Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-12-13 Info Packet�l it City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: December 10, 1982 To: City Council From: City Manager Re: Wastewater Treatment Plant Chuck Schmadeke and Jim Kimm have been developing a list of various alternatives for the new wastewater treatment plant. This past week we had a discussion concerning more than 12 alternatives. Since that time Mr. Kimm has met with DEQ to review changes in standards which might affect Iowa City. The staff and Mr. Kimm will meet with some members of the special study committee next week to ensure that all possible alterna- tives are being considered. In the interim, the City is working to develop an arrangement with Professor Dague for doing research at the existing plant which will determine whether or not certain innovative processes might enable the City to meet the necessary standards using the trickling filter process. It appears that there are a number of viable alternatives currently being considered and that Mr. Kimm will be prepared in January to .assess the viability of these alternatives and the cost considerations. bj5/9' ^ 111CRUILMED BY JORM MICRQLAB CEDAR RAP IDS DES '-0D19ES 306,1 J v A r L City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: December 10, 1982 To: City Council From: City Manager Re: Water Service, Fire Questions were raised about water pressure and fire hydrants at the fire on December 4, 1982. The City Manager has reviewed these matters with the Director of Public Works and the Superintendent of the Water Division. It is clear that the water pressure was. maintained at a more than adequate level throughout the night and that there were more than enough hydrants on 10 and 12 -inch lines available for use. At approximately midnight on December 3, a break in a 12 -inch water main occurred simultaneously with the fire an Dubuque Street. Both the recording graphs at the Water Division and the computer printouts indicate that the Water Division was able to maintain water pressure above 100 pounds within the system throughout the entire night. In fact the demand from the water main break was several times in excess of the amount of water being used at the fire. One of the hydrants used for the fire is located on Iowa Avenue. It is a four -inch line interconnected to two ten -inch lines. However, the hydrants on the surrounding streets are connected to 10 and 12 -inch lines. Because of the single difficult entrance to the private alley in the block bounded by Iowa, Dubuque, Washington and Clinton, I believe it is desirable that there be an upgrading of the water line on Iowa Avenue. Therefore, next spring a new eight or ten -inch line will be installed on Iowa Avenue extending from Clinton Street to Dubuque Street and interconnected with two ten -inch lines. Two new hydrants will be placed along Iowa Avenue in that block. In addition, the larger line will be extended east on Iowa Avenue to provide an additional hydrant in the block between Dubuque Street and Linn Street. There is currently a hydrant at the corner of Washington and Dubuque Street which is out of order. That hydrant will be repaired in the next two weeks. However, there is another operating hydrant immediately adjacent, diagonally across the street, connected to a 12 inch line. The Fire Department elected to use a third hydrant which is located approximately 130 feet south. If you have any questions concerning these matters, please contact me. bdw/sp ,41ceonuam BY JORM MICR46LAB CEDAR RAPIDS DES '401,its 3003 J r City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: December 10, 1982 To: City Council�5'/ From: City Manager Re: Water Division Pipe Yard on Gilbert Street In recent weeks the City has received inquiries from two adjacent property owners (Clark and Maher) relating to the possible purchase of the Water Division pipe yard on the east side of South Gilbert Street approximately one-half block south of Burlington Street. As a result of these inquiries an appraisal has been obtained. The value, including the adjacent alley, is $164,000. It is recommended that the City advertise the property for public sale at the earliest opportunity to the highest bidder for residential use with CBS rezoning. The Planning and Zoning Commission will consider the rezoning request in conjunction with a similar request for adjacent property on December 13. Appropriate documentation will be prepared for City Council consideration at an early date. The schedule will provide for receiving bids approximately March 1, 1983. It is planned that the proceeds from the sale of this property will be utilized to purchase the existing -transit garage. As that property originally was purchased with UMTA assistance, the proceeds from the sale must be included in the new transit garage project. The Water Division operations will be moved to that location. In addition, some space in that building will be used for indoor equipment storage by the Highway Department. Because the new transit garage will be finished after sale of the Gilbert Street property, the Water Division materials and trucks will have to be temporarily relocated. The staff presently is investigating temporary alternatives. In the UMTA project we have included $100,000 from the proceeds of the existing transit garage. This is a very nominal sum. The balance of the proceeds from the sale of the Gilbert Street property should be utilized for other capital purposes by the Water Division. bj/sp C 111CROriLMED BY JORM MICROLA6 CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOVIES 300f/ J L�! r L 1 CITY OF IOWA. CITY' CIVIC CENTER 410 E. WASHINGTON ST. IOWA CITY IOWA 52240 (319) 354.180D December 10, 1982 TO: City Council Johnson County Board of Supervisors FROM: Neal G. Berlin, City Manager RE: Joint Meeting A joint meeting of the Iowa City City Council and the Johnson County Board of Supervisors will be held Tuesday, December 14, 1982, at 3:00 P.M., in the Iowa City Recreation Center, Room B. Clayton Ringgenberg of the Institute of Public Affairs will meet with the group to discuss the following items: 1. Purpose of meeting. 2. Common concerns on which we are currently working together. 3. Other common concerns likely in the foreseeable future. 4. Ways in which we can deal with our common concerns - techniques for identifying and communicating issues, for problem solving, for reaching common agreement, and for taking actions. 5. Specific issues to begin the process of dealing with at this meeting. The group will adjourn to dinner at Bushnell's Turtle at 6:00 P.M. cc: Clayton Ringgenberg Tim Shields City Clerk Assistant City Manager City Attorney County Attorney Administrative Assistant, J.C. Board of Supervisors IdICRorILMED BY JORM MICR6LA6 i CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOVIES I 3oos 1 V r CITY OF IOWA CITY CIVIC CENTER 410 E. WASHNGTON ST. IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 (319) 356-50OC) December 8,'1982 Mr. Lew Converse, President Sycamore Mall Merchants Association Sycamore Mall Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Mr. Converse: This is in response to your letter of November 29, 1982,.expressing concern about paid City advertising for the parking system in the central business district. At your request, I have reviewed this matter. In the future the City will not place paid advertising in the Press -Citizen or other publications. The only exception will be information about changes in parking facilities; i.e. hours, rates, location, etc. If you have other concerns relating to this matter, please contact me. Sincerely urs, Neal G. Berlin ' City Manager cc: City Council J. C. Hickman Rosemary Vitosh Joe Fowler Downtown Association tp/sp MICROFILMED BY i JORM MICR6LAB j CEDAR RAPIDS • DES M019ES j 3606 j J Tbc ^ IIIT 11I tl November 29, 1982 - 'r1 To Mayor Mary Neuhauser, Members of -the Council and. City Manager Neil Berlin, On behalf of the 50 members of The Sycamore Mall Merchants Association we would like to express our disappointment in the City's pointed support of one area of the retail community -- the Downtown Association and Old Capitol Association newspaper tab of November 25, 1982- It seems a bit too much for the City to pay for a.full page ad that suggests -� the only shopping in Iowa City is downtown. We understand the City's need to tell the public about the parking ramps downtown but not to say that shopping is limited to just one area of town. Other A retailers are contributing to the economy of Iowa City '=• and many of these pay for their own snow removal and maintenance of their parking lots. We think::it would be in the best interest of the retail community of Iowa City for the City Council to promote shopping in every area --not just downtown. The Retail Committee of the Iowa City Chamber of Commerce has spent $6,000 this past year to promote Iowa City as a regional shopping center We hope 'the Council could be more de cr is its efforts. ew Conv fie, P esidenf �. camore Mall Merchants Association owa City, Iowa / SUITE A MALL SHOPPING CENTER IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 300 MICR0NLMED RY i/ JORM MICROLAB EEOr.R RAI'105 DES t401'VCS v CITY OF IOWA CITY CIVIC CENTER 410 E. WASHNGTON ST. IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 (319) 356-5000 December 8, 1982 Honorable Mayor and Members of Council Civic Center 410 E. Washington Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Mayor Neuhauser and Members of the Council: Re: College Hill/South Dodge Street Moratorium Area The purpose of this opinion is to furnish the Council with a legal analysis of the College Hill/South Dodge neighborhood downzoning. This action will be accomplished by an amendment to the existing Iowa City Zoning Ordinance which specifically rezones these neighborhoods according to a legal description which prescribes the boundaries. In addition, an amendment will be enacted establishing a new zoning classification to be known as the Residential Neighborhood Conservation Zone (RNC -20) and this classification will be applied to a large part of the area. The amendment rezoning these areas is expected to receive your vote for final passage on December 13, 1982, and the RNC -20 classification will be enacted on the same date. The Council is aware that an extraordinary majority will be required for passage of the amendment to the Zoning Code. The entire moratorium area has been remapped in such a manner as to provide a mix of four zoning classifications: R2, R3, RNC -20, and R3A. There are 310 properties in the area and all but 18 will be downzoned from the present R3A classification. 