HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-08-19 CorrespondenceMarian Karr ~
From: Lisa Mollenhauer
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 4:05 PM
To: 'Ted KIopp'
Cc: Jann Ream; *City Council
Subject: RE: Pond on Mormon Trek
Mr. KIopp,
Thank you for your note to the City Council. All correspondence to the Council is a public record and will be distributed to
them on their next Formal Agenda.
This is actually private property - the responsibility of the condo association. I am cc'lng Jann Ream of our Housing &
Inspection Services Department to start the inspection process to determine if there is a code violation.
Again, thank you for making us aware of the situation. Have a nice evening.
Lisa
Lisa Mollenhauer
Administrative Assistant to the City Manager
City of Iowa City
410 E Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
(319) 356-5010
..... Original Message .....
From: Ted Klopp [mailto:kloppt@avalon.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 3:39 PM
To: cou ncil@iowa-city.org
Subject: Pond on Mormon Trek
I realize that the lack of rain has led to Iow water levels and the
growth of slime on the pond adjacent to the Kum N' GO on Mormon Trek.
What bothers me more than that is the utter disregard that some of those
who obviously live around the pond. From empty beer bottles floating on
the pond to bicycle frames thrown into the water, it really sad to even
walk along the trail.
What brought this to a head was on Sunday, when we were walking on the
trail we observed some residents across the pond playinf "baseball" with
empty beer cans, hitting them into the water. As of this morning, the
cans were still in the water.
I don't know what the regulations of throwing trash etc. into I am
assuming is public land, but I believe that someone needs to know.
Thank you for your time.
Ted Klopp
www.lensingfuneral.com
August 12, 2003 rrn '-o FT']
Iowa City City Council co
Iowa City Civic Center
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Dear City Council Members,
If the council approves the vacating of the alleyway on the east border of our property at
605 Kirkwood Avenue it would be my request to acquire the alley, or any portion
abutting my property. It is understood that this would not allow for any access onto Diana
Street and that the city would need an easement for utilities and other services.
Greg Downes and Jack Burke of Downes and Associates have completed an appraisal of
this alleyway. I would like to offer $20,490 for the purchase of the entire alley, or a
lesser amount if any property owners whose property abuts the alley are interested in
purchasing there portion.
Midhael Lensin~ / /I/
LENSING FUNERAL SERVICE LENSING'S OAK HILL
605 Kirkwood Avenue · P.O. Box 167 210 Holiday Road
Iowa City, Iowa 52244 Coralville, Iowa 52241
(319) 338-8171 · Fax (319) 338-2328 (319) 351-9362
Marian Karr
From: Lisa Mollenhauer
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 2:10 PM
To: Marian Kart
Subject: FW: Server Training Research
..... Original Message .....
From: Andy Matthews
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 2:09 PM
To: 'deniserw@unm.edu'
Cc: Lisa Mollenhauer; Dale Helling; Eleanor M Dilkes
Subject: Server Training Research
Your Server Training inquiry directed to the Iowa City City Council has been referred to me
for response. I am an assistant city attorney for Iowa City.
This is a pilot program funded by a grant by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, courtesy of the Iowa Governor's Traffic Safety Bureau. The TIPS Pilot Project
will be evaluated by Dr. Brad Krevor of the Heller School of Public Policy and Management at
Brandeis University in Boston, Massachusetts. The evaluation is funded by a grant from
Diageo, and Dr. Kevor will review retailer participation, motives behind participation, and
the needs of servers to better comply with their respons.ibilities.
527 persons registered for the training. You can find out more details about the program by
going to the Iowa Alcoholic Beverages Division website (www. iowaabd.com). Specific
questions about the training would probably best be directed to Lynn Walding,
Administrator, Iowa Alcoholic Beverages Division at (515)281-7402.
Marian Karr
From: Denise Wheeler [deniserw@unm.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 5:10 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: Server Training research
I recently read an article regarding server training in your city. The article indicated that research on the effectiveness of the training
was going to be conducted. I emailed the reported and he,Bruce Aune, suggested I contact you regarding the research. Can you tell
me who is conducting the research and how I can contact them. Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Denise R. Wheeler
Sr. Research Scientist
UNM, CASAA
Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety Nuclear Watch of New Mexicl 2C1(4~ ~
107 Cienega St. 551 Cordova Rd., #808
FILED
(505) 986-1973 (505) 989-7342
www.nuclearactive.org
2~3 l~ -b, P~ ~2: O~ www.nukewatch.org
July 31, 2003
Iowa City Council CI' Y CLERK
410 E. Washington Street 10WA Ol'~, IOWA
Iowa City, IA 52240
Dear City Councilors:
During the recent debates over the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Iowa City has proven itself to be dedicated to the
preservation of peace and security worldwide. Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety (CCNS) and Nuclear
Watch of New Mexico (NWNM) are asking you to again consider supporting an initiative dedicated to that
aim. The Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration has recently proposed to build
a "Modem Pit Facility" (MPF) at either Los Alamos National Laboratory (NM), the Waste Isolation Pilot
Plant (NM), the Paritex Plant (TX), the Savannah River Site (SC) or the Nevada Test Site. The MPF would
produce as many as 500 new nuclear weapons per year, which approaches historic Cold War rates. Please
see enclosed information.
While your state may not be directly affected by the facility itself, the MPF would have serious global
consequences, including:
· Thrusting the American people into an expensive and dangerous new nuclear arms race, costing up to
$4.4 billion for MPF construction alone. To the extent that the MPF could prompt a new nuclear arms
race, the costs are incalculable.
· Constructing and operating the MPF would violate the spirit of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty's
mandate to disarm nuclear stockpiles. It would also contradict the Moscow Treaty, signed by Presidents
Bush and Putin this past March, which will reduce the number of nuclear weapons deployed by each
country to 2,200 or less.
· Bolstering the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal while the U.S. demands that other countries relinquish their
weapons of mass destruction.
· The probable production of nuclear weapons of new designs. This cuts to the heart of a number of
crucial nuclear arms control issues, including the future of the global nonproliferation framework and
the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
Fortunately, our efforts to stop this project have been incredibly successful thus far. There was significant
national opposition to the MPF at a series of six public meetings held this month. The House of
Representatives recently cut the budget for the MPF in half. As Rep. Hobson (R-OH), said, "Unfortunately,
[DOE] continues to ask Congress to fund a Cold War nuclear arsenal, and the nuclear weapons complex
necessary to maintain that arsenal, even though we no longer face a Cold War adversary.' In order to
maintain the momentum established by the House budget cuts, we must act quickly to demand a similar
result in the Senate and prevent construction of the MPF altogether.
