HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-02-28 CorrespondenceSTATE OF THE CITY ADDRESS - '1995
Mayor Susan M. Horowitz
CITY OF IOWA CITY
In my first State of the City message a year ago I reviewed the activities and accomplishments
of the prior year and offered my thoughts about the need of the "new" City Council to identify
and accept our community's challenges as we prepare Iowa City for the next century. Since
then I believe we have begun' to address those challenges in a variety of ways -- some of
which are consistent with the policies of previous city councils, while others reflect our ever-
changing times, new technologies, new initiatives and the attitudes and interests of this Council.
Establishing new directions and seeking new and unique ideas will continue to be a valid
measure of success or failure for any city council. I believe the greatest responsibility of a city
council is to look at every policy and practice of the city government and confirm those which
remain productive and desirable and change those which no longer contribute to the well-being
of our community. So, as I report to you on the state of our city I feel obligated to comment
on the ways in which this Council is meeting its responsibilities.
We continue to place a high priority on many of the economic development efforts initiated in
the past - most notably to support our existing businesses and industries as our most valuable
economic resources. We have approved an economic development loan for expansion of the
NCS facility on North Dodge Street. We contimie to work with officials from ACT in planning
expansion of their campus in coming years. We have recently reaffirmed our policy to ensure
that Iowa City has adequate land zoned for industrial purposes. Now we are considering how
we might suppod the development of new industrial land adjacent to the existing BDI industrial
park.
We have set the footprint in place for maintaining the viability of downtown Iowa City well into
the next century by way of our planning for the area south of Burlington. I was proud to have
represented you in April at the dedication ceremony of the University's Pappajohn School of
Business building. This new educational resource provides tremendous economic development
potential. Through'the school's resources the world is at our fingertips. I am excited about
what the Pappajohn building represents for Iowa City's and Iowa's future.
Council is reviewing policy criteria for encouraging future economic development in Iowa City,
such as how can we encourage energy efficient industries or those whose presence would
suppod and expand existing companies? We will seek strategies to protect the quality of life
our residents enjoy. Our work will hopefully let us anticipate the future economic impact on our
community be it from increased jobs or environmental protection or solid waste management.
It is a difficult balancing act as we all strive to provide jobs for our citizens, future generations
of Iowa Citians, and a tax base for maintaining city services.
There have been new directions established by this Council. The decision to invest in the
acquisition of land and development of plans for a new water plant, new water resources,
improvements to the distribution system, as well as new components to the wastewater
2
treatment facilities signal our faith in the growth and potential prosperity of our city. Our
approval of community policing along with the continued support for neighborhood association
activities caq be seen as new initiatives to help support the future of Iowa City. Each of these
decisions has involved public participation as each policy evolves. Langthy discussions and
protracted decisions occur, but public padicipation is an important element to any successful
community policy.
Our city has grown. We have annexed over 428 acres to the City which will accommodate the
development of more than 1,000 new housing units ranging from apartments to mobile homes
to single-family dwellings, as well as neighborhood commercial facilities, and yet we were able
to identify and preserve natural features. In 1994, 207 single family dwelling units and 355
multi-family dwelling units were constructed in the Iowa City. Building permits totalled
$71,000,000 with approximately $15 million in commercial and industrial construction and
renovation included.
Housing initiatives have progressed as well. Redevelopment of the old Press-Citizen building
will yield 18 units for our elderly citizens and those physically challenged. We have initiated
a project ~o sell existing public housing units at an affordable price to those who might not
otherwise be able to purchase a home. These will be replaced with newly constructed units.
In 1994 we added 50 renta( assistance certificates and vouchers for our low income citizens;
used vadous grants and loans to rehabilitate older existing housing in our community and we
continue to repair flood damage properties using not only federal flood monies, but also through
our city tax-supported capital improvements program.
Transpodation policies continue to receive our attention for the future. The new Weber School
and the residential growth on the west side hastened Council's decision to complete the
reconstruction of Rohret Road. Near downtown, our completion of Maiden Lane paving,
sanitary sewer and pedestrian bridge has been seen as contributing to the health of that
commercial area. Council chose to annex the intersection of Highway l/Mormon Trek
Boulevard in order to install a new traffic signal and turn lanes. Our decision in conjunction with
the Airport Commission to renovate the airport at its existing location offers potential for greater
regional commercial and passenger air transport capabilities in the future. The shift in bus
route policy to establish the east side shuttle route, the first transit route which does not tie
directly into the downtown interchange, offers new possibilities to future transpodation policies
and land use.
With regard to maintaining the integrity of our neighborhoods, transportation policies were
reviewed and lead to installation of stop sign grid patterns in selected neighborhoods to control
speeding and cut-through traffic. New bike racks were added in downtown and we have
proceeded with the Iowa River Corridor Trail system, opening the segment between Iowa
Avenue and Burlington Street, and have planned for completion of two additional segments,
Burlington Street to Highway 6 and the Iowa Avenue Bridge and the Iowa Memodal Union
Bridge.
I believe this Council more than any other in recent history has made it a priority to invite and
encourage greater citizen participation in our decision-making process. Whether one agrees
or disagrees with this philosophy or its value, I think we all feel these efforts have resulted in
more people communicating with us as a City Council as well as at the individual level.
3
To especially address Iowa City's' needs in the future, we solicited the participation of neady
100 volunteer citizer~s from all backgrounds and interests to form the Vision 2000 task fomes
which were convened to review nine major policy areas for our Comprehensive Plan and to
recommend future goals in each of these areas. The interests and concerns of these citizens
will be incorporated into the City's Comprehensive Plan review, which is about to get underway.
We also assumed a leadership role in promoting accessibility and facilitating local voluntary
compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and other non-discrimination laws which
protect persons with disabilities. The formation of the Council on Disability Rights and
Education is supported financially by the City, and in my judgment is just beginning to yield
positive results and to promote a long-term commitment to accomplish full inclusion of all
citizens in the activities of our community.
Nine Iowa City citizens met over an eight-month period as our Charter Review Commission.
They were to review and recommend any updates they felt appropriate for the City's charter,
a process mandated every decade. Seven new neighborhood associations were formed in this
past year bdnging the total to 18. In addition to the citizens participating in their neighborhood
associations, as I mentioned, this p~st year has seen many increased occasions for residents
contributing to city life. At the Senior Center an all out effort was made fo support the
remembrances of World War II through the 50th anniversary programs. The Senior Center TV
program received the Iowa Depadment of Elder Affairs outstandiqg program award for
volunteer service to the State of Iowa and a 1994 Mature Media medt award in the category
of TV repoding for mature focus. Throughout the year over 135 volunteers worked on the
Heritage Tree program taking an inventory of 100% of the trees on public land in Goosetown,
Longfellow and Nodh. Side neighborhoods as well as in city-owned Oakland Cemetery, state-
owned Plum Grove and the historic Woodlawn residential area.
