HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-07-15 CorrespondenceJUN 3 0 1997
Iowa City City Council
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Dear Members:
We wish to express our displeasure to the City Council regarding the temporary sidewalk
along Sycamore Street from Bums Avenue to Lakeside Drive for the following reasons:
1. As property owners alongside the sidewalk, we were never informed what was going on
until Saturday, June 14, by mail, after the work had been completed. Thus, we were
denied input in the outcome.
2. As taxpayers, we would like to know the cost of this temporary sidewalk and how
anticipated use was determined and some of the decision-making processes that gave titis
project the go ahead. We question the cost effectiveness of such a temporary project.
3. We have been told we will be responsible to maintain this sidewalk. However, it was
placed so near to the street that once it has been cleared, we believe the road graders will
fill it up again. We have no means of even getting to the walk to clear it to begin with
since it will be behind our property lines, fences, trees, etc. We ask, therefore, that the city
assume responsibility for maintenance.
In the future, we hope such projects are not approved before all ramifications are realized
and that all persons affected are informed.
name
address
July 7, 1997
TO: Members of the Iowa City,
City Council
REGARDING: Proposed Sandusky
Storm Sewer Project
FROM: David and Susan Novotny
I am writing to you to express my opposition to the
proposed Sandusky Storm Sewer Project. This project has
been resembled for Fiscal Year 1998 due to non-support
by a majority of affected property owners and I feel that
it will not be supported in it's current form.
The currant project was undertaken apparently as a
reaction to the 1993 water problem specifically and other
minor problems at other times. This is a result of an
improper sized drain pipe originally installed with the
knowledge of the City and developer and other developments
in the area. Although there may disagreement about the
above statement there can be no disagreement that any water
problem in the area is a result of the underground pipe and
water discharge from that pipe and not standing water from
above ground rain!
My family moved into our Sandusky Drive address in
August 1989. We purchased our home from Ambrose Realtors
and financed it with First National Bank. During the time
of negotiations only passing notice was given to us about
water retention situations and easements, although we did
notice the drains on the property. We were assured that
these would have no major impact on the property by the
Realtor. We own lot ~34 of Pepperwood Second Addition
with a 10' storm sewer easement running through our
backyard. Until recently, and only upon review of plat
maps, this meant nothing to me.
We have had ground water on several occasions as a
result of water discharge (not from rain water pooling on
the property) from the storm sewer. The most severe being
in 1993 but in all instances all traces of water was gone
within several hours and in fact I was able to ~ow the lawn
the day after the rain fell the previous night.
This is not to say that there is an inconvenience
occasionally but current inspection of the property either by
the enclosed pictures or personally would not show any
difficulties that the water creates. If there is a problem
it is the legal requirement that no structures or plantings
be built on the easement~ This feature even now is not
followed as can be seen with the numerous fences and
plantings on the easement. Apparently there is not too big a
problem other that random water after excessive rainfalls.
With this in mind I would like to address the specific
problems I have with this project:
The City plans to require a 50' easement instead of the
10' easement. This includes the 5' easement on either
side of the drain in the backyard (already noted) but
also 20' more for construction easement on either side.
To take a 50' easement out of my back yard. This will
impact years of plantings and yard work and actually
take the easement to the edge of my house. Please note
the pictures as to the condition of the property under
the easement. My family has spent years making this an
attractive homesite and the City project plans to
destroy the years of hard work and value I have invested
in my home.
There is no guarantee that the new pipe will affect the
water condition. Ask the City Engineer if the new size
pipe will always carry the water underground and he will
tell you he can't. So what is the improvement? Also
the plans call for two different size pipes with the 48"
pipe starting at the corner of my property but a smaller
pipe to the east. Why not larger pipe for the entire
length of the project. This question is always
answered with engineering Jargon that the project will
carry more water but it always reverts back to the same
original problem. Poor planning in the original site
development and still no guarantee that the new project
will carry the water underground~
The City's proposed restoration project will replace
mature trees and yards with new growth at only a
fraction of the value of the existing property. A
situation in the proposed plans makes me wonder
what is going ono There is a proposal to reimburse the
homeowners who have planted and built fences and
structures over the pipe easement but to destroy my yard
and property with only a percentage replacement. What
does this say about following City Codes? Yet this is
still part of the plan.
The City plans calls for regrading of the yards s~ ~
permanent water pathway (none exists now) over the
replaced tile. $o to add further destruction to the
property we will have a "ditch" in the back yards for
the water that the new pipe won't carry. Once again
the regrading will destroy back yards, and especially
mine since it runs diagonally through the yard, and
not on the back property line of the other properties.
