
and downspouts. Connect all
drains to storm sewer.
I. Heating, Cooling, and Ventilating
Install new ,forced air heating,
cooling ventilating system. Us-
in,g_present gas boiler for heat
source for heat exchanger type
heating system. With roof mount-
ed- condenser units for cooling.
New air, distribution system us-
ing ceiling cavity for duct runs
when possible. Present boiler is
rated at Estimate no new
capacity, nee. ed to heat the
structure. Estimate need 12
tons of cooling.
J. Electrical
Install new additional service
wiring, update to code, all areas
of building. Remove existing sur-
face wiring and conduit. Install
new light fixtures suitable for
commercial use on first floor and
basement storage and office type
use on second floor.
K. Plumbing
Install and or revise plumbing to
facilitate new toilets.
Page 2
Section
$ 3,500.00
$ 4,600.00
$21,600.00
$18,600.00
$ 8,000.00
•
L. Sprinkler System
Since no sufficient water sup-
ply is available in the street,
a letter of intent will have to
be written by the owner to the
city that the sprinkler system
for the basement floor will be
installed when the water main
is' enlarged sufficiently to
supply the sprinklers.
TOTAL COST ON REMODELING LESS BUILDING
FRONT $879250.00
TOTAL
FOR
BUILDING
FRONT RESTORATION
$16,420.00
TOTAL
FOR
COMPLETE
RESTORATION -REMODELING
$103,670.00
III. MINIMAL.WORK REQUIRED
For the minimum work required on the interior and
exterior of the building to facilitate normal use
and meet all code requirementswemust recommend that
the following items be completed:
1.
A.
Demolition
$
1,300.00
2.
C.
Exterior masonry walls
$119600.00
3.
D.
Rebuild stairs and construct
toilets
$
39500.00
4.
E.
Install new doors and
hardware
$
29500.00
5.
F.
Rated ceilings (first
floor only)
$
1,200.00
6. G. Interior plaster
Repair with plaster board $ 29000.00
7. H. Roof flashings, gutters,
and downspouts
Re -tar roof - repair
flashings $ 29300.00
8. I Heating, cooling, and
ventilating
Use existing hot water system
Add new cooling only
9- J. Electrical
Update to code, run sur-
face wiring -where required
10. K. Plumbing
Use existing toilets on
second floor. Place new
toilets on first floor only
11. Restore front to accept-
able standards
TOTAL
$16,000.00
$ 9,000.00
$ 4,000.00
$16,420.00
$69,820.00
These costs are subject to change according to prevailing
market price at the time of construction. The above esti-
mates we approximate and actual bid prices will vary.
I. hereby certify that this
specification, plan, or
report was prepared by me
or under my direct
supervision, and that --I
am a duly Registered
AAWilliam
nder the laws
e of
owys.z Reg. N 1177
• January - 1974
v_}
$16,000.00
$ 9,000.00
$ 4,000.00
$16,420.00
$69,820.00
These costs are subject to change according to prevailing
market price at the time of construction. The above esti-
mates we approximate and actual bid prices will vary.
I. hereby certify that this
specification, plan, or
report was prepared by me
or under my direct
supervision, and that --I
am a duly Registered
AAWilliam
nder the laws
e of
owys.z Reg. N 1177
• January - 1974
OF
CERTAIN URBAN RENEWAL PROPERTY
WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City, acting as the Local Public
Agency, hereafter referred to as the LPA, has entered into a
contract for loan and grant with the United States of America
for the implementation of an urban renewal project known as
Project Number Iowa R-14, and,
WHEREAS, in order to accomplish the goals and objectives of
that urban renewal project -and -in, -furtherance of the public
welfare, the LPA deems it necessary and in the public interest
to acquire the property described below, either by purchase or
by the exercise of the powers of eminent domain, and,
WHEREAS, the LPA has received appraisals, staff reports and
recommendations concerning the fair market value of certain
property contained therein, and has reviewed the appraisals,
and reports, and being familiar with the property identified
below, desires to establish the fair market value of said
property for the purposes ,of_acquisition.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF IOIVA
CITY, IOWA, thattheprices and.amounts opposite each parcel of
land, and all interests therein, including improvements, build-
ings, and fixtures, identified below, is hereby declared to be
the fair market value for the purpose of acquisition of each
said parcel and all other interests.
The Staff of the LPA is hereby authorized to begin negotia-
tions for the purchase of said property and the Mayor and City
Clerk are authorized to contract for the purchase of said pro-
perty. In the event negotiations for purchase are unsuccessful,
the LPA Staff and the Urban Renewal Attorney are hereby author-
ized to institute condemnation.proceedings for the acquisition
of said property.
This resolution certifies that the work of the appraisers and
the review appraiser with respect to each property has been
performed in a competent manner in accordance with applicable
State Law, Public Law 91-6-46, and Department of Housing and
Urban Development policies and requirements.
Parcel
93=16
None
REAL ESTATE INTEREST
Owner
Mrs. Nora Novotny
It was moved by
OTHER INTERESTS
Brandt
F.M.V.
$24,500.00
and seconded
by deProsse that the resolution as read be
adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES NAYS: ABSENT:
Brandt X
Czarnecki._ X
Davidsen
X}QgAXMd& X
deProsse
X)t�� X
White X
Passed and approved this 5th day of February
4nyM 1974
'VI
Mayor i
ATTEST:
City Clerk__,-..-
I, C.L. Brandt, the duly elected, qualified, and acting
Mayor of the City of Iowa City, herein called the "Local
Public Agency," hereby certify that I have been authorized
by Resolution No. 70-438, duly adopted by the City Council
of the Local Public Agency at a regular meeting on
December 1, 1970, as set forth in the minute book on file
at the office of the City Clerk, to make the following
certification -and that the statements contained herein are
true andcorrectto the best of my knowledge ar.•3 belief:
1. Each parcel, City-University Urban Renewalrea, Project
No. Iowa R-14, listed in the attachment to this proclaimer
certificate has been appraised by at least two qualified,
independent, professional real estate appraisers and a
written and signed copy of each such appraisal is con-
tained in the Local Public Agency files.
2. Each such appraisal has been reviewed by E. Norman Bailey,
a qualified review appraiser under contract to the Local
Public Agency, and all corrections, revisions, or additions
requested by such reviewer have been made by the original
appraisers.
3. The reviewer has prepared a written report which indicates
that the appraisals are complete and consistent in the
factual data contained therein, comply with existing
statutory and administrative requirements of the Depart-
ment of Housing and Urban Development, and are acceptable
for the determination of fair market value.
4. Based upon such appraisals and the review thereof, the
Local Public Agency has established the fair market of
each parcel listed herein and'all documentation related
to such determination is contained in the Local Public
Agency files.
5. The latest budget amount allowable for real estate acqui-
sition including amounts available in contingencies as
approved by HUD on March 1, 1971 is not exceeded by the
sum of the following:
a. Cost of property.previously-acquired.
b. Acquisition prices previously approved by HUD for
properties not acquired.
J
C. Pair market value determinationspreviouslymade by
the LPA for properties not acquired but included in
prior proclaimer certificates.
d. Fair market value determinations for properties
included in the proclaimer being filed.
e. The acquisition prices of the remaining properties
to be acquired as those prices were estimated for
the purpose of the above mentioned budget amount
allowable forrealestate acquisition.
6. This certificate is issued pursivant to and consistent with
HUD Omaha Area Office letter 7.2 PTR(ET), dated April 27,
1971, regarding use oftheproclaimer system by the LPA.
LISTING OF PARCELS TO BE ACQUIRED
e United States Code and, if such statements are made
willfully and knowingly, to conviction for a felony under
section 1001 of Title.18 of the United States Code.
Date
Mayor'/ ` !
CitW'Of I
City, Iowa
LJ
FF�
lm�n,
:..:
W
iA
�y /VAI
rn
0 C
�
d
VI
.
rn zi
w
r+
x
cD
�
a
r
_
rn m
H
FJ -
o C
G
w
z
�+
Co M
W
N
H
F,
w�a.
O\ H
c+
trJ
O
r+
r•
z
Fa10
OIQ
N
Eli
t7l
w
O
;o P.<
"�
. .
..
N.
Fh
�
ao
O
(n
CD
C
w
n
^s]
►�
w
.�
r+
K
o .,
C)
xco
CD
azo
H
t7ia
o
w
to
�zn
dK
N F -i
w
A.
r+CD
r• r r
C)
z -�
a
�
r7l
_
N
K
a
ao
L
�w•r9
N•
CD
O
N
C
b
C)
1.w
�•
o
+-•
H
p
o
r+
CD
C-4
a
M
n
H
t7
w
r+
'r1
CD
H-
X
r+
C
CD
y
n
February 4, 1974
^x� CIVIC CENTER. 4f0 L WASHINGTON ST
//`. (J'J. IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
�tB•054-i500
Ms. Sarah Fox, Chairman
Iowa City Parks & Recreation Commission
Civic Center
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Re: Questions submitted to me at the Parks and Recreation
Commission meeting of January 9, 1974
Dear Sarah:
The following comments are in response to the unanswered
questions contained in your list which was submitted to me
at the last P & R meeting.
#1. What will the study cost and who is funding it? This
study, which is a watershed planning program, will be prepared
by the Watershed Planning Section of the U.S. Soil Conservation
Service. Virtually the entirecostof the study will be paid
for by the Soil Conservation Service. It is possible that the
City will incur some expenses relative to the provision of
data or maps for this study.
#4. Does the small watershed program still exist and can the
SCS participate in the funding of both dams and tunnels?
Specifically, this program is established under public law
566 and was designed to be administered by the Soil Conservation
Service., It is described as a watershed program which intends
to provide for total land treatment. It is a continuing program
with a continuing level of funding from the U.S. Congress.
Also, there are funds available for 1974. The intent of the
program ,is a broad one and it includes a thorough study of
the entire watershed, including environmental erosion controls
which relate to decreasing water runoff. It could include
consideration of such technique;: as terracing and contour
plowing in the upper reaches of the watershed as well as
the construction of facilities or structures which would
provide for an effective soil conservation effort.
#5. What has happened to the Corps of Engineers participation?
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers did do a reconnaissance study
based upon information submitted by the Soil Conservation
Service. It was the decision of the Corps that apparently
a program on Ralston Creek would be economically feasible,
but that additional study would need to be undertaken before
this could be definitely ascertained. As of this time, the
City has not requested that the Corps do a second and more
extensive study. Most likely, this decision will not be made
until such time as the SCS has gone fairly well into their
study.
V. If turned down by the SCS, does the Corps have funds to
participatein the funding of both dams and the tunnel? This
is a question that is unable to be answered at this time. it
would be the responsibility of the Army Corps of Engineers to
do so, however, at this time they probably do not have adequate
data on the subject.
#9. What are the latest figures on floodplain land costs?
The latest data the City has on this are the assessed values
of property for February, 1973. This information was gathered
for both the floodway and the floodway fringe areas in the
Ralston Creek` floodplain. Preliminary numbers indicate that
there are 44 major structures located on 54 land parcels in
the floodway. The total assessed value for these properties
is approximately $230,000. There.are also approximately 176
structures on 188 parcels of land which are partially located
in the floodway. These have an assessed value of approximately
$850,000. The total number of properties located in the Ralston
Creek floodplain is approximately 575 structures located on 631
parcels of land with an approximate total assessed value of
$3,411,000. It should be emphasized that these do not reflect
true market values and that they also do not necessarily reflect
the price the -City, would have to pay should they decide to
purchase properties in the floodway or the floodway fringe.
Before this.could be done it would be necessary to have an
appraisal made of each parcel. (Assessed value = 27% of market value)
#14. The Des Moines Register of January 8, 1974 listed Ralston
Creek as approved by the Natural Resources Council for inclusion
in the state's Open Space Program. What does this mean?
At the request of the Iowa Natural Resources Council, the
Resources Council staff prepared a list of flood problem areas
in the state where` floodplain acquisition might be a feasible
solution to the -problem. This information was prepared in
Ms. Sarah Fox
February 4, 1974
Page 3
the absence of any contact with local governmental officials
in the areas delineated. Also, it was not determined by the
Natural Resources Council at that time whether there would
be local interest in these programs or whether it would be
feasible from a local perspective. This preliminary list
was then sent to the State Conservation Commission for
inclusion in an Open Space Acquisition Program. The latter
mentioned program was designed to somewhat fill in for the
deficiencies created by a lack of money in the Department
of Housing and Urban Development Open Space Program. To
the best of our knowledge at this time, there is currently
no funding available for the acquisition of land along
Ralston Creek. Also, as of this time, the list in the paper
has not been formalized into anything more than a list of
potential flood prone areas which could be included in an
Open Space Acquisition Program by the State Conservation
Commission. As presently envisioned, land acquired under
this program would be under state rather than local juris-
diction.
A question was also asked relative to funding levels of programs
relating to Ralston Creek as contained in the 1973-1977 Capital
Improvements Program. The levels established are as follows:
(1) For Ralston Creek planning, $30,000 in 1973 and $60,000
in 1974; (2) For potential construction, a total of $14,000,000
beginning in 1976p including 1.5 million dollars in 1976,
1.5 million dollars in 1977, and an additional 11 million
dollars for those `years beyond 1977. It should be emphasized
here that although the Capital Improvements Program is for
a five-year period, in some instances costs were identified
which were anticipated to be expended beyond the 1977 ending
year of the Capital Improvements Program. These estimated costs
were rough calculations which were not based on any specific
construction program nor any specific facility. At the time
these figureswerederived, it was hoped that they would
represent_a maximum limit which would have to be spent for
the purposes of curtailing flood damage on Ralston Creek.
If the above answers are unclear, or if you would like additional
information, please contact me and I will attempt to provide
this information.
very truly yours,
9
Dennis R. Kraft
Director, Department of Community Development
DRK:sc
}
10
History The Act was passed by both Houses of Congress on December 20, 1973,
and signed into law by the President on 12)31j 73.