Finally, before I close, I want to recognize all the City employees, who day in and day out work
to serve the citizens of Iowa City. All that I have reported is part of Council's maintaining and
p!anning for our community's health. The City employees play a large role in our accomplish-
ments. Financially, we are sound and I believe our fiscal policies demonstrate our diligence
in the management of the City's resources. We have recently completed a ten-year financial
history of the City government which clearly demonstrates our history of disciplined spending
and management of our tax resources - Yet I also believe we have undertaken our
responsibilities with compassion for citizens in need and commitment to opportunity for all to
enjoy the city services provided. Whether it be preventive lawyering for the Council or
providing swimming lessons to our young citizens, the City employees have my thanks.
I hope we all look forward 'to new challenges, to working hard shaping our city to what we want
it to be, and to a future which we can pass along with a pride of accomplishment.
m(J~state.95
To: City Council Members
From: Jeff McCullough, Charter Review Commission Member
Date:
Re:
February 15, 1995 .__: -~ ,.-
Supplemental Information Concerning Commission Recommendations on Campalgnlemance
Toward the end of your discussion on our recommendations last night, I sensed some confusion
concerning the recommendation the Commission made in regard to campaign contribution limitations.
Since I had addressed the Council on this subject, I feel responsible for some of this confusion and
apologize for not explaining the Commlssion's recommendation adequately. I want to very briefly
summarize my understanding of the rationale for our recommendation on this issue.
The Charter, in section 6.02, gives the Council the option of prescribing procedures related to
campaign finance. One of these options is to set limits on the amount of campaign contributions
received by a Council candidate. The Charter does not force the Council to act in this regard, it
simply provides the general grant of power to the Council to act.
However, once the Council has exercised its option to prescribe procedures or limits related to
campaign contributions, section 6.04 of the Charter states that the Couvcil "shall prescribe penalties"
for violation of the procedures it has mandated. The Council performs these functions by passing an
ordinance to set limits and another ordinance to set penalties. Presumably, the Council would also set
tip an enfureement mechanism, also in ordinance form, so that violations could be monitored and
penalties enforced. No change in the Charter is necessary to accomplish these goals, the Council
handles these issues in one of its normal operations--the drafting of ordinances.
A previous Council has already exercised the option of setting campaign contribution limits. The $50
limitation now in effect was established by ordinance a number of years ago. That Council, however,
did not "prescribe penalties" for violation of the $50 limit, nor did it set up an enforcement mechanism
for monitoring this area. As previously mentioned, the setting of penalties is mandatory under the
Charter once the option has been exercised to set contribution limits. The Charter Review
Commission is simply recommending to the Council that you follow throogh with the mandate of the
Charter and set the penalties by ordinance.
The above is an abstract ofthe Commission's position on this recommendation. Hopefully, I was able
to represent the views the whole Commission in this regard. I would also like to address the Council
with my personal views on this subject. My past experience as Deputy Commissioner of Elections
with the Johnson County Auditor's Office provided me with many occasions to explain the unique
system of campaign finance regulations in efl~ct for Iowa City City Council elections. As all of you
are aware, candidates are required to scrupulously report contributions and expenses under state
campaign finance rules. The State Campaign Finance Commission prescribes detailed reporting
regulations, forms, deadlines, and penalties under state law for all campaign finance issues in all
elections held in the state. However, that Commission does not enforce the Iowa City $50 limit and
does not even recognize that it exists when answering questions asked of it by Iowa City Council
candidates. This is very unfortunate since all the forms used by candidates to report expenses and
contributions are provided by the state agency and any rules which are contradictory with that
Commission's extensive mandates cause a great deal of confusion.
I would like to see the current Council abolish the contribution limits now in effect (repeal the existing
ordinance). This action would bring Iowa City in harmony with existing state law. It would also
relieve you of the duty of setting penalties and establishing an enforcement mechanism. I would urge
the Council to consider this option because of the extensive reporting and enforcement mechanisms
already in place at the state level. Any additional burden placed on candidates in Iowa City City
Council elections creates an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy. Any enforcement mechanism you
might draft would also place many additional duties on a very busy city staff
Once again, I regret any misunderstanding which might have resulted from my comments last evening.
I hope I have been able to better explain the issue in this memo. Please be assured that my personal
advocacy in this memo to abolish the local contribution limits does not reflect the opinion of the
majority of the Charter Review Commission. Indeed, the Commission discussed the issue extensively
and voted expressly to retain the sections of the Charter which empower the Council to set limits in
this area.
I would like to express my thanks to the Council for the opportunity to serve on this Commission. It
was a wonderful expedance and I was privilege to serve with eight very dedicated and insightful
r '
people. Also, thank you very much for the beautiful gift you p esented each of us last mght.
cc: John MacDonald
TO: Iowa City Council Members
CD,
FROk4: Sally Crowe, Penny Bryn Neighborhood Association
RE: Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Hearings '
DATE: February 20, 1995
Thank you for disseminating the budget document to neighborhod_~'- :~/
associations and welcoming hearing from citizens about the prot~bsed:{~
projects being reviewed by the City Council. ,6
The Penny Bryn Neighborhood Association would like the Council to
consider our view on two items in the Budget Proposal:
Stormwater, Item
eager to have the
their property and
71: The neighbors on Hafor Circle are pleased and
storm sewer system enlarged to reduce flooding of
the street.
Willow Creek Park - off-street parking, Item 51: The neighborhood
association wduld like the Council to consider using the allocated funds
for implementing a design that would reduce the speed of traffic on Teg
Drive and increase safe access to the park at three places.
The stop signs recently installed on Teg Drive have had the effect
reported by City Staff and supported in the literature that stop signs
alone:
- result in cars rolling through the sign or not stopping at all; and
- do not decrease the speed of traffic on the street.
However, stop signs used with other measures can be quite effective.
There are such designs that would include improved and safer parking
for the park and increased safety for pedestrian access to the park and
along Teg Drive where many people bike ride, jog, walk, and walk their
pets. For example, a narrowed roadway at the intersection of the stop
sign with a center median would encourage stopping and increase a
person's ability to cross the street to the park. Parking spaces along
Teg Drive with border trees and planters that decrease the street width
at specific points would reduce speeding.
We thank the Council for seeking neighborhood input and would like to
work with the City Staff on any planning and implementation of
improvements for Willow Creek Park.
