HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-06-01 Correspondence
I! ¡ CITY OF IOWA CITY I ~f(1°; I
::::~::::'_~!t
f~~W~ MEMORANDUM
"'-.... ~aa ~
.....~
Date: May 19, 2004
To: City Clerk ()tÝ
From: Anissa Williams, JCCOG Traffic Engineering Planner
Re: Item for June 1, 2004 City Council Meeting: Loading Zone signs in the Central Business
District, listed on page 2, time limit will be modified from 30 MINUTE LIMIT back to 15
MINUTE LIMIT as stated in City Code.
As directed by Title 9, Chapter 1, Section 3B of the City Code, this is to advise the City Council
of the following action.
Action:
Pursuant to Section 9-1-3A(18), Loading Zone signs in the Central Business District, listed on
page 2, time limit will be changed from 30 MINUTE LIMIT back to 15 MINUTE LIMIT as stated
in City Code.
Comment:
This action is being taken at the Parking Division's request to correct the time limit that was
erroneously changed to 30 minutes on the April 6, 2004 Council Consent Calendar.
Mgr\agenda\cbdloading15Iimit.doc
.....,
0 C:I
C~
~fo .J:.'"
-"".
.-'-'-·~.l ?;~.
-< il
I'J ,_.-
-
~ -,]
--,
C) - ..J
> -
..
):> I'J
CD
Iowa City Loading Zones
Street Block Style Limit Notes
Jefferson 200E Loading 6am - 1pm Sunday
300E Loading 15min
Clinton 10S Loading 15min Enforced 6am - 5pm, Mon-Sat
100S Loading 15min Enforced 6am - 5pm, Mon-Sat
200S Loading 15min Enforced 6am - 5pm, Mon-Sat
Iowa Avenue 500E Loading Both sides of street
Bloomington 300E Loading no posting
400E Loading No posting
Gilbert 200N Loading 15min
Johnson 300N Loading No posting (Zion Lutheran Church)
College 300E Loading 15min Enforced 6am-6pm, Mon-Sat
700E No parking Sun. 6am-1pm
Prentiss 10W Loading 15 Min 8-5 Mon - Fri
Court 200E Loading
Capitol 100S Loading 15Min
100S Loading 15min Enforced 9am-5pm
Washington 100E Loading 15min Enforced 6am - 5pm, Mon-Sat (Both sides)
200E Loading 15min Enforced 9am-9pm
r--..)
0 (--:.~,
C'..:.;:.
50 -k--
,--.... _.,-,".
- ~,.-.". ~_..
.........:.:.: -1'1
N -
-
-
þo 11
-""- ,."-'
c:) - ",J
<:; -
); ..
N
CD
I ~ ! CITY OF IOWA CITY []:J
~~~"""~ft:
f~~~:ti MEMORANDUM
...-:::...... _lID"
.....~
Date: May 18, 2004
To: City Clerk ~
From: Anissa Williams, JCCOG Traffic Engineering Planner
Re: Item for June 1, 2004 City Council meeting: Installation of 2 STOP signs at the
driveways exiting the Iowa City Water Plant at Dubuque Street
As directed by Title 9, Chapter 1, Section 3B of the City Code, this is to advise the City Council
of the following action.
Action:
Pursuant to Section 9-1-3A(5), installation of 2 STOP signs at the driveways exiting the Iowa
City Water Plant at Dubuque Street
Comment:
This action is being taken at the request of the Iowa City Public Works Department to provide
better safety as vehicles exit onto Dubuque Street.
mgr/agenda/walerplantstopsigns. doc
r-,)
0 c-;;,~
ç':'--;;I
;:-->() -
...,~::..!. ~~
.J.-~·-i --< il
..-.... _.~
( ) N -
--
---=-1 (~.~ -
.<', .. -n
n'-: ".
-.- -~"1 '--"I
Cl ::'.;~_:~ - '"...)
<:./',- -
~ ..
N
0::>
~ 1 CITY OF IOWA CITY I:=:J
~~:'''';~ft:
~~W;!: MEMORANDUM
-..;:;:""... "IIII'~
...,.....
Date: May 25, 2004
To: City Clerk
From: Anissa Williams, JCCOG Traffic Engineering Planner
Re: Item for June 1, 2004 City Council meeting: Installation of Iowa City Transit bus stop on
the northeast corner of the intersection of Ruppert Road/lowa Highway 1
As directed by Title 9, Chapter 1, Section 38 of the City Code, this is to advise the City Council
of the following action.
Action:
Pursuant to Section 9-1-3A(19), installation of Iowa City Transit bus stop on the northeast
corner of the intersection of Ruppert Road/Iowa Highway 1
Comment:
This action is being taken at the request of Iowa City Transit to provide a bus stop for the Lodge
housing development.
Mgr/agenda/hwy1lodgebu sstop.doc
0 ""'"
e::.~,
C.~,
;~O -~
.--
-ç II
N -
(J1
-..~~~
" i ¡ ¡
0 ~ ·'-1
__.oj
-=- -
~ ..
c.v
W
r;o
1101 Tower Court
May 18, 2004
Iowa City City Council
410 E. Washington St.
Iowa City, IA 52240
Dear Council Members,
I wish to cite a highly inequitable form of taxation being practiced by the
City of Iowa City. Residents with sidewalks are being asked to be individually
responsible for sidewalk repairs while homeowners in their immediate
neighborhoods without sidewalks, but who use ours are not being assessed.
Sidewalks, as public domains are used more by passing pedestrians than by the
home owners on whose property the sidewalk exists. Yet the responsibility for
installation and repair currently falls solely on the owners.
There are numerous locations in our immediate neighborhood where there
are no sidewalks, even some immediately adjacent to the Oakknoll retirement
residence where many seniors walk. On our particular street the 1001, 1002,
1003,1004,1005,1008, and 1009 residences have no sidewalks. These are the
people who use our walk more than we yet pay none of the costs. The 60 to 134
block of Marietta (including the north side of the city-owned Tower Court Park)
has no sidewalks on either side. Oakcrest street (also a city bus route) has no
sidewalks in the 900 and 1000 blocks and at 1130 opposite Oakknoll Retirement
Home. Oakknoll Drive has no sidewalk along its entire east side. The 600 block
of George Street has no sidewalk, Benton Court (700 block) has no sidewalk on
its west side (also adjacent to Oakknoll Ret. Res.). Streb Street has no sidewalk
on its west side and the 260 and 266 residences on Marietta have no sidewalks.
I'm sure there are many more missing sections.
I suggest that a city-wide sidewalk tax or assessment would be more
equitable approach to sidewalk maintenance with the City assuming
responsibility for repairs rather than individual homeowners.
People without children help to support our school system and the
sidewalk system is an equally public enterprise used by all citizens. I do not
object to clearing snow from my sidewalks in winter but I would like to see other
owners (including those who currently do not have sidewalks) install sidewalks
and share in that responsibility as well. The suggestion (a response I received to
an earlier e-mail) that some of the homes without sidewalks are "grandfathered"
is a false excuse as some of the houses without sidewalks have been
constructed in the past decade and some in the past two years.
Lets make this public works responsibility more equitable and not unfairly
tax only those with sidewalks. "-J
~diaIlY' Ô =
=
..-- -"'"
<0 :::£:
)-~--
Ke~e ~r -I ».
,:':"")-< -< 2J
-- C~i -
Map with missing sidewalk areas highlighted attached. c-< r" <.0 !
m -", ,11
od! :J:: ;---,
::;;:-" 'Y "-.J
» w
-oJ
---.----------- ---------,
otm""rsilyOlI
.~
,-,,~, -<
,
"
~
[;W
Melrose Neighborhood Association
335 Lucon Drive, Iowa City, IA 52246 319/337-5201
To: Members of the Iowa State Board of Regents
From: Jean M. Walker, Representative,
Melrose Neighborhood Association
Date: May 18, 2004
Re: The University of Iowa's tennis and recreation facility plan
A month ago, I sent you a letter expressing the concerns of our Neighborhood about
the University's long-term plans for its campus and how they might affect our
Neighborhood. We would very much appreciate a response to that letter.
The need for long-term plans is underscored by the topic of placement of the tennis
and recreation facilities. For example, at your April meeting it was suggested that
these facilities be within walking distance of the students near the downtown area.
Such deliberations raise two issues:
1. Should a single topical item determine the University's planning process? What
happens when the next topical item appears? And the next?
2. The University is continually expanding. At some point, not all of its new facilities
will fit close to downtown or close to the current West Campus. Therefore, a long-
term plan needs to be drawn up to decide, as has already been done with the
Oakdale Campus, which parts of the University will need to be located further out of
Iowa City and plans made to provide adequate easy transportation between the
various areas of the University.
As I stated in my previous letter, such long-term planning should be done in
collaboration with the City of Iowa City and, in the case of residential areas such as the
Melrose Neighborhood, with input from representatives of those residential areas.
I look forward to your response to this and my previous letter.
