Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1984-07-31 Info Packet
City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE: July 20, 1984 TO: City Council FROM: City Manager RE: Informal Agendas and Meeting Schedule July 24 1984 Tuesday NO INFORMAL MEETING - SUMMER SCHEDULE July 30 1984 Monday 6:30 - 8:30 P.M. Conference Room 6:30 P.M. - Review zoning matters 6:45 P.M. - Convention and Visitors Bureau Update Report 7:00 P.M. - Regulation of Electronic Insect Killing Devices 7:10 P.M. - Meet with Committee on Community Needs re. parkland 7:30 P.M. - CDBG supplemental funding requests 7:40 P.M. - Minimum open space requirements 8:15 P.M. - Council agenda, Council time, Council committee reports July 31 1984 Tuesday 7:30 P.M. - Regular Council Meeting, Council Chambers August 7 1984 Tuesday NO INFORMAL COUNCIL MEETING - SUMMER SCHEDULE August 13 1984 Monday 6:30 - 8:30 P.M. Conference Room 6:30 P.M. - Tour of new downtown Holiday Inn 7:15 P.M. - Review zoning matters 7:30 P.M. - Congregate Housing Coordinating Committee update 8:00 P.M. - Council agenda, Council time, Council committee reports Aust 142 1984 Tuesday 7:30 P.M. - Regular Council Meeting, Council Chambers City Council July 20, 1984 Page 2 PENDING LIST Priority A: Utility Franchise Blackhawk Minipark Improvements Design Shared Housing Program Priority B: Duty/Procedure Changes - Housing and Inspection Services Lower Ralston Creek Parcels - Use and Configuration Congregate Housing Development Alternatives Iowa Theater Type Problems Northside Lighting Project Report Housing Market Analysis Update Energy Conservation Measures Funding Program Newspaper Vending Machines Priority C: Housing Inspection Funding Policy Willow Creek Park Sidewalk North Dodge/Old Dubuque Road Project Appointments to Board of Electrical Examiners and Appeals and Committee on Community Needs - August 28, 1984 / I d o2- City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE: July 20, 1984 TO: City Council FROM: City Manager! / RE: Phase II., Waste Water Plan Alternative Study Enclosed are the three engineering proposals. These proposals contain much information which will be useful to the City Council in the selection of the final firm and also in subsequent policy decisions. As the Committee may recommend that the City Council select a final engineering firm without proceeding through another evaluation phase, you will wish to review these proposals in detail. 1*83 DoNoNu E - q-83 a. IXE'TC4/, & c EoDy - /s�3 pf-ksoms — /4B3 c, -/44ef3 Q- If Donohue City of Iowa City, Iowa Wastewater Plan =Alternative Study Phase II to Questionnaire JUlJf31Ci MARIAN K. KARR CITY CLERK (3) Engineers & Architects / �-ff3a. Donohue July 17, 1984 City of Iowa City Civic Center 410 East Washington Iowa City, IA 52240 Attn: Mr. Neal C. Berlin City Manager Re: City of Iowa City Wastewater Plan - Alternative Study Phase II Response to Questionnaire - Dear Mr. Berlin: j We are pleased that the Donohue Team has been selected for consideration to perform your study. We appreciate the opportunity to submit this response to the Phase II questionnaire for the WASTEWATER PLAN - ALTERNATIVE ^s STUDY as requested in your letter of June 28, 1984. This response (Volume 3) refers to important information presented in Volumes 1 and 2 that were submitted on May 22, 1984. This response is presented in 12 section, with each section corresponding to the points raised in your questionnaire. We would like to re-emphasize that a quality team has been formed to meet all of the needs of the study. This team includes Donohue & Associates, Inc., as the lead consultant. B&B Engineering Services Corporation of Iowa City will be involved in the sewage transportation analysis phase of the study. Touche Ross & Co. , an international accounting firm, will provide financial planning for the project. Cepek Construction and Engineering Corporation will provide cost estimating and constructability analysis of all alternatives. We believe that the Donohue Team is uniquely qualified to provide you with a quality study because: i J ° We have an in-depth knowledge of Iowa City and the local concerns. j ° We are a nationally known design firm with an established staff that has conducted similar studies. ° Our project team has extensive experience in all wastewater project aspects including analysis, design, financing, and construction phases. I ' I - �a Donohue & Associates, Inc. ry 4738 North 40th Street Sheboygan, Wisconsin 53081 Engineers & Architects 414.458.8711 Xlf3 oil N Donohue ° We have, as a team member, a national leader in the development of Privatization projects. ° Donohue has been requested by the Iowa Department of Water, Air and Waste Management to make a presentation to its commission on August 20, 1984, to provide information on the privatization concept. i ° We will commit an experienced staff to your project. ° We can complete the study within your time constraints. The Donohue Team is very excited about the prospect of working with you and is committed to completing your project professionally and on time. We look forward to discussing the contents of this submittal at your upcoming interview on July 24, 1984. Very truly yours, DONOHUE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Gar Coates, P.E, Vice President Le ueekstein Associate LJG : tm enc: 25 copies of Volume 3 - Phase II - Response to Questionnare I — Mr. Neal G. Berlin _. July 17, 1984 Page 2 w W IP SECTION 1 - PROJECT APPROACH " The approach of the Donohue team to the WASTEWATER PLAN -ALTERNATIVE STUDY for the City of Iowa City is to provide an independent and unbiased - review of the existing wastewater plant, recommend cost-effective changes, and recommend the financing method that best meets the needs of the City. It is not our intent to reinvent the wheel with the wastewater plan but to enhance the existing plan by supporting the cost-effective elements and recommending only those changes which would reduce the overall costs to the City. It is our opinion that regardless of the financing vehicle (public or private), Iowa City should have the most cost-effective system for the collection, transportation, treatment, and disposal of its wastewater and residuals. In order to determine the most cost-effective system for Iowa City, we propose to analyze existing reports, plans, specifications, and other pertinent information related to the existing wastewater plan. The purpose of this analysis is to determine if the proposed wastewater plan, as revised in the J Kimm-Dague report, is the most cost-effective plan. We will determine if there are any changes that can be made to the Kimm-Dague plan to reduce the overall costs to the community. We propose to evaluate: ° Cost-effective ways to reduce the hydraulic load to the sewers and treatment plant, particularly clear water, that would result in lower cost for construction and operation and maintenance of the trans- portation and treatment systems. ° If the most cost-effective wastewater transportation routes have been selected. ° The effects of the effluent limits on the treatment process. ° If the most cost-effective treatment processes have been selected. ° If the most cost-effective methods for treatment and disposal of `I solids have been selected, ' ° Alternative financing methods using both private and public _ sources. Our analysis will determine if there are other approaches that can be employed to reduce both the construction and operation and maintenance costs. Once the most cost-effective collection, transportation, treatment, and _ I disposal system has been determined, we will analyze the best financing methods for the City. The financing methods are discussed in detail in Section 2 and include: 1-1 Ig _ ° Public construction, ownership, and operation. ._1 ° Private construction, ownership, and operation. i ° Public construction and ownership with private operation. ° Private construction and financing with public purchase and private operation. I i ° Other feasible alternatives. The WASTEWATER PLAN -ALTERNATIVE STUDY will have three major areas to investigate. These include: 1 ° Wastewater transportation. J ° Wastewater treatment and disposal. r ° Financial. The specific tasks included in the WASTEWATER PLAN -ALTERNATIVE STUDY are as follows: Task 1 - Project Startup _{ Critical to the success of any study is the determination of and agreement on specific objectives, an appropriate work plan and frequent progress reviews to assure a high level of communication. We will conduct an initial meeting to { verify the project objectives, identify existing information and resources, and develop a detailed project work plan. This task will conclude with the gathering of existing data and assumptions. _ Wastewater Transportation The volume of wastewater that needs to be collected, transported, and treated is based on many factors. These factors include domestic, commercial, industrial, and institutional uses. It also depends on the amount of infiltration/inflow (I/I) entering the system. Currently, high flows during severe rain storms cause flooding of basements. The purpose of this area of study is to analyze what are the cost-effective flows to transport and treat and to determine the most cost-effective transportation routes. The steps in this area of the study are: ° Review Sewer System Evaluation Survey (SSES) report and facilities plan. ° Review proposed sewer sizing. 1-2 W buy ° Review proposed sewer routes. ° Develop cost estimates for transportation alternatives. ° Analyze phasing of construction. ° Develop preliminary recommendations. - Task 2 - Review SSES Report and Facilities Plan We propose to review existing reports to determine how the hydraulic loading for the treatment plant was determined. We will also work with your technical staff to determine if there are any areas of the City with flooding problems and concentrate on the previous analysis conducted in these areas. For instance, you have an overflow condition during rainy weather at the Fair Meadows lift station. There appears to be significant I/I entering that small service area. We will determine what evaluations were conducted in this service area during the SSES and I/I phases of your original plan. If necessary, we will recommend additional analyses be conducted to supplement J existing information. Based on analyses like these, we will determine if any reductions in wastewater flows can be achieved. Task 3 - Review Sewer Sizing Past cost projections made for the City of Iowa City indicate that it is more -{ cost-effective to transport and treat the wastewater than to eliminate inflow into the sewer system. A considerable portion of the construction cost of a transportation and treatment system is to accommodate the high inflow that is ` projected. We will determine if there are possible ways to remove some of the inflow, such as providing plastic outlets for sump pump drains that would be between the curb and sidewalk. If it is cost-effective to remove some of the inflow, we will analyze the effect on sewer sizing. Task 4 - Review Proposed Sewer Routes The proposed interceptor sewers are very deep, which adds significantly to the construction cost. This is particularly the case where the sewers are being constructed in developed areas. We will evaluate ways to save costs either through installation of a cost-effective pump station to reduce the _ depth or ulitization of construction techniques to reduce sewer construction cost. Routing of the main interceptor sewers will also be evaluated and is discussed in more detail in Section 12. - Task 5 - Develop Cost Estimates For Transnoration Alternative We will review existing cost estimates prepared for the wastewater transpor- tation system improvements. The cost estimates determined to be cost- effective for the sewers will be updated. For the alternatives that were not previously costed, cost estimates will be prepared. These construction costs 1-3 /4t8 :5a, will be used to determine the most cost-effective sewer routes and depths. I We will utilize the cost estimating expertise of Cepek Construction Company in the development of these cost estimates, and they will be utilized in the Financial Analysis phase of this study. Task 6 - Analyze Phasing of Construction i Our analysis will include recommendations for construction phasing of the interceptor sewers. As further discussed in Section 5, we will develop a priority system which will rank all of the proposed transportation projects to determine their level of importance and need to the City of Iowa City. This will be developed into an overall phasing program for the City which includes the transportation, treatment, disposal, and financial concerns. Task 7 - Develop Preliminary Recommendations I During this phase of the work, we will determine the specific transportation options available to the City and select the preferred alternatives. The results and supporting documentation would be presented in a preliminary draft report to the City. Wastewater Treatment and Disposal The alternatives to be analyzed for treatment and -disposal of wastewater for the City of Iowa City are complex because of the numerous alternatives to be J studied to maximize savings and utilize the existing design. The treatment and disposal analysis is critical to determine the most cost-effective approach. The steps in this area of the study are: I� ° Determine effluent limits. ° Review facilities plan, present design, and Rimm-Dague report. ° Analyze treatment alternatives. v'! ° Analyze site alternatives. ° Analyze renovation of existing plant. i ° Develop cost estimates for wastewater treatment and disposal alternatives. ° Analyze phasing of construction. ° Develop preliminary recommendations. Task 8 - Determine Effluent Limits jCurrently, the effluent limits are based on the Iowa River being classified as a Class B - warm water stream. This classification requires treatment to meet 1-4 )qg3P� w _ a- maximum BOD and suspended solids limit of 30 mg/1 each. The Iowa Department of Water, Air and Waste Management (IDWAWM) currently is evaluating whether chlorination is needed with this classification. If chlorina- tion is needed, dechlorination will also be required. This will have a minor impact on construction cost, but a significant effect on Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs. In this task, we will work with IDWAWM to seek relief from this requirement. Task 9 - Review Facilities Plan, Present Design and Kimm-Dague Report We propose to review the wastewater plan and its revisions based on the existing reports and plans and specifications. We will review the plant loadings and determine if the process sizing is correct based on these loads. We will analyze how the process changes recommended in the Kimm-Dague report can be incorporated utilizing the completed plans. The review will _J enable the Donohue Team to become more familiar with the existing wastewater plan. Task 10 - Analyze Treatment Alternatives The processes recommended in the Kimm-Dague report are very cost-effective, and the existing plant staff is familiar with their operation. The purpose of this task is to determine if there are any other process changes that can be made to make the plan more cost-effective. Task 11 - Analyze Site Alternatives There are several reasons for analyzing site alternatives. If the project is phased, we will analyze which site provides more flexibility for phasing. If the project is constructed with public funds, we will evaluate sites that would maximize utilization of grant dollars. If the project is to be privatized, siting will be evaluated to provide maximizing benefits for the investors. The site alternatives will be utilized in developing the financial alternatives. Task 12 - Analyze Renovation of Existing Plant The Kimm-Dague report recommends utilizing the existing treatment plant for - a period of 5-10 years, This questionnaire requests an upgrade analysis to operate for a period of 15 to 20 years. This task will analyze structures and equipment and determine what elements of renovation are required to upgrade the facility for the 15 to 20 -year period, and is discussed more in Section 8. —' Task 13 - Develop Cost Estimates for Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Alternatives We will review existing cost estimates prepared for the wastewater treatment and disposal alternatives. The cost estimate for the most cost-effective facilities designed will be updated. For the alternative treatment and disposal 1-5 W y � processes that were not costed, cost estimates will be prepared. The cost j estimates will be used to determine the most cost-effective treatment and disposal alternative. We will utilize the cost estimating expertise of Cepek Construction Company in the development of these cost estimates, and they will be utilized in the Financial Analysis phase of this study. Task 14 - Analyze Phasing of Construction Our analysis will include recommendations for construction phases of the treatment plant. As further discussed in Section 5, we will develop a priority system which would rank all of the treatment projects to determine the level of importance and need to the City of Iowa City. This would be developed into an overall phasing program for the City which includes the transportation, treatment, disposal, and financial concerns. Task 15 - Develop Preliminary Recommendations During this phase of the work we will determine the specific treatment and disposal alternatives available to the City and select the preferred options. These results and supporting documentation would be presented in a prelimi- nary draft report to the City. Financial The Donohue Team will utilize Touche Ross & Co, as a financial advisor. The role of the financial advisor on this project is to recommend a financing plan for a sewage collection, treatment, and disposal system in Iowa City. The advisor will identify financing alternatives available and recommend the preferred method of financing based on project economics and level of risk to the City. We will present the financing alternatives analysis as a series of steps that can be managed efficiently. I The steps in this area of the study are: ° Review environmental, tax, and regulatory factors. -' ° Develop a base economic model of the proposed facility and identify key economic sensitivities. ° Evaluate financing alternatives. ° Develop preliminary recommendations. Task 16 - Review Environmental, Tax, and Regulatory Factors We will identify the areas of exposure to economic risk due to legal and environmental factors or changes in the base case assumptions. We will draw on the expertise of our legal, environmental, and tax advisors in determining the economic consequences of known or potential conditions which would affect our base case assumptions. 1-6 / t_J34. In conducting this phase of the project, we will rely heavily on the exper- ience of the Touche Ross project team members who have specialization in public contacts, grants, tax laws, leasing agreements, and service contracts. We will conduct a review of existing legislation, Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Revenue Rulings and pertinent Federal and State environmental regulations, permitting, and reporting compliance to identify potential project constraints. The objective of this research is to identify the specific requirements necessary to successfully finance the project, gain acceptance in the bond market, and maximize acceptance by the IRS to the fullest extent. We will also identify risk exposure areas, their probability of occurrence, and their potential economic consequences. We will then review these results with City personnel, discuss their relation- ship to project assumptions, and agree on assumption changes and/or contingent liabilities. Any such modifications will then be incorporated into our base case model. T.aI, 17 - riou.1nn Rasp Frnnnmir Mndel of the Prenosed Vacility and Kev This task consists of applying the factors and assumptions identified in Task 16 plus any appropriate updates to the City's proposed project. All - revenue and cost assumptions will be documented and fed into the model. The model will then be used to develop the base case for the primary methods " of public financing (e.g., grants, revenue bonds and assessment bonds) and the primary methods of private financing (e.g., private equity and tax leverage leasing) using both tax-exempt and taxable debt. (Section 9 presents a discussion on the possibility of grant funds.) After we have prepared the base case model, we will identify the economic effect of the contingent risks identified. These contingent risks are exposure areas which are not expected, but could occur, at a probability level which would justify modifying the assumptions. Examples of these types of risks are: Potential construction cost increases based on the enforcement of more stringent than anticipated EPA effluent standards. ° Potential equity funding decreases with private financing methods based on potential tax law changes or unfavorable IRS rulings. These types of risks will be analyzed to determine the magnitude of change which would alter the recommendations concerning the type of financing and its costs. 1-7 I S- 83„, Task 18 - Evaluate Financing Alternatives For the financing alternatives available to the City, we will determine current interest rates, related issuance costs, reserve requirements, debt coverage requirements, and projected cash flows. We will perform a close examination of the range of equity contribution which can be expected with private financing of the facility. This examination will include the various engineer- ing alternatives studied and the resulting Investment Tax Credits and depreciation schedules. 'I Based on this work, we will identify a most likely case and a range for all 11 financing assumptions in each financing method. We will then consider these economic results and risk factors along with the previous review of legal, contractural, and environmental risks to develop a complete analysis for each financing method. v Task 19 - Develop Preliminary Recommendations During this phase of our work, we will analyze the specific financial alterna- tives available to the City and select the preferred method of public or private financing. These results and supporting rationale will then be presented to the City and its bond counsel for review and revision as appropriate. Wastewater Plant - Alternative Study Report Upon completion of development of the preliminary recommendations for all three phases of the study, we will incorporate comments from the City in the final report. Task 20 - Present Final Plan includinK Recommendations The Donohue Team will make final revisions to both the alternatives for transportation, treatment, and disposal of the wastewater and the financial models as appropriate and prepare a final report to the City. The final report will include recommendations for treatment and financing methods and present their costs. The recommendations will include a discussion of the alternatives considered and the evaluation criteria summaries of the regulatory and environmental issues which may affect construction and financing of this project. An analysis of the future user charge costs will be presented for all alternatives. Continuing Services The Donohue Team is prepared to provide continuing engineering and financial aid to the City of Iowa City to help you implement the recommen- dations presented in the WASTEWATER PLAN - ALTERNATIVE STUDY. We prepared a proposed schedule for the project, and it was presented in Section 11 of Volume 1 of our May 22, 1984 response. This schedule will be 1-8 1093,1 -, adjusted to reflect the exact start date and will be presented in more detail based on the tasks agreed to during the meeting proposed in Task 1. This schedule shows the Donohue Team presenting monthly progress reports to the City. These can be in written or oral form. We suggest that, at a minimum, oral presentations be made to the City Council when preliminary recommen- dations for each area of the study are available. In addition, we recommend that a presentation to the Council be made when the report is completed. If the City would like additional presentations to the • Council, we would be pleased to do so. 1-9 1 µMa. j SECTION 2 - MOST COST-EFFECTIVE FINANCING METHODS I As discussed in Section 1, we will perform a detailed analysis of all the _ following alternatives to determine the most cost-effective financing method for j the project. This is one of the three major areas of the WASTEWATER PLAN - ALTERNATIVE STUDY. This evaluation cannot be made until the engineering evaluations are complete. Cost -Effective Financing Methods a. Public construction, ownership and operation The primary financing alternatives for public construction, ownership, and operation are: ° Revenue bonds. ° Assessment bonds. These types of financing are the best known to municipalities and are the alternatives municipalities are most comfortable with. They allow the City to issue its own bonds using tax free financing. b. Private construction, ownership and operation The primary financing alternatives for private construction, ownership and operation are: ° Full service operation in which any combination of private sector parties design, finance, construct, operate, and maintain the facility. The City may enter into a long-term lease for the site and build in other protections within the contracts with the private sector. Under this arrangement, the owners can be either passive or active. ° Tax exempt leverage leasing with a private third party lessor which builds and owns the facility. The third party lessor leases the facility to an operator lessee which, in turn, has a service contract _ with the City. The payments to the operator include cost for operation, maintenance, replacement, taxes, and profit. This transaction differs from the full service arrangement only in that the City looks to the lessee, rather than the owner for the operations service. The financing for the transaction can come from the sale of tax exempt bonds issued by an industrial development authority. 2-1 ) gg3tL Y„ These two types of transactions are beneficial in that the private sector obtains benefits of accelerated depreciation, investment tax credit, deduction of interest, and possibly, to a small extent, some energy credit, all of which can have a favorable impact on total overall cost resulting in reduced charges '' to users. An additional benefit is that the City delegates the operations 11 responsibilities and costs to another party. .a In order to have a viable privatization program, it is necessary to maximize ! the tax benefits. To do this, the Donohue Team will perform a "Tax Blueprint Physical." The "Physical" is a financial analysis of the preliminary design to determine that maximum tax benefits are realized. 14 C. Public construction and ownership with private operation: The financing alternatives of public construction and ownership with private i..f operation would be similar to those for (a.) above. The only difference is the City would enter into a contract with a private party for operation of the facility, instead of maintaining self -operation. d. Private construction and financine with public purchase and private _operation: This option is not considered to be a viable alternative because of the constraints placed on the public sector due to possible negative income tax consequences. However, certain other feasible alternatives are listed below which place the City in a position similar to this one. e. Other favorable alternatives: i There are several other alternatives which are briefly described below: ° A sale/leaseback in which the City itself, or by contract, designs and constructs the facility. The City then sells the facility to a private sector concern which leases its use back to the City. The private owners are able to receive the benefits of accelerated depreciation but no investment credit is available. The City then operates the facility. This transaction can adversely affect the depreciation deduction because of new tax legislation which has passed Congress but has not yet been signed by the President. Construction of the project under public auspices, sale to private owners with a service contract with the private owner for operating the facility. This transaction is very close to those described in (b.) above. Tax -exempt -lease purchase where the City, through a nonprofit authority, issues bonds to construct and own the facility and sell it to the City under an installment contract (lease -purchase) agreement. The City does not incur debt but instead makes lease payments which in turn are used to make the bond payments. The 2-2 /4g�3 ot- w f ' I City has operation responsibility and obtains title to the facility at f the end of the installment contract. The bondholders receive tax free revenue for payments in excess of the investment. There is no investment credit or accelerated depreciation available under this transaction. The role of the financial advisor team members will be to analyze all of the aforementioned transactions taking into consideration the following: ° Availability of various grants and their implication for alternative financing methods. - ° Identify existing and proposed Federal, State, and local regulatory and environmental constraints. i Develop economic projections for the financing alternatives including assessment bonds, revenue bonds, and privatization. After analyzing all of these alternatives, we will recommend the preferred method of financing based on the project's economics and level of risk to the _. City. The analysis will include a comparison of sewer service charges in each i alternative. We have conducted preliminary investigations into the opportunity for private i financing. We have met with the major Bond Councils in Des Moines including Ken Haynie of Ahlers, Coonen, Dorweiler, Haynie, Smith and Allbe who have represented Iowa City in the past. He has assured us that bonds can be issued for this project for either private or public financing. j 3 J 1 I I ` i 2-3 )4t83a� .i SECTION 3 - USE OF COMPLETED ENGINEERING WORK i We will utilize as much of the completed engineering work as -possible as it relates to the most cost-effective system identified in our approach. All of the engineering work involved with the sewer system analysis, mapping, smoke testing, side water flooding, TV inspection, flow measurements, capacity estimates, population projections, BOD and suspended solids loading, and other design parameters will be used in the solutions we propose. We have reviewed the I/I and SSES reports, the facilities plan, the plans and specifications, the Arthur Young report, and the Kimm-Dague report. The Kimm-Dague report dated July 27, 1983, presents a more cost-effective approach to the wastewater plan than the one that was.. designed. By accepting the Kimm-Dague approach, some of the facilities. designed, such as the influent and outfall sewers, the headworks building, the administration j building, and primary clarifiers and the stormwater detention pond could all be utilized. The major differences -would change the design of the secondary j treatment systems and the solids handling system, e.g. the trickling filters and anaerobic digestion system. In an analysis of the sewer routing, if it is determined that the existing sewer routing plan is the most cost-effective, this engineering will be utilized. There may be an exception such • as the addition of another screw lift station on the proposed new interceptor. This alternativq is discussed in SECTION 12. 3-1 /43A SECTION 4 - STUDY APPROACH a. Typical engineering study Our approach to the project is presented in SECTION 1 of this Volume However, our approach to the engineering study phase of this project is to utilize the existing information to the greatest degree to avoid duplication of - effort. Our attempt will be to review the existing engineering work such as the I/I studies, the facilities plan, the existing plans and specifications, the Kimm-Dague report, the Arthur Young report, and any other information that might be pertinent to determine if the proposed plan has a sound foundation. If it does, this information will be accepted, and we will then conduct tests to determine if the proposed sewer routes and treatment processes, etc., are cost-effective. Only the process and transportation alternatives have a high potential for increased savings. Value engineering will be evaluated in more detail. This review will be similar to a VE analysis. It is our intent to limit the effort in the study phase so that the City could receive a recommended plan early in order to proceed to construction at the earliest possible date. It is our intent to evaluate project phasing to allow the City to correct critical problems as early as possible. Our approach to prioritizing these projects is discussed in SECTION 5. In SECTION 9 we will discuss the possibility of public funding for this project. If it is determined at the end of the study phase that public funding will be available to the community, we will recommend the conventional design bid approach to the project. Under this approach, plans and specifications previously prepared will be updated to incorporate any changes in condition. They will also be modified to show the changes required as a result of the Kimm-Dague report and as a result of the recommendations of the WASTEWATER PLAN - ALTERNATIVE STUDY. This study will be enhanced by the provisions of a financial analysis. The type of financial analysis proposed for this study is not normally conducted for wastewater planning projects. b. Design -build process If it is determined that the best financing method for the City is one of several methods of private construction, our approach would be to modify the plans as in the conventional design bid procedures. However, once approval has been received from IDWAWM, we would immediately form a construction team headed by Cepek to develop the final costing of the project and selection of equipment. We will do everything possible to subcontract to local contractors. We will not bring equipment and personnel from other states to do the work but use local forces under our supervision to the greatest extent possible. We have found that it is to everyone's advantage to use local suppliers and subcontractors where possible. 4-1 J1 a Y-6 3a, A In addition, we will give local investors every opportunity to participate in the financing of the project. This will provide another avenue for local control over the project. By encouraging local financing and utilizing local subcontractors, we have found a much higher degree of pride in the project. ^I We consider the team a "local firm" in that Donohue and Cepek have offices in the State of Iowa and, more specifically, B&B has an office in the City of —' Iowa City. Because private money is involved and because the red tape of a typical - federally funded project can be avoided, a project can be completed at a faster rate, resulting in lower construction costs. It has been reported that up to 25 percent savings in construction costs have been achieved by eliminating the requirement for all of the federal paper work and by the ability to speed up construction, thereby saving in wages and inflated costs of equipment and materials. The bottom line results in control of the user charges. 4-2 11483a, i Ir I w1 _I SECTION 5 - ACCELERATE PROJECT Acceleration of the project may be important to you to allow growth in areas that now contribute to sewer surcharge problems. To accelerate both the initiation of construction and completion of the project we propose that an accurate and complete list of all real needs be developed during the study phase. This list of needs will include a priority point system to indicate relative importance of each segment. This would be developed so that the City could arrive at a scoring method for comparison of needs similar to the one presented on Page 30 in the 1980 Comprehensive Plan Update. This _ would break down all of the proposed construction into workable segments. These segments would have costs attached to them as well as the priority ranking. The City then could utilize analyses to choose the projects with the highest priorities that would fit into their funding limitations in any particular construction period. This would allow the City to look at short-term needs with local money and _. long-term needs with the help of outside money such as privatization and/or EPA funding as is discussed in SECTION 9. This would allow the City to proceed with projects which are not too expensive and do not commit the City to an irreversible or irrecoverable plan. We suggest that the design be completed in the segments recommended in the study. By having the design on the shelf, it would also allow the City to take advantage of outside money from the two sources mentioned when it becomes available. 5-1 ) 493a. i SECTION 6 - ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FINANCING Outlined below are some of the significant advantages and disadvantages of the traditional privadzation and public project. Privatization Public Protect Advantages Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantases 1. No need for City to 1. Potential problem of 1. This method is tried 1. Uses up part of the City's -• incur debt or go to a the community and and true allowing debt capacity which could referendum. public servants mora comfort to the make future borrowing more accepting Concept. community and public difficult and expensive due servants. to bond rating. 2. Compliance with NPDES 2. Perceived to be a 2. The City can continue 2. May tie up the City's human permits can be placed complex arrangement and to use its existing staff. resources in managing the on the private sector. which, without expert project and could lead to advice, City could end up higher overall personnel with a bad contract. costs. 