PHELAN, TUCKER, MULLEN, BRIGHT & WALKER, L.L.E
WILLIAM V. PI'~ELAN
WILLIAM M. TUCF, ER
DANIEL W. BOYLE
CHARLES A. M?ULLEN
STEPHEN E BFJGHT
BRUCE L. WALKER
RICHARD M. TUCI~flR
THOMAS H. GE~
STL~IEN R. REGLrN~;~FHER
MARGAPer P. ~rINEOARDEN
JOHN E. B~ASL~Y
KIMBERLY W. BACON
NflCHAEL J. PUGH
Mayor Susan Horowitz
Civic Center
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Re: Sycamore Farms
ATIORNEYS AT LAW
~2! IVIARICA~
P.O. BOX 2150
IOWA ~ IOWA 52244
LOUIS SHULMAN (190~1982)
PAX:
(~9)
TELEPHONE:
(~9)
February 20, 1995
ix)
Dear Susan:
Although I wish the vote would have turned out
differently on Lake Calvin's proposal last week, I do wish to
thank you for the comments that you made. It is helpful to
us, as developers to know the general directions and thoughts
of the Council. I had found it difficult to create a dialogue
in a timely fashion, that would allow us to adjust to a
proposal that the Council would approve.
I think your comments will be helpful to us in the
future. I hope that this year (with your help) we will be
able to demonstrate the type of housing we are going to add to
the community.
Hopefully, after we have provided this first type of
affordable housing, we can restart the dialogue concering the
other types (and quantities) of affordable housing that can be
provided.
I look forward to our future meetings with the Council
and Don Westphal as we design Phase I of the mobile home park.
If at any time you have any questions concerning our
development, please do not hesitate to give any one of us a
call.
SFB:mjm
cc: Gregory A. Apel
James R. Miller
Yours very truly,
SYCAMORE FARMS COMPANY
By: Stephen F. Bright
City Clerk
Civic Center
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
AMBROSE & ASSOCIATES REALTORS, INC.
TO THE IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL,
We would like the opportunity of addressing the council on the need
for improving and updating the lighting, street and sidewalks in the 100
block of Iowa Avenue.
Many of the buildings in that block were built over 50 years ago and
are not handicapped accessible. We believe that the best way to solve this
problem is to change the level of the sidewalk.
The lighting at night is not adequate for the high number of
pedestrians that use this street. The rest of the Central Business District
has been updated through the years and it is time to look at this area. Iowa
Avenue is the first street that newcomers to Iowa City usually see of the
downtown area, we need to put on a pleasant well lit face to the public.
If it is possible we would like to discuss those and related problems
at the Council meeting on February 27, 1995.
Thank you.
805 S. GII.BERT, IOWA crrY, IOWA 52240 504 1st AVENUE, CORALVILLE, IOWA 52241
(319) 354.8118 (319) 337-8888 ~
FROM:
RE:
RATIO:
MEMBERS OF TIlE IOWA CiTY CITY COUNCIL
HAROLD ENGEN, SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION
FUNDING FOR ADDITIONAL STAFF
2-22-95
i am going to use a METAPHOR to help you understaad
our frustration for the continuing REFUSAL of the City
Council to act on the Senior Center Commissions request
for additional staff.
In the past yell have stated that lhere was no
money available. Then when money is apparently
available ~he Seniors are a low p~iocity. ~he Senio~
Cen~er Commission has provided the Council
~f~erda~e~eindica[eneed foraddi~onals~aff. Wehave
des~i~ed in det~ ~he activities o~ these persons and
how i~ woui~ ch~fige cur~en[ s~aff rates. Two members
of the Counci~ have slated tha~ ~he solution ~s to CUT
PROGRAMSfo~ihoSeniors. I cannoiagreewiih ~ha[
recommendation.
~ow fo~ my ~TAPHO~. Recently ] spen~ lime as a guest
reader [or the firsl grade a~ Wesi Liberty. One of the
boo~s the fJ~s~ graders li~ed was ~THE BOY WHO CRI[D
WOLF". As a member of The Se!l~O~ Cenier Commission i
have ~ strong iden~J~y ~i~il the boy in the s[ory when
the ~o~nspeople re~used the final cry ~o~ he!~. LETTXE
WOLF EAT THE SHEEP. Much in lhe same manner as two
Counc~Iors have s~iod CUT THE PROGRAMS. The BIG
difference in ~he 80Y WXO CRIEO WOLF and our reques[s
TH~ CUU~CAL is we have ~ilT ~E[~ CRYING WULF bu~ have
provided you with ACCUXAT[ liOCU~[NTED ~FO~A~10~.
i~ l~rouid~ a iatdilg progravi to well deserving Seni~J's ill
~owaC[ty/dnhnsfinCo~]n~g. The bot~omiinein
~no~ogy is very piein--CUT TH~ PROGRAM TO THE SENIORS-
LET TXE ~OLF EATTXE SXEEP. I isope ! am ~rong. We DO
NEED YOUR CAREFUL CONSIDERRTiON OF OUR REQUEST FOR
(-~QJAT~ UNXL ~TRFF.
' BARKER
A P A R T M E N T S
February 24,1995
Susan Horowitz
Mayor, City oflowa City
1129 Kirkwood Ave.
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Dear Mayor Horowitz:
City Manager, Assistant city Manager,
City Attorney, gCity Clerk, Director of
Finance:
I am providin9 each of you a copy
of the materials I have sent to the
members of the I0wa City Council on
February 24, 1995. We will be
considering releasin9 this material to
the media a day or so prior to the
public hearing. I would be 9lad to
discuss any of this material with you
if you so choose. Ed Barker
Since I will be out of town at the time of the next public hearing on tile water/waste
water issue, I will commtmieate my thoughts to you through this letter. I have read and
studied carefully Stephen At 'kiss' memorandu~n to council members dated February 10,
1995 entitled "Review of Issues - Water and Wastewater Projects". I was patlicularly
al)prcciative of the letter lie ua'ote to Thomas Joehum and otlier legislators dated January
2, 1992. I hope that Mr. Atkins has continned'to pom~d away at the legislators and the
governor on tlfis issue and has encouraged his colleagues around the state to do likewise.
As you know, a one shot letter is soon forgotten. He had excellent points and I
appreciated his efforts to bring these to the attention oftlie politicians.
As I have indicated to you before, I have no objections to the stated goals of the
proposed project which are to provide the quality mid qum~tity of water needed in Iowa
City over the next 30 to 40 years, to assrune our responsibility to properly take care of our
waste water; and to fulfill our responsibility to protect the environment. However, there is
an additional criterion tliat needs to be a vital part of tiffs process. That is to bring about
the completion of these two projects in a way that exercises finandal responsibility and is
sensitive to the financial needs oftliose earning $30,000 or less per year.
