Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2011-02-15 Resolution
Prepared by: Susan Dulek, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356 -5030 RESOLUTION NO. 11 -40 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE CITY MANAGER AS THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM (HMGP) PROPERTY ACQUISITION PROJECT NO. DR- 1763- 52 -01. WHEREAS, the City previously entered into a grant agreement for mitigation project No. DR- 1763 -52 -01 to acquire properties through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and said grant agreement appointed Dale E. Helling, Interim City Manager, as the authorized representative for the City of Iowa City; WHEREAS, Iowa Homeland Security and Emergency Management is requesting the City designate Thomas M. Markus, City Manager, as the authorized representative; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the public interest to appoint the current City Manager as the authorized representative. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, THAT: 1. Thomas M. Markus, City Manager, is authorized to execute on behalf of the City of Iowa City mitigation project number DR- 1763 -52 -01 and to file the authorization with Iowa Homeland Security and Emergency Management (HSEMD) for the purpose of obtaining financial assistance under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (PL 93 -288, as amended) and the Code of Iowa, Chapter 29C. 2. Dale E. Helling and Thomas M. Markus are authorized to sign the attached Designation of Applicant's Authorized Representative. Passed and approved this 15th day of February, 2011. lc� !�q /,\— Mathew J. Hayek, MAYOR ATTEST: Marl K. Karr, CITY CLERK nu ��' `F —(r City Attorney's Office Resolution No. 11 -40 Page 2 It was moved by I Champion and seconded by Mims the Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: x X X x X wpdata/glossary/resolution -ic. doc NAYS: ABSENT: Bailey Champion Dickens Hayek Mims Wilburn Wright STATE OF IOWA DESIGNATION OF APPLICANT'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE The following resolution must be signed when a Subgrantee selects a new Authorized Representative for their grant that replaces an existing Representative. This sheet and the resolution must be signed and faxed to: Stuart Malone 515 - 254 -2168 Stuart. malone(a)iowa.aov Project /Planning Grant Number: DR- 1763 -52 -01 Existing Authorized Representative: Dale E. Hellinc Prin Name Signature Assistant City Manager Title, agency New Authorized Representative: Thomas M. Markus Printed Name Signature City Manager Title, Agency 410 E. Washington Street Mailing Address Iowa City, IA 52240 City, State and Zip 319 - 356 -5010 Phone Number tom- markus0d)iowa- city.org Email Address 7�d�(2 Prepared by: Sara F. Greenwood Hektoen, Asst. City Atty., 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 319- 356 -5030 RESOLUTION NO. 11 -41 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING A PORTION OF MAIDEN LANE, RIDGEWOOD COURT AND RIDGEWOOD DRIVE TO BE ALLEYS. WHEREAS, that portion of Maiden Lane north of Prentiss Street and south of Ralston Creek currently functions as an alley with metered parking spaces; and WHEREAS, lots along this portion of Maiden Lane are front both Maiden Lane and Gilbert Street with inadequate depth to meet certain central business site development standards; and WHEREAS, designating this portion of Maiden Lane to be an alley, the adjacent property will no longer front two streets, easing redevelopment of such properties in conformance with the zoning code; and WHEREAS, the City will continue to perform snow removal on this portion of Maiden Lane until such time as the metered parking spaces are removed; and WHEREAS, Ridgewood Drive and Ridgewood Court, although named as a street on its 1923 plat, serves as and is built to alleyway standards. No homes are addressed off of it, and the City does not perform snow removal for it; and WHEREAS, in all other aspects, the City's practice and policy regarding alley maintenance shall control these rights -of -way. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, THAT: 1. That portion of Maiden Lane north of Prentiss Street and south of Ralston Creek and all of Ridgewood Court and Ridgewood Drive are hereby declared to be and are designated as alleys. Passed and approved this 15th day of February , 2011. MAYOR ATTEST: 222z��, Li?J CIT ERK Approved y Resolution No. 11 -41 Page 2 It was moved by Champion and seconded by Mims the Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: x_ x— x_ x_ X x X wpdata /glossary/resolution -ic. doc NAYS: ABSENT: Bailey Champion Dickens Hayek Mims Wilburn Wright M � 5d 3 Prepared by Kimberly Sandberg, Public Works, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA (319)356 -5139 RESOLUTION NO. 11 -42 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST A RENEWAL OF A LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR TEMPORARY USE OF PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, LANDOWNER LAURENCE SHORT, ET AL, AND TENANT SHORT'S BURGER AND SHINE LLC D /B /A SHORT'S BURGER AND SHINE, FOR A SIDEWALK CAFE WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City is the custodian and trustee of the public right of way within the City; and WHEREAS, Laurence Short, Et Al, as landlord, and Short's Burger and Shine LLC, d /b /a Short's Burger and Shine, as tenant, applied for a renewal of a temporary use of the public right -of -way agreement at 18 S. Clinton St., Iowa City, Iowa for a sidewalk cafe and anchored fencing thereon; and WHEREAS, City staff has reviewed the application, location, and specifications for the proposed sidewalk cafe and found these to be in compliance with City Code 10 -3 -3; and WHEREAS, such use of the public right -of -way is compatible with the public use thereof; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF IOWA CITY, IOWA THAT: The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to respectively sign the 2011 renewal of License Agreement for Temporary Use of Public Right -of -Way, copy of which is on file with the Public Works Department. 2. The Public Works Department is hereby directed to record this Resolution and license agreement with the Johnson County Recorder at Applicant's expense. Passed and approved this 15th day of February , 2011. MAYOR ATTEST: �� 2� CIT`�-GLERK Approved by: City Attorney's Office Resolution No. 11 -42 Page 2 It was moved by champion and seconded by Mi M.- the Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: x X x x x x X wpdata /glossary/resolution - ic.doc NAYS: ABSENT: Bailey Champion Dickens Hayek Mims Wilburn Wright 2011 RENEWAL OF LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR TEMPORARY USE OF PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND SHORT'S BURGER AND SHINE LLC D /B /A SHORT'S BURGER AND SHINE, FOR A SIDEWALK CAFE ON THE PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY AT 18 S. CLINTON ST., IOWA CITY, IOWA This Agreement is made between Tenant Short's Burger and Shine LLC d /b /a Short's Burger and Shine, and the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation, with the written consent of the Landowner Laurence Short, Et Al. WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City ( "City ") and Tenant Short's Burger and Shine LLC d /b /a Short's Burger and Shine (hereinafter "Tenant ") entered into a License Agreement for Temporary Use of Public Right -of -Way at 18 S. Clinton St., Iowa City, Iowa on April 6, 2009, which is recorded in Book 4422 Pages 660 -667 of the Office of the Johnson County Recorder ( "2009 Sidewalk Cafe Agreement "); WHEREAS, the 2009 Sidewalk Cafe Agreement was renewed for 2010 and said renewals were recorded in the Office of the Johnson County Recorder; WHEREAS, Tenant has applied for another renewal of the 2009 Sidewalk Agreement, and Landowner has consented to said renewal; and WHEREAS, City staff has examined the request for a renewal and found same to be in substantial compliance with City ordinances. NOW, THEREFORE, in mutual consideration of the promises herein, Applicant and City agree as follows: 1. All the terms and provisions of the 2009 Sidewalk Cafe Agreement are incorporated herein by reference. 2. Pursuant to Section 10 -3 -3C of the Iowa City City Code, this renewal agreement is effective February 1, 2011 and terminates on January 31, 2012. 3. Smoking is prohibited in the sidewalk cafe, and Tenant shall place a no- smoking sign at the front entrance to the sidewalk cafe. The sign shall comply with Iowa Code Section 142D.6 (2009). 4. This agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County Recorder's Office at Tenant's expense. If Tenant fails to pay such recording fees within 60 days of receipt of invoice from the City, this amendment shall be terminated and Tenant must vacate the public right -of -way upon notice from the City and the annual fee shall not be returned. Dated this 15th day of February 2011 CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA Matthew J. Hayek, M or Attest: Mar6n K. Karr, City Clerk Ap ved h City Attorney's Office TENANT ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on 3 J 2011 by i3 o,n_ Dv o.ey's tj (name of person) as Dix2Nr 2- (type of authority, e.g, officer, trustee, etc.) of Short's Burger and Shine LLC. SONDRAE FORT =�wt� Commission Number 159791 My Commission Expires Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa • ow 1 d My Commission expires: LANDOWNER ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF IOWA ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on �AjLi&o V 3) 2011 by LawrenG@ -&Mort. 4n r -H-y �� -B-01,a, el&J' SONDRAE FORT Sg-, a r-o 2 e Commission Number 159791 Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa My Commission Expires ow a 7 ao �- My Commission expires: 347 /02 r/ CITY'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this _� day of Fkge"Aaw 2011, before me, Sonio;zA� 1 -arz -r a Notary Public in and for the State (?(Iowa, personally appeared Matthew J. Hayek and Marian K. Karr, to me personally known, and, who, being by me duly sworn, did say that they are the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City, Iowa; that the seal affixed to the foregoing instrument is the corporate seal of the corporation, and that the instrument was signed and sealed on behalf of the corporation, by authority of its City Council, as contained in Resolution No. i; i - q` - passed by the City Council on the IS t� day of F , 2011, and that Matthew J. Hayek and Marian K. Karr acknowledged the execution of -the instrument to be their voluntary act and deed and the voluntary act and deed of the corporation, by it voluntarily executed. *0W SONDRAE FORT Commission Number 159791 My Commission Expires Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa 3 7 a o/ My Commission expires: 3 J� aoia Renewal 11/28/07 7 5d 4 Prepared by Kimberly Sandberg, Public Works, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA (319)356 -5139 RESOLUTION NO. 11 -43 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST A RENEWAL OF A LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR TEMPORARY USE OF PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, LANDOWNER WILLIAM AND HELEN BYINGTON, AND TENANT LITTLE DONKEYS, INC D /B /A PANCHERO'S MEXICAN GRILL, FOR A SIDEWALK CAFE WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City is the custodian and trustee of the public right of way within the City; and WHEREAS, William and Helen Byington, as landlord, and Little Donkeys, Inc, d /b /a Panchero's Mexican Grill, as tenant, applied for a renewal of a temporary use of the public right -of -way agreement at 32 S. Clinton St., Iowa City, Iowa for a sidewalk cafe and anchored fencing thereon; and WHEREAS, City staff has reviewed the application, location, and specifications for the proposed sidewalk cafe and found these to be in compliance with City Code 10 -3 -3; and WHEREAS, such use of the public right -of -way is compatible with the public use thereof; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF IOWA CITY, IOWA THAT: The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to respectively sign the 2011 renewal of License Agreement for Temporary Use of Public Right -of -Way, copy of which is on file with the Public Works Department. 2. The Public Works Department is hereby directed to record this Resolution and license agreement with the Johnson County Recorder at Applicant's expense. Passed and approved this 15th day of February , 2011. - ) MAYOR ATTEST: �r % � CI LERK Approved by: City Attorney's Office Resolution No. 11 -43 Page 2 It was moved by Champion and seconded by mime the Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: x x Y X x _x x wpdata /glossary/resolution - ic.doc NAYS: ABSENT: Bailey Champion Dickens Hayek Mims Wilburn Wright 2011 RENEWAL OF LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR TEMPORARY USE OF PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND LITTLE DONKEYS, INC D /B /A PANCHERO'S MEXICAN GRILL, FOR A SIDEWALK CAFE ON THE PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY AT 32 S. CLINTON ST., IOWA CITY, IOWA This Agreement is made between Tenant Little Donkeys, Inc d /b /a Panchero's Mexican Grill, and the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation, with the written consent of the Landowner William and Helen Byington. WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City ( "City ") and Tenant Little Donkeys, Inc d /b /a Panchero's Mexican Grill (hereinafter "Tenant ") entered into a License Agreement for Temporary Use of Public Right -of- Way at 32 S. Clinton St., Iowa City, Iowa on February 13, 2006, which is recorded in Book 3992 Pages 760 -765 of the Office of the Johnson County Recorder ( "2006 Sidewalk Cafe Agreement "); WHEREAS, the 2006 Sidewalk Cafe Agreement was renewed for 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 and said renewals were recorded in the Office of the Johnson County Recorder; WHEREAS, Tenant has applied for another renewal of the 2006 Sidewalk Agreement, and Landowner has consented to said renewal; and WHEREAS, City staff has examined the request for a renewal and found same to be in substantial compliance with City ordinances. NOW, THEREFORE, in mutual consideration of the promises herein, Applicant and City agree as follows: All the terms and provisions of the 2006 Sidewalk Cafe Agreement are incorporated herein by reference. 2. Pursuant to Section 10 -3 -3C of the Iowa City City Code, this renewal agreement is effective February 1, 2011 and terminates on January 31, 2012. 3. Smoking is prohibited in the sidewalk cafe, and Tenant shall place a no- smoking sign at the front entrance to the sidewalk cafe. The sign shall comply with Iowa Code Section 142D.6 (2009). 4. This agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County Recorder's Office at Tenant's expense. If Tenant fails to pay such recording fees within 60 days of receipt of invoice from the City, this amendment shall be terminated and Tenant must vacate the public right -of -way upon notice from the City and the annual fee shall not be returned. Dated this 15th day of February 2011 CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA By: !!!�� Matthew J. Hayek, M o Attest: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk Appr9 d City Attorney's Office TENANT By: �/�- ---- -_ LANDOWNER TENANT ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF IOWA ) )ss- JOHNSON COUNTY ) This instrument was acknowledged before me / 2 2011 by V 6cl r o (name of person) as 6 ' • (type of authority, .g, officer, trustee, etc.) of Little Donkeys, Inc. APP, s� KENZIE HEIN 0 LL�=— _ M Z � Notary Public and for the State ol Iowa My Commission expires: LANDOWNER ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on J-c'(\uc, L!, i cf , 2011 by William and /or Helen Byington. RETNA HAAS Commission Number 19BSO7 Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa My Commission Expires October 8, 2013 ,.w My Commission expires: ©/ CITY'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this Is 4�- day of FF62o , 2011, before me, 1�0NDRAA I-orz; , a Notary Public in and for the State o Iowa, personally appeared Matthew J. Hayek and Marian K. Karr, to me personally known, and, who, being by me duly sworn, did say that they are the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City, Iowa; that the seal affixed to the foregoing instrument is the corporate seal of the corporation, and that the instrument was signed and sealed on behalf of the corporation, by authority of its City Council, as contained in Resolution No. r 1- �f s passed by the City Council on the /Z tti day of F� rzuAr- , 2011, and that Matthew J. Hayek and Marian K. Karr acknowledged the execution o he instrument to be their voluntary act and deed and the voluntary act and deed of the corporation, by it voluntarily executed. 4VAI - ESONDRAEFORT ; � on Number 159791 mission Expires cola S F,-b Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa My Commission expires: Renewal 11/28/07 MJ� U5 5 Prepared by: Liz Osborne, CD Division, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319)356 -5246 RESOLUTION NO. 11 -44 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST TO THE RELEASE OF LIEN REGARDING A MORTGAGE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED 2204 CALIFORNIA AVENUE, IOWA CITY, IOWA. WHEREAS, on April 10, 2000, the owners executed a Mortgage with the City of Iowa City to secure a loan; and WHEREAS, the loan has been paid off; and WHEREAS, it is the City of Iowa City's responsibility to release this lien. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA that the Mayor is authorized to sign and the City Clerk to attest the attached Release of Lien for recordation, whereby the City does release the property located at 2204 California Avenue, Iowa City, Iowa from a Mortgage recorded April 20, 2000, Book 2937, Page 284 through Page 288 of the Johnson County Recorder's Office. Passed and approved this 15th day of Februa ATTEST: C(MCLERK 20 11 Approved by City Attorney's Office It was moved by Cahmpion and seconded by Mims the Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: _X_ Bailey X Champion X Dickens X Hayek X Mims X Wilburn X Wright Prepared by and return: Liz Osborne, Housing Rehab Division, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319)356 -5246 Legal Description of Property: see below Mortgagor(s): Jennifer E. Kerns Mortgagee: City of Iowa City RELEASE OF LIEN The City of Iowa City does hereby release the property at 2204 California Avenue, Iowa City, Iowa, and legally described as follows: Lot 6 in Block 7, Fair Meadows Addition, Third Unit, Iowa City, Iowa, according to the recorded plat thereof from an obligation of the owner, Jennifer E. Kerns, to the City of Iowa City represented by a Mortgage recorded April 20, 2000, Book 2937, Page 284 through Page 288 of the Johnson County Recorder's Office. This obligation has been repaid and the property is hereby released from any liens or clouds upon title to the above property by reason of said prior recorded document. ATTEST:_ CITY CLERK STATE OF IOWA ) SS: JOHNSON COUNTY ) Approved b City Attorney's Office r On this IS t:+ day of t G i A.D. 20 f 1 , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County, in said State, personally appearecr Matthew J. Hayek and Marian K. Karr, to me personally known, who being by me duly sworn, did say that they are the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of said municipal corporation executing the within and foregoing instrument; that the seal affixed thereto is the seal of said corporation, and that the instrument was signed and sealed on behalf of t e corpo ation by authority of its City Council, as contained in Resolution No. I1^ 44, adopted by the City Council on the l5 �_ day - P-!4 , 20 I 1 and that the said Matthew J. Hayek and Marian K. Karr as such officers acknowledged the execution of 4id instrument to be the voluntary act and deed of said corporation, by it and by them voluntarily executed. o m SONDRAE FORT+ 1 _ Commission Number 159791 S -11dAak ty.,r. My Commission Expires oW -7 a p ja, Notary Public in and for Johnson County, Iowa L:5d 6 Prepared by: Liz Osborne, CD Division, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319)356 -5246 RESOLUTION NO. t t -46 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST TO THE RELEASE OF LIEN REGARDING A MORTGAGE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED 228 SUMMIT STREET S. A -2, IOWA CITY, IOWA. WHEREAS, on December 1, 1993, the owner executed a Mortgage with the City of Iowa City to secure a loan; and WHEREAS, the loan has been paid off; and WHEREAS, it is the City of Iowa City's responsibility to release this lien. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA that the Mayor is authorized to sign and the City Clerk to attest the attached Release of Lien for recordation, whereby the City does release the property located at 228 Summit Street S. A -2, Iowa City, Iowa from 'a Mortgage recorded December 17, 1993, Book 1675, Page 25 through Page 29 of the Johnson County Recorder's Office. Passed and approved this 15th day of February , 20 11 MAYOR Approved by ATTEST:�� CITY CUERK City Attorney's Office It was moved by Champion and seconded by Mims the Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: X Bailey X Champion X Dickens X Hayek X Mims X Wilburn X Wright Prepared by and return: Liz Osborne, Housing Rehab Division, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319)356 -5246 Legal Description of Property: see below Mortgagor(s): John L. Cordell Mortgagee: City of Iowa City RELEASE OF LIEN The City of Iowa City does hereby release the property at 228 Summit Street S. A -2, Iowa City, Iowa, and legally described as follows: Apartment A -2 in the Summit Apartments of Iowa City, Iowa, same being located on the North 87 feet of Lot 26, J. & J.W. Clark's Addition to Iowa City, Iowa, together with easement over the present cement driveway located on the East side of the South half of said Lot 26, extending from Burlington Street, Iowa City, Iowa, to said Summit Apartments. AND Apartment A -3 (formerly a part of Apartment A -1) being a one room apartment located on the first floor of the Summit Apartment Cooperation, said building being located on the North 87 feet of Lot 26, J. & J.W. Clark's Addition to Iowa City, Iowa, as the same is designated on the recorded plat thereof, subject to By -laws and House Rules and regulations that are now or may hereafter be adopted by the Board of Directors of the Summit Apartment Co- operation. from an obligation of the owner, John L. Cordell, a single person, to the City of Iowa City represented by a Mortgage recorded December 17, 1993, Book 1675, Page 25 through Page 29 of the Johnson County Recorder's Office. This obligation has been repaid and the property is hereby released from any liens or clouds upon title to the above property by reason of said prior recorded document. ATTEST: / L CITY ERK STATE OF IOWA ) SS: JOHNSON COUNTY 1 kJ �. A pb!,,, 11 City Attorney's Office On this IS — day of _ , A.D. 20__Lt—, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County, in said State, personally appeared 1vlatthew J. Hayek and Marian K. Karr, to me personally known, who being by me duly sworn, did say that they are the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of said municipal corporation executing the within and foregoing instrument; that the seal affixed thereto is the seal of said corporation, and that the instrument was signed and sealed on behalf of the corpor tion by authority of its City Council, as contained in Resolution No., adopted by the City Council on the �5 rh day �Q 20 and that the said Matthew J. Hayek and Marian K. Karr as such officers acknowledged the execution of said instrument to be the voluntary act and deed of said corporation, by it and by them voluntarily exec *0W Al SO ion Nu FORT _ Commission Number 159791 S�nGi7'Lct2 My Commission Expires Notary Public in and for Johnson County, Iowa 3 .7 oia Mt 5d 7 Prepared by: Liz Osborne, CD Division, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319)356 -5246 RESOLUTION NO. 11 -46 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST TO A SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND UNIVERSITY OF IOWA COMMUNITY CREDIT UNION, IOWA CITY, IOWA FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 914 OXEN LANE, IOWA CITY, IOWA. WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City is the owner and holder of a Forgivable Mortgage executed by the owner of the property on February 19, 2010, and recorded on March 1, 2010, in Book 4560, Page 656 through Page 661 in the Johnson County Recorder's Office covering the following described real estate: Lot 28, Sandhill Estates —Part One, Iowa City, Iowa, according to the plat thereof recorded in Book 47, Page 230, Plat Records of Johnson County, Iowa. WHEREAS, University of Iowa Community Credit Union has financed a loan and is securing the loan with a mortgage, on the real estate described above; and WHEREAS, it is necessary that the Forgivable Mortgage held by the City be subordinated to the loan of University of Iowa Community Credit Union, secured by a proposed mortgage in order to induce University of Iowa Community Credit Union to secure first position on such a loan; and WHEREAS, University of Iowa Community Credit Union has requested that the City execute the attached subordination agreement thereby making the City's lien subordinate to the lien of said mortgage with University of Iowa Community Credit Union; and WHEREAS, there is sufficient value in the above - described real estate to secure the City as a second lien. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA that the Mayor is authorized to execute and the City Clerk to attest the subordination agreement between the City of Iowa City and University of Iowa Community Credit Union, Iowa City, Iowa. Passed and approved this 15th day of February , 201L MA�. Resolution No. 11 -46 Page 2 ATTEST: Aa, CITY CtERK Approved by City Attorney's Office It was moved by Champion and seconded by Mims the Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: x Bailey x Champion Dickens x Hayek x Mims x Wilburn x Wright SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made by and between the City of Iowa City, herein the City, and University of Iowa Community Credit Union of Iowa City, Iowa, herein the Financial Institution. WHEREAS, the City is the owner and holder of certain Forgivable Mortgage which at this time is in the amount of $54,000, and was executed by Moises A. Duarte (herein the Owner), dated February 19, 2010, recorded March 1, 2010, in Book 4560, Page 656 through Page 661, Johnson County Recorder's Office, covering the following described real property: Lot 28, Sandhill Estates —Part One, Iowa City, Iowa, according to the plat thereof recorded in Book 47, Page 230, Plat Records of Johnson County, Iowa. WHEREAS, the Financial Institution proposes to loan the sum of $ 126,000.00 on a promissory note to be executed by the Financial Institution and the Owner, securing a mortgage covering the real property described above; and WHEREAS, to induce the Financial Institution to make such loan, it is necessary that the Forgivable Mortgage held by the City be subordinated to the lien of the mortgage made by the Financial Institution. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises of the parties hereto, the parties agree as follows: 1. Subordination. The City hereby covenants and agrees with the Financial Institution that the above noted Forgivable Mortgage held by the City is and shall continue to be subject and subordinate to the lien of the mortgage about to be made by the Financial Institution. 2. Consideration. The City acknowledges receipt from the Financial Institution of One Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($150.00) and other good and valuable consideration for its act of subordination herein. 3. Senior Mortgage. The mortgage in favor of the Financial Institution is hereby acknowledged as a lien superior to the Forgivable Mortgage of the City. 4. Binding Effect. This agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the respective heirs, legal representatives, successors, and assigns of the parties hereto. Dated this 15ti-day of February 11 201_. CITY OF IOWA CITY By , Mayor Attest: City Itterk. CITY'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF IOWA ) ) SS: JOHNSON COUNTY ) FINANCIAL INSTITUTION B Donald R Wells /First Vice President otk On this t.)� day of FFFp[2 149 , 20_�L_, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa, l5ersonally appeared Mc,+ -,-Lv J. -haw -e k— and Marian K. Karr, to me personally known, and, who, being by me duly sworn, did say that they are the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City, Iowa; that the seal affixed to the foregoing instrument is the corporate seal of the corporation, and that the instrument was signed and sealed on behalf of the corporation, by authority of its City Council, as contained in (8r e (Resolution) No. Il- '-I_(e passed (the Resolution adopted) the City Council, under Roll Call No. of the City Council on the day of rz-a2 20�, and that N1� , T tau Q IK and Marian K. Karr acknowled ed the execution of the instrument to be their voluntary act and deed and the voluntary act and deed of the corporation, by it voluntarily executed. s SONDRAE FORT S� i commission Number 159791 �n • My commission Expires Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa . w 3 �v�� LENDER'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this 28th day of January , 20 11 , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa, personally appeared Donald R Wells , to me personally known, who being by me duly sworn, did say that he /she is the First vice President Of ljniversity of TA Comm Credit union , that said instrument was signed on behalf of said corporation by authority of its Board of Directors; and that said Donald R Wells acknowledged the execution of said instrument to be the voluntary act and deed of said corporation, by it and by him /her voluntarily executed. •� s CONNIE J. WELK i Commission Number 720951 iow� My Co miss* n Expirgq /. 0 Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa My Commission expires: February 14, 2012 uL -10 -1 11 7b Prepared by: Christina Kuecker, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5243 (SUB10 - 00013) RESOLUTION NO. 11 -47 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF TERRA VERDE, IOWA CITY, IOWA. WHEREAS, the owner, Hieronymus Family Partnership, LLC, and the applicant, TNT Land Development LLC, filed with the City Clerk, an application for approval of the preliminary plat of Terra Verde, Iowa City, Iowa; and WHEREAS, the Department of Planning and Community Development and the Public Works Department examined the preliminary plat and recommend approval; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission examined the preliminary plat and, after due deliberation, recommend acceptance and approval of the plat; and WHEREAS, the preliminary plat conforms with all of the requirements of the City Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA THAT: 1. The preliminary plat of Terra Verde, Iowa City, Iowa, is hereby approved. 2. The Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Iowa City, Iowa are hereby authorized and directed to certify this resolution, which shall be affixed to the plat after passage and approval by law. Passed and approved this 15 day of Feb.,- 2011. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY -ERK It was moved by Bailey and seconded by adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: X X X NAYS: Approved by City Attorney's Office Wright ABSENT: Bailey Champion Dickens Hayek Mims Wilburn Wright the Resolution be ABSTAIN: X City Council February 15, 2011 Preliminary Plat Terra Verde A 22 -lot, 12.48 -acre subdivision located at the Northwest corner of Muscatine Avenue and Scott Boulevard (SUB 10- 00013/R EZ 10-000 16) MEN 7m I ap, P- mod o 1 Robert Lucas J Schaal S12 P1 RM 20 MUSCATINE AVE ILI CITY OF IOWA CITY 19 lay w P1 Scott Park zz 0SUBDIVIS UN FEE Ij SILVERcREST WAY SILVERTKEST PL SITE LOCATION: Muscatine Ave. & Scott Blvd. REZ10- 00016 /SUB10 -00013 FM 571 672 Sal j Is 496 4,84 Rj CEL tg.-- OT -- ------- OUTLOT -- --------------- - -------- - 11 .12 -13 14 10 9 ----- 16 17 4 A 10 H 6 9 -------------- - --------- - ---------- Sal F-P ---------- ----------- 406 V, AT 22 --- - ------------- ------ Zx—.= ----------- T---- If 17 MD 102 �t�m I 1� F77777=771 PRELINIINAR" TERRA V A GELYIUMNIW. Ck IOWA CITY, FRONT ELEVATION — D 1 to =t -o / 1 LEFT ELEVATION 1 t/e = t -0 RIGHT ELEVATION coo�oo ❑❑ a� I-ml -- �000 � II II `� ®o�.00co�� _ � �ooQaool� ���o:Kaoaa a000c•�r � I�I = LilA'0AEm, ° I�l = 000a:�o�o .000•- =o�o�000 = 000d�roa 4� REAR ELEVATION a Li NOV �vryiJN c O Cl a r� o �s m i N ti O h Q �a t 1RL5[ PlA16IX IXWVX45 1uvL N![N RXipARfb WALR w4 pffPRM b M HGRRIX1CI11 f� PKY[SSA1Ab1L XRLM1YC11RLL ffNrKIS fft fp91f1 N 9CL1IDN SEEA.19. LOGE IX 18NA tx(V %AVS NR tVAXKKCS N u0 kCX CA[ EO A —.K LNNx'ELR OW AALHI[CI Lg41RLCiNX1 fRpN iNLYS RIAM NR MivS egYlN IX LMp(s1AXC 1 YJt IIR A5551µCE IX A CLMIRNCIXW PApnF5WX4. M RRNCxXS[R OR WIOtB IX MSf ORnR9FS 4151 I L I� —I C.Nu NLPLLI NL [RIN11 Nl W9CM5%MY ANL QEIAA9IX M Pl V5 tlt WNR6i VnYeu 's D�cllln Su Nla1 N PR[PMAXOH W lx[5E U, (M WUV YLS 1 ASSNr(S X5 XLSPprSglbY ON nuv rvw{ r Cp11W ix MC D"— IX N.fS' uD 7 x$$W45 rp R[5(M.Sfulx xx�l3pMi AMiek id 1K CpR9RUCigN 6F ME Bu.. S . ON ME PU16 p RV WS a Prepared by: Sarah Walz, Associate Planner 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5239 (SUB10- 00012) RESOLUTION NO. 11 -48 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE. PRELIMINARY PLAT OF HICKORY POINTE, SECOND ADDITION, IOWA CITY, IOWA. WHEREAS, the subdivider, Casey Boyd, LLC, filed with the City Clerk, an application for approval of preliminary plat of Hickory Pointe, Second Addition, Iowa City, Iowa; and WHEREAS, the Department of Planning and Community Development and the Public Works Department examined the preliminary plat and recommended approval; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission examined the preliminary plat and, after due deliberation, recommended acceptance and approval of the plat; and WHEREAS, the preliminary plat conforms with all of the requirements of the City Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA THAT: 1. The preliminary plat of Hickory Pointe, Second Addition, Iowa City, Iowa, is hereby approved. 2. The Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Iowa City, Iowa are hereby authorized and directed to certify this resolution, which shall be affixed to the plat after passage and approval by law. Passed and approved this 15th day of Fahriiar)z , 20 1 1 - MAYOR Ap roved by ATTEST: CITY ERK City Attorney's Office It was moved by Bailey and seconded by Mims the Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: X Bailey X Champion X Dickens Hayek X Mimms X Wilburn X Wright s \pcd \hickory pointe preliminary plat - resolution.doc ABSTAIN: X Prepared by: Sarah Walz, Associate Planner 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5239 (SU610- 00012) RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF HICKORY POINTE, SECOND ADDITION, IOWA CITY, IOWA. WHEREAS, a subdivider, Casey Boyd, LLC, filed with the City Clerk, an application for approval of preliminary lat of Hickory Pointe, Second Addition, Iowa City, Iowa; and WHEREAS, the partment of Planning and Community Development and the, Public Works Department examin the preliminary plat and recommended approval; and ` WHEREAS, the Planni and Zoning Commission examined the prelimina plat and, after due deliberation, recommend acceptance and approval of the plat; and WHEREAS, the preliminary lat conforms with all of the requiremen of the City Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT R OLVED BY THE CITY C NCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA THAT: 1. The preliminary plat of Hick ry Pointe, Sec d Addition, Iowa City, Iowa, is hereby approved. 2. The Mayor and City Clerk of the C of wa City, Iowa are hereby authorized and directed to certify this resolution, which shal a affixed to the plat after passage and approval by law. Passed and approved this day of 20 MAYO Ap roved by ATTEST: V a CITY C RK City Attorney's Office i(il1ll It was move y and seconded by the Resolution be adopted, d upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: AB ENT: Bailey Champion Dickens Hayak Mimms Wilburn Wright s \pcd \hickory pointe preliminary plat - resolution.doc Prepared by: Sarah Walz, Associate Planner 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5239 (SU1310- 00012) RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF HICKORY POINTE, SECOND ADDITION, IOWA CITY, IOWA. WHEREAS, the subdivider, Casey Boyd, LLC, filed with the City Clerk, an application for approval of preliminary plat of Hickory Pointe, Second Addition, Iowa City, Iowa; and WHEREAS, the Departme of Planning and Community Deve opment and the Public Works Department examined the pr 'minary plat and recommended ap roval; and WHEREAS, the Planning and ning Commission examined a preliminary plat and, after due deliberation, recommended accep nce and approval of the pl ; and WHEREAS, the preliminary plat conf ms with all of the re uirements of the City Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED Y THE Cl COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA THAT: 1. The preliminary plat of Hickory Pointe, cond Addition, Iowa City, Iowa, is hereby approved. 2. The Mayor and City Clerk of the City of wa Cit Iowa are hereby authorized and directed to certify this resolution, which shall b affixed t the plat after passage and approval by law. Passed and approved this day of 20 MAYOR Approved by ATTEST: CITY CLERK It was moved by adopted, and upon roll cal AYES: / and seconded by were: NAYS: s\pcd \hickory pointe preliminary plat - resolution.doc City Attorney's Office ABSENT: Bailey Champion Dickens Hayak Mimms Wilburn Wright the Resolution be Na K r ►Z. j MC m W Prepared by: Sarah Walz, Associate Planner 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5239 (SUB10- 00012) RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF HICKORY POINTE, SECOND ADDITION, IOWA CITY, IOWA. WHEREAS, the subdivider, Casey Boyd, LLC, filed with the City Clerk, an application for approval of preliminary plat of Hickory Pointe, Second Addition, low City, Iowa; and WHEREAS, the Department of Planning and Communi Development and the Public Works Department examined the prel inary plat and recomme ed approval; and WHEREAS, the Planning and ning Commission ex ined the preliminary plat and, after due deliberation, recommended accep nce and approval o the plat; and WHEREAS, the preliminary plat con rms with all of/the requirements of the City Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVE BY CITY, IOWA THAT: 1. The preliminary plat of Hickory Poir� approved. 2. The Mayor and City Clerk of the City o I to certify this resolution, which shall e law. Passed and approved this ATTEST: CITY CLERK It was moved by adopted, and upon roll call th AYES: were: CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA Second Addition, Iowa City, Iowa, is hereby City, Iowa are hereby authorized and directed kd to the plat after passage and approval by of 20 MAYOR App oved by City Att rney's Office and seconded by \ the Resolution be 104I�l'�� s \pcd \hickory pointe preliminary plat - resolution.doc ABSENT: Bailey Champion Dickens Hayak Mimms Wilburn Wright D o C- c� Hickory Pointe (2nd addition) Preliminary Plat A 1 -lot, 2.97 subdivision located northwest of the intersection of First Avenue and Hickory Trail. (SUB 10-000 1 2/R EZ 10-000 13) Scale: 1 "= 300" CITY OF IOTA CITY �v Cn ID= S G L r :j ei i � Hickory Hill Park IVI I L BLUFFWOOD CIR SITE LOCATION: Hickory Pointe 2nd Addition SUB10- 00012/REZ10 -00013 yi 12WO III son. Ill so Uol 11H. Holl UOVEZISI I-!,. I MEN ALE man - - - - - - -- Il'11 !'r Prepared by: Susan Dulek, Assistant City Attorney, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356 -5030 RESOLUTION NO. 11 -49 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME LOCATED AT 310 DOUGLASS COURT. WHEREAS, the UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership Program is a joint effort between the University of Iowa and the City to encourage home ownership and reinvestment in designated neighborhoods surrounding the University of Iowa; and WHEREAS, the City has received a $1.25 million I -Jobs grant to assist in the acquisition and rehabilitation of twenty -five single family homes to provide affordable housing in designated neighborhoods surrounding the University of Iowa; and WHEREAS, Resolution 09 -384 authorized the City to acquire and rehabilitate properties consistent with the grant agreement for I -Jobs funds for the UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership Program; and WHEREAS, the City purchased and rehabilitated a single family home located at 310 Douglass Court, Iowa City; and WHEREAS, the City has received an offer to purchase 310 Douglass Court for the principal sum of $85,000 (the amount the City paid to acquire the home), plus the "carrying costs" of approximately $5,700, which are all costs incurred by the City to acquire the home, maintain it and sell it, including abstracting and recording fees, interest on the loan to purchase the home, mowing and snow removal, utilities, real estate taxes, and any costs in excess of $50,000 to repair and rehabilitate the home; and WHEREAS, this sale would provide affordable housing in a designated area surrounding the University of Iowa; and WHEREAS, on February 1, 2011, the City Council adopted a Resolution proposing to convey its interest in 310 Douglass Court, authorizing public notice of the proposed conveyance, and setting the date and time for the public hearing; and WHEREAS, following the public hearing on the proposed conveyance, the City Council finds that the conveyance is in the public interest. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, that: Upon the direction of the City Attorney, the Mayor and the City Clerk are authorized to execute a warranty deed conveying the City's interest in 310 Douglass Court, legally described as Lot 25, Wise Addition, Iowa City, Iowa. Resolution No. 11 -49 Page 2 2. The City Attorney is hereby authorized to deliver said warranty deed and to carry out any actions necessary to consummate the conveyance required by law. It was moved by Wright and seconded by adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Wilburn the Resolution be x Bailey x_ Champion Dickens —x Hayek — x Mims --x Wilburn x Wright x Passed and approved this 15th day of February 20k V19 �i O. ATTEST: cJ CITY LERK Approved by City Attorney's Office Prepared by: Susan Dulek, Assistant City Attorney, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356 -5030 %13% 0 RESOLUTION NO. > D.:.� -n r �n coo RESOLUTION AUTHOR ING CONVEYANCE OF A SINGLE FAMILY $p j"- LOCATED AT 310 DOUG SS COURT. =ern z M WHEREAS, the UniverCity Neighbo ood Partnership Program is a joint eltbeMieen !�h University of Iowa and the City to enc urage home ownership nd reinvestment in dwignated neighborhoods surrounding the Universi of Iowa; and WHEREAS, the City has received a $1.2 million I -Jobs gr nt to assist in the acquisition and rehabilitation of twenty -five single family h es to provid affordable housing in designated neighborhoods surrounding the University of I wa; and WHEREAS, Resolution 09 -384 authorized th City c acquire and rehabilitate properties consistent with the grant agreement for I. o s f ds for the UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership Program; and WHEREAS, the City purchased and rehabilitated si gle family home located at 310 Douglass Court, Iowa City; and WHEREAS, the City has received an offer to purchase 310 Douglass Court for the principal sum of $85,000 (the amount the City paid t acquire th home), plus the "carrying costs" of approximately $5,700, which are all costs in urred by the ity to acquire the home, maintain it and sell it, including abstracting and record' g fees, interest n the loan to purchase the home, mowing and snow removal, utilities, real state taxes, and y costs in excess of $50,000 to repair and rehabilitate the home; and WHEREAS, this sale would provide a ordable housing in a de ignated area surrounding the University of Iowa; and WHEREAS, on February 1, 2011, e City Council adopted a Res lution proposing to convey its interest in 310 Douglass Court authorizing public notice of the roposed conveyance, and setting the date and time for the blic hearing; and WHEREAS, following the pu is hearing on the proposed conveyanc , the City Council finds that the conveyance is in the ublic interest. NOW, THEREFORE, BOT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF HE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, that: 1. Upon the direction of the City Attorney, the Mayor and the City Cle are authorized to execute a warranty deed conveying the City's interest in 310 Dou ass Court, legally described as Lot 25, Wise Addition, Iowa City, Iowa. i Resolution No. Page 2 2. The City Attorney is hereby authorized to deliver said warranty deed and to carry out any actions necessary to consummate the conveyance required by law. It was moved by and seconded by the Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: Passed and approved this day Approved by City Attorney's Office ABSENT: MA CLERK Bailey Champion Dickens Hayek Mims Wi urn right 2010. o n --- -n ca ''n c i-< -=tc7 r w f- .r rn -v M Mc Q rso �n UZ -15 -11 10 Prepared by: Dave Panos, Public Works, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356 -5145 RESOLUTION NO. 11 -50 RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CON- TRACT, AND ESTIMATE OF COST FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NORTHSIDE MARKETPLACE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, ESTABLISHING AMOUNT OF BID SECURITY TO ACCOMPANY EACH BID, DIRECTING CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH NOTICE TO BIDDERS, AND FIXING TIME AND PLACE FOR RECEIPT OF BIDS. WHEREAS, notice of public hearing on the plans, specifications, form of contract and estimate of cost for the above -named project was published as required by law, and the hearing thereon held; and WHEREAS, funds for this project are available in the Northside Marketplace Improvements account #3751. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA THAT: 1. The plans, specifications, form of contract and estimate of cost for the above -named project are hereby approved. 2. The amount of bid security to accompany each bid for the construction of the above - named project shall be in the amount of 10% (ten percent) of bid payable to Treasurer, City of Iowa City, Iowa. 3. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish notice, not less than 4 and not more than 45 days before the date for filing the bids, for the receipt of bids for the construction of the above -named project in a newspaper published at least once weekly and having a general circulation in the city. 4. Sealed bids for the above -named project are to be received by the City of Iowa City, Iowa, at the Office of the City Clerk, at the City Hall, at 10:00 a.m. on the 17th day of March, 2011. At that time, the bids will be opened by the City Engineer or his designee, and thereupon referred to the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, for action upon said bids at its next regular meeting, to be held at the Emma J. Harvat Hall, City Hall, Iowa City, Iowa, at 7:00 p.m. on the 22nd day of March, 2011, or at a special meeting called for that purpose. Passed and approved this 15th day of February , 20 1 i u' •' Approved by ��� �� ATTEST: �G u 1 y J_am IMUM4 �" "' CITY CLERK City Attorney's Office Pweng /res /nsmktplcimprov appp &s.doc 2/11 l Resolution No. 11 -50 Page 2 It was moved by Bailey and seconded by M ckP„G the Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: x Bailey x Champion Dickens Hayek X Mims _x_ Wilburn x Wright wpdata/giossary/resolution - ic.doc 11 Prepared by: Jeff Davidson, PCD, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356 -5232 RESOLUTION NO. > > -51 RESOLUTION ADOPTING IOWA CITY'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING LOCATION MODEL WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City is an entitlement community for the use of U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) funds to assist lower- income residents with housing, jobs and services; WHEREAS, the City Council has identified three specific goals and concerns regarding the location of affordable housing in Iowa City; WHEREAS, one goal /concern is that the City does not want to further burden neighborhoods and elementary schools that already have issues related to a concentration of poverty; WHEREAS, a second goal /concern is the City desires to have diverse neighborhoods in terms of a range of income levels; WHEREAS, a third goal /concern is to determine the views of the Iowa City Community School District (ICCSD) on the affordable housing issue; WHEREAS, the ICCSD Superintendent told City staff that low income students, indeed all students, do better when there is a mix of income levels and that the ICCSD could provide data on three factors it views as significant in assessing whether there is such a mix, mobility, test results, and free /reduced lunch percentage; WHEREAS, in order to address these three goals /concerns, seven factors were identified, including three factors recommended by the ICCSD; WHEREAS, one factor is the distance to existing subsidized and assisted housing (namely, transitional, rental, shelter and public housing units) locations excluding projects developed for the elderly and persons with disabilities; WHEREAS, a second factor is the median household income based on U.S. Census data; WHEREAS, a third factor is the change in residential sale prices based on records of the Iowa City Assessor's Office; WHEREAS, a fourth factor is mobility data represented by the rate of annual turnover at each elementary school as provided by the ICCSD; WHEREAS, a fifth factor is the elementary school academic performance as indicated by Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) scores as provided by the ICCSD; WHEREAS, a sixth factor is the free and reduced lunch percentage at each elementary school as provided by the ICCSD; WHEREAS, a seventh factor is crime density based on calls for service to the Iowa City Police Department pertaining to drugs, most alcohol offenses, property crimes, and personal injury; Resolution No. 11 -51 Page 2 WHEREAS, with the exception of crime density, each of the data reflects the goals /concerns identified by Council; WHEREAS, crime density is included because persons assisted with funding benefit from living in areas where crime is less prevalent; WHEREAS, some of the seven factors more directly further the goals /concerns than others and thus the factors should be weighted based on their relative significance; WHEREAS, the distance to existing assisted rental housing is the most effective way to scatter affordable housing and avoid concentrations of assisted rental housing and should be given the most weight; WHEREAS, in order to scatter affordable housing and avoid concentrations of assisted rental housing, new assisted rental housing should be located at least 400 feet, or approximately one city block, from existing subsidized and assisted rental housing; WHEREAS, mobility should be weighted the highest of the three ICCSD factors because ICCSD administrators emphasized that it was the most important of the three factors; WHEREAS, weighting of the factors should be as follows: 40% - distance to existing assisted rental housing, 20% - elementary school mobility rate, 10% - median household income, 10% - change in residential sale prices, 10% - crime density, 5% - elementary school ITBS performance, and 5% - elementary school free and reduced lunch rate; WHEREAS, the factors are appropriately weighted in accordance with the relative significance of each as identified by the City Council and the Iowa City Community School District administration; and WHEREAS, the seven factors and their respective weights further City Council's three goals /concerns; WHEREAS, using Geographic Information System (GIS) software, the City was divided into 80 foot by 80 foot squares, or pixels; WHEREAS, the corresponding data set for each factor was assigned a score for each square, the scores for said factors were then weighted and added together to create a composite score for each square throughout the City; WHEREAS, a threshold score should be determined, below which funding should not be available, that assures new assisted rental housing projects will not be funded within 400 feet of existing assisted /subsidized rental housing; WHEREAS, the threshold score for each 80 foot by 80 foot square is shown on the attached map entitled "Affordable Housing Location Model," and each square with a score below the threshold score is a location where funding should not be available; WHEREAS, the attached "Affordable Housing Location Model" furthers City Council's three goals /concerns; WHEREAS, the City should not restrict the location of funding for owner - occupied housing because of the positive effect of homeownership on neighborhoods; Resolution No. 11 -51 Page 3 WHEREAS, the City should not restrict the location of funding for rehabilitating existing rental housing because providing funds will revitalize, stabilize and improve existing affordable rental housing and will not increase the number of rental units; and WHEREAS, the City should not restrict the location of funding for projects for the elderly and persons with disabilities because these units have little or no impact on the schools. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, THAT: 1. The attached Affordable Housing Location Model is hereby approved and adopted for use in all programs and projects funded with CDBG, HOME, and discretionary City funds as follows: a) The model is applicable to rental housing projects for new construction and acquisition excluding assisted rental housing projects for the elderly or persons with disabilities; b) The model is not applicable to new construction or acquisition of owner - occupied housing; and c) The model is not applicable to projects to rehabilitate existing rental housing or owner - occupied housing. 2. The model shall be updated annually by November 1 beginning November 1, 2011. Passed and approved this 15rh day of February , 2011. MAYOR Approved by ATTEST:- CITY CLERK City Attorney's Office Resolution No. 11 -51 Page 4 It was moved by Ra; i Py and seconded by Champion the Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: X X x x x x wpd ata/glossa ry/resol ution-ic. doc NAYS: ABSENT: Bailey Champion Dickens Hayek Mims Wilburn Wright � (1 Marian Karr From: Paula Swygard <pswygard @gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 12:30 PM To: Council Subject: Vote "Yes" Dear Members of the Iowa City City Council, As a long -time resident of one of the neighborhoods that would be impacted by the proposal, I am writing to encourage you to vote to adapt the plan that would restrict eligibility for city- administered federal allocations of CDBG and HOME program funding for new construction and property acquisition at your February 15th council meeting. The Miller- Orchard neighborhood is already inundated with lower income rental housing and cannot sustain the addition of more of this type of housing without leading to further deterioration of the neighborhood area. This policy before you will help our neighborhood move towards stabilization and hopefully improvement rather than a potential increase in lower socio- economic clustering as has been the pattern over the past several years. Thank you for your time, Paula Swygard M45 Prepared by: Kent Ralston, Assistant Transportation Planner, 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, Iowa 319 - 356 -5253 RESOLUTION NO. 11 -52 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO SUBMIT A LIST OF CAPITAL TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS AND COST ESTIMATES TO THE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION OF JOHNSON COUNTY (FORMERLY KNOWN AS JCCOG) FOR INCLUSION IN THE REVISED LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN TO BE ADOPTED MAY OF 2012 WHEREAS, The City of Iowa City is a member of the Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County (MPO); and WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Administration now requires that the'MPO Long Range Transportation Plan include a fiscally constrained project list for the urbanized area; and WHEREAS, the MPO Urbanized Area Policy Board has directed MPO staff to receive said capital transportation project lists by resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, THAT: 1. The attached list of anticipated federally funded projects be included in the revised version of the MPO Long Range Transportation Plan to be adopted by May of 2012. 2. The attached list of anticipated locally funded projects be included in the revised version of the MPO Long Range Transportation Plan to be adopted by May of 2012. Passed and approved this 15th day of February 2011 77 MAYOR j Approved by ATTEST: �. ` �/J J4�A // , A W," WVi�(Qj�� CITY LERK City Attorney's Office,�? /9 /l/ It was moved by Mims and seconded by Bailey the Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS ABSENT: Bailey Champion Dickens Hayek Mims Wilburn Wright 144. / 2012 -2040 Long Range Plan - Federally Funded Transportation Infrastructure Projects Project Title Project Description (include type of project, location, length, etc.) $ Cost Estimate (Present dollar) Anticipated Year of Construction (2012 -2020, 2021 - 2030,2031 -2040 1 Iowa City Gateway Project Reconstruct and Elevate 4,200' of Dubuque Street and reconstruct the Park Road Bridge $31,996,576 2012 -2020 2 Rocky Shore Drive Pedestrian Bridge Construct a pedestrian bridge over the Iowa River from Rocky Shore Dr to the Peninsula $1,300,000 2012 -2020 3 Dubuque Street/ 1 -80 Pedestrian Bridge Construct a pedestrian bridge over 1 -80 and extend trail north along Dubuque Street to the Butler Bridge $2,100,000 2012 -2020 4 American Legion Road Project Reconstruct American Legion Road to urban standards $3,000,000 2021 -2030 5 Burlington Street Traffic Control Improvements Reconstruct the Burlington Street / Madison Street intersection to include turn lanes on Madison Street. Reconstruct the Burlington St / Clinton St intersection to add turn lanes on Clinton Street $2,219,595 2012 -2020 6 First Avenue / Iowa Interstate Railroad Grade Separation Construct an overpass to replace the existing at -grade crossing $7,135,985 2012 -2020 7 Rochester Avenue Bridge Replace the Rochester Avenue Bridge over Ralston Creek $900,000 2012 -2020 8 US Highway 6 Rehabilitation Construct an asphalt overlay on US Highway 6 between Riverside Drive and Lakeside Drive - includes paved shoulders and improved medians $2,675,000 2012 -2020 9 Transit Facility Relocation Construction of a new transit facility $20,070,000 2012 -2020 10 Burlington Street Bridge Rehabilitating the south bridge to fix delaminating arches $874,000 2012 -2020 11 Benton Street Reconstruction Capacity related improvements between Orchard Street to Oaknoll Drive $3,824,000 2031 -2040 12 Burlington Street Median Construct a median on Burlington Street between Gilbert Street and Madison Street $3,824,000 2012 -2020 13 Dodge Street Reconstruction Reconstruction of Dodge Street between Governor Street and Bowery Street $5,813,000 2031 -2040 14 Foster Road Construction Construct Foster Road between Dubuque Street and Prairie Du Chen Road $984,000 2012 -2020 15 Gilbert Street / US 6 Intersection Reconstruct the Gilbert Street / US 6 intersection to include duel left -turn lanes on Gilbert Street $4,562,000 2012 -2020 16 Gilbert Street IRIS Underpass Reconstruct sidewalks further from Gilbert Street $308,000 2012 -2020 17 Old Highway 218 Streetscape Streetscape improvements between Sturgis Ferry Park and US 6 $765,000 2021 -2030 18 Highway 965 Extension Construct Highway 965 between Highway 218 and Melrose Avenue $5,464,000 2031 -2040 19 Keokuk Street Reconstruction Reconstruct Keokuk Street to remove the sharp turn south of Highland Avenue $1,683,000 2031 -2040 20 McCollister Boulevard Construction Construct McCollister Boulevard between Gilbert Street and Scott Boulevard $7,103,000 2031 -2040 21 Mormon Trek Boulevard Left Turn Lanes Construct left turn lanes or a center shared lane on Mormon Trek Boulevard between Melrose Avenue and Abbey Lane $3,750,000 2021 -2030 22 Melrose Avenue Reconstruction I Reconstruct Melrose Avenue between Highway 218 & city limits $3,278,000 2021 -2030 23 Myrtle Avenue Signalization ISignalization of the Myrtle Avenue / Riverside Drive intersection J$849,000 2012 -2020 24 Oakdale Boulevard Construction lConstruct Oakdale Boulevard between Scott Boulevard and Highway 1 1$5,464,000 2021 -2030 25 Oakdale Boulevard Construction Construct Oakdale Boulevard between Highway and Prairie Du Chen Road $3,600,000 2012 -2020 26 Riverside Drive Streetscape Streetscape improvements on Riverside Drive between Myrtle Avenue and US Highway 6 $2,186,000 2012 -2020 27 Rohret Road Improvements Reconstruct Rohret Road between Lakeshore Drive and City Limits to urban standards $2,150,000 2021 -2030 28 S. Gilbert Street Improvements Reconstruct Gilbert Street between Benton Street and Stevens Drive $3,278,000 2012 -2020 29 Benton Street Sidewalk Install and widen sidewalks on Benton Street between Riverside Drive and Sunset Street $874,000 2031 -2040 30 South Arterial and Bridge Construct south arterial and bridge over the Iowa River $15,069,000 2031 -2040 31 Taft Avenue Construction Reconstruct Taft avenue between Rochester Avenue and 420th Street to urban standards $10,000,000 2021 -2030 32 Highway 1 Trail Construct 10' trail adjacent to Highway 1 between Sunset Street and Mormon trek Boulevard $639,000 2012 -2020 33 Highway 6 Trail Construct 10' trail adjacent to Highway 6 between Broadway to Sycamore Street $2,440,000 2012 -2020 34 Highway 6 Trail Construct 10' trail adjacent to Highway 6 between Sycamore Street and Lakeside Drive $1,749,000 2012 -2020 35 Iowa River Corridor Trail Construct Trail extension along the Iowa River adjacent to the Elks Property $874,000 2021 -2030 36 Iowa River Corridor Trail Construct trail from Benton Street south through Sturgis Ferry Park $2,186,000 2021 -2030 37 Riverside Drive Pedestrian Tunnel Construct a tunnel through the railroad embankment on the west side of Riverside Drive south of Myrtle Avenue $874,000 2012 -2020 38 Old Highway 218 Trail Construct a 10' trail adjacent to Old Highway 218 between US 6 and McCollister Boulevard $656,000 2021 -2030 39 Willow Creek Trail Phase III Construct a trail from Willow Creek Drive under Hwy 1 and around airport property $820,000 2021 -2030 40 Willow Creek Trail West Construct a trail from Willow Creek west under Hwy 218 to Hunter's Run Park and beyond $2,652,000 2031 -2040 41 Traffic Signal Preemption System Provision for a city -wide GIS based traffic signal preemption system for emergency vehicles $1,150,000 2012 -2020 2012 -2040 Long Range Plan - Locally Funded Transportation Infrastructure Projects Project Title Project Description (include type of project, location, length, etc.) $ Cost Estimate (Present dollar) Anticipated Year of Construction (2012 -2020, 2021 -2030, 2031 -2040 1 Normandy Drive Trail Construct a trail from Lower City Park to Normandy Drive $475,000 2012 -2020 2 American Legion / Scott Boulevard Intersection Improvements Construct turn lanes at the American Legion Rd and Scott Blvd intersection $600,000 2012 -2020 3 Park Road Center Turn Lane Project Add center turn lane on Park Road between the Lower City Park entrance and Riverside Drive $1,140,000 2012 -2020 4 F Street Bridge Replace existing bridge $273,000 2021 -2030 5 Fourth Avenue Bridge Replace existing bridge $280,000 2021 -2030 6 Prentiss Street Bridge Replace existing bridge $410,000 2021 -2030 7 Second Avenue Bridge Replace existing bridge $273,000 2021 -2030 8 Sixth Avenue Bridge Replace existing bridge $273,000 2021 -2030 9 IThird Avenue Bridge Replace existing bridge $273,000 2021 -2030 10 Dubuque Road Reconstruction Reconstruct Dubuque Road $656,000 2021 -2030 11 Emerald Street Diamond Grinding Diamond Grind all of Emerald Street $200,000 2021 -2030 12 Laura Drive Reconstruction Reconstruct Laura Drive between Foster Road and Forest View Trailer Park $546,000 2031 -2040 13 North Gilbert Street Paving Reconstruct 900 Block of North Gilbert Street to include sidewalks $700,000 2012 -2020 14 City Park Trail Improvements Replace old section of trail in southeast and construct new trail $301,000 2012 -2020 15 Iowa River Trail Construct 1500' of the IRC Trail behind City Carton $121,000 2012 -2020 16 Longfellow Trail Extend trail to Pine Street $131,000 2031 -2040 17 N District Nature Trail Construct trail along Williams pipeline between Bristol Drive and Dubuque Road $328,000 2031 -2040 18 Shimek School Trail Construct a trail between Shimek School and Foster Road $76,000 2031 -2040 19 Highway 1 Trail Construct a 10' trail adjacent to Highway 1 between Riverside Dr and Sunset St $1,000,000 2012 -2020 CITY OF IOWA CITY 12 14,Z1114 N IN MEMORANDUM Date: February 4, 2011 To: Iowa City City Council From: Kent Ralston; Assistant Transportation Planner Re: Capital Transportation Projects Resolution The attached resolution includes a list of capital transportation infrastructure projects and estimated costs that Iowa City contemplates pursuing between 2012 -2040. This list was derived from the Capital Improvements Program, and includes both partially funded and unfunded projects. With adoption of the resolution, this list of projects will be submitted to the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) of Johnson County. Project lists are being required by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in order for projects to become eligible for Federal funding; FHWA also requires that a list of projects which are contemplated to be funded locally be submitted. This spring, the MPO plans to hold an open house where the public can ask questions about the projects and provide their input. The MPO Transportation Technical Advisory Committee will then be responsible for reviewing project lists from each metropolitan local government to ensure projects meet criteria for federal funding and financial feasibility. The final project lists will then be included in the updated MPO Long Range Transportation Plan to be adopted by May 2012. Please note that the inclusion of projects in the Long Range Transportation Plan does not require that Iowa City complete those projects. The inclusion of projects in the Long Range Transportation Plan allows the project to be eligible to receive federal funding. The majority of projects on the list will still need to gain political support and partial local funding support before being pursued. The Long Range Transportation Plan is revisited at least every five years. Please consider approving the attached resolution thereby submitting Iowa City's capital transportation infrastructure project list to the MPO for inclusion in the revised Long Range Transportation Plan to be adopted by May of 2012. The MPO Urbanized Area Policy Board requires that said lists be provided by way of a resolution. M49 13 Prepared by: Ben Clark, Spec. Proj. Admin., 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240; (319) 356 -5436 RESOLUTION NO. 11 -53 RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE FACILITY PLAN FOR EXPANSION OF SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT. WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City has deemed it desirable to consolidate all wastewater operations at the South Plant site to provide flood protection, capacity for growth and to accommodate future regulatory requirements; and WHEREAS, the City entered into a Consultant Agreement with Stanley Consultants of Muscatine, Iowa for planning, engineering, construction assistance and commissioning services for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Consolidation Project; and WHEREAS, part of the regulatory process for the project includes submitting a Facility Plan for Expansion of South Wastewater Treatment Plant for approval by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources; and WHEREAS, Stanley Consultants has prepared a Facility Plan for Expansion of South Wastewater Treatment Plant that has been placed on file at the Iowa City Engineering office; and WHEREAS, funds for this project are available in the Wastewater Treatment Plant Consolidation Project account #3135. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, THAT: 1. The Facility Plan for Expansion of South Wastewater Treatment Plant is hereby adopted by the City of Iowa City, Iowa. Passed and approved this 15th day of February , 2011 ATTEST: , n, /1 _ - �,- / CITY LERK Pweng /res/swwtrplant. doc �. Approvedp by City Attorney's Office Resolution No. 11 -53 Page 2 It was moved by Wright and seconded by Rai-Ley the Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: x x x x x x x wpd ata/g I os sa ry/resol ution-ic. doc NAYS: ABSENT: Bailey Champion Dickens Hayek Mims Wilburn Wright Facility Plan for Expansion of South Wastewater Treatment Plant 70 IIt i 44, L Z**. Soot 0 0 4 City of Iowa City Iowa City, Iowa February 8, 2011 BrownAND Stanley Consultants Caldwett A Stanley Group Company Engineering, Environmental and Construction Services - Worldwide go MMMMIshe %iw-m�p Stanley Consultants INC. A Stanley Group Company Engineering, Environmental and Construction Services - Woddwide February 8, 201 l Mr. Rick Fosse Director of Public Works City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street. Iowa City, IA 52240 -1826 Dear Mr. Fosse: Subject: Expansion of the South Wastewater Treatment Plant We are pleased to submit this final "Facility Plan for Expansion of South Wastewater Treatment Plant" prepared in accordance with our Consultant Agreement dated May 10, 2010. Following formal approval by the City of Iowa City, the Facility Plan will be submitted to Iowa Department of Natural Resources for their review and approval. The Facility Plan will serve as the basis for the Preliminary Engineering Report and Preliminary Design Phase of Stanley Consultants' Consultant Agreement with the City of Iowa City. It has been a pleasure working with the City of Iowa City during the preparation of this Facility Plan. We look forward to providing continuing services to you during the implementation of this important project. Sincerely, Stanley Consultants, Inc. Bennett Rcischauer, P.E. Project Manager Enclosures cc: Project Files 22800 bdr:mjh:PWI:D$I: Does: IF22800:06:04:Rpts:FaciIicy Plan Report: Final: 201 10208 L Fosse.doex Stanley Building • 225 Iowa Avenue • Muscatine, IA 52761 - phone 563.264.6600 • fax 563.264.6658 www.stanleyconsultants.com Facility Plan for Expansion of South Wastewater Treatment Plant City of Iowa City February 8, 2011 I hereby certify that this engineering document was prepared by me or under my direct `` \ DfESSIO personal supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the Q�..• """' -..a� '' laws of the State of Iowa. �� 4, : Fy CO '. (, Z : BENNETT D. LU REISCHAUER : rn nri Bennett D. Reischauer 02/08/2011 = 7--i : 07937 My license renewal date is December 31, 2011. Pages or sheets covered by this seal: Entire Report iii���jj row A I hereby certify that this engineering document was prepared by me or under my direct personal supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Iowa. ike Macaulay My license renewal date is December 31, 2011. Pages or sheets covered by this seal: Entire Report It NO he Stanley Consultants INC A Stanley Group Company Engineering, Environmental and Construction Services - Worldwide 02/08/2011 4�61pess1o_, 401, R. N 7,63 MICHAEL N. U MACAULAY m 20203 � fowi— "0 OStanley Consultants 2011 Executive Summary General This report documents the results of engineering studies and analysis and presents a wastewater treatment scheme for the expanded South Wastewater Treatment Plant. Effluent requirements are very strict requiring a sophisticated treatment process and resulting in high project costs. A detailed assessment was conducted of the South Wastewater Treatment Plant to identify the hydraulic, organic, and other contaminant loading capacities and constraints on the plant. A process model was developed to simulate operation of the plant under varying influent conditions to analyze plant performance, aeration requirements, and solids production using various process alternatives. Work included development of a detailed hydraulic assessment, clarifier modeling and testing, plant energy assessment and floodplain analysis. Alternatives were developed and evaluated to meet projected wastewater treatment requirements through the year 2040. Work included defining regulatory, environmental and water quality criteria for both near and anticipated future wastewater regulations. Treatment needs were identified and alternatives developed and evaluated to meet technical, regulatory, sustainability, energy, cost, and operations criteria. This facilities plan summarizes results of studies and analysis and includes a preliminary layout and cost estimate of the selected alternative for submittal to IDNR. Background Currently, the City of Iowa City has two wastewater treatment facilities designated as the North and South Plants. The North Plant is the older of the two plants with some portions of the plant being in service for over 70 years. The City's long range wastewater system plan, stemming from the 1990s, envisioned expansion at the South Plant with eventual decommissioning of the North Plant. The North Plant is also subject to inundation by Iowa River floods and is only one half mile south of the City's downtown business district and the University of Iowa's campus. The bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final i Stanley Consultants 2008 record Iowa River flood rendered most of the North Plant inoperable due to high water. The 2008 flood exacerbated the need to expand the South Plant, and eliminate treatment operations at the North Plant. Study Area The study area consists of the existing Iowa City sewer service area along with future development areas which will be served by the City of Iowa City wastewater collection and treatment system. The existing wastewater system serves 70,724 people on 10,945 acres of area in Iowa City and University Heights including the University of Iowa. Commercial/light industrial areas total approximately 1,874 acres. The system also serves several significant industries and three major hospitals — University Hospitals and Clinics, Mercy Hospital, and the Veteran's Administration Medical Center. The Iowa River flows in a general north -south direction through the center of the City. The river currently receives treated effluent from both Iowa City wastewater treatment plants. Flows in the river in the study area are controlled by the US Army Corps of Engineers through operation of the Coralville Dam located just north of the city. Existing Wastewater System The North Plant is currently rated at three million gallons per day (MGD) in the winter and five MGD in the summer. The treated wastewater discharges to the Iowa River approximately one quarter mile upstream of the mouth of Ralston Creek. The South Plant is located approximately three miles south of the downtown in a predominately rural area, and adjacent to the I C Kickers soccer complex. The original plant was constructed in 1990 with a design capacity of 5 MGD. The plant was upgraded to achieve nitrification and partial denitrification, and expanded to a design capacity of 10 MGD in 2001. The treated wastewater is released to the Iowa River approximately four miles downstream of Iowa City. A large 84 to 96 -inch diameter influent sewer connecting the North Plant to the South Plant was constructed in the late 1990's to facilitate the eventual decommissioning of the North Plant. Historical Flows and Loads Historic flow and load data from the North and South Plants was analyzed to detennine the existing flow and load conditions. Flow data from 2000 to 2010 and load data from 2006 to 2010 was analyzed. A collection system computer flow model was used to correlate wet weather flow conditions including maximum day and peak hour flows. The City's wastewater sources include residential, commercial, light industrial, significant industrial contributors and large institutions. The City is home to the University of Iowa with a current student population of almost 31,000; the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, a large teaching hospital complex; Veterans Administration Medical Center; and Mercy Hospital. The City's wastewater is influenced by several significant industries including Procter and Gamble, a personal care products manufacturer; Robert's Dairy, a milk processor; the City's sanitary landfill; and several other smaller significant dischargers. Table ES -1 presents the results of the flow analysis used for developing the 2040 design flows. The historic peak hour flow was determined to be 44.9 MGD. bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final ii Stanley Consultants Table ES -1 Historic Combined Plant Flows Parameters Flow (MGD) Date Average Daily Flow (ADF) 11.3 2005 -2009 Minimum Flow 5.8 9/18/2002 Average Dry Weather (ADW) Flow 8.0 12/18/2005 - 1/16/2006 Average Wet Weather (AWW) Flow 18.6 4/8/2008 - 5/7/2008 Maximum Wet Weather (MWW) Flow 33.1 10/30/2009 Source: Stanley Consultants and Brown and Caldwell Table ES -2 presents the results of the load analysis used for developing the 2040 design loads. Table ES -2 Current Combined Plant Loads (lb /d) Parameter Period Value Date /Period CBOD5 Annual Average 15,425 2006 -2010 Maximum Month 21,643 10/1/2009 Maximum Week 25,193 9/24/2009 Maximum Day 31,381 8/12/2009 South Plant CBOD5 Design Max Month Capacity: 16,554 lb /day TSS Annual Average 17,110 2006 -2010 Maximum Month 22,075 6/28/2006 Maximum Week 28,541 5/11/2008 Maximum Day 33,796 5/8/2008 TKN Annual Average 3,316 2006 -2010 Maximum Month 4,665 10/3/2009 Maximum Week 5,232 9/27/2009 Maximum Day 6,754 2/24/2010 South Plant TKN Design Capacities: Max Month: 2,940 lb /d , Max Day: 3,700 lb /d Source: Stanley Consultants and Brown and Caldwell Proposed Design Flows and Loads Current and future population projections for the City of Iowa City were reviewed and compared with Johnson County population projections. In addition, populations from outside of the City that are contributing or are anticipated to contribute to the wastewater system are analyzed. bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final iii Stanley Consultants Table ES -3 summarizes the current populations of the City of Iowa City and various areas outside of the City. Table ES -3 Current Populations Area Population or Equivalent (Source) City of Iowa City 68,903 (2009 U.S. Census Estimate) University Heights 1,064 (2009 U.S. Census Estimate) Modern Manor Trailer Park 1,000 (NPDES Permit — 0.1 MGD) Sunrise Trailer Park 329 (NPDES Pen-nit — 0.038 MGD and 56 lb BOD /day) Lake Ridge Trailer Park 794 (NPDES Permit — 0.148 MGD and 135 lb BOD /day) Makada Subdivision 103 (NPDES Permit — 0.0103 MGD) Existing Rapid Creek Development 357 (estimate based on current development) Regency Trailer Park 494 (NPDES Permit — 0.0670 MGD and 84 lb BOD /day) Pleasant Meadows Subdivision 78 (estimated based on current development) Source: Stanley Consultants and Brown and Caldwell In addition, four institutions represent significant `permanent' transient populations and include the University of Iowa, the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, the Veterans Administration Medical Center, and Mercy Hospital. Students at the University of Iowa are included in the U.S. Census population estimates as part of the City population. Patients at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, the Veterans Administration Medical Center, and Mercy Hospital represent a nonnal daily population that contributes to the system. Wastewater system contributions from staff for these institutions are included in the commercial /industrial allowance. Table ES -4 summarizes the four institutions' current student /patient populations. Table ES -4 Current Large Institution Population Equivalents Population Institution Equivalent Comment University of Iowa 30,825 Students University of Iowa 1,535 Hospitals and Clinics Veteran Administration 169 Medical Center Mercy Hospital 425 Based on Fall 2010 Enrollment Based on 2008 -2009 Annual Report: 919 Inpatient Beds and 915,944 outpatient visits Based on 93 Patient Beds Based on 240 Patient Beds Source: Stanley Consultants and Brown and Caldwell A City of Iowa City population growth rate of 1.1 percent, comparable to historic growth, is used for wastewater system planning based on Johnson County and City of Iowa City growth projections. The estimated 2040 population of 102,908 used for development of design flows and bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final iv Stanley Consultants loads includes growth for the City, University of Iowa, the three large hospitals, and the incorporation of the outside areas listed in Table ES -4 except for Regency Trailer Park and the Pleasant Meadows Subdivision. Table ES -5 summarizes the commercial and light industrial design flows and loads. Table ES -5 Summary of Commercial and Light Industrial Maximum Month Flows and Loads Condition Area, acres Flow, MGD CBODS, lb /d TSS, lb /d TKN, lb /d Current 1,874 1.87 1,194 1,548 565 Future 3,449 3.45 2,385 2,818 1,025 Source: Stanley Consultants and Brown and Caldwell Table ES -6 summarizes the industrial growth allowances and maximum month projected flows and loads. The industrial growth allowance includes growth of existing permitted significant industrial contributors to their cumulative permitted capacity and an allowance for new significant industrial users. Table ES -6 Maximum Month Industrial Flows and Loads Growth Allowance for 2040 Flow CBODS Load (MGD) (lb /day) TKN Load (lb /day) Unused Current Permitted Capacity 0.800 9,179 1,024 New Industrial Growth Allowance 1.0 5,000 300 Total Industrial Growth Allowance 1.8 14,179 1,324 Note: Allowance for commercial and light industrial growth is included elsewhere. Source: Stanley Consultants and Brown and Caldwell bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final v Stanley Consultants Table ES -7 presents the existing and proposed design flows and loads. The influent design flows and loads were presented to IDNR in the "Consolidated Wastewater Treatment Design Flows and Loads Report," October 2010. IDNR concurred with these influent design flows and loads on January 3, 2011. Table ES -7 Existing and Proposed Design Flows Present Conditions Projected Design Year 2040 Plant Design AWW /Max MWW /Max AWW /Max MWW /Max Parameter ADW Month Day ADW Month Day Population 72,847 102,908 Flow, MGD 8.0 18.6 33.1 13.0 29.8 53.1 CBOD5, 4 /Day 17,496 21,643 31;381 32,889 43,673 64,108 TSS, 4/Day 18,075 22,075 33,796 36,361 46,694 77,509 TKN, 4 /Day 3,535 4,665 6,754 6,090 7,956 12.225 Source: Stanley Consultants and Brown and Caldwell Phase 1 Design Flows and Loads The South Plant will be expanded in phases to match capacity with anticipated growth and available funding for improvements. Two phases are proposed — Phase 1 (2025) is the current expansion anticipated to be operational in 2014 and adequate to approximately 2025; Phase 2 (2040) would be constructed in approximately 2025 for growth to approximately 2040. Tables ES -8 and ES -9 present the proposed 2013 Phase 1 design flows and loads. Table ES -8 Proposed Phase 1 (2025) Design Flows Unequalized Equalized ADW, MGD 10.5 10.5 AWW, MGD 24.2 24.2 MWW, MGD 43.3 30 PHWW, MGD 61.5 30 Source: Stanlev Consultants and Brown and Caldwell bdr: mjh: ds1: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final A Stanley Consultants Table ES -9 Proposed Flows and Loads Summary Effluent Requirements The treatment plant will be designed to meet effluent requirements established by a waste load allocation analysis performed by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) for a shore discharge into the Iowa River at the present South Plant outfall location. The waste load allocation was determined based on State default values. Site specific river and treated effluent quality infonnation has been submitted to the IDNR for development of a site specific waste load allocation. The site specific waste load allocation may result in slightly different effluent requirements. The treatment process design may change slightly and will be refined accordingly for the preliminary engineering report. Table ES -10 presents effluent requirements provided by waste load allocation based on state -wide default stream values. bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final vii Stanley Consultants 2025 2040 (Population= 87,878) (Population= 102,908) Max Max Month Max Day Month Max Day Flow (MGD) 24.2 4 3. 