HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-07-11 CorrespondenceI would like the Iowa City council to strongly consider keeping
the East Loop bus~runnin~. My child r_id. es this bus during the
s~chool .year. To: ,~0-]/(~(L~ at?_..~(~c~u_. boarding~t.~
would like to have the opportugity to nave my chile I)t) aule co
ride th, t,,s bus ,n~ex.~ year (1995-96).
~.'Y" ~: Name:
I!d Address: J~{~-X~//~'id~OYL~' ~
Iowa City, la. 5224
Vi~lde Abrah.m~o~/ICO N ~' 1503 7,3,8 3961 1~6129/g5 03:27PM ~112
June 29,1995
FAX TO:
Iowa City City Council
Stephen Arkins, City Manager
FROM:
Irene Dyer, Kurt Dyer, Vickie Dyer Abrahamson
1231 South Riverside Drive
Iowa City, Iowa 52246
351- 8017
SUBJECT: Sturgis Ferry Park compost/recycling site
Dirty diapers, paint cans, plastic bottles, cardboard boxes, pop
cons, 60+ gallons of motor oli, car batteries, tires, puddles of
spilled oil, bulging garbage sacks, five ramshackled shanties(re
cycling bins?), a 10 foot by 30+ foot pile of brush, branches, logs, a
rotting fence corralling a steaming mountain of compost
WELCOME TO iOWA CITY!I!
This is the mess-better known as the recycling and compost site-- at the
southern entrance to Iowa City, on South Riverside Drive. isn't it ludicrous that
a city sign at Sturgis Park proclaims Iowa City to be a "Tree City USA" and not
50 feet away this new maverick dump thrives.
For 37 years our family has called 1231 South Riverside Drive, home. The
Airlane Motel and tri-plex apartments are our businesses. We pay $8000.00 a
year property taxes plus another 12% on every dollar earned for motel taxes.
When we first moved to Riverside Drive the landfill was a rancid open wound,
directly across the street. We endured the smell, rodents and the garbage
blown into our yard and thankfully, in 1972, the land was reclaimed as a
riverside park and picnic area. Now, history is starting to repeat itself as people
toss their trash and earth blackening oils and chemicals any time of the day or
night at this gateway to Iowa City. The tinal straw came this morning as two
mallards swam in an oil slicked pool next to the "recycling bins."
Either the City Council or the iowa Department Of Natural
Resources should take action. This site needs to be cleaned-up
immediately. Isn't there a more appropriate location for a recycling center and
compost pile than in Sturgis Park, curbside on Riverside Drive? Shouldn't the
disposal of dangerous pollutants be supervised? And, shouldn't Iowa City set a
positive example for property owners by presenting a clean and honest face to
its citizens. At a minimum, the oils must be controlled and a tall fence built to
shield this eyesore.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this growing problem.
June 22, 1995
TO.CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
THE INVISIBLE COMPANY
In the past six months I have had four inter-
ruptions of my cable service, once for as long
as two hours. Each time I've tried calling
TCI, but I only get busy signals.
Shouldn't TCI be required to have a phone
system capable of receiving an'above-aver-
age number of calls? The company should wel-
come calls in order to determine the extent of
the problems. Can't the company leave a re-
corded message advising customers of breakdovms
and estimated repair time? Such messages should
be revised to fit each occasion. Or, could the
company flash a message on the television screen?
In other words, TCI should make a greater effort
to keep the line of communications open to its
customers.
R"ic%ard F. Houston
1429 Franklin Street
Iowa City IA 52240
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
July 6, 1995
The Honorable Mayor, City Council and City Clerk
James Brachtel, Traffic Engineer
Parking Prohibition on Hickory Trail at First Avenue
As directed by Title 9, Chapter 1, Section 3 of the City Code, this is to advise you of the
following action:
ACTION:
Pursuant to Section 9-1-3A10 of the City Code, the City Traffic Engineer will direct the
installation of NO PARKING CORNER TO HERE on the south side of Hickory Trail from its
intersection with First Avenue to a point 30 feet east of the intersection and the installation
of a NO PARKING HERE TO CORNER on the north side of Hickory Trail located at a point 30
feet east of the intersection with First Avenue. These two signs will be installed on or shortly
after July 21, 1995.