3. City has flexibility in 3. Contracts need to be 3. The City has the ability 3. The public project is a _ deciding who owns carefully written so that to use Its capacity to lengthy process compared effluent and then, in the City maintains quality develop the best financing to the streamlined -- turn, who has responsi- control and to keep package. privately financed project. bWty of owning the private sector from permit. walking away from the ' project after reaping the tax benefits. 4. The problem of managing 4. City should obtain 4. Bond markets are 4. There is no incentive for the facility is eliminated insurance and letter of famillar with the the public employee to do and given to the private Credit from private approach for under- better. -_ sector. City, however, sector which may be writing. can, with Its contract difficult to do. with the operator, have absolute quality control with specified steps for - regulation. - . S. Private operator need S. Possibility that present not pay prevailing City personnel would not be employee wages and used and therefore eliminate the need to go would require reassign - through elaborate ment or termination. procurement process. S. Private operator has the ability to use bonuses and advancement to get better - production from the staff. 7. Length of project is much shorter, saving costs. 6-1 r SECTION 7 -AREAS OF GREATEST POTENTIAL FOR COST-EFFECTIVENESS Wastewater Treatment The Kimm-Dague report suggests several major areas for the greatest potential for increased cost-effectiveness both in the short-term and long-term. The first of these is to change from an activated sludge plant to a trickling filter plant. The trickling filter plant, particularly with today's technology, is a very energy efficient treatment process. Based on the proposed loadings to the treatment plant and the effluent limits imposed on the treatment plant, trickling filters are a viable alternative for this plant. This results in a reduction in the connected horsepower load to the treatment plant of 1,800 horsepower. Assuming 60 percent of the horsepower is connected load this translates into a power savings of $211,650 per year based on 3Q of kilowatt. The projected savings in power result in a present worth savings of approximately $2,060,000 over the 20 -year life of the project. We all realize that electrical power costs are increasing so the savings realized will actually be greater. The second area of significant savings is substitution of the anaerobic digester for the lime stabilization process. During the time period that your facilities planning was conducted, the trend in the industry was to get away from anaerobic digesters because of problems related to earlier technology. Also, because of the lime sludge generated by the University water treatment plant, it was believed that this could be used to stabilize the sludge. It has been determined, however, that the sludge available from the water plant has its chemical properties fixed and thereby will not provide the stabilization effect projected. This would require substantial amounts of lime to be purchased for stabilization. Also, the trend in treatment plant engineering today is to utilize anaerobic digestion where possible because of its energy savings potential. The energy savings potential of the anaerobic digester is significant. Our preliminary analysis suggests that approximately 27,700,000 BTUs per day of methane can be produced in the digester. With proper collection and treatment of the digester gas, it can be utilized to produce energy within the treatment plant. This can be used to drive generators or to drive engines that would drive pumps or other equipment. The energy utilized in this manner would reduce the electrical power consumption of the treatment plant. For your plant, we project the annual savings to be $89,000 and the present worth savings of the digester gas to be approximately $866,000 over the 20 -year life of the project. i In addition, based on our involvement working been able to classify the whole solids handling _ alternative when we have utilized 90 percent of production. This would result in an additional City of Iowa City if federal funds are available. digester and its equipment but includes the digesters, the sludge pumps pumping from the associated piping and controls. It also includes and associated equipment. 7-1 with the IDWAWM, we have system as innovative and the anaerobic digester gas 10 percent financing to the This not only includes the sludge pumps feeding the digesters, and all of the the sludge disposal system 103 a, W I. I I ' I I I The City has had great success with dewatering its sludge because of its existing sludge lagoons. We would propose thatthis may still remain a cost-effective process for the City based on current operating conditions. By re -incorporating sludge lagoons in the treatment plant under a modified design, it may be possible to utilize City -owned equipment to remove the sludge rather than contracting this out, further decreasing the O&M costs r. and increasing the cost-effectiveness of the plant. _I 1 Interceptor Sewers There are also alternatives to solve the Rundell Street sewer surcharge problem at a reduced cost. This involves an alternative routing of the sewer resulting in a 50 to 65 percent savings in the construction cost. The sewer _ route would also be much shorter resulting in reduced O&M costs for that segment. This alternative is discussed in more detail in SECTION 12. it Presently, the plan calls for the construction of a gravity sewer from the ti existing treatment plant to the proposed new plant site. This 84 -inch sewer is very deep in spots and will require expensive construction techniques. We will analyze the use of a pump station at the existing plant site to raise the proposed elevation and reduce the cost of this sewer. A present worth analysis will determine if it is more cost-effective to pump or lay the sewer as designed. I 7-2 /q-83a- u of .� SECTION 8 - UPGRADING THE EXISTING PLANT The Donohue Team has toured the plant site on several occasions. During one of these visits, a team member from Cepek Construction Company toured the site to help us assess what would be required to upgrade the treatment plant. The existing facilities have been constructed in several stages. The original construction completed in 1935 was for a 4 MGD wastewater treatment plant. This included a pump station with associated grit removal and bar screen equipment, an administrative or control building, two primary clarifiers, three trickling filters, one final clarifier, two digesters and several sludge drying beds. In 1956 digester gas mixing equipment, digester heating equipment, and an additional digester with an expanded digester control building was installed. In 1965 new raw wastewater pumps were installed to increase the capacity to 8 MGD. The coarse bar screen was replaced and new equipment was added to the grit removal system. A new primary clarifier, a new r1 trickling filter, and a new final clarifier were also added. A new final effluent pump station was added to allow flows to be pumped out of the plant during high water conditions. A gas storage sphere was added and some of the electrical equipment was updated. New sludge pumps were also added. In 1971 new digester covers were installed, and there was also an addition to the digester control building. A schematic of the plant as it exists now is presented in Figure 8-1. During our site visit, it was determined that there are many limiting conditions to the existing treatment plant. One, the facilities are from 15 to 50 years of age. Equipment in particular is designed to last approximately 20 years, Equipment installed in the treatment plant prior to 1960 will probably last longer than 20 years. Equipment added after 1960 may not last that long. To upgrade the facilities to last another 15 to 20 years will require more than just a few cosmetic changes. To increase the treatment capacity at a minimum, the primary and secondary clarifiers will need to be expanded. Also, the digestion facility will need to be expanded. These changes are shown in Figure 8-2. The structural damage that we viewed at the treatment plant can be corrected. Evidence was found that structural patching had been done in the past. We would propose methods that would provide a better means for correcting this condition than has been utilized in the past. We have been advised that there are many restrictions in the piping systems. Each system has to be analyzed individually to determine what the nature of the restriction is. There is some restriction just based on the size of the conduit. That is, the site is limited to a certain flow rate. There are other restrictions caused by clogging of the pipes, such as the scaling in the digester pipes. These pipes may need to be replaced. 8-1 ~ /y83a, BY - PASS L MPUSE LAB SLUDGE LAGOON IOWA RIVER INLET STRUCTURE SECONDARY GRIT REMOVAL SPLITTER PRIMARY \ DIGESTER GAS STORAGE SPHERE PRIMARY CIARIFIE 0 OON SLUDGE DRYING BED SLUDGE LAGOON L PLANT OUTFALL SLUDGE SLUDGE SEWER LAGOON LAGOON FILTER NO. 2 \ FILTER HEAD BOX KIRKWOOD AVENUE —CONTROL HOUSE COLLECTION BOX . FILTER N0. 1 Figure 8.1 City of Iowa City Wastewater Plan • Alternative Study Schematic Water Pollution Control Plant u I BY - PASS G I I C - • New Preliminary Treatment Building LAB I I SLUDGE .• LAGOON i . .. Al 1 V - SLUDGE LAGOON SLUDGE DRYING BED I I SLUDGE - IOWA LAGOON RIVER PLANT OUTFALL SLUDGE SLUDGE SEWER ILAGOON LAGOON _ Figure 8.2 City of Iowa City Wastewater Plan • Alternative Study Schematic of Expanded Water Pollution Control Plant ..r INLET STRUCTURE New Primary Clarifier PRIMARY DIGESTER GAS STOR SPHERE PRIMARY CLARIFIE FILTER NO. 2 FILTER HUMUS PUMPING STATION KIRKWOOD AVENUE CONTROL HOUSE COLLECTION Box . FILTER NO. I 1 NO. 4 FINAL CLARIFIER iY-83,4 Much of the electrical system dates back to 1935 and 1965. The existing electrical service coming into the plant does not meet present day codes. At I a minimum, a new transformer will be required. The entire electrical system would have to be reviewed to determine if it meets code requirements. The following analyses will be conducted: ° Check all major feeders for size of conductors and conduit. ° Verify the size of the overcurrent protective devices for all equipment. i ° Check the work clearances and mechanical protection around all electrical equipment. ° Determine if the minimum illumination is provided in all areas. -i ° Verify the type and size of all plugs and receptacles. ° Check the type of electrical disconnection means of all rotating equipment. - ° Check the electrical ground equipment. ° Check the emergency lighting system and means of egress. ° Check the type of equipment being used in classified areas. I In addition, any structure that is modified would have to be reviewed to determine if it meets the current building code standards. The following analyses will be conducted: ° Determine the class of construction for the occupancy. ° Determine if the facility has mixed occupancy. If the buildings have mixed occupancy, determine if proper separations have been provided. ° Determine the number of exits required for each building. ° Evaluate if the exits are of the proper sizes and types. ° Determine if stairways need to be enclosed. ° Determine if fire protection is required. ° Determine if handicapped requirements have been met, especially proper toilet facilities and barrier -free access. 8-4 /�48341. Evaluate the condition of finish materials to determine if replacement and/or rehabilitation is necessary. ° Determine if isolation of hazardous areas has been provided. ° - Determine if properly sized locker and shower rooms, lunch rooms, _ and training areas have been provided based on the proposed staffing. i All facilities to be upgraded need to be reviewed to determine if they are in Pn compliance with the following codes: I ° Energy conservation code. J ° Heating and Ventilating code. ° Plumbing code. The following analyses will be conducted: ° Analyze the size and capacity of the existing utilities and the availability for additional requirements. ° Determine the condition of existing utilities and heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment. ° Evaluate if there are possibilities for heat recovery. ° Determine odor control requirements. ° Evaluate projected digester gas generation and possibilities for heat I recovery loops, digester heating, building heating and/or co -generation. ° Evaluate laboratory plumbing, laboratory hood ventilation, and laboratory HVAC systems. i ° Evaluate the HVAC systems in the electrical rooms. f .. 4 ° Determine if there are special plumbing applications such as acid waste, water supply systems to chemical mixing systems, backflow I prevention and seal water systems. Based on the significant amount of review that is required to determine the costs for updating the existing plant, we have not had sufficient time to iprepare the required code checks. We propose that this would be part of the detailed WASTEWATER PLAN - ALTERNATIVE STUDY. �I 8-5 /Z/f34- There are some statements which can be made concerning the expansion or the utilization of the existing plant. There is little evidence to support any argument that it is not cost-effective to enlarge the existing plant in the short-term, i.e. three to five years. Among the improvements which should be considered are new coarse bar screening equipment, new raw wastewater pumps, new grit removal facilities, and upgrading of the digestor gas handling system. This is in addition to all of the electrical and building code changes and the housekeeping items mentioned earlier. The short-term solutions could be implemented within a 12 -month time frame. This lead time is based on the fact that any renovation design should not be implemented until the alternative study is complete and also that no engineering has been done to date for these proposed changes. Privatization of your existing treatment plant will be a challenge for you. All 77 federal funds received for construction of the existing facility will need to be refunded to the federal government upon its sale. There does not appear to be any serious effort by IDWAWM to discourage or prevent the upgrading of the existing plant in the short-term. Since federal or state funds may not be available for some time, the City should proceed to push the plant to the limit to determine where the break point exists. The WASTEWATER PLAN - ALTERNATIVE study should determine the nature of the stormwater overflow problem at the existing plant, preferably under actual operating conditions. We realize, however, that some theoretical stream modeling may be necessary. In the long-term (10 to 20 years) the existing plant will need considerable upgrading of hydraulic, pumping, and treatment capacity in order to meet the discharge permit limitations under stormwater overflow conditions. These improvements would include a new headworks building, new inlet chamber, new pumps, preliminary treatment facilities such as screening and grit - removal and flow measurement facilities. New primary clarifiers and final clarifiers would be needed to increase the hydraulic capacity. Considerable new site piping to accommodate higher flows would be required. Modifications to the gas compressions and gas storage spheres indicated in the short-term plan would need to be enhanced. Additional employee facilities, such as lunch room, locker and shower room, file storage room, library, workshop, and parts inventory storage area, would be required to provide recommended needs, There are temporary weather protection enclosures around some of the outside - pumps and valve operators. More permanent enclosures should be provided. Additional digestion capacity is recommended. i 8-6 14&f3,� SECTION 9 - EPA GRANT FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES As we presented in the first paragraph of SECTION 7, Page 4, of Volume 1 of our Qualifications submitted to you on May 22, 1984, there is pending federal legislation that would enhance the grant situation in Iowa. This legislation is US House of Representatives Bill HR 3282 which was passed on June 26, 1984. A similar bill is currently in a committee in the US Senate. The Senate recessed for its summer break prior to acting on this bill. This bill has several significant features which could enhance the funding for the State of Iowa and, in particular, allow federal funding at a 75 percent level minimum for the City of Iowa City in fiscal year (FY) 1986. FY 1986 funds will be available October 1, 1985. Of particular interest to the City of Iowa City is Item 42 of HR 3282 which - allocates $85 million to the City of Des Moines for the construction of the federal portion of the wastewater treatment plant in Des Moines. This has a net effect of reallocating over $20 million per year from the Iowa funding priority list that has been earmarked for Des Moines. This money now can be distributed among the other communities having a proper priority ranking. In addition, HR 3282 increases the amount of federal spending in the construction grants program. The net result is that Iowa will be eligible for approximately $6.8 million more in federal funding for fiscal year 1985. This will increase the total funding available in the State of Iowa from approximately $33.3 million to approximately $40.1 million. In addition, the i funding level will increase to approximately $47 million for fiscal year 1986 which would be available in October of 1985. We have reviewed Iowa City's position with the grants personnel in IDWAWM. Our analysis shows that several of the projects ahead of Iowa City are funded — out of set-aside funds for small projects. The two major projects ahead of Iowa City are Des Moines and Ames. If the Des Moines funding is satisfied by HR 3282, and Iowa's grant dollars are increased as previously mentioned, _. the Ames funding requirements quite probably will be satisfied with the FY 1984 and 1985 funding. This would allow at least a portion of the Iowa City project to be financed with FY 1986 funding. The new EPA construction grants funding bill is to limit the funding to 55 percent of the construction costs, but it may be increased to 65 percent because of local pressure on our federal representatives. Iowa City, however, has been assured of 75 percent funding because of a prior funding clause that allowed a sewer project to make the remaining construction eligible for 75 percent grants. We are particularly proud of our grantsmanship. We have made a full-time commitment to seeking the best possible funding for our clients. In the past few years, we have assisted our clients in receiving over $250 million in grants. The Donohue Staff for the Des Moines Joint Venture provided the information to the City that led them to seek the special legislation they are now being considered for. 9-1 Jg83a �i i ^ In addition, we have worked with state agencies to maximize funding potential for our clients. We have worked with the State of Wisconsin legislature and have helped develop several amendments to the funding priority systems which have benefited our clients. In the State of Illinois, we have worked with the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) to create a "cash flow" grant program which gives -- annual federal/state grants based on the cash flow needs of the project. This program will allow $500 million in projects start before July 1, 1985. For an example, instead of giving a $50 million grant to a community in 1984 which would not be used entirely until 1988, they would give $10 million now and fund the rest of the project as money is needed. This would result in allowing projects totaling $40 million to start. In Minnesota, we were hired by the State along with Pete Marwick Mitchell and Company. We helped prepare a report on alternative methods to funding wastewater treatment plants. This report has lead to a new $50 million state grant program for wastewater treatment plant projects. We are very willing to provide governmental liaison services to enhance Iowa City's position for obtaining grants. One service in particular which we provide to our clients is evaluation of the calculations utilized to determine their priority rating. Many times we have found errors in calculations and developed new information which could enhance our clients position. We 7 suggest that this be done to assure you have the best possible priority rating to enable you to receive the earliest possible funding. 9-2 /493a,, SECTION 10 - RECOMMENDATIONS TO REDUCE MAXIMUM WET WEATHER FLOW We can provide useful, accurate, and specific recommendations only after we have had an opportunity to review and study all the prior data and to ^ confirm this data with our own observations. There is no reason to suspect SSES is needed. The reports prepared are among the most clear and comprehensive we have seen. We do believe, however, that we should re-evaluate specific analyses of the data, the assumptions used, and the conclusions which have been developed. The current short-term solution for dealing with maximum wet -weather flows includes approximately $1 million worth of sewer work. This work includes replacement of segments of the old brick sewer through the heart of the City, manhole repairs, manhole lid replacement and, point sewer repairs. Of course, we recommend that the City continue with this program. It is likely that there are other areas of the City where similar investments for maintenance and repairs will reduce the inflow of surface and groundwater into the sewer system. Obviously, one of our recommendations will be to re-evaluate the significance of these sewer defects. The analysis should consider the real and direct cost benefits to the City, from the City's point of view, not according to an EPA formula. There are three separate and distinct groups of sewer problems to evaluate when considering the short-term solutions: ° Those which contribute to localized flooding and which can or do cause property damage. ° Those which contribute to localized flooding or sewer surcharge and prevent growth of the City (additional building permits) because of potential property damage. ° Those which contribute to bypass at the treatment plant for short periods of time and which may cause the State of Iowa to increase pressure on the City to either correct the defects or cease expansion throughout the City. One of our recommendations is to sort and to prioritize the areas where -- wet -weather flow is a significant problem. We would then re-evaluate the assumptions and potential solutions in the high priority areas. The Veenstra & Kimm (V&K) plan dismissed a number of the usual solutions without any serious economic analysis. Perhaps this thinking was overly influenced by the likelihood of large federal funds to help with the construction of transportation systems. We would also consider other solutions such as the installation of small diameter plastic drain tile collectors adjacent to sidewalks to receive sump pump discharge. We would look at selected neighborhoods for analysis of 10-1 r - solutions where flooding is a significant problem. The Fair Meadows and Lakeside subdivision area is likely to result in a different set of conclusions to correct current bypassing during wet weather. This analysis will be compared to the studies recommended in SECTION 12. We would evaluate the cost of construction of small peak flow equalization basins in select neighborhoods for short-term solutions. These basins may be constructed above ground in steel tanks wherever it is environmentally acceptable. These tanks should be temporary in nature and removed when funds are received for new sewer construction. We will evaluate the effectiveness of enforcement versus nonenforcement of building code requirements to reduce infiltration problems. We propose to interview the City and University staffs and investigate recently constructed City and University projects to determine if every reasonable attempt has been made to reduce or eliminate I/I sources. Five -- years have lapsed since the V&K analysis and conclusions were presented. New sewer construction and reconstruction has occurred during this time. If evidence is discovered in the above two steps which indicate there is not a consistent and concerted effort to eliminate or prevent I/I problems, we will recommend a new education program directed toward those in responsible charge. The trickling filter process proposed for the new plant under the revised Kimm-Dague Report should be much more acceptable to peak hydraulic flows than the previous activated sludge treatment plant. In the analysis of the - use of the existing facilities, we will estimate the maximum hydraulic capacity currently available in the plant. We will determine the weak links in the system and determine the cost to upgrade these weak links to accommodate greater flows. Peak flows will definitely be considered in any .plant construction on a new site because of the hydraulic constraints. This solution may not be possible for application to the current plant site. 10-2 /703a, SECTION 11 - SITE ALTERNATIVES When the current plant was constructed in 1935, the site was outside the city and removed from any nuisance complaints. The City has developed around the existing site and expansion is only possible if you can receive waivers from residents that are less than 1,000 feet from the nearest treatment structure. The site included in the V&K plan for the new plant is a good location. The only significant disadvantage which is readily apparent is its close proximity to the city. The site is adjacent to the corporate limits and adjacent to the developed land shown on the long range plan in the 1983 Update to the Comprehensive Plan. There is considerable concern that the proposed location of the new plant (and especially the sewers) will encourage land development in the vicinity. We share this concern. The siting alternatives are presented in Figure 11-1. There is additional undeveloped land approximately one mile south of the proposed plant site by V&K. This land is relatively flat and will become much less expensive to develop than the hilly land in other parts of the city. We believe this site should be investigated to take advantage of the topography for new sewer construction. Two desirable features of this site are: ° The land is not good for residential development in the immediate vicinity of this plant site. The nearest good land for development is at a higher plateau, approximately one-half mile to the northeast. ° A gravity sewer from the southeast side of the city to this site would not be constructed in 30 to 35 foot deep excavation as it now proposed in the V&K plan. The sewer would follow the natural valley of the Snyder Creek Water Shed. The ground surface elevations are at least 10 to 15 feet lower than the route now proposed by V&K. This location will be more remote from the current city limits and current development. Accordingly, there will be less pressure to develop in the immediate vicinity of the sewer or the plant. A third alternative site which should be considered for a relatively short life treatment facility is near Scott Boulevard and Highway 6. _ The life could be as short as two to five years or as long as 20 years, depending upon the growth of the tributary area and availability of funds for outfall sewers and a new plant south of the city. This is an industrial and agricultural neighborhood and the nuisance complaints from residential land owners should be minimum. A relatively low cost treatment facility could easily be constructed here. This site would allow either public or privatization solutions for construction. /44830, 5,. Facilities Plan x�- MOBILE MOPE PAU L/ `qN .�O Alternative Satellite— _ WPCP Site X7`7 --- ' ---_ /483 This site would control or restrict development of the city south of the present development because it does not provide sewers for transport. The only significant difference between a plant at this location and a large outfall sewer from this location to a new plant south of the city is: ° The sewer has a high capital cost and no flexibility. ° The plant can be constructed in increments as growth demands. ° The plant can be dismantled and abandoned later. We understand the Lehman farm, 160 acres in the northwest quarter of Section 26, is for sale. This tract of land is directly east of the proposed new plant site on Sand Road. The proposed site on Sand Road is owned by -i the Stevens Sand and Gravel Company. Because of the Iowa statutes, the �I City may need to acquire the Stevens site through condemnation. It may be less costly for the City to purchase an alternate site. In reviewing this issue with a local real estate broker, open farm land in this area sells for i approximately $1,500 to $2,000 per acre. If the land is in an area where it can be easily developed, the cost will increase to $4,000 to $5,000 per acre. i i 11-3 SECTION 12- CORRECTION OF RUNDELL STREET SURCHARGE PROBLEM The current plan (V&K design) is to construct 27,000 feet of 42 to 54 -inch diameter gravity sewer from Rundell Street and Jackson Street north of the railroad tracks in a southeasterly direction generally parallel to the railroad, and past 1st Avenue to Scott Boulevard. The sewer would generally run south, parallel to Scott Boulevard, to approximately 1,000 feet south of Highway 6. It would be constructed west to the new treatment plant site proposed in the existing wastewater plan. The current plan diverts sewage from the Pine Street and Rundell Street neighborhood to the east. This is — the solution to the severe hydraulic overloading which results in the downstream segments following severe thunderstorm and rain shower activity. The current plan allows the abandonment of four existing lift stations: ° Pine Street ° Heinz ° Fair Meadows ° Village Green The current plan requires a $10 million investment. The plan, as modified, — may involve the addition of one new sewage lift station at a location near the existing Pine Street station. This alternative would utilize a screw pump station to raise the wastewater so the 48 -inch diameter sewer could be raised from 35 feet deep to 30 feet deep at Sycamore Street. This results in an overall cost reduction of $1 million for the project. One of the alternatives that the Donohue Team will consider is using a second screw lift station on the southeast interceptor sewer at a location approximately 1,000 feet south of Highway 6 at Scott Boulevard in a fashion similar to the one proposed by V&K. If this second lift station were placed on the 48 -inch line, the sewer could be raised from 35 feet deep to 20 feet deep. The reduction in excavation alone for downstream servers totalling 12,800 feet is estimated to result in additional savings of $500,000. We also suggest that 08,M costs would be reduced with the sewer at a reduced depth. The most promising alternative that we are considering, however, is constructing a 60 -inch sewer in either a tunnel or jacking method to the west under the hill in one of the streets that parallel Kirkwood Avenue from the Pine Street. pump station to approximately Kirkwood and Gilbert. The overall length of this sewer would be approximately 6,500 feet versus the 27,000 feet previously stated. The length of the sewer that would be in a tunnel or jacked construction technique would be approximately 4,000 feet. The _ maximum depth of the sewer would be 55 -feet deep with the range of 25 to 55 feet. The feasibility of a tunnel or jack section is highly dependent on considerable geologic data. This data is not available at this time and should be obtained during the WASTEWATER PLAN - ALTERNATIVE STUDY. The cost of the tunnel or jacking section is estimated on a preliminary basis to be approximately $2.5 million and the overall sewer cost for this route is expected to be between $3 million and $3.5 million as compared to $10 million 12-1 lgff3a� in the recommended plan. This alternative directly addresses the single most important sewer issue in the community which is flooding of basements by sewer backup in the Rundell Street neighborhood. A map showing this alternative route is presented in Figure 12-1. This alternative does not allow for the abandonment of the Heinz, Fair Meadows, or Village Green lift stations. Continued operation and maintenance costs need to be considered in the cost-effectiveness analysis of the proposed alternative. City records of expenses for labor, power, and maintenance will be be studied to help forecast future costs. Each of the three remaining lift stations will be evaluated to determine adequacy, capacity, useful life, and expansion ability to aid in the development of an opinion on future short-term growth potential. Each of the major trunks sewers and force mains downstream of the pump stations win be evaluated to determine capacity and cost of expansion of downstream sections. A localized short-term plan will be developed for evaluation and comparison with the V&K long-term plan. This will be a transportation plan which is independent of the treatment plant location, size, type, or ownership. The - location of the tunnel concept would not commit the City to any treatment _ location. The options to expand the existing plant or build a larger wastewater plant on the recommended site south of the City are still available. The long range solution proposed by the V&K plan is not consistent with the City's comprehensive plan. In particular, the location does not promote efficient, compact, and contiguous growth. The location of the sewer serving the southeast side of the City outside of the City limits will create pressure - on landowners, developers, staff, and city council and county supervisors to deal with annexation, sewer services, and development issues. In the -' long-term, if the City's development plan indicates a need to grow to the south and east, the southeast outlet sewer should then be considered. The tunnel plan could be designed, drawings prepared and the tunnel constructed within a 12 to 18 -month period.. 12-2 "It"I uum J T S It "T I t- WEBTIN4NOM uaooN - �k� .m I •. a/ /' N00 idPU _ . Elft 517Q E TTUNN`SEWEP � / 1• yt Jif f � NORikMEARE1'RUN �, � 7 NCfliN VVBUOVC JTl I' II �(r ,..�r I jS i / .q� !Z•� '� r•. r�•. y 2••'': i'r eR mlw o' f :� •�; j 'R•�1.2"'�' ��, r�''� „JAS i I� i \I �: ward r A� � :. �i�tHr�fr tl �f ,,�� �+i�� •i��, !� ! / �'1(! � �: 6!F SKST �� n Submitted to: City of Iowa City, Iowa Iowa Waste Water Plan Alternative Study Phase II Responses T o R � 0 J U L 18 1984 MARIAN K. KARR CITY CLERK (3) FAVE Metcalf & Eddy Arthur Young Fluor July 18, 1984 /4834 w Mr. Neal G. Berlin City Manager City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 i P1 �y Reference: Iowa City Wastewater Plan Alternative Study Phase II Responses Dear Mr. Berlin: Metcalf & Eddy is pleased to submit our project team's responses to the Phase II questions contained in the City's letter of June 28, 1984. The project team of Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., Arthur Young & Company and Fluor have carefully considered each question and drawn upon the full resources of all three firms in preparing responses that directly address the concerns of the City in this matter. A preliminary technical approach has been developed by the team that fully addresses the issues of the wastewater treatment plant, maximum storm water flows through the plant, surcharging in the Rundell Street sewer, and development in the southeast portion of the City. The team remains strong in its belief that the short and long term interests of the City are best served by a comprehensive review of all facets related to these issues and will therefore not limit our efforts to the unilateral development of a single approach. The combined total of over 250 years of experience represented by the project team has proven time after time that successful and implementable projects are those developed in joint cooperation with the client. I iiron Ni, rm. r Palo Ann I San 9emarmno I uvmr. CA I Cr"Cagn 1 Iloueion I AIOPnn I Snmervine. NJ I Scher Spring 1.10 I MonoWlu II/(1 y� Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. Engineers & Planners [ 85 Al Algonquin Road - Suite 500 Allington Heights, Illinois 60005-4422 (312)228.0900 S Charles E Pound Regional Vice Plesioenl rW July 18, 1984 r w Mr. Neal G. Berlin City Manager City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 i P1 �y Reference: Iowa City Wastewater Plan Alternative Study Phase II Responses Dear Mr. Berlin: Metcalf & Eddy is pleased to submit our project team's responses to the Phase II questions contained in the City's letter of June 28, 1984. The project team of Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., Arthur Young & Company and Fluor have carefully considered each question and drawn upon the full resources of all three firms in preparing responses that directly address the concerns of the City in this matter. A preliminary technical approach has been developed by the team that fully addresses the issues of the wastewater treatment plant, maximum storm water flows through the plant, surcharging in the Rundell Street sewer, and development in the southeast portion of the City. The team remains strong in its belief that the short and long term interests of the City are best served by a comprehensive review of all facets related to these issues and will therefore not limit our efforts to the unilateral development of a single approach. The combined total of over 250 years of experience represented by the project team has proven time after time that successful and implementable projects are those developed in joint cooperation with the client. I iiron Ni, rm. r Palo Ann I San 9emarmno I uvmr. CA I Cr"Cagn 1 Iloueion I AIOPnn I Snmervine. NJ I Scher Spring 1.10 I MonoWlu II/(1 y� Mr. Neal G. Berli. 