33 29.8 53.1 CBOD5 (lb /day) Residential 15,484 19,329 18,785 23,312 Commercial/ Light Industrial 2,218 2,756 2,843 3,527 Industrial 14,956 25,660 22,045 37,269 Total 32,658 47,745 43,673 64,108 TSS (lb /day) Residential 17,022 23,764 19,891 28,480 Commercial/ Light Industrial 2,639 3,693 3,303 4,729 Industrial 14,725 28,196 23,500 44,300 Total 34,386 55,653 46,694 77,509 TKN (lb /day) Residential 4,478 6,637 5,224 7,856 Commercial/ Light Industrial 915 1,358 1,152 1,732 Industrial 918 1,495 1,580 2,637 Total 6,311 9,490 7,956 12,225 Source: Stanlev Consultants and Brown and Caldwell Effluent Requirements The treatment plant will be designed to meet effluent requirements established by a waste load allocation analysis performed by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) for a shore discharge into the Iowa River at the present South Plant outfall location. The waste load allocation was determined based on State default values. Site specific river and treated effluent quality infonnation has been submitted to the IDNR for development of a site specific waste load allocation. The site specific waste load allocation may result in slightly different effluent requirements. The treatment process design may change slightly and will be refined accordingly for the preliminary engineering report. Table ES -10 presents effluent requirements provided by waste load allocation based on state -wide default stream values. bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final vii Stanley Consultants Source: Iowa Department of Natural Resources bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final viii Stanley Consultants Table ES -10 Design Effluent Limits - Shore Discharge Concentration (mg /1) Mass (lbs /day) Parameter Season 7 -day 30 -day Max. day 7 -day 30 -day Max. day CBOD; 40 25 TSS 45 30 Ammonia Nitrogen (N) Jan 12.4 16.6 2,857 4,111 Feb 14.1 15.8 3,234 3,877 Mar 6.4 15.9 1,470 3,952 Apr 4.6 16.6 1,060 4,192 May 3.9 16.1 905 4,051 Jun 2.7 15 .3 620 3,181 Jul 2.8 18.6 633 2,560 Aug 2.5 17.1 577 2,709 Sep 3.0 17.6 700 2,933 Oct 6.4 16.7 1,476 4,200 Nov 7.9 15.6 1,825 3,923 Dec 9.3 17.0 2,145 4,275 pH Yearly Chloride 699 699 145,204 163,869 Sulfate 1,684 1,684 394,684 394,684 Total Residual Chlorine 2.229 19.173 95.9 142.15 E. Coll 147 #org /100 ml Geometric Mean (Mar 15 -Nov 15) Copper (Cu) 0.02956 0.02956 5.926 6.974 Cyanide (Cn) 0.01177 0.02459 2.005 5.748 Mercury (Hg) 0.3396 1.833 0.05784 0.4285 (µg/L) (µg/-) Phenols 0.1132 2.794 19.28 653.2 Silver (Ag) 0.004247 0.004247 0.9928 0.9928 Zinc (Zn) 0.2409 0.2409 56.32 56.32 Toluene 0.1132 2.794 19.28 653.2 Acute Toxicity 1.0 Ceriodaphnia Acute Toxicity 1.0 Pimephales Source: Iowa Department of Natural Resources bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final viii Stanley Consultants Anti - Degradation Analysis A report titled "Anti- Degradation Analysis for Expansion of South Wastewater Treatment Plant" prepared by Stanley Consultants, Inc. for the City of Iowa City was published for public and agency comment on January 14, 2011. The anti - degradation analysis supported the effluent limits presented in Table ES -10. The 30 day comment period expires on February 14, 2011. A summary of comments received and comment responses will be provided to IDNR for review and approval. South Plant Condition Assessment A field condition assessment was conducted to obtain an overall idea of the facility condition and areas that need improvement. The assessment team visually inspected and rated the facilities based on condition and functionality. In general, the South Plant facilities are in good condition. Much of the equipment was installed during the 2001 expansion and is well within its expected service life. Most of the existing facilities will be utilized and combined with new facilities. Some existing facilities have been identified that will need repair or replacement in the coming years. These facilities will be scheduled for necessary major maintenance attention in future years. Flood Plain Analysis When the South Plant was constructed it was located outside of any mapped floodplain. During extreme storm events the plant has experienced some inundation in the lower lying areas of the plant site. A floodplain analysis was conducted as part of this project to evaluate the flooding risks at the South Plant. The floodplain analysis included field survey of existing conditions and hydraulic modeling of the two creeks located near the plant site, Unnamed Creek runs along the east side of the plant site and Snyder Creek is located further east of Unnamed Creek. Both of these creeks empty into the Iowa River downstream from the South Plant outfall. The hydraulic modeling shows that under flooding conditions, Snyder Creek and Unnamed Creek become hydraulically connected. This results in Snyder Creek contributing significant flow to Unnamed Creek, which then impacts the South Plant. Flood risk will be mitigated as part of the facility upgrade. Alternative Development and Evaluation A detailed evaluation was conducted on each treatment process and alternatives were developed and evaluated to meet future design flows and loads while making maximum use of existing facilities. Each alternative was evaluated on economic and non - economic criteria, and with regard to reliability /redundancy requirements. Economic evaluations were based on capital and present worth costs. Non - economic criteria including constructability, expandability, operability, sustainability, energy consumption, safety, environmental impacts, and public acceptance were also applied. Each alternative evaluation also considered reliability and redundancy requirements for unit processes. Recommended Plan A 30 year planning period was used to visualize an orderly development of plant improvements over this extended period of time. While it is prudent to plan future conditions it is impractical to bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final ix Stanley Consultants construct all facilities for conditions 30 years in the future. First it is difficult to maintain efficient operation of facilities which are substantially underloaded in the early years of operation and secondly future conditions may change. As such, construction of the proposed improvements has been divided into two phases. Phase 1 improvements will be constructed in the next few years to provide capacity to planning year 2025. Phase 1 improvements also accommodate the hydraulic capacity of site piping for the entire planning period. Phase 2 will add facilities primarily related to load increases forecast beyond 2025. Figure ES -1 shows the anticipated layout of the proposed improvements for both Phase 1 and Phase 2. The layout has been developed to keep like processes in close proximity to one another, to minimize cost of conveyance of flow between units, and to provide ease of operation. The L C. Kickers Soccer Complex (soccer complex) is located immediately to the west of the plant site. The land occupied by the soccer complex is reserved for future expansion of the wastewater treatment plant. The facilities proposed in this report have been located to maximize use of the existing site and minimize incursion into the soccer complex at this time. However, the treatment plant is being developed to allow ease of expansion into the soccer area in the future. Based on current effluent limitations, both Phase 1 and Phase 2 can be contained within the existing plant site and construction into the soccer fields would not be required until about 2040. However, if more stringent effluent limits are enacted or if the city experiences unanticipated growth it may be necessary to add additional treatment processes into the soccer fields at an earlier date. It is recommended that the city move to set aside and protect the current soccer complex to allow for future expansion of the wastewater treatment complex into that area. Protecting the soccer complex area for future wastewater treatment facilities would include protecting separation distances from encroachment by preventing construction of buildings or water supply wells within a buffer zone around the site. Current IDNR regulations require a 1,000 foot buffer distance from treatment facilities to houses or structures that may be occupied by workers. Without such protection, development could occur around the site making it impractical to use for future wastewater treatment plant expansion. Figure ES -2 shows future expansion area for the wastewater treatment facility and buffer areas around the property. Cost Summary Costs are broken down into the two phases. Phase 1 will provide adequate plant capacity until about 2025 at which time Phase 2 would be constructed. Phase 2 facilities are planned to serve the city until year 2040. Table ES -11 presents costs for each unit process for improvements for Phase I and Phase 2 development. These cost estimates are based on December 2010 price levels and actual costs at time of construction are anticipated to be higher due to inflation. bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final x Stanley Consultants Table ES -11 Construction Cost Estimate Source: Stanley Consultants and Brown and Caldwell Financing The City of Iowa City has obtained substantial grant funding to assist with cost of construction of the proposed facilities. The U.S. Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration (EDA) has committed $22 million to the project. In addition the city has obtained approximately $5.5 million from Iowa Jobs Program (I -JOBS) and $5 million in the form of CBDG grants. The balance of the project will be paid with money collected from local option sales tax dedicated to this project. Implementation Schedule A fairly aggressive schedule has been developed to meet requirements of the funding agencies. The anticipated schedule shown on Table ES -12 assumes prompt agency review and a continuation of engineering design activity during the review process. If agency reviews take bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final A Stanley Consultants Phase 1 Phase 2 Equalization Basins $4,170,000 Bar Screens $2,730,000 Pump Station Rehab $950,000 Grit Treatment $1,330,000 $320,000 Primary Clarifier $400,000 $1,580,000 Primary Gravity Thickeners $4,080,000 Aeration Basins /Blowers $7,790,000 $12,650,000 Secondary Clarifiers $4,800,000 $2,300,000 Disinfection $2,300,000 Solids Handling Improvements $2,940,000 $380,000 Mesophilic Digesters $5,970,000 Biosolids Storage $1,400,000 $500,000 Site Piping & Splitter Boxes $3,510,000 $880,000 Site Dewatering and Gen Conditions $3,000,000 $3,000,000 Outfall Pipe $3,400,000 Miscellaneous Allowance $4,000,000 $5,000,000 Subtotal Construction Cost $40,670,000 $38,710,000 Legal, Admin, Eng, Fiscal $6,100,500 $5,806,500 Total Project Cost $46,770,500 $44,516,500 Note: All costs are in 2010 dollars. Source: Stanley Consultants and Brown and Caldwell Financing The City of Iowa City has obtained substantial grant funding to assist with cost of construction of the proposed facilities. The U.S. Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration (EDA) has committed $22 million to the project. In addition the city has obtained approximately $5.5 million from Iowa Jobs Program (I -JOBS) and $5 million in the form of CBDG grants. The balance of the project will be paid with money collected from local option sales tax dedicated to this project. Implementation Schedule A fairly aggressive schedule has been developed to meet requirements of the funding agencies. The anticipated schedule shown on Table ES -12 assumes prompt agency review and a continuation of engineering design activity during the review process. If agency reviews take bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final A Stanley Consultants longer than shown in the following schedule then construction and startup will be delayed accordingly. Table ES -12 Implementation Schedule Work Element Begin Date End Date Complete Facility Plan City Council Approve Facility Plan IDNR Review and Approve Facility Plan Preliminary Design Engineering Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) IDNR Review of PER Preliminary Design IDNR Review Preliminary Design Final Design Engineering IDNR Review and Approve Final Design Engineering IDNR Issue Construction Permit Bidding Contract Award Construction Construction Completion Commissioning and Start-up Plant Operational Source: Stanley Consultants and Brown and Caldwell February 9, 2011 February 18, 2011 February 16, 2011 February 16, 2011 April 16, 2011 March 16, 2011 June 16, 2011 June 16, 2011 November 15, 2011 December 19, 2011 February 9, 2012 March 21, 2012 October 1, 2013 February 8, 2011 February 15, 2011 April 18, 2011 June 16, 2011 April 16, 2011 May 16, 2011 June 16, 2011 August 16, 2011 November 11, 2011 December 16, 2011 December 16, 2011 February 8, 2012 March 20, 2012 December 15, 2013 December 15, 2013 April 1, 2014 April 1, 2014 bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final xii Stanley Consultants RESERVED PRETREATMENT fA BLOWER AERATION BASINS PARALLEL OUTFALL SCREENING i GRIT FIRIMARY CLARIFIER CLASSIFIER A DISINFECTION (UV) dIGESTER /STORAGE YV' - - K 0 SECONDARY CLARIFIERS J b116- BIOSOLIDS (HIGH TUNNELS) Proposed Improvements Site Plan Figure ES -1 GRAVITY THICKENERS ' a 1 � 1 E ro 1 2 i Er 1 c m 1 � 1 U i . ------------- T 1 E 1 E LL - � 0 0 N N t6 t6 w x Q w w m CC a a j a H H x � I w U) w r o - - - - -' -- - -- — - 6 No w > w 0 0 N $ o o o li C m U w v7 0 °° a a li m � ■ • � 1' ®�® I I c d Y I c c A a0 d i LL E 0) E " _T E � � ` > m c T rTi 1 E w U 1.. LL o1 _ LL LL W U U x � CL c E ¢ ¢ CE c p O 0 1 C Y E W E • E ¢ o U is E 'O N ,c I A m — 1 A ■ 00 x x III G w • W EE CL 1. .- ._._a• - -- - ._ - E Zi• - -- U T O .......... �\\ V J c V 0 V 1 C aCi N pp V J E m E a I a, d >1 t c it L _ • -•_ _ _•_ .-.-.-._.- .- .- .- .- .- ._._.- .- .- •- -- • -• -•- -•- -1i a .. —. —.— — — . . Q P a Yd O i m • W ~" V T C CL 5 10 0 L C N li Y Y .E di) a� d■ d dl d d V 1 m ' ■ 1 i j/1 low IsI�I�I�I�ISI C N O ' _ (n IA W C � L x K W LL C a 7 U- a j I / s Y � � " 'I O Table of Contents ExecutiveSummary .......................................................................................... ..............................i General........................................................................................................... ............................... i Background.................................................................................................... ............................... i StudyArea ...................................................................................................... .............................ii ExistingWastewater System ......................................................................... ............................... ii Historical Flows and Loads ............................................................................ .............................ii Proposed Design Flows and Loads .................................. ............................... ............................iii Phase 1 Design Flows and Loads ................................................................... .............................vi EffluentRequirements .................................................... ............................... ............................vii Anti- Degradation Analysis .......................................................................... ............................... ix South Plant Condition Assessment .............................................................. ............................... ix FloodPlain Analvsis .................................................................................... ............................... ix Alternative Development and Evaluation .................................................... ............................... ix RecommendedPlan ..................................................................................... ............................... ix CostSummary ............................................................................................... ............................... x Financing..................................................................................................... ............................... xi ImplementationSchedule ............................................................................... .............................xi Section1 - Introduction .................................................................................. ............................1 -1 Background................................................................................................... ............................1 -1 Scope............................................................................................................. ............................1 -1 Descriptionof Study Area ............................................................................ ............................1 -2 ExistingWastewater System ...................................................................... ............................... l -3 Section 2 - Historical Flow and Load Data ................................................... ............................2 -1 Methodology................................................................................................. ............................2 -1 Background................................................................................................... ............................2 -2 FlowResults ................................................................................................. ............................2 -3 PeakHour Flow Analysis ......................................................................... ............................2 -5 June22, 2007 Event .................................................................................. ............................2 -7 June3, 2008 Event .................................................................................... ............................2 -7 June23, 2010 Event .................................................................................. ............................2 -7 July21, 2008 Event ................................................................................... ............................2 -7 bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final xv Stanley Consultants October 30, 2009 Event ........................ May 11, 2008 Event .............................. April 10 /11, 2008 Event ........................ Collection System Model Correlation... Peak Hour Flow Result ......................... Wastewater Characteristics ....................... Loads.......................... ............................... ..2 -7 ..2 -7 ..2 -8 ..2 -8 ..2 -8 ..2 -9 2 -12 Section 3 - Proposed Design Flows and Loads ............................................. ............................3 -1 PopulationProjections .................................................................................. ............................3 -1 Johnson County Population Projections ....................................................... ............................3 -2 Iowa CAN, Population Projections ................................................................. ............................3 -4 Residential Land Requirements .................................................................... ............................3 -6 OutsidePopulations ...................................................................................... ............................3 -7 InstitutionalPopulations ............................................................................... ............................3 -7 Suimmary of Project 2040 Populations .......................................................... ............................3 -8 Commercial and Light Industrial Users ........................................................ ............................3 -9 Industrial and Commercial Growth Allowances ........................................... ............................3 -9 FutureService Area ..................................................................................... ...........................3 -11 Proposed Design Flows and Loads .............................................................. ...........................3 -11 FlowEqualization ........................................................................................ ...........................3 -13 SewerSystem Modeling .......................................................................... ...........................3 -13 Section 4 - Effluent Requirements ................................................................. ............................4 -1 EffluentRequirements .................................................................................. ............................4 -1 Anti - Degradation Analysis ........................................................................... ............................4 -3 Section 5 - South Plant Assessment ............................................................... ............................5 -1 PlantDescription ........................................................................................... ............................5 -1 South Plant Condition Assessment ............................................................... ............................5 -3 UnitProcess Capacity ................................................................................... ............................5 -5 FloodplainAnalysis ...................................................................................... ............................5 -9 Section 6 - Alternative Development and Evaluation .................................. ............................6 -1 Background................................................................................................ ............................... 6 -1 EvaluationCriteria ........................................................................................ ............................6 -1 PlanningPeriod ............................................................................................. ............................6 -3 Preliminary Treatment (Headworks) ............................................................ ............................6 -3 LocationAlternatives ................................................................................ ............................6 -3 BarScreening ............................................................................................ ............................6 -4 InfluentPumping ...................................................................................... ............................6 -5 FlowEqualization ..................................................................................... ............................6 -5 GritRemoval Analysis .............................................................................. ............................6 -6 Liquid Stream Treatment Systems ............................................................. ............................... 6 -6 PrimaryTreatment .................................................................................... ............................6 -6 Alternative 1 - Thicken Primary Sludge in Primary Clarifiers - IDNR Guidelines ..........6 -7 Alternative 2 - Thicken Primary Sludge in Primary Clarifiers - Other Guidelines ........... 6 -7 Alternative 3 - Thicken Primary Sludge in Gravity Thickeners ........... ............................6 -8 New Primary Influent Distribution Box ................................................... ...........................6 -10 SecondaryTreatment ................................................................................... ...........................6 -10 Basisof Evaluation .................................................................................. ...........................6 -10 AerationBasins ........................................................................................ ...........................6 -10 SecondaryClarifiers ................................................................................. ...........................6 -11 bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final xvi Stanley Consultants AerationSystem ....................................................................................... ...........................6 -12 New MLSS Distribution Box ................................................................... ...........................6 -12 ClassifyingSelector ................................................................................. ...........................6 -12 FerricChloride ......................................................................................... ...........................6 -13 Disinfection Technologies ........................................................................... ...........................6 -14 On -Site Generated Sodium Hypochlorite ................................................ ...........................6 -15 Liquid Sodium Hypochlorite ................................................................... ...........................6 -15 Ozone....................................................................................................... ...........................6 -15 UV........................................................................................................ ............................... 6 -16 CostAnalysis ........................................................................................... ...........................6 -16 Solids........................................................................................................... ...........................6 -17 SolidsProduction ..................................................................................... ...........................6 -17 Primary Sludge Thickening ..................................................................... ...........................6 -20 Waste Activated Sludge Thickening ........................................................ ...........................6 -20 Digestion.................................................................................................. ...........................6 -22 SludgeMixing .......................................................................................... ...........................6 -25 High Strength Equalization ...................................................................... ...........................6 -26 BeltFilter Presses .................................................................................... ...........................6 -27 Biosolids Cake Storage and Drying ......................................................... ...........................6 -27 CakeStorage ........................................................................................ ............................... 6 -27 CakeStorage Building ......................................................................... ...........................6 -28 HighTunnel" Covers ........................................................................... ...........................6 -28 Drying...................................................................................................... ...........................6 -28 ThermalDrying .................................................................................... ...........................6 -28 SolarDrying ......................................................................................... ...........................6 -29 Miscellaneous.............................................................................................. ...........................6 -30 PlantOutfall ............................................................................................. ...........................6 -30 YardPiping .............................................................................................. ...........................6 -30 North Plant Flow Conveyance ................................................................. ...........................6 -30 Section 7 - Recommended Plan ...................................................................... ............................7 -1 PlanningPeriod ............................................................................................. ............................7 -1 Basisof Analysis ........................................................................................... ............................7 -1 RecommendedImprovements ...................................................................... ............................7 -2 EqualizationBasin .................................................................................... ............................7 -2 BarScreens ............................................................................................... ............................7 -2 InfluentPumping Station .......................................................................... ............................7 -2 GritTreatment ........................................................................................ ............................... 7 -2 PrimaryClarifiers ...................................................................................... ............................7 -2 Primary Sludge Gravity Thickeners .......................................................... ............................7 -3 AerationBasins ......................................................................................... ............................7 -3 AerationSystem (Blowers) .................................................................... ............................... 7 -3 SecondaryClarifiers .................................................................................. ............................7 -3 Disinfection............................................................................................... ............................7 -3 PlantOutfall .............................................................................................. ............................7 -4 SludgePumping ........................................................................................ ............................7 -4 Waste Activated Sludge Thickening ......................................................... ............................7 -4 AnaerobicDigestion ................................................................................. ............................7 -4 High Strength Equalization Tank and Piping ........................................... ............................7 -4 BiosolidsCake Storage ............................................................................. ............................7 -4 Administration, Laboratory, Vehicle Storage and Maintenance ............... ............................7 -5 bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final xvii Stanley Consultants Preliminan- Layout ........... ............................... Cost Estimating Methodology ......................... CostSummar\ .................... ............................... Repair and Replacement of Existing Facilities Reliability and Standby Power ......................... Personnel Requirements .... ............................... Financing.......................... ............................... Implementation Schedule .. ............................... Closing.............................. ............................... TABLES Table ES -1 Historic Combined Plant Flows ....................... ............................... ............................iii Table ES -2 Current Combined Plant Loads ( lb/ d) .............. ............................... ............................iii Table ES -3 Current Populations ..................................................................... ............................... iv Table ES -4 Current Large Institution Population Equivalents ....................... ............................... iv Table ES -5 Summaiv of Commercial and Light Industrial Maximum Month Flows and Loads ... v Table ES -6 Maximum Month Industrial Flows and Loads Growth Allowance for 2040 ............... v Table ES -7 Existing and Proposed Design Flows .......................................... ............................... vi Table ES -8 Proposed Phase 1 (2025) Design Floes ......................................... .............................vi Table ES -9 Proposed Flovys and Loads Summar-N ............. ............................... ............................vii Table ES -10 Design Effluent Limits — Shore Discharge ... ............................... ...........................viii Table ES -11 Construction Cost Estimate .......................................................... .............................xi Table ES -12 Implementation Schedule ............................................................. ............................xii Table 2 -1 Combined North and South Plant Flows (MGD) ............................ ............................2 -4 Table 2 -2 Historic Combined Flows ................................................................ ............................2 -5 Table 2 -3 Flows from Significant Industrial Contributors ............................... ............................2 -5 Table 2 -4 Summary of High Flory Events ....................................................... ............................2 -6 Table 2 -5 Peale Hour Flow Simulation Results ................................................ ............................2 -8 Table 2 -6 Annual Combined CBOD5 Loads, lb /d ( 2006 - 2010) ..................... ...........................2 -13 Table 2 -7 Annual Combined TSS Loads, lb /d ( 2006 - 2010) ........................... ...........................2 -13 Table 2 -8 Annual Combined TKN Loads, lb /d (2006- 2010) .......................... ...........................2 -13 Table 2 -9 Organic Load Peaking Factor Summary ........................................ ...........................2 -13 Table 2 -10 CBOD5 Loads from Significant Industrial Contributors .............. ...........................2 -14 Table 2 -11 TSS Loads from Significant Industrial Contributors .................... ...........................2 -14 Table 2 -12 TKN Loads from Significant Industrial Contributors .................. ...........................2 -15 Table 2 -13 Current Combined Plant Loads (lb /d) .......................................... ...........................2 -16 Table 3 -1 Current Populations ......................................................................... ............................3 -2 Table 3 -2 Current Large Institution Population Equivalents ........................... ............................3 -2 bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final xviii Stanley Consultants Table 3 -3 Comparison of Annualized Growth Rates ....................................... ............................3 -4 Table 3 -4 Projected City of Iowa City Population ........................................... ............................3 -5 Table 3 -5 Average Growth Rate of 5.5 percent over 5 years (1.1 percent each year) ................. 3 -7 Table 3 -6 Outside Populations (Year 2040) .................................................... ............................3 -7 Table 3 -7 Large Institutional Populations ........................................................ ............................3 -8 Table 3 -8 Populations Contributing to the Wastewater System in 2040 ......... ............................3 -8 Table 3 -9 Summary of Commercial and Light Industrial Maximum Month Flows and Loads ..3 -9 Table 3 -10 Significant Industrial Contributors Permitted Capacity ............... ...........................3 -10 Table 3 -11 Maximum Month Industrial Flows and Loads Growth Allowance for 2040 ..........3 -11 Table 3 -12 Existing and Proposed Unequalized 2040 Design Flows ............. ...........................3 -11 Table 3 -13 Proposed Design Organic Load Peaking Factor ........................... ...........................3 -12 Table 3 -14 Proposed Phase 1 Unequalized Design Flows and Loads ............ ...........................3 -12 Table 3 -15 Proposed Flows and Loads Summary .......................................... ...........................3 -13 Table 3 -16 Proposed 2040 Equalized Design Flows ...................................... ...........................3 -14 Table 3 -17 Proposed Phase 1 (2025) Design Flows ....................................... ...........................3 -15 Table 4 -1 Design Effluent Limits — Shore Discharge ...................................... ............................4 -2 Table 5 -1 Replacement /Renovation (R/R) Schedule for Key Areas at the South Plant ..............5 -4 Table 5 -2 Phase 1 Equipment Replacement / Rehabilitation ............................. ............................5 -5 Table 5 -3 Iowa City South Plant Existing Process Unit Capacities ................. ............................5 -6 Table 5 -4 Flood Mitigation of Existing Facilities ........................................... ...........................5 -10 Table 6 -1 Non - Economic Evaluation Criteria ................................................. ............................6 -2 Table 6 -2 Reliability and Redundancy Requirements ..................................... ............................6 -3 Table 6 -3 Flow Equalization (MGD) ............................................................... ............................6 -6 Table 6 -4 Comparison of Primary Clarifier Design Guidelines ...................... ............................6 -8 Table 6 -5 Primary Clarifier Alternative Summary .......................................... ............................6 -9 Table 6 -6 Secondary Treatment Design Data ................................................. ...........................6 -13 Table 6 -7 Cost Estimate of Disinfection Alternatives .................................... ...........................6 -16 Table 6 -8 O &M Cost of Disinfection Alternatives ......................................... ...........................6 -17 Table 6 -9 Present Worth Cost of Disinfection Alternatives ........................... ...........................6 -17 Table 6 -10 Solids Production .......................................................................... ...........................6 -19 Table 6 -11 Primary Sludge Thickening Volume and Heat Savings ............... ...........................6 -20 Table 6 -12 RDT Design Criteria ..................................................................... ...........................6 -21 Table 6 -13 Primary Sludge Thickening Affect on Existing Digestion Capacity .......................6 -23 Table 6 -14 Existing Digestion Capacity — Maximum Month Loading Conditions ...................6 -23 bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final xix Stanley Consultants Table 6 -15 Digestion Capacity with Thermophilic Conversion and Two Additional MesophilicDigesters .................................................................... ...........................6 -24 Table 6 -16 Project Costs for Sludge Mixing Alternatives .............................. ...........................6 -25 Table 6 -17 Biosolids Cake Storage and Drying Space Requirements ............ ...........................6 -29 Table 6 -18 Biosolids Handling Project Costs ................................................. ...........................6 -30 Table 7 -1 Construction Cost Estimate ............................................................. ............................7 -6 Table 7 -2 Implementation Schedule ................................................................ ............................7 -8 FIGURES Figure ES -1 - Proposed Improvements Site Plan .............................................. ...........................xiii Figure ES -2 - Future Plant Expansion ........................................................... ............................... xiv Figure 1 -1 - Iowa City Vicinity Map ................................................................ ............................1 -4 Figure 1 -2 - Existing Wastewater Flow Schematic .......................................... ............................1 -5 Figure 1 -3 - Existing Sludge Flow Schematic .................................................. ............................1 -6 Figure 2 -1 - City of Iowa City's Combined Historical Wastewater Flows 2000 - 2010 .............. 2 -3 Figure 2 -2 - City of Iowa City's Combined Historic CBOD5 Loads 2006 -2010 .......................2 -10 Figure 2 -3 - City of Iowa City's Combined Historic TSS Loads 2006 -2010 .. ...........................2 -11 Figure 2 -4 - City of Iowa City's Combined Historic TKN Loads 2006 - 2010 . ...........................2 -12 Figure 3 -1 - Johnson County Population Projections ....................................... ............................3 -3 Figure 3 -2 - Iowa City Population Projections ................................................. ............................3 -6 Figure 3 -3 - Equalization Basin Sizing Hydrograph ........................................ ...........................3 -14 Figure 3 -4 - Future Service Area ..................................................................... ...........................3 -16 Figure 5 -1 - Flood Inundation South WWTP - 100 Year Event ...................... ...........................5 -11 Figure 6 -1 - Aeration System Flow Sheet ........................................................ ...........................6 -11 Figure 7 -1 - Proposed hnprovements Site Plan ................................................ ............................7 -0 Figure 7 -2 - Future Plant Expansion ................................................................. ............................7 -1 APPENDICES Appendix A - IDNR Design Schedules A, F. and G ........................................ ............................A -I Appendix B - Preliminary Review of Facility Plan Checklist ...................... ............................... B -1 Appendix C - Technical Information and Design Criteria ............................ ............................... C -1 bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final xx Stanley Consultants Section 1 Introduction Background Currently, the City of Iowa City has two wastewater treatment facilities designated as the North and South Plants. The North Plant is the older of the two plants with some portions of the plant being in service for over 70 years. The City's long range wastewater system plan, stemming from the 1990s, envisioned expansion at the South Plant with eventual decommissioning of the North Plant. The North Plant is also subject to inundation by Iowa River floods and is only one half mile south of the City's downtown business district and the University of Iowa's campus. The 2008 record Iowa River flood rendered most of the North Plant inoperable due to high water. The 2008 flood exacerbated the need to expand the South Plant, and eliminate treatment operations at the North Plant. A vicinity map showing the location of the North and South Plants is presented on Figure 1 -1 at the end of this section. Scope This report presents the results of engineering planning studies and analyses to develop an updated wastewater treatment facility plan for the South Plant. This South Plant Facility Plan identifies plant improvements needed to treat wastewater flows over the next 30 years to an effluent quality that meets the 2010 Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) waste load allocation for the plant's shoreline discharge into the Iowa River. This report examines and discusses the following: 1. Thirty -year flow and load projections were based upon updated service area boundaries and related demographic information. Flow meters were installed in trunk sewers to analyze sewer system flows under varying conditions including average and peak flows during both dry weather and during periods of heavy runoff A trunk sewer hydraulic model was developed to predict future flows under varying conditions. Population projections along with projections of future commercial and industrial growth were used bdr: mjh: ds1: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 1 -1 Stanley Consultants to develop future flow and load projections. The 2040 flow and load projections were presented in "Consolidated Wastewater Treatment Design Flows and Loads Report" prepared by Stanley Consultants, Inc and submitted to the IDNR in October 2010. IDNR concurred with the 2040 projected flows and loads on January 3, 2011. 2. A detailed assessment was conducted of the South Wastewater Treatment Plant to identify the hydraulic, organic, and other contaminant loading capacities and constraints on the plant. An evaluation was conducted for both average and wet- weather conditions to determine necessary improvements for existing as well as future conditions. A process model was developed to simulate operation of the plant under varying influent conditions to analyze plant performance, aeration requirements and solids production using various process alternatives. Work included development of detailed hydraulic modeling, clarifier modeling and testing, plant energy assessment and floodplain analysis. 3. Planning alternatives were considered using regulatory, environmental and water quality criteria for both near and anticipated future wastewater regulations. Treatment needs were identified and alternatives developed and evaluated to meet technical, regulatory, sustainability, energy, cost, and operations criteria. 4. This facilities plan presents information required for review by IDNR. It includes preliminary layout of the alternative selected by Iowa City that will be developed further in a Preliminary Engineering Report. This facility plan also includes an estimate of probable cost, implementation schedule, and required IDNR permit schedules. Description of Study Area The study area consists of the existing Iowa City sewer service area along with future development areas which will be served by the City of Iowa City wastewater collection and treatment system. The existing wastewater system serves 70,724 people on 10,945 acres of area in Iowa City and University Heights including the University of Iowa. Commercial/light industrial areas total approximately 1,874 acres. The system also serves three major hospitals — University Hospitals and Clinics, Mercy Hospital, and the Veteran's Administration (VA) Medical Center. Iowa City is located in Johnson County 55 miles west of the Mississippi River and 25 miles south of Cedar Rapids. The City is served by Interstate Highways 80 and 380, U.S. Highways 6 and 218, and Iowa Highway 1. The University of Iowa is located in the west - central part of the City on both sides of the Iowa River. The University is an important factor in the social, economic, and physical development of the City. The University owns and operates a water system. Sanitary sewers serving the University campus discharge to the Iowa City sewer system for treatment by the City. The City of University Heights is an incorporated community located in the west part of Iowa City and is bordered on all sides by Iowa City. Water and sanitary sewerage service is provided to University Heights by Iowa City under contract. The City of Coralville adjoins Iowa City on the North and West. Coralville owns and operates its own wastewater facilities and is not included in this study. bdr: mjh: ds1: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 1 -2 Stanley Consultants The Iowa River flows in a general north -south direction through the center of the City. The river currently receives treated effluent from both Iowa City wastewater treatment plants. Flows in the river in the study area are controlled by the US Army Corps of Engineers through operation of the Coralville Dam located just north of the city. Normal release rates vary throughout the year from about 1,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) to 10,000 cfs. Existing Wastewater System The North Plant is currently rated at three million gallons per day (MGD) in the winter and five MGD in the summer to achieve ammonia reduction through nitrification. Treatment units include primary screening and grit removal, three primary clarifiers, four trickling filters, two final clarifiers, and chlorination /dechlorination disinfection. The treated and disinfected wastewater effluent discharges to the Iowa River approximately one quarter mile upstream of the mouth of Ralston Creek. The North Plant also has a flow equalization basin, two excess flow clarifiers, and sand filters for use during peak wet weather periods. Solids produced at the North Plant are pumped to the South Plant via a sludge pump station and force main between the two plants. The South Plant is located approximately three miles south of the downtown in a predominately rural area, and adjacent to the 1. C. Kickers soccer complex. The original plant, constructed in 1990, was a complete mix activated sludge process with a design capacity of 5 MGD. The plant was upgraded to achieve nitrification and partial denitrification, and expanded to a design capacity of 10 MGD in 2001. The process capacity is 16,554 pounds per day of five -day carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD5) and 2,940 pounds per day of total kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN). Biological treatment is provided by single sludge nitrification - denitrification activated sludge. Treatment units include a six million gallon flow equalization basin: a high strength equalization tank; influent lift station; screening; two vortex grit units for grit removal; four primary clarifiers; four, eight -cell activated sludge trains; mixed liquor return pumping station; four secondary clarifiers; and sludge pumping station. The treated wastewater effluent is disinfected by chlorination /dechlorination and released to the Iowa River approximately four miles downstream of Iowa City. A portion of the effluent is utilized to irrigate the adjacent soccer complex. The wastewater and sludge flow schematics for the South Plant IDNR Schedule H of the last expansion are included as Figures 1 -2 and 1 -3 at the end of this section. North Plant solids are conveyed to the South Plant via a sludge force main between the two plants. The North Plant solids are combined with those from the South Plant and anaerobically digested via temperature phased anaerobic digestion in seven digesters. Digested solids are dewatered with three belt filter presses prior to land application. The filtrate is recycled to the head of the plant via the high strength equalization tank. A large 84/96 -inch diameter influent sewer connecting the North Plant to the South Plant was constructed as part of the late 1990 /early 2000 improvements to facilitate the eventual decommissioning of the North Plant. A 40 MGD current (100 MGD ultimate) capacity intermediate lift station located in Napoleon Park was constructed as part of the sewer improvements. bdr: mjh: ds1: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 1 -3 Stanley Consultants � L AO �s N ki_ `�ffiw m t N H J N Q °1 U ' W J VI C O / o� o. Q U M. o Stanley Consultants Cl O o ® c ° o 0 H 'DIDRmn h, M or, 0— 01 12 17 f3 16 M IS 19 O � 4 (�) o �aA o M 1. INFLUENT 2. BAR SCREENS 3. INFLUENT PUMP STATION 4. BYPASS TO EQUALIZATION 5. INFLUENT FLOW METER 6. GRIT CHAMBERS 7. PRIMARY CLARIFIERS 8. AERATION TANKS 9. SECONDARY CLARIFIERS 10. CHLORINE CONTACT 11. EFFLUENT TO RIVER 12. EQUALIZATION BASINS 13. OVERFLOW TO EFFLUENT 14. EQUALIZED RETURN 15. HIGH STRENGTH PUMP STATION 16. HIGH STRENGTH EQUALIZATION 17. HIGH STRENGTH METER 18. HIGH STRENGTH RETURN 19. PLANT SEWERS. Existing Wastewater Flow Schematic Figure 1 -2 N 0 � U N_ �+ 0� 7d w � CO O a O N O v 99!ft W N. - be Stanley Consultants ° O O O O 6 G) G) O 10 ' I. WAS 2. WAS THICKENER IE 3. PRIMARY SLUDGE 4. THICKENED WAS 12 13 5. WAS /PRIMARY SLUDGE 6. SLUDGE EQUALIZATION TANK 7. THERMOPHILIC DIGESTER 8. MESOPHIC DIGESTER 9. EXISTING MESOPHILIC DIGESTER 10. SLUDGE STORAGE ►2 13 11. DIGESTED SLUDGE 12. BELT PRESS 13. DEWATERED SLUDGE TO LAND APPLICATION NOTE: FILTRATE FROM WAS THICKENERS AND BELT PRESSES AND SUPERNATENT FROM EXISTING DIGESTERS AND STORAGE TANK ARE ROUTED THROUGH PLANT SEWERS TO HIGH STRENGTH EQUALIZATION SYSTEM. Existing Sludge Flow Schematic Figure 1 -3 Section 2 Historical Flow and Load Data Methodology Historical flows and loads from 2006 to 2010 were analyzed for the purpose of establishing the present flow and influent load conditions including: 1. Annual average daily flow (ADF), average dry weather (ADW) flow, maximum month /average wet weather (AWW) flow, and maximum day/maximum wet weather (MWW) flows. 2. Annual average day, maximum month, and maximum day influent loads. These averages and maximums are used to detennine flow and load peaking factors to be applied to future design conditions. Historical influent flows and loads for the North Plant and South Plant were analyzed separately to determine values and peaking factors for each year. In addition the data were combined to determine the theoretical flow and loads to a combined plant. City - provided flow data from January 1, 2000, through July 31, 2010, and load data from January 1, 2006, through July 31, 2010, were analyzed. Hourly flow data from January 2005 -July 2010 were analyzed for peak hour wet weather flows. Flow definitions include: ADF — annual average daily flow. ADW — average dry weather flow is taken as the minimum average 30 day flow when groundwater is near normal and runoff is not occurring. bdr: mjh: ds1: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 2 -1 Stanley Consultants AWW — average wet weather flow is taken as the maximum average 30 day flow for the wettest 30 days. This flow is also known as the maximum month flow. MWW — maximum wet weather flow is taken as the total maximum flow received over a 24 -hour period when groundwater is high and runoff is occurring. This flow is also known as the maximum day flow. PHWW — peak hour wet weather flow condition of total flow received during one hour when groundwater is high, runoff is occurring, and the domestic, commercial and industrial flows are at their peak. Background Influent flow measurement at the South Plant is accomplished by use of a Parshall flume downstream of the influent pump station discharge. Influent flow measurement at the North Plant is accomplished by use of a magnetic flow meter. At the South Plant, flow greater than 25 million gallons per day (MGD) can be diverted from the influent pump station discharge channel over an adjustable weir to the equalization (EQ) basins upstream from the Parshall flume. Flow diverted to the EQ basins is measured by another Parshall flume. Plant recycle streams also are routed at times through the EQ basins. Liquid stored in the EQ basins is returned by gravity flow to the interceptor junction structure to be conveyed through the treatment plant. South Plant influent flows of 20 MGD or higher were selected to review EQ data associated with these high flow events. When flow nears 25 MGD, the plant begins to divert flow to EQ. At times, the EQ basin influent and effluent flow meters experience erroneous readings due to foaming events, so for many of the selected high flow events no EQ basin diversion flow data was available. Hourly plant flow values were used in the flow and load analysis for 2006 through 2010. Daily flow values from monthly operating reports were used for 2000 through 2005. The South Plant hourly flow data for January 2005 through July 2010 are subject to metering error due to periodic foaming events caused by shampoo surfactants. Flow values above 20 MGD when there was no precipitation were removed to correct the data set for foam event errors. These foam events typically occurred in the morning and produced flow measurements of five to eight times higher than the rest of the day's hourly flows. Thus, it was possible to discern these events from actual flow values. The corrected hourly data for January 2005 through July 2010 and uncorrected data from 2000 through 2004 were used to determine PHWW, MWW, maximum week (MW), AWW, ADW, and ADF flows. For the combined plant flow, the daily flow values from both plants are summed. The Iowa River flood of 2008 adversely affected Iowa City's wastewater system. The flood originated with a wet spring and high rivers in April and May that set the stage for the record flooding in June. Widespread heavy rain in the upper portions of the Iowa River drainage basin occurred in early June resulting in a record flood crest of 31.53 feet on June 15, 2008. Portions of the North Plant were inundated with flood water starting approximately June 12. No flow data for the North Plant is available from June 14 through July 9 due to the flooding, thus flow and load data for that period is not used in the analysis. bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 2 -2 Stanley Consultants The 2008 flooding introduced additional flows into the collection system during the high river stages. The diversion structure at the North Plant, used to proportion flows between the North Plant and South Plant, started flooding during the day on June 13 and remained flooded until June 23 when the water level receded below the top of the structure top. The diversion structure flooding allowed river water to enter the collection system through an opening in the structure's top slab. The flood also damaged a wastewater collection system siphon crossing of the river at Iowa Avenue. A 14 -inch barrel of the three - barrel siphon was broken by erosion of the riverbed material surrounding the pipe. The City discovered the damage by July 10 as a result of observing high collection system flows. The City plugged the broken barrel by July 12 and routed flow through the intact 18 -inch siphon barrel. The 18 -inch siphon barrel had excessive leakage until a replacement siphon was constructed and put into service in March 2010. Flow Results Figure 2 -1 illustrates the combined historical flows from 2000 -2010. The system is greatly impacted by high river levels, high groundwater, and storm water resulting in periods of high infiltration and inflow (I &I) rates. The City has an ongoing effort to reduce I &I through collection system maintenance and improvements. 40.00 -a 35.00 to E 3 30.00 a LL 25.00 m c 20.00 0 1.5 _00 a 10.00 E U 5.00 0.00 City of Iowa City's Combined Historical Wastewater Flows 2000 - 2010 Figure 2 -1 Table 2 -1 presents daily average, average dry weather, average wet weather, and maximum Avet weather flows for the combined North and South Plants flows by year. bdr: mjh: ds1: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 2 -3 Stanley Consultants lDS (0 'A NY Year City of Iowa City's Combined Historical Wastewater Flows 2000 - 2010 Figure 2 -1 Table 2 -1 presents daily average, average dry weather, average wet weather, and maximum Avet weather flows for the combined North and South Plants flows by year. bdr: mjh: ds1: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 2 -3 Stanley Consultants Table 2 -1 Combined North and South Plant Flows (MGD) 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Daily Average (AD) 9.4 11.4 10.2 9.1 9.9 9.8 9.0 11.0 13.2 13.0 12.9 Average Dry Weather (ADW) 7.8 7.6 8.4 8.2 7.8 8.1 8.0 8.6 10.0 10.7 10.1 Average Wet Weather (AWW) 12.3 15.3 11.5 10.2 11.5 12.3 9.6 13.5 18.6 163 16.2 Maximum Wet Weather (MWW) 19.6 21.5 16.4 14.4 15.0 15.9 11.5 30.1 32.6 33.1 29.6 Note: 2010 is partial year data Source: Stanley Consultants and Brown and Caldwell The ADW flow of 8.0 MGD occurred for the driest 30 -days from 12/18/05 to 1/16/06 with a total of 0.49 inches of precipitation. The 60 -day precipitation total prior to the event was 2.30 inches. The river level during this period averaged 10.55 feet. This value was selected as more representative of current flows than slightly lower flows in the 2000 -2004 period. The ADW flow of 8.0 MGD is from domestic, commercial /light industrial, significant industrial and other contributors, and a small infiltration rate. The domestic flow of 5.45 MGD is based on a daily per capita flow rate of 77 gallons. Commercial /light industrial sources contribute 1.5 MGD from 1874 acres at 800 gallons per day per acre. Significant industrial users contribute 550,000 gallons per day (gpd), other sources contributed 200,000 gpd, and the infiltration rate allowance is 300,000 gpd of infiltration at a per acre rate of 27 gpd. The present AWW flow of 18.6 MGD occurred for the 30 -days from April 8, 2008, to May 7, 2008, with a total of 6.94 inches of rainfall. The river level during this period averaged 17.9 feet. This AWW flow is higher than the AWW flows from 2009 and 2010 of 16.4 and 16.7 MGD respectively and higher than the 99th percentile value of 17.4 MGD. The higher 2008 AWW flow is due to a combination of extended periods of high river and groundwater levels and above nonnal precipitation. Domestic contribution is 7.07 MGD, commercial /light industrial contribution is 1.87 MGD, significant industrial contribution is 1.22 MGD, other contribution is 0.25 MGD and I &I component is 8.19 MGD. Table 2 -2 presents the system's historical combined North and South Plant flow parameters for the period of 2000 to 2010. bdr: mjh: ds1: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 2 -4 Stanley Consultants Table 2 -2 Historic Combined Flows Parameters Flow (MGD) Date Average Daily Flow (ADF) 11.3 2005 -2009 Minimum Flow 5.8 9/18/2002 Average Dry Weather (ADW) Flow 8.0 12/18/2005 - 1/16/2006 Average Wet Weather (AWW) Flow 18.6 4/8/2008 - 5/7/2008 Magnum Wet Weather (MWW) Flow 33.1 10/30/2009 Source: Stanley Consultants and Brown and Caldwell The wastewater system serves several significant industrial contributors including Procter & Gamble, Robert's Dairy, Millards, International Automotive Company (IAC), and the City's sanitary landfill. Table 2 -3 presents the industrial flows and permitted flows. Table 2 -3 Flows from Significant Industrial Contributors Permitted Values Max Max Industry ADF Month Max Day Month Max Day P &G -North 0.130 0384 0.827 0.725 1.208 P &G -South 0327 0.492 0.712 0.725 1.208 Roberts Dairy 0.056 0.073 0.073 0.120 0.240 Landfill 0.051 0.137 0.137 0.150 0300 Millards 0.013 0.043 0.092 0.05 0.07 IAC 0.036 0.095 0.126 0.300 0.400 Total 0.613 1.224 1.967 2.07 3.426 Note: All flows are in MGD. Millards limits are only for billing purposes. Source: City of Iowa City Peak Hour Flow Analysis In order to determine combined plant PHWW flow, South Plant hourly flows over 20 MGD were selected for evaluation. First, many of these were screened due to likely foaming events as discussed earlier. Second, only hourly flows over 20 MGD with EQ flow data were considered. South Plant peak hour flows on days with rainfall totals of greater than two inches and flow to EQ were also further analyzed. Further analysis for these events consisted of adding hourly North Plant flow values to the South Plant influent flow and EQ basin influent flow to get a combined plant PHWW flow. The result of this analysis is shown in Table 2 -4. These events listed either are associated with rainfall events or with mean river level above flood -stage of 18 feet. bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 2 -5 Stanley Consultants Table 2 -4 Summary of High Flow Events Date Rain 24 -h (inch) Rain 48 -h (inch) Mean River Level (feet) Peak Hour Flow to Grit (MGD) South Plant Peak Hour Peak Flow to Hour Plant Inf. Flow to Pump EQ Wetwell (MGD) (MGD) North Plant Peak Hour Flow to Plant Inf. Pump Wetwell (MGD) Combined Plants Peak Hour Flow (MGD) 6/22/2007 6.0 6.0 15.8 22.5 25.0 45.5 7.5 55.0 6/3/2008 2.0 2.0 19.7 23.4 17.0 40.4 7.4 47.8 6/23/2010 1.9 2.1 16.9 22.7 17.3 40.0 7.0 47.0 7/21/2008 1.0 1.9 20.2 26.4 16.8 39.8 5.1 44.9 10/30/2009 0.8 1.9 16.6 235 132 373 7.0 44.3 6/15/2010 1.5 1.7 14.4 24.0 12.4 36.5 6.9 43.4 5/11/2008 2.0 2.0 202 251 7.5 323 7.9 40.2 6/13/2008 0.0 0.0 27.3 24.0 7.3 31.3 8.2 39.5 4/11/2008 0.4 1.4 172 249 42 348 8.0 38.7 4/10/2008 1.0 1.0 191 26.5 41 348 7.9 38.7 10/29/2009 1.2 1.2 16.8 21.9 11.0 31.2 7.1 38.3 4/18/2008 2.0 2.0 185 241 15 343 8.1 38.4 4/25/2008 1.0 1.6 116 213 8.0 302 7.9 38.2 8/23/2007 2.5 2.5 153 231 64 302 7.4 37.6 10/23/2009 1.2 2.6 132 317 0.0 323 5.0 37.6 1030010 0.1 0.1 123 221 7.4 311 7.3 37.4 3/8/2009 2.7 3.4 151 246 20 292 8.1 37.1 8/24/2007 1.2 3.6 14.1 24.8 4.1 28.8 7.4 36.2 6/24/2010 0.0 1.9 12.0 216 44 27.0 7.0 310 8/23/2002 3.8 3.9 131 145 19 20.4 111 33.3 8/27/2009 2.1 2.6 15.4 255 11 27.0 5.1 311 1/24/2010 0.7 0.8 131 22.4 6.7 219 7.0 31.9 7/11/2002 2.9 3.1 12.1 9.3 10.8 18.8 9,2 28.0 Source: Stanley Consultants and Brown and Caldwell bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 2 -6 Stanley Consultants In addition to the flow measurement data, influent pump run data from both plants and from Napoleon Park Lift Station were reviewed for the highest four flow events not associated with foam or equalization recycle to assess the appropriate peak hour flow events and magnitudes. Pump run data and operating curves were used to verify the viable peak flow events. June 22, 2007 Event This event is characterized by a river stage of 15.8 feet and a 6.0 -inch, 24 -hour rainfall. Rainfall for the 30 days prior to the event totaled over 93 inches and the prior 60 day total was nearly 13 inches. During this event 25.0 million gallons was sent to the EQ basins. However, plant staff and records indicate that flow was being returned from the EQ basins back to the influent pump station wet well at the same time. Thus the resulting peak hour flow is artificially high. This peak hour flow is not used since the actual peak hour flow is unknown, and the rainfall event is greater than the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) design criteria for wet weather sizing. June 3, 2008 Event This event is characterized by a high river stage of 19.7 feet and a 2.0 -inch, 24 -hour rainfall on top of saturated ground from a wet spring. This event precedes the crest of the Iowa River flood of 2008. Rainfall totals for the prior 30 and 60 days were 6.5 and 13.5 inches, respectively. Plant staff indicates foaming occurred during this event resulting in higher than actual flows. Therefore, this peak hour flow value is not used. June 23, 2010 Event This event is characterized by a moderate river stage of 16.9 feed and 24 -hour rainfall of about 2 inches. Rainfall totals for the prior 30 and 60 days were heavy at 11.7 and 183 inches, respectively. Plant staff indicates that EQ basin flows were being returned and some foaming occurred during this event resulting in higher than actual flows. Therefore, this peak hour flow value is not used. July 21, 2008 Event This event is characterized by a high river stage of 20.2 feet and 1.0 -inch, 24 -hour rainfall on top of saturated ground from wet spring and early summer. Rainfall for the 30 days prior to the event totaled over 8- inches and the prior 60 day total was over 15- inches. The slightly higher peak hour flow of 44.9 MGD compared to the next flow of 403 MGD on May 11, 2008, may be due to the impact the 2008 flood may have had on the collection system integrity and the fact that the leaking siphon wasn't fixed. October 30, 2009 Event This event is characterized by a river stage of 16.6 feet and a 48 -hour, 1.9 -inch rainfall. Rainfall totals for the prior 30 and 60 days were 6.2 and 9.5 inches. The leaking siphon was not fixed at this time. May 11, 2008 Event This event is characterized by a high river stage of 20.2 feet and 2.0 -inch, 24 -hour rainfall on top of saturated ground from a wet spring. Rainfall totals for the prior 30 and 60 days were bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 2 -7 Stanley Consultants 6.9 and 10.9 inches. The high river stage and 2.0 -inch rainfall that occurs over a 12 -hour period results in a significant peak hour flow. April 10 /11, 2008 Event This event is characterized by a high river stage of 17.2 feet and 1.4 -inch rainfall on top of saturated ground from a wet spring. Rainfall totals for the prior 30 and 60 days were 4.0 and 7.5 inches. The river stage for the preceding eighteen days was over 19 feet resulting in high groundwater conditions. Collection System Model Correlation Combining the North Plant and South Plant flow by totalizing the two flows does not account for attenuation of the North Plant flows in the sewer system when routed to the South Plant. A hydraulic model of the city's sanitary sewer collection system was prepared for this planning effort in order to factor in the system attenuation of peak flows. The hydraulic modeling software XPSWMM version 12.0 was used. SWMM stands for Stormwater and Wastewater Management Model and is supported by XP Software. The XPSWMM model was calibrated for both dry and wet weather flows allowing dynamic routing of flows and consideration of the impact that various design storm events may have on the collection system wet weather flows. The three highest peak hour flow events from 2008 — July 21, May 11, and April 10 /11 were simulated in the model to examine the impact of dynamically routing the flow through the collection system to the South Plant with and without the North Plant influent pumps operating. The model results generally agree with the historic data analysis as summarized in Table 2 -5. The IDNR 2 -inch per hour intensity design storm was also simulated and is presented for comparison. Table 2 -5 Peak Hour Flow Simulation Results Source: Stanley Consultants and Brown and Caldwell Peak Hour Flow Result The historic PHWW flow is 44.9 MGD based on review of these events and the combined North and South Plant flows. This flow is slightly lower than the 50.1 MGD PHWW flow predicted by the model for the IDNR's 2 -inch per hour intensity design storm. bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 2 -8 Stanley Consultants Peak Flows to the South WWTP, MGD Computer Simulation Flows Historic North North Total Storm Event Pumps ON Pumps OFF Flow April 10 -11, 2008 29.4 42.9 38.0 May 11, 2008 38.8 4 3. 31 40.3 July 21, 2008 41.6 45.0 44.9 10 yr -1 hr (2.09 in /hr) 48.1 50.1 - Source: Stanley Consultants and Brown and Caldwell Peak Hour Flow Result The historic PHWW flow is 44.9 MGD based on review of these events and the combined North and South Plant flows. This flow is slightly lower than the 50.1 MGD PHWW flow predicted by the model for the IDNR's 2 -inch per hour intensity design storm. bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 2 -8 Stanley Consultants Wastewater Characteristics Average and maximum loads (average daily, maximum month, maximum week, and maximum day of five -day carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD5), total suspended solids (TSS), and ammonia nitrogen (NH3 -N) were calculated for North Plant, South Plant, and Combined North and South Plant over the range of January 2006 — July 2010 to represent the current loading conditions. Year 2010 data is a partial data set and does not represent the total year loads. CBOD5 is a representation of the oxygen demand of the pollutants in the wastewater. TSS are solids in the wastewater including both organic and inorganic components. The NH3 -N ammonia nitrogen originates primarily from human urine although other domestic, commercial, and industrial sources contribute ammonia nitrogen. All three pollutants are required to be removed to discharge standards. The data from the North and South Plants are combined on a mass basis to calculate predicted loads for the Combined North and South Plant. CBOD5, TSS, and NH3 -N data from the North and South Plants are summed to get the Combined North and South Plant loads. For all three data sets, all zero values were removed from the data. No flow data for the North Plant is available from June 14 through July 9, 2008, due to plant flooding and data for that period is not used in the analysis. NH3 -N is 57 percent of the total plant nitrogen load based on wastewater sampling. Total kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) is used to approximate the total plant nitrogen load. TKN is calculated based on the plants' historical NH3 -N load data converted to TKN using the TKN:NH3 -N ratio based on 57 percent ammonia. The organic loads were screened for erroneous data and outliers based on various criteria including data beyond two standard deviations and plant ratios such as CBOD5:TSS, TSS:NH3N, and CBOD5:NH3N. Data points exceeding these criteria were either removed from the data set as outliers or adjusted based on historic plant ratios. Mass loads to the plants in pounds per day are determined by multiplying the pollutant concentration in milligrasus per liter by the flow and a unit conversion factor. Figures 2 -2 through 2 -4 present historic daily and 30 day average CBOD5, TSS, and TKN loads to the system from 2005 through 2010. bdr: mjh: ds1: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 2 -9 Stanley Consultants 40,000 �5,00n 3Q,000 25,000 S 23,000 CO CO v 15,000 1 Von 5,000 0 LO to LO Ln r n r, ro oo m m M m CY) m n n n Oy rti ry r-i r Year City of Iowa City's Combined Historic CBOD5 Loads 2006 -2010 Figure 2 -2 bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 2 -10 Stanley Consultants 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 ! 