The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1974-11-05 CorrespondenceERM Iowa City "w Chamber HOME . .............. Of UNIVERSITY Of IOWA November 5 1974 Mayor Czarnecki and The City Council Civic Center Iowa City, IA 52240. Dear Mayor and Councilpersons, of Commerce P.O. BOX 673 IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 PHONE 3374637 As you were informed, by our representative, Mr. Leff, at your formal council meeting of October 22, 1974, a large portion of our membership is currently experiencing some difficulties with the Sign Ordinance. As the situation now stands, there are forty three firms who are aware of the fact that they are in violation of the ordinance. The value of the private property involved here is $116,570. It must be borne in mind that these figures only include those members of the Chamber of Commerce, who are a- ware of their violations. It should also be remembered that the surface has just been scratched. These figures represent predominantly only those signs that are "prohibited", and must be currently removed, and say very little, if anything, about the magnitude of the problem when in September of 1976, all "nonconforming" signs must be brought into compliance. In our view, it is in 1976, that the current problem will grow in magnitude, perhaps two or three times. As can easily be envisioned, by these figures, we see only the tip of the iceberg at this point. Bearing all this in mind the Board of Directors of the Iowa City Chamber of Commerce, would like to propose the following potential so- lutions to this dilemma. " That the ordinance bd amended.ty.allow for. a reasonable amortization period of at least ten years from the effective date of.the ordinance, with -regard to. atlrsigns -in violattion". Essentially, the suggestions above are a reiteration of the Chambers position over time. We endorsed and accepted, with few alterations, the proposal of November 4, 1970, from the committee chaired by Mr. Ambrisco. On May 24, 1971, then Chamber President, John Graham wrote to the Council endorsing the ordinance but making a recommendation for an inclusion of an enforcement provision. Mr. Graham wrote the Council on September 17, 1971, endorsing the report of a Chambe sub -committee, chaired by Mr. Lloyd Berger, that among other things, asked for roof signs not be deemed prohibited, suggested a ten year minimum lif and a yearly review of the ordinance as to its implementation and eff ecti ness. On June 12, 19732 Mr. Richard Burger personally came before the ACCREDITED CHAM9ER OFCOMMERCE C -AMBER 000MMERCE 0f En EOf int 0M'fES -Council and read a statement:which, once' again reiterated and on this matter. Among other things, Mr. Burger asked that roof hibited, stressed the fact that the moratorium included in the inadequate, and suggested changes in facia sign regulations. clarified our positio signs not be pro - present ordinance was The Chamber of Commerce, believes deeply in the concept of citizen input. We have always been, and always will be, ready, willing and able to co-operate with those things that are good for Iowa City. However, with regard to this particular or- dinance, it seems the input from the segment of our community which we represent and incidentally the segment which is most directly involved, has fallen on deaf ears. We are willing to work with anyone to solve this problem. In the mean time, we ask for serious consideration of the suggestions herein, and urgently stress the need for immediate action on this matter. Cordially, Mary Hartwig President-elect In accordance w the Board of Directors ®awa C DATE: November 6, 1974. TO: Planning and Zoning Commission Attn: Chairman Don Madsen FROM: Iowa City City Council RE: Referral At their regular meeting on November 5th, the Iowa City City Council received the attached letter from Mary Hartwig for the Chamber of Commerce concerning the Sign Ordinance. Also at the October 29th meeting a letter was received from William Sueppel on the Sign Ordinance. The motion was adopted that both letters be referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Abbie Stolfus ` Y City Clerk Mi November $, 1974 Members of the City Council; As you know, I have had a long and continuing interest in elderly housing in Iowa City. p M. S y At present, I am+-ceri�:# rfnoffering to buy all of lots 4 and 3, plus the west 46 feet of lots 2 and 7, in Block 43 in Iowa Cit;,, Iowa for $113,400, subject to it being developed ;-r the present Section 23, Leased Housing Program Offering. If you would look favorably upon this proposal, I trust You will schedule a public hearing following your usual legal procedures. In turn, if you schedule a public hearing, I request that you extend the date to receive bids to either De- cember 11 or 18. It is my intention at this time, if you are of the mind to look favorably upon this proposal, to set up a non- profit corporation for purposes of developing this site as a location for the 62 units of elderly housing, thus assuring the citizens of this community that the 62 units would be available to serve the needy of this community, even if federal subsidy ends. Again, let me indicate that I trust you will look with favor upon this proposal. Sincerely, Robert L. Welsh NAYo4 WGA1 CIAaNECCI COCNCLUEM3EK C.L T--8RANOT EENNv DAVIDSEN CA401 &PPOSSE 1. tANCR WMTE "• " ` O CIVIC CENTER. 410 E WASHINGTON ST. IOWA CITY. IOWA 52240 319-354-1800 Ms. Barbara Woodard 627 Orchard Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Ms. Woodard: DENNIS KRAFT. ACTING CITY MANAGER November 6, 1974 It is with great pleasure that I am able to inform you of your appointment to an unexpired term on the Human Relations Commission. The City Council of Iowa City officially approved this appointment at its regular Council meeting of November 5, 1974. Human Relations Commission members have unexpired terms of office. Ile appreciate your willingness to serve on the Human Relations Commission and look forward to working with you in the months ahead. You should be receiving a packet of information about the duties of the Human Relations Commission in the near future. If you have un- answered questions, please call the City Manager's office or the Chairman of the Human Relations Commission, Phillip Jones. Please feel free to call me, as well, if I can be of assistance. Sincerely, Edgar R_ Czarnecki Mayor ERC:ckb CC: Mark Doolin, Human Relations Coordinator To: The City Council..... From: Ralston Creek Action Group ,november 5, 1974 The office of Public Worts Director is Iowa City was established as a result of a petition submitted in June, 1960, The retition, about drainage and sever problems resulting from Ralston Creek flooding, was submitted by neighbors from the Rundell - Dearborn neighborhood, Several mersbers of the present- Rundell -Dearborn Neighborhood Association who signed the 1960 petition :ire pleased that after 14 years the office of Public'Works is addressing their problens. It eras gratifying that in his Oct report, the public Works Director discussv3 urbanization and sewer back -UT i.n tite, 11 scope of Ralston Creek inadequacy. It is t�.lso nice that cleaning the creek finally seems feasible , however, the Oct:, 31 relx-rt does Lot seem to conform to City Council requests- One month ago, •the Council asked Y"or a specific report on the technicalities involved in dredging the creek; to datu, they have not received that re� port. They did not request policy recomwnciitions. In additions`tne latest report includes several invalid assumptions and vague generalizations Maich Fre feel cause innaccurvZ:e conr_luslons (if CO uuclusions tirere called for): 1. We understand from hydrological engixi:ers that s more simple and practical analysis could have been maces from the available inf -,rmat i.cn The entire purpose of a preliminary study should be to assess the cl(:aning .,,ad-irodging necessary. to handle a given flood, Dredging ray not he necessary inr the :ntire length of the creek, One starts at the mouth and works backward G Ven M-trictions, dredging upstream may be limited, For instance, if the Prentiss St, bridle vri.11 only handle the 5 -year flood, it doesn't seem n�cvssary to dredge the en j_re length of the stream above it. Alternatives to restrictive bridges ire not c 1-asidered as • pro.,rised, Why was Rcchester sta. 20+00 considered at P.—M As we have IX; -ted out, that restriction acts as a dam in a rural area consistort with tentative log., -.range plans, 2 I nnin;es formula seems to .gave been used in a gw:tionable manner. The cree...: in many places cannot be ,057 (,a figure representing ve.•,• heavy vegetation) Than is a question whether the r nr�..dng s formula should be LLVI to measure blockage or to measure smoothness., Compan`jan .measures could increase d>�;rable vegetation in order to lower all flood pea' T:he purp,)se of dredging an i coding creek is not to increase smoothness br t.. -ean out :;edim-nt. In the le. run, shoring and planting will help holy'. the banks, provi(ing the proper corse -ation of the banks of a deepened and clearor'. channel', 3, (a) The Oct, "s'? report s�e)rsa Any lrnrge expenditure of fire.•.; that provides creek capacity for Q%iy a modest Storm would not conform with po?icus generally by flood _O=.'O1 agencice s throughout the united States.," From the Journal of. Sal and Water Conservation, thrch=April 1974 (p,.SS) In Your er,,X of cluar-inel�dredi;ing , SCS Administrator Kenneth Gran said, inly c:ouldn ::a11 some of the natural stream vre work ma beautiful at least nAt in the way i define the term. Arany of them are cloL',od with 9 sediment, itAllen trees and branches, and all kinds of debris'. Sta;ams like that hoin :Lost their capacity to Cary wader away and you havp_ to restore their channels if you wane: to prevent floods,e (b) The report also discusses tea entire project in terms of Costj'B,Ilefit analysis, In the July 1972 pubiicatic;a of the U.S, 11ater Resources Coll foIci' the 7'louring appears ori page 80. If social vZIl-being is droTfped as a major M '.konal objective, h(►r e' -se can planners prepare to meet the eventualit} .)? the 100 year flaxi or storms Of a larger magli.tude? Hour else can planners IX61ize water aesoutms to alleviate a threatened energy crisis? HV:' else Coo planners make I he ,rater resource programs responsive to long -r-. -age social n-cds? 4. Mayor Czarnecki and others have as`,ed that current out •;f pocket cuss be subtracted from the costs of.the presently proposed project., (,_,lculatiors re so vagim and uaclear tlmt wo wee ui.atile Lo- understand if hat subtraction has b made. Does it take eight trucks to dredge 300 feet per day? After contract the bricks°on Burlington f6f140,000 the'rates'seem,cheap- but'how much does front end loader or drag line"cost outright? Could either be used for other purposes (ie„ cleaning:Willow Creek`or putting in sewer lines), 5. In the October 11th repout the following quote appears: a It is simply impossible to justify the expenditure of several hundred thousand dollars if a 50 year storm will render these inpromments = td'orthless. This assumption seems invalid. The flood level of larger storns would also be lowered by dredging and cleaning,. We have always talked about continual cleaningAdand maintenance, which would continue. during and after the sz t"'� ation of dams„ Until recently the approach to RAIston Creel: problems has been narrow„ The recommenda- tions made by citizens for many years to consider Watershed Development, sanitary] sewers, and bridge construction„ This renewed effort at citizen participation should not be labled short-range or limited. It has been a decade since discussions in this r3om ha4t caught up with the Soil Conservation statement in 1965 that: [Nater problems,, in the last analysis, are watershed problems. A watershed :is any area of land that drains into a particular stream or body of water. Small stream , of course, flow into larger ones, so the entire country is a patchwork of small watersl?eds making successively larger ones. (' U To the Honorable Mayor and Members, o£ the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa: In a recent issue of the Press -Citizen Mayor Czarnecki was quoted as having said at a Council meeting that he would oppose dredging and clean- ing of Ralston Creek as an itterim solution unless the benefit could be demonstrated. I am writing to say that I hope that all members of the Council will be of the same opinion. With the present scarcity of money and the high cost of everything, we can't afford to spend tax money for something that would be of little benefit to the community. And we certainly can't afford one thing for which tax money was spent in Iowa City more than once in years past. The following paragraph will illustrate what I refer to: Some twenty years ago, when City Manager Roan was busily engaged spend- ing tax money having something useless done in connection with some of the manholes in the Ralston Creek sewer, a bystander is reported to have said to him, "Now Pete, you know that isn't going to do any good"(it didn't). Mr. Roan is said to have replied,"I know it wont, but when the people see us working it 'ill keep 'em quiet for a while." We can't afford to spend tax money just to keep some people quiet. I am not a member of the Ralston Creek Action Group, and I haven't attended any of their meetings. I want to keep myself free to publicly agree or disagree with the leaders of that group. A member of the Ralston Creek Action Group recently wrote (and I assume filed with the Council) "The Recent history of Ralston Creek Problems". I have written, and am attaching hereto, "A history of the Sanitary Sewer System in Southeast Iowa City". I thought this might be of some help since neither - of the present Council members, the Acting City Manager or the Public works Director were in office at the time the State Board of Health made an inspection of the sewer system in southeast Iowa City and issued certain orders. This was in 1965. I agree with RCAG (Ralston Creek Action Group) that Ralston Creek has been neglected in recent years and that it could stand some cleaning -- but not $100.000. worth if that would only reduce the flood level by 1 to 6 inches. In southeast Iowa City back-up of sewage into basements during rain storms is the type of damage that has occurred most frequently here, and that has caused the greatest monetary loss and presented the greatest health hazard. IUddo nat agree with the leaders of RCAG (who sometimes say and sometimes imply) that flood water in Ralston Creek is the cause of the sewage back-ups. Extensive tests made by city crews have deter- mined that is not the case. In 1960, according to news items in the Press -Citizen, City crews made extensive checks in an attempt to determine where the problem of sewage back-up was arising. Ralston Creek was dammed temporarily in several places to raise its level above that of the sewer line to determine if water was getting from the creek into the sewer. There was no evidence that it was. Those tests ruled out sources of storm water in the trunk line OM 3 ' 1974 ABBIL S i OLFUS CITY CLERK Council, Page 2. 10-30-74. sanitary sswer'except for home storm drainage, such as downspouts connected to the sanitary sewers or home drains in yards or drives. And, as Public Works Director Lane Mashaw noted, " Anyone who's watched water pouring out of a downspout during a heavy rain can see that it wouldri!t' take many to fill a sewer line." Mr. Mashaw also noted that the City could save a lot of money -- both in construction costs of new lines, as well as in damage to homes from sewage back—up, if violations were eliminated. A July 24, 1969 editorial in the Press—Citizen said in part: "Raw sewage not only is extremely annoying; it is a definite health hazard whether it is on the street or in the basement. In,a modern city, these conditions simply should not exist, even under adverse circumstances. Residents have been promised relief, but the problem continues to exist." And spend— ing money on Ralston Creek will not solve the problem. If I have the correct information, residents are being; told by the staff that the present sewer lines in southeast Iowa City are adequate as sanitary sewers, and that the overloads are caused by storm water which comes into the sewers through illegal connections. In that case solving the sewage back—up problem shouldn't be expensive. It could no doubt be financed largely by fines levied against those citizens whb are so incon— siderate of others that they illegally dump storm water into the sanitary sewer, knowing that it will mix with sewage and back up into basements down stream. It is very probable that a considerable number of people in Iowa City don't even knots that they are violating the law regarding storm water. If the City were to give wide publicity (press; radio; t.v.) to the provisions of the State Plumbing Code and the local plumbing ordinance regarding storm water, it is highly probable that there might be a surprisingly large number of voluntary disconnections. At any rate, it would be worth a try. And, of courme,`-Violators should be given ample warning before the fines provided for by law were levied. One important question which the Council members should ask themselves now as they werk on the budget- is this: "Can lnwa City afford to build sanitary sewers and a sewage treat&ent plant that are large enough to handle both sewage and storm wat6r?" viii regard to the "demands" of the Ralston Creek Action group, may I respectfully suggest to your Honorable Body that you consider proceeding with caution_ -rather than with haste? 