300 7 MILRor]LMED Bl' JORM MIC RQLAB L1 LEDER Rgp105 DCS ^1018 ES C Mayor and Council December 8, 1982 Page 2 Downzoning has been defined as a change from a less restrictive classification to a more restrictive classification. Thus, a change from R3A to an RNC -20 classification means that future construction of multi -family developments will require 1800 square feet minimum lot area per unit whereas R3A only requires a 1000 square foot minimum. Similarly, those areas that are being rezoned from R3A to R2 will, in most cases, re- strict construction to two-family dwellings in the future assuming minimum lot areas are present. LEGAL ASPECTS OF DOWNZONING A city's exercise of its zoning power has a strong presumption of validity as a proper exercise of the police power. This means that the burden is on the one who attacks the downzoning to prove that the zoning measure is unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious or discriminatory. If the measure is valid on its face and its reasonableness is fairly debatable, it must be allowed to stand. Anderson v. City of Cedar Rapids, 168 NW 2d 739,742. Of course, the power to rezone is not unlimited. It must be reasonably exercised in furtherance of the public safety, health, morals and welfare. Granger v. Board of Adjustment, 241 Iowa 1356, 44 NW 2d 399. Unfortunately, no precise test exists for determining exactly whether particular zoning restrictions pass muster. Each case must be judged on "whether the means employed in the attempted exercise of the police power have any real, sub- stantial relation to the public health, comfort, safety, and welfare, in- cluding the maintenance of property values." Plaza Recreational Center v. Sioux City, 111 NW 2d 758, 763. Zoning is not static and cities may rezone territory, subject , however, to the same limitations which attend original zoning. As the Iowa Supreme Court stated in Keller v. Council Bluffs, 246 Iowa 202, 207-208, 66 M4 2d 113, 116, "The governing body.of a municipality may amend its ordinances any time it deems circumstances and conditions warrant such action, and such an amend- ment is valid if the procedural requirements of the statutes are followed and it is not unreasonable or capricious nor inconsistent with the spirit and de- sign of the zoning statute." The Iowa Supreme Court has recognized that the exercise of police power such as zoning or rezoning may amount to a "taking" if it deprives the owner of the substantial use and enjoyment of his property. Phelps v. Board of Supervisors, 211 MV 2d 274,276 (Iowa 1973). This doctrine has been extended to refusal to rezone cases. Peterson v. City of.Decorah, 259 NW 2d 553 (1977). nlCRon LMED BY JORM MICROLAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES J v L Mayor and Council December 8, 1982 Page 3 Whether or not the exercise of zoning authority is so oppressive that it constitutes a taking depends on the circumstances of each case. Woodbury County Soil Conservation District V. Ortner, 279 NW 2d 276, 278 (Iowa 1979). Few areas of the law have seemed to be so intractable to legal analysis as this vexing question of when does regulation of private property by downzoning cross the boundary of police power and become, in effect, a taking within the Fifth Amendment for which compensation in the form of damages is required. Property owners who attack zoning changes will probably do so by relying on the due process and takings clauses of the United States and Iowa Constitutions. See U.S. Const. Amends. V XIV; Iowa Const. art. I, Secs. 9, 18. SeeWoodbury County Soil Conservation District v. Ortner, supra. In that case the Iowa Supreme Court outlined certain principles of constitu- tional adjudication that will be followed in these cases. Essentially, these are that legislative enactments such as zoning measures will be ac- corded every presumption of validity and will be found to be unconstitutional only upon a showing that such measures clearly infringe on constitutional rights and ally if every reasonable basis for support is negated. A second principle is that when a taking occurs, compensation must be given in the form of damages; when police power is exercised to control and regulate property for the public good, no compensation need be paid. The point at which police power regulation becomes so oppressive it amounts to a taking depends on the circumstances of each case. The test is whether the collective benefits to the public outweigh the specific restraints on the individual. Factors of importance include the economic impact of the regulation on the individual and particularly, the extent to which the regulation has inter- fered with distinct investment backed expectations. The Iowa zoning cases in which it was claimed that the zoning amounted to a taking have dealt witb cases in which property owners had made certain expenditures in connection with the use of the land before imposition of the znning regulation. In those cases the Iowa Supreme Court has recognized that a vested property right had been created which cannot be arbitrarily interfered with or taking without just compensation. See Incorporated Town of Carter Lake, 241 NW 2d at 902, Board of Supervisors V. TePaska. 250 Iowa 1293, 98 NW 2d 827, 829-31; Stoner McCray System v. City of Des Moines, 247 Iowa 1313, 1320-21 78 NW 2d 843, 849-50; Keller v. City of Council Bluffs, 246 Iowa at 212-13, 66 NW 2d at 119. In each of these cases the 'vested right" was an "investment backed expectation" which would be totally destroyed by the zoning measure. The theory of vested rights relates only to such rights as an owner of property may possess not to have his property rezoned after he has a building permit and has started his construction or improvement. The rationale of such cases is that he has incurred obligation or liabilities for the work which he could not escape, and of these costs he would be deprived. 111CROPILMCD 6Y JORM MICROLAB CEDAR RAPIDS • OB1401905 3007 1 J Mayor and Council December 8, 1982 Page 4 by such a rezoning. See Keller v. City of Council Bluffs, supra. Thus, those owners in the area who may have purchased property with the expectation of later development for multi -family housing or who have owned their respective properties for a period of years with the later expectation of selling to a developer or converting it themselves to multi- family housing do not have any vested rights in the property or in present zoning classification of the property. The mere fact that a particular property is suitable for multi -family development under the present R3A classification and is downzoned to R2 or R3 does not give rise to a vested rights claim. Another method of attack is to show that downzoning causes a reduction in the value of the property because it is no longer available for multi- family development, and, that such a reduction in value is a taking. Even when proved, a reduction in value of property is not necessarily a taking. See Penns lvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 413, 43 S.Ct. 158, 159 (1922 ("Government could Ifardly go on if to some extent values incident to property could not be diminished without paying for everysuch change in the general law."). The United States Supreme Court has upheld exercises of police power (zoning) which allegedly resulted in substantially reduced property values. See Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 47 S.Ct. 114 (75%), H_H Teckv. Sebastain, 239 U.S., 394, 36 S.Ct. 143 (8n%). The U.S. Supreme Court had a further opportunity to deal with the constitutional issue in Consolidated Rock Products Co. V. Los Angeles, 57 Cal. 2d 515, 370 P. 2d 342'(a California case) in which an appeal from a decision upholding a zoning ordinance which the California Supreme Court had agreed completely destroyed the economic value of the property, the takings issue was squarely presented, but the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of sub- stantial federal question. The relevant principles were recently reaffirmed in 1979 by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Andrus V. Allard, 100 S.Ct. 318, 326-27, 62 L.Ed. 2d 210, 222-24. This case involved a takings challenge to a Department of the Interior regulation which the Court found had the effect of barring the sale of eagle parts which had been obtained prior to the effective date of the authorizing statute. The Court reiterated the principles which had been announced in prior cases pointing out: "Govern- ment regulation --by definition --involves the adjustment of rights for the public good. Often this adjustment curtails some potential economic use or economic exploitation of private property. To require compensation in all such circumstances would effectively compel the Government to regulate by purchase. After noting that the regulations did not require the surrender of the artifacts or involve a physical invasion or restraint upon them, and despite which the Court called a "undeniable" fact that the regulations pre- vented the owners from making the most profitable use of their property, the 3001 IdICROCILIdCD AY JORM MIC ROLAB ; 1 i CEDAR Hhl'IOS f1C5 '401'ICS r C Mayor and Council December 8, 1982 Page 5 Court held that the prohibition against sale did not create a taking. