Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-10-03 TranscriptionPage 1 Council Present: Staff Present: Alter, Bergus, Harmsen, Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Weiner Jones, Kilburg, Goers, Fruehling, Platz, Sovers, Havel, Laverman, Seydell Johnson Capital Projects Update Teague: It is 5:00 PM on October 3rd, 2022. And this is the City of Iowa City work session. And I wanna welcome everyone, uh, that is in-person and also viewing online or through any social outlet. The first item on our agenda is gonna be Capital Projects Update. And we're gonna invite Scott up to get us started. Welcome. Sover: Good evening. Good evening, Mayor Council. My name is Scott Sovers, and I am the assistant city engineer in the engineering division. Today I'm gonna provide you with a brief update on the scope, status, and estimated construction cost- estimated completion date, excuse me, for the 2022 capital improvement projects. Ah, the first project on the - on list is the American Legion Road Improvements project. This project generally, uh, includes the complete reconstruction of American Legion road from Scott Boulevard, the Taft Avenue. More specifically, the project includes street payment replacement, the addition of a single lane roundabout at the Scott Blvd intersection, sidewalks on both sides of the street, all new public utilities and pedestrian tunnel near Hoover school. Currently the roundabout and street pavement from Scott Boulevard and to the east of Arlington drive is complete. We are anticipating that all work, with the exception of the Taft Avenue intersection and permanent seeding along the entire quarter, uh, to be fmished yet this year with final completion in the spring of 2023. Uh, the next project is a First Avenue and Scott Boulevard intersection improvements project. Ah, this intersection reconstruction project generally includes the construction of a single lane roundabout, um, with all new sidewalk and public utilities. Currently, we estimate the project to be roughly 90 percent complete. The remaining work generally includes sidewalk- sidewalks on basically all sides of the roundabout. Um, and then the final street connections at the Scott Boule, uh, Scott Boulevard, ah, west of First Avenue and then the, uh, First Avenue to the south. Ah, these connections will require a 14 -day, uh, intersection closure, um, which is planned to start earlier this week, excuse me, later this week. Weather permitting all work, will be finished up late October. Weiner: I have to say that- that one really does look almost complete. I- I- I go by a couple of times a day and it's made huge progress. Sovers: Yeah, we're- we're getting there. It's just- it's taken some time. We had some utility conflicts that, uh, kinda slow the progress down, but we're- we're really starting to make some progress now so, uh, that brings us to the 2022 Asphalt Resurfacing Project. This project includes the resurfacing and ADA ramp replacements at Taylor Drive, Bancroft Drive, Crosby Lane, Rundell Street, Lower Muscatine Road, and Bloomington Street. It also include- also including this project is refreshing of the chip seal surfacing on Taft This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of October 3, 2022. Page 2 Avenue, Taft Speedway, Sycamore Street, North Dubuque Road, Soccer Park Road, and Meyer avenue. We're estimating we're roughly 80 percent complete with the project. Remaining streets, uh, to be resurfaced, our Bancroft Drive and Crosby Lane. Um, and these are currently under progress right now. Anticipate completion date for this project is mid to late November. Next project is the North Westminster Storm Sewer Improvements. Uh, this project includes storm sewer, street and sidewalk replacement on both North Westminster and Washington Street. Currently, the majority of the work on Washington Street has been completed. There's just some final service, um, top soiling and surface restoration needs to be, ah, completed, but that all intensive purposes, ah, Washington Street is done. Ah, the conductor is currently focusing efforts on storm sewer, uh, street, sidewalk and driveway replacements on North Westminster. Weather permitting the dissipa- substantial completion date for this project is late November. Um, the second avenue bridge replacement project includes, ah, the replacement of the bridge itself, uh, sidewalk, trail and driveways, as well as, uh, there's a portion of sidewalk and fill on the east side of Second Avenue, uh, from the bridge to, ah, Bridge South to F Street. Ah, this project was substantially completed and open to both vehicular and pedestrian traffic, um, in late August. Ah, next project is a Melrose Avenue/IWV Improvements. Um, in addition to road reconstruction, this project included the replacement of the existing storm sewer and culverts with the extension of a new water main from Slothower Road to the Iowa City landfill. Currently the project is 90 percent complete with fmal service restoration remaining, which should be just some fine grading and- and seeding. We're just span this project will be wrapped up sometime late October. Rochester Avenue Improvements. Uh, this project generally includes the reconstruction of Rochester Avenue from Ralston Creek to First Avenue. This is a multi-year project. Um, included in this project is street, sidewalk, and driveway replacement, um, replacement of the traffic signals at First Avenue and new storm and water main, storm sewer and water main. Uh, weather permitting the portion of the project between the roles- between Ralston Creek and Rochester Court is anticipated to be complete late November. Completion of the overall project is planned for the spring of 2024. Ah, the