1530 Sheridan Avenue. P.S. -- In my opinion, keeping sewage out of basements and 6ht of the streets should have first priority, regardless of whether it means enforcing the State Plumbing Code or building more and larger sanitary sewer lines and a larger sewage disposal plant. Which would the Ralston Creek Action Group prefer? And Why? O LE -10,1.. OCT3 1 197+ ABBIE ST©LFUS CITY CLERK d;dont6xits of -b"" asen in -th4 1e'.1nr vourt $$ill were,` r r �4 ti l �y k overt Dyads when they . _saw the big machine start-�+ to dig on First:�Avenue. "etAt last."there. would.. be relief ' ; SS 1K �T . f tY {f'y 'E `ing rain jstorms or so;they„thoughtµ' Ori the ;other =hand, she. protest could hardly wait until xe Kould�get,agood rain Knowittg what was go on inCourtHill, itNwasnl'>t difficult tojpredict what: would happen. On ,September 20,>three weeks after{the new three-block long sewer completed, wehad a” 2:60'nch raintithat came doxnA fast. The'situat`lon much worseaeven ,than,thelpro�teetors hadpredicted. Basements filled`tt had never hadbaok ,up before (ands it wasn't Kater from the; creek) _ .Tt preasure.�mias;so5grea};thatinone°basement^thB stool blew up;_"taking it'a big E chuii7c^of thecement, asement`floor to 'which'; it-was'. attached at' least: one ,manholeonFirst Avenue the'ycontents were shooting 8; feet r. so- into the `air,, th t2e <manhole; cover floating around.on top. damage to contents of basementpjwas _ dtrifio; the" clean 'up; disinfectin and haulingtothe dumpwae pathetic:$ Th`e peopl`�e took ""shots" and so fortunatelyX, there Was ,no„ diseasaepidemio ae a Tesult "-of` this e, apexien For the information°of Kthe Couricrl i am` attaching hereto (page 3 original: letter frommathe .,Statei<Board of Health to` me ;;; This y :be kept for the City! s zfiles The rreaderwillnotej Ethat* the Health Board made oertain;recomtdendations to' the ;Counawzth re ardrto're ring dis .v ="� k nx jos '4 q g i aonnectionof'all legal;sconnecti'ons �to'the isanittary ';sewers, but` now, 9 years later�t ppears' to bersLillwaitng.to' be done. The saut2ieset atid� Rundell (Street trunk sewer referred -t o, in the «c x Board!s�letter was" construe ted+>n'1966 °67 `but Kit didn'tgo all;_the w. 1 to the sewage :plantIt,'rentµ Only as far; as a large manhole in ::the ?110 block�ofsEast _JeYfferson Street,; w 3.chl, m hole was conriected:;to a`Jeffer Streettrunkti serer which{#irasy'alreai]yso ;overloaded even in . flow that ,during partsrof the da "itwas't'. feather; r d� scharg"g raw selvage" direct into Ral ton Geek nears the,-�sewage�,plant -".Besides, after 't2ie'" Rundell StreetFtrunkiline xas,constructed, •the sewage from Bon Aire Trailer Coi from some of the indi�strlal plantsand 5yakeside Apartments <was_'sent dosii Rundell Street�to ;the7effersonStreet=manhole, w1. 1hereas previously it h been sent straight across,toythe•tsewagB plant by's way of the: Pine Stree'; sPumpingr .gtatlOIl.r- _ t' f'• t u w— f v'`r r �' L t- R F' SiY; �.` * 'e� j y 5 _ ilk- One( ar i u �c i t s,v c men'whoYsupdrvised�the>zcons truction of the Rundell Stref trunk. sewerrzs3report d oto 7have told ti •standers that this •sewer was the y3 wor'stengineering, ,that ,their firm�had� eve^,seen In spite; of all t7ia1 thsz sewer d� d kcarxyall ofd they sewage(As,,far as the •Jefferson `Street -,.i hal"� duximgdrytxBather�flotir. `Duran rain storms the sews a back up a in 'so�he yp$ats of,'the area appeared Eo�be worse than it: had been _before (The sewer inry,home Yhas 3rievers'3backei� up:) v:'Li ut 1971 another �0-1nch':�,trunk sewer was ,constructed from the ] �, tBoc est Jefferson Street to the�dis oval plant In"parts of:RundE t the3sewage stz11 backs.,up>into.basements; BBQICET3S:T� �O�LfeeaUS�7y� on De�. m nb.�r�na s,< Bring rain stor ms ane 'se he`�Cit hit, o g v t"�i �y � � �ai� 39� tp �� 4� P� t 4�r +•r v r r'� ^� Written b De z 1 �..' <('(T,Y.Zla �A {ir] e aounoil—Page,3 3oWa btate department .,of J9.eaitb ARTHUR P. LONG, M.D., DR. P.H. ACTING COMMISSIONER DES MOINES, IOWA 50319 July 30, 1965 Mrs. Della A. Grizel 1530 Sheridan Avenue Iowa City, Iowa Dear Mrs. Grizel: This is in response to your letters of July 19 and July 27. As you indicate in your latter communication, definite action has been started in relation to the problem of the First Avenue sewer in Iowa City. The Health Department actions have included the investigation by Mr. P. J. Houser of this Department and the submission of a report to the City Manager of Iowa City, Mr. Carsten Leikvold. In the report, certain conclusions and understandings reached with the city officials were reviewed. Without quoting, these were in substance as follows: 1. A contract is to be awarded for the construction of a portion of the Southeast and Rundell Street trunk sewer to relieve the existing bottleneck. This contract is to be let as early as possible but not later than January 1, 1966. 2. If the City should fail to award the contract before January 1, 1966, the Department will be unable to issue permits for extensions of the sewers now discharging into this trunk sewer system. 3. The City is to conduct an investigation in connection with roof drains and the sanitary sewers in the area, and will require dis- connections if active connections are found. 4. There is to be compliance with the State Plumbing Code for any connections of subsurface drains to the sanitary sewers. It is understood that the essence of the report provided Mx Leikvold was transmitted to you orally by Mr. Houser at your home on the afternoon of July 15. I trust that the foregoing information is satisfactory for your require- ments. Sincerely yours, aii'u1 LL1 1 • LVll� Commissioner APL:ls 1' F a L E D OCT3 1 1974 ., Dr. P. H. A Public Health BSIE STOLFUS CITY CLERK - , va i 4F3 � . 1 i ' : w 1" ,� November , 1974 _7 - t -..,3 - r - 10. t - - EF- .. t t. r,r r 5IA - I y ✓ S ri _' _� .. -. r, t , ...j r �� - Y. r : Ci, Gk"ello� .f.. ' ,� .. i x �, } _,+ y xe�1.Cid1.ita i _; a 1�1;Acle: � Ltyyi DATE= November 6, 1974 TO: Dick PLastino, Director of Public Works FROM: Abbie Stolfus, City Clerk RE: Council motion. At their regular meeting on November 5 1974 the City Council adopted a motion directing Iowa City the Army Corp of Engineers relative togaLhe Staff to contact for fiscal year 1976_ Section _05 study Abbie Stolfus City Clerk o n m v D m C) v Z k _ s ® r- t D m v DATE: November 6, 1974 TO: Dick Plastino, Director of Public Works FROM: Abbie St-olfus, City Clerk RE: Council motion. At their regular meeting on November 5, 1974, the Iowa City City Council adopted a motion directing the Staff to contact the Army Corp of Engineers relative to a Section 205 study for fiscal year 1976. Abbie Stolfus City Clerk 1' ENGINEER'S REPORT November 5, 1974 To the Honorable Mayor and City Council Iowa City Iowa Honorable Mayor and Councilpersons: I hereby certify that the construction of the improvements listed below have been completed in substantial accordance with the plans and specifications of the Engineering Division of the City of Iowa City. The required maintenance bond is on file in the City Clerk's Office. 1. Sanitary sewer in Bryn Mawr Additions, Parts V, VI and VII, as constructed by the Rex Barber Excavating Company of Cedar Rapids, Iowa. 2. Concrete paving in Bryn Mawr Addition, Parts V, VI and VII, as constructed by Metro Pavers, Inc. of Iowa City, Iowa. I hereby recommend that the above improvements be accepted by the City of Iowa City. Respectfully submitted, George R. Bonnett, P.E. Deputy Director/City Engineer GRB/mjc THE 'FOLLO`+VING RESIDiNTS 'ON 'KII2KWOOD' AVE. ARE AGAINST ANY", WIDENING ; OE KIRK'.^JOOD AVE NAME ADDRESS t4 22 n � ! f 0 , aX t L7•�w - ` F �aJi � gal 1,41 1� - 37 L :i `e rn l dcVe5�dns eF;1Loo AJe tF A3 79 gal7(13 r G i e15, Y pie r5 4 —d L. J I v M �P r � 1 S I j _ f r ; t ' 1 4i . x 4 F=1 1 i b - z At Ats', November 5, 1974, .sleeting file yawr petition from the rest v r, Mra 7C: t oteningKirktaod 832'.IC3s t o nk you :fork bring3 nrg .your :con nova C_f I 4 sl `M Dannia R.. Ysaft Dear 5 Tt 2 of£iciF )r denCs"'t street �K Avenue] 1 4' Y�j .1' A _ - - ✓IWImii t f tic 1 f { e15, Y pie r5 4 —d L. J I v M �P e15, r5 4 —d L. z • November 7 1.974 3t f ' 1 4i 4T !4 At Ats', November 5, 1974, .sleeting file yawr petition from the rest v r, ati'yppois�i}le m3deninq `of that n oteningKirktaod t o nk you :fork bring3 nrg .your :con ati ention?of;the;City Council I 4 Sincerely,, Dannia R.. Ysaft Actiing'City Manager )r c- OFFICE OF THE /RESIDENT October 29, 1974 To: Mayor of Iowa City Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Subject: Notice of Revisions to Gas Rate Schedules to be Made Effective November 1, 1974 Notice was given October 2, 1974 that on September 201 1974 we filed with the Iowa State Commerce Commission proposed increases in our aas rates. to become effective October 31, 1974. Pursuant to Commission's order dated October 18, 1974 these filed rates are to be made effective November 1, 1974 subject to refund of those amounts in excess of amounts finally determined to be reasonable. RMH:nb Very truly yours, R. M. Hetherington Vice President -Operation CA U 0 OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 1 • r IOWA -ILLINOIS GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY DAVENPORT, IOWA October 29, 1974 To: Mayor of Iowa City Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Subject: Notice of Revisions to Electric Rate Schedules to be Made Effective November 1, 1974 Notice was given October 2, 1974 that on September 20, 1974 we filed with the Iowa State Commerce Commission proposed increases in our electric rates, to become effective October 31, 1974. Pursuant to Commission's order dated October 18, 1974 these filed rates are to be made effective November 1, 19711 n.. 1.�.�VL 1.n r�F �� ..F L1�r.. •a �....i,. �� r....•. ,-•,+r n.h �•Mw i -r ✓�•✓J✓ VV LVL .y Vi �..vVv MmV Vl, 4n✓ .♦ `I.VV✓✓ Vf •v ♦✓✓ finally determined to be reasonable. Very truly yours, R. M. Hetheringto Vice President -Operation RMH:nb .---POST, OFFICE BOX 4950 206 EAST;SECOND:STREET,{DAVENPORT, IOWA 52808 319.926-7100 REGION Vn Room 300 Federal Office Building 911 Walnut Strect Kansas City. Missourl 64106 Honorable Edgar Czarnecki Mayor of Iowa City City Hall Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Mayor Czarnecki: IN REPLY REFER TO, 7.2PMC (Workable Program for Community, Improvement) With the passage of the Housing and Coml1lualLy Development Act of 1974, a revised Region VII (Kansas City Region) Workable Program policy has been established. While the legislation requiring a certified Workable Program for Community Improvement to receive urban renewal and renewal associated program funding was not repealed with the passage of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, the requirement for a certified Workable Program will expire on December 31, 1974, with one exception. That exception is in the case of those communities that have approved ongoing urban renewal projects and that wish to make substantive changes in their project(s). Such substantive changes relate to new acquisition, rehabilitation, and site improvements. In all such cases a certified Workable Program is required. For amendments relating to administrative and related costs necessary to carry out activities already approved and budgeted, a certified Workable Program is not required. The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, while including much of the spirit and intent of the Workable Program, will better ensure the utilization of flexible Federal dollars to effectively implement locally determined priority plans and programs. unless your Community falls inter the exception category noted above, this office would discourage the resubmittal of a Workable Program application, and encourage the orientation of your staff to the interest and purposes of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. Should you have any questions concerning this policy, please contact Stan Quy,'Community Planning and M�I gement Representative, at (402) 221.-9465. -UY' J. Birch urea Director cc: Dennis Kraft, City Manager October 30, 1974 Mr. Edgar Czarnecki, Mayor Civic Center 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Ed: On behalf of the League Executive Board and Staff, I want to extend our sincere thanks to you, your Council and the staff at City Hall for their concern, initiative and assistance during the League Annual Conference. Sincerely, Robert E.,Jo Executivef Di REJ:tlp ector President—George M. Strayer, Mayor, Hudson • Directors—Jan E. Albertson, Councilman, Sioux City; Herbert Belz, Mayor, Slater; Fred Benson, Mayor, Sheldon; Donald J. Canney, Mayor, Cedar Rapids; J. R. Castner, City Manager, Ames; Charles F. Eppers, Mayor, Keokuk; (Mrs.) Sonia A. Johannsen, Mayor, LaPorte City; A. E. Minner, City Clerk, Marshalltown; Richard E. Olson, Mayor, Des Moines; John Thomas, Councilman, Earlville; Sanford Turner, City Attorney, Clarinda • E7ecutive Director—Robert E. Josten S jNovezber 7, 19,74 4., A T aaobert E; jouten Direct Hunt League of Iowa Z4 444'' Ie 818 Dan IIona` Z Y., F _�CltyCbruncix? iiW.November. 6, 1974, meeting The of received yonr_ **b, .Iowa City's assistant' -Xfifiia OA N�half - of both the, City", Co4fiaiv"46d the CityStai!f -C -it wasour pleasure nference.. _v. e;bill from the Highlander tdd tb. tut v9 Board dinner. After itting'out-the:tax:for -the.. P. $4 Loocktails totals 5 ti! Tha Highlander for.yo hifi, ur, of J the" directly to dire Your ;may either ' send ;�qojjk"check s' Highlandi�r records.': on 0 of jend it, to titin,, .Mauna. 13 Citvto- e,* n'o on conferences and other 'in the future. seioinar13 Y" carely' Dennis"2f Acting C it y -Manager Ix . . ... .. ... ty at Novembe .-S-,,,1974, meeting , tits _file Coro letters :from Mr. R.M. Hetherington, company: 8isicorrespondence was regad'ding ' 0 --rate -schedules'.which r are to -be -made,".",; - F - rding_these'rata'schedule 3nareases.':zf z 8`roceive a gopy of .,the Leagua'.s position � LioVemUer ' 7 , 1974 3 ttention to'..this,request. 4 t F g � . i Dennis R.: 'Kraft _. Acting City..Manager, _ 5 Rhcecutiva :DirBator _ League{of`2owa Kunicipalitiss '444 , IasuzenceMio8,, Vfts MoinnsscilovWS03U9 j� . r Dear Hobe- !fir The'City Council of Ioira rsR� y o£ficwly reaaived and=place of -- ower Xllinoistdas & Electtr thea revisions to the gas & el effective.°{Novemb®ral,'�1974.�'- --Lea brie ta�cni a ,posit! ors ; r t2ti.s -pis tbd case, `coma ove Pl x _ regarding:„this mattes: Thank you }%r` your promp _ I r 4\ -DRKtmbm f z 14 '� yk �i J !� r� y� .E• t = h 1 ^ C. t 4 i I W,x ty at Novembe .-S-,,,1974, meeting , tits _file Coro letters :from Mr. R.M. Hetherington, company: 8isicorrespondence was regad'ding ' 0 --rate -schedules'.which r are to -be -made,".",; v ti: rding_these'rata'schedule 3nareases.':zf z 8`roceive a gopy of .,the Leagua'.s position � LioVemUer ' 7 , 1974 3 ttention to'..this,request. sincerely,; . i Dennis R.: 'Kraft _. Acting City..Manager, _ 5 ty at Novembe .-S-,,,1974, meeting , tits _file Coro letters :from Mr. R.M. Hetherington, company: 8isicorrespondence was regad'ding ' 0 --rate -schedules'.which r are to -be -made,".",; gthe?-Counai'9 -understanding thai._the rding_these'rata'schedule 3nareases.':zf z 8`roceive a gopy of .,the Leagua'.s position � 3 ttention to'..this,request. sincerely,; Dennis R.: 'Kraft _. Acting City..Manager, r; j� . r rsR� y ��-� � # k . i i1 -7 �� 3NI � N 4. !•'A2 t ub4-- ed Bl`obk of�the theSoplannin this '.k� pry -Kr✓' y i-sa�ila" "any J Z �.�ra r n �Y Y3 t t x e i pt. _ a :_ November °7•, 1974 7,1 ..y5 - - s l l r _ t t _ 7 w{ M :r Rap •B; Mossman� = Z Buainugs Manager &Treasurer 'fh® iSTliVBrsitp o€ ZOW8 - , "rte YsowB csty; za�►a=��saa.az� F ,; Csty at-its=November 5, 1974, meeting, on 'film your co=espnnclencea requesting x 86 the original town of Iowa --,f t -The city Caunoil�of Iowat `' officially, received a plat R; Cbxciicil; .:; C£ty ioryEhe :use��d,benefSt reggsst hail been raf�zr®3 to _ revieeo and report back tone' s4 e rF �r you>!or brinapng `. City Council. Dennis. R. Kraft Acting City Manager f C " 3 f � L - _ } 3'- ai.[�K3 s� f" t J • i} > l �Jt r L il .f - a 1". yli � 4 f _ y., �Y �� ✓Itr t`f .l rt: j i r i..• sl - ��-� � # k . i i1 -7 �� 3NI � N 4. !