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSISTENCY As you know, zoning regulations must be made in accordance with the comprehensive plan. Section 414.3, Code of Iowa. Courts look to the existence of a comprehensive plan as competent evidence of the reasonable- ness of land use regulations. The present comprehensive plan designates the area as generally residential in 8-16 and 16-24 dwelling units per acre categories. The updated plan will be amended consistent with RNC -20 density requirements. However, the downzoning appears to be broadly con- sistent with the present plan's stated Land Use Policies, e.g. to re-evaluate zoning districts in neighborhoods where identified conflicts exist. The impetus for those landowners who have sought these changes in all of the public hearings before the Planning g Zoning Commission and the Council has been to stop further neighborhood erosion through apartment building develop- ment. Equally strong has been a concern expressed for neighborhood pre- servation which is also one of the state goals in -the present plan. The design of the RNC -20 zoning classification is, in my view, entirely consistent with these plan policies. ANALYSIS Based upon the foregoing legal principles, I submit the following analysis: RNC -20 --these properties are mostly located in the area roughly bounded by Johnson Street on the west, Jefferson Street on the north, Summit Strect on the east, and Bur- lington Street on the south. These are existing inner-city neighborhoods that will be stabilized by this zoning which provides for medium density, multi -family development yet allows the continuance of existing high-density developments already in place. The Planning 6 Zoning Commission is of the opinion that this classification is designed and intended to prevent an increase in high-density, multi -family residences in the bulk of the area, will direct high-density growth to limited areas contiguous to existing high-density uses, will minimize the creation of non -conforming uses, and will generally stabilize the College Hill/South Dodge Street neighborhood. It is my opinion that this zoning change does not amount to a taking to the extent that it takes away the only reasonable use of the affected properties. The objectives of the rezoning are consistent with the present comprehensive plan. The stabilization of the area to restrict multi -family development, but yet permit medium density, multi -family development would appear to be a reasonable and proper exercise of the zoning power. i 141CROE ILI4ED BY JORM MICROLAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES M01NES 300 7 J C Mayor and Council December 8, 1982 Page 6 R3 --mainly both sides of South Dodge Street, the block east of College Hill Park on North Dodge, and parts of blocks on College Street between Johnson and Lucas Streets. This downzoning is substantial. The present R3A classifi- cation only requires 1000 square feet minimum lot area per living unit, whereas R3 requires 3000 feet. It thus appears that future multi -family development on South Dodge and other areas will be very restricted. The R3 downzoning is, in the main, consistent with the single family density existing on a large part of South Dodge Street except for six lots which contain multi -family apartment structures. The rezoning as it applies to South Dodge Street does not appear to amount to a taking to the extent that the only reasonable use of these properties would be destroyed. Investment potential and return will be severely curtailed, however, the objectives of relieving density and related parking problems will be acheived. These are substantial public benefits. which should tend to outweigh any hardship to the owner affected by this downzoning in this area. The half block to the south of College Hill Park between Dodge and Jefferson Streets is also designated for R3 classi- fication. This is an existing impacted density area consisting of rooming houses, apartments, and duplexes. The current density is equivalent to the density permitted in the RNC -20 classification. I believe that the intent expressed in both Planning E Zoning and Council discussions on this particular half was to set this area apart as having a number of older structures which give the appearance of a more open, less dense neighborhood surrounding the College Hill Park. This may be fairly debatable as a rationale for the rezoning, but the.courts generally do not interfere if the measure is fairly debatable as a reasonable exercise of zoning power. 3. R2 --six properties located on Burlington, College and Woodlawn are slated for downzoning to R2 classification. Two properties are located on 1400dlawn and are presently being used consistent with R2 uses. The remainder of Woodlawn is presently zoned R2 and this would be consistent with the character of the neighbor- hood to join these properties to the existing zoning. R2 is the most restrictive of the present downzoning classifications and does restrict future development to two-family dwellings assuming minimum lot areas of 3000 square feet per unit can be met. MICROTILMED DY JORM MICROLAB j CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOIRES 3001 1 J J r L­ Mayor and Council December 8, 1982 Page 7 The two properties located on College Street have duplexes located on them which is consistent with R2 uses. This confirms the already use and the areas directly to the east are presently zoned R2. The remaining two properties designated for the R2 classifi- cation are located on Burlington Street east of Summit. The corner lot is presently an older home with six living units and will become non -conforming since there appear to be 17,000 square feet available and R2 will require 18,000 square feet for six units. The next property to the east is currently single family occupancy. The downzoning of these two properties will also place them within the Summit Street neighborhood R2 classification and is consistent. Although the R2 rezoning is the most restrictive, it would appear that the zoning is reasonable and will not amount to a taking to the extent that the only reasonable uses of these properties will be destroyed. The rezoning action appears to be reasonable either as a recognition of presently existing use or inclusion within a zoning district that is consistent with the immediately surrounding zoning. Rezoning and downzoning existing neighborhoods on the scale attempted here may, indeed, give rise to litigation. However, as indicated in this opinion, the City's exercise of its zoning power has a strong presumption of validity, but it must meet: the test of reasonableness. The courts, in many cases, have attempted to lay down a definitive rule for the determination of what is, and what is not, reasonable. In addition, Section 414.3 of the Iowa Code requires that "such regulation shall be made with reasonable con- sideration, among other things, as to the character of the area of the district and the peculiar suitability of such areas for particular purposes...". The Iowa Supreme Court in F H Uelner Precision T f, D v. City of Dubuque, 190 NW 2d 465, held that rezoning was a proper use of zoning to stabilize residential neighborhoods and toprevent commercial and industrial inroads. Perhaps the best definition of reasonableness that I have been able to find is in the' Illinois case of People ex. rel. Larsen and Co. V. City of Chicago , 197 NE 2d 676, in which the Illinois Supreme Court state "In considering the validity of a given zoning ordinance, each case must be decided on its own particular facts, with due regard to the character of the neighborhood, the classifica= tion and use of nearby properties, the extent to which property values are diminished by the particular restriction, the suit- ability of the subject property for the zoned purposes, and the gain to the public as compared to the hardship on the property owner." MICAKILMED BY JORM MICR6LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DCS VINES 3Od? J Mayor and Council December 8, 1982 Page 8 There has been considerable input from the property owners in the affected areas before both the Planning F, Zoning Commission and the City Council at public hearings and informal sessions. The Planning E Zoning Commission gave the proposed rezoning very detailed and careful study, after receiving public input, and have recommended a workable ordinance to the Council. . The Council has modified the Planning Ir Zoning recommendation in some re- spects, but again this process was arrived at after several deliberations by the Council. As far as due process requirements for