2 July 13, 1984 We eagerly await the opportunity to discuss our Phase II responses with the City's selection team. Please contact us to arrange a mutually convenient time for an interview. Should our responses raise any questions prior to the interview, we will respond immediately to your request. Very truly yours, METCALF & EDDY, INC. Charles E. Pound Regional Vice President N /483, TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTION 1 - Project Approach 1-1 QUESTION 2 - Cost Effective Financing Methods 2-1 QUESTION 3 - Utilization of Completed Engineering 3-1 QUESTION 4 - Approach Utilizing Typical Versus 4-1 Design/Build QUESTION 5 - Acceleration of Construction and 5-1 Project Completion QUESTION 6 - Advantage/Disadvantage of Public 6-1 Versus Private QUESTION 7 - Areas for Increased Cost 7-1 Effectiveness QUESTION 8 - Upgrading Existing Treatment Plants 8-1 QUESTION 9 - Future EPA Grant Funds 9-1 QUESTION 10 - Reduce Maximum Wet Weather 10-1 Treatment Plant Flow QUESTION 11 - Site Alternatives for New 11-1 Treatment Plant QUESTION 12 - Rundell Street Sewer and 12-1 Southeast Area lel-83 QUESTION 1 - PROJECT APPROACH Proiect Organization The project team assembled by Metcalf 6 Eddy for the Iowa City project represents an association of firms with specific project related experience in areas that are key to the successful development and implementation of the City's alternative wastewater plan. The expertise of Metcalf 8 Eddy, Inc., Arthur Young G Company and Fluor represents an unequaled combination of recognized experience and successful completion of projects in wastewater treatment technology, alternative and traditional financing methods, and design/construction of major facilities, respectively. As the lead team member, Metcalf 6 Eddy contributes a history of over 75 years of experience as a leading authority in both research and development and the design/operation of wastewater collection and treatment systems. The involvement of Arthur Young in the project will include the services of this international public accounting, auditing and consulting firm in the areas of alternative financing studies, financial systems, accounting and cost systems, and development of proportional user charge and debt service systems. In addition, Arthur Young is the recognized expert in developing and implementing the privatization approach for public works improvements. Since its founding in 1890, Fluor has provided world-wide services to a variety of clients in the areas of construction management, design/build and innovative construction techniques. Fluor's staff includes experts in every facet of construction -related activities which has resulted in on-time 1-1 IZ4L83 and within budget completion of projects totalling over $30 billion within the past five years. This talent and experience �. will be utilized in the Iowa City project in selecting and evaluating cost-effective measures for the implementation of appropriate wastewater collection and treatment alternatives. Metcalf & Eddy's lead role in the project team will include responsibility for all client liaison, coordination of effort among team members, and primary involvement in the technical investigation of alternative wastewater collection and treatment technologies. The project organization chart on page 1-3 shows that Iowa City's direct line of communication will be through Mr. Charles E. Pound, Metcalf & Eddy's Principal for this project. Mr. Pound is the Regional Vice President in charge of the Arlington Heights, Illinois office. Mr. Pound will utilize the resources of various team members to provide timely and accurate response to any request from the City. This organization structure provides the City with a "sole -source" for input into the status of all facets of the project. Proiect Approach Metcalf & Eddy has developed a three phase approach to the Iowa City project. The project approach is shown on page 1-4 and consists of a technical investigation of several alternative wastewater collection and treatment technologies, an in-depth analysis of innovative construction techniques to reduce the construction cost of the more promising alternatives, and a detailed financial evaluation of the selected alternatives to assess the impact of various funding methods, including combinations of public and private construction, ownership, and operation. Specific attention would be directed towards investigating the financial ramifications of the privatization approach to implementing needed improvements. 1-2 F. w CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA WASTEWATER PLAN ALTERNATIVE STUDY PROJECT ORGANIZATION TY OF IOWA CITY City Council -' City Staff PRINCIPAL Charles E. Pound Metcalf 6 Eddy I TECHNICAL ADVISORY TEAM I D. Bova F. Gunby Fluor L. Baker J. sTmpson ARTHUR YOUNG Douglas N. Herbst METCALF & EDDY Lawrence P. Jaworski FLUOR Joseph H. New Project Manager Project Manager Project Manager C Turboville - Financial T _ _ _ Spearin - Process R. Hospodarec - Technical Analysts L. Leach - Plant Operations Support D. Mackenzie - Financial J. Quinn - Construction Services S. Pratt - Technical Analysts J. Ryan, Jr. - Collection Systems Support M. Wolters - Technical Support A. Thakkar - Technical Support CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA WASTEWATER PLAN ALTERNATIVE STUDY PHASE II RESPONSES Metcalf & Eddy/Arthur Young/Fluor Project Approach Task Purpose Technical Evaluation Population projections H wastewater flow/load projections wl update current recommended Plan b Environmental considerations w local input Alternate technical approaches. CITY REVIEW Constructability Evaluation Cost saving measures HI Wnstruction cost estimates Innovative construction techniques ro local conditions w Ounstruction management. CITY REVIEW Financial Evaluation N ,Funding options M , Private/public aspects a Privatization ro" F Local financial resources. a CITY REVIEW Evaluate current recommended Plan and investigate alternative technical approaches. Assess oonstruction-related aspects of most promising technical alternatives. Investigate economics of implementing alternatives under various combinations of public/private financing. Goal Select most promising technical alternatives. Select most promising technical alternatives that are readily constructable. Select recommended wastewater plan. Phase I. In addition to client liaison and team coordination, Metcalf & Eddy will have primary responsibility for performing the technical investigation of alternative wastewater collection and treatment technologies. The project team has conducted preliminary investigations relative to the possible expansion and upgrading of the existing wastewater treatment plant to fulfill the City's needs for the 20 year planning period. (Also, reference our response to Question 8). While the results of this initial investigation indicate this alternative a is cost-effective, the project team does not intend, at this time, to limit its efforts to a single plan. With a combined i total of over 250 years of experience, the project team understands clearly and appreciates that long term improvements, similar to those envisioned for Iowa City, cannot be developed unilaterally by even the most qualified group of consultants. Details and input from city staff and elected officials are crucial to the overall success of a project of this scope. Therefore, while the alternative developed by the project team is initially technically sound and economically feasible, the team will not limit their investigations to a single technical alternative. The initial emphasis of the technical investigation phase will be directed towards reviewing the population projections and wastewater flow and load estimates contained in the facilities plan. This review will be coupled with a detailed technical and economic update of the City's current recommended plan. The purpose of this initial effort will be to provide an accurate "baseline" condition against which alternative collection and treatment options can be properly compared. Metcalf & Eddy will then develop feasible wastewater collection and treatment alternatives, including the project team's proposed expansion and upgrading of the existing treatment plant. These alternatives will be reviewed for environmental considerations 1-5 and technical merit prior to discussions with City repre- sentatives to gain their input regarding specific concerns and li desires. The goal of the technical investigation phase is the selection of the most promising technical alternatives for w further evaluation. Obviously, an economical alternative is not r feasible if it fails to fulfill the technical and environmental requirements of the project. Phase II. The second phase of the project will entail a 14 detailed constructability evaluation by Fluor members of the 14 project team. This review will comprise an in-depth w investigation of the most promising technical alternatives, including the current recommended plan, the alternative plan developed by the project team, and other promising technical alternatives, to assess the following construction -related _ issues: Inclusion of innovative and money -saving construction methods and equipment. Inclusion of installation, operational, and maintenance know-how to the selection of equipment to be procured and the procurement timing. Identifying difficult-to-install/operate equipment and recommending alternatives. Identifying special equipment requirements and recommending standard designs where possible. . Advising designers on the range of probable schedule impacts due to construction factors, e.g., labor safety, regulatory processes, quality assurance requirements, and available technology especially in earthmoving, dewatering, and tunneling. . Confirming that acceptance criteria are clearly defined and measurable. 1-6 103j- Preliminary construction cost estimates will be prepared for the various alternatives which will reflect construction market i w considerations in the general Iowa City region. Fluor will also i prepare a construction management plan that will reflect proposed u� implementation schedules and construction -related issues such it as: resident inspection and other construction related engineering services; appropriate "packaging" or staging of w construction contracts; and City resources (personnel and financial) required during construction. The results of the second phase of the project will be reviewed with City staff and it is probable that some alternatives will be dropped from further evaluation. I _ Phase IIi. The final technical alternative(s) which are selected by Iowa City as being cost-effective, environmentally sound and implementable will then undergo a detailed financial analysis by Arthur Young. The alternatives will be evaluated from both a municipal and private funding perspective. The various financing options available to the City within the municipal and private approaches are discussed in Question 2 of this submittal. With the knowledge that the City may be in a favorable position, (pending reauthorization of the Clean Water Act), for grant funding based upon the additional $85 million that may be authorized for Des Moines, the project team will also evaluate the grant funding approach. Under this approach, Metcalf & Eddy and Arthur Young will meet with the Iowa DWAWM to ascertain the likelihood of grant funding. If the possibility exists, the anticipated date of grant award, project eligibilities, level of grant participation and anticipated grant amount would be determined. 1-7 1W3,J_ Arthur Young would compare the grant funding approach to 1008 municipal financing and private financing in light of proceeding with municipal and private approaches immediately versus waiting for the grant. If the waiting time for the grant is substantial (i.e., a few years) the increase in construction costs due to inflation may offset the advantage of grant funding. The level of grant funding would be dependent upon the eligible project costs and percentage of funding. If, for instance, the eligible project costs would only be for the treatment plant at a capacity to serve existing needs and be at 558, the advantage of the grant may not be worth the risk of waiting for it when compared to the costs of proceeding with other alternatives immediately. This point is vividly illustrated, based on Arthur Young's experience with a privatization feasibility study and implementation program completed for a west coast community. The grant funded approach (when viewed in light of project eligibilities, level of funding and anticipated date for grant award) did not compare favorably to proceeding immediately with a privatization approach. The privatization approach in terms of estimated user charges was more economical than those estimated for the grant approach. Particular emphasis during this phase will be placed on investigating the impact of various combinations of public and private construction, ownership and operation. (Also, reference our response to Question 2). In response to Iowa City's request, the potential of utilizing a "privatization" approach to implementing needed improvements will be thoroughly investigated. As described in the project team's first submittal to the City, Arthur Young will conduct a privatization workshop in the initial phase of the project. This workshop will be structured to provide the City with an accurate and clear 1-8 /�83� understanding of the privatization approach and identification of the steps that the City can take to eliminate or greatly minimize any concerns the City may have regarding this approach. Since any financial evaluation of technical alternatives is directly related to the City's economic resources, Arthur Young will utilize, and build upon, their knowledge of Iowa City's financial capabilities developed during their previous involvement in the City's Privatization Feasibility Study. The purpose of the third phase of the study is to identify the most J favorable financial approach for each promising technical alternative. Since the various technical alternatives will have differing ratios of capital to operating costs, it is imperative that the financial evaluation carefully consider various funding options and select the option that is most favorable to the City. Again, input from City staff and elected officials is _ needed to assess the best combination of capital versus operational cost for each technical alternative. The combination of technical evaluation, constructability evaluation, and financial evaluation, coupled with close liaison with City staff and elected officials, will result in the selection of a recommended plan that is environmentally sound, implementable, achieves the required technical objectives, and yields the minimum economic impact to all users of the City's wastewater collection and treatment system. 1-9 /1f83,t- QUESTION 2 - COST EFFECTIVE FINANCING METHODS A single most cost-effective financing method (short and/or long term) cannot be selected or detailed at this time. The uncertainty of future market conditions (interest rates, financing requirements, credit enhancements) precludes this decision without detailed information which is currently unavailable to the project team. Also, the concerns of the City and the risks associated with each option have to be taken into account and viewed from the City's perspective. These concerns and risks could result in the City selecting a financing method which may not be the most cost-effective, although it meets other City goals and objectives. Therefore, the project team has presented in tabular form the financing methods available to the City under each scenario requested, plus another possible alternative. Also, included in the tables are various areas of potential cost savings or increases associated with the construction and 0&M of the facility which would affect the financing costs. Each approach will be individually considered during the financial evaluation phase of the project approach. 2-1 A70✓11- IA I. FINANCING Public construction, ownership and operation Private construction, ownership and operation tion IC. Public ownership nwith cprid private operation Short term financial approaches, which can later be converted to long term approaches, include: 1) tax exempt commercial paper; 2) bond anticipation notes; and 3) variable pproachesemand notes. include:1) GO ng term app Bonds; 2) Revenue Bonds; and 3) Special Assessment Bonds. Innovative long term bonding options include: 1) Deferred interest approaches (zero coupon bonds, step coupon bonds); 2) Tender option bonds; and 3) Floating rate bonds (floatingrate bonds, adjustable floating rate bonds, floating fixed rate bonds). Financing utilizing IDB's at a fixed rate or as a variable rate instrument. For the variable rate approach, a letter of credit would be purchased to enhance the credit worthiness. Given the recently imposed cap on the amount of IDB's that can be annually issued in ncing state, taxable long term could also be utilized. Private ownership/operation allows for the maximum utilization of tax benefits including ITC, depreciation, and interest deductions. This approach allows the private sector owner/operator to pass along (in the form of lower service charges to the City) a sharing of these benefits to the greatest extent. same as IA 2-2 /1f83k u e w r� i I - IB I. FINANCING Public construction, ownership and operation Private construction, ownership and operation tion IC. Public ownership nwith cprid private operation Short term financial approaches, which can later be converted to long term approaches, include: 1) tax exempt commercial paper; 2) bond anticipation notes; and 3) variable pproachesemand notes. include:1) GO ng term app Bonds; 2) Revenue Bonds; and 3) Special Assessment Bonds. Innovative long term bonding options include: 1) Deferred interest approaches (zero coupon bonds, step coupon bonds); 2) Tender option bonds; and 3) Floating rate bonds (floatingrate bonds, adjustable floating rate bonds, floating fixed rate bonds). Financing utilizing IDB's at a fixed rate or as a variable rate instrument. For the variable rate approach, a letter of credit would be purchased to enhance the credit worthiness. Given the recently imposed cap on the amount of IDB's that can be annually issued in ncing state, taxable long term could also be utilized. Private ownership/operation allows for the maximum utilization of tax benefits including ITC, depreciation, and interest deductions. This approach allows the private sector owner/operator to pass along (in the form of lower service charges to the City) a sharing of these benefits to the greatest extent. same as IA 2-2 /1f83k ID. Private construction financing with public purchase and private operation and Same as IB IE. Public construction with private purchase and private operation In addition, in this approach, the City would purchase, upon completion of construction, the facility at fair market value. This would necessitate the City selecting a long term financing method to secure the required funds for the purchase. Potential exists that the City would be paying twice for 1) certain financial and legal fees associated with the financing and 2) financing requirements and/or credit enhancements. This option is complex to structure and carry out under tax law. Same as IA In addition, could pursue this route, if after detailed review of plans and specifications, it is determined that substantial construction cost savings pursuing private ownerhip/construction cannot be realized to offset the benefits of this approach. For example, if IDB's cannot be utilized for this project, the City can construct the facility with tax exempt financing at a lower interest rate than that obtained in the private sector constructing it with taxable financing at a higher interest rate. Upon completion of construction, the City would sell the facility to the private sector firm, whereby the private sector owner/operator could take advantage of tax benefits. Assuming a fair market value sale price, the City might even make a "profit" on the sale. Some of the tax benefits could be passed along to the City in the form of service charges lower than the City would experience if it retained ownership and operation. This option is complex to structure and carry out under tax law, but could be considered. 2-3 1,034- II. CONSTRUCTION IIA. Public construction, ownership and operation IIB. Private construction, ownership and operation IIC. Public construction and ownership with private operation IID. Private construction and financing with public purchase and private operation IIE. Public construction with private purchase and private operation Time delays, if substantial, in the procurement approach could cause increases in construction costs due to inflation. City also absorbs risks of construction cost overruns under this approach. Construction cost savings of up to approximately 208 could be realized for a project the size the City contemplates constructing. This estimate is based upon completed feasibility studies to date including privatization projects currently in the implementation stage and discussions held with professional consulting engineers, construction firms and municipal officials. Risk of construction cost overruns would be primarily borne by the private sector. Same as IIA Same as IIB Same as IIA If this method is pursued, efforts have to be made to ensure timely construction so as not to increase costs due to inflation. 2-4 HOU't III. OPERATION IIIA. Public construction, ownership and operation IIIB. Private construction, ownership and operation IIIC. Public construction and ownership with private operation City constraints may result in pay scales and worker incentives insufficient to attract and retain key technical talent to ensure proper 0&M. Improper 0&M can lead to increases in 0&M expenditures. The private sector should experience significant economies of scale in the operation of multiple facilities, thereby resulting in lower user fees for operation and management. Reasons include factors such as: - Ability to share licensed operators among multiple plants. - Ability to centralize/ consolidate common services such as preventive maintenance, accounting and administration, laboratory services, spare parts, etc. - Ability to bulk order chemical supplies and other essential common commodities. - Profit incentive for cost/efficient operations and search for revenue -generating capability of treatment plant resources in addition to local user fees. Quality service at a lower cost will be sought through well- trained and experienced employees. Same as IIIB IIID. Private construction and Same as IIIB financing with public purchase and private operation IIIE. Public construction with Same as IIIB private operationand 91 111s3,- QUESTION 3 UTILIZATION OF COMPLETED ENGINEERING /�83.� The project team's response to Question 1 of this submittal discussed the need to evaluate and update data in the facilities j plan in the first phase of the project. If a revision to the I�1 facilities plan is warranted, an addendum to the facilities plan will be prepared and submitted to the State of Iowa DWAWM and U.S. EPA Region VII for review and approval. In addition, the project team will coordinate with the regulatory agencies during the EPA required "advanced treatment" review of the recommended plan as it pertains to the City's NPDES permit requirements for ammonia -nitrogen removal. These steps will assist in preserving - grant eligibility for portions of the recommended plan. (Also - reference our response to Question 9). Arthur Young's previous engagement with the City during the privatization feasibilty study will serve as the foundation for additional financial evaluations, particularly in terms of possible privatization of the final recommended plan. Contract plans and specifications that have been completed for the current recommended plan will be carefully reviewed for incorporation into the final recommended plan. It is most probable that the plans and specifications prepared for the rehabilitation of the City's sanitary sewer system (infiltration/inflow correction) can be incorporated essentially as completed. B54 111934 QUESTION 3 - UTILIZATION OF COMPLETED ENGINEERING wt It is the intent of the project team to incorporate completed engineering work into the team's project approach to the greatest a extent possible. Iowa City has made a substantial investment in j the previously completed engineering work and this investment must be utilized. ii The project team's response to Question 1 of this submittal discussed the need to evaluate and update data in the facilities j plan in the first phase of the project. If a revision to the I�1 facilities plan is warranted, an addendum to the facilities plan will be prepared and submitted to the State of Iowa DWAWM and U.S. EPA Region VII for review and approval. In addition, the project team will coordinate with the regulatory agencies during the EPA required "advanced treatment" review of the recommended plan as it pertains to the City's NPDES permit requirements for ammonia -nitrogen removal. These steps will assist in preserving - grant eligibility for portions of the recommended plan. (Also - reference our response to Question 9). Arthur Young's previous engagement with the City during the privatization feasibilty study will serve as the foundation for additional financial evaluations, particularly in terms of possible privatization of the final recommended plan. Contract plans and specifications that have been completed for the current recommended plan will be carefully reviewed for incorporation into the final recommended plan. It is most probable that the plans and specifications prepared for the rehabilitation of the City's sanitary sewer system (infiltration/inflow correction) can be incorporated essentially as completed. B54 111934 h Metcalf & Eddy is currently in the construction phase of a project for a major sanitary district in Illinois. The first phase of this project entailed a review and revision of plans and specifications for the project completed by another engineering consultant. These documents were evaluated and have been incorporated with revisions into the final construction documents. Metcalf & Eddv also worked closelv with the client QUESTION 4 - APPROACH UTILIZING TYPICAL VERSUS DESIGN/BUILD PROCESS I! 1.4 4a - Typical Engineering Study ' Id f is In the past, most municipal projects have incorporated the standard three phase approach to implementation of needed j. improvements consisting of a feasibility study, preparation of a design documents, and engineering assistance during construction. Generally, state regulatory agencies are more "! "comfortable" with this approach since it provides them a clear opportunity to review and approve work completed in the w preceeding phase prior to initiation of the subsequent phase. The project team is organized to provide timely and project - specific experience into each of the three phases. During the y study phase, all three team members will have input into the development of the final recommended plan in areas of wastewater collection and treatment technology, financial considerations and construction -related issues. The design phase will incorporate the resources of all team members in addressing the design and selection of equipment to fulfill the technical objectives, producing a design that is constructable, and preparing the financial resources necessary to implement the design. Finally, team members would assist the City during construction in monitoring contractor's adherence to the intent of the design documents, resolving construction -related questions that arise during implementation, and monitoring the City's cash flow situation. All members of the project team assembled for the Iowa City assignment have documented experience in the successful completion of major projects utilizing the typical three phase approach. All of these resources will be available to Iowa City during the project. 4-1 4b - Design/Build Process The rapid increases in interest rates that occurred in recent years have prompted many municipalities to investigate alternatives to the traditional study/design/construct process. _ The design/build, or "turnkey" process, represents a method to accelerate the implementation of needed improvements. The project team incorporates the resources necessary to implement a design/build strategy in Iowa City. Metcalf & Eddy has successfully completed several "fast-track" projects where construction is initiated prior to final completion of all aspects of the design. Obviously, the key to a successful fast- track project is strong project management with clear project �i direction established in the early phases of construction, e.g., _ excavation, foundations, and structural, to avoid construction change orders that might occur as the design proceeds to completion. Fluor brings a wealth of experience to the project team in the area of construction technology and actual construction of municipal facilities. As discussed in the team's response to Question 1, this experience in preconstruction review of the design and specifications, evaluation/preparation of detailed construction cost estimates, and review of contract packaging and procurement of long lead items will be critically important in coordinating all aspects of a design/build process. The design/build process presents challenges in the area of financial considerations since construction is initiated prior to completion of the design. With 90 years of experience in providing financial assistance to clients, Arthur Young is especially qualified and experienced in organizing the City's financial resources to meet the requirements of the design/build process. 4-2 /03 IS u i Several opportunities exist within the overall project to JA implement the design/build approach. For instance, once the �s final recommended plan is selected, those elements of the completed design packages that are only minimally affected by a �y possible change in the plan can proceed to construction while the revisions are being made. Iw �e The strong combination of wastewater engineering technology, I1 construction management and implementation, and financial Icreativity possessed by the project team represents an unequaled association of experience and resources. i 4-3 143u- QUESTION 5 - ACCELERATION OF CONSTRUCTION AND y. PROJECT COMPLETION i w Upon selection for this assignment, the project team is organized to complete the evaluation phase of this project within five months as indicated in the response to Question 11 - Project , Schedule of the team's initial submittal to the City. Responses to Question 3 of this submittal described the team's intent to utilize, to the fullest extent possible, the completed engineering work. Upon selection of the final recommended plan, those elements of the completed design that are relatively unchanged can proceed immediately to construction. Fast-track design procedures can be utilized to accelerate completion of other aspects of the recommended plan. Arthur Young's experience would be utilized in "fast -tracking" the financial considerations associated with the recommended plan. For example, fast -tracking under a public approach would involve developing the financing and marketing documents for the appropriate bonds while the bid documents are being prepared. Under a private funding approach, the City would proceed with developing the financial documents, e.g. industrial development bonds, during the selection of a private sector firm. In a privatization approach, the City should be as detailed as possible in describing terms and conditions of a service contract in any Request For Proposals in order to shorten the time needed for the contract negotiation phase. The team's response to Question 7 describes various aspects of engineering design, treatment processes, and plant equipment that are not only cost effective but also result in acceleration of the implementation schedule. In addition, Fluor is an innovator in the design and fabrication of prefabricated modules for construction projects that have resulted in significant time 5-1 l qmj, ■ savings on projects with constraints such as limited site access. Fluor has also established very close working relationships with numerous subcontractors and equipment suppliers. in the past, these relationships have resulted in preferential treatment in terms of delivery of equipment and services for accelerated construction schedules on specific projects. As previously discussed, the project team possesses the resources to rapidly develop the final recommended plan, accelerate the initiation and completion of the required improvements, while providing an overall plan at least cost to all users, present and future, of the final facilities. 5-2 / 4f34 QUESTION 6 - ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES OF PUBLIC VERSUS PRIVATE _ The project team's response to Question 2 described aspects of various combinations of public (grant and non -grant funded) and private construction, ownership and operation. The tables included on pages 6-2 through 6-4 specifically address the I -i advantages and disadvantages associated with two particular funding options: traditional public project; and privatization of municipal facilities. 6-1 /T0 TRADITIONAL PUBLIC PROJECT ill �'i�:��1V-� Ml o City retains control over financing, construction and O&M of facility. o City retains ownership of facility. o City appears to have a credit rating that can be competitive with other issues at a given interest rate. o Closely accountable to City officials. DISADVANTAGES o Utilizes a portion of local debt capacity. In some cases, e.g, non - grant funded facilities, a substantial portion or a portion which will cause the City's debt capacity bo be exceeded (additional steps would then be needed in an attempt to increase debt capacity). o City absorbs all risks of delays and cost overruns. o Time delays in implementation are lengthy due to compliance with laws, regulations and other procedural requirements at local and/or state level. o In some cases, municipal governments may be unable to provide salary scales and/or worker incentives to attract and retain skilled operations personnel. 0 Political, managerial and financial constraints can have significant effect on a wastewater facility and its ability to be self-sustaining (policy issues may be subject to political pressures that are not wastewater treatment oriented, key activities may be controlled by other departments). o Constraints by City's rules and regulations may dictate staff size below the level necessary for proper O&M, and staff qualifications or selection criteria that are inconsistent with the facility's needs. 6-2 J �If3,, 6-3 /-1/4f3-G PRIVATIZATION ADVANPAGFS I DISADVANIAGM w o Provides a timely answer to o If properly structured there environmental and economic should be none, however, service development needs. contract must be thorough and cortplete. o Minimizes federal and state r involvement in local affairs. o Requires certain activities not required in traditional public o Avoids construction time delays approach, as privatization i and c npliance with federal inplementation, public education procurement regulations, which and oversight programs. collectively may increase the capital cost of a facility by 208 o Costs would be incurred by the or more. City for these activities. However, the burden would greatly o Permits greater flexibility in be reduced by incorporating the factors such as sizing of costs into the project financing. treatment works and billing of users. City can construct, o If City desires to retain within limits, the type and ownership after specified capacity of facilities desired. transaction period, the City could have to purchase the o Avoids indirect costs of grant facility at fair market value. administration and potential However, the economic burden can headaches of grant audits. greatly be reduced by incorporating the methodology to o Preserves local debt capacity for achieve this in the project plan. other essential purposes. o May not be legal in a particular o May provide 1008 of project state and enabling legislation funding, whereas grant programs would be required. It appears only provide a percentage of that this is not a disadvantage costs and then only fund the in Iowa. "eligible" costs within that percentage. These costs are determined prior to when construction is undertaken, and the difference in costs caused by this time delay is often substantial. 6-3 /-1/4f3-G PRIVATIZATION (ODNT.) ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES o Privatization offers more predictability of costs because communities have a contractual commitment from their private sector partner in the transaction as to service provision costs. o Proper operation and maintenance of facilities in many cases is best achieved through private sector contracting. Community difficulties may include the high Pay scales necessary to attract and retain highly technical and well-trained individuals for city -owned facilities. o In properly structured transactions, oamunities face fewer construction and operation risks. o Privatization transactions can be structured so facility O&M and management receives a level of oversight sufficient to satisfy City's goals and objectives for accountability (within the limits privatization permits). 6-4 /llk3,j- QUESTION 7 - AREAS FOR INCREASED COST EFFECTIVENESS Identification and quantification of potential measures for increased cost effectiveness; i.e., cost savings, are obviously ✓. directly related to the specific proposal being considered. Since the project team proposes to develop the final recommended plan in close coordination with the City staff and elected officials, several general areas of increased cost-effectiveness will be discussed in the response to this question. i Engineering Design. Metcalf & Eddy and Fluor have each instituted long standing programs aimed at producing cost _ effective designs for all projects. Metcalf & Eddy has established Quality Assurance/Quality Control procedures that are closely monitored to accomplish design work in a timely and accurate manner. Technical Advisory Teams are instituted for each design contract. These teams are composed of senior -level staff members whose purpose is to guide the technical aspects of the design and provide input into resolution of specific - technical concerns. The project team can also conduct a Value Engineering review of the proposed recommended plan by instituting a VE -team of experienced technical staff members from each member of the team. The resources of the project team provide the opportunity to utilize experienced and VE -certified staff members who are not involved in the preparation of the design documents. The VE -team will conduct independent reviews of the design effort at several key points and will augment other QA/QC measures to provide a cost effective final design package. A specific cost effective concept that was discussed in the response to Question 3 of this submittal comprises the maximum utilization of previously completed design work. In those instances where the final recommended plan has minimal effect on the completed design documents, they.would be immediately revised to incorporate any necessary changes. 