HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-08-15 Info PacketCity of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
August 4, 1995
Memo for Record
City Manager
Material Sent to Council Only
Memorandum from Mayor Horowitz regarding Human Rights Commission realignment.
Copy of letter from MayorHorowitz to Johnson County mayors regarding
joint meeting about solid. waste management.
Copy of letter from the City Manager to the League of Iowa Municipalities
regarding transit levy. t
Memoranda from the City A~torney:
a. Annual Report o~'Litigation Year
b. Administrative ~rder from DNR
c. Article on "takings" cases for a legal seminar on wetlands
d. Property acquisition efforts in City Attorney's office
e. Conflict of interest question regarding Spitter Ticket Project
Agenda for the August 3, 1995, meeting of the Johnson County Board of
Supervisors.
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 4, 1995
To: City Council Members
From: Susan M. Horowitz, Mayor ~
Re: Human Rights Commission Realignment
Last week I approached AI Axeen and Dave RobeAs about the concept and potential of having
a county-wide Human Rights Commission. AI had called me about creating an Iowa
City/Coralville diversity forum in response to the recent racial discrimination activity. I felt there
had been and continue to be avenues for such an exchange without the cities creating another
entity and suggested the idea of a human rights commission which would encompass Iowa City,
Coralville and possibly North Liberty. AI liked the idea. Dave Roberts agrees it is time to begin
discussions about it.
Please let me know your reactions, pros and cons. I have not discussed this with any of our
current Commission members. I have discussed this with Steve and Heather. An important
element to any such proposal would be the willingness of each municipality to approve a human
rights ordinance. Since then AI has indicated his Council wasn't interested, period. So, it still is
a concept with potential.
bC4-2SA
See attached for a list of addressees.
CITY OF I0 WA CITY
August 1,1995
Mayor Cleo R. Troyer
City of Kalona
P.O. Box N
Kalona, IA 52247-1213
Dear Mayor Troyer:
By now you are aware of the interest of an area pdvate disposal firm, N&N Sanitation, to
construct a transfer station for the collection of refuse. As I understand their thinking, they
would transfer that refuse to a landfill out of the Iowa City area, most likely a landfill in Illinois.
As I further understand it, N&N is undertaking this project for economic reasons, that is, the
Illinois landfill rates are lower. Clearly if the company is successful in the construction of the
transfer station and secures agreements with surrounding communities, it could have a
significant financial impact on the Iowa City landfill. For this reason alone, the Iowa City City
Council is most concerned, although we would adjust our management and finances
accordingly.
Based on my years of planning and working in the solid waste management area, my primary
concern is that N&N may offer short-term economic gain (lower landfill rates) to area
communities which now use the Iowa City landfill and while communities may see the short
term benefit, they may not be aware of the long term consequences. For instance, by the time
Iowa City adjusted operations, that is downsized staff and other commitments, a current user,
who may have joined N&N, may wish to return. This coming and going of local jurisdictions
(as landfill users) would be a significant financial hardship on the City landfill operations.
Furthermore, the issues of landfill liabilities are made more complex. Iowa City has chosen to
assume IongAerm liability for closure; in return non-Iowa City users pay a premium on their
tonnage. Without a plan for accumulating cash (financial assurance), a State requirement, such
a policy is in jeopardy, A community must also question if they will be legally liable to the
landfill out of state for post-closure financing.
While we do not have any official information as to how fast N&N Sanitation would choose to
move on their transfer station construction, we do need to consider it as a real possibility,
particularly with DNR approval already granted.
The Council has authorized me to call a meeting of vadous jurisdictions to discuss this and
other landfill issues. We believe we need to inform the other jurisdictions of our concerns and
all parties need to be fully aware of the consequences, If the Iowa City landfill is to remain a
CIVIC CENTER · 410 & WA$1IINOTON $^T. ~
PHONE (319)
regional landfill and provide landfill services in a responsible and economic fashion, we must
have some control of the waste stream into the landfill. Recent Supreme Court decisions
severely restdct the City's ability for such control and I see no effort on the part of the State to
try to fashion legislation to protect interests of landfill operators or regulate the waste stream.
Quite to the contrary, it was the State which approved the transfer station for N&N Sanitation.
I felt the meeting of locally elected officials on the sales tax was productive --.not for a yes or
no vote B because at least all of us heard the same information at the same time. So here
are some of what I believe to be pertinent issues to be considered at our meeting:
It currently remains the Council desire to continue to operate a regional landfill, make
it available to all of Johnson County, Kalona and Riverside. In doing so we wish to av9id
any dramatic changes in operations (comings and goings by users) that could cause
rates, complement of employees, equipment purchase and operating policies to be
subject to unpredictable changes --"planned" yes but unpredictable no.
In order to maintain control of the waste stream, we believe we must fashion some sort
of an agreement which provides for the waste to be "mandated" to be delivered to the
Iowa City landfill. It might well be that 28E agreements with surrounding cities could be
an instrument to accomplish such "control." The 28E agreement must be uniform; as I
am sure you can appreciate, each jurisdiction may want their own particular little wrinkle
in the agreement. Therefore, we must understand the interests of all parties early on.
o
o
recognize the 28E agreement idea may be met with skepticism because it appears we
are telling you what you have to do to continue your use of the Iowa City landfill. If a
jurisdiction should choose not to sign such an agreement, I would assume they would
seek other landfill and solid waste services.
It is likely our regional comprehensive plan partnership in ECICOG would change. We
users of the I.C. landfill would need to design our own comprehensive plan for landfill
users.
One major advantage of the I.C. landfill is that we can reasonably project that the landfill
could have life of 25+ years - a real benefit to users.
We would want all participating jurisdictions to require by ordinance all waste be
directed to the Iowa City landfill. This does not regulate collection, only disposal.
Iowa City plans to encourage the State legislation which requires private operators of
transfer stations to pay state taxes and fees, as we do, and therefore dramatically
reduce the competitive advantage private .transfer station operators now enjoy.
Iowa City landfill also provides special sewices to our users, such as toxic clean-up
days. These services would be difficult to finance without long-term financial
commitments.
I have scheduled a meeting for Monday, August 21 at 7:00 p.m. in the Iowa City Council
Chambers. I would like you and other representatives of your local government to please
attend, Call my office at 356-5010 to confirm your attendance. We will hopefully discuse the
issues pertinent to our landfill operation so that all of us understand the details and what they
meant to each and all of us,
Sincerely,
Susan M, Horowitz
Mayor
CC:
tp2-2.~'
City Council
City Manager
Director of Public Works
Solid Waste Superintendent
· Mayor Allan Axeen
City of Coralville
Mayor Russell Bailey
City of Hills
Mayor Robert Weisor
City of Lone Tree
Mayor David J. Roberts
City of North Liberty
Mayor Donald Saxton
City of Oxford
Mayor Duane Sivertsen
City of Shueyville
Mayor Steven J. Grover
City of Solon
Mayor Mike Scheib
City of Swisher
Mayor Glenn Potter
City of Tiffin
Mayor Donald Swanson
City of University Heights
Mayor Robert J. Schneider
City of Riverside
Mayor Cleo R. Troyer
City of Kalona
Charles Duffy, Chair
Johnson County Board of Supervisors
August 1, 1995
CITY OF I0 WA CITY
Tom Bredewig
League of Iowa Municipalities
317 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1400
Des Moines, IA 50309
Dear Tom;
The City of Iowa City has had a history of providing convenient, efficient transit service.
During FY95, 1,541,975 rides were provided system-wide. These ridership numbers
represent a continuing commitment to mass transit by the community. Additional service
costs have been incurred as a result of the Americans with Disabilities Act. While the
community has shown support for the ADA as it relates to transit service, we must
realistically deal with the financial consequences. The rising cost to provide transit service
cannot be met by fare revenue alone.
The current operating budget for our transit system is $3.1 million. In addition to fare
revenue, Iowa City, as do other transit systems, receives operating assistance from federal
and state programs. These combined revenues cannot meet the needs of our community,
particularly in the future. Continuation of the level of service our community now enjoys is
dependent upon the local transit levy and a transfer from the general fund. At the present
time, Iowa City Transit is funded 24% from fare revenue, 9% federal operating assistance,
8% state operating assistance, 44% transit levy, and 15% general fund transfer.
The current uncertainty with federal operating support increases the importance of local tax
options to continue to provide transit service, Any reduction in the federal and state operating
assistance could have disastrous effects on service to the community and those who need
transit services.
I encourage the League of Iowa Municipalities to support the legislative option of an expanded
local transit levy. The current tax allows each community to evaluate its own situation and
determine if the tax is needed. The levy limit is now 95¢;, raised a few years ago from 56¢.
An increase in the levy limit for transit can be used by a community at its discretion. With
the 8.10 limit and the likely reductions in State and Federal aid, we need to seek additional
financial support options. This expanded levy limit can help offset revenue loss from
State/Federal sources, and could be used as a capital replacement reserve. Currently the
federal government provides 80% funding for new buses, but at $200,000 per bus, cities are
still required to raise 940,000 per unit purchased. An alternative for the city's share could
CIVIC CENTER e 410 E. WASHINGTON ST.
IOWA CITY IOWA 5~240-1826
PHONE (319)
FAX(319) 356-$009
Tom Bredewig
August 1, 1995
Page 2
be general obligation debt; however, it would likely require a local referendum. Given the
national mood, such a referendum would have difficulty in voter approval, and long-
established transit service and ridership would be jeopardized. An increase in the transit levy
limit appears to be a necessary and viable option.
Please let me know if you need additional information
Sincerely,
Stephen J. Atkins
City Manager
CC:
City Council
Joe Fowler, Director of Parking & Transit
Don Yucuis, Director of Finance
Iowa City Area State Legislative Delegation
City of Iow; City
MEMORANDUM
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
August 4, 1995
The Honorable Mayor Susan M, Horowitz and Members of the City Council
Linda Newman Woito, City Attorney ~
Annual Report on Litigation Year (June 1994-June 1995)
I have listed the cases which came into this Office, for defense, during the past year, and also
noted the cases successfully disposed of in the City's favor, as agreed.
MAJOR CASES
New Major Cases
June 1994-June 1995
Major Cases
Successfully Resolved
Baculis I (Defamation Claim),
Glasgow I (Injunction),
Shannon & Wilson v. City
(Leachate Remediation; dismissed
7/94),
Baculis 11 (Sewer Dispute),
Dralle v. City (PI Accident).
Eicher v. City (Federal Docket;
defamation).
Ebinqer v. City (PI Accident).
Keister v, Jackson (§ 1983; favorable
ruling 7/94).
Munz v. City (§ 1983; favorable ruling
8/94; Munz appealed to 8th Circuit).
Riley III ('93 Tax Appeal; Riley
dismissed 8/94).
Smith-Moreland v, City (Water
Connection Fee Dispute).
Yeltatzie v. City (§ 1983; settled
10/94).
10,
Baculis II1 (CDBG Housing Dispute).
Washinclton Park v. City (Declaratory
Judgment),
Curran v. City (Water Bill Collection
Dispute).
Cherry & Rooks v. Leichtv (Housing
Discrimination; ruling against
Cherry & Rooks 10/94).
Olson v. City (Slip & Fall; settled
10/94).
-2-
11. Glas,qow II (Mandamus; Injunction 8,
for Trees),
12. Schaeffer v. City (Wrongful Eviction),
9,
13. Citv v, GlasGow & GlasGow v, City
(Condemnation Appeals),
14. Washington Park v, City & 10,
Citv v, WashinGton Park {Condemnation
Appeals),
15. S & G Materials v, City & 11.
City v. S & G Materials (Condemnation
Appeals).
12.
16. Glasgow III (Request for Minutes of
Executive Sessions).
13.
17. Eicher v. City (State Docket;
Defamation).
14.
18. Swails v. City (Quiet Title).
19. Iowa State Bank v. City (Water Main 15.
Break Damage Claim).
20. Balcor II (Wardway Plaza '94 Tax 16.
Appeal).
21. Heritaqe VIII ('94 Tax Appeal)
22. SouthGate I (K-Mart '94 Tax Appeal).
23. South~ate II (325 Washington St.
'94 Tax Appeal).
24. Millard Refriqerated ('94 Tax Appeal).
25. Metro Pavers ('94 Tax Appeal).
26. Law ('94 Tax Appeal).
27. Hu.qhes. ('94 Tax Appeal).
28. Oakes ('94 Tax Appeal.
Eicher v. City (Federal Docket
Defamation; favorable ruling
12/9~,).
Ye.qgy I11 (Contempt Action; favorable
ruling 12/94; Yeggys appealed to
Supreme Court).
Schoborg v. Anderson & SEATS v.
I.C. & Coralville (PI Accident;
favorable ruling 1/95).
Schaefferv. City (Wrongful eviction;
settled 1/95).
Kebschull v, City (§ 1983; Kebschull
dismissed 3/95).
Iowa State Bank v. City (Water
Damage Claim; settled 4/95)
Bur.qs I. (§1983; favorable ruling
5/95).
Baculis III (CDBG dispute; favorable
ruling 5~95).
Glasgow III {Closed Sessions;
favorable ruling 6/95; Glasgow
appealed to Supreme Court),
-3-
Comparing my last litigation update with 52 major cases pending, with 53 cases as of July
1, 1995, we are still "holding our own." However, the land acquisition and condemnation is
still staggering.
As has been the case since I became City Attorney in April 1990, nearly all new major cases
have been kept in-house. In light of the distractions due to time needed to train four new
employees and all of the turmoil over the water plant, our record speaks especially well for
the litigation skills of my attorneys and support staff, as well as the skills of John Hayek and
David Brownl
CC'
Marian Karr, City Clerk
Steve Atkins, City Manager
Dale Helling, Assistant City Manager
City Attorney Office Staff
Inw/mm
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: August4, 1995
To: The Hon.oreble Mayor Susan M. Horowitz and Members of the City Council
From: Linda Newman Woito, City Attorney ~
Re: Administrative order from the DNR concerning the wastewater treatment fac~hties; intent
to appeal administrative order
Attached please find a copy of Administrative Order No. 95-WW-16, directing the City to carry out
certain actions with respect to attempting to lower the Icyels of copper and memury in the
wastewater stream returning to the Iowa River, On Thursday, August 3, 1995, I met with City
staff and University staff, including one of their attorneys, to discuss the Order.
It is my intent to appeal the Order through administrative procedures, which will be like a "mini-
trial"- only at an administrative level. This will mean preparing for a hearing in Des Moines, and
I will have to have City staff and experts available to present our case.
City Clerk
City Manager
Assistant City Manager
Chuck Schmadeke, Public Works Director
Dave Elias, Wastewater Division Superintendent
Dick Northam, Assistant Wastewater Division Superintendent
Drew Ives, University of Iowa Attorney
CO:
AUachment
JTJl 2 7 1995 ~--
IOWA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER
IN THE MATTER OF:
CTIT OF IOWA CITY
Wastewater Facility Nos. 6-52-2.5-O-Ol and
~-52-25-0-02
TO:
City of Iowa City
c/o Honorable Mayor and Council
410 E. Washingion Street
Iowa City, IA 52240-1826
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER
NO. 95-WW-/u
City of Iowa City
c/o Charles Schmadeke
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240-18.~6
I. SUMMARY
This Order requkes you to implement the measures stated herein to comply with
permiRed effluent limitations.
I!. JURISDICTION
This Order is issued pursuant to Iowa Code section 455B.175(1) which authorizes the
Director to issue any order necessary to secure compliance with or prevent a violation of
Iowa Code chapter 455B, Division 11% Part 1, and the rules promulgated or permits issued
pursuant thereto.
Ill. STATEMENT OF FACTS
i. The City of Iowa City owns and operates Wastewater Facility Nos. 6-52-25.0-01
and 6-52-25-0-02, located in Section 15, T79N, R6W (north plant)~ and Section 35 T79N,
R6W (south plant), Jolmon County, Iowa. The facilities include municipal waste
collection and treatment facilities.
2. Treated wastewater is discharged to the Iowa River pursuant to Iowa NPDES
Permit Nos. 6-52.25-0-01 and 6-52-25-0-02. The permits contain limitations for the
discharge of pollutants, including but not limited to heavy metals, including copper, and
mercury. The facility ~ exceeded the l~nitations for these pollutants.
IOWA DEPARTMENT OF NATIJRAL RESOURCES
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER
CITY OF IOWA CITY
3, Administrative Order 93-WW-02 was issued by the Department on January 21,
1993, requiri~, g the City to perform studies to identify and reduce the sources of
contributution of these metals to the system. The City has performed such studies and
taken various measures to comply. However, violations have persisted. On March 21,
1995, the Department requested the City to submit a compliance schedule for further
measures to comply. The City submitted a proposal on May 2, 1995, with which the
Department concurs.
IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Iowa Code section 455B. 186 prohibits the discharge of pollutants to waters o£ the
state contrary to a permit from this DeparUnent. The discharges noted above violate this
provision., ,' ~,
2. Iowa Code section 455B.173 authorizes and requires the Environmental
?rotection Commission to promulgate rules relating to the operation of waste disposal
systems and discharge of pollutants into waters of the state. The Commission has done so
at 567--60-69, Iowa Administrative Code (IAC). Subrule 64.3(1) proMbits the operation
of any waste disposal system contrary to any condition of a permit. Rule 64.6 specifies
the conditions that are to be included in a permit, including applicable effluent limitations
in chapters 61 and 62 of the rules. The effluent limitations contained in Iowa NPDES
Permit Nos. 6-52-25-0-01 and 6-52-25-0-02 for this facility are based on these rules. The
discharges noted above violate the permit and the above-cited rules.
3. This faci~ity's NPDES permits requke these facilities to be adequately operated
and maintained. Standard Condition 8 of the permits provides that all faciaties and control
systems shall be operated as efficiently as possible and maintained in good working order.
V. ORDER
THEl~FOI~, you are ordered to comply with the following provisions in. order to
cease, abate, and redress the above-cited violations:
1. Require the University of Iowa to clean out and/or replace potentially
contaminated drain traps and properly dispose of contaminated wastes, by the start of fall
semester (9-1-95).
2. Requke the University of Iowa to implement a quality control program by the start
of fall semester (9-1-95) aimed at eliminating heavy metal discharges to the sanitary sewer
system.
3. Work with the general public, industrial facilities, and the University of Iowa to
promote source reduction of me*,al wastes and to improve waste management practices.
IOWA DEPARTM~ENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER
CITY OF IOWA ~
4. Resea,r, ch and put into place, sampling methods, analytical techniques and quality
control procedures by 5.31-96 to obtain meaningfid mercury results.
5. Collect data using new methods (see g4), evaluate results for compliance and for
potential copper and mercury sources by 5-31-97.
6. Continue data collection, develop and implement remediation plans by 11-30-97.
7. Continue data collection, and evaluate effectiveness of remediation efforts by 11-
30-98.
8. Submit-semi-annual progress reports to DNR, with the first rep<n~ being due 9-30-
95 and then every 3-31 ~nd 9-30 there'~.Rer, with the last report due 3-31-99.
9. All facilities asd control systems shall be operated as efficiently as possible and
maintained in good working order so as to achieve the optimum effluent quality feasible.
Vl. PENALTY
1. Iowa Code section 455B:191 authorizes the assessment of civil penalties of up to
$5000.00 per day of violation for the violations LaveIred in this matter. More serious
criminal sanctions are aim available pursuant to that provision.
2. Iowa Code section 455B.109 authorizes the Environmental Protection
Commission to establish by rule a schedule of civil penalties up.to $10,000.00 which may
be assessed admir~stratively. The Commission has adopted this schedule with procedures
and criteria for assessment of penalties; Chapter 567-10 of the. Iowa Administrative Code.
(IAC). Pursuant to this rule, the Department has determined that the most effective and
efficient means of addressing the above-cited violations is the issuance of an
Administrative Order without a penalty.
VII. APPEAL RIGHTS
Pursuant to Iowa Code sections 455B.175(1), and 561-7.5(1), Iowa Administrative
Code fI.A.C.), as adopted by reference by chapter 567-7, I.A.C., a written Notice of
Appeal to the Enviromental Protection Commission may be filed within 30 days of
receipt of this Order. The Notice of Appeal should be filed with the Director of the
department, and must identify the specific portion or portions of this order being appealed
and include a short and plain statement of the reasons for appeal. A contested case
hearing will then be commenced pursuant to Iowa Code chapter 17A and chapter 561o-7,
Iowa Administrative Code.
3
IOWA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER
CITY OF IOWA CITY
VIII. NONCOMPLIANCE
Failure to comply with this order may result in the imposition of administrative penalties
or referral to the Attorney General to obtain appropriate relief pursuant to Iowa Code
sections 455B.191.
Any questions regarding this order should be directed to:
Diana Hansen
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Henry A~ Wallace Building
Des Me'roes, Iowa 5031900034
Ph: 515/281-6267
IOWA DBP~
Dated thi~day of
· 1995
4
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 3, 1995
To: The Honorable Mayor Susan M. Horowitz and Members of the City Council
From: Linda Newman Woito, City Attorney ~
Re: Article on "takings" cases for a legal seminar on wetlands
Since this City Council seems very much interested in land use law, including constitutional
'Iaking" claims, I am passing on this article, FYI. I have not included the proposed Iowa and
Congressional legislation, due to its length - but will be happy to provide copies, if you so
request.
With this Article, together with my research on the water impact fee, you should all become
"experts" on "unconstitutional takings"!
CC:
Marian Karr, City Clerk
Steve Atkins, City Manager
Dale Helling, Assistant City Manager
City Attorney Office Staff
VIII. "TAKING" CASES/ISSUES,
B.
C.
D,
E.
F.
G.
H.
OVERVIEW
REGULATORY TAKINGS - JUSTICE HOLMES' LEGACY
FURTHER REFINEMENT OF REGULATORY TAKINGS LAW
DOLAN AND ITS PROGENY
IOWA'S FOUR APPROACHES TO REGULATORY TAI(INGS
WETLANDS/"TAKINGS" CASES
REMEDIES AND CAUTION ON PLEADINGS/THEORIES OF RECOVERY
COMPENSATION REGUIRED FOR "OVERLY-REGULATED" PROPERTY
PROPOSED LEGISLATION
SUMMATION
Introduction, Most of these materials are based on federal/constitutional "takings"
cases developed by the United States Supreme Court, in their interpretations of the 5th
Amendment to the U.S Constitution. Also included are cases from Iowa concerning
unconstitutional "takings" under both the Iowa and U,S. Constitution, There are no
"wetlands" takings cases from Iowa, but I found a few cases dealing specifically with
wetlands/takings issues. Also included are proposed Iowa and Congressional
legislation which would require federal and/or state governments to compensate
property owners for loss of either 20% (federal) or 50% (iowa) of the value of
regulated properties. Passage of such legislation is completely "up in,the air,"
A. BACKGROUND OVERVIEW
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires that governments may
"take" or condemn private property for a public purpose, but only upon payment of
"just compensation: "iN]or shall private property be taken for public use, Without just
compensation." Known as the "takings clause," this concept has been applied to the
states by way of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which provides:
"Nor shall persons be deprived of liberty and property without due process of law."
The traditional eminent domain or condemnation law occurs when a government needs
a street, a park or a flood control system, and proceeds to condemn the property
needed to complete the public project. The three major restrictions on this power are:
1) the Isnd can be taken only for a "public purpose"; 2) the amount of money damages
paid to the property owner must constitute "just compensation"; and 3) the
government "takes" only what it needs. Fitzgarrald, infra.
The Iowa Constitution also requires payment of "just compensation": "Private proper-
ty shall not be taken for public use without just compensation first being made, or
secured to be made to the owner thereof as soon as the damages shall be assessed
by a jury,...," Article I, Section 18, Iowa Constitution.
2
REGULATORY TAKINGS - JUSTICE HOLMES' LEGACY
Prior to Justice Holmes' dicta in the source of the "regulatory takings theory, i.e.,
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 43 S. Ct. 158 (1922), it was generally thought that
the takings clause "....reached only a 'direct appropriation of property,' Legal Tender
Cases, 12 Wall. 457, 551, 20L.Ed. 287 (1871), or the functional equivalent of a
'practical' ouster of [the owner's] possession.'" Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal
Council, 112 S. Ct. 2886, 2892 (1992). Justice Holmes recognized, however, that
if the use of private property were subject to unbridled, uncompensated qualification
under the guise of the government's police powers, "the natural tendency of human
nature [would be] to extend the qualification more and more until at last private
property disappear[ed]," Lucas, at 2892. These considerations gave birth in
Pennsylvania Coal to the oft-cited maxim that, 'while property mav be regulated to a
certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking.'" Lucas, at
2893. Thus, "regulatory takings" developed from one statement which was merely
dicta - meaning advisory and not controlling in the case.
Pennsylvania Coal involved a couple who had received notice from a mining company
that the company was entitled to remove the coal underneath the couple's house as
a matter of private property rights, The Mahons filed suit, claiming 1) that Pennsylva-
nia had passed a statute which protected them from coal being removed; and 2) that
their property had by law been released from the company's claimed property right to
remove coal. The coal company argued that the Pennsylvania legislation was not for
3
a legitimate public interest, but rather was a special legislation designed to benefit a
private "surface" owner such as the Mahons. Justice Holmes ironically agreed with
the company, finding that the Pennsylvania legislation was passed only to serve private
interests, not public health or safety, and thus the Pennsylvania statute was not a
proper exercise of the state's police power. The Mahons lost.
For this reason, it is truly ironic that Justice Holmes stated the off-cited rule from
which an entire body of law developed. Indeed, it appears dissenting Justice Brandeis
saw the case as we might view it today:
"~This is the case of a single private house, No doubt there is a public
interest even in this, as there is in every purchase and sale and in all
that happens ~;ithin the commonwealth, Some existing rights may be
modified even in such a case,,,,On the other hand the extent of the
taking [of the surface rights] is great, It purports to abolish what is
recognized in Pennsylvania as an estate in land -- a very valuable estate
-- and what is declared by the court below to be a contract hitherto
binding the plaintiffs,1"
Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictis, 107 S. Ct. 1232, 1241
(1987), quoting Pennsylvania Coal, at 159.
4
For the past 70 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has dealt with these "takings" cases
on an ad hoc., case-by-case basis. More recently Justice Scalia finds these cases fall
into two categories of regulatory action which are compensable without any fact or
case-specific inquiry into the public interest advanced in support of the restraint.
Lucas,. at 2893. While Scalia's analysis has the beauty of simplicity, the courts are
simply not able to decide the issues without a very fact-based inquiry - as will be seen
in the remainder of these materials. Nonetheless, Scalia's analysis is "the law of the
land."
1. Phvsical invasion. Regulations which force a property owner to endure a
physical invasion or a permanent physical occupation of their property is compensable
without further inquiry as a "categorical taking," e.g. Loretto v. Teleprompter
Manhattan CATV, 102 S. Ct. 3164 (1982) (NY law requiring landlords to permit cable
installation in apartment buildings constituted a physical taking); United States v.
Causby, 66 S. Ct. 1062 (1946) (physical invasions of air space are compensable).
2. Regulatory takinqs denying all economically beneficial use of land. This second
"categorical" taking clearly requires a detailed factual inquiry as to whether the
property owner has lost all "productive use of the land "by a comparison of what the
property could have been used for, and what uses remain. E.g. Aqins v. Tiburon, 100
S. Ct. 2138 (1980) (dicta); Keystone, at 1247. This theory is discussed in greater
detail below.
5
3. A third and clearly fact-based inquiry is known as the "nexus" or "connection"
analysis, and looks closely at the following factors: a) does the regulatory restriction
or requirement advance a legitimate public interest? b) If so, does the restriction bear
some reasonable relationship or "connection" to the "evil", harm or burden to be
alleviated by the restriction? c) And finally, has the restriction been tailored to mitigate
against the burden? These requirements were set out in Nollan v. California Coastal
Commission, 107 S. Ct. 3141 (1987). A fourth element was recently added in the
Dolan case, namely d) whether the restriction is not only rationally connected to
protecting the public interest, but bears some "rough proportionality" to correcting the
burden or effect of the property owner's actions -e.g. development, see Dolan v.
City of Tigard, 114 S. Ct. 2309, 2319 (1994). Dolan and its progeny are discussed
below, see Section D.
C. FURTHER REFINEMENT OF REGULATORY TAKINGS LAW
Because the history is helpful in understanding the U.S. Supreme Court's current
thinking, I will discuss the key cases chronologically. For example, in 1981 a utility
company acquired approximately 400 acres for a proposed nuclear power plant - a
project later abandoned after discovery of an offshore earthquake fault. After the City
of San Diego downzoned the property from industrial to agricultural, designated more
than half the property as "open space" under an "open space plan," a~d then actually
mapped the property for city purchase as soon as a bond issue passed, the utility
company sued in "inverse condemnation." The California state courts denied relief,
6
claiming the only remedy available to the company was to overturn the city regulations
- so money damages were not appropriate. When the case reached the U.S. Supreme
Court, the majority in San Diego Gas & Electric Comoany v. San Diego, 101 S. Ct.
1287 (1981) dismissed the appeal because of lack of "finality" of the lower courts'
decisions. However, Justices Brennan, Stewart, Marshall and Powell would have
reached the merits and remanded with instructions to follow this new rule: "The
constitutional rule I propose requires that, once a court finds that a police power
regulation has effected a 'taking,' the government entity must pay just compensation
for the period commencing on the date the regulation first effected the 'taking,' and
ending on the date the government entity chooses to rescind or otherwise amend the
regulation." San Diego Gas, supra.
In criticizing the California Supreme Court's rejection of the remedy of "inverse
condemnation," Justice Brennan stated his down-to-earth opinion: "After all, if a
policeman must know the Constitution, then why not a planner? In any event, one
may wonder as an empirical matter whether the threat of just compensation will
greatly impede the efforts of planners." San Diego Gas, Footnote 26.
Six years later the majority followed Brennan's rule, finding that monetary damages
were, indeed, appropriate where a government regulation "went too far." This meant
government had to pay for the temporary "taking" - even if the regulation had been
rescinded or overturned, First English Lutheran Church v. Los Angeles County, 482
U.S. 304 (1987). In First English, a church had purchased property in a valley,
intending to use it for a church camp. Los Angeles County had experienced forest
fires and heavy flooding, and thus adopted an ordinance which severely restricted the
church from using the property as anticipated - since the property was in a floodway.
The procedural posture of First Enelish is important. First, the plaintiff's claim that the
flood regulation had "deprived the church of all beneficial use of their property" was
deemed admitted for purposes of the litigation. Second, California law prohibited
recovery of money damages from a land use regulation until the owner first sought to
declare the regulation unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court in First English
disagreed with the California Courts, and found that if the Court assumed the property
owner had, indeed, lost "all beneficial use of their property," as the procedural posture
required, then temporary damages were appropriate, Moreover, an owner was not first
required to overturn the challenged regulation in order to receive "just compensation."
Note: on remand, the church was not able to prove they had lost all economic use of
the property.
In 1987, two other key cases were decided by the U.S. Supreme Court: Keystone
Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictus, 107 S. Ct. 1232 (1987) and Nollan v
California Coastal Commission, 107 S. Ct. 3141 (1987). Although these three 1987
cases are referred to as the "big three," they dealt with very different theories and
analysis of "unconstitutional takings".
8
For example in Keystone the Pennsylvania Legislature had passed a "subsidence act"
which required that 50% of the coal lying under the surface was to be left in place,
for safety reasons. This requirement was known as "surface support." The mining
company sued the State, claiming that since Pennsylvania law recognized three
separate estates in land, namely the "mineral estate," the "surface estate," and the
"support estate," that the state restriction effectively had "taken away" 50% of the
coal company's "support estate," and had deprived them of 50% of their reasonable
"investment-backed expectations." The "support estate" includes the right to remove
coal that lies under the surface and leave layers to support the surface and prevent
subsidence.
The Keystone Court took a broader view of property rights, noting that the more
appropriate inquiry is the entire "bundle of property sticks" - rather than segmenting
them as the coal company argued. Thus, the rule announced in Keystone is to view
the "support estate as just one segment of a larger bundle of rights that invariably
includes either the surface estate or the mineral estate." Keystone, at 1239. Stated
simply, the destruction of one "strand" in the property "bundle of sticks" will not result
in a "taking" because 'the aggregate must be viewed in its entirety," Keystone, at
1239, citing Andrus v. Allard, 100 S. Ct. 318 (1979). In other words, Pennsylvania
had not "gone too far," because Keystone Company was not banned from all mining,
but rather could still mine up to 50% of the land. [Note: When the courts recently
reached the question of whether a restricted wetland is to be viewed as "the portion
of the property being regulated," or as only a small fraction of a larger property
9
allegedly being taken, the question of the "denominator" of the fraction or percentage
being restricted or taken becomes very important, see Section F below.]