Scope The Act substantially expands the National Flood Insurance Program,
in order to provide better protection to the public and to reduce
annual disaster assistance outlays through the increased availability
of floodinsurance. The Act extends the emergency program through
December 31, 1975, and addresses three key areas: insurance, flood
plain management, and local community consultation and appeals
procedures.
Insurance Coverage. Available limits of both subsidized and unsubsidized flood
insurance coverage for all types of properties have been increased
as follows:
Subsidized Coverage Total Coverage
In addition, for Alaska, Hawaii, and the Territories of Guam and the
Virgin Islands, the Act increases the limit of structure coverage, in
the case of one family residential properties, to $50,000 subsidized
coverage, $100,000 total coverage and, in the case of all other resi-
dential properties, to $150,000 subsidized coverage and $300,000 total
coverage.
The Act replaces the present $6 billion ceiling on the amount of
insurance coverage which may be outstanding with an insurance contract
authority expiration date of June 30, 1977, and broadens the scope of
insurance coverage to include erosion losses caused by abnormal water
levels -and similar unforeseeable conditions, and to make it clear that
all flood -related mudflow losses are covered, regardless of unrelated
pre-existing conditions.
Actuarial rates. The Act defers, as to the first layer of coverage on
all construction, the application of actuarial p?�•emium rates until
December 31, 1974, or the official publication dai:e of the initial
Flood Insurance Rate Map and elevation data for the area, whichever is
later and, until such time, makes subsidized insurance available for
the first layer of coverage.
Old
New
Old
New
Limit
Limit
Limit
Limit
Single familv residential
$179500
$ 35,000
$35,000
$ 70,000
Other residential -
309000
100,000
60,000
200,000
Nonresidential
309000
100,000
60,000
200,000
Contents, residential
59000
10,000
10,000
209000
Contents, nonresidential
59000
1009000
109000
2009000
In addition, for Alaska, Hawaii, and the Territories of Guam and the
Virgin Islands, the Act increases the limit of structure coverage, in
the case of one family residential properties, to $50,000 subsidized
coverage, $100,000 total coverage and, in the case of all other resi-
dential properties, to $150,000 subsidized coverage and $300,000 total
coverage.
The Act replaces the present $6 billion ceiling on the amount of
insurance coverage which may be outstanding with an insurance contract
authority expiration date of June 30, 1977, and broadens the scope of
insurance coverage to include erosion losses caused by abnormal water
levels -and similar unforeseeable conditions, and to make it clear that
all flood -related mudflow losses are covered, regardless of unrelated
pre-existing conditions.
Actuarial rates. The Act defers, as to the first layer of coverage on
all construction, the application of actuarial p?�•emium rates until
December 31, 1974, or the official publication dai:e of the initial
Flood Insurance Rate Map and elevation data for the area, whichever is
later and, until such time, makes subsidized insurance available for
the first layer of coverage.
The Act requires HUD to publish information on known flood -prone
communities and to notify them within six months of enactment of their
tentative identification as such, following which the community must
prompt application either make plication for participation in the flood insurance
program Or satisfy the Secretary that it is no longer flood -prone.
Communities having identified flood -prone areas are required to
participate in the flood insurance program by July 1, 1975, or
Federally -related financing for projects that would be located in
such areas will be denied.
Consultation
With 1
Cosi
Officials The Secretary, in carrying out his land use responsibilities under
the Act, is required to establish procedures assuring adequate con-
sultation with appropriate elected officials of local governments,
including those whose eligibility under the program has been sus-
pended. Such consultation is specifically required,'VfM respect
to many areas of local concern and the Secretary is required to
encourage local officials to disseminate information widely on any
study he undertakes, in order to permit submissions of relevant
data by interested members of the public.
A eals
_ The Act establishes explicit appeals procedures for both individuals
and communities desiring to challenge the Secretary's proposed
determinations relating to minimum construction elevation standards,
and sets out the scope of judicial review of such determinations.
The Act assures to individuals and the community a full opportunity
to be heard and to appeal, if aggrieved. It sets forth a comprehensive
system of providing actual notice to persons affected by elevation
determinations not only through publication in the Federal Reg'
but also through direct notification to the chief executive officer
in the communitybaster,
and publication of proposed determinations in a
prominent local newspaper.
E
Sec. 1. Enacting clause.
Sec. 2. Findingsanddeclaration of purpose. States as purpose of
Act to (1) substantially increase limits of flood insurance coverage,
(2) provide for expeditious identification of flood -prone areas, (3) re-
quire States or local communities, as a condition of future Federal
i financial assistance, to participate in the flood insurance program,
and (4) require the purchase of flood insurance by property owners
who are being assisted by Federal programs or by federally supervised,
regulated, or insured agencies in the acquisition or improvement of
land or facilities located or to be located in identified areas having
special flood hazards.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
TITLE I -- EXPANSION OF NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
:.ection 101. Increased limits of coverage. This section amends
section 1306(b) of the Act to provide increased limits of coverage as
fol 1 o,•rs
Subsidized Coverage Total Coverage
Old
New
Old
N a
Limit
Limit
Limit
Limit
Single family residential
$17,500
$ 35,000
$35,000
$ 70,000
Other residential
30,000
100,000
609000
2009000
Nonresidential
30,000
100,000
60,000
200,000
Contents, resi-_ential
53000
10,000
10,000
20,000
Contents, nonresidential
5,000
100,000
10,000
200,000
or the new limit of available coverage, which is less. (b) Federal
instrumentalities responsible for the supervision of lending institutions
must direct such institutions to require flood insurance in connection
with their real estate or mobile home and personal property loans in such
identified areas, up to the same maximum limit or the balance of the loan,
whichever is less. Both subsections would take effect 60 days after the date
of enactment of the bill. (c) State-owned properties are exempt from this
section if they are adequately covered under a State insurance fund satis-
factory to the Secretary.
Sec. 103. Establishment of Chargeable Rates. Revises subsection
1308(c) of National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to defer the application
of actuarial premium rates until the later of two dates: (1) December 31,
1974, or (2) the publication of the initial rate map for the area.
Sec. 104. Financing. Amends subsection 1309(a) of National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968 to permit Treasury borrowing up to $500,000,000
instead of $250,000,000, plus an additional $500,000,000 with the approval
of the President and notice to the Congress.
Sec. 105. Program Expiration. Revises section 1319 of National
Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to replace present $6 billion ceiling on
insurance coverage outstanding with contract authority expiration date
• of June 30, 1977.
1
program authority of section 1336 of National Flood Insurance Act of
1968 for an additional two years from present expiration date of
December 31,_1973.
Sec. 107. Definition of Flood. Inserts word "proximately" before
"caused" in definition of mudslide in section 1370 of National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968 to indicate that all flood -related mudflow losses
will be covered, regardless of unrelated preexisting conditions.
Sec. 108. Extension of Flood Insurance Program to Cover Losses
From Erosion and Undermining of Shorelines. Amends purpose clause
(section 1302) and flood definition (section 1370) of National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968 to extend coverage to erosion losses caused by
abnormal water levels and similar unforeseeable conditions.
Sec. 109. Estimates of Premium Rates. Amends section 1307 of
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to provide special relief in the
form of reduced premium rates to four.Louisiana Parishes adversely
1 affected by the Atchafalaya Levee System.
i Sec. 110. Appeals. Establishes explicit appeals procedures for
both individuals and communities desiring to challenge the Secretary's
j proposed determinations relating to minimum construction elevation
standards. Sets out scope -of judicial review of such determinations.
1•
-Sec. 111. Flood Insurance Premium Equalization Payments. Amends
section 1334 of National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to delete subsection
(b) requiring use of specific loss sharing formula bet�•reen the Secretary
and the insurance industry, without regard to actual experience under the
program.
0
cul. noun cation of flood -prone areas. (a) Requires HUD to
Publish information on known flood -prone communities and to notify them
within six months of their tentative identification as such. (b) Upon
notification, community must either (1) promptly apply for participation
in flood insurance program or (2) satisfy the Secretary within six months
that it is no longer flood prone. A hearing may be granted to resolve
disputed cases, but Secretary's decision is final if supported by the
record as a whole. (c) Additional flood -prone communities subsequently
notified of their status must then meet the requirements of subsection
(b) but are allowed at least one year in which to qualify for the flood
insurance program before section 202 applies.
Sec. 202. Effect of non-oarticioation in flood program. (a) Prohibits
Federal financial assistance for acquisition or construction purposes
within the identified flood -prone areas of communities that are not
participating in the flood insurance program by July 1, 1975 (in most
cases, about 18 months after the identification is made). (b) Federal
instrumentalities responsible for the supervision of lending institutions
are directed to prohibit such institutions from making real estate or
mobile home loans after July 1, 1975, in areas identified as having
special flood hazards unless the community in which the area is situated
.is participating in the flood insurance program.
Sec. 203. Repeal of Disaster Assistance Penalty. Repeals the
provision of the existing Flood Insurance Act -that would deny disaster
assistance after December 31, 1973, to persons who for a period of a
year or more could have purchased flood insurance but did not do so.
A
/ 1
W
the Secretary to make grants, provide technical assistance, eliminate
competitive bidding requirements, and make progress payments, if necessary
to accomplish that objective. (b) Agencies doing the technical work for
HUD are directed to give highest practicable priority to these studies.
Sec. 205. Authority to issue regulations. Authorizes the Secretary
and Federal agencies administering financial assistance programs and
those supervising lending institutions to issue any regulations necessary
to carry out the Act.
Sec. 206. Consultation with Local Officials. Requires the Secretary,
in carrying out his land use responsibilities under the Act, to establish
procedures assuring adequate consultation with appropriate elected officials
of local.governments, including those who eligibility under the program has
been suspended: Sets out specific areas in which consultation is required,
and requires Secretary to encourage local officials to disseminate widely
information on any study undertaken in order to permit submissions of
relevant data by members of the public.
NAL u
TO: (1) Mayors and Managers of Principal Cities
(2) Executive Directors of State Municipal Leagues
(3) Other Municipal Officials
SUlijlzcr: Congressional -City, Conference, March 3-5, 1974, Washington, D. C.
Forms for advance registration and hotel reservations for the Eighth Annual Congressional -
City Conference sponsored by the National League of Cities and the United States Conference
of Mayors are attached.
The Congressional -City Conference brings city leaders to Washington in a concerted
effort to implement the established legislative and administrative policies of the NLC
and IJSCM. The Program will be devoted largely to briefing city leaders on the current
priority issues before the Congress and helping bring city influence to bear on municipal
objectives in the Congress.
'fie first session of the 93rd Congress produced several significant pieces of city legislation,
particularly the Comprehensive Employment Training Act, the Federal Aid Highway Act
of 1973, and the Flood Disaster Protection Act. Much, however, remains to be done. The
continuation of basic federal aid programs in the community development field is very
much at issue. The Administration is expected to advance new legislative initiatives in
the President's State of the Union Message. The Fiscal Year 75 Budget will require a
detailed analysis for its impact on city programs.
The attached registration form should be mailed directly to League of Cities and Conference
of Mayors, 1620 Eye Street, N. W. , Washington, D. C. 20006. The hotel reservation
card should be sent directly to the Washington Hilton Hotel, Connecticut Avenue at
Columbia Road, N. W., Washington, -b. C. 23069,- by February 18. Also enclosed is a
copy of the tentative Congressional -City Conference Program.
/10?tI7
Allen E. Pritchard,
Executive Vice Preside 1 J J. Gunther
National League of Cities ecutive Director
United States Conference of Mayors
1620 Eye Street, N.W., Washington D. C. 20006 / 202_293-7300
i y
CONGRESSIONAL -CITY CONFERENCE
March 3-5, 1974 Washington Hilton Hotel
Washington, D. C.
Sunday, March 3, 1974
11:00 a.m. Registration begins
6:30 p -m. Welcome Reception -for delegates
Monday, March 4, 1974
9:00 a. m. Opening General Session
9:30 a. m. Address: Mayor Roy Martin, Norfolk, Virginia
President, U. S. Conference of Mayors
(Keynote_ Address)
Address: The Cities' Role in the FY 75 Budget
A graphic analysis of the impact of
the FY 75 Federal Budget on the cities
Address: "Community Development in National Perspective"
Address: "Community Development: City Dynamics"
Noon- •,�:._.._..:r .:
_General Luncheon Session
2:00 p, M.
Address: "Energy and the Environment"
Concurrent Congressional Workshops
A. Community Development
--Community Development Block Grant Legislation
--Housing Legislation
--Transition Funding/FY 75 Appropriations
C. Summer Youth
--NYC
--Recreation
--Transportation
D. Environment
--Solid Waste
--Air Pollution
--Water Pollution
--Land Use
E. Transportation
--Congressional Proposals
--Administration Proposal
--Operating Subsidy
F. Health
--National Health Insurance
--Comprehensive Health Planning
•
This year Monday night has been left open so that state groups _y
more effectively use their time by arranging meetings or other functions
with their Congressional delegations. These separate arrangements
should be planned as soon as possible. You may contact your state municipal
league for further information.
Tuesday, March 5, 1974
0
8:00 a, m. Issues and Priorities Breakfast
10:15 a.m. General Session
Address: Congressional Reorganization
and Its Effect on the Cities
(Speaker to be Announced)
11:30 a. m. Congressional Conferences
Tuesday afternoon is set-aside for delegates to confer
with members of their Congressional delegations. Bus
transportation between the. Washington Hilton Hotel and
Capitol Hill will be provided and assistance in arranging
appointments and transportation to Nouse and Senate
Office Buildings will be available beginning at 11:30 a, m.