Enclosed please find a resolution put forward by the Santa Fe City Council opposing the construction and
operation of the MPF anywhere. We hope that you, as a community that has previously demonstrated its
forward thinking on global peace and security issues, may consider a similar resolution. If you do, please let
us know at MPF~gnuclearactive.or and send a copy to your congressional representatives and to Mr. Jay
Rose, MPF ELS Document Manager, at Department of Energy/NNSA, 1000 Independence Ave., SW,
Washington, DC 20585. Please feel free to contact us for any additional information. Together we can make
a difference in these crucial issues of genuine national and global security!
k~d~lefids B~cec~ ~ f"~'~ ~/~'/~ _ __
/'Jay CO'ghlan U
CCNS Executive Director CCNS Project Coordinator NWNM Executive Director
Draft 07/11/03
1 CITY OF SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO
2 RESbLuTION NO. 2003-
3 IN'rRODUCED BY:
6 Ma~hew O~iz _~ ~
9
I 0 A ~SOLUTION
11 O~G TO ~E LOCATION OF A MODE~ PIT FAC~Y ~ NOR~
12 NEW ~XICO.
13
14 ~AS, ~e Uffited S~tes department of ener~ h~ ~ounced suppo~ for a plan to
15 build a modem pit facitiw to produce pluto~um pim in New Mexico; ~d
16 ~AS, plutonium piB are ~ed to ~igger nucle~ weapon; and
17 ~AS, ~e use of plutonium creates heal~ and enviromental hazards; and
18 ~AS, ~e governing body of~e ciw of S~ta Fe does not support the creation of
19 ~er heal~ ~d enviromental h~ds related to nucle~ weapons for the citizens of northern
20 New Me,co; and
21 WHE~AS, the United States house ener~ and water appropriations comm]~ee has
22 recently found ~e comtmction of~e modem pit hciliW to be "premature"; and
~.. W~AS, it is the decl~ed policy of the United States government to help constrain
24 ~e global proliferation of weapons ofm=s des~ction.
25 NOW, T~FO~, BE ~ ~SOL~D BY THE GO~ING BODY OF THE
Draft 07/11/03
1 CITY OF SANTA FE that the governing body hereby sta'~es its objection to the department of
2 energy regarding the location ora new and or expanded modem pit facility in northern New
o Mexico; and
4 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that given the lack of discovered aging effects
5 impacting plutonium pit safety and reliability, the lack of need for high production rates given the
6 recently ratified treaty with Rus'sia requiring massive future arms reductions, and the need for the
7 United States to show global leadership by example in constraining the production and spread of
8 weapons of mass destruction, the governing body objects to the construction and olSeration of the
9 modem pit facility anywhere; and
10 .BE 1T FLrRTHER RESOLVED that the governing body directs the city clerk to send
11 copies of this resolution to our congressional delegation, our governor, and the department of
12 energy.
13 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of ,2003.
14
15
16 LARRY A. DELGADO, MAYOR
17 ATTEST:
18
19
20 YOLANDA y. VIGIL, CITY CLERK
21 APPROVED AS TO FORM:
22
24 BRUCE THOMPSON, CITY ATTORNEY
25 jprice/cmmsign/rnisc/plutonium pit res
2
Where will the MPF be located? 2013. Nonetheless, Bush administration policy ~ If the MPF is not properly managed,
The DOE and NNSA have proposed five is to keep a substantial nuclear arsenal and to the air, water and soil can be
sites: Los Alamos National Laboratory build new nuclear weapons. In fact, present U.S. contaminated with radioactive and
(LANL), Waste Isolation Pilot Plant spending on nuclear weapons exceeds Cold War hazardous particles. These particles
(WIPP), Nevada Test Site, Pantex Plant in budgets. Current plans are that the MPF would may travel for many miles,
Texas and Savannah River Site (SRS) in begin operating in 2018 and be capable of contaminating the biosphere which
sustains crops, animals and humans.
South Carolina. Final selection is producing 125 to 500 pits each year until 2070.
scheduled for early 2004. ~ The DOE has a poor cleanup record,
leaving dangerous amounts of
Why is the MPF being proposed? radioactive and hazardous materials in
The U.S. presently has over 10,000 the soil and groundwater. In addition,
nuclear weapons as well as an additional DOE does not account for the fact that
12,,000 plutonium pits stored at the Pantex new waste plants, other than WIPP~
Plant in Texas. The NNSA claims that due will be needed to accommodate waste
to potential aging effects, the U.S. could generated by the MPF.
lose half of its nuclear weapons stockpile
overnight. However, in 1996 the DOE Additional MPF facts: ~ Although the MPF will create new jobs,
formally stated that aging effects had never it will be at the expense of potential
been observed in pits up to 30 years old. ~ Construction alone of the MPF is expected to contamination of important resources,
Plutonium-239, the primary isotope used while setting a dangerous precedent by
in plutonium pits, has a half life of 24,000 cost up to $4.4 billion, excluding eventual encouraging another nuclear arms race.
years and thus 50 years is a minute decontamination, decommissioning and Instead, funding could be spent on
portion of the plutonium-239 lifespan. ~leanup. health care, education and creating jobs
in other areas, such as safe and
What about the Nuclear Non- $ Plutonium pit production is inherently renewable energy.
Proliferation Treaty (NPT)? dangerous. When inhaled, dust specks of
Article VI of the NPT requires the U.S. plutonium cause lung cancer. The Rocky ~ If the MPF is constructed at LANL and
and more than 180 other nations "to Flats Plant was shut down because of major year),runs atDOEfUll oper,g_ tiOnwi~ need,.,.,(~ purchasePits per
pursue negotiations in good faith on health and environmental problems, additional water t~t~.
effective measures relating to cessation of
the nuclear arms race at an early date and ~ The MPF will likely be used to produce new ~ WIPP, a radiOacOl~e~ast~'*disl~l slte,
to nuclear disarmament." The Moscow types of nuclear weapons. The Pentagon is currently ~a~d '~'om~l~tilitary
Treaty signed by Presidents Bush and may not be willing to deploy them without . activity. C~:gtz~zs ~uld~ve to
Putin in May 2003 requires the U.S. and testing, thus potentially prompting the U.S. repeal or amen~tfi~ 1~, ¥¢~rPlb Land
Withdrawal Act. '
Russia to reduce their nuclear arsenals to to stop observing the Comprehensive Test rs>
between 1,700 and 2,200 warheads by Ban Treaty and resume full scale testing.