In the third key 1987 .Nellan case, a property owner had rented a beach bungalow on
beachfront property for many years, and had an option to purchase the property -
conditioned on the Nollans' promise to demolish the bungalow and replace it with a
new house. The Nollans were eventually granted a permit by the California Coastal
Commission - but conditioned on giving the state a public access easement to the
ocean. The reasons for this required easement were: 1) the new house would
"burden the public's view of the beachfront"; 2) the new house would create a
"psychological barrier for the public" between the street and the ocean; and (3) the
new house would actually increase use of the ocean by cutting off the prior view -
thereby increasing the need for an "additional public access."
In Justice Scalia's majority opinion, the .Nellan. court recognized that the ability to
exclude others is "'one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of rights that are
commonly characterized as property,'" Nellan, at 3145. However, since the public
access easement was a form of physical invasion of Nollans' property, the Nellan court
required the state to justify the condition. After trying to find a "fit" between the
condition and the "public need," Scalia was not at all convinced there was even a
connection, let alone a "fit." The Nellan court noted that while protecting the public's
ability to see the beach was important, the condition required was totally unrelated to
satisfying the publlo's needs. That is, any requirements for the Nollans to "not
10
diminish the public's view of the ocean," such as limiting a fence location or height,
might have made sense as "connected to" or "related to" the public's view, Justice
Scalia concluded:
"The evident constitutional propriety disappears, however, if the
condition substituted for the prohibition utterly fails to further the end
advanced as the justification for the prohibition ..... Here the lack of
nexus between the condition and the original purpose of the building
restriction converta that purpose to something other than what it was.
The purpose titan becomes, quite simply, the obtaining of an easement
to serve some valid governmental purpose, but without payment of
compensation. Whatever may be the outer limits of "legitimate state
interests" in the takings and land-use context, this is not one of them.
In short, unless the permit condition serves the same governmental
purpose as the development ban, the building restriction is not a valid
regulation of land use but 'an out-and-out plan of extortion.'"
NoIlan. at 3148-49 [emphasis added].
The next major step was taken in 1992, Justice Scalia again writing in Lucas v. South
Carolina Coastal Council, 112 S. Ct. 2886 (1992). Lucas and a group of developers
began residential development of the Isle of Palms in the 1970s - a barrier island east
of Charleston. In 1986, Lucas purchased two lots to develop for single-family
dwellings. At that time, the lots were 300 feet from the beach, and were not
11
restricted by any coastal management laws. Nor was there any obligation to obtain
a permit to build houses.
In 1988, the South Carolina Coastal Council passed a Beachfront Management Act,
and directed that a "baseline" be established in the Isle of Palms to outline the
landward-most point of erosion during the past 40 years. The purpose was to stop
construction in the beachfront areas in an effort to protect the wildlife and scenic
attributes and cut down on erosion. The baseline was fixed landward of Lucas's
parcels. This meant Lucas could not build on these two lots, so he sued to challenge
the regulation us applied to his property, as a regulatory taking which had deprived him
of "all reasonable and beneficial use" of these two lots. Lucas did not challenge the
Beachfront Act, but admitted it served a valid public purpose. The South Carolina
courts, in part, disagreed with Lucas, finding thatthe beachfront legislation was
appropriate to protect against threat of destroying the coastal area and thus a "valid
public purpose." However, without further inquiry as to "loss of all beneficial use," the
state court found Lucas was not entitled to compensation.
The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, first noting that Lucas did not have to go through
another "special per{nit" procedure before his takings claim could be considered "ripe,"
Lucas, at 2891. In reviewing Justice Holmes' analysis in Pennsylvania Coal, Scalia
noted that a regulation such as the Beachfront Act, which basically requires land to be
left substantially in its natural state under the guise of mitigating serious public harm,
is likely unconstitutional. Moreover, the "proof of the pudding" was that many
12
e ·
statutes gave the government explicit authority to buy or condemn land to retain the
land's natural state. The fact that such statutes
",.,provide for the use of eminent domain to impose servitudes on
private scenic lands preventing developmental uses, or to acquire such
lands altogether, suggest a practical equivalence in this setting of
negative regulation and appropriation, See e,g., 16 U,S.C. §410 ff-I (a)
(authorizing acquisition of "lands, waters, or interests [within Channel
Islands National Park] including but not limited to scenic ease-
ments)"];.,.," Lucas, at 2895,
summary, Scalia announced the clear rule of Lucas' dilemma:
"We think, in short, that there are good reasons for our frequently
expressed belief that when the owner of real property has been called
upon to sacrifice all economically beneficial uses in the name of the
common good, that is, to leave his property economically idle, he has
suffered a taking," Lucas, at 2895 [emphasis added].
Treating this Lucas case as a "physical invasion" case and thus as a "categorical
takings" case~no further factual inquiry need be made because "just compensation" is
presumed to be owed to Lucas, However, Scalia and the majority took another major
"turn in the road" by remanding to the lower courts to decide, under state law, if the
13
government was obliged to pay for the "total taking," or whether the property owner
was deemed to have held the land and to use the land when the proposed use was
already proscribed by "existing rules or understandings" or by pre-existing principles
of nuisance and property law that would otherwise have prohibited the use, Lucas, at
2900-02. While Justice Scalia may deem the "total econ~)mic taking" to be a
"categorical type" that requires little factual enquiry, I believe this approach is not
what happens in the courts, see discussion below on the Lopes case.
D. DOLAN AND ITS PROGENY
The issue in Dolan was the "required degree of connection between the exactions
imposed by the city and the projected impacts of the proposed development, "Dolan,
at 2312. Dolan v. Ti(~ard, 114 S.Ct. 2309 (1994) involved a landowner who applied
to the City for permission to expand her plumbing supply store, nearly doubling the
building. Dolan's land was crossed by a creek and thus subject to the City's floodplain
management and open or green space requirements. As conditions for obtaining a
building permit, the City required Dolan to dedicate a greenway space for flood control
and "open space" purposes, as well as a pedestrian bike trail totalling + 10% of
Florence Dolan's property. The City justified these dedications on the "presumed"
increase in water runoff from Dolan's increased impervious surface (parking lot), and
also on the ability of the pedestrian/bike trail to alleviate the increased vehicular traffic
expected from Dolan's larger building and additional business.
14
Justice Rehnquist had a "field day" with the City's stated reasons, see,Dolan, at 2319-
22. First, the Dolan court found that reducing flooding and traffic congestion were
certainly "legitimate public purposes" previously upheld in Aqins, supra. Second., a
nexus exists between preventing flooding along the creek and limiting construction
within the creek's floodway; and third, a bike trail was a legitimate goal to increase
"alternate transportation" and thereby decrease vehicular congestion in general.
However, the City failed miserably in satisfying the requisite connection between the
dedication and the impact or need created by the new development. Noting it is
"axiomatic" that impervious surface increases water runoff and Dolan's property
already had to leave 15% of her land as open space and floodplain, nonetheless:
"It is difficult to see why recreational visitors trampling
along petitioner's floodplain easement are sufficiently
related to the City's legitimate interest in reducing
flooding problems along Fanno Creek, and the City has
not attempted to make any individualized determination to
support this... request." [Emphasis added]
Dolan, at 2320, 2321.
Also, while a street may be properly required to alleviate additional traffic, there is no
demonstration the additional car-trips generated by Dolan's larger plumbing store will
be alleviated by a bike trail, Dolan, at 2321. The Dolan test is summarized by J.
Rehnquist:
15
"We think a term such as "rough proportionality" best
encapsulates what we hold to be the requirement of the
Fifth Amendment. No precise mathematical calculation is
required, but the city must make some sort of individual-
ized determination that.the required dedication is related
· both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed
development."
Dolan, at 2319, 2320,
For some reason, perhaps as the U.S, Supreme Court wrestles to make these
regulatory takings cases less of an "ad hoc, case-by-case creature," Justice Rehnquist
attempted to distinguish this decision as being "adjudicative" in nature, namely to
condition the building permit on the dedication - as opposed to a widespread
"legislative" restriction that applied to all similar properties, Dolan at 2316. While
some commentators see this "adjudicative" decision in Dolan to be distinctly different
than the "legislative" approach in Keystone which legislatively regulates all coal
companies, I think this may be 'somewhat of a "distinction without a difference," and
may only create more confusion in labeling, In any event, if a regulation is not
calculated on an individualized basis, or at least use some objective formula or method
to reach the required dedication caused by the development's increased burdens, the
regulation will fail under Dolan,
16
How Courts Are Applying the Dolan Test. As they apply Dolan, the courts are easily
avoiding the "rough proportionality" test of Dolan, viewing the regulation as based on
a "legislative act," not an "adjudicative act." For example, in International College of
Suraeons v. City of Chicaelo, 1195 WL 9243 (N. D. 111.), the court found the
government was not required to satisfy the Dolan test because the property owner's
denial of a demolition permit was based on a broad-based landmark regulation.
Similarly, in Harris v. City of Wichita, 862 F. Supp. 287 (D. Kan. 1994), land owners
claimed that an airport overlay zoning district prevented them from using their land,
and constituted a regulatory taking. The court denied the takings claim because it was
not "ripe"; but also noted that the government was not obliged to meet the Dolan
"rough proportionality" test, since the general airport zoning regulations were
legislative, not adjudicative in nature, See also Southeast Cass Water Resource
District v. Burlington Northern Railroad Co., 1995 WL 47113 (N.D. 1995) (drainage
improvements legislative duty, so Dolan not applicable); Parkine Association of Geor~lia
v. City of Atlanta, 450 S.E. 2d 200 (Ga. 1994) (zoning ordinance legislative, so Dolan
does not apply); Waters Landin~ Limited Partnership v. Montqomerv County, 650 A.
2d 712 (Md. 1 994) (tax development fees legislative, not adjudicative).
The following cases have applied the Dolan "rough proportionality" test: Home
Builders Association of Central Arizona v. City of Scottsdale, 1995 WL 61490 {Ariz.
App. 1995) (case remanded to lower court for determination of whether development
fees, required to offset "additional public services" costs, were "roughly proportional"
under Dolan.); Trimen Development Comoany v. Kinq County, 877 P. 2d 187 (Wash.
17
1994) (park dedication requirement or "payment of fee in lieu of" upheld under Dolan);
Cf. Luxembourg Group, Inc. v. Snohomish County, 887 P. 2d 446 (Wash, App. 1995),
where court found land owners whose rezoning was conditioned on dedicating right-of-
way for landlocked neighbor did not even require court to reach the "rough proportion-
ality test," since no relationship at all existed between the problem and the dedication
- so even failed the Nollan 'nexus' test.
See also J,C, Reeves Cora, v. Clackames County, 887 P, 2d 360 (Ore, App. 1994)
(developer required to install storm sewer, curb, sidewalk and road surfacing as a
condition of approval; court remanded for a Dolan-type determination of "rough
proportionality," because developer would only generate 2,6% of the total traffic
planned to use the street); Schultz v, City of Grant's Pass, 884 P. 2d 569 (Ore, App,
1994), where the land owners wanted to split their 3,85 acre lot into two lots for
development, and city required dedication of 20-foot strip along the property for
widening an existing street. The Schultz court held the city could not impose
conditions that are linked to potential future uses of property:
"[T]he fact that there is an increase of eight vehicle trips on Beacon
Drive and Savage Street each day hardly justifies requiring petitioners
to part with 20,000 square feet of their land without compensation."
Schultz, supra,
18
E. IOWA'S FOUR APPROACHES TO REGULATORY TAKINGS
Straight "takings" claim, Fitz~arrald v. City of Iowa City, 492 NW 2d 659,656
(Iowa 1992). This case involved an owner's claim to money damages for the affects
of a city/county airport zoning ordinance which placed certain restrictions on owner's
land. Although the Iowa Supreme Court found that no "regulatory taking" had
occurred, the Fitzqarrald Court restated the U.S. Supreme Court's test for a "taking."
First, the loss of development potential is a significant factor in a taking claim based
on zoning restrictions, but not conclusive, citing Lucas, at 2893-94. Without some
physical invasion, a taking only occurs if there has been a "substantial interference
with investment-backed expectations" citing Stone v. City of Wilton, 331 N.W. 2d
398, 404 (iowa 1983).
With respect to the "investment-backed expectations," the Iowa Supreme Court sees
two p~inciples that affect this determination. "First, the court should look at the value
of the use remaining rather than the diminution of value of the property. Penn Central
Transportation Company v. City of New York, 98 S. Ct. 2646, 2659 (1978).
.... Second, 'taking' jurisprudence does not divide a single parcel into discreet [sic]
segments and attempt to determine whether rights in a particular segment have been
entirely abrogated.'" Fitz.qarrald, at 665-66. The Fitzqarrald court goes on to note
that in the recent Lucas case, the court considered whether the owner had been
deprived of 'all economically beneficial use of the burdened portion of the tract, or as
19
one in which the owner has suffered a mere diminution in value of the tract as a
whole.'" Fitzoarrald, at 666, citing Lucas, at 2894.
There are two "subcategories" of this "straight takings" analysis in Iowa.
a. In Hunziker v. State, 519 N.W. 2d 367, 370-71 (Iowa 1994), a property owner
had purchased property and thereafter subdivided it into several lots, one of which was
sold to a private owner who planned to build a house. When the owner tried to get
a permit, the lot [Lot 15] became no longer usablo as a single family dwelling because
the property included an area protected by the State archaeological statutes as the
home of "ancient human remains." The Hunziker Court reasoned that since Lot 15
was "sold back to the plaintiff/subdivider" and the subdivider still had a number of
usable lots and land quite aside from Lot 15, there had been no regulatory taking.
Thus, the "denominator" of the fraction used to calculate the amount of property being
restricted is critical in a court's analysis.
Moreover, in applying the Lucas doctrine, the Iowa Supreme Court easily found that
Hunziker's land had been purchased some twelve years after the archaeological
legislation was put into place, and therefore the Hunzikers purchased their fee simple
title with the archaeological legislation already burdening the land. It was not a
question of whether the Hunzikers were aware of the legislation, but rather whether
they had the right to use the land in the way contemplated in this case:
20
"Here, when the plaintiffs acquired title, there was no right to disinter
the human remains and build in the area where the remains were
located. For that reason, there was no taking when the State Archaeol-
ogist made the significant find and took action denying permission to
disinter the human remains." Hunziker, at 371.
However, the Hunziker court noted that if the archaeology had been newly legislated
or decreed, without any payment to the property owner, the only way the government
could avoid paying "just compensation" for a total ban on any building on a residential
lot would be if the limitation inhered
"...in the title itself, in the restrictions that background principles of the
State's law of property and nuisance alreadyplace upon land ownership.
A law or decree with such an effect must, in other words, do no more
than duplicate the results that could have been achieved in the courts
-- by adjacent land owners (or other uniquely affected persons) under
the State's law of private nuisance, or by the State under its comple-
mentary power to abate nuisances that affect the public generally, or
otherwise." Hunziker, at 371, citing Lucas, at 2900.
See also Justice Snell's dissenting opinion, who would have found a "taking" had
occurred because the value of Lot 15 went from 950,000 to 9500 because of the no-
build restrictions to protect the burial mounds, Hunziker, at 372-73.
21
b. The second "subset" of the "straight takings" Iowa analysis is found in Easter
Lake Estates v. Polk County, Iowa, 444 N.W. 2d 72, 76 (Iowa 1989). In Easter Lake,
the Iowa Supreme Court had enough foresight to precede the Lucas analysis, by
finding that a mobile home park constructed below a recreational dam which had been
declared a nuisance by the State environmental agency and upheld by the Iowa courts,
was not entitled to any compensable monetary award. In my brief to the Iowa
Supreme Court, I noted that the lower trial court's ruling which commanded Polk
County to condemn a public nuisance was wholly without precedent and contrary to
common sense under nuisance law, citing Scaff v. Sioux City, 168 N.W. 2d 789 (Iowa
1969). The Easter Lake Court agreed, and thus Iowa common law already follows
Justice Scalia in Lucas., namely that governments are not required to pay just
compensation for governmental regulation of an unlawful use under prior-existing
principles of property law, zoning law, and common law, Easter Lake, at 74-76.
2, Substantial deprivation of use and enjoyment of property. Iowa Coal Mininq Co,
Inc. v. Monroe County, 494 NW 2d 664,670-72 (Iowa 1993). In iowa Coal, a coal
company had been mining for years, but the coal business was coming onto "hard
economic times." The coal company decided to take advantage of some of its land
to use as a landfill. The company was denied the landfill permit, and sued for money
damages as an unconstitutional regulatory taking. The Iowa Supreme Court reiterated
that regulatory taking that is less than a physical invasion still requires the government
to pay "just compensation" when the regulatory schemes "...substantially deprive a
landowner of the use and enjoyment of property ..... Finding the. point at which this
22
exercise of po ice power becomes a taking requ res a case-by-case exam'nation. ' Iowa
Coal, at 670.
Justice Neuman notes that this ad-hoc approach is basically one of reasonableness,
balancing the following three factors: 1. The economic impact of the regulation on
the property; 2. the regulation's interference with "investment-backed expectations;"
and 3. the character of the governmental action. Noting the facts that the coal
company still had a large amount of "economic viability" in its land, that the company
had many other mining operations, and most importantly did not purchase the land
with a "landfill use" in mind, the iowa Coal court found the coal company was not
entitled to compensation under the three-factored test of Penn Central and Woodbury
County Soil Conservation District v. Ortner, 279 NW 2d 276,278 (Iowa 1979). The
Iowa Coal Court then went on to apply a fourth test, namely, a balancing test as
between the public need and the private burden: "Finally, we do not believe that the -
ordinance's projected impact on iowa Coal's profitability outweighs the County's
undisputed right to reasonably regulate land use within the County....The regulation
at issue here in no way prevents Iowa Coal from mining as before." Iowa Coa!, at
671.
3. Vested Rights Analysis. Nemmers v. City of Dubuclue, Iowa, 716 F. 2d 1194,
1198-99 (Sth Cir. 1983). In Nemrners, a property owner brought an action in state
court against a city for downzoning his property several years after the city helped him
build a road for his industrial park. The case was removed to federal court, but Circuit
23
Judge Heaney applied Iowa law on whether the City of Dubuque had unconstitutionally
taken Nemmers' property rights by way of the downzoning. In applying Iowa law, the
Eighth Circuit chose to rely on the "vested right" analysis of Iowa's takings law,
Nemmers began investigating the potential for light industrial development on his land
three years before the effective date of the City's annexation. That means that when
Nemmers began plans for his industrial park, the land was in the county, the city
planner said he agreed with the plans for light industrial development, and involuntary
annexation was started but took three years to become effective. Most importantly,
the City had assisted Nemmers in widening a road across his property while the
annexation matter was still in the courts, Nemmers had expended over $100,000 on
the project, and the city was well aware of all of Nemmers' actions. After the
property was annexed, the city "had an apparent change of heart" and downzoned the
land to residential.
In reviewing Iowa cases, including the key case of Kasparek v. Johnson County Board
of Health, 288 NW 2d 511,522 (Iowa 1980), the Nemmers Court found that
Nemmers' case of' a "vested right" in his industrial zoning ".,.is at least as strong as
those cases in which the Iowa Supreme Court has granted relief, .,," citing Kasparek,
The Nemmers Court remanded the case to the lower court to determine the appropriate
relief for the "uncompensated taking," which could take the form of declaratory,
injunctive, compensatory or a combination thereof. Nemmers, at 1199.
24
4. Inverse condemnation. As discussed above, Hunziker involved a subdivider who
had purchased land, subdivided it and sold Lot 15 to a person who wanted to build a
family residence. The archaeologist discovered that Lot 15 was a "significant find"
and that it was unlawful to dig up human remains of possible Indian burial mounds.
This case was referred to as a claim of "inverse condemnation," which was defined
as: "A shorthand description of the manner in which a landowner recovers just
compensation for a taking of his property when condemnation proceedings have not
been instituted." Hunzin.qer, at 369-70 citing in United States v. Clarke, 100 S.Ct.
1127,1130 (1980).
I note these four different "types" of Iowa regulatory takings because while certain
historical or common law principles are recited, they all ultimately are discussed as
"regulatory takings" under the Iowa Constitution or the U.S. Constitution. The "vested
rights" analysis ordinarily arises in the denial of a building permit or in a downzoning.
More and more, however, the Iowa Supreme Court is following the lead of the U.S.
Supreme Court in the regulatory takings analysis, as seen in what I call the "straight
taking" case of Fitzqarrald, supra.
F. WETLANDS/TAKINGS CASES
Massachusetts. The U.S. Supreme Court was able to finesse dealing with the takings
issue in a wetlands case, by remanding the case to the Massachusetts courts to
25
consider and apply the Lucas test: whether the property owner, who had purchased
a vacant lot in a single-family neighborhood, had suffered a loss of all economically
beneficial use of the property and was thereby entitled to "just compensation," Lopes
v. City of Peabody, 629 N.E. 2d 1312, 1316 (Mass. 1994).
On remand, the Massachusetts court found that the case would have to be remanded
to a lower Land Court judge, in order to answer whether the owners had been
"deprived of all economically beneficial use" of their land. As Justice Wilkins of the
Massachusetts High Court noted, a detailed factual inquiry was, indeed, required, and
directed the lower court to answer this question, on remand:
If the judge concludes that the zoning regulation deprives the parcel of all
economically beneficial use, the Lucas opinion advises us that there is a
categorical regulatory taking, unless under the land use law of the Common-
wealth, the proposed use would be a nuisance or otherwise impermissible.
Lucas, supra,,.112 S.Ct, at 2900, In that instance a zoning regulation could
validly prohibit in advance any use of land that state law would bar in any
event. I_d, It is not for us now to be specific on the subject of restrictions that,
for example, the law of nuisance and the law of riparian rights impose on the
use of land subject to periodic flooding."
Lo_~g~.S_, at 1316 On remand from U,S. S,Ct. May 1994. [Emphasis added,]
26
The facts n Lopes. involved a purchase of a vacant lot in a single family residential area
six years after the lot came under the regulation of a City Wetlands Conservancy
District. Because of the lot's location near a "great" pond and low elevation, the lot
was only usable for farming, nurseries and recreation. Hence, the lot had little or no
value as an investment for a house, since single family dwellings were prohibited. Yet
Lopes claimed he had lost all economically beneficial use of his property, and that the
City should pay for this "extortion" of wetlands protection. The Land Court, on
remand, ordered the 100-year flood elevation be changed, based on new methods of
measuring the storage capacity of the watershed, see Land Use Law Report, 5/3/95.
In so doing, the Court avoided ruling on whether the wetlands regulation took away
"all economically beneficial use of the land." Lopes continues, to this day, to seek
compensation for a temporary taking, covering the years when he was unable to build
on the property. Clearly the Lopes Land Court, on remand, "split the baby" - granting
Lopes some use of his property, and still protecting the public right of avoiding flooding
and protecting wetlands.
~owa.
Iowa (1995).
"takings", 41
Iowa law contains very weak "wetlands regulation", Chapter 456B, Code of
There is one law review article on wetlands, but it does not discuss
DRAKE L. REV. 139 (1992). There are no Iowa cases concerning
wetlands. But one interesting case is Polk County Drainaae District Four v. Iowa
Natural Resources Council, 377 NW 2d 236 (iowa 1985), where a county drainage
district attempted to repair an old Skunk River channel remnant which was within the
drainage district. Over time the river had filled in and was less effective as a drainage
27
ditch, The area was also within the County Chichaqua Wildlife Habitat, which was a
preserve. The purpose of Iowa's 1890's independent drainage district laws is to drain
lands to make them tillable for farming -- which is at cross-purposes with the Habitat's
purpose of keeping the area "natural,"
When the drainage district began dredging the Skunk River remnant and straightening
it, parties complained to the State Natural Resources Council and demanded the
drainage district request a permit, The Natural Resources Council denied the permit -
- stating that the dredging operations would have a significant adverse effect on fish
and wildlife habitat and also denigrate the public rights to use the stream. This is a
classic case of clashing values. The Iowa Supreme Court found that both the INRC
and the Drainage District Board Trustees have concurrent jurisdiction over the repairs,
and that the Drainage District was required to obtain a permit from the INRC for work
in the floodway - both in and outside of the District,
New Jersey. The most interesting case dealing with takings and wetlands is a case
from the Federal Claims Court in New Jersey, It also represents a very good example
of a brash property owner/developer who insisted on ignoring the Army Corps of
Engineers' "cease and desist" ordsrs and clear notice of wetlands regulations on his
property, Instead, the.property owner Ciampitti claimed he lost all "investment-
backed" expectations, but the Court found there was no evidence the owner had come
even close to losing "all economically viable use of his property," Ciampitti v. United
States, 22 Cl, Ct, 310 (U,S. Cl.Ct, 1991).
28
The case is noteworthy not only for the brash property owner, but for two other
principles'. A property owner cannot rely on a pre-existing riparian grant to overcome
the regulations of the wetlands regulatory scheme, see Ciampitti, at 317. "The
[riparian grant] is seen as merely defining the fee interest of the landowner...it does not
preclude application of the regulatory [wetland] scheme." Id. The case includes a
good discussion of the Lucas U.S. Supreme Court case, and also includes a well-
reasoned analysis of the denominator to be used in determining the fraction or percent
as to the extent the property owner has suffered a "diminution of property value" or
a loss of economically viable uses, see Ciampitti, at 317-321.
In Florida Rock Industries, Inc. v. United States, 791 F. 2d 893 (Fed. Cir. 1986), cert.
denied 479 US 1053 (1987), the developers requested permits to dredge and fill areas
on Marco Island in Florida. While the developer was blocked by the Army Corps of
Engineers from proceeding in two of the areas, the developer had obtained necessary
clearances for all other lands in the area. More importantly, there were 111 acres of
uplands which could be developed by the landowner without obtaining a Corps permit -
- valued at approximately 92.5 million. The Court of Claims put into the equation not
only the areas as to which dredge and fill permits were required by the Army Corps of
Engineers, but also those areas that had been successfully developed earlier. In other
words, the importance of the denominator in deciding whether a property owner has
been denied all economically viable use of their property, or denied reasonable
economic investment-backed expectations, is critical to a court's analysis.
29
G. REMEDIES AND CAUTION ON PLEADINGS/THEORIES OF RECOVERY
The procedural posture and the manner in which a case is pied is critical in a "takings"
context. For example, in Williamson County Reqional Planninq Commission v.
Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 105 S.Ct. 3108,3116 (1985), the U.S. Supreme Court
remanded a case for lack of "ripeness." In the Williamson case, a property owner had
been working with the Williamson County Planners for several years, and had received
several preliminary plat approvals. He also sought final approvals several times. The
owner claimed a net loss of 409 units, as opposed to 736 units because of the way
in which the county was interpreting the zoning and subdivision regulations. A jury
awarded the property owner 9350,000 for a temporary taking of the property, but the
U.S. Supreme Court reversed and strongly disagreed: "Thus, in the face of
respondent's [property owner] refusal to follow the procedures for requesting a
variance, and its refusal to provide specific information about the variances it would
require, respondent hardly can maintain that the [county] Commission's disapproval
of the preliminary plat was equivalent to a final decision that no variances could be
granted." Williamson, at 3118. The Williamson Court noted the difference between
the two doctrines of "finality" and "exhaustion of remedies":
"While the policies underlying the two concepts often overlap, the finality
requirement is concerned with whether the initial decision maker has arrived at
a definitive position on the issue that inflicts an actual, concrete injury; the
exhaustion requirement generally refers to administrative and judicial procedures
30
by which an injured party may seek review of an adverse decision and obtain
a remedy if the situation is found to be unlawful or otherwise inappropriate..."
Williamson, at 3120.
In other words, even though the county Commission denied the owner's final plat
approval, such denial "...does not conclusively determine whether respondent [property
owner] will be denied all reasonable beneficial use of his property, and therefore it is
not a final, reviewable decision," Williamson, at 3120. See also Mitchell v. Mills
County, Iowa, 673 F. Supp. 332,335 (S.D. Iowa 1987) for a case finding that a
"takings claim" was not yet ripe for decision-making, since the land owners had not
pursued state law remedies. Note: This Mitchell case was styled as a 42 U.S.C §
1983 case, claiming procedural and substantive due process. If you choose to plead
a case as a "substantive or procedural due process claim" and combine it with a
"takings claim," be prepared for the defense of lack of ripeness due to owner's failure
to pursue state judicial as well as administrative remedies -- as clearly spelled out in
Judge O'Brien's opinion in Mitchell.
As for a case of "how not to plead a case," see Bakken v. City of Council Bluffs, 470
N.W. 2d 34, 35 (Iowa 1991), where Justice Larson notes: "Procedurally, this case is
confusing because, despite the fact it has gone through a trial and two appeals, it is
not clear what issues are presented. Is it a claim for just compensation for a 'taking'
under the fifth amendment, one for deprivation of substantive due process, or botl~?"
Bakken, at 35. Bakken had applied for a permit to expand his bait shop, and was
31
denied as an illegal expansion of his nonconforming use. Bakken then tried to rezone
his land, which was denied. He then filed suit in federal court, based on a due process
claim under §1983, but also quoting the Nollan and First Enqlish decisions in his
pleading. In any event, the Bakken Court concludes that the "taking" and "just
compensation" portions of Bakken's pleading is a claim for "inverse condemnation,"
but the Court goes on to note that such land regulations frequently have met with little
success as a "taking", citing Williamson:
"Bakken's claim for a taking under §1983 is not ripe for adjudication in this
action... until the remedy of inverse condemnation or an equivalent state remedy
is first pursued," Bakkeq, at 31.
Editorial Comment: This Bakken case seems to be a "stand-alone" case, and may only
be a "lesson to be learned" for lawyers on how not to plead a case. Also, the Bakken
Court's remand, with instructions to the owner to first pursue all state judicial
remedies before asking for "just compensation," goes much further than the U.S.
Supreme Court will likely go. I say this because the U.S. Supreme Court in Williamson
was relying on the property owner's ability to seek a zoning and subdivision variance
from the local planning agency, not state judicial remedies. In any event, consider
avoiding the procedural due process claim, which will result in having to prove that the
plaintiff has no adequate state remedy at law, see Mitchell v. Mills County, Iowa,
discussed above.
32
In iowa, the clear choice of remedies is an action for a "writ of mandamus" in district
court, claiming that a government regulation has "gone too far" and the property
owner is entitled to force the government to condemn the land, see FitzQarrald v. Citv
of Iowa City, 492 N.W. 2d 659, 663 (iowa 1992). This recent case recognizes
mandamus as "a procedural device to compel condemnation of an...easement..."
Fitzgarrald, at 663. In looking at the clarity of factual and legal issues to be ultimately
decided, and in comparing the use of mandamus in FitzQarrald and Hunziker, with the
confused morass in the Bakken case, it is clear that mandamus is the appropriate
remedy to compel a government to institute proper, lawful condemnation procedures
- rather than file for inverse condemnation, whereby the government might pay money
damages - but who owns the land? Does a deed transfer in inverse condemnation
after the owner is paid? The answer is "no."
Rather, a property owner who believes they have suffered a regulatory taking in Iowa
should file a mandamus action to compel the government to condemn. The mandamus
court is an equity court, and simply decides whether there has been a taking of private
property without just compensation. This question is a mixed question of fact and
law; but if a "regulatory taking" has occurred, the government is ordered to institute
proper condemnation proceedings. At that point, the sheriff's jury will determine what
"just compensation" is appropriate for the regulatory taking, applying eminent domain
law under Chapters 6A and 6B, Code of Iowa (1995). Also, once the government
deposits money with the sheriff, the government then owns the property - so there
33
is no confusion about paying money damages without actually acquiring the land. See
Hunziker, at 369.
COMPENSATION FOR OVERLY REGULATED PROPERTY - PROPOSED
LEGISLATION
1, Federal - H.R. 925, entitled "An Act to Compensate Owners of Private Property
for the Effect of Certain Regulatory Restrictions," was passed by the federal House of
Representatives March 3, 1995, and referred to the Senate. The Senate has not yet
acted on it, and the President has threatened a veto. I attach a copy of HR925 herein.
Briefly, each federal agency must consider whether the regulation will diminish the fair
market value of the portion of regulated property by 20% or more, If so, the property
owner is entitled to apply for compensation under this act. The compensation act will
only apply to a federal agency action, acting under a "specified regulatory law." The
owner must request money within 180 days of actual notice of the agency action, and
the matter may go to arbitration or the owner may file a lawsuit in federal court.
Exempted from this compensation act are uses of property which would be a nuisance
under state law or already prohibited under local zoning law; where the action would
create a hazard to the public health or safety; or when the agency is trying to prevent
damage to specific property other than the subject property. Also exempt is
compensation for property burdened by navigational servitudes, except wetlands. In
other words, it looks as though wetlands would be included in this compensation act
34
- although the legislation is inartfully drafted. As a true incentive to the federal agency
to be cautious in enforcing their regulations, the agency's own budget will be used to
compensate property owners! The compensation act seems to incorporate the Lucas
rationale, i.e., no taking where property is already burdened by state law or local law.
The future of this legislation is unknown.