There is an economic and environmental impact on the
Sandusky area that will devastate the area for years to
come. This is not tearing up the street and replacing
it with more concrete. Homeowners in the area have
spent years in making this a comfortable and attractive
area to live and raise families. All of us involved now
know of the water retention area. There have been
several instances of standing water in our back yards
over the years. This according to the City Engineer
proves that the original design is working. If this is
the original plan and still will be even after the
proposed project what is the use of destroying the area
and rebuilding it with no advantage?
There are many, many, more reasons why the current plan
is unacceptable to ~ne and I believe the majority of
homeowners in the area. I have spoken to many reasons
why the project impacts my home and family in a negative
manner. The only positive result from the project that
I can see is that the pipe will carry more water ( this
according to the pipe physics and the engineering
people saying that it's correct). I am not interested
in someone's "neat engineering project" that will have
a negative impact for years to comes.
I feel that owning one's home is part of the American
way of life and a desire most Americans aspire to. This
proposed project is an intrusion into that dream and that
the proposed value of the project in no way justifies the
negative impact on the area.
Sinc~erely,
David and Sue Novotny
1015 Sandusky Drive
Iowa City, Ia 52240
319-339-0246
From ckerns~connect.net Thu Jul 10 10:38:39 1997
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 21:45:11 -0600
From: ckerns~connect.net
To: council@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
The way your city has handled the aftermath of that young sculptor's murder is almost as
reprehensible as the incident itself. A woman who tried to do something about it was
warned off with the words, "You're messing with people's lives here;" but the police
"mess with" people's lives every day, and in this case, they took outrageous action with
absolutely no justification.
So they believed there might be a burglar inside that building -- why did they have to go
in at all? Why didn't they just cover all the exits and wait while someone called the
owner, or called phones within the building...or why didn't they simply get on a bullhorn
and ask the occupant to call 911 and talk to them?
And consider this: if it had been a burglar inside, all that would have been at risk was
property -- in some cities, the police aren't even allowed to use their guns in defending
property. Why did yours barge in with guns drawn when they didn't even lmow what the
situation was yet? WHAT WAS THE URGENCY?
This is an appalling case, and the only way your city can hope to recover its dignity is to
proceed with prosecution...as it should have done ten months ago.
C. Keams
Dallas
City of Iowa City
[ EMORANDUM
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
July 10, 1997
City Clerk
Doug Ripley, JCCOG Traffic Engineering Planne~~"
Stop Sign Installation at Rushmore Drive and Mormon Trek Boulevard
As directed by Title 9, Chapter 1, 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 July 24, 1997.
Action
Pursuant to Section 9-1-3(A)5 of the City Code, a stop sign will be installed indicating Rushmore
Drive traffic must stop prior to entering Mormon Trek Boulevard.
Comment
This action is being taken to assign right-of-way at the intersection of Rushmore Drive and
Mormon Trek Boulevard. It is consistent with the City's practice of favoring arterial street
movements.
jw/mem/dr-rushm,doc
July 1, 1997
CITY OF I0 W'A CITY
TO:
RE:
The Honorable Mayor and the City Council
Civil Service Entrance Examination - ~AI~ITENANCE WORKER
We, the undersi9ned members of the Civil Service Commission of Iowa
City, Iowa, do hereby certify the followin9 named person(s) as
eligible for the position of Maintenance Worker I0
Brian Ball
Hired: 6/7/97
IOWA CITY CIVIL S~RVIC~.
Michael W~en~edy, 'Chair
ATTEST:
Mai~an Karr, City Clerk
410 EAST WASHINGTON STREET ~. IOWA CITY. IOWA 52240-i~26 o {319) 356-~D00 · FAX (319)
June 27, 1997
CITY OF I0 WA CITY
TO:
RE:
The Honorable Mayor and the City Council
Civil Service Entrance Examination - CENTRAL SERVICE~
iNFORMATION CLERK
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 Central Services Information Clerk.
Teresa Deatsch
Hired: 6/30/97
IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION
Michael W. Kennedy, Chair'
ATTEST:
'an Karr, City Clerk
~t10 EAST WASLIINGTON $TR££T · IOWA CITY, tO%V^ ~t2240-1526 · (319) 356.5(100 ~ FAX (~1.~) 356-5009
THE
City of Iowa City
C O LLE
IOWA ITY/C RALVi JAYCE ES
. . X 2358 --IOWA CITY, IOWA 52244 ',~L ,JUN J. 8 1,997
June 16,1997 ~T~' MtiNIIER'$ OFF/C[
410 E. Washington
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Dear Council Members:
In connection with our fireworks display on July 4, 1997, the Iowa City/Coralville Jaycees will be
providing entertainment activities for the hours preceeding the main event. One of the available
games at the city park in Iowa City will be a dunk tank, and we would like you to consider
volunteering four people from the City Council in the tank for fifteen minute intervals.