As I read Mr. Arkins' report, I continually looked for clues that could help you
adequately address the financing of these projects. h my opinion, there are ample clues
to euable you to adopt a financing plan along the lines I ln'oposed in December. Please
allow nit to enumerate these:
Page 2, line 3 of Mr. At~s' February 10 memo states, "If the Cotmoil were to
direct that a new consm~ction (schedule) be m~dertaken, m~d assuming DNK/EPA
approval, that too would affect fmandng options." This statement indicates that
there are ahematives to the original schedule.
Bottom of page 2 and top of page 3 of Attaclunent t12, letter fi'om Darrell
McAllister to Charles Schmadeke, dated March 8, 1994 states: "....we are
requesting the City to submit a plm~ of action containing a comlfiianee schedule for
achieving compliance witli the final an~uoula nitrogen limits ....... The city may
provide the finmlcial information requested in tile financial capability work sheet
Seville
Scotsdale Park Place Parkside Manor Westgate Villa
6 Lime Kiln Lane, N.E. ' Iowa City, I^ 52240 ~ (3~g) 354-24'10
Emerald Court
listed ia section I11, which may be used to justify an extended compliance
schedule." This letter very clearly indicates tile state officials realize that tile
finaacing of the waste water project must be realistic.
Mr. Arkins' letter to selected state legislators dated January 2, 1992 includes tim
following statements that a,'e ill quotation marks. Paragraph 2: "While the need to
address tile issues ofttie enviroament and to have reasonable rules and regulations
are certainly inlliO~lant, aggressive enforcenlent without thought to who 'pays tile
bill' caa have far reaching inlplications." Paragraph 3: "By mandating, pre-
empting and Illacing conditions on tile spending of a local govenmmnt's mouey, I
believe the state governolent has effectively reduced local govermnent to a mere
agelit of the state." l~aragrapb 7: "Iowa City is also in a somewhat onique
position ill that we are blessed witll a llrOSllerous colnmunity. flowever, the
effects of the State mandates and the lack of legislative or regulatory relief, I
believe, can have a damaging influence on nly conunmlity and its financial fi,ture."
Paragrapll 8: "The process is filled with conflicts and a sense of hellllessness cau
often prevail, however my concern is that lily conununity may not be a bettel' place
after all is said and done." The point here, it appears, is that we call plan our own
schedule of' constructioll that meets health and environ;nental requirements while
also takiag into consideration financial realism.
Ill addition to all of the materials in Mr. Atkins' ulemorandunl, let me call your
attention to the docunlent prepared by the Iowa Dellraiment of Water, Air and Waste
Management entitled "GUII)ANCE ON I~?,EPARING A PLAN OF ACTION dated
Janum¥, 198,[ Sectiou ll: Identification of Alternative Soltltions states, '"lira regulations
do not require that the city evaluate alternative solutions to solving its problems; however,
common sense dictates that the decisiou makers evaluate solutions on the basis of cost,
ease of iml~lemcntation and the impact each alternative would have before selecting a
I>mticular course of'actiou." Also iu sectiou 11 it states: "In maay cases a facility plan has
been lU'ellared ia tile past tllat discussed available alternatives. The feasibility of the
alternatives, bowever, may be dependent upon available fitnding. New options such as
IIbased conm'uction may be alorc Imlctical ifgrcatcr reliance oa local timds is required."
Section Ilk Financing Plans states: "The problem of timding the solutions olay be tile
prime lbrce shalfing the iml~lementation schedule. All possible sources of thnding should
be reviewed before conlpletiag the in]plementation schedule." Also, just prior to the
council's vote on water rate increases, Mr. Atkins suggested that the water treatment
tilcility could be IIostponed three years ti'om Iris origiaal proposal.
l~lease refer to my preseatation in Deceulber that suggested tile waste water and tile
water treatment facility construction projects be delayed two years and five years
respectively. AO. er carelid reconsideration and review of all relevant literature, I anl now
suggesting that the two projects be postponed two and fotu' years. Since that
presentation, I have learned, artlong other things, that the City intends to undeltake a
study of the effect the proposed Sihn'ian wells woukl have on tile people living ill the so
called llmlb con'idor. This study is to take three years. Surely you would not want to
make a decision on drilling Silurian xvells uatil this study is completed. Therefore, a four
year tielay for the water treatment facility seems very realistic. It is my understanding that
a construction schedule for the waste water project has already been negotiated with and
airproved by the Iowa Department ofNatoral Kesources. 'Ilm Cormcil oeeds to direct the
City Manager to reopen these negotiations so that a new time fi'ame can be established
that takes into consideration realistic rate increases that will be accel>ted by members of
the conmumity. A two year postponemere in a project of this magnitude is relatively
iasigaificant, especially when you consider tim positive benefits of establishing a financing
plan that will in all probability gain wide support amongst the citizenry. I am contident
that through skilled negotiations this goal can and xvill be accomplished.
la a recent a~licle in the Press Citizca it xw~s stated that some Council members ~vcrc
considertag alternatives, one of which would "stretch construction o[ the (water
treatment) plant over a longer period - perbal~s 10 years." I would soggcst that it would
be more feasible to strut construction o[ the waste water project two years later titan
originally platorod, complete it in the original 36 months time frame, delay the stml of
construction oftbe water treatment [acilities roar years and complete it in the original 36
months i)eriod of time. 'l]fis seems to me would be the most prndcnt use of our financial
resources so that money is uot invested ia construction tbr such a Ioog period off time with
ve~, little use, ifany, ofthe Cattittles tmtil constn]ction is completed.
You have read, I suspect, the statemeat fi'om tire Chamber of Commerce stating a
rationale for estahlishing a difl'erent time schednle For constmctioa and the desirability of
establishing a rate increase that spreads the increase over a several year period of time.
Their position follows £or the most part very closely to the proposal I made to you in
December 1994.
1 w511 attach to this letter detailed financial ialbrmation illustrating how we can pay for
the two projects as they were originally proposed that will, in my judgment, ire acceptahle
to the vast majority of the populace. This tinanclng plan assumes that we s,,511 postpone
the timetable for constructing the waste water facility two years and the water plant fottr
years. I am also enclosing other pertinent information in regard to tbe water/waste water
issues, inchtdiog my original financing proposal for comparison puqmses.
By the way, I do not understand why the council gave so little consideration to my
proposal to save a minimum of $130,000 per year by osing a COOl)on system and reading
meters every three months. I will inclade with this letter a copy of that proposal for your
rcconsideration.