2. Iowa Law - House File 166, and companion Senate File 58, were introduced
to the Iowa Legislature in 1995. I include copies of these bills. The Iowa law is less
restrictive than the federal compensation act. Both H.F. 166 and S.F. 58 were filed
in 1995. The original version of H.F. 166 is reflected in S.F. 58, but the passed
version of H.F. 166, adopted April 5, 1995, was completely rewritten. As passed,
H.F. 166 limits the "legislatively mandated just compensation" to unconstitutional
takings of private farm property - as opposed to any private property. H.F. 166 also
is limited to State action, and explicitly exempts city and county regulations. Also
exempted is state action to prevent a "demonstrable harm to the public health and
safety." "Inverse condemnation" is defined to mean 'just compensation for a
constitutional or regulatory taking of private farm property' - which in turn is defined
as 'any real property suitable for use in a farm operation including farm dwellings and
not owned by a State or other governmental entity, and which is protected by the fifth
or fourteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution or the Iowa Constitution'. if a State
action against a farm property reduces the fair market value of the property by more
than 50%, the private property owner may bring an action in "inverse condemnation"
35
in district court. Finally, H.F. 166 sets up an elaborate procedure for payment. The
"viability" of this legislation is yet to be decided.
36
I. SUMMATION.
In the regulatory takings claims which have been categorized as "legislative" versus
"adjudicative," it is clear that the courts will still apply a very fact-based inquiry as to
whether 1) the regulation constitutes a legitimate public purpose or state interest; 2)
the regulation is related to the government public interest and burden created by the
owner's use; 3) there is some rough proportionality between the restriction or
condition imposed on the property owner and is designed fO satisfy the "need" or
"burden" caused by the property owner's use of his property; 4) whether the property
owner has been deprived of all economically beneficial uses of the property; 5) and
most importantly, how the denominator of this fraction of loss of "all use of owner's
property" is determined,
For example, if I own 100 acres of land and 2 acres are designated wetlands by the
Army Corps of Engineers, and my request for a permit to fill those 2 acres is denied
by the Corps, it will make a difference if the court views my "property taken" as 100%
of the two acres, or as only 2% of my 100-acre parcel. Those factors were
extensively discussed in Ciampitti, at 318-321. Noting that the U.S. Supreme Court
had focused on the "parcel as a whole" and the "bundle" of property rights, the
Ciampitti Court clearly stated:
"In the case of a landowner who owns both wetlands and adjacent uplands, it
would clearly be unrealistic to focus exclusively on the wetlands, and ignore
37
whatever rights might remain in the uplands. If a governmental entity required
a buffer, for example, around a housing development, a court would not
entertain a separate claim for the land dedicated to buffer. It would no doubt
take into consideration the extent to which the whole parcel could be
developed. Factors such as the degree of contiguity, the dates of acquisition,
the extent to which the parcel has been treated as a single unit, the extent to
which the protected lands enhance the value of remaining lands, and no doubt
many others would enter the calculus. The effect of a taking can obviously be
disguised if the property at issue is too broadly defined. Conversely, taking
can appear to emerge if the property is viewed to narrowly. The effort should
be to identify the parcel as realistically and fairly as possible, given the entire
factual and regulatory environment," Ciampitti at 318 [emphasis added].
This very well-reasoned comment demonstrates that J. Scalia's simple "categorical
taking" is not simple at all, and will still require the cour{s to look very carefully at the
specific facts and circumstances in each and every regulatory takings case,
It will also be interesting to see whether the courts treat wetlands regulation as a
"broad legislative" approach and apply the Nollan test, or whether the Dolan test of
"rough proportionality" is appropriate. I ask this question because the Army Corps of
Engineers does not designate wetlands under §404 of the Clean Water Act by
mapping, but only on a case-by-case basis triggered by a permit request. This
38
permitting looks more like an adjudicative Dolan analysis -- yet the legislation is a
broad-based I~gislation which applies to all wetlands, Time will tell!
Linda Newman Woito
City Attorney, City of Iowa City
lnw~whl.2
39
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 3, 1995
To;
From:
Re:
Rick Fosse, City Engineer ~
Linda Newman Woito, City Attorney ,
Acknowledgement of compliment and' credit for property acquisition efforts in City
Attomey's Office
Thank you very much for your appreciation memo directed to Bev Ogren, the attorney I hired
to do the bulk of the land acquisition. I note, however, that when reviewing the documents sent
to the many property owners, that our Legal Assistant Mary McChdsty was part of this "team
effdrt" to "crank out" all the necessary paperwork including letters, easement documents and
acquisition documents.
I simply wanted to bring this to your attention, since I believe that we, as supervisors, should
always "accord credit where credit is due!" It is also a pleasure to work with the City Engineer's
Division, since I know you also share my ''team approach" to accomplishing a large task.
CC:
City Clerk
City Manager
City Council FYI
Bev Ogren, Assistant City Attorney
Mary McChristy, Legal Assistant
a¢~-3.1nw
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 3, '1995
To:
From:
Re:
The Honorable Mayor Susan M. Horowitz and Members of the City _Council
Linda Newman Woito, City Attorney ~
Recent conflict of interest question concerning Downtown Ass co iation/City of Iowa City
"Spitter Ticket" Pilot Project
I am forwarding the attached memo prepared by Assistant City Attorney Beverly Ogren, for your
information, in case someone raises a question about Ernie Lehman's possible conflict of
interest by way of purchase of a sponsorship from the City for a pilot program for "business-
sponsored spitter tickets" in the downtown parking ramps.
As you can see from the attached memo, Bev and I do not see any problem with this, but
please do not hesitate to contact either me or Bev if you have any questions.
CC:
City Clerk
City Manager
Assistant City Manager
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 14, 1995
To:
From:
Re:
Cathy Eisenhofer, Purchasing Agent
Beverly Ogren~ Assistant City Attorney~C~f'Y'"---~
Conflict of Interest
You have inquired whether a council member may participate in the spitter ticket sponsorship
pilot project which is being made available to members of the Downtown Association's Park
and Shop participants. Under the pilot program the merchant will pay a flat fee of ~3,000 for
to have the merchant's name printed upon 500,000 of the spitter tickets. This arrangement
benefits the merchant as a marketing opportunity, and benefits the City by off-setting some
or all of the cost of printing the tickets.
With certain exceptions, Iowa Code §362.5 prohibits a city officer to enter into a contract
with the City. A contract is defined as any agreement, express or implied. A "city officer"
is any natural person elected or appoint to a fixed term and exercising some portion of the
power of a city. The purpose of this Code section is "... to protect the public from officers
who would profit personally from their place of advantage in government." LeffinQwell v.
Lake City, 1 35 N.W.2d 536 (iowa 1965). Invariably, the cases deal with situations where
the officer is receiving compensation for materials, services, or other contracts with the city.
Moreover, the opportunity to personally benefit from a contract with the city results from the
officer's "place of advantage in government".
It is my opinion that this Code section does not apply to a situation where the city official is
paying the city in an arm's length transaction for a marketing opportunity which has been
offered to all merchants in the Park and Shop program of the Down Town Association. The
city official is not personally benefitting from his position of advantage in government. He is
merely being offered the same opportunity as other merchants and would be required to pay
the same price for that opportunity.
I hope this is helpful to you. Please let me know if you have any further questions.
cc: Linda Newman Woito, City Attorney
'1~: :lU~ ;,LIY'CC~I~K~' ' ' Fro.: Board of $uparvisors 8-Z~5 8:24. P. 2 of 3
County
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Charles D. Duffy, Chakperson
Joe Bolkc, om
Stephen P. Lacina
Don Schr
Sally Slutsman
August 3, 1995
FORMAL MEETING
1. Callto order 9:00 a.m.
Agenda
2. Action re: claims
Action re: informal minutes of July 25th recessed to July 27th and the
formal minutes of July 27th.
4. Action re: payroll authorizations
5. Business from the County Auditor.
a) Action re: permits
b) Action re: reports
c) Oaer
Business from the County Attorney.
a) Report re: other items.
913 SOUT~ DL~Uo[~ ST.
To: lO~ CITY
Fro~: Board of Supervisors 8-2-cJS 8:24~m p, 3 of 3
Agenda 8-3-95
Page 2
7. Business from the Board of Supervisors.
a) Motion re: voluntarily annex an approximate 3.05 acre tract of land
located north of American Legion Road within the Windsor Ridge
Subdiv/sion.
b) Motion re: letter of support for a grant proposal fi'om Neighborhood
Centers of Johnson County.
e) Discussion/action re: committee to review Juvenile Detention Center
needs.
d) Discussion/action re: Military Exemptions and Homestead Tax Credits
approval and denial of applications for Iowa City.
e) Action re: Silurian Aquifer study.
t) Other
8. Adjourn to informalmeeting.
a) Discussion re: Silurian Aquifer study.
Inquiries and reports from the public.
c) Reports and inquires from the members of the Board of Supervisors,
d) Report from the County Attorney.
e) Other
9. Adjournment
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
August 11, 1995
City Council
City Manager
Material in Information Packet
Memoranda from the City Manager:
a. Federal/State Financial Aid
b. DNR Order/University of Iowa/Mercury
c. University Stats
d. Melrose Avenue Street & Bridge Reconstruction Project
2q o _
Memorandum from the Executive Director of JCCOG regarding Melrose Avenue
Traffic Evaluation Study for the City of University Heights
Memoranda from the City Attorney:
a. Peninsula property acquisition update
b. Partial litigation update; new lawsuit
Memorandum from the City Clerk regarding Council work session of July
31, 1995.
Memorandum from the Director of Planning and Community Development
regarding Fringe Area Agreement.
Memorandum from the Traffic Engineer regarding traffic study at First
Avenue and Friendship Street.
Memorandum from the JCCOG Solid Waste Management Planner regarding 1995
Toxic Waste Cleanup Day Final Report.
Building permit information for July 1995.
Copy of letter from Gloria O'Donnell requesting information about city codes.
Agendas for the August 8 and August 10,
County Board of Supervisors.
Memo from Council Member Lehman regardinB North Dubuque Road Housing
Project (Saratoga Springs/Burns).
. . ......... i--. . " ' ~
Copy of Annual Report of Boards & Commissions FY95.
1995, meetings of the Johnson
Copy of FY95 Comparison of Budget to Actual Revenues, Expenditures
and cash position for operating funds for 12 months ending 6/30/95.
blemo from City Mgr. re Cedar Rapids Charter Comm.
4'/¢7 _
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
August 11, 1995
City Council
City Manager
Federal/State Financial Aid
While it is difficult to predict Congressional behavior, particularly as it relates to domestic
spending, we all are aware that reductions in federal aid can be expected. The following is
a cursory review of federal aid for programs and pr, ojects administered by the City. Also
identified is state funding, in that the state has a habit of following federal budgeting policies.
The issues of state fiscal control, such as tax freezes, tax caps, changes in property
assessment, atc., are not discussed but do have a bearing on our community's future financial
welfare.
· Federal transit operating assistance
,$264,992
For FY96 Iowa City Transit will receive 9264,992 in FTA Section 5307 (formerly Section
9) Operating Assistance. Congress is in the process of determining how much will be cut
from transit funding, but it is predicted to be somewhere between 20%-44%. This could
translate to a 952,998 to 9116,596 reduction in operating assistance for Iowa City
Transit. The federal government is also indicating a gradual elimination of operating
assistance over the next four years.
There are very few options of recouping the money other than increased tax support.
Transit fees are highly elastic, so the net effect of a fare increase is hard to predict. The
other option is a reduction in service.
State transit operating assistance
$251,344
Iowa City Transit receives $251,344 in State Operating Assistance. ]'his money is from
a dedicated fund which is 1/20th of the first four cents of the tax on new and used car
purchases. This money is not in jeopardy of being lost at this time, although some
highway construction interests have classified this as a diversion of Road Use Tax Funds
and have recommended this practice be eliminated. Currently the Governor has initiated
a study group with respect to the use of Road Use Tax funds.
Eec[eral transit calJital assistance (;995,052
In FY96, we are scheduled to receive 934,342 in FTA Section 5307 capital assistance for
a variety of transit projects. Iowa City Transit will also receive in FY96 $960,710 in
Federal Section 3 capital assistance funds for 83% of the cost of five (5) new buses, and
2
other smaller projects. Federal capital assistance is at risk. A current Congressional
recommendation is to reduce the level of funding from 83% to 50%. Several years ago
the City set up a capital reserve for the City's share (17%) of the cost of replacement
buses (depreciation account). This fiscal policy has worked well and funds were
transferred into the reserve from the City's general revenues. Any decrease in capital
assistance would, assuming current service level with our existing fleet, require additional
monies from the General Fund. The City's reserve payments are now $60,000 annually
and could increase to as high as $400,000, depending on scheduled purchase of new
buses. Further, far more detailed analysis will be necessary.
· Community Development Block Grants
$1,014,000
Most are aware of the details of this long-standing federal program. We are aware of
Congressional proposals to reduce the funding by 30% to 50%. The current allocation is
as follows:
Administration and planning
Operations (aid to agencies)
Contingency (unallocated)
Projects
9139,500
9151,200
956,383
9666,917
A substantial portion of these funds are dedicated to our area human service agencies and
the City's housing rehabilitation programs. The staff administering such programs are paid
by these federal funds.
· HONtE Investment Partnership
9400,000
Administration 935,000
Unallocated 930,000
Projects 9335,000
Some of the projects included GICHF land acquisition (9100,000); First National Bank
downpayment assistance (980,000); City owner-occupied rehab ($155,000); City housing
for working singles (9100,000). We may receive further HOME money through the state.
· Emergency Shelter Grants
$69,600
Administration
Operation (Aid to Agencies)
92,500
967,100
· Airport Improvements Grant (since 1988)
$1,261,545
Our airport has been fortunate since 1988 to have received a number of state and federal
grants.
Budgeting from the FAA Aviation Trust Fund was at 91.45 billion dollars for FY96.
Budgeting for FY97 is proposed at $1.6 billion dollars. An increase in funding will probably
not have any effect on the Iowa City Airport. Because the Master Plan is not going to be
completed until April 1996, we will have missed the cutoff date to be programmed for
3
FY97 funding, There is a move m Congress to appropriate funding from the Trust Fund
through a multi-year program, This would make it easier to program capital improvements,
There are several billion dollars in the Trust Fund and, at this time, the money is to be
appropriated annually,
Most airport grants require a 1 0% local match. Whether the
of capital improvements for a renovated airport is unknown.
so. The following represents the 1988 to present funding.
Pavement rehab, Runway 17/35 9320,000
Feasibility study 961,380
Pavement rehab, Runway 06/24 $646,065
Crack sealing, Runway 17/30 958,567
Security fence 914,000
Master Plan grant 993,629
Miscellaneous 967,904
FAA will fully fund its share
Historically, FAA has done
· Assisted Housing programs
The following information details federal funding levels for existing housing assistance
programs. The recision bill recently approved by Congress eliminates opportunities for new
applications, but currently has no effect on our Section 8 certificate/voucher program.
Section 8 (FY96)
527 certificate
350 vouchers
These are annual housing assistance payments.
$2,075,964
91,286,292
93,362,256
· Whispering Nleadows Housing
$3,237,041
33 newly constructed units
Acquisition ot existing single-family homes
$931,750
10 single-family homes
· Performance Funding Subsidy (PFS)
$130,636
PFS is available from HUD to assist public housing authorities in meeting operational
expenses. The City's public housing operations are substantially funded through rental
income.
· Capital Improvements Projects
There are many capital projects, notably street improvements, funded by federal sources.
These federal sources are often federal trust (specific purpose) fund revenues, such as
4
federal gasoline tax and therefore not as often subject to Congressional budget cutting
fervor. The projects listed show the federal share only. I do not believe major reductions
are forthcoming.
Iowa River Corridor Trail
Melrose, Brookside, WooIf Bridges
Melrose near West High
Melrose near Hawkins
First Avenue - Muscatine
$391,700
$1,664,400
$1,720,000
$442,000
$400,000
Although not directly related to the purpose of this report, we have had a number of housing
assistance applications pending with HUD. They are summarized and we do not expect them
to be funded. The federal recision bill has had a substantial impact on the Housing Authority
in terms of program expansion (meeting needs of low income families) and in meeting the
federal family self-sufficiency policy, an unfunded mandate.
Community Improvement Assessment Program
(CLAP)
Homeless/Disabled vouchers (20 vouchers)
Family Self-Sufficiency Coordinator
Fair Share Affordability Certificate/Vouchers
47 vouchers
54 certificate
Broadway Disposition/18 single-family
replacements
$310,000
$73,OOO
$39,65O
$172,700
$212,700
$1,692,000
The following summary represents those federal funds which are, in my judgment, in the most
jeopardy for reduction/elimination by Congressional action. These are best guess estimates,
but we do believe we need to consider alterative funding or service reductions with respect
to these programs/projects. The Iosses/shortfalls are annual estimates.
Community Development Block Grant - Current
- (Assumes 30% reduction) Revised
- Loss to City
$1,014,000
$7O9,80O
$304,200
Federal Transit Operating Assistance
- Current
· - (Assumes 40% reduction) Revised
- Loss to City
$264,992
$158,996
$105,996
Federal Transit Capital Assistance - Current
- (Assumes 83% to 50%) Revised
- Loss to City
est.
$995,O52
Variable
$250,000
HOME Investment Partnership - Current
- (Assumes 30% reduction) Revised
- Loss to City
$400,000
$280,000
$120,000
5
Assisted Housing Programs
As indicated, we do not expect a change in current federal support for housing assistance;
however, capital funds, construction, purchases, etc. will likely be elimir~ated. Also, in order
for the federal money to "go further," it can be expe~tb~l-tl~at'fede?al reg-ulations may change,
such as rather than 30% of their income being a requirements for low income families, it
would be increased to say 32%.
The total lois/shortfall (need for alternative resources to maintain current service/policy) is
estimated at $800,000 annually and could grow to $1 million if the transit operating
assistance is eliminated as is apparently the plan by the federal governments,
There are also many area agencies which receive funds directly from Iowa City in the form
of Aid to Agencies. I would suspect they too will experience funding reductions as a result
of federal cutbacks. We can onlyspeculate, but the reductions to our human service agencies
could be substantial.
The City's losses/shortfall will need to be discussed at an upcoming budget review and
strategi3s for dealing with the consequences of federal reductions,
City of Iowa City
!.
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 10, 1995
To: City Council
From: City Manager
Re: DNR Order/Univ, ersity of Iowa/Mercury
In an earlier memorandum from the City Attorney, you were advised of our intent to challenge
the recent DNR Order concerning mercury in our wastewater effluent. We have worked
extensively with the University and the DNR in order to reduce the mercury and copper in the
wastewater effluent. Both of these metals can require unique treatment processes. After
extensive study, particularly as it relates to mercury, and so indicated in the Order, the
University was identified as the likely source; however, we have a number of problems with this
Order. Specifically, the identification of the mercury and copper and its removal is, in our
judgement, not scientifically sound. We would intend to point out to the State Environmental
Protection Commission that the information and the Order are such that they have little practical
application to our wastewater effluent. The State requires our testing/effluent to be at a rate
of 80 parts per trillion. The Department of Public Works points out that drinking water can be
2000 parts per trillion. Ours is currently 400.
Additionally, we have the circumstance whereby the State of Iowa Depariment of Natural
Resources is ordedng the City of Iowa City to enforce an Order on another state agency, that
being the University of Iowa. We have the State ordering the City to enforce regulations on the
State, and if we are unsuccessful, the City would pay a fine. I'm sure you can see how such
an order is an administrative nightmare and particular to fine the City for the actions of the
State makes little sense. We will be pursuing this matter and the University has indicated their
cooperation, not only in working toward removal of the mercury, but also they recognize the
DNR Order and all the other law that affects the relationship of a state agency to a municipal
government makes the fulfillment of such an order impractical.
CC:
City Attorney
Director of Public Works
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
August 11, 1995
City Council
City Manager
University Stats
.The University representatives presented the attached at a recent
ICAD Board meeting. Some interesting stats!
THE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA
Services Demand and Employment
FY 198.5
FY 1995
{Change
3FY 85-95
Enrollment - headoount~
Undergraduate
Graduate and Pratescions1'
Tatale
21,603
8,109
29,712
18,219
8,715
26,952
-15.7
7,q
Orante end Contracts Awarded from
Prior Year
983,000,000
9187,700,000
126.1
UI Hospitals and Clinics~
In-patients and out-patients
396,771
5q2,316
]56.7
Employees - headcount, full end part-time, permanent~m
General Education Fund (Appropriations,
Tuition and Indirect Cost Income)
Faculty 1,5tl
P 8 S 590
General Service 1~15~
Totals $,293
1,572
8q8
920
q$.7
-20.1
Other Organized Educational
Activities (e.g., External Grant
Activity, Practioe Plans end
Auxiliary Enterprises)
Faculty (funded by external sources)
P85
General Service
Totals
4~7 815 82.3
1,190 1,937 62.8
1~64q 2,0q~ 2q.3
3,281 4,796 ~6.2
State~ide Health Services·
UIHC, Hygienic Lab, Psychiatric
Hospital, Hospital School
Faculty
P 8 S (nurses, technologists,
therapists, etc.)
General Service
Totals
37 q3 16,2
1,971 3,143 59.54
2,]55~ 2,527 11.6
q,363 5,813 35.2~
Grand Total Employees
10,957 15,9q9 27.5~
September 30, 198q and 1994 employee census.
Does not include part-time student or hourly workers.
Employees of Family Practice are included in Other Organized Educational
Activities.
Partially due to change in status of UIHC residents from students to full-time
(q2q in September 199q). Without this change the percentage change would be
2~,5X ~or total statewide health services and 23.7X for UI total
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 11, 1995
To: City Council
From: City Manager
Re: Melrose Avenue Street & Bridge Reconstruction Project - Byington Road to
Univemity Heights
In anticipation of your meeting on September 5 with the University Heights City Council, I thought
it would helpful to review the remaining steps in your decision making process for this project.
In summer 1993 the City was notified by Iowa DOT that an environm, ental assessment would be
required before we could proceed on the Melrose Avenue street and bridge reconstruction. At
that time the City Council chose to combine an analysis of design alternatives with the
environmental assessment. BRW Inc. of Minneapolis was hired to complete the environmental
assessment, and Council formed a focus group to help manage the public input process. Seven
design alternatives for the street and bridge reconstruction were agreed upon by the focus group,
and these were given to the consultant for environmental assessment.
The analysis was conducted in 1994, and a public hearing on the draft report was held in April
of this year. Over 200 pages of commentary were received dudrig the eight-week public
comment period. Since May the consultant has been addressing the comments received, and
we will receive the final environmental assessment report in mid-August. The remaining steps
are as follows:
The City Council must select the recommended design alternative from the seven
evaluated. You will have available to you the final environmental assessment report,
including the results of the public comment process. As you know, University Heights has
challenged the location of the corporate limits line established by our survey, and are
claiming to have the right to participate in the bridge design decision. Although we have
welcomed input from University Heights, we disagree with their claim that we cannot
proceed without their concurronce on the bridge design. We have filed a quiet title action
2
with the courts to resolve this matter, Our decision making process needs to continue
while this matter is being resolved.
The final report, with the recommended alternative selected by the City Council, is
forwarded to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
'3.
FHWA concurs wlth the "finding of no significant impact" (FONSl) for the
recommended alternative. FHWA has participated throughout this process, and we are
under the impression they will concur with the conclusions of the final report. The draft
final report showed one design alternative with environmental impacts that could be a
problem, and six design alternatives with no significant environmental impacts.
We proceed with project design for both the street and bridge.
Public hearing on plans and specifications.
6. Project lettings,
7. Project Implementation (FY97).
What is pushing us to complete this decision making process is the continued deterioration of the
Melrose Avenue Bridge. From the point at which FHWA concurs with the recommended design
you select, it will be two years before a new bridge is constructed. We continue to inspect the
bridge at regular intervals and are prepared to change the load limits if necessary. We would
hope we are not be faced with closing the bridge to vehicular traffic.
You will note that the formal public comment process has already taken place, and you will have
all of the comments received available to you. There is no requirement for any further formal
public input prior to your decision on the recommended design alternative. If you desire further
comment before your decision, I would suggest you reconvene and meet with the focus group
you established. This will allow you to receive the formal position of each interest group
represented.
3
Your decision is a difficult one, and I do not believe there is a single alternative with which
everyone will be happy. We have individuals in the community who continue to slate that a fair,
u__n_biased environmental assessment was not conducted. We have thus far spent $110,000 on
consultant fees for this process, and it has been conducted in cooperation with Iowa DOT and
the Federal Highway Administration and established following a public process (focus group)
which was agreed to by all appropriate parties. As far as we know we have fulfilled all
requirements.
cc: Jeff Davidson
Chuck Schmadeke
Rick Fosse
Karin Franklin
JCCOG
memo
Date:
August 7, 1995
To:
From:
Re:
Mayor, City Council, City Manager
Jeff Davidson, Executive Director ~
Melrose Avenue Traffic Evaluation Study for the City of University Heights
Mayor Horowitz has asked me to provide you with a copy of the conclusions and recommen-
dations from the Melrose Avenue Traffic Evaluation Study for the City of University Heights.
This is a federal-aid study commissioned by the City of University Heights and conducted by
Shive-Hattery Engineers & Architects, The study addresses traffic control issues at the Melrose
Avenue intersections of Koser/Golfview and Sunset Street.
I have a copy of the full study if any of you would like to review it. Let me know if there is any
additional information you would like prior to your September 5 meeting with the University
Heights City Council.
b.~!mss.dmO
TRAFFIC EVALUATION STUDY
FOR
THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS, IOWA
by
SHIVE-HATTERY
ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS, inc.
NOVEMBER, 1994
C_C_ONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions can be made based on site observations, evaluations
and analysis:
1. The intersection of Melrose Avenue and Sunset Street currently operates
at a satisfactory level of service,
2, The estimated additional traffic generated by the possible development of
the Neuzil property will not have a major impact to the traffic flow on
Melrose Avenue.
The current operation of the intersection of Melrose Avenue and
Koser/Golfview Avenue as a four-way stop causes long vehicular queues
during the peak periods of the day.
Removal of the stop signs on Melrose Avenue at the KosedGolfview
intersection will result in an unacceptable level of service for Koser and
Golfview.
194102-1
Page 8
Traffic signals are warranted at the intersections of Melrose Avenue at
Sunset Street and Koser/Golfview,
There is approximately a 30 percent excess capacity at the intersection of
Sunset Street and Melrose Avenue.
If the intersection of Golfview/Koser and Melrose Avenue were signalized,
the intersection would have approximately a 15 percent excess capacity.
G. RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations can improve the traffic flow along Melrose Avenue.
Signalize the intersection of Melrose Avenue and Koser/Golfview. This
intersection meets the traffic signal warrant criteda and may be a
candidate for Traffic Safety Improvement Funds. The estimated
construction cost is $50,000 - $60,000.
From conversations with the University Heights project representative, we
understand that the controller at Sunset Street is outdated and parts are
hard to find. A malfunction in the control could result in a traffic safety
concern and we recommend that the controller be of a solid state type of
controller. The replacement would cost approximately $8,000 - $10,000.
This improvement may also be a candidate for Traffic Safety Improvement
Funds.
Observe the operations of the signals as the traffic patterns change.
Adjust the signal timings accordingly.
194102-1
Page 9
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 9, 1995
To: The Honorable Mayor Susan M. Horowitz and Members of the City Council
From: Linda Newman Woito, City Attomey '~
Re: Peninsula property acquisition; update ""~
The abstract of title for purchase of the peninsula property has been delivered to my Office, the
legal descriptions are being finalized, the title opinion being prepared, and closing is now
scheduled for Friday, August !1, 1995 at 2:30 p.m. The federal FEMA money has been
received, and Finance Director Don Yucuis is preparing the check for payment, to be delivered
Friday, August 11.
Just thought you might be interested in this information.
CC:
City Clerk
City Manager
Assistant City Manager
Planning Director
Inv,~oenpmp.mmo
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 10, 1995
To: The Honorable Mayor Susan M. Horowitz and Members of the City Council
From: Linda Newman Woito, City Attorney
Re: Partial litigation update; new lawsuit
Steven J. Jaeger and Tina M. Jaecler v. Edward C. McMartin and Citv of Iowa City; Johnson
County No. 56702
Attached please find a copy of the petition-at-law filed August 7, 1995 against Police Officer ·
Ed McMartin and the City of Iowa City. The City of Iowa City has a duty to defend Officer
McMartin nobNithstanding the fact that McMartin was disciplined by the Police Chief and the
discipline was upheld by the Civil Service Commission, Section 670.8, Code of Iowa (1995).
Since there is a conflict of interest which bars the City Attorney's Office from defending
McMartin because Anne Burnside represented the Police Chief during the Civil Service
Commission hearings, this Office gave McMartin the names of three attorneys who we suggest
represent him in this case.
Please call if you have questions.
Attachment
CC:
City Clerk
City Manager
Assistant City Manager
R,J, Winkelhake
Anne Burnside
IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR JOHNSON C/~,UNTY
STEVEN J. JAEGER, 479-88-0781, and ) .:'.:- '.' .. "
TINA M. JAEGER, 482-96-4709, ) ' ;..'./'-,,.; '
) NO. ;5'&~qO~ "~ '; '."
PLAINTIFFS, ) ":-t/'
) PETITION AT LAW
EDWIN C. McMARTIN, Individually
and as a police officer of the City of
Iowa City, IOWA and the CITY of
IOWA CITY~ IOWA,
DEFENDANTS.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
COMES NOW Plaintiff, Steven J. Jaeger, and for cause of action against the Defen-
dants states as follows:
PREAMBLE
2.
3.
4.
o
Steven J. Jaeger is an individual residing in Johnson County, Iowa.
Tina M. Jaeger is an individual residing Johnson County, Iowa.
Steven J. Jaeger and Tina M. Jaeger are married.
Edwin C. McMartin (hereinafter McManin) is an individual residing in Johnson
County, Iowa.
The City of Iowa City (hereinafter Iowa City) is an Iowa munieipalit~ located in
Johnson County, Iowa.
On or about November 20, 1993, McManin was a member of the Iowa City
Police Depa~taient.
On or about November 20, 1993, McMartin, in the course of his duties as a
police officer, was on patrol in a squad car near the intersection of Linn Street
and Court Street.
8. At or near this location McMartin came into contact with Steve and .Tina Jaeger.
9. McMaxtin suspected that Steven Jaeger possessed an open container of alcohol.
10. After brief questioning, McMartin pursued, confronted, and forced Steven
Jaeger to the ground. In the process of forcing Steven .~aeger to the ground,
McMartin used several modes of physical force.
11. Tina .l'aeger was located near the scene of McMartin's attack on Steve ~'aeger
and contemporaneously observed it.
12. Steven Jaeger suffered personal injuries and incurred medical expenses as well
as other miscellaneous damages as a result of his injuries.
DIVISION I
COMES NOW Plaintiff, Steven J. Jaeger, and for cause of action under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 against Edwin C. MeMartLn, individually and as a Police Officer of the City of Iowa
City, states as follows:
1. Plaintiff repleads paragraphs I through 12 of the Preamble as if set out in full
herein.
2. McMartin violated Steven .]'aeger's civil rights protected by the Constitution and
laws of the United States by using excessive force against Steven Jaeger in the
course of arrest.
3. McMartin, at all relevant times, acted under color of State Law.
3
4. McMartin's conduct actually and proximately caused Steven Jaeger to suffer
personal injury.
5. The amounts claimed exceed the jurisdictional limits of Iowa. Rule of Appellate
Procedure 3.
6. McMartin acted in willful and wonton disregard for the fights and safety of
Steven Jaeger. These actions actually caused Steven Jaeger damage.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Steven I. Jaeger requests judgment against the Defendant,
Edwin C. McMartin, Individually and as a Police Officer of Iowa City, for actual damages in
an amount to be determined by the trier of facts, plus interest at the maximum rate allowed by
law, for the costs of this action, for attorney fees pursuant to 42 IJ.S.C. § 1988, and for puni-
tive damages.
DMSION II
COMES NOW Plaintiff, Steven J. Jaeger, and for cause of action under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 against Defendant, City of Iowa City, Iowa, states as follows:
1. Plaintiff repleads paragraphs 1 through 12 of the Preamble as if set out full '
herein.
2. Defendant Iowa City violated Steven Jaeger's civil right to be free from
excessive force, protected by the Constitution and Laws of the United States by
failing to adequately train and supervise McMartin in the course of his
employment as a Police Officer.
3.Iowa City, at all relevant times, acted under color of State Law.
4
Iowa City's conduct proximately caused the actions that resulted in Steven
Jaeger's injuries.
The amounts claimed exceed the jurisdictional limits of Iowa Rule of Appellate
Procedure 3.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Steven J. Jaeger, requests judgment against the Defendant,
City of Iowa City, Iowa, for actual damages in an amount to be determined by the trier of
facts, plus interest at the maximum rate allowed by law, for the costs of this action, and for
attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
DMSION Ill
COMES NOW Plaintiff, Steven J. Jaeger, and for cause of action against the Defen-
dants, ~win C. McMartin, individually and as a Police Officer of Iowa City, and the City of
Iowa City, Iowa states as follows:
Plaintiff repleads paragraphs I through 12 of the Preamble as if set out in full
herein.