Because you are very closely related to the citizens of the community, we feel that your
participation in this event will add to its attraction. We are trying to invite the public to arrive
early at the park. Admission will be charged for this game, but we will be accepting food items
instead of cash from 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. The groceries will be given to local food banks.
Please fill out the following schedule, return the orginal, and keep a copy for your information.
We would like to be able to inform the public about the assistance received from local
organizations. We would appreciate it if you could return this information by June 20, 1997 to '
Iowa City/Coralville Jaycees
Attention: Dustin Thorne
P.O. Box 2358
Iowa City, IA 52244
7:00 p.m. to 7:15 p.m.
7:15 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.
7:30 p.m. to 7:45 p.m.
7:45 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
If you have any questions, please call Dustin Thorne at 351-0231. Thank you for your help.
Sincerely,
Dustin Thorne
Community V.P.
PNA
Pepperwood Neighborhood Association
Representing 250 Neighbors in Southeast Iowa City
Iowa City Council
Civic Center
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
July 11, 1997
Dear City Council Members:
The Pepperwood Neighborhood Association (PNA) understands that the City Council will be discussing
the Sandusky Drive Storm Sewer Improvement Project at their July 14 Work Session. In order to make
the City Council aware of the feelings of the neighborhood regarding this project, a discussion occurred at
the July 9 PNA meeting. This letter recaps the issues and concerns addressed at that meeting.
Of those persons attending the meeting who would be directly impacted by the project, the primary
interest involves their need for more information about the project before they feel they can make an
informed decision regarding its completion. Confusion about specific details of the project as well as a
wide variety of misinformation that have encompassed the neighborhood have been caused primarily by a
lack of communication between city staff and PNA.
Communication between City staff and the Pepperwood neighborhood began over two years ago regarding
this project as well as the recently completed sanitary sewer project on Sandusky. The neighborhood was
assured that we would be informed about the progress of both projects. In return, when information
became available, PNA agreed to advise residents with periodic updates on these projects through our
newsletter. Unfortunately this has not been the case. The sanitary sewer project began with little or no
warning to our residents and activities began regarding the Sandusky Storm Sewer Improvement Project
with little if any neighborhood involvement. When some residents contacted City staff with specific
questions about this activity, there was the consensus that they felt they were getting the run-around on
answers to their questions. The open house that occurred in June did litfie to alleviate this anxiety as the
process did not enable consistent and standardized responses to questions.
Listed below is a summary of eight concerns discussed at the PNA meeting on July 10 followed by
questions from PNA to City staff on this project:
Old Versus New Storm Water Pipes. PNA understands that the existing storm water pipe for the
Sandusky/Briar Drive project is 12" and the new pipe will be 48". PNA also understands that the new pipe
will divert storm water to the storm water catch basin located south of Crosspark Avenue and north of
Sandusky Drive. At the June 11th open house, one resident was told by City staff that the storm water
would not be diverted to the storm water catch basin. If this statement is true, why is the City spending
nearly $400,000 on this project to have the same storm water problem occur during a future heavy
rainstorm?
Easement Clarification. The following easements have been quoted to PNA residents by City staff: 5,
10, 25, 50 and 100 feet. If the recent sanitary sewer project used ¼ of Sandusky Drive (25'), why is such a
large easement needed?
Landscaping Concerns. PNA residents have received mixed information from City staff on the
procedures for moving existing trees, bushes, shrubbery, and perennials. Since the easement issue has
not been resolved, PNA would like to know where they should move their landscaping. For existing larger
trees, would the City be willing to help transplant these trees to Wetherby Park prior to and shortly after
the project? When new sod is transplanted, how many times will it be watered before each resident
assumes responsibility for watering? Will residents be reimbursed for perennials, annuals and shrubbery
moved for this project?
Duration of Sandusky/Briar Drive Project. PNA residents have heard different responses from City
staff on the start-to-finish timeline for this project. Taking into consideration the potential for weather
delays, what is the proposed construction timeline for the project?
