HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-08-29 Info Packet of 8/22 CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET
August 22, 2000
I M_I_SC_ELLANEOUS TFMS_ ......
IP1 Memorandum from Mayor: Sycamore and First Avenue Urban Renewal
Project
IP2 Memorandum from Acting Traffic Engineering Planner to City Manager: City
Council Request for Information; Traffic Counts on College Street and
Washington Street
IP3 Memorandum from Community Development Coordinator to City Manager:
Accessibility Review
IP4 Letter from Lawrence Mazzotta (Faroare Group, Inc.) to Community Development
Coordinator: Invitation
IP5 Memorandum from City Clerk: Packet of August 31
IP6 Memorandum from Park Superintendent: Use of Weed Control Chemicals
IP7 Iowa City Police Department Use of Force Report - June 2000
Letter from Assistant City Attorney: Response to Council Inquiry
Regarding Wastewater Plant & IDNR Penalties.
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM ' '
Date: August 18, 2000
To: City Council
From: Mayor
Re: Sycamore First Avenue Urban Renewal Project
At the regularly scheduled meeting of the Economic Development Committee of the City Council
the matter of the Sycamore and First Avenue Urban Renewal Project was briefly discussed. I
wanted to inform you that the committee unanimously supported the concept of the urban
renewal plan and the proposed improvements that are to be initiated at the Sycamore Mall
property.
mgr/mern/sycamore.doc
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 18, 2000
To: Steve Atkins, City Manager
From: Jeff Davidson, Acting Traffic Engineering Planner '~/
Re: City Council request for information; traffic counts on College Street and Washington
Street
It is my understanding that at the August 15, 2000 City Council Meeting a question arose
regarding traffic counts which were taken pertaining to the installation and retention of traffic
circles on College Street and Washington Street. We believe the original traffic counts, which
provided the basis for considering the installation of traffic calming devices on College Street
and Washington Street, were recorded the week of March 26, 1998. We are not certain of this
date because the counts were recorded by a staff person who is no longer employed by the
City, and the project file information is not conclusive.
The traffic counts which were taken in conjunction with the evaluation of whether or not to retain
the traffic circles on College and Washington Streets were recorded between May 16 and May
19, 2000. This date was selected after consultation with neighborhood representatives to
determine when to conduct the follow-up survey on the traffic circles.
I am assuming this matter is closed following the City Council's decision on July 31, 2000 to
retain the College Street and Washington Street traffic circles. Please let me know if I have
reached this conclusion erroneously.
cc: Karin Franklin L~)
Marcia Klingaman
Chuck Schmadeke ~/~
Rick Fosse
Iw/rnern/jd-atkins.doc
/
08-22-00
City of Iowa City iP3
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 18, 2000 e/~
TO: City Manager ~
FROM: Steve Nasby, Community Development Coordinator
RE: Accessibility Review
Your memo, dated May 18, was forwarded to the Housing and Community
Development Commission (HCDC) in their June packet. HCDC did briefly discuss
the memo.
Although no formal vote was taken on the issue, it was the sense of the
commission that there was not a need for a separate or new commission\board.
They did feel that including persons with disabilities in the planning and design
phases would be appropriate.
If you need additional information please contact Steve Nasby at 356-5248.
Cc: Steve Long
Angela Williams
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 22, 2000
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk
RE: Packet of August 31 st
There will be no packet next week.
Enjoy your Labor Day week-end.
Department of Parks &Recreation M IP6
Division of Parks, Forestry and CBD E M 0 I'z L N I,j M
TO: Steve Atkins ~///~~Lfi~
FROM: Terry Robinson, Park Superintendent ~.~,
DATE: August 18, 2000
REF: Use of Weed control Chemicals ~
Our policy/philosophy is to use the least amount of chemicals possible for the control of
weeds, and to strictly follow all label directions during the mixing, use and storage of the
chemicals.
We follow this policy by employing the use of chemicals only when other mechanical
means of removing weeds is not be feasible. For example, if pulling, mechanical tilling,
or mowing will work we use one or all of those techniques as our primary method of
removal. If tilling, mowing or pulling will not work, we will use chemical control.
