HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-11-15 CorrespondenceL
WAIVER OF NOTICE AND CALL 01" SPECIAL MEETING
TH UNDERSIGNED, Mayor and Councilpersons, being all
the members of the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, and all
being present at a special meeting of the City Council held
at 4:30 o'clock, P.M., on the 15th day of November 119 82
in the Conference Room at the Civic Center in Iowa
City, Iowa, do hereby waive any and all requirements of the
calling of a special meeting, pursuant to the Ordinances
and Resolutions of the City of Iowa City, as to notice of time
and place of the meeting and do hereby consent to the holding
of said special meeting for the purpose of consideration by City
Council of Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation to rezone College
Hill Park/South Dodge Street Neighborhood zone moratorium r he Council
on
cil
on by
bUll]IUCI u11C ur more cnan es in the Planning and Zoning recommendat
and in that event the changes will beincorporate into a motion y oul
ng
to refer the chaes back to Planning and Zoning for further considerat
+A + k-,..
Dated this 15th day of N„vemhar , 19 82
Kate Dickson
1'UA„L� �1
mart' . �r PalieP�llnl�l
Eneunau
David Perret
111CROFILnED BY
JORM MICROLAB
i CEDAR RAPIDS • DES IODIDES
1
I
Plover!ber 171082
May l.,
,a e lso file Crr written objections tc the T•.rcliesed zone
crrcnre of our property at 1009 E."olle_e St,
We 1' Ivo continued to use the over 1C0 •;e. -.r old house as a 2
family hone but have ];ncTa7 for rauty year, that the*"cst ob^icuse use,
if We should sell,IFould be an apartment hril.dir.r to conform ldith the
land use on tpe adjcinir.17 pronerty,
The Star+nit and Burlington ,mart ent bni.ldin.:- vore b.ilt before
1930. Each of then h<Ivo at lea:,t 16 units, The apartrTent buildin;- to the
M-cuetth,1016 East iurlinFton,has 12 nni
etter ts,This replaces 2 houses structurally
than the one T•re occupy at 1009 E. "ollere.
Sin -e there are already 3 or more apart -
apartment buildings of 12
rents in our blcek cur let is less or to anyone who world want to
build a single fanily here or a duplex.
Si hr erly
LA"
This lot comprises arnroxir,ately 14,11r so, feet r -ore than adequate
for an apartment and required parkin- space.
°CE 0NOV 5 1982
ABBE $TOLFllS
CITY CLFRx
19 Y-6
mcRDEILBED BY
J
JORM MICRL AS
E�
.I
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOVES
i
i
j I
i�
r
n
HAYEK, HAYEK, HAYEK a HOLLAND
ATTORNEYS AT LAW AREA ECDI 310
WILL J. HAYrH 337.9000
JOHN W. HAYEK 110 EAST WASHINGTON OTHEET
C. YLTI.H HAYEK IOWA CITY. IOWA 02240-31075
C. JD•LPH HOLLAND (�
October 29, 1982 O y II II
OCT2)
ABBIE STOLFUS
CITY CLERK.
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Iowa City Civic Center
Iowa City, Iowa 52290
Re: John and Peter Hayek Objection to Proposed College
Hill Rezoning Ordinance
Honorable Mayor and Council Members:
My brother and I own property located at 1003 East
Washington Street in Iowa City as well as 83.1 East College
Street and 215 South Governor Street in Iowa City all three
of which are located within the boundaries of the proposed
rezoning which you have before you for consideration. We
want to be clearly of record as objecting to the proposed
rezoning ordinance and the rezoning of our property. Please
consider this letter a protest against such rezoning. I
would like an opportunity to speak with you on this matter
at the public hearings on the proposed rezoning ordinance.
JWH:P1
Very truly yours,
4Joh W. aye
MitROFILIdCD BY
I JORM MICRfSLAB-
I CEDAR RAPIDS •DES t•101 AES
l9y4
HAYEK, HAYEK, HAYEK & HOLLAND
WILLJ. OAYtK ATTORNEYS AT LAW AREA CODE ala
JOHN W. HAYEK 110 EAST WASHINGTON 57REET 337.9606
C. PLIC" HAYEK IOWA CITY. IOWA 52240-3P70
C. JOSEPH HOLLANO
October 29, 1982 � n
E DID
OCT 2) 1922
ABBIE STGLFUS.
Mayor and Members of the City Council CITY CLERK
Iowa City Civic Center
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Re: David and Jan Loney Objections to College Hill
Rezoning Ordinance
Honorable Mayor and Council Members:
I am writing to you on behalf of our clients, David and
Jan Loney, who own property located at 200 South Summit
Street in Iowa City. It is my clients' understanding that
the City Council is considering a proposed ordinance which
would rezone the Loney property from its current status as
R3A zoning to an R2 zone. My purpose in writing to you on
behalf of the Loneys is to protest against and object to
this proposed rezoning.
My clients' property is located on a lot approximately
100 feet by 100 feet in dimension. The lot contains therefor
10,000 square feet of land. It is occupied by a house of
approximately 40 feet by 40 feet in dimension which contains
nine bedrooms plus a full basement. The house was con-
structed in the early 1900's and as near as we can determine
was originally used and intended as a multi -family home.
Indeed we think that it was used for student housing either
as a fraternity house or a similar multi -family structure
from its construction onwards for some time. The house was
designed and used, as indicated, as a multi -family structure.
Although the Loneys are currently only themselves occupying
the house, they are planning to move from the Iowa City area
in the near future and must, therefore, place this house on
the market for sale. The sale price that they will be able
to realize from the sale of this property will be greatly
reduced in the event the zoning is changed from R3A to R2.
This considerable drop in property value will result
from several factors. As indicated, the house is designed
as a multi -family structure. Duplex usage of the property
I.1ICROULMED BY
JORM MIC ROLAB
� CEDAR RAPIDS DES 140IYES
i
/9y6
r
Mayor and City Council
Page Two October 29, 1982
would simply not be feasible without considerable structural
alteration and then given the size and configuration of the
home duplex usage would not be desirable. The proposed
rezoning would reduce the number of dwelling units that
could exist in this property from ten to two. You can image
the substantial effect on the propertyvalue of this home
that will result. Further, we would like to call your
attention to the extensive multi -family usage that surrounds
the Loney property in this part of Iowa City. This multi-
family usage will no doubt not change even if you adopt the
proposed rezoning. It is, we think, significant that the
rezoning proposal retains R3A zoning on the south half of
the block in which the Loney home is located. Multi -family
zoning is retained even under the proposal across the street
to the west of the Loney property and will no doubt continue
across the street to the north.
We believe that rezoning of the Loney property from R3A
to R2 is not only bad from a public policy standpoint but is
in effect confiscatory and illegal. We, therefore, urge you
to vote against the proposed ordinance.
very truly yours,
Joh W.,}yH` ayek
JWH:pl
cc: Mr. and Mrs. David Loney
I•ticwr RMED DY
JORM MICR46LAB
j CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOVIES
i
_ J
F I L F a
0CT2) 19,32
ABBIE STOLFUS
CITY CLERK
/946
1
r
HAYEK. HAYEK. HAYEK & HOLLAND
w�Ll J. uA VES ATTORNCYS AT LAW
JOHN W.HAT[3 110 [AST wnv AREA COD[ ],0
HINOTUN SWEET
C. PETER HAYEA mwA CRY. IOWA suaD. 337.9606
C. JOSEPH HOLLAND ]G /S
October 29, 1982
odd
OCT2919R2.
Mayor and Members of the City Council a Bf3�S I.F
TOLFUS
Iowa City Civic Center ITY CI.�,
R'.,
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Re: Marjorie Hayek Objections to College Hill Rezoning
Ordinance
Honorable Mayor and Council Members:
I am writing to you on behalf of my mother, Marjorie
Hayek, who owns property located at 1025 East Washington
Street in Iowa City. It is our understanding that the City
Council is considering an ordinance which would rezone this
property from its current status as R3A zoning to an R2
zone. My purpose in writing to you on behalf of my mother
is to strongly protest and object to this proposed rezoning.
1025 East Washington Street has been owned by my father
and mother for over 40 years. Throughout this period of
time it has been used as a multi -family residence. The
building contains seven apartment units. The building is in
extremely obsolescent condition. I do not know the age of
the building, but it is old. Although I have not yet had an
opportunity to check back through our records, it is our
recollection that each year since approximately 1970 or
1971, we have been required by your housing enforcement
staff to spend well in excess of $1,000.00 in each of those
years to maintain minimum housing standards. Indeed in sev-
eral of the last few years several thousands of dollars were
required. It is my understanding that the housing inspec-
tion department is preparing a report as a result of its
most recent inspection which we estimate will again require
the expenditure of several thousands of dollars simply to
maintain this building. Further, we anticipate that the
housing inspection department will attempt to close some of
the apartment units because of insufficient ceiling heights.
I hope that we do have the housing inspector's report by the
time of the public hearing on this zoning matter so that you
141CROEILI4ED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES
/9y6
1
k1
r
Mayor and Council Mcmbers
Paye Two
FOCT 29 198? IJ
:3B;E STOLFUc.
October 29, 1982
can see the types of maintenance expenses and costs that are
required with this building.
My purpose in telling you about the extensive main-
tenance expenses largely caused by your own housing en-
forcement program is to bring to your attention the fact
that the building we do own is on the verge of becoming
uneconomic to maintain and use. The logical thing to do
when that point is reached is to tear the building down and
build a new multi -family structure. Your proposed zoning
ordinance would prohibit this.
The lot at 1025 East Washington Street is 170 feet
north and south by 75 feet east and west. It, therefore,
contains 12,750 square feet. Under the R3A zoning category,
12 apartment units could be constructed on that property.
Under the proposed zoning ordinance you have before you for
consideration only two units could be built on that property.
Under the current zoning category of R3A the property
at 1025 East Washington Street, we believe, is worth in
excess of $140,000.00. Indeed, recently my father's undiv-
ided one-half interest in the property was valued at $80,000.00
in his estate proceedings. Imagine if you can what the
property is worth zoned R2. Although the existing building
could continue in use, as I understand it, under the proposed
ordinance, that is not an effective remedy for us because as
indicated above and as will be demonstrated at the public
hearing, this building is nearing the end of its economically
useful life. Therefore, a prospective purchaser can only
reasonably anticipate having to remove the building and,
under your proposed ordinance, build a duplex on the lot.
Duplex lots in the Iowa City area are selling for around
$15,000.00. However, a prospective purchaser of our property
would have to consider the cost of demolition. I believe
that if you adopt the proposed rezoning ordiance and rezone
this property from R3A to R2, you will have in effect
confiscated this property and for all intents and purposes
deprived us of any ecomonic use of the property. You will
have done so without due process of law and without fair
compensation to us for the property value you will have
taken. I think you can understand our concern and indeed
dismay about this proposed ordinance. lie think any action
to adopt this ordinance will have the effect of costing us
over $100,000.00 in loss of property value. Ile will not
voluntarily allow this to happen.
/9f �
I
111CROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAG '
j CEGAR RAPIDS • DES MOL^IES
1
J
Mayor and Council Members
Page Three October 29, 1982
Frankly, we fail to see the need for adopting any
change in the zoning in this area. The property along
Washington Street and in this whole area has been zoned R3A
for decades_ Persons who have purchased property and moved
into the area have done so with knowledge of the zoning that
existed. We fail to see the need to change that zoning at
this time, particularly given the extreme hardship that such
a zoning change will work on the property described above as
well as other properties owned by us and others in this
area.
very truly yours,
Cy*
Hayek
JWH.pl
t
�5 s
OCra_,; , L
as,_:_ s:CLFUS
Clil' CLERK
MIERO(ILIIED BY
I. JORM MIC RdLAB -)
J
CEDAR RANDS• DES MOI YES
r
L
v
' ll
To the Planning and Zoning Commission:
623 Fast College Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
mailed September 11, 1982
Bethany Beach, Del. 19930
Because I shall be out of town at the time of the Commission's
public hearing on rezoning In the so-called moratorium area, I am taking
the liberty of presenting my Ideas this way.
To me, the adoption of the newly devised neighborhood conservation
zone for the entire area would' make more sense, and be ooze pleasing
to more people,- than, any other suggestion voiced thus far.
2. It stabilizes the situation, which, in my view, is a decent
compromise between those of us who want a rezoning to B3 and
those who view the area as a site for Investment.
3. It avoids patchwork and, because boundaries are mostly straight
lines, it minimizes the frictions of Interface.
4. It supports the basic purpose of the Comprehensive Plan In
protecting the neighborhood while also providing for orderly growth.
This protection, I feel strongly, Is essential because I think we
are at a crisis point. We still have enough, though barely enough,
traditional homes and pleasant lawns and great trees and open
space to maintain neighborhood integrity against the influx of
boundary -to -boundary apartment -and -parking -lot complexes. But I
doubt we can do this much longer. Truly, I do.
If the proposed zone (I believe St's called ANC 20) proves legally
Inconsistent with the city code, then I would speak for the rezoning of
the whole area to the new AM 20 (or is It HM 20?...St's the one with a
base of around 1800 square feet per living unit, multiple housing) which,
as I see it, has all the good points of the neighborhood conservation
zone except those concerned with nonconformities. If these nonconformities
then are the central problem, and if the concern centers on the restraints
on rebuilding after a 50% or more loss, why can't that ruling be restated
to allow rebuilding to present state? With that change I would think that
the present grandfather provision would constitute adequate protection and,
in that way;• handle the nonconformity problem.
I am unalterably opposed to the concept of high-density corridors In
our area. We are too small an area to survive such segmentation. I
maintain that any corridor bleeds over from the boundary alley onto the
rest of the block. (I know. I live across the alley In a block newly densedl
For all practical purposes, as I see it, an Iowa Avenue corridor would
mean that the strip two blocks wide, Washington to Jefferson, would suffer
the effects of high-density development, just as a Burlington Street
corridor would have that effect on the strip, two blocks wide, College to
Court. This leaves clear only the strip, one block wide, College to
Washington, for lower -density zoning. Nibbling by corridors would quite
effectively destroy this neighborhood, I think, and I cr-age at what it
would do to College Hill Park which, since the town's very beginning, has
stood as a communitAtreasure.
h ICRDEILMED Ly
JORM MICR40LAB
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOIRES
1
J
r
L.
Page 2 ... to the Planr'�S and Zoning Commission.. rothY Moeller
In the discussions that have been going on these many months, re
zoning our neighborhood, I am t
a community, empted to suggest that we might do well,
In to examine the generally accepted notion of heed for
In close -in high-density housing (what kind? for whom? at what
and whose expense? in whose interest? in terms of whose responsibility?
etc.), but suppose we accept that notion as valid. Then I would make
three observations:
1.' South Gilbert Street, South Van Buren Street, lower South Johnson
Street, and the undeveloped area down by the tracks offer
development possibilities of some magnitude since these neighbor-
hoods already have shifted or clearly are in the process of
shifting to high-density housing.
2• Areas toble ibard the end of bus lines, where space is available, Seem
People
aseemsitosfavor dhousingewith(breatThe hin alk Zsphearace among young
in high-density crowded -in structures.) g Pace over housing
3• The so-called moratorium area has not been remiss in providing
housing well beyond the level envisioned when this was a single-
family neighborhood. We have some apartment houses built well
and in a style appropriate to the neighborhood, for example, the
one on the southeast corner of the College -Johnson intersection.
In addition, and even more to the point, we have many homes-_
well over half, I suspect --_that have offered hospitality by
creating rental room space and rental apartment space within
existing structures, thus saving housing stock, filling a social
need, and, at the same time, honoring the integrity of the
neighborhood. I think we have done our fair share, and more!
I am fully aware that adoption of either the neighborhood conservation
ofnthoseOwho havezone askedould for ao14 changeatoeB3rallealoh included, for Z'm one
either of these two new dasignatlans Would come closer thanut lathink nything helse
I've heard of to pleasing a very great many people, again me included.
I feel if the neighborhood can be left whole that there would be something
particularly aslutexy in adoption of either of these new zones by a
unanimous vote of your Bommiasion and then by a unanimous
That sense of unity (whole area, whole Commission, vote of the Council.
whole Council) would
hearten us all I do believe.
Thank you for reading. My beat to you as you wrestle with our
problem.
We are all In your debt.
S1 erely,
information copies
Dorothy Moe ler (Mrs. Leslie G.)
to Council and
City Manager
FIICROE I LMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
_CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES
1
J
L
w w ' l 11
1oeeAl/n� 5V✓pp�. I
WL lit k�7- J t7 S d.0D� L ,iE
�.27 � title eve uuti•
44 Oct �2
,4
t44 � ur
I
I
141CROFILIIED BY
JORM MOCROLA13 ]
i
CEDAR RAPIDS •DES tADIYES
r
JI
r
704 Caroline Avenue
Iowa City, IA 52240
August 7, 1982
Dear Mr. Jordan,
As a member of the House Corporation Board for Delta Zeta
sorority, I am personally interested in the plans to down zone
the College Hill Park area. Our sorority is located on the cor-
ner of Dodge and Burlington Streets, adjacent to property owned
by William Terry. After watching Mr. Terry build a modern nine-
plex next door, it is apparent that the "quality. of life" will
be changed in the area if building of this sort continues un-
restricted.
The change in structural design, widely differing easements,
and dramatic increases in population are all problems readily
highlighted by this new construction. Repair and/or refurbishment
of existing homes seems a much more suitable proposition. Con-
version of homes into several apartments rather than razing would
seem a plausible alternative. The area immediately adjacent to
College Hill Park consists of well -kept homes with pleasing
architectural designs. By down -zoning this area to R3 you would
be helping mjintain part of this historic district in Iowa City.
I urge your support in this matter.
Sincerely,
.�G�
Sue Dane
9
L
i
I•IIDRDEILMED BY
J
JORM MIC ROLAB
i
\ � � CEDAR RAI'I DS • DES MOINES
ILL.
r
903 East College
Iov:a City, Iowa 52240
10 August 1982
Dear Mr. Seward:
We are members of the College Hill Park Neighbors
and are writing to ask you to keep in mind in your
deliberations our request to keep the densities of
the neighborhood as low as possible.
Sinceerely,
Sherman and G.M. Paul
I
MICROf ILMED BY
I JORM MICR6LAB
I
CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES �
I
IMe
J
RECEIVED JUN 1 7 1982
June 16, 1982
427 S. Governor
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Iowa City Council
Civic Center
410 Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Dear Mayor and Council- Members-..
I was disturbed when I read the June 15 Press Citizen concerning
the, Council proceedings.. relative to the building moratorium
now under consideration. I believe if certain members or
member of the Council feel it's appropriate to doubt the
integrity of Mr. Furman,a construction, or anyother contractor,
it seems also appropriate that the necessary actions be
instigated immediately to amend the City's present building
codes so as to protect the health, safety and welfare of all
citizens. You should not tolerate sub—standard construction
methods that are now obviously allowed!
I agree with Mr. Lynch, Mr. Furman and all. other building
contractors who are governed by our Cityta code, deserve a
sincere apology.
I also believe that all members of the Council should investigate
some of the past studies that have been conducted concerning
the locations of high density housing and the resultant
recommendations.
Sincerely,
Tim Brandt
427 S. Governor
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
cc: Press Citizen
lNe
MICRO(ILMED By
JORM MiC RQL4B 1
L1 i CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES
i
r
L
6/14/x2
Mary Neuhauser, Mayor
City of Iowa City
Dear Mrs. Neuhauser,
You and the rest of the City Council recently received a letter from Mr.
E. H. Borchardt asking that all proceedings of the Planning and Zoning Commission
related to the moratorium and re -zoning of certain areas be set aside because of a
conflict of interest on my part. I had not planned to comment on this letter,
especially since Iwas assured by the City Attorney that I was not guilty of any
such conflict.
However, since talking to Mr. Jansen I have taken the time to get a copy of
Mr. Borchardt's letter and read it. I was disappointed to find that he had not
only lifted statements of mine out of context but that he had also misquoted me
entirely. Although it is probably not necessary, I thought I should supply some
more information to supply a proper context in which to consider Mr. Borchardt's
letter.
He attachedtwo letters bf mine to his letter. The first was an original draft
of a guest editorial submitted to the Press -Citizen. An abridged version of this
letter later appeared in the PC, with some of the admittedly inflammatory rhetoric
toned down. The original version was circulated to residents of Dodge street to
elicit their comments. Mr. Borchardt's response came to me in a letter dated 11/16/81
(copy attached). My letter of 11/17/81 is in response to that letter. I have no
apologies for either of my letters, though I am a little embarrassed by the strident
tone of the first. I have no second thoughts about the second letter.
This purpose of this letter, however, is not self-defense. I would just like to
point out that five of the six "quotes" attributed to me are distortions, if not
flagrant misrepresentations. Mr. Borchardt's usual method of quoting me is to take
a phrase or part of a sentence I did write and then combine it with another phrase
from another sentence to form a new fragment. His most disturbing habit, however, is
taking part of one of my sentences and then adding his own words while enclosing the
whole thing in quotes. For example: ". .412 S. Dodge St.,, a house that disappeared
overnight was replaced by a new and modern 8 plex. " My exact words were: "The house
at 412 South Dodge disappeared overnight, leaving a blank lot between two older houses.
The demolition permit was issued November 4,tha building permit for an 8 -unit apartment
issued November 9."
All these, I admit, are not libelous. But they are certainly unethical, and I
think they are a conscious effort on Mr. Borchardt's part to deceive the Council.
I apologize for making this letter longer than I had intended. I hope that any
further correspondence from Mr. Borchardt will be given the careful scrutiny it
deserves.
Thank you for hearing me out.
Larry Baker
521 South Dodge
F11LRDf1L1•IED B1'
JORM MICR46LAB
!
CEDAR RAPIDS - DES '4014ES
i
/9y6
1
J
E H. BORCHARDT
516 So. Dodge Street
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
Nov 16 1981
PHONE 117-9028
E 77B,r t .
I,
i
I
1 .
l`
141CROMMED BY
JORM MICR46l_AB- _
CEDAR RAPIDS •DES 61011tlC5
7 � �
i J
Larry Baker
521 S Dodge St
Iowa City, Iowa,
Dear Sir:
1 found your mimograph letter in my door
this morning. You have your opinion I have
mine, and I disagree with you 10041.,
In my opinion .lame; Clark is a public
benefactor and deserves much pore than
YOU hand out for his effort.
For your information the house at 412 S
Dodgebeyond!-repair
st was beyond) repair f nr habitation.
It
.
had been condemor occupancy by the
City. Like the old people who enjoyed that..
house for 65 years it was best relegated
i
to the dump and the new structure that will
be
built there Will be an improvement to
the
street.
You sound to me like you have been out in
the sun to Long. Watch it., protect your
health, get plenty of sleep, take
your
vitamins and life might look better to
ymu down the road.
Cheers,
E 77B,r t .
I,
i
I
1 .
l`
141CROMMED BY
JORM MICR46l_AB- _
CEDAR RAPIDS •DES 61011tlC5
7 � �
i J
r
June 7 1982
Hon Mayor K•jary C Neulrauser and City Council members:
hes The Co1L-ege Hill moratorium and proposed zone
change.
There is a very clear conflict of interest in this issue
by a member of the Planning & Zoning Commission, Mr Larry
Baker.
i•1r Baker owr.Is property in the area proposed for down zoning.
Becamse of this he should have disqualified himself in
any action regarding this area.
Following are quotes by Mr Baker in letters to me and to
citizens of Iowa City.
He refers r o: "mere property owners"
". .certain real estate developers..."
". .proparty owners on S Johnson St and S Dodge St
are victims of commercial rape. ."
". . .412 •' Dodge St, a house that disappeared overnight
was replaced by a new and modern 8 plex. ."
It the man who built the structure is guilty of
blatant greed. . . . "
" . the developer represents a commercial mentality
that sees housing as only a means of making money. . ."
These are Mr Baker's ideas expressed in writing to people
of Iowa City. We have no quarrel with his thinking, BUT in
the orderly proceeding of a Planning and Zoning Commission
affecting the property of, and rights of developers, these
ideas are just to far advanced for this tine.
I ask that any and all proceedings of the P & Z commission
be set aside because of this conflict of interest by Mir Baker/
E $orchardt
F o L E
JUN 7 1982
ABBIE STOLFUS
• CITY CLERK
MICRDIILMCD DY
JORM MICROLAO
j CEDAR RAPIDS • DES 1401NES
t
/9,e/6
1
J
in thO r�ca�;l_ ,
'd],th dV: IJ i'. Jia " Cli" Rllt'i[X tiCCl: C(f 1: �. : _ 'lrrc:C•lY1tQ of ('] attPllCtU1CO
f_
`.
llx:
11/17/81
F.H. Borchardt
516 South Dodge
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
De . Rorchardt,
received
do not agree with omy view eoftthe construction d"problem"uet4412 SouthpDodge. that you
This letter is not meant to begin a life -time correspondence, but I thought you
might appreciate some response. Perhaps we can meet face to face sometime
greater detail about some of the implications of apartment construction on and g' into
Dodg,.
But, for now, only a few remarks.
MY
is irrelevant opinion o
anttothelm Clark is certaproblem on Dodge iny
Jim Clark as a
forthe412 construction and he has been responsible for similar house -removals and apartment
replacements in numerous other parts of town(for example: on the lot immediately behind
my home). Mr. Clark's importance is more symbolic. He represents a commercial mentality
that sees housing as only a means of making money, making money regardless of the
consequences to those people, like myself and many others, who want to preserve the
"integrity" of a neighborhood as a place to grow up in and to grow old in. I put quotation
marks around integrity because it is a very abstract word. Depending on your priorities,
it means a great deal ....... or it means nothing.
Yes, I was well aware of the condition of the house at 412. I[ was awful. But I
think you should ask yourself why it was in such awful condition.
under the present zoning classification to maintain that house? ThWas there any incentive
significant only in :he context of another, more fundamentalat question is
, question. Should an
established, older, neighborhood prefer to have single-family or perhaps two-family
dwellings instead of high density apartments? Should that neighborhood prefer housing
that is aesthetically compatible with each other? (Yes.... aesthetics is very much part
of the "integrity" of a neighborhood) Should that neighborhood prefer not to suffer from
inadequate parking space? Should not the people who are raising families in that neigh-
borhood prefer to encourage more families to move in? Should not retired people in that
neighborhood(like the Theobalds at 530 South Dodge, who have lived in their home almost
40 years) prefer a quiet street to live on? (Did you really mean it when you said "Like
the old people who enjoyed that house for 65 years it was best relegated to the dump...."?)
]Obviously, my most adamant disagreement with you would be with your statement that
"the new structure that will be built there will be an improvement to the street."
have you told that to the man who lives immediately south of the construction? I have talkec
to him. So should you. Ci^ perhaps you should talk to the people(like the Shuppy family)
across from you. How do they feel? Would you really believe it an improvement if that
apartment were being built next to you? If something is not done to preserve the existing
housing on Dodge. ..then you will indeed know how they feel.
But, I am getting too self-righteous. Your last paragraph..... well, I'll take that
with thtfiroverbial grain of salt. Yes, I am upset at what is happening on Dodge. I am sorry
you are not.
g to
my
voice
lyourthink
opinthe
ionPress-citizen
— thein also. I amnlooking nforward tto"responding"toer as a guestiYour arespI hope you
onse. The
more public debate.. -tile 'better.
Cheers,
Larry Baker cp�
P?
L
111CRor IL14ED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES V1: ES
FLED
JUN 71982
ABBIE STOLFUS
CIN CLERK
/9yG
1
J
r I I
E. H. BORCHARDT PHONE 337-9038
516 So. Dodge Street
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
May 10 1982
Don Schmeiser
Planning & Zoning
Iowa City, Iowa.
Dear Sir:
For the record, I strongly request that the zon-
ing in the area south of Burlington street, west
of the alley between Lucas and Dodvge st, and
east of VanBuren st, (including both sides of S
Van Buren) be allowed to remain zon2d R3A.
This area Ss predominately apartments at this
time.
Houses in this area are predominately rooming
houses at this time.
Very few remaing single family houses wish the
zoning to be changed.
Retaining the R3A zoning for this area could
result in a continuing of upgrading by the
establishment of new and modern apartment
living.
To place a moratorium on building in this area
would present a hardship on employers and emp-
loyees at a time when such action is not good
for the economy of Iowa City,
Few builders can manage financing at this time
and to those who can proceed would be an aid
to employment in Iowa City.
Cutting off at Burlington street would be's
sensible compromise in the issue as this area
is now predominately multi -family zoning.
Yourrst ul
E orc a t
/9y6
Il`
MICROFILMED BY
�F JORM MICR0LAt3
Li CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOIRES
r � i
r
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 12, 1982
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
RE: Material in Friday's Packet
Memorandum from John Balmer regarding College Hill rezoning.
i Ill
Memoranda from the City Manager:
a. Authority of the Board of Adjustment
b. Health Awareness Program
Memorandum from the Assistant City Manager regarding Melrose Court improvements.
Memoranda from the Finance Director:
rp
a. Implementation of the Hotel/Motel Tax
b. Transit Funding Alternatives
Jy
Memoranda from the Director of Housing and Inspection Services:
a. Home Town Dairies - Noise Readings
b,
Jy >
Rental Permit and Structure Compliance Certification Fees
�Jri
Memorandum from the Director of Public Works regarding November meeting
Waste Water Facility Committee.
of the
< rr
Page 3 of ordinance establishing Historic Preservation Commission with
change underlined in Section III.
B.
qrf
Copy of ruling in Oaknoll case.
141CROEIU•ff0 6Y
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES
1
J�
r
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 12, 1962
TO: City Council
FROM: John Balmer
RE: College Hill Rezoning
I would recommend the following changes to the proposed zoning of College
Hill:
The R-2 proposal be changed to RNC -20.
There was some discussion regarding the western portion of the block
of Johnson Street between Burlington and College Streets. It is proposed
that this remain R3A, and the suggestion has been made to possibly change
this to RNC -20. I would probably be amenable to this.
MICROFILMED DY
i
JORM M'CROLAG
j CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES
I
1944
City of Iowa Citi '
MEMORANDUM
Date: - November 10, 1982
To: City Council
From: City Manager —97
Re: Authority of the Board of Adjustment
Enclosed is a recent decision of the Iowa Supreme Court relating to the
authority of the Board of Adjustment. This case is relevant to our recent
discussion.
bdw/sp
Enclosure
cc: Board of Adjustment
MICROFILMED BY t
DORM MICR6LAE3
CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES
a
198
1
��1
L-',
uAALtAhU Y. bOAAD OF ALVI)STMENT, E'rt:. Iowa 'M
Ota erns, m NM4,1 m
degree of rational understanding—and defendant did not raise the Ism of eompe-
whether he hu a rational as well u factual tency to enter. a plea an a denial of due
understanding of the proceedings against pro" rights. We ruled in Carstaes v.
him." Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. Rans, 210 N.W2d 668 (Iowa 1973 that
402, 402, 80 S.CL 788, 785, 4 L.Fd.2d 824, post -conviction relief was not available to s
825 (1960), defendant who failed to raise the issue of
[71 Applying these standards to our de
novo review of the record, see State v.
Boone, 298 N.W.2d 335, 337-8 (Iowa 1980),
we conclude that there is not a bona ride
reason for the trial court to question de.
fendant's competency. Defendant exhibit-
ed no irrational behavior and there is no
suggestion in the record that his demeanor
was other than good. No comment was
made by defense counsel or the trial court,
who was in a better position to observe
these factors than our examination of a cold
record. Defendant was represented by
counsel throughout who raised no question
as to his Fompetency. It is We that a
medical report indicated some mental prcb•
lam. The problem, however, is not suffi-
ciently defined so that we are able to judge
whether the psychiatrist was concerned
about the defendant's possible sexual &her.
rations or his competency to stand - trial.
There is also no psychiatric testimony in the
record as to defendant'a mental condition
indicating that an evaluation should be
obtaimd before further peoebadings were
held. The record it thus entirely unlike
that of Robinson where the defendant had a
long history of unprovoked violence, suicide,
a disturbed mind with abnormal actions,
and testimony from four defense witnesses
who said that Fie was insane. Robinson, 381
U.S. at 882-83, 86 S.CL at 840141, 16
LEd2d at 821-21. It is also unlike Drape
where the defendant shot himself in a sui-
cide attempt shortly after the commence-
ment of trial. Drops, 420 U.S. at 166, 95
S.CL at 901, 43 LEd2d at 110. We thug
hold that, on the basis of thie'record, the
trial court's failum to hold a competency
hearing under section 8125 did not deny the
defendant due process.
III. Although it is not necesury for this
decision, we find it appropriate to comment
concerning defendant's post -conviction
rights. We specifically pointed out that
competency on appeal. Id. at 666. In Car,
stens the issue of insanity and competency
were before the trial court Here, no such
claims were made before the trial court,
and we have not passed on them on appeal.
These claims are still available to the de-
fendant on post -conviction proceedings,
See 4 663A.8, The Code.
AFFIRMED.
All Justices concur, except CARTER, J.,
takes no part.
w
n Dmasarmne
Charles D. GRAZIANO and Canine IL
Gesdaao, Apoa sratIN
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF the
CITY OF DIS MOINFB, Appellee,_.
and
Walter E. Stohigren, Intervenor.
No. 6.5W&
Supreme Court of Iowa
Aug. 25, 1981
Certiorari action was brought to chal-
lenge legality of toning board of adjust-
ment's issuance of a :ening variation, The
Polk District Court, Van Wifvat, J, af-
firmed the board's action and the Court of
Appeals affirmed, with two judges diment-
ing. On review, the Supreme Court, Reyn•
oldson, C. J., held that, in absence of any
showing relating to reasonableness of re-
111CR01ILMED fit
DORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RN'IDS • DES MOINES,
19419
J
r
L-
234
Iowa 328 NORTH WESTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIFS
turn if single-family residence were to be
constructed on lot which did not meet area
restrictions for duplex or owner showing
unnecessary hardships that would justify a
variance, zoning board's granting of vari-
ance was illegal.
Decision of Court of Appeals vacated;
District Court ruling reversed; remanded
with directions.
1. Zoning and Planning 4-494, 536
Both Iowa code and Des Moines zoning
ordinance require showing of unnecessary
hardship before board of adjustment can
grant variance and, to establish unneces-
sary hardship, application must show that
land in question cannot yield reasonable
return if used only for purpose allowed in
that zone, that plight of owner in due to
unique circumstances and not to general
conditions in neighborhood which may re-
flect unreasonableness of zoning ordinance
itself, and that use to be authorized by
variance will not alter essential character of
locality.
2. Zan* and Planning 4-745
Trial courtb findings of fact in cerds-
rari action to challenge legality' of zoning
board of adjustment's issuance of zoning
variation had effect of special jury verdict
and appeal to Supreme Court was like that
in ordinary proceeding; accordingly, factual
determinations would be broadly and liber-
ally construed and ambiguities construed to
uphold, rather than defeat, trial court's
judgment. I.C.A. § 414.12, subd. 3.