What you can do: O Attend one of the DOE's MPF public
meetings. Arrive one hour ahead of time for the DON'T LET ~£tll
o Write a letter to the DOE. Written DOE open house or to sign up for the
comments will be accepted until August 5. opportunity to make a comment at the meeting. [~[£ III C 0 6 O 10 Ill £
Sample comment letters are available for
your use on the listed websites. Mail to New Mexico MPF meeting dates: P
the address on the letter, fax it to DOE Monday, June 30, 6-10 p.m.
at (202) 586-5324, email to DOE Carlsbad Office
James. Rose~nnsa.doe.gov, or use the 4021 National Park Highway in Carlsbad
MPF website at http://www.mpfeis.com.
Tuesday, July 1, 7-10 p.m.
~ Co'ntact your representatives. Cities of Gold Hotel
Highway 84/285 in Pojoaque
Senator Pete Domemcl
Te1.(505)988-6511 Fax(505)988-6514 Call CCNS at (505) 986-1973 to sign up for
senator_domenici~domenici.senate.gov transportation to the Pojoaque hearing. If you
plan to attend the Carlsbad hearing, contact
Senator Jeff Bingaman Citizen Action at (505) 280-1844 or
Tel. (505) 988-6647 Fax (505) 992-8435 sdayton~swcp.com.
senator_bingaman~bingaman.senate.gov For more information: rhe Bush administration plans to develop
Rep. Tom Udall Alliance for Nuclear Accountability the capacity for building new "usable"
Tel. (505) 984-8950 Fax (202) 226-1331 www.ananuclear, org nuclear weapons. The Department of
www.tomudall.house.gov Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety Energy (DOE) and the National Nuclear
www.nuclearactive.org Security Administration (NNSA) have
Rep. Heather Wilson Nuclear Watch of New Mexico proposed a new nuclear bomb factory,
Tel. (505) 766-2538 Fax (202) 225-4975 www. nukewatch.org called the "Modem Pit Facility" (MPF).
Ask. Heather~mail.house.gov Southwest Research and Information Center The new factory replaces the Rocky Flats
www.sric.org Plant, which was shut down in 1989
Rep. Steve Pearce because of major health and environmental
Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Watch of problems caused by, the manufacturing of
Tel. (202) 225-2365 Fax (202) 225-9599 ~uc~¢ar safety (CCNS) New ~4exico
www.house.gov\pearce 107 Cienega St. 551 West Cordova Road, #808 plutonium "pits," the core of nuclear
SantaFe. NM87501 SantaFe, NM87505 weapons. The MPF is scheduled to
Tel: {505) 986-1973 Tel: (505) 989-7342
~ Buy a sign to show your support, Fax:(505)986-0997 Fax:(505)989-7352 operate fi.om 2018 until 2070 and is
mpf~nucleamctive.org info@nukewatch.org designed to produce around. 500 pits per
inform others, and help maintain the wwwnuclearactive.ore www.nukewatch.ore
year, comparable to Cold War rates.
campaign of CCNS and NWNM.
June 19, 2003
,2oo3 FILED
Mr. Jay Rose
MPF EIS Document Manager ~03 ~Jg -h PI~ 12:02
U.S. Department of Energy/NNSA
1000 Independence Ave., SW CiTY CLERK
Washington, DC 20585 10WA 01~, IOWA
Dear Mr. Rose:
I strongly oppose a decision by the Department of Energy (DOE) to proceed to
construct a Modern Pit Facility (MPF) at any of the five proposed sites. The MPF is not
necessary, as the United States has more than 10,000 nuclear weapons as well as an
additional 12,000 plutonium pits stored at the Pantex Plant in Texas. Therefore, I urge
DOE to decide against constructing a MPF anywhere.
The analysis in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) of the impacts of a
MPF at any site is grossly inadequate. The DEIS is so flawed that DOE should issue a
supplemental DEIS to receive additional public comment.
The DEIS lacks an adequate discussion of how, if DOE proceeds to construct a MPF, the
United States would violate the requirements of Article VI of the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). Section 2.3.3 of the DEIS briefly concludes that "the
NPT does not provide any time period for achieving the ultimate goal of nuclear
disarmament." This conclusion cannot be supported because neither the U.S. Senate in
ratifying the treaty in 1969, nor any other nation, has stated that compliance with Article
VI would be accomplished if nuclear weapons production continued. The DEIS
assumes that the MPF will operate until 2070.
The DEIS does not establish a baseline for human health and environmental impacts
based on actual data from operations at the Rocky Flats Plant. The DEIS states only thgt
Rocky Flats was shut down because of "environmental and safety concerns." DEIS, p.
2-1.
The DEIS states that a new beryllium facility will be necessary to produce beryllium
components for the MPF. DEIS, p. 5-269. However, we know that inhaled beryllium
can cause Chronic Beryllium Disease. Congress enacted the Energy Employees
Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2002 to address the health effects
from exposure to beryllium and other radiological and hazardous materials. The
potential human health effects and environmental impacts far outweigh the need for a
MPF.
The DEIS fails to provide an analysis of the impacts for the site hosting the MPF from
becoming a permanent disposal site for large amounts of radioactive and hazardous
wastes that would be generated during the projected 50-year MPF operational lifetime.
There is no analysis of where the waste generated from decontamination and
decommissioning activities will be disposed.
The DEIS assumes that existing sites, like the Nevada Test Site (NTS) and the Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), and other disposal facilities that do not exist, will be used
as repositories for waste generated at the MPF. However, WIPP and NTS will be closed
long before the MPF ends operations in 2070. Given the enduring waste disposal
mission for the MPF, any site should be designated in perpetuity as a contaminated
waste site and analyzed for that reality.
The DEIS lacks an adequate discussion of the impacts of all aspects of transportation of
materials and wastes to and from the MPF site during construction, the 50-year
operational lifetime and during decontamination and decommissioning.
The DEIS lacks an adequate discussion of the numbers of serious fires at Rocky Flats
and no analysis of the effects of a serious fire or criticality accident at the MPF.
Additionally, there is no discussion of specific procedures that will be implemented to
eliminate or mitigate impacts from similar fires at the MPF site. The DEIS admits that
based on the Rocky Flats experience, "the potential for fire initiation cannot be totalIy
eliminated." DEIS, p. 3-9. The computer modeling used in the DEIS in the accident
analysis should be based on actual fire data from Rocky Flats.
The DEIS lacks an adequate analysis of DOE's site screening methods. The DEIS
Appendix G lists Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) as the preferred location for
the MPF. LANL has expl!citly stated it does not want to host the MPF.