0
Nixon's latest plan would
let the cities choose where
to spend federal funds
Americans worried about -and con-
fused by—the-energy crisis have in-
creasingly been turning to an old rally-
ing cry of environmentalists and city
planners: mass transit. But except in a
dozen or so major urban areas, there is
very little left of the extensive mass
transit networks that were available as
recently as during World .War 11. The
comfort and convenience of ` the au-
tomobile have -made it the over-
whelming favorite of the 'American
public for personal travel—to work and
for shopping as well as for pleasure.
Now, spurred by the gasoline short-
age and the possibility of rationing,
the Nixon Administration is launching
new efforts to make mass trans-
portation more appealing -The Admin-
istration is preparing new programs of
federal aid. A new Unified Trans-
portation Assistance Program (UTAP),
scheduled to he announced soon, will
provide about $15 -billion over six years
for urban transit and highway needs.
Most of this money comes from the
consolidation of existing programs, but
about $3 -billion could be new money.
Currently, -the Urban Mass Trans-
portation Administration (UMTA) has
$1 -billion per yearforcapital assist-
ance to cities for buying buses and
building rapid transit systems.
Mass transit, as it now exists, serves
two quite distinct functions: It pro-
vides transportation within urban
areas for city dwellers and workers,
and it provides transportation between
jobs and shops in the cities and homes
in the suburbs. Very rarely is public
transportation available between jobs
and shopping in one suburb and hous-
ing in another, at least in part because
the automobile has provided so much
greater flexibility and comfort.
A minority mass. Transit systems almost
invariably operate at a deficit because,
given freedom .of choice,.their market
chooses the personal flexibility and
comfort of the automobile. When new
expressways in and around most cities
were added to the equation with the
gradual completion of the Interstate
Highway system, mass transit found it
impossible to compete economically on
its own merits, and transit deficits be-
gan to soar. According to the 1970 cen-
sus, more than half of all commuting
workers in every major urban popu-
lation center in the U. S. travel to their
jobs by automobile (table, page 53).
And the great majority of those who
use public transportation rely on buses,
which also benefit from the highway
system. Only in the New York metro-
politan area, which includes parts of
New Jersey and Connecticut, does the
percentage of workers traveling by rail
exceed that traveling by bus. And even
there, political considerations—such as
the Metropolitan Transportation Au-
thority's subsidy program—have helped
tip the scales in favor of rail.
With this in mind, the new Adminis-
tration proposal is designed to give
metropolitan areas a good deal of free-
dom in deciding how to allocate funds.
Here is how UTAP—an offshoot of the
Administration's 1971 special revenue-
sharing proposal -will work. The Ad-
ministration. will ask Congress to take
urban transportation programs out of
the Highway Act (where they total
about $1.1 -billion a year) and will seek
to combine them with the UMTA capital
assistance program (totaling about $1 -
The next question: Can
bus manufacturers step up
output?They say'no'
billion a year). Then an amount of
money that is as yet unspecified will be
added to cover operating assistance for
transit systems, representing a rever-
salof the Administration's long-stand-
ing opposition to this form of aid.
Added to the basic pot of $2.2 -billion
per year will be a discretionary fund of
about $500 -million. The government
will dish this out to special high-prior-
ity projects that need more cash—such
as Atlanta's expensive new rail transit
system. The rest of the money in the
UTAP account will be apportioned to
states according to population on a
matching basis of 80% federal, 20%
state. Funds for urban areas of 400,000
or more people will pass directly to the
cities, making it easier for them to get
their hands on the money and to decide
whether to build an urban highway or a
transit system. This is consistent with
the Administration's desire for "flexi-
bility" at the, local level.
Opposing lobbies. The money for the
program would come almost exclu-
sively out of general revenues instead
of the highway trust fund, which
should defuse some traditional opposi-
tion from rural states. A special rural
transit program will provide aid di-
rectly to rural areas in hope of swaying
a few Congressional votes.
- 52 BUSINESS WEEK: January 26, 1974
Still, the fight will pit big -city inter-
ests against rural interests that tradi-
tionally oppose transit projects as an
assault on money that might otherwise
be used for country roads. The big -city
lobbyists, too, have their own political
axes to grind. A current example is
New York City, whose mayor has
teamed with the governor of the state
in a campaign in Washington for oper-
ating subsidies from some program
such as UTAP to retain the 35¢ fare.
Administration officials predict that
the net effect of the new program
.should be to make about 30% more
money available for urban trans-
portation. One result, if the new pro-
gram passes Congress, will be a dra-
matic increase in the demand for
buses. The government might spend
$300 -million to $400 -million on buses
and support facilities this fiscal year.
Buses are now being produced at a rate
of about 3,000 a year. Administration
sources say that the greater avail-
ability of government transit money
could boost that number substantially.
Building the buses. "We think the indus-
try could produce 14,000 buses a year if
they went on double shift," says a gov-
ernment transit official. And a White
House source adds: "Production capac-
ity could be doubled in six months if a
massive effort is made.... If you start
getting serious unemployment in the
auto industry, it will be an obvious
trade-off."
Industry sources note, however, that
even a doubling in bus production
would not absorb more than a tiny
fraction of auto workers now on layoff,
so they cannot see much of an unem-
ployment trade-off. They also say it
would be difficult in some cases to add a
shift because such critical parts as en-
gines, transmissions, and axles, are in
short supply.
Still, Bass Dyer, marketing vice-
president for Flxible Co., a Rohr Indus-
tries subsidiary that is in the Big Three
of bus manufacturing (along with Gen-
eral Motors' rmc Truck & Coach Div.
and AM General Corp., a subsidiary of
American Motors), says: "Just last
week, we got through buying a new
building that gives us a chance to
double our production capacity."
Flxible is currently producing six buses
a day, working one shift plus a few
men on a second shift. "We're experi-
encing a 9- to 10 -month lead time right
now," Dyer says. "Even if Uncle Sam
broke it open, we wouldn't immediately
be able to do better than that. Avail-
ability of materials is the big restric-
TRAWWOWATION
way to°do it is Old as well as cash grants.
gention,'=:Bays a ",You've got to loo
k at transit man
official: "That ;, agement ,in Berms of .peoplo, Her-
rnment b'-
_- .. - ---- _-••-e -_ __ _�
a month through April. If we
_.. .. 6 uys a
buses, or orders a speedup under the
ringer says. T e mdusiry has been in
a decline since World War 11, and an
•gives
could get more engines, transmissions,
Defense Production Act."
industry that has a bad public image
and axles, we probably could step up
Legislative hassle. The Administration's
isn't going to attract bright young
production a little faster. But the way
UTAP proposal will be sent to Capitol
managers. There is tremendous dearth
it is now, we couldn't hope to fill:a new
Hill in the form of specific legislation
of good middle and upper managers in
order until September or October.. With
early in February,, Congress has al-
the transit industry."
the new plant, if we can get materials,
,ready passed a bill providing transit
UMTA plans to expand its manage -
our long-range plan, two years away, is
systems,with $800 -million over two
rial-training grants program, now lim-
to be able to get out 15 or more buses a
years fooperating subsidies, but con-
ited to 100 grants per year and budg-
day." Flxible estimates that transit
ferees have held off sending the bill to
eted at $500,000. "The marketing area
systems will buy 4,000 buses in this fis-
the President because of his announced
has also been neglected," Herringer
cal year, if they are available, at
intention to veto it. Administration op-
feels. "It takes more than a shiny new
$40,000 to $50,000 apiece.
position to operating subsidies in block
rail car to attract riders—it takes ser -
Edward R. Stokel, director of public
grants—as opposed to operating sub-
vice." He admits that it is hard to get
transportation for GMC Truck & Coach,
sidies as an optional use of the single
industry people thinking about mar -
Mass transit vs. the auto in some key cities
In these selected .. this many people ride ... but most people
metropolitan areas... public transit every day... drive to work
Units available
Travel preference
Aute Rall Bus
50.6%..26.7%
Urban pe/elation
limber at fillers
Trailer i
Elevated &
Commuter'
74.7 ..
area (ndtsns)
(tbnsaeds)
Bases . troller bens
sebrrry sans
rail cars
73.2 ..
New York .......-...16.3
9,000 ... ....8,200
........ 30 .......
7,300 ......
2,400
84.2 ..
Chicago ........... 6.7
1,600 ... ....3,100........
........
1,100......
850
tion," Stokel says. That would amount
Philadelphia ........ 4.0
1,000 ... .:.1,850.
, .550.......
575......
400
shift. declined to bid on the single
San Francisco ...... 2.9
850'... ....1,600
. .. .400.......
250.,....
100
ington Metropolitan Area Transit Au-
Los Angeles ........ 8.3
530 ........
1,900........ ........
.......
—
couldn't go on second shift," he says.
Boston ............ 2.6
430 .........
1,200 ........ 400.......
350......
125
double that of a year ago.
Washington ........ 2.5
400 ........
1,800........ ........
.......
—
ton order that CMe says it could not bid
Baltimore .......... 1.6
350 ........
800........ ........
.......
—
bus plant near South Bend. Sources
i Cleveland .......... 1.9
330 ........
80o........ 55.......
120......
—
close to capacity,
•
Atlanta ............ 1.2
200 ........
600........ ........
.......
—
cials say that if _a serious ;gasoline
•Flgurs for 1970, before BART opened.
lose." This man adds: "Somebody is
shortage develops, the government it-
new Office of Transit Management in
smoking opium when he says we should
- Data: Urban Mass Transportation Administration: 1970 Census
_.... -... _
get out of our cars and into transit—it
bus production. "If we needed 20,000
Travel preference
Aute Rall Bus
50.6%..26.7%
fund—will not change with the advent
66.3 ..
9.3
66.2 ..
8.6
74.7 ..
0.7
88.8 ..
0.1
67.4
8.1
73.2 ..
0.2
74.5 ..
0.2
79.0 ..
0.8
84.2 ..
-0-
..12.3%
..15.1
..16.0
..15.3
.. 4.7
..12.0
..17.4
..16.7
..13.3
. 10.4
_ - J
says that the division sold 1,850 buses
fund—will not change with the advent
keting when they are worried about
domestically last year and has pro-
of UTAP, so a veto of the $800 -million
the energy crisis and a flood of new rid-
duced 1,800 to 1,900 buses per year for
bill can still be expected,
ers. "That reaction has disappointed
the past five years. The biggest re-
As UTAP wends its way through Con-
me," he adds. "Here's an opportunity
straining factor for GMC, he says, is
gress, the test will be how the highway
to attract new riders, and the transit
availability of components. "If we
bloc greets it and how much money
people are groaning."
could get an adequate supply of critical
Congress adds to the $15 -billion pot.
To old Washington hands, UMTA'S
components, we could double-produc-
Transit advocates are likely to welcome
new program has both good and bad
tion," Stokel says. That would amount
the idea of UTAP but may well feel that
features. "The Administration is still
to about nine buses a day on a single
"We
itdoesnot provide enough money.
resurrecting old programs and putting
shift. declined to bid on the single
There are hints that the Adminis-
new names on them," one man says.
biggest bus contract last year [a Wash-
tration will go along if Congress tacks
"But that's not necessarily bad, be-
ington Metropolitan Area Transit Au-
on only a moderate increase.
cause the 1971 proposal was a good idea
thority order for 620 units] because we
Broader *frorL Beyond this, UMTA Ad-
when [ex -Transportation Secretary
couldn't go on second shift," he says.
ministrator Frank C. Herringer says
John A.] Volpe first proposed it, and it
crtc's bus order backlog is 1,300 units,
that his agency has several short-term
still is. But they still talk mostly about
double that of a year ago.
efforts under way to ease the impact of
buses and 'low -capital -intensive im-
AM General, which won the Washing-
the energy crisis on commuters. "We
provements,' which is just a euphe-
ton order that CMe says it could not bid
are developing a -nationwide comput-
mism for 'political improvements.' The
on, is just starting up production at a
erized car-pooling program with the
problem with the fund concept is that
bus plant near South Bend. Sources
Federal Highway Administration," he
it can't guarantee that an urban area
said the plant will begin operating
says. "We will be holding seminars in
will receive as much money as it did
close to capacity,
•
urban areas to show, people how to use
under a categorical grant program.
Privately, some Administration offi-
the tools of car pooling." Also, UMTA
They could gain, and they could also
cials say that if _a serious ;gasoline
was recently reorganized to create a
lose." This man adds: "Somebody is
shortage develops, the government it-
new Office of Transit Management in
smoking opium when he says we should
self may have to step in and crank up
recognition of the need of city transit
get out of our cars and into transit—it
bus production. "If we needed 20,000
systems for management and market-
just isn't there." ■
TRANSPOgTA710N
BUSINESS WEEK Janumy 29, 1974
Ir
FINAL -OFFER ARBITRATION:
"SUDDEN DEATH" IN EUGENE
GARY LONG and PETER FEUILLE
TIIF.IIF.9REMENDOITS expansion of collec-
tive bargaining that occurred in the
public sector during the 1960s and early
1970s has fostered a continuous, often
heated, and probably unresolvable de-
bate over the type of collective bargain-
ing system that would be most appropri-
ate for the public sector. As might have
been expected, the most controversial
issue has been the role of work stop-
pages.
Since the majority of public employ-
ees do not have the do jure right to
strike, much attention has been focused
Final -offer arbitration—requiring an arbitra-
tor to select one of the last offers made bythe
parties to a negotiation—was first proposed less
than ten years ago, but it has already become
the source of considerable controversy, a major
clement in President Nixon's 1970 proposal for
handling national emergency strikes in trans-
portation, and the prescribed method of resolv-
ing certain public sector disputes in three states
and two cities. This study reports on the cxpc-
ricnce with final -offer arbitration in Eugene.
Oregon,.onc of the first jurisdictions, to adopt
this procedure. Based on an analysis of the first
six sets of negotiations under Eugene's final -
offer system, the authors conclude that this pro.
celurc has been rc12tivcly successful in preserv-
ing the parties' incentive to negotiate their own
agncmctns.