3. Zoning and Planning 4-536
Burden of showing unnecessary hard-
ship is on variance applicant. I.C.A. § 414.-
12,
14:12, subd. 3.
4. Zoning and Planning *-638
Because statute allocated burden of
showing unnecessary hardship on variance
applicant, city's zoning ordinance could not
alter that allocation and therefore burden
under ordinance was 'on the applicant
I.C.A. § 414.12, subd. 3.
S. Zoning and Planning 4-665
If variance applicant does not make
required unnecessary hardship showing,
granting of va,iance is "illegal" act by zon-
ing board and writ of certiorari should be
granted. I.C.A. §§ 414.1 et seq., 414.12,
subd. 3, 414.15.
6. Zoning and Planning 4+355
Zoning board cannot alter zoning ordi-
nances by granting variances; it may not
legislate. I.C.A. §§ 414.2, 414.6.
7. Zoning and Planning m152
Power to change zoning restrictions be-
longs to zoning commission and city council.
I.C.A. §§ 4142, 414.6.
8. Zoning and Planning c-503
In absence of any showing relating to
reasonableness of return if single-family
residence were to be constructed on lot
which did not meet arca restAtions for
duplex or owner showing unnecessary hard-
ships that would justify a variance, zoning
board's granting of variance was illegal.
I.C.A. §§ 414.1 et seq., 414.12, subd. 3, 414.-
6,414.15.
14:6,414.15.
Craig F. Graziano of Dickinson, Throck-
morton, Parker, Mannheimer & Raife, Des
Moines, for appellants.
James E. Nervig, Asst. City Atty., Des
Moines, for appellee.
Ray Sullins of Roehrlck, Lavorato, Schur-
ter & Havel, P. C., Des Moines, for interve-
nor.
Considered by REYNOLDSON, C. J., and
HARRIS, - McCORMICR, LARSON, and
SCHULTZ, JJ.
REYNOLDSON, Chief Justice.
Plaintiffs- filed this Iowa Code section
414.15 certiorari action to challenge the le•
gality of the Des Moines zoning board of
adjustment's issuance of a zoning variation.
District court affirmed the bond's action.
The court of appeals affirmed, with two
judges dissenting. Upon further review we
vacate the decision of the court of appeals
and reverse the district court's ruling.
MICRDE ILMED BY
JORM MICROLAO
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES '4019[5
/9Vg
J
r
L
kINAAA COU W. - WA" A" AM AJUVWfMKNT. WM town 235
Cho" tow►177 N. W.74 rat
The property involved in this dispute is and application of city code section 2A-29
one lot lying between 62od'Street and Cum- from the stringent requirements of section
mins Parkway in Drs Moines. Intervenor 414.12(3) as construed by our decisions. We
Stohlgren lives in a single-family dwelling find this contention without merit for sev-
fronting on the 62nd Street end of the lot eral reasons.
He wants to divide theproperty into two
lots and build a duplex fronting an Cum-
mins Parkway. Plaintiffs Gratianos live in
a single-family dwelling next to the pro-
posed development and are opposed.
The area in question is zoned R-2. An
R-2 zone permits duplexes if they comply
with minimum lot size, ,setback and rear
yard restrictions. Intervenor's dilemma,
which he sought to resolve by his variance
application, is that he cannot satisfy the
minimum 35 -foot rear yard requirement on
the proposed 62nd Street lot while satisfy-
ing the 8WO-square foot minimum lot size
required for the duplex on Cummins Park-
way.
Intervenor fust elected to apply for an
eleven -foot rear yard length variance on the
prop=d 62nd Street lot Following hear-
ing the board unanimously denied the appli-
cation because the development wait "[njot
in harmony with the immediate arca on
Cummins Parkway" and "would get a prece-
dent for other property owners on 62nd
Street"
Inter the intervenor riled in "Applics-
tion for Rehearing," reducing the aizt of
the requested variance to 4.15 feet He
alleged his lot had been mismessured and
that he had miscalculated the areas upon
his feat application. Thie board granted
this application and after a second hearing
allowed the variance on the ground this was
an "[e]zeeptional situatien." Our dispnsi.
tion of the case does not require us to
determine whether this "Application for
Rehearing" was tardy, or even permissible.
1. The board and intervenor Coat assert
that 'Waintiffs have waived their right to
review of this ase under § 414.12(3), The
Code; § 2A-29 of the Des Moines City
Code, as applied by the Board of Adjust.
ment and the court below in the law of the
forum to be applied on appal." Apparent'
ly they make this contention in an attempt
to insulate their proposed - interpretation
First, plaintiffs' certiorari petition al-
leged violations of both the statute and the
ordinance. District court relied on both
Iowa Code section 414.12(3) and city code
section 2A-29. It cited loth .in its ruling,
together with decisions construing Iowa
Code chapter 414 and its predecessor.
Second, the board and intervenor do not
expressly argue that the city ordinances
and the statute conflict Section 414.12(3)
in relevant part provides:
The board of adjustment shall have the
following powers:
3. To authorize upon appeal in specific
cases such variance from the terns of the
ordinance as will not be contrary to the
public interest, where owing to special
conditions a literal enforcement of the
provisions of the ordinance will result in
unnecessary hardship, and so that the
spirit of the ordinance shall be observed
and substantial justice done.
Section 2A -29(B) of the Des Maines zoning
ordinance provides that the board of adjust.
ment shall have the power
[tjo grant a variation in the regulations
when a property owner an show that his
property was acquired in good faith and
where by rearon of exceptional narrow-
ness, shallowness, or shape of a specific
piece of property, or where by reason of
exceptional topographical conditions or
other extraordinary or exceptional situh-
tions, the strict application of the terms
of this ordinance actually prohibits the
use of his property in a manner reason-
ably similar to that of other property in
the district, and where the Board is satis-
fied under the evidence before it that:
1. The land in question cannot yield a
reasonable return if used only for a
purpose allowed in the district in which
it is loatod;, and
NICROF ILM[D 6'
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES 10111E5
19y1f
r
Z4y Iowa
= NORTH wE3T'ERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES
2. The plight of the owner of the land
in question is due to the Unique
circomm'
stances shown to the Bondand is r
ot
of his own making; and
3. The use to be authorized by the
variation will not alter the essential
character of the locality of the land in
question.
provided, however, that all variations
granted under this clause shall be in har-
mony with the intended spirit and pur-
pose of this ordinance.
The threrrpart subdivision of ordinance 2A -
29(B) is our case law definition of the "un-
necessary hardship' language in section
414.12(3). See Board of Adjustment v. Ru-
ble,193 N.W2d 497, 504 (Iowa 1972); Dear`
dorf v. Board of Adjustment, 254 Iowa, 380
386, 118 N.W-W 78, 81 (1982).
the statute and the ordinance are substan-
tively the same. In Ruble this court con-
sidered the same Des Moines ordinance and
concluded:
Section 2A -29(B)2 . • . requires in sub -
"roe before a variance may be granted,
applicant must show, among other things,
his plight is due to unique circumstances
and is not of his own making. This pr's-
requisite is consistent with provisions of
Code section 414.12 ... and with that
portion of the Deardorf opinion relating
to unnecessary hardship ....
Ruble, 193 N.W.2d at 591.
The board and intervenor point out that
the former "obviously grounded the instant
ars variance on the first part of the Ordi-
nance." They support this with the argu-
ment that the."exceptional situation" lan-
guage of the first part of the ordinance
applies to this ams variance application,
and the three requirements in the latter
portion of We ordinance apply only to use
variance requests. Thio argument is uncon-
vincing because section huM3) Mui"I
showing of unnecessary hardshipeither
use'or area variance& Ruble is dispositive
of this issue.
One significant objection, however, Is
that the New York standard for deter-
mining
e
mining "unnocesary hardship," as rolled
on in the Deardorf opinion, is applicable
only to use variances and should not be
applied to requests for ares variance.
Thu proposition does not necessarily fol-
low from Desuilorf• Whereas the Board
cites authority limiting the New York
standard to use variances. Dearderf ap-
plied the test to a situation involving bothre
use and area zoning restrictions. Tbie
court In no way indicated an intention to
limit application to instances where legit.
imacy of use variances is in issue ....
Ruble, 193 N.W.2d at 505. Where, as here,
the statute contains the requirement, it can-
not be forgiven by ordinance. If the ordi-
nance conflicts with the statute, the statute
controls. Deardorf, 254 Iowa at 384, 118
N.W2d at 80.
Even if the statute did not control, it is
clear that ordinance 2A-29(13) requires a
showing of all its conditions. They are all
linked by the "and" conjunction. Further,
the three-part definition of "unnecessary
hardship" is grounded on Deardorf. That
decision holds all requirements must be
shown. Therefore, it u reasonable to as-
sume the city council intended all the re-
quirements to apply when it adopted the
ordinance.
- [1] Thus under both Iowa Code aection
414.12(3) as construed in Deardorf and Ru-
ble, and Iks Moines zoning ordinance 2A -
29(B), require a showing of unnecanary
hardship before a board of adjustment can
grant a variance. In order to establish
unoeoeas irY hardship, an application must
show (1) the land in question cannot yield a
reasonable return if used only for a purpose
allowed in that zone; (2) the plight of the
owner is due to unique circumstances and
not to the general conditions in the neigh-
borhood, which may reflect the unrell
ableneas of the zoning ordinance itself; and
(9) the use to be authorized by the variance
wwillnot alter the essential character of the
locality. Ruble, 193 N.W.2d at, 504; Dear
dorf, 254 Iowa at 386, I18 N.W.2d al 81.
121 11. Our scope of review is limited.
ter. Trial court's findings of fact have the effect
of a special jury verdict and an Appeal to
this court is like that in an ordinary -pro-
MICROC 1U-000 by
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS • ACs 1101:as
10?
1
R
r
tilLAL1ANU v. &)A" UY A"JU8TMMT. RM fors
B4K tn� ua riw]a us
needing. Grandview Baptist Church v. Zon-
thin was the board's staff recommendation.
ing Board of Adjustment, 301 N.W2d 701,
Plaintiffs and other usighbors' apparently
706-07 (Iowa 1981); Weldon v. Zoning
do not object to a sittgbfamily residence.
Board of City of Da Moines, 250 N.W2d
Our review of the retail diackws that
396, 401 (Iowa 1977); Iowa R.Civ.P. 31&
intervenor offered no evidence relating to
Accordingly, factual determinations will be
the reasons blerwa of the return if a singla-
broadly and liberally coostrued and ambigu-
family residence were to be instructed.
itice construed to uphold rather than defeat
the trial court's judgment Johnson v.
Nor in this appeal do the intervenor or
Board of Adjustment, 239 N.W2d 873, 878-
board point to any such evidence. They
79 (Iowa 1976). An extensive discussion of
attempt to avoid this burden by asserting
this condition is inapplicable because
our standard of review can be found in
"Stohlgren is taking to use his land for a
Trailer City, fne v. Board of Adjustment,
Purpose already allowed in the district"
218 N.W.2d 645, 6" (Iowa 1974).
[3 41 Our ries law makes it plain that
District court found "it would be more
the burden to show unnecessary hardship is
economically desirable to build a duplex on
the lot fronting on Cummins Parkway,"
on the variance applicant Ruble, 193
N.W2d at 502; Deardorf, 254 Iowa at 384,
that the "current economic situation" cs
118 N.W2d at 80. As we noted above, the
ates a demand for duplexes, and forcing
intervenor to develop the property as a
ordinance incorporates the Deuviarf unnea
single-family dwelling would impose an
canary hardship definition. Beaute the
statute allocates the burden of proof, the
"obvious financial hardship." Plaintiffs ass
"current
orlinanx cannot alter it Therefore, the
gue that a economic situation"
might be a relevant concern for the city
burden under the ordinance is on the appli-
council and its ordinances, but not for the
ant
hood and its varianoea
[5-7] if an applicant does not make the
required unnecessary hardship showing,
granting a variance is an "illegal" act by
the baud and the writ of certiorari should
be granted. Ruble, 193 N.W2d at 503, 505;
Deardorf, 254 Iowa at 385, 118 N.W.2d at
81. The board cannot alter the Boning ordi-
nances by granting varisaas; it may not
legialate. Ruble, 193 N.W2d at 508;'Deu
dorf, 254 Iowa at 389, 118 N.W2d at 83.
The power to change the zoning restrictions
bclonga to the zoning commission and the
city council. See i4 4142, .6. Ruble and
Deardorf caution that the power to grant
variances should be used sparingly. Ruble,
193 N.W2d at 503; Deardori, 254 Iowa at
390, 118 N.W2d at 811
Pursuant to these principles, the fust
showing that intervener was required to
snake was that "the land in question cannot
yield a reasonable return if used only for a
purpose allowed in that zone." Deatdorf,
254 Iowa at 386, 118 N.W2d at 81. There
is uncontradicted evidence in the record
that a single-family naidence could be built
on the proposed Cummins Parkway lot, and
The ooi rt of appeals found, on the name
record that is devoid of any evidence Mat-
ing to income that might be generated by
either a single-family dwelling or a duplex;
that granting a variance would allow inter-
venor "to nuke a reasonable return on his
property."
Neither the bard, the district court, nor
the court of appeals required that the inter.
venor meet the Deudorf requirement to
show 'the land in question cannot yield a
reasonable return if used only for a purpose
allowed in that sone" Deardorf, 254 fawn
at 388, 118 N.W.2d at 81. Obviously, the
legal standar] is not that mote profit could
be made if a variance is granted. The
standard is that i reasonable return could
not be garnered from a permitted use.
[81 We hold that the intervenor did not
show the unnecessary hardship that would
justify a variance. Soo Zimmerman Y.
O'Meara, 215 Iowa 1140, 1147, 245 N.W.
715, 718 (1933) ('"chore is nothing in the
record to indicate that an unnecessary hard-
ship will be imposed upon appellee if.she
wiwDl awiD a)
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS • ACS',101NE
0T9
1
J
r
L
238 • Iowa 321 NORTH WESTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES
cannot thus remnstruct her house (to make
a duplez].'J. The board's granting of the
variance thus was illegal and district court
should have reversed the board's action,
III. The above determination does not
require us to reach plaintiffs' strong asser-
tion that the unnecessary hardship must be
shown for the lot for which the variance is
applied. Here the variance was requested
for the proposed 62nd Street lot, but the
unnecessary hardship was claimed for the
Proposed Cummins ,Parkway lot. For
strong reasons underlying the basic rule
plaintiffs advance, am Turner v. Richards,
866 A -2d SS3, 895 (Del.Super.Ct.1976); Hur-
ley v. Kolligian, 333 Mass, 170, 17S-74, 129
N.ETA 920, 922 (1955); O'Keefe v. Zoning
Board of Appears, 35 Mich.App. 583, 588--89,
192 N.W.2d 609, 512 (1971); C & C Inc. v.
Semple, 207 Vs. 498, 442 150 S.E.2d•536,
fs39 (1968); 8 E. McQuiilin, The Lw of
Municipal Corporations § 25.167, at SW (3d
ed. 1976).
We have considered all of the arguments
and grounds advanced by the parties, even
though we have not referred to them in this
opinion. None would change the result we 1• Garnishment t+99
have reached. Statute proscribing entry of judgment
ROW garnishee until principal defendant
has had ten days' notice of garnishment
proceeding imposer duty on garnishment
plaintiff to give notice of garnishment. pm
needing to principal defendant, and neither
statute nor common law places such duty on
garnishee; since garnishee therefore does
not have duty to give notice, no action for
alleged breach lies against garnishee.
I.C.A. §§ 91A.5, subd. 1, 64214, 684A.1 et
req•
Z Garnishment alb$ 183
When liability appears, statute govern-
ing judgment against garnishee entities
garnishment plaintiff to two kinds of judg.
menta against garoiahee, i.e., judgment for
money and judgment for delivery, but if
garnishee has delivered money or property
to sheriff before judgment is entered, only
kind of available judgment is runt kind, i.e.,
judgment for debt I.C.A. § 64213.
MICRW ILMLD BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS - Drs '10lWS
Alvin Ray HUBBARD, Plaintiff,
T.
DFS MOINES INDEPENDENT
COMMUNITY SCHOOL
DISTRICT, Defendant,
No. 67514.
Supreme Court of Iowa..
Aug. 25, 1952
The United States District Court for
the Southern District of Iowa, W. C. Stuart,
J., certified questions concerning notice in
garnishment proceedings. The Supreme
Court, McCormick, J•, held that statutory
garnishment notice provision imposes duly
on garabhment plaintiff to give notice of
garnishment proceeding to principal de•
fendant and neither statute nor common
law places such duty on garnishee.
Certified questions answered.
The decision of the court'of appeals is
vacated. The district court determination
is reversed and the case is remanded for
ruling in cenformanee with this opinion.
DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS
VACATED; DISTRICT COURT RULING
REVERSED; REMANDED WITH DI-
RECTIONS.
c �maranrnsm
1
19 yf
7
J
r
r' -
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: November 9, 1982
To: All City Employees
From: Neal Berlin
Re: Health Awareness Program
The City, in conjunction with the Johnson County Health Department and MECCA, will
be sponsoring an employee "health awareness" program. The program consists of
three parts:
Orientation
Staff members from the Health Department and MECCA will discuss the program
as a whole and selected health issues will be presented via films, brochures
and lecture in a one hour orientation session to be held Monday,
November 22, at the Iowa City Public Library at 11:00 AM or at 1:00 PM in the
City Council Chambers. Those employees who wish to attend will be released
from work wherever possible and will be paid for their attendance if during
scheduled work hours.
2. Assessment
Following the orientation session, those interested may sign up for an
individual physical fitness assessment to be conducted by the staff of the
Health Department and MECCA to be held at the Iowa City Recreation Center.
The assessment will include measures of overall fitness: body fat
composition, cardiovascular fitness as measured by blood pressure, resting,
exercise and recovery pulse rate, and strength and flexibility measures.
Those signing up should notify their supervisor of the time of the
assessment.
3. "Prescription"
During the assessment, participants will individually discuss their own
health needs and expectations with a "wellness" counselor and will discuss a
realistic wellness program - with consideration for exercise, diet and
lifestyle. During the interview participants will receive additional health
information and referrals to any appropriate agency or physician if
necessary. Followup interviews may be scheduled at a later date to check on
progress.
Participation in the program is strictly voluntary and permanent employees chosing
to participate will be paid for any scheduled work time spent in the program. Your
family members are also invited to attend. All employees are encouraged to
participate - even if you believe you are in excellent physical condition a great
deal of health related information will be available." .Employees in other
agencies who have completed this program have reported improved feelings of
wellness as well as actual increases in fitness level.
MICRUILMED B1'
JORM MICR6LAB J
CEDAR RAPIDS - DES m01NES
i
/9V9
1
Please sign up to participate in this program by contacting your supervisor.
Additional information on the program may be obtained from Sylvia Steinbach,
Personnel Generalist at 5025.
*Police and Fire department employees may participate in this program, however,
due to the unique characteristics of their pension systems a more comprehensive
fitness program is currently being considered.
tp/sp
19�fQ
I4ICNOEILMED DY
JORM MIC REIL AB
CEDAR RAPIDS •DES 14019[5
I
i
F
r
s. •:
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 12, 1982
TO: City Council
FROM: Assistant City Manager still
RE: Melrose Court Improvements
Melrose Court improvements are scheduled to be discussed at Monday's
informal Council Meeting. Attached is material relating to this
subject which has previously been furnished to the Council.
i
141CROFIL11ED By
JORM MICR6LAB )
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES
f
qS6
r
City of Iowa City
= MEMORANDUM
=
Date: May 3, 1982
To: Charles Schmadeke, Director of Public Works
From: Jim Brachtel, Traffic Engineej�7
Re: Traffic Counts on Melrose Court
In the departmental referrals of April 19 and 20, Traffic Engineering
was directed to obtain new traffic counts on Melrose Court. Counts
were initiated that
week and the results are tabulated below
with
prior year counts.
September October April
OaYY 1978
April
1980 1981
1982
Tuesday 2,360 790 1,230
1,200
Wednesday 2,520 980 1,190
1,260
Thursday 2,890 910 1,170
1,220
Hopefully this information will satisfy Council's request. Should
you have additional direction or comments regarding this matter,
please don't hesitate to contact me.
tpl/4
IdICROEILMED BY
f
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES
I i
_ J
1
J
r
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: April 27, 1982
To: City Council
From: Doug Boothroy, Senior Pla
Re: Melrose Corridor Committee Findings & Recommendations
Pursuant
our
rto
resolution approved by by request, Council faccepting ind chthe ed a findings copy f and
recommendations of both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the
Melrose Corridor Committee and the minutes of the final meeting of
the Melrose Corridor Committee held on April 1, 1981.
If additional information is needed regarding these del'iberations,
please do not hesitate to contact me.
tp2/3
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICR ElLA9
I
CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOVIES
I
1
195o
1
J
r
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: November 12, 1982
To: City Council Q
From: Rosemary Vitosh, Director of Finance e -
Re: Implementation of the Hotel and Motel Tax
The hotel and motel tax question which appeared on the November 2 ballot did not
specify an effective date for the tax in Iowa City. The proposed ordinance
which was posted on all voting booths states that the tax will be imposed by
July 1, 1983. The City must notify the State Director of Revenue of the
effective date at least 60 days prior to that date. Therefore, the effective
date can be April 1 or July 1.
Assuming an April 1 effective date, it would be desirable to follow the
following proposed time table for implementation:
November 23 First reading of ordinance
December 7 Second reading of ordinance
December 21 Third reading of ordinance
December 29 Publication of ordinance
January 5 Send notice to State Director of Revenue
Send notices to all Iowa City businesses who will be
responsible for collecting the tax
April 1 Tax implementation date
The City is not required by law to send notices to the businesses. I recommend
the notice be sent as a courtesy to formally inform them of the effective date
and to provide the name of a City staff person who they can contact with
questions.
No special tax permits are required for those businesses who will be charging
the tax. The tax will be submitted to the State in conjunction with the
business's sales tax report. The State will then remit the tax to the City.
When the Council has decided upon the effective date, we can proceed with the
ordinance, notices and implementation of the tax.
tp3/7
MICROFILMED By
1 JORM MIC ROLAB '
j CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MINES
i
1951
1
�1
r
z
City of Iowa Citl'�
MEMORANDUM _
Date: • November 12, 1982
To: City Council
From: Rosemary Vitosh, Director of Finance
Re: Transit Funding Alternatives
The attached charts show projected receipts and expenditures for
Transit Operations and the Transit Replacement Reserve. It is
necessary to include the reserve in the discussion of transit
revenues because additional funding will also be needed in the
reserve to cover the cost of Iowa City's local share for the Transit
Facility. The total local share is projected to be $594,883. The
6/30/82 balance in the reserve was $494,579 and approximately
$43,000 of that balance is needed to pay for the new buses just
received.
Therefore, approximately $144,000 of additional funding must be set
aside to provide for the rest of the local share for the Transit
Facility in addition to providing funding for future equipment
replacement or remanufacturing costs to be paid from this reserve.
These additional funds must come from a transfer from Transit
Operations and this is the expenditure transfer that appears on the
transit operations chart which is attached.
The following assumptions were used in the development of the data of
the charts:
1. The fare will be increased to $.40 on January 1, 1983 and
to $. 50 on January 1 , 1986.
2. The local subsidy amount is based upon 40% of the annual
operating expenditures. This is consistent with past
years local funding trends.
3. The expenditure figures used for Operations was taken from
the Five Year Projections Report. Fiscal year 85 through
87 have been increased to include the additional operating
costs now being projected for the new, larger building to
be in use at that time.
4. All available monies, or the amount by which the receipts
exceed expenditures, are transferred to the reserves
annually.
The bottom half of the first chart gives two alternatives to funding
the local subsidy amount. The first alternative shows annual funding
from General Revenue Sharing of $415,450 (the amount which was
budgeted in FY83). That amount was held constant throughout the five
years since it appears that the consensus at this time is not to
i
/ %SZ
I CROPIWED BY
JORM MICROLAB
I CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES
j
@z
r
L
increase Transit's dependency upon funding from General Revenue
Sharing. This chart shows how much would be needed annually from the
General Fund.
The second alternative shows the phase-in of the transit levy over
three years with a corresponding phase-out of General Revenue
Sharing. This would be done by starting with a levy of 18 cents in
FY84, increasing that levy to 36 cents in FY85 and to the maximum
levy of 54 cents in FY86. The addition of 18 cents each year to the
levy would cause an increase of approximately 1'% to the levy in each
year. There would be no effect on the amount needed from the General
Fund until FY86 when the total transit levy exceeds the General
Revenue Sharing amount of $415,450 and slightly reduces the subsidy
amount coming from the General Fund. In the last two years, the
subsidy amount is being funded 53% from the transit levy and 47% from
the general levy. It must be noted that if the General Revenue
Sharing monies are then used for capital improvement projects, this
will in no way alleviate any shortfall in funding which may exist in
the General Fund.
The chart on the Reserve's transactions shows that the annual
transfer in from operations would be sufficient to provide for the
total local share on the Transit Facility and also provide for future
funding of bus purchases or remanufacturing. There is a carryover at
the end of each year, but that carryover is needed because fare
revenue in FY88 will be the same as the FY87 revenue. Expenditures
will increase, resulting in a decrease in the amount available for
the annual transfer from operations to the reserve (this is also the
case in FY85).
Other possible alternatives and their resultant effect on revenues
follows:
Transit fares are increased to 40 cent on July 1, 1983 (six
months later than the prior proposal).
Result: Fare revenue would decrease by approximately $59,000
in FY83. This would result in a decrease in the
amount available to be transferred to the Reserve
fund in that year and likewise would reduce the
annual year end balance in the Reserve by the same
amount. This would leave a $3,000 to $4,000 balance
in FY85 and FY82 which gives us little cushion and
could mean that the next fair increase may be needed
earlier than January 1, 1986.
Institute a fare increase to 50 cent on January 1, 1985 (one
year earlier than the prior proposal).
Result: This would increase revenues in FY85 and FY86 by
$197,000. There is no need for this additional'
revenue at this time.
141CROf ILMED a1'
JORM MICRbLA13
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES 110INIS
195 J,
1
J
r
M1
3
3. Phase in the maximum transit levy in two years or in one year.
Result: Again this would bring in additional revenue that is
not now needed if the subsidy amount from the General
Fund is maintained at the present level.
Exhibits D and F in the Five Year Projections report provide
information on transit five year projections, percentage breakdown
by funding source, and options for the phase-in of the transit levy.
Although some of the figures have been updated for this memo, it may
be helpful to review that information as you consider this matter.
What needs to be discussed at this time:
1. Should the fare be increased to 40 cent on January 1, 1983. If
so, it would be appropriate to schedule a public hearing on it
in early December.
2. Guidance should be provided to staff on how to phase-in the
transit levy and when to begin phase-in.
I
3. What funding breakdown should exist for each of the funding
sources. This is needed so the transit policy can be finalized.
tp/sp
Id ICROFIL14ED BY
JORM MIC ROLAB-
�
CEDAR RAPIDS DES M014C5
I
r
TRANSIT OPERATIONS
LOCAL SUBSIDY FUNDING
Option 1:
NO TRANSIT LEVY -
General Revenue Sharing 415,450 415,450 415,450 415,450 415,450
Property Tax:
General Levy 275,753 305,007 353,583 392,016 432,410
Transit Levy -- -- _- __
Total 691,203 720,457 769,033 807,466 847,860
Option 2:
FY83_
FY84
FY85
FY86
FY87
PHASE OUT
$
$-
----------S----------
281,869
---
RECEIPTS:
General Levy
275,753
Fares
742,800
801,600
801,600
900,000
998,400
Grants, Miscellaneous
380,500
372,000
372,000
372,000
372,000
Local Subsidy
691,203
720,457
769,033
807,466
847,860
Total
1,814,503
1,894,057
1,942,633
2,079,466
2,218,260
EXPENDITURES:
Operations
1,681,703
1,801,142
1,922,583
2,018,665
2,119,650
Transfer to Reserve
132,800
92,915
20,050
60,801
98,610
Total
1,814,503
1,894,057
1,942,633
2,079,466
2,218,260
LOCAL SUBSIDY FUNDING
Option 1:
NO TRANSIT LEVY -
General Revenue Sharing 415,450 415,450 415,450 415,450 415,450
Property Tax:
General Levy 275,753 305,007 353,583 392,016 432,410
Transit Levy -- -- _- __
Total 691,203 720,457 769,033 807,466 847,860
Option 2:
PHASE IN TRANSIT LEVY EVENLY
OVER 3 YEARS &
PHASE OUT
GENERAL REVENUE SHARING -
General Revenue Sharing
415,450
281,869
146,087 -- --
Property Tax:
General Levy
275,753
305,007
353,583 383,220 402,401
Transit Levy
--
133,581
269,363 424,246 445,459
Total
691,203
720,457
769,033 807,466 847,860
I q S'g-
S
1
I.1I CRUF ILI•IED Bl'
JORM MICREIL AB.. 1
1 I CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MINES
L. I
IF
IA ICROFILRED BY
� JORM MIC ROLAB 1
CEDAR RAPIDS - DES MOINES
I
TRANSIT REPLACEMENT RESERVE
FY83
FY84
FY85
FY86
FY87___
-------- S--- - ---S---------- S ---------- 3 -
BEGINNING BALANCE
494,579
506,372
239,227
62,935
62,736
RECEIPTS:
Interest Income
36,000
132,800
28,000
92,915
5,000
20,050
3,000
60,801
3,000
98,610
Transfer from Operations
EXPENDITURES:
Bus Acquisition
(42,526)
--
(109,000)
(64,000)
(49,000)
Transit Facility
114,481)
388,060)
92,342)
--
--
ENDING BALANCE
506,372
239,227
62,935
62,736
115,346
IA ICROFILRED BY
� JORM MIC ROLAB 1
CEDAR RAPIDS - DES MOINES
I
r
City of Iowa Cit,
MEMORANDUM
Date: November 10, 1982
To: City Manager and Members of the City Council
From: Michael Kucharzak, Director of Housing & Inspection
Services Department
Re: Home Town Dairies - Noise Readings
Between the dates of October 18, 1982, and October 22, 1982, seven
noise level readings were conducted by Glenn Siders, Senior Building
Inspector. All seven readings were taken within the public right-of-
way at six various locations around the Home Town Dairies plant and
parking area. The readings were taken with a quest model 211A noise
level meter and the readings that appear on the chart are readings in
the A level decibels. You will also note in the attached memorandum
that in several locations the meter was affected by passing traffic.
The minus numbers indicate that a reading less than 60, which is the
lowest reading the meter can register, was the actual reading
achieved at that location. From the lowest reading to the highest
reading, it was found that the noise level at Home Town Dairies was
well within the confines of our present noise ordinance. That is to
say they did not exceed any of the allowable levels that are mandated
by that particular noise ordinance. The readings were taken at
various times of the day, various temperatures and various wind
direction and wind speeds. It was also interesting to note that on
several occasions, even though not recorded on the chart, a reading
was taken for a particular oncoming vehicle which registered on the
meter at levels considerably higher than the noise level of the dairy
property.
In conclusion, the meter readings of sound levels taken at the
Hometown Dairy do not indicate any violation of the noise ordinance.
bdw/sp
191e3
111CROULMED BY
I
�• JORM MIC ROLAB
I i CEDAR P.APIDS DES 1401nES
1
k1
r
..o
UL
(Al
Wind A B
C D E F rootinu,
Date Time Temp.
SW 5 -60
_60* 62* -60 -60 -60 None
10/18/82 8:30 A.M. 48
S 10 -60* -60*
63* 61 62 65 A
10/18/82 1:30'P.M. 66
S 10 -60
_60* 69* 60 -60 -60 B
10/18/82 4:45 P.M. 67
8:15 A.M. 36 NWN 17 -60
60* 64* 60 -60 -60 C
10/20/62
11:30 A.M. 36 NW 16 60
62* 63* 81 60 60 0
10/20/8_
9:30 A.M. 33 SSE 1 -60
60* 64* -60 -60 -60 None
10/22/82 E
SE 2 -60*
65* 68* 74 62 60
10/22/82 4:15 P.M. 53
General Notes
1) * = Meter affected by passing traffic.
2) Weather information provided by KXIC
weather information. Temperature
directiare
aiand
onis fromwhenceitcame.
3) Quest modelk211As taenyNoisenLevelrMeterh a
Meter was calibrated before
anleveler
af
each reading.
decibles, dBA.
Footnotes
its and
ractors running.
A) Location "E" had Location "F" had aeveral meter readingrof 74�,n220' fromatparking tractor/
trailer. at dock.
Location "C" had several refrigerator units running
B) Location tractor/trailer parking in dock at time of reading.
Location "D" read 76 dBA 10' from running refrigerator unit,
88 dBA 6" from same unit.
C) All locations wind affectedmeter readitimeuoftreadingp 12 dB. Location
C tractor/trailer p �—
MICRorILMED By
! JORM MIC ROLAB '
I i
CEDAR RAPIDS DCS !dD IACS 1
7 �
r
C
I
Page 2 of 2
r
C
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: November 10, 1982
To: City Manager and Members of the City CouncilG%`��.
From: Michael Kucharzak, Director of Housing & Inspection Services
Re: Rental Permit and Structure Compliance Certification Fees
FY84 CDBG FUNDING FOR HOUSING INSPECTORS
At recent meetings of the Iowa City Housing Commission and the Citizens
Committee on Community Needs, the staff request for funding a full-time housing
inspector from Community Development Block Grant funds for FY84 was not
recommended for funding. In failing to support the staff request, the Housing
Commission indicated that they support the need for three full-time housing
inspectors, but that since the inspection program is an ongoing program
f the
City and that direct benefit from the program of code enforcement goes to
tenants, that funds other than CDBG be sought out to pay for an additional full-
time housing inspector. The Housing Commission further suggested an increase in
the rental permit and certificate of structure compliance fees be considered so
as to generate sufficient funds to compensate the additional costs of a full-
time inspector.
At a recent informal Council meeting, the Council directed staff toand the lex
existing fee schedule so that single family rental property P
structures pay the same fees. The enclosed resolution will accomplish the
Council request.
BACKGROUND
After the adoption of the new housing code in January of 1981, the City Council
requested that a resolution be prepared establishing fees for rental permits
such that $50,000 per year be generated in housing fees. (Informal Council
Meeting - February 12, 1981) Last year, the first full year of the revised fee
assessment, $48,778 in rental permit fees were generated. Although short of the
Council established goal, the money collected reflected an equitable
distribution of fee assessement according to structure type, that is, single
family rental property assessed less than apartment complexes.