Thank you,
Jean M. Walker
Copies to UI and Iowa City officials
- -.-.. ~_. -~~--~-_.._--_.._. -"~'-----
Marian Karr [];J
From: Dale Helling
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 9:48 AM
To: 'Max King'
Cc: 'City Council; Kathryn Johansen
Subject: RE: research
Dear Max,
Thank you for your recent ernail correspondence to the City Council.
Council members do not receive their email directly and your message
will be forwarded to them. Since several of your questions are intended
for individual Council members' responses, you should feel free to
contact them directly. Their names and telephone numbers are listed on
the City website. Go to www.icgov.org and on the right under "City
Council" click on "Members".
The City has not gathered information about how the ordinance has
affected any individual businesses. You would have to get that input
directly from some of the business OWners. I assume you are referring
primarily to bar owners. Also, it was agreed last year that the impact
of this ordinance would be assessed after a year to determine how
effective it has or has not been in reducing the effects of underage
drinking. That assessment will take place in late sununer, probably
August, and will be included on the agenda of the Council meeting at
which it will be discussed.
Good luck with your project.
Dale Helling
Assistant City Manager
cc Kathi Johansen, Administrative Assistant
-----Original Message-----
From: Max King [mailto:kyboking22@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 1:50 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: research
To whom it may concern:
My name is Max Radl, and I am a senior in an AP
goverment class at Iowa City High School. Currently we
are involved in a project concerning local
government--my topic of choice was the 19 and older
ordinance (provision 4-5-8 ) and I have a few questions
for you and the council:
Has provision 4-5-8 affected downtown business in any
way at all?
-If so, how has it affected them?
-If not, could it affect any of them in the future?
What is your stance on the provision?
Do you feel the provision has had a positive or
negative effect on the Iowa City community as a whole,
specifically the downtown area?
Should the law be changed in any way, if so- how?
Do you have any other bits of information on this
1
topic?
Thank you very much for your time.
sincerely,
M.R.
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price.
http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/
2
.-. -~ --------~--~_.,_._.
I 06-01-0L
3f(7 ,
------- --.'-- -------- --.-.-.---- -- .,------~_.--._-_.-- ..._--------~--_..__....__._. .-.....----.-------.---,--.--...
~--_.,------_._..__._-----_.__._----- .-------.---------.------.---.-..------.
_._._---,~-- .__._._-"_._._---~--_.__._--~_.---- --------
.--------~~s--~-Æ~-(l~~2.._-
---_-n--..-.~-.~-C{S.-CL.---~ ' _
I ~a..--\.Á 4Ar~¡J, ..Jl...if-~~ i?- ~, j;;-H-'~"
!_-- ". -------:-0I1-SC#-O'--~C241..¿L- W~C!d-~
--- ,m--~_.~_~'-fJ4~~-~¿J2~~S
--.. ~ I:'~-- o-dl-r- ~_-'-c.__ ~-I-~IAI?,1) __ .,..,,_
--- _~,o.--<- ~-CÄ4i..!tL--W~z:;;-a.-~..
__n.___......._.___ - "0 ._~_ "'_"'_' ___ ________.___.______._____.._.~_._.____~_____ .______________._.._...
-- W~ ~,.~ ~--io.-<--~ z
.-.- --<-U...uæ..,-.,~"'~ $.o,Æ:::_~-~~~.-<J.<2n"A...,
'ifÎ .. ..
--------- "---.---- -0..+- ~-0tJ~-<-U/-L---- ..' ( .. ~r----
'm_.'..~_~ L{;ù()¡..aJ'I2---~ ~
'_n_ ) .
~~ - ~....
--. '----" T ~--~--r...û,)~P7¿ -- të..ø.c.~.-<)._----------
____ ____00_____..- _n_ __ "____._._____.___._________________.,____,..._,______,_____.___.._.__________.____________ ._____
.- m --------Th~-~-'iPU---~-C-~ "'~íL.-£f!! &,....:vQ.."u[) ---
___________ _m____.__~..---____.__________.____.___m_.___ . ___... . _____...._
, . ---- .--- ., -- ,---- -------~
__m_ ___m__ , "--~K~~
....--- --- --- -- - -- - - --- -~
--- _n '..'." ,---J(Lrf-o--&, ZT--(?~lJv-!!..3();
Wv191.}lO \;!¡VIOI ~-'ù---~'\--~-.-S-O(.;¿'iõ-
C31~)3 5 ~= ':(5 l-'f
>iC!j ,/ In
~-'-- \....
5 è : 1/ ¡'IV 8 I A VN f¡OiJZ
eEl 1I::l
..
1.,.,
N s:
.. .
- "'/>
" -
L......1 :c "'=<..""
,..,'~- -~~
W =: I"
_..'-.J
.-.~ )-~
_J 0:> r ,,¡
'-.Ji-
LL - ,__u PETITION
)0- ¡
"'''''71: ,-- ---
:::r: u:::.~
_':r ::>
D~ to thé£apid growth both in construction and population of the area east of
Scott Blvd., there are some amenities that are of great need in the area. An
additional concern is the number of residents in the area that are over the age of
55. For example, Regency Heights on Scott Park Drive, consisting of 75
apartments and all residents are over 55 years of age.
Three items that are most needed in this area are:
1. A four way stop at the comer of Scott Blvd. and Court Street
During busy traffic times it is almost impossible or dangerous ~ ' fo :i
to turn onto or acrOSS Scott Blvd. Cí/SCJ $'"/ý''J q/ Wµ5
o Þ1' ~ a/}
2. Bus stops and service east of Scott Blvd. 61 vJ.
Specifically in an areas like Regency Heights, where not all
residents are able to walk a distance
3. Handicap curbs at the comers of intersections of Scott Blvd.
Especially on both sides of Scott Blvd. at Scott Part Drive
and Court Street
If you agree with these three requests, please sign below and this petition will be
-. given to the city of 10Ùa City for consideration. . Thank yS ~ ·I( ¡} J;
_Name (3 ")¡j~ Address/¿?/O 0# q~. .
:0:: ~ 2-, C,
_ .'_~~-"24/ ) /p/¿/ yfr'~~~.~j07
:rd;í}{/\wt:1v / C i 0 6 &(J;if Pþ D ( é~ / Dtf
I . ,,. ¿ ,/)' /J ,t'd;rU.tu
:,zcr.Cu,'v-fJJ..t fW.ß- lOirJ f¿iE l' f~, ì .Úi·/~;}.O &c\l~'¿1-'f
ð ló S u1 PI( ()\,- þ- ScV fC
'(\ WID ~ ¡ ~I"/:IG
>< ,,~ 10/ cJ5bc~ ¡c
X' II /ð J() ¥/¿i¿
.~ ' -it.., CJ ') TC-
G
C:> ~ .-' -1 , ~3 é ')J-:IS-
Y---. ~~~~-V¡ I I II il I I tf :J.-6 4 T(
¡ , ....------'
. -
----'.',- .'.-
-...--.--.----....-..-.,- ..~~-._--,------_._-
-
Name
, ¿;t3U
.! k ¿r--
'c _' n·/r,'7¿;?-, '>.~éì
It' /('/.J G -'I r,,·h'-r<. 0 I~--> II '-- I
¡ 0/ 0 ~? ~J tþ ~0 k:. 'Ùr. +r-('~
- é/ I) . 1>tc.· r. _ r,- 1," " :¡:t~~
, \-'è LUIì1I.t! ~ l.. t ,IÓlú $..,(:·i'7 1 ;< . 7. f /f ¡:I. ,;9/.:2-
Qt"d l'Á./ 7LU\1 L-lrLT /tJítJ SCt?l'~ j)/('D/21:(!/.#1I 'Y:Þ
~1.<~~L>' ."'f -7Jh1J!..-&v0XJ iC'/é .%e.::¡( rJ41-Á-- lML.j: ¡ijJ I ¿( 3 ..::w- e
" .,
.~ /-UU4-V (0 I '-' ,~ ¡::'CV'''''¿ fi-L;¡ ~}( 5 ..T<! .
C ;r -:kl-v .'\ ~ Lv", ,-cc.. ( L() I ( ç I:}-O , ~ ''''':/J-'< ") '-- 1C
.~ :1 ';) e~ If" ~
. )(li~ /.... A'ô Ad..ôJ-- .. :5 ¿) 1 Ie
~(-ln_<,,,jlcv \\!J\LÀ Lit!- 1.1 3 c! (I .Ie
\ ~ - .Tr
,).,~ t^ \ n. (At'" r-.. '" (,4()f:- - I'D ~
.
,
.
~
r¡
In «
C'-I
.. 5:
- Xc
r''- --'
(.... ::c mJ._~
I---' """ LjJ~ --.,.:
Lq ~~ / .
ro ut::
.. "\
- >-~_. ,
~ U- :- '=="'t
...,-:(,
:,1:: O:Z-
- '0
ç-;?
='
~...:
-
. --.....- .. ~
/ fWJ~
' .
.
Name Address
J?A1 PDT\[R lObO ~ ~16.,-CLY
S c=n-f1.:\R. \e::... D 1<.. l éJ 3,
Þ <--'-. þJ f{~<;. J ~ (, (,. Ci;- \'\.. "ItJr?- '4"f I \'~,'J '11-1.-
~., ,
ìO (,,6 5<-+11 r",...kor -< ~ ~".,-ç+;' f.; ~
i::..--. /ð 0 ~ ~of
--Þ-
/07
1-1 J.A
6~1- '-//1L
'3 3q - 'ð % .