Crary Long isPersonnelDirector of the City
of Eugene, Oregon and Peter Feuille is Assist-
ant Professor of Management in the College of
Ilusiacm Administration at the University of
Oregon. They are grateful for the support pro.
vided by the -Institute of Irtdustrial and labor
Relations at the University of Oregon from
funds provided by a gran,' from the Manpower
Administration of the U.S. Department of La-
bor.—Eurrott
186
0
on the question of a balancing of inter-
ests: how can bargaining impasses be re-
,olved in a manner that protects the in-
terests of both parties at the table, if
public employees arc denied the right to
effectively manipulate management's
costs of disagreement, and at the same
time protect the public's interest in
continuously receiving essential govern-
ment services? In the private sector, in-
terests are balanced by the relative abili-
ties of the two sides to take a work
stoppage, since the marketplace affords
the consumer some freedom -of -choice
protection from the results of bargain-
ing. To a limited extent, this approach
is undergoing experimentation in se-
lected . public jurisdictions as some em-
ployee groups are granted the right to
strike.' In most public sector jurisdic-
tions, however, the strike is banned and
some kind of formal impasse -resolution
machinery is provided, under which a
third party assists the employer and
.'Alaska, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, and Oregon
legislation grant most state and local govern-
meut employees (except police and fire fighters
or "emential employees) the right to strike,
except in all -four states this right can be
abridged if such a strike endangers public
health, safety, or welfare. Vermont legislation
prohibits local government employee strikes but
saes they are enjoinable only if they endanger
the public interest or welfare. Montana legisla-
tion allows nurses to strike only if no other
health care strike is In progress within 150
miles and after 90 days' notice is given of in-
tent to strike.
•
FINAL.OFFER ARBITRATION
union `iii reaching agreement without a 187
work stoppage, most substantial experience with this
Various types of third -party interven- procedure, at least in a single cit
tion (all of which are some form of me- occurred in Eugene, Oregon, where has
diation, fact finding, or arbitration) contracts have been negotiated under a
have been used in public sector im rls_ fillal-offer ordinance passed in 1971. In
ses in recent years, and each has been addition, s the litrgene final -offer frame -
acknowledged to be useful in one con- work is significantly different from final -
text or allother.2 The newest method offer sys(enrs in effect elsewhere. The
purpose of this ;u•ticle is to examine :uul
and one that has attracted much atten- assess the experience in ]utgene with
tion, is known variously as •'final-olfer," thisunesolu-
ique method of impasse r
efther-ar," "last -best -offer," or 'one -or- tion.
the -other" arbitration. Although this Before proceeding further, we believe
kind of interest arbitration has been it appropriate to alert the
part of the industrial relations literature reader to
our preferences fur prejudices) on this
since 1966,3 actual bargaining impasses subject. We start wit
have been resolved under this procedure that negotiated h the basic premise
only since 1972. Final -offer arbitration agreements are highly
has recently become part of Wisconsin Preferable to settlements imposed by a
Michigan', and Minnesota legislation third. party. Consequently, neither au -
and is being g aper is enamored with compulsory inter-
s est arbitration in ally fo
(, employed ithose states, rm. We stronly
gSo-
although" in Wisconsin and -Michigan - - believhat no completely satisfactory
this legislation applies only to impasses lulie toll to the impasse problem in to -
involving public safety employees. Fi-
nal -offer arbitration also has been used public sector has been found (and prob-
on an ad hoc basis in a few other best solution is either
will not be) aid farther that the
jurisdictions.' "1'o her no solution (i.e.,
date, however, the allow work stoppages)
=For a annprehcauivc review of ur ;a variety of
regarding the evidence solutions aimed at inducing the parties
Public -sector il"Passe 111 te'rven i ion.
scc Thomas P. Gilroy and: Anthony V. Sini- to effect their own direct compr•olnises
crept, "Impasse Resolution in Public Employ- and settlements.
meat: A Current We believe that final_
,Assessment," Industrial and offer arbitration
Labor Jtclations Review. Vol. 25, No. 9 - - goes f:u'lhel' tow,.,,.(, this
1972), pp. 496-511. (July latter objective than conventional arbi-
3Carl M. Stcvcus, "is Compulsory Arbitra- tration, and we offer the 1•.tlgcrte experi-
tion Compatible with Itargainiog?• /ndurlrial ence as tentative anti pal9ial evidence.
Itelalians, Vol 5, No.
2 y(February.If.ills tej), pp.ute y case the f )HU%viug
98-52;� more recently Harry If. Rains• "llispute Irl any
' material
Settlement in the Public Sector,' should be read ill the context of these
Review, Vol. 19, No. / BuQa/o Lnw
reprinted in 2 sewenb0), PP, 279-287,
e Joseph Locwcnbcrg and. Michael
H. Dfoskow, ads., Collective Bargaining in Gov
eminent(Englewood Cliffs, N.j.: Prentice -Hall,
1972); and Edward R. Lev, "Strike's by Govern.
ment Employees: Problems and Solutions," Areer_
icon Bar Association Journal, Vol, 57, No. 8
(August 1971), pp. 771-777; and joscp11 R.
Grodin, "Either-or Arbitration for Public Em-
ployee Disputes," Industrial Refatiorlt, Vol. 11,
No. 2 (May 1972) . pp. 260-2W.
4An experiment with final offers in Indian-
apolis is rclwrted by Fred; witney. "Fin.1-
0
preferences.
Conventional Versus Filial -Offer
Arbitration
Before examining the particulars of
the Eugene experience, it would be use.
ful to compare conventional and fanal-
Olfer Albnralloll: f ala• rlllllallallUtl\ F: Prricuc'e,"
Munfflly Labor /tevirlo, Vol. 9f. No. 5 (Afay
1'979) . pp. 20-25.
10
0
1NH IND 11S IAIAl. ANI) I,All()R REL.A,riONS REVIEW
()iffy arl?iu•alion. will, partic-ulac• atten-
tion focused on the ell 'ect these two pro-
ccdures Il:rvc on the negotiation process.&
Conventional arbiIratiott—I he submis-
sion of a h:u•I;aining impasse to an arbi-
tralor who Own fashions tilt _binding
award h:: devIlls proper for the issues in
dispute—has beet; used in this country
in both the private and public sectors.
Its limited use in the private sector has
tended to be in impasses that threat-
ened work stoppagcs Perceived as na-
tional emergencies, such as railroad
disputes." Interest arbitration has been
used more extensively in the public sec-
tor, especially in impasses involving
public safety employees., The apparent
rationale of these laws is that police and
5111 the interests of readability and brevity,
we will not always use the adjectives "compul-
wry," "bindiug." :,nd."interest" in the remain-
der of the paper. It should he understoo,l, how-
cvcr, that our discussion is limited to interest
arbitration 'hat is both compulsory and bind-
iug, unless otherwise noted.
o l -he recent Uniled Steelworkers—steel in-
dustry agrLemeut to arbitrate 1974negotiation
differences is a significant departure from the
traditional reluctance Of parties in the private
sector to uliliie interest arbitration. It remains
tut be seen, however, whether the steel decision
is a harbinger of the "wave of file future" or is
only a single iudustry:s response to its own par
titular bargaining and product market condi-
tions. See The Wall Street Journal, 24 Anril
1973, p. I a.
,Alaska, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Michi-
gan. Wisconsin, and Oregon have legislation
mandating arbitration of police and fire bargain-
ing disputa. The current Michigan and Wis-
consin laws provide for a -form of final -offer ar-
bitration: the previous Michigan law provided
fpr conventional arbitration. Wyoming has an
arbitration law applicable to fire fighters. Min-
nesota permits the Public Employment Rela-
tions. Board . to .invokefinal-offer arbitration,
and the atbitration decision is binding on "es-
sential" employees. Several states, including Ha-
waii, Kansai, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico,
and South Dakota, have legislation that permits
compulsory 'arbitration for various ` groups of
employees. At the municipal level, New York
City and Vallejo. California have a conven-
tional arbitration framework to resolve impasse
with all city employee groups; Oakland, Cali-
fornia voters recently amended the city charter
fire servires are too essential to the pub -
lie hc--Ilth and safety to be interrupted,
and arbitration provides a peaceful
nscaus of resolving bargaining disputes
involving those services while protecting
the interests of both parties to the nego-
tiation.
Compulsory arbitration has been
touted as the "wave of the future" in
Public sector impasse resolution," and
certainly it has been used increasingly
since 1968. Interest arbitration in its
conventional form, however, has re-
ceived its share of criticism. Perhaps the
bulk of these critical comments focuses
on conventional arbitration's deterrent
or "chilling" effect on the bargaining
process. In the typical private sector ne-
gotiation, the parties are presumed to
engage in sincere attempts to reach
agreement because of the significant
costs they will incur if they remain in
disagreement, These costs of disagree.
ment;ire usually associated with a work
stoppage: no revenue for the firm, no
paychecks for the employees, and a re-
duccd treasury for the union. Perhaps
equally important is the fact that each
party is able to make only relatively un-
certain estimates of what its costs of (lis.
agreement will be if a work stoppage oc-
curs, in either absolute terms or relative
to the other party's costs. The fact that
these costs, if incurred, are substantial,
to provide for arbitration of police and fire
fighter disputes; and Moulder, Colorado recently
adopted a final -offer arbitration ordinance.
Probably the most complete analysis of pub.
lie sector interest arbitration has been made by
J. Joseph Loewcnbcrg, "Compulsory Bindiug
Arbitration in the Public Sector" (Paper deliv-
ered at the International Symposium on Public
Employment Labor Relations, New York City,
May 4, 1971) . An abridged version of this
paper can be found in International Sympos-
ium of - Public Employment Labor Rclations,
New York, Proceedings (New York: New York
State Public Employment Relations Board,
1971).
sSee Gilroy and Sinicropi, "Impasse Rcsolu-
tion in Public Employment;' p, 503.
i..
■
0
parties towarda voluntary settlement.
the: employer has offered :Incl less than
The same reasoning applies to public
the union has asked for. Consequently,
sector disputes in which the employees
it can be argued that it will '•be to isle
have a right to strike, although I com-
advantage of each puffy to ester the ;!r.
plicating factor is the political rather
bitr:tion proceeding williout Iruviog
than economic nature of the costs of this-
given away tau flinch in advance"'' To
agreement (especially un the manage-
the extent that this reasoning is vali(j,
mentside) . .�
conventional arbitration has a "chill -
These strike -associated costs of disa-
ing" effect on good -faith bargaining as
greement are dramatically reduced when
each side holds back in anticipation of
bargaining takes place in a context
handing the dispute to an arbitrator.
culminating in conventional arbitration.
Although the available evidence shows
Not only will there usually be no
that conventional arbitration "sloes not
strike -induced costs of disagreement, but
immediately and inevitably destroy
also the uncertainties associated with
collective bargaining,"to there is evi-
disagreement , are significantly reduced.
(fence that conventional al bit-ation has
Conventional arbitration awards tend to
often reduced the incentive to bargain."
sGrodin, "Either-or Arbitration for Public
Mollie Bowers, "A Study of Legi,latcd Arbit•a.
Employee Disputes." p. 202. ,
tiro! and Collective Bargaining in the Public
taLoxwenberg. "Compulsory Binding Arbitra-
Safety Services in Michigan and Pell nsyha n ill -
tion in tile--Publfe Sector," p. 99. --
(1110), dissertation, Connell University. 1973). a
llLol:weubcrg concludes that the arbitration
version of which is swill to be publishod by
experiences he examined do not prove the
1'renlice•Ilall.
skeptics' predictions about its inevitable use, yet
The "chilling" elfect of conventional arbilla-
he prI)VIIIs evidence that it Is used rather fre-
tion oo tegoliatious in the I'liv:(c sector bas
fluently. (/Girl., pp. 37-10.) Ji riN and Feuille in
often been noted. See Slevcns. "Is Ctlnl)nllsitly
1971 examined police laborrelit orifi ill.sist lit-
Arblli'ation 0mipallbie• will, 1t111'ga,llnlg?" 111).
les -timing -conventional arbitration and found
4.1-45; and (:art Ill. Stevens, stilltegy ll)Itl
that police bargaining lregularly ended fn the
Gollertive ltargninitig Negotiation (Nely Yolk:
arbitrator's lap in five of these cities. Ilervey
McCraw -Hill. 190). p. Citi. Kaufman presents
Juris and Peter Feullle•, Pollee Unionism:
all interesting examination of impasse 1'esolll-
Power and Impact in Public Sector Bargaining
tion (including de jure and lir Ja(to a,'ll,tla.
(Lexington. Mass.: D. C. Hcath, 1973),.ehap. S.
tion) and the erosion of genuine collective bar -
Hines examined the use of interest arbitration
gaining in life railroad industry. Jacob J.
fn Ont:srio hospital disputes from 1900 through
Kaufman, "Procedures Versus Collective 1131--
1970 and found the incidence of arbitration in- -
l;aining in Railroad L;ilxlr tisputes,•• lndusnial
creasing over time. Robert J. Hines, "Maeda-
and lwibar Relntimis Br•iliew, Vol. 25, No. 1
tory Contract Arbitration—Is It A Viable Proe-
(October 1971), pp. 59-70. Probably the most
ess?" Industrial and Labor Relations Review,
complete examination bf lonccnlional interest
Vol. 25, No:4 (July 1972), pp. 533-544. Proba-
arbitration in the private sector has been per.
bly the most complete study of public safety in-
formed by Northrup. After reviewing the exile -
forest arbitration has been done by Bowers,
Hence with wartime adjustueot procedures,
who examined police and fire fighter negotia-
state compulsory arbioatihu laws, national
tion outcomes under the Michigan and Pcunsyl-
emergency disputes under the Railway I.alxlr
vania arbitration statutes from the statutes' im-
allot Taft-flal'lley Acus, and setet'tett foreign ple)-
plementation (111 1919 and INN. respectively)
eedures. lie concludes I11:11 his all:dysis "rUllblllls
through 1971, and found that approximately 19
beyond a snggestioll of doubt that tolulbill'oly
percent of Michigan public safety negotiations
arbitration . . , idliscouragt� colleetie a• balgaiu-
aud 45 to 50, percent of Pennsylvania public
ing." Herbert R. Northrup. ComJmbaly arbi-
safety negotiations culminated in an arbitration
tration and Govn,unent Inti„•.,rn,m in Labor
award. One of her conclusions is that the de-
Disfnilrs (Washington: I.all.,r
sign of an arbitration procedure may result in
1!ki(i) , p. 207.
a deleterious effect oil tileincentive to balgaill.