COMMENT:
This action is being taken to ensure that there will be adequate maneuvering space for
vehicles turning through the intersection of First Avenue and Hickory Trail.
bN~cko~'
V?AO I" ' '?A",01
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 6, 1995
To:
The Honorable Mayor, City Council and City Clerk
From:
Re:
James Brachtel, Traffic Engineer
Parking Prohibition on the Cul-de-Sac of Bluestem Court
As directed by Title 9, Chapter 1, Section 3 of the City Code, this is to advise you of the
following action:
ACTION:
Pursuant to Section 9-1-3A10 of the City Code, the City Traffic Engineer will direct the
installation of NO PARKING ANY TIME on the cul-de-sac portion of Bluestem Court. This
action will take place on or shortly after July 21, 1995,
COMMENT:
This action is being upon the completion of a postcard questionnaire of the residents of
Bluestem Court.. Twelve questionnaires were distributed and of those twelve, ten were
returned. Eight of the responding residents favored the proposed prohibition and two were
opposed to it. Based upon this response, the action noted above will be taken.
b~bkmstem
V'.ml "..9 ,;A:O
City Council
City of Iowa City
Re: Proposed Location of Science Center
July 10, 1995
I am very concerned with the concept of locating the proposed Science Center at the
new water plant site. My primary concern is transportation. We as a society need to
become less dependent on the private automobile. The private automobile consumes
resources both to operate and to provide streets and parking. This site seems to be
selected based on serving the needs of the automobile.
If the Iowa City community is to finance the construction and maintenance of this facility
it should be built for this community. Our children should be able to visit the facility
without relying on a parent to serve them as a chauffeur. The site should be part of the
city core. if we believe in the city core as a viable area we as a community must suppor~
it. How do we tell businesses that the downtown is accessible when we build out by the
interstate because it is accessible?
It is my understanding that this site is not served by public transportation. There is
currently no population concentration to make a bus route financially feasible. We as a
community will need to subsidize a bus route if we decide to provide public
transportation.
This remote location will require bicycles and walkers to cross an Interstate highway. A
separate bridge will need to be provided to separate this traffic from the heavy highway
traffic. This cost will take away from the money available for other community needs.
The construction of this facility will encourage out of town visitors to stay out of Iowa
City. W'ny would you drive into Iowa City before or after your visit when facilities of
other towns are available right on the the Interstate? If the Iowa City community is
paying for this facility why are we sending the economic benefits to other communities?
If the facility is built in the city core its users will be more likely to shop and eat in our
community.
I can see no benefit to locating this facility at the water plant site. It is not accessible to
our citizens without driving there in a car. It will show our children that we do worship
our cars. It will generate little economic benefit to our businesses. It will prove to
visitors and businesses that we consider our city core to be inaccessible.
Please let us stand up for our community and build this facility in our city core. It could
be combined with the library expansion to create a learning center. It could be part of
the Arts center possibly making that project more viable. It could be built to the East of
the Robert Lee building. There are probably other sites in the city core. These site~,are
accessible by public transportation allowing our children to easily visit the f~Jl[ty,
encourage visitors to visit our city core and support our city core. :-..
Sincerely: C~
Robert C. Carlson AIA
1122 Penkridge Drive, Iowa
Karen Kubby ?!~ '~' '
City Council, Iowa City
95JUL II PiI t,,: 56 11 July 1995
Dear Karen: .:. . .;
I am pleased to give my reactions, ~§~ ~,o, n.,b.~iCt..,and at your request, to the
June 30, 1995 Memorandum to the City M~.db.'~6~' fr6~ ~l~i~Finance D~rector
concerning various WastewaterNVater Rate and Financing Options presently under
consideration by the City Council. I should say that my remarks are based on a
weekend reading of that Memorandum, but with time so short before your Tuesday
(today's) Council meeting I've had no opportunity to check out some questions I had
on the data and its construction. Still, I hope these remarks may prove useful.
The Memorandum seeks to compare a base "no cash" financing option -- in
which the Water and Wastewater projects are financed completely by 25-year, level
debt service 7% revenue bonds -- with various "cash accumulation" financing options.