•'A2 t ub4-- ed Bl`obk of�the theSoplannin this -1C•, i�•t;ypj�� rrt J y.. n �Y Y3 t t x e i pt. :_ November °7•, 1974 r - ..y5 - - l l r _ M :r a JYY:, Csty at-its=November 5, 1974, meeting, on 'film your co=espnnclencea requesting x 86 the original town of Iowa --,f ,of : 4staatqityofIowa. Your `' ..; Iall(3 - g riing� Commiasion� for R; Cbxciicil; i6attar' to the attention of the - s4 J Lo- t` Sincerely. ` Dennis. R. Kraft Acting City Manager f C � L - _ i t iY �C J • f Jt � V 1 � S _ y.. f Y3 t t v. l l DEPARTMENT NITY DEVELOPMEI� CITY OF IOWAC APPA A.110N FORM NOTE U2 APDL - SINCE THIS IS A COMPREHENSIVE APPLICATION FORM. ONLY ITEMS RELA &IR APPLICATInN(S1 ARF Tn RF Fu I FO. PLEASE TYPE no THOSE PRINT JFHONE: !IZE: PRESENT ZONING PROPOSED ZONING [ATION OR REFE ENC . PHONE: PHONE: PHONE: PHONE: of preliminary plat of final plan )le & 5 copies of final plan lap .ription i of land for public use i for approval by Council trs consisting of: :y's opinion -ance bond certificate !nt of County Treasurer ant of Clerk of Court ant of County Recorder int of Owner & spouse of paving _cate concerning improve- aite plan it site plan of intent by developer :o pave abutting streets economic feasibility effect of PC on surrounding impact of traffic by PC on ig streets _tional copies of plat are it not required THIS IS AN APPLICATION FORM ONLY. A LISTING OF OTHER SUBMISSION MATERIALS MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE PLANNING DIVISION. NECESSARY :LOPMENT BLUE:APPLICANT FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CH U RCH 26 East Market Street, Iowa City. Iowa 52240 Phone 35/-2660 October 10, 1974 Mr. Ray Mossman Business Manager & Treasurer University of Iowa Business Office Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Mr. Mossman: We are in receipt of your request to Mr. Robert Sierk, on the behalf of the University, regarding our congregation's concurrence in petitioning the City of Iowa City for the vacation of the alley between Clinton and Capitol Streets. The Session has discussed this matter, and passed a mo- tion approving the concurrence in this request of the Uni- versity, with the understanding that alley access from Clin- ton Street to the Church's parking area west of the Church, should be maintained, until final possession of the property is given. It was considered that the assurances of such ac- cess already given in your letter of August 7th provide ade- quate evidence of the University's agreement to meet our tem- porary access need. Sincerely yours Richard E. Peterson Clerk of Session REP:ks cc: Mr. Gibson Acting City Manager, City of Iowa City i1 August 7, 1974 L Mr. Robert N. Sierk Chairman, Site Sale Committee First Presbyterian Church 26 East Market Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Bob: As you are aware, the contract between the�First Presbyterian Church and the University calls for possession by the University on or before December 31, 1975. Prior to that date it would be highly desirable to be able to proceed with plans for the development of the entire block on which the structure is located with the possibility of actual development of the west -one-half of the block. In order to accomplish this, it will be necessary for the University to submit to the City a ,request that the alley running:east and west through the block be vacated It has been a long-standing policy of the City that they will rot honor such a request as long as there is ownership other than the University in the block through which the alley runs. I did contact the City Manger and he indicated that as long as there is a contract to purchase by the University and if the congregation would a3ree, then he felt the ,City Council would consider a request from the University'to vacate at this time. I have determined that assurances can be'given to the congregation that access from. Clinton Street to the parking area west of the Church will be maintained until such time as possession is' gLven to the University. I looked at the,area one day recently and it appears to me that the exit from the lot is primarily to the south onto Market Street. I also looked and could"not find any signs which would indicate that the alley is only one way to the east. I will appreciate it very.•much if you will direct this letter to the proper•group Within the congregation for consideration. I v�ll be glad to meet with you or anyone.else'to answer any questions and to develop any type of.an agreement that may seem in order. ' Very truly yours, RBM:jld cc: Mr. Gibson Business Office THE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA IOWA CITY, IOWA 52242 October 14, 1974 City Council Civic Center Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Council Members: The University of Iowa has a contract with the First Presbyterian Church to purchase its property located in Block 86 of the Original Town of Iowa City. The contract calls for possession to be given on or before December 31, 1975. I am forwarding with this letter a copy of a letter written to Mr. Sierk requesting concurrence from the Church in a request from the University to vacate the alley in Block 86. I am also enclosing a copy of the favorable response to that request. It is requested that the City of Iowa City vacate the alley in Block 86 of the Original Town of Iowa City to the State of Iowa for the use and benefit of the State University of Iowa. Very truly yours, /9 ?,j Ray B. Mossman Business Manager & Treasurer RBM:jld Enclosures cc: Mr. Gibson Mr. Richard E. Peterson y %,Id01 � lll`� + f yeQ 154<K LA/-., 4 u u ""7 `' of (9 s 11-1 o v, A -o 44% Qr0DoV-, - thc%,�emoiS1L lv\ 6L, S -Fu✓'-e - PL I k c- 4-ra n5 pu ✓ 4-4 In w v, 15 a1- -M a I I I wt w I L tV-1 44.v_ p o o r a vtJ -{ 4{ .P- I d..e ✓ vj,Lo 5 -1-- -Fre S L/ e 4- Y\ A Y"> I 1+ J � �s l h G Y ea Se • �} '4 ct —k 01 -a -w I �e V, + -e. G1-i� 15 PYe�a�recQ -,o c,,rv, v1,,1 II (o m s 0 h 0.-I-2vr.po%far y 5Olt., -1ov, 4v +-2 Ka 15 4-o h C v-ee k P ry b 1-evh y a V)�-• 5 L-) Y -e, vou Cav, CDvnz 10 w� 7O0 or 3 00 441,0✓5av,p( -�r vb1c -I-►—I( L,) S f o f 4'11 A-) a ►n . 90--O� a. ■ w F a / ` y � r ' s z OR) rJos low a3i Dear -1 offic. _ a 'prd; )h4ile:your:correspondence regarding.' The`1975'0perating Budget Extension t t o:concd=,to the attention: of the Y + a, Sincerely,, 4 _ z 5'' 1 De s: R. 'Kraft 2 h Aoting •.City Manager i y. s. 5 i i C• ; •4 E q � Y i w F ` t � r ' November 7, 1974 gtyiat its November 5, 19741 meeting;. )h4ile:your:correspondence regarding.' The`1975'0perating Budget Extension o:concd=,to the attention: of the E. a, Sincerely,, 4 _ _ De s: R. 'Kraft 2 h Aoting •.City Manager y. C• ; q Y'+ t < d t as Y.4 .4'-'Sw•x. ■ r r N N irr) r) vv E C v► O tp W �6% z r a cn n 0 0 y 0 Z W (7 Y O V7 Y v N O m O O O O O O O O m w:r •vc)ncn:c-AEncn<z<7ocnCD �ccArw <�C cC vr�+ CO CD O N (D 0• F+• w O O O w O 0 0 w H w w w CD w w w H H F+• W A n fD n w w 0 H. 0 O rt (D CD rt 0 rt (D w H x� EX M• CD (D CD 0 (D 0 0 F+• n 0 0 rt w QQ E N M 0 t•h r W< to G n 0 P. H w Y• (D rt w r 1-•• (D rt x x O M X G to to to rt w H 9 O rt H H H H 0 H H H 0 H H H�-h to rt (D V+ G O 0 w r y to (D H O v W N to (n W 7W Y - - oQ (D (D b N• N• �< N 0 g t (D tri b b to (D 0 X r F+• cn rtY Y Y to w w rt rt r w n� H. H QQ (D rl O w to 0 •-3 n= W Q W O r Gu rt C•) C o ' (D A• (D H H n Qr 't7 E 7r 7r Hr `< O H t cn b (D w r td P. w H to H to w w r 0 'L1 rt 0 b b 0 •O < r+ O X r0t H• �-•• W (D H HO 7r w V 0~q• W H O rt r( W O H F•• (D fD CO O (D H tom• `< (D r H (D w m W O H H H H 0 0o H r w w ►' H E3 rt rt to QQ w rt 0. to (D W w H O (D 0 (Y O H H rt r 0 (D b M bs O r r N N irr) r) vv E C v► O tp W �6% z r a cn n 0 0 y 0 Z p4 nn r N N irr) r) vv o v► r zO y 0 V b 0 N y O Z W (7 nn r N . 4 r V vv vv ,b zO y r oQ O 0 NNFss r r rn W (7 Y O V7 Y v N O m O O O O O O O O r�nnnn A N r N r r� r n •-3 W '1y zO y r oQ H 0 O `" M V Y rn 0o W to A Q, N Vt 0%O to OO O 0 0 0 0 0 O � N C) 0 Cgs E] r w to 0 w -< t -h C a o C) cOQ �a ti rt N w tri a r rt (D n O to N r to rt w r O w o tA tA n •-3 W r zO y r oQ 70 ^r1 0 O `" o rn 0o 00 � N C) 0 Cgs E] r w to 0 w -< t -h C a o C) cOQ �a ti rt N w tri a r rt (D n O to N r to rt w r O w o tA tA r r r O v �y D b9 IM 0 W Q` trl 00 0 00 v v v v v v v v ro W z < H z y r r O O H v v H n r r 3't7 w v� W W A tz1 M z [T1 H trl C W A r O N [rf O N O A O 0% tT to A to A O to O O z -3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o n -3 rr rrw to r NiA M /-� to to O+ r r r r O O H 00 to r W r A to W ON J W to a Cl) Y V V Y V V Y V V V V Y V V Y V V Y V V N v O 9 z 00AOC7,(7 .nAfnO0 W tnAJTfn N 00 AO NNO r O O O N O to O O H 0 0 0 0 O% O to O O.O O O O 00 O O O O 0O to 0OOO to O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 00 00 000 a -� M O 0 z O n N C7 v N �y Cn n r C-) es r � H to a% r 0 0 o z 0 Co 0 r v A v r v r N v u Wt 'b r A to N a� N Y O O En to O O 00 O O O O O Ir H 0 r r r O v �y D b9 IM 0 W Q` trl 00 0 00 O v n o o r 0 ,o O H ro z < H O O H v v n r r 3't7 w v� W W A W z [T1 H trl C W A r O N [rf O N O O O to O O m 0 ,o H C < H H r� 3't7 w H trl Oz z -3 -3 rr rrw to r NiA /-� to to O+ r r r r O O H 00 to r W r A to W ON J W to a V Y V V Y V V Y V V V V Y V V Y V V Y V V O fAAF-+a%N VtCy, 00AOC7,(7 .nAfnO0 W tnAJTfn N 00 AO NNO r O O O N O to O O �4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O% O to O O.O O O O 00 O O O O 0O to 0OOO to O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 00 00 000 A O V N t0 V O O 00 O f+ O w co V Ln O w L-4 O O y N L7, 0'In'r1nntoIbmPv-3 'ci > v V w O cn ` c w G C.M � Ct C v 0 n O to rf y 1-4- W- r (D .� rt Pw ►+ H -;V DQ q A O V N t0 V O O 00 O f+ O w co V Ln O w L-4 O O y r O O r G, O, 00 N w V7 (n N w O O Cl (n O O n r v V w O 8 °o n n v 46 (A H L) W tri (n H.N � Z w P. rt H w N n 0 o� z En 0 ITsI GSI A .4 z ^'3 < b O r r-� n m N 0'In'r1nntoIbmPv-3 O% V7 V O O 0% N� N•'O " G g co C v 0 n O to C CD, =,w 0 1-4- W- r (D .� ort r► ►+ H -;V DQ rt (D W p "i7 `G M PJ (D ft H rt rt G D(DQ rt y o m .0 G O (D H. to CD rf •n G H. H H N CDD r 0 r- PXJ 8 (CD H r• H H 9 (D O p w N (D O rt DQ oQ p rt (D 4an rt r O O r G, O, 00 N w V7 (n N w O O Cl (n O O n r v V w O 8 °o n n v 46 (A H L) W tri (n H.N � Z w P. rt H w N n 0 o� z En 0 ITsI GSI A .4 z ^'3 < b O r r-� n m N A O% V7 V O O 0% O O r O O r G, O, 00 N w V7 (n N w O O Cl (n O O n r v V w O 8 °o n n v 46 (A H L) W tri (n H.N � Z w P. rt H w N n 0 o� z En 0 ITsI GSI A .4 z ^'3 < b O r r-� n m N 0 O O C7 Y H z Un y y �'zEn a n rn C') rn y rn K TI V A r by 00 V 00 N r Irri C-) N N N N r V N N f-' N 6S m Y O Y Y W r � W t0 N N O I H' O O O ON 00 p O Imo. TI V A r by 00 V 00 N r r A 00 N N N N r V N N f-' N 6S � Y O Y Y Y Y Y Y W t0 N w Ln D t" 0T 00 O ON 00 Nt�JIO V NOS V7 OOOO�TN W OOfnO41O O C% CT 0000 N O O 000000000000 r H N r iaq Cd W A 00 �- N tp N O N O O O t71 00 Gv M z H " 0 ron czi 0 v v n O or r� r 0` r N N A y CD o000 oz �r o 0 CL 0000 rtrt H .l`. to r G p u GN bs rC77 '-3 H � � N �"'� O` O N rC17 Y V W O O O nn W a C C V• V r N W VI `tOn zm Z z 00 O w � Cr N W 00000 p N TI V A W 00 V 00 N O fn r A 00 N N N N r V N N f-' N 6S Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y t0 r w Ln D t" 0T 00 ON 00 Nt�JIO V NOS V7 OOOO�TN W OOfnO41O O C% CT 0000 N O O 000000000000 40). M 49 v 49 N r N w N A t✓ N - W I--• O J 00 00 O O to to O Ot P. a a c�Enn;vy' 1 y W p 00 0 -4 tD 0 W •wfD O m VM tD Ot W V 00 VW t0 ut O W O to r• � b g H G w -t7 1.4 •z1 ?• ON• I O AA N -•3 rt H. 0 0 w H N W w rt p H cD wwO O O A Ot o w 0a a m O" n H tD tD H O O w w rt r CD r• w B rt tD tD Oa H N W rt DO `< w DD w to rt r tD w H r tD Oo CD `G I-•• CD r w - r r. O h-' N �' In O w n w m :3pp11 m cn rt rt 'L7 w < O m -3 w tA Vs 0 v rt `.y 1A CD to A C7 M CD Qs r• I--• o tD o4 0 nw° < 0 -21 to rt H l ul b y CA ZI m v CD H W m r -h f,. N V W W W 00 to N H N rt H C+ (D CD t0 r• W I. W to A ON tna W (D ~ rt oDocnow O m tn 00000 t7• tr � H 00000 r m m t9 t r M "cl < N (nCD G CD tA P. In C+ H w M r r � ►-• CD VA 1+ O Ct F' W H W t0 W tn. A 00 W V 00 t0 A N Y 1 W tD l0 o O 00 V V. A A N N Oo A A F+ t tD A 0000. V t0 O Vl to N 00 '7D5 O O V LQ 00 W vt O` t0 v7 N N W (D :j 00 N N O O O 00 O 00 00 t0 I -t to In N N N O O O N O V A A V t0 m v w � frs v► + � 49 to ul CD t0 W N N V O w N O to V V /.W (� V F••• v W 00 O V Ot W to r• to t0 tDOt N 00 V 00 00 t0 N0 A 00 Ul I--• r� Q` 00 N O A 00 f O O Ot O O rt to 00 t0 V t0 A t0 O r W O 00 t•+ O W O V 00 N W O F-+ 00 O N v 40). 44 49 {p {� 49 N r N N N A t✓ N - W I--• O J 00 00 O O to to O Ot P. N Y N W A W 1 Oo W A 00 0 -4 tD 0 W A to to 00 0 A tD Ot W V 00 VW t0 ut O W O to 1 I O A A tD 0 N O to Ot Ot NN vt Ot V O AA N J O W O 0% as to V N O O A Ot O N tD A vi to 0000 0 O Ot W r N V 00 N OD A W Ot to r• W w DD W N NW F. O N A W to I-•• 4A, 44 1.4 {p {� 49 N r N N r A to N I-+ to ut - W I--• O J 00 00 O O to to O 00 A Y Y N W A W 1 N W r+tD OA N O NN W 00 .A A to to W O 00 N to O 0 A Ot W V 00 VW t0 ut O W O to 00 O A A tD 0 N O to Ot 00 N W to W F-+ V 00 00 to W W W 4s 1^ 1.4 49 iv 49 N I N N r t0 0% N 00 00 vt N 00 V tD Ot to J Y Y N W A W I Y Y ►-' W O W N A w vt O Q` t•-• Ot W V t0 W W F-' Ot N V O Ln " 00 ON 00 W N vi tD t0 to O to O tD to 0 00000 0 0000 0 0 00000 A 0 000 0 o ?•COOA 00 00 tnO W M N y V N• A B w rt CD N y < rt r• w n N CD cn CD H r• n CD r• x r r• 0 H O H r w rt H to rt H O �O O tn O P. V to T W C+ W rt CD B CD 0 rt 49 49 � r r F N N W A W V I--• O` t0 to N Y Y Y V Y I V Y V Ot /-+ 0% V A W to N O A r W NIli O to Ot OONO A 0T ?•COOA 00 00 tnO W O` 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000 0 0000 0 0 t0 Ot N f } rt 'L7 N to V Q C+ O O O H � to rt H l N W N� tD f,. N V W W W 00 t0 r• W I. W A ON tna W oDocnow 00000 � 00000 t9 M N y V N• A B w rt CD N y < rt r• w n N CD cn CD H r• n CD r• x r r• 0 H O H r w rt H to rt H O �O O tn O P. V to T W C+ W rt CD B CD 0 rt Mayor Ed Czarnecki and Members of the Iowa City City Council Civic Center Iowa City, Iowa 52240 1 potnCk whte robert Nk7prberg e.ccv,+e o,eca RE: Water Quality Planning Program available in Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Dear Mayor Czarnecki and Council Members: The Executive Board of the Regional Planning Commission has received information on the possible planning funds for water quality management from the Environmental Protection Agency. This program is made available through the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 which enabled a new thrust toward the solution of water quality problems. The act and subsequent guidelines set forth ambitious water quality standards for 1977 and 1983. It also provided new assistance to states and local govern- ments to develop plans to meet the guidelines. Section 208 of the Act specifically provides for assistance to local government to prepare comprehensive interjurisdictional plans for improvement of overall water quality management. The program provides for a series of state and federal reviews prior to initiation of the planning program. The program further pro- vides 100% federal funds for areawide planning programs through Fiscal Year 1975. Specifically, in the Iowa City and Johnson County cases, the staff has been informed by EPA officials that funding for FY176 and FY177 could be available provided initial steps of designation and grant preparation are completed by late Spring of 1975. Because of several factors, including: 1) the possibility of not being selected or receiving the grant; 2) the amount of time required for grant preparation; 3) the fairly tight time schedule, and most importantly 4) the possibility that the prepared plan would require implementation through a new management organization and structure, i.e., a metropoli- tan or county -wide water quality authority, the Executive Board has determined each governmental entity should be asked to individually study the program and its opportunities and problems. Subsequent to this individual study periods, governments could then respond as to their interest or non-interest in pursuing the program further. In order to assist your consideration of the program, I have attached a report prepared by the National Association of Regional Councils which explains the programs and addresses questions raised by other local elected officials. Also attached is a short summary of the procedures required in Iowa. The Executive Board has determined also that the Director and staff should be made available to explain process and answer any questions any governmental body may have. I encourage each agency to seriously consider the program, invite the staff for further explanation and determine your interest. In order to.meet deadlines, I further request that agencies develop comments by December 1, 1974. S' erely, J. Patrick White Chairperson JPW:SLB Enclosures ATTACHMENT Procedure for designation as a Water Quality Planning Agency under Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Step 1: Local governmental agencies informally determine interest and select planning agency. Step 2: Meeting is held with local governmental agencies, the planning agency and representatives of the Office for Planning and Programming, the Department of Environmental Quality, and the Environmental Protection Agency to discuss issues and answer final questions; If no problems, Step 3: Governmental agencies pass resolutions expressing willingness to join other units in Section 208 Water Quality Planning and to accept provision that imple- mentation grants go to management agencies designated :in planning process. Resolutions are sent to the Office for Planning and Programming and the Department of Environmental Quality. Step 4: The Office for Planning and Programming calls a public hearing on the designation in the affected area; . If no major problems, Step 5: The Office for Planning and Programming and the Department of Environmental Quality recommend designation of the area to the Governor. Step 6: Governor designates and sends to the Environmental Protection Agency Regional Administrator. Step 7: The Environmental Protection Agency Regional Administrator and the EPA Washington, D. C. designate authorize the grant application preparation. Step 8: Local planning agency prepares grant application. > iohnson county regional planning' .commission ti F im 91_22%2 srrOh (PItnvpva ;IrrNa, ir)wrr C.ily, I07WU 52240 (319)aSl 8556 robrxl WMiberp ..M'Y...IY.