~ ~-ì-¡
'3g1-~1 -
If') 4'
N :z: ~t'"
.. vb
:::: r?~ f
(\ ~ '\J
. , ::i '-'" \":;:--:
Lo---", _-;:"-:::. \.-. .
L1..' .')-
" r:f> '-." c; .
- - --
- r- ç-<.:(
L1- ...'ê!. oz
:;C (')
.¿; --
"'"
"""
.
.
-
.
a;:
LAW OFFICE
JOHN T. NOLAN
22 EAST COURT STREET
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
D.C. NOLAN (1902·1973) TELEPHONE (319) 351-0222
EDWARD W. LUCAS (1909-1980) FAX (319) 351-0224
r-O'
<='
_ c>
May 12,2004 o ::
zO ~
'~;J --" \l
y- ,..-
-- - ,..-
o -,I
Hizzonner, Ernie Lehman the Mayor =--=\ 0 rn
:<F ;: 0
Civic Center -:D -
410 East Washington 8t. ~r -;;
- v:>
Iowa City, IA 52240 J7 -'
Dear Your Honor and Councilors,
While my efforts so far have been an exercise in futility and waste of everybody's
time for having produced no significant achievement, I persist.
While it would make good sense for a forester to plant trees, it makes no sense
whatsoever in my mind to pay somebody to destroy trees. Mother Nature supplies
rree of charge the lightning, wind, and deterioration to do that job very effectively,
and only as needed.
Please stop the destruction of live standing trees and limit the city employees to
planting and trimming of live trees.
-........--.-..---.- -~--"'-"-"'--"'---"- -"-'-"~-_.'" ..._-----------
a;:
Dear Mike O'Donnell
Ernie Lehman
130lJ Elliott
Regenia 13ailey
Connie Champion
Ross WillJurn
Dee Vanderhoef,
I am a student at City High School and want to address a prolJlem on
the eastern side of Iowa City. I don't have knowledge of any plans
alJout what I am purposing lJut I would kindly like to ask for a
response or responses from you. Either way, the prolJlem is what I
call "the river rock roads", these streets are all over eastern Iowa City
and the area around Towncrest. It is the worst along with Crestview
Ave. and Elmridge streets.
There are multiple reasons to fix and not just repair these streets.
From personal hazards to clearance, many prolJlems arise. Drainage
is one of many, when there is a decent rain fall the street of Crestview
Ave. is like a river. More immediate things come to mind to like the
amount of elder people living on these streets. Potholes are
increasing tire damage and over all damage of vehicles. The curlJs of
the streets do not do what they are there for. And during the winter
season the trucks can't fully plow the streets lJecause of the material
of the street, causing: sliding, slipping and possilJly a fender lJender
which no one likes.
So if you, the City Council, could respond to my concerns it would
lJe great. 13ut don't forget to tell me if there are already future plans
and your individual thoughts on this idea, please.
Sincerely,
Adam Vogel ,11th grade
"',
0 =,
[.¡ ìI r!rt5 TV/!.w A 11?:..- (;~':>
:¿:o -""
~
» =-1 =
-< II
:L,"""A C;+y, J-Æ 522-15 0-'-... -
O-'r--.... -.J
,.< ;c." .ll
' ,
m """
-- -roo' :3:: C:J
O-"j
^ -
;.?: -
..
» w
-.J
......._~-_._----_..._- - --_._"'--' ----,~~.__.._-". -----'---- ----.
r;¡
Marian Karr
From: mrsggal21 [mrsggaI21@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 9: 15 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: Dog Park
I am thrilled that a potential site has been chosen for the dog
park. I know there is a lot of enthusiasm for the park. Our dogs
need a place to run and play with other dogs. They really aren't
allowed to run off leash in any of the parks in the area.
I hope that you will support the park by putting in the road
and making the necessary parking lot improvements. I am confident
the group will be able to raise the funds to make the park top notch
and a great asset to the community and citizens.
Thank you for your continued support of the project.
Sincerely,
Karen Greenleaf
1
Marian Karr
From: Kathleen Janz [kathleen-janz@uiowa.edu]
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 8:01 PM
To: cou nci I@iowa-city.erg
Subject: dog park
Dear Council Members,
Thank you for approving a portion of the Peninsula area for a dog
park. This is a much need recreation space in Iowa City and I
appreciate
your work to make it happen.
I hope that you will continue to support this citizen-led effort by
directing funds toward the needed road and parking spaces.
Recreation and green space is the key to a liveable community. Again,
thanks.
Kathy Janz
328 Reno St
Iowa City
1
.... -..-... '- --' - --_.._.~-.'---'~---------,--_..._..._-_.-
Page 1 of 1
Marian Karr
From: Spiritbikr@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 1 :09 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: Thank you for voting for the dogpark!
I am sooo happy! I have had to travel to the park in Cedar Rapids and with gas so high, I can't get there as much.
Thanks from Turk the Wonder Dog from Hell and Annie the Snufflemonkey red birddog too! Sincerely, BJ Matson
5/20/2004
---- --...._- '-"~ -.'-.--.---------.----- ---~-------
Page 1 of 1
Marian Karr
--
From: Miller, Elyse [elyse-miller@uiowa.edu]
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 11 :01 AM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: Dog Park
Hi Councilmembers. Many thanks for your approval to proceed with plans to develop an off-leash dog park on a
portion of the Peninsula parkland! All of my neighbors and friends with canine companions (and even those
without) are so appreciative that we will finally have a place of our own in which to see the joy on our dogs' faces.
Also, with the high price of fuel these days, the schlep to Cedar Rapids would become unnecessary and keep more
money in Iowa City.
The reality of the park requires road and parking lot improvements and I ask that you find funding to get this
accomplished so that we can join the ranks of cities with dog parks.
Again, many thanks for this positive move. Maxine, my standard poodle, just turned 8, and I would love for her to
be able to romp in her own park, in her own town as she grows older.
Elyse Miller
1215 2nd Avenue
Iowa City
5/20/2004
Dogbrk Page lofl
Marian Karr
From: 'Debra Roberts [DRoberts@mercycare.org]
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 11:49 AM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: Dog Park
I writing the Council to express my strong support for an off leash dog park, and to ask the Council for your assistance in
funding for a road and parking lot to accommodate the park. I feel the park is so important in many ways. It's a wonderful
place for owners to take their best friends/fur-children to a fenced in area so that they can have the freedom to run and
romp and socialize with other dogs. Rhis concept great for the dogs because socializing is very important, and it's a
another avenue for owners to meet and get to know each other. When I visit my former home of Denver, Colorado, I
always take my Gunner to the dog park near my brother's home, and it is just wonderful to watch these dogs running with
their tails wagging and showing the bigest grin. In route to Denver last summer, we stopped at a truck stop for gas right
inside the border of Colorado, and I was amazed that there was a great fenced in dog area next to the truck stop. It was
set up with picnic tables, water fountain, pooper bags, etc. These dog parks seem to be popping up nation-wide.
Again, I urge the Council to help our dream come true so that we can have a place to romp and play with our best friends.
Thank you.
Debra Roberts & Gunner too!
Confidentiality Notice: This message and any attachments may contain confidential and privileged information
that is protected by law. The infonnation contained herein is transmitted for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient or designated agent of the recipient of such infonnation, you
are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying or retention of this email or the infonnation contained
herein is strictly prohibited and may subject you to penalties under federal and/or state law. If you received this
email in error, please notify the sender immediately and pennanently delete this email.
5/20/2004
..- -~~--- -
Marian Karr
From: lisa schleisman [savvylisa@juno.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 20,20047:13 PM
To: council@iowa-clty.org
Subject: Dog Park
Dear Councilors,
Thank you for your decison this week for the proposed dog park. Your
efforts will be rewarded when you see all those happy dogs and their
people. Good job! Lisa Schleisrnan
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
1
-'....."..-.. . _._"~..-... ""-.- ---- -~--_._._,,- ".- _......_-_._..._----_.~.
I]I[
Marian Karr
From: PETEROFLONETREE@wmconnect.com
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 11 AD AM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: ... Detected as Spam by subject keyword ... gas prices
FYI
For whatever it's worth, I used to drive 3-4 times per week from Lone Tree to Iowa City for shopping, sightseeing, etc.
With the advent of 2 dollar/gallon gas, I now shop In Lone Tree (walking for what I need) or else do without.
Peter Ryan Harty
Box 16
Lone Tree, Iowa
319-629-4322
5/20/2004
._M
I.iã
Marian Karr
From: Shawn Slaven [slaven711@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2004 3:54 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Cc: lathamjr@aoLcom
Subject: municipal power
City of Iowa City Council:
Three weeks ago I published the results of my analysis of Bob Latham's municipal power feasibility analysis in
the Daily Iowan. Mr. Latham response was published several days later. Attached is my full analysis with
several sensitivity analyses based on various inputs that could affect the costs and benefits of the
project. Especially note the spreadsheet attached: it shows exhibit 5 referred to in my paper.