20,000 1.5,000 10,000 5,000 0 d d d d d d :7 d d d d d d O d 6 c-I -1 -1 ry ry ry i--i r-i r-i ry ti r-i ry ry i--i i--i ti ti h ti i--i r-i r-I N N N Year City of Iowa City's Combined Historic TSS Loads 2006 -2010 Figure 2 -3 bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 2 -11 Stanley Consultants 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 z Y ?,000 2,000 1,000 0 1/1/06 1/1/07 1/1/08 1/1/09 111/10 Year City of Iowa City's Combined Historic TKN Loads 2006 -2010 Figure 2 -4 Loads The 2006 through 2010 annual combined North and South Plant loads are presented in Tables 2 -6 through 2 -8. The South Plant was heavily loaded with CBOD5 and TSS received from a major industrial contributor, Procter & Gamble (P &G) until P &G started operation of additional pretreatment in 2008 resulting in significantly reduced loads to the South Plant. P &G's wastewater is very low in ammonia nitrogen relative to CBOD5 and TSS. For this reason, load data from 2008 through 2010 is given more credence than earlier load data. On this basis, the maximum day CBOD5 load of 31,381 lb /d from 2009 is used instead of the 36,032 lb /d from 2007 and the maximum day TSS load of 33,796 lb /d from 2008 is used instead of the 39,483 lb /d from 2006. bdr: mjh: ds1: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 2 -12 Stanley Consultants Table 2 -6 Annual Combined CBOD5 Loads, lb /d (2006 -2010) Period 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Average StdDev Annual Average 15,894 15,037 14,547 17,125 14,521 15,425 1,101 Maximum Month 19,579 18,182 17,749 21,643 19,443 19,319 1,520 Maximum Week 24,556 22,208 20,999 25,193 22,670 23,125 1,724 Maximum Day 31,295 36,032 31,193 31,381 29,323 31,845 2,492 Source: Stanley Consultants and Brown and Caldwell Table 2 -7 Annual Combined TSS Loads, lb /d (2006 -2010) Period 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Average StdDev Annual Average 17,641 17,910 16,467 17,552 15,978 17,110 839 Maximum Month 22,075 22,067 20,787 21,028 20,014 21,194 884 Maximum Week 26,588 28,449 28,541 24,218 25,627 26,685 1,855 Maximum Day 39,483 36,117 33,796 29,577 30,990 33,993 3,975 Source: Stanley Consultants and Brown and Caldwell Table 2 -8 Annual Combined TKN Loads, lb /d (2006 -2010) Period 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Average StdDev Annual Average 3,376 3,268 3,345 -,544 3,046 3,316 181 Maximum Month 4,117 4,178 4,023 4,665 4,438 4,284 263 Maximum Week 4,559 4,816 4,601 5,232 5,210 4,883 323 Maximum Day 5,241 6,281 6,292 6,449 6,754 6,203 571 Source: Stanley Consultants and Brown and Caldwell Table 2 -9 summarizes historic organic load peaking factors based on 2006 -2010 annual averages. Table 2 -9 Organic Load Peaking Factor Summary Max Max Month Week Max Parameter PF PF Day PF CBOD5 1.28 1.50 2.07 TSS 1.24 1.56 1.90 TKN 1.29 1.47 1.87 Source: Stanley Consultants and Brown and Caldwell bdr: mjh: ds1: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 2 -13 Stanley Consultants Tables 2 -10, 2 -11, and 2 -12 present the existing significant industrial loads and perinitted loads. Table 2 -10 C130D5 Loads from Significant Industrial Contributors Source_ Stanley Consultants and Brown and Caldwell bdr: mjh: ds1: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 2 -14 Stanley Consultants CBODS Permitted Values Max Max Max Max Industry Average Month Day Month Day P &G -North 343 1,637 3,456 4,100 7,050 P &G -South 3,336 2,455 8,569 7,245 9,820 Roberts Dairy 696 2,321 4,527 3,000 6,000 Landfill 62 653 919 2,500 5,000 Millards 127 663 1,053 500 500 IAC 60 137 211 200 400 Total 3,743 8,747 18,735 17,545 28,770 Note: Millards limits are only for billing purposes Source: Stanley Consultants and Brown and Caldwell Table 2 -11 TSS Loads from Significant Industrial Contributors TSS Permitted Values Max Max Max Max Industry Average Month Day Month Day P &G -North 178 428 820 6,900 9,350 P &G -South 1,003 2,942 10,112 6,900 9,350 Roberts Dairy 193 1,304 2,678 2,000 4,000 Landfill 63 827 1,620 2,500 5,000 Millards 61 190 560 500 500 IAC 67 258 333 200 400 Total 1,565 5,949 16,123 19,000 28,600 Note: Millards limits are only for billing purposes Source_ Stanley Consultants and Brown and Caldwell bdr: mjh: ds1: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 2 -14 Stanley Consultants Table 2 -12 TKN Loads from Significant Industrial Contributors Source: Stanley Consultants and Brown and Caldwell bdr: mjh: ds1: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 2 -15 Stanley Consultants TKN Permitted Values Max Max Max Max Industry Average Month Day Month Day P &G -North 0.001 0.001 0.08 412 660 P &G -South 0.019 0.021 1.1 412 660 Roberts Dairy 3.4 13 21 13 27 Landfill 60 158 179 418 835 Millards 9 76 141 50 100 IAC 4 9 11 25 42 Total 76 256 353 1330 2,342 TKN is derived from ammonia data x 1.75. Note: Millards limits are only for billing purposes Source: Stanley Consultants and Brown and Caldwell bdr: mjh: ds1: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 2 -15 Stanley Consultants Table 2 -13 presents the current combined loads on an annual average, maximum month, maximum week, and maximum day basis that are used in the development of future design loads. Table 2 -13 Current Combined Plant Loads (lb /d) Parameter Period Value Date /Period CBOD5 Annual Average 15,425 2006 -2010 Maximum Month 21,643 10/1/2009 Maximum Week 25,193 9/24/2009 Maximum Day 31,381 8/12/2009 South Plant CBOD5 Design Max Month Capacity: 16,554 lb /day TSS Annual Average 17,110 2006 -2010 Maximum Month 22,075 6/28/2006 Maximum Week 28,541 5/11/2008 Maximum Day 33,796 5/8/2008 ----- - - - - TKN -- --------------------------- Annual Average --------------- 3,316 - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- 2006 - 2010 Maximum Month 4,665 10/3/2009 Maximum Week 5,232 9/27/2009 Maximum Day 6,754 2/24/2010 South Plant TKN Design Capacities: Max Month: 2,940 lb /d, Max Day: 3,700 lb /d Source: Stanley Consultants and Brown and Caldwe bdr: mjh: ds1: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 2 -16 Stanley Consultants Section 3 Proposed Design Flows and Loads Population Projections Current and future population projections for the City of Iowa City were reviewed and compared with Johnson County population projections. In addition, populations from outside of the City that are contributing or are anticipated to contribute to the wastewater system were analyzed. These outside populations include University Heights, Modern Manor Trailer Park, Sunrise Trailer Park, Lake Ridge Trailer Park, Makada Subdivision, existing unincorporated residential development north of I -80 from Dubuque Street NE and extending to the West of Prairie Du Chien Road NE in the Rapid Creek watershed. Two additional areas, Regency Trailer Park, and the Pleasant Meadows Subdivision west of the Pleasant Valley Golf Course, are presented here, but are considered unlikely to begin discharging into the system within the 30 -year planning period. Table 3 -1 summarizes the various areas and current populations. bdr: mjh: ds1: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 3 -1 Stanley Consultants Table 3 -1 Current Populations Area Population or Equivalent (Source) City of Iowa City 68,903 (2009 U.S. Census Estimate) University Heights 1,064 (2009 U.S. Census Estimate) Modern Manor Trailer Park 1,000 (NPDES Permit — 0.1 MGD) Sunrise Trailer Park 329 (NPDES Permit — 0.038 MGD and 56 lb BOD /day) Lake Ridge Trailer Park 794 (NPDES Permit — 0.148 MGD and 135 lb BOD /day) Makada Subdivision 103 (NPDES Permit — 0.0103 MGD) Existing Rapid Creek Development 357 (estimate based on current development) Regency Trailer Park 494 (NPDES Permit — 0.0670 MGD and 84 lb BOD /day) Pleasant Meadows Subdivision 78 (estimated based on current development) Source: Stanley Consultants and Brown and Caldwell In addition, four institutions represent significant `permanent' transient populations including the University of Iowa, the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, the Veterans Administration (VA) Medical Center, and Mercy Hospital. Students at the University of Iowa are included in the U.S. Census population estimates as part of the City population. Patients at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, the VA Medical Center, and Mercy Hospital represent a normal daily population that contributes to the system. Wastewater system contributions from staff for these institutions are included in the commercial /industrial allowance. Table 3 -2 summarizes the four institutions' current student/patient populations. Table 3 -2 Current Large Institution Population Equivalents Population Institution Equivalent Comment University of Iowa Students 30,825 Based on Fall 2010 Enrollment University of Iowa Hospitals 1,5315 Based on 2008 -2009 Annual Report: and Clinics 919 Inpatient Beds and 915,944 outpatient visits Veteran Administration 169 Based on 93 Patient Beds Medical Center Mercy Hospital 425 Based on 240 Patient Beds Source: Stanley Consultants and Brown and Caldwell Johnson County Population Projections The Johnson County Council of Governments (JCCOG) has developed a Long Range Multi - Modal Transportation Plan (JCCOG Plan) for 2007 -2035. This plan breaks down the expected growth in population for various communities within the county, as well as the county as a whole. This document is utilized as a basis for development of both Johnson County and City of Iowa City population projections. bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 3 -2 Stanley Consultants For Johnson County, the JCCOG Plan projections show a population growth rate of roughly 5.1 percent every five years. This corresponds to an annual growth rate of approximately- one percent. U.S. Census Bureau population estimates for 2005 and 2009 are higher than the JCCOG estimates. Therefore, the annualized JCCOG growth rate of one percent is applied to the 2009 U.S. Census Bureau population for Johnson County of 131,005. Woods and Poole Economics, Inc. is an independent firm specializing in projection of long -term economic and demographic data for all counties in the United States. Woods and Poole estimates a Johnson County population growth rate of roughly 8.2 percent every five years, or approximately 1.6 percent annually. Figure 3 -1 shows past population growth in Johnson County as determined by the U.S. Census Bureau along with both the JCCOG Plan projections and Woods and Poole projections. 250,000 200,000 150,000 c 0 a 0 n. 100,000 50,000 0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 Year — —U.S. Census Bureau Data — - - JCCOG Plan 2007 - 2035 Estimate 1 % Annual Growth Rate Applied to 2009 Population ----• Woods & Poole 2009 Projections Johnson County Population Projections Figure 3 -1 bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 3 -3 Stanley Consultants i i i i i 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 Year — —U.S. Census Bureau Data — - - JCCOG Plan 2007 - 2035 Estimate 1 % Annual Growth Rate Applied to 2009 Population ----• Woods & Poole 2009 Projections Johnson County Population Projections Figure 3 -1 bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 3 -3 Stanley Consultants Iowa City Population Projections The JCCOG Plan contains a more detailed estimate of future City of Iowa City growth. The total population, number of households, newly developed land area for single - family residences, and newly developed land area for multi - family residences are forecast every five years through 2035. The JCCOG Plan predicts a steady increase in population of 1,050 people over each five -year period rather than a constant percent growth in population. This growth in population is roughly a 1.6 percent increase in population every five years, or a yearly increase of roughly 03 percent. The higher growth rate for the county as compared to the City is based on the higher growth rates for the northern incorporated and unincorporated areas of the County. Due to their location in the Iowa City -Cedar Rapids development corridor, these areas have higher than average projected growth rates. U.S. Census Bureau population estimates for 2005 and 2009 are higher than the JCCOG Plan estimates. Therefore, the annualized JCCOG Plan growth rate of 0.3 percent is applied to the 2009 U.S. Census Bureau population for the City of Iowa City of 68,903. The U.S. Census Bureau estimates the population of cities on a yearly basis, in addition to taking the census every ten years. Based on U.S. Census data, the average annual growth rate experienced by the City of Iowa City from 2001 to 2009 was 1.1 percent. The City of Iowa City planning department expects this growth rate to continue and it is used as the City of Iowa City projection. A comparison of the predicted growth rates for the City of Iowa City and Johnson County can be seen in Table')-'). It is expected that Johnson County will continue to grow at a greater rate than the City of Iowa City, due primarily to higher growth rates in other incorporated communities in the County. Both Johnson County and the City of Iowa City have experienced growth since 2001 that is higher than future estimates due in part to macro- economic effects. The future growth estimates recognize a slowing of growth due to economic conditions. The JCCOG growth rate represents significantly decelerated growth for Iowa City, while the City's predicted growth rate represents continued steady growth. Table 3 -3 Comparison of Annualized Growth Rates Annual Growth Rates Iowa City Johnson County 2001 — 2009 Average 1.1% 1.9'% JCCOG Estimate 031% 1% City of Iowa City Estimate 1.1 % Other Estimates 1% (Match JCCOG County- 1.6% (Woods and Poole) wide Growth Estimate) Source: Stanley Consultants and Brown and Caldwell bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 3 -4 Stanley Consultants The wide range of growth rate estimates illustrates the uncertainty in predicting future conditions including the social and economic conditions that impact overall population change. The City of Iowa City is considered a strong economic engine for the area and has historically enjoyed favorable economic and social conditions, resulting in growth. The higher end of the growth rate spectrum is favored due to historic norms and recognition of Iowa City as a highly desirable location to live. Three annualized growth rates, 03, 1.1, and 1.6 percent, were analyzed to illustrate the potential population range during the planning period. Table 3 -4 shows the population growth for the three rates in tabular form and Figure 3 -2 shows the future growth in graphical form. Table 3 -4 Projected City of Iowa City Population Rate 2000 2009a 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040 2060 0.3 %' 62,220 68,903 69,110 70,150 71,210 72,290 73,380 75,610 80,280 1.1 %2 62,220 68,903 69,660 73,580 77,710 82,080 86,700 96,720 120,380 1.6 %' 62,220 68,903 70,010 75,790 82,050 88,830 96,160 112,710 154,820 Notes: Estimates for 2010 through 2060 have been rounded to nearest 10 people 'Annualized 03%; 1.6% over 5 years 2Annualized 1.1 %; 5.5% over 5 years 'Annualized 1.6 %; 8% over 5 years 'U.S. Census Estimate Source: Stanley Consultants and Brown and Caldwell bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 3 -5 Stanley Consultants 180,000 160,000 140,000 120,000 0 100,000 tL 80,000 60,000 40,000 i 20,000 0 1960 1970 1980 — —U.S. Census Bureau Data 1.1 % Annual Growth 1990 2000 2010 Year — JCCOG Estimate in 2007 - - --• 1.6 %Annual Growth 2020 2030 2040 — - - 0.3 % Annual Growth Iowa City Population Projections Figure 3 -2 The proposed City of Iowa City population growth rate for wastewater system planning purposes is 1.1 percent, comparable to historic growth. The estimated City of Iowa City 2040 population with the University of Iowa student population included used in the development of design flows and loads is 96,720. Residential Land Requirements Residential land required to house the increased population was also estimated based on the proposed 1.1 percent annual population growth rate and estimates of population density from the JCCOG Plan. The basis used is 2.23 people per household and 3.1 households per acre. The blend between multi - family and single family residences is based on 14.5 percent of newly developed land area for multi - family homes and 85.5 percent for single family homes. This reflects continuation of historic development patterns. This growth pattern may be altered if densification occurs in response to economic, sustainability, or environmental factors. Table 3 -5 presents the land area needed to support the estimated future residential development bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 3 -6 Stanley Consultants Table 3 -5 Average Growth Rate of 5.5 percent over 5 years (1.1 percent each year) Year 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040 Population 69,660 73,580 77,710 82,080 86,700 96,720 Households 31,238 32,994 34,849 36,808 38,878 43,372 Total New Acres Added 567 1,165 1,798 2,466 3,916 to 2010 Basis MF Acres Needed 82 169 260 357 567 SF Acres Needed 485 997 1,538 2,109 3,349 Note: The number of households presented includes students living in dormitories. Source: Stanley Consultants and Brown and Caldwell Outside Populations The outside populations listed in Table 3 -6 with the exception of the existing Rapid Creek development, are considered fully developed and no appreciable change in population is forecast. In the existing Rapid Creek development area there are currently some undeveloped lots which are expected to be fully developed within the 30 -year planning period. This additional development is estimated to result in a population increase of 93 for a total area population of 450. Additional residential development in the Rapid Creek area north of 1 -80 is included in the City of Iowa City population growth for the purpose of this analysis. Table 3 -6 Outside Populations (Year 2040) University Heights (currently served) 1,064 Modern Manor Trailer 1,000 Sunrise Trailer Park 329 Lake Ridge Trailer Park 794 Makada Subdivision 103 Existing Rapid Creek Development 450 Total -1,740 Source: Stanley Consultants and Brown and Caldwell Institutional Populations The University of Iowa student population is anticipated to be stable to slow growing. The proposed growth in the University of Iowa student population is 10 percent over 30 years, or 3,080 additional students. This would result in a total of 33,905 students in 2040. Both the current and future student populations are included in the City of Iowa City population estimates. The lower growth rate for the University of Iowa student population is just one part of the composite growth rate of 1.1 percent for the City. The University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics patient load is also expected to be stable to slow growing with an anticipated increase of 15 percent over 30 years. This is an additional population equivalent of 230 for a total population equivalent of 1,765 in 2040. The VA Medical bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 3 -7 Stanley Consultants Center patient load is also expected to be stable to slow growing. However, the Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans, along with aging Vietnam War veterans, are likely to have a significant impact on the VA Medical Center's patient load. Therefore, an allowance of a 15 percent increase over 30 years is included in planning. This is an additional population equivalent of 26 people for a total population equivalent of 195 people in 2040. Table 3 -7 summarizes the large institutional population changes. A growth allowance of 15 percent over 30 years was also included for Mercy Hospital. Table 3 -7 Large Institutional Populations Institution 30 Year Growth 2040 Projected Total University of Iowa Students 3,080 Students 33,905 Medical Facilities UI Hospitals and Clinics 230 Population Equivalent 1,765 Population Equivalent VA Medical Center 26 Population Equivalent 195 Population Equivalent Mercy Hospital 63 Population Equivalent 488 Population Equivalent Subtotal Medical Facilities 319 2,448 Total 3 399 1 353 Source: Stanley Consultants and Brown and Caldwell Summary of Project 2040 Populations Table 3 -8 presents the projected 2040 populations contributing to the City of Iowa City wastewater system. Table 3 -8 Populations Contributing to the Wastewater System in 2040 Component Population or Equivalent City of Iowa City 96,720 Outside Populations 3,740 Large Medical Facilities 2,448' Total 102,908 Notes: The student population shown in Table 3 -7 is included in the City of Iowa City population. Source: Stanley Consultants and Brown and Caldwell Per capita flow rates of 75, 100, and 120 gallons per day per person are used to develop the ADW, AWW, and MWW flows. Per capita loadings of 0.17 lb CBOD5 /day, 0.18 lb TSS /day, and 0.04 lb TKN /day are used to develop organic average day loadings. Peaking factors ranging from 1.1 to 2.0 are used to develop the maximum month and maximum day loadings. bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 3 -8 Stanley Consultants Commercial and Light Industrial Users The Citv of Iowa City has approximately 1,874 acres currently developed as commercial /light industry. Typical flows generated from this type of land use range from 800 to 1,500 gpd /acre. Areal floes of 800, 1000, and 1500 gpd /acre are used for development of ADW, AWW, and MWW flows from commercial and light industrial areas. Organic loadings from commercial /light industrial areas were estimated by determining population equivalents based on a flow of 140 gpd /person. Per capita loadings of 0.11 lb CBOD5 /day, 0.13 lb TSS /day, and 0.04 lb TKN /day are used to develop organic average day loadings. The per capita loadings are slightly lower than typical due to the transient nature of commercial/light industrial populations. Peaking factors ranging from 1.1 to 2.0 are used to develop the maximum month and maximum day loadings. The contributions to the wastewater system from commercial/light industrial users are expected to increase at a rate higher than the residential growth rate. The projected increase in commercial/light industrial areas is an additional 1,626 acres for a 2040 total of 3,449 acres. Commercial /light industrial growth is based on the city's zoning maps and collaboration with Iowa City planners. The southeast industrial corridor is planned to be heavy industry and was not included in the commercial /light industrial growth rate. An additional ten percent growth was included to account for development in the Rapid Creek watershed. Table 3 -9 summarizes the commercial and light industrial flows and loads. Table 3 -9 Summary of Commercial and Light Industrial Maximum Month Flows and Loads Condition Area, acres Flow, MGD CBOD5, lb /d TSS, lb /d TKN, lb /d Current 1,874 1.87 1,194 1,548 565 Future (2040) 3,449 3.45 2,385 2,818 1,025 Source: Stanley Consultants and Brown and Caldwell Industrial and Commercial Growth Allowances Currently, the five significant industrial contributors only use a portion of their permitted capacity. Table 3 -10 presents the total current penmitted capacity and the utilized capacity. bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 3 -9 Stanley Consultants Table 3 -10 Significant Industrial Contributors Permitted Capacity Note: Significant contributors include P &G, Robert's Dairy, Iowa City Landfill, and IAC. Source: Stanlev Consultants and Brown and Caldwell Percentage of permitted capacity varies by parameter but generally only about half of the permitted capacity is currently being used. Procter and Gamble (P &G) represents the largest industrial contributor to the City of Iowa City wastewater system. On average, P &G's flow accounts for about 80 percent of the flow from the large industrial users. P &G anticipates significant growth in their wet production processes over the 30 year planning period. Some of the additional flow from these expanded processes will be offset by new sustainability efforts geared toward reducing wastewater quantities. The resulting overall growth is estimated to be an increase of 50 percent over the next 30 years. This represents a growth allowance of 0.411 MGD for a total maximum month flow of 1.29 MGD. Loads are estimated to grow at the same rate as the flow. The other industrial contributions will likely grow at a more moderate rate through the 30 year planning period. The growth allowance for all other significant industrial users is estimated as 20 percent of the sum of the current total industrial flow and the future growth allowance for P &G. This is an additional growth allowance of 0.29 MGD for a total maximum month from all industrial users of 1.81 MGD. Loads are estimated to increase by the same percent as the flow. Use of the current permitted significant industrial flows and loads as the 2040 basis allows for anticipated P &G growth and expansion of existing industries. In addition, new significant industry may move into the city and should be allowed for in the planning projections. The City of Iowa City is not actively pursuing wet industry. However, the new southeast industrial park orientated towards renewable energy industry and other industries that mesh with existing industrial base offers the potential for significant dischargers connecting into the system. A 1,000,000 gpd flow and 5,000 lbs /day of BOD /TSS allowances are incorporated into the planned industrial growth to allow flexibility in growth of the industrial base. bdr: mjh: ds1: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 3 -10 Stanley Consultants Flow, MGD CBOD5, lb /d TSS, lb /d TKN, lb /d Max Max Max Max Max Max Max Max Month Day Month Day Month Day Month Day Permitted 2.02 336 17,045 28,270 18,500 28,100 1,280 2,224 Used 1.22 1.97 7,866 18,735 5,949 16,123 256 353 Percent Used 61% 59% 46% 66% 32% 57% 20% 16% Note: Significant contributors include P &G, Robert's Dairy, Iowa City Landfill, and IAC. Source: Stanlev Consultants and Brown and Caldwell Percentage of permitted capacity varies by parameter but generally only about half of the permitted capacity is currently being used. Procter and Gamble (P &G) represents the largest industrial contributor to the City of Iowa City wastewater system. On average, P &G's flow accounts for about 80 percent of the flow from the large industrial users. P &G anticipates significant growth in their wet production processes over the 30 year planning period. Some of the additional flow from these expanded processes will be offset by new sustainability efforts geared toward reducing wastewater quantities. The resulting overall growth is estimated to be an increase of 50 percent over the next 30 years. This represents a growth allowance of 0.411 MGD for a total maximum month flow of 1.29 MGD. Loads are estimated to grow at the same rate as the flow. The other industrial contributions will likely grow at a more moderate rate through the 30 year planning period. The growth allowance for all other significant industrial users is estimated as 20 percent of the sum of the current total industrial flow and the future growth allowance for P &G. This is an additional growth allowance of 0.29 MGD for a total maximum month from all industrial users of 1.81 MGD. Loads are estimated to increase by the same percent as the flow. Use of the current permitted significant industrial flows and loads as the 2040 basis allows for anticipated P &G growth and expansion of existing industries. In addition, new significant industry may move into the city and should be allowed for in the planning projections. The City of Iowa City is not actively pursuing wet industry. However, the new southeast industrial park orientated towards renewable energy industry and other industries that mesh with existing industrial base offers the potential for significant dischargers connecting into the system. A 1,000,000 gpd flow and 5,000 lbs /day of BOD /TSS allowances are incorporated into the planned industrial growth to allow flexibility in growth of the industrial base. bdr: mjh: ds1: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 3 -10 Stanley Consultants Table 3 -11 summarizes the industrial growth allowances and maximum month projected flows and loads. Table 3 -11 Maximum Month Industrial Flows and Loads Growth Allowance for 2040 Flow CBOD5 Load TSS Load TKN Load (MGD) (lb /day) (lb /day) (lb /day) Unused CurrentPennitted 0.800 9,179 Capacity 12,551 1,024 New Industrial Growth 1.0 5,000 5,000 300 Allowance Total Industrial Growth 1.8 14,179 Allowance 17,551 1,324 Note: Allowance for commercial and light industrial growth is included elsewhere. Source: Stanley Consultants and Brown and Caldwell Future Service Area The residential, commercial/light industrial, and significant industry growth is anticipated to result in a sewer service area growth of 11,855 acres to 22,800 acres. This estimate is based on historic patterns of development. A shift to denser development would reduce the amount of land used for growth. A map showing the current and future service area boundaries along with anticipated land use types is presented on Figure 3 -3 at the end of this section. Proposed Design Flows and Loads Table 3 -12 presents the existing and proposed unequalized 2040 design flows and loads. Table 3 -12 Existing and Proposed Unequalized 2040 Design Flows Present Conditions Projected Design Year 2040 Plant Design AWW /Max MWW /Max AWW /Max MWW /Max Parameter ADW Month Day ADW Month Day Population 72 847 102,908 Flow MGD 8.0 18.6 33.1 1 -.0 29.8 53.1 CBOD5, 4/Day 17,496 21,643 31,381 32,889 43,673 64,108 TSS, 4 /Dav 18,075 22,075 33,796 36,361 46,694 77,509 TKN, 4/Day 3,535 4,665 6,754 6,090 7,956 12,225 The design peak hour wet weather flow is 81 MGD. Source: Stanley Consultants and Brown and Caldwell bdr: mjh: ds1: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 3 -11 Stanley Consultants Table 3 -13 presents the resulting peaking factors. Table 3 -13 Proposed Design Organic Load Peaking Factor Parameter Max Month Max Day, PIT CBOD5 133 1.95 TSS 1.28 2.13 TKN 1.31 2.01 Source: Stanley Consultants and Brown and Caldwell The South Plant will be expanded in phases to match capacity with anticipated growth and available funding for improvements. Two phases are proposed — Phase 1 (2025) is the current expansion anticipated to be operational in 2014 and adequate to approximately 2025; Phase 2 (2040) would be constructed in approximately 2025 for growth to approximately 2040. Table 3 -14 presents the proposed 2013 Phase 1 unequalized design flows and loads. Table 3 -14 Proposed Phase 1 Unequalized Design Flows and Loads Projected Design Year 2025 Plant Design AWW /Max MWW /Max Parameter ADW Month Day Population 87,878 Flow, MGD 10.5 24.. 24J..3::::::::::::::........._ CBOD5, 4 /Day 25,193 32,658 47,745 TSS, 4/Day 27,218 34,385 55,653 TKN, 4 /Day 4,813 6,311 9,490 The design peak hour wet weather flow is 61.5 MGD. Source: Stanley Consultants and Brown and Caldwell bdr: mjh: ds1: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 3 -12 Stanley Consultants A summary of the 2025 and 2040 design flows and loads are presented on Table 3 -15. Projected loads are broken down into residential, commercial /light industrial and industrial categories. Table 3 -15 Proposed Flows and Loads Summary Flow Equalization The City of Iowa City South Plant has 6.4 million gallons of existing off -line equalization basin capacity that is used to attenuate peak flows to a maximum of 25 MGD to the downstream liquid treatment processes after influent pumping. Sewer System Modeling An extensive collection system analysis was performed using the XPSWMM hydraulic model. Peak collection system flows were routed through the South Plant influent pump station to determine equalization basin expansion needs and ability to attenuate peak flows to a lower flow rate for the purposes of sizing downstream liquid treatment processes. Wet weather flows modeled for equalization basin capacity were based on the historic wettest 30 days which occurred April 6 -May 6, 2008. The historical peak hour rainfall event on July 21, 2008 was incorporated into the 30 day modeled flows. Based on the 30 -day design simulation and 2040 design flows, the equalization basins are proposed to be expanded to bdr: mjh: ds1: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 3 -13 Stanley Consultants 2025 2040 (Population= 87,878) (Population= 102,908) Max Max Month Max Day Month Max Day Flow (MGD) 24.2 43.3 29.8 53.1 CBOD5 (lb /day) Residential 15,484 19,329 18,785 23,312 Commercial/ Light Industrial 2,218 2,756 2,843 3,527 Industrial 14,956 25,660 22,045 37,269 Total 32,658 47,745 43,673 64,108 TSS (lb /day) Residential 17,022 23,764 19,891 28,480 Commercial/ Light Industrial 2,639 3,693 Von 4,729 Industrial 14,725 28,196 23,500 44,300 Total 34,386 55,653 46,694 77,509 TKN (lb /day) Residential 4,478 6,637 5,224 7,856 Commercial/ Light Industrial 915 1,358 1,152 1,732 Industrial 918 1,495 1,580 2,637 Total 6,311 9,490 7,956 12,225 Source- Stanlev Consultants and Brown and Caldwell Flow Equalization The City of Iowa City South Plant has 6.4 million gallons of existing off -line equalization basin capacity that is used to attenuate peak flows to a maximum of 25 MGD to the downstream liquid treatment processes after influent pumping. Sewer System Modeling An extensive collection system analysis was performed using the XPSWMM hydraulic model. Peak collection system flows were routed through the South Plant influent pump station to determine equalization basin expansion needs and ability to attenuate peak flows to a lower flow rate for the purposes of sizing downstream liquid treatment processes. Wet weather flows modeled for equalization basin capacity were based on the historic wettest 30 days which occurred April 6 -May 6, 2008. The historical peak hour rainfall event on July 21, 2008 was incorporated into the 30 day modeled flows. Based on the 30 -day design simulation and 2040 design flows, the equalization basins are proposed to be expanded to bdr: mjh: ds1: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 3 -13 Stanley Consultants increase equalization capacity from 6.4 million gallons to 16.5 million gallons to allow attenuation of peak wet weather flows. Figure 3 -4 shows the hydrograph for sizing the equalization basins. 18 16 M 14 >, 12 EL 10 c C 8 r- 0 6 N Lu 4 2 Ll 04/06/08 04/11/08 04/16/08 04/21/08 04/26/08 05/01/08 05/06/08 Equalization Basin Sizing Hydrograph Figure 3 -3 Table 3 -16 presents the proposed equalized 2040 design flows. Table 3 -16 Proposed 2040 Equalized Design Flows Unequalized Equalized ADW, MGD 13 13 AWW, MGD 29.8 29.8 MWW, MGD 5 3. 1 45 PHWW, MGD 81 45 Source: Stanley Consultants and Brown and Caldwell The equalization basins are proposed to be expanded in Phase 1 to allow attenuation of peak wet weather flows. Table 3 -17 presents the proposed equalized Phase 1 design flows. bdr: mjh: ds1: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 3 -14 Stanley Consultants Table 3 -17 Proposed Phase 1 (2025) Design Flows Unequalized Equalized ADW, MGD 10.5 10.5 AWW MGD 24.2 24.2 MWW, MGD 43.3 30 PHWW, MGD 61.5 30 Source: Stanley- Consultants and Brown and Caldwell bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 3 -15 Stanley Consultants X Ca k. k. k I x Y X X X 4n x X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X% X X Y X X X X X X X X X _ x X X X X n X X X x: X XXXX X X X % X x X' X X X X X % x X X / X x x 11 I xk "\ xxx x � Y: X x f/ 7 a (6 (6 C C � CO CO of O N N N > Q N 6 O 0 0 N ) 6 D 0 N O m O O Q T T JO T a o 0 0 a a (6 N U a 4 - a E a N E N > v w o a ® 0' K I > I x x x x x x x x x I x x X/ X x x �a /�' .. X Ix X x\1`, k k X' x X x k X F a x F n n x11 x x XX Y a X X X Ypp�� x x x x'lLdx X I x x r xxx. xXxxxxxx %xxx xxr x x xxxxx xxx. x�x x�x K x x< Y x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x ��-� x x xxxx xxlx ��xx� x L xxx x x o l x x I< xxx x z xlxxxlrX x x Dx x xx <. xxx >xx x x° x x xis, X °x x 11 xxx P xtirx x xxX �� xxx x X X X x X X X X x2x �„ x x 5) x . . X ... y X X x. x k. x X X X X X X X Y X X X x X x X x. 9 X X X X X X X X x.X X x X X X X X X X X Xx xx�Ax xx O x X x X X I .' X x k X x X x x x x x x x I x x x x X N.. Y x k X X n X X X X X ^tir X X X X X X h�. .. X X X X X x X X X X X ' Y X k % X x x X X ^10 5ry x J x xx xx xx xx X x X _ x X xx� M i �a LL i ,,a) ^ V/ LL 0 O LO V Y1 c 0 Section 4 Effluent Requirements Effluent Requirements The treatment plant will be designed to meet the following effluent requirements as determined by a waste load allocation analysis perfonned by the IDNR for a shore discharge into the Iowa River at the present South Plant outfall location. The waste load allocation was determined based on State -wide default values for stream and effluent characteristics. Site specific river and treated effluent quality information has been submitted to the IDNR for development of a site specific waste load allocation. The site specific waste load allocation may result in slightly different effluent requirements. The treatment process design may change slightly and will be refined accordingly for the preliminary engineering report. Table 4 -1 presents the plant effluent quality required by the IDNR waste load allocation based on state -wide default stream values. bdr: mjh: ds1: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 4 -1 Stanley Consultants Source: Iowa Department of Natural Resources bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 4 -2 Stanley Consultants Table 4 -1 Design Effluent Limits - Shore Discharge Concentration (mg /1) Mass (lbs /day) Parameter Season 7 -day 30 -day Max. day 7 -day 30 -day Max. day CBOD5 40 25 TSS 45 30 Ammonia Nitrogen (N) Jan 12.4 16.6 2,857 4,111 Feb 14.1 15.8 3,234 3,877 Mar 6.4 15.9 1,470 3,952 Apr 4.6 16.6 1,060 4,192 May 3.9 16.1 905 4,051 Jun 2.7 15 .3 620 3,181 Jul 2.8 18.6 633 2,560 Aug 2.5 17.1 577 2,709 Sep 3.0 17.6 700 2,933 Oct 6.4 16.7 1,476 4,200 Nov 7.9 15.6 1,825 3,923 Dec 9.3 17.0 2,145 4,275 pH Yearly Chloride 699 699 145,204 163,869 Sulfate 1,684 1,684 394,684 394,684 Total Residual Chlorine 2.229 19.173 95.9 142.15 E. Coll 147#org /100 ml Geometric Mean (Mar 15 -Nov 15) Copper (Cu) 0.02956 0.02956 5.926 6.974 Cyanide (Cn) 0.01177 0.02459 2.005 5.748 Mercury (Hg) 0.3396 1.833 0.05784 0.4285 (n /L) (µg/L) Phenols 0.1132 2.794 19.28 653.2 Silver (Ag) 0.004247 0.004247 0.9928 0.9928 Zinc (Zn) 0.2409 0.2409 56.32 56.32 Toluene 0.1132 2.794 19.28 653.2 Acute Toxicity 1.0 Ceriodaphnia Acute Toxicity 1.0 Pimephales Source: Iowa Department of Natural Resources bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 4 -2 Stanley Consultants Anti - Degradation Analysis A report titled "Anti- Degradation Analysis for Expansion of South Wastewater Treatment Plant" prepared by Stanley Consultants, Inc. for the City of Iowa City was published for public and agency comment on January 14, 2011. The anti - degradation analysis supported the effluent limits presented in Table 4 -1. The 30 day comment period will expire on February 14, 2011. A summary of comments received and comment responses will be provided to IDNR for review and approval. bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 4 -3 Stanley Consultants Section 5 South Plant Assessment Plant Description The South Plant was originally constructed in 1990. The plant was then expanded in 2001, which included increasing capacity and improving treatment processes. The current plant rating is 10 MGD. The South Plant is sited on approximately 80 acres, located about 3 miles due south of downtown Iowa City. The liquid stream process includes preliminary treatment, primary treatment, nitrifying activated sludge using fine bubble diffusion, disinfection by chlorine, and dechlorination by sulfur dioxide. The solids processing facilities include waste activated sludge (WAS) thickening, combined primary sludge and thickened WAS thermophilic /mesophilic anaerobic digestion, and belt filter press dewatering. The South Plant also handles the sludge generated at the North Plant. This sludge is pumped to the digestion system. The preliminary treatment facilities include the interceptor.) unction structure, influent screening, influent pumping, vortex grit removal, high strength equalization, and flow equalization. A single Parshall flume measures the flow entering plant downstream of the equalization bypass and the influent pump station. Parshall flumes also measure the flow into and out of the flow equalization basins. A bypass around the vortex grit chambers can direct flow directly to the primary clarifiers. Primary treatment is provided by four circular primary clarifiers. Each clarifier is 70 feet in diameter with a side water depth (SWD) of 12 feet. The southern primary clarifiers were installed in 1990 and have the original collection mechanisms. The northern primary clarifiers were installed in 2001. Both sets are constructed with outboard weirs, rake sludge collection mechanisms, and scum collection systems. Secondary treatment is currently achieved using a single -stage nitrifying activated sludge system. The single sludge activated sludge system is configured to allow partial denitrification by use of anoxic zones and a mixed liquor return. The secondary system consists of aeration tanks, bdr: mjh: ds1: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 5 -1 Stanley Consultants aeration blowers, aeration air distribution equipment, fine bubble diffusers, submersible mixers, secondary clarifiers, mixed liquor return pumps, return activated sludge (RAS) pumps, waste activated sludge (WAS) pumps, and scum pumping. There are four tanks available for biological secondary treatment. In 1990, four square completely mixed activated sludge reactors with surface aerators were constructed. In the 2001 expansion the original tanks were retrofitted and extended to serve as four rectangular pseudo - plug flow reactors. Each tank is 428 feet long by 25.6 feet wide. At the maximum side water depth of 14.9 feet each tank is approximately 1.2 million gallons (mgal), for total volume of 4.8 mgal. Each tank is divided into eight cells by masonry baffles for process flexibility. Five of the eight cells are equipped with submersible mixers to allow anoxic zone configuration. Mixed liquor from the biological reactors is conveyed through a 48 inch pipe to the secondary clarifier splitter box. The flow is split to each of the four secondary clarifiers. Each clarifier is 80 feet in diameter. The northern two clarifiers, constructed in 1990, have a side water depth of 12 feet where the new southern clarifiers, constructed in 2001, have a side water depth of 16 feet. The newer clarifiers also have inboard weirs and collection launders compared to the outboard configuration on the older clarifiers. The effluent disinfection system currently uses gaseous chlorine and sulfur dioxide. Both the chlorination and dechlorination systems were installed in 1990 and upgraded in 2001. Disinfected effluent flows to the Iowa River via a 60 inch pipe. This pipe combines with the plant bypass from the equalization basins. The hydraulic capacity of the outfall without flooding the sulfur dioxide (SO2) weir is 21 MGD when the river is at the 100 year flood elevation. The outfall can hydraulically handle up to 30 MGD with some minor piping change and allowing the SOZ weird to flood. The pipe was installed in 1989. WAS is pumped off the RAS piping to the WAS thickening system located in the solids processing building. The WAS thickening system consists of two rotary drum thickeners that were installed in 2001. WAS was previously sent directly to the digestion system. Primary sludge and thickened WAS are processed by temperature - phased anaerobic digestion (TPAD). In 1990, two mesophilic single -stage high -rate digesters were constructed in conjunction with an identically sized digested sludge storage tank. In 2001 four additional tanks were constructed with two larger tanks sized to accommodate thermophilic digestion. Only one tank actually operates at thermophilic temperatures while the other is mesophilic. The two smaller tanks are used, strictly, for mesophilic digestion. The entire system is currently operating as a three stage process with a thennophilic stage followed by two mesophilic stages. The process is currently producing Class 1 equivalent biosolids. Once the sludge has been digested it is dewatered by belt filter presses and stored on site in an uncovered concrete sludge pad until it can be land applied. The dewatering system was installed in 1990 and did not require any major upgrades, other than to the polymer system, during the 2001 expansion. bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 5 -2 Stanley Consultants South Plant Condition Assessment A field condition assessment was conducted at the South Plant on July 27 -28, 2010 to assess facility condition and areas that need improvement. The assessment was performed by walking through the plant along the liquid and solids flow streams, starting at the headworks. Participating in the assessment were members of Stanley Consultants, Brown and Caldwell, and plant staff. The inspection team was represented by professionals specializing in the disciplines of process, mechanical, HVAC, structural, instrumentation, control, and electrical. The accompanying plant staff provided valuable operation and maintenance experience that would otherwise not be available. Plant staff continued providing valuable assistance before and after the field work to supplement the collective pool of information. In general, the South Plant is in good condition. Many of the facilities were installed during the 2001 expansion and are well within their expected service life. If equipment proved to be troublesome they have been replaced, for the most part. Therefore, the facilities critical to plant operation are running relatively well. Table 5 -1 summarizes the forecast replacement schedule for key areas at the south Plant. Table 5 -1 does not incorporate any replacement or equipment modifications resulting from forecast increases in flows and loads. The information presented in Table 5 -1 was not based on a comprehensive risk management approach; only service life as it pertains to plant operation was generally considered. bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 5 -3 Stanley Consultants Table 5 -1 Replacement /Renovation (R /R) Schedule for Key Areas at the South Plant Time Frame for RJR Asset Installation Date 2010 -2015 Dry Polymer Handling 1990 Dewatered Biosolids Conveyors 1990 Effluent Water Pumps 1999 Aeration Diffusers (Replace membranes) 2001 Various Building HVAC Systems 1990/2001 SCADA System Panels 1990/2001 2016 -2025 High Strength Equalization Pumps and Mixers 2001 Grit Mechanical Systems (Rehab) 2001 Polymer Delivery Systems 1990/2001 Aeration Tank Mixers 2001 Primary Clarifier Collectors — Original 1990 Primary Sludge Pumps 2003/2009 RAS Pumps (Rehab) 1990/2001 WAS Pumps (Rehab) 1990 Thickened Sludge Pumps 1990 Digester and Sludge EQ Tank Mechanical Mixers (Rehab) 2001 Digestion Pumping Systems - Original (Rehab) 1990 Sludge Dewatering System (Rehab) 1990 Sludge Heat Exchanger Boilers - Original 1990 2026 -2030 Influent Pumps - Expansion 2001 Mechanical Bar Screens 1990 Primary/Secondary Clarifier Collectors — Expansion 2001 High Strength Equalization Tank 2001 Rotary Drum Thickeners 2001 Digestion Pumping and Heat Exchange Systems - 2001 Expansion Digester Gas Boilers 2001 2030 -2040 Aeration Blowers 2001 Source: Stanley Consultants and Brown and Caldwell bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 5 -4 Stanley Consultants Table 5 -2 presents the list of equipment that will be replaced or rehabilitated during Phase 1 expansion. Other equipment scheduled for replacement or rehabilitation in Table 5 -1 but not included in Table 5 -2 will be repaired, renovated, or replaced on an as needed basis by the City. Table 5 -2 Phase 1 Equipment Replacement /Rehabilitation Dry Polymer Handling Dewatered Biosolids Conveyors Effluent Water Pumps Aeration Diffusers (replace membranes) Various Building HVAC Systems Various SCADA System Panels /Components High Strength Mixers (due to tank expansion) Original Primary Clarifier Collectors Sludge Heat Exchanger Boilers RAS/WAS pumps as necessary for capacity increase Source: Stanley Consultants and Brown and Caldwell Unit Process Capacity Table 5 -3 lists the capacities of existing unit processes and facilities at the South Plant critical for treatment. The capacities are per the manufacturers or as analyzed for this facility plan, as noted. bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 5 -5 Stanley Consultants U CC CL CC U c a� U O S. bJJ W C CC O U O O M O H is 0 AR U es a es U es 0 H U LC CL LC U W U O fL O U rn O S. CC S.i U W a� U O a E a� .E a C U) N C O U N C (0 m CD 6 (0 c LL c (0 U (0 LL V O O O O 00 N N m LL iii U O U cl to U U O � U O U 0 �bA yU U W cl O N 4':l CJ Cli G� w c cl a cn cl C M CA o lc� ct � cl CA c� -0 � U l � N CA U. CA a � U ,S' Q Q CQ7 LQ7 � LQ7 CQ7 � � CQ7 O in -- -- M P- -- Q Q Q rq 5 OM U U v`r \O 0 7 N \O N -- N 7t 7t U !