7-1 1-'I83,�- As previously discussed, additional cost savings can also be achieved by accelerating the design process utilizing "fast track" design procedures. Cost savings can be realized in the design phase by use of various computer aids such as Metcalf & Eddy's and Fluor's computer aided drafting/design (CADD) systems. These systems are particularly effective in increasing productivity of electrical schematics, instrumentation control diagrams, piping isometrics, and compilation of material lists. Fluor's EXPONE computerized cost and scheduling program is an effective tool in the timely production of accurate and detailed estimates for labor, material, and subcontract costs associated with specific equipment components. The key element, however, in the production of cost-effective designs is the utilization of personnel experienced in developing design documents that are technically accurate and thoroughly cross-checked. Metcalf & Eddy's design professionals have successfully completed the design of over 125 wastewater treatment projects in the past 25 years as shown in the table on page 7-4. This experience is complemented in the Iowa City project by the construction expertise of Fluor and the financial creativity of Arthur Young. Treatment Processes. The preliminary technical approach developed by the project team represents cost effectiveness in treatment process selection for two reasons. First, maximum utilization of the existing treatment plant represents cost effective use of the City's significant investment in these facilities. Second, few wastewater treatment processes are more cost effective to construct and operate then the existing trickling filters which have been incorporated into the team's project approach. In addition, the sludge handling facilities proposed by the project team, i.e., anaerobic digestion and belt filter presses, have proven to be the cost effective solution in numerous municipal applications. 7-2 /0-34- Plant Equipment. Metcalf & Eddy and Fluor have years of experience in the selection of cost effective plant equipment. Metcalf & Eddy's Contract Operations Group is involved in the direct operation of six wastewater treatment plants, one of which is the largest wastewater treatment plant in the country (30 mgd) currently under contract operations. This experience has proven to be invaluable to the Design Group in providing input as to the long term operability of specific equipment. Fluor's involvement in the construction of hundreds of municipal _ facilities provides insight into the true cost of equipment procurement and selection. This insight will be utilized in the selection of long term cost effective equipment for the Iowa City project. The overall preliminary project approach developed by the project team represents a cost effective utilization of the existing - treatment site, new unit processes, incorporation of previously completed design work to the greatest extent possible, and accelerated procedures in design and construction that will result in completion of the final recommended plan at the earliest possible date. Preliminary cost estimates associated with this approach indicate a total project cost of less than $30,000,000 as compared to the current estimated cost of $46,300,000 for the proposed four phased development approach. 7-3 I%T-1200 NUMBER OF METCALFd EDDY ENGAGEMENTS FOR THE DESIGN OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANTS Number of Plants Since 1935 Primary Secondary Advanced Total Constructed and Operating: 0.0 - 9.0 mgd 27 55 10 92 _ 10.0 - 24.9 mgd 8 10 2 20 25.0 - 49.9 mgd 4 5 1 10 7 50.0 - oo,g mgd 4 3 6 - 11 100.0 mgd and over 5 Subtotal: 48 79 13 1L;' Under Design or Construction: o.o - 9.9 mgd 3 6 6 1 15 , 10.0 - 24.9 mgd 2 7 1 3 25.0 - 49.9 mgd 2 - 1 50.0 - 99.9 mgd - 1 _ 3 8 100.0 mgd and over 2 3 - Subtotal: 9 17 12 37 Grand total: 57 °6 25 177 :;amber of Plants Since 1960 Prir..ary Secondary Advanced -ctal Constructed and Operating: 0.0 - 9.9 mgd 11 38 10 59 14 10.0 - 24.9 mgd 6 2 6 25.0 - 49.9 mgd 2 1 50.0 - 99.9 mgd 2 4 _ 7 100.0 mgd and over 3 _ - Subtotal: 25 52 13 90 Under Design or Construction: - 0.0 - 9.9 mgd 6 6 1 15 10 10.0 - 24.9 mgd 2 1 25.0 - 49.9 m6d 2- 1 50.0 - 99.9 mgd - 1 3 3 8 100.0 mgd and over 2 - Subtotal: 9 17 11 37 Grand Total: 34 69 24 127 QUESTION 8 - UPGRADING EXISTING TREATMENT PLANT As described in the first submittal to the City, the project team has initially developed an approach that entails the expansion and upgrading of the City's existing wastewater treatment plant. The technical evaluation outlined in the team's response to Question 1 indicated that the evaluation will not be limited to a single technical alternative. Instead, several technical alternatives will be developed and screened after consultation with the City and updating of facilities plan data. In response to the City's request, details of the preliminary technical approach are discussed in terms of upgrading the City's existing treatment plant. Investigations conducted during the first submittal indicate that a combination of additional existing treatment processes, coupled with several new facilities, will provide sufficient capacity at the plant to fulfill the City's requirements for the 20 year planning period. Continued use of the existing site would maximize utilization of the City's past investment in these facilities and represents the logical location for a treatment site given the existing sewer network and flow patterns. While some deterioration of concrete is apparent, the facilities are still structurally sound and can be repaired using appropriate construction techniques. Additional or upgraded existing treatment facilities will be required to provide sufficient treatment capacity during the planning period. These facilities include: New screen and grit removal systems Increased influent pumping capacity (variable speed) Additional primary clarifier Two new secondary clarifiers 8-1 /V lf3..G- Conversion of existing two stage anaerobic digestion system to single stage high -rate digestion system. In addition to these facilities, a new sludge dewatering process would be included consisting of belt filter presses and ancillary equipment. The inclusion of sludge dewatering equipment would provide increased solids handling capacity, eliminate the weather dependent operation of the existing sludge lagoons, provide additional area on the site for new or additional facilities, and minimize the potential for odor problems that may be attributable to the open sludge lagoons. - Additional improvements at the site would entail repair/ rehabilitation of existing structures and treatment processes to incorporate these facilities into the expanded and upgraded treatment plant. While the City is currently utilizing a portion of the methane gas produced in the anaerobic digestion process to heat the digestion tanks, it may be possible to reduce the plants operational expenses by utilizing the gas as fuel for an engine/generator unit. The electricity produced by this unit would be utilized to run selected electric equipment at the plant and the jacket water required for engine cooling would be used to heat the digestion tanks. This technology is classed as "innovative/alternative" by U.S. EPA and is eligible for increased grant assistance. The existing gas storage sphere at the plant would be rehabilitated and incorporated into the process. Metcalf & Eddy has recent experience in the study, design, and construction of facilities similar to those described above. The recent completion of construction of interim sludge handling facilities for the City of Elmhurst,•Illinois entailed the conversion of a two stage anaerobic digestion system to a single 8-2 /la31 stage high -rate process and included installation of belt filter - processes for sludge dewatering. The design of final sludge handling facilities for the same client has been completed and includes an engine/generator unit which will be fueled by methane gas produced in the digestion process. The electricity produced by this unit will fulfill approximately 20 to 25 percent of the plants average electrical energy consumption. Metcalf & Eddy is currently involved in the construction of improvements to the Main Plant of the Sanitary District of Elgin, Illinois. These improvements comprise the expansion and upgrading of the plant and include a new primary clarifier, two new secondary clarifiers, a new chlorine contact tank, and several other modifications. Additional experience in the expansion and upgrading of existing treatment facilities is represented by Metcalf & Eddy's involvement in a joint venture that is currently completing design of the Des Mbines, Iowa ICA Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant.' Metcalf & Eddy's role in this project started with the conceptual planning of the treatment plant during the facilities planning efforts and carried on through the lead role during preliminary design of treatment aspects of the regional facility. Although previous studies had recommended an entirely new plant be constructed as the ICA Regional Plant, Metcalf & Eddy proposed that the new plant be constructed around Des Moines' existing Main Sewage Treatment Plant utilizing rehabilitated trickling filters and anaerobic digestion facilities along with new treatment components. Components of the Regional Plant currently under design by Metcalf & Eddy include new sludge dewatering (belt filter presses), power generation (engine -generators to convert digester gas to electricity) and anaerobic digestion facilities and the rehabilitation of the existing second stage trickling filters and anaerobic digestion complex. 8-3 141&, Metcalf s Eddy's primary intent on these projects was to include maximum utilization of existing facilities while providing modern, highly efficient equipment to provide increased operational flexibility. A partial list of other water pollution control plants that we upgraded, expanded and/or rehabilitated is included on pages B-5 through 8-8. The proposed expansion and upgrading of Iowa City's wastewater — treatment plant is feasible in terms of the age, site, size, present effluent limits and storm water overflow conditions. While the original plant was constructed in 1935, major improvements in 1957, 1965, 1970 and 1973, coupled with the dedicated maintenance and operation of the plant staff, have resulted in a facility that is structurally sound and functional within the context of its intended purpose. The additional facilities included in the project team's approach will result in a treatment plant capable of meeting the proposed daily average effluent limitations described in the City's facilities plan — during the average dry weather flow condition of 8.960 mgd, and the maximum wet weather flow of 31.741 mgd. The inclusion of new solids handling facilities will provide additional space on the existing site for all proposed facilities. The project team's approach to addressing storm water overflow conditions is described in the response to Question 10. The feasibility -level cost estimate for the proposed facilities is $6,200,000 in current dollars and does not include collection/ interception improvements, storm water treatment facilities, nor an engine/generator unit. These proposed facilities would eliminate the need for a new treatment plant for an estimated construction cost that is less than the reported cost of just the "outfall sewer" linking the existing site and new treatment site recommended in the "phased development" approach. 8-4 TYPICAL ENGAGEMENTS OF METCALF $ EDDY FOR UPGRADING, EXPANSION AND REHABILITATION OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANTS -' Location C sent Oescn [ion CITY OF ATLANTA, GEORGIA R. 1:. Clayton Water Pollution Control Plant Upgrading and Expansion to Advanced Waste Treatment: 1903 Design: In Operation: gg(1907) Population: Capacity: 120 mgd Const. Cost:8300,000,000 Est. AETROPOLRAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO. iL1.INO1S Calumet Sewage Treatment Works Plant Expansion and Addition of Advanced Waste Treatment: Design: 1981 In operation: (1984) Population: 11254,000 Capacity: 354 mgd Const. Cost: $315,000,000 Est. LEXINGTON, KENTUCKY West Hickman Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant: Upgrading and Expansion for Advanced Secondary Treatment Design; 1980 In operation: 1983 Population: 174,000 Capacity: 16.8 mgd Const. Cost: $16,300,000 Ent. Design for upgrading and expansion of the largest UPCP in the southeastern U.S. Improvements will include nitrification and provision for higher levels of BOD, SS, and NII7 removal to protect the receiving water, the Chattahoochee River. Vidble options are: single stage air activated sludge, oxygen activated sludge, and rotating biological contactors. Complete modification and rehabilitation of the instrumentation and control system for the entire plant. Upgrading of existing primary end secondary facili- ties to expand the plant and to add facilities for nitrification, multi -media filtration and disinfection. Additions to preliminary treatment systems, electrical distribution system, and the multi -media filtration system will be provided by support consultants. The Joint Venture is solely responsible for secondary expansions; nitrification facilities; a computer-based central control system; storage facilities; and remodeling and renovations for additional shops and storage facilities. Preliminary and final designs for expansion from 8.15 mgd to 16.8 mgd and for upgrading of existing secondary facilities to two-stage nitrification (advanced secon- dary). Project includes value engineering study. Processes designed are for grit removal, screening, primary settling, modified aeration activated sludge, nitrification, chlorination, reaeration, gravity thick- ening, anaerobic digestion, dewatering by belt filters and composting of residual. Buildings and digesters are heated by recovery of energy from engine -driven blowers. IMTTABASSETT DISTRICT BLL.CONNtAT[1LKT Subcontract for design of wastewater process; mechanical, electrical and instrumentation; and sludge CRO New Secunddry t'actlities: handling facilities. Treatment systems include Design: 1979 (2000) diffused air, complete mix activated sludge and o is pisved aplate tion fand l in Population 130,000 (Year to1964) use frame presses[and incineration derived from Capacity: 20 mgd upgraded to pyrolytic mode. Waste heat Const. Cost: 822,000.000 combustion is recovered for building heat. SOUTHINGTON.CONNFLTICUT Upgrading and expansion of existing 2.5 mgd Addition of Advanced Treatment trickling filter plant to provide tertiary treat - Facilities: ment for 7.4 mgd. Additions will include activated Design: 1979 sludge nitrification stage, increased influent pump In operation: 1983 capacity, aerated grit chamber, primary sludge Population: 55,000 tanks, nitrification reactor, intermediate and Capacity: 7.4 mgd final settling tanks, and a fourth digester. Const. COst:8IB,000,000 rst. B ACKSTONE VALLFY Additions include new final clarifiersenersnew primary DISTRICT COMMSSIOLI sludge pumping station, flotationfor East Providence, Rhode island waste activated sludge, end new primary digester. Modifications to Existing Modifications will be made to screening and grit Bucklin Point Facilities: removal facilities, prime ry tank collector controls, Design: 1978 aeration tanks, scum collection facilities, vacuum In Operation: 1981 filters, and sludge landfill site. Digester gas Population: 18D,000 is to be used for on-site electrical energy generation Capacity: 31 mgd with waste heat recovery for digester heating and Const. Cost: 810,000,000 Est. building heat. 8-5 /'�83k —, Location Client Description —. CRY OF LE014NSTF.R. MASSACHUSETTS i Leominster Sewage Treatment Plant w Expansion and Upgrading to Advanced wastewater Treatment: Design: 1978 � In Operation: 1987 Population:19,500 (Year 2000) w Capacity: 9.7 mgd Const. Cost:$17,500,000 Est. f WARREN. RHODE, ISLAND New Secondary Plant and ;9 Expansion and Improvements to Existing Primary Facilities: 1978 Designed: w In operation: 1982 Population: 12,000 i•: Capacity: 2.0 mgd Const. Cost: $8,900,000 iH ROCKLAND MASSACHUSETTS i Addition of Advanced Treatment Facilities: Designed: 1977 In operation: 1982 Population: 26,000 Capacity: 2.5 mgd Const. Cost: $7,000,000 NORTH GHARLF�TON SOUTH CAROLINA Addition of Secondary Treatment: Design: 1976 In operation: 1900 Population: 85,000 Capacity! 18 mgd Const. Cost: $7,188,000 Est. #MFRiGAN GYAHAMID RRIfN'FWATFR. NF'W IF.RSFY Addition of Advanced Treatment Facilities: Designed: 1976 In operation: 1977 Population: Industrial only Capacity: 20 mgd Const. Cost: In excess of s20,000,ano Replacement of existing primary and secondary facilities. Process train includes flow measurement, comminution, aeration, intermediate pumping, rapid nix, flocculation, lime precipitation of phosphorus in primary settling tanks, single -stage nitrification, secondary settling with multiple suction pipes, chlorination, and reaeration using cascade steps. Sludge handling includes co -settling, storage, vacuum filtration and landfill •lisposal. The expansion to the Warren Treatment Plant included an aerated grit chamber, two primary settling tanks, intermediate pump station, two aeration tanks, two secondary settling tanks, renovation of the existing digester building to a sludge storage tank, chlorine contact tank and new outfall to the warden River. The operations build- ing contains the office and laboratory as well as sludge stabilization (high lime) and dewatering (vacuum filters) facilities. The stabilized sludge is disposed of by landfilling. Expansion and upgrading of existing 1 mgd conventional activated sludgeplant treating primarily domestic wastes. Facilities include comminutors, influent pump station, aerated grit chamber, primary sedimentation tanks, aeration tanks (modified mode diffused air), phosphorus removal with metal salts, secondary sedimentation tanks, nitrification tanks (seasonal -mechanical surface aerators), nitrification sedimentation tanks, chlorination, effluent pump station, cascade post aeration, conventional anaerobic digestion and cloth media vacuum filters. Plant expansions are flexible enough to allow the addition of filtration and dechlorination. Upgrading to secondary treatment by adding aeration tanks for complete mixed or plug flow activated sludge, converting two existing primary clarifiers to secondary clarifiers and providing an additional clarifier. Additional sludge handling facilities include a new return and waste sludge pumping station, flotation thickening and a new vacuum filter. Additions also made to the operations building. Upgrading of existing extended aeration activated sludgeplant to provide advanced treatment for organic chemicals manufacturer. The facility includes multi -media filtration; carbon adsorption vessels operated in an upflow, expanded bed configuration; and regeneration of spent carbon in a multiple hearth furnace. The underflow from the secondary clarifiers is thickened, conditioned and vacuum filtered prior to incineration. waste sol- vents from the chemical plant are the prime source of auxiliary fuel for sludge combustion. All facil- ities are controlled from a central console that provides for minimum operator attendance. 8-6 W Locat on C tent Descrl t: on Designed: FONDDU L_ tion AC o[ ry[N Second Addi ary Treatment: Upgrading existing trickling filter plant treating Population: Designed: 1975 combined tannery, dairy and domestic wastes. Facilities include Const. Cost: In operation: 1977 comminutors, aerated grit chambers, sedimentation tanks, Addition of Secondary Population: Capacity: 66,000 11.1 pure oxen sludqe, phosphorus removal with metal salts, beatted W Const. Cost: mqd $16,400,000 conditioning, and cloth media vacuum filtration. Plant Population: 28,000 Capacity: expansions are flexible enough to allow the Const. Cost: $3,000,000 -- including deni- addition of nitrification and filtration of waste. WF.4rC"MR COUNTY NEW ROCHELLF NFW YORK i� AddltlonS to Existing Plant: Designed: 1975 In operation: 1980 w Population: Wastewater treatment �i facilities: 86,800 Sludge processing facilities: 194,100 j Capacity: 13.6 mgd Const. Cost: $21,400,000 Est. D0FPl1_RLIC UTIL17IFS CA5Pf:R. WYOMING Addition of Secondary Treatment: Designed: 1974 — In operation: 1977 Population: 55,000 — Capacity: 6.4 mgd Const. Cost: $3,600,000 RRUN.4417CK.'MAINE — Designed: Addition of Secondary Treatment: (See also 1964) 1981 Designed: 1973 In operation: 1981 Population: 28,000 Capacity: 3.85 mgd Const. Cost: $3,000,000 MIDDLESEX COUNTY SFWFRAFF AU7710RITY SAYRFVII I F, F;W F.RSF.Y A dltlon to Existing Plant: _ (See also 1963 and 1950-59) -- Designed: 1972 In operation: 1978 Population: 790,000 Capacity: 120 mqd -- Const. Cost: $97,000,000 Facilities are being added to the existing primary treatment plant so that the wastewater will be treated by the pure oxygen aeration activated sludge process. Sludge from the Mamaroneck plant will be Pumped to this plant for processing. Facilities added are: screens: raw wastewater pumps; cyclone degritting: oxygenation tanks; final settling tanks; gravity thickening tanks: wet air oxidation system; vacuum filters; and sludge incinerators. Upgrading of existing facilities which include screening, raw sewage pumping, aerated grit removal, primary sedimentation, chlorination, anaerobic digestion of sludge and sludge drying beds. Addition of aeration tanks for complete mixed activated sludge, secondary settling tanks, primary sludge pumping, sludge thickening, emergency power generation, and additional sludge drying beds. Upgrading and expansion of primary plant to provide secondary treatment for flows from Brunswick and Topsham. Additions to the plant include an exten- sion to the operations building, a third primary tank, conventional activated sludge aeration tanks with mechanical aerators, covered secondary sedimen- tation tanks, chlorination systems, effluent pumping station and an additional vacuum filter. Enlargement of primary treatment facilities and the addition of aerated grit chambers and secondary treatment facilities including covered activated sludge tanks, secondary sedimentation tanks, chlorination facilities, gravity sludge thickening tanks, aerobic digesters and sludge storage tanks. The facility will utilize the pure oxygen modifica- tion of the activated sludge process and includes a 2,000 -ton liquid 02 storage tank and on-site cryogenic oxygen generation of 380 tons of gas and 20 tons of liquid per day. .P1'Z FCOLUMn1A Plant effluent is to contain less than: 5.00 mg/L A t on o Advanced Treatment BOD; 0.22 mg/L total phosphorus; 5.00 mg/L total Facilities: Kjeldahl nitrogen. Provisions are made for: (See also 1970, 1964 and prior secondary treatment by the modified activated sludqe to 1950) processt phosphorus removal by multiple -point addi- — Designed: 1972-1977 tion of metal salts; nitrogen removal by two-stage In operation: 1981 biological nitrification -denitrification: filtration Population: 2,227,000 with multi -media filters; disinfection by Capacity: 309 mgd chlorination. Construction of the denitrification Const. Cost (not facilities has been postponed indefinitely by the -- including deni- EPA. Dock facilities have been provided for trification): $260,000,000 receivinq of chemicals by barge. Chemical facili- ties are provided for alum, ferric chloride, Polymer, lime and methanol. At maximum capacity, _ the plant can treat 939 mgd with primary treatment; 650 mgd of which receives complete treatment and 289 mgd receives chlorination prior to discharge. 8-7 Location C lent Description RSWICH. MASSACHURTIS Expansion of existing primary plant to provide Additions to Existing Plant: secondary treatment by using the extended aeration Designed: 1972 activated sludge process. New facilities include an In operation: 1976 aerated grit chamber, aeration tanks, final settling Population: 15,000 tanks, and vacuum filters. Plant outfall to be used Capacity: 1.0 mgd for chlorine contact. Existing anaerobic digester Const. Cost: $3,900,000 modified for use as aerobic digester and existing wa primary settling tanks modified for sludge holding tanks. It ALLF.NTOMN.►ENNSYLVANIA i-4 Additions to Existing Plant: (See also 1960-69; 1950-59) Designed: 1972 In operation: 1980 Population: 201,000 Capacity: 40 mgd 11 Const. Cost:615,750,000 Est. Modification and enlargement of plant to provide BOD and ammonia nitrogen removal using two-stage trick- ling filters. New facilities include additional pumping capacity, comminutors, primary sedimentation tanks, first stage plastic media trickling filters, intermediate pumping station, additional final sedi- mentation tanks and an additional sludge digestion tank. Modifications are designed to the existing chlorine contact tank, to the existing intermediate sedimentation tanks, and to the existing (now second stage) trickling filters. HOOSAC MATER QUALITY DISTRICT Expansion of the existing Williamstown primary plant ,-i HOARD. A'1 LLIAMST0WN. MASSACHUSETTS to provide secondary treatment using the conven- Additions to Existing Plant: tional activated sludge process. Additional facili- - Designed: 1972 ties include grit removal, primary sedimentation, In operation: 1977 aeration, final settling, chlorine contact and Population: 32,800 mechanical sludge dewatering. Plant will serve _ Capacity: 5.4 mgd the Town of Williamstown, the City of North Adams Const. Cost: $5,000,000 and Widen Tannery. — CRF.ENFIELD. MASSACHUSETTS Expansion of existing primary plant to provide Add tion to Existing Plant: secondary treatment using two-stage trickling Designed: 1971 filters. New facilities to include additional pri- In operation: 1974 mary settling tanks and trickling filters, final Population: 20,000 settling tanks, cyclone degritters, gravity thick - _ Capacity: 3.2 mgd eners and vacuum filters. Final settling tanks to Const. Coat: $2,598,000 be used for chlorine contact. Sf.HENECI'ADY.NF•4y YORK Expansion of existing primary plant to provide • Addition to Existing Plant:secondary treatment using conventional activated Designed: 1971 sludge. New facilities to include aeration tanks, In operation: 1975 final settling tanks, chlorine contact tanks, Population: effluent pumps, flotation thickeners, sludge blend - Capacity: 16.3 mgd ing tanks, vacuum filters and sludge incinerators. Const. Cost: $10,717,000 Existing screen building, detritus tank, and sludge digesters to be modified. UVINGSTON. NF.M IERSEY Expansion of existing activated sludge plant and Expansion of Existing Plant: conversion from step -aeration to conventional (See also 1960-69) activated sludge process. Provision of an addi- Designed: 1971 tional comminutor, new aerated grit chamber, In operation: 1979 p0 mary settling tanks, aeration tanks, final Population: - 35,000 settling tanks, and conventional sludge digention Capacity: 4.2 mgd tanks. Const. Cost: $4,200,000 Eat. DIOFCOLIIMOIA Additions to primary treatment facilities including TUnion -to Plant: aerated grit chambers, primary sedimentation tanks, (See also 1964 and prior to chlorine contact tank and appurtenances. 1950) Designed: 1970 In operation: 1972 Population: 2,227,000 Capacity: 9 p 309 mgd Const. cost: $15,000,000 8-8 QUESTION 9 - FUTURE EPA GRANT FUNDS The potential for EPA construction grant assistance for implementation of needed improvements for wastewater facilities is dependent upon many factors beyound the control of any consultant. Political factors at the state and federal levels will shape the future of the grants program. However, the experience that the project team will bring to the Iowa City project will enable the City, if it so desires, to pursue maximum grant assistance for these improvements as a result of the following: All members of the project team are totally familiar with current EPA regulations. 2. The preliminary project approach developed by the team incorporates facilities that have recently received grant assistance on other projects. 3. Both Metcalf & Eddy and Arthur Young are conducting regular discussions with State/Federal EPA and congressional representatives regarding the future of the grant assistance program. 4. Metcalf & Eddy has developed a sound working relationship with IDWAWM during involvement in the Des Moines, Iowa project. Based upon discussions with Federal representatives it is highly probable that the grant assistance program will be reauthorized in the near future at an authorization level equal to, if not greater than, the current level of $2.4 billion per year. In addition, the team's response to Question 1 discussed that recent actions by Congressman Neal Smith have resulted in an amendment to the Clear Water Act reauthorization that authorizes $85 9-1 Mg-U- million for the Des Moines Integrated Communities Area. This bill has been approved by the House of Representatives and sent to the Senate. Discussions with Congressman Smith's Washington office indicate both Iowa Senators will support the amendment and action on the bill is anticipated by the end of the federal fiscal year (September 30) since it includes reauthorization of the Clean Water Act. If the bill, as amended, is passed by the Senate and signed by the President, the State of Iowa's annual grant appropriation will be available for assisting other communities such as Iowa City. It should be noted that current iEPA regulations include several changes in the level of, and categories for, grant eligibility that will be effective on w October 1, 1984. A key element of these proposed changes is that any future grant assistance will reflect only "current needs", no capacity for future needs will be funded. If the City chose to construct a facility to meet both current and future needs, privatization could be utilized for those portions of the plant providing reserve, i.e., future capacity. In this case, the lowest user charges will probably be associated with the City leasing the federally funded facilities, including contract operations, to the privatization contractor. These factors will be carefully considered by the project team during the technical and financial evaluations to provide all information necessary for the City's decision makers. While grant assistance is of obvious importance in a public financing option, it is not a foregone conclusion that grant assistance is unavailable in a privatization approach. The service contract developed by the City could include provisions regarding additional construction (expansion, upgrading and/or improvements) during the transaction period due to growth of the service area, new regulations, new effluent limits, etc. These provisions would detail the conditions necessary for additional construction, the methods of financing and the methodology used to determine the increased charges to the City. In summary, a properly structured privatization approach will address the issue 9-2 of additional construction, will make provisions for it and do so in a manner so as not to place an economic burden on the City. For example, if future revisions in effluent limitations or necessary hydraulic capacity require additional facilities, and t the City is eligible for grant assistance for the additional facilities, the City would construct and own the new unit processes and then lease the facilities to the privatization 4 contractor, or retain ownership of the additional facilities and a negotiate for contract operation of the units. Arthur Young has held recent discussions with the U.S. EPA and received indication w that present rules and regulations would permit this approach. A j.j provision not to preclude the City from using future grant funds if they become available for "stand alone" processes can be negotiated in the service contract. 11 The U.S. EPA is currently studying financing alternatives to the Construction Grants program. These alternatives include privatization and the EPA has indicated they will support any reasonable financial alternative for providing cost effective treatment systems. Both Arthur Young and Metcalf & Eddy have, and will continue to, work closely with EPA regarding privatization and financing of wastewater facilities in general. The team will work towards structuring a privatization approach that does not preclude the City from utilizing future grant funds that may be available. In addition to the considerable experience of Metcalf & Eddy in the Construction Grants program, Arthur Young's resources include two former EPA employees, both of whom have managed at different times the Construction Grants program for the State of New Jersey. The wealth of experience gained by Metcalf & Eddy and Arthur Young during their involvement in over a decade of the Construction Grants program provides an unequaled resource for Iowa City. 9-3 /11f3.- QUESTION 10 - REDUCE MAXIMUM WET WEATHER TREATMENT PLANT FLOW , The project team has developed two preliminary approaches to i addressing the maximum wet weather flow through the treatment plant. Each of these approaches will be evaluated in detail during the technical evaluation portion of the project �i approach. In addition, discussions with the City in the early + phases of the technical evaluation may result in other approaches for consideration. w+ The first approach to addressing maximum wet weather flow entails the use of innovative land treatment technology. The soil structure on the plant site, particularly in the area of the ~ existing sludge lagoons, consists of a relatively deep layer of sandy soil. The characteristics of this material makes a "rapid infiltration" technology possible. This technology would entail percolation of the wet weather flow through the sandy soil with treatment by microorganisms present in the soil. The water would be collected in an underdrain system, disinfected, and discharged _ into the Iowa river. Metcalf 6 Eddy has designed several rapid infiltration systems, the most recent engagement being for Muskegon County, Michigan. Adequate protection would be provided to insure that groundwater supplies are separated from the rapid infiltration basins. The project team would work closely with the City, IDWAM, and U.S. EPA Region VII to carefully and clearly explain all aspects of this technology. An alternate approach to treatment of maximum wet weather flows has been developed that incorporates conventional treatment technology. This approach consists of primary clarification of the storm water flow followed by high rate filtration and disinfection, and discharge into the Iowa River. While more costly than the rapid infiltration alternative, this approach will be utilized if regulatory agencies are reluctant to approve the innovative rapid infiltration technology. 10-1 /1f434- QUESTION 11 - SITE ALTERNATIVES FOR NEW TREATMENT PLANT As discussed in response to previous questions, the project team has developed a preliminary approach that would eliminate the need for a new plant site during the 20 year design period. Upon initiation of this study, the project team will meet with the City to review the proposed approach and develop additional technical approaches that fulfill the City's long range planning requirements. If additional technical approaches entail a new treatment plant during the planning period, the project team has the resources and experience necessary to carefully evaluate alternative locations for the proposed improvements. This evaluation would reflect the investment that the City has made in the proposed Sand Road site. For instance, the evaluation of a new site location would include the costs associated with modifying, or completely abandoning, the completed plans and specifications that have been prepared for the Sand Road site. It is possible that an alternative site, located south of the Sand Road site, may be feasible given the topography of the area which may result in sufficient savings in interceptor costs and additional areas for development. QUESTION 12 - RUNDELL STREET SEWER AND SOUTHEAST AREA W The preliminary approach developed by the project team addresses both the surcharging problem in the Rundell Street sewer and potential development in the southeast area of the City. - The surcharging in the Rundell Street sewer would be alleviated by removing essentially all wastewater flow from the upper reaches of the Rundell Street sewer, i.e., the Southeast trunk sewer, lower Muscatine Road trunk sewer, and the Fairmeadows branch trunk sewer would be diverted away from the Rundell Street sewer. The three diverted service areas will be served by a new pump station located in the vicinity of the Mall Shopping Center. A combination of force main and gravity sewer will convey this flow along Route 6 to the existing treatment plant site. These improvements will be coupled with construction of - portions of the proposed Southeast Interceptor in the three service areas. The new pump station and force main/gravity sewer will be sized for future development in the southeast area. Development of the southeast area can then proceed in accordance with the City's comprehensive plan by staged construction of new collection sewers and interceptors in a logical manner. Preliminary cost estimates indicate that these improvements can be constructed for a cost approximately equal to the cost of the Southeast Interceptor described in the City's current proposal for phased development. The advantages of the project team's approach are: alleviation of surcharging in the Rundell Street sewer; additional sewer capacity in the currently developed portions of the Lower Muscatine, Southeast Trunk, and Fairmeadows Branch service areas; and providing for City -control of development in the southeast area by logical staged construction of new collection sewers and interceptors. 