•.�. October 30, 1974 Mayor Ed Czarnecki and Members of the 'Iowa City City Council Civic Center Iowa City, Iowa 52240 RE: Water Quality Planning Program available in Section 208 0` the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Lear Mayor Czarnecki and Council Members: The Executive Board of the Regional Planning Commission has received information on the possible planning funds for water quality management from the Environmental Protection Agency. This program is made available through the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 which enabled a new thrust toward the solution of water quality problems. The act and subsequent guidelines set forth ambitious water quality standards for 1977 and 1983. It also provided new assistance to states and local govern- ments to develop plans to meet the guidelines. Section 208 of the Act specifically provides for assistance to local government to prepare comprehensive interjurisdictional plans for improvement of overall water quality management. The program provides for a series of state and federal reviews prior to initiation of the planning program. The program further pro- vides 100% federal funds for areawide planning programs through Fiscal Year 1975. Specifically, in the Iowa City and Johnson County cases, the staff has been informed by EPA officials that funding for FY176 and FY177 could be available provided initial steps of designation and grant preparation are completed by late Spring of 1975. Because of several factors, including: 1) the possibility of not being selected or receiving the grant; 2) the amount of time required for grant preparation; 3) the fairly tight time schedule, and most importantly 4) the possibility'.that the prepared plan would require implementation through a new management organization and structure, i.e., a metropoli- tan or county -wide water quality authority, the Executive Board has determined each governmental entity should individually study the program and its opportunities and problems. this individual study periods, governments could then respond as to or non-interest in pursuing the program further. be asked to Subsequent toy their interest In order to assist your consideration of the program, I have attached a report prepared by the National Association of Regional Councils which explains the programs and addresses questions raised by other local elected officials. Also attached is a short summary of the procedures required in Iowa. The Executive Board has determined also that the Director and staff should be made available to explain process and answer any questions any governmental body may have. I encourage each agency to seriously consider the program, invite the staff for further explanation and determine your interest. In order to.meet deadlines, I further request that agencies develop comments by December 1, 1974. 7;1 J. Patrick White Chairperson JPII: SLB Enclosures M LL Procedure for designation as a Water Quality Planning Agency under Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Step 1: Local governmental agencies informally determine interest and select planning agency. Step 2: Meeting is held with .local governmental agencies, the planning agency and representatives of the Office for Planning and Programming, the Department of Environmental Quality, and the Environmental Protection Agency to discuss issues and answer final questions; If no problems, Step 3:. Governmental agencies pass resolutions expressing willingness to join other units in Section 208 Water Quality Planning and to accept provision that imple- mentation grants go to management agencies designated -in planning process. Resolutions are sent to the Office for Planning and Programming and the Department of Environmental Quality. Step 4: The Office for Planning and Programming calls a public hearing on the designation in the affected area; If no major problems, Step S: The Office for Planning and Programming and the Department of Environmental Quality recommend designation of the area to the Governor. - Step 6: Governor designates and sends to the Environmental Protection Agency Regional Administrator. Step 7: The Environmental Protection Agency Regional Administrator and the EPA Washington, D. C. designate authorize the grant application preparation. Step 8: Local planning agency prepares grant application. TABLE OF CONTENTS Purpose and Importance of 208 .........................................................1 Definition of 208 Management Planning .................................................. Non -Point Source Pollution and Urban Storm Runoff ...................................... 3 FundingSituation ................................................... Geographic Requirements.............................................................3 Designation of Urban Industrial Areas vs. Non -Metros ................................... 4 Processand Options for Designation ............................................ Consequences of Not Meeting 1983 Standards ............................................ 5 Implications for Local Government...................................................... Benefits of Designation....................................................... ....6 Current Status of Designation........................................................ .6 Resolution Requirements..............................................................7 Degreeof State Control...............................................................7 Local Appeal Process .......................................... Land Use Requirements...............................................................8 Regulatory System Requirements.................................................... ..8 Implementing Agencies............................................................... 8 Relationship to 303 Basin Planning......................................................9 Relationship to 201 Facilities Planning..................................................9 Relationship to 402 Permit Program ................................................... 10 Relationship to Other EPA Programs .................................................. 10 Relationship to Other Areawide Programs..............................................10 Planning Application Requirements.................................................... 10 CostEffectiveness.................................................................. 11 A-95 Review Requirements...........................................................12 Environmental Impact Statements..................................................... 12 InformationNeeded..................................................................12 Appendix I: Glossary . .................................................13 Appendix II: List of EPA -Approved Designations ........................................ 15 Appendix III: Chart Outlining 208 Process .............................................. 16 Appendix IV: Sample Package for Elected Officials ......................... ............ 17 Appendix V: NARC Draft Resolution ................................................... 21 This report was published with federal financial assistance provided by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. THE CHALLENGE AND OPPORTUNITY OF WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANNING Questions and Answers About Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as Amended The quality of the nation's water has become an issue of increasing concern for the public and their federal, state and local officials. Everyone knows that pollution of our water is an omi- nous threat to our health and welfare which cannot be permitted to continue. At this juncture, Congress has given the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency the responsibility to get a handle on the problem and solve it by 1985. Congress enacted 1972 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act which set water quality standards and provide mechanisms for curbing pol- lution on a staged basis. The Act established as a national goal the elimination of pollutant dis- charges into the navigable waters by 1985. It further established an interim goal that by 1983 we would have national water quality which is safe for recreation and which will protect fish and wildlife. Section 208 of the Act provides local governments with an important tool for reaching the 1983 goals. What is the Purpose and Importance of Section 2081 Section 208 of the Act provides for areawide management planning in areas which, as a result of urban -industrial concentrations and other factors, have substantial water quality control problems. Through 208, such areas are provided funding to plan and manage a comprehensive program controlling local government and industrial wastewater, storm and sewer runoff, non - point source pollutants, and land use as it relates to water quality. Through a cooperatively controlled areawide planning agency, local governments can select a management plan that is most cost effective and implementable. Because of the timing, EPA has determined that 208 planning and management should focus on meeting the 1983 goals of the Act. The purpose of 208 planning simply stated is to provide information for sound decision making. Management is the key. to the process. What makes 208 unique is that state and local govern- ments must not only develop a plan, but the approved plan must make the commitment to finance projects developed in the plan and to take regulatory action where necessary to solve non -point source and other problems related to achieving the 1983 standards. The implications of 208 for local governments are discussed in detail later in this report. Sev- eral points should be emphasized at the outset, however. This report is based on a NARC workshop dealing with the 208 planning process. The workshop focused on organizing for 208 management planning, the grant application process, and issues to be tackled this first year. The questions and answers which comprise this report summarize the basic discussion at that meeting. 1 208 is a mechanism to help local elected officials gain information to deal with other prob- lems related to water quality, such as solid waste disposal, septic tanks, trailer courts and land use. • 208 is one of the only programs available to deal with non -point source pollution problems (i. e. those for which there is no specifically identifiable source, such as erosion, feedlot runoff, or runoff from agricultural lands). • Because areawide planning requirements of the Act will be fulfilled, those local govern- ments which are involved in 208 will have a better chance at federal construction grants in the future. • Through 208, local governments can impact on permits granted by the states for pollution discharges. e 208 is the means for making regulatory and implementation decisions. Through this pro- cess, local officials can work together to develop a management plan which determines who will do what, when, where and how. But most important of all, decisions made during the 208 process will have a tremendous im- pact on land use and other types of issues which are traditionally local prerogatives. If local governments want to continue to control these decisions, it is essential that they take on 208 responsibility. Further, any delay in undertaking 208 is to the disadvantage of local govern- ments. Right now 100 percent funding is available, but this will decrease to 75 percent next fiscal year (FY 76). It is vital to get the 208 process in the works as soon as possible to have any impact on meeting the 1983 standards. A later section of this report describes some of the actions which can be taken by EPA or citizens, if appropriate progress is not made. What is 208 Management Planning? The purpose of the 208 planning process is to formulate an areawide waste treatment manage- ment plan that can be implemented by a management agency (ies). The planning process must integrate both technical needs for pollution control and management arrangements capable of implementing the controls. The technical portion of the planning process is concerned with identifying the priority water quality problems of the area, recognizing any constraints in dealing with the problems, and de- veloping alternatives to achieve water quality goals. Management planning is an essential part of the 208 planning process, and should be conducted concurrently with technical planning. Ultimately, all components of the plan are geared to im- plementation and dependent upon the development of an effective management plan for their ac- complishment. 2 t'. Management planning, first identifies ;existing water quality management problems, such as lack of authority for controlling certain pollution sources as related to areawide waste treatment man- u agement. Any constraints on devising an effective management approach must be identified as well. Based upon a management analysis, alternative management systems having the potential for effective water quality management are identified. Finally, such alternatives are analyzed in terms of their feasibility for implementing a given technical plan. Because the feasibility of implementing a plan may depend on acquiring proper authority, it is part of the planning function to ensure that the management agency (ies) has adequate legal authority to implement the plan. Accordingly, it is imperative that planning agencies consider management problems and alter- native approaches during the initial phases of the planning process. Will the 208 Planning Process Require Developing Programs to Deal with Non -point Source Pollution and Urban Storm Runoff? Yes. Section 208 is the most positive statement on the need to identify, and if present, devel- op a program to solve non -point source pollution. This is a difficult problem and the solutions will not be obvious or easy to correct. This problem will probably require more innovative ap- proaches than any other aspects of the Act. While EPA will continue to do research and pro- vide technical assistance to 208 planning agencies, it is recognized that the answer to non -point source problems must be tailored to the region. Each agency will have to define the parameters of the problem, and using existing research decide what measures might be financially, techni- cally and politically feasible. In the case of urban storm runoff, Section 208 requires this problem to be addressed if it signif- icantly affects water quality. What is the Funding Situation for 208? 