Gaining support fi'om tim citizens oflowa City f'or these t~vo major projects is essential
to bring aboat harmoay and good~411 between and among tire water' customers, tim
council members and the city administration. I urge in tim strongest terms possible for
you to adopt a financial plan similar to the one I am proposing. This plan would indicate
to the citizens, barring uuforeseeo circumstances, what the bighost rates would be over the
next l~w years to pay tbr the construction of these two projects. if, as fi~al constmctiou
plans are developed, alternatives to the original plan are adopted that are less costly, rate
iacreases for constructiou could be reduced. I would also hope, but eau not be eertaiu,
that the iustallation of'uew meters due to uew construction, current surplus water/waste
water fuuds, and surplus fmxds that my proposal would geucrate will pay fox' the uormal
annual iucrease in operating costs of the existing plant until such time as the rate increases
for ¢oustruction costs would no longer be needed other than to build a reasonable suxplus
for identified future water/waste water related construction projects.
Thank you for reading this lengthy letter aod studying the accompanying materials. I
woukl be happy to discuss the contents of this letter and the euclosed information with
you when I return in early April
Sincerely yours,
Edwin K Barker
City Admiaistration Proposal # 1
Water 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Base Year
% Increase 40% 75% 5% 5% 5%
Cost $11.35 $15.89 $27.81 $29.20 $30.66 S32.19
000 2001 2002
5% 0%
3.80 $33.80
300 2001 2002
)% 2.5%
9.61 $30.35
Waste 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Water Base Year
%~crease 35% 40% 0% 4% 2%
Co~ $14.77 $19.94 $27.92 $27.91 S29.03 $29.61
Combined 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Base Year
% Increase 37.17% 55.54% 2.48% 4.52% 3.53%
Cost $26.12 $35.83 $55.73 $57.11 $59.69 $61.80
300 2001 2002
51% 1.17%
3.41 $64.15
2.6
Sales tax and refuse costs are not included in these calculations
These figures are based on the consumption of 750 cubic feet of water per month
Prepared by Edwin K. Barker
Water 1994 1995
Base Year
% Increase 11%
Cost Sll.35 S12.60
Barker Proposal#1
1996 1997 1998 1999
11% 11% ii% 11%
$13.98 SI5.52 $17.23 $19.13
300 2001 2002
1% 11% 2.6%
1.23 $23.56 $24.18
Waste 1994 1995
Water Base Year
% Increase 11%
Cost S14.77 $I6.39
1996 1997 i998 1999
11% 11% 1I% 1.6%
$18.20 $20.20 S22.42 $22.78
)00 2001 2002
}% 0% 0%
2.78 $22.78 $22.78
)00 I 2001 2002
)1% 5.29% 1.34~o
~,01 $46.34 $46.96
Combined 1994 1995
Base Year
% Increase 10.99%
Cost S26.12 $28.99
1996 1997 1998 1999
11% 11% 11% 5.70%
S32.18 $35.72 S39.65 $41.91
· Sales tax and refuse costs are not included in these calculations
· These figures are based on the consumption of 750 cubic feet of water per month
Prepared by Edwin K. Barker
City Administration Proposal #2
Water 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Base Year
% Increase 40% 15% 15% 20% 20%
Cost $I 1.35 $15.89 S18.27 S21.01 $25.22 S30.26
000 2001 2002
5% 0% 0%
4.80 $34.80 $34.80
Wa~e 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Water BaseYear
%Increase 35% 40% 0% i0% 0%
Cost $14.77 $19.94 S27.92 $27.92 $30.71 $30.71
000 2001 2002
;% O% 0%
2.24 $32.24 $32.24
$32
Combined 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Base Year
% Increase 37.17% 28.91% 5.93% 14.31% 9.01%
Cost $26,12 $35.83 $46.19 $48.93 $55.93 S60.97
300 2001 2002
76% 0% 0%
7.04 $67.04 S67.04
Sales tax and refuse costs are not included in these calculations
T'aese fi~wares are based on the consumption of 750 cubic f'eet of water per month
Prepared by Edwin K. Barker
Barker Proposal #2
Water 1994 [ 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Base Year
% Increase 24~/o ~;~i~,~ 7.60% 7.60% 7.60% 7.60%
40% Addlticaal
Cost $11.35 S15.04 S16.18 S17.41 $i8.74 $20.16
300 2001 2002
50% 7.60% 0
1.69 $23.34 $23.34
7.60
Waste 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Water Base Year
%Increase 35% 3.75% 3.75% 3.75% 0%
Cost $14.77 S19.94 $20.69 $21.46 S22.27 $22.27
300 2001 2002
~% 0% 0%
2.27 $22.27 $22.27
)00 2001 2002
i1% 3.75% 0%
L96 $45.61 $45.61
Combined 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Base Year
% Increase 33.92% 5.40% 5.42% 5.51% 3.46%
Cost $26. !2 $34.98 $36.87 S38.87 $41.01 $42.43
Sales tax and refuse costs are not included in these calculations
These figures are based on the consumption of 750 cubic feet of water per month
Tl~s proposal retains the city's actual increase for 1995
Prepared by Edwin K. Barker
History of
Edwin K. Barker
6 Lime Kiln Lane, N.E.
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Iowa City Water/Waste Water Rate Increases,
Usage: 750 CuFt Per Month
(Not Including Sales Tax Or Refuge Pick Up)
1985
$ 5.68
$ 3.58
1986
$738
29 9%
$663
85 2%
$14 Oi
51 3%
1986-1991
Water Bill
% Increase
Waste Water
% Increase
Combined
% Increase
$ 9.26
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
$ 8.17 $ 8.59 $ 8.59 $ 9.10 $11.35
10.7% 5.1% 0.0% 5.9% 24.7%
$10.47 $12.68 $12.68 $13.45 $14.77
57.9% 21.1% 0.0% 6.1% 9.8%
$18.64 $21.27 $21.27 $22.55 $26.12
33.1% 14.1% 0.0% 6.0% 15.8%
Previous to 1986, increases were made only in 1981 (twice), 1970 and 1966.
Information readily available went back to 1966
Typical Residential Monthly
Usage: 750 CuFt Per Month
(Not IncIuding Sales Tax Or
Combined Water/Waste Water Bill
Refuge Pick Up)
Row 1:
Row 2:
Row 3:
Row 4:
City's Initial Proposal
City's Second Proposal
An Annual 11% Increase
City Council's 1995 Actual Increase Plus Increases of 7.6% for
Water in Years 1996-2001 & 3.75% for Sewer in Years 1996-1998
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Row 1 $26.12 $35.83 $55.73 $57.11 $59.69 $61.80 $63.41 $64.15
Row 2 $26.12 $35.83 $46.19 $48.93 $55.93 $60.97 $67.04 $67.04
Row 3 $26.12 $28.99 $32.18 $35.72 $39.65 $41.91 $44.01 $46.34
Row 4 $26.12 $34.98 $36.87 $38.87 $41.01 $42.43 $43.96 $45.61
Per cent increase between 1994 and 2001:
Row 1: 145.6%
Row 2: 156.6%
Row 3: 77.4%
Row 4: 74.6%
(Most occurs in the first 13 months.)