1!N) INI)IISTRIAI. AN_ 1) h,A11OR KI{I,A"PIONS
Olhct -tI Wisnls of Conventional arbi
tration can he Illade: it II My involve an
onconstinitional delegation of legislative
or executive decision-making power;
elected officials shordd not pel•tnil an ar-
hill-ator to determine issues they were
elected to th-Cide: arbitration may in-
hibit the bal�ainill <
REVIEW
costs of disagreement in a manner that
t'ouvenm
li<:tl arhiiraiion does not.
It is primarily this incentive-to.bar-
gain criterion, and only secondarily the
Other criteria just described, that will be
used to assess live final -offer arbitration
experience in Eugenc.
!,• g compromises and
innov:uions necessary to cope with
changing :conditions; and it tends to The Eugene Setting
prcvcnt the parties from coming to
grips with efficiency versos equity ques-
tions.
It is in response to these criticisms, es-
pecially the deterrent effect of conven-
tional arbitration on bargaining, that
final -offer arbitration has been pro-
posed. As Gradin explains, under the
final -offer procedure, "an arbitrator
would nor be free to compromise be-
tween the Itositions of the parties but
would be required to accept one posi-
tion or the other in toto . The
theory is that the process, instead of
chilling bargaining, will induce the par-
ties to develop their most 'reasonable'
position prior to the arbitrator's deci-
sion."= The possibility that either party
•' may lose the entire ball game" in
arbitration -is intended to act as a psy-
chological, economic, and political in-
centive for Lite parties to reach their
own agreement: "This [one-or-thc-other]
criterion generates just the kind of un-
certainty about the location of the
arbitration award that is well calculated
to recommend maximin notions of
prudence to the parties and, hence, com-
pel them to seek security in agree-
ment."ts In other words, the final -offer
procedure functions as a "strikelike"
mechanism by posing potentially severe,
tzGrodin. ."Either-or Arbitration for Public
Employee Disputes,,, p. 263_
tsStevens, '•Is Compulsory Arbitration Com-
patible with Bargaining?' p. 46.
Eugenes approximately Soo public
service employees provide the city's
!10,000 citizens with the usual range of
municipal services. The city has three
bargaining units, each represented by a
different union. The Fugcne Police Pa-
trolmen's Association (an independent
organization) represents a total of 145
nonsupervisory police officers and civil-
ian records clerk.1 employed in the
police department. The Eugene Fire
Fighters Association, International Asso-
ciation of Fire Fighters Local 851,
AFL-CIO, rcprescnts the 140 nonsuper-
visory fire fighters. The American Feder -
anon of Statc, (,()runty, and Municipal
Employees Local 1721A represents a unit
of 300 civilian employees from the re-
maining city departments." None of the
city's _ professional employees have se-
lected union representation, and the city
bargaining ordinance denies representa.
tion rights to confidential and supervi.
sory employees." The city has a council-
manager form of government, with an
eight -member council elected on a stag-
t+The AF.SCME unit consists of blue-collar
and white-collar, public works, parks mainte.
nance, clerical, and technical employees.
tsUnder previous Oregon labor legislation,
local jurisdictions hail great latittule in struc-
luring the bargaining aelationship anti also
could elect not to be covered by the law and
thus have no legal obligation to bargain. A new
law, passed in July 1973, mandates bargaining
rights for all state and local government em.
ployees, but it also includes a grandfather
clause that protects existing bargaining arrange.
ments.
UrYILE
1973-74
STEERING COMMITTEE
Rev. Hobert Welsh
President
Dorothy Douglass
Vice -President
John Harper
Secretary -Treasurer
Eleanore Bowers
Donald Bryant
Linda Dole
Flo Beth Ehninger
Jack Esbin
Henry Fox
William Gillespie
Barbara Haring
Frieda Hieronymus
Dallas Hogan
Joseph Howe
John Kamp
Faith Knowler
Dean LaMaster
L. H. Lundquist
Leslie Moeller
Warren Paris
Clayton Ringgenberg
Janet Shipton
Richard Summerwill
Rev. Roy Wingate
1
Fe
City Council
City of Iowa City
Iowa City, Iowa
Members of the Iowa City City Council:
The attached petitions ere presented to the
Council with the followina understanding:
1. They are presented in response to the
City Council's request and are not
intended to bind the council to any
action or actions it does not feel
is in the best interest of the com-
munity.
2. Although the petitions contain wordinc
proposed by the City Council, it is
not the intent of the petitioners to
tie the Council's hands-on this matter
and it is our understanding that the
presentation of these petitions is not
contrary to this intention.
We welcome this opportunity to be of service.
Sincerely,
Robert L. Welsh
}� (+ vy_ i t�x> ��� ih cif, .:. Ui xip 'F*' q-.� a'• .a _ vitt l tax
{ i
7.7
�y1
17
�1_ti,u 73Y 0, 0.e e_►C_���--- ------ _
-g�-
�977-
-C, 86_y 3 _8 --?!T
-77--
'- fid.
�,
, .a.•,s .,?. ,l . , � .. -.*$b . ` ��.:>; ';, S
�Yrr
.�s n� ,,n,�F-y,t`"
?-F�,l,:z', �-� ^`-•- � - - .. `. .. .-
IS
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
Of Iowa City, Iowa, constituting a -number in excess
of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Governor at the last general election in said City, do
hereby petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-14?"
NAME
2 t
ADDRESS
Ll
4 77
AHLERS. COONEY. DORWEtLER. ALLBEE 6 HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA
O�aT�
c, S, lg7yI
t.x�Uy 1 X97 `j
- .
IS
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
Of Iowa City, Iowa, constituting a -number in excess
of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Governor at the last general election in said City, do
hereby petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-14?"
NAME
2 t
ADDRESS
Ll
4 77
AHLERS. COONEY. DORWEtLER. ALLBEE 6 HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA
O�aT�
c, S, lg7yI
t.x�Uy 1 X97 `j
1
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of -
Governor at the last general election in said City, do
hereby petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following.proppsition to.the.,voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-14?II
NAME
ADDRESS +ATC
7_ /7
1106 V,
GAle �K z��l7y
a31 vLRIQ)
72,
6 Pd
3a2- z�/- Ath
'74/ /1&4.2-z���..
&-(keld b
a - "a . 2,5,e
d -,.;t - , V
ANLERM. COONCY. DORWEILER. ALLBEE 6 HAYNIE. LAWYERS: DES MOINES. IOWA
i
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa City, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
of two (2) percent ofthose who voted for the office of
Governor at the last general election in said City, do
hereby petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-14?"
NAME
ADDRESS
i
RVEA11 0
,�' �►� •
109 ME MWO,
n IFi
r
y / .
Mew
�� ..
VFW
Ms•i
wN e
I
10�
/C/
O/z
yg
1/7
-,
AHLERS. GOONEY. DORWEILEN. ALLBEE & HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Governor at the last general election in said City, do
hereby petition the City Council of said. City to call
a special election pursuant to the provi3ions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-14?II
NAME ADDRESS
Ok ( 5q &V'uo� i , S,5�
11.�1 7�2� /3 �a 712cc2c� �cr� .
a�
Z c 3� Gj'n'7Ff '
33' bo-
a -71
�/Z/7 Y
AHLERS. GOONEY. DORW[ILCR. ALLOKE & HAYNIE. LAWYERS. Des MOINES, IpwA
a-
7` `
-7y
�/Z/7 Y
AHLERS. GOONEY. DORW[ILCR. ALLOKE & HAYNIE. LAWYERS. Des MOINES, IpwA
1
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa City, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Governor at the last generalelection in said City, do
hereby petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
"Shall_ the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6-1000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the.planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-14?"
NAME
- C L/
ADDRESS
/1/7
Ll
i a1
�.;•�� Z-1/ / 7 zf
/J
1 .
INA -1
A -ICA &rjS Z�//.S t
a A47 1A Al
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa,City, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Governor at the.last'general election in said City, do
hereby petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
"Shall the City, of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, -undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-14?
kco-L�, o -44
n ADDRESS
I'Z.Z. �A�✓KQ�rC, b'p`i ✓C� `�.�' I' / /
C:��r9wq v
N. DHhu � rr� lily
zzY Of Z// 7 � �1
800 I,U, ''l - 13
y3v s, �fiDr�ivsd•�/ �3 ��. 7y
JIoe5- Ph /, -t S -f
AMLERB. GOONEY. DORW[ILER. ALLBEE d HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES, IOWA
1
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
-
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa City, Iowa, constituting _a number in excess
of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Governor at the last general election in said City, do
hereby.petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
"Shall the. City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6,0001000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-14?"
NAME
ADDRESS
9,17
2 i2 %
7 "1
OA YG
(� g 3 /7
CK Z
-�,- /02- 7y
913
AHLERS. GOONEY. DORWEILER. ALLBEE & HAYNIE. LAWYERS, DES MOINES. IOWA
7L/
- �z -7y
<�t
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
of two (2)percentof those who voted for the office of
Governor at the last general election in said City, do
hereby petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6,0000000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning', undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-14?"
NAME
cCA
04 7/rl
211 z /i) �-
ANLafte. COONEY. DORW[ILKO. ALL969 i HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWr
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa city, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
of two (2) percent of those who voted for the Office of
Governor at the _last general election in said City, do
hereby petition 'the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6,000,000.00_for -the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-14?"
NAME
oR
`moi "-�'`•�``.�; .. rl� ` 4���
1�
ZIPM ,1
ADDRESS bR T C_
(9 N• (-,A_tri
LV
7 �z
/,32-9sf��}
AHLERS.. COONEY. OORWEILER. ALLSEE 6 HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA
■,
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Governor at the last general election in said City, do
hereby petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $60.0001000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa.R-147"
NAMEADDRESS
'
31,2
y
7Y
P
1111
4(?S 3E�F sav,
�>
7�
C
/ 1' ele.
29 hN AK TP_(_- cf�� _Y,
-C--617
4
ANLI[RS..COON[V. DORWNILKA. ALLIRKE i MAVNI[. LAWYQRU. DEs MoINEs, IOW.,
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL Oi' THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Governor at the last generalelectionin said City, do
hereby petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $60000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the`planning;.undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-14?1°
ADDRESS
61Y . 7k
210 7°1.ir5T
�,95b s
tz3 _ou't fj�e ,�e6
ZI ,c4l PJ
ANLINS. COONZY, DORWBIL[w. ALLINE a riwvNIV. SAW ViiRY. Des NMomEu. +ow..
2-11,41-17
I
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa Citv,_Iowa# constituting a number in excess
of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Governor at the last general election in said City, do
hereby petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408AI, Code of. Iowa; 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6,00001000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-14?"
j NAME
ADDRESS
72- /1/ ,
soot V't 64 9KC ,
046.Slate- c J6,
•ju
\=ct b y
V4
AHLEIIS. GOONEY, DOIIW[ILCM. ALL8EE 6 HAYNIi. LAWYENS. DES MOINES, IOWA
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA -CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa City, .Iowa, constituting a number in excess
of two (2) percentofthose who voted for the office of
Governor at the last general election in said City, do
hereby petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa; 19730, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6„000,000,00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-14?°
NAME I
ADDRESS
(� C2Qi 6�nCC�
e �p
CJ G�+✓LiL � e�/2� � I I> F% �I/2'iL�-�
z�,L, Ze- __4 3 e5e(z,-V
V r\ it W ,JZ/i�S�
J- '7212
757z- Aq
DHT L
J,C� -71 e/1 7
yy
AHLER/. GOONEY. DORWEILER. ALLREE d HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA
_7'e, If
S'
i 7 Y
i
7y
yy
AHLER/. GOONEY. DORWEILER. ALLREE d HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned,'qualified electors of the City
Of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
Of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Governor at the last general election in said City, do
hereby petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of, Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, -to -wit:
"Shall the, City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-14?11
NAME
1
ADDRESS
/ 10 / �kwr�t
3
L �C
k"WUU
f
ANLER{. GOONEY. DORWEILER. ALLBEE & HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IpWA
F-e�.
� V�b
Pit 7q -
l3) Iq 7�
-7
Foo, (3, i i �
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa City, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Governor at the last general election in said City, do
hereby petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed *6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-14?"
NAME
ADDRESS
C e�e��
3 3 ( kuL
�Z Lk S S U.w\
(A o1
Z/ 71<,'
RQ s
AHLERS. COONEY. DORWEILER. ALLSEE 6 HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DEB MOINES. IOWA
- _ TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersignedr qualified electors of the City
of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Governor at the last general election in said City, do
hereby petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-14?"
NAME ! ADDRESS
I
a
%.fir:. l✓ , ��2�. , ,�
23 I /���, c r l�n� c /Z d
Fc --e/ �� y
z —1
co I , �� ref- iifj, . ?i /;, �- �-
S �J P,6) i'T 2, ?
/d04 61e,,JJ-t,
d /-/ & Sy.- cl- .-- D r
C7 f X0_9A, 0-oLe--
7y
i - t L- 7y
ANLERS. GOONEY. DORWEILER. ALLBEE 6 HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA
7f
-Iy-7y
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa City, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
of -two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Governor at the last general election in said City, do
hereby -petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6,0001000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-14?"