Staff budget requests for CDBG funding a full-time housing inspector for FY84
were $27,000, however, updated budget data from the Finance Department
establishing more accurate figures for salary and fringe benefits has raised the
request to $33,000. In order to increase the amount of annual revenue collected
through fee assessment, the City Council would have to grant staff permission to
generate $83,000 in housing fees per year. This goal would be difficult to
guarantee based on the short -fall in revenue intake of last year coupled with
the decline in revenue due to the fact that by FY84 all of the multifamily and
two-thirds of the duplex structures will have paid the one time Certificate of
Structure Compliance fee. During the FY82-83 construction year, many new
duplexes and apartment complexes were built which added licensing revenue to the
MICROr ILMCD BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAVIDS • DES MOINES
196'%
1
k1
2
program. Since construction for rental for FY83-84 is unknown, the staff cannot
project any revenues from new construction. However, we could improve our
cost/income ratio and not create an excessive burden to the public by app
ng
the resolution attached to this memo which estab19i8shes the following fees
commencing with structures licensed after January 1,
Single-family rental property
From $24.00 to $35.00 - payable once every four years.
Duplex structures
From $20.00 plus $4 per dwelling unit to a flat fee of $35.00 -payable once
every three years.
multi -family structures
From $20.00 plus $4 per dwelling unit to $25.00 per structure plus $8 per
dwelling unit or rooming unit - payable once every two years.
Certificate of Structure compliance
From $20.00 to $25.00 per structure - a one-time per structure requirement.
A further benefit by adopting the resolution as restructured would be that
duplex structures would be assessed a flat fee. This would be different from
the present practice of having the duplex rental fee computed on a base cost
plus an assessment per dwelling unit. The base cost plus dwelling unit
assessment formula has caused friction between some owner. -occupants of duplexes
questioning the charging a fee for their portion of the duplex. By charging the
same fee for all duplex structures, the resolution more correctly deals with the
structure as a rental property and not with the ownership or occupancy of the
building.
FY84 OPERATING BUDGET
Since the CDBG program year ends December 31, 1982, and the city fiscal year
1984 does not start until July 1, 1983, the staff is asking Council
support for
revenue increases so as to maintain inspection staffing,HousingInspectors
and Fire personnel at current levels.
We respectfully request your consideration in adoption of this resolution at
this time to become effective the first of January.
bdw/sp
L
MICROFILMED BY
j JORM MICROLAB j
1
� CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOIRES
r
a
19 j 5I
r
City of Iowa %.:Iti1
MEMORANDUM
Date: November 8, 1982
To: City CuuncII
From: Chuck Schmadeke, Director of Public Works �p
Re: November Meeting of the Wastewater Facility Committee
Attached for your information is the agenda for the November meeting of
the Wastewater Facility Committee, the design outline for the new water
pollution control plant, and a financial capability guidebook presented
by E.P.A.
bjl/13
611 CROP ILI4ED BY
i
f
JORM INICRbLAB
j
CEDAR RAPIDS •DES hi01:VE5
/95 S
1
al
J�
WASTE WATER FACILITY COMMITTEE
AGENDA
November 10, 1982
Meeting Room A. Recreation Center
A. Discussion of the existing collection system problem areas
1. Outfall sewer
a. South side trunk sewer
2. Southeast interceptor sewer
a. Fairmeadows lift station
b. Lower Muscatine Road trunk sewer
c. Rundell Street trunk sewer
3. University Heights trunk sewer
4. Outfall relief sewer
B. Discussion of existing treatment plant problem areas
1. Capacity
2. Effluent quality
3. Equipment
4. Space
5. Location
C. Discussion of the cost of the proposed facility plan
1. 75% Federal funding
2. 55% Federal funding
3. No Federal funding
9. Discussion of Iowa City's sewer rates versus rates of other communities
I
E. Discussion of sewerable areas within the City as indicated in the
comprehensive plan
F. Discussion of whether it is practical to remove footing tile and
roof drains from the system
/9.S,S
141CR0f ILI-IED BY
t
JORM MIC ROLA B
CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES
I j
r
L
WASTEWATER FACILITY COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM A
EXISTING COLLECTION SYSTEM - PROBLEM AREAS
NOVEMBER 10, 1982
Outfall Sewer
The Outfall Sewer will convey all wastewater from sewers terminating at the
existing water pollution control plant inlet works to the new plant.
Construction of the Outfall Sewer will also intercept the existing Southside
Trunk Sewer which has a capacity of 1.8 to 3.2 million gallons per day (mgd)
and is presently surcharged during wet weather from an estimated flow of 4.4
mgd (2.9 mgd from footing drains). Construction of the new Outfall Sewer will
enable the City to eliminate an existing lift station in Stevens Drive.
Southeast Interceptor
The Southeast Interceptor sewer is required to relieve overloading of the
existing Rundell Street trunk sewer in Service Area 3 in the eastern part of
the City, and to provide an outlet for development in the southeastern part of
the City. Presently, the southeastern part of the City (Service Areas 4 and
6) is served by three lift stations and the lower Muscatine Road trunk sewers
which are tributary to the Rundell Street trunk sewer. The routing of the
Southeast Interceptor sewer will enable the City to abandon the Heinz, Village
Green and Fairmeadows lift stations. These pumping stations are now operating
at peak capacity. The proposed Southeast Interceptor would serve an area of
the City which has high groundwater conditions and has overloaded sewers
primarily from existing footing drains. Specific problems which would be
solved by construction of the Southeast Interceptor are discussed in the
following paragraphs by service area.
Lakeside Subdivision/Fairmeadows Lift Station (part of Service Area 4) -
detailed studies of the Fairmeadows Lift StaEion were conducted in
1977-78 to determine tributary flows and the capacity of the lift
station. The lift station receives flow from the Bon -Aire Mobile Home
Park, Lakeside Manor, several industries and a portion of Lakeside
Subdivision. The results of the studie's indicated the lift station
capacity was axceeded during peak wet weather flows, but was adequate
during dry weather periods. The lift station has a capacity of 1.1 mgd.
It was estimated that existing footing drain flows in the area
contributed 1.2 mgd during peak wet weather periods. Subsequent to the
1977-78 study, the estimated flows tributary to the lift station were
increased to 2.65 mgd based on additional footing drain flow studies
conducted in the City. Discharge from the lift station is to the Lower
Muscatine Road relief sewer which also receives the discharge from Heinz
and Village Green Lift Stations. The capacity of the Fairmeadows Branch
of the Lower Muscatine Road relief sewer varies from 0.76 to 2.0 mgd.
The sewer is surcharged during peak wet weather flows. The capacity of
the Lower Muscatine Road relief sewer from Pine Street to the
Fairmeadows Branch varies from 1.5 to 3.6 mgd and is being utilized to
its capacity.
-1-
WICRDnu4ED By
JORM MICROLAB ;
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES '4019ES
195:!S
1
J
The remainder of the Lakeside Subdivision flows by gravity into the
Lower Muscatine Road sewer which has a capacity of 0.8 mgd. The
estimated peak wet weather flow frau this area is 1.1 mgd (50% of
Service Area 4 flow presently not tributary to lift station) which
surcharges the sewer. Three basement floodings have been reported along
Miami Drive.
The proposed Southeast Interceptor sewer would provide additional outlet
capacity from the Fairmeadows area as well as permit abandonment of the
existing lift station. Both the Lower Muscatine Road sewer and the
Lower Muscatine Road Relief sewer would have flows removed at the upper
ends of the sewer systems. Interception of the Fairmeadows area flow
would also relieve the Rundell Street sewer of 1.6 mgd (estimated
present sewer capacity serving Lakeside Subdivision/Fairmeadows).
Lower Muscatine Road Trunk Subsystem - the system consists of two
separate trun sewers, of eginning at Pine Street, north of Lower
Muscatine Road and both extending upstream to the Fairmeadows area.
The trunk sewer in Lower Muscatine Road is the old trunk sewer which
serves the area between Sycamore and Franklin Streets south of Lower
Muscatine Road, and also serves that portion of the Fairmeadows area
not tributary to the Fairmeadows pumping station. The sewer has a
capacity of 0.8 mgd at Fairmeadows Boulevard, increasing to 1.1 mgd in
the lower reach.. The 1.1 mgd tributary flow at the upstream end from
the Fairmeadows area presently overloads the entire system and needs to
be intercepted. The major source of the high flows is footing drains
which have been determined non -cost-effective to remove from the
sanitary sewerage system.
In 1966, a second trunk sewer was constructed through the industrial
section northeasterly of U.S. Highway 6, including a branch sewer to the
Fairmeadows Area. The Fairmeadows, Village Green and Heinz pumping
stations discharge into this trunk sewer. The trunk sewer presently
receives 1.1 mgd from the Fairmeadows lift station, 0.1 mgd from the
Heinz lift station and 0.8 mgd from the Village Green lift station,
based on pump capacities. Additional flow is contributed from existing
industrial and residential development in Service Area 6. The existing
trunk sewer capacity varies from 0.8 to 3.6 mgd. Projected future flow
from Service Area 6 and Fairmeadows pumping station area is 6.3 mgd, or
about double the capacity of the sewer.
C. Rundell Street Trunk Sewer - the Rundell Street trunk sewer receives
discharge frcm the two Lower Muscatine Road trunk sewers and from
Service Areas 3 and 5. During wet weather periods, the Rundell Street
trunk sewer surcharges from existing flows. Approximately 25 basement
floodings have been reported in Service Areas 3 and 5. Service Areas 3
and 5 have an existing combined estimated flow of 20.4 mgd of which the
footing drain contribution is 16.9 mgd. The trunk sewer capacity is 14
to 16 mgd. The proposed Southeast Interceptor sewer would intercept the
entire flow from Service Area 5 (12.28 mgd present plus 1.17 mgd future)
and the entire floc from that part of Service Area 3 upstream from
Rundell Street and Jackson Avenue (2.7 mgd).
-2-
MICROFILMED By
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOIIIES
Oss
J
r
L
University Heights Sewer
The University Heights collection system carries excessive amounts of inflow
and infiltration resulting in overloading of the 12 -inch trunk sewer in Benton
Street. A portion of the inflow resulting from non -watertight manhole covers,
a catch basin connected to the sanitary sewer system, and miscellaneous other
problem areas can be eliminated when the sewer rehabilitation project is
built. However, the trunk sewer will remain overloaded from the combination
of residential wastewater and inflow and infiltration from footing drains.
The footing drain inflow and infiltration problen cannot be corrected
cost-effectively and flows from footing drains are included in the planned
sewer and wastewater treatment plant improvements. The estimated design flow
in the University Heights trunk from Service Area 12 of the sewer system
evaluation survey (SSES) report (after rehabilitation of the cost-effective
inflow and infiltration sources) is 3.78 mgd. The existing Benton Street
trunk sewer varies in capacity from 0.9 to 2.3 mgd. The proposed improvements
will eliminate basement backups and wastewater discharges into streets and
yards from surcharging manholes.
A reach of the trunk sewer also has buildings constructed over the sewer
making repairs impossible should the sewer collapse beneath the buildings.
The proposed improvements will re-route the trunk sewer around the buildings.
Flow from the University Heights trunk sewer and from a portion of Service
Area 11 flows under the Iowa River in the Benton Street siphon. The siphon
has been a high maintenance item and is proposed for abandonment. The
proposed University Heights sewer improvements would re-route flows to the
newer Southwest Interceptor siphon south of the Benton Street siphon.
Outfall Relief Sewer
Improvements have been recommended for segments of North Market Run and East
Branch Market Run Trunk sewers. The improvements are primarily recommended to
improve the structural condition of the sewers. The improvements would also
remove some infiltration/inflow from the system, although the sewers have
adequate capacity to convey the peak flows.
These sewers were constructed during 1890 to 1900 period. The sewers,
including manholes, are of brick construction. Certain segments of these
sewers are in deteriorating condition. The improvements include replacement
of a segment of North Market Run Sewer between Washington and Bloomington
Streets and between Church and Ronalds Streets. Gunite would be applied to
segments of North Market Run and East Branch Market Run Sewers. The gunite
includes a wire mesh and an application of pressure concrete which would seal
the joints and improve the structural condition of the brick sewers.
-3-
MICRWILnED Dl'
JORM MICROLAG
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES FIOVIES
J
Plant Design Flows
The following flow rates are estimated to occur at the existing plant during
wet weather:
Wet Weather
Dail"y iour y
m�gu n9
Sewage Flow 9.5 17.5
Non -Footing Drain Tile 1.5 4.0
Sewer Infiltration 4.5 4.5
Footing Drain Tile 8.5 46.0
Rehabilitation Infiltration/ITOTALS 16"
Volume Per Hour (mg) 1.2 4.5
The cost-effective infiltration/inflow (3.6 mgd rate and 36 mgd rate) which
will be removed by rehabilitation and enforcement of the Sewer Use Ordinance
is as follows:
Wet Weather
a y Hour y
j �
�j
Private Homes - Roof Drains 0.3 3.5
Public ROW Intakes 0.2 1.3
University Roof Drains 1.1 12.3
University Intakes 0.7 7.0
Miscellaneous Rehabilitation 3� 1
1.9
volume Per Hour (mg) 0.2 1.5
The University has started the removal of roof drains and intakes.
The flow removed by rehabilitation represents 130 of the daily flow rate and
33,L of the hourly flow rate.
This removal by rehabilitation results in the following flow rate to the
existing plant:
Wet Weather
ai y our y
TmgdT TW
Sewage Flow 9.5 17.5
Non -Footing Drain Tile Inflow 1.5 4.0
Sewer Infiltration 4.5 4.5
Footing Drain Tile 8.5 46.0
TOTALS TQ TF6
Volume Per Hour (mg) 1.0 3.0
� -4-
117-5.,
\■
�_. MICRorILMED al' I
JORM MIC ROLAB
! j CEDAR RAPIDS • DESMDL'IES
7 i j
S_ �i _ ,- I \ -._ __"--_______•_-_ _- _moi_ -
it
The post -rehabilitation flows as the design basis for the new water pollution
control plant have been established as follows:
SourceWet
Weather
vera e-15-ai111yeSa--Tm—gdT
ojmgd�
mga�
Existing Sewage Flow
9.0
9.5
1.5
17.5
4.0
Non -Footing Drain Tile
Inflow 0.1
4.5
4.5
Sewer Infiltration
2.5
1.6
8.5
46.0
Footing Drain Tile
2.8
5.8
Future Growth2.3
TOTALS 1*67
5—.8
77:5
Volume Per Hour (mg)
0.6
1.1
3.2
-5-
141CROFILIILD BY
� JORM MIC R(�L AB J
� CEDAR RAPIDS DES I4O14E5 -
i
/17"
1
J�
a�
r
WASTEWATER FACILITY COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM 8
EXISTING TREATMENT PLANT - PROBLEM AREAS
NOVEMBER 10, 1982
Capacity
The plant was designed for a normal flow of 8 mgd and a peak Flow rate of 16
mgd. Peak capacity is now about 15 mgd. During a reasonably wet season,
bypassing can be expected when rainfall exceeds 1" per day. In July, 1981, a
relatively dry period, a 1-1/2" rain did not cause bypassing. For the
one-year period of August, 1981, through July, 1982, the plant was bypassed on
eight occasions due to rains ranging from 1.07" to 4.02".
Effluent Quality
Iowa City's Operation Permit for future years will contain the following
effluent limitations:
30 -Day 30 -Day
Average Maximum
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BODS) 30 45
Suspended Solids (SS) 30 45
Ammonia Nitrogen (14H3)
Summer 10 15
Winter 15 22.5
In addition, the facility must always remove 85% of applied 8005 and SS.
Laboratory results for a two-year period ending August, 1982, are shown on the
attached tabulation. In general, the plant fails to meet effluent limitations
regarding BODS and SS during the winter months. The plant rarely meets the
85% removal standard for secondary treatment. The City has protested the 85.
removal requirement.
1
Equipment
Most of the equipment in the plant was installed during the major expansion of
1965. Some of the equipment is worn out. If construction of a new plant is
not possible within the next few years (3-57) the following major items of
equipment should be replaced:
I. Primary grit removal equipment. ($60,000).
2. Screening equipment. ($40,000).
3. Raw wastewater pumps. The impeller design is no longer manufactured.
It may be possible to locate a foundry which can duplicate the impeller.
($75,000).
4. Trickling filter distributor arms. The center columns appear sound.
($120,000).
MICROFILMED BY
i
JORM MICR6LA9 '
` ! CEDAR RAPIDS . DES MOINES '
L
1
k1
�I
r
-2-
5. final effluent pumps. ($25,000).
6. Gas compressors to permit storing of methane rather than wasting it.
($25,000).
All of the above equipment should be included in a capital improvement
program. The replacements can be staged over a period of years.
Space
The existing plant site contains about 15 acres. The treatment plant units
occupy about 7.5 acres. The sludge lagoons and sludge beds occupy another 5.7
acres. This leaves only 1.7 acres of vacant space. If use of four of the six
sludge lagoons could be discontinued, 3.4 additional acres of land could be
made available for expansion.
There is little vacant space for expansion near the plant site.
Location
The plant site was satisfactory when the plant was built in 1935. New plant
sites must he located at least 1,000 feet from inhabited buildings. The
existing site has been subject to encroachment for many years. Commercial
buildings are located as close as 300 feet from the plant. If the plant is
to be expanded or kept in operation for an indefinite period, consideration
should be given to covering the units and adopting odor control measures.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICRbLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOMES
i
i9.S.S
J
r
104A CITY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
LABORATORY RESULTS - SEPTEMBER, 1980 THROUGH AUGUST, 1982
Month BODS SS HH3 % Removal
verage aximumverage ax mum Tverage maximum �D 3�
1980 - -
eptember 26 40 38 50 6 9 83.7 90.9
October 26 35 29 44 9 11 '86.1 91.3
November 32 45 30 52 10 11 83:6 89.7
December 34 55 43 82 11 19 82.8 85.1
1981
January 33 45 36 64 9 11 82.3 65.8
February 40 60 57 128 12 17 79.2 80.5
March 35 50 33 78 11 14 81.6 86.0
April 33 50 35 62 10 13 81.1 86.2
May 25 35 29 42 9 11 86.8 90.0
June 28 45 27 46 8 9
July 25 36 29 58 7 10 82.1 89.9
August 24 35 21 52 6 9 83.1 91.1
September 27 45 29 62 10 19 84.8 90.2
October 30 35 36 78 9 13 82.2 87.3
November 35 54 36 60 9 12 80.9 87.6
December 33 45 40 58 11 13 82.9 84.7
1982
-an-5a ry 38 55 44 64 11 13 78.2 80.2
February 41 53 42 72 10 12 80.6 81.7
March 35 50 64 154 9 13 78.8 69.2
April 40 53 41 78 8 11 75.6 73.5
May 34 45 37 82 8 11 79.0 78.2
June 28 50 36 50 6 6 78.9 79.2
July 28 55 40 62 5 7 81.0 73.0
August 26 35 25 44 6 9 81.9 80.0
W
MICROI` I UIED 61' I
I JORM MICR46LA13 - )
I
CEDAR kAf'IDS •DES 1•fO1NE5 .
I i
I
/9.SS
r) n
7
rucRor ILMED R1'
j JORM MICREIL AB - �•
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOVIES
I
a
f�
i
SC4LJE' :
I" = 200'
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB J
� CEDAR RAPIDS •DES �•tOIYES
i
i
'
'II
•�
t -z
T-1 1
G
FS
L
r 1 ,--
Job No......
....... IA? ........... Vere Nt .. ..............
........................................
VEENSTRA & KIMM. INC.
Compute) Ly;7•'!�Ihtn,;.�u�Y.-
Checked bl............ttate........... ./ reo...rr....�•..^:(....!'d�.//� /
ENGINEERS & PLANNE;i� '
•n ei .• r,.,. runt. i'+% a n:. •.� .,,. Reviewed by....... INI....... ..k. ..in rCP..Md.....:•�a..n ^"'�.....1.Ef,!C..'5...........
'„n• nv. av nary. u,e1A •ams a....,::, .......
ApprnreJ by ...... Date ....... Sheet No........... .................. of ...... f
.....................
I. REVISIONS OF COST - FACILITY PLAN
A. Delete cost of River Corridor Sewer from future funding considerations;
include annual debt service cost as an existing obligation.
B. Delete cost of completed engineering from future funding considerations;
include annual debt service cost as an existing obligation.
BB. UPDATE COST OF LAND AND EASEMENTS.
BOB. DETERMINE FUNDS ON HAND.
C. Update project costs for the following individual projects:
1. Water Pollution Control Plant
2. Outfall Sewer
3. Southeast Interceptor Sewer
4. University Heights Sewer
5. Outfall Relief Sewer
6. Sewer Rehabilitation
CC. DETERMINE ANNUAL COST TO SERVICE OUTSTANDING DEBT.
D. Update annual cost of operation and maintenance of new water pollution
control plant.
OD. IF EPA FUNDING IS INVOLVED, ESTABLISH ANNUAL REPLACEMENT FUND FOR $6.5
MILLION IN EQUIPMENT. ASSUME AVERAGE LIFE OF 15 YEARS.
E. Update interest rate and length of issue for sewer revenue bonds and/or
essential corporate purpose (general obligation) bonds.
F. Calculate local share of present plan based on federal funding levels of
75%, 55% and no federal participation.
FF. RECONSTITUTE REVENUE FOR FY 82 AND PROJECT EXPENSES (AND REVENUE).
G. Calculate annual cost of operation and maintenance, debt service and
debt service margin for three federal funding levels.
H. Calculate user charges in 9/100 CF for the three federal funding levels.
HH. SEPARATE O&M DEBT SERVICE, ETC. INTO ¢/100 CF AT THREE FUNDING LEVELS.
CALCULATE MINIMUMS.
HHH. RECALCULATE COST PER CCF FOR THREE FUNDING LEVELS.
I. Show typical bi-monthly billings for the three federal funding levels;
show minimum billing and billings to typical residential users, typical
large users and The University of Iowa.
Note: Items typed in capital letters were not included in original outline.
MICROFILMED BY
ORM MIC RG�L AB
CEDAR RANDS DES M1IDIYCS
i
mss
7
^
N/Xt.nNM
Ea/^[cl
Job No, ........ .'.!t*I* 0...............+ Page No................
hCG
Subject... w. .'..I:'.iw.w'.E:!S.Lc?nC....Lf..cAi
7L
Computed by.:k..
DotelJl!LI6'.�Y�......�T.j.....r...r.�!7.....r.7.�/J
..............
VEENSTRA & KIMM, INC.
Check.•d by............
nate ...... .....
S00,00
EN GINIEER5 & Pl.1NNI-!iS
Rcviewedby........
Dote.............
..............................................................................
F'1 J.111 -AN• lull f4l.r, ... L'. Ill l'
%LLI I.I': -OW Nli 104A WM .::..:•
Approved by'...... •
Date..........
Sheet Nn.............3: ................
iO rA� CJ�iaHA.4.a� /iv /: �' Coli /•'•�G fi'j: /.Iw.�) 4Ja.t `LOat Ooo.
rrJJ
l
elC
a Af J/ 73ooO/u00 J/ �e%K ur/i�%A. �errr.Le ial ity
et iD Gew/7/c% . Zon" have Gce,^ :Vj,c/ K +Ferrel
�. �nc/,aCa//ir5 gees -(/neaitn�l baiences G%=��BL ..
�a 6
ahcrh L:'IG
N/Xt.nNM
Ea/^[cl
.BOionct; .___..
hCG
7L
20
311
D.r .l! Srauuv
1Ct, foa
/3q Gµy-
S00,00
/A 7t0Ol
3 ;60
—
.�.et/7 /nv[J'(lpa�,ony
polo
/a/o
o
va .e E^gIVIC
S�GaO
5P494
G_
L(-.LAGnaA5c4. .�
38 0.
3d 7o
o�
Sr�SOf!
Siw�.l 011 f 0y21In:14CA.
%y 770
%'I_T/Cernttwtr/iif/nrN
7-71 60v
1/84
-
.Sc
7/�ji4-
%�� FSP
So0,000
/rnT.�tnDGtnw/tiS.•r.�
/�N 4eAe l i/z Sewevt
4o So i.
4J, go
Gant✓. 4115 $ecwv✓
3y.¢/
?;9c�
-,3BL_
�
l,.FA
P,-
vol /'MMds
e r L?3o1 54-�r17.S80L
r �
'erqur/_a� �s"L/oF3 �C o.ZS a �3�0/o - �a� Z4Zotap .--
ga 4/p dA <a9%� la.+ acrd ra6erl [n; 5 j i Ic �13L = 0060 uo�)
�i7ant Gall ^�• gnc/rt4 an.at/ _/ COMM �^�.+ //e✓e%'.nen,
L/SC >`/'7G t• %ion✓ m o, ! / 11 _..
/ / L
5>^�✓=075 �SO,OOD ._.
✓iCti/Y1an 4Saoo ... _
/ /./ %la!T Af4 did ca SS iO r ; we O y eeer;/ '7h else Cv6 FJ d9/S.�
pOO1-4C4...
/
/'I /P0,/J dMc/ E1Y�tcn,ls SaooU LFo Z �o /00, ova
OLI 0, L100
II1CROFILMED BY
I. I
JORM MIC REIL AB
I I
� I
CEDAR RAPIDS •DES MOINES
7
,i
ks
r
4
E
LF..
I
1�
OJob
do.........r.:.:.r'............. Pogo Yo...............
6 acc, 000
/�37J, D64)/3
subJeet...r_.`.'�..r.T 1.. e✓iJ.IP..^... T ...5�4.T.t'......
.-
VEENSTRA & KIMM, INC.
Cor.:puted by.7i.
Datelci',?�Sy
Jae H:9 .!�C.
......................
X19l;0cas
cbetk,•.I 61'........ .,
hate .lS... ..
EiJGfNEEI35 & Nl-'tili� i i
,LNI'.I. VIANl •. ..� I
St;f U.
I!.-ti'we.II'v......Date.
•••.•.••....
.................................
1.',A
NUINCS. IU'.�> ;O:ct
Al.pn.vrd by. ...
m
ne. ......
3 . /p
Sheet No ............. ...............01........ .................
are%n4 nGC5 pn a/ /t!S't�uG �•ns+NJ hand iaSueS ao
rrt�Jm a rerar% an./ .0e, r, A/`j Ca : r ; w -c p ✓o , /a7le ^4;6�
e'051-3 9 CN An.e e'f'�uv /J roJCc1-/tc.(a.y�
Seuk� �eanw r«H�( �4o.V*r ...
'l/o;f.�ii�eti
�N �J t+7aWnv Tl ovw �aSCirir Iit�DSH '?4
f 24L CGU 4L �tir7a1"117g cynincc•'rrtS nnc( fiaD� JOo
FrrtJ /Onc/ 4nel i,fhlS -wa% /
.'• 3.0/once r Cenci4 800
Tie C-'(fie✓�xrln' / f5 ;�xc�uc�e7 �c/iisln Scw.n Jl n.cl
Em `03 c r
:144.) r0&7'ah el ffro/ 1.71"
tnu fiwGt <SeJ•t,•eti
�o.,rlS'•, s.wy Sn rrrec�% Se�'rti
Lln�✓N?'� /ei�hJ'S 7okn
Uo c..-s-�:
d6r IhelDies[[ Com{ 6;- erlq IN GCrIr�e�� lc I n 2
co b* A Q esi /a .
i
MICROFILMED 81'
CORM MICR('JL4B
CEDAR RAPIDS •DCS MOINES '
/9.SS
1
6 acc, 000
/�37J, D64)/3
9DO, c•� O_.._.
4 000
0�, do o
ySv, 000
q JOG_ _
X19l;0cas
4&a, aoa
Uo c..-s-�:
d6r IhelDies[[ Com{ 6;- erlq IN GCrIr�e�� lc I n 2
co b* A Q esi /a .
i
MICROFILMED 81'
CORM MICR('JL4B
CEDAR RAPIDS •DCS MOINES '
/9.SS
1
F
4
i.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICR46LAB
CEDAR RAPIDS - DES MOVIES
I
Job No..... �iA 7S ..............
Page No................
Computed by.-�P� Date,
. . .. .....................
VEENSTRA & KIMM, INC. Checked by.,.......... Date ..........
ENWrIlEFRS & PLANNI-R-c; t.
Reviewej by. Date ............. ..... ....
hi .1 !J , 1.•-1414, II)AA ApproveJ by........ Date. Sheet No ............. 4 ...................
........
of ......... e;R ..............
A 6u
A.
2 -T4 4 m
Zc %ec: r, w e
Z4 �UA 11
a/;)
Od4v �eAA S
P- /4797
C7ellef&i
00 YC4143
/4.7,*
S40 4=00 ev i
/%B3
7st;C- M;
IV31 07o
147,344 SPzvl.
;LOS,* 4w P
/de 4300
s'(' O9'F
I
1-775�0
1
r, r.2 f3
1f..
AIV, d/O
meleg rl"32Y
/31400
-ve3w 12 5.
fpl
/4/1754� ;fle
/7t ;qo
-164-3Yj
/590 4 2. 0
47, Si7
-7e7,28b
//7' wr
4s;!4..e.
Z7j, Zio
114,17>
}3r;3
:L 5S 84 a
/F9.3 Ile) -lz>
X101 7r!;-
199 4- 107 / ,rb
107 Irlo
1q7
4z-c?r'.. de 6f rfruicc- /'9Y,
i.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICR46LAB
CEDAR RAPIDS - DES MOVIES
I
OJob No...... iG Z.V............ raga No ...............
-
Subject ...T.Ak....
...:.:�cr;;,si.,�..�'..�a.a.........
Computed h),;WK- Datel,;!.
VEENSTRA & KIMM• INC.
......................................
Chrak�:�l hc•M.F. Late' r. �� ^,
E P: G I N E E R S & P L d N iii f R `• R.r6•.ved bF _, Date............ •' �f ~"^'•• .�Y Nr.a. 4Jl ' /'rnn
....................................................
f•I :.L'.I 1•?V I••�Il41BG 1•. i : '• '�•' •
M',I ILS IMANLs uma 50:65 •:....• Approved by...... Date..... ... Shret No...........J ..............of..........l. .........
ClJa.r..e-
//1r ion li r. roo / A"; 4'.
brie : /1�.7fs//n, new n7 2Ov.. o /YeavG!. /1 r7Jh u;se�L !. / r•'� GeS ...
cyrl.na.%s sard,i
b43eei n �=/JA dart r"uitrrrBFe./ (ors.r/r;...fr rr-.� --
tiSC
Go p td on l°»r, / e,le s.a.,,✓ , Ex -4 --/a k eva3 no
.�iiJdst/ QL/M Go 5{7 Ys t, eNrsi-7/eaw7 7sr. �ag;rst� ,-
[reM. not/ �jt <Lir� 7/SL.✓/ swt ��i��9>. i�Cn �J"'Ojer
/c°sfs +G ,�k�� ye.� a•f 0 e.a•%rvrl
GOctO - �GKSona / Sc r�Jca s X353 /e7 •�soq 380 �%:Y, aov�
'7000 - �n✓vt 6T e� I%tc 5 __
o�{:c elnA /�...t Sw.p/,hes •° Go9 � oto , �;;ao.
ea"ergrto /s ..Gaaf /:700 !rte-deB
Clo 746
frLLJIGIG r.eC/ /.++49 zona /o,uoo___
BIW7. rygrnl S4"06 5 4S L G2¢ Z,00e _
{ hbl:,t r-tarSer,aL� /� 4 83
/Y,/et CIA.
:lon S�YuG �1a' �-Wpp he$,s''7 .._..
Mr see // S '•l 4,; P. �l3 2�oUu
Jas c/oo e62no s79tO _-
1 9SS
MICROFILMED BY
J
a JORM MICRbLAS i
I I CEDAR RAPIDS • uES MOINES
Job No......./ ,7.A........... Psla No.....
Computc,j by.:" Datr!40
V STRA KIMM, INC. Checkid by. liatt
EEN jW
ENGO!EERS & PLAN %':
.....
Revicwcd by. Date ................................................... ......... ..... .......
*o,l J,,, K,AA WIS Appr~d b) ........ Pate. ........ Sheet No .............. 4 ...............of...-.... ........
?ado -
an
013p71r J 510, ad 0
J�Yl 4-t
e,,
&n r- 4'rl/O r) x
//, mpf-5 ?7/.4'j Owl 5, 44
s Z 340 DDO
CalC-0 7 1
/S'a 4wv
1'51
'400.
e� 44 oZ9 74,000-
-1 w/pow e
cl
a 6 61 <1
An.numt 04-vt
116, cco
7017
195s,
MICROrILMED BY
JORM MICROLAS
CEDAR RAPIDS -DCS MOINES
x I
OJob No....... ..c........ f uge N .. ..............
OSubject
Computed hy.; tib. Dute.t.:0
VEENSTRA & KIMM, INC. Cheek,d by........... Din•. ...{Y .�Y..� ..... 2.-. ' (o:enar. t....t ••,d
ENGINEERS & .
l•i pL l•INr ......PLi%N:
rH AW.
... %tOewed hy' Dat.,-..........................................................4...................
I•fJu .. ..� -..........
Approved 6 .Date, ' :5
At°.I U-1 •:.171141. was tg.'O pp y ........ Sheet No..............................ot...........
..................
DD-/deo/acemenf F�.+o(
<S 2Ac4c en f •�.fne/ n'J✓a7� G: �3T.e�JirDiCd
44 t
/15 U3C�rtsQ �iG %lJi3 /S odv-� -7-7,r/aaovcG
In 0n -�hc hods &;A'cA /�a 7 afrW
'r/n'Jn /'C�/4et»1G�+5 GJ�`i•i�1 �oCaQ +incwL/4✓+/5'�, �y..,d�ney _.
*w 't.(..r. Fac. /. ;/z. /7/sr, �7/opo3GC� �O �c%•S=. �G /,_-__
//rJJi7a�9/n pt (�'GS/3 900 /et..'er/cns�e �oed3> -ti �SCIO
-tl0L IG/�/pCGMGrf GaJ7�j i� ri_nC/.c� mfs/iJr.>>'�oil 6vn�p .,.
&l.ou
A� /G ' (u..e�0,flru[
Q 4LN/L Li7wJJn..yC 4n.( a%� go71'
L/SC fii� /JO•>'s/
Nit
✓ec an.,a.� w�:� /sem �
:. --
r�r/aeeel A /p yea.tg,
RlOe[5 5 �"2' � �7� e.et G soo 000
� 4 y's`o, ona 70 `
Gond�y�.,q Sca�nr5 fh orr,
2GG,0oo j %
¢zoo, 400
�,�ao oea �5�f� -
/�+pA�G4.2 o7r006, COO
800,006
%,W,000
�774.100o in //a tears E 3`/, (/.:o���
_ %op
roc/ac.G
44// 3$q.
y, r . _
/9.55
141CRUILMEb 6Y
JORM MICROLAB
L i 1
CEDAR RAPIDS •DES MOVIES
�r
r i
.r
S-
F
4
Job
.............. Pace N..... •• ................
Computed by!=i Date. Subject.. /. A! 4
VEENSTRA & KIMM, INC.