Shive-Hattery Versus MMS Engineering Staff. Rick Fosse and an engineer from Shive-Hattery gave
the initial overview on both improvement projects. At the June 11 open house, Jim Brachtel and a
representative from MMS Engineering answered questions from PNA residents. Why was it never
explained to PNA why and when. this change in consultants occurred?
Turnover of Residents. In the last two years, PNA estimates a 70% turnover of residents living in the
site of the Sandusky/Briar Drive storm water sewer project. A majority of the residents who lived in the
area during the flood of 1993 have since moved from the neighborhood. The new residents have not yet
experienced a "cloud burst" rainstorm to witness the storm water problems this project hopes to alleviate.
Are there ways to inform residents of the problem in cases of such high turnover?
Blueprints, Drawings, and Estimated Costs for Sandusky Drive Project. The first time PNA
residents saw blueprints, drawings, and estimated costs for this project was at the June 11 open house.
Why wasn't this information given to PNA sooner?
PNA feels that the source of concerns for both sewer projects has been a lack of communication between City
staff and the PNA. With new residents living in the storm sewer project area, clearly they are not familiar
with the potential flooding concerns this project addresses. PNA recommends City staff prepare and PNA will
agree to hand distribute a packet of information to those residents living near the storm sewer improvement
project. This packet would include: a brief introduction, history and costs about this project, projected
timelines, pre-and-post arrangements and suggestions for property owners, and engineering
drawings/blueprints for this project. Allowing at least I week for these residents to review their packet, a
meeting can be scheduled with City staff, contracted engineers, and PNA, to answer any lingering questions
about the distributed information and the storm sewer improvement project.
We would also like to suggest that a meeting occur after the completion of the project. PNA would host a
"Project Assessment" debriefing. This debriefing will help City staff learn how to improve the necessary
communication partnership between the City staff and Iowa City neighborhood associations. Clearly, this
partnership is necessary for the success of future capital improvement projects.
PNA is anxious to work in partnership with City staff, before, during and after the storm sewer project. PNA
is confident that improved communications between those involved with this project will help to ensure the
success of this and future capital improvement projects.
We look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
David Dawes, Coordinator
Pepperwood Neighborhood Association
1055 Briar Drive
Iowa City, IA 52240-2203
Telephone: 337-2634
cc: Marcia Klingaman
Neighborhood Services Coordinator
July 7, 1997
Iowa City Council Members
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Dear Council Members:
Our neighborhood has a significant and unresolved problem. It has been apparent since July 1995
that a current resident is selling drugs from his home. Many of the hallmarks of drag dealing,
including periodic, markedly increased traffic in a corner of our neighborhood over this time
frame, many cars with out of town license plates coming frequently to this home, short stops of
less than 10 minntes at this residence during times of increased traffic, payment of cash for some
exchange of goods, overheard conversations about the availability of the product have come to our
attention.
Individually and collectively we have made efforts to contact the proper authorities regarding this
activity. Our efforts have included:
1) many phone calls and complaints beginning in July 1995 to the ICPD and the Johnson County
Sheriff's Office about the activity. We got no observable response to these phone contacts until this
problem was mentioned to Officer Kevin Berg during a presentation in our neighborhood on
community safety in April 1996. Since that time we have had
a) meetings with various officers of the drug task force in our area;
b) phone contacts and meetings with various Iowa City representatives,
including the Chief of Police and the City Administrator;
c) phone complaints to the DARE contact person;
2) contact with a state narcotics officer, who assured us in the Spring of 1996 that such a problem
should be investigated and could theoretically be resolved within a teu-twelve week time frame;
3) search of public records for the owner of this property. The owner has assured us that he is
doing what he can through his management company and individually in talking with the police
department to help eliminate the problem;
4) contact with the management company of this property. Prior management was unresponsive to
the complaints of other tenants and households in the neighborhood. Current management has
attended collective meetings of which they have had notice. They have also been in contact
individually with the ICPD, urging law enforcement to put a stop to the activity;
5) recording and handing to police the license plates of cars coming into our neighborhood who
stop at this residence;
6) offering our properties for observational activities to the police department.
Since this pmly moved to our neighborhood and began his business, our quality of life has been
compromised in other ways. One neighbor had an associate of this person knocking on her door at
1 a.m. requesting that she call the police as his family was involved in a serious domestic dispute.