Also attached is my respose to Mr. Latham's letter to the editor published in the Daily Iowan.
Sincerely,
Shawn Slaven
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 23, 2004
Mr. Latham:
Thank you for the feedback in the DI regarding my report on municipal power. I have enclosed a full copy of
my research for your perusal. I think this answers many of the objections you had written about in your letter.
Note especially Figure 5, attached separately, which is a sensitivity analysis based on my assumptions and
changes in the ruB valuation of the Iowa City utility and changes in wholesale prices.
I find it interesting that your letter was incredulous about my argument regarding the discount rate. Future cash
flows should be discounted at the cost of capital, not the incremental cost of borrowing. This is why all
valuations are discounted by the W ACC-the Weighted Average Cost of Capital. While these two numbers may
be the same in many projects, they are not in this case. The cost of capital in this case is unequivocal-the
taxable interest rate of the bonds issued for the project. To be sure of my logic on this issue, I asked three
business school professors, one each from the departments of finance, economics, and accounting, which rate
they would use in such a project. All three said the taxable rate.
Also I believe the Sheldon comparison to be quite relevant. Here's the bottom line: I found the IUB required
Sheldon to pay three times more than they wanted to pay the IPS for the utility. That certainly seems relevant in
this case-what if the IUB hands down a similar decision to Iowa City?
Regarding MidAmerican's revenue freeze, it's public record, not "undocumented". What probability do you
think rates will stay flat? Your analysis implies that probability is zero. My analysis assumes that probability is
100%. The truth obviously lies somewhere in between. If! had it to do over again, I would price in a small
probability of a moderate price increase, but certainly not your assumed price increase of 2% annually.
Finally, the MidAmerican's valuation is quite relevant as well. I made no judgment as to the validity of the $62
million number, but it seems relevant to consider it given the IUB's precedent of favoring the utility's valuation
in these cases. By the way, this valuation analysis was conducted by Black & Veatch, a worldwide leader in
energy consulting. You have not seen or reviewed it because taxpayers did not pay for it, as they did your
5/24/2004
0·..··...-, ._....__.. .- -----. ---, ---.' "-"'- --" ---~---_._---"----_._._------,- ----,
Page 2 of2
report Perhaps MidAmerican will provide you with a copy. Then again, maybe one must be either a
sycophantic apologist or a good journalist to get your hands on a copy.
Thanks again for your input, and I wish you luck in your future endeavors.
Sincerely,
Shawn Slaven
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Domains - Claim YQurs_ for only.J;14JO/yeal
~** eSafe scanned this email for malicious content ***
*** IMPORTANT; Do not open attachments from unrecognized senders ***
5/24/2004
_.....__._--~~---- _____u _ _____~._____." _ _____. _.,-~-
An Analysis of Municipal Power in Iowa City
Shawn Slaven
April 26, 2004
--......-.---..--.......--.- ~.._- --~----~-_.._-----~--
Introduction
In February 2003, the Iowa City Council voted to hire a consultant to investigate the feasibility
of municipalizing the city's electric utility. After five years oflobbying by local grass-roots
groups, the city voted to approve the study and split the cost with the university and eighteen
smaller Iowa cities.
At first glance, it is easy to see the appeal of municipal power. The city would buy the electric
distribution system from MidAmerican Energy and run the utility like they do the local
waterworks. The municipal utility would buy power at wholesale prices ftom independent
generators, pay to have that power transmitted to Iowa City, and distribute it through the city-
owned grid. Ideally, this process would save taxpayers money because generation and transit
costs would remain stable, and the distribution profits could be reinvested in the city-owned
utility or passed on to taxpayers in the form of lower rates.
However, the reality of setting up a municipal utility belies the simple, idealistic scenarios
argued by its advocates. The approval and regulatory process would be long, arduous and
expensive. The condemnation costs are uncertain, and could prove to be too expensive to
continue pursuing the project The city would also have to issue a large amount of debt to pay for
the project The prospect of a large debt issuance to be repaid by electric revenue exposes
taxpayers to a variety of risks, like rapid increases in wholesale electric rates or transmission
costs, or a sudden increase in interest rates that could make the project unfeasible at a late stage
after the city has incurred millions in sunk costs.
In September 2003, the consultancy hired by the City published its results. The "Preliminary
Municipalization Feasibility Study for the City ofIowa City, Iowa", written and researched by
Bob Latham, assessed the costs and benefits of municipal power by developing a Net Present
Value (NPV) model. Latham's two NPV models were based on two valuations ofIowa City's
distribution network: "original costs depreciated" and "replacement costs depreciated", and
assumed retail and wholesale electric prices would increase 2% per year for 30 years. His results
were astounding: under his original cost depreciated model, the NPV of the project was $83.6
million. Under the replacement cost model, the NPV of the project was $61.5 million. These
massive numbers imply the City ofIowa City could save millions of dollars by municipalizing
the utility.
When Latham presented his results to the City Council, he said, "Our purpose is not to sell the
idea or to fight for it" Yet his assumptions and estimates demonstrate that this may not be the
case. Much of Latham's model uses aggressive estimates future retail rates, and uses a very
conservative and suspect method discounting future cash flows. Further, the Latham Report
failed to provide a sensitivity analysis for potentially volatile inputs like retail and wholesale
prices, municipal bond rates, the condemnation costs, and discount rates.
The most disappointing aspect of the Latham Report is not the poor quality ofthe model, but the
lack of critical analysis given to it by the City Council and local journalists. City Council
members took the report at face value, and both the Daily Iowan and the Press-Citizen said "The
..,.-..---. --.. ---~-- ...-..----.---.,--- -'-'--'--~~-'-~-' '_'__'_~T
study found that Iowa City could save between $60 million and $83 million" with municipal
power. Leaders fÌ'om Citizens for Public Power, The grass-roots organization behind the
municipalization movement, quote the same figures when asked for comment on the issue. This
gives taxpayers who will vote on the issue in 2005 the impression that the report is wholly
accurate, and that the final condemnation costs will be between the original and replacement
costs when they would almost certainly be far higher. The remainder of this paper will evaluate
inputs of the Latham model, and provide a sensitivity analysis of those inputs in hopes of
providing Iowa City with a more objective viewpoint. The results paint a far bleaker picture of
municipal power than Latham and other public power advocates would have you believe. By
building on the Latham Report, fixing its flaws and addressing other relevant issues Latham's
study ignored, this analysis will give city councilors and taxpayers a more accurate and in-depth
idea of the risks and rewards implicit in the public power project.
Discount and Interest Rates
One of the most aggressive assumptions in the Latham Report is his method of discounting
future cash flows in his NPV models. If Iowa City were to municipalize, the city would have to
issue a large amount of debt to pay MidAmerican for the condemnation of its assets. Typically,
the interest on typical municipal debt is considered free from federal taxes. This makes
municipal interest rates significantly lower than other types of debt. Yet Iowa City could not
issue tax-fÌ'ee bonds to condemn the electric utility. Federal law stipulates interest on this debt
would be taxable to bondholders. Therefore, interest rates on this debt will be about 300 basis
points higher than regular municipal debt.
Latham understands this, and applies a 7.5% interest rate on the debt to acquire the utility,l
However, he uses the 4.5% tax-fÌ'ee rate to discount future cash flows, which produces a far
higher NPV than the more appropriate 7.5% cost of debt. Latham justifies this by saying 4.5% is
the incremental cost of debt if Iowa City were to issue debt to pay for a road, school, or other
government project.
Some capital budgeting does use the incremental cost of debt to produce a discount rate for
future cash flows. This rate is used because it will be equal to the true cost of debt: the current
market price of existing and yet-to-be issued debt. This project is an unusual case: the
incremental cost of debt if the city were not to take the project is not equal to the cost of debt if it
does take the project. Since we are attempting to produce a capital budget that assumes we will
take the project, we must use the higher taxable cost of debt, not the lower incremental rate.
Using the incremental tax-free rate doesn't make sense unless you are certain the city would
issue this debt for another purpose. Should Iowa City not pursue municipalization, those bonds
would simply not be issued, and the money would stay in the pocketbooks of local taxpayers.
Therefore, the tax-free rate is irrelevant, and the only discount rate that should be considered is
the market rate for taxable bonds issued to pursue the project.
1 This is roughly where current rates are for AAA municipal insured revenue bonds. I apply a 30 bps increase to the
interest rate Iowa City would have to pay to account for the difference in risk between this project at a AAA insured
revenue bond. In reality, this premium may be much higher.
.----- --...,.-- --. --·..__·_··_··"+_·_··___·_···__·~_____,.____,u__._______.____
Figure I shows that using a taxable cost of debt interest rate to discount future cash flows would
cause the NPV of the project to decrease $21 million.
