Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-02-10 CorrespondenceJ. Patrick White County Attorney TO: RE: FROM: Office of the Johnson County Attorney Johnson County Courthouse · 417 South Clinton Street · P.O. Box 2450 · Iowa City, IA 52244 Phone (319) 339-6100 · Fax (319) 339-6149 January 16, 1998 Iowa City City Council Alger beer permit application J. Patrick White ~ Johnson County Attorney Civil-Juvenile Anne M. Lahey Janet M. Lyness Deborah Farmer Minot Criminal David V. Tiffany Linda M. Paulson Rivka Sorensen Karen D. Egerton Michael D. Brennan Emily A. Colby Kathryn E. Moreland Child Support Carol A. Turner 1-(319) 362-8645 Mr. Alger's application when originally submitted was not in order. See my memo to him of January 6th. He has now resubmitted the application and I recommend approval. I had one additional concern which needs explanation. The application calls for all convictions to be listed. He listed his 1994 OWI but failed to list a fairly significant series of simple misdemeanors from a decade ago. His explanation to me was that he didn't realize convictions that long ago should be listed. His convictions include: 1984 - public intoxication 1985 - assault 1985 - disorderly conduct 1985 - public intoxication 1986 - public intoxication 1986 - interference with official acts 1989 - disorderly house That is a record which raises questions about his applica- tion. I met with Mr. Alger to discuss these matters. He appears to me to have matured and developed an understanding of his past record that warrants granting the license. Feel free to let me know if you have further questions. cy: Royce Alger Iowa City Police Department Johnson County Sheriff ~,,,t Pr~n ed on recycled paper w~lh ~ soy ink Mike Streb 3315 Rohret Rd. Iowa City, IA 52246 FEB 0 5 1998 CiTY hlA 'iAG[P,'S OFFIC[ February5, 1998 Mayor Ernie Lehman City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Mayor Lehman: Recently, I viewed a City, Council meeting on cable television. I tuned in while Karen Kubby was reading a statement praising a local abortion clinic. I assume that this statement was a ~Mayoral Proclamation, which are frequenfiy read at Council meetings. I am writing for the same reason I wrote to Mayor McDonald several years ago. He issued a Mayoral proclamation supporting "reproductive freedom," (i.e. abortion on demand). I f~il to see a public interest in promoting pregnancy termination. Under our laws an abortion clinic can locate in our community. But we do not have to roll out the welcome mat for abortionisis. The City of Iowa City's responsibili¢' with respect to the abortion issue is to protect clinic employees and clients from lawless violence. We do not need elected officials acting as cheerleaders for abortion on demand. I was disappointed to see City Council members jump to there feet and extend a congratulatory hand shake to a representative of an abortion clinic. Whether one is pro-life or pro-choice, celebrating the act of abortion shows a shocking disregard for life and displays poor judgement. Sincerely, Mike Streb cc: O'Donncll, Norton, Kubby, Thomben~y, Champion, Vanderhoef Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 12:56:46 From: David Luck <dluck@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> To: council@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu Subject: Downtown brawl Dear City Council Members: I am writing because of an article in today's Daily Iowan titled "Charges not filed in brawl" The article tells about four assailants who beat up four people in downtown Iowa City. Two victims were injured so bad that they had to be taken to a hospital. According to the article, two of the victims were beaten unconscious. Although there seems to have been many witnesses to this crime, no arrests were made or charges filed. Why were these assailants not charged? Even if the victims didn't want to press charges there was enough evidence to arrest them. Their injuries are on record at the hospital. In other cases, like domestic violence, I understand arrests are made if there is any evidence what-so-ever of violence. In other alcohol related probems downtown the police seem to be able to make many arrests. An article in today's Cedar Rapids Gazette tells of 89 arrests for underage drinking made January 22 in what was described as "storm trooper" tactics. Why can't the police make arrest when they are really needed to protect citizens. Thank you. David Luck 228 South Summit St. A4 56 STURGIS CORNER ' IOWA CITY IA (319) 358-7000 52246 Dear Council Members, I am writing you in the hopes that you will consider making an amendment to your current parking violations code. I am the manager of the Iowa City branch of Enterprise Rent-A-Car at 56 Sturgis Corner Drive. The Heartland group of Enterprise, of which we are a part, covers 4 states. One of the few cities within this large area which doesn't allow us to prove that a specific person was renting a car at the time a parking violation was received, is Iowa City. This is the part of the ordinance which I hope you will consider changing. I have outlined several reasons which are as follows: 1) Confusion in the collection process. We work many hours pursuing these fines and have found many instances where city procedures have inadvertantly led to mistakes in collections. Example: Customer A rents a car for 2 days and gets a parking ticket which She/He does not pay. Customer B rents the same car (same plate #) 2 months later and also receives a parking ticket--which B pays for. Due to city procedures, Customer B just paid Customer A's parking fine (the oldest violation is paid lst). Unfortunately it does not end there. En%erprlse. due to no fault of its own. now mistakenly believes according to parking records received from the city of Iowa City, that Customer'B still owes for the parking fine they have already paid! All this adds up to an unhappy customer who is being pursued for a fine they have already paid--not to mention, Enterprise is out another $10. 2) Financially it hurts Enterprise and its employees. We are a very localized company whose employees work partly on commission. When a customer receives a parking fine which Enterprise has to pay, part of that comes right out cf employee commission on office performance. I pay any violations i receive and so do my employees. I feel strongly that we should not be responsible for paying violations that customers receive. 3} Customer responsibility. Another comparison can also be made. When a customer is driving a rental car in Iowa (and all other states other than New York), the customer is fully responsible for the vehicle while it is in their possession. it essentially is as if they are driving their own vehicle. If they wreck the vehicle, their insurance would pay the damages as if it were their own. Should it not be the same concerning parking violations? i hope you will consider' this request for a change in the parking code. would like tc a%tend any TM ~ ccncerninc this issue and would appreciate a ~:h~:ce to .... :*~:~u*e ~.- the discussion. Tha~:s for your time. ROD McCREA Branch Rental Manager 56 Sturgis Comer Drive Iowa City, IA 52246 319-358-7000 719 George Street Iowa City, Iowa 52246 February 2, 1998 City Council 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 On January 28, I parked briefly at the Civic Center parking lot when I couldn't find a spot at the Senior Center. When I returned to my car, the starter would only make a click. I went to the Civic Center desk to phone for the nearest towing service. Their trucks were out. I was thumbing the phone book for another garage, when the receptionist, Pam Sinnott, said she had jumper cables I could use. I said it had been so long since I'd used cables that I was unsure how. She said she'd find someone to help. In a moment she came back with Kevin O'Malley. He went with me to my car while Pam drove hers around with the jumper cables. I was quickly on my way thanks entirely to these two kind strangers who simply said, "no problem", when I thanked them. I just thought you should know how impressed, surprised and pleased I was. Very sincerely, V. ROSENKILD FRX Evert Conner Rights and'Resources Center for Independent Living 20 East Market Street, Iowa City, I,~ 52240 ° Voice and TTY: (319) 338-3870 P. 2 Date: February 5, 1998 ~.