ENGINEER6 Chmcked by ............ Elate .•.., - ..............
!'+I AI ...... I Pc,lcwNl by
ul•I.... Date .......... I ............................. ............ I.......................
A;Ipnlvrd 65•....... D:,t, . . ..... ... Sheet No .......... A ................. Of .........
14 Oir ee 57 16
4X_
/*
yaw 90 20a/&
A44.7 710 yCRit S, US,: 77i4 r&j, '514D '0'
42 A/eee674.
J
IeA415 V
Arap'/%. U. // !i Soo
A iZz JG /61
6 122 L9/
30 9 4 Ap v 7
4' ll!r4.' 70
MICROrILMED BY
CORM MICF:146LAB
CEDAR RAPIDS - MMOV4ES
I
r
Q
1 VEENSTRA & KIMM, INC.
EPa(jiNt ERS &
1) Ad '1 Md•.. -.rn Dlno +.I
Ik":I%t n. R.AA YEAS .. u
ca/evILPOL
A!7/lua� COST
P. r ew Ali I a t 7'L C 1, I I rp i, r
Job No.....�i!'Zu.............. Pose No...............
'�D Liomm` �s
C11, 6,/, /7
C;F—
i
Crmputed by,;.I,;G
Dete1B
'
eo ar+q 75%:. D/ltall, .,7 ea srJ a/ne..wt Yo 4a Sal bo
06
Jerre In-�errnedJate °el.
....... ?7 .... ....................I........
Checkl•li IJA•
bale
'11011000/000 xO,IIGIZ'Z1Sf
......
....... ..........
k -viewed by.... ..
Date ...........
..............................................................................
;Aw
Approved b) '_.....
Dale . .........
Sheet No.............................of........./
.?. .
b................
L!vlel/ ✓;A*-,
Qily7-TY-0
l� /• 4 e 4NCI ..t.�
IC✓:.IS
A!7/lua� COST
P. r ew Ali I a t 7'L C 1, I I rp i, r
G°SfS "�*k Lv�-L /!�✓G
'�D Liomm` �s
C11, 6,/, /7
C;F—
C'RG/7 /JraJecl—, swe��s�
/�o
�r�s� s�lac/ T4//
ons wns1�
ee�i✓ren
eo ar+q 75%:. D/ltall, .,7 ea srJ a/ne..wt Yo 4a Sal bo
06
Jerre In-�errnedJate °el.
...
c7 %
'11011000/000 xO,IIGIZ'Z1Sf
-'zI5ZIL Boa
A!7/lua� COST
'AD fr^once ciSrr�yc/o
%S
'N/lG lnp GG✓CI
.. =/Gy�re
�LC/itq.(r
it A- .._.
11742l000
...
c7 %
'11011000/000 xO,IIGIZ'Z1Sf
-'zI5ZIL Boa
o
deaf coo/ 0ac
;Aw
3J4B41GOo
4O---
-
2o/OZ4:0
�, 903.0 o
=,n
A17
707/ 000. --
Sd,000,c00
—J
d
A!7/lua� COST
'AD fr^once ciSrr�yc/o
%S
�'lMA SAO � h/w.eain
S%l, OOU
6oS74
11742l000
...
c7 %
'11011000/000 xO,IIGIZ'Z1Sf
-'zI5ZIL Boa
�/mss so 90 /'/•e5,:,
1 ! a �f o 00
3J4B41GOo
-
Sol /lace•
�, 903.0 o
A17
707/ 000. --
C'°nJi4 %ha/e/in� e10414 /Origt�lrl /iaysnen $ Ur>ex/s�n, /ssurs oes
MICROf ILMED By
JORM MICRbLAB-
j CEDAR RAPIDS - DES MOINES
T i _
J
F
OJob No ........ n'UR ........... Page No ................
.......... . . ...
Ccmputed-r,+, /--
VEENSTRA K, INC. Ch,ckM 6y,,,,-,.,,,, ...... .......................................................
&
E R '; & P IMM4% N I': R S
Reviewed by. .. Date .............. ...... .......
11 '1*1
IOWA 'AN, I Approved by ...... Date Sheet No .............. �4 ............. of ..........
e.IC lJnTr..
eeacnmd 16'11 -'7' Yl-
el,14 1. cy
17
10 3.�
Mie)irmum b;11 "3Qs ;Z/.
40G c 'Wied
-.4% xlle,+l e0e 4 3sirllao VA.
nef
Y;4j A6 5 14A
Aft:) Wjc-W 7—.OZ- 7:44 I r y id b11111rlf 11,
4)44W
Sold 91)'0-271ec-r; 3/y (P.
2 $741 99l
clase cry eLlh-
��e lef I w.m s iA.
x 04,o7 4 0- 0 0 27 S6,*F Or -7
111 CROP I LMED BY
JORM MICR6LA�JB
CEDAR RAPIDS - DES MOINES
19"
ml
J
\1
F
rob N ............. Para No...............
Computed byr?!WADatelOt."
VEENSTRA & KIMM, INC. Ch,,k(.i 1'y............ Date ............
E N (31 N E E R 03 & P I ANN RS by Date....... ...... ....... *** ............
b.. ':,I '11� W'(
-';L- JUG N. .0 1 1
,f I VUIN( S 104A W.%S I.: Appruve(f by ... IDAtt . .......... Sheet No.._......... . ................. f ......... !� ..... .
Ile eA., ec ir, c�
'Coy
vr7
X, coot 0 0 0-
-i B0. 0 Do, coo
3,6b, coo
loco
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICR6LAB
CEDAR RAPIDS •DES MOIX]ES
1?5:51
I
1
r
1
I
0
o-
VEENSTRA & KIMM, INC.
E :GlititEii.`; & PL INNERS
tl .•.... r' 'IRCI l
Computed byf Date ;/r,`y
Checked by............ Darr ......... ..
Revirwed by....... Date .............
Approved by....... Date ... ..
Job No....../. /4.7.0........... Pap No ...............
../..f,; fn,5- 7.... �-/.-f.............................................
SheetNo............ 4,1!.............of............/...............
C7- 4,)rnual Ce -is 9.4 ogw . [ l4tt+a clehi- 5crulcG, vll J C1e6T S�I'VIGC
an an e /Dr -/.5 c{ 74nc%/1y
A� %s fo rune i
cs/��ion and M�IinhOan[G
h Dc67`- SCIV14C
/I/ecJ 0�6f Scruicc.
10
/aDCF: 4 ¢4/,oyco : 33Sv�000
*WgzS� �t�J SGC Z4rU AGI/HS{MGIe/ ...
O,7C1,q-11oc On�I Nni�>'nant�
'5ic/,f-iny I Dchf S�rvcc�
�
/hw Debr SGYdic:
I✓er.L� Debl Cerdic: Mr��;�
�cpla�mchi Cost
7/SL�7
S=Y
/Gi 000
ww...i '
3,3Sa,079 = A157
g1.cr+41nd !Olr7kMnCe /7,'$OOJ
CLX l5ri17 �7L Jc✓!//!G /534,000.
//ew �b{ SeralcG S,80 t7oo
1✓c�1 l�6fScivrG /�fatgin o?,r703/ 000.
'-i•%
_ems G. -Z j- V /9SS
111CROCILI.ICD D1'
JOpM MtCRbLAB
CEDAR RANDS •DCS M01AC5
i
.+I
0 _
0
VEENSTRA & KIMM, INC.
ENGINEERS & PI.,%,NNP'S
YM WE5l o -a .n OLe(;AO
AESI Of'. raplNLS IUVA 'A:0
Computed bye. ;-}4 Dete .�h-,th-
Checked by........... Date.......... .
Reviewed by...... . Date .............
Approved by........ Date............
Job No....i 2A ............ Page No................
Subject%1a.5..T...'.:P4✓(3(crl•arcyry_,,.
...=.......................................................
SheetNo............. .5............ of............ � .....»...
�mttT� d�H i��cCr t/✓.=moo!r3 �.J /T C,
Fes, d RN 4-L. X12,1:
111CROMMED BY
mac., JORRA MICRbL4B
L ) I CEDAR RAPIDS •DES IdORJES
r
r
r
i
�� (�fc�oU=,36>'0,000 CCF = �•/��CC� ---
J
Y2 ?�I X00000 xSac,---
F 16' �
cc rul�, r�; oX � o
W CG Tom_ `S
---
0 r
/ IZ ra
l s56/o �•E ., a.:.t �Z, 1176 Dou j. 3,6So,000
a,7F�:"s� _.._..—'
0
D
163,4oIaco r 31GSe,00m - J•7f/x� ---
V 3 o•ea t� X 117 ci•
72 Ze ,•r✓a ---'
Ca/ca laYio n ,r;
....._
ag y fir P 46, 200 4G io0
_- �4 y0O
DcbF Serv�cc,I�= osv ?3�,vao
S.7,a-Io. —
�, /a -V. r�-•J
`e d
/.?a, ary —
�Z24, 200 �3B/Jl00
;t9, (00 600 CF irld a.ca
—
Inlnlmw.r` e q 3r.0 o9 6 5'o Z. 39y
/ r
?/73 4ncl3.07 G4 �g$3s'g�-
/,SSai,9Z9. _—
/Z, /O0 UsarS X53,25 'J3.dZ
"/:1790 ...
�/r►/ont/ly />7�nirnewti..l:G) A8;7 /L./7
1021. ....__._: _.
: /, •fo
111CROMMED BY
mac., JORRA MICRbL4B
L ) I CEDAR RAPIDS •DES IdORJES
r
r
r
i
0 Job No ...... Oiajo............. Palo No................
.............
Computed hy.r:' Dalejc Yr -+ '
....... S�e�. ii.i{...K.C.S,ylcwl4iA..tc-T-...........
VEENSTRA & KIMM• INC. cheered b)•.....,-,,,..u,te-,••- •�••••��� - ••--••
ENGINEERS & PL.\h:i':CliS%Reviewedb•�'?.4�.•.....rwtet...emmm.r.n...Q?k,4.6+,-J
A r,t•a Phe. wxut"AA mx rr. 3 Date ............. ......
Al'I :I'. R•riINLS. IbNA `7y'. ,. it o Approved b)•........ Date. ......... Sheet No..............!4.' f�
=INN 0066 10C A «., D.,l « _ . n.L. ,_ . _
19306,
I•tICROF IL1•4ED DI•
JORM MIt:RbLAB
J I CEDAR RAPIDS DES 1d014E5
i
r I
A
_ 11111
r�N� Kt
ICVC I
A Vin N..C. G� t'i•
'444, oou
i"G /B3,000
A/? 9�x coo
/,eti Yeld�in,t Mt•,t.nw....
'.SB 4ae
,�GQ.
—; SGo 9oc _
3,orsy 600 e; ;
_
Gra. OaF
/.24
0/.7-.st--
_
19306,
I•tICROF IL1•4ED DI•
JORM MIt:RbLAB
J I CEDAR RAPIDS DES 1d014E5
i
r I
A
_ 11111
[r
QJob Me ......iiw.7,9........... Page v ...............
SubJect. %w:.l*. .'.: F�✓c� io n......�v.� Ci........
Computed by :Jj4 Date/� y+ tr — _
VEENSTRA 81 KIMM, INC. checkol b•..,,,,,,.,,. �''
y I)ute.........................Tr�,�Ye....��,f�
F'lG1i�JEf'R5 & P:A 1 Ute.. ...............................
Ni�EH,, .
t 411 F. >.. e......e¢ Bevieu'e.1 by.
I' 1 i.............................................................................
tl`. S141M1. it. em ;0.x,', .••..•••• '
1:.: Approved by.
..... Uate. Sheet No. ........... ..............f............l-?....,......._
T— TJpI
N( I n I rvN
11.0,0 L?I'(yMc
ZUDUC C'�is',ou
coo C(: (LLI�o1
SC OGOC
/0000,0 Ch (%t w
jOCD/oz a F(1 .401a
/7 000,000 e c
e
C
u
A444)
P
31'.54
63.58
74.98
? IMo,g8
y;3ly
'9. uv
aa 3!;.;,
�Sf au
/8,9L-
113.5v
z8. cf¢
li3.U�
4/.24-
247.44
62{,04
5"724—
11244.04-,r,24
r7447#4.2y
1=¢04-1
4474
?4424 -
X53%L6 9135'11.
74S.D
(o03SY 13G 11 n L 1210 ?0411 lollI
J
MICROFILMED BY
i JORM MICR46LAB
i CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES
r/l.O�so
�IY1/.041
39.8<
z35.o f
7a.%. 411,74o
5"724—
343.44
1,V Ic
8%504
s'zSo,
X53%L6 9135'11.
74S.D
/D17a.Z'
7_ .G /841 SL
171140:r
/d'F+h30
070 /�4,25�
_ I
�9s8oS e�7;:/N;o
i
SZo2o5 3JLIILS+F
Mrs
1
J
..STEWATER FACILITY COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM D
SEWEP SERVICE CHARGES
LAPGE IOWA CITIES
Charge for 1000 cf/Rio
Median, all cities 1.20 2.40 3.85 6.00 7.20
Des Moines .60 1.65 2.64 2.64 6.45
1
141CROEILMED BY
I J
1 JORM MICRf LAS 1
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES
1 i
I I
Cost
to Residence for
600 cf or
4500 gal/month
City
Tg�D�'964
-1970
1977
1980 .198Z
Des Moines
S .36
S .36
S .99
S1.59
$1.59 $3.87
Cedar Rapids
.73
1.00
1.75
2.B4
2.82 3.90
Davenport
3.00
3.96 5.00
Sioux City
.94
1.31
1.36
3.95
5.37 6.89
Waterloo
.41
.41
.81
2.37
2.64 3.22
Dubuque
1.08
1.08
1.92
2.70
6.00 6.90
Council Bluffs
(began
in 196,)
1.26
1.69
3.43
4.44 -4.-4
5.96(10/1)
Iowa City
.54
1.32
1.67
1.62
1.62 2-3a
3-C+1;
Ames
1.16
1.16
3.14
3.06
6.30 6.30
�ilyHon+�Y 8 I t,�� I
M,n1m6im (TAalude9 400CF) 03.2b�
P�w9
800 CF(J fp,3s'y
L.g`/
SEIIEP
SERVICE
CHARGES
IOUA
CITIES (22-25) Over
10,000 POPULATION
ko
1958
1964
1970
1977
1980 1982
i
Minimum Monthly
Bill,
S
Median, all
cities
S .50
5 .60
51.00
$1.55
$2.00 $2.30
Des Moines
.25
.25
.73
1.20
1.20 2.94
Charge for 600
cf/mo
Median, all
cities
.75
1.15
1.50
2.40
3.90 4.45
Des Moines
.36
.36
.99
1.59
1.59 3.87
Charge for 1000 cf/Rio
Median, all cities 1.20 2.40 3.85 6.00 7.20
Des Moines .60 1.65 2.64 2.64 6.45
1
141CROEILMED BY
I J
1 JORM MICRf LAS 1
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES
1 i
I I
i�
141CROMMED BY
CORM MIC R46LAB )
l � CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES
r I
� I
1 a
h
JUNE
1982 COMPARISON OF DOMESTIC
SEWER SERVICE
CHARGES
a
MONTHLY CHARGE FOR
VOLUME
IN CUBIC
FEET
Prepared
by City of Ames,
Iowa
Rate1000
200
300
600
0
800
- ,
10,000
-
50,700
100,000
City
Effective
Effective
-
2.86
3.72
4.58
6.30
8.02
• 9.74
81.14
431.14
861.14
Ames
1/80
2.59
3.04
3.51
4.45
5.38
6.31
48.22
234.52
467.40
Ankeny(1)
6/81
2.61
3.48
5.22
6.96
8.70
87.00
435.00
870.00
Bettendorf
1/82
1.74
3.80
4.49
5.19
6.58
7.98
9.38
72.15
351.15
699.90
Burlington
10/80
4.61
29.89
113.14
210.64
Cedar Falls(2)
5/80
1.88•
1.88•
2.27
3.05
3.83
(3)
7/82
1.70
2.25
2.80
3.90
5.00
6.10
55.60
275.60
550.60
Cedar Rapids
2.00•
2.40
3.20
4.80
6.40
8.00
80.00
400.00
800.00
Clinton
1/82
2.65•
3.25
4.44
5.64
6.83
47.73
229.49
392.69
Council Bluffs(4)
7/78
2.65•
1.67
2.50
3.34
5.00
6.67
8.34
83.35
416.75
833.50
Davenport
4/82
2.94'
3.87
5.16
6.45
64.50
259.50
456.00
Des Moines
4/81
2.94•
2.94•
2.30•
3.45
4.60
6.90
9.20
11.50
115.00
575.00
1150.00
Dubuque
10/80
2.67•
3.28
4.06
4.84
42.29
207.29
413.54
Ft. Dodge
4/82
2.67+
2.67•
9/81
3.57
4.16
4.75
5.93
7.11
8.29
61.39
297.39
592.39
Ft. Madison
(1) Based on winter
quarter average use. (2)
Will not
exceed
previous
winter
(4) Summer
quarter average use.
rate is 40" of
(3) Flat
water bill.
$2 credit
for lawn watering,
etc. once each
summer to all
residential customers.
• Minimum bill, monthly
530-670 cu
ft/month,
or 4000-5000
gallonsimonth.
711
Typical single-family
residence
use -
1 cu ft - gallons.
i�
141CROMMED BY
CORM MIC R46LAB )
l � CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES
r I
� I
1 a
j
_ MICRONUtED BY
JORM MIC REILAB
�1
� 1
CEDAR RAPIDS DES t4014ES
7 a
A
JUNE 1982 COMPARISON OF DOMESTIC
SEWER SERVICE
CHARGES
(continued)
Page
2
a
MONTHLY CHARGE FOR VOLUME
IN CUBIC
FEET
Rate
300
400
600
300
1.000
10_000
-
50.000
-
100,000
City
Effective
200
1.63•
1.63•
1.63"
.V. t'Y
4-.3+
r,
3.0-
3.76
35.-'
177.7
355.21
Iowa City
6/81
4.40*
4.36
6.08
60.75
303.75
607.50
Keokuk
9/80
4.40*
4.40*
4.40•
3.14
3.81
4.48
5.82
7.16
2.50
68.RU
3336.80
671.80
Marion
7/B2
5.99
6.37
7.13
7.89
8.65
42.85
194.85
384.85
Marshalltown
5/82
5.61
2.24
2.97
4.42
5.88
7.34
37.67
163.67
321.17
Mason City
4/82
1.75•
5.90
6.84
7.78
50.08
236.08
473.08
Muscatine(S)
4/82
4.49'
4.49*
4.96
1.93*
2.39
2.85
3.77
4.69
5.61
34.26
119.51
197.01
Newton
4/80
6.00
7.50
9.00
76.50
376.50
151.50
Oskaloosa
5/79
3.00
3.75'
4.50
2.20•
2.20'
2.20•
3.36
4.52
5.68
59.68
303.68
608.68
Ottumwa
(6)
7/80
3.92
4.91
6.69
B.
10.85
102.25
502.72
1002.93
Sioux City
8/62
2.93•
11/75
2.60•
2.60*
2.60'
3.80
5.00
6.20
60.2D
30D.20
600.20
Spencer
1.60•
1.60•
2.14
3.22
4.30
5.38
53.98
269.98
539.98•
Waterloo(7)
7/82
2.45*
2.45*
7..81
4.21
5.61
7.02
70.13
296.63
536.25
West Des Moines
1/81
based on winter
usage with
up to
151 increase
allowed. (6) Based on
winter
quarter water
use.
.(5) Summer bills are
(7) Based on maximum
winter water
use.
• Minimum bill. monthly
530-670 cu
ft/month.
or 4000-5000
nailons/month.
1 ft - 7� gallons.
Typical
single-family
residence
use -
Cu
j
_ MICRONUtED BY
JORM MIC REILAB
�1
� 1
CEDAR RAPIDS DES t4014ES
7 a
A
r
Allowance Ind. Waste
on Min. Bill or Strength
cu ft month Charges?
100 No
P]
0
0
300
0
250
300
0
455
200
444
0
ypical bill for unmetered residence is 59.80/month.
to increases anticipated: (1) within a year; (2) within three months; (3) annual adjustment July 1983: (4) already
enacted for Jan. 1983; (5) in Jan. 1983; (6) in 1984; (7) in approximately one year.
r
MICROFILMED V
� JORM MIC R6LA B 1
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOMES
I
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
1
NQ
e.
J�
JUNE 1982
COMPARISON OF
DOMESTIC SEWER SERVICE CHARGES
GENERA4 RATE CHARACTERISTICS
Prepared by
City of Anes, Iowa
Est. Population Served
Dates of
Rate Steps
Minimum
Population
Recent Rate
or
Bill
ity
Census Basis
Equivalent
Adjustments
Rate Basis
S/Month
_
nes
46,000
46,000
1978, 1979
$2.00 to .86/
2.00
100 cu ft
Ikeny(1)
15.000
1976. 1981
.465/100 cu ft
1.65
plus min. bill
.,,%tendorf(2)
27,000
1979, 1980
.87/100 cu ft
0
1981, 1982
Irlington
30,000
1977, 1980
.6975/100 cu ft
2.40'
plus min. bill
War Falls
36,000
1976, 1980
75' of water bill
1.88
:dar Rapids(3)
140,000
700,000
1980, 1981
.55/100 cu ft plus
0
1982
.60/month
! inton(4)
35,000
170,000
1975, 1982
.80/100 cu ft
2.00
until Bluffs (5)
56,000
1978
64`r.' of water bill
2.65
i
nport(6)
125,000
175,000
1980, 1982
.8335/100 cu ft
0
s Moines
240,000
1972, 1981
.645 to .3825/
2.94
100 cu ft
buque(7)
62,000
150,000
1976, 1980
1.15/100 cu ft
2.30
Dodge
30,000
60,000
1980, 1982
.39/100 cu ft or
2.67 or
.4125/100 cu ft (large)
2.87
Madison
14,000
25,000
1975, 1981
.59/100 cu ft
2.39
plus min bill
Allowance Ind. Waste
on Min. Bill or Strength
cu ft month Charges?
100 No
P]
0
0
300
0
250
300
0
455
200
444
0
ypical bill for unmetered residence is 59.80/month.
to increases anticipated: (1) within a year; (2) within three months; (3) annual adjustment July 1983: (4) already
enacted for Jan. 1983; (5) in Jan. 1983; (6) in 1984; (7) in approximately one year.
r
MICROFILMED V
� JORM MIC R6LA B 1
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOMES
I
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
1
NQ
e.
J�
r
r )
MICROFILMED BY
I
j JORM MIC R6LAB )
I
CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES I
7 % �
I
UNE 1982 COMPARISON
OF DOMESTIC
SEWER SERVICE
CHARGES (continued)
page 2
ENERAL RATE CHARACTERISTICS
Est, Population Served
Dates of
Rate Steps
Minimum
Allowance
Min. Bill
Ind. Waste
or Strength
Census Basis
Population
Equivalent
Recent Rate
Adjustments
or
Rate Basis —
Bill
$/Month
on
u ft/month
Charges?
52,000
52,000
1976, 1981
.355/100 cu ft
1.63
400
Yes
owa City
eokuk(8)
15,000
225,000
1980, 1981
.6075/100 cu it
4.40
72:_
Yes
20,000
20,000
1979, 1982
.67/100 cu ft
1.80
G
Yes
arion
plus min. bill
9
( )
27,OOD
100,000
1 980. 1982
.38/100 cu ft
4.85
0
es
,shalltown
bill
ason City
31,000
50,000
1976. 198272900
to 3ft/
1.75
233
Yes
cu
23,000
574,000
1979,
.47/100 cu ft
4.49
300
Yes
;iscatine(10)
1980, 1982
plus min, bill
No
ewton
15,000
32,000
1976, 1980 50',• of water bill
1.93
200
;kaloosa(11)
11,000
15,000
1973, 1979
.75/100 cu ft
1.50
0
Yes
plus min. bill
i
2)
27,000
1980
. 55 to .61/
2.20
400
Yes100
tfumwa(1976,
cu ft
( (13)
—loux City
110,000
258,000
1
1.462 to .99/
2.93
200
Yes
1981,. 1982
100 cu ft
(14)
11,600
1975
.60/100 cu ft
2.60
400
No
Fencer
3terloo
75,000
800,00091981,
789;
.54/100 cu ft
1.60
300
Yes
99882
ast Des Moines
22,000
25,600
1974, 1981
700tcu
2.45
aec
Yes
ft
.3) in fall 1982;
(9) annually;
(10)in Jan. 1983;
(11) annually:
(12) rate increase
is needed:
(13) Do;sibly
in mid 1983:
14) rate increase
is needed.
r )
MICROFILMED BY
I
j JORM MIC R6LAB )
I
CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES I
7 % �
I
r
WASTEWATER FACILITY COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM E
SEWERADLE AREAS
November 10, 1982
The Planning Staff will be available to discuss the comprehensive
plan with the Facility Committee at the meeting.
1 ,
NICROEILNED BY
i
JORM MICRbLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES
/95s
1
J��
r
In
L
WASTEWATER FACILITY COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM F
FOOTING DRAINS AND ROOF DRAINS
NOVEMBER 10, 1982
Studies made during the Sewer System Evaluation Survey (SSES) established
flows from footing drains and roof drains. The rehabilitation measures set
forth in the SSES included a list of roof drains identified in the City.
These roof drains are on private and University property and were not eligible
for federal funding. Their removal is not included in the rehabilitation
project now in design.
Roof drains are prohibited by the City's Sewer Use Ordinance. The City should
now proceed toward enforcing the ordinance. Estiinates of 15.8 mgd flow from
roof drains are as follows:
Private Properties 3.5 mgd
University 12.3 mgd
The University is making progress in the removal of roof drainage from the
sanitary sewer system.
The removal of downspouts from private properties in required prior to
operation of the new plant. The City will notify private property owners that
downspouts are required to be removed from the system.
As established in the 1979 Facility Pian, most of the infiltration/inflow into
the system is from footing drain tiles. The post -rehabilitation flows for the
new water pollution control plant include 54.5 mgd infiltration/inflow, with
84% or 46.0 mgd contributed by footing drain tiles. This flow from footing
drain tile is not cost-effective to remove. As indicated in the Iowa City
study and other studies, it would be very time consuming and costly to
identify all structures that have footing drain tile connections to the sewer
System. A civic survey was conducted as part of the SSES study that attempted
to obtain this information from the private property owners. The results of
this survey indicated that the owners either did not know or did not want to
provide the information on the footing drain tile connections. The historical
data from the survey indicates that primarily older homes have footing drain
tiles connected to the sanitary sewer systam. The City's Sewer Use Ordinance
prohibits connections of footing drain tile to the sewer system.
-1-
atcaonuaEm er
JORM MICR16LAS
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MDI:ICS
1
J
tr
DESIGN N O� UTA
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT
owa t ty, owa
Job 11650
September 24, 1982
VEENSTRA S KIMM, INC.
Engineers S Planners
300 West Bank Building
West Dess,
OMoine1 22nd SIowat 50265
i
VIICROf ILIdED BY
' 1 JORM MICRE/LAB-
CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOIWS I
i
I
/9.4..5
fr
DESIGN OUTLINE
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT
owa ity, Iowa
Job 1165U
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. TREAT14ENT PLANT DESCRIPTION
A. Wastewater Treatment
B. Stormwater Overflow
C. Solids Treatment
D. Other Systems
II. MODIFICATIONS TO FACILITY PLAN
III. DESIGN CRITERIA
MICROFIL14ED BY
JORM MICR4LAB � 1
CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES I
I
/ 95,;
1
J�
r
1. TREATMENT PUNT DE�IOi�
A. wastewater Treatment
The new water pollution control plant is designed to provide primary
and secondary treatment within the following permit discharge
1 imitations:
Parameter Limit, mg/)
BOD5 30
SS 30
Ammonia Nitrogen (as nitrogen) 15
Major components in order of flow through the plant are listed below
and are shown on Figure I-1.
1. Stormwater overflow at plant inlet.
2. Mechanically cleaned bar screens with V openings, complete with
conveyor belts and storage hopper.
3. Plant wastewater pumps; vertical, non -clog centrifugal type with
variable speed drive (variable frequency).
4. Aerated grit removal basins and equipment.
a.Centrifugal type blowers for aeration of grit removal basins and
channels.
b. Grit washers; inclined screw type.
C. Storage hopper for grit (common with screenings).
S. Parshall flume to meter plant influent flow and pace chemical
dosages for odor control and to proportion wastewater samplers.
6. Rectangular primary clarifier tanks and equipment.
a. Longitudinal sludge collectors with surfac
b. Cross collectors. e skimming.
c. Revolving scum pipes.
d. Scum concentration box.
7. Oxidation ditch aeration tank layout and equipment.
a. Jet aeration headers.
b. Centrifugal blowers for oxygen supply to aeration basins.
C. Propeller -type aeration pumps for pumping primary effluent,
return activated sludge and mixed liquor together through jet
aeration headers for intimate mixing with air.
1-1
/ AICRorILMED BY
JORM MICR6LA6
j CEDAR RAPIDS • DES VINES.
i9sS
1
J
■
r
8. Circular final clarifier tanks with peripheral feed inlet.
a. Sludge suction drawoff headers.
b. Scum skimmers and scum boxes.
C. Waste activated sludge pumps.
d. Covered with deductive alternate to delete covers.
9. Disinfection tanks and equipment using ultraviolet light and
mechanical lamp wipers.
10. Rectangular weir to meter plant effluent, to pace disinfection
equipment and to proportion wastewater sampler.
B. Stormwater Overflow
I. Stormwater pumps.
a. vertical centrifugal pumps for use during major storms.
b. Submersible pump for small storm events and for complete
drainage of wet well.
2. Mechanically cleaned trash rack with 2" openings, complete with
storage hopper and manual lift.
3. Stormwater basin.
4. Basin overflow structure with flow measurement and disinfection.
5. Stormwater release structure with flow measurement for controlled
return of stormwater to wastewater treatment.
C. Solids Treatment
Major solids treatment facilities are listed below and are shown on
Figure I-2.
1. Primary clarifier sludge and scum pumps and sludge density meter.
2. Primary sludge holding tank, air diffusors, macerators and pumps.
3. Final clarifier scum pumps.
4, waste sludge holding tanks, air diffusors and pumps.
5. Dissolved air flotation thickeners and pumps.
6. Thickened sludge holding tanks, air diffusors and pumps.
1-2
111CR0f ILMED BY
JORM MICR6LAB
j CEDAR RAPIDS • DES 14010ES
I
195.s'
1
k1
r
7. Lime/sludge mixing tanks.
a. Lime silos with dust collectors.
b. Volumetric lime feeders. Either quick lime or hydrated lime
may be used. Slakers, lime slurry tanks and pumps will not be
required for either type of lime; however space is available.
C. Mechanical mixers and sludge pumps.
8. Stabilized sludge holding tanks, mixers and pumps.
g. Belt filter presses for sludge dewatering.
a. Polymer storage tanks and metering pumps for both dry and
liquid polymer.
b. Sludge macerator and feed pumps.
c. Polymer/sludge mixing tanks.
d. Sludge cake belt conveyors and hoppers.
10. Sludge cake hauling trucks with weighing scale, plus capability to
load liquid sludge.
11. Sludge cake disposal site: City owned and operated landfill
located about 10 miles from treatment plant.
D. Other.Syst_ems
Major miscellaneous process systems include:
1. Hydrogen peroxide (11202) solution system to control odors,
corrosion and septicity of wastewater. Potassium permanganate
System also available for odor control.
2. Small sodium hypochlorite system (65 gpd) to control slime and
bacterial growths in final effluent water system and algae and
slime growth at weirs.
3, Larger Sodium
stem tpfor
vcontrol ofactvatedsdgandtodsifect sornwateroerflow.
4. Screened final effluent water system used to supply water for:
a. Sludge thickener and potassium permanganate makeup water.
b. Tank, weir, flume, channel and sludge pipe flushing water.
c. Wash water for such items as grit classifiers, conveyor belts,
d. StOmwatpresses n
erbasinflud grit o
shingand rfilling water.
e. Lawn water.
f. Seal eater for wastewater pumps and thickener pressurization
pumps.
1-3
I11CHDf IL14ED BY
I JORM %AICROLAE3
Cf.DhP 6nr: nS 1E: rnn ltJES 1
i
i
/ 95s
MI
J
r
4. Final effluent water also used as heat energy recovery source to
heat building spaces.
5. Plant high pressure (100 psi) air system for operation of
air -operated diaphragm sludge pumps, valves, disinfection system
wipers and work shop equipment.
6. Potable wat,r supplied by extending water main from Iowa City to
plant site. Uses are:
a. Drinking water and other nomal domestic uses.
b. Dilution water for hydrogen peroxide.
c. Laboratory water.
d. Fire supply water.
e. Standby source for screened final effluent water system.
7. The main power supply obtained from two nearest high voltage power
lines having sufficient capacity. Standby power provided using
one engine -generator set sized for operation of all stonnwater
pumps, trash rake, coarse screens and associated lighting, heating
and ventilating.
8. Natural gas used in conjunction with final effluent water heat
recovery system to heat water in central hot water boiler system
for all building heating.
9. Low pressure (8 psi) air system using centrifugal compressors to
Supply diffusor air for sludge tanks and channel mixing throughout
plant.
Table I-1 lists all proposed major equipment items, types and
preferred manufacturers.
The plant layout is shown on Figure I-3.
Figure 1-3 shows a hydraulic profile through the plant.
I-4
n lcFoCILMED BY
j CORM MIC R(SLINB i
CEDAR RAPIDS •DCS iA0I4C5 '
/ 9.x,5'
7
A
r
TABLE 1-1
PROPOSED PROC=QU1PVEflT DESIGN BASIS
Water Pollution Control Plant
Design Outline
Iowa City, lora
ITEM EOUIPt4ENT TYPE MANUFACTURER
1. Rax Wastewater Pumps Dry pit, vertical centrifugal. Aurora, or equal.
1
CO"NTS
Submersible pumps not acceptable.
Concerned with reliability and ease of
malntunanco.
2. Plant Stormwater Pumps
Vertical mixed flow and
Cascade and Ifydr-O-Matle. ,
submersible.equal.
7. Raw Mastuwater Screens
fvichanlcally cleaned, heavy
Envlrux, or equal.
duty Dar screen.
i 4. Stormwater Trash Reck
Machanlcally cleaned
Envlrex, or equal
S. Grit Rumoval
Aerated with air lift pump and
Peabody Nollos, or equal.
screw type classifiers.
r 6. Pr lAery Clarifiers
Rectenugler with longitudinal and
Envlrux, Or equal.
• un
cross collector serapors.
7. Aeration Tank Equipment
Jot aeration.
Aeroclove-Pontuch, or equal.
B. Aeration, Grit and
Centrifugal
Hof finen, or equal.