The DEIS states that LANL will require 142% of the available water capacity for all
LANL operations. DEIS, p. 5-275. The DEIS also states that Los Alamos is pursuing San
Juan-Chama Transmountain Diversion Project water for MPF operations. The recent
l0th Circuit Court of Appeals decision regarding the silvery minnow may challenge
LANL's assumptions regarding use of San luan-Chama water for operations.' This fact
should be incorporated in any decisionmaking process.
The DEIS lacks an adequate analysis for locating the MPF at the Waste Isolation Pilot
Plant (WIPP) because the MPF is inconsistent with the existing legal and regulatory
requirements of the WIPP site and could result in early closure of that facility. DEIS, p.
6-33. Discussion in the DEIS about those requirements is grossly inadequate and does
not thoroughly describe the existing requirements. In fact, WIPP should have been
disqualified from consideration because it does not meet the basic criterion of being an
NNSA site that can be used under its existing mission. DEIS Appendix G.
Lastly, I am extremely concerned about the brief 60-day comment period for the draft
MPF EIS. The,document, and others, represent a major shift in U.S. weapons policy
with !ocal, national, and international environmental impacts - as well as extensive
political ramifications. I therefore request that a minimum of an additional 60 days be
provided to allow ample time for public comment on DOE's new proposed nuclear
bomb factory.
Sincerely,
Print Name
Address
FILED nuctear watc new mexico
200 1 RUB -6, ?M 12:02 The Modern Pit Facility:
....... Talking Points on the New Bomb Factory
CiTY
.lO~el~elQ~,/~o02, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), the semi-autonomous
nuclear weapons agency within the Department of Energy (DOE), formally announced its intent to build
a "Modern Pit Facility." Plutonium pits, in combination with high explosives, are the primaries or "trig-
gers'' for modern thermonuclear weapons. They are the essential component, roughly analagous to a car
engine. They are also atomic weapons in their own right, as the destruction of Nagasaki demonstrated.
Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) federal agencies are required to complete environ-
mental impact statements for proposed major federal actions. Similarly, they are required to complete
programmatic environmental impact statements (PEISs) for new proposed programs. In 1996, DOE
issued a PEIS for its so-called Stockpile Stewardship Program that largely reconfigured the.post-Cold War
nuclear weapons complex. As the result of subsequent citizen litigation, DOE is required to prepare a
supplemental PEIS if it seeks to expand plutonium pit production beyond that contemplated in 1996 (up
to 80 pits per year), which the NNSA is doing with its Modern Pit Facility (MPF) proposal. A draft
supplemental PEIS was released
on May 30, 2003, in which the Simplified Schematic of a Modern Thermonuclear Weapon
NNSA decided to proceed with Plutonium pit Lithium fusion fuel capsules known as
the MPF, but deferred a deci- m,~ ~~ secondaries or canned subassembhes
High explosives
sion on its location. These Deuterium-tritiu
Talking Points are meant to assist gas re,e~vior
citizens in oral testimony at hear-pit ro~. boosting')~,~ ~__~}
ings and written comments on
the draft supplemental PEIS The pit and surrounding high explosives together are known as the "primary*' or "trigger." Upon detonation
(please see schedules on page 3). th~ primary implodes, reaches "critical mass" and fissions. This in turn initiates fusion in the secondaries.
General Points
· Five DOE sites, the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) and the Waste Isolation Pilot
Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico, the Nevada Test Site, the Pantex Plant in Texas and the Savannah
River Site (SRS) in South Carolina, are candidate sites. Of these, SRS (because of its existing plutoni-
um infrastructure) and WIPP (because of Senator Domenici's (R.-NM) influence) are considered the most
likely locations. However, the NNSA's failure thus far to pick a site could induce political and economic
competition for the MPE Therefore, citizens should demand a full range of discussion on all five sites.
· The DOE lost stockpile pit production capability after a 1989 FBI raid investigating environmental
crimes at the Rocky Flats Plant near Denver. Now the NNSA is making sensational and alarming
statements to Congress such as: "The United States is the only nuclear power without the capability to
manufacture a plutonium pit." This statement is false. LANL has always had the capability to produce
plutonium pits for nuclear weapons R&D. Further, stockpile production capable of up to 80 pits a year
is being re-established there. The NNSA needs to fully explain why that level of production is not
sufficient for maintaining a' nuclear arsenal that is being downsized.
· A NNSA spokesman has made the outrageous claim that due to potential aging effects the U.S. could
lose half of its nuclear weapons stockpile overnight. Under questioning, the NNSA now officially states
that age-induced effects affecting safety, reliability and performance have never been found in pits
551 West Cordova Road #808 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 505.989.7342 Fax 505.989.735:
info@nukewatch.ora www. nukewatch.orc~
up to 42 years old (the av~-r~V~f pits in the deployed stockpile is 19 years). Some recent studies
have suggested that pits can last__ oa mini/~.um ofvo 50 to 60 years with the upper, end as yet unbounded
more pleas~ see t~p'a~e)5~¥/'~
(for
· The NNSKs official jt~a~MPF is that "classified analyses indicate that the [pit produc-
tion] capacity being est~dG~t~{~ill not support either the projected capacity requirements (the
number of pits t° be prb'~uced over a period of time).., or the flexibility to produce pits ora new design in
a timely manner..." Both points are gravely misguided and the analyses are hidden from the public.
Capacity
· In the mid-1990's the stated rationale for resumed pit production was to replace the small number of
pits destroyed during routine stockpile evaluation tests. More recently the 2002 Department of Defense's
Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) calls for a "responsive defense structure" with the capabilities to "upgrade
existing weapons, [for] surge production of weapons, or ... if directed, to design, develop, manu-
.facture, and certify new warheads in response to new national requlrements.,~" The NPR explidt-
ly calls for the construction of the Modern Pit Fadlity, Which will be capable of producing up to
500 pits per year, approaching Cold War rates! With the demise of the Soviet Union, this amount of
capacity is simply not n~eded, except to support the NPR's regressive policies of an increasing reliance on
nuclear weapons and the broadening of potential nuclear targets from two countries to seven.
· The recent Bush/Putin Strategic Offensive Reduction Treaty (AKA the "Moscow Treaty") states that
both Russia and the U.S. will reduce their strategic nuclear arsenals from around 10,000 deployed war-
heads to 2,200 or under by 2013. Further, the U.S. already has an estimated 5,000 pits in "strategic
reserve" and over 12,000 "surplus" stored at the Pantex Plant. Moreover, LANL is re-establishing a pit
production capability that could produce up to 80 pits per year. What then is the need for the
Modern Pit Facility, especially when there are no plans to destroy the pits in presendy deployed
warheads and in light of a sufficient production capadty being re-established at LANL?