Figure I
Sensitivitv Analvsis of
ChanQe in Discount Rates
Discount Rate NPV
Latham Rate: $ 61,564,389
9.5% $ 32,121,428
9.0% $ 34,072,339
8.5% $ 36,189,928
8.0% $ 38,490,768
7.5% $ 40,993,262
7.0% $ 43,717,852
6.5% $ 46,687,269
6.0% $ 49,926,807
5.5% $ 53,464,635
5.0% $ 57,332,154
4.5% $ 61,564,389
4.0% $ 66,200,445
3.5% $ 71,284,017
3.0% $ 76,863,969
Latham Interest Rates, wholesale
and retail prices rising 2% annually
Condemnation Costs
When public power advocates and Iowa City's newspaper quoted the benefits of
municipalization to be "between $60 million and $83 million", they were referring to the net
present value of Latham's original cost and replacement cost models. These cost estimates
attempt to assess how much Iowa City would have to pay MidAmerican to acquire the utility.
The original cost model values the utility based on what MidAmerican and its predecessors
originally paid to install the system, less an annual depreciation charge. By contrast, the
replacement cost depreciated model values the utility based on what it would cost to replace the
entire system, less a depreciation charge to represent the deterioration of value due to the age of
the current system relative to a completely new one. Inflation causes the "replacement cost
depreciated" model to exhibit significantly higher cost than the "original cost depreciated"
modeL Latham estimates the original cost of the Iowa City distribution system to be $8,603,588,
while the replacement cost estimate is $10,859,658.
Public power advocates insist original cost method is a better way to value a utility, but original
cost estimates ignore the true value of any asset: what someone else would be willing to pay for
it. Since we don't know what someone would be willing to pay for Iowa City's electric utility,
one could logically assume that the value of the assets should be what MidAmerican would have
to pay to replace those assets and customers. Moreover, the value of the asset is the present value
of future cash flows-that should be equal to the replacement cost depreciated. "Original cost
depreciated" would compensate MidAmerican only for its historical costs and would ignore
-..-.-..-- --.- ---. -·--_·_~-~---·_··-~-·-···-'·~·'-·--···---__·_'_··_·r_ ----
future cash flows entirely. Condemning an asset at original cost would be akin to the
government using eminent domain to buy your house, and only giving you what you paid for it,
rather than what it would cost to buy a new house. Public power advocates counter that since
retail electric rates are set using original costs, the condemnation cost should reflect original
costs as well, because they represent how profitable the assets will be in the future. If this is the
case, why wouldn't the replacement cost of those assets be the same as the original costs? No
utility would pay more for assets than they can expect to gain from them in the future.
Beyond the largely academic and philosophical reasons for ignoring Latham's original cost
estimates, the Iowa Utility Board has set a precedent for using replacement cost estimates when
valuing the condemnation price of a local utility.
In 1990, the City of Sheldon petitioned the ruB to condemn the electric utility assets of the Iowa
Public Service Company. The case fell under IUB jurisdiction because in municipalization cases
where the city and incumbent utility cannot agree on a price, the ruB detennines a price that they
believe fairly compensates the utility for giving up their assets. In their binding opinion, the ruB
states, "original cost less depreciation clearly is not an acceptable methodology." The Board also
made clear that there is a distinct difference between valuation for condemnation and rate setting
purposes: "GCLD prices the historic investment in rate base of a utility, but it does not further an
attempt to value fairly the physical assets to be transferred from IPS to Sheldon... The Board
finds that RCLD is a reasonable methodology to employ in valuing the IPS facilities."
Unless Latham can explain how the Iowa City case differs from the Sheldon case to overrule this
precedent, the City Council should count on using RCLD.
Even if the City Council uses their RCLD estimate to value the utility, there is an incredible
distance between Latham's and MidAmerican's estimates of what the assets are worth. As
previously mentioned, Latham values the RCLD cost of the utility at approximately $10.8
million. Documents obtained trom MidAmerican show that they believe the RCLD value of the
assets are worth $62 million.
The Sheldon case also sets a poor precedent when comparing the city's RCLD valuation to that
of the utility. Sheldon's RCLD proposal valued the utility's assets at $4.9 million, while IPS
believed they were worth $14 million. The Board detennined Sheldon would have to pay IPS
$13.1 million as fair value for the assets to implement municipalization.
When considering the public power issue, the Iowa City Council should ignore Latham's GCLD
methodology, and focus not only on RCLD, but also on what the IUB will wind up ordering the
city to pay MidAmerican. This amount is very likely to be far higher than Latham's $10.8
million estimate, possibly as much as five times higher.
......----....--..---..- -- -_.,,- .....~.._-~--_. _.,,---------_.~-----.- --' ------ ...------
Figure 2
Sensitivitv Analvsis of ChanQinQ Buvout prices
Buyout price NPV
$10,859,658 $ 26,454,378 Latham Price
$15,000,000 $ 22,314,614
$20,000,000 $17,315,308
$25,000,000 $ 12,316,002
$30,000,000 $ 7,316,696
$35,000,000 $ 2,317,390
$37,317,312 $ - o NPV Project
$40,000,000 $ (2,681,916)
$45,000,000 $ (7,681,223)
$50,000,000 $(12,680,529)
$55,000,000 $(17,679,835)
$60,000,000 $(22,679,141)
$62,000,000 $(24,678,864) MEC Price
Given 1% wholesale price increases through 2011 and
2% thereafter, and current interest rates:
7.77% discount rate
7.77% interest rate, 5.28% muni-bond rate
Flat retail prices through 2011 and up 2% thereafter
MidAmerican's Retail Rate Freeze
The Latham Report assumes MidAmerican's retail prices will rise 2% annually. In October
2003, less than one month after Latham presented his report to the City Council, MidAmerican
reached an agreement with the Iowa Utility Board to freeze retail rate revenues through 2010.
Since this "revenue freeze" comes at the same time MidAmerican has pledged to hannonize rates
in the South and East Iowa utility zones by lowering rates in the South, this revenue treeze
means rates in Iowa City will not rise for at least six years.
The agreement also extends MidAmerican's previous revenue sharing agreement. MidAmerican
contributes half of profits above 11.75% ROE, and all profits above 15% ROE to an account
used for environmental improvements. MidAmerican expects to spend $260 million on such
improvements through 2011; money in excess of that required for these improvements is
returned to ratepayers. Over the past six years, the customers' share received through this
agreement has been $194 million. The rate treeze and revenue sharing agreement means
customers share in efficiency gains made by MidAmerican.
Getting back to the public power issue, this price treeze causes a huge change in the NPV of the
municipalization project. Figure 3 demonstrates this change by adjusting Latham's original
model for potential changes in discount rates with and without the treeze in retail prices:
Figure 3
Sensitivity Analvsis of Sensitivity Analysis of Chan¡¡e in Discount Rates
Chan¡¡e in Discount Rates Given Electric Prices remain constant until 2011
Discount Rate NPV Muni. Rate NPV
9.5% $ 32,121,428 9.5% $ 1,381,214
9.0% $ 34,072,339 9.0% $ 1,501,704
8.5% $ 36,189,928 8.5% $ 1,644,266
8.0% $ 38,490,768 8.0% $1,811,886
7.5% $ 40,993,262 7.5% $ 2,007,933
7.0% $ 43,717,852 7.0% $ 2,236,209
6.5% $ 46,687,269 6.5% $ 2,501,011
6.0% $ 49,926,807 6.0% $2,807,190
5.5% $ 53,464,635 5.5% $ 3,160,230
5.0% $ 57,332,154 5.0% $ 3,566,329
4.5% $ 61,564,389 4.5% $ 4,032,494
4.0% $ 66,200,445 4.0% $ 4,566,652
3.5% $ 71,284,017 3.5% $ 5,177,771
3.0% $ 76,863,969 3.0% $ 5,876,004
Latham Interest Rates, wholesale retail rates remain constant, wholesale rates rise 2%
and retail prices rising 2% annually Latham Interest Rates
At the more appropriate discount rate of7.5%, MidAmerican's price ÍÌeeze produces a $39
million decrease in the NPV of municipalization (roughly the difference between $40,993,262
and $2,007,933 in the above chart). If other assumptions prove accurate, it would only take a
small increase in condemnation costs to make public power a losing proposition for Iowa City
taxpayers.
Wholesale Prices
Ofthe major factors impacting municipalization, the price of wholesale power is by far the most
important input. Since they generate all of their own electricity, MidAmerican is not exposed to
changes in the price of wholesale energy. MidAmerican only participates in the wholesale spot
market when they can acquire capacity for less than their cost of generation. By contrast, Iowa
City would have to enter into long-tenn contracts to buy electricity at wholesale prices.
Lack of pricing transparency oflong-tenn electricity contracts makes historical volatility
impossible to calculate. However, spot market prices are extremely volatile: between 2001 and
2003, spot market prices in the Midwest ISO averaged about 300%2 Spot market prices are
obviously going to be more volatile than long-tenn contracts, but the spot market's extreme
volatility illustrates the risk inherent in running an independent distribution system.
Since we are relatively certain retail prices will now remain constant through 2010, we are left
with how to forecast wholesale prices. Latham uses a recent five-year purchase contract entered
into by a group ofIowa municipal utilities, and assumes wholesale prices will rise 2% annually.
He dismisses the possibility of future volatility by saying, "The City may negotiate an actually
2 FERC "State of the Markets Report" March 2004. Annualized historicat volatitity calculated as the standard
deviation of logarithmic returns, log (price t-price t-1) where the standard deviation is based on all on-peak
weekdays exctuding holidays.