next project is the Orchard Street Improvements. This project includes a replacement of public utilities, street sidewalk, and driveways from Benton Street to US Highway 1. Also included in this project is, uh, sidewalk infill on the east side of Orchard Street, along- along with the addition of pedestrian signals at the Orchard and US Highway 1 intersection. Currently remaining work, uh, generally includes street and sidewalk paving and final service restoration from Douglass- Douglass court, excuse me, Douglas Street to the Harbor Freight Entrance. Weather permitting, the project is anticipated to be substantially complete and open to vehicular and pedestrian traffic in early November. And then I guess in looking ahead, there are a few projects that we bid this year with flexible schedules that will likely not start until, ah, next year or will start this year with the bulk- bulk of the work happening next year. Um, they include Benton Street Rehabilitation, ah, Fairchild Street Reconstruction, and the Highway 6, ah, Trail Extension. Other projects that, uh, we will be bidding, uh, this winter for 2023 construction are the Gilbert Street Bridge reconstruction and the Dubuque Street improvements. Few of the larger more impactful projects that we will be in planning and design, um, phase- phases next year include the reconstruction of Courts Street, ah, Taft This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of October 3, 2022. Page 3 Avenue, Park Road, and Gilbert Street. Additionally, concept planning and design for the Burlington Street Bridge, uh, replacement will also start next year. Currently funding for the construction of this project is program- program for 2028. So this projects a little ways out, but we need to get started on the concept planning early on. So all of this assumes that the planned 2023 through 2027 capital improvements project budget is approved through early next year. Alter: Is- the Burlington Street bridge, that's in partnership with the state? Is that right? Sovers: Yeah, with the state. And then other, um, folks that'll be stakeholder list will be, ah, the University of Iowa-. Alter: Okay. Sovers: -as well. So that's what I have for project updates. I'd be happy to open it up to any questions anybody has or I can flip back to any- any other projects so we can talk through those as well. Weiner: So on- so on Rochester Street, the- the plan is to finish that piece and then reopen Rochester until the spring? Sovers: Yep. Yep. So there'll be on hard surface through the winter. So all traffic control would be removed from the street. Harmsen: And maybe I did see the, um, social media, uh, announcement about the closing of those [OVERLAPPING] Scott and First uh, maybe reminder of where the detour is, especially because Rochester is closed down. So that might be something too. Sovers: So the deteriorate will be uh, courts street over to Muscatine and then Burlington, uh, and then Dodge or Governor, depending on which direction you're going back up around. Harmsen: Thank you. Weiner: If you run into any like re- real issues with any of these projects that have either pushed them back or that, or that or like regular recurring issues so that just so that. Sovers: Yeah. So one of the issues we've had on a number of our projects is just uh, well, there's a couple of issues. One of them is just contractors are really busy right now, and so they're trying to jump from project to project and that's caused quite a bit of delay on most of our projects. The other thing that we've been dealing with is private utility conflicts and uh, getting private utility companies to move their facilities when they're in conflict with our proposed improvements within public right-of-way. So that's been a challenge. So they- they'd been as busy as well. So it's -everybody is just trying to work as hard as they can to get the- get things done, but that has caused delays. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of October 3, 2022. Page 4 Harmsen: How was the supply- supply chain issues for some of these projects? Sovers: That is another challenge. Uh, we recently had a uh, pre -construction meeting for, I beli- believe it was for the Benton's Street Project and the contractor told us for the water main material, the pipe- the ductile iron pipe, it's 60 weeks out. Sovers: Six zero weeks. Harmsen: Wow. Sovers: So, they're hopeful that I can get it before them, but they said conservatively you should plan on 60 weeks. So it's hard to that's probably one of the other things that we've seen as far as delays is just material delays and then uh, increase in pricing on materials. Harmsen: Thank you. Sovers: Yeah. Teague: All right. Thank you. Sovers: Yeah, thank you. Teague: Yes. All right. Any more discussion on that, councilors? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of October 3, 2022. Page 5 Clarification of Agenda Items Teague: All right. We're gonna move on to clarification of agenda items. Alter: Uh, in our consent agenda, I just want to uh, I guess pull out, but just for a brief uh, description of items 61, which has to do with the Mercer park uh, upgrades that are gonna be happening, and it's more just to- to be able to provide that information out. I know that there's been confusion about what uh, parts of parks and rec master plan is uh, you know, happening and when, and so it's just more to be able to pull it out and explain nothing as far as the vote or any. Anything like that. Teague: I will recommend maybe two ways to do it. You can certainly um, during council discussion kinda highlight it. But I'm sure any of our staff would also be uh. Goers: Juli Seydell Johnson is here. And so it would be able to offer