NAME ADDRESS 019 TE
-3
12 -
led— .0
7�1
A
t),
3
L
(91 (LV 0,3v I Wt k1 741"
45
V7 (141 Tell t cc K)
In n 14
C> FF
�AHLERS. CO C DORWICILER. ALLREE & HAYNIV. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA
-2-
/V
I
1
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa City, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Governor at the last general election in said City, do
hereby petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
NAME
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general oblication Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-14?"
�ADDRESS
7i 7
735-
7
3S7 3 2"
AHLERS. COONEY. DORWEILER. ALLBEE & HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA
/7, /97�/
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa City, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Governor at the _last _general election in said City, do
hereby petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, _to -wit:
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in -the -planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-14?"
NAME ADDRESS
30S
3-r �
/.2 3 /� C� >Pu�✓
3i$ �taesv
RW[IL[R. ALLeL1rdY _,_ A' DYERS. DEB MOINES. IOWA
L''//2_l 7�
7>
a /ia17y
z-1ZTf
ZV L_i
-�// 7/7,�11
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa City, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Governor at the last general election in said City, do
hereby petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit::
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bondsin the amount of not to
exceed $6,0001000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa -R-14?"
NAME ADDRESS
,B
0 Fk g,,�z 7-6q -�
(V, Q Rrxn� A,P"' )
� tep
1
i�
MIA- E2
/./
- e
% <:`% %1 i
7/5
AHLERS. GOONEY. DORWEILER. ALLBEE & HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA
,; - ,/ 7- 21V
X37-4'.r`D-/
i
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa City, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Governor at the last general election in said City, do
hereby petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit::
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bondsin the amount of not to
exceed $6,0001000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa -R-14?"
NAME ADDRESS
,B
0 Fk g,,�z 7-6q -�
(V, Q Rrxn� A,P"' )
� tep
1
i�
MIA- E2
/./
- e
% <:`% %1 i
7/5
AHLERS. GOONEY. DORWEILER. ALLBEE & HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA
,; - ,/ 7- 21V
X37-4'.r`D-/
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
Of Iowa City, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
Of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Governor at the last general election in said City, do
hereby petition the City Council of said City to call
a -special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in theamountof not to
exceed $610001000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-14?"
NAME ADDRESS
�I c6ALG�,� /
rma—
d l
_'`� /
Ai d
_ .i
AHLERS. COONEY. DORWEILER. ALLBEE & HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IQWA
to
90 - �Z- ::(X
■
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR A14D CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa Citv, Iowa,.constituting a number in excess
of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Governor at the last general election in said City, do
hereby petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa!City, Iowa, to -wit:
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-147"
NAME ADDRESS
DATE
a��_ . �%sem, ���Y
ANLERS. GOONEY. DORWEIL611. ALL8EE S HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA
I
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa City, Iowa ,.constituting a number in excess
of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Governor at the last general election in said City, do
hereby petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-147"
NAME y� ADDRESS DATE
t�/IZL'/ lJ ' eii��--�'� lij o�"/L(�7'�7' �� • :�/ate/��
AHLERS. COONIY. 00RWi1LE11. ALLEEE • HAYNIE. LAWYE/I/. DES MOINES. IOwA
M<; j
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
of two (2) percent of those ,who voted for the office of
Governor at the last general election in said City, do
hereby petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-14?"
NAME
ADDRESS DA,
LOL
17
7 z,z �. Z- 1-/7 it
} C�Q,�Qrca-
21, V/�,
17
AHLERS. COONEY. DORWEILER. ALLSEE 6 HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa City, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
Of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Governor at the last general election in said City, do
hereby petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for, the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6100011000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal,project of said City designated as
number Iowa-R-14?II
NAME
ADDRESS
AHLERO. GOONEY. DORWEILER. ALL069 i HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DEO MOINES. IOWA
DATE
07
sp
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Governor at }he last 'general election in said City, do
hereby petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuantto the provisions of Chapter
408A, CodeofIowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:_
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa -R-14?"
NAME
1 0�,V,44- W - &a"
■
ADDRESS L)ATL-
< rz� a :12 7 f
ANLERS. COONEY. DORWEILER. ALLBEE 6 HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DEA MOINES. IOWA
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa City, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
of two (2)percentof those who voted for the office of
Governor at the last general election in said City, do
hereby petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-14?"
NAME
ADDRESS
1� -,:�1 a_,e,
5-
441
441
S 67
',S-0 7
o
,r
a� �J5C��
-�' ° 3 4,.a-
'-�-�� u
�4_
Cy
..�_" J h S
AHLER6.. COONEY. RWEILER. ALLBEE d HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA
_41 Tp
i' J 7
/a3/7�
all
/a/��
`6 y
AA Feb -74
_._-■
L
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL Or THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified'%blectors of the City
of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Governor at the last general election in said City, do
hereby petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation -Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewalproject` ofsaidCity designated as
number Iowa R-14?"
NAME
r ((Ixrz(Swyu anArymL
J_
ADDRESS
v
tAJ6.__
30
r
�2
7�1
1-2
S.
y
7%`
X17
/lL CJ LCR6. COON[Y. D 2/ALLSE�AYNI N�/fis. DES MOINES. IOWA
�� �s It
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Governor at the last general election in said City, do
hereby petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
NAME
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-147111
T
ADDRESS
C31 <7
0 TL
Z4.4l,2 d r�
�
AHLERS. C.00NEY. DORWEILER. ALLSEE S HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA
i
n
m
O
n
m
70
=
cl
v
r
D
4
r�
�
v
z
n
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified',electors of the City
Of Iowa City, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
Of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Governor at the last general election in said City, do
hereby petition.the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
NAME
JAI
�I crime. i
9
k-
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general"obligation•Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6,000,000,00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-14?"
V-AKCens. COONEY.
ADDRESS
72
-2c- -
c,?-�3--2y
7y
-a�-77
2-2-11-9,4
r 31D C-1-*- S
0z ' r�
DO W
�/C
EILERyALLBEE b HAYNIE. LAW YEgIi. D "%
ES MOINES, IOWA /
12 2,E a/IJ-/717
y
1
■
:_Y
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa City, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Governor at the last general election in said City, do
hereby petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
NAME
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-14?"
ADDRESS
r
�a.E
AHLERS. COONEY. DORWEILER. ALLBEE 6 HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA
/�7
2,�
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Governor at -the last general election in said City, do
hereby petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-14?"
IMuL
ADDRESS �./7 %E-
�� -'�-7
oz po a
qrI A-vt
217aZ �-is-7Y-
,;2 30
72,
�1c. vyw 1MV
,�u.a�� �,,,�• J��N �-�-# 428 �� Aix A-u.�L,..e
V AHLER6. GOONEY. DORWEILER. ALLBEE d HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA
_ yr
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Governor at the last general election in said City, do
hereby petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the followingpropositionto the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-14?"
NAME ADDRESS R ��
H ghwoocl fed
CL
. 8
/909
�� � ��l/.G� srcJ /�/ � /%L� • 1��2i � ori c�> , �,�.� �
rl
- Z
EY S,
o ✓6a , -x /lam
LQ,c�
�J
AHL Rt. C ONEY• DORWEILER. ALLBEE 6 MAY IE. LAWYE S. DES MOINES IOWA
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa City, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Governor at the last general election in said City, do
hereby, -petition. the .City -Council -of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-14?"`
NAME
- N`<
G«,
ADDRESS OO RTE:-
ay-
/Joa c�2-to-7Y
Jo Aq"A_P
Id, 7 ��
/ 9/0
te��l / 7�
goy
c5VO y,,p, 1 I 73Z
COONEY. DORWEILER. ALLBEE 6 HAYNIE. LAWYERS. Des MOINES, IOWA
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a numk.er in excess
of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Governor at the last general election in said City, do
hereby petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
4083, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6,0001000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-14?"
NAME
I�
cly
nil
o1: 07 11�'Xr1� u
ADDRESS
s o 3 S_ V c.. Q ,,,�,,�
9Q� J.�
0ATE
;2--03-7Y
12- /19-7`11
a -to -� L{
a'0,71571
%tel
Lc't
��
°�"�a--l/
4 z z
��atd
.
sf .
-,� --7V
w 3 �,,�,�,•,,,�t
71-1
/0/ -2
P
(I3L
a 1 kee_ 2/ /o / 1V
AHLERS. GOONEY. DORWEILER. ALLOEE It HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
Of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Governor at the last general election in said City, do
hereby -petition -the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6,000,000,00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-14?" -
ADDRESS
I I S I'i'i Ut.�a_4,9,
7 / 7
o f� TC
o Ce
Zia
r 7
F-
r
7��. �-_ J,5; -2r
7e� /o / p> _
;,
QA,%a-t�-r�
C IG ; j`,eC(�
ANL[Rs. GOONEY, DORWCIL[R. ALLBE[ tr HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES, IpWA
;E-
P4 �J/��7
lie, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Governor at the last general election in said City, do
:.ereby petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa. 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue ics
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6,000,000.00 for,the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-14?
;AME
- w V / — i
lice, Cti i�2u�
A C
ADDRESS
d J z
l �I&Z4
�Z
41
J
AHLEg0. COO EY. DOQWc^I6E%1. ALLBfiE 61i AYNIE. LAWYERS. UES MOINES. 1pW
i
0-K
0-K
v` • - - '
v
-HEM iiONORABLE �1�`,YOR ASD CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY Or
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified electors z the City
O._ Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
OZ two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Governor at the last general election in said City, do
!.-oreby'petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
08A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
she following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
"S :all the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed '$6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
nu,,mber Iowa R-14?"
NA:?EADDRESS
-- -._._/7 Z
aL
it
1.
gojq
1
E
Leib Soh /n
u�f���
(Yri- �G'L-
X3(7
4
7 �
Wo-
a \H &-ERS. GOONEY, Dnp�6 H
Wmura. ALI_Ei AYN/I\E. I- S. DE9 MOINES, IOWA
ov
J
r
;.,Ie, t.1C i.:i:c:erSigned,- qus.lified electors of the City
o_ Iowa City, Iowa, constituting -a nurber 1n excess
o wo (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
uo'orzor a:. the last general election.'in said City, do
ht!rtby pctittion the City Council of said City to call
a _:retial election pursuant to the provisions of Chap -or
,G A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition t the_ oters of the City of
Iowa C.i cy l IOW,, c' -wit:
the CityofIowa City, Iowa, issue its
obligation -:Bonds in the amount of not to
a.:cead $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urian renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-14?"
ME ADDR::SS
�.�
�criv� 3S S . S L) n.M
/}� f'vc�,lra�� a.n, - ay `% S . c�.�ttc�►ti�1
AHLER'3. GOONEY. DORWEILER. ALLBRE 6 HAYNIE. LAWYZRS. DE9 MOINES. IOWA
&7
.� / 23 / 74-
_'/2 3 / 2 </
¢
_/23/2y
Y �YOR
A\D CT_TY
COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF
C --T'-',
IOTA -
;.,Ie, t.1C i.:i:c:erSigned,- qus.lified electors of the City
o_ Iowa City, Iowa, constituting -a nurber 1n excess
o wo (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
uo'orzor a:. the last general election.'in said City, do
ht!rtby pctittion the City Council of said City to call
a _:retial election pursuant to the provisions of Chap -or
,G A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition t the_ oters of the City of
Iowa C.i cy l IOW,, c' -wit:
the CityofIowa City, Iowa, issue its
obligation -:Bonds in the amount of not to
a.:cead $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urian renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-14?"
ME ADDR::SS
�.�
�criv� 3S S . S L) n.M
/}� f'vc�,lra�� a.n, - ay `% S . c�.�ttc�►ti�1
AHLER'3. GOONEY. DORWEILER. ALLBRE 6 HAYNIE. LAWYZRS. DE9 MOINES. IOWA
&7
.� / 23 / 74-
_'/2 3 / 2 </
¢
_/23/2y
r.. r
tm:�Ioa. 3LEI MAYOR AND CITY COU\CIL OR THE CITY Or
10:11A CITY, IOWA
fve, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Gov,:�rnor at the last general election in said City, do
notchy petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
lc -A Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
_owa City, Iowa, to -wit:
"S:.all the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
gene.al obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-14?"
NAME
i
ADDRESS
AHLER3. GOONEY. DORWEILER• ALL"EE Ih HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DER MOINES. IOWA
.A�
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa Citv, Iowat constituting a number in excess
of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Governor at the last general election in said City, do
hereby, petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A. Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
NAME
"Shall the City of Iowa Cityr Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of -said City designated as
number Iowa R-147"
4-
-4-
/+
�o
LLa r ii e r
2 -
lit' �-,,&f J;.
7
ANUIRS. COONEY. DOnWKILCM. ALLE61 & HAYNIE. LAWYaPts. OEM MomFv. lowk
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Governor at the last general election in said City, do
hereby petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
NAME
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-14?11
ADDRESS
C �'��✓r1.t1 9L-Uf&IU t J 1 FG GUc.I �Lw4 -CC�`4 .
I)S
',1,6L:.CIi` Cveo l!DD 0�t.4f' "q
�.� Busst-Tjai r>?u, ��,�,�° 'ZII
old mQ r ! r 1I
<a�C�i /CrT2.
a t/� �L� 1 .,• . , l i / /� t r rls
c� tA
r\0.,n�,
i
Z -7�� 4:�
7 3ti�
73S 0 %�
2 - ;/
`f
a -a3 -7y
.41
/7
AHLERS. GOONEY. DORWEILER. ALLSEE 6 HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA
1917 1
M
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa City, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Governor at the last general election in said City, do
hereby petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City Of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
`I►iTuia
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6,0001000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-14?"
I -A
j G
L r I
0 -IS
oa►f mu r\
i
V _
I lj
ADDRESS
�y-�7cl
i
AHLER/. GOONEY, DORWEILER. ALLBEE 8 HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa City, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
of two (2) percent of 'those who voted for the office of
Governor at the last _general election in said City, do
hereby petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-14?"