Flexibility
· That the U.S. is on a path that could lead to the production of new-design nuclear weapons is no
longer a question. Both the House and Senate have recendy approved funding for a "Robust
Nuclear Earth Penetrator" and overturned the decade-old prohibition against the development of
!ow-yleld battlefield weapons ("mi~nukes"). For now, the NNSA will li~ely employ modified exist-
ing pits for the earth-penetrator, but it is also unquestionably preparing the production capacity for
new-design pits for new-design nuclear weapons.
· Los Alamos, the weapons lab in charge of pit production, formally declared three years ago that the
"target" of current pi{ production efforts is to "re-establish a robust manufacturing capability to produce
stockpiled and new-design pits without underground testing." Therefore, the MPF will likely produce
new nuclear weapons in spite of the stated intent of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (observed,
but not ratified by the U.S.) to cut off the further advancement of nuclear weapons. Conversely, if
new U.S. nuclear weapons with new-design pits are produced the Pentagon may not be willing to deploy
them without testing, thus possibly prompting the U.S. to terminate observance of the CTBT and
resume full-scale testing.
· The MPF will also violate the 1970 NonProliferation Treaty's (NPT's) mandate for nuclear dis-
armament, recognized in 1996 by the World Court as an obligation requiring the conclusion of dis-
NWNM Talking Points on the Modem Pit Facility · Page 2
armament negotiations and re-pledged to in 2000 by the U.S. as ar~ ~'unequlvo~lii~ltommitment."
There can hardly be a more concrete demonstration that the U.S. never'inten/d~/to~/~or its NPT
obligation to disarm its nuclear stockpile under multilateral nonprol~li~n a~reements than to
build and operate a new plutonium pit production super facility.~ -'.~.~uo -'4 p~ 12t 03
· Pit production is costly even as the nation has returned to fede~'a~,dqfhlk~IaT~nd,~q~
for
domestic
needs are being cut. Construction alone of the MPF is expected to cost up~v/4 ~ ~'~-to ~n~telt~a/~tl/~illion and
does not include eventual decontamination, decommissioning and cleanup. Meanwhile, LANL will have
spent billions in resuming pit production there (the first new stockpile pit in 2007 is expected to cost
$1.5 billion). Citizens should demand that the entire programmatic costs of pit production be calculat-
ed, including related waste management and disposal. In the event that the present course of U.S.
nuclear weapons programs (for which the MPF is to be the crucial future production facility) prompts a
global arms race the costs are truly incalculable.
· Plutonium pit production is inherently dangerous. If inhaled, dust specks of plutonium can cause
lung cancer. The Rocky'Flats- Plant had a horrible environmental record, replete with accidents that only
by luck did not severely contaminate Denver. Citizens should demand the most rigorous environ-
mental and safety evaluations for all of the sites that are being considered.
· SRS is preparing to build facilities that DOE claims will render excess weapons-grade plutonium into
mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel for use in commercial nuclear reactors as a non-proliferation measure. Toward
that end DOE has already moved up to 30 metric tons of plutonium to SRS. However, these MOX
facilities will likely have the capability to purify plutonium for military purposes as well. Citizens
should demand to know what links, if any, MOX facilities and the MPF at the Savannah River Site
might have in common with each other.
· WIPP, as a radioactive waste disposal site, is currently barred from a military mission. Citizens
should demand to know how the 1992 WIPP Land Withdrawal Act could be repealed or amended
to allow for such a mission.
· Citizens should demand that any summary of a classified appendix to the supplemental PEIS
be comprehensive and that the full appendix, redacted as necessary, be available upon request.
Conclusion
Under NEPA, federal agencies are required to analyze alternatives to their proposed actions, including a
"No Action Alternative" (which, in this case, is limited pit production a~ LA_NL). Given th~ hollowness
of the NNSA's proclaimed need and the MPF's tong-reaching negative impacts, a decision to not build
the facility is the appropriate alternative. No Modern Pit Fadllty, No t~0'here, No Way!!
Hearings: Paritex Site: Thursday, June 26, 7:00 - 10:00 p.m., College Union Building, Oak Room, Amarillo
College, Washington St. Campus, 24th & Jackson Streets, Amarillo, TX (806) 371-5100 WIPP Site: June 30,
6:00 - 10:00 p.m., DOE Carlsbad Office, 4021 National Parks Highway, Carlsbad, NM, (505) 234-7227 Los
Alamos Site: July i, 7:00 - 1.0:00 p.m., Cities of Gold Hotel, Highway 84/285, Pojo:ique, NM (505) 455-0515
Nevada Test Site: July 2, 7:00 - 10:00 p.m., UNLV, Student Union Building, 4505 Maryland Parkway, Las Vegas,
NV (702) 895-4449 Savannah River Site: July 7, 6:00 - 10:00 p.m., North Augusta Community Center, 495
Brookside Avenue, North Augusta, SC (803) 441-4290 Washington, D.C.: July 16, 10:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.,
U.S. DOE, I000 Independence Ave., SW, Room 1E-245, (202) 586-5484. Comments on the MPF should be
sent to Mr. Jay Rose, MPF Document Manager, DOE/NNSA, 1000 Independence Ave., Washington, DC 20585
by August 5, 2003 (or faxed to 202.586.5324 or e-mailed to James. Rose@nnsa.doe.gov). To download these
Talking Points and for further information, including ready-to-send comments and Nuke Watch's comprehensive
comments by July 2 i, please visit www. nukewatch.org or contact us via phone, letter or e-mail. June 2003
NWNM Talking Points on the Modem Pit Facility · Page 3
r watc new mexico
200] AUG -1,,. PM 12:03
A Short Primer on the Effects of Aging on Plutonium
CITY CL R.R.K; ....
While explaining th~(~r ~ -~Pit Fadli{y DOE NNSA spokesman Wdkes mid: We know that plutonium pits have a
limited lifeiime. " Wh'hb~ iep~ih~' thb'~d~b~ "we could wake up and find out half our stockpile ia gone to waste." The Las Vegas Sun,
September 27, 2002.