Diffusor Blowors
9. Final Clarifiers
Circular peripheral food with
Envlrex, or equal.
sludge suctlon drawoff.
10. Disinfection
Ultraviolet light.
Pure Water Systems, or equal.
1
r 11. Sludge Thickening
Dissolved air flotation using
Envlrux, or equal.
rectangular units.
12. Low Capacity Sludge,
Air -operated diaphragm.
Wueq'rren Rupp Sandpiper. or
Scum and Chemical
Pumps
13. Sludge Dewatering
Bolt filter press.
Magnum Prass by Parkson, or equal.
14. Automation and
Autocon, or equal.
Instrumentation
IIICROFIL14ED BY
1 1 DORM MICR6LA13 .1 i
CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES
T r• I i
L \
Use best lower bearings available.
1" Inch openings to protect pumps.
2" openings.
Nonmetal lie scraper chains and Ilbergless
I l lghts.
O<Idatlon ditch design.
Full surface skimming and sludge suction
type headers.
F$achanlcal lamp wiper.
e,vF'
No ehemleals; non-motallle scraper chain.
1'r
1
a
IIICRor ILNED DY
f
JORM MICR46LA13 -1
�
CEDAR RAPIDS •DES MOIYES
1
1
1
TABLE 1-1 (Cont.)
ITEM
EW IPIRENT TYPE
MANUFACTURER
0014JENTS
` 15. Standby Power
Diesel engines with alternator.
Caterpillar, or equal.
16. Building Heating Equipment
Hot eater boilers and heat
Kewanee, or equal
Compatible with plant effluent heat
exchangers.
recovery. ,
17. Sluice Gatos
Cast Iron with electric operators.
Rodney Hunt, or equal.
IS. Slide Cat -is
Al usinum
19. Sludge Valves
Eccentric plug valves.
Dezurlk, or equal.
20. Outside Lighting
Low pressure sodium.
21. Lab Equipment
Fisher Scientific, or equal.
S 22. Compressors
Single. vertical. .pl Ston -type.
Ingersoll-Rand, or equal
Mater cooled.
Wastewater Samplers
Continuous flow through -type.
Sonford, or equal.
rilex unit for23. 111 usn1.
primary effluent indnpl antluenteffluent-
.. 20. Macerators
24.
In-line shredder.
Disposable Waste Systems,
i
or equal.
m
25. DO Analyzers
Galvanic eel l -typo.
Groatkuz Instruments,
orequal.
26. pH Analyzers
Continuous In -line -type.
Croat LakeS Instruments,
Ultrasonle cleaning.
or equal.
1
a
IIICRor ILNED DY
f
JORM MICR46LA13 -1
�
CEDAR RAPIDS •DES MOIYES
1
1
1
r
L
II. MODIFIDNS TO FACILITY PLAN
Several modifications to the original Facility Plan (Dated October 2.
1979) have been made. These include the following:
1. Maximum wet weather (MWW) flow rate through the plant is now
24.0 mgd instead of 31.741 mgd.
2. Peak hourly wet weather (PHWW) flow rate to the plant is now
72.0 mgd instead of 90.805'mgd.
3. As a result of llos. 1 and 2 above, the Main Outfall sewer and the
Southeast Interceptor are now 78" and 48", respectively, instead of
84" and 60".
4. The treatment flow scheme now includes a conventional single stage
activated sludge system instead of a two-stage activated sludge
system using fixed film reactors. Fixed film reactors have been
eliminated.
5. Total stonmwater pump capacity is equal to 72 mgd instead of 48 mgd.
This extra capacity is obtained by using the standby pump. Firm
pumping capacity will be 48 mgd.
6. Ultraviolet light is used for disinfection instead of chlorine to
improve operator safety, reduce costs and eliminate formation and
peroxiddischareeof aand Potassium1permanganateounds twill ebeenvironment.
used orodor
Nftycontrol.
Sludge bulking control, slime and bacterial control in final effluent
water system and for disinfection of stormwater overflow to river.
7. Sludge belt filter presses will be utilized instead of filter
presses.
8. Liquid sludge hauling capabilities will be included in addition to
sludge cake hauling for greater sludge disposal flexibility.
9. Extensive modifications to the plant layout have been made to improve
accesss for operation.
10. Six 36' x 44' x 24' SWD stabilized sludge holding tanks will be used
instead of seven 40' square by 20' deep tanks.
11. Two dissolved air flotation units for sludge thickening with 300
square foot surface area per unit will be used instead of 250 square
feet per unit.
12. Water plant sludges froln the University of Iowa have been eliminated
from the plant design.
I.I I CROP I LI4E0 DY
JORM MICR6LAB
CFDAR RAPIDS • DES '•101NES
9.505
J
C
III. DESIGN CRITERIA
Actual Process unit sizing and general design follows the guidelines
found in (1) Recommended Standards for Sewage Works (10 States Standards),
1978; (2) Consulting Engineers Council of Iowa Environmental Design
Handbook, 1977; (3) Chemicals and Water Quality Division Design Manual
(IDEA); (4) Design Criteria for Mechanical, Electric, and Fluid System
and Component Reliability (EPA -430-99-74-001), and (5) Manual of
Practice/8, 'Wastewater Treatment Plant Design, 1977 (WPCF).
Multiple treatinent units and pumps (3 or 4) are provided for each
process (1) to insure reliability at design loadings (peak) with any one
unit out of service; (2) to obtain unit sizes that will efficiently and
reliably handle a reasonable loading range over the design life; (3) to
preclude use of units that are excessively large, cumbersome or
inefficient at any loading condition; (4) for improved flexibility of
operation; (5) to provide several units of smaller size to efficiently
handle the average (normal) dry weather loadings and the design (peak)
wet weather loadings, and (6) to obtain units that will efficiently fit
the plant site without excessive crowding.
The following represents design criteria for the major water pollution
control plant equipment.
Design Wastewater Flows - mad
Average day during wettest 30 day period (AWW) 13.0
Maximum day during wettest 30 day period (14WW) 24.0
Peak hour during wettest 30 day period (PHWW) 72,0
Average dry weather (ADW) 9.0
Minimum day dry weather (NDW) 4.0
Design Raw Wastewater Loadings at AWW - ood
5 -day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BODS)
Suspended Sot ids (SS), Average
15,120
(139 mg/1)
Suspended Solids (SS), Peak
40,215
82,264
(371 mg/1)
(759 mg/1)
Ammonia Nitrogen (as nitrogen)
1,626
( 15 mg/i)
Design Primary Effluent at ANN - ppd
BODS (35% removal)
SS, Average (74b removal)
9,828
( 91 mg/1)
10,456
( 96 mg/1)
Design Plant Discharge at AWN - ppd
BODS (overall removal = 85.40)
SS (overall removal = 94.51)
2,200
(20 mg/1)
Ammonia Nitrogen (as nitrogen)
2,200
1,626
(20 mg/1)
(15 mg/1)
wlcRonuaED Dr
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES .'101AES
/ 9,S•s
1
J
r
Permit Discharge Limits at AWN - ppd
B005 (85% removal limit controls)
SS
Ammonia Nitrogen()) (as nitrogen)
Coarse Screening (Raw Wastewater)
Type
Number of Units
Channel Width and Depth
Clear Openings, inches
Velocity through Screen 0 24 mgd
(1 screen in use), fps
Velocity through Channel @ 4 mgd
(1 screen in use), fps
Plant Wastewater Pumps
Type
Number of Pumps
Maximum Rated Capacity/Pump
Total System Capacity
(3 pumps in use)
Drive Type
Rated Driver Horsepower/Pump
2,268 (21 mg/1)
3,253 (30 mg/1)
1,625 (15 mg/1)
Mechanically cleaned bar screens
2
5' x 4'-3"
1
2.62
1.50
Vertical, non -clog, centrifugal
4
5,560 gpm (8 mgd)
@ 38' H
16,680 g@m38(24Hmgd)
Variable speed electric motor
75
Grit Removal
Type Aerated Tanks with Grit 'Washers
Number of Tanks 4
Size of Each Tank (irregular shape) 12' W x 20' L x 12' WD
Volume of Each Tank, gals. 14,000
Detention Tine @ 24 mgd (3 tanks in use), minutes 2.5
Grit Washer Type inclined Screw
Number of Grit flashers 2
Grit Blower Type Centrifugal
Number of Grit Blowers 2
Grit Blower Capacity/Unit(2) 400 SCFM Q 7 psig
Grit Blower Rated Horsepower/Unit 30
(1) IDEA has stated that the ammonia nitrogen discharge limit will be relaxed
to eliminate the need for summer nitrification.
(2) Includes air for other uses.
1
J`
! 141CROFTIMED BY
JORM MIC RbLAB
� � ! CEDAR RAPIDS DES M014ES '
7 I
i i
1
M
Plant Influent Flow Meter
Type
Parshall Flume
Throat 'width, feet
4
Free Flow Range, mgd
3 to 30
Headloss @ 24 mgd, feet
0.9
Head @ 24 mgd, feet
1.7
Primary Clarification
Type
Rectangular tanks with longitudinal
and cross collector sludge scrapers
and scum skimmers
Number of Tanks
4
30' W x 135' L x 10' SWD
Size of Each Tank
Surface Area. Total, SF
16.200
802
Surface Settling Rate @ 13 mgd(I), gsfd
Surface Settling Rate @ 24 mgd(I), gsfd
1,481
Volume, Total, gals.
1,211,760
Detention Time @ 13 mgd(I), hours
2.23
Detention Time 0 24 mgd(I), hours
1.21
Weir Length, Total, feet
1,600
Weir Overflow Rate @ 13 mgd(I), gpfd
8,125
Weir Overflow Rate @ 24 mgd(I), gpfd
15.000
Aeration for Activated Sludge
Type Oxidation Ditch with Jet Aerators
Number of Tanks 4
Size of Each Tank 30' W x 160' L x 20' SWD
Total Volume, gals. 2,872,320
Contact Time 0 13 mgd and 604 Return(I), hrs. 3.31
Contact Time 0 24 mgd and 30% Return(I), hrs. 2.21
BODS Loading, Average, ppd 9.828
BODS Loading, Average/1,000 CF Tank(I), ppd 25.6
Actual Oxygen (O2) Required, Average, pph
614
9,82
Actual Oxygen (02) Required, Peak
(Average x 1.5), pph 920
MLSS, Average 2,000 mg/l (47,910 lbs.)
MLVSS, Average (MLSS x 0.75) 1,500 mg/l
F/M Ratio, Average (lbs. BODS/lbs. MLSS) 0.21
Aeration Blower Type Centrifugal
Number of Aeration Blowers 4
Aeration Blower Capacity/Unit 1,773 SCFM @ 8.5 psig
Aeration Blower Rated Horsepower/Unit, HP 100
Maximum Air Capacity Provided for
Aeration, SCFM (Firm Capacity) 5,320
Transfer Efficiency Factor, Clean ;later to
Wastewater 1.675 times
(I) All units in operation.
/ I1I-3
� 958
l`
MICROFILMED DY
JORM MIC RErLAB '
CEDAR RAPIDS DCS !401YES
7 !, i
0
Final Clarification and Solids Separation
Type
Circular tanks with peripheral
inlet, bottom suction drawoff
and full surface skimming.
Number of Tanks 4
Size of Each Tank 90' Dia. x 14' SND
Surface Area, Total, SF 25,447
Surface Settling Rate @ 13 mgd(I), gsfd 511
Surface Settling Rate @ 24 mgd(I), gsfd 943
Volume, Total, gals. 2,664,810
Detention Time 0 13 mgd, hours 4.92
Detention Time 0 24 mgd, hours 2.67
Maximum Mixed Liquor Flow Rate(I), mgd
(24 mgd + 13 mgd)
37
Average Design Mixed Liquor Flow Rate(I),
mgd
(13 mgd + 7.8 mgd)20.8
Minimum Mixed Liquor Flow Rate(1)mgd
(4 mgd + 4 mgd)
8,0
Solids Flux @ 13 mgd, 60% Return and
2,000 mg/1 MLSS, ppd
346,944
Solids Loading @ 13 mgd, 60: Return and
2,000 mg/l MLSS, psfd
13.63
Solids Flux 0 24 mgd, 30% Return and
2,000 gm/1 MLSS, ppd
465,372
Solids Loading 0 24 mgd, 30e Return and
2,000 mg/l MLSS, pDsfd
18.3
Aeration Pump Type12)
Vertical propeller
Number of Aeration Pumps/Tank
2
Maximum Rated Capacity/Pump, gpm
3,215
(4.63 mgd)
Total System Capacity, gpm
25,715
(37 mgd)
Drive Type
Constant Speed Electric Motor
Rated Driver Horsepower/Pump
30
Disinfection
Type
Number of Units
Lamps/Unit
Peak Capacity/Unit, mgd
Germicidal Energy Intensity @ Organisms
Contact Time 0 Peak Unit Capacity, sec.
Ultraviolet Light
3
400
8
200,000 micro -watt -sec
sq. cents.
2.5
(1) 4 tanks in use.
(2) Pumps return sludge, primary effluent and -nixed liquor.
I•IICROFILMED BY
JORM MIC Rfi1LAB
CEDAR RAPIDS DCS MOINES.
I
/955
,I
1r
Plant Effluent Flow Meter
Type
Width, feet
Range, mgd
Headloss 0 24 mgd, feet
Stormwater Basin
Rectangular Suppressed Weir
6
3 to 30
1.51
Basin Surface Area 0 Maximum Water Level, acres 7.53
Maximum 'dater Depth, feet 6
Freeboard 0 Maximum Nater Level, feet 3
Effective Storage Volume @ upper 4'
Storage Depth, gals. 10,000,000
Primary Stormwater Pumps
Type Vertical Mixed Flow
Number of Pumps 3
Maximum Rated Capacity/Pump, mgd 24 (16,680 qpm)
Total Systew Capacity (3 pumps in use), mgd 72 (50,040 gpm)
Drive Type Constant speed Electric Motor
Maximum Lift @ Rated Capacity, feet 30
Rated Driver Horsepower/Pump 200
Secondary Stormwater Pumps
Type
Number of Pumps
Maximum Rated Capacity, qpm
Drive Type
Rated Driver Horsepower
Stormwater Screens
Type
Number of Units
Channel Width and Depth
Clear Openings, inches
III -5
Submersible, Non -clog
1
2,000 gpm
Constant Speed Electric Motor
25
Mechanically Cleaned Trash Rack
1
18' x 7'-6"
2
I•IICROFIL14ED BY
i
JORM MIC REIL AEI '
i CEDAR RAPIDS •DES !401HES '
i
_ 1
S
1
r
DESIGN SLUDGE LOADINGS TO STABILIZATION
b ear euuul
Sludge Flow Conditions
inlmum Average reak
Da
ay Day
10.5 j— D—(1 UT
Sludge Production, lb. dry solids/day
Normal Primary
5,100
10,200
15,300
Waste Activated
3,325
4,850
7,500
9,700
11,250
24.870
Al tim
TOTALS TO STABILIZATION
I x75
27,4W
51,420
Solids Concentration, o
Normal Primary
5
5
4
5
4
Waste Activated (Thickened)
4
5
5
Alun
AVERAGE TO STABILIZATION
5
T.T
r.7
T.7
Sludge Volume, CF/day
Normal Primary
1,635
3,270
4,905
Waste Activated (Thickened)
1,330
3,005
4,510
Alum
1,555
3,110
7,970
TOTALS TO STABILIZATION
5;385
X385
NOTE: water plant sludges from University of Iowa are not included in above
sludge loadings.
1II-6
111CROFILMED BY
� DORM MIC Rd/L 4B
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOMES
i
/95s
1
DESIGN SLUDGE/LIME LOADINGS TO DEWATERING
Year 2000)
Wastewater
Sludge Lime
MOT
Avera a Sludge Production and Lime Dosage,
s. ry so r s7 day
Normal Primary (0.15 lbs. Cao/lb. sludge) 10,200 1,530
Waste Activated (0.40 lbs. Cao/lb. sludge) 7,500 3,000
Alun (0.30 lb. Cao/lb. sludge) 9,700 2,910
TOTALS TO DEWATERING (Average) Trw T;W
TOTAL TO DEWATERING (Average) 34,840
TOTAL VOLUME TO DEWATERING (Average)(1) 11,880 CF/d
Peak Stud a Production with Average Lime Dosage,
s. dry so i s ay
Normal Primary 15,300 2,295
Waste Activated 11,250 4,500'
24,870 7,460
Alun TOTALS TO DEWATERING (Peak) 51,420 TT
TOTAL TO DEWATERING (Peak) 65,675
TOTAL VOLUME TO DEWATERING (Peak)(1) 22,395 CF/d
(1) Assumes 4.7% solids in wastewater sludges and no water in lime (CaO).
1
nICROEILMED BY
j JORM MICR6LA13
j CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES
I
I
19 s5
A
C
Sludge Thickeners
Type
Dissolved Air Flotation Without
Use of Chemical Aids
Number of Tanks
2
Design Average Loading
6,000 lbs. dry solids/day
Design Feed Sludge Solids, t
0.5 minimum
Design Thickened Sludge Solids, G
4
Design Solids Capture,'.
85
Design Hours of Operation/Week
166
Design Air to Solids Ratio
0.02
Design Solids Loading
0.42 lbs./SF/hr.
Effective Surface Area/Tank, SF
300
Presssurized Flow Capacity/Tank, gpm
100 final effluent rate
Design Feed Sludge/Tank 0 5,000 mg/1, qpm
50
Total Flow/Tank, gpm
150
Sludge Hopper Capacity/Tank, CF
100
Pressurization Pump Type
Horizontal Centrifugal
Number of Pressurization Pumps
2
Capacity of Each Pressurization Pump, gpm
100
Pressurization Pump Horsepower
10
Lime/Sludge Mixing Tanks
Type Closed Rectangular Tanks with
Mechanical Mixing
Number of Tanks 3
Size of Each Tank 12' Oia. x 12' SND
Volume, Total, CF 2,714
Peak Day Sludge Production, CF/day 22,395
Detention @ 22,395 CF/day, hours 2.91
Average Day Sludge Production, CF/day 11,880
Detention 0 11,880 CF/day, hours 5.48
Stabilized Sludge Holding Tank
Type Closed Rectangular Tanks with
Mechanical Mixing
Number of Tanks 6
Size of Each Tank 36' W x 44' L x 24' SWD
Volume, Total, CF 228,096
Detention @ 22,395 CF/day, days 10.2
Detention @ 11,880 CF/day, days 19.2
III -8
MICROFILMED 81'
j JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS . DES MOVIES
I
a
195Y
r
Dewatering
Type
Total System Capacity based on
7 hrs./d/7 d/wk. operation, lbs. dry
solids/day
Number of Units
Width of Each Belt, inches
Pretreatment
Design Polymer Dosage
Solids Capture. .
Cake Solids, Ainilaum.
Design Average Cake Production @ 45%
Cake Solids, wet CY/day
Design Peak Cake Production 0 4514
Cake Solids, wet CY/day
111-9
Belt Filter Presses
50,400
4
60
Polymer (Percol 757)
3.6 lbs./ton dry solids
98
45
38.2
72
MICROFILMED BY
JCRM MIC RfJL AB
1
CEDAR RAPIDS DES Id01 ACS I
i
/9�S
9
I
..........
A.
FINANCIAL A
tm' a E..t
Yl
U.S. Env ironmen'tR` -kc;'Elk
Office of Water P r og r a
Washington, D.C.
Prepared by
Government Finance Research Cen lln
'',Municipal
ip 1 Finance officerDC A5SOciat.ipp,
s
Washington
and
J.,
P
'�6ergy and
Peat,
.! �Ivt'
A:I
/955 i
MICROFILMED 81'
JORM MICROLA13
CEDAR RANDS -DCS 5401NES
r �1
This publication was written by Catherine L. Spain and
Hamilton Brown of the Government Finance Research Center and
Larry J. Scully of Peat, Marwick, Mitchell s Co. It was pre-
pared for the U.S Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Water
Planning Division (WPD), Implementation Branch, with funding
from the Financial Management Assistance Program. James Meek
is Chief of the Branch, and Paul Kraman of his staff served as
Project Officer. Other EPA staff who reviewed this document
are: Jane Magee, Office of Water Program Operations; Betsy
La Roe, Office of Water, George Gray and Donald Kunkoski, Mu-
nicipal Construction Division; and Keith Dearth, George Ames,
William Kramer, and Jerre Manarolla of the Facilities Re-
quirements Division.
This -guidebook has been developed at the request of EPA's
Office of Water Program Operations to describe and explain a
practical approach which may be used by a unit of government to
prepare a demonstration of financial capability. The intent of
this demonstration is to ensure adequate building and operation,
maintenance, and replacement of a publicly owned treatment works.
It is to be noted that the statements, conclusions, and recom-
mendations contained herein are not to be construed as setting
forth any legal or regulatory requirements beyond those set forth
in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C.
466 et seq.) and the Construction Grant Regulation, 40 CFR, Part
35, nor do they reflect the views and policies of the Municipal
Finance officers Association.
Additional copies of this publication may be obtained from
the Government Finance Research Center, 1750 K St., N.W., Suite
650, Washington, DC 20006 (202) 466-2473.
1955
111CRUILMED BY
J
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS . DES MOINES
r i
I
l
[r
S�
MICRONUIED DY
i
JORM MICR40LAB '
1 CEDAR RAPIDS DES M0MES
195.5
J
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Chapter
'
1
I.
Introduction
• Purpose of the Guidebook
I
2
Guidebook Audience
4
Approach Used in this Guidebook
Application and Evaluation Procedures
46
Guidebook Organization
II.
Overview of Approach and Notes on the Prepa-
ration of a Financial Capability Analysis
An Overview of the Approach
7
- Worksheet N1: Roles and Responsibilities
of Local Governments
7
7
- Worksheet N2: Facilities Cost Estimate
- Worksheet k3: Financing the Facilities
9
- Worksheet A4: Determining the Annual
Costs Per Household
9
- Worksheet N5: Assessing the Community's
Debt History
9
- Worksheet q6: Evaluating the Community's
Financial Condition
9
Notes on the Preparation of a Financial
Capability Analysis
10
10
- Obtaining the Data
11
- Estimating Needed Data
- Knowing Which Number to Use When
11
There's A Choice
- Recognizing the Effect of Different
Accounting Methods
11
- Incorporating Trend Analysis into the
Financial Capability Assessment
12
- Taking Account of Inflation and Economic
Growth
12
- Considering Overlapping Debt
12
- Funding Financial Capability Analysis
14
III.
Financial Capability Analysis Worksheets and
Instructions
15
Evaluating Results of the Analysis
15
Wastewater Facilities Financial Information
Sheet
17
- Worksheet #1: Roles and Responsibilities
of Local Governments
21
MICRONUIED DY
i
JORM MICR40LAB '
1 CEDAR RAPIDS DES M0MES
195.5
J
r
r•
- Worksheet 02: Facilities Cost Estimate
- Worksheet 03: Financing the Facilities
- Worksheet 04: Determining the Annual Costs
Per Household
Supplemental Information Sheet
- Worksheet N5: Assessing the Community's
Debt History
- Worksheet N6: Evaluating the Community's
Financial Condition
Appendices
A. Selected References
B. Glossary of Financial Terms
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Page
23
31
41
47
49
55
A-1
B-1
Page
Exhibit I Integration of Financial Capability
Analysis into the Facilities
Planning Process. . . ,
Exhibit II Flow of Information from Source
Documents to Worksheets ,
Exhibit III Overlapping Debt in Community "A" 13
iv
IdI CAO(ILtdED B1'
JORM MICREILA9
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES
I
J
7
J�
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
{ Purpose of the Guidebook
11 This Financial Capability Guidebook is designed to assist
your community as it considers the commitment of public funds to
construct wastewater facilities. Before doing so, your com-
munity must be certain that it has the financial capability to
pay for the initial capital investment and the cost of oper-
ations and maintenance (including replacement). This Guidebook
will assist officials in your community in analyzing te fa— i--
nancial impact of a proposed project on the community as a whole
4 and on individual households. In addition, the Guidebook will
enable your community to perform the analysis needed to demon-
strate financial capability which is required as part of your
Step 3 grant application.1/
The Guidebook helps communities look at six major issues:
What roles and responsibilities will local govern-
ments have?
How much will the facilities cost at today's prices?
How will the facilities be financed?
What is the annual cost per household?
What is the community's debt history?
What is the community's financial condition?
The Guidebook provides individual worksheets and instructions
for each of these issue areas, a summary "Wastewater Facilities
Financial Information Sheet" (pages 17-19) which is designed to
help your community demonstrate financial capability, and a
"Supplemental Information Sheet" (page 47), which provides the
basis for an in-depth evaluation of financial condition.?/
Demonstration of financial capability establishes that both
a community and its individual household users can afford the
l/ This demonstration is required under the interim final
regulations for the Construction Grants Program published
in the Federal Register by the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency in May, 1982.
2/ Your EPA Regional Office or delegated State office may
develop more specific guidance and procedures to demonstrate
financial capability. The Financial Information Sheet
I' is based on work prepared for the State of Wyoming. See
Financial Planning for Wastewater Facilities: A Guide for
Wyoming Local Officials (Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming Department
r of Envrronmental Qual>ty., 1981).
1-
1
/ 955P
MICROFILMED BY
JORAA MICROLAB
1 CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOIRES
7
r
costs of the proposed project. The six individual worksheets
in this Guidebook can help you develop detailed information on
governmental roles, facilities' costs, financing mechanisms,
annual household costs, community debt history, and community
financial condition. The instructions for each worksheet explain
what information is needed, where it may be found, and what the
results may indicate. The Financial Information Sheet and the
Supplemental Information Sheet summarize the information on the
worksheets and can provide the basis for an overall assessment
of your community's financial capability.
While demonstration of financial capability is not required
until the Step 3 application is made, the financial assessment
should be built into theplanni� and design stages of any project
for which federal fundiny will be sought. Changes in economic
growth, indebtedness, tax revenues and other community charac-
teristics may well influence critical choices as a project moves
toward the construction phase. The time line in Exhibit I recom-
mends the appropriate level of analysis for the various stages
of project development. The preliminary financial analysis
undertaken during the planning stage should identify for all
parties involved the range of financial and administrative re-
sponsibilities in which they will share. The more detailed
analysis during the design stage should include capital and 0&M
cost estimates (drawn from facilities design) and user charge
calculations for both residential and nonresidential users. De-
velopment of preliminary financial analysis should help your
community select an affordable as well as a technically ap-
propriate solution for your water quality problems.
Guidebook Audience
While this Guidebook can be used by grant applicants from
incorporated and unincorporated areas of any size, it is written
especially to assist small communities with populations of 10,000
or less, that:
a) provide service only within a single jurisdiction
or sanitary district, and
b) represent an independent service area within a region-
al system.
Guidance is particularly important for this primary audience,
since small communities account for nearly 70 percent of the
total number of federal construction grants awarded, and his-
torically, have not conducted an adequate financial capability
analysis.
MICROFILMED By
JORM MICRW' LAB
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES NDI>!ES
195s
J
EXHIBIT 1
INTEGRATION OF FINANCIAL CAPABILITY ANALYSIS
INTO THE FACILITIES PLANNING PROCESS
Planning
Design
•
Facilities
7AIternative
Design
Estimated
Construction
and
pus on
Prolectlons,
Water Cuslity
and
Engineering
Data
Preliml"My
Financial
Analysis
During
Planning
Development
CP I:1sar
Charge System
Reflnemant and Update of
Financial Analysis
I
Construction
(Step 3)
Grant
Financial
Capability
Analysis
/Iss
111CROFILIJED D1'
JORM MIC ROLAB J 7
,
� CEDAR RAPIDS DES t401YES '
I
I i
r
L
Approa�5ed in this Guidebook
Before a community is able to borrow money, lending insti-
tutions and other potential investors must have an indication of
the community's financial strength. Bond ratings are
known and most commonly the best
used measure. The methodology used in
this Guidebook relies on traditional credit analysis developed
by rat>ng services.!/ The techniques have been modified so that
local officials work through the analysis themselves. Whenever
possible, the Guidebook uses nontechnical terminology to describe
the information and processes involved in financial capability
analysis.
Long used in the private sector, financial indicators have
been developed for use in analyzing the fiscal health of both
large and small units of government. The indicators developed
for this Guidebook measure the financial condition of the com-
munity and the financial burden of the proposed project on house-
holds. In examining such indicators as the real property tax
collection rate, overall debt outstanding as a percentage of
personal income, annual population growth rate, etc., it is
possible to distinguish between communities with adequate credit
capacity to undertake a major capital project, and those likely
to experience financial difficulty. The burden upon individual
households is measured by the residential share of annual costs
as a percentage of median household income.
Application and Evaluation Procedures
In addressing the six major financial issues, information
on diverse subjects such as population, tax revenues, debt obli-
gations, and construction costs is required. Completion of the
Financial Information Sheet and the Supplemental Infor-
mation Sheet will likely require the involvement of one or more
individuals. The participants should include all principal
administrative financial, engineering and public works staff and
advisors.
In order to demonstrate financial capability, Step 3 grant
applicants must, at a minimum, submit the financial and insti-
snted in
tutional
includingtaofulledisclosurethe andFanalysis offormaion
thattinfor-
mation. The optional Supplemental Information Sheet permits a
detailed analysis of financial condition.
Benchmarks have been provided on the Supplemental Infor-
mation Sheet for assessing a community's relative financial
strengths and weaknesses. These benchmarks have been developed
through the statistical analysis of financial indicators in a
broad range of communities.
1/ Moody's and Standard and Poor's Investment Services are
the best known rating agencies.
MICRoE ILMED 85
JORM MICR46LAB
j CEDAR RAPIDS • DCS MOINES
19ss
J
r
L-
41 When assessing this financial information, some communities
may decide that the proposed conventional treatment system is
not financially feasible. A number of less costly alternatives
�I may be oonsidered:l/
a) Restructuring of the financing may reduce considerably
assessments or the monthly carrying charges.
b) Upgrading, rehabilitation and/or proper operation and
maintenance of existing on-site systems should be con-
sidered.
c) Innovative or alternative wastewater treatment processes
may be less centralized, less structured, less energy in-
tensive, and simpler to operate. Some examples are: septic
systems, mounds, cluster systems, and overland flow. Another
�{ example is the use of alternative conveyance systems such
as small diameter gravity and pressure sewers to carry
septic tank liquid to better subsurface treatment and dis-
posal. In many areas, similar systems can carry untreated
wastewater as well to treatment at a fraction of the capital
cost and often lower maintenance and operation costs than
conventional gravity sewers and central treatment. These
technologies, grouped together as Small Alternative Waste-
water Systems (SAWS), are particularly appropriate for
rural areas or dispersed portions of larger communities.
d) Staged project development allows a community to finance
the facilities over an extended time period rather than to
finance the entire project all at once. (Legally imposed
debt limits or large projected population increases may
dictate staged development.)
�- e) A community's financial constraints may require that
the project be redesigned. Modifications might include
smaller facilities, less sophisticated treatment processes
to lower investment and 06M costs, or elements of both.
Alternatives might include trickling filters or ponds.
A
I
l/ The interim final EPA regulations (Section 35.2030) require
sewered communities with a population of 10,000 or less to
give consideration to at least one of the following:
facultative ponds, trickling filters, or overland flow land
treatment, and .for unsewered communities of 10,000 or less,
consideration must be given to on-site systems.
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOIUES
/9ss
J
r I I
A community that believes that water quality standards
impose an unfair economic burden may wish to seek a modification
of water quality permit standards. Under Section 302(b)(1) of
the Water Pollution Control Act (PL 95-217), affected parties
may petition for a change in effluent standards if they can
demonstrate at a public hearing that "there is no reasonable
relationship between the economic and social costs and benefits
to be obtained...". By law, the state administrator may adjust
the water quality standards if the costs are judged to be unreason-
able.
Guidebook Organization
This chapter of the Financial Capability Guidebook intro-
duces the reader to the purpose of the Gutdebook and the major
issues that will be addressed. Chapter II explains the approach
to be used in completing the worksheets as well as some notes on
locating and understanding information sources. Part A of Chapter
III presents and explains the Wastewater Facilities Financial
Information Sheet and the worksheets that evaluate the first
four issue areas identified in the beginning of this chapter.
In Part B, the final two issues are addressed by the Supplemental
Information Sheet and the accompanying worksheets. Appendix A
has been included to provide references to other resource materials
on financial indicators, credit analysis, and financial capa-
bility. Definitions of the more technical terms used in the
worksheets are found in Appendix B.
/955
MICROFILM Re
J
JORM MICRbLAB
1 CEDAR RAPIDS • CES MOINES
r
L
CHAPTER II
I� OVERVIEW OF APPROACH AND NOTES ON THE PREPARATION OF A FINANCIAL
CAPABILITY ANALYSIS
'f Chapter I has introduced you to the purpose of the Guide-
book and the methods you will use to analyze your community's
financial capability. To assist you in filling out the worksheets
as accurately and thoroughly as possible, this chapter provides
an "Overview of the Approach" which is intended to provide an
understanding of how one source of information will influence or
be influenced by another. In addition the chapter contains some
"Notes on the Preparation of a Financial Capability Analysis,"
which anticipate difficulties in locating or putting together
necessary information for the worksheets.
An Overview of the Approach
The key to understanding the approach used is to recognize
the interrelationships between information used in the analysis
of financial capability and the results of the analysis.
Exhibit II illustrates the flow of information from source docu-
ments to the worksheets and then downward from worksheet to
worksheet until it reaches its final destination on the Waste-
water Facilities Financial Information Sheet or the Supplemental
Information Sheet. As an introduction to the worksheets in
Chapter III, a brief description of each follows, with a list of
the major resources to be consulted for its completion.
Worksheet kl: Roles and Responsibilities of Local Govern-
ments. Worksheet 41 is intended to summarize the key management
agencies, the roles they will be assigned, and the agreements
that will be needed to provide for continued cooperation in the
management of the facilities. Preliminary agreements reached
during planning and design should be reviewed to complete this
section. Among the documents used in filling out this worksheet
are:
' o preliminary agreements reached during the planning and
design stages, and
o map(s) of the overlapping jurisdictions that collect
taxes or charge user fees within the wastewater service
area.