12-1 I PROPOSAL FOR THE WASTEWATER PLAN ALTERNATIVE STUDY PHASE II PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA JULY 1984 SUBMITTED BY T o I � M JUL 181984 MARIAN K. KARR CITY CLERK (3) PARSOINI101, as Worldwide Engineers/Constructors NOTE: This Proposal contains proprlatary buslnoee Inlormelion. It may be used by the City of Iowa City and Its advisors for purposes of bid evaluation only. Any other use or disclosure Is eirlctly prohibited. IqV G h, Proposal For The WASTEWATER PLAN ALTERNATIVE STUDY THE PARSONS CORPORATION NbrIDW/Ce EnpineerS1CDDSt'VCh)5 IN WEST WALNUT STREET July 17, 1984 PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91124 (3161 44o-2Um Tele. WK 675•3]6 Mr. Neal G. Berlin City Manager City of Iowa City Civic Center 410 E. Washington Street .� Iowa City, Iowa 52240 - Dear Mr. Berlin: I The Parsons Corporation on behalf of itself, its wholly-owned _ subsidiaries and affiliates is pleased to submit its responses to the questions posed in your letter of June 28, 1984, related to the Wastewater Plan - Alternative Study. The responses are submitted in j accordance with the stated page limitation and in 25 copies. i- I The Parsons approach is intended to maximize the usefulness of i previous studies and to provide the most cost-effective approach for benefit to the City of Iowa City. Our wholly-owned subsidiary, Engineering -Science (ES), is an ! _ internationally recognized leader in municipal wastewater studies and alternatives evaluation. ES qualifications are also well known in the _. important follow-on areas of municipal wastewater facilities engineering and construction. This unique wealth of talent and experience will assure that Parsons/ES will identify and properly evaluate the beat alternatives for the City. There are several other key features of our approach that we wish to emphasize. These features include: o Provide strong lines of communications between all interested parties to insure complete cooperation and coordination. o Provide extensive review of all previous information and studies. - o Maximize the potential for EPA funding. o Utilize to the maximum extent the previously prepared design. o Incorporate the most cost-effective technology available to serve the beat interests of the City. o Prepare full scope of engineering services including design, construction services, operations, start-up and training. THE PARSONS CORPORATION Mr, Neal G. Berlin City of Iowa City July 17, 1984 Page 2 .., We are confident of our ability to respond to the City's needs, as demonstrated by our responses to your questions. i Should the City choose to pursue the private financing route, i Parsons e pleased oformalize was submitted asSection submittalttootheoCity ofh hMay 22, 1984. i J Another alternative approach might include the turnkey design and construction of the facility. In this approach, following the submittal and approval of the alternative study Parsons proceeds with the final design and construction under a turnkey contract. This could also include Parson's financing of the facilities during coantruction if the City should so desire. We appreciate the opportunity to present the enclosed materials and look forward to the interview with you and your colleague. I Very truly yours, THE PARSONS CORPORATION M- M Paddaio�n -- Senior Vice President RMD:al PARSONS- PARSONS - INTRODUCTION _- Parsons is pleased to submit the following responses to the questions issued by the City regarding the Wastewater Plan -Alternative Study - Phase II. Based on the information gathered in numerous visits to the City and more particularly the wastewater treatment plant, we have addressed each of the questions as thoroughly and as comprehensively as possible considering the magnitude of the project requirements, the time available and the desire for brevity. The responses are in numerical order in accordance with the request, however, due to the nature of the questions and in the'interest of volume reduction, there is some cross-referencing to other questions. NO__1 - Fully describe your approach to the Study. -. The proposed Phase II alternative study for the city of Iowa City's wastewater plan will require specific technical expertise in areas of plan- ning, process evaluation, sludge management, legal and financial analysis, etc., and the technical approach is more fully'defined in response to Question 4. However, the philosophical approach of Parsons to the study is at least as important as the technical expertise. Since the City Council and Administration, the City's supporting staff (both engineering and wastewater treatment), the Iowa Department of Environmental Quality (IDEA), and Parsons will be inter -meshed in many of the aspects of the proposed study, it is mandatory that Parsons' approach be in concert with and responsive to the needs and wishes of all these entities. Following numerous discussions with representatives from the city of Iowa City, Parsons has identified several key factors which form the basis of our approach to the study and provide the goals to be accomplished during the study. These are: ° The study will be the pivotal element in the City's final decision as to a course of action related to the wastewater plan. ° Correction of the sewer overloading, or surcharging, which results in basement flooding in certain parts of the City, must be ade- quately addressed. -1- H93 PARSONS - Provision for improved wastewater treatment, be it renovation of the existing facilities or construction of new facilities, must be made to meet the regulatory standards. _ Ultimate cost, both short and long-term, to the residents of Iowa City will play a significant role in the alternative course of ! action implemented by the City. To accomplish these goals, Parsons intends to: ° Insure coordination and transfer of information between all interested parties to avoid or minimize potential problems resulting from a lack of complete understanding of all issues - 0 As demonstrated in the previous submittal, Parsons will assign qualified individuals to the various technical disciplines _ involved. These challenges clearly call for the judicious use of formal planning and coordination. Therefore, the initial step in the conduct of the study will be to establish strong and open lines of communications between the involved parties. To achieve this, Parsons intends to retain Mr. Ed Carpenter, a local engineer and former ES employee, as the Parsons' contact in Iowa city. Mr. Carpenter will provide local support for the project. Mr. Carpenter will also be in a position to anticipate bottlenecks and can continously scan for confusion, conflicts or concern over any of these issues under study. In addition to the day-to-day communication, Parsons intends to sche- dule regular progress/informational meetings with the City staff and if so desired with the City Council to keep them fully informed of the status, cost, etc., of the alternative study as it is developed. These meetings will be complemented by routine conferences with the Iowa Department of -- Environmental Quality to insure their concurrence. Parsons feels that implementation of this approach will provide sufficient coordination and interaction between all entities to develop an acceptable product with minimal problems. This mechanism also provides a viable framework for proper involvement of the City Council, administration, engineering, treatment plant staff, IDEQ and Parsons. -2- /-f,.3 c PARSONS - NO 2. - Detail your most cost effective financing methods, both short and long-term for: We believe these questions are beat resolved by an independent _ financial advisor working with City staff. Parsons -ES is able to provide wastewater design and engineering services, construction management, design - build, operating services and/or ownership in any combination desired. .. Thus, Parsons -ES can provide a scope of services to fit any of the i I !possibilites outlined in this question. There are many factors involved in ia comparison of financial options some of which are outlined in answer to question number 6, below. i Question 2 focuses specifically on the factor of coat. With this in mind, we have the following observations: a. Public construction ownership and operations The most cost-effective alternative in this category is the use of EPA grant funds, if available. The most cost-effective source of local matching funds in order of lowest cost are: 1. floating rate G.O. bonds - 2. floating rate revenue bonds 3. fixed rate G.O. bonds 4. fixed rate revenue bonds Credit support is often used to increase the rating and thus lower the interest on these bonds. Your City's rating, however, is very good and you may not require credit support. If grant funds are not available, and the total cost of the system is to be provided by local funds, the cost effectiveness of the types of -' bonds described above remains the same. Other factors, such as risk may affect the selection. Also, if no grant funds are available, the City would be free to choose potentially more efficient design and construction techniques and schedules. The City may wish to have its financial advisor investigate the possibility of floating bonds through a nonprofit corporation. Under appropriate circumstances, Parsons could assist in supporting such a financing. -3- /y193 e, PARSONS - b. Private construction, ownership and operation Studies by financial advisors for other cities have generally shown the privatization option to be the next most cost-effective financing option after use of government grants. Our approach to privatization is flexible and is always designed to meet the City's needs. For example, we can quote service fees on a fixed price basis or on a percentage of the cost of facility basis. We can also fix the 06H fee. Parsons -ES is willing to consider a variety of ownership periods (15, 20, 25 years, etc.). While the 1984 Tax Act reduced to some extent the depreciation allowances and altered the arbitrage rules, we believe the savings to be achieved through privatization will be consistent with those shown in the Arthur Young report. Our specific approach would be similar to that outlined in Arthur Young's report. A major distinction, however, is that Parsons will guarantee to finance the project regardless of the ability to syndicate equity. C. Public construction ownership and private operation See the discussion for alternative a., above. The option of private operations would not appear to change the financing alternatives generally available under a., above. As noted, Parsons -ES can provide design -build or turnkey capability as well as contract operations. d. Private construction and financing with public purchase and private operation As noted above, Parsons is able and willing to provide its resources, including financial resources, in any combination the City may choose. Parsons can finance the construction of the project with private funds and be "taken out" upon completion by a purchase of the system with public funds. e. Other alternatives We are discussing another alternative with several cities. This alternative would allow the City to maintain its option to choose among alternatives a., b., or c. until the system is placed into service. This alternative also appears to have somewhat better results in terms of tax -4- ///U a, -.7fL-�_101017= benefits and arbitrage rules. This alternative requires a Federal tax _ ruling which will be filed in the near future. If you are interested in learning more about this financing method, we can review it with you. i w NO. 3 - Discuss extent to which you expect completed engineering work could be used in the solution(s) which you propose. Parsons has carefully reviewed the previously prepared drawings of the Sewerage System Improvements. These basically consist of plans for the w Water Pollution Control Plant, the Outfall Sewer, the Southeast Interceptor Sewer, and the Heights Sewer. With particular attention to the Water Pollution Control Plant, regardless of the solution(s) which is ultimately proposed, it would be Parsons intention to utilize all applicable portions _ of the completed work. It should be noted, however, that such utilization (partial or complete) would have to be within Parsons' and the City's legal rights to such usage. It is not Parsons intention or desire to have the city of Iowa City pay for duplicate engineering. However, it should be pointed out that the previously prepared drawings for the Water Pollution Control Plant were for an activated sludge type process. Pilot plant investigations and Parsons cursory review indicate that plastic media i._ trickling filter would be more appropriate. Consequently, it seems that a portion of this design may not be applicable. It was also noted that subsequent to the design, the use of a screw pump has been suggested to lift Influent sewage to the Southeast Interceptor sewer and consequently reduce its depth. If such a scheme is finally implemented, this design would also require modifications. NO_4 - Describe your approach to the project utilizing the following: _ a) Typical Engineering Study b) Design - Build Process a) Typical Engineering Study Parsons is prepared to offer a typical engineering approach to this project which we believe will provide a cost-effective method to -' design, construct, and start-up the treatment plant and interceptor sewers. Our approach will provide several additional advantages, as well, and is -- described in a task -wise fashion as follows: -5- /1�83 C W PARSONS - Task 1 - Review Previously Developed Plans and Develop Alternatives, if Applicable Parsons' subsidiary, Engineering -Science (ES) will review the Veenstra _. S Kimm 1978 Sanitary Sewerage System Facilities Plan, the Richard Dague S J. W. Kimm, July 1983 Proposal for Phased Development Wastewater Collection _ and Treatment, Iowa City, Iowa, and any other studies or correspondence concerning the sewerage system. Parsons recognizes that the City must adopt the most cost-effective and environmentally sound solution to its problems. The principal problems are: - 1) overloaded sewers causing flooding, 2) overloaded existing plant causing pollution to the river, 3) age, location and available land for expansion of - the existing plant, 4) new developing areas requiring sewers, 5) the recently adopted City council sewer moratorium and 6) limitations of federal II grant funds for project development. With the severe curtailment of the EPA construction grant program, as it currently exists, the City faces a serious financial problem in solving y the above described problems. It should be noted that the new proposed legislation, SR 3282, contains a special grant for the city of Des Moines. If this is enacted, there is a possibility that Iowa City may be moved upon the priority list. Alternatives with realistic coat estimates moat be evaluated. The sewer system evaluation study which outlined the infiltration/inflow problem must be reviewed. Old Plant Evaluation ES has had significant experience with the problems of old "land bound" plants and the development of acceptable expansion plans. This alternative will be evaluated along with the sewer system rerouting and/or repair which — is required to correct the flooding problem. Dague/Kimm Report The recent Dague/Kimm report is an intriguing overall solution. ES has had significant recent experience with packed towers and shares in the feel- ing that this process may offer promise for either the old plant expansion or a new plant solution for Iowa City. This alternative will be further studied with a more detailed cost estimate. -6- /,elf3 PARSONS - Other Potential Alternatives Other alternatives, which have been suggested over the years, include satellite plants, in-line storm flow retention and new sewers in the area of high infiltration to separate the sewage from the infiltration water and isolate the old system as a storm drain. These alternatives will be further _ studied with a more detailed cost estimate. The final report will not only present a series of alternatives, but will provide a detailed implementation program, either phased or non -phased, which will cost-effectively solve the sewage treatment needs, and the critical flooding and growth restrictions being faced by the City. - Task 2 Engineering Review and Analysis -- Determine Final Effluent Standards _ Following the acceptance of Task 1 by the City and their decision to implement the plan, Engineering -Science will prepare the necessary infor- _ mation to request a relaxing of the effluent permit requirements from 30 mg/1 BOD and Suspended Solids to 45 mg/l BOD and Suspended Solids. These standards for trickling filters are currently under evaluation by the US EPA and if adopted will have a significant impact on the design standards used in any of the alternatives selected by the City. Veenstra S Rimm Drawings and Specifications ES will review the current plans and specifications prepared by Veenstra 6 Rimm, Inc., and confirm the evaluations that led to the current design. This review will include a cost-effectiveness analysis including both capital and operating costs. In addition to costs, factors to be considered are process performance and ability to meet permit requirements, cons tructability, operability, and sludge handling and disposal considerations. We are familiar with virtually all unit processes used in wastewater treatment and can bring to bear our considerable in-house expertise for this analysis. ES has complete engineering design capability which can be utilized should substantial redesign become necessary. Task 3 - Perform Necessary Design and/or Design Modifications and Prepare Construction Bid Documents If the old plant expansion and sewer correction work is the preferred alternative, ES will develop a set of biddable plans and specifications. If the Veenstra 6 Kimm documents are used, it is possible that revisions to -7- / //83 G PARSONS - these plans and specifications may need to be made to satisfy the final alternative selected by the City. This may be particularly important for an effectively staged program. _ In any event, final plans and specifications must be submitted to the Iowa Department of Environmental Quality for review and approval. This approval must be obtained prior to construction. Parsons will prepare the bidding documents for submittal to contrac- tors. The interceptor sewers will be broken into several bid packages to - attract local contractors and formatted in a logical bid schedule. This will allow one or more contractors to bid on all or on only specific pack- ages. This approach has been successful in attracting smaller local con- i` tractors and significantly reducing the overall cost of construction. Task 4 - Prepare Engineer's Cost Estimate fr An engineer's current construction cost estimate will be prepared based upon the final detailed plans and specifications. Task 5 - Bid Construction Construction of the treatment plant would be advertised by the City on -- a basis which would give the local contractors an equal starting point for competitive bidding. It is expected that this size plant would attract statewide interest and provide the City with a number of responsive bids. The Project can then be advertised, prebid meetings held, bids received, reviewed and construction contract(s) awarded. The lowest responsible construction bids can thus be obtained. Task 6 - Provide Construction and Operation Planning Services Parsons will provide necessary construction services to assure timely, on -budget and efficient completion of construction. These services will -i include construction management and/or inspection services including the preparation of record drawings. 06M manuals, startup and operating procedures and acceptance teats will be prepared. These services can be varied as required/desired by the City and can range from Parsons assuming virtual control of the construction through j utilization of a Construction Management approach to a less comprehensive level of services. This last approach may involve some City personnel in staffing inspection forces if so desired. If an approach utilizing normal contracting procedures wherein Parsons furnishes contract administration, -S- /I/f3e, PARSONS - resident engineering (field engineering) and inspection is desired, that can be done also. In any case, there are several alternatives available and Parsons will be pleased to proceed in the way most beneficial to the City. b) Design -Build Process and/or Privatization Initially, it should be noted that there is a distinction between _ Design -Build and Privatization, however, based on discussions with City ... officials it is our interpretation, in this case, design -build means priva- tization. We have therefore formulate our response on that basis. Parsons, however, can and is prepared to provide the traditional design -build, Se., turnkey, approach if the City so desires. The basic approach to privati- zation would include engineering study, design, construction, ownership and operation for a 25 year period. The approach to this project would be significant the same. The Parsons approach to Design -Build (Privatization) embodies a combination of the typical engineering study with Design -Build capabilities and financial/ownership responsibilities. Parsons recognizes the limitations and requirements that a city must adopt in the protection of their constituents and has developed their approach to meet these require- ments. In order to highlight the differences, only the changes from the previous (a) "Typical Engineering Study" will be discussed. Task 1 No Change. Again, this task is the development of the most cost- effective plan to solve the sewer flooding and the plant expansion for a final implementation by the City, is., Wastewater Plan - Alternative Study. Task 2 The only change in this task would be in the expansion of the Old Plant as the facilities which were built using EPA Grant money must be identified and a ruling from EPA must be obtained to clarify their position, since new facilities may not be comingled with the old structure. It should be noted that this amount of money is fairly small. Task 3 No change. The only differences is that EPA requirements for two brands, etc., can be eliminated and particular equipment, etc., can be specified. Task 4 No Change -9- PARSONS - Task 5 This task is the first significant change in the process. It is Parsons practice under privatization to bid the project competitively, but to a selected bidders list developed jointly by the City and Parsons. This eliminates bid protests and other delaying tactics used by suppliers and contractors which have increased significantly under EPA Construction Grant Programs to get bids delayed or rebid. With Parsons as owner, the contrac- tors know that they will be dealing with an experienced construction manage- ment firm, therefore the bids will be made with fewer contingency items. All of this will lead to lower bids and shorter construction times. n� Task 6 No Change _ Task 7 - Operation and Maintenance Services -� Parsons will provide operation and maintenance services for the plant and interceptor sewers included as part of this project. Consideration will be given, within the bounds set by fiscal policy, to contract with the City for the sewer system 06M. Also, Parsons would avoid any loss of jobs by offering to hire any City workers who might be affected by privatization. Task 8 - Provide Program Management Parsons will provide the long-term management for the overall project _ from engineering review through construction and 20 or 25 year ownership and operation. The Parsons approach provides for a single party, with great ^' financial stability and capability, to be responsible to the City for all aspects of the project. Under this contractual umbrella, the City could negotiate with Parsons on an extension to the then existing contract to allow for the design, construction, ownership and operation of additional facilities. Parsons will promote a close professional working relationship with the University of Iowa as the existing plant has been important as a student training facility. Additionally, we would be interested in discussing a possible co-op program in which students could gain additional valuable work experience in wastewater treatment. -10- _ PARSONS— NO. 5 - What action would you recommend to accelerate both the initiation of construction and completion of the project? Under the typical engineering study approach, ES has had considerable experience with the need to meet tight time schedules. Pre -purchase of long w delivery equipment items and fast Crack construction management can accele- rate the completion of a project. This is the traditional turnkey approach. However, this does not eliminate the usual constraints which a city must use I' in their day-to-day operations such as advertisement, competitive bidding, etc. This turnkey type approach can be used even if the project/facilities �e continue to be owned by the City. { y On the other hand, by combining the professional services concept and private ownership, Parsons has developed their unique approach to design, build or privatization. This provides the City with the services of an experienced and qualified engineer who is sensitive to the needs of the City and conducts the project through planning, engineering, construction and operation in a professional manner to protect the interests of the City. We can accelerate both the initiation of construction and completion of the project through pre -purchase of equipment and fast track construction and through the use of pre -selected contractors (agreed to by the City), elimination of bid protests and much tighter controls on schedules. NO. 6 - What are the significant advantages and disadvantages of both the traditional public project and privatization? The following table outlines the significant advantages and disadvantages of public and private ownership: Public Project Public Project EPA Funds No EPA Funds Privatization -! Advantages Advantages Advantages _ gene -rally n wally least permits future use cost expensive of EPA funds time ° permits future use simple ° flexibility of EPA funds -. ° preserves bonding capacity Disadvantages Disadvantages Disadvantages sch� edule 'cost neeW ° higher construction ° use of city's ° requires private costs bonding capacity control of facility ° regulations -11- l'f �3 G PARSONS - The general use of design, build or private ownership allows much greater control over the project which is reflected back to the Owner in more competitive bids and shorter time schedules. Through the use of the engineering company to provide the safeguards required by the City, and V through truly competitive bidding, the interests of the City are protected. e NO. 7 - What are the specific areas in engineering design, treatment pro- cesses and plant equipment which offer the greatest potential for increased cost-effectiveness, both short and long-term, and what are W the probable cost savings? , Ir Our basic engineering design philosophy is that simplicity is the ultimate in sophistication. All too often designers make the mistake of relying heavily on instrumentation and automatic controls to the point that a facility is difficult to operate when they fail. From our operational experience, we have found it far better to design for manual operation and add automatic controls as the backup or "nice to have" system. For example, old fashioned weirs are preferable to rate of flow controllers for flow splitting, and gravity is generally a better means of transport than pumping. We advocate value engineering reviews of all major designs, including our own, and know from experience that such reviews generally result in a minimum of ten percent life cycle cost savings. Sludge handling is the primary factor in influencing the entire flow scheme of a treatment plant. For Iowa City, we suggest that the continu- ation of anaerobic digestion be considered for sludge stabilization. It is a proven process with which the present staff is familiar. It presents an opportunity for energy recovery optimizing gas production and for heating and other purposes. It is also an acceptable means of stabilization in preparation for low rate land application (see Question 8). If sludge stabilization is by anaerobic digestion, we suggest plastic i media packed towers be used for secondary treatment rather than activated sludge. Sludge from trickling filters can be returned to the primary clarifiers for thickening, with primary sludge, thus eliminating the need of _.. flotation thickeners. A plastic media secondary system will have a similar first cost to activated sludge, but a 20 percent reduction in 0&M costs will be realized with the trickling filters. As previously mentioned, sludge handling facilities can be simplified with trickling filters for further first cost reduction. -12- 103C- PARSONS - It is very important to incorporate a positive grit removal system, especially when sludge treatment is by anaerobic digestion. Aerated grit units are very effective, but do involve considerable mechanical equipment (blowers, conveyors, grit classifiers). We will investigate the use of multiple aerated grit chambers from which grit is removed periodically by "vac -all" type trucks. This would greatly reduce the mechanical equipment required. Also, non-aerated grit units, such as Pista grit chambers and detritors, will be investigated as a possible means of eliminating the need — for air blowers. On several recent ES projects on which rectangular clarifiers have been ._. used, traveling bridge collectors versus chain and flight units have proven to be more cost-effective by 20-30 percent. Traveling bridge units should be investigated for the Iowa City facility. ~ Trickling filter towers for an Iowa City facility should have dome covers and auxiliary heating capability for possible use during extreme cold i weather and induced draft fans for positive ventilation during hot, humid — weather. Archimedes screw pumps are effective for their flexibility in handling a wide variety of flows. They are also effective for lifting raw sewage flows for deep influent sewers so that mechanical screening and grit removal can be accomplished more conveniently and economically (see Question 8). The subject of disinfection will be studied and negotiated with the Iowa Department of Environmental Quality. It may be feasible to employ — seasonal disinfection of the effluent. NO. 8 - Describe in detail the changes and costs which will be involved in upgrading the existing plant so that it is cost-effective in the long-term (10-20 years), taking into account its age, site, size, n present effluent limits and stormwater overflow conditions. If, in your opinion, this is not possible and/or cost-effective, describe the reasons for your recommendations. M Observations during several visits to the site during the week o 9 June 1984 revealed that the existing Iowa City plant is in a general state of old age with much of the mechanical equipment worn out, deteriorating i.. concrete structures and undersized for present flows. Flows in excess of 16 MGD are bypassed as this is the capacity limit of the influent pumping station and secondary grit removal unit (which overflows at flows of 16 MGD and greater). -13- PARSONS - It is estimated that $500,000 to $1,000,000 of expedient repairs are _. needed just to enable operation for several more years while a more perma- nent solution is implemented. The major short-term improvements are replacement of: 1) primary grit removal equipment and screening equipment, 2) influent pumps, 3) influent flow meter, 4) plant sludge pumps, and 5) trickling filter distributor arms. Improvements to the secondary grit unit to prevent overflows and to allow its proper operation are needed. Digester cleaning (one unit per summer) to keep pace with grit deposition is neces- sary. Staff facilities are inadequate as there is no shower for the use of -- the operators. Generally speaking, the staff is performing in an exception- al manner considering the age of plant and should be commended on the overall cleanliness of the facility. Figures 8-1 and 8-2 show preliminary study layouts for a long-term (20 year) solution at the existing plant site. This study involves sizing the ~ units conservatively for projected year 2000 flows of 13 MGD average and 32 iMGD maximum wet weather flows (as detailed in the 12 October 1979 facilities plan update). This ES preliminary study shows that a plant to accommodate - these flows can be constructed on the existing site. The units were sized — conservatively to insure that the site could accommodate them, and because present daily flow at the plant is already over 9 MGD and ultimately the flow may exceed 13 MGD. It appears that perhaps the 20 -year design flow of 13/32 MGD should be increased from the 1979 report figures since the present is five years into the original 20 year planning period. Any expansion and improvement at the existing site must be done with minimal interference with existing operations. The layouts on Figure 8-1 and 8-2 show that this is possible. The entire new flow train can be constructed and made operational prior to the diversion of the flow away from the old flow scheme. The difference in the two layouts is that one considers use of two 140 feet diameter packed towers and the other considers use of four 100 feet diameter towers. The preliminary flow scheme for improvement of the existing plant, consists of a new Archimedes screw pumping station and mechanical screen, aerated grit chamber, rectangular primary clarifiers, plastic media -packed tower trickling filters with combination influent and recirculation pumping station, rectangular secondary clarifiers, and chlorine building and contact chamber. Sludge handling will be by anaerobic digestion and belt press -14- /11L83G 0 100 200 FEET W > 0 0 CLINTON ST. JOVIA, O 4 O FIGURE 8-1 LEGEND: OI INFLUENT SCREW PUMP STATION / AERATED GRIT CHAMBER Elt HANDLING BUILDING PRIMARY,. LARIFIERS TRICKI-fJG FILTER PUMPING STATION 05 TRICKLING FILTERS (PACKED TOWERS) SECONDARY CLARIFIERS CHLORINE CONTACT TANK CHLORINE BUILD�NG ANAEROBIC DIGESTERS 10 ADMINISTRATION a SLUDGE DEWATERINGABUILDING 9 oro .4x 1. RIVER jo*A UTILIZATION r- z POTENTIAL U OF EXISTING PLANT SITE ALTERNATIVE I rES F O �J I - I PREi-k ®I IOWA FIGURE 8-2 IOWA % POTENTIAL UTILIZATION -OF EXISTING PLANT SITE - ALTERNATIVE 2 �Nowcc�wa-oc�o�a ES — 14113& / 1 LEGEND: lO INFLUENT SCREW PUMP STATION / Q2 AERATED GRIT CHAMBER 8 HANDLING )BUILDING O Q3 PRIMARY/,CLARIFIERS ® TRICKLING FILTER PUMPING STATION 5Q TRICKLING FILTERS (PACKED TOWERS) © SECONDARY CLARIFIERS Q7 CHLORINE CONTACT ® ?JANK CHLORINE BUILDING O9 ANAEROBIC DIG STERS 10 AD9 SLUDGE MINISTRATI N / DE WATER ING,,BUILDING IOWA % POTENTIAL UTILIZATION -OF EXISTING PLANT SITE - ALTERNATIVE 2 �Nowcc�wa-oc�o�a ES — 14113& PARSONS - dewatering. The sludge building will also contain the Plant Superinten- dent's office and necessary operator facilities lacking in the present control building. The three existing digesters will be supplemented by two additional units. Digested and dewatered sludge will be hauled to an off- site lagoon (perhaps the lagoons at the existing landfill). The sludge will be stored until it can be applied to farmland in November each year at a low rate of less than two tons per acre dry weight. This is the present prac- tice and does not require a permit from the Iowa regulatory agency. Table 8-1 gives a capital cost breakdown of the preliminary estimate for implementing this facility at a total of $22.7 million. A diagnostic computer analysis (Appendix A) of this flow train together with other flow options indicates that it can more than meet the anticipated effluent discharge requirements. TABLE 8-1 CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE (1984 Dollars) EXISTING SITE LONG-TERM SOLUTION Item Capital Cost Influent Pumping Station $ 1,400,000 _ Grit Removal 6 Primary Clarifiers 2,322,000 Trickling Filter Pumping Station 1,400,000 ! — Trickling Filters 3,895,000 Final Clarifiers 6 Disinfection 5,080,000 Anaerobic Digestion 1,008,000 Sludge Dewatering/Administration 925,000 Electrical 1,442,000 Contingency and Engineering 5,242,000 TOTAL $22,714,000 The preliminary study conducted under Question 8 established that it is possible to implement a long-term solution facility on the existing site. Whether it is cost-effective to do so will depend on analyses of other alternatives (alternative sites, phasing, etc.) during the study. -15- /1430, PARSONS - NO. 9 - Describe how your long-term recommendations might permit use of future EPA grant funds? A specific response to this question is particularly difficult because each of the several implementation alternatives has a different impact on the use of future EPA grant funds. The central issue is ownership. EPA grants are allowable to Publicly Owned Treatment works (POTw), those owned or to be owned by the City, while the use of privatization requires the ownership and operation of the treatment works by the privatizer. Therefore, each alternative must be separately reviewed. It is Parsons intention, however, to provide for the use of future EPA grants to the maximum extent possible. Under a conventional approach to engineering and construction, and assuming availability, the use of future EPA funds is not an issue; the City of Iowa City would, as a owner, simply receive such funds. If on the other hand, privatization is used, the extent of ownership can be handled contractually. That portion of the project which is privatized would be separately defined with ownership designated to the privatizer while any future expansion or phased development of the project would remain with the City. This approach has been successfully implemented in Chandler, Arizona, where all