Plutonium pits are the triggers for modem nudear weapons. The National Nudear Security Administration (NNSA) is the
aggressive, semi-autonomous nuclear weapons agency within the DOE. While seeking to advance the argument for building a
"Modem Pit Facility" .(MPF) capable of producing pits approaching Cold War rates the NNSA spokesman disingenuously raises
the boogieman of pits turning into mush ovemight. Carried to an extreme, this would then lead to de facto U.S. nudear disarma-
ment in a crud and dangerous world. This is certainly not the case. The MPF's of~cial notice itself states that '~though no such
[plutonium pit aging] problems have been identified, the potential for such problems increases as pits age." While this statement
seems intuidvdy logical at first, k cries for careful examination as 100's of billions of dollars and the true nature of the U.S.'s
nuclear weapons programs ride on the answer. Is plutonium aging so fast that a new super pit production facility is needed?
No!
Unfottunardy the NNSA controls the debate on what plutonium aging effects might be. However, the following is publicly avail-
able from DOE documents and other sources indicating that plutonium-239 (the isotope used in nudear weapons) is stable over
man~; many decades. First, it was dedared in 1996 that "The [nuclear weapons] stockpile is currendy judged to be safe and reli-
able by DOE." In all subseqt~ent years the Los Alamos, Sandia and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories have certhqed that
the stockpile has remained safe and reliable. Potential future problems in nuclear weapons safety and reliability can be then dMd-
ed into problems between nudear and nonnudear components. However, potential problems with nonnuclear components can
be ruled out as not being germane to the core debate. For example, DOE has formally stated that "Over time, high confidence in
the safety and reliability of nonnudear components and subsystems can be established [through laboratory tests]."
Concerning the crucial nuclear part, the plutonium pit, DOE also stated in 1996 that "histotical pit surveillance data and pit life
studies do not predict a near-term problem." The Department went on to say "Most nudear weapons in the stockpile were
designed for a minimum lifetime of 20 years. However, experience indicates that weapons can remain in the stockpile well
beyond their minimum design lifetime. Two nuclear weapon systems remained in the stockpile for more than 30 years." DOE
further stated that "No age related problem has been observed in pits up to 30 years in age..." Additionally, with respect to the
effects of radioactive decay impairing pit performance, DOE said that it "does not currendy believe this x~fll become a problem in
less than 50 years." The NNSA now states in the MPF draft environmental impact statement that aging effects that impair safety
and realibilty have never been observed in pits up to 42 years of age (the average pit age in the deployed stockpile is 19 years)i
In December 2000 Raymond Jeanios (professor of geophysics at UC Berkeley) published an article entitled "Science-Based
Stockpile Stewardship" in Physics Today. Some relevant quotes are: "Perhaps the most important result from measurements is that
Pu [plutonium] exhibits good crystalline order even after decades of aging... ~ samples not only retain long-~age oMer but
actually get closer to the ideal crystal structure with increasing age... The high explosive used in US weapons has been found to
improve systematically with age in key measures of performance... Indeed, there is now consensus among specialistsithat the Pu
pits in the US stockpile are stable over periods of at least 50-60 years, with the most recent studies suggesting a far longer period."
The reason that pluronium-239 does not age quickly is inherent to that isotope. J. Carson Mark, former head of Los Alamos
National Laboratory's Theoretical DMsion (and an ardent arms control advocate hter in life) stated that the lab had the foresight
some four decades ago to set aside weapons-grade pluronium-239 for the express purpose of studying aging effects. While point-
ing to Pu-239's long half-life (approximately 24,000 years), he said that the big news was "no news," that is there were no appre-
ciable aging effects. By way of explanation, an isotope with a shorter half-life would be more intensely radioactive and thus decay
or "age" faster (for example, plutonium-238 has a half-life of 87.7 years).
The ulfimare point of this primer is that any attempt to use the specter of near-term aging effects on plutonium-239 as justifica-
tion for the Modern Pit Facility is false and misleading. One has to look elsewhere for the true reasons why the NNSA wants the
MPE We believe that the answer lies in the major refurbishments, alterations and possible new designs for nuclear weapons that
the NNSA is implementing under the regressive polities of the new Nudear Posture Review and recently approved by Congress
(for more please see our NPR Spedal Bulletin at www. nukewatch.org/facts).
June 2003
55~ Wost Cordov~ ~o~ct #808 $~nt~ Fe, New Mexico 87505 505.989.7542 Fsx 505.989.7552
Marian Karr ~
From: david fulrer [dfusmc@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 9:43 PM
To: cou ncil@iowa-city.org
Subject: save money on the budget
Dear City Council,
Due to the budget cuts passed on from the state, possibly eliminating the sharpshooters could save
thousands of dollars needlessly spent. If it's already in the contract for this year, let's be a little more financially
responsible next year.
We can all learn from past success and failures,as far as what I have heard about in city limit hunts they have
succeeded. As much as I hate to think that Coralville has one up on us, I do believe they have not only saved
money but made a little also.
Concerned citizen,
David Fuller
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
8/5/03
Marian Karr
From: Mike Smithey [smithey_michael@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 1:55 PM
To: cou ncil@iowa-city.org
Subject: 19 and over
It wourd be a mistake to measure the success of this ordinance by the number of citations issued for PAULA. Officers are
simply not writing tickets this year. If you would like to measure the success of this ordinance, I would recommend that
you hop in a police car with me and I wilt take one of the late night officers downtown and we can write tickets. You pick
the night and we'll see if we can write as many tickets as the same night last year. That way, you can see just how easy it
is to get alcohol as a minor.
I don't personally care whether we as a city decide to allow 18 year olds in a bar or whether we make it so that you have
to be 21 to get it. I just don't want the council to actually believe that any ordinance other than one banning minors from
the bars, will be doing anything to stop underage drinking.
Michael Smithey
410 E. Washington St.
Iowa City, IA
8/1/03
C~~ Johnson County
Task Force on Aging
, 28 South Linn Street
Iowa City, Ia. 52240
August~ 2003
To: Iowa City Council
We are long time residents of lowa City and Johnson County and active in many areas of the community including the Iowa
City/Johnson County Senior Center. We have followed closely the changes and challenges faced by the Senior Center.
Inasmuch as the Johnson County Board of Supervisors has determined they will no longer be appointing persons to the nine
member Senior Commission, the City Resolution (#94-309) governing the make up of the Senior Commission may be
deemed out of date and in need of revision. In fact, though the current resolution calls for a nine member SC Commission,
but actually there are only six remaining members serving at the current time.
We offer a proposal for revision of Resolution #94-309 for you to consider. Our proposed revision changes relatively little in
the original Resolution. It calls for continuing the Senior Commission with the same size/composition as it has been,
however having the Iowa City Council make the appointment of six members from InFa City and three members from
outside of Iowa City. It further calls for two-thirds (six) of the members of the Commission to be persons who are age
eligible to be USERS of the Senior Center, i.e., aged 50 or older. It seeks to encourage reaching out to other Johnson County
citizens and recommends expanding distribution of routine annual reporting to any other governmental entities who share in
providing the funding to support the Senior Center.