__~,~ To: City Council Members . From: SEATS Users, Casey Hayse RE: Johnson County Paratransit Services Many of us attended the January' 27, .City Council meeting to express our concerns regarding the future of paratransit service in Johnson County. We remain concerned because we are not a part of the decision making process. It is unclear to us how you will incorporate our public comments into an agreement with Johnson County or into the development of a City paratransit plan. We have organized users of the service, the elderly and persons with disabilities, to identify our priorities. It is imperative that we, your constituents and users of this service, have a formal role in developing an agreement.. Our. priorities must be incorporated into any future plans. All council members are welcome to attend our meeting scheduled Monday. February 9, at 4 PI~ in meeting room A of' the Public Library. Please contact Casey Hayse or Heather Ritchie regarding meetings and negotiations between the County and City. DATE: TO: FROM: February 5, 1998 Coralville City Council Iowa City City Council Johnson County Board of Supervisors University Heights City Council Bill Gorman, Systems Unlimited, Inc. Jean Mann, Elderly Services John Watson, Goodwill Industries Bob Welsh Paratransit Services in Johnson County We write to share some thoughts, concerns and recommendations with all public bodies involved in paratransit services in Johnson County. Our primary and overriding concern is, whatever the outcome of current negotiations, that there be no reduction in the level or quality of paratransit service currently provided by SEATS. We have heard statements from elected officials and staff of both Iowa City and Johnson County that such a reduction in service would be unacceptable. The assurance that services would remain "at an equal or better level of quality" has been stated many times. We are confident that paratransit users (most of whom have no alternative mode of transportation) and the general public will expect all parties to adhere to this important fundamental principle. A second and also overriding concern is that consumers of the service, including paratransit riders and representatives of organizations that use the service, be consulted through a significant and continuous forum regarding the design, implementation and operation of current and future paratransit services. This forum may not need to be in the form of an official board or commission, but we do believe that a formal structure is needed for such an advisory group to remain useful. As with any service, the first question that must be asked of the customer is, "What are your needs and wants." After that question has been answered, in general and in specific terms, then the questions of costs, feasibility and tradeoffs can be addressed--again, in consultation with the customer. Third, a basic principle that we would like all four public bodies to agree to at the outset is that there be one unified and seamless system (no transfer points) to serve the entire Johnson County area and that, if the four bodies can not agree upon a "fair share" formula, that they will agree to a binding arbitration process. We recognize that each body has its own parochial interests. However, the interests of consumers and all Page 2 Paratransit Services in Johnson County citizens of Johnson County, and the legal and moral obligation of the government units to provide paratransit services, should be paramount and should, we believe, supersede minor differences. Fourth, we wish to emphasize that paratransit services and fixed route services are very different. They have different missions, different methods and processes, different customers with different sets of needs, and they require different sets of perspectives, skills and expertise both at the management and service delivery levels. SEATS employees have, by all accounts, provided outstanding service for many years. If there is a change in management for paratransit services, we would urge the public bodies and AFSCME to work in concert toward a hiring and compensation system that is fair to all employees. The unique qualifications and requirements of drivers, schedulers and dispatchers are hallmarks of a quality paratransit service system. Finally, we urge all four public entities to work together in good faith for the common good. If there is anything that we can do, collectively or individually, please do not hesitate to ask. January 28, 1998 City of Iowa City Attn: City Council 410 E. Washington Iowa City, IA 52240 1998 CITY i , ANA [R'S OFFICE Re: SEATS To Whom It May Concern: I am writing this letter at the request of a friend and co-worker, Theresa Erpelding, who has Cerebral Palsy and has utilized the services of SEATS for many years. Theresa believes SEATS does an outstanding job and is very concerned that it would be very difficult for the City to provide the services in the manner in which SEATS does. I have had no personal experience using their services, but respect Theresa's intelligence and her ability to work and otherwise manage her life in the outstanding manner she does with her physical limitations. Therefore, I would encourage you to not only think dollar signs in making your decision, but would request that you consider the input, opinions, and respect and value the views of those that depend upon SEATS to maintain quality in their lives that would not be afforded them with a new system that is less accommodating or understanding of the needs of its passengers. I also would like you to consider that there are "kinks" to work out of every new program or system, and that time lost in learning may be time more valuable to those with progressive disease than the value of "possibly saved dollars" while you are testing the validity of your proposed savings. Thank you for your time. Sinc31~ely, Jan 27, 1998 5:02 PM Your Company Page 2 of 2 January 27th, 1998 Dear Members of the City Coun8il, " I am writing to express concern about the city incorporating para transit service into the transit system. One of the questions raised during the work session had to do with the impact this transition would have on the ridership. I was pleased to hear the City's firm commitment to being accountable to the citizens who utilize the transit service and I think it is imperative that a committee made up of actual users of the transit service be established to provide feedback on the most effective use of transit resources. This committee would al'so be charged with the responsibility of providing continual input for system improvements. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Timothy Clancy, Iowa City Iowa cc: County Clerk The Arc The Arc of Johnson County 1 700 First Avenue S. Suite 16 · Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 351-5017 · FAX (319) 351-6837 Providing services to persons with mental retardation and developmental disabilities. February 3, 1998 Mayor Ernie Lehman and the Iowa City City Council 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Mr. Mayor and City Council Members, The Arc of Johnson County has been advocating on behalf of people with disabilities for 40 years. One of the Arc's biggest victories came 23 years ago, when Johnson County began providing paratransit services. It is unfortunate that 23 years later, we need to advocate to hold on to what the community has gained. Many of the City's recent actions cause us concern. Our office has fielded numerous calls on this issue, all voicing similar feelings. On behalf of several of the hundreds of Iowa City residents with disabilities, the Arc would like to make the following points: Iowa City taxpayers are Johnson County taxpayers. All Johnson County residents need to work together to make the region a better place in which to live. We are known as the Arc of Johnson County for a reason! We are pleased to hear the City talking about a unified, seamless system, but when we hear talk of"streamlining" and "reducing costs", we can only assume that this will take place at the expense of the flexibility we pay for and have come to expect. We have to make these assumptions, because the City has been unable to provide the definite answers we need. The Arc and the people we represent are extremely concerned with the lack of opportunities for public input on this issue. It appears that City negotiators were going to go this route from the beginning, despite overwhelming opposition from SEATS riders. How can the negotiating team possibly feel they were representing the people affected by this issue? Why should SEATS riders believe the things the City says when they obviously did not listen to the ridership in the first place? We do not feel that the City adequately represented the hundreds of Iowa City voters with disabilities on this issue. The City still has an opportunity to right this wrong. The City plan calls for a private taxi company to do a portion of the work. Where will this company get the vehicles they need? Will this be at taxpayer expense? What training will drivers receive? Will they learn each individual rider's style of communication, etc.? Will employees of the cab company respect the rights and confidentiality of each rider7 Will cab company employees help riders to put on coats, carry groceries, and the like? Will SEATS riders have to wait while more profitable customers tie up the cab company on a snowy day? Finally, if the cab company is able to do all of this, will it really be cheaper? We need answers to these questions. The City is concerned about the $49,000 that they feel SEATS owes them. First of all, there was no stipulation in the contract to return any money to anyone. Secondly, the lion's share of the budget surplus comes from an untilled Director's position. It is all easily explained. We do not see the City rushing to return our tax dollars in instances where they have come in over budget! Can we expect the Council to be this diligent the next time a developer comes looking for a $49,000 handout? Or is corporate welfare preferable to the