clarification either now or then, whichever is your preference. Teague: Do you prefer? Goers: If there's gonna be a whole lot of detailed uh, clarification, I would recommend that we do that at a formal so that those who are going to be tuning in can see that. If we just had a quick lesson - Alter: [OVERLAPPING] That is my preference just to help with communication and make sure that folks know the cool stuff that's gonna be happening for Mercer. So thank you. Teague: Be ready. All right. Weiner: Yet I- I just on 6.b I just wanted to point out that, the- the city has used Carney & Appleby for some time, but they decided to- to rebid it as a, as a lobbying firm and Dumouriez, they decided to rebid it and they- they'd got three bids and they looked at them, decided they still should go with this firm, but they took a look to see if there was somebody else that they should consider, which is. Teague: Okay. And I think what I might do if I remember uh, after I -before I have public discussion, I'm going to ask that you come up on 61 Okay? Great. Since you've already acknowledged that you want to talk about it. Alter: Yeah. Teague: All right. Any other thing from the formal? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of October 3, 2022. Page 6 Information Packet Discussion [September 22, Septmber 291 Teague: We will move on to the information packets. Weiner: Can I ask one more quick question, sorry? Teague: Absolutely. Weiner: On item 10, which is the Rohret South Trunk Sanitary Sewer, is uh, what are all the landowners in that area already been notified that this is going to happen because it's gonna- it's gonna have a major impact? Sovers: Yeah, we've been in close coordination with most of all the property owners, not only just on the Abbey Lane piece, but also west of 218. So everybody is very familiar with the project. Thank you. Teague: All right, well, move on to information packet September 22. We know that we have um, the Happy Hallow. If- that's on this information packet number 2 that we'll discuss before we go there. Is there any other item from this packet? All right. So uh, maybe I'll ask staff to just give us uh, maybe a review if they desire on this one. Great. Hello and welcome. Seydell Johnson: Good. Uh, so the item refers to the uh, small ball field at Happy Hollow Park, uh, it was a skinned or Agrilime baseball field until about 2019. Um, at that time, staff remove the aggregate lime and made it a grass field similar to other tee ball fields throughout the community. Uh, that's the primary use of that field is Tee ball with a few rentals throughout the summer. Um, there was neighborhood interests in possibly changing that back. So we had Snyder and Associates come out and do another public meeting in the park. Um, you have that information from that public meeting, and then it went to the Parks Commission who recommended that it be held until we do the park renovations in a few years. The question is really a uh, neighborhood level versus a system level question. The neighbors around Happy Hollow have a very uh, strong interests in it returning to being a skin baseball field, system -wide staff and use would point to it being adequate as it is as a grass field. And when we looked at equity and efficiency of staff time, staff recommendation would be to keep it that way. Teageu: All right. Any questions for Juli? Thank you. All right. Now, I know that I was on council when this first came up and I- I think I saw the date. It goes back to 2020 when we first had our discussion on this item. And uh, since then we've had a saw the timeline of all the meetings that has been brought to council, also all the work that the staff has done um, in partnership with Snyder um, to really, you know, kind of go with what is it that the public want um, and just seeking out some of those comments. While I do absolutely appreciate our staff and I do understand where they're corning from with the, with the workload uh, as they've described it. Uh, this is one where I do see an opportunity where um, we could uh, return this back, um, where it can be used by a This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of October 3, 2022. Page 7 variety of people. When I look at uh, you know, Mercer Park that is definitely um, you know, a desired park it has all of the things there. It's in- when you're talking about maintenance is all there, so I do understand um, the ease of it all. But I- I think that there is something to be said about um, kind of this one-off in a way, uh, this small space where has a different field uh, for people in the community. Um, and- and then the other thing is um, the maintenance was one of the major things that I know the council talked about. Uh, how are we going to maintain this. And I do understand hauling stuff and uh, there's never any fun, uh, but I am confident that uh, you know, staff can figure out how to maintain it. The other thing that I might say is um, I'm looking through the comments on, you know, with some of the individuals that would like to see this return. You know, there might be an appetite where staff can um, maybe even uh, kinda joint efforts to maintain this park uh, or this- this ballfield. Uh, so I am more inclined to direct staff to return it, um, and just wanted to see what my fellow councilors have to say. Thomas: Well, I will just add a couple of comments. One- one of them has to do with the systems aspect that Juli mentioned because one- one thing that I've been working on over the last couple of months in terms of trying to understand this- this issue is- is sort of pull back and look at what- how cities typically addressed the question of ball fields. And what- what I found in that research was