� to to 7t E on w .E b �, ACA as aU v�N C7 C U) N C O U N C (0 m CD 6 (0 c LL c (0 U (0 LL V O O O O 00 N N m LL iii U O M O O At 0 H �U CC �L CC V �U O �L CC V O s. O V x a� U 0 a N M M O U Q c U � .. U O 'C Ct U U N 0 CA ; A 'C Q U O O � M c O � � O N Q N cv O � O O � O c O U � O •� O U U U U U U O s•. U 0 0 0 O bq O O N M O 'C O O N M O 7t R b�A ZCIJ U 0 0 N M d\ bA O O N M d\ �C bA � O O O � N 00 M 01 O� �t Vl I � O O N U U � � U cd to .U. U U U O O bA 'C U N cl U w 0 M bA O O N bA bA O O \O N O �n M N Vl Vl Vl � I M I ci clO O d\ c O cj .U. O � U U U N U b�A 0 0 0 N O O O �C O O O 7t N M as a 'C N 'C O 'C O M N O N 'C U "O O O O smpml N O � i N O � cn C ^C 'C O CA cn O CA 'C c 'C b�A cn o Qaa� c (0 U) N c 0 U T N C (0 m LO (0 c LL C (0 a_ m LL V O O O O 00 N N 00 LL U O t G / � � \ Q � \ / � � y / Q w � y ) _ � , / § / � m 9 LO / f � § § \ � k § § t U / j ƒ ¢ z m \ / ƒ \ q 2 \ � w / � § Q $ 3 \ � 2 .§ ¢ / § 2 � U / 2 / ? Q l \ � a d @ u / j to 7 � A � 0 2 � \ cl to \ { k @ t / z to _ � / ƒ } Cd � \ Q � \ / � � y / Q w � y ) _ � , / § / � m 9 LO Floodplain Analysis When the South wastewater treatment plant was constructed it was located outside of any mapped floodplain. During extreme storm events the plant has experienced some inundation in the lower lying areas of the plant site. A floodplain analysis was conducted as part of this project to evaluate the flooding risks at the South Plant. The floodplain analysis included field survey of existing conditions and hydraulic modeling of the two creeks located near the plant site, Unnamed Creek runs along the east side of the plant site and Snyder Creek is located further to the east of Unnamed Creek. Both of these creeks empty into the Iowa River downstream from the South Plant outfall. The hydraulic modeling shows that under flooding conditions, Snyder Creek and Unnamed Creek become hydraulically connected. This results in Snyder Creek contributing significant flow to Unnamed Creek, which then impacts the South Plant. In order to visualize the extent of the flooding at the South Plant inundation maps were generated for different flood events. Figure 5 -1 shows the extent of flood inundation for the 500 year event. Flood inundation maps for other frequency events are included in the Floodplain Analysis report. The Iowa City Floodplain Management Standards require flood protection to an elevation one foot above the 500 -year (0.2 percent annual risk) flood event. The plant components that fall below this elevation were identified and the required height of protection for each was determined. Flood mitigation will be provided to meet the city standards for both new and existing facilities as part of the facility upgrade. A summary of facilities that require additional protection and the proposed mitigation strategies for each are shown in Table 5 -4. A more detailed listing of facilities requiring flood mitigation can be found in the Floodplain Analysis Report. bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 5 -9 Stanley Consultants Table 5 -4 Flood Mitigation of Existing Facilities Facility Proposed Mitigation Mitigation Height Laboratory /Administration Building — Raise transformer and critical 0.85 — 0.96 ft Ground Floor and Transformer equipment inside building Sludge Processing Facility Ground Raise the transfonner pad and 0.70 — 0.75 ft Floor and Transformer critical equipment inside the building Maintenance/Vehicle Storage Raise the transformer pad and 1.30 — 1.32 ft Building Ground Floor and critical equipment inside the Transformer building Gas Metering Building Ground Floor Berm around the building 1.28 Site Electrical Entrance Equipment Raise electrical equipment pads 2.08 — 2.20 ft Chlorine Contact Chamber and SO2 Raise the chamber walls and 0.91— 1.06 ft Mixing Chamber provide tank ballast to prevent flotation New Digester Complex Transformer Raise the transfonner pad 1.24 ft Various Manholes on Site Install watertight, gasketed and N/A bolted manhole lids Source: Stanley Consultants and Brown and Caldwell bdr: mjh: ds1: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 5 -10 Stanley Consultants h v �a c Sow. J qp S SOCCER ACCESS RD BP` 50 Figure 5 -1 C o 150 300 Feet Flood Inundation Stanley onsultants i.c. ® ' ' ' Y South WWTP - 500 Year Event Section 6 Alternative Development and Evaluation Background This Section presents various process alternatives which have been developed to meet the design flows and loads as well as the effluent requirements presented in Sections 3 and 4. The report discusses each treatment process and makes recommendations to meet established criteria. In addition, repair and replacement items are included where needed to replace existing facilities as they near the end of their useful service life. Evaluation Criteria Each alternative has been evaluated on economic and non - economic criteria, and with regard to reliability /redundancy requirements. Economic evaluations were based on capital and present worth costs, though present worth was only utilized on an as needed basis. Non - economic criteria applied to alternatives are presented in Table 6 -1. While not all non - economic criteria apply significantly to each alternative, those that differentiate alternatives are noted. bdr: mjh: ds1: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 6 -1 Stanley Consultants Table 6 -1 Non - Economic Evaluation Criteria Criteria Description Constructability Given the current state of the plant, considers the ease by which an alternative can be constructed. Expandability Looks at the relative ease at which an alternative can be expanded for future growth. Operability Compares the relative ease of operations imposed on plant staff. Sustainability Considers whether an alternative can be sustained through the (with growth) planning period in relation to population dynamics and impacts on the flow into the plant. Energy Consumption Investigates the amount of energy, mainly fossil fuel derived, utilized or conserved by an alternative. Environmental Impacts Compares impacts on environment whether in the receiving stream, odors, air emissions, land practices, etc. Safety Considers alternative safety for plant staff and public. Public Acceptance Weighs impact on public and the perceived attitude from an alternative. Source: Stanley Consultants and Brown and Caldwell Also considered in each alternative evaluation were reliability and redundancy requirements for unit processes. Unless otherwise noted, the general guidelines for reliability and redundancy are outlined in Table 6 -2. The requirements were divided into two groups (e.g. Level 1 and Level 2). The first group was deemed more critical for protecting the plant and public safety, and therefore this group was assigned stricter requirements. bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 6 -2 Stanley Consultants Planning Period The facility planning horizon was agreed to be 30 years, as opposed to the more typical 20 year period. As such, the capital planning was divided into two phases. Phase 1 would include improvements to be constructed in the next few years that would provide capacity at the South Plant to the planning year 2025. Phase 2 would expand the plant to meet projected 2040 requirements. The following discussion delineates the scope of recommended improvements to various plant systems in regard to these two phases. Preliminary Treatment (Headworks) Headworks improvements are primarily driven by increased flow and renewal and replacement needs. The following sections describe alternatives and improvements recommended for each headworks area (i.e. screening, pumping, and grit removal). The general improvements include additional screens, replacing older influent pumps with higher capacity units, and additional grit removal tanks. The combination of the two wastewater treatment plants and anticipated growth in the service area will necessitate expansion of some headworks components in the first constriction phase. Location Alternatives Three layout alternatives were considered to accommodate process expansion and improvements. 1. Expanding the existing headworks facilities. 2. Reusing the existing preliminary treatment train and building a parallel train to the west of the existing facility that would increase capacity to meet design conditions. 3. Abandon existing preliminary treatment train and construct new facilities to west. bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 6 -3 Stanley Consultants Table 6 -2 Reliability and Redundancy Requirements Requirements Unit Processes Level 1 • hydraulically pass design flow with largest unit out of • influent pumping service • disinfection system • process or treat peak design condition with largest unit out of service Level 2 • hydraulically pass design flow with largest unit out of • grit removal service • primary treatment • process or treat peak design condition with all units in • aeration tanks service • final clarifiers • process or treat average design condition with largest • thickening unit out of service • digestion • dewatering Source: Stanley Consultants and Brown and Caldwell Planning Period The facility planning horizon was agreed to be 30 years, as opposed to the more typical 20 year period. As such, the capital planning was divided into two phases. Phase 1 would include improvements to be constructed in the next few years that would provide capacity at the South Plant to the planning year 2025. Phase 2 would expand the plant to meet projected 2040 requirements. The following discussion delineates the scope of recommended improvements to various plant systems in regard to these two phases. Preliminary Treatment (Headworks) Headworks improvements are primarily driven by increased flow and renewal and replacement needs. The following sections describe alternatives and improvements recommended for each headworks area (i.e. screening, pumping, and grit removal). The general improvements include additional screens, replacing older influent pumps with higher capacity units, and additional grit removal tanks. The combination of the two wastewater treatment plants and anticipated growth in the service area will necessitate expansion of some headworks components in the first constriction phase. Location Alternatives Three layout alternatives were considered to accommodate process expansion and improvements. 1. Expanding the existing headworks facilities. 2. Reusing the existing preliminary treatment train and building a parallel train to the west of the existing facility that would increase capacity to meet design conditions. 3. Abandon existing preliminary treatment train and construct new facilities to west. bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 6 -3 Stanley Consultants The first alternative is the least costly since it reuses the existing structures to the fullest extent possible. Screening expansion would be constructed adjacent to the existing facility. The influent pumps and piping improvements would occur within the existing facility with no expansion to the pump station structure. Additional grit removal tanks would be located immediately to the west of the existing system. Transitioning the flow from the existing grit removal system to the new system would be relatively simple, by comparison to the second alternative. Operation of the system would be similar to the current approach. This alternative does limit pump and piping configurations for maximum maintenance and energy efficiency. These setbacks are not foreseen as significant for the planning period. The second alternative reuses the existing facilities, but constructs a separate facility to the west in the currently vacant space north of the blower building. The second facility could either be equipped to handle the lower average daily flows with the existing equipment ready to start when higher floes occur, or vice versa. This alternative is conceptually about $1,000,000 more on a capital basis than the first alternative, but provides the opportunity to maximize layout in the new facility while reusing the existing equipment. As a greenfield installation, it would also minimize existing piping impacts while maximizing flexibility for future expansion. This alternative is operationally more complex and would require significant interconnecting piping to utilize the equalization basins. This alternative also utilizes space that could be used for a future process; industrial pretreatment for example. The third alternative constructs a completely new facility in the same space as the second, but abandons the existing facilities. The new facility would be sized to handle the full flow. Conceptual -level estimates indicate that the capital cost of this alternative is $3,000,000 more than the first alternative. This alternative would see the non - economic considerations listed for the second alternative, but would operationally be comparable to the existing system. After considering the capital costs and the benefits of continued use of the infrastructure already in place, the first alternative was selected as the recommended alternative. The specific improvements for each headworks area are covered in the following sections. Bar Screening The two existing mechanical bar screens are in relatively good condition and are rated at 30 MGD each. The plant is currently permitted to use both screens to handle peak flows without a redundant unit. This standard will be carried forward within this planning effort and as such, was not included in the reliability and redundancy criteria set forth in Table 6 -2. During Phase 2 a third screen will be required to meet the PHWW flow. The third screen will allow the system to meet the 2040 PHWW flow given the permitted redundancy requirements. It is also recommended that an additional channel be installed at the same time that will allow the addition of a future fourth screen. In the mean time, the additional channel will serve as a bypass and is recommended to have a coarse, manually raked bar screen installed to protect downstream equipment. Washing and compacting the screenings is recommended in order to improve screenings handling operations and reduce the screenings water content prior to landfilling. This would bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 6 -4 Stanley Consultants require a washer /compactor behind each screen and under the screen rake dumping point. Processed screenings would be transferred to a new room adjacent to the existing structure on the west side. The new room would house a roll -off dumpster. This improvement would reduce the handling required and improve personnel safety when compared to the existing practice of manually toting the collected screenings to the pad in the grit handling building. This recommendation would, however, likely require the re- location of the septage dumping station. Influent Pumping The influent pumping station houses six vertical non -clog centrifiigal pumps. Three lineshaft pumps are from the original installation in 1990 and three additional close coupled pumps were installed in the 2001 plant expansion. The three original pumps require significant maintenance compared to the newer pumps. As such, plant staff generally bias operating hours toward the newer pumps. Given the condition of the original pumps and the desire to eliminate the maintenance- intensive lineshafts, it is recommended that they be replaced in the Phase 1 expansion. Replacement pumps will be at or slightly higher than the current pump capacity to achieve the same firm and total pumping capacity. Replacement of the pumps installed in 2001 with larger pumps is anticipated in Phase 2 to increase pump station capacity to meet the 2040 PHWW flow. The replacement pumps will be configured with close coupled motors similar to the pumps installed in 2001. Additional unprovement consists of cutting additional access holes in the at grade floor slab to allow direct access to each pump /motor without the need for hoisting over adjacent pumps. An energy conserving recommendation is to re- orient the discharge to a lower level and add an automatic air vent and a vacuum system to evacuate air at the piping high point, saving approximately six feet of static head in the current arrangement. Additional piping changes will be considered to minimize vibration issues that are currently experienced. Flow Equalization The existing plant has two equalization basins to reduce the flow through the plant during peak flow periods. Hydraulic and economic analysis determined that adding approximately 10 million gallons of additional equalization capacity for a total of 16.5 million gallons would limit peak flow through the plant to 45 MGD under 2040 wet weather conditions and 30 MGD under 2025 wet weather conditions. At these flow rates, the economics of equalization basins were favorable compared to additional process units. It is recommended that the full complement of equalization be installed in the first phase of construction to limit plant flow to 30 MGD until after 2025. This minimizes capital improvements in Phase 1, and allows improvements to items such as aeration basins and clarifiers to be delayed until the second phase. Table 6 -3 summarizes the impact on flows that would result from the construction of additional equalization capacity. bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 6 -5 Stanley Consultants 2010 Table 6 -3 Flow Equalization (MGD) 2025 Unequalized Equalized I Unequalized Equalized 2040 Unequalized Equalized MWW 33.1 25.0 433 30.0 53.1 45.0 PHWW 44.9 25.0 61.5 30.0 81.0 45.0 Source: Stanley Consultants and Brown and Caldwell The screening and pumping facilities upstream of the equalization basins will be sized to handle the 2040 PHWW flow of 81 MGD. Downstream of the equalization basins, the facilities are designed to ultimately handle the 45 MGD equalized flow. Grit Removal Analysis The existing grit system of two 13 feet diameter vortex tanks will need to be expanded or replaced to meet the design condition plant flow of 45 MGD. Three new units are recommended in order to meet the 2040 design flow rate. Each tank would be 18 feet in diameter and rated for 15 MGD each. Two tanks are required in the first phase of construction and a third in the second. The existing system can be abandoned in the first phase. The current issue with fine grit bypassing the removal system and settling out in the downstream conduits will need to be investigated to determine if the vortex removal system proposed here can be designed to remove this fugitive fraction. It is quite possible that vortex grit removal systems are not capable of reliably removing this fine fraction. With the installation of the new tanks it is recommended that dry pit grit pumping be utilized. A below grade structure located near the grit tanks will house the pumping equipment. A pipe chase or tunnel will be constructed to the existing grit handling building to house piping and, if desired, can be constructed large enough for personnel access. The grit cyclone separators will likely not be of adequate size to meet the 2040 flow /grit load. The existing washers, however, appear to be of the type that can be retrofitted with an additional cyclone each in Phase 2. This would increase the capacity of the cyclone system and meet the projected Phase 2 conditions. The grit washers have adequate hydraulic capacity for the planning period. Capital improvements will also include relocating the grit MCC equipment to a space constructed alongside the existing grit handling building in the first phase of construction. This will eliminate corrosion from the aggressive atmosphere in the existing building. The layout of the system would be amenable to adding a fourth grit tank and pumping systems beyond the planning period considered herein. Liquid Stream Treatment Systems Primary Treatment Primary clarification removes particulate matter, scum, and floatables from the wastewater flows. Currently, degritted wastewater flows are routed to a weir splitter box to distribute bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 6 -6 Stanley Consultants flow equally to four 70 -foot diameter clarifiers. Each primary clarifier has a side water depth of 12 -feet. Historical primary clarifier surface overflow rates (SORB) are 400 gpd /ft2 with peak hour overflow rates of 1,650 gpd /ft2. Primary sludge is thickened in the primary clarifiers to roughly 2 to 3 percent total solids (TS) prior to pumping to the anaerobic digesters. Primary clarifier CBOD5 and TSS removal are currently not measured. Two rotary lobe positive displacement pumps pump primary sludge to the anaerobic digestion system. Scum is removed by the clarifier skimming mechanism and flows by gravity to collection manhole where it is then transferred by the primary sludge pumps to the anaerobic digestion system. It is recommended that a dedicated pumping system be provided for conveyance of both the primary and secondary clarifier scum streams to the digestion system. Three primary clarification alternatives were evaluated to address the increase in plant flows. Alternative 1 - Thicken Primary Sludge in Primary Clarifiers - IDNR Guidelines Alternative 1 uses Iowa Department of natural Resources (IDNR) criteria along with the projected design period flow rates to establish the primary clarification requirements. IDNR's current primary clarifier design standards recommend SORB of 1,000 gpd /ft2 at AWW and 1,500 gpd /ft2 at PHWW. With the equalization improvements the plant will be limited to a maximum flow rate of 45 MGD. Thus, the MWW and PHWW for unit processes downstream of grit, including primary treatment, will be the same 45 MGD value. Under these criteria, the South WWTP requires a total of eight 70 -foot diameter primary clarifiers at year 2040 projected flows. Alternative 2 - Thicken Primary Sludge in Primary Clarifiers - Other Guidelines IDNR recommended SORB are slightly more conservative than other primary clarifier design guidelines provided in Table 6 -4. This alternative uses design SORB of 1,000 gpd /ft2 at annual average flows with one unit out of service and 2,000 gpd /ft2 at peak flows with all units in service. These design guidelines are commonly used for facilities thickening primary solids in the primary clarifiers. bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 6 -7 Stanley Consultants Table 6 -4 Comparison of Primary Clarifier Design Guidelines Source Surface Overflow Rate, gpd /ft2 Annual Average Peak Hour 10 -State Standards 1,000 1,500 -2,000 EPA Process Design Manual 800 -1,200 2,000 -3,000 Metcalf and Eddy 800 -1,200 2,000 -3,000 Brown and Caldwell 1,000 -1,200 2,000 -3,500 Iowa DNR 1,000 (AWW) 1,500 Source: Stanley Consultants and Brown and Caldwell Under these criteria, a total of six 70 -foot diameter primary clarifiers (two additional) are required. Alternative 3 - Thicken Primary Sludge in Gravity Thickeners Alternative 3 separates the primary solids clarification and thickening steps into two separate processes. Under this alternative, settled solids are pumped "thin" at roughly 5,000 mg /1 to gravity thickeners for subsequent solids thickening. This configuration offers several advantages including: • Primary clarifier SORB can be increased from 1,000 to 1,200 gpd /ft2 at annual average with one unit out of service and from 2,000 to 2,500 gpd /ft2 at peak hour with all units in service since sludge is no longer stored in the primary clarifiers, • Primary clarifier solids washout and carryover to the secondary treatment process during high flows is minimized, and • Thickened primary sludge concentration can be increased from current operations of roughly 2.5 percent TS to 4.0 to 6.0 percent TS to increase digester hydraulic retention time (HRT) and reduce digester heating needs. Disadvantages of this alternative include an additional process unit to operate, additional pumping, and the potential need for gravity thickener odor control equipment. A total of five 70 feet diameter primary clarifiers are required for year 2040 projected flows under this alternative of providing gravity thickening of primary sludge. At a design solids loading rate of 25 lb /d -ft2, with all units in service, and a maxiinum day solids loading of 78,200 lb /d, two 45 -foot diameter gravity thickeners are required. Each gravity thickener will have a 12 -foot side water depth. Three 120 gpm variable speed positive displacement pumps will pump thickened sludge to the digester complex. One pump is dedicated to each gravity thickener with the third pump serving as a stand- by unit. A common scum box will be used for gravity thickener scum. Gravity thickener scum will be pumped to the digesters using a dedicated pump. Provisions will also be made for future gravity thickener odor control. The thickener complex would be located bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 6 -8 Stanley Consultants near the existing digestion complex to minimize any fugitive odor impacts on the nearby soccer complex and to minimize the distance the thickened sludge is pumped. Table 6 -5 compares the three primary treatment alternatives. Table 6 -5 Primary Clarifier Alternative Summary Item Units Year 2013 Year 2025 Year 2040 Flows Annual average MGD 12 15 18 Average Wet Weather Flow MGD 20' 26.21 321 MWW MGD 25 321 471 Estimated Removal TSS Percent 55 55 55 CBOD5 Percent 28 28 28 Alternative 1 — Thicken Primary Sludge in Primary Clarifiers - IDNR Guidelines Number of units -- 6 7 8 Diameter feet 70 70 70 Side water depth feet 12 12 12 SOR at AWWZ gpd /ft2 1,040 970 1,030 SOR at MWW gpd /ft2 1,390 1,190 1,530 Alternative 2 — Thicken Primary Sludge in Primary Clarifiers — Other Guidelines Number of units -- 4 5 6 Diameter feet 70 70 70 Side water depth feet 12 12 12 SOR at annual averagez gpd /ftZ 1,040 1,300 935 SOR at MWW gpd /ft2 1,950 1,950 2,035 Alternative 3 — Thicken Primary Sludge in Gravity Thickeners Number of units -- 4 4 5 Diameter feet 70 70 70 Side water depth feet 12 12 12 SOR at annual averagez gpd/ft2 1,040 1,300 1,170 SOR at MWW gpd /ftZ 1,950 1,950 2,445 bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 6 -9 Stanley Consultants Table 6 -5 Primary Clarifier Alternative Summary - Continued Item Units Year 2013 Year 2025 Year 2040 Gravity Thickeners Number of units -- 2 2 2 Diameter feet 45 45 45 Side water depth feet 12 12 12 SLR at average' lb /d -ft' 7 11 15 SLR at maximum month' lb /d -ft' 9 14 19 SLR at maximum day lb /d -ft' 12 18 25 Notes: SOR = surface overflow rate SLR = solids loading rate 1. Includes 2 MGD of recycle flow rates 2. One unit out of service Source: Stanley Consultants and Brown and Caldwell Alternative 3 is recommended for implementation to maximize liquid stream performance, maximize existing digester capacity, reduce sludge heating requirements, and investments in digester tankage. The gravity thickening will be installed in the first phase of construction and the fifth primary clarifier in the second. New Primary Influent Distribution Box A new primary influent distribution box will distribute flow to each primary clarifier. Construction is not needed until the installation of the fifth primary clarifier in the second phase of construction. One cut - throat flume is dedicated to each primary clarifier for flow distribution. Each flume also has a dedicated inlet gate to control flow if a primary clarifier is out of service. Secondary Treatment Basis of Evaluation The BioWin wastewater treatment plant simulator was used to evaluate existing facilities and to simulate and optimize future options for meeting effluent criteria. Secondary treatment design flows and loadings for 2040 were calculated by pro- rating a constructed 90 -day influent itinerary. This itinerary was based on historical conditions projected to 2040. Maximum day flow was limited to 45 MGD based upon adding influent flow equalization. Maximum month loading itineraries include the peak week and maximum day loadings. AWWF itineraries include the peak week and maximum day flow itineraries. Aeration Basins Figure 6 -1 presents a flow schematic of the recommended secondary treatment configuration. The 2040 aeration basin configuration consists of seven aeration basin trains. The aeration basins are designed for plug flow mode of operation and sized to maintain a mixed liquor bdr: mjh: ds1: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 6 -10 Stanley Consultants suspended solids (MLSS) of 3,000 mg /l at an aerobic solids retention time (SRT) of 10 days. The four existing aeration basin trains are expanded to the south to increase each basin capacity from 1.2 to 2.4 mgal to treat Phase 1 flows and loads. Three additional 2.4 mgal basins would be added in Phase 2. An additional three 2.4 mgal tanks are required in the second phase. The aeration basin layout has 18 percent of the basin volume configured as a selector. Each selector zone consists of 3 compartments in series; each selector compartment has a volume of 0.15 mgal for a total of 0.45 mgal per train. This configuration uses 3 of the 4 existing aeration basin selectors. fief -'- T IZ.—I Z.-2 Z.-3 Z-4 Zeee5 Zsee6 Z.-7 Zeee8 Ezt1 E #2 EA3 PST E� I aor ��+-' Grav The FeCH L:FeCB Thermo Mess _ gg 86f87 SST High Strength EQ Aeration System Flow Sheet Figure 6 -1 The selector can be operated as an anoxic or anaerobic selector. When operating as an anoxic selector, an internal mixed liquor recycle (IMLR) of 20 MGD is provided to return nitrified effluent high in nitrate from the last aeration basin cell to the anoxic selector. This process configuration is known as the Modified Ludzack - Ettinger (MLE) process. When operating as an anaerobic selector, the internal mixed liquor recycle is not operated. A selector is provided to assist in improving sludge quality by reducing filamentous organisms which have historically resulted in a 90th percentile SVI of 200 ml/g. Based upon detailed sampling and BioWin simulations of the plant operating in a plug flow mode of operation with and without an anaerobic selector, it was inconclusive whether the composition of the wastewater would facilitate enhanced biological phosphorus removal (EBPR). Hence, the current layout is based upon an NILE configuration anoxic selector and ferric chloride addition to the end of the aeration basin trains for phosphorus removal if required. It is recommended that the City continue evaluating EBPR using the anaerobic selector configuration to minimize chemical use. Operations at other facilities have shown the sludge settleability, as measured by SVI, is better with systems having anaerobic selectors. Secondary Clarifiers The existing secondary clarifier capacity must be increased to accommodate the increased flow and solids. Clarifier stress testing and computational fluid dynamics modeling of the secondary clarifiers were used to determine the number of additional secondary clarifiers required for future conditions. Secondary clarifier sizing is based upon reducing the 90th percentile SVI from 200 to 150 ml /g by implementing the following measures: use of an anoxic or anaerobic selector, use of a surface film classifying selector to control filamentous bdr: mjh: ds1: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 6 -11 Stanley Consultants organism accumulation, and use of cationic polymers when needed. Based upon an SVI of 150 ml /g and peak solids loading rate of 41 lb -d /ft2, three new 113 -foot diameter secondary clarifiers with 16 foot side water depths are required. Two clarifiers are required in Phase 1 and one additional clarifier in Phase 2. New clarifiers will be center fed with energy dissipation inlets, flocculating centerwells, peripheral weirs and dual suction sludge removal. Peripheral weirs are recommended as CFD modeling of existing and new secondary clarifiers showed no improvements if in -board launders set away from the wall are used. New clarifiers will have capacity to pump 7.5 MGD of return sludge back to the aeration basins. To achieve this high flow rate and still provide flexibility to achieve lower RAS pumping rates during nonnal operations, two RAS pumps per clarifier will be provided. One pump will operate at nonnal flows and both pumps at high flows. Secondary scum will be removed via surface skimming mechanisms and drained to a collection manhole where it will be pumped to the digestion system via the primary sludge pumps. This approach is similar to the existing installation. Aeration System A peak hour airflow rate of 44,000 standard cubic feet per minute (scfin) is required for year 2040 maximum day conditions. The five existing multi -stage blowers have a total capacity of 31,250 scfin, and a firm capacity of 25,000 scfin. Three additional 6,250 scfin blowers, equivalent in size to the existing units, are required to meet the Year 2040 conditions aeration demand with redundancy. The number, sizes, and types of blowers will need to take into consideration low air demand periods at night or during period immediately following expansion when initial demand is lower than design. The blower arrangement will be refined in the preliminary engineering phase of the project. The new blowers can be located in an expansion to the existing blower building. Aeration piping to the new aeration tank bank is required and can be connected to the existing process air header in the blower building. To control the airflow in the aeration basins, multiple main aeration headers will be provided. Each aeration basin will be divided into multiplier aeration zones to allow optimization of providing air supply to demand. Airflow to each aeration zone is controlled by a modulating control valve and flow meter off the main aeration header(s). New MLSS Distribution Box A new MLSS distribution box will distribute flow to each secondary clarifier and will be needed in the first phase of construction. One cut - throat flume is dedicated to each secondary clarifier for flow distribution. Each flume also has a dedicated inlet gate to control flow if a secondary clarifier is out of service. Classifying Selector In addition to operating an anoxic or anaerobic selector to improve sludge quality (lower SVI), a surface film classifying selector is recommended to continuously remove filamentous organisms from the main liquid stream process. A classifying selector uses the principal that filamentous organisms are hydrophobic and accumulate on the liquid surface. With continuous surface wasting of mixed liquor or RAS, filamentous organisms are wasted from bdr: mjh: ds1: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 6 -12 Stanley Consultants the system at a higher rate than the average biomass minimizing their accumulation. Continuous wasting /pumping from the classifying selector is critical to control the filamentous organism's growth even when foam accumulation is not present. The classifying selector consists of a channel baffle which directs liquid and foam to a weir gate. The weir gate is used to direct flow into a sump where the contents are pumped for processing. Classifying selectors can be located on mixed liquor channels to the secondary clarifiers or RAS channels. If the classifying selector is located on a RAS channel, 30 - minutes of aeration at average flows should be provided upstream of the selector location. The advantage of locating the classifying selector on the RAS channel is all wasting can be completed from one location. If the classifying selector is located on a mixed liquor channel, continuous solids wasting will occur from the classifying selector plus wasting of solids from the RAS line. This waste stream can be pumped to either the rotary drum thickeners or straight to digestion. The classifying selector is recommended for installation in the first phase. Ferric Chloride Ferric chloride (FeC13) can be added to the end of the aeration basins if necessary to meet possible future pen-nit requirements for phosphorus control. The future ferric chloride system would consist of two 10,000 gallon bulk liquid storage tanks and two 60 gpm adjustable speed positive displacement metering pumps. Metering pumps would be flow paced with influent flow. Year 2040 projected chemical usage is roughly 600 and 1,000 gpd of 35 percent FeC13 solution during average and maximum month conditions. Table 6 -6 summarizes the secondary treatment system design data for the aeration basins, secondary clarifiers, and blowers. Item Table 6 -6 Secondary Treatment Design Data Year Units 2025 (Phase 1) 2040 (Phase 2) Aeration Basins Number -- 5 7 Total volume mgal 12.0 16.8 Volume, each mgal /tank 2.4 2.4 Selector volume percent 18 18 Aerobic SRT days 10 10 MLSS - Average mg /1 3,000 3,000 bdr: mjh: ds1: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 6 -13 