NAME
Oe n0
Awl -•^U'"
L 4%t7� li°
'.A(!�,
r� ptl" h
ADDRESS
3
JZ -7. =
y3s s.
606
S _ f_-
'lv`,
z(z z/7`I
7;
crl
Ge
At
i•
AHLERs. GOONEY. DORWEILIER. ALLBEE d HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DE9 MOINES. IOWA
I
TO THE'NONNORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF Tii E CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA ' j
i•ie, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Governor at the last general election in said City, do
I
ereby petition the City Council of said City to call
special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
:06A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
she following proposition to the voters of the City of
T_owa City, Iowa, to -wit:
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-14?"
2AME :.: ADDRESS
/13 . Uars
Gj v�1,Er" 14V7 ?�4z 3/7
c�.
f J
■
1
LVAchie r-
s�RU1sE
ec
J3
SSL � }h,Lr X�
3/3 . - r
- rRuSry
_l � `�,,� •tel..-.�z�,.J!' � .�`�{-�.
r U
J
/G
J r,7
AHLERS. GOONEY. DORW£ILER. ALLFIEE i. HAYNIE. LAW YLRs. DF4 MOINES, IOWA
TO THE. i10aORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY O:
IO:qA CITY, IOWA
lie, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa City Iowa constituting a nus
_ , , number in excess
o� two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Gov:-rnor at the last general election in said City, do
hereby petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general,obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6,000,000.00 for,the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-14?I"
NAME
r'.
L
ADDR.r::SS
J AMcS
fr L ANSDON
j
G� tel\ MAN'AN/YA
d "gin)
15,-�� .
l
3.� 3174
I
s17
/23 7�
C
�:_� umin j C�4-
Leh
AmtI R3. GOONEY, DoRWEILCA. ALLB¢fi b HAYNIE. I..AWYLRS. DER �'IOINES. IOWA
i
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF T CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
we, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa City, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
oL two (2) percent of those who voted for -the office of
Governor at the last general election in said City, do
hereby petition the City Council of said City to cal.'_
z, special election pursuant to the provisions of Cha?ter
08A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6,000,000,00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban -renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa.R-14?"
:LAME L�
ADDRESS
e
c S /
J ID5/-7L
_:/� j/7
AHLERS. GOONEY. DORWEILER. ALLOSE & HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA
3
w
O
�
n
y
a �i
7Do
o
Z
�
D
O
O
m
�
v
3
w
O
�
n
�m
7Do
o
Z
�
D
O
O
m
�
v
z
n
TO THE HONORABLE ZU%YOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Governor at the last general election in said City, uo
hereby petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
08A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban -renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa.R-14? ;
NAME ADDRESS �Le
/eel.
L'
7
G 6
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Governor at the last general election in said City, do
hereby petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
IIQho•i l Ll. .. nC L.. ..G T-_._ n1 . __ � _
�A
� / • Q ,moi 2 f. (vo�/.r.,.. �, 7
Lj
1 , i
A// .:' 7-�UG��✓ ✓ 6 /
I Y
AHLERS. GOONEY. OORWEILER. ALLBEE 9 HAYNIE. LAWYERS. OES MOINES. IQWA
e � z
r 1..
,i.JA Y h jaw ✓'aC-h ,.y ... ..
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Governor at the last general election in said City, do
hereby petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
IIQho•i l Ll. .. nC L.. ..G T-_._ n1 . __ � _
�A
� / • Q ,moi 2 f. (vo�/.r.,.. �, 7
Lj
1 , i
A// .:' 7-�UG��✓ ✓ 6 /
I Y
AHLERS. GOONEY. OORWEILER. ALLBEE 9 HAYNIE. LAWYERS. OES MOINES. IQWA
r 1..
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
—T
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Governor at the last general election in said City, do
hereby petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
403.x, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project -of said City designated as
number Iowa R-14?"..s'
v
J �� L
6E r—
. mss/
2As
cp
TO THEE HONORABLE XAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF TH-E, CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
Pie, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
Of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
o:: two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Governor at the last general election in said City, do
hereby petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chanter
,.-SA, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-14?" / 1
NAME ADDRESS r�GLJ�
17, Por
C)
11
0
AHLeA3. GOONEY. DOn WEILEA. ALLURE 6 HAYNIE. LAWYjLAs. DE9 MOINES. IOWA
°/
X012
G"�, -1
arc
C�Q\
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Governor at the last general election in said City, do
hereby petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-14?"
NAME
ADDRESS 0
aao� b�� Rot . al�yl�y
VLO
-27
ZfL
17
-6-4����
ANLER6. GOONEY. DORWEILER. ALLBEE & HAYN2AWYER9. Drs MOINES. IOWA
G
z.
u � i
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Governor at the last general election in said City, do
hereby petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit: -
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bondsinthe amount of not to
exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-14?11
NAME ADDRESS
I!
302-3
C43
�'y 171
n �^
a L -a,
2-1J/-Iy
a/9171
-/.z
7 V
AHLERS. GOONEY. DORW[IL[R. ALLOSE & HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA
M1
ir.1N
i'J :'iz :iJ;iO3A1 :LAYOR AND CITY COU`CIL OF THE CITY O:•
CI'='I', IOGJA
the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
Zowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
of Lwo (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Go',�raor at the last general election in said City, do
petition the City Council of said City to call
special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
SUuA, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
_ tha To-llowing proposition to the voters OT the City Of
Io,aa City, Iowa, to -wit:
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6,000,000.00 for'the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
nu,-nber Iowa R-14?"
\AME
A
f
ADDRESS
W AW .2
Cid
AHLEAS. GOONEY, DORW%ILER. ALLBRE & HAYNIE. LAWYZRS. ()Eq MOINES. IOWA
0A
OR
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
Of Iowa City, _Iowa, constituting a number in excess
of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Governor at the last general election in said City, do
hereby petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed 5610001000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-14?"
NAME
/-")T_—G {{
s'
V
ADDRESS
/ L/ � � � ...._ .LLC •- �.
,,0/4 TL
AHLERS. COONEY. DORWEILER. ALLSEE & HAYNIE.. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA
Y
Q -ZT-?�
■'-
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa Cit.v, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Governor at the last general election in said City, do
hereby petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
NAME
- J/U
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $610001000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-14?"
ADDRESS
%ooli 4" < /. /.
_ - sa AtiCu L .-4+
OP Tf
g/ 11/7V
I f /71
r
c i
CLCJIJ
AHLERS. GOONEY. DORWEILEP. ALLBEE 6 HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA
7-�
`�?� - //, i, 2 V
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Governor at the last general election in said City, do
hereby petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
":Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $61000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking _and _carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-14?"
-NAM�E/[//�
rK' _:2 �.
�j ADDRESS -(—
��
1)7_
,7
/? r
J16 Q-
-- - --i C
6104
117Z
1- 13
Pf c__
31z3
WRvbC.- ST
VIC
AHLlRs. Co
&.ab
ONEY. DORWEILER. ALLSEE S HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA
`l/ D /7Y
/C12 z/
C;2Z � L/
71
L_,�-/!-7�
?-,,-ry
,� -11-7Y
._-//-7�
Z -i/-71-1
■
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THF CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Governor at the last general election in said City, do
hereby petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-14?"
RUM
J(si�Y \f�earv�+
ADDRESS
5' 3 3
mo 166( otd
323/
I D'-� 9'r av\&v i _� �Jka_
A
Gri\
e
pcttz�7_
�� L
//:2
Ii,I�"7t
1�t� �17�
L lY
IIJ
-C'.TWI// ` L9R9. CO Y. DORWEILER. ALLBEE 6 HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA
G' -t\
C�'\
,z
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa City, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Governor at the last general election in said City, do
hereby petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-14?"
NAME ADDRESS Q IJq Tc
�`✓!/'" �J )1Y� \'I_] f ':.�1�✓VJ��1�'v��l'./�IL�ti �/ ��I I" { t ��1 �. . -" / ) /1
r
/r
(/ 6 �F
qI G 3 N3/7 �.
Zl,
3 3 /`Gc
q/r5- G/aY-)V,
AHLERS. GOONEY. DORWEILER. ALLSEE 6 HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA
Y7Y
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Governor at the last general election in said City, do
hereby petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-14?"
NAME
3aC_
ADDRESS
0 qT&
tCL,l.,,
N
�o io LU. 9,���
r
AHLERG. GOONEY. DORWEILER. ALLREE R HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DER MOINES. IOWA
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa City, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of -
Governor at the last general election in said City, do
hereby petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to=wit:
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-14?"
NAME ADDRESS
r�6
i
-/_: I. 1 �, c3 7 l
AHLERS. GOONEY. DORWEILER. ALLSEE 6 HAYN IE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA
i
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa City, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Governor at the last general election in said City, do
hereby petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-14?"
NAME
/y��� �� � l�--_ {ice •
,iEn1K5
i< 1 RC II-n�E rZ
rAL_sL�r
4
DI�J�RK/A/
ADDRESS
�3 - E. r�z s ,
tr
Ile
�o l C cu 1_2-;,c v\_4,ov1.
ANLERS. GOONEY. DORWEILER. ALLSEE & HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA
71v -
7y
l -�y-
.:�_j«k /'\�
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Governor at the last -general -election in said City, do
hereby -petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa. R-14?"
NAME
����
J AA c
1
It
j emr-1 " B EST
-(2-WV_3
-A
ADDRESS
N
X30 w a -b , +
4-I
Yy o A T_F
'1 �. //J
121 P�77�1-
i2-
ff:,513 14, 1 q -
C) -19=7
/_,J_e_kQ QC7. � �
7y
�1i.�z/T�
n-(AHLER{. COONEY. DORWLILER. ALLBEL b HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA
�XXQi� R2 1� /30r
i
�,I,,� <iZ -7 211 Y (7
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa City, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Governor at the last: general election in said City, do
hereby petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-14?"
NAME
ADDRESS
13
1100
F y_3
T E
v,7
Z kmtor
a I_KV
GNU
Cy
a.3 v
AMLERS. GOONEY. DORWEILER. ALLBEE & HAYAm. LAWYERS. DES MOINES, IOWA
T-�.1.,T-
( /11
..T -
r/
,�- ff�-
1` -Gk. l8
J,z4 It
,! a
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Governor at the last general election in said City, do
hereby petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-14?"
NAME ADDRESS % C
ONV l_ I Thr i -n t S A167 r v r s oc- -3 0 ?� cn7` �
S
AHLERS. COONEY. DORWEILER. ALLISEE & HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES, IOWA
TO THE HONORABLE_ MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa City, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Governor -at the last general election in said City, do
hereby petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, CodeofIowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6,000,000,00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewalproject of said City designated as
number Iowa R-14?"
NAME
ADDRESS O./� J -E
lGl 9 P h��,rl�� ��y I
AHLERO. GOONEY, DORWSILSR. ALLOSE 6 HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES, IOWA
74
7y
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Governor at the last general election in said City, do
hereby petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition tothevoters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-14?"
NAMEG fADDR``ESS
C Civ ice, t ;'�1 J-2 �'�//t ��r :_� ,'c 7z-
�lGLLuC C'i /i . //� �G4L�[ ✓ 4"
AHLERS. COONEY. DORWEILER. ALLBEE h HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of -
Governor at the last, general election in said City, do
hereby petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
eed
ose of
incthe planning undertaking and.00 for the carrying out planning, g Y g an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-14?"
iINfTINFO
f/V71 A
L?
ADDRESS
A -e.
020 a -J? /�o-c�i.�c ✓ �Z .
o"I Sd a �P L''Z4_e_49yc, Clc-4-4e-�
ZD
161-7
a
/97
V
7y
U -/- -7 -751
L AHLER8. COONEY. DORWEILER. ALLB__EE IS HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA
0 S SCJ 0,(,U
1 -3
�)-/a-71
-7Y
2- -ia - 7V
-2
�21 //-/- 71
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa City, Iowa, constituting_a number in excess
of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Governor at the last general election in said City, do
hereby petition -the ``City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa`, to -wit:
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6,_000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-14?"
NAME
�j ...-�GLyCl•�2fil/fit
Cl"% C � l5-i•reb�
641
ADDRESS
C4 14 Ci
s oG-
%03 61-
0 lvxr .
/9-0 iti. /a -41-t.
/✓�� T
.� 1
�etw�I �a1y , (fit Z-/�i?�/
9
A
IW.,
3 a � Z%,XA&W� /�L
z
6p E%) / 3 Cf�ir�
. DORWEILER. ALL9EE S HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA
a - 3- '74-
z--31117 /
7/3/7
%3 /7
zll3 J7y
�/i v /7 y
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa City, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Governor at the last general election in said City, do
hereby petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6,0001000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-14?"
NAME
,aaz
1
Af
ADDRESS
�z v
sa Ale, Cat AzC, 02- ��4- 7/4Z
0_1 _;I 61",� 47� Y.2
MILERS. GOONEY. DORWEILER. ALLBEE 6 HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOIIIES. IOWA
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY-, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa Citv, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
of two (2) percent of those who voted for the office of
Governor at the last general election in said City, do
hereby petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the p!.3rpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
NAME
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-14?"
ADDRESS
AHLIRS. GOONLY, DORWEILCR. ALLBEE d HAYNIE- LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA
r r�5:
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the City
of Iowa City, Iowa, constituting a number in excess
of two (2) percent of _those who voted for the office of
Governor at the last general election in said City, do
hereby petition the City Council of said City to call
a special election pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
408A, Code of Iowa, 1973, for the purpose of submitting
the following proposition to the voters of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to -wit:
"Shall the City of Iowa City, Iowa, issue its
general obligation Bonds in the amount of not to
exceed $6,000,000.00 for the purpose of aiding
in the planning, undertaking and carrying out an
urban renewal project of said City designated as
number Iowa R-14?"