that I could not find a city that relied strictly on its multi -field complexes to serve the needs of all those who wish to play baseball, whether formally or informally. They always had to complement their complexes. At least one ball field in a neighborhood park. And- and so it's- and that's- what are the reasons for that? The reasons are that uh, these types of facilities, ball fields and neighborhood parks, serve all kinds of people and all kinds of groups, whether it's organized competition practice, informal pick-up. Uh, it's kind of more open-ended use of the field, not just by the neighbors, it's by the city as a whole. It is Happy Hollow was before the- the grass infield was installed, the only neighborhood ball field in Iowa City. So we- we at this time have no neighborhood park with a baseball field at the moment. Um, and I think that was- that's where the comments were coming for from, which were not just from the neighbors by the way, it was- we heard from the Little Hawks baseball club who said they would love to see the baseball field back. And in fact, they seem to be pinched between the Iowa City boys baseball teams and access to a place to play because of the competition for the fields at city park. So that was one reason they were really keen on Happy Hollow because uh, they felt that uh, they could use that field uh, for their six, seven and eight -year-olds. And- and also that they felt that it could serve as a practice field for the other teams. So that's sort of speak to exactly the kinds of things that I was seeing being the purpose behind these fields. And um, the mayor mentioned the idea of the volunteerism. The- the Little Hawks felt so passionately about this. They said, look, we're- we're interested in volunteering if we need to, to make this thing work. And um, what I've found is that two seems to be- there's precedent for that. Even within the Iowa City metro area, in the Iowa City Community School District has a couple of schools, elementary schools, Penn and Weber, where uh in their outdoor areas, they have a skinned infield and a soccer field configuration with nets installed. Um, so they have a shared field concept. And at least it Weber, uh, the field is falling- is maintained by volunteers. I didn't have a chance to check into Penn, but 1- I suspect it's the same This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of October 3, 2022. Page 8 configuration. So I think a number of the issues that were raised in terms of staffs concerns about the added maintenance, I- 1 think there is potential for addressing it through volunteerism. And I think I would just finish by- haven't really referenced the survey information. It was pretty compellingly oriented towards restoring the infield by the numbers, 25 m favor, two in favor of restoration, two in favor of status quo and 11, that either were neutral or didn't answer. But one that really stuck out for me was David Hamilton, who is an English professor- retired English professor. And he spoke just lyrically and poetically about the Happy Hollow park in general. He goes there every day and has for decades. So he- his- his poetic abilities, I think we're informed by his- his understanding of the place. And in terms of the ball fields, what he said was or the field itself. I'm glad that there is a soccer field and a ball- a ball diamond. No reason the two can't co -exist. I'd love to see the infield brought back to the diamond. I'd sacrifice a bit of green for that. Who wouldn't prefer to play where a grounder skips across a true infield. That's how you learned field and throw. So he's spoken a kind of eloquent way about some of the comments we heard, which were not only the- the preference for playing on a skinned infield, but also the safety aspects of it that the ball- ball is hit more truly on a skinned infield. You don't get the odd hops that you get on a grass infield. That was- that was noted by a number of people, including some of the folks from the Writer's Workshop. So for those reasons, in addition to the mayor's comments, I would suggest we bring this field back. I would also say the infield back. In terms of the schedule, we - we've started the preliminary work. That was I think, a wise decision we made in terms of coupling it with the - the discussion of the ballpark. So we have preliminary information, public input on the playground. If we decide to restore the infield, I would- I would ask you to consider that uh we complete the planning and design documentation in fall and winter of this year. And if it's at all possible to implement next spring, which was when the project was originally scheduled until our last budget when it was pushed back a year. Uh, we could complete this project in 2023. And that would be the end phase of what started in 2016. So it's been a very long, multi -phased project. I think it would be nice now that if we have a direction to try to wrap it up next year and- and complete it. And I think I am- with the work that we've done with the- the restroom and the shelter and the future playground. All the pieces are in place to serve in a way which would complement one- one- one another with the field being an interesting piece and all of that. So you know, it could be something where people rent the shelter with perhaps a soccer emphasis for the ball field or perhaps a ball use of the football field, or maybe a mixed use, kind of a fair. But in any event, having all of those three elements uh four, if you include the playground, I think will make for a really very successful neighborhood park. So- so those are my thoughts. Thanks. Taylor: I agree with Councilor Thomas and Mayor Teague also mentioned the timeline that he mentioned at 2020 