general welfare? Obviously, many people are upset with this decision. It is not too late to ensure the same quality of service that people with disabilities have come to expect, but it is going to take a City Council that will listen to the people. We hope you will take this opportunity to allow the Arc to help you to address these and other issues. We want to partner with the City to make this happen. All you have to do is ask our help. Sincerely, Rod Sullivan Executive Director Arc of Johnson County Richard Dolezal 1111 Marcy Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-3330 January 29, 1998 City Council 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Council Members, I was very pleased when I read in the paper where the council had directed Mr. Trueblood to continue with a design for Oakland Cemetery that would include approximately 10 acres. However, after reading the letter sent to Judy Slezak where it was stated, "The Council also indicated its desire to dedicate the remaining acreage within this parcel as park land", I was disappointed. It was my traderstanding the Gaulocher family wanted all land useable as cemetery land to be used for that purpose. So why must the remaining acreage be immediately dedicated as park land without allowing time to determine the actual acreage needed for the cemetery.. I would remind the Council that in 1980 the cemetery lost the Wood's forty acres, originally purchased with cemetery bonds for future cemetery expansion, to Hickory Hill Park. This was half of the acreage the cemetery held in reserve. Ordinance 80-2983 was passed as a comprmnise, which dedicated only the Wood's land to the park and allowed the Gaulocher land for future cemetery use. A "comment" was added to the rrdnutes of the ordinance stating the councils intent. (See attachments) That agreement should be honored. How do we define what is suitable cemetery land?? In my opinion, land presently being suggested for cemetery use was dictated more by the number of acres (10) the park would lose, than what is actually available and usable by the cemetery. Case in point: When City Attorney Woito wrote her legal opinion in 1996 and mentioned the Gaulocher family could bring litigation, she suggested ten (10) acres be offered as a compromise. At the following work session a 10 acre proposal was made. Later, when a park engineering firm was hired to determine usable land, 10 acres once again appeared??? It was explained that a 5 degree slope would require little grading and is an ideal slope for cemeteries. Therefore, only 10 acres were recommended. When questioned on this point the engineer admitted the present cemetery had burial lots with more than a 5 degrees slope. It appears that 10 acres became the magic number, and a 5 degree slope made the number fit. While discussing issues regarding this land, I was informed the City could not violate the Sensitive Area Ordinance. While checking on that ordinance, I learned it does not come into force unless the slope of the land is greater than 18%. (See attachment) According to the engineering firm I consulted, an 18% slope equals 10.2 degrees. Since Citizens of this community are required to comply with the ordinance when land slopes are greater than 18% (10.2 degrees ), why shouldn't the cemetery be allowed a slope equal to the minimum of the ordinance of 10.2 degrees and not be confined to 5 degrees. Estimates regarding the length of time the ten (10) acres will last the City differ greatly. Mr. Trueblood states it is between 130 - 310 years. The present cemetery contains approximately 36 acres and has been in existence for 160 years. This calculates out to .23 acres per year. The ten acres being discussed should last 43.48 years, if all things remained equal. If lot sales dropped 50% due to more people electing cremation and the use of Memory Gardens, (where space is limited ) the life expectancy would be 87 years. This is far short of the maximum estimate of 310 years. As stated previously, The 1980 City Council addressed this park/cemetery issue and resolved it by dividing the land equally between park & cemetery. Why should the cemetery now be forced to give up 75% of the land allocated for it's future. There are varied opinions on how long 10 acres will last and what land is suitable for burials. A fair method would be to develop the 10 acres and then dedicate the balance to future cemetery expansion, but continue allowing the park the use of the undeveloped acreage. By dedicating the undeveloped land to the cemetery, it would be in a stronger position for development, should a future Council want to exercise that option. Under the present political arrangement,dedicating the land to the park leaves little latitude except relocating the cemetery or go out of business, when the cemetery is out of burial space. Thank you for your support and the time spent on this issue. Richard Dolezal/? /~ / / 'SECTION ~' ' 1~': PURPOSE.}I'The purpose of this ordinance to,-~dedtcate ~:cer. tain .city.~ property for park ...".~ r" .=: ~ ~ ~,. LSECTION"2. ENACTMENT. The following described .?!..laQd!:-si. tuation.in Johnson County of the State of h, ereby'ded!cated for park purposes: ':. · ~ 1.':~...,. .. ' '..' Beginning a.t'~the Northeast corner of the Northwest quart.er'of'Section Eleven (11), in :To~vnship,Seventy-~ine.(79) North Range Six (6) We~t:':of" the".)Sth.'P.M."~'"running thence South · :i>}..1308,5'feet,',thence West 1324 feet to the West ~.,::ll.ne-~of the Northeast Quarter of.the Northwest uarter of' said section, .thence. North .on said "r,.;::,. ,'line.1300.5,feet to the North line of said 'i', !?.:,~?: ~:~!/!'-:'~": ?Section; thence"East 1330"feet' to the place of · . y,"',:.,. ,..:~ .: .':'~,-..'.,.:, ' ....~ bea~nning, cont&1ning 39.83 acres . '. ~"":;"~.'.~.. -"'? <':~':' :.'~'.':-i .:':"- ." ";: :"."', .': "'~ '-~: : ' ,r. ' ~-. ',.',~ ~' "3' '- .'?~.'v.~ :y' ' ' ~ :' : ' :';?[::.~'i.*~!!:; 'r':"..':{:),::.:.<;":"..i';':":.'.:t';.The .south one-half of the southeast quarter of 'T ,:.'~ ..-;~,:~ :.' '. - : :,'~.':.:-t;:: , :~ -h. ' -=-'.' ':' i ' '":.~ ~!; ':..,.. ;.'.._' :' ...:the southwest quarter (S½SE¼SW¼) and the south , <,.~ ~:.~,.~.-.~ ,'~...~ ?..,; y .-.~" .~;;... :~..'.' . .~' ~. ,... ·. ':".:;! ...' ........?.'.'.;':'..]: . ...',"one-halfof the southwest quarter of the :'~ .-!'~. !'. '.~ q:.'-~.~,~i:.~;':'..,~] :'southeast. quarter (S½SW~SE¼) of Section 2, '. :: :'!',::' '~ ~;'..:"~:.".'"']"-; :'.". Township 79,' Range 6, West of the 5th P.M., :..'~:"~ ~i~:. "~":': :i 71...:'"':' :' 'containing forty acres more or less. : :i::'2:i].""..:'.::?."~: ." SECTION 3. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of %~,.~,~..:. :.~ ~,.~-,; ...... '~'i :;':"':~'"':", · '""'~'' .....' ;:~ ! '7-::: ~:'. .... - ~ ' i ordinances in conflict with the provision of this ordinance are here~y repealed. SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY. 'If any section, provi- sion or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such ajudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section,'provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication as required by law. Passed and approved this ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR ORDINANCE NO. 80-2983 AN ORDINANCE DEDICATING CERTAIN CITY PROPERTY FOR PARK PURPOSES. BE IT ENACTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA that SECTION 1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this ordinance is to dedicate certain city property for park purposes. SECTION 2. ENACTMENT. The following described land situation in Johnson County of the State of Iowa is hereby dedicated for park purposes: The south one-half of the southeast quarter of thel'§outhwest quarter (S½SE¼SW~) and the south o~e-half of the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter (S½SW~SE¼) of Section 2, T6wnship 79, Range 6, West of the 5th P.M., containing forty acres more or less. SECTION 3. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provi- sion or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such ajudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication as required by law. Passed and approved this 22nd day of January, 1980. CLERK' .~,~ul.xr C,m~ncil Moetir~ .lamu, ry 22, 1980 7:30 Page 6 Item .No. 12 - Itam No. 13 - It~n No. 14 - It~ No. 15 - OONSII~R RESC~A~IC~ OF NI~gSITY OF ~ 1980 ~E A~ ~IT~ S~ ~I~ ~~ P~ ~s ~luti~ ~11 ~t ~lic h~i~ ~r F~ 12, ~ ~ ~ ~~, ~ ~, ~e ~s~ or ~ ~es of ~ d~s~i~. ~R ~I~ ~ ~I~ ~, 78-230 ~ ~I~ ~ ~lu~ ~s ~l~on ~. 78-230 ~ p~i~ ~i~ of ~ ~ ~r ~a~l ~ s~t~ ~ ra~fi~ ~ ~ ~gh~ ~. ~. (~ ~ ~) ~ o~ ~11 ~te ~ ~ ~ (40 ~) ~11 P~ ~ ~ 1~. ~e 39.83 ~ of Hi!~, ~J!l ~ {r~ul~c- ~9) ~11 ~ ~ iU p~t ~, ~i~ ~ ~ ~ld ~ ~ a ~ of it at a la~ ~. CEDAR P,~PIDS · DES ~"~[S 14-6K-1 14-6K-1 of this Section and/or verified as exist- ing on the site. b. Recording Requirement: An approved sensitive areas site plan that contains a protected sensitive area and/or buffer, or has a designat- ed conservation easement, shall be recorded in the Johnson County Recorder's office prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy for the property. The recording is intended to provide notice to subsequent property owners that environmental limitations apply to the subject property. c. The procedures for review and approval of a sensitive areas site plan shall be in accordance with the site plan review regulations, as specified in Sections 14-5H-3, and 14-5H-6 through 14-5H-8 of Chapter 5 of this Title, entitled Building and Housing. 