This domestic violence was a regular occnrrence. Last summer damage to property occurred on the
premises. It sounded to all who lived within a square block as if gunfire was involved. The police
deny that this was the ca~e. Within a week after the first collective meeting, neighborhood with law
enforcement, one neighborhood participant had a car brake line ruined with an adulterant, another
an air conditioner freon line punctured with a round device. Those of us who did not lock our
doors or porch doors now do so. Every unfamiliar car is treated with suspicion. Our children are
forbidden to play in certain areas. Carcinogenic byproducts result from the manufacture of
Methamphetamine, a current street drug of choice. Cleanup is regulated by strict EPA and OSHA
standards. We wonder if property in or around this residence is so contaminated. This person
operates within two blocks of a grade school. Every child who lives near his house knows what he
is about. He came to our neighborhood driving an old model Cadillac and within a year
has traded that off for a new Cadillac and a Pontiac Trans Am, both with out of state license plates.
These fruits of his labor are readily apparent to the dozen or so in the junior high age group. The
elementary children, several of whom live within his apartment complex, have been heard to
wonder why the police won't do anything about this illegal activity. They also question the DARE
program that they have been exposed to in school, asking in more primitive terms why the police
don't arrest the sellers instead of coming to talk at school.
We have been told to be patient; that law enfomement needs to built its case. We have been advised
that this person has resided in our community for several years and that law enforcement is/has
been aware of the suspicious nature of his trade for much of that time. We can appreciate the need
for compiling evidence but the ten-twelve weeks ended long ago. We do not know if this is a
matter of lack of personnel with specific expertise in drug related areas, lack of money for
enforcement, or of priorities which do not target drug enforcement locally. However, we do not
feel that there is any valid justification for the intrusion that this continued illegal activity makes
upon our neighborhood and our quality of life. This is the third time within ten years that unabated,
long term, obvious drug dealing has been our daily companion.
In a few days this dealer will be leaving our neighborhood as his lease is not renewed. He remains
in our community and his network of illegal activity will continue to pose a hazard to our collective
being.
We request your assistance in resolving this difficult situation.
Sincerely,
Longfellow Nei. ghbors
see attached (Attachment confidential )
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 14, 1997
To: The Honorable Mayor Naomi Novick and Members of the City Council
From: Sarah E. Holecek, Assistant City Attorney ~
Re: OPEN RECORDS: Letter of Longfellow Neighbors-Confidentiality of Names and
Addresses
The accompanying letter from the neighbors of the Longfellow Neighborhood contains both
public and confidential information; the letter itself is public record and public information, while
the attached listing of names and addresses of persons subscribing to the letter is
confidential, and is marked as such. The two types of information, and their resulting treat-
ment, are distinguished and explained as follows:
Under Chapter 22 of the Iowa Code (1997), certain information shall be considered confidential
and thus an exception to the general requirement that all records in the custody of a public
body are subject to inspection and copying. Iowa Code §22.7(18) (1997) provides in relevant
part as follows:
22.7 Confidential Records
The following records shall be kept confidential, unless otherwise ordered ......
18. Communications not required by law, rule, or procedure that are made to a govern-
ment body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to
the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons
outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discour-
aged from making them to that government body if they were available for general
public examination. Notwithstanding this provision:
a. The communication is a public record to the extent that the person outside
of government making the communication consents to its treatment as a public
record.
b. Information contained in the communication is a public record to the extent -
that it can be disclosed without directly or indirectly indicating the identity of the
person outside of government making it or enabling others to ascertain the
identity of that person.
c. Information contained in the communication is a public record to the extent
that it indicates the date, time, specific location, and immediate facts and circum-
stances surrounding the occurrence of a crime or other illegal act...
The accompanying letter from the neighbors of the Longfellow Neighborhood dated July 7,
1997 contains as a separate attachment the names and addresses of persons signing the letter
as subscribing to the views and allegations it contains. Please also note that the neighbors
have specifically requested that their names and addresses be kept confidential pursuant to
Chapter 22, which request is clearly allowed and even mandated by the law. ("...shall be kept
confidential .... ").
First, per their request, it is clear that the neighbors are NOT consenting to the names and
addresses of subscribing persons being treated as a public record. Second, in keeping only
the names and addresses of the subscribing neighbors confidential, the substance of the
communication maintains its public record status while minimizing the ability of others to
ascertain the identities of the communicating persons. Last, all information in the communica-
tion regarding the factual allegations of the complained of illegal activity are being made public
record with the letter, Thus, the names and addresses of the Longfellow neighbors
subscribing to the letter are confidential information which shall not be disseminated to
the public under Chapter 22, while the substantive issues and the letter itself is public
record open for inspection and discussion.
CC:
Eleanor Dilkes; City Attorney
Steve Atkins, City Manager
Marian Karr, City Clerk
CAO Opinion File
sarah\council\Ch22conf. mmo