..-,-,.-...-.-----.- ____n___ ..._-_.._-_._.._----_..---_._._~_._._--
power supply contract from an alternative supplier on terms that are more or less favorable than
this contract."
Since Iowa City must bear the burden of risk for increasing wholesale prices, a risk premium
should be applied to assumptions for increases in wholesale prices. If retail rates are assumed to
remain flat until 2011, any wholesale pricing risk premium about 2% makes the municipalization
project unfeasible. However, one could make the case that retail rates will rise if wholesale rates
rise dramatically, because MidAmerican's return on equity could fall below the 10% threshold.
Since there is some correlation between wholesale and retail prices, one cannot assume
wholesale prices will rise too much relative to retail prices. Regardless, without proper historical
data to forecast future prices, this input is particularly difficult to deal with. Ifwe cannot forecast
the most important input of a municipal power model with accuracy, it is difficult to make any
public policy decisions based on the results with confidence.
Taxpayers and City Councilors must decide whether or not they want to bear this risk. The worst
aspect ofthe Latham Report is that it ignores this risk entirely by simplistically assuming prices
will rise 2% annually and not presenting a sensitivity analysis.
Figure 4
Sensitivitv to Chanaes in Wholesale
Prices 2004-2010
$ 1,169,057
-1.00% $ 73,671,811
-0.75% $ 68,005,526
-0.50% $ 62,272,133
-0.25% $ 56,475,771
0.00% $ 50,608,267
0.25% $ 44,676,444
0.50% $ 38,668,325
0.75% $ 32,598,327
1.00% $ 26,454,378
1.25% $ 20,242,259
1.50% $ 13,954,949
1.75% $ 7,600,475
2.00% $ 1,169,057
2.05% $ o NPV Project
2.25% $ (5,333,889)
2.50% $ (11,913,253)
2.75% $ (18,564,123)
3.00% $ (25,291,940)
Assumes flat retail prices from 2004-2010
and Slaven Discount and Interest Rates
2% rise in wholesale prices 2011-2025
Conclusion
_.....,.__.._.._----~-,- - -,_....__.~_.._- _'___._M_
Figure 4 contains what I believe to be the most important sensitivity analysis to the
municipalization proj ect with the most accurate assumptions of other inputs. It uses market
interest rates, discounts future cash flows at the taxable market cost of debt, applies the
MidAmerican rate freeze through 2010, and analyzes how much the city would gain or lose
based on the risk it is taking: buying wholesale power at uncertain rates. A 2.05% annual
increase in wholesale rates between today and 2010 would produce a 0 NPV project
However, the city must also expect condemnation costs to be far higher than the $10.8 million
cost assumed by Latham. Figure 5 produces a two-way sensitivity analysis that produces NPVs
for various combinations of condemnation costs and changes in wholesale prices.
This paper has addressed what I consider to be the major flaws in the Latham Report. The
sensitivity analyses contained in this paper outline how the net present value of municipalization
should be viewed: not as one number based on one set of assumptions, but as a series of numbers
based on the wide variety of possible outcomes and risks inherent in the project. Viewing
municipalization this way will allow voters and city officials to make a more objective and
informed decision.
References:
Various Press Citizen and Daily Iowan news articles and editorials
Iowa Department of Justice, Office of the Consumer Advocate
FERC "Report on the State of the Markets" March 2004,
http://www.ferc. gOV /legal/ferc- regs/land -docs/ som - 2003. pdf
State of Iowa Department of Commerce, Utilities Board RE: MidAmerican Energy Company.
Docket No. RPU-03-1 (IUB 2003)
State of Iowa Department of Commerce, Utilities Division: City of Sheldon vs. IPS, Docket No.
SPU-88-7, 114 PUR 4th 482 (lUB 1990).
"Principles for Valuing a Municipal Distribution Utility in 1998" Michael F. Sheehan, Produced
for the American Public Power Association, May 1998.
"Preliminary Municipalization Feasibility Study for the City of Iowa City, Iowa-Scenario II"
Latham and Associates, Presented to the City ofIowa City September 29,2003
"Considerations in Governmental Acquisitions of Utility System Properties" Black & Veatch
White Paper by Larry Loos and Tom Sullivan, prepared for the Iowa Utility Assocation, May
2003.
H_""__'_ --.-.-. -~.". -'--"~-'^- ~...-
Sensitivity Analvsis of ChanQe in Discount Rates Sensitivity Analvsis of
Given Electric Prices remain constant until 2011 ChanQe in Discount Rates
Muni. Rate NPV Muni. Rate NPV
$ 26,454,378
9.5% $ 1,381,214 9.5% $ 21,554,136
9.0% $ 1,501,704 9.0% $ 22,825,538
8.5% $ 1,644,266 8.5% $ 24,209,073
8.0% $ 1,811,886 8.0% $ 25,716,172
7.5% $ 2,007,933 7.5% $ 27,359,545
7.0% $ 2,236,209 7.0% $ 29,153,336
6.5% $ 2,501,011 6.5% $ 31,113,298
6.0% $ 2,807,190 6.0% $ 33,256,985
5.5% $ 3,160,230 5.5% $ 35,603,979
5.0% $ 3,566,329 5.0% $ 38,176,138
4.5% $ 4,032,494 4.5% $ 40,997,881
4.0% $ 4,566,652 4.0% $ 44,096,508
3.5% $ 5,177,771 3.5% $ 47,502,567
3.0% $ 5,876,004 3.0% $ 51,250,267
retail rates remain constant, wholesale rates rise 2% Slaven Discount and interest rates
Latham Interest Rates flat retail rates and 1% inc. in wholesale rates to 2010
2% inc. in each after 2010.
Sensitivity Analvsis of ChanQinQ Buvout prices Sensitivitv to ChanQes in Wholesale
Buyout price NPV Prices 2004-2010
$ 10,859,658 $ 26,454,378 Latham Price $ 1,169,057
$ 15,000,000 $ 22,314,614 -1.00% $ 73,671,811
$ 20,000,000 $ 17,315,308 -0.75% $ 68,005,526
$ 25,000,000 $ 12,316,002 -0.50% $ 62,272,133
$ 30,000,000 $ 7,316,696 -0.25% $ 56,475,771
$ 35,000,000 $ 2,317,390 0.00% $ 50,608,267
$ 37,317,312 $ - o NPV Project 0.25% $ 44,676,444
$ 40,000,000 $ (2,681,916) 0.50% $ 38,668,325
$ 45,000,000 $ {7,681 ,223) 0.75% $ 32,598,327
$ 50,000,000 $ (12,680,529) 1.00% $ 26,454,378
$ 55,000,000 $ (17,679,835) 1.25% $ 20,242,259
$ 60,000,000 $ (22,679,141 ) 1.50% $ 13,954,949
$ 62,000,000 $ (24,678,864) MEC Price 1.75% $ 7,600,475
2.00% $ 1,169,057
Given 1% wholesale price increases through 2011 and 2.05% $ - o N PV Project
2% thereafter, and current interest rates: 2.25% $ (5,333,889)
7.77% discount rate 2.50% $ (11,913,253)
7.77% interest rate, 5.28% muni-bond rate 2.75% $ (18,564,123)
Flat retail prices through 2011 and up 2% thereafter 3.00% $ (25,291,940)
Assumes flat retail prices from 2004-2010
and Slaven Discount and Interest Rates
2% rise in wholesale prices 2011-2025
Sensitivity Analvsis of Sensitivity Analvsis of
ChanCle in Discount Rates ChanCle in Discount Rates
Discount Rate NPV Muni. Rate NPV
Latham Rate: $ 61,564,389
9.5% $ 32,121,428 9.5% $ 752,792
9.0% $ 34,072,339 9.0% $ 846,575
8.5% $ 36,189,928 8.5% $ 960,532
8.0% $ 38,490,768 8.0% $ 1,097,479
7.5% $ 40,993,262 7.5% $ 1,260,599
7.0% $ 43,717,852 7.0% $ 1,453,489
6.5% $ 46,687,269 6.5% $ 1,680,219
6.0% $ 49,926,807 6.0% $ 1,945,391
5.5% $ 53,464,635 5.5% $ 2,254,209
5.0% $ 57,332,154 5.0% $ 2,612,565
4.5% $ 61,564,389 4.5% $ 3,027,127
4.0% $ 66,200,445 4.0% $ 3,505,442
3.5% $ 71,284,017 3.5% $ 4,056,061
3.0% $ 76,863,969 3.0% $ 4,688,670
Latham Interest Rates, wholesale Slaven Interest Rates, Price Freeze through 2010
and retail prices rising 2% annually
NPV
$ 26,454,378
$ 21,554,136
$ 22,825,538
$ 24,209,073
$ 25,716,172
$ 27,359.545
$ 29,153,336
$ 31,113,298
$ 33,256,985
$ 35,603,979
$ 38,176,138
$ 40,997,881
$ 44,096,508
$ 47,502,567
$ 51,250,267
57029000
52331000
46904000
21675000
14327000
2203000
$ 194,469,000
t
¡
Marian Karr m:
From: brian-I isi nski@uiowa.edu
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 11 :46 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: Frisbee golf course for Iowa City
I would like to ask the council about the possibility of Iowa City
building a
frisbee golf course. For those of you who are not aware of frisbee, or
discgolf, I recommend going to www.pdga.com.