Stanley Consultants Table 6 -6 Secondary Treatment Design Data - Continued Item Units Year 2025 (Phase 1) 2040 (Phase 2) Diffusers -- 9" fine pore membrane 9" fine pore membrane Dissolved Oxygen mg /l 2.0 2.0 Secondary Clarifiers Number -- 6 7 Existing -- 4 4 New -- 2 3 Diameter, existing feet 80 80 Diameter, new feet 113 113 Sludge volume index ml/g 150 150 RAS capacity, MGD 30 37.5 Existing /clarifier MGD 3.75 3.75 New /clarifier MGD 7.5 7.5 Peak solids loading rate lb /d /ft2 41 41 Peale overflow rate gpd /ft' 1,000 1,000 Aeration Blowers Type -- Multi -Stage Multi -Stage Number Existing New -- 2 1 Capacity, each, existing sfcm 6,250 6,250 Capacity, each, new scfm 6,250 6,250 Source: Stanley Consultants and Brown and Caldwell Disinfection Technologies Commonlv used disinfection technologies include sodiurn hypochlorite (both purchased and on- site generation), chlorine gas, ozone, and ultraviolet light (UV). An ideal wastewater disinfection bdr: mjh: ds1: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 6 -14 Stanley Consultants technology is one that kills all potential pathogens in the wastewater, adds no toxic compounds to the receiving stream, is safe, easy, and inexpensive to use, meets current and upcoming regulations, and has enough installations to evaluate its effectiveness. Chlorine gas poses a risk to the health and safety of WWTP personnel and the surrounding community. Because of this danger, larger wastewater facilities are required to maintain risk management plans that address chlorine use and storage. Chlorine reacts with organic material in the environment to form disinfection by products (DBPs) that have potentially adverse impacts to human health. The key DBPs of concern are trihalomethanes (THMs), such as chloroform and haloacetic acids (HAAS). Due to the safety issues and the potential for formation of DBPs, the city desires to discontinue the use of chlorine gas for disinfection. The alternatives considered for implementation include on -site generated sodium hypochlorite, liquid sodium hypochlorite, ozone, and ultraviolet light. On -Site Generated Sodium Hypochlorite Sodium hypochlorite is generated on -site by using salt and an on -site hypochlorite generator. The hypochlorite dosing system consists of metering pumps and injection lines. After being injected, the wastewater travels through the contact basin for a certain length of time to allow the chemicals time to inactivate the bacteria and viruses present in the wastewater effluent. Sodium hydroxide will be used for the dechlorination process where any residual hypochlorite is destroyed to prevent impact on aquatic life in the river. Two new contact basins would be required to allow a minimum detention time of 30 minutes. Major equipment includes two hypochlorite storage tanks, one salt saturator tank, two electrolytic cell assemblies, two transformer rectifiers, and one hypochlorite dosing assembly. Salt is the only item that needs to be supplied on a regular basis. Estimated usage is 1,200 pounds of salt every day. Liquid Sodium Hypochlorite A basic liquid chlorination system includes solution tanks, metering pumps, a diffuser (to inject the solution into the water), and tubing. Liquid sodium hypochlorite systems and on- site generated sodium hypochlorite systems are basically the same systems except that in the liquid system the product is delivered in liquid form by tanker trucks. The main equipment required for a liquid hypochlorite system would include three 5,000 gallon storage tanks, two 550 gallon storage tanks for liquid sodium bisulfate, and three metering pumps The sodium hypochlorite would be delivered approximately every two to three weeks. The sodium bisulfate would be delivered every 45 days. Ozone Ozone is produced when oxygen molecules are dissociated by an energy source into oxygen atoms and subsequently collide with an oxygen molecule to form an unstable gas, ozone, which is used to disinfect wastewater. The components of an ozone system include feed -gas bdr: mjh: ds1: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 6 -15 Stanley Consultants preparation, ozone generation, ozone contacting, and ozone destruction. Liquid oxygen is used as the feed -gas source and is passed to the ozone generator at a set flow rate. Ozone is generated on -site because it is unstable and decomposes to elemental oxygen in a short amount of time after generation. For this reason, ozone must be contacted uniformly in a rear plug flow contactor. A down -flow contact chamber containing the wastewater to be disinfected will be used to transfer ozone from the gas bubble into the bulk liquid. The off -gases from the contact chamber must be treated to destroy any remaining ozone before release into the atmosphere. UV Ultraviolet (UV) light disinfection is a physical process that transfers electromagnetic energy from a mercury arc lamp to an organism's genetic material resulting in destroying the organism or preventing it from reproducing. The lamps are installed in a submerged channel. As water flows past the lamps, the organisms are exposed to the UV light emitted from the lamps. Part of the existing chlorine contact tanks can be modified to install the UV lamps. A bypass channel will be provided to divert the flow from the UV system if required for maintenance or during the months when disinfection is not required. The number of UV lamps will be based on site specific testing during the design phase. Preliminary analysis has been based on a UV transmittance of 65 percent support by plant sampling and testing, and a dose of 30,000 MWs /cm2. The UV system design will be based on two channels with two banks of UV lamps per channel. The entire system will have the capability of disinfecting the peak flow of 45 MGD. An automatic cleaning system will be used along with a flow pacing technology for optimization of power usage. Automatic level control will be achieved by the use of a gate. Cost Analysis Project and operation and maintenance (O &M) cost estimates have been estimated based on vendor supplied information and engineering experience. Annual O &M costs are based on an eight month disinfection season each year. Table 6 -7 summarizes project cost opinions for implementation of each alternative. Table 6 -7 Cost Estimate of Disinfection Alternatives Alternative Project Cost No. Description Opinion 1 On -Site Generated Sodium Hypochlorite $4,530,500 2 Liquid Sodium Hypochlorite $3,086,300 3 Ozone $13,289,800 4 UV $2,595,400 Source: Stanley Consultants and BroA-,-n and Caldwell bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 6 -16 Stanley Consultants Table 6 -8 presents the O &M cost opinions for each of the disinfection alternatives. Table 6 -8 O &M Cost of Disinfection Alternatives Alternative O &M Cost No. Description Opinion 1 On -Site Generated Sodium Hypochlorite $51,800 2 Liquid Sodium Hypochlorite $184,800 3 Ozone $265,300 4 UV $53,700 Source: Stanley Consultants and Brown and Caldwell Table 6 -9 presents for the present worth cost analysis of the disinfection alternatives. Table 6 -9 Present Worth Cost of Disinfection Alternatives Alternative 20 -Year No. Description Present Worth 1 On -Site Generated Sodium Hypochlorite $5,211,700 2 Liquid Sodium Hypochlorite $5,516,400 3 Ozone $16,778,500 4 UV $3,301,600 Source: Stanley Consultants and Brown and Caldwell Based on economics, the UV disinfection alternative is the recommended disinfection method. Since UV disinfection does not use chlorine, a chlorination system for effluent water and RAS systems will be provided. RAS chlorination is needed to control periodic filamentous organism outbreaks. Evaluation and selection of the appropriate chlorination system will be part of the preliminary engineering process. Solids The solids handling processes were evaluated to identify expansions and modifications needed to provide reliable solids stabilization under increasing solids loading conditions. In particular, the secondary treatment process is expected to experience a significant increase in solids loading as a result of eliminating trickling filter treatment at the North Plant and treating all flow by activated sludge at the South Plant. The general improvements to meet the future solids loading are described in the following sections. Solids Production Primary and secondary solids volumes were estimated for the planning period based upon historical records and BioWin process modeling. Table 6 -10 summarizes the solids loadings for the planning period. bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 6 -17 Stanley Consultants The significant increase in solids production from 2010 to 2025 is primarily a result of growth and increased solids yield from expanded activated sludge eliminating low yield trickling filters at the North Plant. Process changes from the existing operation will also account for part of the increase. bdr: mjh: ds1: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 6 -18 Stanley Consultants C O U O S. •O O O O O � O O N N � O A � O � N � O � O O p O � N N O O � O O � N � � O i ✓? O o0 � N � O p O O N N O O O 7t � N O L7 O � O � O � N N O O O O � O O � O O � N M N O A p � O � O � O � � U � C bJJ � � U O � � a U bJ1 U U U O I �2 U C U U U S. U bJ1 W Mom ��m Mom Mom mom M � t c co U) c 0 U a� c co m (0 c LL c (0 a_ N LL v 0 0 6 0 00 N N m LL U O L O O O O \O M M M O O N N N N O O O O N O O � O O O O O rn � O O N • � O O 7t -Y- � N a � � c co U) c 0 U a� c co m (0 c LL c (0 a_ N LL v 0 0 6 0 00 N N m LL U O L Primary Sludge Thickening Gravity thickening of primary sludge has been recommended in order to facilitate primary clarification and reduce the water load to the digestion system. As discussed in the liquids section, two 45 -foot diameter gravity thickening units would be installed along with a common pumping complex in the first phase of construction. Thickening the primary sludge increases the capacity of the existing digestion complex by increasing the solids retention time from 11 days to 16 days in 2040 at maximum loads, and reduces the amount of energy required to heat the sludge by decreasing the amount of water flow. Currently, the primary sludge concentration varies throughout the day, but the average concentration is 2.5 percent total solids (TS). Gravity thickening will increase the primary sludge concentration to 4 -6 percent TS, reducing the current total raw sludge flow to the digesters by approximately 50 percent. The volume pumped and heating savings realized are listed in Table 6 -11, using the last 3.5 years as an example and assuming 5 percent TS. Under these conditions, the reduction in primary sludge pumping and heating requirements is 51 percent on average. In addition, the size of any future cooling system for use in digester supernating will be reduced. Table 6 -11 Primary Sludge Thickening Volume and Heat Savings Source: Stanley Consultants and Brown and Caldwell Waste Activated Sludge Thickening Following the decommissioning of the North Plant, the BOD load from the North plant will be transferred to the South Plant. The secondary sludge flow rate will increase dramatically following this transfer, stressing the capacity of the two existing WAS thickening rotating drum thickeners (RDTs). Currently, one RDT unit is normally operated 12 -14 hours a day. As the WAS flow rates increase and the secondary treatment system is optimized for nutrient removal, the RDT system will shift to a 24 -hour operation. The existing RDT units are operating well, achieving a consistent 5 percent TS thickened sludge. Additional capacity to meet the projected future conditions can be met by expanding the RDT system. The RDT design will be sized to meet the maximum day solids loading rate. The bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 6 -20 Stanley Consultants 2.5% Solids (Current) 5% Solids Operational Savings Heat Heat Heat Year Flow (gpd) (Btu /hr) Flow (gpd) (Btu /hr) Flow (gpd) (Btu /hr) 2007 27,470 325,300 13,380 158,500 14,090 166,800 2008 32,260 417,600 17,180 203,400 15,080 214,200 2009 31,680 375,100 15,460 182,800 16,220 192,300 2010 (Jan -Jul) 35,300 418,100 17,200 203,700 18,100 214,400 Source: Stanley Consultants and Brown and Caldwell Waste Activated Sludge Thickening Following the decommissioning of the North Plant, the BOD load from the North plant will be transferred to the South Plant. The secondary sludge flow rate will increase dramatically following this transfer, stressing the capacity of the two existing WAS thickening rotating drum thickeners (RDTs). Currently, one RDT unit is normally operated 12 -14 hours a day. As the WAS flow rates increase and the secondary treatment system is optimized for nutrient removal, the RDT system will shift to a 24 -hour operation. The existing RDT units are operating well, achieving a consistent 5 percent TS thickened sludge. Additional capacity to meet the projected future conditions can be met by expanding the RDT system. The RDT design will be sized to meet the maximum day solids loading rate. The bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 6 -20 Stanley Consultants reasoning is twofold. First, maintaining the solids inventory in the secondary treatment system by wasting is operationally desirable to optimize TSS, BOD, and nutrient removal. Secondly, there is no storage upstream of the RDT system, hence WAS storage is needed to prevent using the aeration basins as storage tanks and /or to limit the capital investment for WAS storage. Plant staff is comfortable with this approach if the filtrate routing is modified as discussed later in the high strength section. As such, the RDT system will be expanded as needed to handle the maximum day WAS load while operating 24/7. Each existing RDT unit is rated for 350 gpm by the manufacturer at 0.7 percent TS or 29,424 lb /d. However, operating experience indicates that the actual capacity of the unit is 280 gpm which translates to 23,5391b/d at 0.7 percent TS. RDT design criteria is based upon processing the maximum day solids loading with one unit out of service. This redundancy criterion is preferred by plant staff. Table 6 -12 lists RDT design criteria and the numbers of RDT units required. Table 6 -12 RDT Design Criteria Item Units 2013 Design Year 2025 2040 Waste Activated Sludge Average lb /d 9,700 18,500 25,900 Maximum month lb /d 14,500 25,150 35,800 Maximum day lb /d 29,100 55,500 77,700 TSS mg /l 7,000 7,000 7,000 Average gpm 115 220 308 Maximum month gpm 172 299 426 Maximum day gpm 346 660 924 Rotating Drum Thickeners Existing capacity gpm /unit 280 280 280 lb /d /unit at 0.7% TS 23,539 23,539 23,539 Total units required -- 3 4 5 Existing RDTs -- 2 2 2 New RDTs -- 1 2 3 Source: Stanley Consultants and Brown and Caldwell Three additional RDT units of the same size are required to meet 2040 design loadings with two RDTs installed in the first phase and a third in the second phase. More detailed analysis bdr: mjh: ds1: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 6 -21 Stanley Consultants during preliminary design will evaluate the possibility of installing larger units to better optimize the system with fewer units installed. Digestion Currently the plant combines primary sludge and WAS from the primary and secondary clarifiers, respectively, with sludge pumped from the North Plant. The combined sludge stream is anaerobically digested at the South Plant. The South Plant produces biosolids equivalent to Class 1. Class 1 biosolids meet Iowa land application regulations (IAC CHAPTER 67, Standards for the Land Application of Sewage Sludge). Class I sludge is sewage sludge that has excellent quality (low pollutant concentrations) and has been treated in a process equivalent to processes to further reduce pathogens (PFRP). Iowa City currently meets the PRFP requirement by routine testing for viable helminth ova. The land application regulations also require treatment to achieve Vector Attraction Reduction (VAR). Iowa City currently meets the VAR requirement since its average volatile solids reduction rate of 50 percent exceeds the required minimum VSS destruction requirement of 38 percent. The anaerobic digesters are designed as a temperature phased anaerobic digestion (TPAD) system. The digesters are operated in a three -stage series: • Stage 1: One 520,000 gallon (55 -feet diameter) thermophilic anaerobic digester • Stage 2: One 520,000 gallon (55 -feet) mesophilic and two 340,000 gallon (45 -feet) mesophilic anaerobic digesters • Stage 3: Two 340,000 gallon (45 -feet) mesophilic digesters The large mesophilic digester was constructed to be easily converted to thennophilic operation. There is also one additional small digester which is currently used as an anaerobic sludge storage tank. This sludge storage tank was constructed to allow for future conversion to a mesophilic digester. In order to continue to achieve high rates of VSS destruction, the digestion process is designed for a typical 20 -day total hydraulic retention time (HRT), with a 5 -day HRT in the thennophilic digester and a 15 -day HRT in the mesophilic digesters, all at maximum month loading conditions. The analysis also considers a maintenance scenario, with one 55 -foot diameter digester off -line and wherein the total HRT must remain at or above 15 -days at the annual average loading. The active digester volume is assumed to be 90 percent of the total liquid volume to account for grit accumulation, settled sludge and debris, and scum accumulation. Organic loading rates for thermophilic systems are less established than HRT standards. Experience at other TPAD facilities indicate that an acceptable range of thennophilic organic loading rates falls between 350 and 450 lb volatile solids per 1000 ft' per day, depending on the relative degradability of the sludge. The digester capacity analysis also considered the installation of the primary sludge gravity thickening process described earlier. Table 6 -13 illustrates the advantage to the digestion process of electing to install the gravity thickening process. In 2040, adding the gravity bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 6 -22 Stanley Consultants thickening process to the primary sludge stream provides an additional 5 days of HRT in the existing digester tankage, eliminating the need for 3 additional smaller mesophilic digesters. Table 6 -13 Primary Sludge Thickening Affect on Existing Digestion Capacity 3.4% Solids (Current) 5.0% Solids 2010 Max Month 2040 Max Month 2010 Max Month 2040 Max Month Solids, lb /d 25,900 56,200 25,900 56,200 Flow Rate, gal /d 90,500 196,500 62,100 134,800 HRT, days 24 11 35 16 Source: Stanley Consultants and Brown and Caldwell The forecasted HRT and organic loading rates of the existing system are listed in Table 6 -14. The data in Table 6 -14 assumes that gravity thickening is installed and operating by 2012. Table 6 -14 Existing Digestion Capacity — Maximum Month Loading Conditions Maximum Month Thermophilic Thermophilic Loading Total HRT HRT VSS Loading lb /d days days lb /ft3 /d 2012 24,500 36.8 7.9 0.27 2025 40,400 22.3 4.8 0.45 2040 56,200 16.1 3.5 0.63 Source: Stanley Consultants and Brown and Caldwell The thermophilic stage HRT falls below 5 days by 2025 and the overall digestion system is short of capacity by 2040. Given that the large mesophilic digester was constructed with future conversion to thennophilic operation in mind, that conversion is warranted before 2025. This conversion yields a thermophilic HRT of 6.9 days in 2040 at maximum month loadings. Increasing the thermophilic volume has the additional advantage of reducing the organic loading rate, since the forecast loading of 450 lb per 1,000 ft' per day is near the high end of the desirable range. Lowering the organic loading rate to the thermophilic digester keeps the system from coming unbalanced as the digestion process is sequential in nature. The loading is controlled in order to keep the weakest bacterial community operating within a safe range, typically the methanogens. Other plants have noted an increase in biogas production as a result of increasing their thermophilic residence time. The thennophilic conversion does not address the total HRT shortfall in 2040. To increase the total HRT above 20 days in 2040 requires the addition of two additional small mesophilic digesters in Phase 2, as illustrated in Table 6 -15. Even with the conversion of the large mesophilic digester to thennophilic operation the HRT during annual average conditions, assuming one thennophilic digester is out of service, falls bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 6 -23 Stanley Consultants below the prescribed 5 days. Since this scenario will be rare it is recommended that one of the new mesophilic digesters be constructed in a way such that it can act as a swing unit and be switched to thermophilic operation readily. This will also provided added redundancy for the thennophilic stage. Table 6 -15 Digestion Capacity with Thermophilic Conversion and Two Additional Mesophilic Digesters Thermophilic Thermophilic Solids Loading Total HRT HRTZ VSS Loading2 lb /d days days lb /1,000 ft3 /d Maximum Month — 2012 24,500 47.3 15.9 140 Maximum Month — 2025 40,400 28.7 9.6 2300 Maximum Month — 2040 56,200 20.6 6.9 320 Average Day — 20121 18,800 51.3 10.3 210 Average Day — 20251 30,500 31.6 6.4 340 Average Day — 20401 42,100 22.9 4.6 470 'One thennophilic digester off -line. 2Two thermophilic digesters in service Source: Stanlev Consultants and Brown and Caldwell Further consideration will be given to size of the heat exchanger systems for sludge heating and gas piping for biogas removal in the design. Converting the existing sludge storage tank into a mesophilic digester and constructing a new, more economical, storage will be considered during the final design process as well. At maximum month 2040 loads and assuming 3 days of storage the tank will need to be approximately 505,000 gallons, or similar to the larger digesters. Overall, the recommended plan is to convert the large mesophilic digester to operate under thermophilic conditions now and the equivalent of two additional small mesophilic digesters in 2025. An operational change to the digestion process that has been shown to reduce plant dewatering costs is settling the digested sludge and then decanting the supernatant. The plant has run a trial of cooling digested sludge in the older mesophilic digesters until it can be separated from a supernatant. By reducing the liquid sent to the belt filter presses, there is less polymer demand and less belt filter press run -time. The results of the trial reduced aspects of sludge pressing by more than half: • Quantity of dilute sludge sent to the belt filter presses was reduced by 65 percent, • Run -time of the presses was reduced by 54 percent, and • Amount of polymer required was reduced by 50 percent. bdr: mjh: ds1: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 6 -24 Stanley Consultants Developing a supernatant in the mesophilic digesters requires cooling the digested sludge from 95 degrees Fahrenheit to about 86 degrees Fahrenheit. During the trial it took 3 days to cool the digested sludge within one of the third -stage digesters during summer ambient conditions. Modifications to the existing digesters or construction of a new tank digester designed for cooling would reduce this time and make it more operationally viable. In addition, automated valves and instrumentation are recommended to reduce the time required to operate the supernatant system. While decanting the supernatant of digested sludge was not specifically reflected in the capital plan, it will be further investigated during design. Sludge Mixing The original two (ca. 1990) digesters (T8601 and T8701) are operated for digestion as a polishing third stage. The same era sludge storage tank (T8801) is used for storing digested sludge prior to dewatering. Within these vessels it is desirable to maintain a homogenous mixture and keep the solids in suspension. The existing gas mixing system for the digesters and mechanical mixing for the storage tank have been problematic for plant staff to maintain and are being considered for replacement as part of the phase 1 plant improvements. Four alternatives were analyzed for replacing the existing mixing systems. The first three provide adequate mixing for digestion processes and homogenizing the sludge in the storage tank as required for optimal performance across the belt filter presses. The fourth alternative was considered to be adequate for low rate digestion. 1. Pumped mixing with in -tank jet mixing nozzles 2. Draft tube mixers, similar to existing mixers in newer digesters �. Linear motion mixers, also known as vortex ring mixers 4. Simple pumped recirculation without jet mixing nozzles Table 6 -16 summarizes the project costs to implement each alternative. Table 6 -16 Project Costs for Sludge Mixing Alternatives Digester (T8601 and T8701) Sludge Storage Tank (T8801) Alternative Project Costs' Project Costs' Pumped Mixing $700,000 $400,000 External Draft Tubes Mixers $1,800,000 $800,000 Linear Motion Mixersz $1,000,000 $500,000 Simple Pumped Recirculation $200,000 $100,000 'Project costs includes construction cost plus an allowance for legal, administrative, and engineering 2Assumes no structural modifications to the existing floating or fixed covers required Source: Stanlev Consultants and Brown and Caldwell bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 6 -25 Stanley Consultants Based on economics, the external draft tube mixer alternative will not be considered. Furthermore, the storage tank requires intense mixing to provide a homogenous feed to dewatering, thus the fourth alternative, simple pumped recirculation, will not be considered further. The recommended alternative is either pumped jet mixing or linear motion mixing. The higher listed cost for the linear motion system may be justified since it removes obstacles from the tank floor which impede maintenance and collect debris. The final recommendation for mixing improvements will be determined during preliminary engineering. High Strength Equalization Filtrate from the belt filter press process that dewaters digested sludge is high in nutrient concentration and must be sent back through the secondary treatment process for treatment. This high strength waste must be metered back into the treatment stream on a 24/7 basis to prevent high effluent ammonia discharges. Currently, belt filter press filtrate is combined with RDT filtrate, digester supernatant, and sanitary drains from various facilities. The existing high strength waste equalization tank is currently at capacity when used to equalize all plant solids stream recycles. Two improvements are proposed to provide sufficient high strength equalization. The first improvement is to construct a new solids stream recycle pipeline to route low- strength recycle streams (RDT filtrate, building drains, etc.) directly to the head of the plant or aeration basins. This improvement frees up the entire capacity of the equalization tank for the high- strength belt filter press and digester supernatant. The new low- strength recycle line will run approximately 1,100 feet from the sludge processing facility to the high strength pumping station where it will re- connect with the presently abandoned line draining to the influent junction structure, or may be pumped to the aeration basins. Even with the streams segregated the storage tank will be short of capacity by an estimated 50,400 gallons by 2025 and another 143,200 gallons by 2040. The existing tank is of bolted steel construction with three main rings stacked to yield the current height. Each ring is 4 feet in height. Adding a fourth ring to the top would provide approximately 90,400 gallons of additional storage, which would be sufficient for the projected 2025 flows. A total of three additional rings would be required to provide the projected storage needs for 2040 operating conditions. The tank was designed to accommodate future expansion, but the maximum expansion capacity will need to be verified during design. If 3 additional rings are not possible, then another tank would need to be constructed as part of phase 2 improvements. Another way to limit the amount of flow to the high strength equalization system would be to recycle the filtrate from the gravity portion of the belt filter press and use as wash water instead of plant effluent. By 2040 this would reduce the volume of high strength waste by over half. If this were to be implemented no additional storage is required. The filtrate would, however, require filtering prior to use as wash water. This approach will be considered during design to limit the expansion of the equalization tank. The high strength system improvements will be constructed in the first phase. bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 6 -26 Stanley Consultants Belt Filter Presses The belt filter presses are currently operated about 7 hours per day for 3 days per week. All three units are operated simultaneously. The future (2040) projected solids load would require additional units, or operating the existing units for 18 hours per day and 5 days per week. This facility plan recommends that in the near term the belt filter press operating hours be increased to accommodate future solids loading increases. Since the existing units are nearing the end of their useful life replacement will eventually be required by equipment renewal considerations. Continued use of belt filter presses is anticipated for future equipment renewal since plant staff like the perfonnance and operability of the existing belt filter units. Biosolids Cake Storage and Drying Dewatered biosolids, post anaerobic digestion, are currently stored uncovered on a 225 feet square asphalt paved pad surrounded by a 3 foot high concrete wall that is located immediately to the north of the solids processing building. The biosolids produced from digestion are land applied during the spring and fall. The storage pad is used to stockpile biosolids between land application seasons. Under adverse weather conditions the land application season may be short, requiring additional biosolids storage. The existing pad can store about 230 days worth of biosolids under current dewatered biosolids conditions. The main issue with the pad is that it is uncovered which allows precipitation to re -wet the dewatered biosolids. Aside from the added hauling costs and handling difficulties associated with wetting the biosolids, the piping draining the pad can become clogged if the pad is not cleared every year in March prior to spring rainfall. As such, handling alternatives were investigated to mitigate these issues. Average day biosolids cake production was used for sizing facilities for comparison. The two basic alternatives for handling dewatered biosolids are storage and drying. The storage alternative compares various types of cake storage structures. These alternatives are weighed against a biosolids drying system which would utilize smaller pellet silos, eliminating the need for a large cake storage structure. Solar and conventional thermal drying were both considered. Cake Storage The amount of space needed for storage will depend on the storage period. Currently, the plant has enough storage to handle approximately 230 days of dewatered biosolids at current biosolids production rates. By comparison, the Des Moines storage facility is also designed to handle one year's volume while the Waterloo facility is designed for 220 days of storage. The Iowa DNR Wastewater Construction Standards (Chapter 17 — Sludge Handling and Disposal) do not directly set a capacity for dewatered biosolids storage, although standards for similar sludge processes recommend considering periods of inclement weather and equipment outages. The 10 States Standards also has a similar recommended approach for sizing the storage volume, but goes on to recommend a minimum of 120 to 180 days. To be bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 6 -27 Stanley Consultants relatively consistent with the current plant approach and other municipalities, this analysis will consider 270 days of storage. The two storage alternatives described herein are a conventional concrete /steel framed building with open sides or plastic or vinyl fabric covered "high tunnels" similar to those used in the agricultural industry and public works storage facilities. Cake Storage Building The recommended building for storing dewatered biosolids would consist of a concrete slab with 10 feet high exterior concrete walls, and corresponding 10 feet solids storage depth. The roof would be supported by columns and would be erected a minimum of 15 -feet above the tops of the concrete side walls. The height of the roof would facilitate air flow through the structure and promote biosolids drying while providing enough clearance for loading and unloading operations. The facility design would include a drainage system for collecting runoff. "High Tunnel" Covers While not nearly as rugged or durable, high tunnels are an economical alternative to a conventionally constructed building. High tunnels are simple unheated, plastic or vinyl fabric covered structures that provide a limited amount of environmental control. In this case, the key benefit is covering the dewatered biosolids from precipitation, though some additional drying will also occur. The plastic covering considered for the initial estimate would need to be replaced every four to five years. Heavier vinyl covering designs could last many years and will be considered in the final design process. The tunnel framing can be set on a short (e.g. 5 feet minimum) concrete wall and the floor of the structure can be paved for added durability. Drying Two drying alternatives were considered, hot air belt drying and solar drying. The Class 1 standard of drying to 90 percent TS was assumed for the initial analysis, although slightly lower dryness could be considered if the dried product were to be used as a fuel. Thermal Drying Hot air belt dryers are a relatively new sludge drying technology that is generally used in small to medium size wastewater plants. This technology would be a good fit with the expected dewatered biosolids production rate in Iowa City. Hot air belt drying operates at relatively low temperatures —typically using hot air at 350 to 400 degrees F. Biosolids are extruded onto moving belts to maximize surface area exposed to wane air. Drying can be a very energy intensive process. Based on the current performance of the belt filter press that yields 20 percent total solids the required energy is 5.4 MMBtuh at the future solids production level for a 90 percent dry product. Digester gas can be used to provide a portion of this heat, but a significant quantity of natural gas would be required, especially during winter operating conditions. Drying also has inherent safety concerns not typical of the storage alternatives. One concern is that dried biosolids products must be stored properly or they can catch on fire. bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 6 -28 Stanley Consultants If a pile of heat dried biosolids absorbs moisture it can auto heat and combust, therefore, proper design of product storage facilities is vital. Product storage silos are generally equipped with temperature sensors and inert gas blanketing to reduce fire potential. Another safety concern is the dust produced during drying may create an explosive atmosphere. The concerns for the dried biosolids dust are similar to those of grain or coal dust. Several methods are used to mitigate this hazard including oxygen /temperature/ carbon monoxide monitoring, low dust emitting conveyance, sprinklers, and nitrogen purging. Solar Drying Solar drying systems are a recent innovation that has received considerable attention due to potential reduction in the energy requirements associated with sludge drying. Solar drying involves handling biosolids within a greenhouse structure equipped with forced - air ventilation and automatic mechanical agitation of the biosolids. Humidity and air temperature are monitored within the greenhouse and ventilation fans are energized as needed to maintain suitable drying conditions. The mechanical agitation systems vary in type and complexity. The required footprint for each alternative is listed in Table 6 -17. Air /solar drying within a solar structure is impractical given the high initial cost and sizable footprint required. Table 6 -17 Biosolids Cake Storage and Drying Space Requirements Alternative Current Load (ft) 2040 Load (ft) Status Quo 50,625 128,200 Conventional Building (270 days storage) 25,400 64,400 High Tunnel Storage (270 days storage) 52,300 132,500 Hot Air Belt Dryer' 9,000 9,000 Solar Drying 100,300 260,300 'Assumes product hauled away before any significant storage is required and minimal storage can be retrofitted into existing dewatered cake loadout facility. Source: Stanley Consultants and Brown and Caldwell Project costs were estimated for the biosolids handling alternatives that would handle the 2040 load. Table 6 -18 lists the project costs. bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 6 -29 Stanley Consultants Table 6 -18 Biosolids Handling Project Costs Alternative Project Costs ($ millions) Status Quo' 0.6 Conventional Building 3.2 High Tunnel Storage 1.9 Hot Air Belt Dryer 10.5 Solar Drying' 32.5 'Represents pad relocation and thus complete new construction to handle 2040 load. 2Cost does not include odor control facilities. Source: Stanlev Consultants and Brown and Caldwell The recommended biosolids storage plan is to continue with the status quo or implement the high tunnel concept and revisit the more costly alternatives in the future to determine if the economic and non - economic criteria have become more favorable. For capital planning efforts the high tunnel concept is included in the recommended plan. The majority of the facility would be constructed in the first phase of construction and the rest in the second phase. Miscellaneous Plant Outfall The existing plant outfall is a 60 inch diameter pipe conveying disinfected plant effluent to the Iowa River. Flow is by gravity. Upsizing the effluent pipes from the chlorine contact tanks from 36 inch to 42 inch and the 42 inch confluence pipe down to the main outfall pipe to 60 inch will provide adequate capacity until 2025, accepting that both the S02 and chlorine weir are flooded during the 100 -yr flood event. In Phase 2, a parallel 72 inch pipe will need to be installed along the entire length. Yard Piping Several process pipes and channels will need to be upsized to meet the maximum design plant flow of 45 MGD. These conduits generally interconnect unit processes or distribute to individual units within a process. Most of this work will be completed in Phase 1. North Plant Flow Conveyance Upon completion of the South Plant expansion it will be necessary to direct all wastewater to the South Plant. Currently three gravity sewers discharge at the diversion structure located at the North Plant. The diversion structure is designed so that a portion of the flow from these sewers is conveyed to the North Plant pump station via two gravity sewers. Excess flow passes over a weir in the diversion structure and is conveyed to the Napoleon Park pump station and on to the South Plant. In addition to the flow from the diversion structure, there is one sewer that flows directly to the North Plant pump station. bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 6 -30 Stanley Consultants The modifications to the diversion structure will consist primarily of removal of the weir and capping of the gravity sewers that convey the diverted flow to the North Plant pump station. In addition, the sewer that is currently directly connected to the North Plant pump station will be rerouted. This sewer will likely be connected to the diversion structure. bdr: mjh: ds1: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 6 -31 Stanley Consultants Section 7 Recommended Plan Planning Period A facility planning period of 30 years has been used for this analysis in order to visualize an orderly development of plant improvements over a fairly extended period of time. While it is prudent to plan for future conditions, it is impractical to construct all facilities for conditions 30 years in the future. First, it is difficult to maintain efficient operation of facilities which are substantially under loaded in the early years of operation and, secondly, future conditions may change. As such, construction of the proposed improvements has been divided into two phases. Phase 1 includes improvements to be constructed in the next few years to provide capacity to planning year 2025. Phase 1 improvements also accommodate the hydraulic capacity for the entire