opportunity to object or to make known one's views, I believe these have been amply satisfied. Lengthy staff studies were prepared and presented to both the Planning F, Zoning Commission and the Council and both bodies appear to have formulated the proposed zoning changes giving reasonable consideration to the character of the neighborhoods and their peculiar suitability for particular residential uses and consistency with the comprehensive plan. Very truly yours, Robert W. Jansen City Attorney RWJ:jb 4 3067 I MICROFILMED BY CORM MIC RbLAB ] I� a i CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOIYES J IF ■ �# City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE: December 8, 1982 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Robert W. Jansen, City Attorney U RE: Vevera v. City Attached is a copy of the Petition for Declaratory Judgment filed by Bob Vevera seeking a court declaration as to his status and rights in order to return to duty with the Iowa City Police Department. The City Manager and I have requested an executive session in order to discuss this litigation with you this coming Monday, December 13th. Attachment cc: Neal Berlin 1 IncaonuacD BY � I 'JORM MICR6LAB CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES I f 300jr J� Er � n; SNE IrZ-m DT. -mc.' 011 FOA ,T=rcv CQ3P1Y FaL^F7C• A. lonm, Plaintiff ) FxVIIY :A. ri7n ) vs. ) n P1nI ai FOR DECIARATatc CS':r LI I= =1 IMA, ) 7UDQR270 g::z Defendant ) sir _ _ Q1 Plaintiff states: 1. Plaintiff in a resident of Icwa City, Johnson Catmty, Iowa, and a fonasr cavher of the Police Darartrent of the Defendant. The Plaintiff is 49 ,.ears of aqe, having been born on, the 23rd day of My, 1933. 2. Defedant is a mmicipal corporation orTmired and existing m da the Imm of the State of Io n. 3. Pddls Plaintiff wM a nms, he: of the Ione City Police Dejer•tmont, he w involved in an altercation with the then Police supervisor, David Epstein, as a m6 ult of Sfiidu the Defendant instituted dimdrliirry poo- cmdbxs which culminated in an order filed with the Defendant's Clark on Ju1v 21, 1975, a cow of which is attached as E&ibit "A" and by this refstence made a part hereof. Neither Party (Plaintiff or Defedmt) araroaled from the Order referred to in said Fxhibit "A". 4. Plaintiff has approximately 14 years of service with the lam City Folies Dapartmm and it is necessary for him to have 15 years of service in order to be eligible for benafits ,miler the retirement rcogram of ttt. Defendant. S. Plaintiff has made coral appllmtion to ret= to the Iona City Folice Deratt ant and serve as an officer thereon in order to COMrtrlete the remUred service but is also willing and.fully intends to =tilme service as a colice officer for the Defendant for at least a r.- ied of eight (8) years. • 300 i NIEkOf ILNED Dl' JORM MICROLAC LCEDAR kN'IDS •DES PIDCvES LL r C ,- . - 2 - 6. rAmtiOM have &-risen fnan the Defendant crncerninne P1ain1_"s F=Posal and arrl.imtion to retum to service in the Iowa Cir,', Pol_.m Celarwmt, includim• &. Plaintiff's rirtht to return to sax *m. b.If Plaintiff ret>L-nv to service, will he receive credit for 14 years Of vreviaa service On his retire'rst and be eligible for retircme&. Sm!_Sts as if said service had been cmtimnans. c. whet wtacity (Patzobwn, sergeant, etc.) should Plaintffr are vn return to serrice. -- , d. Idiot zestz ctinua, if any,ht ceY be i'RAsei u[an Plaintiff's right UO rem= to aervim. a. flu tha Defendant waived the right to curtest the Crder mm forty in Fldnibit -Aa by failing to aMw awxufrm as Mwided by lar. 7. Defudwm has indicatd to Plaintiff that it is ,,,c@rta�„ of the rights m thian Plaintiff my be entitled omwetniM his I cpm d to earvite and this tatter is now at isaua and reedy for detaminaticn. By mum df the foreping, Plaintiff asks that tin Court mt.0 a Deelaramry judgment setting faith the statins and rights of the Parties, d'� that Plaintiff is entity to return to service with the itwa Citi' Police Dmpar� wt n meting the nomMary Physical and menial M_ wiseaants, and receive credit for his Mevians service fOr mtirwmm and dfsability P=Posee, and that the Hort enter sudn further @dere m grant Plaintiff suPPrlaalental relief incident to the dwl=atmy ju kj m. Iowa City, 1A w52240 -alerficm l 319/338-9222 AMNEYg FOR PIAII71'tIF I-0ICROFILMED BY JORM MICR6LAB CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES -3- SZ%= OP IOIr'A ) S8. 0== CF .=-";CN I I, Fdnxt A. Vevera, beim first duly SO= u�m rte oath depose and state that I have read the fozmoi}rl "etiticn for Declaratory JLd¢rent and the facts stated dveram are true. /•e trf! Subscribed and z+orn to before re W the said Robert A. Vevera this fL day of Havenber, 1982. r e or t a bw= Iova / I MICROFILMED BY � JORM MICR6L AB ? CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES ' I � I r LL -.0 Re .,,,.E CMD SCkVICC COyAIS5IO.1, IN ,No 5'Ok Tl!L' CITY OP IC':A CITY, LONA I11 -aE NATTER OF PDOERT A. VEVEM, Appellant, ' -5 , ( ONOE1��� 1 l CI^.Y Or IONA CITY, IOWA, cY 'r a municipal =rporationr NEIL G. ) Ri' :( SE:CIN, City fta=q,,, and 1 -o S D'111£CT e. EVANS, Chief of Police, �• r_ necpondents. 1 o tloarin9 on the appeal of Robert A. vovera was 11did bafors the Tow City CLV Ll Service Curaission on Tuly 15, 1975. The Civil Service Caemriesien fi-nds that the,CltY of Iwa City, Iwa, has proved the allegations of the SPecifiu- tion of &an" by a preponderance of the evidence, and hereby affirms, but modifies ohm decision of City esru9er 11041 C• Berlin to discharge Robert A. Vev}ta from the Iow City Polito Department. Whit eWCoerission cannot in any way condone Hobece A. Vayera'■ actions of -Nay 19,, 1975, in view of his Years of "twice on the fwa City Polios Depart - sent tm the eitisetu of foes city, we modify the decision by plaain9 hie an u leave of absenm without pay unt'll his fifteen (15) yen= of ouNlne a= - wagletedr 4t which. time he is dischsr9ed from the Iowa City Pollee Department. It is the uAanimous recommendation of the Civil Service Cogmlssiae that Who granted his earned -pension benefits. J: All -Cosmalssionars concur. ;I Lr/ '; v�' 1. •• CIVIL SERVICE COMISSION Of x•1.1 •• IV y wY� ,G ID•AA CrTY. IOWA ,r Chai son I„ 1 11ICRDEILMED BY JORM MICR6LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES. i Hark J. lhomp_on. rpJtr 1 Am Hubbard ' MI WLlllnm G. Nueoar , {LI..I Ih 'f JUL211375 M3 SIE r.1.1 cue REM J r - Police Department Monthly Report November, 1982 Total citizen generated requests for police service in November declined substantially from the number of requests received in October. Some 2643 requests for service were reported in November and 3173 requests in October. I have absolutely no idea why the change occurred. Consequently, I am attributing the decline to the following factors: 1. Weather; 2. A failing economy; 3. Republicans; 4. Democrats; S. Independents; 6. A winning season for the Iowa Football team; 7. Carver Sports Arena wiring; 8. Thanksgiving vacation; 9. The resurgence of Christmas spirit; 10. Fill in your own reason below. Increases in reported offenses were noted in the following categories: burglary; operating a motor vehicle while intoxi- cated; intoxication; juvenile; mental; attempts to locate; sudden deaths and miscellaneous. All other categories of offenses remained constant in number or declined moderately. Arrests, citations and tickets also declined along with the number of reported offenses. A total of one hundred sixty- four arrests were effected; sixteen juvenile petitions filed; three hundred twenty-nine traffic citations issued; one hundred thirty automobiles towed and 1839 parking tickets written. Fifty-eight cases were assigned to the Detective Division for follow-up investigations. Recertification training was completed for forty-two officers on Thanksgiving weekend. The training was held at the Cedar Rapids Police Academy. Animal Control activities continued at a slightly slower pace than in the same period in the previous year. However, total receipts of the Division were almost equal to thoseof November, 1981. Statistical reports are appended. 3009 111CROE MED 01' JORM MIC ROLA I ( CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES CITY ITY OF IOWA � CIOWA CITY, IOWA 52-240 CIVIC CENTER 410 E. WASHNGTON ST. O November 29, 1982 . Mr.