McMartin assaulted Steven Jaeger when he confronted Steven Jaeger in that
McMa.rtin's words and actions put Steven Jaeger in fear of physical pain or
injury.
3. McMartin battered Steven Jaeger in that McMartin repeatedly used physical
force to inflict blows upon Steven Jaeger's body. Such acts were' done with the
purpose and intent to cause physical pain and injury.'
4. Iowa City is legally responsible for the actions of the members of its police
rome includ. ing McMartin.
5. As a proximate result of the Defendants' actions, Steven Jaeger sustained
injuries.
6. The amounts claimed exceed the jurisdictional limits of Iowa Rule of Appellate
Procedure 3.
WHEREFORE Plaintiff, Steven J. Jaeger, requests judgment against the Defendants,
Edwin C. McMaxtin, individually and as a Police Officer of Iowa City, and the City of Iowa
City, Iowa, for actual damages in an amount to be determined by the trier of facts, plus inter-
est at the maximum rate allowed by law, and for the costs of this action.
DIVISION IV
COMES NOW Plaintiff, Tina M. Jaeger, and for cause of action against Edwin C.
McMartin, individually and as a Police Officer of the City of Iowa City, and the City of Iowa
City, Iowa, states as follows: ,
1. Plaintiff repleads paragraphs 1 through 12 of the Preamble as if set out in full
herein.
2. During the course of Tina Jaeger's sensory and contemporaneous observance of
McMartin's attack on her husband, Steven Jaeger, she reasonably and actually
believed that Steven Jaeger would be seriously injured or killed.
3. Tina laeger's observance of McMartin's attack on her husband caused her
serious emotional distress.
6
4. Iowa City is legally responsible for the actions of the members of its police
force including McMartin.
5. The amounts claimed exceed the jurisdictional limits of Iowa Rule of Appellate
Procedure 3.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Tina M. Jaeger requests judgment against the Defendants,
Edwin C. McMaxtin, individually and as a Police Officer of Iowa City, and the City of Iowa
City, Iowa, for actual damages in an amount to be determined by the trier of facts, plus inter-
est at the maximum rate allowed by law, and for the costs of this action.
DIVISION V
COME NOW Plaintiffs, Steven .~. Jaeger and Tina M. Jaeger, and for cause of action
against Edwin C. McMartin, individually and as a Police Officer of the City of Iowa City, and
the City of Iowa City, Iowa, state as follows:
1. Plaintiffs replead paragraphs 1 through 12 of the Preamble as if set out in full
herein.
2.McMartin's attack of Steven laeger is outrageous conduct.
3. McMaxtin acted with the intent of causing or in reckless disregard of the
probability of causing severe emotional distress.
4. Steven and Tina individually suffered severe emotional distress. Said emotional
distress was proximately caused by McMartin's outrageous conduct.
5. Iowa City is legally responsible for the actions of the members of its police
force including McMartin.
7
6. The amounts claimed exceed the jurisdictional limits of Iowa Rule of Appellate
Procedure 3.
WHEREFORE,.Plaintiffs, Steven J. Jaeger and Tina M. Jaeger request judgment
against the Defendants, Edwin C. McMartin, individually and'as a Police Officer of Iowa
City, and the City of Iowa City, Iowa, for actual damages in an amount to be determined by
the trier of facts, plus interest at the maximum rate allowed by law, and for the costs of this
action.
v: 12aO468.1tg
FOSTER LAW OFFICE
· Foster 000001608
By:
P.O. Box 720
Iowa City, IA 52244-0720
(319) 339-7727
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR JOHNSON COUNTY
STEVEN J. JAEGER, 479-88-0781, and
TINA M. JAEGER, 482-96-4709
PLAINTIFFS,
VS.
EDWIN C. McMARTIN, Individually
and as a pblice officer of the City of
Iowa City, IOWA and the CITY of
IOWA CITY, IOWA,
DEFENDANTS.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
NO,
JURY DEMAND
case.
COMF_.3 NOW Plaintiffs and hereby demands a trial by jury of all fact issues in this
DATED this 7~/~ day of August, 1995.
FOSTER LAW OFFICE
Davis L. Foster 000001608
By:
P.O. Box 720
Iowa City, IA 52244-0720
(319) 339-7727
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
City of IOwa City
MEMORANDUM
Date:
August 11, 1995
To:
Mayor and City Council
From: City Clerk
Re:
Council Work Session, July 31, 1995 - 6:30 p,m, in the Council Chambers
Mayor Susan Horowitz presiding. Council Members: Horowitz, Baker, Kubby, Lehman, Pigott,
Throgmorton. Absent: Novick. Staff present: Atkins, Helling, Woito, Karr, Franklin, Kugler,
Nasby, Trueblood, Shaffer, O'Malley, Cohn, Craig. Tapes: 95-90, NI; 95-91, All.
REVIEW ZONING MA'I-I'ERS:
Reel 95-90, Side 1
PCD Director Franklin presented the following Planning and Zoning items for discussion:
Setting a public hearing for August 15, 1995, on a resolution to annex a 3.05 acre tract
located north of American Legion Road and west of Arlington Drive. (Watts/ANN94-0008)
Settinq a public hearing for Au.qust 15, 1995, on an ordinance amending the Zonina
Ordinance by amendinq the use re.qulations of a 3.05 acre tract located north of Amedcan
Le.qion Road and west of Arlinqton Drive from County RS, Suburban Residential, to RS-5,
Low Density Sinqle-Familv Residential. (Watts/REZ94-0013)
Public headn~ on a resolution to annex an approximate 250 acre property located north-
of 1-80 and west of N. Dubuque Street. (Water Plant/ANN94-0009)
Public hearing on an ordinance amendinq the Zonin~ Ordinance by amending the use
regulations of an approximate 250 acre properN located north of 1-80 and west of N.
Dubuque Street from County A1, Rural; RS, Suburban Residential; and R3A, Suburban
Residential; to P, Public. (Water Plant/REZ94-0018)
Public headnq on an ordnance amend n¢i T tie 14, Chapter 4, "Land Control and Develop-
ment," Article O, "Historic Preservation Regulations," and Chapter 6, "Zon ng," Article J,
"Overlay Zones" to allow the City to designate historic landmarks and conservation
districts.
Urban Planner Kugler and City Attorney Woito answered Council questions.
In response to Thingmorton, Franklin stated staff will re-look at Section 14-4C-7A, pages
7-8, regarding changing the appearance of a landmark and page 2, paragraph A,
regarding no more than 60% of the building or area. Throgmorton asked that staff
address definition of traditional characteristics of Iowa City.
aq%7
2
Public hearing on an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance by conditionally amending
the use regulations of an approximate 7.8 acres located east of Old Dubuque Road and
nodh of Dodge Street from RS-5, Low DensiN Single-Family Residential, to OPDH-8,
Planned Development Housing Overlay, and RS-8, Medium DensiN Single-Family.
(Saratoaa Sprinqs/Bums/REZ95-0010)
Developer Bob Burns responded to Council questions.
Franklin stated that six out of seven Council votes are required to pass this item because
of the protest by area residents and recommended continuing the public hearing to August
15. After further discussion and because there were not six Council members who
supported amending the Zoning Ordinance, Franklin suggested Council indicate at the
formal Council meeting the item was discussed and refer the project back to Planning and
Zoning for a reduction in the number of units.
Resolution to annex approximateIv 103.86 acres, which includes the Hi.qhwav
218/Highway 1 interchange and property located in the southwest quadrant of the inter-
change. (Winebrenner/ANN95-0001)
Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance bv amendinq the use regulations of an
approximate 103.86 acres, which includes the Highwav 218/Hiqhwav 1 interchange and
property located in the southwest quadrant of the interchange from Countv RS, Suburban
Residential, to C1-1, intensive Commercial (Weinbrenner/REZ95-0011) (First consider-
ation)
See item I. for additional discussion of this item.
Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance by amending the use regulations of an
approximate 0.82 acre tract of land, the north portion of Lot 4, Hiqhlander First Addition,
which is located on Northdate Drive from RDP, Research Development Park, to CO-1,
Commercial Office. (REZ95-0008) (First consideration)
Ordinance amending the conditional zoning agreement for Lots 4-17, Hiqhlander First
Addition, revisinq the development standard pertaining to rooflines and parapet walls.
(REZ95-0008) (First consideration)
Ordinance vacatinq a 20-foot wide alley located east of Gilbert Court and immediately
north of Lot 4 of Block 3, Lvon's Addition. (MilderNAC95-0002) (First consideration)
Ordinance amending City Code Title 14, Chapter 6, entitled "Zoning," Article S, entitled
"Performance Standards," Sections lOB and 10C, concernin(~ the location of underqround
storage tanks. (First consideration)
Resolution approv nga Chapter 28E agreement between the Citv of Iowa CitV and the Citv
of Hills establishin.q a boundary .qoverninq extraterritorial review authorib/and annexations.
Resolution vacating Fox Hollow Subdivision, a 31-lot, 52.21 acre subdivision located north
of Herbert Hoover Hiflhwav and west of Taft Avenue. (VAC95-0003)
3
Resolution approvinq the final plat of Bovrum Subdivision, Part 4, a 3-lot, 11.67 acre
commercial subdivision located south of Hiqhwav 6 between Boyram Street and
Waterfront Drive.
Resolution approvinq the final plat of Lonqfellow Manor, a 7,64 acre, 20 lot, residential
subdivision located on the south side of the 1300 block of Sheddan Avenue. (60-day
limitation period: waived.) {SUB94-0012)
City Attorney Woito, Stephen Greenleaf, representing Jim O'Brien, and Longfellow
Neighborhood Association representative Jill Smith presented comments.
In response to Council, Franklin stated she will try to contact the new owner, Mr. Stetsel,
outlining Council concerns. Baker requested information about the emphasis on "has"
on page 3 of the staff report.
ADDITIONAL TO CONSENT CALENDAR:
Reel 95-91, Side 2
Council agreed to the following additions to the Consent Calendar:
Item 3c.(6). Concider a resolution issuing a dance permit to Iowa City Fall Festival,
3c,(7). Consider a motion approving a special five-day beer permit for iowa City Fall Festival, and
3c.(8), Consider a motion approving a temporary outdoor service area for Iowa City Fall Festival.
FRINGE AREA AGREEMENT:
Reel 95-91, Side 1
PCD Director Franklin presented information about the status of the proposed Fringe Area
Agreement. Council agreed to send a letter to the Johnson County Board of Supervisors, asking
what they want in the Fringe Area Agreement, and requesting a response in 30 days. Council
tentatively agreed to schedule a focus session in September to discuss'the proposed Fringe Area
Agreement.
Staff Action: Letter sent to County requesting a response by September 5 and Council
discussion will be scheduled [Franklin].
COMMUNITY NETWORKING GROUP PRESENTATION:
Reel 95-91, Side 1
Assistant Finance Director O'Malley, Cable TV Specialist Shaffer, and iowa City Public Library
Director Craig presented information.
O'Malley invited Council to attend the World Wide Web/Jeonet demonstration on Wednesday at
11:00 a,m, in the Chambers.
Staff Action: Received approval on goals and mission of group and will proceed as
outlined [O'Malley].
PURCHASELAND ADJACENT TO WETHERBY PARK:
Reel 95-91, Side 1
Parks and Recreation Director Trueblood presented information.
4
Council directed staff to proceed with the purchase of the approximately ten-acres of land
adjacent to Wetherby Park (McCollister properties owned by Showers). Council stated they did
not want to waive the land or fee requirements for future development.
COUNCIL AGENDA/TIME:
Reel 95-91, Side 1
In response to Throgmorton, City Manager Atkins stated that the Economic Development
Policy is ready to be scheduled for Council discussion. Throgmorton requested that public
discussion be allowed prior to the adoption of the policy by Council.
(Agenda Item No, 20 - Mayor's Youth Employment Program.) Pigott inquired about the
financial review of the program up to this point. Atkins stated the City assists Mayor's
Youth with financial issues. Council discussed a Council Member appointment to Mayor's
Youth Board. No decision was made to proceed with an appointment.
(Agenda Item No. 15 - Resolution supporting ratification of the elimination of all forms of
discrimination against women.) Pigott encouraged Council to support this resolution.
Kubby requested a memo regarding the Public Housing Authority and expressed concerns
regarding the absence of a director.
(Agenda item No. 22 - Vehicles for hire.) Kubby raised concerns about the 20-30%
increase in the premiums. City Clerk Karr reported the resolution was recommehded by
the Finance Department and copies had been sent to all taxi companies. To date no
comments had been received.
(Agenda Item No. 3e.(1) - Whispering Meadows sanitary sewer,) Kubby requested
additional information. Staff will report back.
Baker requested that Council read his July 31, 1995, memo regarding subsidized housing
criteria,
Horowitz noted that she will read the letter to the editor from the Human Rights
Commission concerning racial discrimination at Council's formal meeting.
Kubby requested that Council respond to her July 31, 1995, memo regarding Animal
Control Committee and animal control ordinances.
10.
(Agenda Item No. 16 - 118 S. Dubuque Street time and temperature sign.) In response
to Pigott, Couricil discussed the resolution approving the design of the time and
temperature sign located at 118 S. Dubuque Street.
11.
The Mayor noted she will prepare a letter to the Historic Preservation Commission
thanking them for bringing the Butler House to Council's attention.
12. Horowitz raised concems about the downtown graffiti.
APPOINTMENTS:
Reel 95-91, Side 2
Mayor's Youth - No applications.
5
CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS:
Reel 95-91, Side 2
City Attorney Woito referred to her July 31, 1995, memorandum regarding "Status Report and.
Prefiminary Legal Conclusion: Research on Water Impact Fees/Water Connection Fees". Woito
stated that the word "not" should be inserted in paragraph 2 on page 11.
Meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
cleri~cc7.31.~nf
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
August 9, 1995
Planning and Zoning Commis~sio,n/~..
Karin Franklin, Director,
Fringe Area Agreement
At the City Council's July 31 work session, we had a brief discussion of the Fringe Area
Agreement. The Council decided to send a letter to the Johnson County Board of Supervisors
requesting that the Supervisors articulate what they found objectionable in the most recent
Fringe Agreement proposal.. A copy of the letter from the Mayor to the Board is enclosed.
The next step for the City Council is to have a work session in mid-September, after receiving
comments from the Board of Supervisors. At that meeting the Council intend~ to review the
Agreement proposal to determine their position regarding that proposal, review the County's
comments, and formulate a position regarding the two-mile extraterritorial jurisdiction if there
does not seem to be agreement between the City and the County on fringe development. At
some point, the Commission should re-enter this process if a change is to be made in the
agreement or if the City is going to adopt a unilateral policy. It may be useful to have
Commission representatives at the September work session of the City Council. As soon as
that date is known, I will contact the Chair of the Commission.
cc: City Council
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 7, 1995
To:
Steve Atkins, City Manager
From:
James Brachtel, Traffic Engineer
Re:
Traffic Study at First Avenue & Friendship Street
The City Council has received a request to consider installing an all-way stop at the
intersection of First Avenue and Friendship Street. The Traffic Engineering Division will be
conducting counts in September after the start of school to determine if installing an all-way
stop at the First Avenue and Friendship Street intersection would be appropriate based upon
warrants for all-way stops. The results of this study will be forwarded to you at the end of
September. Should you require additional comment or question prior to the collection of data
at the intersection, please don't hesitate to contact me.
Date: August 1, 1995
To: Iowa City City Council
JCCOG
rrj ' memo
From: Brad Neumar~JOCOG Solid Waste Management Planner
Re: 1995 Toxic Waste Cleanup Day Final Report
On May 20, 1995, the Iowa City Landfill and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR)
sponsored a toxic waste cleanup day at the Iowa City Public Works/Transit Facility grounds.
CONTRACTOR
The event was serviced by Hedtage Environmental Services of Indianapolis, Indiana through
a state of Iowa contract. The company accepted and disposed of all the hazardous materials
collected that day.
COST
The cost for the cleanup day was $71,071.25. This averaged out to $109.68 per household
served. The 1989 average was $106.67 per household while the 1994 average was $94.29
per household. Specific costs were as follows:
Local Share:
Disposal
Advertising/Promotion
Temporary Employees
(appointment phones)
Tents
Phone System
Installation
Gift for Volunteers
Total
$61,494.00
3,497.66
3,457.94
1,440.00
842.65
339.00
$71,071.25
IDNR Share: Disposal $ 0.00
Total Cost:
$71,071.25
MATERIAL ACCEPTED
Hedtage Environmental Services accepted materials such as cleaners, solvents, pesticides,
herbicides, household batteries, oil based paints, wood preservatives, and automobile fluids.
There were 136 drums of matedal collected. Most of the material was treated (neutralized) and
placed in a hazardous waste landfill. Other materials were incinerated for energy recovery.
A pie chart is attached showing the percentage of each.
Iowa City collected and disposed of all the latex based paints collected at the event. A
complete list of materials collected, labor and equipment costs is attached.
PARTICIPATION
There were 498 vehicles served at the event. Many residents brought materials from other
households other than their own. Based on a survey conducted with every participant, the
event served 648 households. There were 48 no-shows and 54 people showed up without an
appointment. The number of households served is equal to about 2.2% of all households in
Johnson County. This is fewer than the number of households served in the 1989 and 1994
events. The 1989 event served 750 households or 2.3% of all households in the county while
the 1994 event served about 1,400 households or 4.7% of all households.
TELEPHONE APPOINTMENT SYSTEM
The appointment system worked very well. Five paid temporary employees were hired to staff
the telephones for two weeks prior to the event. There were 492 appointments recorded. The
temporary employees were trained to promote the use of alternative disposal methods that may
be used in the home, such as drying out latex paint and disposing of the material with your
regular curbside refuse collection. There were 74 people talked out of bringiny material to the
event due to'the alternative disposal promotion.
VOLUNTEERS
The cleanup event required about 75 volunteers to work three 3-hour shifts. Volunteers were
recruited from local civic organizations, Johnson County communities and their local civic
organizations, the City of Iowa City, and the University of Iowa. The volunteers were needed
to collect and sort paint and oil, hand out information, traffic control and other miscellaneous
activities. The volunteer turn out for the event was very good. Only a few volunteers did not
show up.
PROMOTION AND ADVERTISING
Promotion was conducted through local newspapers, newsletters, brochures and cable TV and
radio announcements. All newspapers in Johnson County were utilized, including the Iowa City
Press Citizen, The Daily lowan, The Advertiser, The Solon Economist, The Leader, The Lone
Tree Reporter, The Kalona News, and the Riverside Current. About $3,500 was spent in
newspaper advertisements. Fliers were sent to all communities in Johnson County and the
Board of Supervisors. A household hazardous waste informational display was also set up at
the Iowa City Public Library.
DONATIONS
Iowa City and Coralville grocery stores and restaurants provided more than enough food and
beverage for all the volunteers. Most of the equipment needed for the event came from the
City of Iowa City. Additional large equipment was donated by City Carton Co. and Rent All.
SURVEY RESULTS
Attached is a summary of the survey taken by the IDNR. There were 498 verbal surveys taken.
IOWA BILLING '
DATE: 5120/95
LOCATION: JOHNSON CO.
LABOR:
C. HEMIST
DRIVER
MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION
MATERIALS:
:35GAL OVERPACK
55/30 GAL DRUM
55 GAL 17-E
5 GAL PAIL
~/ERMICULITE BAG
_EVEL I PROTECTIVE GEAR
, _EVEL II PROTECTIVE GEAR
DISPOSAL BULK MATERIAL:
-NON HAZ SECURE LANDFII.L 55GAL
NON HAZ SECURE LANDFILL 20GAL
.SECURE LANDFILL/ALK BATT20GAL
-IALOGENATED SOLVENTS 55 GAL
-tALOGENATED SOLVENTS 85 GAL
xlON-HALOGENATED SOLVENTS 55 GAL
xlON-ALOGENATED SOLVENTS 85 GAL
DIL BASE PAINT 55 GAL
.~ONTAMINATED DRUM
3ULK POISONS 85 GAL 385LBS
3ULK POISONS 55 GAL 320LBS
31SPOSAL LABPACK MATERIAL:
NCINEEATION AEROSOLS 55GAL
=UEL BLENDING AEROSOLS 55GAL
NClNERATION 55GAL
NCINERATI3N 30GAL
NClNEEATION 5GAL
:UEL BLENDING 55GAL
TREATMENT 55 GAL
TREATMENT 20 GAL
TREATMENT 5 GAL
-ESS COUNTY CONTRIBUTION
$62,00
$45.00
$1,500.00
$125.00
$3O.OO
$50.0O
$7.00
'$10.00
$15.00
$20.00
117 $7,254.00
'13 ......... $585.00'
1 $1,500.00
2 $250.00
81 $2,430.00
40 $2,000.00
10 $70.00
16 $160.00
53 $795.O0
1 $20.00
$240.00 0 $0.00
$160.00 0 $0.00
$225.00 6 $1,350.00
$1'75.00 0 $0.00
$210.00 0 $0.00
$175.00 5 $875.00
$210.00 2 $420.00
$175.00 11 $1,925.00
$35.00 0 $0.00
$1,150.00 0 $0.00
$1,000.00 0 $0.00
$420.00
$350.00
$500.00
$300,00
$100,00
$350.00
$375,00
$250.00
$100,00
DRUM TOTAL
TOTAL COST
IDNR TOTAL
3 $1,260,00
5 $1,750.00
19 $9,500.00
1 $300.00
3 $300.00
70 $24,500.00
10 $3,750.00
2 $500.00
0 $0.00
137
$61,494.00
$81,494.00
$0.00
._ _ y_ou bzL,,g, ~oz~o v~st
~ 31 to 40 7ea~ old
~ 5~ or ov~
have ~A~ m~e ~ ~is~o~e
n~o~ ~s o~ ~e needs ~
JULY 19~
BUILDING PERMIT INFORMATION
KEY FOR ABBREVIATIONS_
CITY OF I0 WA CITY
Type of Improvement:
AOD Addition
ALT Alteration
DEM Demolition
GRD Grading/excavation/filling
REP Repair
MOV Moving
FNO Foundation only
OTH Other type of improvement
Type of Use:
NON Nonresidential
RAC Residential - accessory building
RDF Residential - duplex
RMF Residential - three or more family
RSF Residential - single family
MIX Commercial & Residential
OTH Other type of use
Page: 1
Date: 08/09/9S
From: 07/01/95
To,,: 07/31/95
CITY OF IO~A CITY
EXTRACTION OF BUILDING PERMIT DATA FOR
CENSUS BUREAU REPORT
Permit Applicant name Address Type Type Stories Units Vatuation
No. lmpr Use
BL095-039t TRINITY EPISCOPAL 320 COLLEGE ST
CHURCH
PARTIAL REMCOEL AND RED SOUTH ADDITION
ADD NON 2 0 $ 855000
GL095-0376 Me[ 1925 BOYRUM ST
INSTALLATION OF SATELLITE DISH ON ROOF OF BUILDING
ADD NON 1 0 $ 2500
ADD NON permits: 2 $ 857500
BL095'0329 MARK WAGNER 21310 ST
20" X 22' GARAGE ADDITION AND ROOF DORMER
ADD RAC 1 0 S 9200
ADD RAC permits: 1 $ 9200
8LD95-0377 BETA RHO [O~A 724 N OOBUOUE ST
CORPORATION
INSTALLATIOR OF EXTERIOR STAIRS AND INTERIOR REM(~)EL
BL095-0417 SIGMA NU FRATERNITY 630 N DUBUQUE ST
IRREGULAR ~000 DECK AROUND SAND VOLLEYBALL PiT
ADD RMF 0 0 $ 176000
ADD RN~ 1 0 $ 3250
ADD RMF permits: 2 $ 179250
BL095-0618 ARNOLD MENEZES 1607 RIDGE RD
INTERIOR REMCOEL OF IST FLOOR AND SECOND STORY ADDITION
8L095-0415 OEAN & MARGARET 314 DROWN ST
CORBE
21'6" X 34' 1 1/2 STORY ADDITION
BL095-0366 MIKE & CINDE OWEN 16 S MT VERNON DR
16 x 16 SCREEN PORCH
BL095'0390 ROBERT SIEMS 4210AVENPORT ST
19' X 23' T~dO STORY ADDITION
8L095-0378 JOHN NELSON 431 CLARK ST
12' X 16' T~O STORY AODITION
6L095-0399 WAYNE BUCK 3340 TULANE AVE
12' X 13'6" PATIO ROOM
BL095-0363 RAYMOND CRO~E 1126 TEG DR
14' X 22' SCREEN PORCH
8L095-0385 HEIDi & ERNIE BALER 1769 W SENTON ST
12' X 14' THREE SEASON PORCH
8L095-0370 JANICE HAUENSTEIN 513 TERRACE RD
6' X 20' THREE-SEASORPORCH
ADD RSE 2 0 $ 200000
ADD RSF 1 0 $ 120000
ADD RSF 1 0 $ 15000
ADD RSF 2 0 $ 15000
ADO RSF 2 0 $ 12200
ADD RSF 1 0 $ 10000
ADD RSF I 0 $ 8000
AOO RSF 1 0 S 8000
ADD RSF 1 0 $ 5000
Page: 2
Date: 08/09/95
From: 07/01/95
TO..: 07/31/95
CITY OF [O~A CItY
EXTRACTION OF BUILDING PERNIT OATA FOR
CENSUS BUREAU REPORT
Permit Appticant nam~ Address Type Type Stories Units Valuation
No. Impr Use
BL095-0387 MARTY MA[ERS 15 N LOWELL ST AOD RSF 0 $ 2500
T~O LEVEL DECK AT REAR OF HOUSE
BLD95-0384 CARLENE BORCHARO 309 COLLEGE CT
16' X 10' NOO0 DECK
ADD RSF
0 $ 1700
BL095-0371 TRACY KITTRELL 1404 BURESN AVE
10' X 12' NOOD DECK
ADD RSF
0 $ 1600
BL095-0386 VERONICA CHAN 1920 CALIFORNIA AVE
12' X 12' WOO0 DECK
AOD RSF
0 $ 1400
SLD95-O40B JO HENDRICKSON
L-SHAPED WOOO DECK
508 DAVENPORT ST AOD RSF
0 $ 1200
BL095-0367 ALBERT & JANE
KLITZKA
8' X 10'OPEN DECK
BL095-0410 RO~ER L UEYERS
COVERING FRONT PORCH
2305 NOLLYUOO0 BLVD
AOD RSF
0 $ 1000
425 CLARK ST ADD RSF 0 0 S 1000
BL095-0412 JOSEF[HA MANRIOUE 3375 HANOVER CT
FURNACE AND WATERNEATER ENCLOSURE
ADD RSF 1 0 $ 700
BLD95-0360 ANNABELLE BOWMAN 1002 EUCLID AVE
8' X 18' UOOl) DECK
ADD RSF 0 0 $ 550
8L095-0356 JOSEPH ROBINSON 613 E COURT ST
4'0" X 5'0" LANDING UITN STAIRS
ADD RSF 0 0 $ 500
BL095-0373 CLARK HERMANSON 2824 BRADFORD OR
10' X 12' WOOD GROUND LEVEL DECK
AOD RSE 1 0 $ SO0
ADD RSF permits: 20 $ 405850
BLD95-O389 NATIONAL COBPUTER 2510 N DCOGE ST
SYSTENS
INTERIOR REMODEL( 'dORK PACKAGE #3.2)
BLD95-0365 PERPETUAL SAVINGS
8ANN
INTERIOR RENOOEL
ALT NON 1 0 $ 110000
301 S CLINTON ST ALT NON 0 0 $ 90000
BL095-0382 ACTIVE ENDEAVERS 1~8 S CLINTON ST
INTERIOR REMODEL OF RETAIL STORE
BL095-0435 BARTLEY LAg OFFICE 150 E COURT ST
INTERIOR REMIX)EL
ALT NON 1 0 $ 16000
ALT NON 0 0 $ 12000
BL095-036~ DICK BLICK 225 WASHINGTON ST ALT NON 1 0 $ 10000
INTERIOR REBOOEL
Page: 3
Oate: 08/09/95
From: 07/01/95
To,,: 07/31/95
CITY OF [OYA CITY
EXTRACTION OF BUfLOING PERHfT DATA FOR
CENSUS BUREAU REPORT
Permit Applicant na~m Address Type Type Stories Units Vatuatlon
NO. [mpr Use
BLD95-0420 JACK SHUBART~ Jl~ 527 S RIVERSIDE DR
HCFALL
[HSTALL TRUSSED ~00F OVER FLAT ROOF
ALT NON 1 0 $ 10000
HLO95-O40G NHITETS ICE CREAK
INTERIOR REMOOEL
112 gASHINGTON ST ALT NON 1 0 $ 5000
BL095-0383 SAHCTUARY RESTAURANT 405 S GILBERT ST
INSTALL RA~ED DOOR AND LOYER DOCK
ALT NON 0 ,0 S 1000
ALT NON permits: 8 $ 254000
BL095-0432 DON BOOENSTEINER 821 H OOOGE ST
COHVERT ENCLOSED PORCH TO KITCREM
8LD95-0416 AUR OOUMTOgN APTS 520 S JOHNSON ST
INTERIOR REMODEL OF ATTIC
ALT ROE 0 0 $ 6000
ALT RDF 0 0 $ 4000
BL095-0372 RiCH MASON 509 DAVEHPORT ST ALT ROE 1 0 $ 5000
FINISH BASEMENT
ALT ROE permits: 3 $ 13000
BLH95-0411JOBU ROFEMAH 620 S RIVERSIDE OR ALT RMF 0 0 $ 2500
INTERIOR REMOOEL
8L095-0298 OEH~IS NO~!OTNY 216 RLOOT'IINGTOH ST
INS'tALL HEN DOOR AND HATERPROOF BASEMENT
8L095-0392 RICHARD SCdTT BARKER 621 S OOOGE ST
INTERIOR REMOOEL
BL095-0082 AUR CONSTRUCTION 500 S LI~N ST
ADD A 3/4 BATH TO AN EXISTING APARTMENT UNIT.
BL095-0406 PHI DELTA THETA
FRATERNITY
INSTALL ONE HOUR HALL
ALT RMF 0 0 $ 1500
ALT RMF 1 0 $ 1300
ALT RMF 0 0 S 1000
?29 H OUBUQUE ST ALT RMF 0 0 $ 1000
8L095-0405 AUR OO~NTONN APTS 319 CHURCH ST
EGRESS NINDOY INSTALLATION
ALT RMF 0 0 $ 400
ALT RMF permits: 6 $ 7700
8LD95-0374 HERB & 8EV HOVERKAMP
2ND FLOOR REHOOEL
BLD95-0397 SUSAN & JANES
gHITSIT
8ASEMENT REMOOEL
6 BELLA VISTA DR ALT RSF 2 0 $ 24000
318 gILLIS DR ALT RSF 1 0 S 21000
Page: G
Date: 08/09/95
From: 07/01/95
To..: 07/31/95
CITY OF 10~A CITY
EXTRACTION OF BUILDING PERMIT DATA FOR
CENSUS BUREAU HEPON!
Permit Applicant name Address ~ype Type Stories Unite Valuation
No. lmpr Use
8L095-0401 SYSTEMS UNLIMITED 831 ST ANNES OR ALT RSF 1 0 S 18000
INTERIOR REHOOEL OF GROUP HONE
NL095-0575 STEVE BLOOH & IRIS 412 S SUMHIT ST
EROST
RELOCATIHG COLUHNS AND REDECKING PORCH
ALT RSF 0 0 $ 12000
8L095-0294 HELENE SCRIAG[NE 28 PARK RO
INSTALLING EGRESS BINDON IN BASEMENT
ALT RS~ 0 0 $ 800
8L095-0~09 JOBN & NANCY 308 RONALOS ST ALT RSF 0 0 $ 350
MC~iNSTRY
REPLACE EXISTING WINDON WITH EGRESS WINDOW
ALF RSF permits: 6 $ 76150
8LO9~-O66G SOUTNGATE 1905 BROAOWAY ST
OEVELOPNENT CGqPANY
6,750 sf retail & $000 sf cofrmerciaL space
NEW NON I 0 $ 220000
NEW NON permits: 1 $ 220000
8L095-0603 TERRY S~OPEC 68 ACORN CT
S.F.D. NITH THREE CAR GARAGE
8L095-0631 MINE EVANS 51 LAREDO CT
CONSTRUCTION
S.F.O, ~ITN TNREE CAR GARAGE
BL095-0305 RICK AND KAREN FOSSE 6761 INVERMESS CT
S.F.D. ~ITN T',/O CAR GARAGE
BL095-0393 SAYLOR CONSTRUCTION 1633 ABURDEEH C!