Roundup is by far our most commonly used chemical. It provides a measure of control
that lasts several weeks longer that tilling or pulling weeds. It enables one person to
eliminate in one hour the number of weeds that would require three or four persons
multiple hours to accomplisk We have also used Banvel a selective broad leaf weed
killer, and Preen, a pre-emergent chemical treatment. These are not the only chemicals
that have been used, but they provide a very good view of the limited chemical treatment
we pursue. You may know that RoundUp is considered one of the most
environmentally friendly chemicals for weed control on the market today. Which is just
one more of the reasons we choose it over other chemical agents offered on the market.
On athletic fields our use of chemicals to control weeds is more intense than on any of
the general tuff in the parks. We time the use of chemicals to correspond with the
windows of opportunity when no activity occurs on the selected athletic field. These
windows are small and in some cases have been missed due to weather. We have had
success and the numbers of applications to achieve the desired results are decreasing.
The healthy more aggressive tuff assists in blocking out the weeds commonly seen in
other areas not maintained at such high levels.
We have in the past sprayed athletic fields but have almost eliminated it as part of our
treatment program in favor of a commercial grade granular "Weed & Feed". This change
allows us to eliminate the potential problems associated with chemical drif~ from spray
operations and has worked well.
To summarize, I believe we follow our policy/philosophy very well and use only those
chemicals in the amounts needed when other methods will not work.
CC. Terry Trueblood Director of Parks and Recreation
Mike Moran Superintendent of Recreation
IOWA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT ~/C/
USE OF FORCE REPORT ~
JUNE 2000
OFFICER DATE CASE # INCIDENT FORCE USED
36 06-02-00 2000-05114 Intoxicated Driver During O.W.I. processing, a subject
grabbed a pen, held it in a threatening
manner, and asked what he needed to
do to be shot. The subject refused to
drop the pen. The subject's arms were
physically put behind his back, he was
taken to the ground, and handcuffed.
26 06-09-00 2000-05348 Warrant Arrest During an investigation, an officer was
attempting to look through a subject's
purse. The subject tried to pull the
purse away. The officer grabbed hold
of the subject's wrist, she pulled away,
and the officer handcuffed her in a
prone position on a nearby couch.
92,49, 12 06-11-00 2000-05381 Fight / Riot Officers responded to a fight in the
plaza involving five males. Others in
the area joined in. A large crowd of
people (approximately 1,500) formed
and began to watch. Some in the crowd
attempted to assist those in the fight.
Officers from five law enforcement
agencies responded to the incident.
Approximately 10 persons were
arrested. Officers used OC spray
directly on four persons, and over the
crowd when it would not move back.
Those who still did not move were
arrested. Officers used hands-on
control to control the persons they
arrested and the crowd.
14 06-17-00 2000-05564 Assault A subject was told he was under arrest
for assault. The subject physically
resisted and a snuggle ensued. The
subject ended up on a bed, with his
arms under his body. The officer used a
wrist flex and eventually handcuffed
the subject.
87 06-17-00 2000-05591 Psychiatric Committal A subject had ingested a large amount
of alcohol and prescription medication.
The subject was resistant to going to
the hospital and had to be physically
placed on the gurney. The officer held
OFFICER DATE CASE # INCIDENT FORCE USED
the subject's wrist to prevent her from
unbuckling the gurney straps.
36 06-18-00 2000-05596 Fireworks / Noise Upon investigating a complaint of
Complaint fifeworks/noise, the officer made
contact with a subject at a residence.
The subject attempted to push the
officer and slam his arm in the door.
The subject was told he was under
arrest and continued to resist. The
officer sprayed the subject with OC,
after which he was handcuffed.
92 06-18-00 2000-05604 Fight After a fight, a subject attempted to
assault a person who was under arrest.
The subject was sprayed with OC.
19,45,51 06-18-00 2000-05624 Domestic Assault A subject was placed under arrest for
domestic abuse assault and was
handcuffed. While being patted down,
the subject physically resisted and
kicked at an officer. The officers used
hands-on controls and put the subject
on the ground until he called down.
24,51 06-21-00 2000-05714 Juvenile Out of Control Officers were called to assist with a
juvenile out of control at a youth
program. Officers assisted in carrying
the physically combative 8 year old
into the building and in holding him
down in the time out room. The
juvenile was also handcuffed until he
called down.
40 06-24-00 2000-05814 Public Intoxication A subject was arrested for public
intoxication and was handcuffed. The
subject then fled on foot. The officer
commanded the subject to stop, but he
refused. The officer tackled the subject.