Rationale:
There are now more than 600 Disc Golf courses in the United States and
Canada,
nearly all installed by city and county parks departments. They have
found
that there are few recreational activities that offer the high
benefit-to-cost
ratio of disc golf. Disc golf has low capital and maintenance costs, is
environmentally sound, is played year-round in all climates and is
enjoyed
immediately even by beginners of all ages.
What is Disc golf?
Disc Golf is played much like traditional golf, only instead of hitting
a ball
into a hole you throw a disc (similar to a frisbee) into an elevated
metal
basket. The goal is the same: to complete the course in the fewest
number of
shots.
What Kind of Construction Would Be Needed?
Unlike traditional golf, a disc golf course does not require that trees
be cut
down, fairways mowed and watered, plants uprooted or non-native species
planted. Rather, the course fits into the existing flora of the park.
The
installation of disc golf course would involve the construction of tees
and the
installation of signs and baskets.
What Would be the Maintenance Needs of a Disc Golf Course?
After installation, the maintenance needs for a disc golf course would
be
minimal. The targets are made of welded steel anchored in concrete and
need no
regular maintenance. In the unlikely event that one of the targets is
damaged
beyond repair or stolen, they can be replaced for around $350.
How Much Land Would Be Needed?
A 27-hole course would cover approximately 27-35 acres, depending on
design. A
significant advantage of disc golf is its ability to utilize areas that
are not
very desirable or usable for other activities such as dense woods, rocky
areas
and slopes. In addition, a disc golf course need not be an exclusive use
area --
it can co-exist amicably with other active and passive recreation uses
such as
1
- "-_.. ---_._--~- ___m·.···o·_··. ___ __...__.n ____n____
hiking. dog-walking, etc.
Economics:
A deluxe 27-hole disc golf course with two sets of tees, professional
signs and
baskets can be purchased and installed for under $28,000, less than the
cost of
a single tennis or basketball court. A 27-hole course can accommodate
108
people at a time, as compared to a tennis court (4 maximum) or
basketball court
(10 maximum) .
I feel that putting in a disc golf course in Iowa City would be quite
beneficial to the community as it would provide its residents with an
inexpensive way to relax and enjoy nature all while having fun and
getting a
work out. All at a minimal cost to the city. I hope that the council
will
seriously consider this proposal and I would love to make this disc golf
course
a reality.
Thanks,
Brian Lisinski
brian-lisinski@uiowa.edu
(319) 594-7872
2
--" -- ,. ~-,.-, --'-"'--- . ........-.-..,--..--... .-.--...-
Marian Karr []1;:
From; Ryan Scott HolI [ryanholl@iastate.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, May 26,200410:48 AM
To: schandler@fairfieldiowa.com: jfausett@ci.coralville.ia.us: cou ncil@iowa-cìty.org:
rneades@iowacityarea.com; auditor@co.jones.ia.us; rd ny@keokukcountyia.com;
Lynn. Kueck@ci.algona.ia.us; kcedc@ncn.net; chamber@fortmadison.com;
keoku kcc@interl.net: bwood ruff@LeeCounty.org: mayor@cedar-rapids.org:
chamber@cedarrapids.org: mayor@cityofmarion.org; gary@marioncc.org;
cham ber@mountvernoniowa.org; bd _ supervisors@linncounty.org: su pervisor58
@Iouisacomm.net: cncchamber@madisoncounty.com; chamber@madisoncounty.com:
oskycofc@oacdg.org: supervisors@mahaskacounty.org: chamber@harenet.net:
tvangorp@cityofpella.com; pellacoc@pella.org; mayor@ci.marshalltown.ia.us:
info@marshalltown.org: glenwoodia@glenwoodcs.com: chamber@osage.net:
execdir@redoakiowa.com: adminasst@redoakiowa.com; mayor@ci.muscatine.ia.us:
kwh ittaker@ci.muscatine.ia.us; wiltoncc@netins.net; boardofsu pervisors@co.muscatine.ia.us;
ocedc@tcaexpress.net; cham ber@hickorytech.net; chamber@clarinda.org;
gconnell@simplyshenandoah.com; eburgchamber@iowaone.net: cityhall@lemarscomm.net;
Imchmbr@lemarscomm.net; info@algona.org; altoona@netins.net; jshaw@ecity.net;
jcooper@ankeny.org; cfish@ankeny.org: jpeterson@ci.ankeny.ia.us
Cc: ryansholl@yahoo.com
Subject: New Development Projects in Iowa
To those serving our Iowa communities:
There is a multidisciplinary task force assembled to determine if a
destructive
insect pest of ash trees, the emerald ash borer, has entered Iowa. This
summer
Iowa State University Extension, the Iowa Department of Natural
Resources
Forestry Bureau, and the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land
Stewardship
State Entomologist Office will be surveying the state for this insect.
This
effort is part of the larger search for the emerald ash borer throughout
the
central United States.
The emerald ash borer is a small beetle that has destroyed millions of
trees in
the Detroit area and has been transported outside of Michigan by nursery
material. The insect infests and destroys healthy green, white, black,
and
blue ash trees (green ash alone accounts for 15% of the trees in Iowa
cities.)
It takes action quickly, killing mature trees in 3 to 5 years.
Information
about the pest is available at the following Web sites, including photos
of the
various stages of tree decline: http://www.emeraldashborer.info/ and
http://www.msue.msu.edu/reg_se/roberts/ash/ashstages.html. Some
researchers
familiar with the destructiveness of this pest have likened an unchecked
outbreak with the infamous Dutch elm disease.
Since this devastating insect has been transported on nursery material
in the
past, it is likely that IF the pest has entered the state it has done so
through new plantings at industrial, retail, or public sites. It is
1
.--.....---.--.--------
essential
to locate and remedy any presence of the emerald ash borer as soon as
possible
if we are to protect the trees of our communities and state.
As an employee of Iowa State University, I am contacting you, chambers
of
commerce, departments of development, mayors, city council members,
boards of
supervisors, etc. , because you know your communities well and care for
them a
great deal. I would like to request your assistance in a few ways:
· Providing information on development sites of the last 5-6
years.
Addresses, location type (parks, retail or industrial locations, street
sides,
etc.) , and any available planting lists or the number of ash trees
present.
More information is better.
· Forwarding this message to other parties that may be able to
offer
assistance. Individual businesses and city foresters, for example.
· Reading the forest service's pest alert and contacting me if
possible
damages are observed.
http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/pest al/eab/eab.pdf
I hope to impose as little as possible on your already busy schedules,
but the
small effort now may save a great deal of effort and resources in the
future.
The potential for massive tree removal costs and barren neighborhoods
should
the pest go unnoticed far outweighs the time it will take to provide
information helping in its prevention. I thank you for your assistance
in
protecting our state from this potentially devastating threat.
Sincerely,
Ryan Holl
10 Insectary
Iowa State University
Ames, IA 50011-3140
Fax: (515) 294-8027
2
Gr[
Marian Karr
From: Steve Stickney [Stickney.Steve@iccsd.k12.ia.us]
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 10:44 AM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: GRAMMY VIP
Dear GRAMMY VIP,
Members of the City High School Music Department welcome you to join us
in Hancher Auditorium this evening to celebrate our school's third
GRAMMY Signature School Award. I would like to invite you and your
guests to a pre-concert reception for all VIP's in the Hancher Green
Room between 6:45 - 7:15. One of our event coordinators will escort all
of our VIP's to their reserved seats at 7:20 p.m.
We're looking forward to a great evening!
Sincerely,
Steve Stickney
City High School Music Department Chair
1
-.-...-. -,-._--.. "---" -..----------.,---- .-.....__..,_..,_._._--~---,._----.
I 06-01-04 I
Marian Karr 3f(16)
From: Jean Walker [walkersic@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 11:43 PM
To: Karin Franklin: Marcia Klingaman; City Council: Steve Atkins: Shelley McCafferty
Subject: June 9 Presentation of Melrose Historic Survey Results
Re: Invitation to June 9 Presentations of Results of
a Historical Survey of the Melrose Neighborhood's
Historic District.
Dear City Council Members, Steve Atkins, Karen
Franklin, Shelley McCafferty, and Marcia Klingaman,
The Melrose Neighborhood is a unique Neighborhood full
of interesting historic houses, many dating from the
1920s and several from the 1870s and 1880s.
Part of the Melrose Neighborhood has been identified,
both by the City's Historic Preservation Planner and
an independent Historic Preservation Consultant, as
worthy of preservation as an historic district.
Sentiments describing the historic nature of the
neighborhood's buildings and encouraging preservation
of this neighborhood (and indeed suggesting a survey
of the neighborhood) are also reflected in the 1992
Iowa City Historic Preservation Plan, the 1996 Melrose
Avenue Environmental Assessment, the 1997
Comprehensive Plan, and the 2002 Southwest District
Plan.