S.F.O. VITM T~ CAR GARAGE
BL095-0390 NAGU] &OLGA SASSINE 1306 GOLDEBRO0 DR
S.F.N. VIT~ T~O CAR GARAGE
BLD95-OGZ3 CREATIVE HONES & 1060 BRYAN CT
DESIGN
S.F.O.VITH T~O CAR GARAGE
8L095-0388 JASON LEE 769 CHESTNU! CT
S.F.D. gITH TUO CAR GARAGE
8L095-0380 DERBY BUILDERS~ INC. 1964 BANHAH JO CT
S,F,D. ~ITH ONE CAR GARAGE. ZERO-LOT-LINE
BL095-0381 OERGY BUILDERS 1952 BANNAIl JO CT
S.F.O. NITH ONE CAR GARAGE. ZERO-LOT*LINE
NE~ RSF 2 1 $ 290660
HEN RSF 2 1 S 2115~0
NEN RS~ 2 1 $ 196867
NE~ RS~ 2 1 $ 176712
NEW RS~ 2 1 $ 175553
157361
NEW RSF 1 1 $ 122357
NE~ RSF 1 I $ 73192
NEW RSF 1 1 $ 73192
Page: 5
Oate: 08/09/95
From: 07/01/95
To,.: 07/31/95
CITY OF ]O~A CITY
EXTRACTION OF BUiLDIng PER, iT DATA FOR
CENSUS BUREAU REPORT
Permit AppLicant name Address Type Type Stories Units VaLuation
No. Impr Use
BLD95-0413 OETYEiLER 1928 HAHHAH JO CT
CONSTRUCTiO~ iNC
S.F.D. WITH ONE CAR GARAGE. ZERO-LOT-LINE
HEY RSF 1 1 S ?2??7
8LO9S-O41& OET~EILER 1936 HANNAH JO CT NE~ RSF 1 1 $' 727?7
CONSTRUCTION iNC
S.F.D. IdiTB ONE CAR GARAGE. ZERO-LOT-LINE
NEg RSF permits: 11 11 $ 1622988
BL095-0430 PRAiRiE LIGHTS BOOKS 15 S DUGUOUE ST REP NON
TEAROFF EXISTING ROOF COVERiHG AND INSTALL fiEg ~OOlFIED BITUHEN RIDOF
SYSTEN
0 0 $ 23415
REP NO~ permits: 1 $ 23415
BL095-0396 AUR DOWNTOgN 518 S VAN BUREN ST
APARTHE~TS
5' X 16~ OECK REPLACENEIIT
8L095'0424 THE CONDO CO. 1956 BROADgAY ST # lB
REPLACE DECKS O~ BUILDING
REP RHF 1 0 $ 6500
REP RMF 0 0 $ 5800
REP R~F permits: 2 $ 12300
TOTALS 11 $ 3681353
8-8-95
Dear Council members,
My name is Gloria O'Donnell. I live at 21 North 7th
avenue, Iowa City. I have lived in Iowa City for eighteen
years. I am a registered nurse at the University of Iowa
hospital/clinics. I am currently exploring the possibility of
opening an adult care .facility. This facility would offer day-
time hours with transportation to and from, daily lunches,
activities, and daily nursing services. Please inform me of any
requirements needed to meet the city codes.
Thank you
Gloria O'Donnell
21 N. 7th Ave
Iowa City, Iowa 52245
To: T~ CITV CLERR
......'..[ -- · .] .~,, ::~j.;:~.'.'.~ ) ..'~
From: Board of S~pervi. sors 8-8-95 lO:39aa p. 2 of 3
Charlos D. Duffy, Chairperson
.Joe Bolkcom
Stephen P. Lacina
Don 8ohr
Sally 8~utsman
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
August 8, 1995
INFORMAL MEETliNG
1. Call to order 9:00 a.m.
Agenda
Review of the informal minutes of August 1st recessed to August 3rd and
the formal minutes of August 3rd.
Business from Kevin Doyle, Assistant Transportation Planner for
Johnson County Council of Governments.
a) Discussion re: agreement ~or Supplemental Taxi Service between
Johnson County, Iowa City and Old Capitol Cab Company.
b) Discussion re: agreement for Supplemental Taxi Service between
Johnson County, Iowa City and Yellow Cab Company.
Discussion re: agreement for Supplemental Taxi Service between
Johnson County, Coralville and Old Capitol Cab Company.
d) Discussion re: agreement for Supplemental Taxi Service between
Johnson County, Coralville and Yellow Cab Company.
e) other
4. Business from the County Engineer.
a) Discussion re: road improvement agreement on Dingleberry Road.
b) Discussion re: counter offer for fight-of-way from Albert Edwards for
Project BRO8-9052(36).
c) Other
913 SOUTH DUBUQUE ST.
P.O. BOX 1350 IOWA CITY, IOWA 52244-1350 TEL: (319) 356(,,000
To: ~0~ CZTY CLERI(
Agenda 8-8-95
Page 2
Business from John Tapscott from Mental Health Care Base
Management re: Care Base Management for Mental Health/discussion.
Business from Linda Severson, Human Services Coordinator for'
Johnson County Council of Governments re: appointment to .the Case
Management Advisory Board andMental Health/Developmental
Disabilities Planning Council/discussion.
Business from Cheryl Whitney, Area Administrator for Department of
Human Services re: update for 28E Agreement between Johnson County
an.d the State of Iowa Department of Human Services/discussion.
Business from Graham Damcron, Director of Public Health re:
agreement between the City of Iowa City and Johnson County for the use of
Community Development Block Grant funds/discussion.
9. Business from the County Auditor.
a) Discussion re: resolution increasing Treasurer's maximum balances at
financial institutions.
b) Other
10. Business from the Board of Supervbors.
11.
12.
a) Discussion re: Managed Care in Johnson County.
b) Discussion re: the role of the Mental Health/Developmental
Disabilities Planning Council regarding Case Management.
c) Discussion re: impact of Senate File 69 on county taxes.
d) Reports
e) Other
Discussion from the public
Recess.
To: I0~ CIIY CLERg
From: Board of' Supervisors 8 g ~5 B:54aa p. 2 or ?
Johnson County
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Charles D. Duffy, Chairperson
Joe Bolkcom
Stephen P. Laeina
Don $ehr
Sally Statsman
August 10, 1995
FORMAL MEETING
1. Call to order 9:00 a.m.
Agenda
2. Action re: claims
Action re: infonnal minutes of August 1st recessed to August 3rd and the
formal minutes of August 3rd.
4. Action re: payroll authorizations
5. Business from the County Auditor.
a) Action re: permits
b) Action re: reports
1. Treasurer's semi-annual report.
c) Action re: resolution increasing Treasurer's maximum balances at
financial institutions.
d) Other
9:30 a.m. - Public Hearing on Zoning and Platting Applications:
a) First and Second consideration of the following
applications:
Zoning
913 SOUTH DUBUQUE ST. P.O. BOX 1350 IOWA CITY, IOWA 52244-1350 TEL: (319) 3564000 FAX: (319) 356.6086
To: I0~ C]IY CLERK
From: Board of Sup=rvJ~ors
8-cJ-B$ R:S4~m p, 3 of ?
Agenda 8-10-95
Page 2
Application Z9523 of B & H Cartage Inc., signed by Michael
Bibeau, President, requesting rezoning of 2.0 a~res fxom A1 Rural
to M1 Light Industrial of certain property described as being in the
NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 9; Township 81 North; Range 7
West of the 5th P.M. in Johnson County, Iowa (This property is
located on the east side of Highway 965 NW, approximately 1/2
mile south of 120th Street NW in Jefferson Twp.).
Application Z9524 of Cynthia Assmussen and Albert Doder, Iowa
City, owner, signed by Robert Herring, Tiffin, option purchaser,
requesting rezoning of 1.99 acres from A1 Rural to RS Suburban
Residential of certain property described as being in the NW 1/4 of
the NW 1/4 of Section 13; Township 80 North; Range 8 West of
the 5th P.M. in Johnson County, Iowa (This property is located on
the south side of 260th Street NW, approximately 1/4 of a mile east
of its intersection with Echo Avenue NW in Oxford Twp.).
Application Z9525 of Dennis Jenn, Iowa City, requesting rezoning
of 2 - 1.99 acres tracts from A1 Rural to RS Suburban Residential
of certain property described as being in the North 1/2 of Section 27;
Township 78 North; Range 7 West of the 5th P.M. in Johnson
County, Iowa Crhis property is located on the south side of the
intersection of 540th Street SW and Jasper Avenue SW in Sharon
Application Z9526 of Kevin Tappan, Iowa City, requesting rezoning
of 1.99 acres from A1 Rural to R8 Suburban Residential of certain
property described as being In the 8E 1/4 of the 8W 1/4 of Section
19; Township 78 North; Range 6 West of the 5th P.M. in John.qon
County, Iowa (I'his property is located on the east side of Maier
Avenue SW, approximately 1/4 of a mile north of its intersection
with 540th Street SW in Liberty Twp.).
To: IO~ C]1Y CLERK
8~-95 8:54en p. 4 o~ ?
Agenda 8-10-95 Page 3
5. Application Z9527 of Tom and Ruth Beeruer, Oxford, signed by
Thomas Beeruer, Oxford, requesting rezoning of 1.0 acres fi~om A1
Rural to RS Suburban Residential of certain property described as
being Lot I of Mike & Ed's Subdivision, located in the NW 1/4 of
the SW 1/4 of Section 15; Township 79 North; Range 8 West of the
5th P.M. in Johnson County, Iowa (This property is located on the
west side of Eagle Avenue SW, approximately 1/4 of a mile north of
its intersection with 400th Street SW in Hardin Twp.).
Application Z9528 of Kevin Castle, Iowa City, and Bob Miller,
Mankate, MN, signed by Glenn Meisner of MMS Consultants Inc.,
requesting rezoning of 1.99 acres fi'om A1 Rural to RS Suburban
Residential of certain property described as being in the SE 1/4 of
theNW 1/4 of Section 36; Township 81 North; Range 5 West of
the 5th P.M. in Job. rison County, Iowa (This property is located on
the west side of St Bridgets Road NW, approximately 1.0 mile
south of its intersection with 195th Street NW in Cedar Twp.).
b) Discms,on/action re: ~e following Platting applications:
Application S9421 of R/chard Novak requesting preliminary and
final plat approval of Turtle Run, a subdivision located in the SW
1/4 of the 8E 1/4 of Section 33; Township 81 North; Range 6 West
of the 5th P.M. in Johnson Count),, Iowa (Tiffs is a 3-1or, 10.00
acre, residential subdivision, located south of the intersection of
Mehaffey Bridge Road NE and Sugar Bottom Road NE in Big
Grove Twp.).
Application 89539 of Daniel Wenman requesting preliminary and
final plat approval of Wenman's Fkst Addition, a subdivision
located in the NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 22; Township 80
North; Range 8 West of the 5th P.M. in Johnson County, Iowa
(This is a 2-lot, 10.00 acre, residential subdivision, located 1 1/2
miles east of Oxford on the south side of Lower Old Highway 6
Road NW in Oxford Twp.).
To: I05~ CITY CLERK Froz: Koord oF Supervisors C 3 ,~S 8:54om p. 5 or ?
Agenda 8-10-95
Page 4
Application 89540A of Joe Duffy, Iowa City, requesting
preliminary and final plat approval of Wild Rose Subdivision ( A
Resubdivision of Lot 1 of Sids Subdivision), a subdivision located
in the SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 18; Township 80 North;
Range 5 West of the 5th P.M. in Johnson County, Iowa (this is a
2 - lot with 1 - outlot, 18.22 acre, residential subdivision located
approximafely 1/4 of a mile west of I-Iighway #1 NE on the south
side of Newport Road NE in Newport Twp.).
Application S9548 of Richard I-Imby, North Liberty, requesting
preliminary and final plat approval of Hruby's 'First Addition, a
subdivision located in the NE 1/4 of Section 8; Township 80 North;
Range 7 West of the 5th P.M. in Johnson County, Iowa (This is a 1
- lot, 1.161 acre, fanmtead split, located on the south side of 240th
Street NW, approximately 1/8 of a mile east of its intersection with
Half Moon Avenue NW in Madison Twp.).
Application 89549 of Duane Anderson, Iowa City, requesting
preliminary and final plat approval of Jack L. Anderson
Subdivision, a subdivision located in the SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of
Section 22; Township 78 North; Range 6 West of the 5th P.M. in
Johnson County, Iowa O'his is a 2 - lot, 2.0 acre, commercial
subdivision, located on the east side of Oak Crest Hill Road 8E,
approximately 1/2 mile south of the city limits of Hills, Iowa in
Liberty Twp.).
First and Second consideration of the following Zoning
applications:
To.* I0~ CITY CLERK
~:rom: Board of' Supervisors
Agenda 8-10-95
1.
Page 5
Application Z9506 of Lyle Donoboe, Iowa City, requesting rezoning
of 8.56 acres gore RS Suburban. Residential to CP-2 Planned
Commercial of certain property described as being the north 408
feet of Lot 2, Donoboe Third Subdivision in the SW 1/4 of the NE
1/4 and the SE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 25; Township 79
North; Range 7 West of the 5th P.M. in Johnson County, Iowa
ffhis property is located on the south side of Highway 1 SW at its
intersection with Landon Avenue SW in Union Twp.).
Application Z9514 of Robert Wolf, option purchaser, Iowa City,
Carolyn Utesch, owner, Arcyle Texas, requesting rezoning of 126.6
acres fi:om A1 Rural to RMIt Manufacturing Housing Residential
ofcemin property described as being in the South 1/2 of Section 21
and the North 1/2 of Section 28; all in Township 79 North; Range 6
West of the 5th P.M. in Johnson County, Iowa O'his property is
located on the west side of Highway 965 BE, south of and adjacent
to Colonial Lanes Bowling Alley in West Lucas Twp.).
7. Business from the County Attorney.
a) Report re: other items.
8. Business from the Board of Supervisors.
a) Action re: agreement for Supplemental Taxi Service between Johnlon
County, Iowa City and Old Capitol Cab Company.
b) Action re: agreement for Supplemental Taxi Service between Johnson
County, Iowa City and Yellow Cab Company.
Action re: agreement for Supplemental Taxi 8emce between Johnson
County, Coralville and Old Capitol Cab Company.
d) Action re: agreement for Supplemental Taxi Service between Johnson
County, Coralville and Yellow Cab Company.
e) Action re: appointment of Doug Thompson to the Case Management
Advisory Board and Mental HealtlffDevelopmental Disabilities
Planning Council.
Action re: update for 28E Agreement between Johnson County and the
State of Iowa Department of Human Services.
To: IO~ CITY CLERK From: Board or Supervi~rl 8-~5 8:§4am p. ? or 7
Agenda 8-10-95
g)
Page 6
Action re: agreement between the City of Iowa City and Johnson
County for the use of Community Development Block Grant funds.
(These funds will be used toward a facility for the Adult Day Program.)
h) Action re: grants to the Iowa Department of Human Rights, Division
of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning to continue the
comprehensive prevention program to reduce juvenile crime.
i) Action re: updated 28E Agreement between Johnson County and the
State of Iowa Department of Human Services for the provisitn of
Human Services.
j) other.
9. Adjourn to informal meeting.
a) Discussion re: grants to the Iowa Department of Human Rights,
Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning to continue the
comprehensive prevention program to reduce juvenile crime.
b) Inquiries and reports from the public.
Reports and inquires from the members of the-Board of Supervisors.
d) Report from the County Attorney.
e) Other
10. Adjournment
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 8, 1995
To: City Council
From: Ernie Lehman
Re:
Nodh Dubuque Road Housing Project
Following the public hearing and conversations with many interested citizens, have come to the
conclusion that I cannot support the project planned for the North Dubuque Road area. Even the
possibility of reduced density does not provide me with sufficient cause to support this project.
I am concerned over the concentration of our low income citizens in projects of this nature and
while I may have supported other such projects in the past, I now believe the bigger housing
policy issue must be addressed before we embark upon projects of this nature. As Council
member Baker suggested to us in a recent memorandum, the issue of housing for our low income
citizen.s and the direction and policies we wish to establish is critical to the future success of such
projects. I also believe such a policy review needs to be undertaken sooner rather than later.
I would encourage Council to provide direction to the staff to schedule an upcoming work session
as soon as practical to discuss this issue.
I also wanted to bring this to your attention at this time, that is, as early as possible, in order that
the developer, neighbors, the boards and commissions, and our staff are not encouraged to
proceed with an extensive amount of review and work when it appears there is not sufficient
support (votes) for project approval.
CC:
b~dubuq
City Manager
Karin Franklin, Director, Planning and Community Development
Planning & Zoning Commission
Bob Burns
Charlie Eastham
ANNUAL REPORT OF
BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
Fiscal Year 1995
City of
Iowa City, Iowa
· · ~'~
Staff Support
Airport Commission ............................ Ron O'Neil ............ 356-5045
Airport Zoning Board of Adjustment ................Ron O'Neil ............356-5045
Airport Zoning Commission ...................... Ron O'Neil ............ 356-5045
Animal Control Advisory Board ............. .......Lisa Goodman ......... 356-5295
Board of Adjustment ........................... Melody Rockwell ....... 356-5251
Board of Appeals ............................. Ron Boose ..... . .......356-5122
Board of Library Trustees ....................... Susan Craig ........... 356-5200
Board of Review .............................. Dan Hudson ........... 356.6066
Broadband Telecommunications Commission ......... Drew Shaffer .......... 356-5046
Civil Service Commission ....................... Sylvia Mejia ...........356-5026
Committee on Community Needs ................. Marianne Milkman ...... 356-5244
Design Review Committee ...................... David Schoon ......... 356-5236
Historic Preservation Commission .................Bob Miklo ............. 356-5240
Housing Commission/Housing Board of Appeals .......Douglas Boothroy .......356-5121
Human Rights Commission ...................... Heather Shank ......... 356-5022
Parks and Recreation Commission ................ Terry Trueblood ........356-5110
Planning and Zoning Commission ................. Bob Miklo ............. 356-5240
Riverfront and Natural Areas Commission ...........Charles Denney ........356-5247
Senior Center Commission ...................... Bette Meisel ...........356-5225
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Airport Commission ............................................... 1
Airport Zoning Board of Adjustment .................................... 3
Airport Zoning Commission .................................... . ..... 4
5
Animal Control Advisory Board ......................................
Board of Adjustment ................................................ 7
Board of Appeals .............................................. 9
...... 11
Board of Library Trustees ....................................
Board of Review ................................................... 13
Broadband Telecommunications Commission .......................... 15
Civil Service Commission ........................................ .17
Committee on Community Needs ...................................... 18
Design Review Committee ........................................... 20
Historic Preservation Commission ..................................... 22
Housing Commission/Housing Board of Appeals ............................ 26
Human Rights Commission ........................................... 29
Parks and Recreation Commission ..................................... 35
Planning and Zoning Commission ...................................... 37
Riverfront and Natural Areas Commission ................................ 42
Senior Center Commlsslsn ........................................... 44
AIRPOET COMMISSION
GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES
The Iowa City Municipal Airport Commission is a five-member commission responsible for
formulating policy and administration of the Iowa City Municipal Airport as a public facility iN
accordance with local ordinances, the Iowa Department of Transportation and the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations. The Commission was established by public
referendum under Iowa Code, the commissioners being appointed by the Mayor and approved
by the City Council. The term of office is six (6) years.
monthly, with additional meetings as requi 'ed.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN FISCAL YEAR '1996.
1.
2.
The Airport Commission meets
Completed plans and began construction of additional T-hangars.
Received a grant from the Iowa Department of Transportation for funding for Phase IV
of the Airport security fencing project. Project was completed in October.
Received a grant for $93,629.00 from the Federal Aviation Administration for funding
for a Master Plan Study, Study to be completed in Apdl, 1996.
Initiated plans to renovate asphalt areas around the T-hangars.
Sponsored 14th annual Airport Open House and Fly-in Breakfast.
Commissioned the Automated Surface Observing System. This $200,000 automated
weather station was funded by the FAA.
Installed new roofs on the Airport Terminal and the United Hangar.
Completed a project for crack and joint sealing on taxiways and Runway 12/30.
Renovated the exterior of the Airport Terminal Building.
PLANS FOR FISCAL YEAR t996
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Complete the asphalt project in areas around the T-hangars.
Complete the Airport Master Plan Study.
Apply to IDOT for funding for Phase V of the fencing project.
Install a controlled access gate by the north T-hangars.
Complete minimum operating standards for commercial operations at the Airport.
Complete construction of the new south T-hangar building.
1
8.
9,
10.
Sponsor fifteenth annual Airport Open House.
Continue to develop means to increase Airport revenue.
Initiate plans for additional corporate aimraft hangars.
Design an aircraft emergency response plan.
The major project for the upcoming year will be the Master Plan Study. This.will provide a
guideline for providing the community with aviation se~ices for the next 20.years. The study
will include a prioritized list of capital improvement projects.
A new T-hangar building should be completed by'mid-July. All ten hangare are leased. There
is intersst in constructing another building large enough for one or two corporate aircraft.
COMMISSION MEMBERS
Howard Horan, Chairperson
Pat Foster, Vice Chairperson/Secretary
Robert Hicks
Rick Mascad
Richard Blum
Ronald J. O'Neil, Airport Manager
2
IOWA CITY - JOHNSON COUNTY
AIRPORT ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES
In accordance with Chapter 329 of the Code of Iowa, the Board of Supervisors of Johnson
County and the City Council of Iowa City have co-established the Johnson County-Iowa City
Airport Zoning Board of Adjustment.
It is the duty of this Board to hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there has been
an error in any administrative action in the enforcement of the ordinance, and to hear and
decide on special exceptions that are specifically provided for in the ordinance and to authorize
variances from the terms of the ordinance on appeal in specific cases.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN FISCAL YEAR '199,5
The Board did not receive any appeals, requests for exceptions or requests for variances
during the 1994-95 year.
PLANS FOR FISCAL YEAR '1996
The Board will respond to appeals and other requests as it receives them and will make
recommendations regarding the Zoning Ordinance,
BOARD MEMBERS
Jonathan C, Carlson, Chair
Stephen Radosevich
Eldon Moss
Scott Reynolds
Sue Bender
3
IOWA CITY-JOHNSON COUNTY
AIRPORT ZONING COMMISSION
GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES
In accordance with Chapter 329 of the Code of Iowa, the Board of Supervisors of Johnson
County and the City Council of Iowa City have co-established the Johnson County-Iowa City
Airport Zoning Commission.
It is the duty of the Commission to advise and make recommendations to the Board of
Supewisors and the City Council as to the appropriate zoning requirements and other matters
pertaining to the physical development of areas of the county and the city surrounding the Iowa
City Municipal Airport, so as to maximize compatibility between airport uses and the uses of
the adjacent land.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN FISCAL YEAR 1995
The Commission did not convene in FY 1995.
PLANS FISCAL YEAR '1996
As Iowa City expands to the south and west, a careful analysis must be made of the impact
to the Iowa City Airport, The Commission will review the zoning in the approaches to the
runways at the Iowa City Airport and will develop recommendations for zoning in the approach
areas to prevent uses incompatible with airport operations. The Commission will work with the
Planning and Community Development Department to establish the most beneficial use of
airport land for development. The land uses must be compatible with airport uses and with
surrounding property uses. This Commission will review the proposed zoning changes to be
requested by the Iowa City Airport Commission for industrial development of airport property.
COMMISSION MEMBERS
Richard Blum, Chairperson
Pat Foster
Don Sehr
F. ae Wild
Sally B. Dierks
4
I
[-
I
ANIMAL CONTROL ADVISORY BOARD
.....
To provide such recommendations and advice as are required by the 28E agreement, or as
may be requested by the City Council or City Manager of Iowa City or by the City Council or
City Administrator of Coralville.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN FISCAL YEAR '1995
Confirmed that Coralville/Iowa City Animal Shelter spay/neuter policy is consistent with the
state's new policy.
Approved opening Saturdays 10 a.m. to 3:30 p.m,
Approved name change for shelter to Coralville/Iowa City Animal Care and Control Center
Approved plan for veterinary care for Care and Control Center Animals.
Approved deer and wildlife reflector warning system for Dubuque Street between 1-80 and the
Mayflower.
Encouraged Supervisor Goodman to increase the percentage of adoptions,
Reviewed and updated Iowa City codes pertaining to animals, Major changes were in license
and vicious dog ordinances. An exotic animal ordinance was included,
PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR '1996
Compare Iowa City and Coralville Animal Ordinances, in an attempt to eliminate
inconsistencies, identify ambiguities, etc.
Advise and assist Care and Control Center staff in developing a comprehensive plan for
ongoing public education.
Encourage Care and Control Center staff to work with volunteer groups, such as the Johnson
County Humane Society, to supplement staff in day-to-day operations and special projects.
Encourage Supervisor Goodman to work on new ordinances including a new permit or
ordinance.
Work toward written contracts with Johnson County and the University of Iowa for animal
control services.
Develop a proposal for veterinarians to provide low*cost spay and neuter, rabies, and treatment
for Center ahimals.
I
I
5
Start license canvassing and produce forms that can be mailed with new pet information.
BOARD MEMBERS
.............. bi~n-~ Lu~de~l, ~hair
Janet Ashman
Dennis Cowles
Julie Seal
Martin Shafer
r~
6
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES
The Board of Adjustment is empowered through Chapter 414 of the Code of Iowa and Section
14-4B of the Iowa City Code of Ordinances to interpret provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, to
grant special exceptions as provided for in the Ordinance, to hear appeals to decisions made
in the enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance, and to provide variances to the Zoning Ordinance
for individual properties where provisions of the Ordinance impose a unique and unnecessary
hardship on the property owner and where the granting of a variance is not contrary to the
intent of this statute or to the public interest. The Board may also submit recommendations to
the Planhing and Zoning Commission and the City Council regarding amendments to the
Zoning Ordinance. The Board is a quasi-judicial body whose decisions may be appealed
directly to the District Court.
ACCO~IPLISHMENTS IN FISCAL YEAR 1995
The Board of Adjustment met eleven times during FY95 and made the following decisions:
Special Exceptions: 4 approved, 17 approved with conditions, 5 denied, 1 amended,
2 extended, 2 previous decisions affirmed
Variances: I amended, 1 denied
The Board's decisions in FY95 resulted in:
Reducing off-street parking requirements in 3 cases, and amending a variance waiving off-
street parking requirements in one case in the CB-2 zone
Allowing parking on a separate lot in 4 cases; amending provisions for parking on a separate
lot in 1 case
Permitting surface as well as underground parking in the CB-10 zone in 1 case
Modifying front yard requirements in 4 cases, and the rear yard requirement in 1 case
Amending a decisiot3 for a youth center permitted in the CC-2 zone
Expansion of 1 religious institution and the establishment of I religious institution
Expansion of 1 funeral home to include a crematorium in the CO-1 zone
Allowing a school of specialized private instruction (a dance studio) in the CN-1 zone
Allowing a neighborhood center in the RM-12 zone
Allowing a child care facility in the PDH-8 zone
7
Permitting auto and truck oriented uses in.the CC-2 zone; 2 bank drive-through lanes and 1
rental car business
Allowing restaurant uses ('15,000 square feet) in the CN-1 zone
Permitting dwelling units (3) above the ground floor of a commercial use in the C1-1 zone, and
dwelling units (14) above the ground floor of a c0_mmercial use in the CN-1 zone
PLANS FOR FISCAL YEAR t996
The Board will continue to respond to appeals as they are presented and to make recommen-
dations regarding the Zoning Ordinance.
BOARD MEMBERS
Rich Vogelzang, Chairperson
Patricia Eckhardt, Vice Chairperson
Susan Bender
Bill Haigh
Tim Lehman
Melody Rockwell, Secretary
BOARD OF APPEALS
GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES
It is the responsibility of the Board of Appeals as set by City ordinance to review the Uniform
Building Code, the Uniform Building Code Standards, the Uniform Fire Code, the Uniform
Plumbing Code, the Uniform Mechanical Code, the National Electric Code, and the Uniform
Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings; to review and recommend amendments for
these regulatory codes; to assist the building official in making interpretations; to hear appeals
for any person that is aggrieved by a decision of the building official and pass judgment on that
appeal; and to approve or disapprove alternate materials and methods of construction. The
Board consists of seven citizens who live within the corporate limits of the City of Iowa City.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN FISCAL YEAR '1995
The Board of Appeals continued to accept the responsibilities of boards involved with
construction and buildings. The Board is now responsible for recommending adoption
of the following codes: Building, Fire, Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical and Abatement
of Dangerous Buildings. In addition the Board hears appeals to the Housing Code. The
Board adopted a simplified method of reviewing applicants for testing for trade licenses.
Adopted a standard meeting date and time to make the Board more accessible to the
public. The Board normally meets at 4:30 PM on the first Monday of each month.
Reviewed and forwarded to Council revised Bylaws recognizing the changes to the
Board's responsibilities and membership.
Recommended adopting a change to the Codes to allow for unisex toilets in certain
small occupancies. This should result in Iowedng the construction cost for small
businesses in Iowa City.
6.
7.
8.
Adopted two altemative methods of construction to assist contractors to lower the cost
of building in Iowa City.
Assisted the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Design Review Committee to
adopt requirements for extedor exit balconies and extedor stainNays.
Started the adoption process for new codes. The process included holding a public
meeting in conjunction with Coralville and Nodh Liberty to explain the new national
codes on which the cities will base their new codes. in addition the Board has met with
representatives of the home builders to address specific concerns. Part of this process
has been to work with a structural engineer to develop code language that is specific
to our community. The purpose of these additional meetings was to lower the cost of
construction in Iowa City.
Recommended the adoption of the 1994 Uniform Plumbing Code, the 1994 Uniform Fire
Code, the 1994 Uniform Mechanical Code and the 1994 Uniform Code for the
9
Abatement of Dangerous Buildings. Each of these codes was folwarded to Council with
specific local amendments
9. Heard and acted on appeals .from the public.
PLANS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996:
Complete the review of and the writing of amendments to the 1994 Uniform Building
Code. Forward the amendments and Code to Council for adoptio, n.
2. Hear appeals from the public.
Listen to ideas on how to change the Codes to lower the cost of construction without
endangering the public. Forward acceptable ideas to Council for their adoption,
4. Continue to work with other boards as needed,
BOARD MEMBERS
Robert Cadson, Chairperson
Jane Hagedom, Vice Chair
Tom Werderitsch
John Roffman
Anna Buss
C. Wayne Maas
John Staska
10
BOARD OF LIBRARY TRUSTEES
GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES
The Board of Trustees of the Public Library is a semi-autonomous body of nine persons
empowered by state law and city ordinance to act as the governing body of the library. The
Board's specific list of Isgal responsibilities includes: determining the goals and objectives of
the Library in order to plan and carry out library services; determining and adopting written
policies to govern all aspects of the operation of the Library; preparing an annual budget and
having exclusive control of all monies appropriated by the City Council and the Johnson County
Board of Supervisors or given to the library through gifts, bequests, contracts, grants or awards;
employing a competent staff to administer its policies and carry out its programs. The Board
is also an arm of City Government with members appointed bythe City Council and its principal
operating funds approved by the City Council. The Board therefore seeks at all times to work
in harmony with City policies in all areas that do not conflict with its statutory powers.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN FISCAL YEAR '1995
1. Adopted a Building Program, reviewed preliminary schematic design and cost estimates.
2. Negotiated contracts with architect, MS&R and construction manager, CPMh
3. Based FY96 budget request on new strategic plan priorities.
Increased funding for staff training and education. Approved closing the library for the
second in-service training day.
Supported formation of a Community Networking Group and continued to encourage
efforts to improve public access to electronic information.
Held a special Board development session resulting in direction to the staff to remove
operating procedures from Board policies.
Developed and adopted a systematic method to evaluate the Library Director.
Completed six-month and twelve-month Director evaluations.
Adopted copyright policy and reviewed and revised circulation, collection development
and conduct in the library policies.
Encouraged joint programming efforts with other county public libraries, including the
shared booth at the County Fair and cooperation in advertising summer reading
program opportunities.
11
PLANS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996
1. Propose an expansion and renovation plan to the City Council.
2. Appoint a referendum committee to conduct a campaign seeking citizens' approval of
funding for building renovation and expansion.
3. Define the Board's role in educating the community about available library services.
4. Supporl the Community Networking Group and other efforts to improve public access
to electronic information.
5. Review the orientation process for new Board members.
6. Respond to any Johnson County/Public Library proposed contracts for library service.
7. Pursue contract with University Heights.
8. Discuss the Library's Sunday schedule as part of the budget process.
9. Monitor implementation of the new cable franchise agreement as it affects library
services,
10. Assist the Friends Foundation in the development of a capital campaign to solicit gifts
for the library building fund.