208 is a contract authority program which is not conditional on the normal appropriations pro- cess. This means EPA has full authority to use all 208 monies provided in the Act, $100 mil- lion in FY 74 and $150 million in FY 75. The only constraint on 208 now is receiving applica- tions that meet EPA criteria. The funding strategy being followed by EPA is if an application meets EPA criteria --it is a sound designation that will help solve the water quality problem --then EPA will fund it. There is no quota or priority system. The number of applications EPA anticipates is 200 to 350. Cash outlay projections are made in the President's budget for 208 funding. EPA intends to stay within the target cash outlays if possible. This target is $26 million in FY 75. The FY 76 amount has not yet been set by OMB. What is the Geographic Requirement for a 208 Area? The geographic area in which 208 planning will be conducted is determined by the state using criteria established by EPA. The criteria are tied to EPA's detailed definition of a substantial water quality control problem. This definition emphasizes the areas the states have identified in their 303 basin plans "water quality limited segments" and/or areas having substantial non - source point pollution. M Is 208 Limited. to; Urban Industrial Areas? At the moment, EPA is.focusing 208 funding in urban industrial areas. In recent months, how- . ever, EPA has been looking of its designation criteria from the point of view of another national priority--energy development. The Act does not preclude the designation of nonmetro areas for 208 planning, but the emphasis is certainly on the problems in metro areas. But if water quality problems are substantial and complex in nonmetro areas obviously EPA would give serious con- sideration to any state proposal to designate such an area. Such areas might include those involv- ing mines and mining, development of other energy resources, recreational areas, and sites for waste disposal. What is the Process for 208 Designation? The governor of each state, after consultation with appropriate local officials, has the responsi- bility for designating the boundaries of a 208 area and designating a single representative agency to be responsible for the 208 planning process. Ultimately on advice of the 208 agency, the gov- ernor will designate local governments or other agencies to implement the agreed -on manage- ment plan and program. The governor actually has three options: he may designate a 208 area, he may non -designate all or a portion of the state, or he may remain silent. But in the interstate areas he can only designate or remain silent. This is important because non -designation precludes local initiative. What if the Governor Non -Designates? If the governor non -designates he retains the option of reconsidering and perhaps designating 208 areas and agencies at a later time. Or the state assumes responsibility for doing the area - wide planning under the Act. There are states which have been very emphatic that they don't want to designate, but these are few. The majority of states want to make designations, and are either going through the public hearing process or have questions. Nationwide, there are between 60 and 80 active, viable can- didates still going through the process right now. That's on top of the 17 designations EPA had approved through early August. If a State Non -Designates is it Eligible for 208 Funding? No. The law requires that areawide "208 -type" planning be done in areas with a substantial wa- ter quality problem, but the states are not eligible for 208 funding. The intent of Congress was that this be a cooperative state -local effort and 208 funds are provided for that purpose. If the state non -designates, it assumes responsibility for undertaking areawide planning, but this would be part of the basic Section 303 state planning process to develop basin plans. Funding for state planning comes out of Section 106. The funding level for the total state program in FY 74 was $50 million and EPA does not expect any significant jumps in that level. In fact, OMB wants to cut it back. So any funding for states to undertake the 208 planning would come out of their 106 funds. The states could decide to take money out of permits or construction grants and put it in planning, or clse come up with the money themselves. 51 What if the Governor Remains Silent? If the governor remains silent, local governments have the option of applying directly to EPA for 208 funding as an areawide 208 planning agency. However, if local officials do not exercise this option and there is a substantial water quality problem, it is the state's responsibility to see that water quality standards are met. What Happens if Water Quality Standards are not Met? If EPA finds that states are not moving to either designate 208 agencies or undertake areawide planning themselves in areas which have a substantial water quality problem, there are a num- ber of consequences which could result. No federal hardware grants will be made unless there is a viable plan and program to achieve standards and progress made toward implementing such a plan and program. If no significant progress is made then discharge permits will not be issued or renewed. In addition, EPA or cit- izens could go to court to require the state or federal government to see that treatment facilities are built or development moratoriums imposed, or both, until state and local governments as- sume their responsibilities to do the job. Has EPA Made This Clear to State and Local Officials? There definitely appear to be misconceptions at the local level as to the stakes involved here. An EPA representative stated "At EPA we're not following the implementation of 208 at this point in time from the point of view if you don't perform this, there's going to be a sanction against you. We've established a mechanism, a process and we're saying there will be financial assis- tance for 208 planning and we think if you go through this process, you will solve your problem. We're basically relying on two things: (1) the fact that a local -regional area identifies that they have a water quality problem and they want to solve it --the only way 208 can work is if you have that kind of intent and willingness to solve the problem and work together; and (2) there is mon- ey available to help do that. " Are There Also Institutional Implications for Local Government? Very definitely. The 208 program is geared to moving policies and plans into some concrete action by staging facilities development, determining how they're going to be financed, who's going to do it, and making commitments of that nature. It's really implementation of the kind of things often developed at the regional level which are put on a shelf. The program directly determines who makes water quality decisions (which affect growth and land use) and who im- plements the decisions. So 208 does have an institutional consequence to the whole idea of local governments working to- gether to solve areawide problems. Local governments need to recognize that the best way to control their own destiny and remain viable is to work together. This process is going to be one of the tests to see if that concept will work. 5 Local governments have taken a rather ambivalent stand on 208 thus far. They find the state has no particular desire to get involved and they don't see the consequences of their not being involved either, even though they might be in an area which obviously cannot meet water quality standards with the type of 201 facility design and engineering provided for under the 1972 Water Pollution Act. Then it Really Benefits Both the State and Local Governments if the Governor Designates 208 Agencies? Very definitely. If the state does not designate, it will bear the burden of performing areawide planning without the advantage of 208 funding. And local governments will find that the state is in the position of making significant decisions affecting the growth and development of their com- munity. These water quality decisions determine a community's land use, waste treatment and sewer facility requirements, as well as future financial resources and capital improvement costs. How Can this Information Be Communicated to Local Officials? The Triangle J Council of Governments in the Raleigh-Durham area of North Carolina put toge- ther a successful package of materials for their local officials. This included a two or three- page summary of what 208 was all about and a copy of the resolution which needed to be adopted. (See appendix. ) All materials from EPA were omitted. One important point made at the meeting is that the entire area of water pollution is very techni- cal and one that has not evoked a great deal of interest by elected officials. In submitting re- ports to elected officials, it was felt important to point out the issues and options in nontechni- cal terms. The big question asked by elected officials appears to be, "Is 208 required?" The answer should be that it is not required, but here are the options if you don't do 208 planning and the implica- tions of each option. It is national policy that waste treatment management will be on an areawide basis. The plan- ning will be done either by the state or the locals, and in non -designated areas it will be done by the state, or even the federal government if the state doesn't do the job. What is. the Current Statue of 208 Designation? As of August 7, EPA has approved 17 208 agencies designated by the governors. As of July 15, 18 states had made one or more designations and EPA review of these designations is in process. Thirty-one states had non -designated but most of them have indicated that the governor will make designations at a future date. Only one governor (New Hampshire) chose to remain silent. As previously indicated, there are still about 80 viable candidates going through the designation process right now. Relative to regulations, EPA has published 208 area and agency designation publications, pro- gram and grant requirements, and draft planning guidelines. 6 Specifically, the resolution must meet three criteria: (1) (2 ) (3 ) .. „}A ,ot exercise vi-cdbility to It must come from an affected unit of local government. It must discuss and state explicitly a willingness to join with other units of government in the region to do a 208 study. It must state a willingness and knowledge that hardware grants will go only to management agencies designated by the completed plan and approved by the governor. How Many Units of Government in the Region Must Adopt such Resolutions? 1. Initially, EPA required that "all" units of government in the region had to adopt resolutioris'of intent, but this requirement has been relaxed. The fundamental criteria now is that resolutions be adopted by all governmental units needed to make the 208 plan work. If the exclusion of4--Yri.t of government would jeopardize the effectiveness of the 208 agency, then EPA would not appi6ve the designation. The initial judgment on the adequate number of resolutions will be made B} the state in its recommendation to EPA. Are Special Purpose Districts Included in this Requirement? If a special purpose unit of government in one way or another could determine the success dr failure or significantly impact on the 208 plan, it would be required to pass a resolution. _ Tlit''t real test is a pragmatic one --how important is that special purpose unit to the actual success of this plan? That has to be interpreted in light of each particular situation. Would an Interlocal Agreement that Established a Regional Council Suffice to Meet EPA Criteria? No. EPA wants a separate resolution dealing with this specific issue. The intent is for local governments to have a full understanding of what they are committing themselves to, especially with relationship to the agreements that will be necessary for regulation and possible questions of land use controls that will come out of the planning process. EPA wants this fully understood before they make a substantial monetary commitment. How Much Control Does the State Have over 208 Planning? To begin with, the state is integrally involved in the 208 area and agency designation process, simply because the governor makes the designation. Second, once the designation is made; the state is involved in the review of 208 grant application and finally the approval and certification of the plan on an annual basis. Therefore, the state has the final sign off on the 208 plan. The state also is responsible for establishing the local water quality objectives consistent with the appropriate 30.3(e) basin management plan and the 1983 goals. The state should maintain continual involvement throughout the planning process to assure that the plan outputs are con- sistent with state program objectives including permits and construction grants. 7 squired to change it and comply with the: state provisions. ter . The Act and EPA's regulations are designed to ensure consistency between the 208 plan and the permit and construction grant programs. Can a Local Area Appeal to EPA? Yes. If the 208 agency feels the state decision is either unreasonable or impractical the EPA administrator, or EPA regional administrator, can override the state's failure to certify the plan. What are the Land Use Requirements for Conducting 208 Planning? Section 208(b)(2)(F-H) uses the term "land use requirements. " In essence, EPA has indicated that the 208 planning must relate to areawide and local land use policies and plans. However, there is no mandatory requirement that existing land use plans must be changed. Rather, it is recognized that the implication of these existing plans must be evaluated as to their relationship to achieving the water quality standards required under the Act. If existing land use plans will not interfere with the achievement of these standards, there is no requirement to alter such plans and they may be used as the basis for such planning. Local governments would only be required to reassess their land use policies if it is found that water quality standards under the Act could not be achieved under existing land use policies and practices. And in that event, it would ber:up to the local governments affected to develop an alternative that would best meet their needs. EPA stresses the need for meaningful land use plans throughout the area to define growth pat- terns and, in turn, provide the basis for the hardware designs and a regulatory program. What Kind of Regulatory System Does this Envision and Who Will Implement It? Section 208(b)(2)(c) makes provision for the establishment of a regulatory program to ensure that the management plan and program is implemented. Regulatory controls may vary from area to area due to state law and other factors. In most cases, this involves the use of existing local and state regulation processes. However, augmentation may be necessary to ensure the water quality plan is then taken into consideration, in such cases as the issuance of building permits or administration of subdivision regulations by local governments. In some cases indirect control, such as those over pricing policies, which would constrain water use may be applied. It is important to state, however, that the regulatory program can be im- plemented by the state, general purpose local governments and special districts when these units have in the aggregate the necessary powers to ensure the compliance with the manage- ment plan. There will be no requirement that the 208 planning agency obtain such powers. If additional regulatory authorityis required, it could be vested in the units that are cooperatively carrying out the 208 planning. These decisions would result from the management plan and con- sultation with and decisions by state government. What is the Relationship between the 208 Planning Agency and the Implementing Agencies under the 208 Management Plan? Under the 1972 Act the areawide planning agency recommends to the governor, as a part of its management plan, the agencies and local governments that will ir.nplement the management plan In all likelihood these will he existing operating agencies of local governments or special dis- 8 in his designation to EPA, the governor must consider the 208 planning agency's recommendations for implementing agencies to carry out the management plan. Only those implementing agencies finally designated by the governor can receive 201 hardware facility grants. Facilities provided for through the grant must be consistent with 208 management plans. Besides delineating implementing agencies for construction and operation of water treatment facil- ities, the management plan must also contain a regulatory system to assure adherence. This regulatory system will require definition of regulatory measures as well as agencies responsible for enforcing such measures. In almost all cases 208 -designated planning agencies do not have the regulatory authority necessary to carry out a regulatory program. Therefore, local govern- ments and the state will have to accomplish the regulatory measures. What is the Relationship between 208 Planning and 303 Basin Planning? 303(e) basin plans are prepared by the state and constitute the overall framework within which 208 plans are developed for specific portions of a basin. Basin plans: (1) provide water quality standards and goals, (2) define critical water quality conditions, and (3) provide waste load con- straints. The 208 areawide plan picks up load allocations and target dates defined by the state in a particular area and attempts to find the most reasonable solution to achieve these goals. 208 plans will be an integral part of the basin plans and must be certified annually by the gover- nor as being consistent with applicable basin plans. How Does 208 Relate to 201 Facilities Planning? 