Worksheet N2: Facilities Cost Estimate. A realistic as-
sessment of capability depends on accurate estimates of con-
struction, operation, maintenance and replacement for the proposed
wastewater facilities. These estimates provide the basis for
determining both the amount of local financing required and the
user charges necessary to support the new facilities. Worksheet
02 summarizes the construction costs and operation and mainte-
nance costs for facilities. Estimates should be developed for
all of the costs that will be incurred, including management,
overhead, outside services, and equipment replacement. The
major sources of information for Worksheet 42 are:
141CA0FIL14ED V
JORRA MIC ROLAB
CEDAR AAI'I DS DES '4017[5
1955
1
SOURCE DOCUMENTS
PRIMARY AGREEMENTS FROM
PLANNING AND DESIGN STAGES
I
MAPS OF OVERLAPPING
JURISDICTIONS
PLANNING REPORTS
ENGINEERING DESIGN STUDIES
USER CHARGE STUDIES
ENGINEERING STUDIES
FINANCIAL RECORDS FOR EXISTING
06M AND DEBT SERVICE
ESTIMATES OF CONSTRUCTION -RELATED COSTS
ESTIMATES OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL
ASSISTANCE
ESTIMATESOF OTHER SOURCESOF
FUNDING USED TO REDUCE AMOUNT
U.S. CENSUS BUREAU REPORTS—
CURRENT ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC
DATA
ENGINEERING REPORTS
WORKSHEETS AND INFORMATION SHEETS
WORKSHEET Ft
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
WORKSHEET N7
FACILITIES COST ESTIMATE
WORKSHEET MS
FINANCING THE FACILITIES
WORKSHEET 04
DETERMINING THE ANNUAL
COSTS PER HOUSEHOLD.
L ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORTS
STATE AGENCY PUBLICATIONS
STATEWIDE ORGANIZATION REPORTS
SPECIAL STUDIES FROM PLANNING
DEPARTMENT AND ASSESSOR'S
s
MCROSLI410 BY
JORM MiC ROLAB
L I
CEDAR RAPIDS • DCS ;dDIACS
WORKSHEET NR
EVALUATING THE COMMUNITY'S
FINANCIAL CONDITION
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION SHEET
19es
WASTEWATER FACILITIES
FINANCIAL INFORMATION SHEET
ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORTS
REPORTS TO STATE AND OTHER
WORKSHEET CS
REGULATORY AGENCIES
ASSESSING THE COMMUNITY'S
DEBT HISTORY
OFFICIAL STATEMENTS
L ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORTS
STATE AGENCY PUBLICATIONS
STATEWIDE ORGANIZATION REPORTS
SPECIAL STUDIES FROM PLANNING
DEPARTMENT AND ASSESSOR'S
s
MCROSLI410 BY
JORM MiC ROLAB
L I
CEDAR RAPIDS • DCS ;dDIACS
WORKSHEET NR
EVALUATING THE COMMUNITY'S
FINANCIAL CONDITION
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION SHEET
19es
r
L
41
ao planning reports,
o engineering design studies, and
o user charge studies.
Worksheet q3: Financing the Facilities. Worksheet A3
identiTies the amount to bee-o_rrowed-Z—y_tFe__grantee and the
methods of financing that amount. Total annual costs, which
include operations, maintenance, and debt service for the new as
well as existing facilities, are then calculated and a summary
of the sources of funds for paying the annual costs is provided.
Information for completing this worksheet comes from Worksheets
#1 and M2 as well as:
o engineering studies,
o community financial records showing existing O 6 M
and debt service costs,
o cost estimates of construction -related costs obtained
from outside experts,
o estimates of construction costs to be paid by federal
and/or state governments, and
a o estimates of other sources of funding that will be
used to reduce the amount borrowed.
Worksheet #4: Determining the Annual Costs Per Household.
The purpose of this worksheet is to express the total annual
costs for the community's wastewater treatment facilities on a
per household basis, measure the financial burden these costs
will impose, and make an assessment of the affected households'
ability to support the project. The information required on this
n worksheet comes principally from Worksheets N2 and N3 but also
!1 relies on:
o U.S. Census Bureau reports on current economic and
demographic data, and
o engineering reports.
Worksheet p5: Assessing the Communit 's Debt Histor . The
purpose of this worksheet is to profile and summarize t e com-
munity's debt history. Information presented on this Worksheet
is used for calculating the financial indicators found on work-
sheet 6. To establish community debt levels before and after
construction of the proposed facilities, Worksheet 5 will draw
information from a number of the following sources:
o annual financial reports,
o reports submitted to state and other regulatory agencies,
o state agency publications, and
o official statements.
Worksheet 46: Evaluating the Community's Financial Con-
dition. The assessment of a community's financial condition
involves the calculation and analysis of 11 key financial indi-
cators. The indicators have been chosen because of their im-
portance in explaining the difference in creditworthiness
between a community with a strong credit rating and one that has
q
/9sS
141CNOFUMED By
JORM MIC ROLAB
CEDAR RgP105 DES Id01NE5
1
r
a weak credit rating. Worksheet 6 draws primarily from the data
on other worksheets but also requires information from:
O annual reports,
O state agency publications,
o reports prepared by statewide organizations, and
o andcthe assessor'seofficepared by the planning department
the
ix
to
Workingets enables
weaknesses. community
Of information on a line -by-line basis from the worksheetsThe rtosfer
the Financial Information Sheet and the Supplemental Information
Sheet represents the final steps on the flow chart.
Notes on the Preparation of a Financial Capability Analysis
Financial analysis of proposed wastewater facilities re-
quires the collection of financial information, calculation of
several key indicators, and analysis of the results obtained
through the process. Because local governments differ sig-
nificantly in their financial practices, some difficulties may
arise in conducting this analysis. This section identifies a
number of potential problems and suggests ways for coping with
them. Among the issues addressed are the following:
o Obtaining the data,
o Estimating needed data,
o Knowing which number to use when there's a choice,
Recognizing the effect of different accounting methods,
o Incorporating trend analysis into the financial
capability assessment,
o Taking account of inflation and economic growth,
o Considering overlapping debt, and
o Funding financial capability analysis.
While this list is not exhaustive, it addresses a number of
common concerns in locating and understanding information sources.
The remainder of this chapter is devoted to explaining these
problems in more detail.
Obtaining`p�ta Obtaining the data needed to complete
the worksheet^, contained in this Guidebook may be complicated by
a number of factors, such as:
o the size of the community;
o the type of information requested; and
o the timing of the request.
Small
nancialreporrtsrneeded for assemblinghthetdataousedtinitheffi-
Ii
I' 10
111CRDE ILMED DY
LJORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS DCS I40
1
NES
L
19"
r
i� nancial analysis. However, if the jurisdiction has had a recent
bond sale, most of the data needed will be found in the official
fr statement.
aOther sources of data that may be used in completing the
worksheets are supporting engineering reports, reports prepared
!ye for state regulatory agencies, and data submitted to the U.S.
Census Bureau. If data availability proves to be a problem,
there may be staff people at the state level who could provide
technical assistance to the community in collecting the data.
Estimatin Needed Data. If no other source is available,
the community mig t in county -wide data useful to make esti-
mates of its own finances. Per capita values for key county
data elements -- revenues, expenditures, personal income, etc. - are calculated, then multiplied by the community's population
to produce a reasonable estimate of the particular data element
for the community.
Although the analysis will only be as reliable as the esti-
mates, this solution to the data availability problem is better
than the alternative -- no analysis. It is imperative that the
assumptions and procedures used in estimating needed data be
documented.
Knowin t4hich Number to Use When There's A Choice. Sometimes,
judgment ca s may be require to etermine w is number to use
fora particular data element. A good example of this occurs in
a resort community where seasonal fluctuations in population
u„ occur. In choosing the best number, several factors must be
considered:
o How will the seasonal population share the burden
of paying for the proposed facilities?
o What impact does the increased population have on the
local government's finances?
Depending on how the project will be financed, it might be
appropriate to choose some number in-between the alternative
values. As with other estimates, the reason for choosing one
number over another should be disclosed.
Reco nizin the Effect of Different Acc
The basis o aountin Methods.
ccounting use
effect on the financial capability�analysis.onFor ourwillapurposes,
- this means that interjurisdictional comparisons are not perfect.
While we recognize that a problem exists, there is no simple
solution. The recommendation is to go forward with the analysis
and decision-making process because the
terially affect the results. impact will not ma -
11
/ h11LRof ILMLD 6\'
JORM MIC ROLAB J
LCEDAR RAPIDS • DCS 'dOIALS
1
r
L
Incorporating Trend Analysis into the Financial Capability
Assessment. The indicators found on the Supplemental Information
Sheet may show signs of strength or weakness for the community.
In evaluating the results of the analysis, it may be helpful to
analyze the data going back five years to discern any trends in
the community's financial condition. For instance, the indi-
cator values may be registering weak in the current year, but
the community may be in the midst of an upswing or improvement
in its financial condition. This is an important consideration
for the local official who must make a decision about the feasi-
bility of a project.
Taking Account of Inflation and Economic Growth. Ideally,
our analysis would take a dynamic approach and analyze the com-
munity's financial condition at a point in time in the future
when the proposed facilities are operational by projecting income,
population, total revenues, expenditures, debt outstanding, and
other key data elements several -- even many -- years into the
future. While this approach is preferred, it is not necessary.
Instead, we determine if a community's current financial situ-
ation would enable it to assume the future costs of the proposed
wastewater treatment facilities (expressed in today's prices),
thus getting around the need to forecast key values.
It may be argued that this approach is too simplistic.
This shortcoming can be overcome through a series of sensitivity
analyses which assess how the key indicators would change under
differing assumptions. For example, if there is concern about
the impact of inflation on the cost of OsM, the cost estimates
and other variables that are sensitive to inflationary pressures
can be adjusted upward and the analysis repeated to determine
how household burden changes.
Considering Overlapping Debt. The proportionate share of
tax -supported (general obligation) debt of local governments
whose boundaries overlap the community in question is a critical
component of the financial analysis.!/ Data on the
outstanding debt of such jurisdictions may not be readily availa-
ble unless a recent official statement for a bond issue has been
prepared. If it is necessary to estimate these data, the ap-
proach used in the following example is recommended.
Assume four jurisdictions overlap Community A (a county,
school district, library district, and park district), -and each
has incurred debt. Steps A through E, which follow, establish
the process for identifying the total overlapping debt to be
borne by Community A's property owners. Exhibit III gives a
1/ Overlapping debt is defined as the proportionate share of
debts of local governmental units located wholly or in part
within the limits of the reporting government which must be
borne by persons or property within each governmental unit.
12
MICROFILMEp By
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MDIMES
i
PISS
J
rw
EXHIBIT III
Overlapping Debt in
Community "A"
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
Outstanding
Outstanding
Overlapping
Debt (less
8 Chargeable
Debt Attributable
Jurisdictions
Sinking Fund)
to Community "A"
to Communitv "A"
County
$10,500,000
254
$2,625,000
School
District
16,800,000
954
15,960,000
Library
District
3,000,000
1004
3,000,000
Park
District
4,000,000
504
2,000,000
Other
(E) TOTAL OVERLAPPING DEBT = $23,585,000
13
IIICROFILI4ED BY
JORM MIC ROLA13 t
� CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES
I i
19 y.S
r I M1
suggested format for the analysis. The "other" row reminds the
reader that there may be many more overlapping jurisdictions.
A. Identify each of Community A's overlapping juris-
dictions that have incurred debt. (If not known, a
list of these jurisdictions should be available through
the state or the community assessor's office).
B. Identify the total amount of tax -supported outstanding
debt for each of the overlapping jurisdictions (less
sinking funds).
C. Identify the percentage of each overlapping juris-
diction's outstanding debt charged to persons or
property in Community A. The percentage is based on
the estimated full market value of real property of
the respective jurisdictions in Community A.
D. Multiply the total outstanding debt of each over-
lapping jurisdiction by the percentage identified for
Community A (Column B x C).
E. Add the figures in column D to arrive at total over-
lapping debt for Community A.
Fund' Financial Ca abilit Anal sis. While the Guidebook
is wrrtten or use y pub iso icra s, completion of t e ana y-
sis will involve additional staff time and possibly involvement
by a financial consultant or engineer. When measured against
the total cost of a project, financial capability analysis is a
sound investment because it can be very helpful.
Communities can expect to pay the cost of this analysis
along with other planning and design costs. Current federal
legislation, however, provides for an allowance to meet eligible
costs incurred prior to step 3 applications. There is also the
possibility for an advancement against this allowance for small
communities selected by delegated state offices.
14
19515
MICROFILMED BY
i
JORM MICR6LA6
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES
r
L
41
IfCHAPTER III
FINANCIAL CAPABILITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS AND INSTRUCTIONS
Your community's financial capability concerns all parties
vt who will pay a portion of the cost of the new wastewater fa-
cilities. Elected officials, finance officers, public works
department heads, citizens and lending institutions would view
the issue from a different perspective. An adequate response
must address the concerns of each group.
This chapter, divided in two parts, provides a series of
six worksheets and two summary information sheets to assist your
community in evaluating and demonstrating its financial capa-
bility, The individual worksheets address the facilities plan,
intergovernmental arrangements, project costs, financing mecha-
nisms, and annual household and community costs. In each of
these issue areas, the worksheets provide line -by-line instructions,
sources for required information, and interpretations of the
financial indicators. Numbered lines allow for the easy trans-
ferral of figures from the worksheets to the Wastewater Fa-
cilities Financial Information Sheet and the Supplemental Infor-
mation Sheet.
Evaluating Results of the Analysis
As stated earlier, this Guidebook does not provide a fully
developed credit analysis, but rather a brief, reliable basis
for evaluating your community's ability to assume new debt.
The information provides assistance but not the answer to whether
your community should undertake the proposed project. Guidance
documents are not intended to replace local judgment.
�- Throughout the Guidebook, we have stressed the importance
of evaluating the results, whether positive or negative, in
light of your community's particular circumstances. For ex-
ample, a community dependent on a single industry with an un-
certain future must look beyond the predominantly positive indi-
cators that may exist in the present.
The purpose of guidance is "to point in the right direction.
Strong indicators should encourage your community to undertake
the project as planned; weak indicators should caution against
it, with particular attention paid to reviewing less costly
alternatives. Whatever choice your community makes, however, it
should benefit from a systematic analysis of financial capa-
bility as the project progresses through planning, design, and
construction.
Part A of this chapter begins on page 17 with the Financial
Information Sheet and continues through page 45 with the presen-
tation of Worksheets 1-4, part B follows on page 47 with the
optional Supplemental Information Sheet and the instructions
needed for its completion on Worksheets 5 and 6.
15
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAS
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES
1995
Mi
J
r
Attachment A
Wastewater Facilities Financial
Information Sheet
Applicant
Name Instructions for completing the Financial Information
Sheet can be found in the Financial Capability
Address Guidebook, which is available from the Government
Finance Research Center, 1750 K St., N.W., Suite 650,
City_ Zip Washington, D.C. 2021466.2494.
Contact
Telephone
What Is Proposed In The Facilities Plan?
e The proposed facilities will be: ❑ New ❑ An expansion ❑ An upgrade
(check more than one it applicable)
e 11 treatment facilities are proposed, do they ❑ Yes ❑ No
feature low O+N1 Cost Technology such as ponds,
trickling filters, overland flow? If yes, please identify.
e The facilities will benefit:
Indicate the appropriate percentage of the plant's
capacity that will be devoted to each group.
e Entities to be served:
Flow contributions
from each entity: 1st year
5th year
e Design population
❑ County
❑ Population ❑ Anticipated ❑ Area served
on sewers growth by on-site
systems
x X •l.
❑ Municipality ❑ Sewer district ❑ Industry
x x
Y. •l. X
IYear )
/9 9.5,
I
1
MICROF1L14ED BY
-J
JORM MICR61-AB
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOMES
i
i
r
Wastewater Facilities Financial
Information Sheet
What Roles And Responsibilities Will Local Governments Have?
Cooperative arrangements between various entities may be required to meet the management needs of wastewater treatment facilities.
• What agency will: ❑ Own the facilities ❑ Operate ❑ Finance 001)
• Will mere be nnandbi contributions by:
C Other agencies
J IntluslrY
(1021
• nave participating agencies boon asked
❑ wastewater
V Population ❑ service area
(105)
to revlow:
facilities plan
protections boundaries
borrowed
• Have agreements been sought between
❑ Participating
❑ Other agencies ❑ Industy,
(107)
the operating agency and:
agencies
• Other
"•••••
How Much Will The Facilities Cost At Today's Prices?
(340)
The following fiqures ere estimated costs
for donstructlon, operation, and maintenance of the proposed facilities. Dollar amounts
are
uninflated and rafted today's prices.
A. Construction costs estimate
Revenue
0. Estimated annual operation, maintenance. and replacement
r.••M•
(O ♦ M • R) coats for the proposed facilities
• Wastewater treatment plant
(201)
• Labor per year
(209)
• Pwep stations
(202)
• Utilities per year
(210)
• Interceptor sewers
(202)
• Materials per year
(211)
• Collection sewers
(204)
• Outside services per year
(212)
• on-site systems
@OS)
• Misc. expenses per year
1212)
• Land acquisition
(208)
• Equipment (*placement per year
(214)
• Other
(207)
• Total operation•
• Total construction costs
(208)
maintenance and
replacement costs per year (215)
How Will The Facilities Be Financed?
A. Amount to be borrowed r.rr. 0. Maine a of financing the amount to be borrowed
• grantee share of construction costs
1209)
• Constructio"elated costs
(215)
• Orontes contributions
(220)
• Amount to be bonowed
(220
C. Total estimated annual wastewater facilities coal&
U....•
• Hat existing 0+M+R
1225)
• Existing annual debt smite
(229)
• 0 4 M ♦ R for proposed facilities
(220)
• Debt unite for proposed facilities
(270
• Total estimated annual wastewater
borrowed
facilities costs
(2221
D. Sources of lunding for total annual wastewater
facilities tolls
,•,••,•
Annual
Financing
Amount
Interest
Term of
debt service
method
borrowed
rate
maturity
payment
General
• Transfers from other funds
(238)
• Other
"•••••
obligation
(340)
(322)
bend
Revenue
bond
(222)
(324)
(225)
Loan
Total
D. Sources of lunding for total annual wastewater
facilities tolls
,•,••,•
• Sewer smite charges
(222)
• Surcharge
(334)
• Special assessments and lees
— connection fee
(225)
— betterment assessments
(2241
— other
(2571
• Transfers from other funds
(238)
• Other
(3391
• Total funding
(340)
18
iffaec
Ia1CNDn Lf•1CD BY
JORM MICR6LAB
LCEDAR NAPIDS •DCS M1IDI915
i
1
Wastewater Facilities Financial
Information Sheet
fiWhat
Are The Annual Costs Per Household? -
'
• Total annual costs per household (406)
• Total estimated annual wastewater •-••• 1407)
laeilillu chargee (400) •Median household Income
• Nonresidential share of total annualcharo•s (401) • Total annual costs per household 14061
e Restdenlial share of total annual charges — (402) as a % of median household income
=_
• Number of households (400)
• Annual costs per household for
—wasisesler collection and treatment _-- (404)
— other (405)
Can Your Community Alford The Proposed Wastewater Treatment Facilities?
i ■
The Ilhaetfal upaWlllY of • community Is the measure of its existing financial commitments and legal financial capacity to Provide services.
financial condition and Its ability to pay for the PW
■l
Listed below Is a selves of 9untlons that will provide infam cion about your community's
"snapshol" of the flnmclal resources n n yedisposal 10 Construct, operate, maintain the pro•
parsed fulfill". The answers vdll give you •
paMd facility.
• Over the past Ilse pus, has your community's population been stable, growing or falling?
• What Is the current outstanding indebtedness of your community?
• Now much additional debt CAM Your community legally Incur?
proPAM fax raunuas relative to the full market value of real property In Your Community?
• What are your community's
e N your community proaeeda with this 110100, can II still Afford other proposed PIp)epts?
�
• What U your eommunity'f bond eating? Has It Chmpad within the last two yeah?
r
The FlnamClat CaPeblllly Oulda0oea has an added supplemental section to assist you In finding and Interpreting Ins answers to these and
community has the Ilnanclaf
ether questions. collacbealy. IN information will provide assistance - but not the answr -to wnmthu your
oepatfility to undertake In• Prolroaed prollKt.
r
/f55
1116ROf MED BY
JORM MIC ROLAB
L I
CEDAR R4P10S •DES MOINES
i
Lines 107-103 A number of intergovernmental aqreements
may De necessary to maintain a well organized management
system. The agreements may cover ownership, financing, excess
capacity allocation, operating cost allocations, sewer use
ordinances, and liability and legal arrangements. Identify
the participating agencies, the types of agreements involved,
and existing agreements that have been drafted in the planning
and design steps or are in effect.
Enter the information onto the Financial Information Sheet.
21
X955
i. MICROFILMED BY
JORM MIC R4LAB
t �
CEDAR RAPIDS DCS t•101}!ES '
7'
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS Instructions
for
worksheet Al
PURPOSE OF WORKSHEET 91
Worksheet J1 is intended to summarize the key management
agencies, the roles they will be
assigned, and the agreements
that will be needed to provide for continued
cooperation in
the management of the facilities. preliminary agreements
reached during planning and design should be reviewed to
complete this section.
'
Instructions
Line 101 Identif.: the participating agencies that will
own, operate and/or finance the facilities.
Line 102 Indicate if the agencies have any prior
experience in performing their assigned roles.
Lines 103-104 Prior to the construction of the facili-
ties, participating agencies should identify the type and
amount of their contribution. For example, Community "A"
will provide $1,000,000 for the construction of the
facilities from its general fund and bond anticipation notes,
while the sanitary district will provide the land. In
addition, the Comnunity will be responsible for a percentage
of the long-term debt,
and a special Housing and Urban
Development fund will finance a portion of the sewer collec-
tion
system costs.
Lines 105-106 Continued planning by technical, legal
anTpd-riT-1ca-T representatives from participating agencies
is necessary to maintain an understanding of each agency's
role and financial responsibility.
In addition, the planning
of wastewater facilities is closely tied to land use planning
and other independent activities of the participating juris-
dictions. Plan
reviews can aid in coordinating other related
local activities. Check the items
to be reviewed and describe
the forum for
the review.
Lines 107-103 A number of intergovernmental aqreements
may De necessary to maintain a well organized management
system. The agreements may cover ownership, financing, excess
capacity allocation, operating cost allocations, sewer use
ordinances, and liability and legal arrangements. Identify
the participating agencies, the types of agreements involved,
and existing agreements that have been drafted in the planning
and design steps or are in effect.
Enter the information onto the Financial Information Sheet.
21
X955
i. MICROFILMED BY
JORM MIC R4LAB
t �
CEDAR RAPIDS DCS t•101}!ES '
7'
r
l
1
T
I
WHAT ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES WILL
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS HAVE? Worksheet N1
A. WHAT AGENCY WILL: n Own the
C Operate The ❑Finance The (101)
Facilities Facilities Facilities
• Does The Agency Have
Experience In Performing
The Function? ❑ Yes 0 No
C3 Yes 2 No ❑ Yes ❑ No (102)
8. WILL THERE BEA
^ Other
C Industry
FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION
Agencies
(103)
BY:
• Amount Expected?
11
S
(104)
C. WILL THE PARTICIPATING
AGENCIES BE ASKED TO
C Wastewater
❑ Population
Cl Service
(105)
REVIEW:
Facilities
Plan
Projections
Area
Boundaries
• What Will Be The Forum
For The Review (1.e,
(106)
Meeting, Comments On
Draft Documents)?
D. WILL AGREEMENTS BE
SOUGHT BETWEEN THE
❑ Participating
❑ Other
❑ Industry
(107)
OPERATING AGENCY AND:
Agencies
Agencies
• Describe The Type
Of Agreement Required
(1011)
(i.e.. Ordinance Approval,
Cost Allocation, Excess
Capacity).
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICR6LAE3
CEDAR RAPIDS DES I40MES
i
I
/7
J�
r
Instructions
FACILITIES COST ESTIMATE for
_ Worksheet A2
L.
PURPOSE OF WORKSHEET 12
A realistic assessment of capability depends on accurate
estimates of construction, operations, maintenance and replace-
ment costs for the proposed wastewater facilities. These
estimates provide the basis for determining both the amount
of local financing required and the user charges necessary to
support the new facilities.
r
Worksheet 02 summarizes the construction costs (Section A)
and operations and maintenance costs for facilities (Section II).
Estimates should be developed for all of the costs that will
be incurred, including management, overhead, outside services,
and equipment replacement.
Instructions for Section A
In Section A provide a current estimate of the construc-
tion costs of the facilities by component. (Information is
needed in this format because the federal share for each
component is different and in Worksheet 93, this information
is required to determine the grantee share.) Since some
estimates may be several years old, updated values should be
developed by the project engineer; otherwise, the community can
apply EPA cost indices to the oriqinal estimates. EPA national
average indices are provided in this section, but more accurate
regional indices are available in the EPA documents referenced
in the footnotes.
Line 201 Enter the construction costs for the waste-
water treatment plant including sludge handling
` facilities. Update the engineering cost estimates
to current dollars by usinglr/he EPA Small City Con-
ventional Treatment Index.— To use the index,
multiply the engineer's cost by the ratio of the index
value for 1981 over the value for the year the engineer
made the estimate. The national index values for 1973
through 1981 are:
1/ See Appendix A, U. S. EPA, construction Costsfor_Ptunicipal
Wastewater Treatment Plants: 1973-1978, EPA/4312/9K-19-03613
(Washington, D.C.: OE >ce of Water Program Operations
(FRD-11) April 1980).
I
2?
MICR01'ILMED By
JORM MICROLAS '
I j CEDAR RAPIDS • DES M01,
r
7
J
�r
HOW MUCH WILL THE FACILITIES COST
AT TODAY'S PRICES?
A. CONSTRUCTION COSTS ESTIMATE
System Component Cost
• Wastewater Treatment Plant
Sludge Handling Facilities
(Year to be built_
• Pump Stations and Force Mains
• Interceptor Sewers
• Collection Sewers
• on-site Systems
• Land Acquisition
• Other
Inspection and Construction
Management
• TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS
(201 + 202 + 203 + 204 + 205
+205+207)
Worksheet 92
Section A
Total Cost
(201)
(202)
(203)
(204)
(205)
(206)
(207)
(205)
,r.1 /9S5
141CROFILMED BY
j JORM MICREILAB- 1
j CEDAR RAPIDS • DES 1401NES
I
_ J
1
Jt
3�
EPA CONSTRUCTION COST INDEX FOR
S_MALL_CI`PY CONVENTIONALTREATMFNT PLANTS
Year Index
1973 93
1974 112
1975 110
1976 119
1977 128
1978 145
1979 158
1980 I 168
1981 180
For example, a 1976 cost estimate of $2,000,000 would be
updated to 1981 as follows:
180
$2,000,000 (1976) x 119 (19786) - $3,025,210 (1981)
Note that regional indices a12 available from the EPA
Facilities Requirements Division. -
Lines 202-204 To update the engineer's pump stations,
interceptor sewers, and collection sewers cost estimates
to current dollars, pe the EPA Complete Urban Sewer
System Index (CUSS). -
EPA COMPLETE URBAN SEWER
�1�■ SYSTEM COST INDEX
Year Index
1973 100
1974 110
1975 123
1976 132
1977 143
1978 154
1979 175
1980 185
1981 202
Again, quarterly updates are available from EPA.1/
` Lines 205-206 Enter current estimates for on-site
Vsystems and land acquisition on lines 205 and 206.
l/ See "Construction Cost Indexes," EPA Facilities Requirements
Division, Washington, D.C.
i
2/ See Appendix A, U. S. EPA, Construction Costs for Munici al
Wastewater Conveyance Systems: 19`3- 9 9, EPA 430/9- -00 3
(WashIRn E3n, D.C.: Of Ice of Water Program Operations (FRD-21)
January 1901)
/9S5
111CROEILMED BY
-J
I JORM MICR6LAB 1
1 I CEDAR RAPIDS - DES MOINES
�r
r-,
Line 207 Enter other costs associated with the
construction project such as inspection and engineer-
ing costs.
Line 208 Enter the total construction costs on the
worksheet (201 + 202 + 203 + 204 + 205 + 206 + 207)
Enter the construction cost estimates onto the Fi-
nancial Information Sheet.
26
MICROf ILMED BY
JORM MICR#LAO -�
I I CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES
/9.e.s
Jd
r
5
Instructions for Section B
In Section B,provide estimates of expected operation,
maintenance, and replacement costs for the facilities. For
each cost category (labor, utilities, etc.) identify, where
applicable, the portion of the cost required by each system
component.
This dg9iled format is modeled after the one found in EPA's
publications- and is intended to encourage a complete review of
potential 0+11 costs. A complete review is particularly important
since some new plants coming on-line have experienced O+M costs
that are significantly higher than the original estimate.
Complete the matrix on Worksheet 92 Section B which con-
sists of cost categories running down the left-hand column
and system components listed across the top of the page.
O+M cost estimates for:
. treatment plants,
• pump stations, and
• sewers
may have to be updated by the project engineer or by using
EPA cost indices.
0+11 ,:or Wastewater Treatment Plant
Update the engineer's O+M cost estimate for the wastewater
plant to current dollars using the "EPA O+M Plant Index." The
index is described in EPA's Analysis of Operations and Mainten-
ance Costs for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Systems 1/ and
national and regional values are published quarterly by EPA.?/
The national average values for 1974 through 1981 are:
1/ U.S. EPA, Analysis i
Municipal Wastewater
(Washington, D.C.: (
May 1978) page A-38.
EPA O+M Plant Index
Year Index
1974
164
1975
188
1976
203
1977
218
1978
235
1979
259
1980
294
1981
329
ment Systems, 430/9-77-015
of Water Program Operations,
Quarterly updates are published in "Index of Direct Costs
for Operation, Maintenance and Repair, Based on Composite 5MGD
Plant," Facilities Requirements Division, Washington, D.C.
611CROf I LMED By
JORM MIC R4I011 '
j CEDAk PARIDS DES hiOl4ES
/9.505
r
r
8. ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATION. MAINTENANCE, AND Workshoot 0 2
REPLACEMENT COSTS FOR THE PROPOSED FACILITIES Seellon B
System Components
Sludge
Cost Ttn~t Handling Pump Intercepter Collection OM -Silo Total
Categories Plant Disposal Stations S• ors Sneers System Costs
• Labor (Salaries. Fringe
Benefit$, 6 Overtime)
- Operations
—
• Maintenance
—
• Supporl Services
(Purchasing, Data
Processing, Finance.
Etc.)
• Administration—
12091
__
Total
• Utilities (Fuel A Poser)
• Electricity — —
• Fuel Oil --
--
• Natural Oas
-
- Automotive Fuel
—
• Water Service
-
- Other
(210)
Total
--
• Materials A Supplies
Chemicals
(Mamie•) --
—
• MatrHs none
—
• Automotive
—
• Labaatary
—
• Administrative
Supplies —
•Oeneral -- --
1211)
Total
• Outside Services
• Sludge Hauling
or Disposal
—
• Engineering
Service
—
•Data Processing
•Other
(212)
Tata) --
—�
• Mt$patlaneees
Expenses
•Insurance —
• Trowel A Mule
—
•Telephene
--
- Treln)ng
• Equipment Rental
_
(215)
low
�—
• Equipment Replacement
• Process Equipmenl
le.g., PUMPS.
Scrappers.
Collector@, SIC.)
• Vehicles -- —
_
• Mina Miscellaneous .-- — —
• Other --
1214)
Total
• Taal Operation, Atsintenence. tad Rapleeemnl Costs
121$1
rr
/95S
MICROTILMED BY
I
DORM MICREILAE3 1
J CEDAR RAPIDS •DES t40I4E5
J
J�
For example, a $250,000 1976 estimate of O+M costs for
a plant would be updated to 1981 by multiplying the 1976 cost
estimate by the ratio of the 1981 cost index to the 1976
index:
$250,000 (1976) x 328 (1981) = $404,000 (1981)
203 (1976)
O+M for Pump Stations
To update the pump station O+M costs, use the following
EPA cost index values:l/
Pump Station O+M Index
Year Index
1974
1219
1975
1317
1976
1401
1977
1490
1978
1660
1979
1844
1980
1967
1981
2107
Convert past estimates to current dollars by multiplying the
engineer's estimate by the ratio of the index values for the
appropriate years, and use regional values where available.
O+M for Sewers
To update the sewO+M costs, use the EPA D+M cost
index for sewer lines.0 National values for 1974 to 1981
are:
Sewer O+M Index
Year Index
1974
1257
1975
1430
1976
1542
1977
1779
1978
1950
1979
2143
1980
2466
1981
2728
1/ U.S. EPA, "Quarterly Indexes of Direct Cost for Operation, Main-
tenance and Repair of Raw Wastewater Pumping Stations and Gravity
Sewers," Facilities Requirements Division, Washington, D.C.
.J Y
111CROFILMED BY
JORM MIC R(SLAB' J
I CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOVIES
/93,5
1
\■
r I �1
1
L
I
Line 209 Paving updated t),e 0+11 cost estimates, provide
la— Er costs by system component including salaries, fringe
benefits, and overtime. Estimate support services and
administration (indirect costs) needed for the labor
category.
Lines 210-214 For each of the categories listed (utilities,
materials, etc.), provide cost data broken down by system
components (treatment plant, sludge handling disposal,
etc.). In some cases, cost estimates may have to be reviewed
with the engineering firm responsible for the original esti-
mate to:
expand management costs to reflect new institu-
tional arrangements approved by local officials;
and
refine other costs based on more recent field
data (new plants of similar design may show a
need for more chemicals).
Line 215 Total operation, maintenance, and replacement
costsis the sum of lines 209+210+211+212+213+214.
Enter the O+M values on the Financial Information Sheet.
30
111CROFILMED BY
JORM MIC R46L4O
CEDAR RANDS. DES MOINES
a
/955
r
Instructions
FINANCING THE FACILITIES for
Worksheet #3
PURPOSE OF WORKSHEET #3
Worksheet 43 identifies the amount to be borrowed by the
grantee and the methods of financing that amount. Total annual
costs, which include operations, maintenance, and debt service for
the new as well as any existing facilities, are then calculated
and a summary of the sources of funds for paying the annual costs
is provided.
Instructions for Section A
Section A outlines a method for determining the amount the
grantee must borrow to pay for the construction and construction -
related costs.
Lines 301 - 309 Turn back to Worksheet #2, lines 201-207,
or the necessary construction cost data. Then give the
anticipated amount of the EPA, state and other shares of the
construction costs for each component in the spaces provided.
The total grantee share (309) is calculated by subtracting
the EPA, state and other shares from the construction cost
for each system component (301-307) and by adding together
I the results.
Lines 310 - 315 Construction- related costs include interest
paid on construction loans or notes, any repayments to the
community's general fund and planning and design costs that
exceed the allowance from EPA or state aid. Also include
legal, financial and other fees associated with the sale of
bonds, including:
o preparing the official statement,
o printing the bonds,
o advertising the bonds, and
o underwriter costs.
I. Lines 316 - 320 List all sources of front-end financing the
grantee will use to reduce the amount to be borrowed. These
I include:
o property tax revenues,
o local funds (reserves) available for the project,
�I
31
1945
Mi
i
idl CROP I U.IED By
J
JORM PAICR6LAB 1
4 CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES
r
Worksheet #3
Section A
HOW WILL THE FACILITIES BE FINANCED?