BOARD MEMBERS
Stephen Greenleaf, President
Jeri Hobart
Margaret Cox
Philip Hubbard
Katherine Moyers
K. Jesse Singerman
Anne Spence. r
Charles Traw
Jim Swaim
12
'1
BOARD OF REVIEW
GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES
The Board of Review is established and governed by the Code of Iowa, Chapters 441.32 to
441.44, for the purpose of equalizing assessment by raising or lowering individual assessment
as established by the assessor. The Board also makes the final rulings each year on exempt
· properties.
Iowa Department of Revenue & Finance issues tothe Board of Review a manual to guide their
work along with forms for the original meeting, daily meetings and the final meeting. The Board
must also file with the State Director of Revenue & Finance within 15 days of adjournment a
report on their session. The Board's meetings are subject to the open meetings law. Since
it is extremely important that the Board keep accurate minutes of its proceedings, the Board
has a separate clerk to keep these minutes. The Board must also include in their wdtten notice
to the petitioner the specific reasons for their actions.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN FISCAL YEAR 1994
The following is a report on the activities of the Iowa City Board of Review since adjournment
on May 28, 1993:
The Iowa City Board of Review met on three days dudrig the pedod of May 1 to May 18, 1994.
The Board received a total of eight petitions. These have been broken down into classification
along with the outcgme, and listed below:
1 Residential 0 Upheld 1 Denied
7 Commercial 1 Upheld 6 Denied
0 Agricultural 0 Upheld 0 Denied
0 Industrial 0 Upheld 0 Denied
8 Total I Upheld 7 Denied
In addition to these eight petitions, the Board reduced two residential properties and one
commercial property at the request of the assessor or on their own volition. These were due
to late inspections of estimated listings of properties or due to comparable properties being
changed by the Board. The Board also raised one residential property and hvo commercial
properties to correct an error and to remove forest reserve.
By the filing deadline of June 20, 1994, three property owners representing seven total parcels
had filed in District Court. All of the appeals are for commercial property, two of which had also
filed in District Court for 1993.
One previous court case was tried during FY94, which we won. One case was settled without
a tdal, and one case was dropped by the taxpayer. This leaves only the cable TV appeal which
is awaiting the outcome of the Supreme Court on the Cedar Rapids case.
13
PLANS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995
Since the Board of Review hears only protests brought by others, there is no way to predict the
amount of work for next fiscal year. But, because next year is a reassessment year, the
workload is expected to be much heavier than the session just finished.
BOARD OF REVIEW MEMBERS
Jack L. Yanaush, Chairperson
E. Norman Bailey
William J. Doherty
Janice E. Sweet
Keith A. Wymore
William F. White, Clerk
'i
I
Ii
I
14
BROADBAND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES
The Broadband Telecommunications Commission (BTC) is a city commission comprised offive
Iowa Citians and is mandated to facilitate and to regulate the smooth and effective development
and operation of the City's Broadband Telecommunications Network (BTN). The Commission
makes its recommendations to City Council in matters pertaining to the BTN, resolves disputes
about the operation of the BTN, conducts periodic evaluations of the BTN operation, and in
general facilitates BTN use by the citizens of Iowa City, which includes the promotion and
facilitation of the access channels.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN FISCAL YEAR '1995
· Continued work on the refranchising process. Discussed priorities, received consultant reports,
explored legal questions in regards to refranchising, engaged in and monitored negotiations.
Received progress 'reports from the Educational Access Channel 11; Library Access Channel
10, Public Access Channel 2 and Government Access Channel 4.
Monitored the collection of the franchise fee from the grantee and assisted in determining how
those funds should be spent.
Received and reviewed subscriber complaints reported by the Cable TV Administrator.
Monitored developments in legislation, the FCC, and the courts that were cable TV related.
Monitored PATV via reports presented by the PATV Director and/or PATV Chairperson.
Oversaw rate regulation reviews.
Promoted the growth and development of Iowa City's access channels.
Monitored development of the Community Network Group (CNG), an organization comprised
of representatives of the City, County, Schools, University, Library and community working to
plan and develop the community's communications infrastructure of the future.
Continued work on public access contract renewal.
Monitored developments of the Iowa City Community School District Technology Council.
Completed a review of proposals to provide community programming.
15
PLANS FOR FISCAL YEAR '1996
Complete the cable 'rv refranchising process. Oversee the cable 'iV plant rebuild and new
franchise implementation.
Attend PATV meetings.
Evaluate PATV's performance and compliance with their contract and monitor negotiation of
new contract,
Continue to monitor cable company and PA3'V performance to ensure compliance with the Iowa
City cable ordinance and contractual agreements.
Proceed with the rate regulation process according to FCC rules.
Continue to explore Institutional Network (INET) potential for Iowa City, monitor CNG
developments, explore interactive and new technology applications for the BTN for possible
governmental, institutional, and/or subscriber use.
COMMISSION MEMBERS
Cordell Jeppsen, Chair
Roge~ Christian, Vice Chair
Eric Rothenbuhler
Steve Hoch
Betty McKray
16
® . . , · }}
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES
Chapter 400 of the Code of Iowa and Section 2-111, Code of Ordinances, establish and
govern the Civil Se~/ice Commission. Three citizens .who are residents of the city are
appointed by the City Council to serve six-year terms with one Commissioner's term expiring
each even numbered year.
The Commission establishes and publishes rules relating to examinations for civil service
positions, establishes guidelines for conducting such examinat;ons, and certifies lists of
persons eligible for appointment to respective positions. The Commission has jurisdiction to
hear appeals and determine all matters involving the dghts of employees under civil service
law and may affirm, modify or reverse any administrative action on its merits. The
Commission meets when necessary.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN FISCAL YEAR '1995
In maintaining full compliance with Code of Iowa Chapter 400, development and use of Civil
Service selection procedures continued for all covered entry level and promotional positions
on a City-wide basis. 54 positions were filled from a total of 1,238 applicants for Civil Service
covered positions. A certified list of ten was approved by the Civil Service Commission for the
position of Firefighter. 305 applications were received for this position, 212 applicants took
the written test, 61 applicants took the agility test and 56 applicants were interviewed.
There were two disciplinary appeals to the Commission dudng FY95. The Commission upheld
a two day suspension of a Police Officer and increased a ten calendar day suspension of a
Police Officer to ten work days (an increase of three days).
PLANS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996
During FY96, Commissioners will be involved in the selection process for Firefighter as well
as promotional testing for positions in the Police and Fire Departments as necessary.
COMMISSION MEMBERS
Michael Kennedy, Chair
Lyra Dickerson
Susan Dulek
17
· ·
COMMITTEE
ON COMMUNITY NEEDS
GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES
The Committee on Community Needs (CCN) consists of eleven residents of Iowa City
appointed by the City Council. They represent as nearly as possible a cross-section of the Iowa
City population in background, ideas, geographic location, age and socioeconomic status.
Committee members serve for three years.
The purpose of CCN is to advise the Council on community needs in general and on the use
of Community Development Block Grant funds in particular, from a citizen viewpoint. To
accomplish this the Committee provides systematic communication between citizens and
policymakers with regard to community development projects. The Committee's work has been
palmadly directed at developing, coordinating, and reviewing the City's activities carded out in
conjunction with the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN FISCAL YEAR 1996
CDBG funds are allocated in conjunction with the City's fiscal year. The CCN advedised the
availability of funds for FY96 and held two public meetings to receive proposals. The CCN
utilized a systematic process of funding allocation and held three meetings to rank proposals
and allocate CDBG funds. A total of $1.4 million was allocated to 11 projects, plus aid to
human service agencies, program administration, and planning and contingency reserves for
FY96. The following is a list of the FY96 projects:
City of Iowa City - Housing Rehabilitation Program
Elderly Services Agency Small Repair Program
Hawkeye Area Community Action Program - Transitional Housing
LIFE Skills, Inc. - Housing Counseling Program
Emergency Housing Project Inc. - Shelter Rehabilitation
Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship and R. P. Bums - Construction of Affordable
Rental Housing
Institute for Social and Economic Development - MicroEnterprise Program
Domestic Violence Intervention Program - Shelter Modifications
Domestic Violence Intervention Program - Furniture Project
Mayor's Youth Employment Program - Entrepreneurial/Job Development
Johnson County Dept. of Public Health - Adult Day Program Facility
To ensure that community needs are being met, CCN members monitor projects during their
implementation stages.
The FY95 projects that were completed are:
City of Iowa City - Housing Rehabilitation (33 homes)
Elderly Services Agency Small Repair Program (56 ctients)
Youth Homes Exterior Rehabilitation
City of Iowa City - Manufactured Housing Fire Safety (341 fire extinguishers, 790 smoke
detectors)
18
City of Iowa City - Manufactured Housing Home Replacement (2 units)
LIFE Skills, Inc. - Housing Counseling Program (61 households)
Goodwill Industries - Accessibility and Assistire Technology Rehabilitation.
Institute for Social and Economic Development - Microenterprise Program
Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship - Landscaping (6 homes)
Mayor's Youth Employment Program - Business Training Program (31 youth)
Towncrest Relocation Program (55 tenants relocated)
Aid to Human Service Agencies
The FY95 projects that are being continued in FY96 are:
Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County - Pheasant Ridge Building
Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship and R.P. Burns - Land Acquisition for Affordable
Rental Housing
Domestic Violence Intervention Program - Children's Area Development
Iowa City Housing Authority - Landscaping (33 units)
CCN sponsored the eighth annual Iowa City Community Development Celebration. An awards
ceremony honoring outstanding CDBG subrecipients and contractors was held on July 13 at
Goodwill Industries of Southeast Iowa. The program featured public/private partnerships and
community investment.
PLANS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996
The monitoring of all ongoing projects as well as FY98 projects will continue. In FY 96 the
Committee on Community Needs and the Housing Commission will merge into one commission
called the Housing and Community Development Commission. The purpose of this new
commission will be to assess Iowa City's community development needs for housing, jobs, and
services for low and moderate income residents, and to promote public and private efforts to
meet such needs.
COMMISSION MEMBERS
Linda Murray, Chair
Lisa Engh, Vice Chair
Grace Cooper
John Falb
Jim Harris, Housing Commission Liaison
Chris Randall
Tim Ruxton
Gretchen Schmuch
Marls Snider
19
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES
The Design Review Committee is comprised of nine citizens who make recommendations to the
City Council based on review of preliminary and final design plans for downtown urban renewal
parcels, Near Southside urban revitalization projects, as well as general design plans for proposed
public improvements in these areas. In addition, the Committee reviews design plans and makes
recommendations to City Council for structures which extend into City Plaza.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN FISCAL YEAR 1995
Reviewed and recommended to the City Council approval of the Holiday Inn outdoor cafe railing,
approval of the Homeland Savings Bank exterior signage, and approval of the design plans for
Hieronymus Square,
Rev ewed and recommended to the City Council approval of the sidewalk cafes located at 118
S. Dubuque Street (Blimpie Subs and Salads/Uncommon Grounds) and at 32 S. Clinton Street
(Panchero's).
Representatives from the Committee participated in the Iowa City Water Plant Charrette, Near
Southside Design Plan Advisory Committee, and the Chamber of Commerce Banner Committee,
Recommended that the City Council give special consideration to budget requests for the
maintenance and replacement of items within City Plaza.
Recommended tothe City Council that the Burlington and Gilbert Street intersection improvements
be delayed until the streetscape elements for the Near Southside Plan have been developed and
approved, including design elements for street intersections,
Recommended to the Planning and Zoning Commission approval of the ordinance amending the
Site Plan Review ordinance by adopting design guidelines for exterior stairwells and exterior
corridors on multi-family residential buildings subject to 1) labeling the sketch elevation'~
accordingly and 2) expressly stating in the ordinance that the design standards apply to exterior
lifts.
Recommended to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council the adoption of the
Design Review Overlay Zone 'Ordinance.
Reviewed and evaluated mobile car[ design as shown in the applications for City Plaza vending
permits. This is part of the permitting process for vendors.
Performed a courtesy review of the design plans for Carnegie Plaza and forwarded comments to
the City Council.
Provided comments to the Parks and Recreation Department on the City Plaza play structure and
other existing amenities.
2O
PLANS FOR FISCAL YEAR '1996
Continue to review design plans and make recommendations in a timely fashion to the City
Council for new construction and rehabilitation projects within the Committee's review
authority.
2.. Continue to pursue adoption of the Design Review Overlay Zone Ordinance.
3. Continue to investigate a design review awards and recognition program.
4. Develop a slide show on design issues to present to various community groups.'
5. Follow the progress of the Eagle Country Market deve opment.
6, Continue to participate in the development of the Near Southside Design Plan.
7. Provide representation on the City Plaza Task Force.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Gary Nagle
Nancy Foother
Karyl Larson
Ruth Fox
Gilda Six
Laura Hawks
Larry Quigley
Bill Nowysz
Clara Swan
21
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES
The seven-member iowa City Historic Preservation Commission is authorized to conduct
studies for the identification and designation of local historic districts. The Commission either
proceeds on its own initiative or upon receipt of a petition from any person, group or
association.
The Commission furthers the efforts of historic preservation in the City by making recommenda-
tions to the City Council and City commissions and boards on preservation issues by
encouraging the protection and enhancement of structures with historical, amhitectural or
cultural value; and by encouraging persons and organizations to become involved in
preservation activities,
The Commission reviews applications for housing rehabilitation and rental rehabilitation
assistance through the Community Development Block Grant Program to evaluate the effects
of the proposed projects on properties at least 50 years old. Modifications of activities are
recommended in instances where the proposed alterations would have a negative impact upon
the historic or architectural qualities of structures which are determined to be eligible for the
National Register of Histodc Places.
The Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission is committed to working with other
preservation organizations to implement a strong educational program designed to increase
iowa City residents' awareness and sensitivity to the cultural, architectural, and historical value
of local structures, neighborhoods and districts.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN FISCAL YEAR 1995
The Brown Street Historic Distdct was listed in the National Register of Histodc Places
effective September 23, 1994. The distdct was designated as Iowa City's third historic
district by the City Council in fiscal year 1994.
Recommended the designation of the Moffitt Cottage Historic District. It was designated
by the City Council as iowa City's fourth histodc distdct on May 9, 1995.
Supervised the completion of an architectural-historical survey of the College Hill
Neighborhood conducted by Tallgrass Historians. The survey, funded by a $6,000
Certified Local Government grant, recommended designation of a College Green
Historic Distdct and an East College Street Historic District.
Obtained an Historic Resource Development Program grant of $7,500 for the purpose
of conducting an architectural-historical survey and evaluation of the Longfellow
Neighborhood. The Commission retained the services of Molly Myers Naumann to
conduct the survey which will be completed in 1996. A series of neighborhood meetings
was conducted as part of the survey process.
22
10.
11.
12.
13.
Obtained a Certified Local Government grant of $9,000.00 for the purpose of conducting
an architectural-historical survey of the Dubuque Street-Linn Street corridor.A
consultant will be retained to conduct the survey which will be completed in 1996.
Applied for an Histodc Resource Development Program grant to fund nominations of the
College Green and East College historic districts to the National Register of Historic
Places.
Completed drafting a proposed Conservation Distdct Ordinance based on a study by
Landscape Reseamh, Inc. which was funded by a $4,000 Histodc Resoume Develop-
ment Program grant. The draft ordinance will be presented to the Planning and Zoning
Commission and the City Council for approval in fiscal year 1996.
Completed drafting a proposed Landmark Ordinance which will be presented to the
Planning and Zoning Commission and to the City Council for approval in fiscal year
1996.
Observed National Histodc Preservation Week with an awards program at the Johnson
County Courthouse on May 17th. The program was co-sponsored by Fdends of Historic
Preservation, the Johnson County Histodc Preservation Commission and the Johnson
County Historical Society. The Historic Preservation Award for Residential Rehabilita-
tion was presented to Ronald F. Johnson & Kay Radke-Johnson for 420 East Jefferson
Street. Residential Rehabilitation special medt awards were present to Barbara A.
Schwartz for 725 North Linn Street; Stephen B. Dunbar & Sally A. Hartman for 826
Roosevelt Street; The Mary Coldren Home Corp. for 602 Clark Street; Paul Weller &
Sara L. Rynes-Weller for 1041 Woodlawn Avenue; Steven J. & Barbara J. van der
Woude, for 629 North Linn Street; and GIoda Dei Lutheran Church of Iowa City, for 109
East Market Street. Extedor painting awards were presented to Chades A. & Nancy F.
Hindes for 728 Fairchild Street; William G. & Barbara M. Buss for 747 West Benton
Street; Matthew A. Lage & Robed R. Miklo for 530 Ronalds Street; Margaret G.
Lawrenson for 1128 Seymour Avenue; J. Nicholas Russo and Patdcia Gonzalez for 828
North Dodge Street; Philip R. Gabe & Patdcia A. Edwards for 603 Grant Street; Robed
J. Deschenes for 1307 Rochester Avenue; Monica, Marc B. & Michael S. Moen for 20
Evans Street; and A.W. Insurance Group for 319 East Bloomington.
Pursuant to the Histodc Preservation Ordinance, reviewed and approved six certificates
of appropriateness for additions and alterations of residences in the Summit Street,
Woodlawn, Brown Street, and Moffitt Cottage Historic Districts.
Evaluated twelve 'housing and rental rehabilitation projects for compliance with Section
106 of the National Histodc Preservation Act.
The Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the nomination of St. Mary's
Rectory at 610 East Jefferson Street and the Walter Eckel house at 829 Kirkwood
Avenue to the National Register of Histodc Places.
The Commissiorr reviewed and recommended removal of the M.T. Close and Co. Flax
Seed warehouse at 521 South Gilbert Street from the National Register of Histodc
Places.
23
14.
Held twelve regular and four special meetings, including joint meetings with Fdends of
Histodc Preservation, the Design Review Committee and the Johnson County Histodc
Preservation Commission.
PLANS FOR FISCAL YEAR '1996
Conduct annual review sessions for the purpose of ensuring implementation and
updating of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Plan.
Obtain funding for the nomination of the College Green and East College Street Historic
Districts to the National Register of Histodc Places.
Supervise completion of the Longfellow Neighborhood and Dubuque-Linn Street corridor
surveys and pursue recommendations they contain for designation of historic districts,
histodc landmarks and conservation districts.
Complete the process of presenting the proposed landmark ordinance and proposed
conservation district ordinance to the City Council for adoption.
Research project proposals for grant funding from sources such as the Certified ~.ocal
Government (CLG) program, the Histodc Resource Development Program (HRDP) and
the National Trust for Historic Preservation.
Consider additional area surveys for the Kirkwood Avenue, Northside, and Downtown
areas.
Review the Historic Preservation Ordinance for proposed updating, amending and
tightening.
Pending approval of the Landmark Ordinance, prepare nominations for the first sedes
of Iowa City Histodc Landmarks.
Pending approval of the Landmark Ordinance, complete study and implementation of
histodc landmark plaque program.
10.
11.
12.
Continue to distribute the Iowa City Neiqhborhood Desi.cln Book and A Guide to Historic
Iowa City.
Continue to advise City Council and other boards and commissions regarding matters
of historic preservation policy.
Continue to review Applications for Certificates of Appropriateness or Certificates of No
Material Effect and to review housing and rental rehabilitation projects involving federal
funds.
13.
Prepare for the 1995 Historic Preservation Awards Program and for Preservation Week
activities.
14.
Continue liaison and cooperation with the Iowa City Council, Johnson County Board of
Supervisors, Iowa City/Coralville Convention and Visitors Bureau, Johnson County
Histodc Society, Johnson County Histodc Preservation Commission, State Historical
Society of Iowa, and Friends of Historic Preservation.
24
COMMISSION MEMBERS
Kay Irelan, Brown Street Distdc{ Representative
Betty Kelly
Sue Licht, Vice Chairperson
Michael Pugh
Douglas S. Russell, Chairperson
John F. Shaw, Summit Street Distdct Representative
Ginalia Swaim, Woodlawn District Representative
Reference
City of Iowa City Code of Ordinances: 14-4C-1 to 14-4C-10, Historic Preservation
Regulations; 14-6J-3 Historic Preservation Overlay Zone (Proposed), and 14-6J-4
Conservation Overlay Zone (Proposed) .
2. By-laws of Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission.
25
HOUSING COMMISSION/HOUSING
............. APPEALS BOARD
GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES
The purpose of the Housing Commission is to promote clean, decent, safe and affordable
housing for the residents of the City of Iowa City. The Housing Commission is constituted of
seven residents of the City of Iowa City appointed by the City Council. The Commission is
established by Resolution of the City Council and operates under a set of bylaws approved by
the Council and meets once a month. The Housing Commission also acts as the Housing
Board of Appeals in matters of dispute concerning rental property.
General responsibilities are to investigate, study, review, and make recomm..endations to the
Council on matters pedaining to housing within the City. The CommissiOn rewews applications
for several programs of the Community Development Division, recommends HOME application
funding, and as the Housing Board of Appeals hears appeals concerning interpretation and
enforcement of the Housing Code of Iowa City.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN FISCAL YEAR 1995
HOUSING APPEALS BOARD/HOUSING INSPECTION SERVICES
The City Clerk received 6 appeals for Housing Code violations cited during the 1995 fiscal year.
Housing Commission recommendations to Council on matters of Housing Inspection Services
were:
1) (2-14-95) that the proposed Housing Code Amendments be adopted.
Sections of the Housing Code were updated to include reading the same as Building
Code, wording changes, adding back in sentence inadvertently deleted, compliance with
Iowa Administrative Code and building Codes effective at the time the building was
constructed, and one-hour occupancy separation requirement for residential structures
with attached garages.
2) (2-14-95) that the By-Laws of the iowa City Board of Appeals be adopted.
Approval of the bylaws moved the responsibility of hearing housing code appeals from
the Housing Commission to the Board of Appeals.
COORDINATION WITH COMMITTEE ON COMMUNITY NEEDS (CCN)
A Commission member serves on the CCN and reports actions of the Committee on a monthly
basis. Robin Paetzold:Durumedc and James Harris served during this Fiscal Year.
26
Recommendations to Council:
(4-11-95) that the merger of Iowa City Housing Commission and Committee on Community
Needs with a unification of mission and with increased efficiency of goals in mind be approved.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HOUSING PROGRAM
Housing Commission recommendations to Council on matters of Community Development
were:
(7-19-94) that the Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) Set-Aside funds be
allocated $35,000 to Hawkeye Area Community Action Program and $150,000 to Greater Iowa
City Housing Fellowship (GICHF).
The 1994 HOME program set aside a total of $185,000 for projects by CHDO and two
applications were submitted.
(3-14-95) that the FY96 HOME funds be allocated as follows:
City of Iowa City - Program Administration - $35,000
City of Iowa City- Housing Rehabilitation -$190,000
City of Iowa City - Housing for Working Singles - $100,000
GICHF/Bums -Affordable Multi-Family Rental Housing - $100,000
First National Bank - Downpayment Assistance Program - $80,000
iowa City Housing Authority- Tenant-Based Rental Assistance - $150,000
Unprogrammed Funds - $30,000
A total of $685,000.00 in HOME funds were available for allocation.
The Housing Rehab Review Board approved 2 applications for rental rehab and 2 applications
for HOME projects. Dudng the 1995 fiscal year, the Housing Rehabilitation office completed
2 rental rehabs, 2 HOME comprehensive rehabs, 16 emergency repair, 6 exterior repair, 5
residential accessibility and 30 flood assistance projects.
HOUSING AUTHORITY RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Housing Commission recommendations to Council:
(10-11-94) that the Action Plan for Family Self-Sufficiency Program for the Iowa City Housing
Authority be approved.
Housing Authorities are required by HUD to have a program in place to assist families in
numbers equal to the new awards received after October, 1992.
(11-8-94) that the Utility Allowance titled "One-half of Fair Market Rent Amount Proposal" be
adopted for use by the Iowa City Housing Authority.
HUD requires Housing Authorities to review utility allowances annually. Revised Utility
allowances to be effective July 1, 1995.
(4-11-95) that Council approve the application for Fair Share Certificates and Vouchers.
27
An application for rental Vouchers and Certificates was submitted per the Notice of Funding
Availability (NOFA) published in the Federal Register March 3, 1995. HUD has not yet sent
notification of award.
(5-9-95) that the application for 1995 Comprehensive Improvement Assistance Program (CLAP)
funds be appmved.
An application for ClAP funds was submitted per the NOFA published in the Federal Register
March 27, 1995. Funds would be used for replacement and upgrading items in Public Housing
units. HUD has not yet sent notification of award.
(5-9-95) that the revised Voucher Payment Standards for the Iowa City Housing Authority
Voucher Program be adopted.
The Voucher Payment Standard for the one-bedroom size unit was increased to equal the
average contract reht.
PLANS FOR FISCAL YEAR '1996
The Housing Commission will:
Continue to support the application for increased housing assistance from the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Continue to support the housing programs of the Planning and Community Development
Department.
Continue to encourage private participation to assist in achieving the goals of providing
clean, decent, safe and affordable housing for residents.
Assist in creating and meeting the goals of CIT~ STEPS, the five~year consolidated
plan, which coordinates housing programs, human services and economic development
for Iowa City.
Merge with CCN to establish a new commission to be effective September 1, 1995,
called Housing and Community Development Commission.
COMMISSION MEMBERS
Benjamin J. Moore, Chairperson
Roger J. Reilly, Vice-Chairperson
Jack McMahon
James L. Harris
CharGes Eastham
Jayne Sandler
Elizabeth Swenson
28
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES
The Iowa City Human Rights Commission enforces the Human Rights Ordinance, Title 2, Iowa
City Municipal Code. The Human Rights Ordinance is Iowa City's anti-discrimination law. The
law gives the Human Rights Commission the jurisdiction to investigate allegations of discrimina-
tion in the areas of employment, credit transactions, education, public accommodations and
housing. It is the mission of the Human Rights Commission to eradicate discrimination in Iowa
City, based on age, color, creed, disability, marital status, national origin, race, religion or
sexual orientation. In the area of housing, discrimination based on familial status, presence or
absence of dependents or public assistance source of income is also prohibited.
The Human Rights Ordinance gives the Commission the authority to enforce the law prohibiting
discrimination and to conciliate an agreement between the parties involved inacomplaint. The
Commission also has the responsibility of educating the public on the various forms of
discrimination that exist in the Iowa City area and protecting citizens from unfounded charges
of discrimination,
The Human Rights Commission is a quasi-judicial body composed of nine volunteer members
appointed by the City Council. Each member serves a three year term. Appointments to the
Human Rights Commission take into consideration men and women of various racial, religious,
cultural and socio-economic groups in Iowa City.
Dudng the 1994-1995 fiscal year, two Commissioners resigned from the Iowa City Human
Rights Commission. The Commission currently has eight members. The ninth Commissioner
will be appointed by the City Council on July 18, 1995.
The Human Rights Commission recently took steps to ensure that the public would receive
adequate notice ofvacancies on the Commission. Itwas determined during the Human Rights
Commission meeting of June 26, 1995, that in addition to publishing notice in the Press-
Citizen, notice of vacancies on the Human Rights Commission will be posted in the downtown
area and University buildings. Vacancies will also be printed in the Daily lowan and any other
place the Commission believes would alert all citizens of the vacancies. The Commission is
committed to being representative of diverse groups in Iowa City.
The Commission meets the fourth Monday of each month at 7:00 p.m. in the lobby conference
room in the Civic Centel'. The meeting site is accessible to persons with disabilities.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN FISCAL YEAR '1995
1. Addressed the public regarding human rights on several occasions.
Provided information on African-Americans in Iowa City to the Commission on the
Status of African-Americans in Iowa.
Gathered information for CITY STEPS on the needs of low and moderate income
citizens.
29
4. Revised and passed the Human Rights Ordinance on November 16, 1994.
5. Updated and passed Commission bylaws.
6. Met and conferred with officials from other countries regarding human rights.
Held the 11th annual Human Rights Breakfast at which time three awards were give[~,
recognizing an individual, a pemon representing a service organization, and a business
for their significant contributions to human dghts. Award recipients were 1) Marge
Penny, isabel Turner Award, 2) Barbara Smith and Dave Leshtz for individual leadership
within a service organization, and Heartland Candleworks for its business contributions.
Participated in Community Day on two different occasions at the Old Capitol Mall.
Handed out information on discrimination and played educational videotape on sexual
harassment.
Instituted mediation process whereby Complainants and Respondents mediate a
resolution to the complaint.
10.
The Human Rights Ordinance was submitted to HUD for a determination as to whether
the Ordinance is substantially equivalent to the Fair Housing Act. If HUD determines
the Ordinance meets the requirements, the Iowa City Human Rights Commission will
have the authority to investigate housing complaints.
11. Commissioners attended a training session on conciliation and disability discrimination.
12. Arranged with cable to have a human dghts category on interactive television.
COMPLAINT ACTIVITY,
During the period of July 1, 1994 to June 30, 1995, forty-seven (47) new formal discrimination
complaints were filed. Of the 47 complaints, 37 (78%) were complaints of employment
discrimination, 4 (8%) involved complaints of discrimination in public accommodations, 1 (2%)
complainant alleged discrimination in education, 2 cases (4%) involved allegations of retaliation
and 3 complaints involved housing discrimination.
The most frequently identified single basis for formal complaints in the 1994-95 fiscal year was
race, with 19 complaints constituting 40% of the total number. The second largest category
was disability discrimination, 11 cases, followed by sex discrimination, 7 cases, age
discrimination, 7 cases, religious discrimination, 3 cases, sexual orientation discrimination, 3
cases and familial status, 1 case. Some complainants alleged discrimination based on multiple
protected categories i.e., religion and sex.
The Human Rights Coordinator's office received 6 informal complaints. Eight formal complainIs
were prepared but the complainants failed to return to have the documents noradzeal and filed.
The Human Rights Coordinator's office has received at least 8 telephone inquiries regarding
"harassment" at the work place without a discriminatory basis.
The increase in the number of complaints filed with the Iowa City Human Rights Commission
is substantial as compared to the numbers filed every year since 1981. (See graph) It cannot
be stated conclusively that discrimination has increased in Iowa City because many of the
30
cases have yet to be investigated. It can be said, however, that the perception of discrimination
has increased.
CASE RESOLUTION IN FISCAL YEAR 1995
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
1 probable cause finding.
5 no probable cause findings.
3 administrative closures.
3 transfers to State Civil Rights Commission for investigation of housing discrimination.
1 predetermination settlement
1 successful mediation.
PLANS FOR FISCAL YEAR '1996
Conduct racial sensitivity training for the Campus and Iowa City Police Department with
Susan Mask from the University's Affirmative Action Office.
Public Speaking engagements will continue. In the month of July the Human Rights
Coordinator will address a University class on human dghts and sex discrimination.
Outreach Programs: A public forum on the U.N.'s Resolution to Eliminate All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women will be held on July 18, 1995 at 7:00 p.m.. The
Commission also intends to develop a sedes of programs discussing all types of
discrimination. There will be a continued effort by the Human Rights Commission to
make the public aware of the role of the Commission in eradicating discrimination in the
Iowa City area,
4. Cases will be processed more efficiently.
Efforts will be made to recruit student legal interns for the office of the Human Rights
Coordinator.
Plan the cable television program on the various types of discrimination prohibited by
the Iowa City Human Rights Ordinance.
Research grant availability to determine whether the Human Rights Commission can
acquire funds to further their goals of providing outreach to the community.
8. Hold the Annual Human Rights Award Breakfast on October 12, 1995.
9. Consider fund raising ideas.
10.
Commissioners agreed to study the success of the mediation over the next year. If it
proves successful, the Commission will revise the Human Rights Ordinance to include
mediation.
31
Complaint (Protected Class)
Statistics - 1995
Retaliation -
Sexual Harassme. nt -
Familial Status -
Sexual Oriental~on -
Age- ' .
Sex- :,' . . . _
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 t4 16 18 20
Number of Complaints
32
Discrimination Complaints Filed
1981-1995
1982 1984 .1986 1988
1981 1983 1985 1987
1990
1989
I 1~92
1991
19~4
1993
1995
COMMISSION MEMBERS
Alison Ames-Galstad, Chair
Patricia A. Harvey, Vice Chair
Ann K. Shires
Joan Jehle
Dorothy M. Paul
Ken Gatlin
Pamela Dautremont
Diane Martin
34
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES
The Parks and Recreation Commission recommends and reviews policies, rules, regulations,
ordinances and budgets relating to parks, playgrounds, recreation centers and cultural functions
of the City, and makes such reports to the City Council as the Commission deems in the public
interest, The Commission also exercises broad responsibility for the development of parks,
recreation centers, playgrounds and cultural facilities to serve the City, including the creation
and appointment of advisory groups to make studies,
ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN FISCAL YEAR '1995
Received copies of regular monthly reports from the Parks, Recreation, Forestry, Cemetery and
Central Business Distdct Divisions, providing the Commission with valuable insight into the daily
operation of each division,
Received periodic reports from the Iowa City Parks and Recreation Foundation.
Received. monthly reports from the Director on the progress of all ongoing projects,
construction, etc.