We believe that this is a fair proposal which would meet the approval of many or most of Senior Center users in the present
and in the future. We are presenting it to the remaining members of the current SC Commission.
We hope that you will give our proposal close consideration and favorable action as well.
Thank you for your consideration,
Revision suggested of RESOLUTION NO. 94-309
(for an Iowa City/Johnson County Senior Center
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A SENIOR CENTEff~2OMMISSION
OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, AND ESTABLISHING THE I~EMBERSHIP, '~S, ..~
DUTIES, POWERS AND AUTHORITY OF SAID COMMISSION.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, deems it in thc public interest that thc City
Council establish a Senior Center Commission for the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to serve as an advisory
body to the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA, as follows:
1. There is hereby established for the City of Iowa City, Iowa a Senior Center Commissiont
2. The Senior Center Commission of the City of Iowa City, shall eonsist of nine (9) members, all of
-- whom shall be are appointed by the City Council. Six (6) of these members shall be qualified
electors of thc city, and three (3) meml~rs shall b~ qualified electors of Johnson County, and all shall
serve without compensation except for reimbursable expenses. Two-thirds of the membership, or
six (6) of those persons appointed shall be persons who nrc nge-eligible to use the Senior Center,
i.e.~ shall be aged 50 nnd above.
3. The terms of office of each member shall be three (3) years commencing on January I of the year of
appointment.
4. The City Manager of the City of Iowa City, Iowa shall be authorized to take whatever administrative
action is necessary to provide the staff assistance and information that is necessary to aid the
Commission in the performance of its duties.
5. The Senior Center Commission shall serve in an advisory role to the City Council of the City of Iowa
City, Iowa, with regards to the needs of the Senior Center, and shall make recommendations with
regard to policies and programs of the Senior Center; shall join staff and other interested persons in
seeking adequate financial resources for the operation of the Senior Center; shall encourage full
participation by Johnson County senior citizens in the programs of the Senior Center; shall ensure
that the Senior Center is effectively integrated into the Johnson County community as a hub of
senior activities for those SO and over in the county and shall insure that the Senior Center
collaborates with organizations with common goals in meeting the needs of senior citizens; shall serve
in an advocacy role with regard to the needs of senior citizens in the City of Iowa City, Iowa, and in
Johnson County and shall assist and give input to the City Manager in evaluation and hiring of
personnel.
6. The Commission shall have power to make recommendations with regard to the allocation of space in
the Senior Center to various agencies and organizations; to make recommendations with regard to the
acceptance and utilization of gitts; to make recommendations with regard to policies, roles, ordinances
and budgets which affect the programs and services of the Senior Center; to p resent an annual report
of Senior Center activities and accomplishments to the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to
any other governmental bodies or other organizations providing funding to the Senior Center
and to the Members of the Senior Center, and to implement the above recommendations unless
otherwise mandated by the City Council.
7. The Senior Center Commission shall adopt a set of By-Laws, which they deem necessary and
advisable for the conduct of the business of the Commission, subject to the Ordinances of the City of
lowa City, Iowa. The Chairperson of the Commission or a designated staffmember shall prepare an
agenda for all commission meetings and the agenda shall be sent to the Commission members and the
media at lease three (3) days prior to regular meetings. The minutes of all regular meetings shall be
distributed to the Senior Center Commission and the Johnson County Board of Supervisors at least
three (3) days prior to the next scheduled meeting of the Senior Center Commission. The City
Manager and City Council shall receive copies of the approved minutes one week after the meeting at
which the minutes were approved.
8. The Senior Center Commission shall be authorized to establish committees, and the By-Laws of the
Commission shall outline their duties, composition and term. The Commission shall also be
authorized to create and appoint advisory groups to make studies and to disseminate information on all
of its activities and such groups shall serve without compensation.
9. All resolutions and parts of resolutions in conflict with the provisions of this resolution are hereby
repealed.
10. If any section, provision or part of the resolution shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional,
such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the resolution as a whole or any section, provision or
part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
11. This resolution shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication as required by law.
Passed and approved this day of ,2003.
August 9, 2003
Iowa City, City Council
410 E Washington St.
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Council Members,
As property owners and business along North Dodge Street, we ask that you authorize a
warrant study to determine if placing a traffic light at the intersection of North Dodge and
Act Circle is necessary. This has been a very dangerous intersection in the past, and with
the widening of North Dodge Street next year, we believe traffic counts will grow, along
with the traffic speed.
We encourage you to take action on this matter as soon as possible in order to protect the
safety of our customers, employees and the many citizens of Iowa City who currently use
this very busy street and intersection.
Thank you for your consideration,
North Dodge Athletic Club Noel - Levitz
2400 N. Dodge Street 2101 Act Circle
Travelodge Iowa City Creature Comforts
2216 North Dodge Street 2122 Act Circle
Mike Patel, Owner Nadia ~
Minervas Grill & Bar
2208 No~th Dodge Street
an Bockem, Owner
Sinclair Station
2153 Act Circle ~.;~ ~.~
Jay Patel, Owner
August 5, 2003
FROM: Robert G. Dostal
326 Douglass St.
Iowa City, IA 52246
THRU: Mayor Lehman
TO: Iowa City Council
RE: Benton Hill Park
Honorable Councilors:
According to the Miller-Orchard Neighborhood Association flyer, plans for a
Benton hill Park will be finalized early in 2004. I understand that money
has already been appropriated for the project. Revoke funding and send me
my share. The hillside is an awkward place for a park. It would be a haven
for child molesters. It is inaccessible to residents of Douglass loop. A
charming urban wilderness plot would be ruined.
It appears to me that geezers living on Benton St. want a resort area on
their doorsteps, courtesy of younger people living on Douglass St./Ct. who
have growing children, house payments, car payments, rent, and other more
pressing things to do with their money than fritter it away in taxes.
When geezers said the kiddies need a place to play, I told them the kiddies
have an easement on my front yard, which is located in the center of the
block and not some thicket where kiddie diddlers can hide. But kiddies
can't even reach the enchanted forest that geezers have in mind.
The flyer says "we need to think about naming our park." Judging from the
ages of its proponents, Geriatric Park would be appropriate. I have news
for my fellow geezers: I want tax relief, not a goddamn park. I want the
City of Iowa City to cancel the Benton hill park project and ease the tax
burden accordingly.