�0erald Yutkin, Regional Manager American Television & Communications Corp. 1729 McFerson Avenue Council Bluffs, Iowa 51501 Dear Mr. Yutkin: This letter is to emphasize there has been a great deal of interest expressed in Iowa City regarding the cable service Music TV (MTV)- An illustration of this interest is a petition with over 1000 signatures that was pmeeting. Hakeye CableVision at the BTC's September 21, 1982, public The BTC hopes this letter, and the petition, will encourage ATC to seriously consider offering MTV to Iowa City as a regular part of the basic cable service. Thank you for your time and consideration. We will be looking forward to your response. Sincerely, (o ' W.O. "Bill" Terry` BTC Chairperson tp3/15 cc: Neal Berlin Dale Melling City Council Bill Blough 3010 rucRorILMED BY i CORM MICFOLAB ceona Rnl-los • DCS MOIYES ' i I INA 1 I `ITY WA COF10 r5� CITY T IOWA CITY. IO�`ra _2240 (31 >j'56 CMC CENTER 410 E. WASHNGTON S November 29, 1982 Mr. Bill Thomison, Division Manager American Televisiali & Communications Corp. 160 Inverness Drive West Englewood, Colorado 80712 Dear Mr. Thomison: of the City of I ns 30, 1982, inquiring whether The Broadband Tyooucamletter datedCJulys30, (BTC) Iowa City sent Y 1 a foreign language channel to Iowa City as ATC was going to supply to be offered ATC had originally Proposed and whether CNN y other ATC systems. in Iowa City, a's it, or will be offered in many You responded by sending a letter to us on August 14, 1982, stating your complete response would be forthcoming within 30-45 days. would It is now November 29, 1982, al have no response. We Best nd we stil appreciate your response to. these inquiries at your earliest possible convenience. f Sincerely, / W.O. "Bill" Term BTC Chairperson vvvv bdw3/3 cc: Neal Berlin Dale Helling City Council Bill Blough 3010 l\ hICROEILMED BY JORM MICP.6LA13 1 j CEDAR RAPIDS • DES Id018ES IL � Rrr� 1232 IOWA CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT David L. Cronin 509 S. Dubuque Street Superintendent Iowa City, Iowa 52240 (3191338-3685 7 December 1982 Neal Berlin, City Manager City of Iowa City Civic Center Iowa City, Iowa Re: Central Junior High School Property Dear Neal: At the November 23 meeting of the Board of Education, the question of establishing a timeline for the disposition of the Central Junior High property was discussed. Although the Board did not set a deadline for determining our next step, it was my understanding that everyone was optimistic that there would be sufficient information on which to form a decision in the near future. This was based on the understanding that the City Council would have received the report of the Housing Commission and would have additional opportunities to discuss the matter in early December. Another part of the Board's discussion on November 23 was to ask the administration to develop contingency plans for the continued use of the Central property for school district purposes in the event the title issue is not soon resolved. We are currently preparing these contingency plans and anticipate bringing them to the Board for their consideration shortly after January 1, 1983. It would be helpful to learn of the City Council's decision regarding their interest in the property as soon as possible. In my opinion, it would serve f the community's best interest to reach a decision before plans for alternative uses are advanced to the Board. Sincerely yours, 4L4 1 , a4u4v David L. Cronin 3014 14]CRO(IL14ED BY JORM MICR( L4B 1 CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOVIES I I J F E Norman Bailey 919 Talwrn Ct. Iowa City, Iowa 52240 sisMUMUK 354-0478 Neal Berlin City tanager Civic Center 410 East Washington St, Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Neal: prl+r•. r, 1982 December 8, 1982 You asked me to indicate the position of the Greater Iowa City Apartment Association regarding the water billing issue. I feel that it can be summarized as follows. We are concerned about the water collection policies as they apply to rental units that have individual water meters where the tenant has agreed in their lease to be responsible for the water bill and where they have signed an agreement for water service with the City. With respect to these units we believe: 1. That the concept of user responsibility should apply rather than property owner responsibility, 2. That the present practice of placing liens on either the rental property or its owner's residence to collect payment for the tenant's water bill is illegal, unduly harsh and unfair. 3. That refusing to provide water service to a new tenant until the prior tenant's water bill is said by the owner is unduly harsh, unfair and unnecessary, 4. That the City's position of not pursuing former tenants for unpaid water bills is ill advised, 5. That the argument advanced by the City staff to the effect that, if property owners were not held responsible for tenant water bills, bad debt losses would be at unacceptable levels is not accurate, and more importantly, not the issue, 6. Finally, that greater responsiveness of those supervising the water policies would be desirable. We understand your interest in running an efficient water bill collec- tion department and we are certainly willing to support that objective subject, of course, to the sort of concerns expressed above, Sincerely, Yorman Bailey MICROFILwm BY JORM MIC ROLAa CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES J 301,-.), r L IOWA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY The future of Wastewater Treatment... Your chance to comment PUBLIC HEARING.- December 13 A dilemma in sewage treatment During the past ten years cities have come to rely on the Federal Construction Grants Program to solve their sewage treatment problems. While many new*- treatment plants have been built in Iowa with money from this program, it has fallen far short of fulfilling our wastewater treatment needs. Approximately 600 communities still need to upgrade or improve treatment facili- ties to meet requirements of the Clean Water Act. The expectation of receiving federal assistance has led some cities to allow existing treatment systems to deteriorate while waiting for a grant to construct new facilities. Recent decli- nes in Environmental Protection Agency grants and the uncertainty of any federal help after 1985 makes the like- lihood of deral assistance While finan- cial communities appear ear help is decreasing, federal regula- tions still require all cities to meet final discharge permit limits by 1988. What can be done to solve this dilemma? In light of these circumstances; DEQ and a group of concerned individuals, have developed a new municipal compliance policy. The policy, adopted by the Environmental Quality Commission in October, will form a partnership between the state and local governments. it emphasizes the local responsibility for e� providing proper sewage treatment faci- lities just as it is a local respon- sibility to provide other public services such as drinking water. The policy also stresses OEQ's desire to help communities fulfill that respon- sibility by minimizing entanglements with the regulations. What role will cities play? To implement this policy the department has proposed rules that would require municipalities to develop a plan of action to,improve and maintain their sewage treatment facilities. The plan would commit a city to a logical sche- dule of treatment plant improvements con- sistent with its financial situation. The plans are not intended to be detailed engineering documents, but rather, simple management tools that communities can use to guide their efforts at improving wastewater treatment. What role will the state play?. The department will provide cities with assistance to solve treatment problems. We will encourage creative solutions to problems, rehabilitation of existing facilities. and phased construction based on available funding. We have already begun a review of state standards eliminate any unnecessaryrequirements. wICRUILMID Py JORM MICROLAB CEDAR RAPIDS - DES MOINES continued on next peie 3013 1 J , Where will the money come from? We have stressed that sewage treatment is a local responsibility and therefore should be financed at the local level of government. Faced with a reduction in federal grants to 5Y; in 1884, and the possibility of an early end to.the grants program, some communities have already begun to devise ways to achieve compliance on their own. Other com- munities however, may have difficulty completing the job without some form of help. The department is working with interested citizens to evaluate the possibility of a state financial assistance program to help these com- munities. To develop adequate proposals for a state program, efforts are being made to complete the following major tasks: 1. Identify remaining treatment needs and the extent to which they will be satisfied by the existing grants program. 2. Evaluate the financial capacity of communities to fund the remaining needs. 3. Develop alternative forms of state assistance. t Iowa Department Of Environmental Quality Henry A. Wallace Building 900 East Grand Des Moines, Iowa 50319 r 1 Ty r E "! i�i'6 r Ty, Your chance to comment The Environmental Quality Commission will hold a public hearing on December 13, 1982, at 9:00 a.m., in the Auditorium of the Henry A. Wallace Building., in Des Moines. The hearing is to receive comments on the proposed rules that will require municipalities to prepare a plan of action for solving their sewage treatment problems. These are the only rules necessary to implement the program. Existing rules allow the Department to carry out its role including permit compliance schedules and variances from state standards without further rule-making. Copies of the proposed rules may be obtained by calling the Records Center, IDEQ at 515/281-8895. 41ICRorILNED By JORMMIC R�L46 CEDAR RAPID$ •DES !401NES 3613 J I% r Outlook in Low -Cost Housing Is Oloomy.as Programs Expiry b By BMW Guwenra' Aaraq.By tr w.u. a,.asr Jovi,w. ,. N 01 SINCE les? hasthe natloa beenwtUnut a federal pm ggrraamm to build gbllc heualnQ for.the lw atlluent. N Bch 6,IMtil now. The eight-year-old Section 8 program, t,e.lnwmdcd housing for 1.6 MOM terrtUtes; recently ex Ineaau, Ha t�f'hemwill Is ro I the need U there The d has hoped t DO! ape! MOA NtJhIDER o! new twists are being used to make the econo tlra of new rental hm!'lag work. In. Oklahoma. the: 11dsa County Home Finance Authority has useinnovative,rest - thwrghcohmverslal, method to bring down . .__� . me .