Conducted annual tour of parks and facilities,
Continued active representation on the Riverfront and Natural Areas Commission and the Iowa
River Corridor Trail Study Committee.
Received pedodic reports from the Neighborhood Open Space P!an Committee.
Developed and prioritized a pending issues list of short-term issues/goals.
Established and recommended priorities for the 1996-2002 Capital Improvements Program.
Recommended City Council approve Recreation Division Fees and Charges proposed for FY96
and tentative proposals for FY97-98.
Endorsed the Neighborhood Open Space Ordinance.
Recommended City Council accept propedy donated by developers according to the
Neighborhood Open Space Ordinance in Galway Hills, Mormon Trek Village, Saddlebrook, East
Hill Subdivision, and Walden Wood; accept fees-in-lieu of land dedication in Walden Pointe
Condominiums and Covington Condominiums.
Recommended City Council commit necessary funds and personnel to adequately maintain the
open space acquired through the Neighborhood Open Space Ordinance.
Endorsed the overall concept for the Inner City Greenway Trail.
Endorsed construction of a trail system through Napoleon Park to the south as area is
developed.
35
Recommended to the City Council that the land known as Mesquakie Park be turned back over
to the Public Works Department and no longer be considered parkland.
Entered into agreement with Neumann-Monson to provide se~/ices as required for planning and
schematic design studies for additional indoor recreational space. ..................
Adopted proposed guidelines regarding use of Hickory Hill Park.
Cooperated with the Old Capitol Youth Hockey Association to provide ice skating facilities in
City Park and Mercer Park.
Expanded the definition of family for purposes of the family swim pass to include people
registered under the Domestic Partnership Registry.
PLANS FOR FISCAL YEAR '1996
Develop a Neighborhood Open Space Action Plan to implement the Neighborhood Open Space
Ordinance.
Continue efforts to improve/upgrade the Central Business Distdct playground equipment.
Continue investigation and resolve issue of expanding Oakland Cemetery into Hickory Hill Park.
Continue interaction with City Council and periodically schedule joint meetings regarding issues
facing the Commission and Department.
Continue efforts to improve the Commission's contact with the public.
Continue and enhance activities of the Parks and Recreation Foundation.
Continue laying groundwork for development of park/sports complex to address soccer and
softball facility needs.
Develop recommendations for additional indoor recreational space.
Continue commitment to and development of trail system.
Determine improvements that can be made to parks with small amounts of money.
Explore and strengthen relationships with the School Distdct and Neighborhood Associations.
COMMISSION MEMBERS
Dee Vanderhoef, Chairperson
Deb Liddell, Vice-Chairperson
John Beasley
Jana Egeland
Judith Klink
Bruce Maurer
Matt Pacha
John Pellon
Rex Pruess
36
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES
Act as the Zoning Commission of the City. Direct surveys and studies to be conducted and
maps, plans or plats to be made related to the City's Comprehensive Plan and zoning
regulations. Recommend amendments and supplements to City Council forthe Comprehensive
Plan, Zoning Chapter and Subdivision Regulations. Make recommendations to City Council
on development proposals, such as planned developments, subdivisions, street vacations and
annexations.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN FISCAL YEAR '1996
During FY95, the Planning and Zoning Commission held 20 formal meetings, 20 informal
meetings and 1 special meeting.
During the period of July 1, 1994 to June 30, 1995, the Commission made the following
recommendations to the City Council:
Comprehensive Plan Amendments: 3 Recommendations for Approval
To change land use designation for properly on the north side of Highway I West from
8-16 dwelling units per acre to 2-8 dwelling units per acre and general commercial
To incorporate a revised Fringe Area Agreement into the Comprehensive Plan
To adopt "Iowa City: Beyond 2000" as an element of the Comprehensive Plan
Annexations: 5 Recommendations for Approval
City's south wastewater treatment plant site
1.02 acres east of Scoff Park Drive
80 acres southeast of Sycamore Street
39.3 acres southwest of Hwy 218/Hwy 1 West interchange
Hwy 218/Hwy 1 West interchange
Rezoninqs:
18 Recommendations for Approval
City's south wastewater treatment plant site from County RS to P
5.52 acres east of Waterfront Drive from C1-1 to CC-2
1.02 acres east of Scott Park Ddve from County RS to RS-5
North Side rezoning from RM-12 to RNC-12
80 acres southeast of Sycamore Street from County RS to RFBH
To reaffirm the Jensen tract be rezoned from RM-44 to RS-5
To reaffirm that property west of the Jensen tract and Hadocke Street be rezoned from
RM-44 to RS-5
4.75 acres east of Harlocke Street from RM-44 to RS-5
4.5 acres east of Hadocke Street from RM-44 to CC-2
1.5 acres west of Miller Street from RS-8 to CC-2
.32 acre parcel at 719 S. Capitol Street from C1-1 to P
13.09 acres at 655 Meadow Street from RM-12 and RS-5 to RS-8
To establish the Moffit Cottage Histodc District
37
34.21 acres west of Taft Avenue along Court Street from RS-5 to CN-1, RS-8 and RM-
12
1.63 acres west' of Waterfront Ddve from CC-2 to CI-1
39.3 acres southwest of Hwy 218/Hwy 1 West interchange from RS to C1-1
Hwy 218/Hwy 1 West intemhange from RS to C1-1
.82 acres on Northgate Drive from RDP to CO-1
Rezoninc~s: 2 Recommendations for Denial
61.96 acres located south of Whispering Prairie Drive front RS-8 to RFBH
To amend conditional zoning agreement for Westport Plaza south of Highway 1 West
to allow an additional freestanding pylon sign
Planned Developments: 1 Recommendation for Approval
Village Green, Part XIII, fezone 5.08 acres located east of Wellington Ddve from RS-5
to OPDH-5
Planned Developments: 3 Recommendations for Denial
30 acres west of Mormon Trek and south of Rohret Road from RS-5 to OPDH-8
3.01 acres located west of Walden Road, south of Sylvan Glen Court from RS-8 to
OPDH-8
4.3 acres west of Mormon Trek and north of Walden Court from RS-8 to OPDH-8
Subdivisions: 10 Recommendations for Preliminary Plat Approval
Village Green, Part XIII, 11.56 acre, 17 lot residential subdivision east of Wellington
Ddve
Hunters Run Subdivision, Part 8 extension
D&L Subdivision, a 6.41 acre, 4 lot commemial subdivision south of Highway 1 West,
west of Sunset Street
Pelsang Place, 1 acre, 3 lot residential subdivision east of First Avenue
Boyrum Subdivision, Part 4, 11.67 acre, 3 lot commemial subdivision south of Highway
between Boyrum and Waterfront
Galway Hills Subdivision, Part 2, 14.63 acre, 24-1ot residential subdivision at the
Melrose Avenue/Hwy 218 intersection
East Hill Subdivision, 13.11 acre, 36-1ot residential subdivision at 655 Meadow Street
Oakes Fifth Addition, 6.25 acre, 14 lot residential subdivision at the end of Quincent
Street
Walden Wood, Part 8, 4.3 acre, 12-1ot residential subdivision west of Mormon Trek,
north of Walden Court
Walden Wood, Part 9, 3.01 acre, 6-lot residential subdivision on Walden Road west of
Mormon Trek
Subdivisions: 4 Recommendations for Final Plat Approval
Longfellow Manor, a 7.64 acre, 20 lot residential subdivision south of Sheridan Avenue
D&L Subdivision, a 6.41 acre, 4 lot commemial subdivision south of Highway 1 West,
west of Sunset Street
Pelsang Place, a one acre, 3 lot residential subdivision east of First Avenue, south of
Washington Street
Galway Hills, Part 2, a 14.71 acre, 24-1ot residential subdivision southeast of Hwy 218
and Melrose Avenue intersection
38
Subdivisions: 2 Recommendations for PreliminarWFinal Plat Approval
Village Green, Part XlII and a portion of Village Green, Part III, an 11.57 acre, 17 lot
residential subdivision east of Wellington Drive
Rober Subdivision, a 1.19 acre, 2-1or residential subdivision on Seventh Avenue north
of Rochester Avenue
Subdivisions: 1 Recommendation to Vacate a Final Plat
Oakes Fourth Addition, a 6,25 acre, 14 lot residential subdivision located at the end of
Quincent Street
Street/Alley Vacations: 3 Recommendations to Vacate
Approval, vacation of two portions of Waterfront Ddve
- Approval, vacation of an alley east of Gilbert Court, south of the Iowa Interstate Railway
Text Amendments: 18 Recommendations of Approval To reclassify hotels/motels as commercial uses
To allow crematoriums as an accessory use associated with funeral homes
To incorporate neighborhood open space standards and requirements into the
Subdivision Regulations and the OPDH section of the Zoning Chapter
To require administrative review and approval of a single division of land (Subdivision
Regulations)
For dwelling units to continue to be permitted in the CN-1 zone by special exception
To allow restaurant uses of 2,500 square feet or less on a provisional basis, require a
special exception for restaurant uses larger than 2,500 square feet, and limit restaurant
uses to 20% of the total floor area within a CN-1 zone
To allow one-bay car washes associated with filling stations in the CN-1 zone by special
exception
To require one parking space per 1,200 square feet of commercial floor area in the CB*
5 zone
To regulate the location of parking spaces in the CB-5 zone
To permit restaurant carryout uses in the CB-10 zone
To clarify materials required for hard-surfaced parking areas
To clarify density requirements of the CB-2 zone
To adopt design guidelines for exterior stairwells and exterior corridors on multi-family
buildings
To reduce the amount of off-street parking spaces required in the CN-1 zone
To repeal the provision limiting access for neighborhood centers to arterial or collector
streets
To amend location requirements for underground storage tanks
Text Amendments: 1 Recommendation for Denial
To restrict residential uses in the CB-5 zone
Frinqe Area Aareements: 2 Recommendations for Approval
28E Agreement between Coralville and Iowa City on annexations and subdivisions in
extraterritorial area
Amendments to the Johnson County/Iowa City Fringe Area Agreement
39
Fdnqe Area Rezoninqs: 4 Recommendations for Approval
107 acres south of Dingleberry Road from A1 to RS
1.5 acres north of Newport Road from A1 to RS
1.73 acres near the Newport/Prairie du Chien intersection from A1 to RS
1.99 acres near the Rapid CreeldLynden Heights intersection from A1 to RS
Fdnqe
Area Rezoninqs: 5 Recommendations for Denial
2.65 acres east of Scott Boulevard from RS to CH and C2
12.48 acres west of the 1-80/Herbert Hoover Hwy from A1 to CP2
73.85 acres east of Scott Boulevard from RS to CH and M2
8.55 acres south of Highway 1 at Landon Road intersection from RS to CP2
126.6 acres south of the Iowa City Airport from A1 to RMH
Fdnge
Area Subdivisions: 4 Recommendations for Approval, 1 to Vacate
18.19 acre, 3 lot residential preliminary and final plat near Newport/Prairie du Chien
intersection
Orchard View Estates, 107 acre, 34 lot residential preliminary plat south of Dingleberry
Road
Orchard View Estates, 107 acre, 34 lot resident!al final plat south of Dingleberry Road
Highland Heights, Part 2, 22.33 acre, 3-1or residential preliminary and final plat south of
Dingleberry Road
Vacate Fox Hollow, 52.21 acre, 31 lot residential subdivision noah of Herbert Hoover
Hwy, west of Taft Avenue
Frinqe Area Conditional Use Permits: 1 Recommendation for Approval
- To allow a home business, an art gallery at 3880 Owl Song Lane SE
Other Fdnge Area Recommendations:
Approval, recommendation from the Commission that Council adopt, by resolution,
those aspects of the existing Conditional Zoning Agreement between Iowa City and
Johnson County related to the City's south wastewater treatment plant site.
Approval, recommendation from the Commission that the City impose full City design
standards in the two-mile extraterritorial fdnge area.
During FY95, the Plannin(~ and Zoninq Commission also conducted appeal headngs on 2 site
plan review applications:
Hickory Trail Condominiums, a 16 unit, 1.83 acre development located at the
intersection of First Avenue and Hickory Trail
755 Benton Street, 12 multi-family units
PLANS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996
Review and recommend to City Council concerning rezoning, subdivision, planned develop-
ment, vacation and annexation applications.
Review and update the Comprehensive Plan and ordinances implementing the plan.
Coordinate and cooperate with other City commissions and boards to augment planning and
zoning goals of the Commission.
40
Forward to City Council a Sensitive Areas Ordinance that addresses protection of environmen-
tally sensitive areas, including woodlands, wetlands, steep slopes and stream corridors, and
promotes compact and cohesive neighborhood design.
Review development ordinances for barriers to affordable housing.
Consider restricting the extent of residential uses allowed in the C1-1 zone.
Develop an entranceway overlay zone.
Review the definition of awnings.
Review the regulations for changeable copy signs.
Review the Subdivision Regulations, including design standards.
Study the land use policies for the area of the city in the vicinity of the County Administration
Building.
Study land use issues and potential improvement projects in the Near North Side Commercial
Area.
Review the R8-12 zoning in the vicinity of Foster Road.
Consider amending the RM-12 zone to allow limited commercial uses by special exception.
Consider amending the Zoning Chapter to require bicycle parking areas in multi-family
residential and commercial zones.
Review existing tree regulations.
COMMISSION MEMBERS
Tom Scott, Chairperson
George Starr, Vice Chairperson
Sally Dierks, Secretary
Ann Bovbjerg
Richard Gibson
Jane Jakobsen
Lea Supple
41
RIVERFRONT AND NATURAL
AREAS COMMISSION
GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES
The Iowa City Riverfront and Natural Areas Commission is charged with protecting, preserving
and restoring important environmental features of the community, including woodlands,
wetlands, waterways, and, especially, the Iowa River and its tributaries. Development of the
Iowa River Corridor Trail from the Coralville Reservoir to Napoleon Park is a pdmary focus of
the Commission. The Commission consists of eleven members, five from Iowa City, three from
Johnson County, and one each from the City of Coralville, the University of Iowa and the Iowa
City Parks and Recreation Commission.
While the Riverfront and Natural Areas Commission serves as an advisory body to the City
Council, it is actively involved in implementing programs, projects and activities that achieve
Commission goals. Additionally, the Commission continues its efforts to create an awareness
among all citizens of the importance of the care and preservation of the Iowa River, its
tributaries and the riverbank, as well as the significance of the preservation and restoration of
woodlands and wetlands in the Iowa City area.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN FISCAL YEAR 1995
Provided input to the Johnson County Council of Govemments regarding the Iowa City
Urbanized Area Long Range Transportation Plan.
Supported adoption of the Neighborhood Open Space Ordinance.
Provided input to the City Council regarding safety improvements related to the Burlington
Street Dam.
Participated in development of a draft Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Two Commission members
serve on the Committee working to develop the ordinance.
Provided input regarding Iowa City: Beyond 2000, a document outlining a vision forthe future
of Iowa City.
Participated in a Ralston Creek Cleanup sponsored by the Ralston Creek Watershed
Partnership and the New Pioneer Coop.
Continued to advocate construction of the Ned Ashton Gateway Park. Continued work on a
volunteer project to begin development of the first phase of the park.
Continued dver corridor trail development effod~ including support of applications for funding
of various trail segments, and paving of the trail in Crandic Park.
Continued to work with Friends of the Iowa River Scenic Trial (FIRST) on dyer trail issues.
42
Reviewed one site located partially within the Iowa River floodplain.
Organized and implemented Iowa River Month activities for June, 1995, including a) the
proclamation of Iowa River Month signed by the Mayor of Iowa City, b) a library exhibit, and
c) presentation of a special recognition awards to Steve Hendrix, Sandy Rhodes and Carol
Thompson for their work on the Sycamore Farms rezoning, Lon Drake for his work on the
Whispering Meadows Wetlands Park, and New Pioneer Coop for their ongoing support of the
Ralston Creek Cleanup Day.
PLANS FOR FISCAL YEAR '1996
Continue participation in the development of the Sensitive Areas ordinance.
Develop a community awareness programs concerning tree protection and river safety.
Organize June, 1996, Iowa River Month activities.
Initiate a special recognition award for tree planting/preservation, and organize other
promotional and informational activities relating to Arbor Day.
Continue to support and advocate development of the Iowa River Corddot Trail.
Continue to work with FIRST on dver trail issues.
Review development proposals for their ability to provide trail connections.
Preparation of timely press releases of information items by the four committees: Woodland,
Wetlands, Waterways and Trails and Access.
COMMISSION MEMBERS
'Les Kuehl, Chairperson
Jim Pugh, Vice Chairperson
Cotthey Daniels
Richard Hoppin
Jessica Neary
Catherine Pugh
"John Pelton
"'Sue Chase
"'Nancy English
'"Donald P. Otto
.... Larry Wilson
'Coralville representative
"Parks and Recreation Commission representative
'"Johnson County representative
.... University of Iowa representative
43
SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION
GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES
The Senior Center Commission was established by the City Council and is composed of nine
members with three year terms which may be renewed once, six appointed by the City Council
and three by the Johnson County Board of Supervisors. The following duties and powers are
assigned to the Commission: to serve in an advisory role to the City Council with regard to the
needs of the Senior Center;, to make recommendations with regard to policies and programs
of the Senior Center; to join staff and other interested persons in seeking adequate financial
resources for the operation of the Senior Center; to encourage full financial participation by
senior citizens in the programs of the Senior Center; to ensure that the Senior Center is
effectively integrated into the community and cooperates with organizations with common goals
in meeting the needs of senior citizens; to serve in an advocacy role with regard to the needs
of senior citizens; and to assist the City Manager in the evaluation of personnel.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN FISCAL YEAR '1998
1. Involved in month-long program commemorating World War II.
Purchased from the Senior Center Gift Fund the following: audio equipment, exercise
equipment, Third Age Library shelving, piano, software and hardware for participant
computer classes.
3. Encouraged Gift Fund donations.
4. Created and facilitated the connection committee in order to encourage a sensitive
community with agencies in the building.
5. Negotiated changes in the agreement with the County concerning Senior Dining.
6. Wrote monthly columns for the Senior Center POST.
7. Pursued a vigorous campaign for additional Senior Center staff.
8. Accepted Senior Center goals for 1994-1997.
9. Negotiated additional parking spaces for the Center at Chauncey Swan Parking Facility.
10. Hosted the Volunteer Recognition Dinner for 609 volunteers who contributed 28,056
hours.
I
!
11. Organized farewell party for Program Specialist, June Braverman.
Authorized the establishment of an Activities Association to facilitate more input from.
active participants.
13. Utilized the Council of Eiders volunteer survey, which surveyed volunteers' preferred form
of recognition, and agreed to experiment with new meaningful forms of recognition.
14. Met with Steve Atkins to discuss Commission empowerment.
44
15. Adopted letters of agreement for use of the Senior Center on nights and weekends by
senior groups and individuals.
16. Served on the Adult Day Program task force and advocated for the needs of all Center
participants.
17. Created an editorial committee to advise on programming for Senior Center television.
18. Endorsed repair of the building as per recommendations by Howard R. Green Company.
19. Informed City and County of Senior Center activities through monthly presentations by
individual Senior Center Commission members.
PLANS FOR FISCAL YEAR '1996
1. Continue to implement Senior Center goals.
Support the development of classes and programs which meet the needs and
concerns of Johnson County residents ages 55 or older.
· Seek ways to enhance the ability of present staff to serve our constituency.
Expand the scope of the "partners" committee to identify financial needs of the
Center and how to meet them.
Develop a plan for use of Senior Center space to meet the goals of physical
fitness and the performing arts.
Ensure that the Center is a strong community within a community with ongoing
congress be~een the two.
COI~MISSION MEMBERS
Harold Engen, Chair
Fdeda Shannon, Vice-Chair
Terri Miller, Secretary
*Rufine Anciaux
Robert Kemp
*Geraldine Lackender
Patdck Peters
Wait Shelton
*M. Kathryn Wallace
*Appointed by Johnson County Board of Supervisors
All other members appointed by the Iowa City City Council.
45
CITY OF IOWA CITY
CITY OF IOWA CITY
FY95
COMPARISON OF BUDGET
TO ACTUAL REVENUES,
EXPENDITURES AND CASH POSITION
FOR OPERATING FUNDS
FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS
ENDING JUNE 30, 1995
GENERAL FUND
Overview of FY95 Budget @ 6-30-95
The Generai Fund revenues, expenses and cash position for the twelve months ending June 30, 1995,
is summarized as follows:
Beginning Cash 7/1/94
Expenditures
Revenues less Expenditures
Ending Cash 6-30-95
FY95 Amended FY95 Actual Percent FY94 Actual
Budqet @ 6-30-95 Rec'd. Exp. ~. 6-30-94
$7,268,823 $7,268,823 $5,924,364
27,141,148 26,636,796 98% 24,741,409
27,376,403 24,609,704 90% 23,396,951
(235,255) 2,027,092 1.344,458
~7,033~568 ~9~295~914. $7,268,822
Overall, the 6-30-95 cash balance of 89,295,914 is good compared to where I expected the General Fund to be at year
end ($7,033,568). Budget authority can be carried over from FY95 to FY96. This would be for items that were budgored
for in FY95 but not spent, on a cash basis, at June 30, 1995. Staff reviewed and approved carryover requests totaling
~1,379,903 - $60,000 in commodities, 8492,000 in charges for services (8400,000 for CEBA grant), 8337,318 in
capital outlay, and 8490,000 in capital project funding transfers. Below is a summary of how the carryovers impact the
FY96 budget:
FY96 FY95 FY96
Oriqinel Budr~et 8udqet Carryovers Amended Budqot
Actual Cash Balance 7/1/95 $9,295,914 ~ - · 89,295,914
Revenues 26,693,014 400,000 27,093,014
Expenses 27,353,565 1~379,903 28~733~468
Ending Cash Balance 98,635,363 (~979,903 .~7,655,460.
Estimated cash balance at 6/30196 as shown in the FY96 through FY98 $6,101,411
Financial Plan
FY95 General Fund
Budget to Actual Comparison for the Twelve Months Ending 6/30/95
Budget [] Actual
$25.0
$20.0
$150
$10.0
$5.0
$0.0
Expenses
Cash Balance
S140
FY95 General Fund Revenues
Budget to Actual
for the Twelve Months Ending 6/30/95
Millions
$12.O
$10.O J
$8.0
$6.0
[] Budget
[] Actual
$4.0
$O.0
t Transf. Empl. Ben. State Funding Fines, Fees
Prop. Tax Road Use Tax Serv Chargeback
All Other
-2-
FY9$ General Fund Expenditures
Budget to Actual by Major Category
for the Twelve Months Ending 6/30/95
Millions
$20.00 ~
$~5.oo j
I [] Budget [] Actual
$5,00
so.oo / "
Commodities [ Capital Outlay
Personal Services Charges for Services
I
Transfers Out
Other
-3-
FOURTH QUARTER REPORT
ENDING JUNE 30, 1995
ANALYSIS OF REVENUES AND -EXPENSES COMPARED TO BUDGET
I have summarized the General Fund revenues into nine (9) major revenue categories. The analysis of each
category follows.
General Fund Year to Date Budget AnaIvsis:
Property Taxes - Includes the General Fund (8.10), Transit (.95) and Library (.27) levies. $5,657,000
or 42% of property tax revenue was received in the last quarter of the fiscal year. Overall,
$13,240,636 or 99.7% of the FY95 budget of $13,282,867 was received.
Property Tax Transfer - Employee Benefits - This property tax revenue source is receipted in the
Employee Benefits Fund and then transferred to pay for benefits of employees (employer share of
FICA, IPERS & Police and Fire Pension contributions, health and dental premiums, etc.) in the
general fund. Transfers totaling $3,223,388 or 98.9% of the FY95 budget of $3,260,877 were
transferred in.
Road Use Taxes - This is a gas tax that is received by the State of Iowa, paid to the City on a per
capita basis, receipted into the City Road Use Tax Fund and then transferred to the General Fund
to pay the actual cost of the Traffic Engineer and Streets Division less other revenues received by
these departments. Transfers totaling $2,228,721 were 88.8% of the FY95 budget of $2,508,886.
Although this revenue source is $280,165 less than budget, actual expenses in Traffic Engineering
and Public Works will be lower also.
State Fundinq - This revenue source, which comes from the State of Iowa, consists of state aid,
personal property replacement tax (fiat $ amount), and bank franchise tax. Except for the bank
franchise tax, the State remits these revenues to the City in two equal installments, one in December
and the other in March.
State Aid revenue totaling $635,071 is 100% of the FY95 budget of $635,000 and approximately the
same as last year ($635,203).
Personal Property Replacement (PPR) tax revenue totaling $320,777 is 100% of the FY95 budget
of $320,000 and the same as last year ($320,267).
Bank Franchise tax revenue totaling $957 is 1% of the FY95 budget of $100,000. The State of Iowa
Department of Revenue assured me that the City would receive a check prior to June 30, 1995.
Unfortunately, the check ($89,883) was not mailed until June 30, 1995, and was received on July 3,
1995, which makes this an FY96 receipt.
Charqeback of Services - This revenue source consists of administrative charges to the Enterprise
Funds (Ex.: Water, Parking, Sewer, etc.) for services provided in the Finance and Public Works
Administration Depadments, a new City Attorney chargeback, use of the Document Services Division,
use of Central Services and Cable TV transfer to Librap/. The Administrative expense charges to the
Enterprise Funds and the Cable TV chargeback are calculated during the budget process and then
transferred to the General Fund propodionally each month, 100% of the budget or $1,047,400 was
received. The City Attorney, Document Services and Central Services chargeback is based on actual
use. These chargebacks totaled $101,969 or 88.6% of the FY95 budget of $115,000.
Fines, Permits, and Fees - This category includes quite a variety of different revenue sources. The
largest are Recreation fees, building and housing permits and inspections, parking fines, and
magistrate court fines.
Overall, fines, permits and fees totaling $2,218,573 were 104.3% of the FY95 budget of $2,127,115.
-4-
Recreation Fees totaling $661,094 are 106.5% of the FY95 budget of $620,904 and $15,342 more
than last year.
Building Permits and Inspections totaling $439,382 are 96.7% of the FY95 budget of $454,450 and
are $6,119 less than last year.
Parking Fines totaling $364,440 are 102.7% of the FY95 budget of $355,000 and $80,292 more than
last year.
Housing Permits and Inspections totaling $121,372 are 98.5% of the FY95 budget of $123,250 and
$26,333 more than last year.
Magistrate's Court revenues totaling $152,522 are 101.7% of the FY95 budget of $150,000 and
$25,790 more than .last year.
All other fines, permits and fees totaling $479,763 are 113.3% of the FY95 budget of $423,511.
Contractual Services - Overall, contractual services totaling $1,039,458 are 100% of the FY95 budget.
The University Fire Contract payment is received in the first quarter of each year based on actual
expenses of the Fire Department for the previous fiscal year. Actual receipts totalled $721,576
compared to $654,900 or $43,000 more than last year.
Johnson County contract revenues are to pay for the use of the Library and Senior Center by
residents who live outside the City limits of Iowa City but within Johnson County. Receipts totaled
$317,882.
Hotel/Motel Tax - Revenues totaling $456,633 are 103.8% of the FY95 budget of $440,000 and
$29,405 more than last year. The new 7% rate went into effect on January 1, 1993. Actual receipts
are allocated as follows:
Police Patrol (50%), Convention Bureau (25%), Mercer Park Aquatics (15%) and Parkland Fund
(10%), starting 1-1-93 Acquisition (7%), and Development (3%).
All Other Income - Other income totaling $2,124,515 Is 93.6% of the FY95 budget of $2,269,222. The
budget was amended to include a CEBA grant of $935,000 which is for Moore Business Forms and
NCS. Only the NCS portion of $635,000 received prior to June 30, 1995.
Interest income totaling $392,304 is $198,940 more than last year. This is due to better interest rates
this year and a little better cash flow.
Parking Fines transfer totaling $472,676 is $t70,711 more than last year, This is mainly due to the
escalation of fines,
Overall, general fund revenues totaling $26,636,796 are 98.1% of the FY95 budget of $27,141,148.
-5-
Expenditures:
Overall, expenditures totaling $24,609,704 are 90% or $2,766,700 less than the FY95 budget of $27,376,403.
Below is a summary of the actual compared to budget expenditures by category:
FY95 FY95 FY94
Descdpfion FY95 Actual Act. % Actual
{in $1,000s) Bud.qet ~, 6-30-95 of Bud.qet ~ 6-30-94
Personal Services $16,361 $15,783 96% $15,044
Commodities 949 816 86% 785
Charges for Services 5,140 4,458 87% 4,196
Capital Outlay 1,412 918 65% 1,085
Transfers Out 3,467 2,595 75% 1,904
Other 47 39 83% 383
Contingency 0 0 O 0
TOTAL ~27,376. 924,609, 90% $23,3.97..
PERSONAL SERVICES
Personal services totaling $15,783,488 are 96.5% or $577,400 less than the FY95 budget of $16,360,896.
The major reason that personal services is under budget is that the City budgets at 100% of personnel costs
and lhmugh attrition, personal services will not be staffed 100% all year, but slightly less over a twelve-month
period. Also, the City charges staff time directly to Capital improvement Projects. Pemonal services by
program area are summarized below:
Policy and Administration was under budget by $73,000, specifically City Attorney, $22,000; Finance, $44,000;
Human Relations, $6,000, and Human Rights, $13,000.
Home and Community Environment was under budget by $231,000, specifically Engineering, $164,000 as
they charge some of their time directly to Capital Improvements Projects; Planning, $48,000; and CBD
maintenance, $8,000.
Community Protection was under budget by $94,000, specifically Animal Shelter, $18,000; Housing and
Inspection Services, $14,000; and Police, $62,000.
Transportation was under budget by $107,000, specifically Traffic engineering, $37,000, and Streets System,
$70,000.
Human Development was under budget by $55,000, specifically Parks and Recreation, $47,000, and Senior
Center, $8,000.
COMMODITIES
Commodities totaling $816,020 are 86% or $133,000 less than the FY95 budget of $949,008. Overall, office
supplies were under by $34,000; operating supplies were under by $60,000; and repair and maintenance
supplies were under by $38,000.
CHARGES FOR SERVICES
Charges for services totaling $4,458,519 are 87% or $681,000 less than the FY95 budget of $5,139,722.
Overall, professional services were under by $107,000; travel and education was under by $45,000; public
utility services were under by $40,000; repair and maintenance was under by $45,000; and miscellaneous
services and charges were under by $400,000 (CEBA Grant for Moore Business Forms).
-6-
CAPITAL OUTLAY
Capital Outlay totaling $917,583 was 65% or $494,820 less than the FY95 budget of $1,412,407.
Improvements were under by $144,000; operating equipment by $236,000; furniture by $21,000 and computer
equipment by $98,000.
TRANSFERS OUT
Transfers out totaling $2,595,307 are 75% or $871,850 less than the FY95 budget of $3,467,159. Transfers
to JCCOG, Transit, and Airport were $361,500 under budget. Funding for Capital Improvement Projects was
$510,000 under budget but most of this will be carried over to FY96.
CONTINGENCY
Contingency was originally budgeted at $248,890 but was amended by $75,000 to $323,890. The balance
at 6-30-95 is $0. The following items were amended for by using contingency:
Library roof repairs ($24,480), Library Building Design ($50,000), Airport - Local Match for Grant ($22,324),
Repairs to Building ($69,120), City Clerk - Codification ($9,242), Indexing Program ($6,800), New City Codes
& Supplements ($12,329), Finance Administrative Secretary Computer ($3,000), Treasury - office supplies
($2,308) and a chair ($317), U~an Planning Grant - local match ($354), Engineering Soft~vare ($3,710),
Police - Temporary Disability Health Care ($5,674); Government Buildings - unbudgeted building repairs
($13,151); CBD -Bike Racks ($18,395), hire seasonal employees earlier ($3,645), portable toilets for Jazz Fest
($510), storage shed for Farmers' Market ($t,095); Parks - support of Alliance Youth Programs ($2,600),
Purchase ball field maintenance machine ($6,180); Accounting - audit fees related to flood grants ($5,000);
Fire - overtime ($30,000); PCD - Near southside consultant ($21,220); Forestry - additional funds needed for
tree removal and transplanting ($3,660); Capital Projects Funding ($8,776).
-7-
CITY OF IOWA CiTY
R$CAL YEAR t996
GENERAL FUND REVENUES SY MAJOR CATEGORY
FY9$
10000 GENE8AL FUND AMENDED
RECEIPT TYPE BUDGET
BEGINNING CAEN BALANCE 7.268.822
1} PROPERTY TAX 13.282.887
2) TRANSFER: E&IPLBENEFIT8 LEVY 3.260.877
3) ROAD USE TAX 2.508~86
4) STATE FUNDiNO:
MONTH FY9$
ENDING Y-T.O %REC'DI Y.T-D
JUNE ~0, JUNE 30, BUDGET SPENT TO JUNE 30.