A. AMOUNT TO SE BORROWED FOR CONSTRUCTION
AND CONSTRUCTION -RELATED COSTS
Grantee Share of Construction Costs
Con -
From struction EPA State Grantee
System Component Line Cost Share Share Other Share
Wastewater Treatment
Plant 201 S S S_ S S
(301)
Pump Stations 202
(302)
Interceptor Sewers 203
(303)
Collection Sewers 204
(304)
On -Site Systems 205
(305)
Land Acquisition 206
(306)
Other 207
(307)
Total S S_ S_ S
(306)
Total Grantee Share
(301 + 302 + 303 + 304 + 305 + 306 + 307)
$ (309)
/9$5
I
1
I•IICROFILI•IEO By
J
�•„ JORM MICR6LAB
CEDAR RAI'105 •DES VIDIYCS ,
� � I
r
Construction -Related Costs
Interest Paid on Loans and Notes
Repayments to Other Funds
Pluming and Design Costs that
Exceed Allowance from EPA
and State Aid
Legal, Financial and Other Fees
for Issuance and Sale of Bonds
Other Costs (Identify)
Total Construction -Related Costs
(310+311+312+313+314)
Grantee Contributions
Property Tax Revenues
Local Funds (Reserves) Available
for the Project
Prepaid Connection Fees and
Betterment Assessments
Other Sources of Front -End Funding (Identify)
Total Grantee Contributions
(316+317+318+319)
Amount to be Borrowed
( 309 + 315 - 320)
Worksheet #3
Section A
S (310)
(311)
(312)
(313)
(314)
S® (315)
(319)
$® (320)
1
MICROEIM4ED OY i
JORM MICR6LAI3 ?
� CEDAR RAPIDS D[5 MOINES '.
I
a
/9ss
1
J'�
tr
o prepaid connection fees and betterment assess-
ments,!/ and
0 other sources of front-end funding that reduce
the amount needed to be borrowed such as contri-
butions from industry.
Line 321 Calculate the amount to be borrowed by adding the
total grantee share (309) and total construction -related
costs (315) and subtracting grantee contributions (320) that
will be used to reduce the amount to be borrowed.
Return to the Financial Information Sheet and enter the re-
quired information.
Instructions for Section B
In Section B, the annual debt service (principal and interest)
for each form of borrowing which may be used to finance local
costs is added together to obtain a total annual debt service.
This information is then carried forward to Section C, where total
annual costs are calculated.
Lines 322 - 324 For each financing method, identify the
dollar amount borrowed, the number of years for which the
funds are being borrowed and the estimated interest rate
in the boxes on 322, 323, and 324.
For each of the methods of financing used by the grantee,
find the annual debt service payment. For the sake of sim-
plicity, assume the payments remain constant over the life of
the bonds or the loan. To calculate the annual debt service
(principal and interest) for each method of financing used,
multiply the appropriate capital recovery factor found in
the Capital Recovery Table on the bottom of page 35 by the
amount.borrowed. An example follows:
Amount to be borrowed $5,000,000
Interest Rate 12%
Maturity 20 Years
Capital Recovery Factor .134
Annual Debt Service Pay-
ment (.134 x 5,000,000) S 670,000
1/ Betterment assessments are defined as levies made against
certain properties to defray the cost of improvements, whi
are defined as buildings and other attachments or annexati
to land.
34
111CROFILIIED BY
i
JORM MICRO LA13
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOMES
i
/9
.P
h1I CROFIEI4CD 61'
j JORM MICRbLAB
I CEDAR RAPIDS • DCS 1101:IES
i
i
/9S5
mi
Line 325 Add the annual debt service payments for each method
of financing used to determine total annual debt service.
Upon completion of this section, enter the required infor-
mation on the Financial Information Sheet.
Instructions For Section C
Section C calculates two major components of total annual
wastewater facilities costs: operations, maintenance, and re-
placement costs and debt service.
Lines 326 - 329 These four lines are for information about
existing facilities annual costs. If the proposed project
represents a new plant, please go to line 330. Otherwise,
enter information on the annual operations, maintenance, and
replacement (O,M&R) costs for any existing facilities (326),
and the annual debt service being paid for the existing
facilities (329). (Note: Some existing O,M&R costs may be
discontinued as a result of the new project (327) or may be
included in new facilities costs and should be subtracted
from those existing (326) to determine the net annual O,MSR
costs (328).)
Lines 330 and 331 Cost estimates for the proposed facilities
can be found on Worksheet A2, line 215 and 325 of this work-
sheet, respectively.
Line 332 Add lines 328, 329, 330 and 331 to find the total
annual wastewater facilities costs.
The information from this section should now be trans-
ferred onto the Financial Information Sheet.
Instructions for Section D
Section D identifies the sources of funding for the total
annual wastewater facilities costs that were calculated in the
previous section. A list of potential revenue sources has been
provided in this section, which include both operating and non-
operating revenues. In some situations, only one source may be
applicable.
Line 333 Include here estimated revenues from sewer service
charges paid by system users (both residential and non-
residential).
Line 334 Include here estimated revenues from a surcharge on
sewer service charges.
/ 95 5
M I LRDF I LIdED Dl'
LF JORM MIC R6LAB
t �
CEDAR RAPIDSDES MOIYES
i
J
1d
Worksheet #3
Section C
C. TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL WASTEWATER FACILITIES COSTS
• Existing Annual Operations, Maintenance, and S1326)
Replacement Costs — ---'--
• Discontinued Annual Operations, Maintenance,
and Replacement Costs to be Discontinued as a
(327)
Result of Proposed Proiect
• Net Existing Annual Operations, Maintenance,----_�_
(3281
and Replacement Costs (Net) (326.327)
(329)
o Existing Annual Debt Service
• Estimated Annual Operations, Maintenance,
and Replacement Costs of Proposed
(330)
------
Facilities (215)
• Estimated Annual Debt Service for Proposed
(331)
Facilities (325)
• Tota) Estimated Annual Wastewater Facilities S
(332)
Costs (328 + 329 + 330 + 331)
MICROFILI.1ED BY
i
JORM MICR6LAB
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES I
i
19S5
fr
'
Worksheet N3 ---
Section D
D. SOURCES OF FUNDING FOR TOTAL ANNUAL
WASTEWATER FACILITIES COSTS
• Sewer Service Charges $
(333)
• Surcharge on Sewer Service Charges
(334)
• Special Assessments and Fees
— Connection Fees
(S per connection, number of
(335)
conneetions
— Betterment Assessments
(S per
(336)
number )
— Other (Describe)
(337)
• Transfers From Other Funds
(Identify)
(338)
• Other (identity)
(339)
• Total Funding S
(340)
MICROTILMED Ol'
f JORM MIC Rfi1LAB �
� CEDAR RAPIDS •DES M019E5
/ Isw
1
r
Lines 335 - 337 Some sources of non-operating revenues are
the funds derived from connection fees, betterment assessments,
and other fees to recover capital costs. In completing this
section, the applicant is cautioned toannual here on
ly
those funds that are available to pay Special
assessments and fees that are prepaid by community residents
and are used to reduce the amount of borrowing should not be
included here because they are not available to pay annual
facilities costs.
Line 33B In some instances, there may be transfers from
other funds such as property tax revenues from the community's
general fund. These sources should be entered here.
Line 339 Other sources of funding should be listed here. Ex-
amples include interest on investments and revenues from
the sale of by-products.
Line 340 Add lines 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, and 339
to ca c -Mate total funding.
From here, return to the Financial Information Sheet and
complete Section D under How Will the Facilities Be Financed?
39
/7 7,_S
1
141 CROS I U4ED BV
J
JORM MICRdLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES 14019E5
i
l
�I
Instructions
DETERMINING THE ANNUAL COSTS PER HOUSEHOLD for
Worksheet N4
■ PURPOSE OF WORKSHEET 214
1■� The purpose of this worksheet is to express the annual
costs for the community's wastewater treatment facilities on a
per household basis, measure the financial burden these costs
will impose, and make an assessment of the affected households'
ability to support the project.
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
Determining the impact of facilities' costs on households
involves finding the total annual costs per household and ex-
pressing those costs as a percentage of median household income.
This percentage is then evaluated in light of the following
guideline developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:
EPA considers the project expensive if annual costs
per household exceed the percentages of median house-
hold income listed below:
1.0 percent of the median household income when
the area's median household income is less than
$10,000,
. 1.5 percent of the median household income when
the area's median household income is between
$10,000 and 17,000, or
1.75 percent of median household income when the
area's median household income is greater than
$17,000.1/
Line 400 Enter the total estimated annual wastewater fa-
cilities charges (and surcharges) from Worksheet 3, lines 333+334.
Line 401 Enter the nonresidential share of total estimated
annual wastewater facilities charges (and surcharges) here.
Line 402 Subtract line 401 from 400 to find the resi-
denti 1 share of the total estimated annual wastewater
facilecharges.
1/ The dollar ranges given here are in 1980 dollars. They
should be adjusted to the current year using the procedure
described on page 44 for updating household income. U.S.
EPA,Construction Grants 1982 (Washington, D.C.: Office of
Water Program Operations, May 1982).
41
i9ss
i, 111CROFILRCD 6Y
JORM MIC RbLA B- '
L! j CEDAR RAPIDS •DCS F1019E5
,I
r
werKsneet #4
WHAT ARE THE ANNUAL COSTS PER HOUSEHOLD?
• Tota( Estimated Annual Wastewater Facilities
S
(400)
Charges (333+134)
• Nonresidential Share of Total Annual
s
(401)
Wastewater Facilities Charges
• Residential Share of Total Annual Wastewater
S
(402)
Facilities Charges (400.401)
-
(403)
• Number of Households
• Annual Wastewater Facilities Costs Per
S
(404)
Household (402=403)
�----
• Other Annual Costs Per Household (Identify)
S
(405)
• Total Annual Costs Per Household S (406)
(404+405)
S
• Median Household Income' (407)
—
• Total Annual Costs Per Household as a
Percentage of Median Household Income % (406)
(406=407 X 100)
• Check if derived from:
HUD SMSA !EEL income (year , amount S —f
HUD non -SMSA family income (year amount S 1
U. S. Census !agjily income (years—, amount S )
Other
42
MICWILMED BY
i
i JOF7M MICRbLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS •DCS MOINES
I
i
.r
1955
A
7
r I I
Line 403 Identify the number of households served by the
wastewater facilities.
Line 404 Divide the residential share of the annual waste-
water facilities charges (402) by the number of households
(403) to calculate the annual wastewater facilities costs
per household.
Line 405 Other annual costs per household are important to
include in this analysis of household burden. Examples
include service line installation costs, connection fees,
and assessments. Some difficulty may be encountered in
entering these amounts into the analysis for the following
reasons:
1) not all households in the community will neces-
sarily be affected. For example, connection fees may
only be required trom households that join the system
for the tirst time because of an expansion of the
tacilities.
2) Fees and assessments may be variable based on such
factors as the length of a homeowner's lot.
3) Frequently the "other" costs recovered from house-
holds are one-time fees or assessments and are not
repaid over a period of years.
Some suggestions for proceeding with the analysis of annual
costs per household given these problems are to:
1) Consider a "worst case" scenario by including all
potential fees a homeowner may be required to pay and
estimate variable fees at their maximum amount.
2) Express the one-time fees and assessments as annu-
alized costs based on the assumption that the home-
owners will not be able to pay these costs without
borrowing. To do this, the U.S. EPA recommends as-
suming an interest rate of 10% and a payback period of
20 years.!/ Multiply the amount of the one-time fee
and/or assessment by a capital recovery factor. (See
table on page 35.) Given the assumptions made above,
the factor is .117. As an example, consider the follow-
ing:
1/ U.S. EPA Facilities Requirements Division recommends this
approach but cautions that changes in the credit markets
will necessitate revisions.
43
/9.ss
:ICROf ILMCD M
CORM MIC RbLAB
L � 1
CEDAR RAPIDS •DES td01YE5
i
r I I
Connection fee
$2,000
Interest Rate
108
Length of Loan
20 years
Capital Recovery
year for which income infor-
Factor
.117
Annual Cost
$234
($2,000 x .117)
The number placed on line 405 is the sum of these
"other" household costs expressed on an annualized basis.
Line 406 Add lines 404 and 405.
Line 407 To obtain a median household income for the com-
munity, contact the community's planning department, a
county office or regional agency which may have the infor-
mation. The U.S. Bureau of the Census may be able to as-
sist you in finding this information, too. For the most
recent Census information, contact the Bureau of the Census,
Washington, DC 20233 at (301) 763-5060.
If median household income is unavailable from these sources,
ask for median family income, and derive an estimate of
household income by multiplying median family income by
.854.
median household income =
median family income x .854
If median household income is not available for the
current year, then the number obtained must be updated. A
suggested method for doing this is to:
a.
Obtain
the consumer price
index (CPI)
for the
year for which income infor-
mation
is available.1/
b.
Obtain
the CPI for the most recent
year.
1/ Consumer
Price Index
YEAR
CPI
YEAR CPI
YEAR
CPI
1969
109.8
1974 147.7
1979
217.4
1970
116.3
1975 161.2
1980
246.8
1971
121.3
1976 170.5
1981
269.0
1972
123.3
1977 181.5
1973
133.1
1978 195.4
44
/9SS
MICROFILMED 61'
JORM MICROLAB '
c I CEDAR RAPIDS • DES ROMES
J
XI
r
c. Divide "b" by "a" to calculate a
CPI ratio.
d. Inflate the median household income
figure by multiplying that amount by S
the CPI ratio found in "c".
The most up-to-date median household income for the com-
munity -- either obtained directly from government agencies
or derived -- should now be put on line 407 of the work-
sheet.
Line 408 To calculate the burden a household must bear,
divide the total annual costs per household (406) by the
median household income (407) and multiply the result by
loo to obtain the percentage of household income that will
be required to pay the total annual costs.
While the worksheet has been completed, it is worthwhile
considering the following when assessing household burden. The
median household income represents the midpoint of community
income, below and above which one half of the community's house-
holds lie. However, the distribution of incomes may range from
very low to very high within the affected community. Therefore,
while our analysis may not show undue burden on households in
general, residents living on retirement incomes and residents
having incomes at or below the poverty level may be adversely
affected.
For lack of a better, easily understood method of assessing
household burden, the procedures described in this worksheet are
still generally accepted and recommended by EPA. However, policy
questions may be raised at the local level regarding the fi-
nancial impact on households with low incomes.
Return to the last part of the Financial Information Sheet
and fill in the required information from this worksheet.
45
/ 9.55�
MICROFILMED BI'
.J
JORM MICROLAB - 1
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES
i
•
r M1
Supplemental
Information Sheet
Information Sheet may be used by your community as the basis for an In-depth evaluation of
This supplemental
relative financial strengths and weaknesses.
financial condition. It outlines a method lot assessing a community's
Information Sheet can be found in the Financial Capability
Instructions for completing this Supplemental
Government Finance Research Center, 1750 K St., N.W., Suite 650,
Guidebook, which Is available from the
Washington, O.C. 20006 2021466.2494.
What Is The Community's Debt History?
A. Bond Ratings
• Community's most recent general obligation bond rating
Rating Date of rating
• Community's most recent revenue bond rating(SOI)
Rating Date of rating
a. Outstanding Debt Amount outstanding Now debt for Total debt
Type of dabs before project proposed project outstanding
(5021
• General obligation bonds—
(5071
• Revenue bonds
15041
• Gross direct debt
Qii
(505)
• Otherdebt
506 1
• debt
0 kat 1 Mt
ISO?)
. Orex Is Illtkq dao t
lim
(soe )
• Overall not debt
C. Debt Repayment Schedule
• Total Gestalt Net Debt Due
(514)
(Including new Issue) within nest S years
0. Debt Limits
• SrWty describe tiny limits on debt that apply to your community,
(515)
% (516)
• Whet% of your debt limit is curnrAll'uoidy
What Is The Community's Financial Condition?
IMlcator Indicator rating
Indicator
value Weak Average Strong „�,,,,• .
1. Annual nu of change In population _% Below—I% —I%col% Above I% (602)
2. Current surplus as a % of total , Above 5% (610)
cement expenditures _% Below O•/. 06105%
2. Roil property tax co9ection rate _% Below 96% 96'61098% Above 96•/. (611)
0. Property tax revenues as a :4 of full Balm 2% (615)
11111111611 value of Mi propeny —% Above 4 2;: to 4
S. Oman MI debt as a % of lull market Below 3% (616)
3% to 541.
Value of Mal property —'/. Above S•/. .— -- —'
6. Overall MI debt outstanding as S % Of 16191
personal IncomeAbove 12% _
T. Direct net debt per capita f— Above $750 1125010 3750 Below 3250 — (620)
0. Overall net debt per capita f-- Above $1.000 _ 9450 to 31,000 _ Below $450 (621)
9. % direct not debt outslrarding du • 10•/.10 20% Aborta 00% (6221
within next 5 years __% Below 10 /•
/ 10. Operating (silo _% Below 100% = 100% to 120%_ Above 120% _ (620)
reties
_% Below 120% 120% to 170%_ Above 1y0% _ (621)
11. Coverage
,
17
19ye
f
i�
141CROFILMED BY
JORM MICROLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS •DCS IdOL'IES
Instructions
ASSESSING THE COMMUNITY'S DEBT HISTORY for
Worksheet 05
PURPOSE OF WORKSHEET 45
The purpose of this worksheet is to profile and summarize
the community's debt history. Information presented on this
worksheet is used for calculating the financial indicators found
on Worksheet N6.
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
This worksheet is divided into four sections, each providing
background information related to the community's debt history.
The sections cover: bond ratings, outstanding debt, debt repayment,
and debt limits.
Instructions for Section A
Line 500 Give the community's most recent general obli-
gation bond rating and the date of the rating.
Line 501 Give the community's (or its wastewater utility's)
most recent revenue bond rating and the date of the rating.
Enter this information on the Supplemental Information Sheet.
Tnzcructions for Section B
Lines 502-508 These lines organize information on the
community's outstanding debt. If appropriate, differentiate
between the amount of debt outstanding before the project
and new debt for the proposed project in the spaces provided.
Then add the numbers together in both categories to calcu-
late total debt outstanding. (Note: Include here onlv the
Definitions of the "types of debt" found on this worksheet
are as follows:
General Obligation pi
-- Bonds for whose payment the
ullfaith and credit of the issuer has been pledged. More
commonly, but not necessarily, general obligation bonds are
payable from real property taxes and other general revenues.
Revenue Bonds -- Bonds that are secured by revenues other
than taxation.
19
7JJ
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MIC ROLAB '
L� j CEDAR RAPIDS - DES 'd0I}!CS
�r
Worksheet # 5
Sections A and B
WHAT IS THE COMMUNITY'S DEBT HISTORY?
A. BOND RATINGS
• Community's Most Recent General
Obligation Bond Rating Rating Dat(500)e a— f Rating ing
• Community's Most Recent
Revenue Bond Rating (501)
Rating Date of Rating
B. OUTSTANDING DEBT
Amount Outstanding New Debt For Total Debt
Tvoe of Debt PWAM P...:... o_----
;c
MICROFILMED BY
i
JORM MICROLA13 _1 )
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES 1101NES
t
i
(502)
(503)
(504)
(505)
(506)
1507)
[508)
- - --
•-r--•� • •.qv.•
vuuwnamg
General Obli-
gation Bonds
S
S
S
Revenue Bonds
Gross Direct Debt
Other er Debt
:'`i'• <:":
DirectN t e Debt
....: ..........:::•::::::.L..
•:::�;;:
Overlapping i Debt
n9
%? ?:t
tit :: %•::<•
Overall Net Debt
'i'•:
�'•:.�::::.�.�::::;;:::•:::>::•:
;c
MICROFILMED BY
i
JORM MICROLA13 _1 )
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES 1101NES
t
i
(502)
(503)
(504)
(505)
(506)
1507)
[508)
b
P
Gross Direct Debt -- The total amount of bonded debt of a
government (general obligation bonds plus revenue bonds).
! Ij
Other Debt -- Three important debt obligations which should
be considered part of the community's debt load are out-
standing leases, unfunded pension liabilities, and notes
having a maturity greater than one year.
Direct Net Debt -- Gross direct debt less debt that is
self-supporting (revenue bonds) and double-barreled bonds
(general obligation bonds secured by earmarked revenues
which flow outside the general fund).
Overlapping Net Debt -- The proportionate share of tax -
supported debts of local governmental units located wholly s;
or in part within the limits of a community which must be
borne by property or persons in that community's bounda-
ries. (Chapter II provides guidance on determining a com-
munity's overlapping debt.)
Overall Net Debt -- This is the sum of direct net debt and
overlapping net debt.
Return to the Supplemental Information Sheet to record
the required data.
Instructions for Section C
Lines 509-513 Give the amount of direct net debt due in :z
each of the next five years..
a'
Line 514 Add lines 504, 510, 511, 512, and 513 to calcu-
late -total direct net debt due within the next five yea-rs.
Transfer the data onto the Supplemental Information Sheet.
Instructions for Section D
Line 515 Briefly describe any constitutional, statutory or
charter limits on debt (other than a referendum requirement)
that apply to your community, including:
• a dollar ceiling on the amount that may be out-
standing at any one time or the total amount that
may be issued,
• a ceiling on the amount that may be outstanding
at the time of incurrence, expressed as a percentage
of the assessed valuation of taxable property or
a percentage of regularly recurring revenues, y
i
. the ratio of oast revenues to future debt service
(for revenue bonds), and ;
Y
is
51 !"
19"
MICROFILMED BY
JORRA MICRbLAB '
CEDAR RAPIDS •DES M018ES
i
T I
i i
r
Worksheet ff 5
Sections C and D
C. DEBT REPAYMENT SCHEDULE
• Debt Repayment Schedule for Direct Net Debt Within Next 5 Years
Y 1 S
ear (509)
Year 2 (510)
Year 3 (511)
Year 4 (512)
Year 5 (513)
• Total Direct Net Debt Due (including new issue) Within Next
5 Years (509 + 510 + 511 + 512 + 513) $ (514)
D. DEBT LIMITS
• Briefly describe any limitations on debt that apply to your community. (515)
• What percentage of your debt limit is currently used? X (516)
MIDA0f1UdED BY
1 JORM MICREILAB J
j
CEDAR RAPIDS •DES MOINES '
i
/9SS
1
r
. any limitation on the authority to lev} taxes for
debt service.
The maximum amount of debt which a governmental unit may
incur typically is fixed on gross direct or direct net
debt.
Line 516 Calculate (or estimate) the percentage of the
debt limit currently used. Since there are a number of
possible limitations that may apply, no simple formula is
available.
Summarize and record the information from this section of
Worksheet 5 on the Supplemental Information Sheet.
53
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICRQLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES I
I
95,,
A
J�
Instructions
for
EVALUATING TUE CoMmUNIT1"S FINANCIAL Worksheet N6
CONDITION
PURPOSE OF WORKSHEET k6
The assessment of a community's financial Conditnindi-
in-
volves the calculation and analysis of 11 key al
cators. The indicators have been chosen because of their im-
portance in explaining the difference in creditworthiness between
a community with a strong credit rating and one that has a weak
credit rating.
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
Worksheet N6 provides instructions for calculating the
key indicators of financial health. After the indicator ementalvInfor-
and ratios are calculated, enter them on the Supp
mation Sheet and determine whether the indicators register a
weak, average, or strong rating based on the benchmarks given on
the sheet.
Instructions for Indicator 1 -- Population Growth
Lines 600-602 The annual rate of change in population
tell lyst whether or not a community is growing
strongly, remaining stable, or declining. This information
is relevant to the analysis of financial capability because
the economic base -- which typically is dependent on personal
income, retail sales, and the market vuefreal property
-- rises and falls with changes in population.
To calculate this rate, subtract the community's
ulationopu-
lation five years ago (600) fromthe
current pthe result by
(601). Divide this number by then multiply the
the population five years ago (600),
result by 100. For example,
a. Population 5 years ago 27,000
b. Current population 35,000
C. "b" - "a" 8,000
d. 8,000 -5 = 1,600
e. 1,600_ 27,000 x 100 = 5.98
If the population five years ago is unavailable, pick
some other period between 2 and 10 years. Conduct the
analysis as described above but change the denominator (S)
in Step "d" accordingly.
55
MICR011LMED BY
j JORM MIC RE/L AO
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOVIES
/ 9ss
IF
/45..5
ttucRDE1LMED BY
JORM MICREILAB I 1
1 j CEDAR RAPIDS • DES '101 NES
7 I
LL
I
1
J
Worksheet N6
Indicators 14
WHAT IS THE COMMUNITY'S FINANCIAL CONDITION]
INDICATOR 1
• Community Population 5 Years Ago
(600)
• Current Year Population
(601)
• Annual Rate of Change in Population
%
(602)
INDICATOR 2
• Property Taxes
$
(603)
• Other Revenues
S
(604)
• Total Current Revenues (19_)
S
(605)
• Operating Expenditures
S
(606)
• Debt Service Payments
S
(607)
• Total Current Expenditures (19_)
S
(608)
• Current Surplus (Deficit) (605.608)
S
(608)
• Current Operating Surplus (Deficit)
As A Percentage of Total Current
Expenditures (609 _ 608 X 1001
(610)
INDICATOR 3
i
• Real Property Tax Collection Rate
(Most Recent Tax Year Available 19_)
•G (611)
INDICATOR 4
• Assessed Value of Real Property
S
(612)
• Current Assessment Ratio
% (613)
• Full Market Value of Real Property
S
(614)
• Property Tax Revenues As A Percentage of
Full Market Value of Real Property
(603-614 x too)
%
(6151
`
56
/45..5
ttucRDE1LMED BY
JORM MICREILAB I 1
1 j CEDAR RAPIDS • DES '101 NES
7 I
LL
I
1
J
r
C
Instructions for Indicator 2 -- Operating surplus_(or Deficit)
Lines 603-605 Enter the community's cameral fund revenues
for the most recently completed fiscal year for the categories
specified in lines 603 and 604. (Treat as revenues only
current receipts that flow from tax sources, charges, and
intergovernmental payments. Do not include the receipts of
borrowing.) Add these two categories together to obtain
total current revenues (605).
Lines 606-608 The community's general fund expenditures
for the most recently completed fiscal year are divided
among operating expenditures and debt service payments.
Put the amounts in 606 and 607, then calculate the total
and enter it on 608.
Line 609 The current operating surplus (or deficit) is the
difference between total current revenues and total current
expenditures (605-608).
Line 610 Indicator 2 is found by dividing the surplus (or
efrcit) by total current expenditures and multiplying by
100. A positive percentage is a healthy sign whereas a
negative percentage should be taken as a financial warning
signal. The analysis of a community's surplus (or deficit)
should ideally be conducted over a multiyear period to
determine if the surplus is getting smaller or the deficit
is becoming larger.
Instructions for Indicator 3 -- Property Tax Collection Rate
Line 611 The real property tax collection rate is an
indicator of the efficiency of the tax collection system.
It is calculated as follows:
Property taxes collected during most recently
completed tax year x 100
Property taxes levied during most recently
completed tax year
Generally,
linquency.
Inw cntlactinn ratios are evidence of tax de -
Instructions for Indicator 4 -- Reliance on Property Tax Revenues
Lines 612-615 Indicator 4 identifies if a community is
taxing real property extensively and gives some indication
of the potential for future revenue growth from this source.
Property tax revenues are expressed as a percentage of the
full market value of real property.
The first step in calculating this indicator is to
enter the assessed value of real property on 612. The
current assessment ratio is needed to calculate the full
market value of real property since most properties are
I41CROrILMED BY
JORM MICR6LAB
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES '•IDIHE.
/9SS
4
7
�I
r
I.
I
assessed at some percent of market value -less than 100
percent. This is accomplished by dividing the assessed
value of real property by the assessment ratio. For example,
Assessed value of real property $100,000,000
Assessment Ratio (50 percent) .50
Full market value of real
property (100,000,000 =.50) $200,000,000
To calculate Indicator 4 (found on 615), divide the
most current year's property tax revenues (603) by the
current full market value of real property and multiply by
100.
Current Year's Property Tax Revenues x 100
Full Market Value of Real Property
Two points should be noted regarding this indicator:
i
1) A high ratio can be an important indicator of
fiscal pressure in the community because sustained
growth in property tax revenues will not be feasible
-- unless property values are increasing pro-
portionately.
2) As is the case with several of the other indicators
discussed above, the analyst may find it useful to
track the value of the indicator for the five year
period preceeding the current year.
.'d
F!ICROrILIIED V
i
! JORM MIC R4ILAB 1
j CEDAR RAPIDS - DES Id0I4E5 '
i9,�s
S
r
C
Instructions for Indicators 5-9 -- Debt capacity
This section of the worksheet organizes information on
the community's outstanding debt in order to calculate
several important indicators covering the debt capacity of
the community. In supplying information about a community's
debt history, the analyst should include any new debt for
the proposed facilities.
Line 616 For Indicator 5, divide total overall net debt
(508) by the full market value of real property (614) then
multiply by 100. Indicator 5 compares the amount of tax -
supported debt owed by a community with the full market
value of real property in the community, which is a gauge
of the community's ability to support additional borrowing.
Lines 617 and 618 Another measure of a community's wealth
is personal income which can also be used as a yardstick to
judge the community's ability to repay debt. If total
personal income is not known, find the per capita income in
the community and multiply it by population (617 x 601). If
personal income is not available for the current year, update
the most recent number using the same methodology described
on page 44.
Line 619 In Indicator 6, overall net debt is compared with
personal income. Divide overall net debt (508) by personal
income (618) and multiply by 100.
Line 620 For Indicator 7, divide direct net debt out-
standing (506) by the current population (601). The amount
is another indicator of the burden on the community of the
general obligation debt issued by the community.
Line 621 To calculate Indicator 8, divide overall net debt
outstanding (508) by the current population (601). The
amount is an indicator of the burden on the community of
the general obligation debt issued by the community and its
overlapping jurisdictions.
Line 622 The purpose of Indicator 9 is to compare the
percentage of direct net debt due within five years to
total direct net debt outstanding. Divide direct net debt
due within 5 years (514) by direct net debt outstanding
(506) and multiply by 100. Credit analysis teaches us that
an especially long payback should be viewed with caution
because the repayment of debt should correspond to the
useful life of the facility.
59
I41CROFILIIED BY
JORM MICR46LA8 '
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES
/9Ss
I
J
F
INDICATOR 5
• Overall Net Debt as a Percentage of Full Market
Value of Real Property (508: 614 X 100)
INDICATOR 6
• Per Capita Income
• Personal Income (617 X 601)
• Overall Net Debt as a Percentage of Personal
Income (508=618 X 100)
INDICATOR 7
• Direct Net Debt Outstanding Per Capita
(506 _ 601)
INDICATOR 8
• Overall Net Debt Outstanding Per Capita
(508=601)
INDICATOR 9
• Direct Net Debt Due Within 5 Years as e
Percentage of Direct Net Debt Due
(514 —SOS X 100)
Id I CROS ILMED BY
i DORM MICR6L AB
I CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES
S
,SL
S
a
Worksheet I►
Indicators 5.9
r
Instructions for Indica"ors 10 and 11 -- Analysis of Sewer
The indicators presented up to this point are particularly
useful in assessing the financial capability of the community if
it pays for its facilities with general obligation bonds. The
next part of the worksheet introduces two indicators which provide
the analyst with information upon which to make an informed
judgment general n bondsith Cetheue bonds. unlike financial condition ofof
analysis of
the sewer "enterprise" fund is of prime importance in the study
of revenue bonds.1/
Lines 623 and 624 Enter the expected operating revenues
and nonoperating revenues (grants, interest, and connection
fees) for the sewer fund.
Line 625 Add lines 623 and 624.
Lines 626-628 With regard to sewer fund expenses, it is
pacti useful to single out the operations and mainte-
nance expenses and annual debt service on outstanding sewer
revenue bonds. Any other nonoperating expenses should be
entered on 628.
Line 629 Add lines 626, 627, and 628.
Line 630 Since the issuer must be viewed as an operating
entity, the operating ratio is
important indicatsonor of the
the system's efficiency. Provides a
community's operating revenues and operating expenses. The
ratio is calculated by dividing operating revenues by
operating expenses and multiplying by 100 (623626 x 100).
Low ratios are considered a warning because the enter-
prise must rely on nonoperatig
operating
unpredictable, to shore up revenues, which tend to be
i
' Line 631 Another key ratio in the analysis of an enterprise
fund is the coverage ratio. It is calculated by dividing
the net revenues of the fund (total revenues minus
operating expenses) by the annual debt service on
revenue bonds outstanding and multiplying by 100 ((625-626)
X627 x 100).
A low coverage ratio means the enterprise
lwill
not
expenses.
able to generate sufficient revenues to pay
In addition to examining the quantity of revenues, consider-
ation should also be given to the stability and predictability
of the "coverage."
1/ An enterprise funit is established to account for sewer
operations that are financed and operated in a manner similar
to a private business enterprise -- where the intent of the
governing body is that the costs of providing the service be
financed or recovered primarily through user charges.
n
N
i
r
141CROCILMED 61'
JORM MIC ROLAB I�
CEDAR RAPIDS • I/ES MOINES
i
Worksheet #6
Indicators 10 and 11
INDICATORS 10 AND 11
• Sewer Fund Revenue's (First Year Operational)
Operating Revenues
S
(623)
Non Operating Revenues (Excluding
$
(624)
Revenue From Borrowing)
Total Revenues (623 + 624)
S
(625)
• Sewer Fund Expenses (First Year Operational)
Operating Expenses (Excluding
S
(626)
Depreciation and Reserves)
Annual Debt Service (on sewer bonds)
S
(627)
Other Non Operating Expenses
S
(628)
Total Expenses
S
(629)
• Operating Ratio (623 T 626 X 100)
`X (630)
• Coverage Ratio ((625 - 626) _ 627 X 100)
% (631)
62
1
Ml CRor IL14CD BY
i JORM MICR6LA13 J
CEDAR RAPIDS DES I40MES f
� I
APPENDIX A
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICR6LA13-
CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES.
IV4s
r
L
SELECTED REFERENCES
following reference mate rials are recommended for communities
'
The
that wish to acquire greater knowledge of financial indicators,
:DIY
municipal bond ratings, and sound financial practices.
Sanford M. and Godsey, W. Maureen. Evaluation of Local Govern-
Groves,
Financial Condition. Financial Trend Monitoring System:
ment
A Practiojars Workbook for Chartina Trends and Interpretin4
and Policies that Can
Results. Financial Jeo a>d�. Practices
Financial Performance Goals: A
Affect Financial Condition.
Lonq-Ran ge Policies. Teols for Making
,.,:.
Guide for Setting ton,
Series of five handbooks•
F nanoina Decisions. 1980.