NAME p
ADDRESS
\�� 4L --e
AHLER{. GOONEY, DORWEILER. ALLBEE 6 HAYNIE. LAWYERS. DES MOINES. IOWA
CITIZENWOR Aff, B
1973-716
SI'EEHING COMMITTEE
Rev. Robert Welsh
President
Dorothy Douglass
Vice -President
John Harper
Secretary -Treasurer
Eleanore Bowers
Donald Bryant
Linda Dole
Flo Beth Ehninger
Jack Esbin
Henry Fox
William Gillespie
Barbara Haring
Frieda Hieronymus
Dallas Mogan
Joseph Howe
John Kamp
Faith Knowler
Dean LaMaster
L. H. Lundquist
Leslie Moeller
Warren Paris
Clayton Ringgenberg
Janet Shipton
Richard Summerwill
Rev. Roy Wingate
City Council
City of Iowa City
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
:ITER IOA CITY
Members of the Iowa City City Council:
February 5, 1974
Citizens For A Better Iowa City trusts that the City Council
will provide citizens of Iowa City with the following type
of information relating to the bond referrendum.
1. What are the funds to be used for?
We understand the rational for flexibility. We
also realize, however, that persons wish to know
the purposes for which bonds are being sold.
2. What are the fiscal implications?
A statement concerning amortization schedule and
sources of repayment is vital to the interpreta-
tion of the referrendum.
3. Why does the council desire a petition?
There is some question on our part as to it's
necessity. If there is a valid need for a peti-
tion, C.B.I.C. will be happy to secure the nec-
essary signatures, if such assistance is needed
and desired.
4. What are the alternatives?
Persons need to know the implication of their vote.
If, for example, there is another way of carrying
out the proposed redevelopment, persons need to
know this. If there is no other alternative, they
need to know this.
We trust that the City Council will address itself to these
considerations and share this information.
Sincerely,
Robert L. Welsh
RLW:rew
February 1, 1974
Dear Property Owner or Resident:
CIVIC CENTER. 410 E WASHINGTON ST.
IOWA CITY. IOWA 52240
319-354-18M
Re: Parking Prohibition
As a result of an engineering study concerning the in-
adequate sight distance for northbound traffic at the
intersection of `Gilbert and Church Streets, a recommendation
was made to the City Council of Iowa City to remove parking
on the south side of Church Street for a distance of 150
feet west of Gilbert and 100feeteast of Gilbert. This
proposed parking prohibition will be placed on the Council
agenda for the February S, 1974, Council meeting which is
to be at 7:30 p.m, in the Council Chambers at the
Civic Center. Any individual wishing to make objections
to or support for this proposed parking prohibition may
address Council at that time.
If you have any questions concerning this letter please
don't hesitate to contact me at 3S4-1800, Eat. 252.
Sincerely,
George R. Bonnett, P.E.
Acting Director of Public Works
GRB/mjc
��g
.�, -
t ,L Z U i tet-._ xv •N' r s ti `ir. N e,�!, f 4 r T J f. C.
J ft t}l
- 413;,E., ,Church' St.: s
Iowa City, Iowa
February 49 1974 .
Mr. Edgar Czarnecki, Mayor
Civic Center
Iowa City, Iowa
Dear Mayor, Czarnecki
I have a:;letter from George Connett, Acting Director of Public
Works.regarding banning of parking on Church St. for a number of
feet.
Because of recent illness I-would be unable to attend the meeting
on Tuesday, I called: his .office for some information but was told
that the Council would make`-the 'decision.
I asked these questions:
1. What hours would this-bann be in effect?
2. Where will the.-residents and.tenants park? Since parking is
prohibited on the.North side of Church street, it becomes a problem
for all of us and particularly the disabled and elderly who live
in this area.
I realize the purpose of, .:this. action is to let the traffic move
smoothly- and eut down on the number of accidents at Gilbert and
Church corner. There are five apartments at 528 N. Gilbert rented
to students.; Two .'-of. them have an old bus and a converted truck.
When these were stored _'on the street for weeks at a time without
bein it became+- a
g moved problem for drivers ,to see traffic on -
either side of Gilbert.' I`-know that the truck is now parked six
feet from the west-sideof my home and has been there for a month.
Certainly fan.unsightly' view. and a fire hazard
So ;I wonder why the property owners on Church Street have to be
penalized for those living on"-.Gilbert.
I also realize that this town is going to the students and the
University but don't the older property owners who have been good
residents _of :;Iowa City have any rights?
V ry truly., our?
2 }
9
iitten
ulyr-yourm,
ry, 2 6 I9,74
nagear"L,
It
i F
9
iitten
ulyr-yourm,
nagear"L,
January 28, 1974
Loren Hickerson,
City Hall
Iowa City, Iowa
Mayor
52240
Dear Mayor Hickerson:
The City of Perry and the Central Iowa Regional Association
of Local Governments is attempting to obtain support for the
re-establishment of rail passenger service through central
Iowa.
The most logical and feasible route would be the Chicago,
Milwaukee & St. Paul Railroad which is already a member of
the Amtrat system.
The establishment of the proposed route would best serve the
central portion of Iowa. We feel that the first route es-
tablished is to far south to benefit the greatest number of
Potential rail passengers.
We would appreciate any help and support that you might
give to this proposal.
Thankiug you,
Vjt ulours,
D.. D. ew'ston ,
Mayor
DDL:cb
Mr. D. D. Lewiston
Mayor
City of Perry
1102 Hillis Avenue
Perry, Iowa 50220
Dear Mayor Lewiston:
The Iowa City City Council at its February 5, 1974 meeting
officially received and placed on file your correspondence
concerning the re-establishment of rail passenger service
through central Iowa. Your letter was referred to the
legislative committee for review and report back.
Thank you for bringing this matter to the attention of
the City Council.
RSW/mj c
Very truly yours,
Ray S. Wells,
City Manager
- - DAVENPORT, IOWA
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
January 28 1974
To: Mayor of Iowa City
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Subject: Notice of Revisions to Electric
Rate Schedules
Notice is hereby given that on January 16, e 1974,
we filed with the Iowa StatCommerce commission a
proposed new contract rider providing for interrup-
tible power service, scheduled to become
February 17, 1974. effective
DRS:nb
POST_ OFF
Very truly yours,
D. R. Stichnoth
Vice President and
Secretary
X 450, 206 EAST SECOND STREET, DAVENPORT, IOWA 52808
319-926-7100
2 -15�-, K
—.?
RFs r E< it Eair
,
.. . ........
...... 4t,
:j7-
x1t .. ....
..........
sj.
W.
Q1- lk
ir.
fT
V.tnl-
C
> Vice President Z Secreta {i �$ va-x-
erk
Davenpo
D. G. FINDLAY
VICE PRESIDENT -DISTRICTS
Dear Customer:
COMPANY
January 30, 1974
On January 25, 1974, we filed proposed electric
and gas rate increases with the Iowa State Commerce Commis-
sion, replacing filings made November 29, 1973. The November
29 filings have been withdrawn. The proposed higher rates,
identical to the proposed rates contained in the November 29,
1973, filings (about which our customers were previously
informed by letter of December 26, 1973) are designed to
produce approximately $2,722,000 or 6.8 percent of additional
annual electric revenue and $2,892,000 or 6.3 percent of
additional annual gas revenue based on actual 1973 sales
quantities. The proposed effective date is March 3, 1974.
The proposed increases are in addition to rates currently
being collected under bond and subject to refund.
If you have any questions or want additional
information about the proposed increases, please contact
our business office (telephone 338-9781) and we will be
happy to help you.
We expect the Iowa State Commerce Commission to
hold a public hearing to consider our request. You may file
with the Commission (Valley Bank Building, Des Moines, Iowa,
50319) written objection to our proposed increases and may
request that a public hearing be held to determine if they
should be allowed.
DGF:aa
Very truly yours,
I
0
February 13, 1974
Mr. D. G. Findlay
Vice President —Districts
Iowa -Illinois Gas and Electric Co.
211 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Dear Mr. Findlay:
The Iowa City City Council at its February 5, 1974
meeting officially received and placed. on file your
correspondence concerning proposed electric and gas rate
increases. This letter was referred to my office and to
the office of the City Attorney for review and report
back.
Thank you for bringing this matter to the attention
of the City Council.
RSiV/mj c
Very truly yours,
Ray S. 'Wells
City Manager
The Honorable Edgar Czarnecki
230 Windsor Drive
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Dear Mr. Czarnecki:
TELEPHONE 277.2121
AREA CODE 712
PO. BOX aa7
Attached is a copy of a letter sent last week to Governor Ray which ex-
presses our profound disappointment at his apparent inability or unwill-
ingness to understand that cities in Iowa also share in the financial di-
lemma facing schools, counties and state government itself.
We hope that before too much time has passed in the 1974 Legislative Ses-
sion, you and your colleagues on the City Council will join with us in
forcefully carrying this message to Governor Ray and our State Legislators.
Our biggest problem, it seems to us, is the need to bring home, not only to
the Governor, but also to our representatives in the Legislature and to
our constituents, the severity and magnitude of the fiscal crisis of all
of Iowa's Cities.
We need, together, to devise a strategy for meeting and solving this
severe challenge to the health of the largest cities in Iowa who are most
severely burdened by the fiscal inattention we seek to remedy.
We, in Sioux City, believe local option taxation authority is the best solu-
tion to consider, but are willing to discuss any and all alternatives as
well as strategies for getting legislative and gubernatorial acceptance.
Please help us in our efforts to prevent city government from becoming the
forgotten stepchild of Iowa politics.
We believe a well publicized meeting between representatives of the elected
councils and mayors of Iowa's largest cities and the Governor and key legis-
lative leaders will be the best way to prevent city government from succumb-
ing to fiscal inattention in 1974 and the years ahead.
Please let us know if you share our concern and if you wish to participate
in such a mseting.
Sincerel
Mayor -G rge Cole
for t" City Council
Sioux City, Iowa
f /139
COUNCIL - MANAGER GOVERNMENT
Enol:.. -
ITy, IOWA
January 24, 1974
The Honorable Robert D. Ray
Governor of Iowa
State Capitol Building
Des Moines, Iowa 50319
Dear Governor Ray:
•
TELEPHONE 277-2121
AREA CODE 712
PO. BOX 447
Having searched your "State of the State" message in vain for any mention
of those local governing bodies called upon to provide more services than
any other, namely Iowa's cities; and representing, as we do, the people of
one of Iowa's larger cities, we feel compelled to call to your attention
the needs of cities in Iowa. We respectfully request your understanding
and your leadership in creating in this state an atmosphere which would
allow our cities to begin to solve their problems for themselves.
The problems of cities in Iowa are real. They stem from state imposed
restrictions and requirements, including state mandated reliance on prop-
erty tax, the tax which is least responsive to the inflation you recognize
as so seriously impeding the effective operation of state government and
local school districts. Inflation affects the operation of municipal
government as well, putting Iowa's cities in the unenviable position of
attempting to provide services which cost 8 to 10 per cent more each year
with revenues which grow at a much slower rate.
Our employees, as well as state and school district employees, have been
hit by inflation. Our city departments are as pressed as the governmental
subdivisions you mention to absorb inflationary costs. But cities, re-
stricted as are our school districts by mill levy limitations and reliance
on the unresponsive property tax, have not been emphasized as worthy re-
cipients of increased state aid to deal with inflation. Yet the problems
of the local school districts and their staffs have been so highlighted.
Perhaps we have failed previously to communicate our needs to you. Or
perhaps you have failed to recognize the urgency of the complex financial
problems the cities of Iowa, particularly the larger ones, are facing and
will continue to face. Or perhaps you have failed to understand the im-
pact of the deteriorating financial condition of our cities upon the en-
tire state of Iowa.
COUNCIL MANAGER GOVERNMENT
For we are a state of cities. Iowa's population, involved as it is in
agricultural pursuits, is nevertheless predominantly urban. City serv-
ices affect directly and immediately the lives of a majority of Iowans.
A high percentage of the sales tax which finances many state services is
collected in cities, by businesses using city services, from people driving
on streets paved by city expenditure. Without local health programs, transit
services, low-income and leased housing programs, and recreational and cul-
tural services, the quality of life for a majority of Iowans would be greatly
diminished.
A state which systematically prevents,_ through state restrictions, its
cities from effectively meeting the needs of their citizens inevitably
will see itsownviability reduced. Iowa has chosen torestrictgreatly
the financial health of its cities, apparently without recognizing the
responsibility which must accompany control.
We do not ask for cities more state assistance than equity would dictate.
But we do question the equity of state assistance as it exists between the
various subdivisions and the state in relation to the services provided.
We do not ask for cities more attention to our needs than concern for the
health of the total state would dictate. But we do question complete
disregard, in a "State of the State" message, for the problems of our
cities whose financial solvency is important to the economic viability
of the state and whose citizenry represents in excess of 67 per cent of
the entire state population.
We do ask for an opportunity to review with you our problems and those of
other municipalities as well as a chance to explore alternative solutions
with you and with representatives of -other concerned city governments. We
feel the necessity of this request because you have apparently excluded
from your legislative program any recommendations for legislation aimed
at cities. We feel we must ask for your concurrence in our belief that
there is a problem in Iowa's cities today and for the force of your leader-
ship in creating the public climate and new legislation needed to solve
that problem. --
Respectfully,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SIOUX CITY
Mayon Ge r e Cole
bertson
dblom
. S2 -(A / C
Councilman G.
Gross
Cou--C.Lxwoman Margaret / Pra
hl
J /534
cc: Chairmen and Members of the
Iowa Senate and Iowa House
Cities and Towns Committees
Woodbury County Legislative Delegation ,
Mayors of Ten Largest Iowa Cities
Officers and Board of Directors, League of Iowa Municipali
Officers and Board of Directors, Northwest ties
Iowa Municipal League