The latter are based on a "phase-in" construction schedule and the generation of a
"cash accumulation" by the year 2001, to be injected at that time into the financing
stream in lieu of the equivalent debt obligation. It is held that the higher the cash
accumulation as a targeted percentage of the project costs (data is provided for
percentages of 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25), the greater will be the "savings" achieved. And
on this basis the 25 percent cash accumulation plan is recommended as optimal.
But the notion of "savings" that is employed to reach that conclusion is faulty, as
I will seek to demonstrate below. Before getting analytical, however, the following
observation will make the point in straightforward, "bottom line" fashion. Keep in mind
that whichever plan is selected -- cash accumulation or no -- it is to be paid for entirely
by the users of the water and wastewater facilities via the usage rate structure. Now
consult the table on the last page of the Memorandum, which displays the rate and
cost data for the Water Project. Compare the first column ("Entirely from Bonds") and
last column ("25% Cash in 2001") with respect to the entries for Average Monthly
Costs for Residential, Commercial and Industrial users from FY 1995 to FY 2006.
Notice that for each category of user and for every year, the average monthly costs of
the "25% cash" plan are greater, and for some years significantly greater, than the
corresponding average monthly costs under the "no cash" plan. (Monthly rates for the
outyears presumably follow suit, since estimated annual rate adjustments have zeroed
out by 2006.) The 25% cash plan is clearly, dramatically more expensive for the only
class of people footing the construction and financing bills, the usersl And yet the 25%
cash plan is represented as enabling a "savings" of $17,864,2851 So what's going on?
The answer resides partly in understanding just who is "saving" what, and partly
in recognizing whose costs are not being fully accounted for by the formula employed
in the Memorandum. Under any of the cash accumulation plans, the City Council is
"saving" by obligating for a lower debt and, thus, lower debt service payments
(principal plus interest) over the 25 year life of the bond. But the cash accumulation
that makes this possible is coming from none other than the ratepayers, who are being
asked to finance the City's lower debt obligation with what amounts to a 25%
"downpayment" (under a cash accumulation plan, rates are increased in the short term
from now to the year 2001 in order to achieve the accumulation target by that date).
The point can also be seen this way. Under the 25% cash accumulation plan for
the Water project (to stay with this as our illustrative example), ratepayers are being
asked to pay for the City's "savings" of $17,864,285 via a cash accumulation of
$13,242,018 by 2001. Now this may still look like a "good deal," until one realizes that
the first figure is the undiscounted sum of debt service payments thereby "saved" over
the 25 years of the obligation. But an undiscounted summation (the methodology
employed in the Memorandum, I believe) values a dollar saved 25 years from now
exactly the same as a dollar saved today, rather than as the fraction of today's dollar it
is valued at by the credit markets. And this greatly overstates the present value of the
"savings" claimed as the benefit of the "25% cash" plan.
Here is another, equivalent way to make the same point. By asking ratepayers
to accumulate the cash target of $13,242,018 by 2001, the City is asking them to forgo
-- as one alternative use they might have for those funds -- the interest payments they
could earn on that sum over the next 19 years, were they to lend it out themselves. In
other words, the City's "savings" in the form of lower principal plus interest payments
(made in the name, presumably, of the community's ratepayers) is to be paid for by
principal and interest forgone by those very same ratepayersl And now we come full
circle: notice that ratepayers could use the interest from such investments to finance
the larger debt service obligations of a "no cash" plan. So to repeat, the ratepayers
(i.e., the projects' ultimate billpayers) are saved nothing by a cash accumulation plan.
(If you remain skeptical, recall the "bottom line" observations above.)
In the final analysis, the essence of a decision to go for a "cash accumulation"
plan is not a matter of "saving" on what economists call the present value of the
projects (essentially, the cash required for construction today), but a question of
distributing the cost of that construction over time. The beauty of a credit market system
is that it allows us to build today (or "phase-in" construction where that is the sensible
thing to do) and to smooth our payments according to a time profile that suits our
preferences and pocketbooks (in any given year, we do have other things we'd like to
spend our income on).
We are about to build a water and wastewater system which will probably serve
the needs of a growing Iowa City for the better part of the next century. I think it speaks
well for us to provide generously for the health and comfort of following generations.
But why ask the present generation of users to pay this rather large bill in anything less
than the 25 years we would have under a "no cash" plan?
Sincerely,
Michael Balch
Associa!e Professor of Economics