13 06-26-00 2000-05888 Public Intoxication A subject was arrested for public
intoxication. After being handcuffed,
he refused to comply with an officer's
request to sit down. The officer used
hands-on control to sit the subject
down and to hold him there until it was
time for him to be transported.
CC: Chief
City Manager
Captains
Lieutenants
Library
City Clerk
Sgt. Hurd
IOWA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT
REPORT REVIEW
Month of July, 2000
~ B i B i R
SELLERS 1 0 JOHNSON 3 0 FORT 0 0
LALLA 4 0 STEFFEN I 0 .JACKSON 0 3
BROTHERTON 5 0 KREI 3 0 HBCK 3 1
MOORE 15 I SHAFFER 17 0 PRESTEGARD 8 2
COX 24 2 FOWt. ER 19 5 KIVI 12 0
SINGLEMAN 15 3 WELCH 12 4 ZACHARIAS 31 3
DRECKMAN 39 2 TREVINO 24 2 HOEFT 5 0
KNOCK 14 0 MARTIN 26 3 BLOMGREN 35 0
HUFF 5 2 FINK 28 4 HUMRICHOUSE 39 4
NOBLE 9 0 PLATZ 19 1 FORTMANN 24 2
LEIK 14 2 MCMARTIN 25 5 LIPPOLD 11 2
MAURER 28 I GIST 17 5 MEBUS 'f6 4
BERG 23 0 DENISON 20 2 JACOBS 33 0
HEWLETT 20 1 DROLL 2 2 KELSAY 14 1
MILLER 21 1 SAMMONS 17 2 NIXON 12 1
STEVA 18 1 FRANK 10 2 LORENCE 15 3
TACK 28 2 NANSEN 17 8
BAILEY 25 I COOK 33 4
HUMISTON 29 1
(s)= ,Sut3mlUed reports -- Due to the ~offm,Jter o'~noeover. the # oF !ulxneted reooe~ oer ofrger is sltohtlv ina~;aarmte OR)- Returned regxt~
~ DETECtiVE CSO
}. 8 s R ~ R
LUELLEN 10 7 WYSS 6 0 SOUS 3 0
BATCHELLER 10 2 LORD I 0 HARRIS I 0
AKERS 7 0 STRAND 3 0
GAARDE 9 4 SCHULTZ 7 0 MCCREEDY 4 0
DUFFY 0 0 AMBROSE 6 0
GASS 2 0
PROTASKEY 0 0
BOK 3 0
HART 10 0
CLARANAN 3 0
GONZALEZ 2 0
SUPERVISORS OTHER A881GNMENT~ DISPATCH
& ! B }. B
u, Fet MYERS 0 * 0 SEREDUCK 10 0
U.Johnson BOLAND I 0
U. Seams PETERSON 3 2
LL Wyss THOMAS 2 0
BOGS 8 0
sot. K~ei EVANS 2 0
sgt, Seen GERST 0 2
sot. Hum DROLL 1 0
sot. Lab MILLER I 4
SOt. Lore ROOKS 2 0
SOt. JacUon FUNRMEISTER I 3
Sg~. Smeertoa HBCK 3 1
SOt. Heck JEHLE 2 2
T{Xalrelx)ftssiOrledbySupervisoeslatretufnedwttherro~
# Of Dispatches 5927 Dispatches 1999
Case ;rs issued 1063 Case fs 1999
Repod error rate 12% ErTor rate 1999
DARE: Officer Myers
FTO:
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 21, 2000
To: City Council
From: Andy Matthews, Assistant City Attorney-~tfl'//
Re: Response to Council Inquiry Regarding Wastewater Plant & IDNR Penalties
At the last Council meeting, a request was made for additional information concerning plant
operations and performance problems which led to the IDNR penalties being assessed against the
City, pursuant to the consent order entered into between the parties. The plant performance
problems were attributable to a plugged manhole caused by an act of vandalism. As you know,
we are in the process of contesting those penalties.
Plant staff were making constant adjustments and changes to the treatment processes in an effort
to comply with effluent limits during the relevant time period until they discovered the actual
cause of the problem. These adjustments to operations and plant processes in treating the loads,
along with plant requests that certain industries reduce their loads while staff attempted to solve
the problem, and changes in weather which affect plant performance, all factored in to whether
there were effluent limit excesses for any particular month during this period of time. I have
attached a copy of a memo prepared by Dave Elias, Superintendent, Wastewater Division, which
describes the various steps and adjustments plant staff took in responding to this problem.