(Half occurs in the first 13 months.)
(The increases are spread out evenly.)
(Large increase 1st year, then spread out evenly.)
Suggested Iowa City Water Revenues and Rate Increases
24% Increase for 1st 200 cuft, 40% rate increase
7.60% Annual Increase For Years 1996-2001.
0.00% Thereafter.
over 200 cuft for 1995
Interest Rate Earned on Escrow: 6.00%
Escrow Escrow
Year Revenue Base Revenue Principal Interest Cum. Escrow
1994 $3
!995 $4
1996 $5
1997 $5
1998 $6
1999 $6
2OOO $7
2001 $7
2002 $7
656,100 $3
937,197 $3
312,424 $3
716,168 $3
150,597 $3
618,042 $3
!21,014 $3
662,2!1 $3
662,211 $3
,656,100 $0
656,100 $1,281,097 $0 $1
656,100 $1,656,324 $76,866 $3
656,100 $2,060,068 $180,857 $5
656,100 $2,494,497 $315,3!3 $8
656,100 $2,961,942 $483,901 $11
656,100 $3~464,914 $690,652 $15
,656 100
,656 100
$4,006,ill
$4,006,i!1
281 097
014 287
255 212
065 022
510 866
666 431
Financing Information Assumptions.
Cost of Project
Inflation Rate
Years of Inflation
After Inflation
Escrow
$50,000 000
4.00%
$58,492,928
$15,666,431
Principal
int. Rate
Amort Length
Payment
$42,826,497
6.75%
25
$3,592,583
Increased Revenue Over 1994
Annual Bond Payment:
Surplus or (Shortfall):
Base Year:
2001 2002
$4,006,111 $4,006,111
$3,592j583 $3,592,583
$413,528 $413,528
Suggested Iowa City Wasuewater Revenues and Rate Increases
35% Increase For 1995
3.75% Annual Increase
0.00% Thereafter.
For Years 1996-!998.
Interest Rate Earned on Escrow: 6.00%
Escrow Escrow
Year Revenue Base Revenue Principal Interest Cum. Escrow
1994 $6,385,000 $6,385,000 $0
!995 $8,6i9,750 $6,385,000 $2,234,750 $0
!996 $8,942,991 $6,385,000 $2,557,99i $i34,085
1997 $9,278,353 $6,385,000 $2,893,353 $295,610
1998 $9,626,291 $6,385,000 $3,241,29!
1999 $9,626,291 $6,385,000 $3,241,29!
$2,234,750
$4,926,826
$8,115,788
Financing information Assumptions.
Cost of Project
Inflation Rate
Years of Inflation
After Inflation
Escrow
$41,000,000
4.00%
2
$44,345,600
$8,115,788
Principal
Int. Rate
Amort Length
Payraent
$36,229,812
6.75%
25
$3,039,207
Increased Revenue Over
Annual Bond Pa~ent:
Surplus or (Shortfall):
1994 Base Year:
1998 1999
$3,241,291 $3,241,291
$3,039,207 $3,039,207
$202,084 $202,084
Suggested Iowa City Water Revenues and Rate Increases
11.00% Annual Increase For Years
2.60% Increase for 2002
0.00% Thereafter.
1995-2001.
Interest Rate Earned on Escrow:
6.00%
Escrow Escrow
Year Revenue Base Revenue Principal Interest Cum. Escrow
1994 $3,656,100 $3,656,100 $0
1995 $4,058,271 $3,656,100 $402,171 $0
1996 $4,504,681 $3,656,100 $848,581 $24,130
1997 $5,0~0,196 $3,656,100 $1,344,096 $76,493
1998 $5,550,217 $3,656,100 $1,894,117 $161,728
1999 $6,160,741 $3,656,100 $2,504,64! $285,079
2000 $6,838,423 $3,656,!00 $3,182,323 $452,462
2001 $7,590,649 $3,656,100 $3,934,549
2002 $7,788,006 $3,656,100 $4,131,906
$402,171
$1,274,882
$2,695,471
$4,751,316
$7,541,036
$11,175,821
Financing Information Assumptions.
Cost of Project
Inflation Rate
Years of Inflation
After Inflation
Bscrow
$50,000,000
3.00%
5
$57,963,704
$11,175,82!
Principal
Int. Rate
Amort Length
Payment
$46,787,883
6.75%
25
$3,924,891
Increased Revenue Over 1994
Annual Bond Paymenu:
Surplus or (Shortfall):
Base Year:
2001 2002
$3,934,549 $4,131,906
$3,924,891 $3,924,891
$9,658 $207,0!5
Suggested Iowa City Wastewater Revenues and Rate Increases
11.00% Annual Increase For
1.60% Increase For 1999.
0.00% Thereafter.
Years 1995-1998.
Interest Rate Earned on Escrow: 6.00%
Escrow Escrow
Year Revenue Base Revenue Principal interest Cum. Escrow
1994 $6,385,000 $6,385,000 S0
1995 $7,087,350 $6,385,000 $702,350 $0
1996 $7,866,959 $6,385,000 $1,481,959 $42,141
1997 $8,732,324 $6,385,000 $2,347,324 $133,587
1998 $9,692,880 $6,385,000 $3,307,880
1999 $9,847,966 $6,385,000 $3,462,966
$702,350
$2,226,450
$4,707,360
Financing Information Assumptions.
Cost of Project
Inflation Rate
Years of Inflation
After Inflation
Escrow
$4!,000,000
3.00%
2
$43,496,900
$4,707,360
Principal $38,789,540
Int. Rate 6.75%
Amort Length 25
Payment $3,253,935
Increased Revenue Over 1994 Base Year:
Annual Bond Payment:
Surplus or (Shortfall):
1998 1999
$3,307,880 $3,462,966
$3,253,935 $3,253,935
$53,945 $209,031
Iowa City Waste Water and Water Treatment Plants
Timing of Construction ~knd Bond Payment Schedule
Decenter 23, 1994
Start Construction
Borrow Money
First Int Payment
Second Int Payment
First Prin & 3rd Int Pymt
New Facilities On Line
Thereafter, interest due each Jan
Waste Water Plant
City's
Proposal ~1
Sep 1 1995
Sep 1 1995
Jul 1 1996
Jan 1 1997
Jul 1 1997
Mar 1 1998
1 and Jul
Barker's
Proposal
Sep 1, 1997
Sep 1, 1997
Jul 1, 1998
Jan 1, 1999
Jul 1, 1999
Mar 1, 2000
1 with principal due each Jul 1.