Awaiting your reply, I remain:
Very truly yours,
Robert G. Dosta] ~
encl. ! .~? oo F--
cc. Ruth Baker ~ ~
Miller-Orchard Assoc. ~ c~
PARK UPDATE
The Miller Orchard Park is starting to take form! In case you weren't aware, a
subdivision plat was approved by the City Council (which includes the development
project currently underway near Highway i) expanding the current parkland on the south
side of Benton Street all the way east to Miller Avenue, for a total area of 3.5 acres. In an
attempt to make the park usable for the public prior to the availability of development
funds in July, 2004, park benches, picnic tables and trash cans will be installed in the
park.
The Parks and Recreation Department has indicated they would like to begin the planning
process sometime this winter for overall park development of the 3.5-acre site. Previous
meetings have occurred withthe neighborhood but that was before the additional
parkland was acquired. Developing the plans this winter could result in
constructio~ffdevelopinent begi~ming as early as next sunnner. Neighborhood
involvement is a vital part of this process, and all who are interested are encouraged to
take part in the planning sessions. The date, time and location of the first such meeting
will be announced through a Miller Orchard Neighborhood Association newsletter early
in 2004.
We need to think about naming our park! Please contact Ruth Baker at 354-0443
with your ideas.
MILLER-ORCHARD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION
515 WEST BENTON STREET PaSt STOu. S. I
IOWA CITY, IA 52246 POStAgE
PAID
Iowa City,
Permit,... No. 155
DOSTAL, ROBERT G. ~:~
326 DOUGLAS ST ~::
IOWA CITY IA 52246-5408 L"D t
_.--
~O
'* *.. w.. ¢. -,.- ,',~ o. ,:., .m ~,.., hhh,,hh,hhh,hlh.hh,h,llh,,I,.~
Marian Karr ~
From: Chris O'Brien
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 8:52 AM
To: 'niojehtyvan@yahoo.com'
Cc: *City Council; Lisa Mollenhauer; Joe Fowler
Subject: RE: parking violations should be re-evaluated
Mr. Kapp
This is in response to your inquiry about the regulations along 600 S. Governor as well as the amount of the fine for that
offense. While you are correct with respect to the No Parking 8:00AM - 5:00 PM and it's benefits in aiding our Streets
Division with snow removal, it serves other purposes as well. This regulation also serves the Streets Division for street
cleaning on those days when they are able to do maintenance in a given area. More importantly, this regulation helps
create turnover among those spaces in the area and prevent people from storing their vehicles for an extended period of
time.
In response to the fine amount, this violation saw an increase from $5.00 per violation to $10.00 per violation effective on
July 1, 2003. Expired meter violations, which were $3.00 per violation, were increased to $5:00 per violation effective the
same date. The purpose of the parking fine increase was to encourage those parking in Iowa City to park legally. The
previous fines, at $3.00 and $5.00, did not seem to be an effective deterrent for those who chose to park illegally.
I hope that this response answers your questions and if you have any follow up questions, please feet free to contact me
directly. Thank you for your questions.
Chris O'Brien
Parking Manager
City of Iowa City
(319)356-5094
ch ris-ob rie n ¢~..iowa-city .org
..... Original Message .....
From: Will Kay [mailto:niojehtyvan~yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 2:01 AM
To: council~iowa-city.org
Subject: parking violations should be re-evaluated
To Whom It May Concern,
My name is Will Kapp. I am 17 years old and live at 823 Bowery St. I have issues with the
parking regulations on the 600 block of South Governor St. It says that you cannot park on the left
side of the street Monday, Wednesday or Friday 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on any given week and cannot
park on the right side of the street Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday with the same time restrictions.
I understand that these parking rules apply to many areas of the city for help plowing snow in the
winter. It seems to work efficient enough then, but why still enforce in the late spring, summer and
early fall when snow is not an issue.
Tickets were only a mere nuisance to me when they were at a minimal $3.00 if you paid them
within the first 15 days. But recently they have been upped to an outrageous $10.00. So my
questions are: Why do the alternating sides of the street rules affect citizens when snow isn't
a problem? Why did the price of the tickets more than triple all of sudden? If! was given a
satisfactory answer to both those questions I would very much appreciate it.
Will Kapp
8/8/03
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 8, 2003
To: City Clerk
From: Anissa Williams, JCCOG Traffic Engineering Planner
Re: Item for August 19, 2003 City Council Meeting: Replacement of NO PARKING
ANYTIME signs with NO PARKING FIRE LANE signs located on the parking lane
in front of Mayflower Residence Hall
As directed by Title 9, Chapter 1, 3B of the City Code, this is to advise the City Council of
the following action.
Action:
Pursuant to Section 9-1-3A(10), signage indicating NO PARKING FIRE LANE will replace
NO PARKING ANYTIME signs on the parking lane in front of Mayflower Residence Hall.
Comment:
This action is being taken at the Fire Marshal's request to allow consistent enforcement of
the parking regulations. The University of Iowa has agreed to this action.
jccogtp/mem/actcomm-mayflower.doc
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 18, 2003
To: City Clerk P,A~
From: Anissa Williams, JCCOG Traffic Engineering Planner
Re: Item for August 19, 2003 City Council Meeting: Revision on weight limit on
Meadow Street bridge over Ralston Creek.
As directed by Title 9, Chapter 1, 3B of the City Code, this is to advise the City Council of
the following action.
Action:
Pursuant to Section 9-1-3A(6), signage indicating NO TRUCKS OVER 10 TONS G.V.W.
will be changed to NO VEHICLES OVER 6 TONS G.V.W. on the Meadow Street Bridge
over Ralston Creek.
Comment:
This action is being taken at the request of the Engineering Division based on a recent
inspection of the bridge.
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 12, 2003
To: City Clerk
From: Anissa Williams, Traffic Engineering Planner
Re: Item for August 19, 2003 City Council meeting: Installation of NO PARKING
ANYTIME signs on the west side of Clifford Lane
As directed by Title 9, Chapter 1, 3B of the City Code, this is to advise the City Council of
the following action.
Action:
Pursuant to Section 9-1-3A(12), R7-1 signs indicating NO PARKING ANYTIME will be
installed on the west side of Clifford Lane.
Comment:
This action is being taken at the request of the Fire Marshal. Clifford Lane is a private street
with a width of 22 feet. Vehicles parking on both sides of the street create a hazard for
emergency vehicle access. 9-1-3A(12) of the City Code gives the City authority to regulate
parking for safety hazards on public or private streets.
Jccogtp\memos\Cliffordnpat.doc