201 facilities plans cover the planning and preliminary design portions of plans and studies re- lated to the actual construction of publicly -owned waste treatment works. Facilities plans, through the systematic evaluation of alternatives, are intended to assure development of cost- effective and environmentally sound .local waste treatment systems. Thus, in contrast to 208 plans, facilities plans are limited essentially to abatement of pollution from point sources and those industries served or to be served by waste treatment systems. Facilities plans may be completed or in progress when the 208 areawide planning is undertaken. Such planning should be construed as a step toward and supplementary to the more comprehen- sive 208 plan. Features included in the approved 201 facilities plans such as engineering, cost data and scheduling should be considered as "existing" for 208 planning purposes. Generally, other facilities plans and ongoing facilities planning efforts should be reviewed by the 208 agen- cy, and agreements should be reached between the facilities planning and 208 planning entities for coordination of the respective efforts. Such coordination should be accomplished with views toward achieving maximum consistency with the 208 plan without unduly delaying ongoing facili- ties planning efforts. In general, no facilities planning should be initiated within a 208 area after 208 planning has been undertaken and until a 208 plan has been substantially developed. However, in some cases, such concurrent facilities planning may be justified and approved where urgency of solving a specific problem dictates the need for a shorter -term and more narrowly focused planning effort. Upon completion and approval, the 208 plan will serve as the facilities plan for the designated area. Subsequent applications for grant assistance for municipal treatment works construction Gi The 402 permit program is designed to ensure that pollutant discharges do not exceed prescribed emission standards. A permit system can provide an essential tool for implementing a 208 plan. No permits may be issued for point sources whichare in conflict with approved 208 plans, since the plans become a part of the overall 303 basin plan. The Section 208 management plan will af- fect the issuance of discharge permits until the plan is certified by the state and approved by the EPA administrator. How Does 208 Relate to Other EPA Programs? If any portion of a 208 area is located within ,an Air Quality Maintenance Area, 208 efforts should be coordinated with the air quality planning and implementation process. During the 208 planning process, the state plans for solid waste management should be examined for recommended organizational and technological solutions pertaining to the 208 area. Local agencies within die planning area which are to have the primary responsibility for :regulating and implementing solid waste management controls should be identified. In cooperation with such local agencies, the mutual effects of these programs should be considered and appropriate mea- sures taken to assure compatibility. What is the Relationship between 208 and Other Areawide Programs? The land use aspects of 208 planning provide a direct linkage with other areawide planning efforts within the area including those supported under the HUD 701, flood insurance and disaster pro- grams, transportation plans under DOT, and coastal zone management planning under NOAH. The 208 planning should be viewed as providing the water quality component of the comprehen- sive plan for the area. Consideration of other area planning activities will help ensure that their impact on water quality is incorporated into the 208 planning process and that 208 plans are con- sistent with these activities. Such consideration will also facilitate the development of a coordi- native relationship between 208 agencies and related agencies which should be carried over into the 208 implementation phase. EPA is meeting with HUD, DOT and NOAA to begin integrating these efforts at the national level and assure proper coordination of these programs with 208 planning at the working level. What is Required in a 208 Planning Application? The May 13, 1974 Federal Register contains an outline for preparing a 208 application. Some basic points to remember include: • The governor must certify that the application complies with 303 plans that are being de- veloped and that the program described is adequate to develop a 208 plan. The state must also certify that the 208 plan will not duplicate work already being done through 201 facili- ties funding, and that the application is approved by the state water pollution agency. 10 There must also be a statement that the planning process will continue after the initial man- agement plan is developed --i. e. that the plan can be updated annually to ensure implementa- tion. • The application should also spell out specifically what agency will be responsible for each work activity. How will consultants be used, if any? Who will be the members of the 208 staff? Will local government planning staffs be assigned certain tasks? Finally dollars, resources and work activities should then be correlated, assigned and scheduled! The point emphasized by EPA is that this must be two-way planning which is not only cost effec- tive but is politically effective and can be implemented. A great deal of time in the application process must be spent working with state and local gov- ernment staffs reviewing the proposals and assuring them of involvement. It is also vital that before an application is submitted, the means for participation by the various jurisdictions and interests are spelled out. Continued linkage with the state should be strongly built into the ap- plication. EPA regulations require a continuing and meaningful involvement of citizens in the formulation and annual adoption of the 208 management plan. EPA recommends the use of a citizens com- mittee in conjunction with a committee of the technicians from the participating jurisdictions. In addition, smaller advisory committees can be established to represent industry, smaller communities, etc. The biggest thing to keep in mind is that the plan must be completed in two years and tight man- agement control is needed throughout the process. While not a requirement, after a grant offer has been made, the 208 agency will have to followup with a schedule of work and the dates for com- pletion of specific tasks. It can help get application through EPA and also help 208 agency if costs are correlated with tasks and resources. The regulations allow for essentially 10 basic payments --10 percent at the initiation of the grant and 10 percent quarterly for the two-year period, 10 percent at completion of the grant. EPA will be looking to a correlation between these quarterly payments and completion of tasks. The payments are not automatic. What about Cost Effectiveness? A central criterion put forth in the EPA guidelines and the 1972 Act is the cost effectiveness of the 208 management plan. The costs are divided into four categories: the traditional resource costs, the social costs, the environmental costs, and the economic costs. These are spelled out in more detail in the guidelines. The question of effectiveness, is measured by the attain- ment of the 1983 water quality goals. Two additional criteria are also mentioned in the guide- lines: implementation capability and public acceptability. It is very difficult to measure social and environmental costs. There is no simple formula that you can plug data into and come out with an acceptable level. A process is suggested in the guide- lines to facilitate the comparison between resource costs and other costs. This should give 208 11 agencies and the state and local governments at least one method to evaluate cost effectiveness of the 208 plan. But the ultimate decision' must be''based on the available federal, state and local e resources to achieve the 1983 water quality standards established under the Act. These resources will determine in many cases the degree that a capital intensive solution for achieving water quali- ty standard is available to an area, and the degree to which other approaches such as pricing pol- icies (or other non -capital solutions) may have to be used. How Will the A-95 Review and Comment Process Apply to the 208 Management Planning Program? The A-95 process has an important role in the 208 planning activities. Under EPA regulations (Part 35, Subpart F, Section 35. 1054-1) the 208 activities are subject to A-95 review, This in- cludes the application to fund 208 planning and the plan developed under the 208 management plan- ning process. How Should Environmental Impact Statements be Handled in the 208 Planning Process? The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 requires environmental impact statements for permits and environmental facility construction grants. EPA, as of June 1974, was still formu- lating its position on environmental impact statements covering the 208 management plan. While EPA recognizes the 1972 Act requires an EIS only on permits and construction grants, it has been considering the possibility of an EIS for the 208 management plan which would then preclude individual statements on each permit and construction grant. What Information on 208 Should We Have? The first thing you should have is the EPA Water Strategy Paper for FY 74-75. The second is an EPA brochure on 208 --it's mainly a public information brochure which explains the program and what EPA is trying to do (in process of preparation). In addition, you should have the regulations for both designation and grant assistance. They are two separate sets. (Federal Registers May 30, 1973 and May 14, 1974. ) Draft planning guide- lines (May 1974) are available and the final version will be published by September. Additional items of interest include: (1) the EPA -Corps of Engineers interagency agreement, (2) models of designation packages, and (3) sample grant applications. All of these are available from the Water Planning Division, Environmental Protection Agency, Waterside Mall, 401 "M" Street, S. W., Washington, D. C. 20460. In addition, EPA's public af- fairs department has published a bibliography of general information related to the water bill. A bibliography is also contained in the planning guidelines. 12 For additional definitions, see EPA's 208 planning guidelines (Draft dated May 1974); final due in September). Basin "The term 'basin' means the streams, rivers and tributaries and the total land and surface wa- ter area contained in one of the major and minor basins defined by EPA, or other basin unit as agreed upon by the state(s) and the Regional Administrator. " (proposed regulations 40 CFR 130.2(1)). Discharge of pollutants "The term 'discharge of a pollutant' and the term 'discharge of pollutants' each means (A) any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source, (B) any addition of any pollu- tant to the waters of the contiguous zone or the ocean from any point source other than a vessel or other floring craft. " (Act, Sec. 502(12)). Effluent limited segments "Any segment where water quality is meeting and will continue to meet applicable water quality standards or where there is adequate demonstration that water quality will meet applicable wa- ter quality standards after the application of the effluent limitations required by Sections 301(b) (1)(A) and 301(b)(1)(B) of the Act. " (proposed regulations, 40 CFR Part 131). Facilities planning Pertains to "provision for cost-effective, environmentally sound and implementable treatment works which will meet applicable requirements of Sections 201(8), 301, and 302 of the Act. " (201 guidance, p. 3). Land use controls Methods for regulating the uses to which a given land area may be put, including such things as zoning, subdivision regulation, and flood -plain regulation. Navigable waters "The term 'navigable waters' means the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas. " (Act, Sec. 502(7)). Nonpoint source Generalized discharge of waste into a water body which cannot be located as to specific source, as outlined in Section 304(e) of the Act. Permits "The Administration may... issue a permit for the discharge of any pollutant, or combination of pollutants, ... upon condition that such discharge will meet either all applicable requirements under Sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, and 403 of this Act, or prior to the taking of necessary implementing actions relating to all such requirements, such conditions as the Administrator de- termines necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act. (Act, Sec. 402(a)(1)). The Adminis- trator shall authorize a state, which he determines has the capability of administering a permit program which will carry out the objective of this Act, to issue permits for discharges into the 13 navi abl g e waters within the jurisdiction of such state." (Act, Sec. 402(a)(5)). The permit pro gram is a part of the National -Pollutant Discharge Elimination Svstem (NPDES). Planning agency "The governor... or governors shall... designate each 208 planning area including its boundaries, and for each area a single representative agency to be responsible for the planning.... The agen- cy shall be a representative organization whose membership shall include but need not be limited to elected officials of local governments, or their designees, having jurisdiction in the designated planning area." (40 CFR 126. 12, 126. 13, 126. 11). Planning process Strategy for directing resources, establishing priorities, scheduling actions, and reporting programs toward achievement of program objectives. Point source "The term 'point source' means any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, or vessel or other floating craft, from which pollutants are or can be discharged. " (Act, Sec. 502(14)). State water quality standards Standards of water quality set by the state for intrastate waters, that shall be at least as strin- gent as federal standards and shall further the goals of the Act. Waste load allocation "A waste load allocation for a segment is the assignment of target loads to point and nonpoint sources so as to achieve water quality standards in the most effective manner. " (303 guidelines). Waste treatment facilities "Any devices and systems used in the storage, treatment, recycling and reclamation of munici- pal sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature... in addition, ... any other method or system for preventing, abating, reducing, storing, treating, separating, or disposing of minicipal waste, including waste in combined storm water and sanitary sewer systems. " (Act, Sec. 212(2)). Also termed treatment works. Water quality limited segments "Any segment where it is known that water quality does not meet applicable water quality stan- dards, and is not expected to meet water quality standards even after the application of the efflu- ent limitations required by Sections 301(b)(1)(A) and 301(b)(1)(B) of the Act. " (proposed regula- tions 40 CFR Part 131). 14 APPENDIX :II . clue Following is a list of 208 agencies designated by governors and approved by EPA as of August 5. This is not a complete list of all governor -designated agencies which are still in process at EPA. Three designation packages have been cited by EPA as particularly good --Raleigh-Durham, New Castle and Des Moines. Copies of these materials are available from the councils,or EPA on request. 1. Raleigh-Durham, N.C. /Triangle J Council of Governments 2. Des Moines, Iowa/Central Iowa Regional Association of Local Governments 3. New Castle County, Delaware/New Castle County Council of Governments ; any 4. Cincinnati, Ohio (OKI)/Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Council of Governments pollu- 5. Hampton Roads, Virginia/Hampton Roads Water Quality Agency 3el 6. Richmond, Virginia/Richmond-Crater Consortium 7. Roanoke, Virginia/Fifth Virginia Planning District Commission of Governments 8. Toledo, Ohio/Toledo Metropolitan Council of Governments 9. Dayton, Ohio/Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission uty 10. Memphis, Tennessee/Mississippi-Tennessee-Arkansas Council of Governments/Memphis Delta Development District "`= • �= _'�) 11. Portland, Maine/Greater Portland Council of Governments 12. Colorado Springs, Colorado/ Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments 13. Youngstown- Warren, Ohio/Eastgate Development & Transportation Agency 14. Knoxville, Tennessee/Knoxville-Knox County Metro Planning Agency r 15. Southern Maine/Southern Maine Regional Planning Commission 16. Northern Maine/Northern Maine Regional Planning Commission 17. Lake Tahoe/Tahoe Regional Planning Agency 15 ± > n E � "®�}K}�/ƒ ��r a%[ C-)®�E/J k §(k\¢\{}) \�( \�\to /§/ƒ�( , R k/\§7\)§* r ,e, CL EI,; 2\ƒ\. \}f! I ±�/® ) ;R■ . A / / / / ± > n lb � /}} ƒ ��r a%[ �/k k \�( \�\to , R �w E > n lb P, SEI a%[ 16 \�( \�\to r �w E > n . \ 16 § § 0 \ APPENDIX N PHS TJCOG December 19, 1973 Revised December 20, 1973 208 Water Quality Management Planning Section 208 of the 1972 Water Pollution Control Act amendments establishesi procedures for area -wide planning for water quality management planning for those areas in the county having difficult water quality problems. These areas for the most part are the major urban centers in the nation. 