Start Construction
Borrow Money
First Int Payment
Second Int Payment
First Prin & 3rd Int Pymt
New Facilities On Line
Thereafter, interest due
each
Water Plant
Sep 1, 1995 Sep 1, 2000
$ep 1, 1995 $ep 1, 2000
Jul 1, 1996 Jul 1, 2001
Jan 1, 1997 Jan 1, 2002
Jul 1, 1997 Jul 1, 2002
Mar 1, 1998 Mar 1, 2003
Jan 1 and Jul 1 with principal due each Jul
Iowa City Waste Water and Water Treatment Plants
Timing of Construction and Bond Payment Schedule
January 17~ 1995
Start Construction
Borrow Money
First Interest Pa~.ent
Second interest Payment
First Prin & 3rd Int Pymt
New Facilities On Line
Waste Water Plant
City's Barker's
Proposal ~2 Proposal ~2
Oct 1, 1995 Sep 1. 1997
Oct 1, 1995 Sep 1, 1997
Jul 1, 1996 Jul 1, 1998
Jan 1, 1997 Jan 1, 1999
Jul 1, 1957 Jul 1, 1999
Apr 1, 1998 Mar 1, 2000
Thereafter,
interest due each Jan 1 and Jul 1 with principal due each Jul
Water Plant
Start Construction Oct 1, 1998
Borrow Money Oct 1, 1998
First Int Payment Jul 1, 1999
Second Int Payment Jan 1, 2000
First Prin & 3rd Int Pymt Jul 1, 2000
New Facilities On Line Apr 1, 2001
Thereafter, interest due each Jan
Sep 1, 1999
Sep 1, 1999
Jul 1, 2000
Jan 1, 2001
Jul 1, 2001
Mar 1, 2002
due each Jul
1 and Jul 1 with principal
Guest Opinion For The Press Citizen
Prepared By
Edwin K. Barker
December 12, 1994
Press Citizen
If you live in Iowa City and could get exactly the same
water/waste water plants that city officials are currently planning
with only a modest rate increase, would you be interested? If so,
please read on.?
Tuesday evening, Dece,~er 6, the Iowa City Council and the City
Manager began moving in the right direction in regard to our water
situation. The City Manager provided the Council with an alternative to
his original proposal that would delay the construction of the water
plant for two years and proposed an initially lower increase in
water/waste water rates. However, his plan would result in higher
monthly combined bills in the year 2001 than the original proposal.
Under his new proposal the monthly bill for a single family resident
using 750 cult of water per month would be $67.04 while the bill for
the same usage under the original proposal would be $64.15. Most of
the increases in these two proposals take place early in the first two
years of this seven year period of time.
would
2002
rates
bill
At this same meeting I presented a proposal to the council that
increase rates 11% annually through 2001 and 2.6% for the year
for water rates. This proposal also would increase waste water
11% annually through 1998 and 1.6% in 1999. The typical water
for 750 tuft in the year 2001 would be $46.34 with the illcreases
spread out evenly over the seven year period of time. After these
respective years no further illcreases would be needed to pay for the
two projects. The increases would not only generate adequate revenue
to retire the bonds ill a timely manner but would also provide surplus
revenue of $200,000 annually beginning in 1999 for the waste water
division and $200,000 annually beginning in 2002 for the water
division. This surplus could be used to replenish escrow funds
borrowed for purchasing the land for the water plant, paying for normal
illcreased costs in operating both plants durin~ the next seven years
and to escrow money for the eventual phasing out of the North Waste
Water Plant. This plan provides Iowa City with funds to build exactly
the same facilities currently under consideration but on a different
time schedule. Although the financial calculations of my proposal
appear to be realistic based on a variety of sources, they need to be
verified by the City's financial director. There are good reasons to
believe that through careful negotiations with the Iowa Department of
natural Resources there is a reasonable chance that approval would be
given to delay construction of the waste water plant for two years. We
are under no mandate to build a new water plant. However, most people
agree, myself included, that we need a new plant reasonably soon. An
additional three years beyond the latest alternative presented by the
City Manager would be a reasonable time frame for completing the water
plant. In no way do we want to reduce current water quality standards
or environmental concerns. We want to work with the Iowa Department of
Natural Resources every step of the way.
The additional five years would also give ample time to study a
variety of alternatives to the location of the water plant and to study
the technical aspects of constructing the two projects. A variety of
alternatives have been suggested that merit consideration. There would
also be time to continue the discussions that are currently taking
place with the University of Iowa officials in regard to having one
water system for both Iowa City and the University. The University
already uses our waste water facilities and this would merely be a
logical continuation of this relationship.
In summary, my proposal provides for building exactly the same
facilities as presently under construction, provides time to study
alternative proposals, provides time to work with the University, and
provides a financial plan that can be supported by an overwhelming
majority of the citizens. The only negative is a slightly different
time line and many would say that is not a negative. This proposal
will provide for an abundance of quality water at a cost we can
afford. It is worthy of consideration by the City Council and the Iowa
Department of natural Resources.
January 16, 1995
Mr. Stephen J. Atkins
Civic Center
410 Washington St.
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Dear Steve:
It is my understanding that the Council will be considering
employing additional people in order to read the water meters on a
monthly basis. It seems to me, that not only do we not need to read
the meters monthly, but we could set up a procedure whereby the
meters are read once every three months, even though bills are paid
monthly. It would work like this. A monthly average usage of each
meter would be determined. Each month during the first two months of
the three month cycle the customer would pay 105% of the average
monthly cost. Then, after reading the meter for the third month's
billing, the true cost would be determined and the third bill of the
cycle would be adjusted. This would provide the City with a monthly
cash flow that you indicated was desirable, would give the customers
an accurate measure of usage every three months, and would reduce the
amount of time spent reading meters. One of the reasons cited for
reading the meters on a monthly basis was to detect water leaks
early. Although it is not the responsibly of the City to detect
leaks beyond the meter, it certainly can be a very helpful service to
tile customer. However, even with monthly meter readings, there would
be a considerable time lag for the customer to find out that there
may be a leak. A better way to handle this would be through an
education program where the city provides each customer with hints on
how to detect leaks, how to make minor repairs and what the monthly
cost would be for a variety of leaks like a faucet that drips every
second, or a stool that continuously runs a small amount of water,
etc. Spending $90,000 more to read meters to help people save
perhaps $10,000 to $15,000 (I'm guessing on this amount) of wasted
water would appear to be money not well spent. Brochures costing
approximately $12,000 (16,000 meters times 75 cents) probably could
be developed to carry out the education program. We would be saving
$78,000 ($90,000 minus $12,000) and probably would help people save
more water than the monthly meter readings would. This idea is, at
least, worth considering.