3. Sensitive Features: a. Sensitive features governed by the Sensitive Areas Ordinance in- clude: (1) Jurisdictional wetlands as regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or its suc- cessor. (2) Floodways designated on either the current Federal Emer- gency Management Agency flood boundary and floodway maps for Iowa City and Johnson County or the Iowa City (1 inch = 100 foot scale) flood boundary and floodway maps. (3) Drainageways shown in blue on the current U.S. Geological Survey Quadrangle Maps. (4) Slopes eighteen percent (18%) or greater. (5) Woodland areas two (2) acres in size or greater. (Ord. 95-3699, 12-5-1995) (6) Fully hydric soils as designat- ed in the USDA Soil Conserva- tion Service Soil Survey of John- son County, Iowa, as amended. (Ord. 96-3744, 9-10-1996) (7) Prairie remnants as shown on the Iowa City Sensitive Areas Inventory Map - Phase I, as amended. (8) Archaeological sites as deter- mined by the State Historic Pres- ervation Officer or the State Archeologist. (Ord. 95-3699, 12-5-1995) b. Prior to woodland clearing, grad- ing or development activity on tracts of land or portions of tracts of land where sensitive features specified above exist, either a sensitive areas site plan or a sensitive areas overlay (OSA) rezoning application, whichever is appropriate, shall first be submitted to and approved by the City. This application process may occur as part of site plan review, planned develop- ment overlay zoning and/or subdivi- sion review. If the property is exempt, the applicant shall first apply for and obtain approval of the exemption from the City before development activity occurs. (Ord. 95-3699, 12-5-1995; amd. Ord. 96-3744, 9-10-1996) Iowa City THE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA January 27,1998 City Council of Iowa City Civic Center 410 E. Washington iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Council Members: The University of Iowa supports and endorses efforts by the City of Iowa City to construct a recreational trail on the west bank of the river from Burlington Street south across University property and on to Napoleon Park. After its completion the University agrees to provide for snow removal and general maintenance as a part of the general campus system of walkways for the portion on University property between Burlington Street and the Master Muffler and Brake property. Sincerely yours, ichar~son l Associate Vice President and Director REG/jh CZ Doug True Bob Brooks Jeff Davidson John DeBrie Jeff McClure Larry Wilson Bob Vercande I:\p\r\rectrl.ltr Facilities Services Group - Administration 416 North Hall Iowa City IA 52242-1223 Phone 319/335-1248 FAX 319/335-1210 Date: To: From: Re: City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM January 29, 1998 City Clerk Doug Ripley, JCCOG Traffic Engineering Planner {~ Removal of parking on the south side of Haywood Drive As directed by Title 9, Section 3B of the City Code, this is to advise the City Council of the following action. Unless directed otherwise by the City Council, this action will occur on or shortly after February 13, 1998. Action Pursuant to Section 9-1-3A(12) of the City Code, signage will be installed prohibiting parking on the south side of Haywood Drive. Comment This action is being taken at the request of the Streets Division to better facilitate the removal of snow and maintenance on this street. Residents have been notified of this action. lu/mem/haywood.doc January 20, 1998 CITY OF I0 WA CITY TO: RE: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council Civil Service Entrance Examination - PARKING P~NFORCE~ENT ATTENDENT We, the undersigned members of the Civil Service commission of Iowa City, Iowa, do hereby certify the following named person(s) as eligible for the position of Parkin9 Enforcement Attendent. Rashelle Russell Aminata Segui IO~A CITY CIVIL COMMISSION Mf {~ae~l- ii~nedy SERVICE Chair ATTEST: Ma/~ian Karr, City Clerk JJJ bEAT J iHN$ON C®UNTY 1701 S. Riverside Dr. Iowa City, IA 52246 (319) 339-6125 Memo To~ Front: Date: Re: Iowa City City Council Bumell Chadek, Interim Director, Johnson County SEATS Johnson County Board of Supervisors Janua~j 29, 1998 Brief response to recent paratransit memos Several concerns are raised in two recent paratransit memos from Joe Fowler and from Councilors Dee Vanderhoef and Dean Thomberry. Iowa City's decision to seriously explore the idea of providing their own paratransit service is based upon an incomplete analysis presented in these memos. This memo is a response to the key concems expressed in the two memos. Because the level of detail needed to accurately analyze SEATS service can be overwhelming, this memo refers to a manageable example in the discussion below;. service on a typical weekday. By looking at a typical day, information at the highest level of detail (the driver manifests) can be more easily referred to. The day used for the discussion below is Monday, Janua~j 26, in which there were eleven reutes in service throughout the day. Points raised by Joe Fowler's 1/19/98 memo: 1. Reduction in mid day vehicles The memo states that there is a significant decrease in passengers per hour from 9:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M., and that it is not uncommon for one or more vehicles to have more than an hour without a passenger. However, careful analysis of the data shows that this statement is misleading. In fact, the vehicles in use during this portion of the day are quite busy, picking up on average 2.7 passengers per hour. That is impressive by any standard, and is even more impressive when you consider that each ddver scheduled for a full reute takes a lunch break dudrig this time. · Page 1 Attached to this memo is a report with the title 'SEATS Passengers per Hour of Day. The following analysis refers to this report: Routes 12 and 121 are a split shift, and are counted as one route for the purpose of this discussion. Routes (3, 4, 5) and (14, 15, 16) each combine to form one route, split into three sections. Routes 600 and 650 were special trips this day, and do not form part of the integrated service, or any portion of expenses that are allocated to Iowa City. These two routes are allocated fully to Johnson County, and represent the monthly shopping trip to Cedar Rapids that is open to any of our passengers from the metro or rural areas. Routes 300 and 350 are evening mutes, and don~ fall between 9:00 A.M. and 3:00 P.M. Route 800 represents the taxi referral list. Thus, the equivalent of eleven routes are in service during this six-hour time period. Alter subtracting the taxi and special monthly trip from the houdy figures, we are left with a total of 177 passengers between 9:00 A.M. and 3:00 P.M. (mid day). Divide 66 vehicles hours into this total, and we arrive at a figure of 2.7 passengers per vehicle hour. According to paratransit experts, 2.7 passengers per vehicle hour is a very good productivity performance. At a workshop presented at the CTAA Expo in May, 1997, paratmnsit consultant Ken Hosen of the KFH Group discussed productivity potentials for various forms of transit. He covered several service designs, including Countywide Paratransit, Urban Paratransit, and Fixed-Route. Here is a summary of his observations: Service Type Potential Productivity Countywide Paratransit 1-2 trips per hour Urban Paratransit 1-3 trips per hour Fixed-Route Vehicle Capacity Johnson County SEATS operates what can be best described as a hybdd of Countywide Paratransit and Urban Paratransit., with the majorfly of service categorized as Urban Paratransit. So, a productivity of 2.7 tdps per hour during off-peak demand times (mid day) is impressive. Those pedods that the memo refers to where there are "no passengers" are most often due to a limitation in which the database presents information: The report shows pick-up activity per hour, not drop-off activity. In other words, a ddver may have a last pickup at 11:55, drop off the last passenger of a tour at 12:35, then take a lunch break. Even though the report would in this example show that there were no pickups during the noon hour, it is far from accurate to assume that this vehicle is 'idle.' Please note that the report attached to this memo has several mutes that look 'idle' when in fact they are not - mutes 11,13, 15, 2, 8, and 9 all exhibit the limitation of the report, showing what Joe Fowler has erroneously described as "idle time" in his memo. The limitations of this report have been discussed at length with Iowa City Transit staff. The number of fides per vehicle hour during mid day is indeed less than that during the peak times of 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 A.M. and 3:00 P.M. to 5:00 P.M., but that reduction is not as substantial as implied in the memo. The morning peak time has 4 passengers picked up per vehicle hour, and the afternoon peak has 4.7 passengers picked up per