-.,rot amrtmenta.. - o new proaracn .. _ __ — i6me the agency did Was Sell 4 hotutsg construction hsan't suddenly come to a halt. IN I apartment units already in the works before Sec- ' nue bods In October. The proceeds were invested In grtIfIc2te3 of atlon In October wW be built ts the deposit issued by a lender Insured by the Federal Savings and Lom 't ending nest Sepptt 30, but that's e . insurance Carp. Th lender used the money from the ceeUEcam to .. m Ns LtQ o0P Section g' units built Uma I devrete rs atoapartmanwtaP rkraects ta '1 g I)olheam, President o! the ins itr wastheUte FSLIC insurance that gave the bonds`to low-income I a triple-A - �ng Coalitim, says of the abort- , bonds and the tate an th the1� were interest 5.16b%a. Thentte� TM Saan n inoon man eon �: 7� tertelega-year loan to the developer was 10.25%' about Duce or ba gg vouchers. It's terrible t of Swann 8 ehouang, : goe.� TWdn.bod below other d ei such rate � New tk- sto�pg. For every, etdsUnt i lout lour eligible, renter households. team, have followed In Its footsteps. - _-_ _.�. Ind. h ddd.In. lndoa m LT.nela i,allon. of the Dain: Bosworth Iuc.:tnvestment boll ers, Seca a G partly an the torelect Pete month. NY NEW PROGRAM likely will feature a shallow" sub to coStruction Started but far short" of a A=p-a'—y-thee,:=d.iffere,ncetoUte federal government, as In Sectiong,to between market rent and 2574 of renters' ninme indiedthe Statir 40 n years. pFo¢SSreeeecctimmos erodty seetns to have been federal undoing- er�nTttent�hav committed API. aspe�ndingoat 1� $9 bUUm in tomtng decades. and the annual onUay for Sectio 9 each risen to S5.5 b on, That works out to aWXSO a sloth for each family housed in a newly built Section S apartment, according to a report by the president's COMMLleio on Houslag, Meanwhile, developers end cities am se g for ways.to fl. W a artments and make them affordable to people of would pan a mu; mac k Sudan o! Camgeen , utrrolieesspleEd= that �ct 1 �tl' NWI 8 "aa rd bases that of go,h�g candidates.. Such s Sena- m1a, were voted Into office lart Treasury Department frowns on UMTS of tt>rau vuCe r, •- t . federal guarantee to back a state obllgatlou. or the preaeat the Treasury and the Federal Home Loan Sank Board d1Sa6Re on the question. ppunOtAld Maw en�inaduding some l we n�ometecanbiI asla8 art ve a city pig garage• The rents will be kept wl the mar- ket arket rate, thanks to. a federal Urban development actio grant iH 'GRANT MONEY Is being used to make dP the dlHer ence between the proJect's costs and the prev rent j L leeveelj f As -afterrents r se a Ye the rent lev�elnestska be until enouO to'7zpport the cost of the buUding.' For the plan to work, the tenants'. ab111ty to paymust rise tester than Urelprolect Sop"• lag costs. . . Another city, San Francisco, requires developers of new coma merclal projects to contribute an amount of money toward the city's subsidized housing progtarn. The rationale is that new development stimulates the local holydnt; market by drawing more workers wfio . -- - _I... , u e .Thomlare. the city reasons: developers . nance new ren r - - modest means. That's no small. task.De Robert of the National Carporetio for Housing Partner be built acted S ships, a con�ondlY chartered developer, saps that one of his acted a firm's new ashlngtm, A.C., PMecta has some subald L fi. Ing, but Its rents still are among Le highest 1II the gree "Unless there's a reduction In Interest�n leamndP de rmentanat Jtest to ll°A but to 7'A%, we're only bang Mr. Edson housing for the upperincome market; 'says Tracy. of the leased houslnB assocI ti an adds• "No one we could [ltM Is huildine for the mod erate•Income market' JORM MICR4DLA6 se efforts. It appears that. little de of modest means unless -a I Eds= "The fact is you people livee In it." houslnq will. rgrmt is. en, new hosing, 3olq t 19 MTI B L Remanufacturing of transit vehicles to country. This year transit agencies in San C an ingl IPh�ade extract extra lila out of them is not same• N fv Jersey and phis have aIIC thing new to the U.S. transit industry. si ned, or are about to sign, contracts for 9 New Orleans Public Service, Inc. has kept its fleet of more than IDo buses each. And the num• firms capable instancelt (NOPSI), lot ring in 35 e bar of in , large uorders on a quick 1years through regular923-24 re. e• of handling, such operation for 60ars turnaround, assembly line basis has in - building. building. But it was something new in 1978 from ono to at least four. fr the has been spurted when NOPSI—fn need of new buses last --hired Blitz Bus 8 Truck in Chicago Much growth by federal funding. The Urban Mass to rebuild more than 10 per cent of its ex- Transportation ronas itsfirst bus rehabilitation grant eP fisting aged fleet. Instead of being scrapped, all vital pans on the buses 11979 to the Southeastern Michigan and Authority )have were replaced or repaired to bring them Transportation 80 per grants 80 peron original equipment specifications so live to seven years similar been coming from BVehlsinlce. with in - thatto that at least another of reliable service could be squeezed out creasing frequency Counting both buses rebuilt by outside of the old buses. Blitz, then the nation's bus remanufacturer, rebuilt 43 contractors and those rehabilitated by UMTA fli• only major buses, ail 1964 and 1965 et ciaors ns restmateoclose trs o 1,500 federallyelves, Corp. C) New Look models, antav- of 553,678 each. NOPSI had bus n carried out bs have b further growth erage cost them all back on the street by April, in tile last three appears likely. U.S. transit agencies will 1979. According to NOPSI maintenance otli- sign contracts for outside rehabilitation o than buse theebuildand of this cials, the Project was a success. The re- live per note rby y ar according1,000lo onwho built buses are currently going farther between road calls than the watOca este I Is r P d to hythe exact cent new GMC advanced design buses in lace bus rehabililatlon will take in the Pst (ADRs) NOPSI put in service later They say the rebuilds should be is dit still r . fire sitforoI tar c hnical 1979. serviceable at least through 1985. Frank J.ICIhek and research services for the American In retrospect, it can be seen that NOPSI's contract with Blitz marked the notes, Public Transit At ortl stion at have done it, it beginning of something new and impor- havetdone it only once cfar," tant for the U.S. transit Industry. That $2.3 million contract set the pattern for It could tax adienurn out t used, used by hard! P what has grown into a more Than 540 mil' business that is having strong temporary pressed transit operators requiring a equipment but lion a year impacts on bus manufacturers, bus oper• quick infusion of reliable lgh prices. long de aloes and bus riders Throughout the court• lliveryu schedules els and othe perating problems try. project did not associated with the new ADBs introduced NOPSI's rehabilitation represent new technology. Blitz, NOPSI byUMCcou and d ixible. to be a major shift in and others in the transit industry had been repairing and rebuilding individual American transit Industry practice, in rebuilding at eight, 10 or 12 yeas in the in* buses for years. What was new was that which an eds will me ard p the aver germnsit bus will be firm ture lo carrysolut theesimultaneous m cosmetic rehabili• dus ryand re at sbefo bet 17 or ing expectedyual9'Iry servkeive chanical, structural and a tatlon of a substantial portion of its buses, y ad and replaced. bringing them all up to uniform. nearly scrape ecifications. as an after. h e subjt is tightly intertwined with new, warrantynative to buying new ew buses. (The pattern bus ebuilding bus menulacturing. In theory, it was almost set by Chicago's Regional U.q. transit bus we in 1977. The RTA extpexpected user` least Transit Athonty set Blitzu25 Old GMC)buses or partial al once to extend ife from 12 years 17 years. tment lding t $3700t01he RTA had not the erlalge annual noel oronow replace from more then 4,000 rebut wanted rebuilt later gave trouble and the buses would dfop l 3.000, buses had to be sent back to Blitz for fur• to 19than study or rabuilding, done for the, work at additional cosh) UMTA by ATE Management and Service by Co.. advocated a more limited and tem- Since then. lpattern establishedrepeated NOPSI and BIItz tz has been repeeatby role for the industry. "in gen• s around the ora P N dozens of transit agent: JORM MICROLA13 DECEMBER `1982 3015 III J r era]. rehabilitating older buses should be used as a supplement to new bus pur- chases rather than as a substitute ... To prevent any negative Impacts on the new bus manufacturing business, there should be a limit on the age and number of bus. es which can be rehabilitated," the study said. The report recommended Increasing new bus purchases to 4,000 a year while keeping rehabilitations to 1,000 a year, primarily to expand the national fleet to handle Increasing ridership. With the average age of the nation's transit fleet at nine years, the report con. cluded, "Insufficient purchases of new ve- hicles, or excessive rebuilds in lieu of new vehicles, while conceivably providing a short -tens benefit, would ultimately de- stroy the capabilities of the transit indus- try to respond effectively to the ridership demands of. the next decade." But that report was wrihen In the last year of the Carter Administration when federal transit aid was still relatively plen- tiful and the bus Industry's major chal. lenge was keeping up with rising rider- ship. Since then the transit funding pic. ture in Washington and in many localities has changed.for.the worse. Fares are up and ridership is hurting. Today the main challenge Is to keep things running de- spite shrinking resources and