I'm not sure what is going on in regard to the proposals for the
water and waste water treatment plants. There are a few rumors going
around, but it would be better if we could hear officially what is
developing. I am convinced that planning can take place that will
permit the city to put in place rate increases similar to what I
suggested at the December 6th council meeting. When do you think an
update can be presented to the public?
learning how the plans are developing.
I am looking forward to
Let me correct some errors in the materials I gave to you and
council menders at the December 6th council meeting. I am enclosing
a sheet with the correct illformation. In essence, the erroneous
information indicated a higher monthly water bill than would have
actually occurred in our proposal for the years 1999, 2000, and
2001. In row three at the bottom of the sheet, the figures for 1999,
2000, and 2001 should be $41.91, $44.01, and $46.34 rather than
$44.01, $44.86 and $54.23, respectively. Therefore, the figure
107.6% on the very last line should be 77.4% rather than 107.6%. I
have re-checked all of the figures with only two other errors, each 3
cents or less. Sorry for these errors, but we did it in a hurry to
get it ready.
Sincerely yours,
Edwin K. Barker
Water Meter Reading Proposals
January 17, 1995
Edwin K. Barker
Addendum to Letter To Steve Atkins Dated January 16,
1995
Read Meters
Once A Month
Read Meters
Every 3 Months
Additional Employees
$90,000 / 3 people /
40 hrs / 52.14 weeks =
$14.38 per hour
$ 90,000
Fewer Employees -$30,000 (A guess)
Postage
16,000 meters x $.32
x 8 months = $40,960
$ 40,960
Paper Per Billing
$.10 x 16,000 meters x
8 months (Just a guess')
$ 12,800
Educational materials
16,000 meters x $.75
$ 12,000
Other Costs ? ?
Totals $143,760 -$ 18,000
Savings:
$143,760
$ 8,000
$161,760
Just to be conservative, let's say that it would cost $130,000 less
to read the meters once every three months than it does to read them
each month. The annual water department revenue is approximately
$3,656,100. If operating costs are reduced, or in affect not
increased, by $130,000, we are saving an average of 3.56% on each
customers water bill.
This procedure assumes using a coupon system for the two out of three
months that the meters are not read whereby customers would pay their
monthly estimates without receiving a bill. This is how we save
$40,960 per year ill postage.
GUEST OPINION
Edwin K. Barker
Februal~ 9, 1995
The recent editorial in tile Press Citizen entitled "Time to put water debate under
bridge" mast oot go mmswered.. The prinm~ reason, aad perhaps the only reason, that
the construction of tile water treatment plant and the water platit has beeo delayed is that
all unusually large omnber of I)eople objected to tile 113.4% ])roposed increase in
water/waste water rates over a 13 months period o£titne. The members oftlie city cottaoil
should be COml>limented on not imposlug the two year rate increase as proposed by tl~e
city a¢lmiaistratioa. 'D~e cotmoil members wisely decided to request reasonable alternative
proposals from the administration, accompanied by additional opportmfities for the public
to review a~d comment on all alternatives presented, whether they come fi'om the public
or fi'om the administratioa. The Press Citizen, o£ all groups, sboukl encourage this
approach rather than implying "We are tired of all this controversy; let's get the projects
underway aM get it over with". I particalarly object to the paragraph in the editorial titat
states, "The portrayal of these private actions as social crusades to obtain justice for
others £ools only the most gullible of people, and possibly those who attempt to wrap their
sel£-serving intentioa in a mantle of public concern". This is I~micalarly otFensive to those
of us who have tried to preseat reasonable alternatives to any objections we might have
had to the original proposals.
The couucil has had befbre it since November a viable alternative that would permit the
city to build both plants as they originally plam~ed but on a different time fi'ame. This
proposal calls tbr all annual iacrease in waste water/water rates of I I% for a few years, a
mucb smaller oae for one year and none thereafter due to tile two construction projects.
The Chamber oF Commerce bas also presented the couucll with a rather detailed rationale
t'or a different construction time frame than the original proposal fi'om the admiaistration.
Also, the council was presented with a proposal that would save a minimum of
$130,000 a year by reading meters every three months, but with monthly paymeats using a
coupon system such as is used by the county to pay real estate taxes. The council d~oose
aot to give this proposal serious consideration, pm~.ly because they have been convinced
that moathly readings are necessary for cash flow teasous and to detect leaks ia peoples'
homes. Monthly coupon payments would take care of the cash flow problem and the city
ah'eady has a fine booklet on bow to save water, how to detect leaks and bow to go about
repairing those leaks. A saving of $130,000 a year represeots 3.56% of the 1994 water
revenues. These saylags, therefore, would have a sigoificant impact on a persofts water
pm~.ioa ot' their waste water/water bill withoot affecting service or quality ot~ water one
iota.
It behooves all us to work with the city cotmoil to briog about a solution to the waste
water/water situation that will provide us with the quantity and quality of water we need
as we move towards the 21 st century. We surely need not cut off debate as implied by the
Press Citizen editorial tmtil we know precisely what is the best way for us to proceed.
Opea debate oo all public issues, which the members of the city council have ¢mmnitted
to on the water issue, is the best way to proceed.
CITY OF I0 WA CITY
February 28, 1995
Charlie Duffy, Chair
Johnson County Board of Supervisors
913 S. Dubuque St.
Iowa City, IA 52240
Dear Charlie & Members of the Board:
An application has been submitted to Johnson County by Betty Sedlacek to rezone .73 acres
from A1, Rural, to RS, Suburban Residential. This property is located within Fringe Area 4,
near the southeast corner of Newport Road and Prairie du Chien Road.
At its February 16, 1995, meeting, the Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended that the City Council forward a comment to the Johnson County Board of
Supervisors stating that since the property will be used for farm family purposes, the
application is consistent with the mutually agreed upon Fringe Area Policy for Fringe Area 4
and the City recommends approval. The Council concurs with the Planning and Zoning
Commission recommendation.
Sincerely,
Susan M. Horowitz
Mayor
410 EAST WASHINGTON STREET · IOWA CITY, IOWA ~2240.1526 · (319) JJ6-$000 · FAX (;119)