Monthly reports ~vere submitted to IDNR detailing plant performance, along with some follow-up
letters explaining the problems plant staff were experiencing during the relevant time period and
the steps they were taking in trying to resolve the difficulties. I do not believe Council was copied
on these submittals, as they were regular reports and correspondence which plant staff submits to
IDNR every month. Had staff known that penalties were likely to be assessed as a result of the
vandalized manhole which affected plant performance, I have no doubt that a memo would have
been prepared for Council.
With respect to the question asked regarding comparisons between Iowa City and other cities who
may have been cited, or were complained of to IDNR by the local Environmental Advocates
group, staff does not keep such information, and each city's claimed violations differed, so
comparisons would not be very useful. However, staff has written IDNR, inquiring into the
matter per a council member's request.
We have not yet heard back from IDNR regarding our formal request to meet and discuss the
penalties. We should be hearing back from staff at IDNR in the near future and I will keep
Council advised as to the status of these discussions, and of our appeal of the penalties.
Please do not hesitate to call or stop by if you have any questions.
Attachment
cc: Eleanor Dilkes, City Attomey
Stephen Atkins, City Manager
Dale Helling, Assistant City Manager
Marian Karr, City Clerk
Chuck Schmadeke, Director of Public Works
Dave Elias, Superintendent, Wastewater Division
MEMOIPANDIJM ~
From~ ~
Date: August 15, 2000 [ Iowa City Wastewater
Re: Plugged Manhole and plant problems last winter and Landfill Divisions
Them were several factors occurring simultaneously last fall and winter that impacted the treatment process.
They're convergence made it very difficult to determine the biggest cause of the process upset that became so
unmanageable in December. The conditions persisted into April of this spring.
Plant operators were required to take some very extraordinary measures to bring the plant back into compliance
after December, when effluent limits for suspended solids were exceeded.
The Willow Creek interceptor sewer was "cut in" at several places during the month of October. Flows and
loading increased about 20%. At the same time, P&G was maximizing their load to the South Plant after
bringing on line their new equalization basins. We had anticipated the steady increase in CBOD loading, and
were making process adjustments. However, the amount of load registered at the South Plant did not balance
well with the expected levels.
On December 21, P&G was asked to cut their discharge to the South Plant by 40%. This did not have the
anticipated effect. All available Aeration Basin capacity was put on-line. (Normal operation requires 75%.) On
February I, they were asked to cut all discharge to the South Plant, and route it to the North Plant.
In February, operators pumped two Semi Truck loads of hydrated lime into the primary clari~ers, and hauled out
3 million gallons of liquid sludge in an attempt to stabilize the process. This effort was successful, however,
process loading parameters were still not balancing. The Wastewater Division also obtained a used "gravity belt
sludge thickener" to assist in controlling what was now thought to be a permanent sludge settling problem.
An observant South Plant operator noted "shampoo suds" when none at all were supposed to be present. This
led to the evaluation of sewer lines within the P&G compound. No anomalies were found. Upstream of P&G's
south discharge point was showing foam, however, which led to a wider evaluation of the sewer collection
system. On April 13, ten blocks from the industry, a manhole was found holding water. This particular
manhole had an older line with no services on it, which could function as a relief sewer between the two major
interceptors headed to the two separate plants. The plugged manhole caused the sewage from the P&G North
discharge to flow backwards for 7 blocks and enter the SE Interceptor headed to the South Plant. In effect, all of
the industrial waste was going to the South Plant instead of all going to the North. (Note the attached sewer map
and treatment plant loading charts .) No public complaints of sewer backup problems had been received, despite
the manhole holding 5' of wastewater.
The manhole hole was partially unplugged on April 13. It required two more days of work by three men to
remove approximately 8 wheelbarrows full of 6-8" stone. It was clear the material was from the railroad bank,
and had been in the manhole for sometime, as sludge had "cemented" the rock into a mass. A pickax, bucket
and rope were the only effective tools.
Normal plant loadings were restored on the 14th of April, including 40% of the original industrial load to the
South Plant. Within a week, all process parameters had returned to normal, including ammonia removal.
G:\I_Wwtd~CORRESF~IAMEMO.DOC
1000 South Clinton Street, Iowa City, IA 52240
Phone: 319-356-5178 -- Fax: 319-356-5172