days and John mentioned 20- 2021. And with all due respect to the parks and recs commission talking about waiting till we look at the whole park plan. That's a long time to wait. So as John had mentioned, another 3, 4 or 5 years before, we would get this ball field back to its original design, which historically it sounds like it was used for more than just tee ball and I- I kinda found it ironic and you'd brought up the Mercer perk earlier item that's on our agenda. I find ironic that that was on our agenda This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of October 3, 2022. Page 9 same time we are talking about this and we're talking thousands of dollars and- and- and it mentioned implementing a more of a play -ability to their fields. And that's exactly what we'd like to see here. And both the Mayor and Council Taylor mentioned that these outside groups have volunteered to do maintenance and- so that takes away that whole cost issue. So I- I don't see any reason to- to sit on this very much longer. Bergus: I'm just looking for a little bit of clarification. John, on the timeline, are you proposing that the entire playground uh reconstruction be moved sooner? Thomas: To uh summer of 2023. Bergus: Okay. Which it's currently not just- we're not just talking about skinning the ball field then. Thomas: We would be combined with the scanning of the ball field. So we would- we would do the rest of the work to be done. Bergus: Okay. Thomas: Next summer. Bergus: And I think the recommendation from Parks and Rec was to keep them combined, but keep it on the current timeline which is - Thomas: 2024. Bergus: 2024. Yeah. Thomas: With- with- and revisit this- the ball field at that time. And it seems we've done quite a bit of work here trying to get public input. I don't know that we need anymore. Bergus: And I think when we talked about this in June of this year, if I recall the input from Geoff correctly, it was yes, we can move it up. We just need to figure out what we're trading out, right? Like so what would drop off the sooner capital improvement project list in order to accommodate shifting this one up a year. Do you have thoughts on that? Thomas: I- 1 don't. Other than that this is in the- in the scale of our five-year CIP, a very small project. So I- 1 would think we could find the- it's less than $200,000. We could- we could find the funding for that. Again, tha- that would be my my preferred approach. Whether if- if for whether it's supply chain issues or funding issues, we need to stay with the night. The 2024 scheme. So be it. Uh but I do think they should be combined. Partly because I do want to see uh- the drainage issues if there are any addressed in the ball field area because if you know Happy Hollow, there are- there is standing water there in various locations. And when I see the contract for drainage has issued as one of the scope This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of October 3, 2022. Page 10 items in that. So it didn't seem to me that if we restore the infield, let's let's- let's be sure that the grades are correct, so we don't have standing water there um just to be sure. Bergus: Thanks for that clarification, and I think, um, I appreciate that there may be individuals in the community who could help with maintenance, but I don't think that's the same as having kind of like a commitment or a plan for that. And I'd be concerned about, you know, the execution of that just in terms of our cost estimate, which if I understand, Juli, it's about 12,000. We had a memo that said 15,000. I think the most recent memo said 12,000 per year. Seydell Johnson: Yes. Ah, but that would be just to simply skin it and replace it with the Agrilime. If you want drainage and all the engineering it would be a little bit more than that. Of course. Bergus: Um, and that's an ongoing annual cost? Seydell Johnson: Correct. So the largest cost is that we have to bring staff and equipment from the other locations and that's where that came from. Bergus: And then at the moment when it changes from the grass to the dirt to remove the sod and put that in, I think you've estimated another 10,000. Is that right? Seydell Johnson: Right. That was- [OVERLAPPING] Teague: That's if staff does it though. Seydell Johnson: What? Teague: That's if staff does it. Seydell Johnson: I believe that was right. That was from- I'd have to check back to Geoffs memo on that one. Bergus: Or more if it's contracted out is with that. Seydell Johnson: If you did it as part of the overall playground project, obviously, there'll be some cost savings because you would already have a contractor on site that would do that kind of groundwork. Um, but as I said, it wouldn't include drainage or anything underneath the field unless we added that to the project. Alter: So what projects are there? I know that we're about to talk about Mercer, um, in momentarily, but, um, in addition to that, are there other projects that are slated ahead of this just so that we actually can get a sense of what we might need to do is a trade-off because- [OVERLAPPING] This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of October 3, 2022. Page 11 Seydell Johnson: Sure. So the- two other large park projects that- or semi large projects for next summer are Kiwanis Park, renovating the nature play area. Um, the public meetings for that are actually tomorrow night where I'll be showing, um, options to the neighborhood and talking to the neighborhood with that. And then Hunters Run, far west side, one of the oldest playgrounds we have, um, in the- in the city and the neighbor- the neighborhood meeting for that is first or second week in November. So both of those are already contracted with our