Therefore, the Melrose Avenue Neighborhood decided to
hire a consultant to survey and evaluate the
neighborhood for its cultural and architectural
significance, and nominate the eligible portion to the
National Register of Historic Places. In addition to
verifying the significance of the neighborhood,
establishing an NRHP historic district will contribute
towards the implementation of the City's 2002
Southwest District Plan.
Our historic preservation consultant, Marlys Svendsen,
has now compiled a great deal of research about the
Neighborhood and its properties.
Marlys will be in Iowa (in Des Moines) June 11 and,
because we think it is important for officials of the
City and of the University of Iowa to know about her
findings, we have asked her to give two duplicate
(purely informational) presentations on June 9:
1. Wednesday, June 9 at 2:30 pm in Room 232 of
University Services Building. I anticipate that this
meeting will be attended by members of the UI's Campus
Planning Committee as it follows their regular
meeting. As this is a relatively small room, other
people are encouraged to go to the second meeting, but
if this 2:30 meeting is the only one you can attend,
please come to it. A few representatives of the
Neighborhood will attend this meeting, and there will
be an open invitation "to all neighbors to attend the
next meeting. Other UI administrative officials will
also be invited to these meetings.
2. Wednesday, June 9 at 5:30 pm in the Social Hall of
1
'- ,- --...-- ~---- .~._.
the City's Robert A. Lee Community Recreation Center,
220 South Gilbert Street.
r hope that you can attend one of these duplicate
presentations, as they will describe the basis of the
nomination of a portion of the Neighborhood to the
National Register of Historic Places and the
significant historical importance of the Neighborhood
to the City and to the Or.
As you know, the Neighborhood would like, in the near
future, to discuss the future of the Neighborhood with
the or and the City, and the results of the research
on the Neighborhood to be presented at the above
meetings would be the basis of those discussions. So
I hope that you can attend one of these (purely
informational) presentations. These presentations
will last no more than one hour.
Thank you,
Jean Walker
P.S. Please extend this invitation to other City
personnel you deem appropriate to attend.
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
2
..-.... -~---
~1
MidAmerican MldAmerican Energy
~ ~B:'~'~~~'ENm"LY 'TTOUR s..we<. 666 Grand Avenue
PO Box 657
Des MOines, Iowa 50303-0657
515281-2326 Telephone
515242-4080 Fax
Todd M. Raba
Senior Vice President
Delivery Services
DATE: June 1,2004
TO: City Council of Iowa City
FROM: MidAmerican Energy Company
MidAmerican Energy Company appears before you tonight to formally request, pursuant
to Iowa Code Section 364.2, that the City Council authorize and allow a special election
for the purpose of allowing the citizens of Iowa City to vote to approve an electric
franchise ordinance. The provisions of such a franchise ordinance would be agreed
between the City and MidAmerican and the complete text of the ordinance would be
available to the citizens casting their votes.
MidAmerican is aware that the same Section 364.2 provides that the entity requesting the
special election shall be responsible for paying all the costs of holding the election,
including the costs of the notice.
'~Ø1¿
~1
May 25, 2004
Statement to Iowa City City Council
On Friday, May 7, 2004 we all received a letter from the State Historical Society ofIowa
notifYing us that our properties had been nominated to be placed on the National Registry
of Historic Places. This was done without our knowledge or permission and against our
wishes. Moreover, a public hearing is being held in Des Moines, not Iowa city, on June
11, 2004 concerning this matter.
Approximately two years ago the City Council authorized grant money to be used by the
Historical Preservation Commission to gather data concerning possible areas for historic
preservation on the north side. We naively thought no action would be taken concerning
historic preservation issues until local public hearings were held and votes taken by
appropriate commissions and the City Council. However, we were wrong. Apparently,
on their own, city planning staff nominated our properties for placement on the National
Registry of Historical Places. We believe this action to be undemocratic and
inappropriate. Moreover, this action violates our property rights and seriously and
adversely affects the value of our commercial properties.
Historically, placing local properties on the National Registry of Historical Places has
been used as a precursor to justifY including them in historic preservation districts. The
obvious intent is to use the national listing as a basis for designation oflocal historic and
conservation districts which then allows total design review authority over property
alterations, demolitions and new construction by local government. It therefore appears
to us that the nominations of our commercial properties by city planning staff is an
attempt to give added pressure and incentive to include our commercial properties in the
proposed Gilbert-Linn Historical Preservation District.
An additional aspect of our concern is that the State Historical Society of Iowa personnel
appear to believe that a Gilbert-Linn Historic District is already established or in effect.
Whether or not it was intentional this is the impression given to them by the way our
properties were nominated.
Another important aspect is that our properties are in commercial and commercial office
zones established around Mercy Hospital many years ago. This was done to encourage
medically related office development around Mercy as a health care core area and this
development is gradually occurring. None of our commercial properties should be placed
on the National Registry of Historic Places against our will and no historic preservation
district should be extended into our commercial area. If historic preservation is extended
into our commercial area it will have a chilling effect on development and lower our
commercial property values which would go against the long range zoning plan for our
area.
~~--~----_....-
We consider the city to be responsible for what has happened to us and therefore we are
requesting that the City Council do two things:
L Weare requesting that the City Council notify the State Historical Society of
Iowa that the Gilbert-Linn Street Historic District is non-existent at the present
time and ask the State Historic Society ofIowa to withdraw the nomination of
our properties from consideration for placement on the National Registry of
Historic Places.
2. Weare also requesting that the City Council go on record stating that no historic
preservation district will be extended into the CB2 or CO commercial zones on
the north side around Mercy Hospital.
Don and Dorothy Fowles '8,,- ~lJ'>~ ~~
310 North Gilbert St.
John Kammermeyer, M.D. ~r
404 E. Bloomington S1.
412 E. Bloomington S1.
Patricia Fisher ~ ;Ø~
315 N. Gilbert St.
311 N. Gilbert St.
Rosalie Hancock /?~ ~
305 N. Gilbert St.
Tom Conway -~ ~
225 N. Gilbert S1.
Howard Carroll a;~
319 E. Bloomington
Mary Ellen Chudacek for Chudacek Partnership
214 N. Gilbert 8t. '1I~~(!j~
210 N. Gilbert 8t.
204 N. Gilbert St.
402 E. Market 8t.
---.'.- ._,--_.~--_..._---
June 1,2004
Supplemental Statement to Iowa Citv Citv Council
Something is terribly wrong when the city can impose on us that our properties are being
nominated to go on the National Registry of Historic Places or try to include our
properties in a Historical Preservation District against our will and then we the property
owners have an uphill battle to try to prevent this from occurring. This sort of
designation should be initiated by property owners only if they desire it. In this case the
city nominated our properties without our knowledge and against our will.
Reference is made in the April 8th minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission that
the city staff had earlier sent out a letter to all property owners in the proposed Historic ,
Preservation Districts notifying them of the plan to nominate their property for placement
on the National Registry of Historic Places and offering the property owners a chance to
protest. It was also reported that no protests were received back. However, none of us in
the commercial area along North Gilbert received any such letter and I have checked with
two owners of residential properties further north along North Gilbert and they don't
recall ever receiving such a letter. It is our belief that no such letter ever got sent out. If
it had been, there certainly would have been a number of protests. Moreover, based on
emails and letters some of us have received back fTom the State Historic Society, it is
now obvious to us that the way the information was presented to the State Historic
Society conveyed to them the impression or understanding that the proposed Gilbert-Linn
Historic Preservation District is already in existence, which it is not. Because of this the
State Historic Society looks at we commercial property owners as part of the entire
Gilbert-Linn Historic District. Therefore, we are being told that the "50 plus 1" rule
applies. This means that the owners of 50% plus 1 properties in the proposed Gilbert-
Linn Historic Preservation District would have to submit notarized letters in order for we
commercial property owners to have our letters requesting withdrawal of our properties
fTom consideration be honored.
Lets look at the numbers: In the proposed Gilbert-Linn Historic District there are 103
properties, so owners of 52 properties would have to request withdrawal of nomination of
their properties in order for we protesting commercial property owners to have our
properties withdrawn. In the commercial area along North Gilbert west and northwest of
Mercy Hospital there are 10 owners with 15 properties that have been nominated. Eight
of 10 owners who own 13 of the 15 properties (or 87% of the properties) have asked for
their properties to be withdrawn fTom consideration. We urgently need help and support
fTom the council to prevent the nominations of our commercial properties to the National
Registry of Historic Places fTom being imposed on us.
- ~_., '.,. -_.,--
Again:
L Please notify the State Historic Society that the Gilbert-Linn Historic District is
presently non-existent and ask them to withdraw the nominations of our
commercial properties.
2. Also please look at the commercially zoned areas along North Gilbert near Mercy
as a separate issue ITom the residential zones and remove us from inclusion in any
proposed Gilbert-Linn Historic District. In other words, please state that no !
Historic Preservation District will be extended into our commercial area.
Finally, time is ur§.ent here since the State Historic Society public hearing on this matter
is Friday, June 11 'and therefore we are asking you to take action on our requests
tonight.