future phased expansion (and several are planned) are not tied to privatization or the privatizer and therefore are eligible for future EPA grants. Parsons sees no reason why a similar approach could not be implemented for the City of Iowa to insure City eligibility for future EPA grant funds. Another possibility would be to build to facilities under a privatization approach and sell them back to the City when EPA funds become available. I i NO. 10 - Discuss your recommendations to reduce the maximum wet weather flow through the treatment plant. It has already being mentioned in Question 8 that flows in excess of 16.0 MGD are bypassed at the present plant. The extent of the overflow is not known as it is not metered. However, the October 12, 1979 supplement to the facilities plan estimates the design year 2000 peak hourly wet weather flow rate at 90.8 MGD. There are several choices for accommodating this flow at the existing plant or at potential new plant sites. All of these will be thoroughly investigated in the alternative study. -16- /-k3 i -PARSONS- First, ARSONS- First, the plant could be sized hydraulically to accept and pass all flow through all or part of the treatment units. A second and more ii reasonable choice is to construct a bypass at the head of the plant that is will allow bypassed flow to be screened and disinfected before discharge. Chances are good that it can be shown that discharge loading on the stream on a mass basis will be within permit limitations. This approach was taken on a recent similar situation where construction of an influent stormwater ;S retention basin was not possible for the City of Rocky River, Ohio Waste— 'N water Treatment Plant, an ES design. This possibility will be explored with the Iowa Department of Environmental Quality for the existing plant site and for all new sites as a means of eliminating the construction and operation of an expensive stormwater retention basin. A third possibility concerning the existing plant site is to use the u. four existing trickling filter tanks as stormwater retention as they will Not be needed for treatment as described in Question 8. These basins hold nearly 4.0 MGD and can possible be enlarged by raising their wall heights. Analysis of typical wet weather flow hydrographs for similar systems indicates that 4.0 MGD storage is equivalent to approximately 45 MGD peak hourly wet weather flow rate. This retention capacity plus sizing the plant - to accommodate 45 MGD maximum hydraulic flow rate equals the projected year 2000 peak hourly wet weather flow rate of 90.8 MGD. NO. 11 — If a new plant is necessary, describe recommended site alternatives. It appears from preliminary analysis presented in questions eight and •, ten that a new site will be necessary only if it proves more cost effective or better serves the long range goals and plans of the City. However, possible alternative sites were discussed with City staff and reviewed in the field on July 9 and 10, 1984. It was learned that the City does not own the 90 acre site designated for the new treatment plant in the October 12, 1979 Facilities Plan supplement. If it is acquired, it will probably have to be condemned to be obtained from its present owners, a sand and gravel company. This is the site used for the design of a new wastewater facility, prepared by Veenstra S Kimm in April 1983. The 160 acre farm immediately to the east of the Kimm site is also a likely candidate. However, Indian artifacts have been dis- -17— /40d' PARSONS - covered on this site which may complicate its utilization for location of new facilities. A cursory survey was conducted on 10 July 1984 of land to the southeast ,r of the City near the city limits junction with U.S. Route 6. It appears that i there is available land for locating a facility. However, there is no water course suitable to accept a discharge at this location. Any facility in this V 8 area would have to employ land application or involve building an outfall to the Iowa River. It appears that implementing the Kimm site or adjacent 160 ~ acre farm would be preferable to the latter, as interceptors are already �r designed to reach that area. Land application, however, with a facility t! 1� located to the southeast of the City should be investigated in the alterna- tive study. This could be a cost-effective means of serving further growth in j w the Southeast and to relieving flows in adjacent areae such as Rundell j Street. NO. 12 - Describe your alternatives, both short and long-term, for resolving -' the Rundell Street sewer surcharge conditions and permitting development in the southeast area of the City, consistent with the City's comprehensive plan. Alternatives have been considered for resolving the Rundell Street sewer surcharge condition. Although Question 12 requests both long and short-term solutions, all measures require significant capital expenditures and can be viewed only as long-term options on a practical basis. The only available short-term option is removal of downspouts and this only reduces but does not eliminate the surcharge conditions in the Rundell Street Area. The comparison of alternatives presented is based solely on information _ contained in the Iowa City, Iowa "Sanitary Sewerage System Facility Plan, Part 2 - Sewer System Evaluation Survey - Section 3 - Analysis Report" of October 1979 by Veenstra 6 Kimm. It is known that previous reports prepared for Iowa City have developed significant background information resulting in alternatives presented for consideration of this problem. This information was not available and our presentation is based solely on the aforementioned - report. The means of alleviating the surcharging in the Rundell Street sewer fall under two categories: I. Removal of Infiltration/Inflow in the Rundell Street sewer service area and, II. Reduction of flow entering the Rundell Street sewer from upstream areas. The bulk of extraneous water -18- 1110ei PARSONS - entering the area of concern, represented as Service Areas 1-8, is from footing drains (see Table 1 of the Veenstra 6 KSmm October 1979 Report) producing an estimated flow of about 48 MGD from basement leakage and footing tile flows (see Table 3, op.cit). Our determination of alternatives available to handle this water, using the aforementioned categories, is as follows: I. Removal of Infiltration/Inflow in the Rundell Street Sewer Service Area* A. New Storm Sewer System �- B. New Sanitary Sewer System with Conversion of Existing System to Storm Sewer System C. Individual Storm Pump Station — D. Individual Home Seepage Pits II. Reduction of Flow Entering the Rundell Street Sewer from Upstream Area 7 A. Upstream Storage V B. Flow Diversion with A New Interceptor to the Southeast of the City C. Flow Relief with A New Pump Station and Force Main to the Existing Plant Site A comparison of these alternatives has been prepared. Preliminary costs are included for comparison purposes only and are not represented as indicative of local costs but are presented for broad economic review purposes. The upstream storage alternative was not estimated due to the extensive nature of this system and lack of engineering information avail- able to even attempt a rough estimate of so complex a system. Non -economic considerations of the alternatives are also presented in Table 1. �- Estimates for alternatives in Category I are based on taking corrective I I = action in Service Areas 1-8 with the 4,210 footing the connections to the sanitary sewers. This number was generated from the information in Table 3 (op.cit.). A review of the alternatives indicates that, on a preliminary basis, the methods of removing flow from the Rundell Street sewer service area are the most acceptable to alleviate the surcharge condition. Alternatives IC, *The assumed existing condition for a typical house with schematics of these alternatives are shown in Figures 12, 12A, 128, 12C and 12D. -19- /lf oc-1 PARSONS - Individual Pump Stations and ID, Individual Seepage Pits, are viewed as least acceptable due to the marginal improvement of the surcharge situation, along with major disruptions to the residents in the service area. Also, even though detailed engineering information was not available, it is sus- pected that the frost levels in the ground may invalidate Alternatives IC and ID for substantial portions of the year, thus eliminating them from future consideration. Alternatives IA and IB are sound from an engineering viewpoint but appear to be too costly, as well as offering substantial dis- ruptions to the majority of homeowners in Iowa City. Alternative IIA, i I �•- Upstream Storage, is eliminated from considerations due to the substantial difficulties and disadvantages projected. _. Based on the information developed and shown in Table 12-1, we recom- mend detailed consideration of the two optimum methods proposed to divert flow for the Rundell Street sewer service area: IIB Flow Diversion with a New Interceptor to the Southeast of the City, and IIB Flow Relief with a new J Rundell Street Pump Station and Force Main to the existing plant site. We propose to evaluate these two alternatives in detail in the Alternative Study. -20- TABLE 12-1 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES Alternative Elements of Alternative Advantages Disadvantages Preliminary Budget Estimate IA. New Storm Sewer Disconnect all rainwater/ Separates some of the clean Cost of storm sewer system $26,000,000 System inflow sources to sanitary water loading on the sani- sewer system tary system Cost and disruption of indi- vidual homeowner disconnection Construct new stormwater Handles storm flow effec- and new connection sewer system tively May not alleviate I/I surcharging in sanitary sewers Connect downspout and footing drains to storm sewer system IB. New Sanitary Sewer Disconnect sanitary house System with Con- line from existing system version of Exist- ing Sewer to Construct new sanitary Storm Sewer sewer system - Retain existing as storm system Connect sanitary lateral to new sanitary sewer system Reduces most of I/I to sanitary system by re- routing flows and con- structing new, tight sanitary sewers, alle- viating problem at the WWTP Cost of new sanitary sewer $17,000,000 system. Cost and disruption to homeowner. Cost to convert to full storm storm sewer system w/new street connections (if required) Connection of new flow diver- sion/outlets to natural watercourses IC. Individual Storm Disconnect all rainwater/ Separates some of the clean Cost of equipment Pump Station inflow sources to sanitary water loading on the sani- sewer system tary system Disruption to homeowner Purchase and install indi- vidual homeowners pump station(s) Connect downspouts and footing drains to pump pit $I0,500,D00 Homeowner's additional power costs Storm flow into city streets for possible street flooding problem (City ordinance may prohibit this) Storm flow ultimately, if only 1n part, will reenter sanitary system as groundwater i TABLE 12-1 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES (continued) Alternative Elements of Alternative Advantages Disadvantages Preliminary Budget Estimate ID. Individual Home Disconnect all rainwater/ Separates some of the clean Cost 6 disruption to homeowner $ 8,400.000 Seepage Pits inflow sources to sanitary water loading on the sani- sewer system tary system; probable result Probably will not significantly is only attenuation of in- reduce I/I at the WHTP, but may Install Seepage Pit at flow into groundwater for dampen peak flows after a storm each home ultimate entry into the system sewer system Connect downspouts 6 foot- ing to seepage pit May not work due to possible poor possible poor percolation based on observation of topography IIA. Upstream Storage Construct stormwater reten- Reduces flow into the Requires large amounts of land tion basins upstream of Rundell Street sewer and with possible public rejection the Rundell Street sever eliminatec surcharge con- due to aesthetics, safety, and service area dition system cost Maintenance of storage basin(s) including removal of deposited materials Complex system operation required to balance system flows. Flows must be monitored in different parts of the system with probable computerized operation required Additional flows to this type of system are difficult and expensive to provide and this may preclude future development Not Prepared TABLE 12-1 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES (continued) Alternative Elements of Alternative Advantages IIB. Flow Diversion Discussed in detail in Discussed in detail in Discussed in detail in with a New Inter- the October 1979 Veenstra the October 1979 Veenstra the October 1979 Veenstra ceptor to the S Kimm Report: Part 2 6 Kimm Report: Part 2 b Kimm Report: Part 2 Southeast Complete Waste Treatment Complete Waste Treatment _ Complete Waste Treatment System Plan Section 2 - System Plan Section 2 - System Plan Section 2 - Trunk and Interceptor Trunk and Interceptor Trunk and Interceptor IIC. Rundell Street Divert flow prior to enter- Reduces flow into the Does not provide for develop - Flow Relief with ing Rundell Street service Rundell Street sewer and ment expansion in the south - new Pump Station area with a new pump sta- eliminates surcharge con- east area of the City and Force Rain tion and force main along dition to Existing Kirkwood Ave. (in general) Requires adequate wet weather site to the existing plant site flow handling facilities at the existing plant site $10,000,000 $ 2,000,000 I C) DOWNSPOUT- i I� ---DOWNSPOUT STORM --��� • f- STORM DRAIN I•-- DRAIN FOOTER---+r'�7�'• ' - - •rr� - FOOTER DRAIN DRAIN I ^ANITARY -� I _ LATERAL ASSUMED EXISTING CONDITION w- SANITARY SEWER C) c m A r DOWNSPOUT s• DOWNSPOUT A GO.•:' STORM --i'ti" DRAIN j »— STORM ( �'� DRAIN - FOOTER FOOTER DRAIN=-r=—�= I DRAIN -- — I = NEW STORM LATERAL RCMOVE SANITARY LATERAL EXISTING SEWER RETAINED AS SANITARY I. REMOVEL OF I/% i� I.A. NEW STORM SEWER SYSTEM NEW STORM SEWER —7 G u DOWNSPOUT—� , STORM —�^" DRAIN FOOTER•"_— DRAIN c{,_ i i DOWNSPOUT - I� DRARIN --`_, —FOOTER DRAIN LATERAL REMOVE SANITARY LATERAL— NEW SANITARY SEWER I. REMOVEL OF I/I I.B. NEW SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM WITH CONVERSION OF EXISTING SEWER TO STORM SEWER k SANITARY SEWER RETAINED AS STORM SEWER u G) c X m N DOWNSPOUT r r ---DOWNSPOUT F c0. <� �' STORM ---✓'�' • �.— STORM DRAIN j �' ! DRAIN . -.--.. _ -♦ I FOOTER-��i-`-: =-._ _ .. - -. J✓w_- _ FOOTER DRAIN DRAIN REMOVE —►A -7 - --" SANITARY LATERAL SPLASH BLOCK PUMP AND PUMP WELL �- SANITARY NEW STORM SEWER LATERAL I. REMOVEL OF I/I I.C. INDIVIDUAL STORM PUMP STATION 0 c m I N n u r R4 DOWNSPOUT- ► --DOWNSPOUT STORM --►^," C.O. g , DRAIN Icy='. •I' STORM DRAIN FOOTER-.'•• __ — FOOTER DRAIN f.=— —- DRAIN SANITARY- .�-- LATERAL SANITARYSEWER 0 ✓' NEW STORM DRAIN Q L]Q NEW -SEEPAGE �,�� PIT I. REMOVEL OF I/I I.D. INDIVIDUAL HOUSE SEEPAGE PIT c m N C7 L I X E jc) 1— 2 —E ",,,i MA) T H C MA> 7 14 10 Z5P XOjWjf) 4CXTY, X4,Nj-> Y S TE 14 :3 T E W 49 TE Al TREATMENT—`. Prepared by ES Environmental Services. contract with -Boise State University, Boise, Idaho. Through a grant from the Environmental Protection ngency, Region X, EXISTIMr, POW T114E AVERAGE DRY NEnTHER FLOW MOD: 13 MOD: DESIGN F1.6114 MOD: 13 INFLUENT DOD MG/L: 146 --,---INPLUEN7 7 SS 2HFLUENT OSS (Z); oil TEMPERATURE 1c. 10 ALKALINITY MOIL: 100 PH 7 DESIGN AVERAGE *DAZL Y FLOM (MGD)z 13 —DESZON-PEAX- NE ?`; HEA THER-ITCH-C MOD) 1-32- NUMBER OF ROUND CLARIFIERS: j DIMENSIONS ill li3 TOTAL DIAMETER (FT): ;'5 45 41 Of PTH (FT): 10 10 10 (Fr); --450 I32 132 Y14 SFC AREA (FT2): .4417 1590 1590 7597 X140 F I L- 7 CC! MEDIA TYPEz ROCK COHSfhHT RECIRCULATION —HUMrrR--OF -TRICPL-ING --r It-TERS: - 4 DIMENS10145 #1 dP 113 #4 —DInMETER- (F1 ) - ----- 140 140 19U_.._....140._....__.----.._._....__.`----------.._. DEPTH (f7)' 6. k'3 6. ug 6.03 5.45 RECIR.RnTE(GPM)' 0 0 0 0 DATE: rTME: ------------------_---- -MUMBER-Or RoUMB-CrnRjrjERS: Z ** --- - ------ DIMENSIONS #1 #2 TO TAI. ----------- (F7-) --60--- —75 — DEPTH (FT): 6.75 6.75 HEIR LTH (FT). 314 410 724 ------ 4417 - 7244 - - - - - - - - - - - TYPE OF DIGESTION.- PNAEPOBIC -- --------- - NUMBER OF PRIV.RY DIGESTERS: 2 VOLUME (GAL): 141001) 40601)0 --DIGESTER fteni , ED_ DIGESTER MIXED, Y Y NUMBER Of SECONDARY DIGESTERS: J VOLUME FOR DIGESTER #1 (GAL): 633000 IzIS3 e, TIME: ROIJ: 146 TEMP 10 r /R X M A> 4R V :3 V S TC Al09 jQ 7-7 X " 6 S 16.5 2174 23137 .03 FLOM;.,. CLAP.. LOADINGS o PETH Ltprn C E-- w -Herp'l GPDSf x GAP/FT N 1IRS. 9. 75 .1283 .13655 1.40 10.5 1332 14705 1.30 10.0 1432 15236 1.25 11.6 1531 16288 1.17 12.0� 1581 16820 1.14 629---- -17338 12.7 1679 17871 1.07 -.7- - - . - 13.1 1729 .- . -,-, --- - --.. . .. . . ........ 18403 1.04 13.8 1020 19453 .98 14.2, 1870 ... .. ......... .... .. .19985 .96 ..-•--------14':6"-----7927---.... 20504-.- -.,')3 15.0 1977 21036 .91 15.3 2025 21554 .89 -2075-_ _.---22!736-.-........5'% ... .._. _.__..... ..._._.__._._.....----'--- ."'------..._.-.. -22036- 16.1 16.1 2125 22619 .04 16.5 2174 23137 .03 %;'-70WR-._..---------DRT£:--------- TIME: : DOD: 146 � - -----...__—__--------__-----Tao. Ii 3-----— y TEMP 10 .'i x#*#*k*#x***xxxkx*xxkrtx##x#xx**#xrtrt*x*X+F*x**k**xkx**xrtxxxrt#*x*xkxx*******rt*rt#x „y x MOD * Don rt -.TSS x BOD * TSS *LBS TSS*LDS VSS* X SOL# GDP x ---rwx>rxxrKxr�xxxrw#*xxx**wxxxxxx-#xxx *rt#*xx#xfi#x-*# xxx xxx xxx,r-x**x#*xxx**x xr��*;rwrx;r#—'-- 9./5'. 30 is 102 107 5356 4287 0.50 7559 10.1 .. a0 37 103 109 5440 4352 8.50 7675 5593 4474 8.50 '-110----'5517--4414—'0':-50-7723`— 0608 20 _ 10.8 f. 36 104 111 5593 4474 8.50 7890 0608 20 35 205 113 5666 4533 8.50 7992 1776..— 28— —4 '1tfG' ..-11.9.. -'.ST'S•%--'f3S% 5.50 `BUO/ 12.0 27 33 106 115 5802 4641 8.50 8184 i 12.3 I'._ 27 33 107 116 5865 4692 8.50 0274 ----•—rY-7T---'�/i"------32------103--'--17i 5090 8.50 3975 ---5422-----4743'--.': 'SO --'%136?---. 13.1 26 32 100 118 5989 4791 8.50 8449 13.5 26 31 109 119 6047 4837 8.50 8530 --'--13:8-----` 75'--.__.---30 -----... ._.109 -- 1?0---6104--"--43.,3--'87-50 ----8610------ - 14.2 25 30 110 121 6159 4927 8.50 0608 14.6 25 29 110 122 6211 4969 0.50 8762 ------'?3-0—•----24------29 -•------...110'--_...r.,,_3------6264-•-'-3071---8.50---68.36--'._ 15.3 24 28 111 124 6713 5051 8.50 0906 15.7 24 20 111 125 6363 5090 8.50 3975 6471--".5729..__.8.30--9043--- 16.5 23 27 11z 1.16 6456 5165 0.50 9107 27 111 117 6502 5201 8.50 9172 14,93!" /'f,f30, ----nn're:-'--- - - TIME: b011: 146 y TEMP 10 _-'R--FLON-WHITER` LOnDING*-REClk. -*--CLAR.- LOADINGS * CLARIFIER, -w------ ----- -- -- --- * MOD * x # POD * RATIO *SURFACE* HEIR x DETH. TIME x * * UPDSF*IOOOFT3* . Z * GPDSF * GPAIFT * HAS. k ----_ -' 3-- C- 1346--- 13•/6G -90-_._... 164 21 0 1393 13991 .37 10.5 170 2 O 1.149 1.1504 .34 ..s----- 0 --L 502 ... 15027-._.--- .81-`-----."-.- .. _.-_.__...... 11.2 :..182 24 ._-..- --1-75 0 155.1 15552 .73 y 11.6 133 {7--"1605`-- 16063 - .75 _._. ..._.- -tet--95'--------26--'-_. 0.-.. I658.... _.1 6588 ..._......--:l3 12.3 201 27 0 1709 17099 .71 12.7 207 20 0 17,hl 1762.1 .69 -..0 .. .. - 1814.. _..18149 _..._ .... _ .67__....--'--..._.___.-___. 13.5 219 30 O 1065 13660.65 , 13.3 .<< - 5 31 0 1917 19135 .63 - 0----lPO--' 79709 ..._'-`--':G2--'---------.....___ .------------ 14.6 237 33 0 2021 20220 .60 15.0 243 34 0 2073 207.15 .50 '15.3 ... ...•..'249'_-- _. ._ 35 .___.. 0 . - 2124 11.1256 15.7 256 36 0 2177 21731 .56 16.1 262 37 0 2229 -2.706 .5.1 .16:-5-- -1ti3... .. _. �y -....._..- -0 2z30 :%_%817 ..': 53-.. _. - - 16.9 274 39 0 2333 23342 .52 /'f,f30, ---70MH CITY, IOMR- 1'IMf: DOD: 146 TEMP 10 I - CJN77RRY'-'S- �..' XkXkR*#*k#rt XX Rxkk A' A' Xkkxk#k#*Rkxk*kXXkxXX*xx - x FLOM x EFF COMC. MG1L rt SEC. SLUDGE PROD rt TOTHL SLUDGE PROD k !'-#-MGD-x-SUTJ'--x--'SS--#-tD5'1'SS rt LDS'VSSx`LY:S'T SS-x--CDS-USS._#. 'X"SOC "GPD "#--' *#kk*##kXXxXXkXk*kkk#Xxk#XkX#kXXx#AR*Xkkxkrtkrtkkrt##kkxx#!X*kkXxkkk#Xk#kXXxk#rt#x --7-. ,i -24--27 -4 , , ---2ass----9936---' ; 12p•---3: 90- 000__' 10.1 25 20 4794 2959 10235 7312 3.37 36410 10.5 26 29 5006 3080 10523 7493 3.34 37796 - a224 -0203-- -' 70377'---7o„ o .-37-39209-- 11.2 27 __---31 30 ---5655 5442 -.. 3326 .3446. .. 11103 7Vf,9 3.26 40619 _M 11.6 28 11339 6033 ---_3.25 41990 --- ---28-- -..-32"-'--'5373" 356:^.-'----11675 ---3209-----3 23- !3395--•- 29 33 606 3607 11951 8379 3.20 44761 12.7 30 33 6005 0008 12230 0551 3.18 46161 �- -----•13:1"-'"30-------34..-'---ti524""---'3930 - - 12513---8:21'-'--3.-15` 47553-_---. 13.5 31 35 6737 4047 12703 3335 3.13 43917 ._ 13.8 31 35 6955 4lGEr 13059 9051 3.11 50309 �._---74:-2--•-`3_ '�------ 36---717#-..._. ..423^---- -3.-09`-STC99'-"--- j - 14.6 ,32 37 7337 4405 13599 9374 3.07 53050 15.0 33 37 7606 4524 13070 9535 3.06 54435 _....--- _.. _. -75:3--- 33.. _.. --' 3O"" -"'-;*819-.... __ .4640 14132 _.....-.9691 _._ _ .3..04-- 55781_ 15 7 34 39 3037 4759 14400 9849 3.02 57161 16.1 34 39 3256 •1878 14666 .10006 3.00 53533 _ 3 .._.. 499 ..1425".._.._I0758 . 16.9 35 41 0687 5110 15183 10312 2.97 61250 TIME: :£JZGESTER PEA• FCrpMANCESOD. 146 !-._:--------------'AN;�E-1G'�3b'aY:�-----�•----T3S: IYIf-- -- TENP 10 UME-1-GAL7.-62P000-- '- xxx,r,r,rxwxwxxxxxxx+,r,rxxxxxwxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,rx*xxxx*xxxxxwxxx,r*,r,twx*xxx-x-- - . PLANT ♦. TOTAL fi USS x MCRT Z x ALK. w GAS k SOL w• !"--x-FLOW-x-SLUDOE-,r tOAIIING..+r_LAY3- w- V35 w- - %'-,-_.. _ x MGD x' FLON x LDIF.T31 x x RED. w * FT3/ w SLUDGE GPA x DAY - x It x w DAY x w � - wxxxirxwxx�xxxxxxxxxxx,r�xww,rxxxxxxxxxxxxx*x,rx,rxxxxwxx,rx,r'x-,rxx�xxfi;rxa�xwxxxx',r 9.75 34999 .00 17.9 47.25 3063 50477 2.27 10.1 36,417 .09, , 17.2 46.2(i 3032 ; . 50736 2.28 r 13.1 47558 .10 13.2 39.73 2839 51972 2.30 1075-37796-- 48916 .11 12.8 4:5. 33 ---- ----3004---30961----228'---- 52052 2.30 10.8 39208 .09 16.E7 44.43 2977 51167 2.28 11.2 40619 .09 15.4 43.56 2951 51348 2.29 I � � ,� -' -Zt-ti----4Y�d9-----tO---Y•Y-4-42.-7 ' 11.8 4----' - -2926-5T505---'�: 29 12.0 43395 .10 14.4 41.94 2903 51647 2.29 f 12.3 44760 .10 14.0 41.19 - 2831 51760 2.29 I � - - 15.7 57160 .12 11.0 35.41 2718 52328 2.30 .-l6:1- :'10----13.6- .--.12--- - 40:'44"_..._.__.2359- ------ _57877'---`-'2:30'----_..__. - - --•?703----523 46--•-2-: 13.1 47558 .10 13.2 39.73 2839 51972 2.30 _ 13.5 48916 .11 12.8 39.05 2020 52052 2.30 ..13.8-...__.50308-- -- l t ... -12:5 30..39.. _ 2801 --":21`12-14.2 '52122- 14.2 51698 .II 12.1 37.74 2733 52181 2.30 14.6 53049 .11 11.8 37.14 2766 52230 2.30 -151- 0 ---54434 '--.. _..--.,-11------11: �' ---36. 54.... . __..2749---52270'--- ---2: SO-----•--- - 15.3 55780 .12 11.2 35.98 2733 52302 2.30 - - 15.7 57160 .12 11.0 35.41 2718 52328 2.30 .-l6:1- ---'-'-,5853u . .--.12--- --ZU.9" - 34-.87 _ - - --•?703----523 46--•-2-: JO------ 16.5 59377 .12 10.5 34.3/. 2689 52359 2.30 16.9 01.'50 .12 10._ 3,1.85 ....2075 52365 2.30 r i--•-----7YJE.9 L: T'rE-7?--M fi TKE-M FY T�I CF3-L---MCr TI E�G�---.O F'—'—. I SINGLE SYR(3E TRICtiLZ'NG FILTER , I -Prepared by- CS—Environocntal Services, • vices, l hycontrart with Boise State University, Boise, Idaho. Through a grant from the -- ---fnv'i•ronmental'-Protection-ngen'cy,-'N.egion-`H7"----------"'---'-'-------- Seatt:Ie Washington. _. _......--- --- --- • HEN .PLnill /1113t. TI ME - 14.Q 0 T S W &9 T E.AR C H jQ tic?.X) C T _E R X X dQ T X 0 14 AVERAGE DRY HEATHER FLON MOD: is PEAK - DRY HEATHER -FLOW----.__ HoD^ 32 - .DESIGN FLUR MOV: 13 INFLUENT DOD MOIL: 146 ----JHFLUEH7 ISS- MOIL: 173 INFLUENT VSS (Z); 00 TEMPERATURE PC: 10 ALKALINITY MOIL: 100 PH 7 ----PO4-p--- MOIL. -& TVnt UE- USED— PLANT C Cl ".4= X a U iR A:> 7' X 0 t4 .0, f4 27 Z7XM=N0XClfN DESIGN AVERAGE DAILY FLOM (NOV)$ 13 --------DESZON--PERK-klE-T—NEqTHER-FLON-(NSD)-s -32 it) c IQ W 2- 45114 NUMBER OF RECTANGULAR CLARIFIERS: 5 -DIMENSIONS EACH TOTAL LENGTH (FT). 145 HEIR LTD (FT): 140 700 SFC AREA (FT2): 4350 21750 -4E ---------------- MEDIA 'TYPE:--S—TACKED—PLASTIC-- --- - --- -- COHSTnNT P.fCIRCVLhrION NUMBER 01" TRICKLING FILTERS: 2 ---------- ---- DIAMETER (FT)' 140 RECIR.RnTE(OPM). 0 N4f-3(!-- w ' --------- -'__-'--_'---'� � � D87E� .--.- --�-----�-�----�—'--'-~--------'----�-'-��m�� I -CA TXO" '-�-----� '—NVMBEk-0rREC7PnOVLA8-CLAR/f/fKS'.�'u� ---'�--'--- ---' ��0�NSJ0NC EACH 7070L SFC PREA fFT2). 5332 31991-1 ------------ | �_---------------------'-------�r----��----'-----'----�-'---'---'---���� ----'---_^----~-_---�-- � - - - ---------------- ' � -� '� � .----_'-~---'-,----�_---~-_-'_-'- '----�----'-----'------'---'----------��--� . . NUMBER OF PRIMARY DIGESTERS: 4 #/ A2 406080 825800 825800 DIGESTER KE07ED' Y y Y r MIXED--~^-'Y----/---''-y------- �y^`-'--�'---~----- -^--''----^- �'``'`--~' - NUMBER OF SEC0ND88r DIGESTERS: 2 ` ^^ VOLUME FOP. DIGESTER #1 (O8L): 633000 � /-� VOLUME FOR DIGESTER #2 (GAL): 633000 �m~��� � ����e, F�-1 � Cl//,� /vwo ---^--~`----UAr- ---'`�-^~-'--'--^^' /�1NE: � DOD: 146 ------ --- --—'- '--`''-f33-:--i73` 7EMP 10 JQ). r x M&� - FLVN * CL0RLOADINGS * BE TN ---.-^ ' °" 'ln"�_�-'---_-`_- 6fDSF * GDP/FT * /h9S. * **° i 11 A' �---_--,-'-__`--,,.----- 9^75� 440 �3� 8 ' f.$ I - . ! 6�� - -4.-63- 1-7 7 10"5 -103 15000 4.46 Q i----^-` . 14^2 � 15542 4.31 /�^�------'-�zx'�-----�t0�5`--'-'f����- -----28914-- 11.6 535 53J 166/4 /,03 12^0. _ � 15.3 780 21985 3.0f 552 J7157 3.90 16./ 7113 23871 ' 12.7 587 18226 J,67 /�^/ � uo+ /877/ 3.57 - . ! 6�� - � '-- x3ow---3 / � 47 J3,0 '-^��---`---'�`--'--�--- 639 19042 3,37 i----^-` . 14^2 � 656 28385 '� � ----� `-------^--- ---- --� 3.20 -----28914-- 3.28 JJ,V -_ 691 21457 3,12 _ � 15.3 780 21985 3.0f � 16./ 7113 23871 2^90 ~ /6.5 760 23600 2^jv4 � ---- ---Dn TE TIME: BOD: 1.16 7£MP 10 ----- --/"Fd l MAR %-•- 3Y.: ?-F PJ t -E t>J -c?Ail 1THN'4'1"---- ._._..------- j*xwkkwkkk*k*wkk**w*wkwwkkkkwkkkkk*kwwwwwwkkkkw#'*kkw*kwkkwwkwkwkkkk**wk*w#*wkkww x k k MGD w BUD k TSS • BOD k TSS *LBS 7SS*085 USS* X SOL* GDP t _-wwwwwwwwwwwwwkwwwrwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwkkwwwwkwwww'w'k'wwit`kwwk'wkwwwwwk#`k kwwww-kw'w-w'wwwk-- 9.75 50 63 73 64 8901 7101 8.50 12557 ----10..1'_--- 49--------62--- 74 65 9119 7296 8.50 12864 50-i�256- I 10.8 48 61 76 68 9533 7626 8.50 13.147 11.2 47 60 78 69 9734 7707 8.50 13731 ---tlrrs---45--- 59-- - 79.--- 71--- "925---7+40-8-.-50----i 4002----- 12.0 46 58 80 72 10116 3093 8.50 14270 I 12.3 45 58 807 73 10298 8238 8.50 1.1526 �_`1-_-1f:T --44-------•5"t------frt.-_.--t5--•10480----3334--3;-50--S47E3-� - 13.1 44 56 82 76 10657 8526 8.50 15034 - -._.-..----_`__---`-- 13.5 43 56 83 77 10826 8661 8.50 15272 _--__ 13: 8-- -- ----43._ ._.... - -----55--- _._..._. ti•i.- 78_. -._20995_..___3794_.-_3.'50._..-155.1-1-.__._. - 14...n 42 54 85 79 11161 8929 8.50 15744 14.6 41 5•1 85 80 11316 9055 8.50 15966 _.._..----15.-0------- 41•--------53----..__...86.......-- 81 --71476_`•---9i8i----8:50-•�d-i89-- 15.3 40 52 riT 82 11627' 9301 8.50 16401 15.7 40 _-52 t78 33 11778 9422 8.50 16614 --_----td:-1--------•JO-..-----51.._-._.._.__..8tt.-_...-8 4---11 926----954t--850- Id823---. 16.5 3;i 51 :'9 .._ 05 12067 9653 8.50- 17022 16.9 39 50 90 86 12208 9767 3.50 17222 /,q,3 i //ZIPY-0 3 TIME: POD: 146 TEMP 10 r-- -R-FLOH -*FZL 7EP -LORDIHG*-RECIR: CLj9P. LORDI NOS - CLARZFI ER MOD # DOD * RnTIO *SURFI?CE* NEIR DErn. TIME #,6..PDSF*IOOOFT3# z GPVSF OPPIFT HRS. 305 11607 7:07-----•----------.-._..--•---' 10.1 329 13 0 317 12059 6.80 • 10.5 341 14 0 328 12500 6.56 -10.0-353- 15 0 340 12. 952 0.34 11.2 365 15 0 352 13404 6.12 11.6 377 16 0 363 13845 5.93 0 375 -14297 5.74 12.3 402 17 0 307 14730 5.57 12.7 414 is 0 39l 15!90 5.40 -77 0-- 411- 15642 13.5 433 20 0 422 160,133 5.10 13.8 451 21 0 434 16535 4.96 14.6 475 22 0 450 17428 4.71 15.0 407 213 0 4u9 17 aO0 4.59 15:3-..._--..-49{,.. 15.7 512 24 0 493 16773 4.37 16.1 524 5 0 505 19226 4.27 16. 5 ----53o - 20...------0 516 I9600 -'4.*17'- 16.9 540 27 0 52V 20 119 4.08 //ZIPY-0 3 /l/ff 3c, TIME- Boo, 146 TEMP 10 V ---Tem FLOW x EFF CONC. HGIL Sfc, SLUDGE PR13V k TOTnL SLUDGE PROD -May-- *—.BOD—* --SS. *-t-fls --lSS 'Li?S- VSS*--LVS, 78S 10.1 12 12 3348 2249 12467 9544 4.5-1 32936 13 13 .3525 2360 12851 9521 4.49 44200 1D-:-5--•-13`— 2 47 3 }-tt — - --10 1 Dj---4-.-45 ---3L5*iy-- 11.2 14 ------- 14 ----- 3u "1 i ---- 2 5 9 1 13627 10378 4.41 37072 11.6 14 .14 4075 2704 14000 10644 4.37 S8429 -2820 14379- 12.3 15 15 .14 2934 1474-1 11172 4.29 41185 12.7 15 16 4637 3051 15117 11435 4.26 42502 3166, 154S6 -439eo jj.5 16 17 5016 3282 15042 11943 4.19 453.12 13.8 17 C 5209 S."00 16205 12197 4.16 46741 -----5404- 3515" --16565— --12447 ------- 4-.13-- 14.6 18 10 5594 3033 1691' 12688 4.10 49503 15.0 is 195790 3751 17266 12932 4.07 50902 --15.3 .----15_.. 19 :5902 30, f- 6 0609 '-1316& ----4.04 -52265- 15.7 19 20 6 100 39, 17955 13407 4.01 53664 19 20 637,9 4103 18304 13644 3.99 55063 -10639-----13072.--- --3;96- .%424- 16 - .9 2 . 0 21 6772 4337 1090, 1 14104 3.94 57822 /l/ff 3c, 11h te -- -1 1 --- --- -- TIME. : ROD: 146 ----- TEMP 10 PPIMI)PY flJ0E$lER- VOLUME -MqL)-219Y000- z PLANT R TO TnL x (ISS x MCR7 z R I)L K. x GhS SOL FLOH -- +-SLUV6E --*--LOAVIN6- DAYS- OSS AL MOD x FLOJ4 LDIFT31 rt fi RED. FT31 x SLUDGE GPA x DAY DAY 9.75 31549 .03 69.6 i'5.00 41:.'8 104130 2.00 10.1 32.936 .03 66.7 75.00 .1084 107373 1.1,18 75.00.__ 404q, 10.3 35679 .03 61.6 75.00 4004 113641 1.5+5 37072 .04 59.3 7-1.76 3966 116390 1.94 7 12.0 3982-1 .04 55.2 73.39 3896 120140 1. 96 12.3 41184 .04 53.3 72.73 3863 121883 1.97 51.6--- 7-1,.06 3030 - 123604 1. J3.1 43900 .04 --40-.5 50.0 71.41 3799 12 2 1.99 13.5 45042 ,04 70.70 3770 1.6800 1. 99 ..47.0---78.15 -3741 ---'-128339 - - ------ 2-. Oil- 14*2 46-1411 04 45.6 53 3713 1-9012 2.01 14.6 4050-2 .04 44.4 60.93 3606 13119- 1.02 ----50902 -.-04 - 60. 3660 132557- 15. 1 5[5'04 .04 42.0 6%./6 E635 1330�;s 2. 03 15.7 53663 .05 40.12 67.10 3611 135104 04 :_-16.1..._.._550c2._..-----.05-- 39.9 66.01 3587--...13632 4------ f,.-04- 16.5 5642.1 .05 3". 06.06 3564 107463: Z. 05 16.9 578[_ .05 03. 0 65.51 31142 130601.. 306012. 05 I i - ZiDEAL IZEA. ". MRTfiEMHT.ZCRL MGiDEL'GF — .-.-----.._. rl,----•-----IGWA CIT%.- "riiWR 7..--------52`Nf3L'-E --S-!'Ald E-• -7-F:1'C: KL -2'N13.. F l-L'Y-t /-?"—' . � WASTEWATE_/E' TREATMENT— Y.ITEM ----__—__ I i Prepared by /:S E»vi ronmental Servir_es, State_. University, Boise, Idaho. Through a grant from the Environmental Protection Flgency, Region >, _ _-__ __._ ---------------•---_ __ . _.___ _--------- - � XB3 DATE TINE: : WR�TEWRTER CHRRRCTERI�RTSf/N ' AVERAGE DRY NEATNER FLOW MGD: 9 _'_..—'—•-'-'--PEAK"DRY- MEATH£R-FLOW._.. _. MGD.' . 32.. DESIGN FLON MOD: 9 INFLUENT GOP MG/L: 21.1 MO/L;� 253......- --..___. .__......_. ! - INFLUENT OSS l2): 80 L_- TEMPERATURE 'C: 10 ALKALINITY MG/L: 100 PH : 7 "-'-------'---PO4=P-'---- '-------......--- -- - MG/L: 8 ,r .._..._...._.._____.._.. - PLANT CGNFIGC/RATION RNTI T7IMENSIQNS _ DESIGN AVERAGE -DAILY FLON IMGD): 9 DESIGN"PERK-MET-NEATNER-FLOM -(MGD):- 32'--' ____.._ _PR_IhYRF: % G'LRRSFICF)TION NUMBER OF ROUND,CLARIFIEP.S: 3 DIMENSIONS #1 #2 #3 70TALI - DIAMETER, (FI). 75 45 45 - DEPTH (F7): 10 10 10 (FT):"450 .__. 132 132. _.. 714 .-..._._._...._.., .._............_.._-__..... _._...- ._ SFC AREA (FT2): 4417 1590 1590 7597 TRSCk L SNG FIL TER . -...._....__.—_________c.._..,_.._.-..__..____. ..._..-. ... __-. .......... . ...._..._............... __. j MEDIA TYPE: ROCK COHSTRNT RECIRCULATION -'---------'-"1111MBER or 7RICW7NO-F7LT£RS: q DIMENSIONS #1 #2 #3 #4 --------- ---- ---- ---- ---- .-._.._.._...-DIAMETER (FT); -140 "140 ' 140 _.. .140 DEPTH (F T):. 6.03 6.03 6.83 5.45 R,ECIR.RA7'E(6PM): 0 0 0 e: /X83 L SLUDGE tlANAL .I N6 TYPE OF DIGESTION : I)HAEROVIC J HUMBER OF PRIMARY DIGESTERS: 2 #2 --- - ---- VOLUME (GAL): 141000 406000 .. .......... . _-DIGESTER HE/)TED DIGESTER MIRED Y Y HUMBER OF SECONDARY DIGESTLR:3: I VOLUME FOR DIGESTER #1 (GAL): 63301)0 ------------ DATE: E C t3l 14 VA>F2 V CL A!•1 X Z CA 7-X Cl" ------------------------ ROUND-CLt)NJPJERS. DIMENSIONS #1 #2 TOTAL ---------- VInM67ER'--'(FT):--60-"--- ---- ---- 75 DEPTH (Fl): 6.75 6.75 HEIR LTH (FT); 314 4.10 724 —'SFC --AREA ( F T 2) Z -._,U.;7..._- -44J? - %244 SLUDGE tlANAL .I N6 TYPE OF DIGESTION : I)HAEROVIC J HUMBER OF PRIMARY DIGESTERS: 2 #2 --- - ---- VOLUME (GAL): 141000 406000 .. .......... . _-DIGESTER HE/)TED DIGESTER MIRED Y Y HUMBER OF SECONDARY DIGESTLR:3: I VOLUME FOR DIGESTER #1 (GAL): 63301)0 ------------ 3.31 1094 11638 1.64 • TINE." 1;1. 03 1162 BOO: 214 9.09, 1196 12731 1.50 r--------9:36-•-._--.--123^..... TEMP 10 9.62 Jm JQ R� v _0 y s TIE m L- 0.7?.Q.0 x �• 9.33 1300 13837 1 . 3P. -I _.__--------10..1...._..._.._..1334_-14201 1.35 10.4 1369 FLOM CLnR. LOADINGS DETH 1403 14929 1.20 15794----T..25----------'------.----•--._...------------'---- 15794----T.25- GPDSF A, GDP/FT w HRS. 1.171 ***A*& Alo At** **A'*&# 	L0*of A* A* 10 R****RXXX A' O)f 11.4 6.75 880 9453 2.02 J,;V5 7.27 957 10I32 7.53 991 10546 1.81 25 ----10910--'2173.-.._.. 0.05 1059 11274 1.69 3.31 1094 11638 1.64 • ---------- 1;1. 03 1162 12366 2.64 9.09, 1196 12731 1.50 r--------9:36-•-._--.--123^..... --'13109 1. 46 9.62 1266 13473 1.42 9.33 1300 13837 1 . 3P. -I _.__--------10..1...._..._.._..1334_-14201 1.35 10.4 1369 14565 1.31 10.6 1403 14929 1.20 15794----T..25----------'------.----•--._...------------'---- 15794----T.25- 11.1 11.1 1.171 15656 1. 2-7 11.4 1506 16022 1.19 I e -v TIME: ROD. 214 TEMP 10 8.31 33 42 144 147 7330 5364 2- RENO(Ift- -*P.C. - EFF MOIL PPIMPRY- SLUDOE--PROD-.- 32 MGD BOD A TSS k BOD k TSS *LBS TSS#LBS USS* Z SOL* ODP 3. 50 # A, AL A -146 15i--75`13---' 6.75 36 47 137 135 6665 5332 0.50 9402 31 7.01 35 46 130 137 6786 5429 8.50 9573 0.50 10742 9.36 31 6903 50-9738 148 7.53 34 44 141 141 7015 5612 0.50 9896 -149' *1567794----6' .135 7.7 9 34 43 142 143 7124 5699 0.50 10049 30 150 .157 -143 J 45 -722"- 8.31 33 42 144 147 7330 5364 0.50 10340 13.57 32 41 145 149 7426 5943 3. 50 10478 -146 15i--75`13---' 60 18 SO - 9.09 31 40 147 153 7615 6092 0.50 10742 9.36 31 39 148 154 7708 6166 S.50 10873 -149' *1567794----6' .135 —10995 9.08 so 30 150 .157 7.370 6302 0.50 11113 10.1 29 37 151 159 7959 6368 8.50 11228 —11340 --- 10.6 29 36 15 162 0116 641's 5.50 11446' 10.9 is 36 153 1113 8191 6553 0.50 1155.1 657 11.4 2 113 35 15111; 166 114335 6660 0. 50 11757 11.7 27 34 155 167 8404 6723 0.50 11055 w � ^ InNR-CTTn_7_OHP------- -'---' VKTC,-- TIME: % DOD: 214 _ _._-__--_.—___—._ Ta•• _tea TEMP 10 7,EM._..C-�7H'TTSNGS—"- / ¢83 c, -Ft It-T£R`LORDI No* -NEC I k..-, CLF)N.'LOOPINGS+"CLRRIF7ER----*'-'-"-- MGD L *.' - * N DOD *RRTIO *SURFF)CE* NEIR * DETN. TINE ,r.GPDSFkIOOOFTS* X * GPDSF * GPUJFT * NRS. * —_ 7.O1 113 - 20 -L1 0 - -- v6O 968'2 1.25 . 7.27- -I7. 118 0 l003 10041 1.21 .. - - 7:."i3 '- 122.. _ . ....-- 22 ._. 0- - 1039. , a f a . i 4i I - 1777._. _.. __ ..------..._.._.... _. -..... - 7.79 126 23 0 1075 10759 1_13---------- 8.05 130 24 0 Jill !ilio i 1.09 If ----'8-:'3S--25 ----._ . U ..... 1147-... 11477. ._. _. ..1:06•_..•- 8.37 139 26 U 1183 _-12/9 11037 1.02 Er, 83 143 26 U 12196 .99 0.. ..1255 12355 _.....__._: 97--__.__ 9.36 .152 28 0 1292 /2928 .94 9.62 156 i%9 0 13 01 13287 .91 � ------- 160-------'30--------U ._..1364_....13545 Y----...._..--- 10.1 164 31 0 1400 14005 •87 10.4 168 32 0 1445 14304 .04 -10..6.._... 173.-..... .. S3--..-___.. U 1471 14723 ._--...:82.. 10.9 177 34 0 1507 15082 .80 11.1 181 a"5 U 1543 15441 .79 36...'-•--- U 1579 ..15601._ _._ 11.7 190 37 0 16J5 16160 .75 -----'--.-'_-_-- / ¢83 c, _ _ --- - - - - ----- ---- ¢83 ljW)-C 17 Y ;'-'IV Hn t)TC 1,ZME1. * Boy: 214 TEMP 10 v Y, E m MOIL k SEC. SLUDGE PROD 7*OTnL SLUDGE PROD EFF CONC. -,YOD-.... ---SS" -' -LOS ISS x LBS tl33* LBS TSS *-LVS'(ISS *--Z- SOL *,"OPD k 10023 --7974----3.-70_ -34326- 7.01 32 35 -1364 7 63 11150 8 102 3.74 35735 . - .4571 2004 11474 0406 3.70 37142 7.27 33 36 3005— 861,7-- -3-.67 31, 4913 0 3125 12112 30'14 3.63 39952 7.79 31 ------ --- - - 39 5197 3246 12426 9029 3.60 41354 05 36 5407 3366 12?37----9fl30 - ----- -3-;57-421754-, 41 5617 3.116 13045 941:0 3.54 4.1153 8.57 so 42 5827 3606 13351 9624 3.51 45549 8.83 39 -._5725- 13653--- -3.49--.16944--- -9S-17 --"-3..49--4694.4----: 9.36 9.36 40 45 6250 S0'/9 13965 10015 3 46 48389 - 9.62 41 46 6469 3968 14263 10.2"04 3.44 49779 -42-- -47._.......'6651' 4087 14559 10.1 43 40 6093 4-206 14053 10573 3.39..5_ 2 J3 10.4 43 40 7J05 4324 15144 10755 3.37 53937 10;6..._-...4.1._._.._..49--'---7S18 4442 15433 3'.35-'55319....._._. 10.9 45 50 7530 45 60 1 57 . 21 11112_ 3 1 32 56 . 6 - 9e 11.1 46 51 7745 4677 16006 11208 3.30 59076 52" _1G`190_-....174/2-----3-:29- "511.7 47 531 0168 4911 16572 11635 3 _2.7 _. 6002 - 4... _...- - f_3 ev ------ ---Harr:------ - ••----------raven-r.zr7,-Lawn---- 77ME: : PF_l=;frJtitl?f>NCEDOD' 214 TEMP 10 -------- ----" " """ " '" PR rMAR%-D IGC 5TER- 'VOL LIME`-(GnL-):- 627000--" --kXkk#`kk X XAxkk xk kk x?xk kkx x'kkxxk XX xxxkX xXxxkkx XXkX xXk xkkx-xkxxxx"k'kx-kxxx X'xXXk .--_--. k k x T x x k #* 7. k • PLANT k TOTAL k (/SS k MCRT X % X ALIT. M 6/)S X SOL _.._..w..FL(JN._-k-SLIlDUE-- LOAUINO-k UA78 k (/5.;�._.. k. .HO/L---k--PRO:-- UtG':-X......_._._-- * MGD k FLON x LD/FT31 k RED. k k FT31 SLUDSC .r _.. * k -GPD x DA% k -k k k OnY k k � -kR'xrr NM k'XM'kkkkk'Xx'Xkx kkirkkiF-ki!'-xxx XXxX kxx XX Xk'xxx'kx'xxa'Xk"kXk#''x"x'xkxxX kk'x x"A'k7'k+f k-- 6.75 34326 .10 10.3 4;1. 73 3402 571195 2. •13 7.01 i 35734 .10 17.5 46.73 3367 57423 47.48 -'-T:-27----3"l'Ia�-------'.-10---16:9'-' •Y� `17---•--3333----'57714------2-:49 --- 7.53 38540 .10 16.3 44. tis 3301 57971 2.49 7.79 39952 ,11 15.7 43.96 3271 58197 2.50 - '--8:05---4Y35l----'.-17-... I3�[- "4.8-12--•--323?----53597--?-.50- 31 •1275.1 .11 14.7 42.30 3214 58571 2.50 _..-Y. 3.57 44152 .11 14.2 41.52 3186 58722 2.50- i ._.._30.7 6.... -3162 53453 -x..50' - 9 ,I 46943 ..12 13.4 40.04 3138 519965 2,50 9.36 40389 .12 13.0 39.31 3114 5906.1 2.50 -----'9:62----495'79 ' `--__ �•1.y.._..._-12.6..."30.64- ` ---3092-- 59 J.Y43 _._.---^_. �.JS n n:: - .. 00 5116% .12 12.3 3I.f/9 3070 5 92 Uon 2.51 10.1 52553 .13 11.9 V..36 30451 592150 2.51 10. 4'---,53837-'------'-. 13'__'.----'17:6 - -36.75 - ..... 3029-'--' S930U'---2": f:Y------- ---- 10 1. .0 55318 .13 11.3 30.17 3010 59329 2.50 10.9 56690 .13 11.1 35,60 2992 59349 2,50 i_ ,_.-Y1...Y.--_58075-----.__.--:Y3-"'---10,'Lt--.. 3500:7------'r9^• -n 11. •! 59.151 .14 10.5- e4.J2 2856 5%362 2.50 - 11.7 60624 .14 10.3 34.01 2940 59357 2.50 /41oC., City of Iowa Ci ; MEMORANDUM Date: July 16, 1984 To: Board /Commission nCChairpersons From: City Manage ri�i'//�f`-�j��' Re: Annual Report !!