vehicle hour. A major reason for such efficiency dudng peak hours is that many passengers are being picked up who live at the same address or in the same neighborhood and are being taken to work at the same workplace. The dde requests between 9:00 A.M. and 3:00 P.M. tend to be more geographically spread out, with dissimilar origins/destinations. That is, passengers dudng this time pedod are more difficult to combine together onto routes, and it takes as many vehicles dudng non-peak times to serve them in a timely manner without excessive travel or waiting times. · Page 2 It is not as reasonable as it may seem to conclude that fewer passengers per hour banslates to the need fOr fewer vehicles required, as implied by the memo. A careful analysis of the reports provided to Iowa City demonstrates that there is usually very little *downtime" during mid day. The number of ride requests in a given time period is only one factor in determining an adequate fleet size to serve the demand. Another important factor is the geographic distribution of dale requests. Fewer ride requests per hour at off-peak timas can require as many, and sometimes more, vehicles than a larger number of ride requests per hour during times of peak demand. During peak times, ride requests 'cluster' in such a way that the same vehicle can serve more ride requests in roughly the same amount of time. See figures 1 and 2 below for an illustration of Route 1 Route 2 Route 3 · Figure 1: Three Vehicles Serving 10 Ride Requests Route 3 Route I I' ' ' ~1 · Route 2 · e Figure Z' Three Vehicles Serving 20 Ride Requests The memo suggests that a reduction in fleet size to four vehicles during mid day is adequate to meet demand for paratmnsit service, with overflow taken up by taxi. Assuming that urban paratransit has a productivity · Page 3 threshold of around 3 trips per hour means that the four vehicles in service can potentially handle about 12 trips per hour. This means that the taxi service would need to provide 17-18 trips per hour in order to keep up with demand. The geographic dispersion of ride requests during mid day cleady makes this improbable, unless the taxi company operates a large paratransit fleet. The total number of vehicles at mid day (the 4 vehicles described in the memo, plus the taxi paratransit fleet) will need to be the same as SEATS presently utilizes. Typically, SEATS has 10-11 mutes active during mid day. Experience has shown SEATS that 10-11 vehicles in service during mid day is optimal to meet present paratransit demand. This aspect of paratmnsit is somewhat counter-intuitive, and requires a detailed examination of the driver manifests themselves to fully understand. 2. Cost per Trip The memo states that the cost per ride on SEATS is $15. It would be interesting to know how this figure was arrived at. Based on FY97 data, the cost per trip is only $7.67: Net Iowa City contract amount of $513,917 (after credit for fares) / 67012 passengem = $7.67 per trip. 3. Systems Unlimited Contract Systems Unlimited contracts with SEATS as a courtesy and is not legally required to do so. Systems Unlimited passengers qualify for ADA mandated paratransit sewice and the City is obligated to provide this service, regardless of the existence of a contract. Historically, Systems Unlimited has contracted directly with Johnson County rather than the City because a net gain in state and federal funding results from this arrangement. That is, the formulas used for this funding allocate more to Johnson County than would be allocated to Iowa City if the service were contracted directly with Iowa City. However, the $30,000 contract amount with Systems Unlimited is almost entirely r_,mdited back to Iowa City because over 95% of the ddes are given to Iowa City passengers. Should Iowa City wish to contract directly with Systems Unlimited, that is certainly a possibility worth discussing. The memo suggests that Systems Unlimited service be bid out, thereby reducing overall paratransit expense. SEATS' fleet is adequate to meet demand throughout the day and is busily ericlent dudrig both peak and non- peak times, as discussed above, and is operating at an impressive level of productivity. Iowa City, or any private contractor, would need to operate a fleet of at least the same size that SEATS operates in order to meet present demand. Points raised in the 1/22/98 memo from Dee Vanderhoef and Dean Thomberry: 1. Johnson County pays for rural paratransit service from their general fund. Iowa City and Johnson County both have general taxing authority in Iowa City. Both Iowa City and Johnson County fund government and private agencies and services from revenues received from Iowa City residents. Both Iowa City and Johnson County fund services that they believe are of benefit to our citizens. 2. Efficiencies to be aained by separate contract with Systems Unlimited As discussed previously, service to Systems Unlimited is the most efficient portion of paratransit service within Iowa City. By separate contract, it appears that the memo is suggesting that this service be done by private contractor. By eliminating the most eftdent portion of service from the paratransit system, the cost of all other service per unit will increase. · Page 4 3. Future costs. costs allocated to Iowa City am understated. reduction in ddemhio The memo contends that the County proposes a 9% increase for FYgg and a 4% increase for FY00. Actually, the County has proposed contract amount increases of 4% each year to reflect cost of living adjustments. However, because of proposed changes in the way fare m venues are being credited to Iowa City, the net changes in cost to Iowa City actually decrease by 1.59% for FY99, followed by a net increase of 4.41% for Johnson County, in the most recent negotiating session, offered the following three-year contract amounts: $560,000 for FY98 + 22.400 (4% cost of living adjustment) $582,400 for FY99 + 23.296 (4%) $605,696 for FY00 Negotiations two years ago concluded with the undemtanding that the "fair-share" costs would be phased in over three years. Actual contract amounts for FY99 and beyond have been discussed very little during negotiations for this fiscal year. At the start of current negotiations, the County pointed out that the City received a 10% reduction from the "fair share' contract amount for FY97, a figure which m suited from previous negotiations. This reduction amounted to $54,426.62. Negotiators from previous years agreed that for FY98, this reduction in 'fair share' contract amount would be 5%, and that for FY99, there would be no reduction. This was agreed to by the City and the County in 1996, yet during negotiations that started in June of 1997, the City has continually objected to paying a "fair share' amount. As a result of current negotiations, the County has agreed to maintain the reduction from the "fair sham' amount for the duration of a three-year contract. The "tourshare' report that the County has asked the City to formally approve as a basis for expense allocation will allow for continuing accurate projections of future cost allocations to the Cities The memo states that Iowa City ridership is down 19%. This is inaccurate. Policy changes resulting in more stringent eligibility requirements and higher fares led to a decrease in aldership in Iowa City by approximately 11.5% from FY96 to FY97. Ridership is projected to remain at this level for FY98 and beyond, barring any further policy changes. For masons already discussed, it is overly simplistic to assume that ridership and expense am correlated at a one-to-one ratio. It is interesting to note that from FY96 to FY97, Iowa City Transit has seen a decrease in aldership of 14.19%, while the operating expenses (not includin(~ Damtransit expenses) increased by 2.27%. The County also proposed that the City of Iowa City retain all fares starting in FY99, rather than Johnson County keeping the flint $30,800 as is specified in FY97 contract, and as has been continued dudng the pm sent FY98 one-month extensions. Total Iowa City fares for FY99 am projected to be $53,640. So, let's look at the net amount for Johnson County SEATS service over the three years: $560,000 less Iowa City fares in excess of $30,800 (approximately $22,840) = $537,160 net for FY98 $582,400 less all Iowa City fares (projected at $53,640) = $528,760 net for FY99 $605,696 less all Iowa City fares (projected at $53,640) = $552,056 net for FY00 Therefore, the net changes per year would actually be negat/ve 1.59% for FY99, followed by an increase of 4.41% for FY00. Because 100% of the fares are proposed to go to the City starting in FY99, it is important to focus on the net amount when comDarinq the fiscal years, rather than the contract amounts. · Page 5 FY FAIR SHARE PROPOSED CONTRACT 1998 $633,385 $560,000 o 1999 $679,936 $582,400 2000 $707,531 $605,696 PROJECTED IOWA CITY FARE REVENUE $22,840 (Johnson County keeps the first $30,800) NET EXPENSE $537,160 N/A $53,640 $528,760 -1.59% $53,640 $552,056 +4.41% % NET CHANGE summary of fair share versus proposed contract amounts for Iowa City, FY98-FYO0 How do the proposed contract amounts compare with Iowa Citv's 'fair share' expense allocation? During