DC: Internationa City Management Association,
Five practical handbooks designed to help local government
three broad
managers assess their fiscal condition. They focus on
as local demands for resources
variables: external influences such
organizational issues including
and the national and regional economy;
internal financialcharacter-
management practices and policies; and
and expenditure patterns, debt andunfunded
istics such as revenue
For information contact IC%jA, 1140 Connecticut Ave.,
liabilities.
NW, Washington, DC 20036. (202) 626-4600.
Lamb, Robert and Rappaport, Stephen P. Municipal Bonds: The
Exempt Securities and Public
:}e
„e
Com rehensive Review of Tax
McGraw-Ri 1 Book Co., 980.
Finance. New York:
book is written for a broad audience but will be most useful
The
to individuals desiring a general overview of most of the major
These readers will
institutional features of the tax-exempt market.
on the growth of the tax-exempt sector,
find the introductory chapters
municipal bonds, and the rating agencies,
the buyers and sellers of
and generally entertaining. Order Municipal Bonds
to be informative
Inc., 1221 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY
from McGraw-Hill,
10020. (212) 997-1221. $14.95.
Municipal Finance Officers Association. Governmental Accounting,
IL:
Auditing and Financial Reporting (GAAFR). Chicago,
MFOA, 1980. (234 pp)
First published in 1968, GAAFR received wide acceptance by
of
governmental accountants, and finance officers, other gofficils
accountants asaccepted
government and independent practicing
(GAAP) for state and local govern-
accounting principles
Available from: Municipal Finance Officers Association,
for $35.00.
r
ments.
180 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 800, Chicago, IL 60601
(312) 977-9700.
j
ci
A-1
i
111CROFILMED BY
JORM MICREILA6
CEDAR RAPIDS . DES M011ES
i9ss
It
J
r
L
Rosenberg, Philip and Stallings, C. Wayne
Financial Difficulty?! A Gui,9nhnnk
cnicac*;o,
8. (43 pp)
)i
Is Your City Heading for II
nance II
This publication provides local officials with step-by-step
procedures for analyses of their government's fiscal condition. It
focuses on five major variables that contribute to fiscal decline: I
economic vitality declining; financial independence being lost;
declining municipal productivity; deferral of current municipal
costs to the future; and, ineffective municipal financial management I
practices. A series of detailed indicators is presented to assess
each variable and a methodology for collecting and analyzing data I
on the variable is outlined. Available from MFOA, 180 N. Michigan
Ave., Chicago, IL 60601. (312) 977-9700. $6.00.
Smith, Wade S. The Appraisal of bfunicipal Credit Risk. New York:
Moody's Investor Service, Inc., 1979. (442 pp)
A guide to the credit aspects of municipal bonds and notes.
Divides the components of municipal credit evaluation into five
areas: (1) population, wealth and income; (2) governmental -organi-
zation and powers; (3) financial operations; (4) general debt
obligations; and (5) special and limited debt obligations. Available
from the publisher, 99 Church St., New York, NY 10007. (212) 553-0300.
$14.95.
Standard and Poor's Corporation. Standard and Poor's Rating Guide.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1979. (417 pp
In this guide, a major rating corporation outlines the procedures
and tools it uses for rating various types of public and private
sector securities, including corporate bonds, municipal bonds, and
bonds offered by public utilities, hospitals and housing authorities.
Major considerations in establishing a rating include economic base
analysis, financial analysis, debt levels, and administrative factors.
While concerned principally with private sector securities, this
Guide provides municipal officials with valuable insight into the
rating process. Available for $29.95 from McGraw-Hill Books,
Princeton Road, Hightstown, NJ 08520. (212) 997-1221.
faa
MICROFILMED BI'
JORM MICROLAO
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES
7
J
�r
APPENDIX B
141CROFILMED BY
JORM MICR46LAER
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES
L
195,E
ml
GLOSSARY OF FINANCIAL TERMS
ACCRUAL BASIS. The basis of accounting under which transactions are
recognized when they occur, regardless of the timing of related
cash flows.
ASSESSED VALUATION. A valuation set upon real estate or other
property by a government as a basis for levying taxes.
CAPITAL OUTLAY. Expenditures which result in the acquisition
of or addition to fixed assets.
CASH BASIS. A basis of accounting under which transactions are
recognized only when cash changes hands.
COVERAGE. The ratio of net revenue available for debt service to
;
the average annual debt service requirements of an issue of
revenue bonds.
DEBT. An obligation resulting from the borrowing of money or from
`
the purchase of goods and services. Debts of governments
include bonds, time warrants, notes, and floating debt.
DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENT. The amount of money required to pay
interest on outstanding debt, serial maturities of principal�.y
for serial bonds, and required contributions to accumulate
monies for future retirement of term bonds.
%ll`
DIRECT NET DEBT. Gross direct debt less debt that is self-supporting
(revenue bonds) and double-barreled bonds (general obligation
bonds secured by earmarked revenues which flow outside the
general fund).
ENTERPRISE FUND. A fund established to account for operations (a)
that are financed and operated in a manner similar to private
business enterprises -- where the intent of the governing body
is that the costs (expenses, including depreciation) of providing
goods or services to the general public on a continuing basis
be financed or recovered primarily through user charges; or
(b) where the governing body has decided that periodic deter-
mination of revenues earned, expenses incurred, and/or net
income is appropriate for capital maintenance, public policy,
?;
management control, accountability, or other purposes.
Examples of Enterprise Funds are those for water, gas, and
electric utilities; swimming pools; airports; parking garages;
and transit systems.
EXPENDITURES. Decreases in net financial resources. Expenditures
include current operating expenses which require the current
:;
or future use of net current assets, debt service, and capital
outlays.
r
B-1
4r
/ 4!�5
IIICRDSLMCD BY
JORM MIC RISLAB '
Lc ~ I
CEDAR RANDS • DCS 14o1NCS
r
L
GENERALLY ACCEPTED ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES (GAAP). Uniform minimum
standards of and guideliues to financial accounting and
reporting. They govern the form and content of the basic
financial statements of an entity. GAAP encompass the con-
ventions, rules, and procedures necessary to define accepted
accounting practice at a particular time. They include not
only broad guidelines of general application, but also detailed
practices and procedures. GAAP provide a standard by which
to measure financial presentations.
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS. Bonds for the payment of which the full
faith and credit of the issuing government are pledged.
GROSS DIRECT DEBT. The total amount of bonded debt of a govern-
ment (general obligation bonds plus revenue bonds).
HOUSEHOLD. A household consists of all the persons who occupy
a housing unit. A house, an apartment or other group of
rooms, or a single room, is regarded as a housing unit,
when it is occupied or intended for occupancy as separate
living quarters. A household includes the related family
members and all the unrelated persons, if any, such as
lodgers, foster children, wards, or employees who share the
housing unit. A person living alone in a housing unit, or
a group of unrelated persons sharing a housing unit as
partners, it also counted as a household.
MEDIAN INCOME. The median income is the amount which divides
the distribution into two equal groups, one having incomes
above the median, and the other having incomes below the
median.
MODIFIED ACCRUAL BASIS. A basis of accounting under which
revenues are recognized when they become both "measurable"
and "available to finance expenditures of the current
period" and expenditures are recognized when the related
fund liability is incurred
OFFICIAL STATEMENT. A legal document which summarizes all the
salient eatures of the underlying documents and agreements
which support a municipal bond offering. It is considered
the disclosure document which presents information that is
"material" to the offering. The official statement should
contain what a reasonable investor would need to know in
making a decision about the issue. Thus this document
will usually include a description of tKe issuer, a des-
cription of the purpose of the project being financed, a
description of the security of the bond, a summary of the
principal financing documents, any feasibility studies which
relate to the security, and any other "key information."
OVERALL NET DEBT. This is the sum of direct net debt and over-
lapping debt,
B-2
111CROrILMED BY
JORM MICR46LAB
CEDAR RAPIDS • DCS VMS
Mies
1
J
v:i?•r
' is ;^.
b,".Ihi<1
/9SS
M ICROFIL14ED D1'
JORM MICROLAB
j
CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES j
OVERLAPPING DEBT. The proportionate share of the debts of local
governments located wholly or in part within the limits of
the reporting government which must be borne by property within
each government. Except for spocial assessment debt, the
amount of debt of each unit applicable to the reporting unit
is arrived at by (1) determining what
J percentage of the total
.':)•',r�:.�:t
assessed value of the overlapping jurisdiction lies within
the limits of the reportinq unit, and (2) applying this
percentage to the tonal debt of the overlapping jurisdiction.
Special assessment debt is allocated on the basis of the
ratio of assessments receivable in each Jurisdiction which
will be used whollyor in part to pay off the debt to total
assessments receivable which will be used wholly or in part
for this purpose.
REVENUE BONDS. Bonds whose principal and interest are payable
exclusively from earnings of an Enterprise Fund. In addition
to a pledge of revenues, such bonds sometimes contain a mortgage
on the Enterprise Fund's property.
REVENUES. In general terms, money received in exchange for the
delivery of goods and services. A more precise definition:
additions to assets, such as cash or accounts receivable,
which (1) do increase
not any liability, such as a debt
obligation; (2) do
=
not represent a recovery of an expenditure,
such as results from
a return of defective purchased equip-
ment; (3) do not
represent the cancellation of certain
liabilities
without a corresponding increase in other lia-
bilities
or a decrease in assets, such as forgiveness '0 f
:�::•.;
a debt; and (4) are not contributions made to fund
't
businesslike enterprises.
•...,,,
SINKING FUND. A fund established to account for the accumulation
of resources for, and the payment of, the principal and
interest of general long-term debt.
i
v:i?•r
' is ;^.
b,".Ihi<1
/9SS
M ICROFIL14ED D1'
JORM MICROLAB
j
CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES j
Ordinance No.
Page 3
SECTION III. IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
A. An Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission is hereby established. The
Commission shall initially consist of seven (7) members who shall be
residents of the City of Iowa City.
B. Members of the Commission shall be appointed by the City Council. At least
one resident of each designated area of historical "significance and one
member of the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be appointed to the
Commission. Other members shall be chosen at large from any part of the
city and shall have some expertise in history, urban planning,
architecture, archeology, law, sociology, or other closely related field,
or shall demonstrate interest in the area of historic preservation. At
least three of the members shall hold appointments at large. Should the
number of officially designated city historic districts exceed four in
number, a new member shall be added to the Commission for each new district
in excess of four districts. No more than one-third of the -members of the
Commission shall belong to the City's Planning and Zoning Commission.
C. The original appointment of the members of the Commission shall be two (2)
for one year, two (2) for two years, and three (3) for three years. The
members appointed from' designated historic districts shall serve three
year terms. After the initial appointment of members the term for each
member shall be three years.
D. Vacancies occuring in the Commission, other than by expiration of term of
office, shall be filled only for the unexpired term.
E. Members may serve for more than one term and each member shall serve until
the appointment of a successor.
F. Members shall serve without compensation.
G. A simple majority of the Commission shall constitute a quorum for the
transaction of business.
SECTION IV. RULES OF THE COMMISSION.
A. The Historic Preservation Commission shall elect from its membership a
chairperson and vice -chairperson whose term of office shall be one year.
The chairperson and vice -chairperson may serve for more than one term. The
chairperson shall preside over the Commission and shall have the right to
vote. The vice -chairperson shall, in cases of absence or disability of the
chairperson, perform the duties of the chairperson.
B. The City Manager shall designate a person to serve as secretary to the
Commission. The secretary shall keep a record of all applications for
Certificates of Appropriateness, resolutions, proceedings, and actions of
the Historic Preservation Commission.
C. The Commission shall recommend rules or by-laws for the transaction of its
regular business to the City Council for adoption. The Commission shall
have the authority to adopt rules of procedure in connection with the
/9s`
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MIC ROLAB '
( CEDAR RAPIDS DES 14011;ES
L
r
IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT, IN AND FOR JOHNSON C0(.?1^_'Y
CHRISTIAN RETIREMENT
SERVICES, INC., )
44570
Plaintiff, ) 45011
45784
VS. ) 46528
I :los. 47232
THE BOARD OF REVIEW OF )
THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, )
J
Defendant. ) FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS OF LAF1
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 and,_
DECREE
CHRISTIAN RETIREMENT
SERVICES, INC., ) '
Appellant, ) 4454,4
450fl
vs. ) 45765..:- .
THE BOARD OF REVIEW OF ) 46529
Nos. 47231
THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, )
• 1
Appellee. ) .
i .
Plaintiff, Christian Retirement Services, Inc. (hereinafter
Oaknoll), has brought a series of actions challenging the legality
of the actions of the defendant Board of Review of the City of
Iowa City -(hereinafter Board) denying it exemptions Prom property
taxation for the years 1978 through 19el. Trial on these consoli-
dated actions was held August 16-20, 1982. Oaknoll was represented
by Robert N. Downer and Thomas D. Hobart; the defendant Board by
John W. Hayek and David E. Brown.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Oaknoll is a non -denominational, not -for -pecuniary -profit
corporation organized and existing under Chatter 504, Code of
Iowa, to provide a residential care facility for the elderly.
Its objects and purposes are set forth in Article III of its
Articles of Incorporation:
HICRO(RHED 81'
i
JORM MIC R6LAB
�
CEDAR RAPIDS DCS MOINES i
i
� I
/9d 7
1
r
I
The objects and purposes of this corporation
shall be to establish, operate and maintain retirement
facilities for the aged in Iowa with especial responsi-
bility to Christian ministers and laymen. This -
corporation shall not be operated for private profit. ,
and there shall be no dividends or distribution of-"',
property to any person or persons. _
Provided, however, that the above objects and.
purposes of the corporation shall be limited to b'- -
exclusively in furtherance of charitable, religious.ri �..
educational purposes within the meaning of Section ^ V
501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (or the
corresponding provision of any future United States
Internal Revenue Law).
Oaknoll has maintained its exemption from federal income
taxation throughout the course of its existence.
During the tax years in question Oaknoll consisted of 105
apartment units and a health care center containing 4E beds; 32
licensed for skilled care and 16 licensed for intermediate care.
Construction of 27 additional apartment units is now under way
on property adjoining the existing complex. Individuals who are
Oaknoll residents are given priority over nonresidents insofar
as admission to the health care center is concerned. Since 197E
(inclusive) an average of approximately four nonresidents per year
have gained access to the health care center for varying lengths
of time.
Funding for the construction and maintenance of Oaknoll has
come primarily from two sources: an initial "endowment" fee and
monthly service or rental charges, both of which are paid by the
residents. The "endowment" fee was at least partially waived for
several of Oaknoll's intitial residents. It was not waived for
any residents entering during the years in question.
- 2 -
1951
hiICROIILLICD OI'
JORM MIC BEY
I
CEDAR RAPIDS OCS 1401.4CS
Y
1
r
Oaknoll has a number of admission requirements: (1) physical
and mental ability, at least initially, to live independently;
(2) submission of a financial statement; and (3) an interview
with the admissions committee. While no application for admission
to Oaknoll has been rejected for financial reasons, it is most
doubtful that a person unable to pay the endowment and monthly
charges during the immediate future could gain admittance at this
time. However, once an individual is admitted he or she will not
be evicted for inability to meet the payment schedule. Pursuant
to this policy, approximately five residents per year f.ave receivad
partial subsidization of their monthly charges in an am6pnt "-
- c
approaching $2,000.00 per month.
The size and type of apartment occupied.by an indiv3.dua4,(s)-,
:n
is determined by the size of the endowment, with the larger acart-
menu requiring larger endowments and higher monthly service
charges. Residents nay no additional charge for time spent in
the health care center. They do continue to pay their monthly
apartment charge. Those nonresidents who are admitted to the
health care center and receive either medicare, Title XIX or
Veteran's Administration benefits are not charged beyond the
amount of the benefits they receive despite the fact that oaknoll's
actualoperating expense per patient is greater than the amount
of the monthly benefits.
Considerable volunteer services are donated to Oaknoll.
These range from the members of the board of directors to those
who canto read to, walk with or write letters for the residents.
Some of this volunteer work does enable the professional health
care staff to provide more direct "hands on" care for health center
occupants. Although Oaknoll is nondenominational, there are visits
MM
1
MICROFILMED BY
JORM MICR6LAEI
CEDAR RAPIDS DES M0I.1
J
1167
S
7
J
3-
r I I
by members of the clergy and a chapel is provided for church
services which are held on a regular basis.
Besides providing for resident services and staff salaries,
the endowments and service charges are utilized in part to pay
interest on and retire indebtedness incurred in constructing and
expanding the facility. The endowments and monthly fees are
necessary to the continued existence of Oaknoll. As these debts
are retired Oaknoll will be able to provide more services to its
residents gratuitously or at a reduced cost. Such a possibility
has been discussed by Oaknoll managing personnel and members of
the board of directors, but no firm policies or implemegta_tio_n
_ O _
procedures have been established.
Oaknoll does receive donations from the community,-�.itith.the)
exception of a $100,000.00 cash gift in 1980, these do3aixo % ha`Ce
cg
averaged several thousand dollars per year and do not constitute
a major part of Oaknoll's operating revenues.
oaknoll operates as a nonprofit corporation. It has no
distribution scheme if and when a net gain is shown on its balance
sheet. Any such amount is retained by Oaknoll and used to further
its stated purposes.
The timeliness of Oaknoll's objection to the denial of a
property tax exemption for the years 1979 is contested, and Oaknoll
admits that its protest for 1979 was filed an May 11, five days
after the statutory deadline set by Section 441.37.
The parties have requested specific rulings on the admissability
of certain exhibits and testimony introduced at trial. Plaintiff's
Exhibits 50, 51 and 55 are based upon anonymous financial statements
solicited from Oaknoll residents. Not all the residents responded.
-4-
i�
141CROFIL14EU BY
JORM MICF?*LA6 '
�
CEDAR R4R105 OE5 MOINES '
i
19.1 7
r
These financial statements and the aforementioned exhibits were
objected to as hearsay. Ms. Judy West, an Iowa Department of
Social Services social worker, testified that she had referred
several individuals to Oaknoll, but that they had been denied
admission because it (Oaknoll) was too expensive or the applicant's
health did not comply with Oaknoll's independent living 'admission�t
standard. She had no first-hand knowledge of these alleogeSl q;ouncs
Y^ _
for non -admission.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE.
Plaintiff's Exhibits 50, 51 and 55 are inadmissable as hearsay
bec4use they represent compilations or summaries of anonymous
financial statements taken from certain Oaknoll residents. While
State v. Galloway, 275 N.W. 736, 742-43 (Iowa 1979), and State v.
Davis, 269 N.W. 2d 434,. 440-41 (Iowa 1978), would indicate that it -
•is permissable for an expert witness' opinion to be based in part
on hearsay information, the rendering of an opinion does not make
the hearsay admissable into evidence. The opinion may be admissible
even though the underlying facts or data may not be. bavis,
269 N.W. 2d at 441.
The Court further concludes that the data contained in the
questionaires differs materially from that hearsay information found
acceptable in Galloway and Da_ vis. The questionaires are not the
result of a scientific proredure or records made during the regular
course of Oaknoll's business. Their inherent reliability, like
much hearsay, is subject to question. To the extent that the
testimony of David Johansen is premised upon or interpretive of
this information, it will not be considered by the Court.
- 5 -
IJICROf ILNED 01'
JORM MICROLAB J
� CEDAR RAPIDS - DES M01.IES .
i
,. _ 1
/9.67
1
As the testimony of Ms. Judy west regarding the reasons for
certain individuals not gaining admission to Oaknoll is not based
upon her personal knowledge or experience, but is the result of
conversations with those individuals (declarants) and is apparently
being offered to show the truth of the assertions contained therein,
it too is hearsay. See, e.g., Raliano V. Darland, 252 N.W. 2d 732.
736 (Iowa 1977). It is thus inadmissable and will not be considered
by the Court. — �)
n c5
II. STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD OF REVIEW. c _
While the authority of the Board of Review to granC..pr deny(;-!
tax exemptions is not among those powers explicitly enu?Vte#.) iA-;
cn
Section 441.35, the Iowa Supreme Court has held that Section Y41.37
contemplates that claims for property tax exemptions must be
presented to the Board of Review before judicial review is sought.
City of Council Bluffs 'v. Pottawattamie County, 254 N.W. 2d 18, 20-21
(Iowa 1977). The legislative grant of authority in Section 441.35
is not exclusive and Section 441.37, as construed, would grant the
Board jurisdiction to hear exemption claims. Pursuant to Section
441.37, the Board had jurisdiction to act on Oaknoll's claims.
III. TIMELINESS OF THE 1979 CLAIM.
Section 441.37 requires that protests of tax assessments shall
be made to the local board of review between Aoril 16 and May 5,
_ inclusive, of the year of assessment. The protest filed by Oaknoll
for the 1979 assessment was made on May 11. Absent a showing of
good cause or other reason for the tardiness of the protest, the
Court concludes that the protest did not substantially comply with
the statutory time constraints set by Section 441.37. Cf. Economy
Forms Corporation v. Potts, 259 N.W. 2d 787, 788 (Iowa 1977) (five
day tardiness not substantial compliance with Section 441.38).
-'6 -
HICRDFILMED BY
- JORM MIC R4LAB
� CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES.
i
I �
i
_ J
195' 7
k■
r
To the extent that the Board's action on the 1979 exemption
claim may now be challenged, such an action would initially be
limited to deterring whether the Board erred in denying the claim
on the ground that the claim was not filed in a timely manner as
per statute. As it is the conclusion of the Court that the Board
did not err in so denying the exemption, the property tax-assE,sment
on,
for the year 1979 must be sustained.
IV. PROPERTY TAX STATUS FOR 1978, 1980 AND 1981. Z_ _ o
Oaknoll initially contends that its property tax sLxps =:as -
determined by a 1970 judgment of this Court, that therebHpvetbbeen
no material changes in its manner of operation since that time,
and -that therefore the doctrine of stare decisis would bar reliti-
ation of this issue. In response the City cites Iowa Methodist
Hospital v. Board of Review, 252 N.W. 2d 390 (Iowa 1977) and
Evan elical Lutheran Good Samaritan Societv v. Board of Review,
267 N.W. 2d 413 (Iowa App. 1978), for the proposition that each
tax year is considered a separate transaction or additional cease
of action, and that previous decisions are not decisive.
The 1970 Ruling did not involve extensive findings of fact,
finding that Oaknoll had granted reduced endowment charges to several
of its initial occupants who had been unable to pay the set rate
and generally analogizing Oaknoll to the "Wesly Acres" institution
which was found exempt in South Iowa Methodist Homes, I_nc. v.
Board of Review, 173 N.W. 2d 526 (Iowa 1970). The Court notes that
there is no evidence that endowment, as opposed to monthly charge,
reductions or subsidies were made during the years in question.
Oaknoll is further distinguished from Wesley Acres in that the
amount of apartment space is determined by the size of the endowment.
Id. at 533. These factual distinctions are illustrative of the
reasons why the Iowa Supreme Court has held that each tax year
- 7 -
NICROEILMED BY
JORM MIC R(jLAB
CEDAR RAPIDS - DES MOINES
f
i
, _ J
19,17
k
�l
a
should be considered separately. The Court finds that the afore—
cited cases require that the 1970 Judgment and Decree not be
dispositive Of the question of Oaknoll's property tax status for
the years in question. The Court must make its own determination
of whether Oaknoll's property is actually being used to further
a charitable purpose, E.g., Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan
'rr i
x"-
society,267 N.W. 2d at 414, within the meaning of Sect ion427'.1;;
oT� c
Code of Iowa.
r.• - O
Tax exemption statutes, such as Section 427.1, areabet
strictly construed. Id. Institutional exemptions are r1sM+ed•:with
io
more favor than exemptions to private persons. South Iowa Methodist
Homes, 173 N.W. 2d at 531. The gratuitous care of elderly persons
is a charitable purpose. E.g., Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan
Society* 267 N.W. 2d at 414.
Comparison of Oaknoll with those institutions whose property
tax status has been the subject of recent judicial review indicates
that Oaknoll possesses characteristics in common with both exempt
and nonexempt propertys.
Those features which would favor exemption includb: 1) no one
has been refused, admission for financial reasons; 2) Oaknoll is not
operated with pecuniary profit as an objective: 3) the purpose of
Oaknoll, as stated in its Articles of Incorporation, is charitable
in nature; 4) no one has been evicted from Oaknoll for failure to
make the full monthly payments; 5) Oaknoll makes extensive use of.
volunteer services, including its Hoard of Directors, who are not
compensated; 6) it does render partially gratuitous care to those
residents who are financially unable to pay their monthly service
charges and those occupants of the medical center whose program
benefits do not cover the cost of their care; and 7) Oaknoll is a
MIM
/957
I
MICROFILMED BY
i JCRM MIC RE/LV
1
� CEDAR RAPIDS DES I401NES
I
r
care facility, providing medical and other beneficial services to
its residents beyond mere housing.
Those factors which would weigh against the granting of an
exemption include: 1) the absence of an established policy requir-
ing the admission of elderly individuals to Oaknoll regardless of
their ability to pay, rather Oaknoll personnel has acknowledged
that an individual not able to pay the endowment and monthly charges
for the immediate future would at this time likely be denied
admittance; 2) no one has been admitted during the years in question
without paying the endowment fee; 3) Oaknoll's charges,`4he initial
�=3
endowment and monthly fees, are set sit a level to gener!i*Q
M_
operating revenues as gifts, with one exception, are no&? magcr
source of funding; 4) in the residential area, subsidieF%iters=
received only by those who had made substantial paymenta2hroagh
the endowment and who comprise a small percentage of the residents; ,
5) admission is limited to those who are physically and, in at
least the near future, financially independent; and 6) space in
the residential portion of.the complex is allocated in proportion
to the size of the endowment, i.e., larger living quarters require
a larger endowment and increased monthly payments.
It is clear that Oaknoll is solely engaged in providing for
the care of the elderly and that while such a service is of value
to any community, that pursuit alone is not charitable for property
taxation purposes. E.g., Iowa Methodist Hospital V. Board of Review,
_ 252 N.W. 2d 390 (Iowa 1977); Dow Senior Citizens Housing, Inc. v.
Board of Review, 230 N.W. 2d 497 (Iowa 1975). The determinative
factor is the extent to which the property is used to provide at
least partially gratuitous care for the elderly. Good Samaritan
Society, 267 N.W, 2d at 414, Oaknoll does provide partially gratuito
- 9
141LROFILMED BY
JORM MIC R4iL AB 1
I j
CEDAR RAPIDS •DES 1401`IES
I
I
/957
r I I
care to slightly over three per cent of its residents and an annual
average of over eight per cent of the occupants of the health
center. This is significantly less than that involved in
South Iowa Methodist Homes, 173 N.W. 2d at 528 (policy to admit
at least 10 per cent of residents without "room gift"; xL-neFjcen;
had been admitted without room gift and an additional IVoer�terrr-
c _
had made a partial "room gift"), and Good Samaritan SoC3ety,
267 N.W. 2d at 415 ("high percentage" of residents main-f7a1ned,•on_.1
partially gratuitous basis"), where tax exempt status was fou9d.
At the same time, it is definitely in excess of that in Dow City,
230 N.W. 2d at 499 (no rental concessions based on need), Iowa
Methodist Hospital, 252 N.W. 2d at 392 (no one accepted who is
unable to pay rent). or 1,orthwest Community Hospital v. Board of
Review, 200 N.W. 2d 509, 511 (Iowa 1972) (no gratuitous care).
These amounts are in literal compliance with the language of the
"partially gratuitous care" standard. Additionally, extensive
volunteer services are provided to the residents.
The City would have the Court attempt to weigh the benefits
received by the community from the exempted uses with'the inequality
caused by exemption of the property, citing Dow City, 230 N.W. 2d
at 499. while this may involve a consideration of the -extent to
�I which any governmental burden is lessened, not all of the types of
institutions listed in Section 427.1, such as those of a scientific
or religious nature, directly relieve the state of any monetary .
burden. The relative societal value of any institution is evaluated
by the legislature in deciding whether or not to establish a
statutory property tax exemption. Such a determination may involve
a myriad of factors or considerations, such as the social convenience
of those with elderly relatives or the economic impact on the local
- 10 -
Ile
141CROEILMED BY
-CORM MIe:ROLAB ,
� 1 � CEDAR RAPIDS DES td01 NES
1
a�
r
community. See Good Samaritan Society,267 N.W. 2d at 416.
To a considerable extent, basing a judicial decision on this
type of evidence would allow a city to second guess a copclusion
_C3 .73 ^1
already reached by the legislature in enacting the statave: Ute �1
South Iowa Methodist Homes, 173 N.W. 2d at 531. See als�b' o
2_� 1
Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society v. Board ofifleviiww, _
c"4= -74 1J
200 N.W. 2d 509, 512 (Iowa 1972) (Harris dissenting). Vkviing-
considered the societal value of charitable institutions, the
legislature "recognized" the value with property tax exempt status.
only to the extent that such evidence reflects upon the "charitable"
nature of an institution as that term is used in Section 427.1(9),
will it now be considered. As previously noted, gratuitous or
partially gratuitous care of the elderly has been held to be a
charitable use of property under the statute.
Dow City does not require a different conclusion. In that
case the appellant provided noneratuitous housing, as opposed to
care, for the elderly, in addition to receiving a government loan.
To the extent that a common element exists In the precedent on
this issue, the focus has been on the gratuitous rendering of care
to the elderly.
Based upon the foregoing, it is the conclusion of the Court
that the plaintiff has shown that it is entitled to a property
tax exemption as to its health care facility, but not as to the
residential portion of the institution.
The residential portion of oaknoll renders "gratuitous" services
to those of its residents who, after having paid the substantial
endowment and the requisite monthly payments for some time, become
financially unable to pay all the monthly fee. Gratuitous care
is not an initial objective or goal with a resident, but a
j.
MICRor ILNED By
JORM MICR46LA -,'
j CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES
J
/ 9S7
1
r
contingency which may actualize with the passage of time and
which, as indicated by the low percentage of residents being
=- d
partially subsidized, is likely not to occur. Only thwlra
c% c
have made substantial monetary contributions to OaknolocsWy c
eventually qualify for gratuitous care. Additionally, t..l .�
CN
admission to the residential section of Oaknoll is gen�lyN
to
limited to the physically and financially independent and living
space is apportioned according to the size of the endowment and
the monthly charge. See South Iowa Methodist Homes, 173 N.W. 2d
533. Such prerequisites and admission requirements create some
doubt as to whether the rendering of partially gratuitous care
for,the elderly is a major or primary use of the residential
portion of the property. It is therefore not to be accorded
property tax exempt status.
These same considerations applied to Oaknoll's health care
center explain why it is entitled to exemption from property tax.
While most of its services are to residents requiring medical
attention, it has consistently granted admission to a number of
elderly nonresidents who receive benefits which do not cover
Oaknoll's expense in caring for them. Thus there is an immediate
• rendering of partially gratuitous care. In contrast to the
residential area, the quality or extent of care is not determined
by ability to pay, and a greater percentage of health center
residents are recipients of partially gratuitous care. The
property an which the health center is located is utilized in a
manner more analogous to "Wesley Acres." That portion of Oaknoll
is thus exempt from property taxation.
- 12 -
/?-r
MICROEILIIED BY
JORM MOCR46LAS
CEDAR RAPIDS " DES MOINES
7 I i
i
1
J
r
I
The Court realizes that this division of the property for
taxation purposes may involve some practical difficulty. Yet
limited exemptions are not unprecedented. See Aerie 1287, Fraternal
Order of Eagles v. Holland, 226 N.W. 2d 22 (Iowa 1975). Due to
the differing admission standards and circumstances surrounding
the operation of these areas of Oaknoll and the resulting impact
7.
o__
upon the use of the property, the Court finds this dispdyit'* toy
O i,•; O
be appropriate.
V. DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION ISSUES.
As the Court has in pare found Oaknoll's real prom
J=y be
0
subject to taxation, it must now consider the constitutional
challenges to the actions of the Board of Review.
Oaknoll initially contends that it was denied procedural due
process in that final determinations of its tax status were made
without giving it a "meaningful opportunity" to be heard. The '
difficulty in considering the legal sufficiency of procedure
accorded Oaknoll by the Board is the absence of record evidence as
to the procedure followed by the Board in denying the requested
exemptions. Given this lack of evidence, the Court can but conclude
that this contention cannot be addressed and thus does not provide
a basis for relief.
Oaknoll next alleges that Chapters 427 and 441, Code of Iowa,
are violative of the equal protection clause of the Fifth Amendment
made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment in,
that they do not establish a procedure which ensures that similar
institutions around the state are treated in a similar manner. It
contends that allowing local boards of review to make final decisions
- 13 -
J'
111CROnuafD BY
JORM MIC REILAB
�
CEDAR RAPIDS DES MINES '
i
I
r
L
on property tax exemptions has resulted in institutions very
similar to it being granted exemptions while its claims have
been denied.
No classifications having an adverse impact on Oaknoll inhere
in the statutory scheme; the same standards are facially applicable
to all. Status determinations are made on an individual basis;
each case is decided on its own facts. E.g., Good Samaritan Society,
267 N.W. 2d at 414. While having all these decisions made by one
governmental official might heighten consistency, the existing
statutory procedure is facially reasonable insofar as it establishes
any classifications. That some apparent inconsistency in appli-
cation of the statute by the different boards of revieV;inay _esul�t
_R> -
is but a byproduct of localized decision-making by thofl_eosuhp`wov
'. be most familiar with the actual use of the property. __= e
Additionally, the.diverse nature of the considers icz)
acv
� o
may have an impact upon tax status decisions raise subs AtiaFP
doubts as to whether truely similar institutions are receiving
different treatment under the statute. The "similarity" of the
institutions on which the challenge is based was but 4enerally
established in the record, and was shown to be based on limited
knowledge of those institutions. The Court cannot conclude on this
record that any classifications resulting from the facially reason-
able statutory processes are violative of due process. Accordingly,
relief is denied.
In summation, Christian Retirement Services, Inc. Is appeal
from the Board of Review denial of its claim for property tax
exemption for the year 1979 is denied in its entirety. Those
appeals for the tax years 1978, 1980 and 1980 are sustained in that
the Oaknoll health center should not be subject to property taxation
- 14 -
HICROf ILMED 81'
j JORM MICROLA13
CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES
I
9S7
�r
in those years and denied as to the remainder of the property.
Costs are assessed five-eighths to the plaintiff and three-
eighths to the defendant.'/ '
Dated this _ Itday of November, 1982.
. VERH ROBINSON, Judge of the
Sixth Judicial District of Iowa
CC: Robert N. Downer
Thomas D. Hobart
John W. Hayek
David E. Brown
FROOF OFSERVICE
r aaYipr z4hs aJ IY Yil�l �� O inn
YI1►1 Pi'rC::'tLa wsi4Oaa'N D2d bC
:s rr• :• ::: Fi:+li w wrrr alkerl p rJ d rc
' u�5
MICROEILNED BY _I
JORM MICR6LAB
fffj CEDAR RAPIDS • DES M014ES. ] I
I
! I
/9S7