�� An annual report again will be compiled for all boards and comnissions for fiscal year 1984. This report will cover the period July 1, 1983, to June 30, 1984. It is requested that your board/commission's report be submit- ted to the City Manager's office by August 16, 1984, following as much as possible the form, margins and type (letter gothic) as the attached sample. Please have Word Processing prepare the final copy in the requested form. All reports should include: 1. Responsibilities of board/commission. 2. Review of activities for FY84. 3. Directions planned for FY85. 4. List of present members. This report will be used by the City Council, staff and members of boards/commissions to set future goals in the following year's budgeting process. The staff person responsible for coordination with your board/commission (see attached list) will be pleased to assist you with the preparation of your report and will be contacting you at an early date. If you should have any other questions concerning this report, please contact Lorraine Saeger (356-5010). bdwl/3 cc: City Council Department Heads Word Processing Center /`/0 LIBRARY BOARD OF Th..fEES GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES The Board of Trustees of the Public Library is a semiautonomous body of nine persons empowered by state law and city ordinance to act as the governing body of the library. The Board's specific list of legal responsibilities includes: determining the goals and objectives of the Library in order to plan and carry out library services; determining and adopting written policies to govern all aspects of the operation of the Library; preparing an annual budget and having exclusive control of all monies appropriated by the City Council or given to the library through gifts, bequests, contracts, grants or awards; employing a competent staff to administer its policies and carry out its programs. The Board is also an arm of city government with members appointed by the City Council and its principal operating funds are approved by the City Council. The Board therefore seeks at all times to work in harmony with City policies in all areas that do not conflict with its statutory powers. ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN FISCAL YEAR 1983 Reopened the library on Sunday afternoons and Thursday mornings, increasing total service hours by 5%; opened the Audiovisual Production Lab to the public for 15 hours per week. Absorbed large increases (10-50%) in the use of all services for the second straight year with over 470,000 visits to the library, 45,000 cardholders (including 74% of Iowa City residents) and, for the first time, over one-half million items (536,220) checked out. Allocated nearly $25,000 from the Gifts and Bequests Fund to the library's materials budget (;10,000 was an unrestricted gift from FRIENDS of the Iowa City Public Library) and thus was able to add 12,400 new items to the collection, more than in any previous year. Worked with the newly established Iowa City Public Library Foundation to provide long-term financial support for library projects. By year's end, the Foundation had a part-time paid Coordinator, had raised over $25,000 and was preparing to establish a permanent office in the library. Completed 18 months of work on five-year goals for the library by the Board's planning committee, including extensive surveys of library users and the general community, and prepared to receive the committee's final report at the July, 1983 Board meeting. Continued to receive national recognition for the services offered by the library with articles in several journals and magazines and visitors from many states and foreign countries. PLANS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1984 Apply priorities developed by the planning process to the FY1985 budget request and to library operations generally. Continue to search for ways to increase productivity of staff and efficiency of library operations. Work with FRIENDS of the Iowa City Public Library and the Iowa City Public Library Foundation to increase private support for the library; sustain the current level of use of volunteers and the current level of gift materials received; assess long-term funding needs. 22 r Strive to increase -pie library's collection by acgo ng at least one new items for each 30-35 circulated. Continue review and revision of basic Library Board policies. i Continue to be active in groups working for increased state and federal funding for public libraries. LIBRARY BOARD'MEMBERS Ed Zastrow, President Linda Gritsch, Vice President Peter Wallace, Secretary Jean Bartley Ann Bovbjerg Carolyn Cavitt Charles Drum Riley Grimes i 23 0 BOARD/COMMISSION Airport Commission Airport Zoning Commission Board of Adjustment I Board of Appeals Board of Electrical Examiners & Appeals i i Board of Examiners j of Plumbers Board of Trustees for Police and Fire Retirement Broadband Telecommunications Commission Civil Service Commission Committee on Community Needs Design Review Committee Historic Preservation Commission Housing Commission/Housing Appeals Board Human Rights Commission Board of Library Trustees Parks & Recreation Commission Planning & Zoning Commission Resources Conservation Commission Riverfront Commission Senior Center Commission RESPONSIBLE STAFF PERSON Fred Zehr, Airport Manager Fred Zehr, Airport Manager Bruce Knight/Karin Franklin, Planners Dick Frantz, Senior Building Inspector Paul Bowers, Electrical Inspector Ron Boose, Plumbing Inspector Nancy Heaton, City Treasurer Drew Shaffer, Broadband Telecommunications Specialist Anne Carroll, Director, Human Relations Department Marianne Milkman, Planner Andrea Hauer, Development Coordinator Monica Moen, Planner Douglas Boothroy, Director Housing and Inspection Services Phyllis Williams, Civil Rights Specialist Lolly Eggers, Library Director Dennis Showalter, Director, Parks and Recreation Department Bruce Knight/Karin Franklin, Planners Dale Melling, Assistant City Manager Patt Cain, Planner Bette Meisel, Senior Center Coordinator /ko CITY CSF IOWA CITY CNIC CENTER 410 E. WASHNGTON Si. IOWA UY. IOWA 52240 (319)356-500D July 19, 1984 Mr. J. C. Hickman, Publisher Iowa City Press -Citizen 319 E. Washington Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear J.C.: The City Council recently discussed newspaper vending machines and expressed an interest in adopting a regulatory ordinance. Before the City staff reports to the City Council on this matter, it would be beneficial to meet with representatives of the news media to receive your ideas and concerns. Specifically, the City is considering designating an area in the Central Business District in which dispensing machines would be placed in vending banks and outside of that district there may be additional regulatory procedures relating to permits, insurance, size, location, and attachment to public property. A meeting will be held in the Conference Room of the Civic Center on Friday, July 27 at 2 p.m. If you are unable to attend, you may submit any comments in writing. Your cooperation in this matter will be greatly appreciated. In the interim, if you have any questions please give me a CM. Sincerely yours, (Mailing list attached) Neal G. Berlin City Manager /sp cc: City Council City Attorney /zl85 Mr. J. C. Hickman, Publisher Iowa City Press -Citizen 319 East Washington Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Mr. Joe Hladky III cc: Ms. Linda Edwards President and Publisher Cedar Rapids Gazette Cedar Rapids Gazette Rocky Shore Drive and Highway 6 500 Third Avenue, S.E. Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52406 Mr. Gary G. Gerlach, Publisher cc: Mr. John Gillispie (Distributor) Des Moines Register 10% Second Avenue P. 0. Box 957 Coralville, Iowa 52241 Des Moines, Iowa 50304 Ms. Beatrice Toomey Distributor for Quad City Times, 1409 Keokuk Wall Street Journal and Chicago Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Tribune Mr. Andy Harris Distributor for New York Times 535 18th Avenue East Moline, Illinois 61244 Mr. Bill Casey, Publisher Daily Iowan 111 Communications Center The University of Iowa Iowa City, Iowa 52242 Mr. S. R. Huntley Christian Science Monitor Capitol House Apartments #308 Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Ms. Gail Foley, Editor Coralville Weekly Courier P. 0. Box 5679 Coralville, Iowa 52241 ��gS City of Iowa Ci% f MEMORANDUM Date: July 17, 1984 To: City Council and Neal Berlin From: Frank Farmer, City Engineer'��:='. Re: Dubuque Street and Ridge Road Intersection The Engineering Division has studied the above-mentioned intersection with regard to improving the right turn movements from Ridge Road onto Dubuque Street. Currently, cars attempting to turn right onto Dubuque Street from Ridge Road must veer into the middle of Ridge Road in order to turn into the left lane of Dubuque Street. Four possible alternatives were investigated and are discussed in this memo. The four alternatives are as follows: 1) widen the intersection to allow a right turn into the left lane of Dubuque Street; 2) widen the intersection to allow a right turn into the right lane of Dubuque Street; 3) widen or relocate Ridge Road to the east to create a T -intersection; and 4) realignDubuque Street to the west. (All alternatives except #1 will allow a car to turn from the right lane of Ridge Road to the right- hand lane of Dubuque Street.) The first two alternatives would widen the Ridge Road intersection to accommodate right turns into the left lane of Dubuque Street (Alternate 1) or into the right lane of Dubuque Street (Alternate 2). The intersection would have to be widened approximately 65 feet north to accommodate Alternative 1 and 170 feet north to accommodate Alternative 2. Separate lanes could be constructed to accommodate each of these turns instead of greatly increasing the intersection width. However, the grades on these lanes would be 391. and 36%, respectively for Alternatives 1 and 2. Grades of this magnitude would be impossible to negotiate thereby making Alterna- tives 1 and 2 nonviable. Alternative 3 would widen or more probably move Ridge Road to the east as it approaches the intersection. The City would have to purchase the adjoining property to accomplish this and the existing retaining wall and house would have to be removed. Also, this realignment of Ridge Road would then require people travelling north on Dubuque Street to perform an S -turn movement to proceed northbound on Ridge Road. Necessary property acquisition and resulting S -turn movement for access to Ridge Road would seem to make this alternative impractical. The fourth alternative would be to realign the two northbound lanes of Dubuque Street to the west. This alternative would necessitate the relocation of approximately 900 lineal feet of Dubuque Street, a maximum of 20 feet to the west. This would allow a car to turn from the right lane of Ridge to the right lane of Dubuque Street. One negative factor would be the reduction in stacking length in the cross over between the two halves of Dubuque Street located at the Ridge Road intersection from three cars to one car. ./,1196 The rough preliminary cost of this alternative would be $120,000. In conclusion, the first three alternatives are impractical because of the steep grades or high property acquisition costs. The fourth alternative would help to minimize the problem but is relatively expensive at $120,000. bdw/dh/sp City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: July 17, 1984 To: City Mana / and City Council From: Don Director of Planning 8 Program Development AJim Hencin, CDBG Program Coordinator Re: Supplemental Funding Requests - Emergency Shelter and Nelson Adult Center Backaround - Problem In the last year, the City Council has authorized $125,000 for an emer- gency shelter and $111,580 for the Nelson Adult Center from Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. Monies allocated for the emergency shelter were to purchase and rehabilitate a building to provide temporary shelter for the homeless. The monies allocated for the Nelson Adult Center were to renovate the center to expand and improve its usage. Considerable progress has been made on both projects. A private, non- profit corporation (the Emergency Housing Project, Inc.) was established to operate the emergency shelter, the building at 331 N. Gilbert St. was purchased, and rehabilitation of the building is underway. Work at the Nelson Adult Center was started last December. The first phase, including an elevator, is near completion, and the second phase renovation has recently begun. It was apparent early in the emergency shelter project that the budget would be very tight. The building cost $78,000, leaving just $41,000 to pay for the necessary improvements to the building, as well as architec- tural and other fees. When bids for the rehabilitation were received in April, they ranged from $64,498 to $82,875. The Emergency Housing Project (EHP) board initially entered into a contract for rehabilitation that was negotiated downward to fit their budget but would have deleted many important work items. They later made a decision to have all of the previously deleted work done this summer, prior to opening the shelter in August. Similarly, the Nelson Adult Center is facing a shortfall in the overall project budget. The scope of the project's second phase has had to be revised by deleting several work items. A request for $27,000 supplemental funding was presented by the Emergency Housing Project at the June 20 Committee on Community Needs (CCN) meeting. The CCN subsequently recommended to the City Council that an additional $30,000 be allocated for the emergency shelter, with this amount to come from the proceeds of the sale of the urban renewal hotel site. ///97 Page 2 Because it is felt that some of the work at the Nelson Adult Center is extremely necessary for improved and efficient operation, the Association for Retarded Citizens, owner of the Center, has also discussed requesting additional funds from the City. Depending on the options that are selected it is estimated that an additional $11,000-23,000 would be required to complete the Nelson Adult Center project. (There is in addition to an unexpended balance of $10,240 still remaining from the original grant.) Alternatives Since it is not known at this time how much of the proceeds from the sale of the hotel site will be needed to renovate Blackhawk Mini -park, the City Council may wish to consider other alternatives if the City is to fund the completion of the emergency shelter and Nelson Adult Center projects. These alternatives include: 1. Reallocating funds from a slow-moving CDBG project now with the intention of budgeting a like amount for that project in the 1985 grant. The congregate housing project, for example, presently has an unobligated balance of about $445,000. 2. Reallocating funds from CDBG projects which are likely to end up with a carryover surplus at the end of 1984. For example, housing reha- bilitation and code enforcement are expected to have a combined carryover of $35,000-$40,000. It appears that neither the Emergency Housing Project nor the Association for Retarded Citizens (ARC) has sufficient resources to raise the neces- sary funds themselves. The member churches of the EHP are committed to funding the emergency shelter's operation and maintenance. Likewise, the ARC has had a continuing commitment to operating and maintaining the Nelson Adult Center. The City Council is requested to consider these alternative sources for the allocation of additional funds for the emergency shelter and Nelson Adult Center projects. This topic will be included on the City Council's informal agenda for discussion on July 30, 1984. If you wish further information about these projects, please let us know. cc: Cheryl Mintle, Human Services Coordinator bcl 107 City of Iowa City �- MEMORANDUM Date: July 19, 1984 To: City Council 1I From: Rosemary Vitosh, Director of Finance (� Re: Funding of Shamrock/Arbor Storm Sewer Project The FY85 Budget provides total funding for the Shamrock/Arbor Storm Sewer Project from Federal Revenue Sharing (FRS) monies. The Kirkwood Circle Improvement Project was budgeted in FY85 to be funded with $27,600 of FRS and $60,000 of CDBG monies for a total budgeted project cost of $87,600. bj4/4 City of Iowa City = MEMORANDUM Date: July 18, 1984 To: City Council From: Robert Jansen, City Attorney U David Brown, Assistant City Attorne Re: Application of Franchise Fee to Sale Cable Franchise As a supplement to our memorandum dated June 29, 1984, it is our opinion that the City cannot impose as a condition of sale of the franchise to Heritage Communications the requirement that Heritage pay to the City a percentage of profits or proceeds of any future sale of the franchise. Such profit-sharing" would be tantamount to an unauthorized additional franchise fee which would be contrary to federal law. The Federal Communications Commission regulates the maximum franchise fee which can be collected by cities from cable companies. Currently, cities cannot impose a franchise on cable system operators of more than 3%, or upon waiver, 5% of the gross revenues derived by the operator from all cable services provided in the community. As you know, a proposed condition of sale is that the City and Heritage would jointly request a fee waiver to authorize the maximum 5% franchise fee. We believe that requiring Heritage to also share with the City a percentage of profits on a future sale or transfer of the franchise would not be legally defensible because such would be considered to be a "franchise fee" in excess of what is authorized by law. cc: Broadband Telecommunications Commission Neal Berlin Dale Helling Drew Shaffer bj3/6 /Z/0 r)Et�D!;. Federal Emergency Management Agency Region VII 911 Walnut Stmt JUL 2 a Honorable John McDonald Mayor of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52244 Dear Mayor McDonald: Kansas City, Missouri 64106 On June 28, 1984, Mr. Eric Jenkins of my staff met building code enforcement officials of Iowa City. The purpose was to review the adequacy of Iowa City's implementation and management of its flood plain management obligations as a participating community in the National Flood Insurance Program. During the review, your staff demonstrated a very firm grasp of program prin- ciples and requirements. The program is well established and well run with no major deficiencies being identified. One small area for correction did surface. This is the requirement for certification of "as built" elevation or floodproof- ing of flood plain developments. Adequate records could not be produced which certify that buildings constructed in the flood plain had been elevated or flood - proofed as specified by the building permit. A form which could be used to record such certifications was provided to the engineering department for adop- tion into their procedures. They have already agreed to implement this procedure. The city of Iowa City is doing a commendable job of managing its flood plains. We appreciate the cooperation and assistance in this important effort which has been provided by you and your staff. If my office can be of any assistance to Iowa City, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, .k �� rank Begley, DtGfsiot Natural & Technological Hazards Division /I/ -9d RFCc; V TOWNCREST DENTAL OFFICES, P.C. V Vc 3 1984 (A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION) 5019 Ant,ur 5,. ,: I �; - -SS' ." -�•�.'8. 4)1 S 4.4 PO U. 098 I._. 54]58 u,,, 3..,1 low. Gr.. low. 54410 (159) 64mat8 (Jt 9) 111.4111 Robert B. 09acn, D.D.S. John H. Hogeldnd, D.D S. Gerdld D. Momerud, D.DS. July 9, 1984 Neil Berlin City Manager City of Iowa City Civic Center Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Neil: I am enclosing a copy ci the notes I used in remarks I made before the city council on July 3, 1984. Councilmember Baker had asked that I send these notes. I believe he wanted them distributed to the council as a whole. I would be willing to meet with the council again in the future if they wish 'to further discuss the utility franchise of Iowa -Illinois Gas and Electric. I would also be willing to serve on a committee to carry on negotia- tions if the council so desires. Sincerely,/ 44aj 0 Robert B. n, DDS NOTES FOR REMARKS BEFORE CITY COUNCIL 7-3-84 History: We have had the same light and power franchise in Iowa City so long that we dont know if we are getting good services from Iowa Illinois Gas and Electric or not. We have had the same company so long that we don't know if there is someone else out there who would do a better job or not. If so, in what ways and how would they do a better job and at what price? Problem: The franchise of utilities creates such a monopoly for the company; they essentially have no competition and are guaranteed that none will be allowed. This is contrary to the American system of supply and demand setting the price and competition for the customer's dollar resulting in better service to the customer. With the same company having the franchise for so many years and no talk of anyone else even getting a chance at the franchise, perhaps the company becomes a little complacent, not sensitive to the feelings of their customers, and only willing to do things in their way. Questions: I wonder if in the discussions about renewing the franchise there can be any type of bid processes or alternative proposals from other companies. If the approval of the franchise is an item that goes before the voters would it be possible to offer to the voters various choices of proposals somewhat like what was done with the Cable TV franchise? This could create healthy competition to provide a better, more reliable product and better customer service. I've never heard of another community doing this, but why should that stop Iowa City from becoming a pioneer in community government. Perhaps if we look at other proposals we may find that we have absolutely the very best --fine; at least we know. Perhaps it is not legally possible to do this --fine; lets see about getting that law changed and try to get a little more competition into the utility business. 2 Recommendation: But if we can't get competition into the Utility business, there is one thing that simply must be changed and right away. That is the company's discretionary disconnect power. This disconnect power has reaked havoc with the elderly on fixed income. It has contributed to marital problems among the young marrieds who are temporarily unemployed. It has made the company king and the rest of us serfs when it comes to negotiations over disputed charges. This simply has got to be stooped immediately. If there is a disagreement about a charge the company can simply send a bill and then, unilaterally, with absolutely no;due process send a notice df intent to disconnect. The notyte can be and is sent before the disputed charges are even delinquent. Those of you in business know that when there is a dissatisfied'customer, efforts should be made tb resolve that dissatisfaction for the best public relations of the business, or, if there.s a dispute over some charges, that had better be resolved or you won't get paid. That's not true if you hold an exclusive franchise and have the power to unilaterally turn off a person's electricity and gas. Awarding of an exclusive franchise is a public trust which is mutually beneficial to the company and to the public. But the powgr to make the decision for a disconnect should not rest wiClY the company, it should rest with Ehe public. This decision to disconnect should be approved Ty a public board or committee which is appointed by city gdvernment or elected by voters but not chosen by the utilityicompany. There needs to also be further appeal avenues of this decision, short of going to the already overcrowded court?system. r'hbpe that some or all of these suggestions can be considered and adopted as you proceed to renew the utilities franchise with Iowa Illinois Gas and Electric. Robert Ogesen,' 305 Woodridge = Iowa City, IAi' 52240 4, c eo c r City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE: July 27, 1984 TO: City Council FROM: City Manager RE: Material in Friday's Packet Memoranda from the Department of Planning and Program Development: a. 5 Sturgis Corner Drive / 9z b. House File 456 L`F�-3 Memorandum from JCCOG Senior Planner regarding CDBG Human Services Building Score and Rating Information. Memorandum from the Department of Housing and Inspection Services regard' property at 1121 East Burlington. 9S Memoranda from the Department of Public Works: a. Council Referral - Wales/Seventh Avenue/Friendship / 96 b. Council Referral - YIELD Sign at Clapp Street/Jefferson Street / 97 Memorandum from the City Clerk regarding, beer/liquor Sunday sales/ conditional approval for The Sports Column. 10-f8 Letter from the Convention and Visitors Bureau regarding update of goals, accomplishments and fiscal 1985 budget. / 99 Letter from Gary G. Gerlach, President and Publisher of the Des Moines Register, regarding newspaper vending machines. /5194 Minutes of staff meetings of July 11 and July 18, 1984. /-6-0 t i City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: July 26, 1984 To: City Council From: Bruce A. Knight, Associate Planner�j Re: 5 Sturgis Corner Drive Attached is a copy of the Board of Adjustment decision regarding Lot 1 of Sturgis Corner Addition located at 5 Sturgis Corner Drive, and the resultant plot plan upon which the building permit was issued for the main building. Please note that as per the Board's decision, the building is located no closer than six feet to Riverside Drive and 15 feet to Sturgis Corner Drive. The required front yard setback in a CC -2 zone would otherwise be 20 feet. bj4/8 F 1 DECISIONS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 9, 1984 - 4:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS i MEMBERS PRESENT: Fisher, Randall, Slaeger MEMBERS ABSENT: Barker, VanderVelde STAFF PRESENT: Boyle, Franklin, Knight, McCormick SE -8408. That a special exception be granted to modify the 20 foot front yardrequirement for the property located at 5 Sturgis Drive to allow the proposed building to extend no closer than six feet to the Riverside Drive right-of-way and no closer than 15 feet to the Sturgis Corner Drive right-of-way:''- Douglas ight-of-way:"Douglas W.\Boothroy, Secretary. Iowa City Board of Adjustment MAY 141984 pRIAN K. ITY CLERK (3R C mK-e /�9a- bd AW 4 r aia A—,., orw 42'- s0• t .40'.94' /4,.w -p• I., ..n/ �we City of Iowa Ch, MEMORANDUM Date: July 26, 1984 To: Mayor McDon/ldland City Council ( / 1`` From: Don Schme Director, Department of Planning & Program Development Monica Ho nn Associate Planner iuMW4_ . Re: House File 456 ��� House File 456 provides that a local, non-profit historical society organized under Chapter 504 or 504A of the Code of Iowa, a City -owned historical project, or both are eligible for fun ing roma CouTBoard a upervi- sors under the general fund of the County. Until this legislation became effective on July 1, 1984, only local, non-profit historical societies were eligible to utilize funds generated by a permissive tax levy. Appropriations in the amount of $1500, for example, have been made to the Johnson County Historical Society by the Board of Supervisors in fiscal years 1984 and 1985. The funds are to be used to preserve and disseminate knowledge of the history of the area to the general public. Activities eligible for funding include but are not limited to: (1) collecting and preserving historical materials, artifacts, places, and structures of the area, including repairing and maintaining buildings; (2) maintaining an historical library and collections, including the construction, repair and maintenance of facilities necessary for exhibits and displays; (3) conducting historical studies and researches; and (4) issuing publications. The Historic Preservation Commission, in its efforts to inform the public of the history of the area and the desirability of preserving that history, may benefit by utilizing these monies for researching historical features of the community and preparing and disseminating informational publications. If you have any questions or desire additional information, please do not hesitate to contact Monica Moen or me at 356-5230. /sp /093 999�Johnson County Council of Governmei sis�` fVvNlingtcr& 41OEovuCity kMo5224O �1 G ► � I(\ Date: July 24, 1984 \ To: Neal Berlin, City Manager, Iowa City N Cheryl Mintle, Human Services Coordinator Harold Donnelly, Chairperson, County Board of Supervisors From: Judson Te Paske, Senior Planner Re: CDBG Human Services Building - Score and Rating Information My contact with staff at OPP revealed only limited information regarding the rating of our application. Jude Conway, a member of the evaluation commit- tee, told me that his sense and the general view of the committee was that relative to the other proposals, ours did not demonstrate a significant need. Since the agencies were already functioning, the lack of a central facility did not threaten their existence or the continued delivery of services. And, even if the agencies were experiencing difficulty leasing low-cost space, this in itself was not seen to jeopardize their continued operation. He also pointed out that relative to the other projects, our proposal costs signifi cantly more. As a final note, he did confess that the Committee didn't have much experience with evaluating this type of proposal. There were 73 applicants in the Large Area category and only 26 grants were awarded. Our proposal ranked No. 54 with 614 points. 693 points was the cut-off. This is how we scored: Rating Category Maximum Score Actual Score Local Low -lied Taxation Poverty Effort Income Need Impact Total 100 200 100 200 200 200 1000 90 200 100 164 35 25 614 I have looked through -the information to try and find a comparable project which was funded. The Ames grant seems to come very close and there is some similarity with that of Woodbury County's. I have written each for a copy thinking they might be of some help. Attachments /sp /7 7 1984 Non -Entitlement Community Development Block Grant Awards CITY/COUNTY --70BG-3 LOC T PR JEC Ames $346,111 $175,971 Acquisition/Clearance Handicapped Facility Sexual Assault Center Bancroft I 200,000 230,700 Storm Sewer Improvements i Barnes City I 200,000 127,000 Water Improvements I� Belle Plaine 333,200 160,700 Street Improvements Water Improvements Bellevue 200,000 100,000 Business Loan Street Improvements Water Improvements Burlington 266,000 133,000 Park Improvements Acquisition/Demolition Relocation Housing Rehabilitation Storm Sewer Improvements Burt 187,426 93,713 Storm Sewer Improvements Cerro Gordo County 350,000 175,000 Handicapped Facility Charles City 110,000 55,000 Handicapped Facility Clermont 44,000 20,637 Water Improvements Coin 23,333 12,000 Street Improvements Cresco 342,000 -0- Housing Rehabilitation Cumberland 132,000 66,000 Community Center Dayton 135,333 67,667 Sanitary Sewer Improvements CITY/COUNTY CDBG LOCAL EFFORT pROdECT 5 Decatur City $199,000 $132,000 Water Improvements Deloit I 45,000 15,000 Sanitary Sewer Improvements Diagonal i 169,783 84,892 Street Improvements Dows 77,333 38,667 Sanitary Sewer Improvements Dubuque County 138,333 101,667 Business Loans Earlham 200,000 580,000 Water Improvements Edgewood 200,000 200,000 Water Improvements i Elberon 103,000 51,500 Water Improvements Emmetsburg 350,000 175,000 Sanitary Sewer Improvements Estherville 171,600 85,900 Sanitary Sewer Improvements Water Improvements Industrial Development Evansdale 350,000 87,500 Acquisition/Clearance Relocation Housing Rehabilitation Storm Sewer Improvements Street Improvements Fairfield 335,000 75,000 Street Improvements Acquisition/Clearance Relocation Code Enforcement Fayette 200,000 172,000 Sanitary Sewer Improvements Floris 30,500 15,300 Fire Station and Equipment /4L9f CITY/COUNTYCITY/COUNTY CDBG LOCAL EFFORT S PROJECT(S) Fort Dodge $488,888 $ 25,000 Acquisition/Clearance Sanitary Sewer Improvements i Housing Rehabilitation i Gowrie 200,000 400,000 Sanitary Sewer Improvements Grafton 200,000 200,000 Business Loan Grand River 188,000 130,500 Sanitary Sewer Improvements Gravity 56,888 27,000 Storm Sewer Improvements Guthrie Center 200,000 197,500 Water Improvements Hopkinton 50,000 25,000 Storm Sewer Improvements Independence 333,333 350,000 Sanitary Sewer Improvements for Industrial Development Railroad Spur for Industrial Development Keokuk 347,000 30,000 Handicapped Facility Nutrition Program Housing Rehabilitation Clearance Storm Sewer/Sidewalks Senior Center Rehabilitation Keota 160,000 80,000 Water Improvements Storm Sewer Improvements Kiron 133,333 66,667 Water Improvements Klemme 149,400 74,700 Water Improvements Lamoni 350,000 260,000 Sanitary Sewer Improvements Water Improvements Storm Sewer Improvements Sidewalks Acquisition DG LOCAL i Lamont $200,000 $100,000 Water Improvements Lime Springs 200,000 69,054 Sanitary Sewer Improvements Housino Rehabilitation Lineville i 200,000 70,000 Street Improvements Lucas County 269,000 126,000 Senior Citizens Center Handicapped Facility Malvern 84,105 42,060 Water Improvements Sanitary Sewer Improvements Maquoketa 272,000 65,500 Industrial Building Street Improvements i Mason City 500,000 108,080 Site Clearance Park Improvements Street Improvements Storm Sewer Improvements Housing Rehabilitation Water Improvements Community Center Improvements McGregor 200,000 23,800 Storm Sewer Improvements Milo 200,000 171,270 Sanitary Sewer Improvements Milton 138,000 69,000 Street Improvements Sidewalk Improvements Missouri Valley 350,000 386,840 Water Improvements Monticello 127,600 71,400 Sanitary Sewer Improvements Business Loan Moravia 200,000 65,000 Street Improvements Mystic 200,000 71,300 Street Improvements CITY/COUNTY CDBG LOCAL EFFORT PR JE Nora Springs $200,000 $100,000 Sanitary Sewer Improvements Oto 139,360 16,000 Sanitary Sewer Improvements Paullina 200,000 132,050 Water Improvements Perry 350,000 175,000 Sanitary Sewer Improvements Storm Sewer Improvements Plover 39,067 19,533 Fire Station Pocahontas i 148,000 74,000 Sanitary Sewer Improvements I Promise City 100,000 50,000 Street Improvements Storm Sewer Improvements Rock Rapids 105,000 57,000 Sanitary Sewer Improvements i Business Loan Rockwell City 200,000 191,000 Sanitary Sewer Improvements Rolfe 120,000 60,000 Housing Rehabilitation Clearance Street Improvements Shannon City 75,000 29,000 Water Improvements Sheldon 350,000 263,571 Handicapped Facility Business Loans Energy Conservation Program Shenandoah 350,000 175,000 Storm Sewer Improvements Street Improvements Sibley 182,600 92,400 Water System Improvements Slater 75,133 37,567 Sanitary Sewer Improvements CITY/COUNTY CDBG S EOCAL EFFORT S PROJECT(S) Strawberry Point $120,164 $ 55,936 Sanitary Sewer Improvements I Stuart 200,000 202,500 Sanitary Sewer Improvements Swea City I 200,000 275,000 Water Improvements Tama 350,000 115,000 Housing Rehabilitation Demolition Water Improvements Sanitary Sewer Improvements Street Improvements Union 200,000 195,300 Sanitary Sewer Improvements Storm Sewer Improvements Water Improvements Street Improvements Van Wert i 200,000 328,150 Sanitary Sewer Improvements Volga 172,950 35,000 Water Improvements Wapello 100,000 50,000 Sanitary Sewer Improvements Woodbury County 311,475 287,000 County Care Facility Rehabilitation County Group Home Rehabilitation Bridge Construction Business Loan Housing Rehabilitation cannunity Developmit Block Grant Final Ralik by 7btal Points April 9, 1984 Smll Areas Page __—-------------------------------- `— P provisional --------------- Points — ------------ canaunity' Funded Poen IDBG $ Local $ Rank 7ota1 "Iax Pov Loc LMI Need Imp 803 192000 100000 226 637 90 80 100 92 110 115 ADAIR ADAMS COUNTY 3146 136300 502UO 260 _ 550 00 160 74 91 58 62 985 28675 U 259 554 90 180 21 128 50 35 AFION P 547 200000 144820 55 780 20 1.80 100 '100 170 160 AL INDIVIIi , 1517. 200000 100000 164 700 8U 160 100 164 98 98 AEON.' 953. 200000 113000 74 767 90 140 100 107 140 140 ALDEN 1132• 189555 147600 161 701 aU IOU IOU 116 130 125 ALLISON 314 100000 34000 243 609 20 120 66 121 115 115 ALTA VISTA 1153 140000 70000 87 757 50 120 100 197 130 110 ANpTA AppANOOSE COUNTY- 5371 350000 220000 188 681 100 180 100 96 107, 98 135 Alyy91RONG,. 1154 120000 60000 65 771 80 160 100 111 135 125 A10UDS PAR 1051 187600 92400 69 770 90 120 60 99 100 151 140 135 145 145 AMELIA 1143 248 194250 161900 97650 45000 126 236 728 • 620 80 30 18U 50 185 6U 57 AURORA 1650 116000 58000 84 759 80 80 100 179 135 135 AMCA 198 198000 0 193 680 50 7.00 0 200 120 110 BALMIN 1002 200000 230700 40 796 90 IOU 100 176 140 140 BARNIZ • ' 266 127000 1 9U9 40 20U 100 189 165 165 MY 919 .200000 28224 15000 223 639 80 120 100 107 98 84 BATTLE CREEK 1692 200000 38000 172 697 9U 180 38 114 125 125 BEDFORD • 2450 200000 100000 20 028 100 120 100 200 151 157 BELLbVUE 130 130000 101000 214 655 10 20 100 105 160 130 BERNARD 404 200000 100000 109 741 6U 140 100 176 107 108 BEARFSBUR; 247 190544 75272 171 698 9U 00 100 191 96 91 BLENcOE , 200 190000 10000 150 709 70 200 11 193 110 100 BLOCKION' 1377 200000 9718 271 402 6U 40 12 65 135 120 BSE GRASS 489 20900 5300 195 677 90 140 100 178 68 51 BONAPARM 1203 175000 25000 266 520 OU . 20 29 111 130 100 BONDURANT 139 61620 2536 251 575 20 20 25 200 130 130 BOUTON 1 ::::::::m•i:u;;;;;;;;;;;;;; HH„O:IIll HV!II,III: MiMHIli Ii!IIIII IIIIIli: lIli I1 11lil1j;jl'— Development Block Grant Final Rank by Total Points April 9, 1904 Small Areas Page Cannunity * funded ---%-- ___--__�—_-----�__________________ P Provisional --- --------- — Points----------- Cannunity Funded Popn CDBG $ local $ Rank Total Tax Pov Inc ID1I Need Imp 337 8775 1295 100 747 60 100 100 197 110 130, BRANDON 2185 200000 100000 76 766 90 80 100 146 150 150 BRITT BUENA VIS'T'A COUNTY 5957 350000 175000 208 660 60 20 100 200 110 145 120 150 BmAW CENTER 1233 200000 150000 135 721 799 70 80 80 100 100 100 176 179 145 145 BURP * 609 452', 187426 127500 93713 60000 39 225 637 60 40 100. 