consultants and underway for design and community input. Um, the other ones would be the finishing up of the- this year's projects with Whispering Meadows, um, Chadek Green Park, Court Hill, and the Ped Mall Playground. Bergus: Maybe. I don't know if Scott can help us out since he's still here too, but, um, I think Juli, we're just talking about those projects are slated for, so they're under design. We have a contract with the consultant already. Seydell Johnson: Right. Bergus: And we're in FY23 right now. Seydell Johnson: And their budgeted for we're in- we're in CIP or '22 right now. Bergus: Okay. Seydell Johnson: Those are actually CIP '23 projects. Sovers: That's correct. Seydell Johnson: Correct. Bergus: Okay. Seydell Johnson: But we do design and community input the summer prior. Bergus: So I'm just trying to get the com- comparable for this project. The design would happen with this being slated for, it says FY24 now, I'm not sure if that's the- [OVERLAPPING] Seydell Johnson: It would happen about a year from now typically. Although we've already had two premaster plan meetings, so a lot of that work is- it would be done. We would still want to give them input- timely input on the playground choices. But- Bergus: Would it be possible to move all of that up a whole year? Seydell Johnson: Anything's possible if you want to fund it. Yeah. Sovers: I think one thing to consider and Juli, you can probably speak to this too, but, ah, for the Ped Mall playground project, we have - This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of October 3, 2022. Page 12 Teague: Will you step to the mic, please. Sovers: One thing to consider with the playground equipment is it takes- there's a quite a lead time on that. And on the Ped Mall playground, we got delayed by probably six months or more on that one. So I think that's just something to think about as we, you know, move projects around. Harmsen: I was thinking about that too when you were talking- discussion about whether to couple or uncouple the ballpark from the playground. I think I would be okay with uncoupling them if staff felt like that made sense in terms of timeline, ah, or takes up advice that they need to remain coupled. Understanding that could mean it push it back instead of next or to the summer after. Seydell Johnson: The staff recommendation would be to keep them coupled whether you do it in '23 or '24. Just because both would require a pretty substantial closure of the park. And otherwise, you'd be looking at partial closures over two years rather than- than one. Um, playground lead times right now are somewhere between 10 and 12 up to 18 months. Um, as Scott mentioned, we were delayed on the- on the Ped Mall project and it's delayed at the moment because some of the parts that came were incorrect and even trying to get re -made parts is difficult. Um, of the three playgrounds we ordered last January, um, Court Hill is installed, but the contract work is not done around it, so it's not open yet. Whispering Meadows playground arrived last week and that's about half installed as of today. And then we're still waiting on the new one for Chadek Green Park. Um, the Glendale one that was the prior year's project was delayed also about eight months with the supply chain issues. So it is a real thing with playground installation in parts. So if - Thomas: One thought I had on that was and I know you've done this on other projects would be to- to purchase- put in a purchase order for the play structure, ah, as soon as possible as a separate purchase from the construction contracts. So I mean, if you- if you were able to design to reach a point where you could make that order in say January of next year, I think there would still be time to complete the work. Seydell Johnson: Yeah. Good idea. That's actually what we did with all three of- all four of those that I just described. We- we did that. We did the purchase order early before we contracted, um, and we're still with this kinda delay. But yes we do- [OVERLAPPING] Thomas: There's no markup. So it's- [OVERLAPPING] Seydell Johnson: Correct. We purchased them through the government bid service prior to the contract almost every time now. Thomas: I mean, it's a small play structure. I don't know if that will matter, but anyway. Alter: Do you- do you know what the play structure would be for Happy Hollow already? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of October 3, 2022. Page 13 Seydell Johnson: So- no, I would tell you it would be similar in size and scope to Frauenholtz- Miller or Villa Park or, um, Cardigan Park or Scott, we have several of that kinda size and scope that have gonna- gotten in recently. Um, and those are pretty standard equipment. But still we're still looking at quite a bit of lead time. Alter: Oh, absolutely. No. My question was coming from kinda the first-ish brush with the details of this type of a project for me, at any rate, and so I didn't know if this was a situation where you have- there was a lot of public input, for instance, with the Ped Mall unrealized, you know, a lot more investment of- of what the public wants and whatnot, but I didn't know if that was a regular part of the procedure is to gather input and if that had been done or because of the size of the park. And that there are other models of similar that it's a little less process heavy. Seydell Johnson: Yeah. Good question. We've already had the two neighborhood meetings out in the park, so I think we have quite a bit of input about the playground. If you're comfortable with as choosing the playground equivalent based on that and based on the scope of what we've done in these other similar park projects, then that would streamline that quite a