0 835.071 .71 100.0% 635.203
0 320.777 -777 100.2°/, 320~67
0 957 99,043 1.~ 139,173
0 956.805 98.195 90.7% 1.094.843
61.209 1.046.1~Q 1.300 99.9% 1.028.524
15.423 39.652 10.348 79.3% 0
2.917 35,6~3 0 1DO.C% 35.180
4,207 27,317 2,683 91,1% 25.129
109.75~ 1.148.069 14.331 96.8% 1.088.833
0 721.578 -239 l(Xl.0% 878.933
875 317.882 -4.438 101.4% 308~34
875 1.039,456 -4,677 100.5% 987.167
97.912 456.633 -16.633 103.8% 427.228
-8-
ClZY OF IOWA CiTY
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES BY DIVISION
FOR THE TWELVE t&ONTHS ENDING JUNE 30~ t089
MONTH FY95
FY 95 ENDING Y.T.D %REC'DI Y-T-D
100~0 GENERAL FUND AMENDED JUNE 30, JUNE 30. BUDGET SPENT TO JUNE 30,
EXPENDITURE BY DIVISION BUDGET 1995 t995 BALANCE BUDGET 1994
GENERAL FUND
CITY COUNCIL (84.135) (4.793) (77.824) (6.311) 925% (80.580)
CITY CLERK (233.700) (17.498) (233.907) 207 100J% (290.584)
CITY ATTORNEY (358.340) (28.743} (329.444) (28.898) 91.9% (295.933)
CITY MANAGER (342.120) (24.594) (316.971} (25.449) 92.6% (305.242)
HUMAN RELATIONS (230.092) (28.272) (224.907} (11.988} 94.9% (225.292)
FINANCE DEPT. ADMINISTRATION (221.914) (19.636) (212.527) (9.388} 95.8% (210.833)
ACCOUNTING&REPORTING (381.313) (24.835) (344.338) (3B.975} 90.3% (321.901)
CENTRAL PROCUREMENT (202.740) (18.080) (190.120) (12.620) 93.8% (199.934)
TREASURY (518.861) (55.288) (492.854) (28.007} 95.0% (445.958)
DOCUMENT SERVICES (190.714) (10.865) (109.247) (21.407} 88.7% (174.549)
INFORMATION SERVICES (420.678) (27.617} (373.151) (47.527) 88.7% (323.348)
RIS~( MANAGEMENT (232.810) (230.985) (1.849} 99.2% (468.197)
GOVERNI, IENT BUILDINGS (259.356) (29.525) (238.333) (23.023) 91.1% (239.381)
HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVITIES (59.499) (4.308) (45.810) (13.689) 77.0% (51.042)
NON.OPERATIONALADMIN. (2.837.032) (34.051) (2.570.493) (266.579) 80.6% (2.237.453)
PPD DEPT. ADMINISTRATION (223.418) (20.313) (105.504) (57.824) 74.1% (175.701)
URbaN PLANNING (239,600) (16.010) (180.085) (58.615) 75.5% (218,685)
NEIGBORROOD SERVICES (68,474) (5,922) (83,165) (3,309) 95,0% (55,526)
COMM. OEV.-NON G BANT ACTIVITY (120,75B) (084) (58,258) (62,498) 48.2% (93,151)
ECONOMIC BEVELOPMENT (1,157,149) (655,115) (758,374) (400,775) 65,4% (105,804)
COMPREHENSIVE PlAN UPDATE (8,805) (485) (2,034) (4,771) 29.9% (1,895}
HIST. PRESERV. GRANT (4,000) (800) (4,354) 354 108.9%
ARCH/HIST SURVEY GRANT (3.000) (2,974) (26) 99.1%
LONGFELLOW NEIGHBORHOOC (7,500) (7,500)
ENGINEERING (548,357) (28,241) (373,087) (175,270) 88.0% (426.855)
PUBMC WORKS ADMINISTRATION (140,324) (12,492) (135,185) (5,139) 98.3% (127,875)
CBD MAINTENANCE (198,931) (12,499) (154,601) (44,330) 77.7% (114,420)
ENERGY CONSERVATION (30,258) (1,535) (28,005) (2,293) 92.6% (26,295)
POLICE DEPARTMENT ABMIN (293,196) (21,571) (286,753) (6,443) 97.8% (269,773)
POLICE PATROL (2,977,419) (229,960) (2,780,225) (187,194) 93.7% (2,805,952)
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION (424.049) (32.268) (400.208) (17.843) 95.8% (393.830)
RECORDS AND IDENTIFICATION (277.024) (20.184) (248.159) (28.865) 89.6% (225.077)
COMMU NI~ SERVICES EURRAU (189.233) (16.690) (176.387) (12.846) 93.2% (184.477)
EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS (476.528) (39.627} (462.525) (14.001) 97.1% (414.087}
BIKE/PEDESTRIAN SAFETY GRANT (3.900) (22) (2.657) (1.243} 68.1% (4.988)
FLOOD OPERATIONS (0) 0 (32.674)
POLICE/DRUG ELIMINATION GRANT (5.000) (0) (4,800) (200) 90.0% (1,705)
FIRE PROTECTION (3.088,070) (249,537} (3.~68,810) (20,060) 99.4% (2,911,545)
ANIMAL CONTROL (229.285) (16,132) (202,278) (27,009) 08,2% (388,859)
HIS DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATION (185,588) (13,733) (173,833) (11.755) 93,7% (138,947)
BUILDING INSPECTION (315.445) (22.637} (302.743) (12.702) 96.0% (248.911)
HOUSING INSPECTIONS (203.495) (14.180} (189.251) (14.244) 93.0% (168.992)
FIRE EQUIP REPLACE RESERVE (138.855) (138.899) (0) 190.0%
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING (851.809) (75.404) (745.950) (105.849) 87.6% (754.119)
STREETSYSMAINT (1.713.234) (142.068) (1.532.394) (180.840) 80.4% (1.584.470)
FORESTRY OPERATIONS (197.706) (17.853) (174.063) (23.643) 88 0% (159.939)
CEMETERY (187.838) (18.004) (174.811) (13.025) 93.1% (168.837)
RECREATION (1.724.754) (180.378) (1.675.484) (49.270) 97.1% (1.635.055)
PARKS (1.120.894) (74.840) (693.996) (426.898) 81.0% (728.423)
LIBRARY (2.608.182) (249.568) (2.569.912) (38.270) 08.5% (2.448.805)
PARKS & RECAOMIN (152.824) (11.535) (145.495) (7.329) 95.2% (147.196)
SENIOR CENTER (461.675) (40.033) (418.765) (42.910) 90.7% (389.282)
LIBRARY EQUIP. REPL. RESERVE (13.500) (9.464} (11.447) (2.053) 84.8% (9.739)
PARK LAND ACQUISITION RESERVE (101.200) (18.500) (142.700) 11.5% (1.168)
LIBRARY PUBLIC ACCESS RESERVE (391) (391) 100.0% (/.039)
COMPUTER REPLACEMENT (26.436) (13.993) (24.?.29) (2.207) 91.7% (9.099)
PARK LAND DEVELOPMENT RESERVE (24.000) (24.000) 0.0%
TOTAL EXPENDITURE -27.376.402 -2.592.2~7 .--24.609.693-2.76(~.712 89.9% -23.396.95!
NET RECEIPTS OR EXPENDITURES .235.254 -320.829 2.027.104 -2.282.360
ENDING BALANCE 7.033.5B8 9.295.920 0.295.925 -2.262.360
1.344.480
7.268.9;~4
-9-
Enterprise Funds:
Parking Fund
Pollution Control Fund
Water Operating Fund
Refuse Collection Fund
Landfill Operations Fund
Airport Operations Fund
Mass Transit Fund
-10-
ENTERPRISE FUNDS NOTES
JUNE 30, 1995
Below is a summa~ by fund of the FY95 budget and actual beginning cash balance, revenues, expenses (as
amended) and ending cash balance with a brief explanation of major line items over or under budget.
Parking Fund.
FY95 FY95 FY94
Description FY95 Actual % of Actual
(in ~1,000s) Budqet ~ 6-30-95 Budqet ~ 6-30-94
Beginning Cash Balance $1,254 $1,254 $1,375
Revenue 3,121 3,468 111% 3,039
Expenses -3,227 -3,060 95% -3,160
ENDING CASH BALANCE ..~1,148. $'1,662 $1,254
Overall, the June 30, 1995, cash balance of $1,661,727 is good. Revenues totaling $3,467,978 are 111%
of the FY95 budget of $3,121,000. Below is a schedule comparing revenue by type for the twelve months
ending June 30, 1995, and 1994.
DESCRIPTION
FY95
12 mos. 12 mos. FY95 Actual as a Actual
actual actual AMENDED % of Less
FY94 FY95 BUDGET Budget 8ud.qet
$3 FINES
INTEREST
ON/OFF STREET METERS
PARKING LOT PERMITS
RAMP PERMITS
CAPITOL ST RAMP
DUBUQUE ST RAMP
CHAUNCEY SWAN RAMP -
METERED
OTHER REVENUE
Total Parking Revenues
301,965 472,676 468,000 101% 4,676
151,448 252,870 240,000 105% 12,870
603,956 607,594 607,000 100% 594
115,905 109,516 125,000 88% (15,483)
168,753 246,672 165,000 150% 81,671
1,041,551 955,862 1,025,000 93% (69,137)
401,017 354,334 375,000 94% (20,666)
31,896 63,631 24,000 265% 39,631
222~518 404,823 92,000. 440__.% 312,823.
3,039,009 3,467,978 3,121,000 111% ~.~
Parking Fines totaling $472,696 are 1% or $4,676 more than the FY95 budget of $468,000 and $170,711 more than
last year. The main reason for the higher amount Is due to the policy of escalating fines. Interest income totaling
$252,870 is 105% of the FY95 budget of $240,000 and $101,422 more than last year. This is due to higher interest
rates and longer term Certificates of Deposit matudng in FY95.
On/Off Street Meter revenue totaling $807,594 is 100% of the FY95 budget of $607,000 and $3,600 more than last
year.
Parking Lot Permit revenue totaling $109,516 is 88% of the FY95 budget of $125,000 and $16,000 less than last year.
Ramp permit revenue totaling $246,672 is 50% or $81,000 more than the FY95 budget of $165,000 and $78,000 more
than last year. This is mostly attributable to the opening of the Chauncey Swan Parking Facility in October, 1993, and
the intent to move more long-term parkers out of the other two ramps.
Capitol St. ramp revenue totaling $955,862 Is 93% of the FY95 budget of $1,025,000 and $85,600 less than last year.
Dubuque St. ramp revenue totaling $354,334 is 94% of the FY95 budget of $375,000 and $46,600 leas than last year.
-11 -
Other revenue included a $282,113 transfer in from the Parking Reserve accounts. This transfer is directed related
to the 1995 Parking refunding bond issue which allowed the City to reduce restricted bond reserves from $651,113
to $369,000.
Expenses totaling $3,060,803 are 95% of the FY95 budget of $3,228,918. Capital Outlay totaling $5,745 is 7.2% of
the FY95 budget of $80,257. Transfers totaling $1,687,781 are 100% of the FY95 budget.
Staff authorized and approved $10,326 of FY95 budget authority carryover requests into the FY96 budget. Due to
the larger than expected ending cash balance, this request will not significantly impact the FY96 budget.
Wastewater Treatment Fund ·
FY95 FY95 FY94
Description FY95 Actual % of Actual
(in ~1,000s.). Bud.qet ~ 6-30-95 .Budget ~ 6.30-94
Beginning Cash Balance $1,918 $1,918 $1,842
Revenue 7,573 7,846 104% 6,529
Expenses -7,013 -6,581 94%
ENDING CASH BALANCE $2,478 [3,183 .~!,9.~8.
Overall, the June 30, 1995, cash balance of $3,182,716 is good.
Revenues totaling $7,845,950 are 104% of the FY95 budget of $7,572,992. '
Wastewater Fees totaling $6,738,683 are 100% of the FY95 budget of $6,739,775 and $761,577 more than last year
at this time. The newest rate increase went into effect for bills sent out on or after March 1, 1995.
Interest income totaling $550,930 is 122% of the FY95 budget of $450,000 and $388,000 more than last year.
A total of $140,647 was received from FNMA for flood related expenses that occurred tn FY94 and $401,208 from
restructuring the escrow on the 1993 refunding bond issue.
Expenses totaling $6,581,176 are 94% of the FY95 budget of $7,013,325. Capital Outlay totaling $96,195 is 34% of
the FY95 budget of $282,468.
Staff authorized and approved $185,700 of FY95 budget authority car,~,over requests into the FY96 budget. $160,600
is for capital outlay. Due to the larger than expected 6-30-95 cash balance, this request will not have a significant
impact on the FY96 budget.
Water OI3eratlng Fund -
FY95 FY95 FY94
Descripflon FY95 Actual % of Actual
(in $1,000s) Bud.qet ~,, 6-30495 Bud.qet ~,, 6-30-94.
Beginning Cash Balance $1,924 $1,924 $1,908
Revenue 4,189 4,122 98% 3,706
Expenses _-4,297 -3,653 85%. -3,690
ENDING CASE BALANCE ~,8t8 $2~,393 ~t,9.~.
Overall, the June 30, 1995, cash balance of $2,393,296 is good.
Revenues totaling $4,122,212 are 98% of the FY95 budget of $4,189,005.
Water fees totaling $3,912,447 are 98% of the FY95 budget of $3,984,505 and $444,461 more than last year.
-12-
Interest income totaling $149,423 is $59,000 more than last year.
Expenses totaling $3,652,797 are 85% of the FY95 budget of $4,296,632.
Charges for services totaling $907,647 are 84% or $176,000 less than the FY95 budget of $1,083,749.
Actual transfers totaling $766,644 are 73% of the FY95 budget of $1,048,971. Capital Improvements Project funding
was $171,410 under budget and General Obligation bond transfers were $110,916 under budget.
Staff authorized and approved $295,800 of FY95 budget authority carryover requests into FY96 - $40,000 in
commodities, $54,000 in charges for sewices, $29,700 in capital outlay, and $171,400 in capital projects transfers.
The carryover from FY95 to FY96 will impact the FY96 budget as shown below. Even with the cam/over, the
projected cash balance at 6-30-96 is $1,378,000 more than originally estimated in the three-year financial plan.
FY95
Budget FY96
Description FY96 Carryover Amended
i(in ~1,000s) Bud.qet to FY96 Bud.qet
Actual beginning cash 7/1/95 $2,393 $0 $2,393
Revenue 4,958 0 4,958
Expenses -4,708. _29._.~6 5,004
ENDING CASH BALANCE $2,643, $296 ~2,347.
Estimated cash balance at 6~30~96 as shown in the FY96 through $969
FY98 Financial Plan
Refuse Collection Fund -
FYg5 FY95 FY94
Description FY95 Actual % of Actual
(in $1,000s) Bud.qet ~ 6-30-95 Bud.qet ~, 6-30-94
Beginning Cash Balance $298 $298 $272
Revenue 1,675 1,762 105% 1,718
Expenses -1~882 -1,699 90% -1,692.
ENDING CASE BALANCE .~ 91, ~36.'1, $298,
The June 30, 1995, cash balance of $361,341 is better than expected.
FY95 revenues totaling $1,761,994 are 105% of the FY95 budget of $1,675,300.
Refuse and curbside recycling fees totaling $1,652,760 are 105% ofthe FY95 budget of $1,575,000 and $45,000 more
than last year.
Yardwaste bag revenue totaling $92,919 is 116% of the FY95 budget of $80,000.
Expenses totaling $1,698,892 are 90% of the FY95 budget of $1,882,273. Charges for services totaling $990,559 are
88%' or $133,947 less than the FY95 budget of $1,124,506.
Staff authorized and approved $14,600 of FY95 budget authority carryover requests into FY96. This carryover request
will not have a significant impact on the FYg6 budget.
-13-
Landfill OI3eratlons Fund -
FY95 FY95 FY94
Description FY95 Actual % of Actual
(in $1,000s) 8ud.qet ~ 6-30-95 Bud,qet ~ 6-30-94
Beginning Cash Balance $1,610 $1,610 $875
Revenue 3,699 3,945 107% 3,663
Expenses -4,134 -3,483 84% -2,928
ENDING CASH BALANCE .$'1,175 $2,072 .$.~,610,
Overall, the June 30, 1995, cash balance of $2,071,884 is good.
FY95 revenues totaling $3,944,605 are 107% of the FY95 budget of $3,698,800 and $282,000 more than last year.
Landfill tipping fees totaling $3,759,049 are 106% of the FY95 budget of $3,550,000. Revenue from pickup of white
goods totaling $109,237 is $46,000 more than the FY95 budget of $63,300.
Expenses totaling $3,482,884 are 84% or $651,262 less than the FY95 budget of $4,134,146.
Transfers to fund capital projects are $431,199 under budget.
Staff authorized and approved $14,300 of FY95 budget authority camjover req.uests into FY96. This carryover request
will not have a significant impact on the FY96 budget.
Airport Operation -
FY95 FY95 FY94
Description FY95 Actual % of Actual
(in $1,000s) Budget ~ 6-30-95 Budqet ~,, 6-30-94
Beginning Cash Balance $37 $37 $9
Revenue 344 322 93% 218
Expenses -373 -344 92% -19q
ENDING CASH BALANCE $8 $~4 $37
Revenues totaling $321,877 are 93% of the FY95 budget of $344,456.
Hangar rental totaltng $111,053 Is 106% of the FY95 budget of $105,000.
General Fund subsidy totaling $201,928 is 86% of the FY95 budget of $234,456. This subsidy includes transfers from
the General Fund for several Capital Improvement projects as well as an operating sub3idy. A transfer out to the
Capital Improvement Fund is included in the expense budget.
Expenses totaling $344,363 are 92% of the FY95 budget of $373,600.
Staff reviewed and approved $32,355 of FY95 expenditures and $21,160 of revenue budget carryover requests into
FY96. This will not have a significant impact on the FY96 budget.
- 14-
Mass Transit Fund -
FY95 FY95 FY94
Description FY95 Actual % of Actual
{in ~1,000s) Budqet (~ 6-30-95 Bud.q. et ~. 6-30-94
Beginning Cash Balance $123 $123 $155
Revenue 3,056 2,991 98% 2,690
Expenses -3,041 -2,890 95% -2,722
ENDING CASH BALANCE $138 $223 $'123
Revenues totaling $2,990,729 are 98% of the FY95 budget of $3,055,811. Transit fees totaling $652,166 are 102%
of the FY9§ budget of $838,000 and $20,000 less than last year. Federal UMTA monies totaling $296,978 have been
received. State grant revenue totaling $257,140 is 30% more than the FY95 budget of $198,200.
The General and Parking Fund subsidies totaling $1,746,477 are 92% of the FY95 budget of $1,888,611.
The transfer in from General Fund for Transit property taxes totaled $1,338,844 or $4,167 less than budget and the
operating subsidy totaled $317,633 or $137,967 less than budget. The operating subsidy was less because expenses
were less than budgeted.
Expenses totaling $2,890,251 are 95% of the P~'95 budget of $3,040,708. The FY95 budget reflects the cost of
adding a new route starling January 1 ($30,000). The transit fleet maintenance charge totaling $678,382 was 91%
or $65,335 less than the FY05 budget of $743,663 and $22,000 less than last year.
Staff reviewed and approved $24,236 of FY95 expenditure budget cam/ever requests into FY96. This will not have
a significant impact on the FY96 budget.
-15-
FY95 Parking Fund
Budget to Actual Comparison for the Twelve Months Ending 6/30/95
Millions
53 503
S3 539
53 oeo
Revenues Expenses Cash Balance
FY95 Wastewater Treatment Fund
Budget to Actual Comparison for the Twelve Months Ending (3/30/95
Millions
R evehues Expenses Cash Balance
FY95 Water Operations Fund
Budget to Actual Comparison for the Twelve Months Ending 6/30/95
Millions
56 000 ~
[3000
S20CO
Revenues Expenses Cash Balance
FY95 Refuse Fund
Budget to Actual Comparison for the Twelve Months Ending 6/30/95
Thousands
$' 5CC
S' 3C3
$0
Revenues
5530
Expenses
-17-
Cash 8atance
FY95 Landfill Fund
Budget to Actual Comparison for the Twelve Months Ending 6/30/95
Millions
34 OCO
5C OCO
Revenues Expenses Cash Balance
FY95 Airport Operations Fund
Budget to Actual Comparison for the Twelve Months Ending 6/30/95
Thousands
Revenues Expenses Cash Balance
FY95 Mass Transit Op. Fund
Budget to Actual Comparison for the Twelve Months Ending 6/30/95
Millions
I [] e~et I-1 ^ctua~
$3,500
$3.0OO
$2.0O0
$2 0O0
$1 5OO
$1.000
~0.5~
$0.000
I
Revenues
Expenses
Cash Balance
-19-
Other Funds:
Debt Service Fund
Broadband Telecommunications Fund
Johnson County Council of Governments
General Fleet Maintenance Fund
Equipment Replacement Fund
Central Supply & Print Shop Fund
Road Use Tax Fund
Employee Benefits Fund
- 20 -
Debt Servtca Fund.
OTHER FUND NOTES
JUNE 30, 1995
FY95 FYg5 FY94
Description FY95 Actual % of Actual
(in $1,000s) Rud.qet ~. 6-30.95 Budqet ~ 6--30-94
Beginning Cash Balance $286 $266 $463
Revenue 3,895 3,796 97% 2,393
Expenses -3,904 -3,532 90% -2,590
ENDING CASH BALANCE ~257 $530 ~266.
Revenues totaling $3,795,822 are 97% of the FY95 budget of $3,895,152. Property taxes (budget of $2,376,857)
account for over 61% of the budgeted revenues. $2,367,644 or 99.7% of the property tax budget was received.
Transfer-in from other funds budget of $1,493,295 accounts for the balance of budgeted revenues. The transfers are
mostly from Enterprise Funds to pay for their share of debt service. Actual transfers occur only when principal and/or
interest is actually paid, usually in November/December (interest) and May/June (principal and interest). Only
$1,320,077 or 88% of the FY95 budget of $1,493,295 was actually transferred.
Expenditures totaling $3,531,817 are 90% or $372,640 less than the FY95 budget of $3,904,457. The under budget
amount pertains directly to the 95 General Obligation bond issue not requiring as much payout in FY95.
There were no carryovers.
Broadband Telecommunications Fund -
FY95 FY95 FY94
Description FY95 Actual % of Actual
(in $1,000s). Budget ~ 6-30-95 Bud.qet ~,, 6-30-94
Beginning Cash Balance $190 $190 $218
Revenue 282 307 109% 300
Expenses -391. -364 93% -328
ENDING CASH BALANCE ~.8~1, ~'133,
Revenues totaling $308,864 are 109% of the FY95 budget of $282,000. The largest revenue source is from the cable
franchise fee (budget of $275,000). This fee is remitted quarterly. $294,009 or 107% of the fi'anchlse fee budget was
received and Is $3,200 more than the same time last year.
Expenses totaling $363,690 are 93% of the FY95 budget of $390,942. Capital outlay totaling $25,077 was 50.5% or
$25,000 less than the FY95 budget of $49,677.
Staff reviewed and approved $15,184 of FY95 expenditure budget carryover requests into FY96. This will not
signif~cently impact the FYgS budget.
Johnson County Council of Governments -
FY95 FY95 FY94
Description FY95 Actual % of Actual
(in ~l,000s) Bud.qet ~ 6-30.95 Budqet ~ 6-30-94
Beginning Cash Balance $27 $27 $41
Revenue 315 287 91% 268
Expenses -329 -300 91% -280.
ENDING CASH BALANCE ~4 ~ $27
-21 -
· ·
Revenues totaling $287,115 am 91% ofthe FY95 budget of $315,122. Funding from other local governments totals
$73,741 or 108% of the budget of $68,061. State/federal funding totaling $76,829 was 27.5% or $16,500 more than
the FY95 budget of $60,274. Only $t07,841 of the subsidy from General Fund budget of $152,927 and $27,400 of
the Landfill Solid Waste budget of $33,860 was needed.
Expenses totaling $300,445 are 91% of the FY95 budget of $328,849.
Cam/overs totaling $4,142 were approved and will not significantly impact the FY96 budget.
General Fleet Maintenance -
FY95 FY95 FY94
Description FY95 Actual % of Actual
(in $1,000s) BudRat ~ 6-30-95 Bud.qet ~ 6-30-94
Beginning Cash Balance $219 $219 $186
Revenue 1,230 1,035 84% 1,233
Expenses -1,140 -1,179. 103% -1,199.
ENDING CASH BALANCE $309 2.7.6. 2~
This fund accounts for the maintenance on all City vehicles except the Transit Division. Revenues are generated from
chargebacks to all City departments and divisions based on vehicle usage and in some cases actual repair costs. Only
11 months of chargebacks were transferred in FY95, so FY96 will show 13 months of transfers. Expenses are over
budget, mainly due to charging 100% of the salary for the Equipment Superintendent to Equipment. Pdor to splitting
Transit and Equipment Maintenance into two separate reporting divisions, this salary was budgeted 50~50 in each
division.
$12,200 in carryovers were approved but will not significantly impact the FY96 budget.
Equipment Replacement Fund -
FY95 FY95 FY94
Description FY95 Actual % of Actual
(in $1,000s) Bud~qet ~, 6-30-95 Bud,qet ~ 6-30-94
Beginning Cash Balance $1,524 $1,524 $1,268
Revenue 1,311 1,313 100% 792
Expenses -1,377. -1,048 76.°./0. -535
ENDING CASH BALANCE ~'~14~8, ~'1,789. 5'1,524
This fund accounts for the majodty of afl City purchases for vehicles. Revenues are generated from chargebacks to
all City departments and divisions based on estimated cost to replace the vehicles.
Revenues totaling $1,313,222 are 100% of the FY95 budget of $1,310,700. The revenue and expenditure budget was
increased by $550,000 each to account for a loan from this fund to pay for a portion of the purchase of land for the
new'water treatment facility. Proceeds from the 1995 General Obligation bond issue repaid the loan in Apdl, 1995.
Chargebacks to all departments totaling $655,737 are 96% of the FY95 budget of $680,000. Interest income totaling
$71,785 is 60% more than the FYg5 budget of $45,000.
Expenses totaling $1,048,335 are 76% of the FY95 budget of $1,376,769. Only 60% or $474,769 of the FY95 capital
outlay budget of $790,700 was spent.
Carryovers totaling $173,650 for capital outlay were approved and will not significantly Impact the FY96 budget.
- 22 -
Central SewIces -
FY95 FY95 FY94
Description FY95 Actual % of Actual
(in $1,000s) Bud.qet ~ 6-30-95 8ud.qet ~,_6-30-04
Beginning Cash Balance $214 $214 $196
Revenue 425 551 130% 362
Expenses -648 -522 81% :344
ENDING CASH BALANCE $(9) $243 $214
This fund accounts for the centralized purchase of supplies, in-house printing, radio maintenance and the
purchase/lease of City-wide copy and fax machines. Revenues are generated from chargebacks of supplies used,
actual print jobs, copier/fax use and radio repairs.
Revenues totaling $550,868 are 30% or $126,000 more than the FY95 budget of $424,900. Chargebacks for phone
communications accounted for almost all of the overage as they were not budgeted for FY95.
Expenses totaling $522,340 are 81% of the FY95 budget of $648,262. Only $32,785 of the capital outlay budget of
$138,600 was spent.
Carryovers totaling $115,000, mainly for capital outlay, were approved. Below is a summary of how it will impact the
FY96 budget.
Description
(in $1,000s)
Actual beginning cash 711195
Revenue
Expenses
ENDING CASH BALANCE
FY95
Budget FY96
FY96 Cam/over Amended
Budq~ to FYg~ Budqet
$243 $0 $243
594 0 594
552 115 667
~286 $115 $170
17o,
Estimated cash balance at 6130196 as shown in the FY95 through
FY97 Financial Plan
Road Use Tax Fund -
FY95 FY95 FY94
Description FY95 Actual % of Actual
(in $1,000s) Budget ~, 6-30-95 Budget ~,, 6-30-94
Beginning Cash Balance $3,646 $3,646 $3,816
Revenue 3,476 3,797 109% 3,598
Expenses -5,162 -3,30.7. 64% -3.768
ENDING CASH BALANCE $'1,960 $4,!36' $3,646,
Revenues totaling $3,797,223 are 9% or $321,000 more than the FY95 budget of $3,476,114. State Road Use Tax
(RUT) revenue is budgeted at $56.35 per capita. Actual receipts totaled $3,619,027 or approximately $60.58 per
capita. Interest income totaling $171,045, $71,045 more than the FY95 budget, accounted for the majodty of the rest
of revenues.
Expenditures include transfers to the General Fund to pay for the cost of the Traffic Engineering and Streets Divisions
and funding for Capital improvement Projects (ClP). Trans[era to the General Fund are net of any other revenue
received by the Traffic Engineering and Streets Divisions within the General Fund. Actual transfers to Traffic
Engineering totaling $736,650 are 88% of the FY95 budget of $837,979.
- 23 -
Actual transfers to Streets totaling $1,492,071 are 89% of the FY95 budget of $1,670,907.
CIP transfers totaling $1,076,649 are 41% of the FY95 budget of $2,652,656.
Carryovers totaling $1,896,065 for transfers to capital projects were approved. Below is a summary of how it will
impact the FY96 budget.
Description
(in ~1,000s).
Actual beginning cash 711/95
Revenue
Expenses
ENDING CASH BALANCE
FY95
Budget FY96
FY96 Carryover Amended
Budget .to FY96 Bud.qet
$4,136 $0 $4,136
3,500 0 3,500
4,132 1,896 6,028
$3,504 $_.1,896 $1,608
~$1,347
Estimated cash balance at 6/30196 as shown in the FY96 through
FY98 Financial Plan
Em131ovee Benefits Fund -
FY95 FY95 FY94
Description FY95 Actual % of Actual
(in $1,000s) Bud,qet ~ 6-30-95 Bud.qet ~ 6-30-g4
Beginning Cash Balance $477 $477 $533
Revenue 3,417 3,414 100% 3,275
Expenses -3,476. -3,408. 98% -3,331
ENDING CASH BALANCE ~;418 $483 $477~
Revenues totaling $3,414,100 are 100% of the FY95 budget of $3,416,912. Property tax revenues are approximately
83% of the FY95 budget. $2,815,943 or 99.7% of the FY95 property tax revenue budget of $2,823,912 was received.
The majority of property revenue Is received ~ce a year, approximately 50% in October and 50% in April. This
coincides with the due date of property tax bills from property owners.
The balance of revenues totaling $598,158 include a transfer in from the public safety reserve of $502,000, $79,990
from the University of Iowa Fire Contract and interest income of $16,168.
Expenses totaling $3,408,005 are 98% of the FY95 budget of $3,476,374. The major budgeted expense is a transfer
out to the General Fund. The transfer pays for the benefits of employees in the General Fund, the employer share
of FICA, IPERS, Police/Fire Pension, health premiums, life premiums and workers compensation.
No carryovers were requested.
-24 -
FY95 Debt Service Fund
Budget to Actual Comparison for the Twelve Months Ending 6130195
Thousands
S3 $09 '
S2 000'
Revenues
Expanses Cash Balance
FY95 BTC Operations Fund
Budget to Actual Comparison for the Twelve Months Ending 6~30~95
Thousands
Revenues
Expenses
Cash Balance
FY95 JCCOG
Budget to Actual Comparison for the Twelve Months Ending 6/30/95
Thousands
Revenues Expenses Cash Balance
FY95 General Fleet Maintenance
Budget to Actual Comparison for the Twelve Months Ending 6/30/95
Thousands
S' 2C3
SO
Revenues Expenses Cash Balance
- 26-
FY95
~ Equipment Replacement
Budget to Actual uompanson for the Twelve Months Ending 6/30/95
Millions
$20.96 ~
Revenues Expenses Cash Balance
FY95 Central Supply & Print
Budget to Actual Comparison for the Twelve Months Ending 6/30/95
Thousands
Revenues
Expenses Cash Balance
-27-
FY95 Road Use Tax
Budget to Actual Comparison for the Twelve Months Ending 6/30/95
Millions
~e coo --
5 000
52 000
SO 000
Revenues Expenses Cash Balance
FY95 Employee Benefits
Budget to Actual Comparison for the Twelve Months Ending 6/30/95
Thousands
S3 500
$3 3CO .
303
5500 .
S3
Revenues Expenses Cash Balance
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 14, 1995
To: City Council
From: City Manager
Re: Cedar Rapids Charter Commission
I have been asked by the Chair of the Cedar Rapids Charter Commission to appear before them
on Tuesday, August 29, at 6:30 P.M. The City Manager and Mayor of Marion, Iowa, will also be
present. Our role will be to answer questions from the commissionere, primarily those questions
that deal with the relationship between the mayor, council members, and a city manager. Before
accepting I spoke with Susan, who indicated to me her support for my participation in this forum.
be! -3SA