208 work is an effort to consider all aspects affecting water pollution together. Municipalities and individual establishments away from municipalities have long been involved in waste water treatment - and EPA is requiring even more thorough treatment planning and action. The 201 work that many of our local governments are getting into is an effort to develop the best combination of treatment and cost for sewerage systems. Yet having an excellent waste water treatment system is not enough. If our local governments in their anti -pollution efforts paid attention only to their disposal plants, they would be working on only part of the problem. Many other sources of pollution are involved. The EPA stock phrase for many of these is "Non -point source." Non -point sources include such aspects as the grater with a variety of automobile caused wastes that is flushed from our streets during a rain storm; the sediment that comes from construction sites; run-off from fields that have been fertilized; run-off from natural decaying matter on the forest floor; storm water washing through industrial yards. There are many aspects of non -point source pollution - and some of them are perfectly normal by themselves. When they are put together, however, in the built-up urban areas they cause problems - and the problems just are not handled by a sewage disposal plant. How should the non -point source problems be handled? The best answer at present is that for the most part we don't know. We know some things - but not too many. For example, we know that we should have sediment control measures; we know that our individual industries should do excellent jobs of housekeeping - but there is much that we don't know. Can anything be done to keep our streets free from gasoline engine residues? Can different kinds of zoning help in cutting down on septic tank waste problems? Can storm water be collected in any way for treatment or for retention so that it won't hit the streams in a big slug? Should an area think more seriously than it has about either concentrating new growth so that its effects may be handled efficiently or dispersing new growth so that its effects may be minimized? Should some areas with difficult non - point problems think about efforts to get new additional growth into areas with less difficult problems? 208 asks localities to make a thorough effort to work out answers to these types of problems as part of their total anti water pollution job. It is a very difficult task. 17 There is one other very difficult part of 208 work. What is the best way to operate and manage the complete anti water pollution effort in an area? How many waste water treatment agencies should there be? Is there improper duplication of effort at present? Can advanced technology provide more economical management? Should some systems be consolidated into a fewer number? What should be the relation between waste water treatment agencies and the activities of local government that deal with land use control? These are also difficult questions which 208 asks local governments to consider very thoroughly. So - 208 is an effort to consider treatment plants (all "point" sources, that is), all non -point source problems, and the management and operating problems together in one planning process. Questions: 1. I5 each local government being asked to give over its treatment Plant to a super agencyl No - but each local government is being asked to agree to carry out its portion of a managment plan which it adopts after helping to prepare - and this plan may well include provision for joint, combined, single, or other forms of unified and coordinated management - or it may include recommendations for separate management. The answers are not pre -determined. The plan that the local governments prepare jointly will govern. After 208 work completion, proposals for construction grants will be made only by an agency or agencies as designated by the Governor and included in the plan, with the grants to go the appropriate units as specified in the plan. 2. Are local governments being asked to give over land use control to the waste water treatment agency? No - but local governments are being asked to include in good faith their own land use considerations in whatever waste quality management plan they adopt. 3. Is 208 planning mandatory? EPA says strongly that it is not mandatory. Certainly, EPA is not pushing 208 planning all over the country at present; it is simply too big a job. However, it is believed that 208 will eventually become mandatory and that consequently all appropriate areas will have to get involved. Realistically, it is probable that localities that have completed a 208 plan will be in a better position for construction grants than localities in areas suitable for 208 planning that have chosen not to get involved. 4. Do all localities in a 208 area have to get involved? Yes, since part of the whole process is to consider the whole area that is tied together economically and "pollutionally." However and realistically it is hoped that the 208 area can be set up initially to include only those localities that want to participate. It is probable that a major hole in a 208 area caused by the non -participation of one or another significant local unit would kill the 208 process for that area. 18 ■; 5. What happens if a local government decides not to adopt the plan? This is a difficult question to answer. I expect that when a locality that has not adopted a plan that it was involved with applies for a construction grant it will be asked by EPA pretty rigorously to demonstrate why what it proposes is just as good as what the plan calls for. 6. Who decides on what areas should be included in a 208 area? The governor after advice from the affected localities and after public notice. 7. What agency does the 208 planning? The agency that includes local elected officials that is designated by the governor after advice from the affected localities and after public notice. 8. Who pays for 208 planning? EPA will pay 100 percent of the planning costs of work done before July 1, 1975; 75 percent of work done thereafter. (if designated, Triangle COG plans to complete before July 1, 1975.) Prepared by Triangle J Council of Governments P.O. Box 12276--100 Park Drive Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709 19 APPENDIX V NARC DRAFT RESOLUTION RESOLUTION INDICATING THE INTENT TO PARTICIPATE WITH OTHER GENERAL PURPOSE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN THE AREA IN A JOINT PLANNING PROCESS TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT A PLAN RESULTING IN A COORDINATED WASTE TREATMENT MANAGE- MENT SYSTEM FOR THE AREA WHEREAS, Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972, P.L. 92-500 (hereinafter called "Act") requires that in areas of urban industrial concentration having substantial water quality control problems, an areawide planning and management process for correcting such problems be undertaken; and WHEREAS, pursuant to proposed EPA regulations, the Governor, or Governors in interstate areas, after consultation with appropriate local officials, are to designate the areawide planning districts and a single representative agency, which includes local elected officials, capable of developing effective areawide waste treatment plans; and WHEREAS, Section 208 authorizes that existing areawide agencies may be designated as the official water quality planning and management agency; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Protection Agency has issued guidelines (40 CFR Part 126) for the designation of areawide waste treatment management planning areas and responsible planning agencies; and WHEREAS, the criteria contained in the EPA regulations for designating such area and planning agency are applicable to the area; and WHEREAS, Section 126.10 of the EPA regulations requires, among other things, that the local governments within a substantial water quality problem area must indicate their intent, through formally adopted resolution, to join together in the planning process to develop and implement a plan which will result in a coordinated waste treatment management system for the area; and WHEREAS, the (hereinafter called "Council") has been actively engaged in water resource planning within the area and is the representative agency of the major general purpose local governments within the area for undertaking intergovernmental coordination and comprehensive planning for the region; and WHEREAS, the Council has formally requested that the Governor(s) of designate the area as a substantial water quality problem area and the Council as the single representative organization to develop areawide waste treatment management plans as called for under Section 208; and WHEREAS, the EPA regulations in Section 126.11 encourage the use of existing capable regional agencies consistent with the policies of Title IV of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968, as implemented by Part IV of OMB Circular A-95 to receive 21 WHEREAS, such planning and management process will equip the Council's partici- pating governments with a significant new tool both to guide and control development and growth within the area together with an additional basis for evolving a joint decision for the solution of the areas severe water pollution problem: NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT hereby indicates its intention to participate in an intergovernmental process to develop and implement a plan which will result in a coordinated waste treatment management system for the area; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT hereby requests the Governor(s) to designate the area as a substantial water quality problem area and further designate the Council as the responsible agency to conduct waste treatment management planning within such area under the provisions of Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 and the EPA regulations promulgated and implemented thereto. 22 A REPORT PREPARED AS REQUESTED BY THE IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL October 15, 1974 f IOWA CITY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT October 31, 1974 In an effort to determine the desirability of cleaning Ralston Creek, the Iowa City City Council has requested that the Public Works Department determine the benefits and associated costs related to cleaning Ralston Creek from its mouth to the upstream reaches of the north and south branches. In the context of this report "cleaning" means removing large chunks of concrete and other waste matter from the creekbed and cutting vegetation to the top of the creekbank. "Vegetation" means all growing matter of sufficient diameter to impede the flow of water appreciably, that is, all vegetation with stalks larger than common weeds. In an effort to determine the flow capacity of the creek under totally clean conditions various calculations were done assuming minor dredging. "Minor dredging" in the context of this report, will mean completely cleaning the banks and removing six inches to one foot of the vegetable matter and soil. It is assumed that this would be done either with a drag line or with a front-end loader. METHODOLOGY OF REPORT Flow characteristics of the creek running bankfull were determined at five locations on the creek and at four bridge locations. The five creek locations are listed below: 1. Main stem at Prentiss, station 39 + 60trr✓��- 2. Main stem at stream junction with north and south branches, station 95 + 86 3. South branch at Center Street, station 124 + 00 4. South branch at Muscatine, station 163 + 90 S. North branch at Rochester, station 116 + 00 'Chese particular locations were chosen because of the availability in the 1966 Corps of Engineers report of charts relating the flow in the creek to the frequency of storm. For example, at one of these locations on the creek, if the flow in cubic feet per second can be determined, the reoccurrence interval in years of that particular flow can be determined from a chart. The four bridge locations at which a capacity analysis was done are listed below: 1. Prentiss Street Bridge, station 37 + SO 2. A bridge 300 feet south of Burlington generally known as the VanBuren Street Bridge 3. Bridge at Court and Muscatine, station 115 + 00 4. Bridge at Sheridan, station 131 + 18 These particular bridges were selected because of their frequent mention in the various reports as being constriction problems during flood flows on the creek. These are not the only bridges that constrict flood flows on the creek; however, an analysis of these four bridges will provide a basis for ascertaining the relative adequacy of these bridges and others on the creek. ASSUMPTIONS FOR CALCULATIONS Many assumptions were made in the course of this analysis as part of the emperical equations which describe water flow. The most basic assumption was values used for Manning's coefficient, n, which is a number that describes the roughness of the channel. It was assumed that the n coefficient for the existing creek was 0.09 and that for the creek channel after cleaning was 0.07 and after minor dredging it was 0.055. These figures were obtained from "Design Charts for Open Channel Flow" by the U.S. Department of Commerce. -2- It should be recognized that these figures are not absolute and are adjusted by the engineer making the calculations to represent what he feels are actual field conditions. In calculating the amount of flow an existing channel can handle, the Manning's coefficient is a direct inverse multiplier, that is, doubling its value will cut in half the calculated amount of flow that can be handled in the creek. An attempt was made to select figures which were felt to be representative of field conditions. The formula for calculating water flow in a channel also includes the slope of the channel, that is, how much the channel drops in a certain distance. The available data did not permit an exact determination of slope at each cross section; therefore, the elevation of the nearest cross section upstream and downstream from the control section were used to determine an average slope at the control section. Calculations were done for the streambed assuming bankfull to bankfull flow only and no consideration was given to flood flows in which the water would leave the banks and move out onto the flood plain. Water surface elevations for flows larger than bankfull have been done by the Iowa Natural Resources Council for the 3 year, the 20 year and the 100 year storm and are available from the Resources Council. This paper will concern itself with the flows that would be affected by cleaning and/or minor dredging. RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS The flow rate, cross sectional area, velocity and year of storm the creek is capable of handling are listed below in tabular form for the five control cross sections mentioned earlier in this report. Table 1 is flow under existing conditions, Table 2 is flow after cleaning and Table 3 is flow after dredging. -3- Z N N N 3 3 0 0 0 (+a w C+ C+ (+ > s s =r to N (A N N N Ul C+ C+ +9 a CD (D m 00 a a ra CCD a rn (n v c i m o ((D A N 7 (D s n c+ w ct m a m a �. N C+ i N C+ C. N (D N c N N m w P+ C+ f+ O w N i to r- N r C+ \ r o rn w z + r w o + O I O N C+ O C 4pb N m + w n = ( ' CD m m m x o Ln rH -i O b H C7 CJ7 N Ol to (.fl O C•-1 O N O O 00 00 Ul N i N h+ V CT H Z N H O --I z H O ;7 z n to r N C) EA z r N N W � n •� C7 00 m 0000 ro 00 0 m -p y m c+ m C N W W N W cam+ r tl� \ O (D C") ON CD Ow0 m H n � � I H m �� ? Ol N .P mw � C O 20 (A :r* ;;o r m z n m N Q1 O 8 W 14 V V V w t - p N ko N A W N V N W W O A cn to W .T H m Z O N -� --i C-) --t cn (D m Q O w ;a c tn p p O 9't w w m m S S S %O N N N N N (n Ct c+ rD + a 9 (D OD rd rd r7o ecD a Ol N 'v Q C M 'S rD 0 N 7 CD 7 w rt,c ((D m w a C+ C� tA N C CD Pt C+ N VI (D w e+ rt c+ O w V) f o w w c + + -s o + ,r ct o p N S CDP A O + z w o C=) N Q1 O 8 W 14 V V V w t - p N ko N A W N V N W W O A cn to W T r 0 f N m � r H m -i c-) m r- o r m r a o -i z cr> a m a w CD —i r H m O Z N Z N C:) H o --i z H z a N r N —1 O Z n M M m 7Z .T H m Z O N -� --i C-) --t cn (D m Q O w ;a c tn n� r m z m m T r 0 f N m � r H m -i c-) m r- o r m r a o -i z cr> a m a w CD —i r H m O Z N Z N C:) H o --i z H z a N r N —1 O Z n M M m 7Z l Ln a I n F+ N w N w C) � rn � M C++ D rn Ln 4* rn o w C) 0 0 0 CD r w OD OD Ln z .gym -n • • � CD CD m ) CD n r o a 0 0 r m C+ no z P O m m s � ' s U0 N N N N N Ln �c�ppf (Cry+ m+ 9 3 co rd ro QDr7o rd 01 N 'C C O C m "; CD C) In C m C S n c+ a C+ m a ti a �. v� C+ -% �^ fiD -S n Ln m C+ C+ N Vf m w C+ C+ C+ 0 ' a a w w F ko CD w o o + + 0 + r Com+ O p N S O LO O W + w O O 0 S Ln a I n F+ N w N w C) � rn � M C++ D rn Ln 4* rn o w C) 0 0 0 CD r w OD OD Ln z .gym -n • • � CD CD m ) CD n r 00 N DM N r m O CD z P O m m Ln a I n F+ N w N w C) � rn � M C++ D rn Ln 4* rn o w C) 0 0 0 CD r w OD OD Ln m r 0 E N m � r x M m a 0 m r 0 0 -f a) c- n m w o r �-+ m C') O O Z w Z N CD O —f Z O ;�o z n cn r N 0 z n z m' m z .gym Z O to C � CD CD m ) CD eco N DM r m z m m m r 0 E N m � r x M m a 0 m r 0 0 -f a) c- n m w o r �-+ m C') O O Z w Z N CD O —f Z O ;�o z n cn r N 0 z n z m' m Table d indicates the flow at selected bridge locations mentioned earlier. Bankfull conditions were assumed similar to those used to check flow carrying capacity at control sections on the creek. The tailwater elevation of the downstream end of each culvert or bridge was assumed to be even with the crown of the bridge. This assumption implies that water is not being backed up from a downstream bridge or from a flow constriction in the creek a sufficient amount to materially affect the flow of the next upstream bridge. The result of the error of this assumption would be to overstate the capacity of the bridge or culvert compared to actual conditions. Flow capacities of each bridge and the corresponding year of storm are shown in the table below. TABLE 4 FLOW AT SELECTED BRIDGE LOCATIONS STORM FLOW REOCCURRENCE CAPACITY INTERVAL c s ears Prentiss St. Bridge, sta. 37 + 50 19420 5 VanBuren St. Bridge, 300' S of Burlington 19950 10 Court & Muscatine Bridge, sta. 115 + 00 1,850 20 Sheridan Ave. Bridge, sta. 131 + 18 11050 4 It should be recognized that these figures are theoretical only and do not take into account such factors as capacity restrictions caused by poor alignment of the bridge with the channel, blockage by debris and, in particular, reduced capacity caused by water backing up from downstream -7- bridges or flow restrictions in the creek a sufficient amount to cover upstream bridges. It is felt that this may be a fairly major factor since, according to the calculations, the VanBuren Street Bridge 300' south of Burlington and the Prentiss Street Bridge should be able to handle a flow in excess of the 3 year storm and yet, the Iowa Natural Resources synthetic backwater curve shows that these two bridges were inundated in a 3 year storm. The 17 year storm in 1972 completely inundated the Court and Muscatine Avenue bridge and yet calculations for this bridge indicate it should be able to handle a 20 year storm. ANALYSIS With regard to cleaning and dredging the creek, the above figures indicate the following facts: 1. Cleaning the creek will have a modest affect on capacity. 