that has cast bus rebuilding In a new tight. Dan Morrill, president of Midwest Bus Rebuilders in Owosso. Mich., founded In July, 1980, said, "As long as resources are tight and they have to make every dollar count, I think transit agencies will use bus rebuilding because it is less costly to produce a passenger -seal -mile on a remanufactured bus than on a new one." Morrill, who was assistant general manager at SEMTA when that agency began rebuilding buses, said, "I think many transit authorities looked at bus re- habilitation as a stopgap at first, a way to gel buses on the street quickly. But now I think many of them are beginning to look at remanufacturing as a permanent part of their cao:tal program:' He predicted the annual number of outside rebuilds will continue growing until it levels off some- where between 1,000 and 2,000 per year. In response to the growing Interest in bus rehabilitation, UMTA is developing a handbook to help transit agencies In de. ciding when to rebuild (the trend seems to be toward earlier rebuilding) and what level of rehabilitation is most cost effec. tive (the trend Is toward more thorough rebuilding to add at least six years more life). One federal concern Is that some L -- agencies may use rebuilding, like new bus purchases, as a substitute for good preventative maintenance. Cihak at APTA said, "It can be a way of capitaliz- ing maintenance and it's been abused in a few places." In addition, at the request of Congress, UMTA Is putting together data on the rel- ative cost effectiveness of bus rehabilita- tion compared to new bus purchases. Bath projects, using technical help from Battelle Columbus Laboratories and ATE, are to be completed by early 1983. Whatever the findings, many in the transit Industry are already believers. "Our experience has been very positive," said Conrad Malleh, director of the De- troit Department of Transportation (DDOT), which has had 120 rebuilt buses on the street for almost two years. "Rehab doesn't pay off in every case, but it pays off so well so often that I don't think any transit authority can afford to ig- nore it;" he said. "You can do a bumper -to -bumper, fires -to -roof rehab, I mean put a bus in really tiptop shape so it will last another five to 10 years, for $85,000. That means you'can completely rehab two buses for less than the ($150,000) cost of one new A0S. "The new bus manufacturers will tell you that rehab is not worth the cost, but I think the general managers would dis. agree;" he said. Andrew G. Schiavone, vice president and general manager of service transit for the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA), said his agency started doing extensive rehabilitation work three years ago and has completed about 1,000 bus- es so far using local funds. Most of the work has been done at two NYCTA shops set aside for the purpose, but about 51.8 million has been spent on out- side work. He said most of the rebuilds should give an additional live to seven years of service, even under New York's harsh conditions. "I think bus rebuilding will be. come a regular thing for us. It may not be as extensive as ]I Is now, but It will al- ways be around," he said. David Sylvia, director of procurement for the Greater Cleveland Regional Tran- sit Authority (GCRTA), which is sending 100 of Its old buses out for remanufactur- ing this year, said, "This Is our Initial bus rehab project. Depending on Its success, we will probably work out some combina. tion of new purchases and rebuilding in the future." George Heinle, general manager of NJ Transit bus operations In New Jersey, said the stale transit agency is rehabilitat. ing 525 buses, nearly hall at a special in. RILWI ILM ) IiY JORM MICROLAB CEDAR RAPIDS •DCS Ouse slop set up for the purpose and he rest through outside rebuilders. NIMCO Bus, a Newark firm in the rebuild - Ing business since 1979, recently started on an order for up to 210 buses for NJ Transit, at $50,445 per bus. Heinle, an engineer, said. "In opera- tional terms, an old bus can be made as good as it was when it was new, but it can't be made into a new bus. Given my druthers, I'd like to give the public a new bus, but I believe rehab has a significant future in the bus industry because I don't see the funding available to provide all new buses in the future." While it is generally recognized that routine bus rebuilding can be cost effec- tive (Greyhound, Trailways and London Transport have been doing it for years), its two major periods of popularity in the U.S. transit industry have been spurred by other factors. During World War II gas rationing boosted transit ridership sharply while new bus production stopped as the no- tion's assembly lines were turned over to wartime production, which included buses apportioned by the federal government. To keep their fleets running, many transit . maintenance departments set up exten- sive rebuilding programs. In addition, Blitz, now the nation's largest bus rebuild - or and generally credited with originating the "remanufacturing" concept for buses, got its start in large-scale rehabilitation during the war. However, after the war, as civilian bus production resumed and ridership started its long postwar slide, the rebuilding pro- grams were gradually abandoned. Car- mont Blitz, who took over from his father as president of Blitz in 1949, said the company's rebuilding business shifted with Greyhound and Trailways becoming its major customers. Interest in rebuilding among transit op- erators was not rovived until the late 1970s, just after GMC and Rxible intro. duced their new ADBs. With aging fleets mostly left over from the 1960s and in. creased ridership due to the rise in gaso- line prices after 1973, many transit opera- tors found themselves in desperate need of new equipment. But the new ADBs were expensive and. when ordered, often took a year or more to be delivered, com- pared to the 90 -day turnaround time of. lered by Blitz and other nebuilders. In addition, the ADRs. built to UMTA's specifications, were turning out to be troublesome. Heavier, more complex and with fewer seats and more bugs than the New Look buses they were intended to replace. the first ADBs proved costly to operate and hard to keep on the street (See MT, July, 1982). For many opera. 3615 J tors, rebuilding their tried, true and famil- iar GMC New Looks was a way to avoid or reduce their ADB headaches. Rebuild - Ing also fit in with the Earterging "back to basics" movement in the industry, which says that people use transit because it is cheap, convenient and on time, not be- cause transit vehicles are shiny, modem and have tinted windows. In Detroit, Mallett said multiple prob- lems with 307 new ADRs delivered by GMC in 1980 sparked much of his de- partment's Interest in rebuilt buses. "Our experience with the new buses has not been happy. We haven't bought any naw buses since." Of the fifth of his fleet that was rebuilt in 1980 and 1981, Malleft said, "We get a higher percentage of our rehab buses out in the rooming than we do of the new RTSs." "And," he added, "I've never seen a passenger pass up a rehab bus to wail for one of our RTSs." All the rebuilders cite the operational advantages of the New Look buses over the new ADRs as major virtues of their product. Ben Baker, general manager of NIMCO's Bus Division In Newark, said one of the significant virtues of bus re- building is better fuel economy. "The old- er buses are lighter and you get up to 40 per cent better mileage than with the ADBs," he said. "And maintenance costs are less because the older buses are simpler, so they're more reliable, and the parts are cheaper too." But, Baker and other rebuilders point out the appeal of rebuilding does not rest only on the deficiencies of the ADBs. Capital costs are lower and the relative advantage of rebuilding has grown since 1978 for two reasons. First, experience is showing that a well rebuilt bus will last even longer than ex- pected. NOPSi calculated It would come out well if the buses it rebuilt lasted five additional years. Now, with nearly four years of experience behind them. NOPSI maintenance officials say the rebuilds look like they will easily last seven years. Second, as more outside rebuilders such as NIMCO. Midwest and Pacific Bus Rebuilders,.lnc. (PacBus) In San Ramon, Calif., have entered the industry, prices have fallen. Where quotes of $70,000 and more for a complete rebuild were not un- common In the late 1970s when Blitz had the field mostly to Itself, recent competi- tive bids by the Established rebuilders for large orders have been closer to $50,000 per bus. Over the same period the price of a new ADB hes continued to climb, from roughly $100,000 in 1978 to more than $150,000 today. L ­ Morrill at Midwest attributes the lower prices to both the still competition among rebuilders, some of whom are opening additional plants around the country to compete for work more effectively, and to greater sophistication in specification wrii- Ing by transit authorities. Writing specifications for remanufactur- ing is quite different from writing them for new buses because, while remanufactur- ing is an assembly line technique suscep- rible to economies of uniformity and quantity, the condition of each old bus varies. Baker at NIMCO said, "take the wind- shield frame panel. It's $1,400 for the part and 70 man-hours to install. Not ev- ery bus needs it, but some buses have to have it. You can't send them out the door without a new one." NIMCO is finishing a 250 -bus order for