contract negotiations prior to FY97, allocating expenses based on tourshare was determined by the County, the City, and staff as the fairest and most accurate method. Toumhare measures the total use of system resources by summing the amount of time that the integrated SEATS fleet serves each entity. This replaced the older method of allocating expenses by passenger count. Iowa City uses 72.69% of the system resources as measured by tourshare, yet accounts for apprexJmately 80 percent of total ridership served by the integrated fleet The ddes within Iowa City tend to be shorter and group together more efficiently, and tourshare reflects this. Fair share allocation is based upon tourshare. Because Iowa City accounts for 72.69% of total tourshare, allocated expenses are based on this percentage. Allocated expenses do not include vadous budget items such as vehicle purchase, training expenses, and expenses associated with the non-integrated fleet. These expenses are fully allocated to Johnson County. So, the sum of allocated expenses does not equal SEATS' total expenditures budget. The County pays 100% of the difference. Here's what the allocation formula shows as Iowa City's 'fair share' for FY98, FY99 and FY00: $633,385 for FY98 (the proposed contract amount is $73,385 less than the -fair share' amount) $679,336 for FY99 (the proposed contract amount is $96,936 less than the -fair share' amount) $707,531 for FY00 (the proposed contract amount is $101,835 less than the 'fair share' amount) The proposed contract amounts represent a savings of $272,156 over three years compared to what the expense allocation formula shows as Iowa City's 'fair share' total. · Page 6 What about FY977 What about the SEATS budget surplus? SEATS had a net budget surplus of $102,379.79. This represents a savings of $51,915.42 in expenditures and $50,464.32 more in revenues than was budgeted. The bulk of expenditure savings came from having an untilled administrative position for much of FY97, and from a reduction in labor expenses elsewhere due to the slight drop in demand for ddes that occurred when fares were raised and eligibility requirements made more stringent. The increase in fares and Iowa City's elimination of the "no fare" policy for reduced-income individuals accounts for the increase in revenue. However, the budget surplus cannot be considered solely iowa City's money. Iowa City did not provide 100% of SEATS' certified operating budget, but provided only about 55%. The expense allocation formula shows that only $49,384 can really be considered the portion of the surplus that is attributable to Iowa City. The remainder is attributable to Johnson County, and Coralville. The contract for FY97 made no provision for the distribution of any budget surplus to the Cities. It is for precisely this reason that eady in the present negotiations, it was proposed by the County that future contracts with the Cities include such a provision. It is vitally important that the City Council have accurate analysis before making any decision regarding paratransit. Johnson County SEATS provides a much-valued service in this community, and Johnson County shares the sentiment expressed in Dee Vanderhoef and Dean Thornberry's memo - it is a disappointment that we have not been able to agree on all issues dudrig the course of the negotiations. It is indeed the desire of the County to reach a long term agreement with the City for the continued provision of paratransit service by SEATS in a regional system - the County and City do share the common goal of providing the best possible paratransit service at the lowest possible cost. · Page 7 0 ..... L .... I I £ 0 £ £ I £ g£ 9 £9 9 O0 EE g£_ 6l I 1 g I ,no L "I 9 9 1 E I g £ ~ I E q~ L 9 I~ I ~ E E E P £ qZ ~ ~ 6 1~ t, g £ '11 ~ t, 0 0 +00:N~ 00:£E 00:i~ 00:1i~ 00:0E 00:61 00:gl 00:LI 00:91 00:gl 00:H 00:£1 00:El 00:!i 00:01 00:60 00:g0 00:L0 00:90 00:g0 00:I,0 6 /. 059 OO9 l, £ 91 gl t,l I! 01 ! olno~! 86/9UI uopi 86/9E/I- O.L 86/9UI- mo.Lq £v(l f o .m oH ,tad saao~uassVd ~VJ~ VSLV J®HNSON C®UNTY 1701 S. Riverside Dr. Iowa City, IA 52246 (319) 339-6125 Memo To: From: Date: Re:. Iowa City Council Bumell Chadek, Intedm Director, Johnson County SEATS Coralville City Council, University Heights City Council, Johnson County Board of Supervisors February 9, 1998 Iowa City's Paratransit Proposal and Budget A budget proposal for an Iowa City-Coralville Paratransit system was recently prepared by the Iowa City Department of Parking and Transit. Under the proposal, Iowa City would operate a paratmnsit system for the cities of Iowa City, Coralville, and presumably, University Heights. Iowa City's proposal keeps current service hours and promises to maintain the current level of service. The proposal indicates that costs to the cities can be reduced if the number of vehicles utilized is substantially reduced, with supplemental service being provided by pdvate contractors (taxi and others). Iowa City's proposal was assembled without any examination of actual ddver manifests, but was based on summary reports that have lead to some inaccurate conclusions about current SEATS service and the number of vehicles required to provide that service. The basis of Iowa City's proposal is the perception that there are too many SEATS vehicles in service, particularly at mid-day. Iowa City will operate the system with a total of 375 vehicles hours per week..By comparison, Johnson County SEATS provides, on average, between 490 and 550 vehicle hours per week to keep up with demand, and includes service by the integrated fleet to vadous rural areas of the county. However, a model of Iowa City's proposed service indicates that a reduced the fleet will not meet the current level of ride requests, and that costs associated with supplemental service by private contractor are substantially underestimated. · Page 1 Ride requests for the week of January 18 through January 24 were used to model Iowa City's proposed service and compare their proposal to actual SEATS service dudng the same week. The week chosen represents a typical level of dde requests per weekday and weekend. Same-day cancellations for the week were higher than normal (about 13%), due to bad weather. Same day cancellations typically run between 5-10%. The actual driver manifests presented in the bound packets represent service as originally scheduled. Likewise, the ddver manifests and cab referral sheets as modeled for Iowa City's proposal include the actual requests for the week. Note that SEATS scheduled about 525 vehicle hours for the week, but because of cancellations, the actual number of vehicle hours was reduced to about 500. The model for the proposed service is based upon already existing routes for the week, with start times and end times adjusted as appropriate in order to model the level of service provided by Iowa City's 375 vehicle hours per week. The routes in the model are efficient and are slightly overbooked, and would not be feasible without having some same-day cancellations. The dde requests that would not fit on the proposed fleet are given to a private contractor to provide. A comparison of actual service as scheduled by SEATS versus the model for Iowa City's proposed service forms the basis for assessing the accuracy of Iowa City's proposed budget and paratransit service design. Questions Regarding Iowa City's Proposal A total operating cost of $667,465 is presented in Iowa City's proposal. This is based on 375 vehicles hours per week, one full-time and two part-time dispatchers, fuel, maintenance, and miscellaneous charges. The total cost of service is arrived at after fares and other revenues are credited, and adds the pdvate contractor expense. Cost Allocation 1. What is the basis of Coralville's cost allocation? Approximately 16% of the total operating costs are allocated to Coralville. Yet, SEATS' tourshare breakdown allocates about 12.5% as Coralville' share of running an integrated system. Why aren't fuels, maintenance expenses, etc. allocated to Coralville in Iowa City's proposal? Iowa City allocates an administrative fee to Coralville, yet there is no administrative fee allocated to Iowa City. Why are administrative fees left out of Iowa City's allocation? If it is an allocatable expense for Coralville, then it should also show up as an expense for Iowa City. How is capital outlay determined? How is Coralville's share of capital outlay determined? Approximately 11% of vehicle replacement cost is allocated to Coralville, versus 16% of total expenses. What should Coralville .expect to pay for capital expenses in the future? (Note that presently 100% of vehicle replacement expenses for Johnson County SEA TS are paid for by the county. No vehicle replacement expenses are allocated to the cities.) 