bit. Alter: Got it. Teague: I might suggest to the council, um, and I'm not sure where everybody is, but if there is a desire to, you know, give direction, maybe we give direction. If that's the majority of the council's will, and then staff can come back and kinda tell us, you know, if- if this is what you're going to have to do to make that possible in as far as, um, the fmancial. So- Seydell Johnson: Yeah, if I might, I don't know why it couldn't be a part of your CIP discussions coming up because we wouldn't do playground order again until January, February. So - Teague: Yeah, I think- yeah. Seydell Johnson: I guess I would leave that up to [OVERLAPPING] the city manager's office as well, but - Teague: Yeah. But I think maybe what the- what we need to do if- if it is the will of the council is to give direction given that that's where we're going. But yeah, I would agree that there's opportunity to mix and mingle things around as they normally do. Seydell Johnson: And that would also be kind of the timeframe we would need to know if you wanted the Ball Field project to happen next summer we'd have to close it and we, you know, put T ball somewhere else, some other things for during the construction time, so we would start making those decisions January, February as well. Teague: Thank you. All right. Further council thoughts? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of October 3, 2022. Page 14 Weiner: Just that it makes sense to do them together and I'm sort of on the- with the- with the general consensus of reverting to a skinned infield, but I don't know which year makes sense. And I think I would leave that to- tend to leave that to either for CIP discussion or - or for staff to try and give us options as you said. Alter: I'm in favor of also keeping it together and- and reverting, but, um, I would definitely like to know sort of wha- what we have to consider, um, because we've gone through so many different meetings, planning meetings about making sure that, um, you know, that we're not over taxing capacity. So I really do want to find out from, um, staff, like, what would that look like if we wanted to move this forward? What would be the options? So- but I'm in favor of- of doing- of giving that direction. Teague: You're in favor as well. Okay. Bergus: I- yeah. I just want to clarify again. I'm sorry because I'm trying to remember our conversation in June. I thought at that point we agreed to move up the public input but keep the Happy Hollow on the CIP where it was. And now we're revisiting that decision to see what we would trade out for- for Happy Hollow to be moved up a year. Yes. Is that what we're talking about? Teague: I think that I can has been a lot of discussions. So my memory says that we're going to revisit it- two in two years. And then that meeting, um, we really didn't revisit it. We didn't- we were waiting- I don't know if we were waiting for-. Bergus: The one in June is when we directed this to happen, I think over the last couple of months, isn't it? Thomas: I- I think we were open to moving it up. That was one reason for having the meeting in the park was a combined park playground. Teague: If you can move to your mic. Thomas: It was a- it was a combination in that at the meeting this past summer in the park, we combined preliminary planning for the playground. Bergus: Okay. Which is what Juli was just speaking too, that- that- those meetings says. Okay. Thank you. Thomas: So- so that was to try to lay the groundwork should we have the opportunity for that. Bergus: Okay. Yeah. I'm not- I just don't want to agree to move it up without having a decision on what we would trade out. So. Teague: Or what opportunities will be there even if it wasn't a trade? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of October 3, 2022. Page 15 Bergus: Yeah, I mean, I'm going to assume we're not going to find more money between now and then. But if you do then yes. Teague: Yeah. You never know. Bergus: I don't mean to be flip. I just, you know. Teague: No, no, no, no. Yeah. Bergus: I'm gonna assume it'll be a trade out, but that I would like us to have that conversation of what of the same size would we be pushing back if we're moving this one up? Weiner: And- and the other thing that I want to add it in- in- as we look at that is, um, I mean, no longer live on the West side, but I know that the- the playgrounds there are really few and far between and, er, um, I would- I would not want to move Hunters Run because it's- it's in really sort of dodgy shape. Yeah. Bergus: And I think we've got a recommendation to keep it on the 2024 timeline. So that's what I'd be inclined to do if we were deciding this evening, which it doesn't sound like we're doing. Teague: I- I think we're, you know, signaling to staff that we want to have them- we want to revert is what I heard the majority of council say. And we're going to couple them together and sta- staff come back, um, at some point with how we can make with options of making that possible. Because that what you are hearing. Alright. So if there's nothing else. Bergus: Thank you. Thank you. Teague: We will move on to- I- I- I don't want to cut anyone off, anything else? Alright. We will move on to the next item, which is our, um, the Info Packet 9/29, September 29th, 2022. Um, we do have a joint entities item on that. Um, mean and agenda which was highlighted by our city clerk in a memo, we wanted to know about any, ah, topics of interest. Alter: This may be opening up a can of worms. Um, so you all can say no. Um, but I was wondering about whether it would be appropriate to, um, start a discussion or introduce the notion again about regional transit, since we talked about it during our strategic plan. And that that only happens when talking about- talking with other entities. So I realized that, you know, it's going to take a lot of work and a lot of our own political muscle as - as, um, we talked about. But it seems to me that that's a possible sort of opening gambit is to just re -introduce the idea if- if others are okay with that. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of October 3, 2022. Page 16 Teague: But my- my initial reaction to that is I would love that conversation, but Better Together, 2030 is, um, I think going to have that conversation with the entities within Johnson County. Um, right now, I think it might be m our best interests to talk to other elected officials, um, kind of one-on-one. And maybe how the discussions just to-, um, you know, just introduce personal thoughts on how the- how this could play out. And then maybe in conjunction a little bit with better 30- Better Together, 2030. Kinda get a little direction and guidance from them before we take it there. Unless where we're going to ask them which we could, you know, we have the opportunity to put this on there. Do you feel like you can lead us in a discussion? So, I mean,- so maybe that would be the thing where we ask better together if they feel comfortable and then if they're saying that now, then we can, you know. But [OVERLAPPING] I'm ready for it. Alter: I am more than happy to-, you know, if we could put an ask to 2030 to have them kind of work through it since this-, I mean, Better Together 2030 is, you know, the- the conglomeration of all the different, um, you know, regional areas. So I- it makes sense to me to make the ask and I just think if they can lead us through that discussion or- or open it up as a conversation and put it on the table, I think that, you know, why not? But I certainly agree with you also about the wisdom of, um, you know, at the same time or in a parallel way to have, you know, the- the personal conversations as well, but. Teague: Are people in agreement with us having that discussion with Better Together and seeing and just following up on their lead. Bergus: Yeah. And I- I think it could be pretty pretty brief also because I think in the conversations that we've had and primarily, you know, I've been talking around the MPO, um, and looking at the granite corner, but in a lot of those conversations last year and leading into this last spring, um, that I think there's some threshold questions that we could kind of just say as a group. You know, well, what- what does it take to actually have a transit authority? You know, because that takes a certain, ah, threshold of population and what would have to change if that's the route we want it to go versus agreements that we could have among government agencies to operate a transit system in our collective area, you know, through 28E, that kind of thing. So I- I think it could be very simple, but just kind of say this is something we've identified as important. And I do also think the- the U of I hospital locating kind of in almost between entities is a huge piece of that. But you shouldn't look away from. I don't know. Just to put you on the spot as our MPO Chair. Do you have any thoughts, John? Thomas: I know. I agree with you and I- I always felt that the-, um, the CRANDIC line was an opportunity for us to kind of model regional planning, ah, on a kind of case level and, ah, begin to develop that sensibility through that project. I think as you were saying that in North Liberty, Coralville, and Iowa City all have kind of different layouts and functions with their transit or lack of transit. Um, so I- I- yeah, I think it's gonna be a complicated conversation. Um, so I think we need to be careful and I liked the idea of Better Together as, you know, being involved in the conversation. But I- I do, I'm hopeful that our CRANDIC discussion will be fruitful and, ah, lead to a better understanding of how This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of October 3, 2022. Page 17 regional transit not only is better from a transit standpoint, but it may be better from a land -use standpoint. I think that's one of the most important lessons I hope we learned from this is you can't separate them. Weiner: Yeah, so- so- so, um, Councilor Thomas, I'll- I'll try and find it and send you this am - most amazing public transit ad I've ever seen that was-, this put together in- in Denmark. I sent it to Geoff. I'll send it to you. It'd be worth showing at the next meeting, it's fabulous. Um, I have two prop- propose- quick possible topics. One, to get the auditor's office to talk about voting, early voting, satellite offices and so forth, because that's two days before early voting starts. Um, and two, to bring in again Johnson County Public Health assert talk about the various- various things going on, flu, COVID, monkeypox and so forth. Just a quick update. Teague: So I'm seeing, ah, heads and nods. So it seems like those two will go for the auditor's office for voting related, and then for our public health. Um, I do wanna give us at least 7 minutes of break before we started at 6:00 P.M. I, as I was hearing the conversation about Better Together, 2030, and then the MPO, it almost seems like we should probably ask both of them to maybe come and just do a little, you know, maybe do a collaborate - collaborative effort. Are people okay with that? Harmsen: I agree. Teague: So we'll just ask them both. Alter: Sure. Teague: Anything else? We will- I don't see our USG students today, um, or representative, so we will, um, adjourn for now and we'll come back at 6:00 P.M. for our formal meeting. [MUSIC] This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of October 3, 2022.