167 110 110 CAIAIUS 4031 200000 435000 222 639 20 60 100 94 155 160 CALBOUN COUNTY 732 2000OU 100000 104 .745 70 100 100 170 125 130 CAMBRIDGE 6699 50000 200100 232 623 910 40 100 93 130 120 CARROLL ODUNTY 1912 200000 100000 111 740 40 200 200 200 125 125 CASCADE 1591 .35300 20000 166 70U 100 40 200 20U 105 lU5 CPN'1CR POINT 615 134192 45200 67 77U 100 160 100 155 lUO 105 CHARTER OAK 376 140000 5300 163 700 60 2U0 24 116 110 120 CNL•TSEA 598 92041 4000 179 693 100 2UU 24 200 BU b9 CINCINNATI 1424 200000 20000 253 568 60 80 20 113 125 12U CLARKSVILLE 68 68000 0 260 507 10 140 4 43 140 120 CLAYTON 433 200000 30000 170 694 100 140 30 179 110 110' CTEARFIELD. 275 92650 46350 85 759 60 120 100 2UO 111 118 CLLGBORN * 602 44000 20637 6 874 40 160 94 200 170 160 ClARMONT 639 44900 15000 176 695 70 QU 73 20U 115 107 COGGON * 316 23333 12000 25 825 90 200 100 200 95 90 WIN 2234 200000 10000 218 649 100 00 20 144 127 120 COLFAX 93 83000 0 115 738 50 160 58 200 120 100 CUNWAY 1818 200000 100000 93' 75U 100 160 100 95 125 120 WRYDON 105 52777 27SUO 2114 667 20 140 100 157 90 00 CRAIG 157 156828 0 231 6'25 40 200 0 140 110 110 u �E�T CRO94ELL * 351 1.239E+ 50000 33 815 100 168 100 2UU 100 105 DAKOTA CITY 1072 166650 03350 149 709 70 120 lull 25 09 161 140 110 140 105 DALLAS 451 199900 o 1 12000 109 601 70 16U E, i� Community Development Block Grant Final Rank by 'local Points PVril 9, 1984 Snnll Areas Paye ---------------------------------------------- * Minded P Provisional -------------- Points ------------ Community Funded Popn MBG $ Local $ Rank Total Tax Pov Inc PML Need Imp DAVIS CITY 327 168530 25000 86 759 4U 180 50 184 130 125 DAVIS C0WTY 5589 350000 100000 257 564 90 200 57 102 35 30 DAY'IDN * 941 135333 50000 3 801 IN 120 100 191 160 160 DECATUR CITY * 199 199000 132000 4 080 50 200 100 200 155 125 DECATUR COUNTY 3446 218000 109000 95 749 100 200 100 149 70 80 . DELOIT * 345 45000 15000 42 795 80 180 67 158 120 ' 140 DELTA 482 140240 0 103 745 100 200 34 179 104 103 DIAGONAL, * 362 169763 84892 37 809 100 200 100 189 110 110 DIKE 987 114866 57434 102 746 90 60 100 91 175 180 DOW CI'PY 616 45752 11500 113 `139 70 100 100 134 140 145 DON'S ' * 771 132000 50000 38 801 9U '100 100 151 100 105 DRAKPSVILLE 212 40000 18000 148 7U9 40 180 90 109 120 120 DUNDEE 164 56666 U 19U 680 20 160 100 20U •• 75 75 OUNKWH)N 718 82222 42000 258 558 60 40 IOU 89 113 106 DUNLAP 1374 200000 0 128 725 9U 160 0 200 135 140 EARLVM 1140 200000 580000 32 815 90 120 100 155 150 150 MARLING 520 120000 , 60000 105 745 30 80 100 200 145 140 PDDYVIf.f.F: 1116 OOOUO 25000 .153 700 9U 140 73 172 94 69 1DGLW00D * 900 200000 200000 35 OLU 9U 100 100 200 135 135 ELBERON * 194 103000 51500 1.3 85U 60 200 100 170 130 140 ELGIN '• 702• 200000 5000U 152 700 40 140 69 179 122 108 ELKAOER 1688 15207U 77000 82 761 80 100 100 101 170 160 ELLIDTf 493 . 200000 60000 230 618 90 80 6U 133 105 100 ELLSIM 60 50800 9000 165 700 10 200, 77 193 90 00 ELLSrARTH 480 126522 63280 196 676 30 60 100 168 134 134 EUERLY 796 57361 20639 244 600 U0 40 100 70 150 110 MINE 217 200000 22600 79 764 30 180 100 194 100 110 FARMERSBURG 276 102629 51371 180 692 70 140 100 137 95 100 FARMING'ION 869 200000 20000 129 725 90 120 50 100 124 111, K C —..:::,,::,:::::�::::::,,;:,::,,nIll, ,1en11n;mar��r:�::,;:m:i�;ntn?{i!!!i�!ii!!!,::?,i:?'is;:!!i;,;ii:il!i!:.I::::i,:l�lq,a,i:il!i!:;��:,,!:!i!Iilii,:;1 ,11 11 I•' :; Ln':i : 1; 11:::•1.1,: i!i'' p': r i!;I,!ii!�lil!;!!i�i1::�11:!I!!Ifuiilil!i!Ihl C Community Develolnent Block -------------------------------------------------- Grant Final Rank by 'IbLal Dints April 9, 1984 Srall Areas Page It Funded P Provisional ------------- Poing---`-------- Ccmnunity Funded Popn CDBG $ Local $ Rank 7btal Tax Pov Loc L%fI Need Imp FARNW0VILLE 461 200000 100000 72 769 50 100 100 169 110 110 t'AYE1'IE * 1515 200000 172000 9 861 90 180 •10U 116 165 160 FLORi3 " 187 305UO 7200 16 844 3U 200 100 199 135 130 FRE N'T COUN'PY 3952 645UO 25OuO 250 584 60 180 78 91 •,6U 65 GHLT 60 50187 25100 94 750 50 200 100 2UO 80 70 GALVA 420 12555,5 107000 62 774 BU 100 100 197 129 '118 GAR01N GRAVE 297 0• U 281 ineligible 0 0 0 0 0 GAKNAVILW 723 79240 0 277 433 90 60 0 93 70 70 GARWIN 626 80000 40000 209 660 70 120 100 100 105 115 GILBERIVILLE 740 200000 37500 255 565 80 40 38 62 145 15U 'GLADBROOK 970 200000 100000 169 699 100 120 IOU 94 120 115 GLIDDIN 1076 2000UO l0u000 228 634 90 60 IOU 104 140 9U GOLDFIELD 789 200000 100000 116 736 100 60 IOU 106 110 110• ' WIRIE " 1089 200000 4000110 11 860 100 LOU 100 200 155 155 ' G11AFION * 255 200000 2000UO 7 665 40 16U 100 200 150 165 GIUM RIVER * 188 188000 130500 14 849 50 200 100 149 170 130 GRAVITY * 245 56008 27000 45 790 6U 160 95 2UO 125 100 MAY 108 3611 2750 219 640 90 180 100 140 40 40 GRE"''Y 313 54000 16000 235 620 4U 80 DO 200 70 60 GRENNE 1332 200000 360000 BU 755 80 100 100 110 155 160 GREMVILLE 122 37334 18666 217 652 30 100 IOU 152 70 70 GRISIOLI 1176 24050 11500 236 619 90 160 IOU 109 75 35 GU'INRIE CNN'I'ER * 1713 2000UO 197500 44 7911 IOU 140 1011 110 140 150 GU'1101IE 0OUN'1'Y 5416 53600 26400 186 684 7U 160 99 95 130 130• GUTIEWBERG 2420 0 0 200 applicatiun withdrawn 0 0 0 H4DRICK 847 200000 100000 123 729 IOU 140 100 119 110 110 HL'POURN 42 6000 3000 261 549 fill 20 DO 149 100 70 UOLIA6D 278 200000 10000 273 476 30 100 lu 101 JOS 105 HOLSIEIN 1477 2000U0 144000 77 766 60 160 100 116 155 125 .. ... ....n ................... ,T.�•��..-t-r9�-rt....q;p:!!In!.�nu.. ...r u........ . Tlv ..!, .... .. ..: mur.:. :..�!I!i .. ?1!11!1: .!: ll��iil!vll l: r.;•r, !III �: 4 C Cannunity Development Block Grant Final Rank by 'Ibtal Points April 9, 1984 Small Areas Paye -------------------------------------------- * Funded P Provisional I --------------- Points — ----------- Camunity Funded Pcpn COBG $ Local $ flank Total Tm Pov Ioc LM Need Imp HOPKINTON * 774 50000 25000 54 70U 90 140 100 200 125 125 HUBBARD 852 2762U• 13160 229 633 7U 40 95 163 110 105 BULL 1714 37530 5000 263 542 100 40 100 92 80 80 Ii IDN 580 '•70000 35U50 98 747 100 160 LOU 122 115 100 JESUP 2343 1181BU 34091 267 518 60 80 IOU 79 73 76 JEWELL 1145 20OOU0 158000 147 710 100 4U 100 135 140 145 KELLER'IUN 278 48600 7500 60 776 80 200 31 155 130 130 KENSEPP 360 180000 90000 69 755 80 120 IU0 185 120 IOU KENT 70 27900 U 187 682 8U 20U 35 152 90 75 KEI7PA * 1034 160000 80000 51 782 80 160 100 135 127 130 KIRKVILLE 220 12500 0 213. 655 20 180 0 200 120 110 KIRON It 317 133333 61667 21 IJ27 50 180 100 157 150 140 KLFMME * 620 149400 74700 52 781 7U 100 100 176 165 120 LA PORTE CITY ., 2324 2000OU 2OODUU 167 699 80 IOU 100 169 100 IOU LAKE V;I!W 1291' 200000 1000OU 175 695 9U 100 IUD 152 104 99 LAMONT It 554 200000 l000O0 34 810 3U 200 100 17U 130 13U LANSING., 1181 OU917 244183 13H 719 70 100 100 99 150 150 LAWLER 534 20UUUU 3000U 22U 647 10 16U 35 11.2 140 140 LE ROY 31 31000 0 184 685 40 200 45 20U 80 70 i LEDYARD 215 1260UD 63000 136 720 70 100 IOU 176 115 109 f.ENOX 1338 175000 55000 101 747 100 140 93 164 100 100 LEWIS 473 41003 12999 230 632 30 180 IOU 91 92 89 LEWIS 497 112000 22250 90 753 70 140 IOU 173 110 110 LINE SPRINGS * 476 200000 61774 43 794 5U 140 69 200 156 154 LINDEN 264 183000 16000 64 772 70 200 17 150 145 140 LINLVILLE * 319 200000 60000 26 825 90 200 70 20U 110 105 LISCOMB 296 168800 66000 221 643 60 120 100 164 85 89 LITTLE SIOUX 251 60200 0 140 71.8 100 200 U 143 115 110 LORIMOR 405 200000 100000 68 770 40 160 100 200 110 110 5 t nr.�-mrr•,r.,!:t:'tit ani;n;:!:e:::!R:iiF.'•::::::::!:::?nii::ahi!::ii!:!u!::7!!i:!!E iii(!!!i ti1!i!1Nfli'•i!II:III i'M-!iij illi i!I: ill! Iii IIUi!I! i Iii ii Comnunity Development Block Grant Final Rank by 'lbtal Points April 9, 1984 Sm311 Areas page 6 -------------------------- ----------------- * Funded I P Provisional -------------- Points----------- Caimunity Funded Popn CDBG $ Local $ Rank 7btal lax Pov lox LMI Need Lnp LAST NA'L'ION 524 117500 58750 174 695 30 100 100 176 121 118 LUCAS OJUNTY * 4060 269000 126000 47 788 100 160 94 20U 94 90 LUZMNE 114 23454 2703 272 479 5U 40 91 78 00 90 LY'TION 377 64000 2380 270 429 40 80 100 82 45 32 MADRID 2281 . 1995OU 1000UU 122 731 100 100 1OU 101 150 130 MALMM 41a 84000 42000 117 736 90 140 100 96 130 130 MALLARD 407 200000 l000UU 131 723 50 140 1OU 123 130 130 MALVFIIN * 1244 84105 42UGO 48 705 100 80 100 2OU 131 124 MANNING 1609 200000 290500 177 694 9U GU IUD 149 125 120 MARBLE ROCK 419 14000U 2000U 106 744 90 180 29 200 110 110 ,ARCUS 1206 32000 16000 245 (jOO 90 100 100 105 90 90 MAI"GO 2308 67000 25000 1G8 699 70 120 93 116 125 125 MAR12OPIS 528 200000 40000 110 740 100 160 53 107 .135 135 MIASONVILLE 150 42010 5000 154 708 20 200 23 200 115 100 MAURICL 288 50030 6570 247 593 20 GU 100 158 105 100 MKhREGOR * 945 200000 20000 19 830 80 140 24 191 175 170 MOCHANICSVILLE 1166 200000 1G0000 1.18 736 00 60 100 196 125 125 MLLCNEII 953 80000 2000U 173 695 90 160 50 14U 100 105 MENLO 410 200000 .1000UO 234 621 40 60 10U 181 150 40 MILFORD 2076 200000 205000 183 686 80 80 100 116 130 130 �. MILLERSBURG 184 90000 0 264 535 GO 40 0 200 90 95 141W * 770 200000 17127U 10 860 90 12U 100 105 155 160 MIL10N * 567 138000 52000 17 030 6U 200 100 200 110 110 141'10HL1.LV1116E 1530 2000UU 300000 146 710 80 4U 10U 175 130 135 MONMOU'111 21U 2000UU 0 148 590 5U 160 U 200 100 55 lMJN'1'ROSE 1038 26000 13000 137 720 b0 100 100 1.10 135 145 MORAVIA. * 706 2000UO 60000 24 825' 100 200 65 201) 120 115 MORNING SUN 959 200000 200000 108 741 70 140 100 156 110 115 MOUL'ION - 762 " 190880 39230 70 769 100 160 94 180 89 80 lannunI Develo lknt Block Grant Fipal Ha1dc by ')otal Points April 9, 1984 Saall Areas Y P' ---------------------------- *Funded . P Provisional Paye 7 �� p in ii t•'tni i'i '' i(" i iii li Its ! i ' li ! n i? i i � u?r•.iii?ff??1iCi1!!II!!II!iIIIIiRllllllll11111!ii!(Illil!1lflii!ipili!illLiilIII!!!!!!lit!'ll!!II!!I!I!i!ili!!;II!!i;:iu�ul�ll;l;q;�,l!Illi;,,I?I�!i'i!� lslilllilllP. --------------- PoinL-; ------------- Comnwity Fancied Pcpn CD13G $ Local $ Hank Total ')ax L»v, Loc [MI Need Imp 1938 150000 75000 125 728 IOU 160 100 142 125 101 MOUNT AYH 703 141600 5000 127 727 JUO 200 24 143 130 130 (QRHAY * 665 200000 42500 36 009 80 18U 71 198 115 115 MYSTIC 1846 200000 308500 201 671 60 80 100 106 140 135 NASHUA 2043 200000 100000 124 728 60 120 100 149 123 126 NEW LONDON 554 200000 60000 192 680 50 168 60 141) 110 •110 NEN MARKE2 1225.• 60000 3000U 198 674 10 120 100 189 100 105 NEW SHARON 438 50000 19000 197 675 40 160 100 170 90 9u NEW VIENNA 185 118158 0 212 657 70 14U 30 167 105 95 L"AWAY * 1572 200000 100000 15 845 100 120 100 165 16U 150 MORA SPRINGS 470 40000 2000U 145 711 20 16U 100 156 115 110 O)ll(V11.r.N: 1953 200000 100000 121 732 30 148 IOU 112 158 150 OG00N 218 60000 25000 2)1 611 50 OU IOU 136 100 95 WSMq •P 416 43630 10000 56 779 7U 200 93 171 105 115 0RIL-NT 829 200000 101000 713 765 100 141) 100 125 130 120 OSSIAN 692 108667 54333 157 7U5 GO GU 100 177 130 128 MID * 172 139360 16000 50 783 40 280 23 200 155 165 010 600 31111 8075 61 775 9U lao 90 175 BO 118 0XE011D JUNCTION 1960 1057UO 435UU 265 527 00 GO 100 65 05 87 PARKh11SBURG * 1'224 2000UU 182000 49 784 101) lU0 100 158 .136 140 PERSIANA 355 40000 20000 144 712 40 160 l0U 167 105 90 PERSIA 488 14185 2273 134 721 811 180 100 146 77 B0 PIBRSON 469 200000 52350 205 GGU 70 120 52 133 12U 115 PLAINFIEW 1531 200000 74000 107 742 IOU 12U IOU 167 lu5 100 PLGASAN1VIL6E * 135 39067 15533 O 864 90 180 IOU 184 130 130 PIAVM * 2352 140000 74000 46 789 UB 120 IOU 131 150 155 POCAHONTAS 1658 200000 193000 119 734 80 40 108 134 165 165 POLK CITY 240 34000 1000U 114 739 20 18U 100 159 115 115 POR45MOUTH 1475 46490 0 254 5fi7 IUO 160 0 167 70 70 PO5'IVILLG �� p in ii t•'tni i'i '' i(" i iii li Its ! i ' li ! n i? i i � u?r•.iii?ff??1iCi1!!II!!II!iIIIIiRllllllll11111!ii!(Illil!1lflii!ipili!illLiilIII!!!!!!lit!'ll!!II!!I!I!i!ili!!;II!!i;:iu�ul�ll;l;q;�,l!Illi;,,I?I�!i'i!� lslilllilllP. Connunity Development Block Grant Final Rank by 'lbtal Points April 9, 1904 SmlL Areas Page 8 ----------- ------------- ---- ------------------ * PLnded P Provisional ' -------- ----- Points ----------- Cannunity Faxled Popn COBG $ Local $ Rank Tbtal Tax Fov foc IMI Need Lip POWESHIEK COUNTY 6223 350000 1.1Li-06 202 67U 9U 00 100 140 105 105 PRAIRIEBOFG 197 44900 1550U 191 6U0 20 120 73 197 110 110 PRESCOTT 349 85850 0 97 74B IuO 120 50 155 130 135 PRESTON 1120 48666 24334 132 722 7U 100 100 lU4 149 149 PRIMGHAR P 1050 200000 154150 53 780 80 160 100 115 140 135 PROMISE CITY * 149 100000 40000 27 825 50 200 100 200 110 115 PROMIN 368 182777 100000 81 762 60 160 100 152 12U 120 RAKE 283 34840 17160 73 768 100 80 99 179 130 130 RANDA61A 101 12710 0 279 303 20 60 U 53 55 65 RAYf,XM 655 88000 40000 276 455 20 4U 91 44 110 IOU RICLVILLC 919 200000 100000 66 771 9U 60 100 176 135 140 RICHLAND 600 4000 2000 274 461 20 140 100 06 35 30 ' RICKMS 143 123000 20000 182 6U6 30 ISO 33 198 100 95 H1 =[D BOUNTY 2989 259000 07000 170 699 60 200 ' 67 102 110 110 RINGSTED 557 64000 30740 99 747 110 160 100 141 118 98 RIVFAISIDE 826 200000 60000 269 505 50 160 60 .1U0 50 15 HIVER'RhV 342 100000 12000 63 772 60 180 57 200 115 110 ' HOCKWELL MY * 2276 200000 191000 23 825 100 140 100 165 140 130 FODNLY 82 9714 2000 227 636 L4) 200 41 165 40 40 ROLFE * 796 120000 35000 5 880 100 140 100 200 140 150 HUNNELLS 377 .170000 68270 275 450 20 20 100 146 . 60 60 v RUSSELL .. 593 2000UO 09000 200 673 80 120 100 U8 125 llU SABULA 824 '166000 83000 194 678 20 00 100 194 117 117 SALIX 429 53160 26640 15L 708 4U 120 100 143 125 130 SCRANTON 748 102000 34000 139 718 bU 160 100 168 OU 80 SERGEANT BLUFF 2416 200000 0 242 610 411 UU 0 200 125 115 SEYMOUR 1036 180680 13350 58 778 90 1.80 97 161 104 96 SHAMAuG8 197 199000 140600 2U3 G69 60 12U 100 94 130 .115 SHANNON CITY * 93 75000 29000 29 817 60 200 77 170 150 110 . I ... ...... .... .....,. ...—.-,:,..:,::.,,::! •. :: Coiknunity Developrent Block Grant Final Rank by lbtal Points April 9, 1984 Shall Areas Page ------------------'-------------------------- * Funded P Provisional • -------------- Points ---------- Connunity Faded Popn CDBG $ Local $ Rank 'Total lax Pov loc IMI Need Imp S10uWSWNG 114 65500 0 224 639 60 180 14 2.0U BU 60 SHEFFIELD 1224 200000 100000 80 763 40 120 100 158 145 150 SIOJURNEY 2330 200000 132200 199 673 90 120 100 93 110 110 SLAM * 1312 75133 37567 28 817 IU0 120 100 152 145 150. SLOAN 976 200000 1000U0 130 724 40 IOU lU0 20U 122 112 SMITHIADD 282 200000 35000 83 760 70 200 35 200 105 100 SOLDIER 257 177000 80000 249 584 6U 60 99 107 99 89 SUU11i ENGLISH 211 200000 100000 . 142 715 40 12U 100 125 140 140 SPRINGVILLE 1165 57000 671901 233 622 20 40 100 92 16U 160 ST ANSGAR 1100 200000 100000 59 777 90 120 100 180 117 120 ST DONNIUS 197 85000 0 210 657 10 16U 0 197 125 115 ST PYUIYS 111 115000 75000 12U 733 30 120 100 143 165 125 ST OIAF 138 137995 0 162 7U0 BU 186 U 200 107 108 S'rk:fVdBONI' wxx 387 60000 30000 96 749 100 160 100 159 90 90 S'1'H44BUM POINT * 1463 1M64 42000 18 830 90 160 93 107' 170 160 SWART * 165U 200uU0 202500 12 851 80 14u TUU 176 165 165 SU,INER 2335 10500 5300 2U6 660 90 120 100 130 70 100 SNEA CITY * 813 200000 275000 22 026 90 140 LOU 176 135 135 TABOR 1088 40160 20080 239 615 00 160 100 140 50 60 '11.1HPLMON 319 200000 97100 75. •766 30 100 100 176 110 120 TINGLEY 210 68450 0 158 705 40 20U 0 200 110 105 'HtIPULI 12BU 182600 91700 159 7U4 100 60 100 114 140 140 '1RUID 407 157000 143000 216 653 50 80 100 120 135 110 UNION * 515 200000 195300 30 816 6U 140 IOU 198 136 132 UrIIONVILLE 151) 62600 1400 215 653 • 60 2UU 38 190 6U 55 UNIVMSITY PARK 645 200000 225000 207 660 30 60 100 95 165. 160 URDJVJA 574 111572 27482 105 685 80 60 96 184 105 110 U11s 479 60000 34000 133 722 30 200 100 164 103 100 VAN W RIN 03Ur1'1'Y 4621 350000 50000 91 752 100 40 29 98 150 • 150 :] Cc a mitt' Development Block Grant Final Ralik by Ibtal Points April 9, 1984 Swill Areas Page 10 ------------------------ ------------------------ P Provisional ------------- Points ---------- Cannunity Fauided Popn CUBG $ local $ !tank Intal. Tax Pov Loc 611 Need IMP VAN ADINE 682 136000 68000 240 614 90 60 IOU 64 130 120 VAN %VM * 245 2000UU 320150 2 9U5 50 200 100 200 165 140 V1cim 1046 143210 39104 246 596 80 40 94 151)• IOU 82 VOLGA * 3.1U 172950 35000 41 795 70 200 40 170 135 130 WADWA 230 200000 15000 256 564 30 120 17 107 120 120 WMAUT 897 lOUDUO 5000U 92 751 100 140 166 100 125 120 WAPLL[0 * 2011 100000. 50000 31 816 80 100 100 161 160 165 WAUKEE 2227 131000 65500 270 480 100 20 100 60 80 70 WAMP OOUNIY 3358 350000 205500 141 716 40 200 100 96 115 115 WL•'I.DON 187 187000 41000 160 703 30 200 44 99 160 120 WEUR)w 119 34600 13000 181 691 20 200 100 179 67 75 WEST 01340 941 200000 160000 57 770 70 120 100 113 165 160 I%L:3ISIDE 387 27175 ' 13385 252 573 80 4U 99 164 70 70 VAiAT 016M 803 18000 3000 156 706 IOU 180 100 181 60 60 148PP M 168 26600 12000 143 715 100 100 99 156 105 105 WIVInHUp 767 57482 29867 262 549 30 80 100 104 90 95 WWDBINE 1463 133333 26167 155 707 r00 140 IOU 127 105 105 iwDOuRN 207 200000 307655 112 739 80 160 100 149 110 90 NC WIUCK 235 163740 81270 71 769 100 140 99 200 90 90 'LLVIWLE 119 30000 15000 211 657 10 160 100 167 90 80 NECU103 SELM11D OU281 ......::.::: ::.: .::: :t1.::: L::1: :: �: :... .. � r....0 r..r.�uu.r�r. �.... r... ... ... ............✓.....r....��..rr..u,...r....rn.. ...r ni�.�.. n. .... .. ... ... .. — r Cannunity Developumt Block Grant Final. Rank by 'lbtal Points April 9, 1984 Large Areas Page ----------------------- * FlInded —--"---------------- ` P Provisional -------------- Points -- ------ — Conmunity Furkled Popn CDEG S local $ (tank 1bta1 'lax Pov LoC IMI Need DID ALGIA 4184 350000 200000 50 625 90 120 38 144 117' 116 ALLAMAKFE 0JUN'1'v 7445 343000 0' 42 650 20 200 52 98 145 135 ,y.103 * 45775 ' 346111 175971 16 732 4U 200 90 200 105 97 BELLE PLAINE * 2903 333200 160700 9 768 80 200 96 156 117 119 BEuKMD 2505 275333 137667 58 595 80 80 100 140 95 100 BUCOMIAN ODUN'lY 9517 350000 190000 62 582 40 140 NO 92 105 105 BURLINGION * 29529 266000 133000 5 786 90 140 100 200 130 126 CARLISLE 3073 220166 130004 57 599 40 40 100 119 155 145 CARIML 9705 159100 78400 44 644 6U 40 99 200 130 115 CERRO GORDO OOUN'IY * 7512 350000 175000 lu 765 5u 60 100 200 180 175 CHARLES CITY * 8778 110000 33000 11. 800 50 140, 60 200 160 150 CHICK OM O.IUN'PY 7108 300000 150000 63 582 20 120 100 92 120 130 CLAYIUM CDUN'IY 9799 705UU 35000 43 647 9U 180 99 112 83 83 CLEAR LAKE P 7458 340DOU 1700U0 28 690 30 UO 100 200 140 140 CLINIMN P 32820 500000 U 27 692 70 100 17 200 154 151 CumuN COUNTY 10474 200000 100000 51 625 6U 20 100 200 120 125 CDIIALVILLE 7687 350U00 175000 40 654 20 200 100 109 115 110 CRISCO * 3860 342000 0 6 785 luU IOU U 200 150 155 DE W.VlT 4512 350000 1750110 35 666 30 G0 100 188 152 136 DELNVARr 0XR47Y 9578 350000 175000 52 618 40 IOU 100 90 120 80 DENIM 6675 350000 3U00O00 68 499 40 160 100 94 55 50 DUBUQUE O)UN'lY * 18561 138333 101667 24 695 100 40 100 200 140 115 DY197.4vlLLE 30.25 350000 175000 65 555 20 20 100 200 105 110 ELDORA 30G3 228000 110000 59 593 80 4U 96 92 140 145 D7601SBUPG * 4621 350000 175000 13 748 90 IOU 100 90 130 j50 LS1111MVILLE * 7518 1716UO 05900 1 900 9U 200 100 200 155 155 bVANSDALE * 4798 350000 07500 20 710 40 1GU 50 20U 131 ' 129 FAIRFIELD * 9428 335000 75000 7.5 694 30 160 45 180 134 137 MOM' 0)UN'1'Y 9502 350000 100000 30 675 20 120 57 173 175 130 1 r - u Cannunity Development Block Grant Final Rank by 7btal Points April 9, 1984 Large Areas Page * Funded P Provisional 2 C --------------- Points ---------- Conaunity Funded lbpn CD13G $ Local $ Rank 'lbtal Tax Pov Loa LNI Need Lap I.ORT DOUGE * 29423 488888 25000 12 753 90 160 10 200 143 150 85 FLIRT 14ADLWN 13520 35000U 400000 66 526 50 80 LOU 39 121 2UO 90 111 103 GWJW00D 5260 350DUO 125000 31 56 673 611 60 80 16U 80 31. 190 110 120 GRINNELL * 8068 6392 323125 333333 50000 350000 4 791 100 IOU 100 200 150 141 INDEPFNUMCE 6174 350000 175000 32 673 90 140 100 93 130 •12U IOWA PALLS 11880 350000 175000 39 655 80 40 IOU 200 115 120 JASPER WUNTY 4854 350000 352750 36 663 50 140 IOU 130 125 110 JWFERSON JUHNSUI4 COUNTY 15847 500000 650000 54 614 90 200 100 164 35 25 JOHNS' 2617 350000 . 0 67 505 3U 20 U 200 135 80 120 70 JOPES QTY 8555 58133 26567 70 467 30 7U 100 100 91 17 96 200 146 134 KFAKUK * 13536 8143 347000 350000 30000 350000 14 69 746 489 10 160 IOU 104 60 55 KNOXVILLE * 2705 350000 260000 0 769 50 200 100 193 113 113 LJVQNI 8276 1645U6 .82130 33 671 70 120 200 176 105 100 LE MARS LINN ODUNTY 22049 63558 31780 71 430 100 20 200 90 60 60 MAQUOKBI•A * 6313 272000 65500 19 714 20 200 46 '2UU 126 119 PM 1011 19474 200000 100000 41 651 40 40 IOU 151 160 160 MN1SIUtLf, CDUN'1'Y 8786 10000U 500110 47 640 6U 4U 100 200 120 120 MANSIIhLf;IOwW 26938 0 U 72 ineligible 0 U 0 0 135 U 135 61ASON MY * 30144 500000 108080 18 718 744/ 50 70 140 HU 50 100 200 109 140 145 MISSOURI VALLL•'Y * 3107 350000 386040 15 23 697 511 IOU 100 200 119 120 i•IJtUICEL LD * 3641 5912 127600 103000 714(10 45000 53 615 90 IOU 87 125 104 109 tdLVADA 15292 366050 0 48 633 8U 6U U 200 149 144 NFWILM 0ELMIN 7564 100000 5000U GU 58G 70 IOU 100 101 105 110 PLRRY * 7053 350000 175000 17 721 100 8U 100 198 123 120 PLYMOII'151 MONTY 10093 00865 40435 G1 505 10 140 100 200 70 65 125 FOLK COUNTY 26047 500000 259550 38 656 100 60 lU0 146 125 2 C Connunity Development Block Grant Final Bank by 7btal Points Com unity Fumled BACK RAPIDS SAC CI'L'Y SHEMON S11ENJuVU0A11 Points — ------------ SIBMY SIOUX CENTER COBG $ SIOUX. Q)UN1'Y Rank STORM LAKE lox TAM Loc VINION Need WAPELLJ) O)UN'TY 2693 WIMS'1ER CITY 150667 WEST UNION 693 HWDSURY COUNTY 120 RECURDS SUL.WIED 00072 April 9, 1984 Large Areas Page 3 * Fu 0ed P Provisional n --------------- Points — ------------ Popn COBG $ Local $ Rank lbtal lox Pov Loc IMI Need Tinp 2693 275333 150667 26 693 30 120 100 146 147 15U 3000 207333 103667 49 628 80 80 100 113 125 130 5003 35UOOU 263571 7 777 80 140 100 200 138 119 6274 350000 1750u0 21 709 IU0 80 100 185 126 118 3051 182600 92400 22 698 50 200 100 118 115 115 4588 350000 350000 29 685 30 100 100 162 147 146 1U700 350000 2222211 64 559 10 100 IUO 200 78 71 8814 350000 385600 45 644 90 80 100 164 110 IOU 2960 350000 115000 2 801 90 'LOU 84 170 128 129 5u40 3500U0 273000 46 642 f,U 160 100 102 110 11.0 9273 200000 0 34 670 100 100 IOU 95 140 135 11572 350000 30OOuu 55 612 50 140 IOU 92 120 110 2783 350000 342000 37 659 4U 160 100 200 00 71 9564 311475 287000 3 797 70 140 100 200 146 139. . n City of Iowa C MEMORANDUM Date: July 26, 1984 To: Doug Boothroy, Director, Housingg,,8 Inspection Services From: Judy Hoard, Housing Inspector A Re: 1121 East Burlington 1J The information that I am putting in memo form is taken from the property file history sheet of 1121 East Burlington. Specifically, I will be provid- ing information regarding the garage at the south side of the property. A complaint was filed with the City Manager on April 5, 1983. The City Manager referred the complaint to then department head Michael Kucharzak who in turn gave it to Inspector Kelley Vezina to investigate. Inspector Vezina con- ducted an inspection of the garage on April 5, 1983, and cited the garage at the south side of the property with the roof in disrepair with holes in the roof, missing shingles and rotted sheathing. The violation letter was delivered to the owner of the property, Katherine Walden, on April 13, 1983. A time period of 90 days was given for correction of the violation. On July 13, 1983, I reinspected the property and found that the violation was not corrected. At that point I was directed by Michael Kucharzak to give a final 30 -day extension. If the violation was not corrected at the end of that 30 -day period, I was instructed to file charges and to make the property eligible for rent escrow. At this point I tried to notify the owner by telephone and was unsuccessful reaching her. I then sent a letter to the owner stating the final 30 -day notice and informing her of the action to follow at the end of that time period if the corrections had not been made. I received a call from her on August 12, 1983, informing me that work should begin within the next two weeks. At that point I granted her an additional 30 -day to September 15, 1983, and told her that it would be necessary to see the repairs well underway by the September 15, 1983 deadline. On September 15, 1983, then Inspector/Firefighter Robert Maske spoke with Katherine Walden by phone, was informed that the work had not been started and gave a 15 -day extension to September 30, 1983. On October 13, 1983, Katherine Walden spoke with Michael Kucharzak saying that she had secured a loan to repair the roof and had arranged for a contractor to make the repairs. Michael Kucharzak told her that it would be necessary to receive a copy of the contract in order to grant any additional time. On October 12, 1983, I spoke with Katherine Walden and told her that Michael Kucharzak had put a time of October 10, 1983, by which the copy of the contract needed to be received. She told me that she did not know that he had given but a week for her to send in a copy of the contract. At this point I gave her an additional five days to October 11, 1983. The contract copy was received and Michael Kucharzak approved an extension to November 15, 1983, to repair the roof. I reinspected the garage on November 15, 1983, and noted that repair on the roof had not yet begun. I attempted to contact Katherine Walden and was told she would not be at work until November 18, 1983. Another reinspection was conducted on November 22, 1983, by myself at which time work had still not begun on roof repairs. At that point I 109 prepared legal charges as directed by Michael Kucharzak. The charges were approved by the Legal Department and were filed on December 5, 1983, by myself. Inspector Vezina conducted a reinspection on January 11, 1984, at which time he noted that repairs had been initiated. Katherine Walden called on January 16, 1984, and stated that she thought the repair should be completed by the end of January and that she would speak with the contractor. Meanwhile, a court date had been scheduled for May 3, 1984. Further reinspections on January 30 and February 2, 1984, both resulted in finding the garage roof repairs not complete. The court date of May 3, 1984, was rescheduled as I was planning on being out-of-town on that date. A new trial date was set for August 27, 1984. On May 4, 1984, I conducted a licensing inspection of the duplex property and cited violations of the Housing Code. I noted at the time of the licensing inspection the garage roof was still not repaired. Katherine Walden told me that she had had difficulties with the contractor she had hired in having the work completed. bj4/1 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: July 25, 1984 To: Charles Schmadeke, Director of Public Works From: James Brachtel, Traffic Engineer Re: Council Referral - Wales/Seventh Avenue/Friendship Recently the City Council requested that Wales/Seventh Avenue/Friendship be investigated to determine if there is a traffic control problem at this location. Currently, Seventh Avenue runs north and south with no traffic control. This is appropriate as Seventh Avenue is part of the City's collector system. Friendship Avenue T's into Seventh Avenue. Wales T's into Friendship. Both Wales and Friendship are controlled by stop signs. After reviewing the intersection in the field, I can determine no diffi- culty with the existing traffic control. I reviewed the City's accident report file for this intersection and since January of 1979 there has been but one reported property damage accident at this intersection. That reported accident occurred in 1981. Based upon the field review and the accident experience at this location, there is no apparent need to change the existing traffic control at this location. Should you require additional comment, please don't hesitate to contact me. bdw3/5 X0 11 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: July 24, 1984 To: Charles Schmadeke, Director of Public Works From: James Brachtel, Traffic Engineer— Re: ngineerRe: Council Referral - YIELD Sign at Clapp Street/Jefferson Street Recently the City Council requested that the intersection of Clapp Street and Jefferson Street be studied to determine if a YIELD sign was needed. Attached to this memorandum is a sketch of the intersection. There are two traffic streams that enter Clapp Street from Jefferson Street. Both of these streams have their own lane on Clapp Street. A YIELD sign assigns right-of-way at points of conflict. Since both lanes of traffic have individual lanes for exiting the intersection, there is no point of conflict and a YIELD sign is not warranted. The accident report files for the City were also reviewed to determine the accident experience at the intersection. There have been no reported accidents at the Clapp Street/Jefferson Street intersection in calendar years 1984, 1983 or 1982. The portion of Clapp Street between Jefferson Street and Market Street is used as a weaving area. There may be occasion when vehicles weaving (or changing lanes) are required to mix with the other lane of traffic. However, a YIELD sign at the intersection of Clapp Street and Jefferson Street will not resolve conflicts north of the intersection. Should' you require additional comments regarding this matter please don't hesitate to contact me. bj2/6 /*9� City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM OATRt July 18, 1984 TO: Iowa City City Council FROM: City Clerk Marian K. Karr RE: Beer/Liquor Sunday Sales/Conditional Approval FOR YOUR INFORMATION --Conditional approval was given at the 3/27/84 meeting to The Sports Column, 12 S. Dubuque for Class C Liquor Sunday Sales permit. They have submitted after the 90 -day period, the required infonma- tion which allows them to retain their permit. /449P -iowa city QoanvenHcn&visitorsbureau lc9eastbudington C P.O. baX2358 iowa ci l iawa 52244 A 319.337.9637 July 25, 1984 RECcIVED JUL 2 6 1984 To: Iowa City Council From: Renee Jedlicka, Director, Convention 6 Visitors Bureau The Convention 6 Visitors Bureau appreciates your allocation of 259 of the room tax to help our efforts in promoting the area. After one year of revenue, we felt it was time to update the council on our activities. Enclosed are some of our accomplishments, goals, and fiscal 1985 budget. Please look this over so we can answer your questions. Sheila Boyd, the 1985 Board president and I will attend your meeting on Monday evening to discuss this in greater detail. /�z 99 GENERAL INFORMATION Iowa City/Coralville Convention & Visitors Bureau FISCAL YEAR 1984 1. The bureau worked with 7500 delegates to conventions this year. These people alone spent $1,548,000 here and stayed 2.4 days. 2. Sixteen bus tours and eleven group tours arranged and accompanied by the bureau staff or volunteers. These groups averaged 1.5 days in the community and spent $125,338. 3. The Convention & Visitors Bureau answered approximately 6300 information requests in the year. These travelers walked in, phoned, or wrote letters. 4. The bureau produced a first class visitors guide to Iowa City/Coralville. It was estimated 40,000 were needed for one year, but after six months the supply has been completely distributed. 5. In cooperation with the state tourism division, the bureau hosted three familiarization tours of the area. One was for midwestern tour bus operators, another for I-80 Welcome Center employees, and another for World Fair information booth employees. 6. The bureau attended seven travel shows distributing thousands of pieces of information on the community. 7. Nearly 20 bids were submitted to organizations by the bureau to host conventions in the upcoming five years. Four important bids were for the Junior Olympics, Women's Bowling tournament, NCAA Wrestling Nationals, and the World Ploughing Contest. B. in an effort to increase awareness of Iowa City/Coralville, the bureau has achieved contacts and cooperation with area tourist attractions, the University of Iowa, Iowa Center for the Arts, and the state tourism division. 9. The bureau sent 4,000 information packets to athletes attending the Sports camps this summer. 10. In preparation for the Junior Olympics and World Ploughing Contest, the bureau has worked closely with both planning committees. 11. To give travelers up-to-date information on attractions and activities, the bureau installed a 24-hour visitor information line. GOALS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1985 1. Attend two major bus tour travel shows and secure 50 tours to the area. 2. Provide information to 7500 travelers to the area. 3. Complete the University Hospital information center. 4. Host another Tourism Week to increase awareness of the bureau. 5. Assist 10,000 delegates to conventions. 6. Cooperate with the Des Moines bureau in marketing I-80 between Iowa City/Amana. 7. Arrange and accompany 50 group tours and bus tours. 8. Submit bids for 35 conventions. 9. Continue everything the bureau has been doing, only do it better. X09 Convention & Visitors Bureau Fiscal Year 1985 Budget Revenue Room Tax 99.03 Dues 1.08 100.08 Expenditures Travel & Promotion Travel, trade shows 7.78 Promotion (brochures, bids, 12,7% awareness, etc.) Junior Olympics 12,48 Group memberships/training 2,08 TOTAL TRAVEL & PROMOTION 34.88 Operating Expenditures Billboards 13.38 Office supplies, bookkeeping 4.88 Operating supplies, rent 5.08 Liability insurance, bonding, audit .88 Salaries, benefits,'taxes 39.38 Misc. 2_08 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES 65.28 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 100.08 $121,000 $121,000 /4Z99 Gary 0. 0eriach Froident and FubWihff July 25, 1984 Mr. Neal G. Berlin O,JUL26 City Manager City of Iowa City Civic Center 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa. 52240 Dear Mr. Berlin: This is in response to your letter of July 19, 1984, in which you sought The Register's comments on the proposed regulation of newspaper vending machines by the City of Iowa City. As many courts have noted, the uninhibited right to publish newspapers would be meaningless without the uninhibited right to circulate them. This right to circulate, the courts have noted, is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Because any regulation scheme aimed at newspaper vending machines would restrict the First Amendment rights of The Register, and all publishers, The Register opposes enactment of such ordinances. This opposition is more than philosophical; as you are probably aware, The Register has sued the City of Des Moines in a federal civil rights suit that challenges Des Moines, newspaper vending machine ordinances. Thus, -The Register encourages the City of Iowa City to drop its interest in newspaper vending machine regulations. At a minimum, The Register asks that the City of Iowa City defer its review of the matter until the constitutional issues in the pend- ing City of Des Moines case are resolved by the federal courts. The Register also asks that you consider the position of its independent contract agent in Iowa City, Mr. John Gillespie. Idealogically, Mr. Gillespie and The Register share similar views. As to specific Iowa City issues, Mr. Gillespie can best address them individually. Thank you for providing The Register an opportunity to com- ment. I hope you will continue to keep me advised on this issue, should interest in it persist. , Sin erelyy i The Des Moines Register • P.O. Box 957 • Des Moines, Iowa 50304 • (515) 284-8112 MINUTES OF STAFF MEETING July 11, 1984 Items for the agenda of July 17 include: Resolution awarding contract for Iowa Avenue Bridge Resolution awarding contract for the Shamrock/Arbor Creek Channel Improvements Project Resolution approving agreement with Veenstra & Kimm for inspection services for the Rochester Avenue Reservoir Project Set public hearing for July 31 for Phase I of the sewer project Contracts for agencies renting space in the Senior Center Resolution awarding contract for supplemental taxi service to Hawk -I Cab Company Resolution awarding contract for Capitol Street parking ramp improvements. Public hearing on disposition of Elm Grove Park. Appointments to Mayor's Youth Employment Board, Housing Commission, Riverfront Commission, and United Action for Youth Board Resolution reclassifying position in the AFSCME plan Resolution reclassifying a position in the Equipment Division Resolution amending Memorandum of Agreement for Pharmaceutical Development IRBs changing the name to Southgate Development Three public hearings regarding tree regulations which were continued from the meeting of July 3. Resolution approving preliminary and final LSNRD plan for Sturgis Corner Resolution approving preliminary and final LSNRD for Marsh and McLennen Building Final reading of ordinance vacating a portion of Melrose Avenue right of way The Human Relations Director briefly discussed the Employee Assistance Program. Training sessions for staff are being held today from 1:30 to 4:00 P.M. and on Thursday from 9:30 to 11:00 A.M. in Room A of the Public Library. The Assistant City Manager asked for the return of all questionnaires regarding Equipment Division. MINUTES OF STAFF MEETING July 18, 1984 Referrals from the informal and formal Council meetings were distributed to the staff for review and discussion (copy attached). The City Manager briefly discussed the subject of performance evaluations, the process and salaries. A staff committee will be working on coming up with a system that deals with the whole question of performance and will provide more of a link between pay and performance. The staff was requested to give some thought to the subject and to contact the Human Relations Director if they would like to take part in this project. The Director of Parks and Recreation will be meeting with the Board of Supervisors at the County Home site on Thursday at 11:00 A.M. The Director of Planning and Program Development followed up a discussion held at last week's staff meeting regarding the survey being taken regarding handicapped accessibility. The City is doing a self assessment of public buildings to determine accessibility and problems which exist. This is to update the Handicapped Barrier Removal Program which was done several years ago. Handicapped individuals are accompanying the City staff in doing this survey. A memorandum has gone out from the Planning staff regarding this subject. Prepared by: Lorraine Saeger /Sd/