2. Dredging the creek will have a significant impact on capacity. 3. Of the four bridges studied, two of the bridges have rather severe capacity limitations. 4. Two bridges with capacities of 10 year and 20 year storms respectively are frequently inundated in small storms apparently by backwater either from downstream bridges or flow constriction in the channel downstream from the bridges. It must be reiterated once again that the above calculations are mathmatical only and are predicated on many assumptions based on engineering judgment which may or may not truly reflect the actual field conditions. It should also be realized that the above analysis on certain control sections in the creek and certain bridges does not reflect the total creek, nor does it give even an average of conditions along the creek. The creek cross section changes shapes in an infinite number of locations and the different types of bridges, while -8- involving inlet control, outlet control, roughness coefficients, alignment with the creek, debris accumulation, duration and intensity of rainstorm, just to mention a few factors. These factors have been taken into account in synthetic backwater curves generated by the Iowa Natural Resources Council for a 3 year storm, a 20 year storm and a 100 year storm. Their backwater curves were run for a variety of different bridge configurations; however, they assumed the creekbed as unchanged, that is, no dredging or cleaning. The above manual analysis in this paper was done in an effort to show what change in carrying capacity could be expected with the existing bridges and changes in the creek accomplished by cleaning or dredging. COST OF CLEANING AND DREDGING RALSTON CREEK Cleaning of Ralston Creek could be accomplished utilizing City crews and City vehicles. In previous years minor cleaning has been done by City crews, but not to the extent envisioned in this report. Out-of-pocket costs under this plan would be minimal since labor and vehicle costs are fixed for the most part. Estimating the time needed to complete cleaning of Ralston Creek is extremely difficult; however, discussion with the Division supervisor indicates that three months time would probably be adequate. This assumes a work crew of five to six men and three dump trucks. A more definite estimate of time, men and machines is difficult to make at this time since the amount of work to be done in the creek varies so much from section to section. It is the general feeling of the Public Works Department that diverting this number of men and trucks to the cleaning of Ralston Creek would not create an unbearable strain on the resources of the Street Division to perform its other winter tasks. During times of snow plowing and salting, work on Ralston Creek would be terminated. In summary, cleaning of Ralston Creek would generate a minimum amount (if out-of-pocket costs and would not seriously hamper the normal work routines of the Street Division provided the work is done during the winter months. An estimate of the cost of dredging Ralston Creek is based on a number of assumptions. For purposes of this report it will be assumed that dredging will be done either with a drag line or a front-end loader at a cost of $25 per hour plus the use of five tandem dump trucks at a cost of $20 per hour. These costs include driver and machine. With these figures the daily cost for operation would be about $1,000. The next most critical assumption is a determination of how much creek can be dredged in one day's time. This figure would vary from section to section depending on the configuration of the terrain; however, an estimated figure might be 300 feet per day. Since the distance from the mouth of the creek to the centerline of Meadow Street is about 20,000 feet, total dredging time would be about 70 days. Additional time would be spent on the south branch from Meadow Street upstream and on the north branch; however, for purposes of figuring costs, a 70 day estimate will be adequate. Based on this figure the charge for a contractor to dredge and haul away debris would be approximately $70,000. Significant additional costs would be generated in repairing damage to private property caused by heavy equipment and dump trucks, but it is impossible at this point to give even a rough figure for repair of this type of damage. Other costs would be created in seeding the dredged creek for planting of grass. Most authorities on the subject of stream erosion state that banks no steeper than two to one should be used to prevent severe erosion and the Corps of Engineers report in 1966 mentions that the material throughout much of the creek is readily erodable at relatively low stream velocities and the slopes of a new channel in this particular material would require stone protection in some reaches of the -10- L creek. Still another undefined cost would be payments requested by property owners for permission to cross property, easements through said property or easements for minor widening of the creek. In summary, based on the many unknown costs for dredging it would seem most judicious to simply give a range of figures for cost of dredging rather than one specific number. At this time a figure of $200,000 to $500,000 would represent a best educated guess by the Public Works Department. This figure assumes all construction work would be done by a contractor with legal work done by the City staff. BENEFITS OF CLEANING AND DREDGING RALSTON CREEK The Corps of Engineers report in 1966 showed that total flood damage for the 1962 17 -year flood was $353,000. A smaller storm in 1965 caused damage of $163,000. The year of storm the 1965 flood represented in unknown other than it was smaller than the 1962 flood. Normally, to determine the estimated benefit of a flood control improvement one must assume that the improvement will enable the creek to handle a given storm and then determine the damage to adjacent properties with the project as compared to damage to adjacent properties without the project. For instance, on Ralston Creek the Corps of Engineers compared the damage done by a 17 year storm under existing conditions with the damage that would be caused by a 17 year storm with the improvement and designated this as benefits. The benefits of cleaning the creek compared with not cleaning the creek is somewhat more difficult to determine since the improvement on the various reaches of the creek varies considerably as to the year storm it will handle. For instance, of the five control sections studied in this paper, the flow the creek will handle after cleaning varies from 1-3/4 to 9 years. The benefits of cleaning -11- the creek could be compared in at least two ways which are listed below: 1. Referring to Tables 1 and 2, it is shown that the main stem of the creek. at Prentiss can handle about a 4 year storm with existing conditions and a 5 year storm after cleaning. To determine the benefits of cleaning the creek it would be necessary to assume a 5 year flow in the creek for both a cleaned and uncleaned condition and then compare damage to adjacent properties with the 5 year storm assuming first a cleaned condition and then an uncleaned condition. The dollar difference in damage between these two con- ditions would be the benefit derived from cleaning. As another example, refer to Tables 1 and 3 and compare the south stem at Center Street. It is shown that the creek after dredging at this location can handle an 18 year storm while the existing creek can handle only a 6 year storm. To determine the benefit of dredging at this location it would be necessary to assume an 18 year storm and compare the damage done by an 18 year storm in the existing creek with the damage done by an 18 year storm in the dredged creek. The difference in these two costs would be benefit. This same procedure can be followed at each of the control sections on the creek to determine benefit. Unfortunately, determining benefit in this manner is difficult to interpret because the storm reoccur- rence interval at each control section on the creek under existing conditions, cleaned conditions and dredged conditions fluctuates widely from section to section; therefore, no common denominator can be used for comparison among all of the sections. Procedure No. 2, listed below, provides a methodology for eliminating this -12- 2 deficiency. In order to provide a common denominator among all the sections of the creek, a given year storm could be assumed such as a 10, a 20, or a 50 year storm and the damage under existing conditions caused by this storm could be compared with damage caused in a cleaned creek. The dollar difference between these two figures would be benefit. This same type of comparison could be made between the uncleaned creek and the dredged creek. While damage estimates are available for the 17 year storm flowing through the existing creek with the existing bridges, no estimates are available for the 17 year storm or any other year storm flowing through a cleaned or dredged creek. The Iowa Natural Resources Council indicates it would be possible to set up a new program and run it on a computer using conditions that would simulate a cleaned and/or dredged creek. This would give the water elevations caused by any given year storm; however, it would still not develop an estimate of damage except in the reach from Kirkwood Avenue to College Street where the Corps of Engineers has developed a chart for elevation of flood water compared to estimated flood damage. Given the non-homogeneous nature of the creek at various control sections and, in particular, at the bridges, and the paucity of information regarding flood damage costs, it would seem impossible at this time to give an exact or even an approximate benefit cost in dollars for cleaning and/or dredging the creek. About the only correct statement that can be made is that cleaning or dredging the creek will help; but stating a figure in dollars cannot be done. Eliminating dollars as a comparison tool and comparing only flows in the creek still does not result in a meaningful number since the flow the creek can handle at any given point varies depending on cross sectional area, roughness coefficient, etc. Looking -13- at Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4 shows the widely varying flow rates and storm reoccurrence intervals at only a few selected locations. The validity of these figures should be suspect since a true interpretation of the Mannings Formula for open channel flow assumes that constrictions downstream are not affecting upstream flow. As is well known, bridges on Ralston Creek do create constrictions to flow and, in fact, many points along this stream other than bridges appear to create constrictions to flow. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Since benefit costs for cleaning and/or dredging the creek cannot be determined at this time, it is impossible to make a sound decision on the merits of cleaning or dredging the creek. If a correct decision is going to be made, much additional information is going to have to be acquired. Acqui- sition and interpretation of such information is not a modest undertaking. Such a study would have to be equal in depth at least to the Corps of Engineers report in 1966. This particular report included field studies, topographic mapping and soil borings. Elevation discharge and discharge frequency curves for both natural and modified conditions were developed for a number of locations. Water surface profiles were drawn for the 17, 50 and 100 year frequency plus under both natural and improved conditions. Flood damage investigations and associated studies to determine the existing and anticipated development, property values and possibilities for enhancement of the area were made. In formulation of the project, benefit analyses were made for several levels of flood protection. Based on the foregoing facts, a recommendation is made to seek a permanent long range solution to the Ralston Creek problem sufficiently broad in scope so that a 50 year or 100 year storm can be handled without appreciable -14- damage to adjacent properties. While the probability of a storm of this magnitude may seem relatively remote, studies throughout the State of Iowa show that these occurrences are not unusual and, in fact, even greater storms than 100 years magnitude have occurred. Any large expenditure of funds that provides creek capacity for only a modest storm would not conform with policies generally accepted by flood control agencies throughout the United States and, even more importantly, would not provide protection to adjacent property owners from catestrophic floods such as the 50 or 100 year flood. No definite recommendation can be made concerning the merits of cleaning and/or minor dredging of the creek. Calculations in this paper indicate that the increased flow that can be handled by measures of this type fluctuates widely and no dollar benefit can be assigned because of this wide fluctuation. Besides the dollar cost considerations, one should also consider sociological and aesthetic implications of cleaning and dredging the creek; however, putting a value on parameters of this type is beyond the scope of this report. Given the earlier statement that minor cleaning of the creek would not unbearably detract from the other wintertime functions of the Street Division and that out-of-pocket costs for an activity of this type would be minimal, it would seem that the difficulty of assigning a dollar figure to sociological and aesthetic considerations should not have an overly negative impact. The purpose of this paper was to provide facts upon which a logical decision on the desirability of cleaning or dredging Ralston could be based. It is the conclusion of this paper that such facts cannot be presented comprehensively at this time. If interim measures are desired on the creek, -15- it is suggested that a course of action be followed which will minimize out-of-pocket costs since it appears, based on the preliminary mathmatical analysis presented in this paper, that benefits of cleaning and dredging cannot be a accurately determined and will fluctuate widely at different locations on the creek. -16- ■I APPENDIX a. Some grass and weeds, little or no brush . . . • 0.030--0.035 b. Dense growth of weeds, depth of flow materially greater than weed height. • • . • . • 0.035--0.05 c. Some weeds, light brush on banks . . . . . . . . 0.035--0.05 d. Some weeds, heavy brush on banks . . . . . . . . 0.05 --0.07 e. Some weeds, dense willows on banks . . . . . . . 0.06 --0.08 f. For trees within channel, with branches submerged at high stage, increase all above values by. . . . . . • . • . . . . • . . . 0.01 --0.02 2. Irregular sections, with pools, slight channel meander; increase values given above about . . . . . 0.01 --0.02 3. Mountain streams, no vegetation in channel, banks usually steep, trees and brush along banks submerged at high stage: a. Bottom of gravel, cobbles, and few boulders. . • 0.04 --0.05 b. Bottom of cobbles, with large boulders . . . . . 0.05 --0.07 5 From Design Charts for Open Channel Flow", (see P. 5-14). 5-50 APPENDIX I• _