4. What is the insurance expense estimated to be? Why isn't insurance expense included in Iowa City's proposed budget?. · Page 2 Startup Expenses 5. Startup expenses are described in the proposal as "minimal." Has ECICOG been contacted by Iowa City? What vehicles will be available? Any vehicles acquired by ECICOG for SEATS with Section 18 funding will be off-limits for transfer to Iowa City. What are startup expenses for vehicle procurement expected to be? 6. Will Iowa City utilize computer-assisted dispatching? If so, what will the startup expenses for software and equipment be? Systems Unlimited Contract 7. Has Iowa City been in contact with Systems Unlimited? Is Systems Unlimited interested in contracting with the city for paratransit service, even though there is no legal obligation for them to do so? Will Systems Unlimited passengers be required to phone in all ddes? Adequacy of Proposed Dispatch Personnel 8. SEATS currently utilizes the full-time equivalent of 3.25 dispatchers. Iowa City's proposal indicates one full-time and two part-time dispatchers. Does this equal 2 full-time equivalent positions? Iowa City will need to field nearly as many ride requests per week as SEATS does presently (all except rural ddes, which account for about 8% of the total). How can the job be accomplished with the number of dispatchers that Iowa City proposes? 9. The proposal indicates that there will be no weekend dispatchers, even though vehicles will be in operation on both Saturday and Sunday at lhe same level currently provided by SEATS. How will the fleet manage cancellations and attempt to resolve no-show situations without a dispatcher?. 10. Ride requests on weekdays are to be taken between 8:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M. SEATS now takes dde requests starting at 7:00 A.M.. Many passengers need to phone in dde requests before going to work in the moming. How will they be accommodated? 11. Ride requests on weekends for Monday service will be taken by an answering machine. How will requests for Monday that are made via the machine on weekends get routed? If startup times for ddvers are set on Fdday, how will needed adjustments be made? If an additional vehicle is required at an eadier time on Monday rooming, how will this be determined? How will pick up times be negotiated over the plus/minus one hour window if requests are made on an answering machine? Adequacy of Proposed Level of Drivers 12. The proposal greatly cuts back on the number of routes in service throughout the day, particularly mid-day. SEATS' experience shows that between 10 and 11 vehicles on average are needed throughout the day to keep up with demand. Iowa City's proposal has a maximum of seven vehicles in use at any one time. 375 vehicle hours are proposed, versus a SEATS average of 520. Of that 520 hours, about 450-475 are spent serving the cities of Iowa City, Coralville and University Heights. How was 375 hours determined to be adequate? Why weren't SEATS ddver manifests themselves used as a starting point for assessing the vehicle needs for an Iowa City-Coralville paratransit service? Estimate on the Level and Expense of the Private Contractor 13. Iowa City's proposal budgets $24,800 for paratransit service provided by the pdvate contractor. How was this figure estimated? The model of the proposed Iowa City-Coralville paratransit system shows that 462 ddes will need to be dispatched to the private contractor dudng the course of the week. · Page 3 That is the number of dde requests that just won't fit anywhere on the proposed number of vehicles in operation. Using Iowa City's estimate of $7 per taxi dde on average: 462 rides/week at $7 each for 52 weeks = $168,168 for costs associated with the private contractor. Same-day cancellations will reduce this expense somewhat, but the total cost is far higher that Iowa City budgets in the proposal. Between January 18 and 24, 44 SEATS rides were given to Yellow Cab. Because of cancellations, 41 trips were actually provided. Using the cost formula above, this works out to a total cab cost of about $15,000. (41 ddes x 52 weeks x $7 per dde) 13. With 450+ ddes per week, many involving wheelchair users, the supplemental service provider will most likely need a large fleet of paratransit vehicles to keep up with their demand. How will this affect the costs? Because a substantial fleet will be required, consisting of buses capable of doing many simultaneous pickups involving wheelchair users, it cannot be expected that the same fee structure that Yellow Cab utilizes will be in place. A paratransit fleet is more expensive to operate, and the pdvate contractor will most likely need to charge more per trip than they currently do. Conclusions Iowa City's budget proposal is flawed in may ways. The total expense of operating the system as proposed are greatly understated, mainly due to the cost of the private contractor, but also due to inadequate dispatch personnel, lack of insurance expenses included and lack of detail on startup costs. Realistically, the pdvate contractor expense should be budgeted at a minimum of $150,000 per year. At least three full-time dispatchers will be needed (estimated at $108,721, using the dispatcher personnel expense as proposed times 150%). So, not including items such as insurance costs, the total costs of operating Iowa City's proposed paratransit service (including the private contractor expense) should be at least $853,000, with a net total cost to Iowa City of around $640,000 annually, assuming revenue from a Systems Unlimited contract. Compare this with the county's proposed Iowa City contract amount of $582,400 and net expense to Iowa City of about $540,000 for FY99, including cab expenses. Iowa City will pay about $100,000 more per year for paratransit under their proposal, with a very different quality of service because of the enormous reliance on a taxi fleet. SEATS is a successful regional transit program, providing efficient service at low cost. Any changes should keep this, and the questions raised above in mind. · Page 4 Johnson County Joe Bolkcom, Chairperson Charles D. Duffy Jonathan Jordahl Stephen P. Lacina Sally Stutsman BOARD OF SUPERVISORS February 10, 1998 Mayor Lehman and Iowa City Council Civic Center 410 E. Washington Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Mayor Lehman and City Council: On behalf of the Board of Supervisors I would like to present the following points for the Council's consideration and make the following requests. These items came out of our discussions this morning regarding the future of Johnson County SEATS and the City's interests in managing this system. The County wishes to reaffu'm its commitment to maintain the efficiencies of a unified county-wide para-transit system. As a result, we would like to request an estimate from the City to provide para-transit services for rural county residents. We would be more than happy to provide whatever information staff would need to make this estimate. Please advise us as to your needs here. There has been much discussion about how a proposed Iowa City para-transit system would operate. In an effort to help the City Council and staff better understand how we currently operate a unified para-transit system and provide an opportunity for the city to experiment with its proposal for fewer para-transit vehicles at mid-day and greater reliance on taxi cabs or another private provider, we would offer the following opportunities. a. Invite first hand City Council members and City staff to get to better know the SEATS system. This would include having people ride the vehicles, oversee ride dispatching, staff scheduling, reporting and maintenance functions. b. Provide a sufficient period for Iowa City to implement its proposed system modifications with the SEATS fleet. This would provide valuable understanding of your proposal and answer some of the questions that have arisen. Both of these opportunities could be arranged in the coming weeks. We would anticipate undertaking this experiment in March. 913 SOUTH DUBUQUE ST. P.O. BOX 1350 IOWA CITY, IOWA 52244-1350 TEL: (319) 3566000 FAX: (319) 354-4213 February 10, 1998 Page Two Finally, there are many details to be worked out pending the City's ultimate decision to operate a unified para-transit system. We would like to suggest that a Para-Transit Transition Committee be organized to manage a smooth transition to a new par'a-transit program. We would suggest that all stakeholders be a part of such a committee. This would include Iowa City, Coralville, University Heights, Johnson County, Systems Unlimited, Goodwill, Evert Conner Rights and Resources Center for Independent Living and area consumers. If there are parties left out here, please feel free to add them to the list. In the event that the City decides to operate its own system it is our intention to fully cooperate with the City Council to make any transition in the SEATS para-transit system go as smoothly as possible. If the City Council should decide not to proceed, we stand ready to negotiate an agreement to continue to provide high quality services at a competitive price. The Board of Supervisors would be interested in a written response to the above mentioned requests and ideas by Friday, February 20, or sooner. We would anticipate the need to bring together a Transition Committee as soon as possible. Thank you for your attention to this request. Sincerely ~our~ Jo~ Bolkcom ChLirman Copy: Mayor and City Council Coralville, Mayor and City Council University Heights, Mayor and City Council North Liberty, Systems Unlimited, Bill Gorman, Goodwill, John Watson, Evert Conner Rights and Resources Center for Independent Living, Inc., Keith Ruff. February 10, 1998 Summary and position of consumers of paratransit services Consumers have met and concluded that paratransit services, regardless of provider, MUST maintain the following: 1. CONSUMER INVOLVEMENT a) Create work sessions to enlist consumer input during the planning stages before the final decision is made to ensure that a cost effective and efficient service is designed to meet the consumer's requirements b) Establish an administrative advisory board comprised of at least 51 percent of consumers of paratransit services to oversee quality assurances including monitoring the cab contract, that will report directly to city council. 