the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) in Philadelphia and Baker said he believes the specifications were too rigid. By leaving little leeway In the speci- fications, SEPTA officials hoped to get a uniform price and product. But Baker said more flexibility might have produced bet- ter buses at a lower price. "We had to do work on some buses that wasn't needed while other buses needed work that wasn't called for under the contract," he said. As a result, he and other rebuilders say the recent trend in specification writing Is to draw up a core list of work to be done on every bus at a set price and then re- quire the rebuilder to submit Individual prices for each item on a second list of optional items to be done only if needed. Baker said 80 to 85 per cont of the work needed for a complete rehabilitation should be done on all buses, Including robuilding or replacing such items as brakes, suspension, steering, heating, air conditioning, engines, transmissions, up• holstery, window frames and lower body panels. Other Items should be done only If needed, such as replacing bulkheads. differential housings, air beams, root pan- eling and windshield frame panels, he said. Managing contracts specified this way requires close on-site monitoring by the transit agency, which must have knowl- edgeable Inspectors who can give the re - builder prompt decisions on what optional work they want carried out, said Baker. Besides learning how to write effective rebuilding specifications, transit agencies are also learning the Importance of screening bidders to be sure they are qualified to do the work. I"ICR0,IU1Cu JORM MICROLA9 CCl1Prl NA111B • (1C`. '10C1CS "Prequalification is very important if you want good work," said Heinle. When NJ Transit sought bidders on a 105 -bus order earlier this year, he said, "We looked at financial wherewithal to see if they could front end all the materials and meet schedules and at what kind of pro- duction facilities and engineering backup they had to make certain they could meet the specs. We wanted to be sure some guy couldn't do it in his garage or out of his hal by subcontracting everything out. We wanted to see a decent work record." After that screening, two fines bid for the order, NIMCO and Blitz. The established bus rebuilders—Blitz, NIMCO, Midwest and PacBus—all favor prequalification and believe UMTA should support its use by transit agencies. Re- quiring performance bonds has not prov- en very effective for many transit agen- cies, they said. J. Bass Dyer, president of PacBus, said inexperienced and poorly qualified bidders "are one of our Industry's biggest problems. Either they can't estimate costs property and then go broke and can't honor their warranty or they do a poor job. Competition will drive them out eventually, but meanwhile everybody gets hurt and it could give rebuilding a bad name." Midwest's Morrill, while admitting that stiff screening requirements would have kept him from getting Into the business three years ago, said, "There Is more than enough competition now among qualified fines to ensure good prices with- out risking poor work." Besides competing against each other for work, rebuilding firms also face com- petition from transit maintenance depart- ments which believe they can do the job cheaper. Transit operators in a number of cities, including New York, Atlanta, MI. ami, MiWaukoe, Columbus, Ohio and Kansas City, do all or most of their re- building In their own shops. Most cite cost as the main reason. However, the UMTA 1980 study noted that transit operators tend to significantly underestimate indirect costs. In addition, specifications for In-house programs tend to be less formal and the work performed less extensive than for outside contracts. Morrill, a former transit manager, said, "Remember, in-house you're Inspecting your own work and there are no warran. ties like you get when you go to a good outside rebuilder." Another factor is that rebuilding more than a few buses at a time requires a major commitment of skilled workers and shop facilities. "It's not a question of not having good maintenance people," said Morrill. "It's that you have to divert them 30(5 J i i C from day-to-day maintenance so it gener. ally creates more problems than it solves..' In part, for these reasons, while outside rebuilders have a good record of com- pleting large projects on schedule, in. house rehabilitation programs have often run into delays. Despite hiring.two dozen extra mechanics and selling up a sepa- rate shop, NJ Transit has taken more than 18 months to complete 50 buses, well behind Its original schedule of 70 buses per year. In some cases, transit agencies seek- ing to send buses outside have been pre- vented from doing so by union concerns about lost work. Paul Hampton, director of maintenance at St. Louis's BI -state De- velopment Agency, said BI -state was all set to send out 100 buses, a tenth of Its fleet, to be rebuilt in 1979, but could not persuade the Amalgamated Transit Union, which represents Its shop work- ers, to sign o9 on a 13(c) labor protection agreement required for an UMTA grant. "We went out and bought 171 new buses from GM of Canada instead," he said. In New York, one local UMTA official said close vigilance by the city's transit union is erre reason the NYCTA keeps most of Its work in -hoose. In general, however, given the ad- vanced aged of tfle nation's transit fleet and the continuing problems with the new ADBs, lucre is more than enough mainte- nance work available in most U.S. titles and most rebuilders and transit authori- ties report only mirror resistance from unions concerning outside rebuilding. Blitz said, "We haven't had a problem with 13(c). Where we've had objections. we have been able to demonstrate that the work we do Isn't the same and doesn't conflict with what they do Internally. Meanwhile, Blitz is already planning for the future. "I think GMC's RTS IIs may be good rehab candidates after eight to 10 years," he said. "The first of those will be coming up soon."O ld 301.6 I-0IEkOFILI•IED BY i JORM MICROLAS CEDAR RAPIDS •DES 1-0OIAESNow J 1>- MEAL POLICY STA' IIIENT - STAFF,'VOLUNTEERS e GUESTS STAFF - THOSE EMPLOYED PERSONS THEY SHALL BE SCHEDULED TO EAT BY DIRECTOR TO ASSURE THE BEST DELIVERY OF SERVICE, INSOFAR AS POSSIBLE, STAFF SHOULD EAT AFTER PARTICIPANTS. VOLUNTEERS - THOSE WHO HELP WITH THE PROGRAM THIS INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO: DRIVERS OF HOME DELIVERED MEALS THOSE ASSISTING WITH A GIVEN FUNCTION AT A CONGREGATE SETTING MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SUPREVISORS AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE SERVICE PROVIDERS WHO ARE REQUESTED TO BE PRESENT FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE. GUESTS - THOSE WHO ARE NOT ELIGIBLE PARTICIPANTS, WHO ARE NOT STAFF OR VOLUNTEERS MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY AN ELIGIBLE PARTICIPANT. WITH PARTICIPANTS AS HOSTS A GUEST MIGHT INCLUDE THOSE WHO ATTEND A SPECIAL FUNCTION AT THE SENIOR CE14TER AND EAT AS A PART OF A GROUP, OR AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS AT THE CENTER FOR A GIVEN PURPOSE OTHER THAN EATING, STUDENTS WHO ARE VISITING AS A PART OF THEIR ACADEMIC ACTIVITY WOULD BE CONSIDERED GUESTS IF THEIR VISIT IS APPROVED AHEAD OF TIME BY THE DIRECTOR, AS A GENERAL RULE, THE NUMBER OF SUCH GUESTS WILL BE LIMITED AND THE STUDENTS MUST USE THE OCCASION TO EAT WITH PARTICIPANTS ON A FRIENDLY BASIS RATHER THAN WITH ONE ANOTHER. i STAFF - CONSIDERED A PART OF COMPENSATION VOLUNTEERS - A VOLUNTARY DONATION GUESTS - $2.50 3016 • 141CROFILMED BY CORM MIC ROLAB` 1 j CEDAR RAPIDS - DCS 4101YES r' , _ J �r THINGS TO DISCUSS December 14, 1982 Johnson County Board - Iowa City City Council Meeting 1. Purpose of meeting. 2. Common concerns on whicl, we are currently working together. 3. Other common concerns likely in the forseeable future. f 4. [Jays in which we can deal with our common concerns - techniques for identifying and communicating issues, for problem solving, for reaching common agreement, and for taking actions. r i 5. Specific issues to begin the process of dealing with at this meeting. I41CROFILI.IED 0 DORM MICR6LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOVIES f j 3611 J� �l a _� F2 EXECUTIVE SESSION DECEMBER 13, 1982 EXECUTIVE SESSION: December 13, 1982, 6:30 P.M. in the Conference Room at the Civic Center. Mayor Mary Neuhauser presiding. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Balmer, Dickson, Erdahl, Lynch, McDonald, Neuhauser, Perret. Absent: None. STAHMEMBERS PRESENT: Berlin, Stolfus, Helling, Jansen TAPE-RECORDED: Reel H27, Side 1, 1760-2230. Moved by Perret, seconded by McDonald, to adjourn to closed session under Section 28A.5(b) to discuss strategy with cousel in matters that are present- ly in litigation or where litigation is imminent where its disclosure would be likely to prejudice or disadvantage the position of the governmental body in that litigation, and under ccction 20.11(3) to discuss as a publid employ- er, strategy regarding collective bargaining with City employee organizations; as such discussion is exempted from the provisions of Chapter 28A according to Chapter 20.17(3). Affirmative roll call vote unanimous, 6/0, Dickson out of the room. The Mayor declared the motion carried. Dickson returned, 6:31 PM. Moved by Erdahl, seconded by Perret, to adjourn, 7:05 P.M. The Mayor declared the motion carried, 7/0. wICROFILMED By JORM MICRQLAB ! CEDAR RAPIDS • DE.; IADI YES �I