2. Quality and Quantity of Services a) Scheduling b) Unified transportation system c) Staff sensitivity training d) Flexibility 3. Human Element a) Consistent commitment to assist consumers to meet individual needs including walking, carrying packages, etc. PARATRANSIT CONSUMER MEETING 2/9/98 GROUP REPORTS (OUTCOME) Approximately 75 individuals met at the Iowa City Public Library from 4 to 6 pm on Monday, February 9, 1998 to discuss consumer involvement and their transportation needs. After a brief overview from Keith Ruff, Casey Hayse, and Chris O'Hanlon, breakout groups were formed to discuss concerns and report back to larger group. Group Concerns: Group 1. 1. Transfer from IC to Coralville; 2. Assistance from drivers: walking, groceries etc; 3. Office assistance - planning time; 4. Door to door service, contract services, turnover, training and compensation. 5. Ability of people who use wheelchairs to use taxi service. 6. Riders have jobs, fewer vans on the road (increased time for riders van) 7. Dispatching on Sat and Sun (especially for cancellation) on Group 2: 1. Taxi service: use of, smoking environment, pick up of non-paratransit users (delays in arrival) 2. Cross ridership within county 3. Quality of Service, respect for personnel Group 3: 1. Eligibility to use service 2. Scheduling (too much time is spent on the 'vans) 3. Rides to and from outlaying areas. Group 4: 1. Members of city council use SEATS for a day, visit office to see what kind of calls come in. 2. City and County should be able to work together. 3. Flexibility in scheduling to get to appointments on time, door to door not enough, assistance is needed beyond. PARATRANSIT CONSUMER MEETING 219198 GROUP REPORTS (OUTCOME) Approximately 75 individuals met at the Iowa City Public Library from 4 to 6 PM on Monday, February 9, 1998 to discuss consumer involvement and their transportation needs. After a brief overview from Keith Ruff, Casey Hayse, and Chris O'Hanlon, breakout groups were formed to discuss concerns and report back to larger group. Group Concerns: Group 1. 1. Transfer from IC to Coralville; 2. Assistance from drivers: walking, groceries etc; 3. Office assistance planning time; 4. Door to door service, contract services, turnover, training and compensation. 5. Ability of people who use wheelchairs to use taxi service. 6. Riders have jobs, fewer vans on the road (increased time for riders van) 7. Dispatching on Sat and Sun (especially for cancellation) on Group 2: 1. Taxi service: use of, smoking environment, pick up of non-paratransit users (delays in arrival) 2. Cross ridership within county 3. Quality of Service, respect for personnel Group 3: 1. Eligibility to use service 2. Scheduling (too much time is spent on the vans) 3. Rides to and from outlaying areas. Group 4: 1. Members of city council use SEATS for a day, visit office to see what kind of calls come in. 2. City and County should be able to work together. 3. Flexibility in scheduling to get to appointments on time, door to door not enough, assistance is needed beyond. 4. Don't wait until later establish subcommittee with consumers NOW. 5. Budget looks too small. 6. Preserve relationship between rider and driver 7. Give present SEATS drivers priority in hiring process. Group 5: 1. Meet ADA standards. 2. Training for drivers 3. Scheduling flexibility, courtesy, accountability and respect. 4. Consumer input needed now not later. 5. A mechanism to improve service be developed. 6. travel time not more than 15 in before and after. 7. New name for buses. STATEMENT TO THE IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL February 10, 1998 I wish to address the SEATS issue. I have a long history of involvement with the SEATS program and have a fairly extensive file of various documents. I am amazed in my review at the lack of good communication between the City and the County. But neither you nor I can rewrite history. What we can do is make the best possible decision for today and for tomorrow. And I am sure this is what you want to do. I have studied the document "Budget Proposal Iowa City - Coralville Paratransit." I trust that them might be an occasion to enter into dialogue with you and those who prepared this document. I am sure all of you have questions. So;me of the questions that come to my mind are: What is the meaning of, "Service would remain substantially door-to-door service?" Is this the same level of service that is now being provided? Now the drivers not only help the person to the door, but as the situation dictates, helps them by unlocking one's door or by carrying groceries to the kitchen table. Is this individual treatment what is meant by "substantially door-to-door service?" This issue is critical to your pledge as a council, "toprovide the same level of service:' On this issue you need to be forthright and provide a simple "Yes" or "No" answer. SEATS, I would emphasize, is more than a transportation system. It is also a human service system. What is the projected number of drivers? What hours? What salary? What benefits? Will the present full-time staff be offered jobs? The reason for focusing on the drivers is that the drivers are an important part of the "level of service." It is important to those being served to have a driver that knows them and their needs, since communication is often difficult. A familiar face is important, if the same or better level of service is to be provided. It is also important to have a person trained in serving this special population. Page 2 riders At your last public discussion period you said, speaking of the SEA TS drivers, "these are the people we will hire." I now gather there are Union contracts involved and that you may not be able to assure the on this point at this time. I trust you will actively address this issue, since it does relate to your pledge to maintain the same level of service. Does your plan envision a core of drivers that provide mass transit services and a paratransit service? How does this impact the level of service? What would be the provisions in the contract for a "private contractor?" Many elderly have, in the past, expressed displeasure with the level of service provided by the cab subcontractor. Does your plan call for increasing the number of rides provided by a '~private contractor?" What are the number of contract rides that were utilized in the budget proposal? What are the number of rides projected for Iowa City and Coralville and what formula was used for distribution of cost? In my study of the Budget Proposal the percentage varies a great deal I think that these and other questions need to be answered. And I wonder what is or will be the forum for this kind of dialogue? Let me make two additional comments: 1) I am a firm believer in a unified county-wide system. I wish the City staff had prepared a budget based on a county-wide system. I trust this report will be enlarged to include the fiscal implications for a unified county-wide system. 2) I applaud your decision to appoint a committee to work with you and your staff in the design of the system. The City has through the years suggested a mechanism where all parties be represented and involved in the decision making process. I trust that the committee will have representation from all governmental units involved in a unified county-wide system and will include consumers, providers of services and advocates. Page 3 I trust you as the Council will take an active role in the naming of these persons and that you will enlist persons who are willing to serve and will then select those who you collectively feel can best serve this community as it addresses the issue of how to provide the same and better level of service. I appreciate your listening to me and others. Before I sit down tonight, I would, however, ask you to answer the first question I raised: What is the meaning of, "Service would remain substantially door-to-door service? Is this the same level of service that is now beingprovided? Now the drivers not only help the person to the door, but as the situation dictates, helps them by unlocking one's door or by carrying groceries to the kitchen table. Is this individual treatment what is meant by "substantially door-to-door service?" This issue is critical to your pledge as a council, "to provide the same level of service." And mayor, I trust you will provide me and other interested citizens with a simple "Yes" or "No" answer at this time. Thank you for your response.