planning period. Phase 2 would add facilities primarily related to load increases forecast beyond 2025. Basis of Analysis The recommended improvements contained in this report have been developed based on approved flows and loads previously submitted to the agency and a wasteload allocation for the expanded South Plant prepared by IDNR in December 2010. This wasteload allocation was based on state -wide averages for a number of the model input values. Site specific information is available for a number of the factors that go into the wasteload allocation model. This site specific data has been accumulated and it is anticipated that the wasteload allocation model will be rerun by IDNR with site specific data in February 2011. The preliminary engineering phase of development will follow this facility planning effort. As part of the preliminary engineering process, detailed sizing calculations will be prepared for each unit process based on the updated wasteload allocations from IDNR. This more detailed preliminary engineering analysis with updated effluent criteria may result in some changes to sizes or number of process units shown in this report. bdr: mjh: ds1: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 7 -1 Stanley Consultants Recommended Improvements A detailed discussion regarding each unit process is included in Section 6. A brief summary of recommended improvements for each unit process, along with any proposed variation from IDNR design standards with justification for the variation is included below. This section also gives an indication of timing of implementation for each process: Equalization Basin Expand the existing flow equalization basin to increase volume to 16.5 million gallons including associated valves, piping and controls. The plan is to install the entire volume during Phase 1. This will minimize peak flow through the plant thereby delaying construction of some downstream facilities until Phase 2. Bar Screens In Phase 2, add two new channels with one new bar screen and use the second channel as a bypass channel. Add washer /compactor facilities to limit staff exposure and to ease handling of screenings. As there is no planned pump station design flow capacity increase, screening will remain as existing during Phase 1. Influent Pumping Station Continue use of the existing pump station but replace the older, shafted pumps with close coupled pumps of the same or slightly larger capacity. Also re- orient the pump discharge and install air relief /vacuum system as an energy conservation measure. These improvements are planned for Phase 1. Phase 2 improvements will involve replacement of several of the pumps installed in 2001 with larger pumps to increase the overall pump station capacity to meet projected peak flows. Grit Treatment The existing grit tanks will be supplemented with three new tanks and associated equipment. This item also includes miscellaneous improvements to the grit cyclone separators and washers and relocation of the grit MCC equipment. Two tanks and miscellaneous improvements will be installed in Phase 1 and the third will be installed in Phase 2. Primary Clarifiers Add one new 70 -foot diameter primary clarifier, flow splitter box, and thicken primary sludge in new gravity sludge thickeners. By adding the new primary sludge thickeners listed below the new primary clarifier will not be needed until Phase 2. The two original primary clarifier mechanisms will be replaced in Phase 1. The proposed approach to improving overall solids handling by adding primary sludge thickeners and avoiding adding primary clarifiers in Phase 1 as outlined in Section 6 requires IDNR concurrence for deviating from design standards. The proposed design overflow rates are 1,300 and 1,950 gpd /ft' for the AWW and MWW /PHWW conditions versus IDNR design overflow rates of 1,000 and 1,500 gpd /ft2. The plant has been operating the primary clarifiers at higher than IDNR standards with very little if any deterioration in clarifier performance. Adding gravity thickeners will eliminate sludge blanket build up in the primary clarifiers bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 7 -2 Stanley Consultants reducing the risk of process performance reduction resulting from solids carryover. Empirical data from Brown and Caldwell indicates that the proposed overflow rates have a good track record of success. The proposed design is also consistent with industry standards including 10 States and USEPA. Primary Sludge Gravity Thickeners Install two new 45 -foot diameter gravity sludge thickeners specifically for primary sludge thickening. These sludge thickeners will be located adjacent to the digesters. Installation will take place in Phase 1. Aeration Basins Increase the volume of the existing aeration system by increasing the length of the four existing tanks in Phase 1 and adding three additional parallel aeration tanks in Phase 2. A surface film classifying selector will be added to the effluent channel to reduce filamentous bacteria buildup. It is possible that these requirements will be decreased after the WLA modeling is completed by IDNR and biological process modeling is adjusted accordingly. The activated sludge process design basis will be more thoroughly- detailed in the preliminary engineering report and any deviations from IDNR criteria flagged and justified. Aeration System (Blowers) Blower capacity equivalent to three additional blowers will be required, along with the expansion of the associated building and piping and control systems. The preliminary plan is for 2wo new blowers for Phase 1 with a third blower added in Phase 2. The number and type of blowers will be optimized to meet initial and design air demand during preliminary engineering. The design basis for air demand and supply will be more thoroughly detailed in the preliminary engineering report and any deviations from IDNR criteria flagged and justified. Secondary Clarifiers Three new 113 -foot diameter secondary clarifiers will be required to accommodate the increased flow and solids. In addition, the collector mechanism on the two older units will be replaced. Two new clarifiers along with a new secondary clarifier flow splitter box are required in Phase 1. The third unit will be added in Phase 2. The two secondary clarifiers meet IDNR overflow rate criteria of 1000 gpd /ft2 at MWW /PHWW flow with largest unit out of service. The proposed peak solids loading rate of 41 lb /d /ft2 is lower than IDNR standards of 50 lb /d /ft2, but higher than 10 States Standard of 35 lb /d /ft2. Extensive clarifier analysis has been performed including statistical data analysis of historic SVIs and performance, field testing with stress testing, and computational fluid analysis to verify the proposed clarifier design. Disinfection The existing gas chlorine system will be replaced with an ultraviolet light (UV) disinfection system. Part of the existing chlorine contact tanks will be modified to install UV lamps and a bypass channel will be installed to divert flow during months when disinfection is not required. Addition of the UV system is planned for Phase 1 construction. bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 7 -3 Stanley Consultants Plant Outfall In addition to the existing outfall, a new parallel 72 -inch outfall pipe will be required to convey 2040 flow from the plant to the Iowa River. This new pipe will be installed in Phase 2. Sludge Pumping Return Sludge Pumping - IDNR standard 18b.5.2 requires the maximum RAS pumping capacity of 150 percent of AWW flow be met with the largest pump out of service. The new secondary clarifiers will be equipped with a dedicated pump for each clarifier. An uninstalled spare pump will be provided consistent with the previous plant upgrade to meet the redundancy requirements of IDNR IDNR concurrence with this approach will be required. Overall RAS pumping will be addressed in more detail in the Preliminary Engineering Report as driven by the importance of coordinating all secondary clarifiers in a single -plant operation. Waste Sludge Pumping - IDNR standard 118b.5.4 requires capacity to pump 25% of AWW flow and turndown to pump 0.5% of ADW. The current wasting system does not meet this requirement and the proposed changes follow the same precedent because the existing system includes secondary sludge thickeners in series with the secondary clarifiers. The Preliminary Engineering Report will document the adequacy of WAS flow to the thickeners. Waste Activated Sludge Thickening Additional WAS thickening capacity equivalent to three additional rotating drum thickeners are required to thicken waste activated sludge. These thickeners can be installed inside the existing building near the existing thickeners. The preliminary plan is for two new thickeners in Phase 1 with the third being added in Phase 2. More detailed analysis during preliminary design will evaluate the possibility of installing larger units to better optimize the system with fewer units installed. The cost for waste activated sludge thickening improvements is included in the solids handling improvements cost item. Anaerobic Digestion Two new digesters are required along with conversion of one of the existing digesters. During Phase 1, the existing large mesophilic digester will be converted to operate in a thermophilic mode. In Phase 2, the existing sludge storage tank will be converted to a digester along with construction of an additional new digester and a new sludge storage tank. High Strength Equalization Tank and Piping Additional high strength equalization storage and pumping are required in Phase 1 to handle increased dewatering filtrate flow. The cost for high strength equalization improvements is included in the solids handling improvements cost item. Biosolids Cake Storage A covered storage facility is recommended to reduce deterioration of dewatered solids by keeping them out of the weather. Initial construction of the storage facility would take place in Phase 1 with an addition added in Phase 2. bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 7 -4 Stanley Consultants Administration, Laboratory, Vehicle Storage and Maintenance The existing administration building, laboratory facilities, vehicle storage and maintenance building are adequate for Phase 1 of the improvements. Some of these facilities may need to be expanded or upgraded during Phase 2. Preliminary Layout Figure 7 -1 shows the anticipated layout of the proposed improvements for both Phase 1 and Phase 2. The layout has been developed to keep like processes in close proximity to one another to minimize cost of conveyance of flow between units, and to provide ease of operation. The area immediately north of the aeration blower building has been reserved for possible future use for pretreatment of industrial waste. The L C. Kickers Soccer Complex (soccer complex) is located immediately to the west of the plant site. The land occupied by the soccer complex is reserved for future expansion of the wastewater treatment plant. The facilities proposed in this report have been located to maximize the use of the existing site and minimize incursion into the soccer complex at this time. However, the treatment plant is being developed to allow ease of expansion into the soccer area in the future. Based on current effluent limitations, Phase 1 can be contained within the existing plant site and construction into the soccer fields would not be required until about 2040. However, if more stringent effluent limits are enacted or if the city experiences unanticipated growth it may be necessary to add additional treatment processes into the soccer fields at an earlier date. It is recommended that the city move to set aside and protect the current soccer complex to allow for future expansion of the wastewater treatment complex into that area. Protecting the soccer complex area for future wastewater treatment facilities would include protecting separation distances from encroachment by preventing construction of buildings or water supply wells within a buffer zone around the site. Current IDNR regulations require a 1,000 foot buffer distance from treatment facilities to houses or structures that may be occupied by workers. Without such protection, development could occur around the site making it difficult to use for future wastewater treatment plant expansion. Figure 7 -2 shows future expansion area for the wastewater treatment facility and buffer areas around the property. Cost Estimating Methodology Cost estimates have been developed for construction of new facilities as well as for improvements to existing facilities recommended in this report. Cost estimates are based on labor and materials and include an allowance for undeveloped design details and a construction contingency factor for unforeseen conditions. Contractors' overhead and profit is then added to arrive at a total construction cost estimate. Costs for legal, fiscal, administrative, and engineering services are added to the construction cost estimate to arrive at total project costs. Markup for undeveloped design details is 20 percent and for construction contingency is 10 percent: markup for contractors' overhead is 15 percent, and markup for profit is 10 percent. The cost markup for legal, fiscal, administration, and engineering is 15 percent. Cost estimates are expressed in December 2010 dollars. bdr: mjh: ds1: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 7 -5 Stanley Consultants Cost Summary Costs are broken down into two phases. Phase 1 will provide adequate plant capacity until about 2025 at which time Phase 2 would be constructed. Phase 2 facilities are planned to serve the city until year 2040. Table 7 -1 presents costs for improvements for Phase 1 and Phase 2 development. These cost estimates are based on December 2010 price levels and actual costs at time of construction are anticipated to be higher due to inflation. Table 7 -1 Construction Cost Estimate Item Phase 1 Phase 2 Equalization Basins $4,170,000 Bar Screens $2,730,000 Pump Station Rehab $950,000 Grit Treatment $1,330,000 $320,000 Primary Clarifier $400,000 $1,580,000 Primary Gravity Thickeners $4,080,000 Aeration Basins /Blowers $7,790,000 $12,650,000 Secondary Clarifiers $4,800,000 $2,300,000 Disinfection $2,300,000 Solids Handling Improvements $2,940,000 $380,000 Mesophilic Digesters $5,970,000 Biosolids Storage $1,400,000 $500,000 Site Piping $3,510,000 $880,000 Site Dewatering and General Conditions $3,000,000 $3,000,000 Outfall Pipe $3,400,000 Miscellaneous Allowance $4,000,000 $5,000,000 Subtotal Construction Cost $40,670,000 $38,710,000 Legal, Admin, Eng, Fiscal $6,100,500 $5,806,500 Total Project Cost $46,770,500 $44,516,500 Note: All costs are in 2010 dollars. Source: Stanley Consultants and Brown and Caldwell Repair and Replacement of Existing Facilities Most of the existing facilities will be combined with new facilities with their service lives extended to match the thirty year planning horizon. A condition assessment has been conducted and certain existing facilities have been identified for substantial repair or replacement work. bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 7 -6 Stanley Consultants Those facilities have been scheduled for necessary major maintenance attention in future years. The City is setting aside necessary funds to cover the required costs. Reliability and Standby Power The South Plant is currently served by the Sand Road Substation that has two separate sources of power through two separate substations to provide reliable electrical service to the facility. If one source of transmission power is lost the utility can switch to the alternate source using radio controlled switching. In addition, the plant currently has a 1000 kw emergency generator which can be used to service critical loads in the rare event that both power sources are out of service. During preliminary engineering analysis will determine if additional standby power is required. Personnel Requirements The expanded South Plant will require increased staffing for proper operation and maintenance. After the expanded South Plant is fully operational, the old North Plant will be taken out of service and decommissioned. Operations and Maintenance staff hours currently used to operate the North Plant will be reassigned to the South Plant. The expanded South Plant will have the same treatment processes as the existing facility so operation will be similar to the existing facility. It is anticipated that two additional operators will be required at the South Plant during Phase 1. The additional mechanical and electrical equipment will require ongoing maintenance and it is anticipated that one maintenance operator and two additional maintenance workers will be required during Phase I to adequately maintain the equipment. Financing The City of Iowa City has obtained substantial grant funding to assist with cost of construction of the proposed facilities. The U.S. Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration (EDA) has committed $22 million to the project. In addition the city has obtained approximately $5.5 million from Iowa Jobs Program (I -JOBS) and $5 million in the form of CBDG grants. The balance of the project will be paid with money collected from local option sales tax dedicated to this project. Implementation Schedule An aggressive schedule has been developed to meet requirements of the funding agencies. The anticipated schedule shown in Table 7 -2 requires prompt agency review and a continuation of engineering design activity during the review process. bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 7 -7 Stanley Consultants Table 7 -2 Implementation Schedule Work Element Begin Date End Date Complete Facility Plan City Council Approve Facility Plan IDNR Review and Approve Facility Plan Preliminary Design Engineering Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) IDNR Review of PER Preliminary Design IDNR Review Preliminary Design Final Design Engineering IDNR Review and Approve Final Design Engineering IDNR Issue Construction Permit Bidding Contract Award Construction Construction Completion Commissioning and Start-up Plant Operational Source: Stanlev Consultants and Brown and Caldwell February 9, 2011 February 18, 2011 February 16, 2011 February 16, 2011 April 16, 2011 March 16, 2011 June 16, 2011 June 16, 2011 November 15, 2011 December 19, 2011 February 9, 2012 March 21, 2012 October 1, 2013 February 8, 2011 February 15, 2011 April 18, 2011 June 16, 2011 April 16, 2011 May 16, 2011 June 16, 2011 August 16, 2011 November 11, 2011 December 16, 2011 December 16, 2011 February 8, 2012 March 20, 2012 December 15, 2013 December 15, 2013 April 1, 2014 April 1, 2014 bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 7 -8 Stanley Consultants Closing This Facility Plan has been prepared by Stanley Consultants and Brown and Caldwell on behalf of the City of Iowa City. We wish to acknowledge the outstanding input and cooperation from City of Iowa City staff. Their valuable insights on plant operation and maintenance issues, their assistance in collecting data and providing records, and their many hours of discussion and review of project development is greatly appreciated. Respectfully submitted, Stanley Consultants, Inc. Prepared by Prepared by Approved by Approved by Contributor(s) -'�5 14, -e / `-O —Ag7 Jay Brady, P.E. Principal Environmental Engineer d Winchell, P.E. Ml Environmental Engineer hdlikt Macaulay`, P.E. Sr. Project Manager Bennett Reischauer, P.E. Sr. Project Manager Don Esping, P.E. Nancy Andrews, P.E. Angela Young, E.I. Candice Bark, P.E. bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final 7 -9 Stanley Consultants RESERVED PRETREATMENT fA BLOWER AERATION BASINS PARALLEL OUTFALL SCREENING i GRIT FIRIMARY CLARIFIER CLASSIFIER A DISINFECTION (UV) dIGESTER /STORAGE YV' - - K 0 SECONDARY CLARIFIERS J b116- 'ate BIOSOLIDS (HIGH TUNNELS) FFProposed Improvements Site Plan Figure 7 -1 GRAVITY THICKENERS 1 a 1 � 1 E ro 1 2 i Er 1 c m 1 � 1 U i . ------------- T 1 E 1 E LL d Y I CL c c A a0 "R _T E E ` > m c T rTi 1 E . 'm` m E w U 1.. E LL 1 _ LL LL U ._._.- . -. -.1 ■ ■ a U h xi .I x ,I,.,.. 1 f rlfl T �.. Y Y c C ¢ ¢ CE c p O 0 1 C Y E W E • E ¢ o :s E a E 'O 0 . I A m - 1 A x ■ 00 x G III w • E CL E - ! a I Zi• _ -- U T O -' -._. -. _.fie•- - :: �\\ V J c V 0 V 1 C aCi N pp V G _, ■ 1 C c c J E m E a I a, d m c it L ........... — ......................................... — . . Q Y. J d J O i .LL • W ~" V T C CL 10 0 dn L C li Y Y .Q � a�i d■ RN,, dl d d V 1 m C t7• • ip �■ ' ■ 1 i j/1 ��I�I�I�I�II -- �I C N O r N y C L Lu U- a- U- a j I / s Y � � o N o N t6 t6 N w x XQx Qo Q W a W a x w a m F-- U) w 552 NO n N 6 E N LL 6I N (6 o j C W (n U) N N NI C m 5 U N w d v7 O D O O U a CL c c A a0 "R _T E E ` > m c T rTi 1 E . 'm` m E w U 1.. E LL 1 _ LL LL U ._._.- . -. -.1 ■ ■ a U h xi .I x ,I,.,.. 1 f rlfl T �.. Y Y c C ¢ ¢ CE c p O 0 1 C Y E W E • E ¢ o :s E a E 'O 0 . I A m - 1 A x ■ 00 x G III w • E CL E - ! a I Zi• _ -- U T O -' -._. -. _.fie•- - :: �\\ V J c V 0 V 1 C aCi N pp V G _, ■ 1 C c c J E m E a I a, d m c it L ........... — ......................................... — . . Q Y. J d J O i .LL • W ~" V T C CL 10 0 dn L C li Y Y .Q � a�i d■ RN,, dl d d V 1 m C t7• • ip �■ ' ■ 1 i j/1 ��I�I�I�I�II -- �I C N O r N y C L Lu U- a- U- a j I / s Y � � Appendix A IDNR Design Schedules A, F, and G bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final A -1 Stanley Consultants Exhibit 11A Iowa Department of Natural Resources Wastewater Engineering Section Construction Permit Application SCHEDULE A. General Information APPLICANT ENGINEER OWNER E -MAIL ADDRESS FIRM E -MAIL ADDRESS City of Iowa City Stanley Consultants, Inc. feischauerbennettostardeygroup.com ADDRESS ADDRESS 410 East Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240 -1826 225 Iowa Avenue, Muscatine, IA 52761 REPRESENTATIVE TELEPHONE PROJECT OFFICER TELEPHONE Ben Clark 319- 356 -5436 Bennett Reischauer, P.E. 563- 264 -6312 PROJECT IDENTIFICATION ESTIMATED START DATE * ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE Iowa City Wastewater Treatment Consolidation June 2012 December 2013 PLEASE RESPOND TO ALL QUESTIONS YES NO 1. Has an engincenng report, facilities plan or other information previously been submitted for this project? D ❑ If Yes => PROJECT IDENTITY DATE SUBMITTED Consolidated Wastewater Treatment Design Flows & October 2012 Loads Report 2. Does the project and construction permit application, as submitted, follow the recommendations, design loadings, construction schedule, permit limits, and conclusions of the approved engineering report or facilities plan? ❑ ❑ If No => Provide the design basis and technical information justifying all changes. 3. Are there three complete sets of plans and specifications accompanying this application? ❑ ❑x For a minor gravity sewer extension within the meaning of 455B.183.3 Code of Iowa and Design Standard 11. 1, two complete sets will be adequate for expeditious approval. For more complex projects, three sets of plans and specifications may be requested. 4. Are approved standard specifications ecifications a part of this application? ❑ ❑x If Yes => APPROVED STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF DATE APPROVED (municipality or finn) 5. Does each set of plans and specifications or engineering report accompanying this application contain a "professional engineering seal' executed in conformance with 542B.16, Code of Iowa? ❑x ❑ If No => Processing will be delayed pending receipt of applicable design schedules and certified plans, specifications or engineering report. 6. Is this a joint wastewater and water supply project? ❑ ❑x If Yes => A construction pennit application for the water supply project should be submitted separately to the Water Supply Section. A water supply permit fee may be required. 7. Is the applicant to provide treatment of effluent resulting from this construction? ❑x ❑ If No => A Sewage Treatment Agreement (DNR Form 29) executed by the authority providing treatment must accompany this application. 8. Is a new or amended operation permit necessary to use the facilities described in this application? ❑D ❑ If Yes => A new or amended pennit to operate may be requested prior to the receipt of a construction pennit. 9. Is any waterline located within 10 feet: or any private or public well, lake, or public recreation area located within 400 feet of the proposed construction? ❑D ❑ If Yes => Identify and locate the facility(s) relative to the proposed construction. 10. Will construction inspection be conducted by a licensed engineer employed by the applicant? ❑D ❑ If No => NAME OF ENGINEERING FIRM CONDUCTING INSPECTION 11. Will this project utilize CWSRF loan funds? ❑ ❑ CERTIFICATION APPLICANT ENGINEER I certify that I am the authorized representative of the owner and I certify that all aspects of design included in this application state that the project identified above is approved by the owner. conform to applicable standards contained in Chapter 567 IAC 64, or that an explanation and justification for any proposed variations from such standards is attached. I am familiar with the information contained in this application, and to the best of my knowledge, such information is complete and accurate. SIGNATURE DATE SIGNATURE DATE * Estimated Construction Start Date: Complete applications must be submitted at least 120 days in advance of the date for starting construction in accordance with Rules 567 IAC 60.4 and 64.2 PLEASE COMPLETE THE SCHEDULE CHECKLIST ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE OF THIS FORM DNR form 28A (Sept 2010) 542 -3129 Construction Permit Application bL;HtuuLt A, Lienerai information, page z DOCUMENT CHECKLIST Identify all categories included in this project. Also, identify schedules attached to this application DNR form 28A (Sept 2010) 542 -3129 INCLUDED IN SUBMITTAL SCHEDULE TITLE ATTACHED PROJECT DATE B Collection system ❑ ❑ C Lateral Sewer Extension ❑ ❑ D Trunk & Interceptor Sewer ❑ ❑ E Wastewater Pump Station ❑ ❑ F Treatment Project Site Selection ❑D ❑ G Treatment Project Design Data ❑D ❑ H1 Schematic Flow Diagram ❑ ❑ H2 Treatment Process Loading and ❑ ❑ Removal Efficiency H3 Mechanical Plant Reliability ❑ ❑ I Screening, Grit Removal and Flow ❑ ❑ Measurement J Septic Tank System ❑ ❑ KI Controlled Discharge Pond ❑ ❑ K2 Aerated Pond ❑ ❑ K3 Anaerobic Lagoon ❑ ❑ L Setting Tanks ❑ ❑ M Fixed Film Reactor — Stationary Media ❑ ❑ N Rotating Biological Contactor ❑ ❑ O Aeration Tanks or Basins ❑ ❑ P Gas Chlorination ❑ ❑ Q Sludge Digestion and Holding ❑ ❑ RI Sludge Dewatering and Disposal ❑ ❑ R2(A & B) Low Rate Land Application of Sludge ❑ ❑ R3 Land Application of Sewage Sludge ❑ ❑ (To be developed) S Land Application of Wastewater ❑ ❑ (To be developed) Sewage Treatment Agreement ❑ ❑ Identify any categories included in this project which are not provided in the above list of schedules. DNR form 28A (Sept 2010) 542 -3129 Exhibit 11 B Iowa Department of Natural Resources Wastewater Engineering Section Construction Permit Application 5UHUMLE F, I reatment Project site Selection DATE PREPARED PROJECT IDENTITY DNR USE February 8, 2011 Iowa City Wastewater Treatment Consolidation PROJECT NO. DATE REVISED PERMIT NO. 1. Project Location: County Johnson Section 35 Township 79N Range 6W Is this a new site? No Existing site? Yes or Expansion of existing site? No 2. Provide the following as attachments (minimum of three each needed): (a) General plat layout of area within a five mile radius of the project, noting all important features. (U.S.G.S. map may be used). (b) Site layout of area within a 1,500 foot radius of the project with a scale of approximately 1 inch equal to 200 feet, noting project and all features listed in Subrule 567 IAC 64.2(3): inhabitable residences, commercial buildings, inhabitable structures, public shallow wells, public deep wells, private wells, lakes and public impoundments, property lines and rights - of -way, etc. 3. Does the project lie in a floodplain? Yes 0 No ❑ Elevation of 100 year flood (MSL) 642.79 Elevation of 25 year flood (MSL) 642.11 Will the treatment works structures, including the electrical and mechanical equipment, be protected from physical damage by the 100 -year flood'? Yes ❑x No ❑ Will the plant remain operational during the 25 -year flood? Yes ❑x No ❑ Method of flood protection Critical facilities will be deviated above the 500 -yr flood elevation. 4. Minimum distance to high water table Normal high water groundwater elevation= 638 (USGS) 5. Describe geology of area Loess mantle over alluvial sand and 6. Describe soil conditions Several feet of clav at the surface underlain by 20' to 25' of sand underlain by lean to fat 7. State the minimum distances and direction to (a) Public shallow wells ? (b) Public deep wells University of Iowa — 19,000 ft. northwest (c) Private wells Residential — 1,800 feet southwest (d) Inhabitable residences, commercial buildings, or other inhabitable structures Residence — 1,800 feet southwest (e) Lakes and public impoundments Coralville Reservoir/Kent Park (f) Property lines and rights -of -way 25 feet (g) Other 8. Direction of the prevailing winds southwest 9. Sulfate content of the raw water supply source 120 mg /1. Identify source Iowa River 10. Is this area available for expansion? Yes 0 No ❑ If yes, how much? 100 acres Location of area West or South Identify owner of property City of Iowa City 11. Will site be accessible via an all weather access road? Yes ❑x No ❑ Type Seal coat drive and county roads 12. Source of STP water supply: Maintenance /Cleanup Effluent Water Potable? Yes ❑ No ❑x Laboratory/Sanitary City Water Potable? Yes 0 No ❑ Potable? Yes ❑ No ❑ 13. Receiving Stream Iowa River tributary to Mississippi River 7 -day 10 -year Low Flow 101.70 cfs. Source of stream flow data Iowa DNR Drainage area above site 3,271 square miles Is stream intermittent No Describe use designation of receiving stream continuous flow (perennial) Yes Al, V (WWO1), and HH DNR form 28F (October 2005) 542 -3099 i V j- - -1 G LAJ QJ N HOP 41\ j I, t 1 40 V Li to _ i ...._ . ` La LL m L G ML ui N to O 0 C 7 C v C N 1 a 1 � 1 E ro 1 2 i Er 1 c m 1 � 1 U i . ------------- T 1 E 1 E LL d Y I c c A a0 d i LL E 0) E " _T E � � ` > m c T rTi 1 E w U 1.. LL o 1 _ LL LL W U w L. -------------------------------- ■ ■ a U x � CL c E ¢ ¢ CE c p O 0 1 C Y E W E • E ¢ o U is E 'O N ,c I A m — 1 A ■ 00 x x III G w • W EE CL 1. .— ._._a• - -- — ._ — E - - - -- - - -- v U 1 a \\ V J c V 0 V 1 C aCi N pp V J E m E a I a, d m c it L _ , -,_ _ _•_ .-.-.-._.- .- .- .- .- .- ._._.- .- .- •- -- • -• -•- -•- -1i a .. —. —.— — — . . Q P a Yd O i m • W ~" V T C CL 5 10 0 L C N li Y Y .E di) a� d■ d dl d d V 1 m ' ■ 1 i j/1 low IsI�I�I�I�ISI L m M7 N W O LL U- O O LO O O O r a j I / s Y � � " 'I O c O N c O N t6 t6 w N x XQ w Q ao w a a x W a m j °- w cn m m E N LL 6I N (6 Q Q 6 No > w cw cw N N Q NI C m 5 U N w d v7 0 O °° O O U a c c A a0 d i LL E 0) E " _T E � � ` > m c T rTi 1 E w U 1.. LL o 1 _ LL LL W U w L. -------------------------------- ■ ■ a U x � CL c E ¢ ¢ CE c p O 0 1 C Y E W E • E ¢ o U is E 'O N ,c I A m — 1 A ■ 00 x x III G w • W EE CL 1. .— ._._a• - -- — ._ — E - - - -- - - -- v U 1 a \\ V J c V 0 V 1 C aCi N pp V J E m E a I a, d m c it L _ , -,_ _ _•_ .-.-.-._.- .- .- .- .- .- ._._.- .- .- •- -- • -• -•- -•- -1i a .. —. —.— — — . . Q P a Yd O i m • W ~" V T C CL 5 10 0 L C N li Y Y .E di) a� d■ d dl d d V 1 m ' ■ 1 i j/1 low IsI�I�I�I�ISI L m M7 N W O LL U- O O LO O O O r a j I / s Y � � " 'I O Exhibit 11C Iowa Department of Natural Resources Wastewater Engineering Section Construction Permit Application SGNtUULt G, i reatment Project uesign uata DATE PREPARED PROJECT IDENTITY 02/08/2011 Iowa City Wastewater Treatment Consolidation, Phase 1 DATE REVISED DNR USE PROJECT NO. PERMIT NO. 1. Project Description Max. 30 day ( # /da y) Max. Day ( # /dav) Max. 30 day ( # /da) 2. Design Flows Present Year (2010) Design Year (2025) Design Condition 4 AWW MWW AWW MWW 21,131 (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) Domestic/Commercial Flow 8.94 11.30 11.22 14.40 Industrial 14,051 14,956 25,660 TSS Flow 1.22 1.97 2.15 3.35 Rated Flow 353 918 1,495 Other (specify) Other Flow (specify) 0.25 0.30 0.27 0.32 Infiltration/Inflow 8.19 19.55 10.56 25.18 Total 112 .............. ......��. ........................ .. ............43............... Fl ow 18 60 11 24 20 25 Rated Flow TSS 22,075 33,796 34,386 Average Dry Weather Flow (ADW): Peak Hourly Wet Weather Flow (PHWW): Demographic Data: 8.01 MGD (present year) 44.89 MGD (present year) Population 70,724 (present year) 10.5 MGD (design year) 62.95 MGD (design year) Population 85,592 (design year) 3. 1 Organic Design Loadings Present Year (2010) Design Year (2025) Design Conditioner Max. 30 day ( # /da y) Max. Day ( # /dav) Max. 30 day ( # /da) Max. Day ( # /da ) Domestic /Commercial BOD5 13,379 16,849 17,275 21,560 TSS 15,700 21,131 19,205 26,823 TKN 4,296 6,238 5,273 7,818 Industrial BOD5 7,866 14,051 14,956 25,660 TSS 5,949 12,092 14,725 28,196 TKN 256 353 918 1,495 Other (specify) BOD5 398 482 427 525 TSS 426 573 456 634 TKN 112 163 120 177 Total BOD5 21,643 31,381 32,658 47,745 TSS 22,075 33,796 34,386 55,653 TKN 4,665 6,754 6,311 9,490 1 3.35 14,956 14,725 NH3 -N Other Other 4. Effluent Limitations BOD5 TSS (most stringent month) Avg Max Avg Max Av Max Avg Max Av Nlax Operation Permit mg /1 25 30 2.5 17.1 Effluent Limits* # /da 577 2,709 *Date of Waste Load Allocation (WLA) determination: _ December 22, 2010 5. Major Industrial /Commercial contributors or Significant Industrial User: DNR form 28G (May 12, 2006) 542 -3100 Pre- Operation Flow BOD5 Susp. TKN Oil & Waste Treat # /day Solids #/day Grease Hrs/ Days/ Ave. Max. Contributors (Y/N) Day I Week MGD MGD # /day #/day # /day Existing Industry Design 1.65 2.70 12,456 12,225 768 0 25,449 Loadings Future Growth 0.50 1 0.65 2,500 2,500 150 0 5,150 Total 2.15 1 3.35 14,956 14,725 918 0 30,599 DNR form 28G (May 12, 2006) 542 -3100 Attachment to DNR Exhibit 11C, Schedule G Waste Contributors Pre- Treat (Y /N) Operation Design Loadings Flow Ave. Max M® M® BOD5 # /day Susp. Solids # /day TKN # /day Oil & Grease 9/day 9/day His/ Day Days/ Week Procter & Gamble Yes 24 7 1.21 2.06 8,050 8,681 450 0 17,181 Roberts Dairy No 0.10 0.16 2,661 1,652 13 0 4,326 Landfill No 0.14 0.22 1,576 1,663 288 0 3,528 IAC No 0.20 0.26 169 229 17 0 415 Total 1.65 2.70 12,456 12,225 768 0 25,449 Exhibit 11C Iowa Department of Natural Resources Wastewater Engineering Section Construction Permit Application SGNtUULt G, i reatment Project uesign uata DATE PREPARED PROJECT IDENTITY 10/05/2010 Iowa City Wastewater Treatment Consolidation, Phase 2 DATE REVISED DNR USE PROJECT NO. PERMIT NO. 1. Project Description Pre- Operation Flow BOD5 2. Design Flows Present Year (2010) Design Year (2040) Design Condition 4 AWW MWW #/day AWW MWW Days/ (MGD) (MGD) Contributors (MGD) Day (MGD) Domestic/Commercial Flow 8.94 11.30 # /day 13.50 #/day 17.23 Industrial .......... . .... 3.43 17,045 Flow 1,280 1�� 36,825 Loadings 4 Rated Flow Other Flow (specify) 0.25 0.30 0.29 1.00 0.34 Infiltration/Inflow 8.19 19.55 0 12.93 Total 30.81 Total ...... ... ............ 4.73 ............ ............ 23,500 .. .......... ... ............. Fl ow 18.60 ��1i 29.79 5311 Rated Flow Average Dry Weather Flow (ADW): Peak Hourly Wet Weather Flow (PHWW): Demographic Data: 8.01 MGD (present year) 44.89 MGD (present year) Population 70,724 (present year) 13.0 MGD (design year) 81.00 MGD (design year) Population 100,460 (design year) 3. Organic Design Loadings Present Year (2010) Design Year (2040) Design Condition4 Max. 30 day Max. Day Max. 30 day Max. Day ( # /da y) ( # /dav) ( # /da) ( # /da ) Domestic /Commercial BOD5 13,379 16,849 21,171 26,271 TSS 15,700 21,131 22,709 32,516 TKN 4,296 6,238 6,249 9,397 Industrial BOD5 7,866 14,051 22,045 37,269 TSS 5,949 12,092 23,500 44,299 TKN 256 353 1,580 2,637 Other (specify) BOD5 398 482 458 568 TSS 426 573 485 694 TKN 112 163 127 191 Total BOD5 21,643 31,381 43,673 64,108 TSS 22,075 33,796 46,694 77,509 TKN 4,665 6,754 Riiiiiiiiii 7,956 12,225 NH3 -N Other Other 4. Effluent Limitations BOD5 TSS (most stringent month) Avg Max Avg Max Av Max Avg Max Avg Nlax Operation Permit mg /1 25 30 2.5 17.1 Effluent Limits* # /da 577 2,709 *Date of Waste Load Allocation (WLA) determination: 5. Major Industrial /Commercial contributors or Significant Industrial User: DNR form 28G (May 12, 2006) 542 -3100 Pre- Operation Flow BOD5 Susp. TKN Oil & Waste Treat # /day Solids #/day Grease Hrs/ Days/ Ave. Max. Contributors (Y/N) Day I Week MGD MGD # /day #/day # /dav Existing Industry Design 2.07 3.43 17,045 18,500 1,280 0 36,825 Loadings Future Growth 1.00 1 1.30 5,000 5,000 300 0 10,300 Total 3.07 4.73 22,045 23,500 1,580 0 47,125 DNR form 28G (May 12, 2006) 542 -3100 Attachment to DNR Exhibit 11C, Schedule G Waste Contributors Pre- Treat (Y/1) Operation Design Loadings Flow Ave. Max MGD MGD BOD5 4 /day Susp. Solids 4 /day TKN 4 /day Oil & Grease 4 /day 4 /day Hrs/ Day Days/ Week Procter & Gamble Yes 24 7 1.45 2.42 11,345 13,800 824 0 25,969 Roberts Dairy No 0.12 0.24 3,000 2,000 13 0 5,013 Landfill No 0.15 0.30 2,500 2,500 418 0 5,418 JAC No 0.110 0.40 200 200 251 01' 425 Total 2.02 336 17,045 18,500 1,280 0 36,825 Appendix B Preliminary Review of Facility Plan Checklist bdr: mjh: dsl: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final B -1 Stanley Consultants Exhibit 9B Iowa Department of Natural Resources Wastewater Engineering Section Preliminary Review of Facility Plan Checklist "Facility Plan" means a report certified by a professional engineer licensed to practice in Iowa and prepared in conformance with Chapter 11 of the Iowa Wastewater Facilities Design Standards. Those items highlighted below are minimum criteria for project submittals. A Facility Plan will not be required for non - funded minor sewer extensions, minor trunk and interceptor sewers and minor pump stations not included in comprehensive planning. Facility Plans may be returned if they are deemed incomplete by the Department. The transmittal letter shall be bound in the report. Exhibit 9B may be used as a checklist and included in the Engineering Report or Facility Plan. This is highly recommended for all projects with compliance schedules or where other implementation schedules require timely completion of the initial stage of engineering services. All Projects 1. X a project initiation meeting has been held to establish the scope of the project and project milestones. 2. NA project location and a recommended alternative has been proposed by the A/E and the conclusion accepted by the Owner in accordance with Step 17, Section 11.2 of the Iowa Wastewater Facilities Design Standards and Design Schedule A. Expansion is occurring on existing site. 3. X completed and signed Design Schedules (A is required for all projects; A, F and G are required for new or expanded wastewater treatment plants) have been submitted in accordance with Section 11.1 of the Iowa Wastewater Facilities Design Standards. 4. X any proposed variation from the design standards contained in Chapter 64 is identified by the Engineer in accordance with Design Schedule A with justification provided to explain in accordance with DNR rules. 5. X all hydraulic and organic design loadings in Design Schedule G (as needed) and the Facility Plan are consistent with the preliminary design loadings concurred by the Department. 6. X the project has conformed to the Waste Load Allocation (WLA) determination and the effluent limits which have been established by the DNR through Steps 9, 11, 12, 13, and 14 of the wastewater construction permitting procedures. 7. X the location maps are prepared by the Engineer in accordance with Design Schedule F (dated April 2004), the recommended scale and provide all requested detail to conduct a site survey investigation for the proposed new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities. 9/10 8. X the Owner has filed an application for a new or amended NPDES permit as needed for the improvements described in the Facility Plan. 9. X a complete and achievable project implementation schedule has been provided identifying all project milestones in accordance with Section 11.2.5.3(k) of the Design Standards. 10. X the Appendix (Technical Information and Design Criteria) is provided per Design Standard 11.2.11. 11. NA all required engineering data and design basis formulated from the data for New Process Evaluation has been approved by the Department under Section 14.4.3 and was prepared by a licensed professional engineer other than the one employed by the manufacturer or patent holder. 12. NA a completed geotechnical investigation engineering report is provided as a supplement to the engineer's report (required for lagoons). 13. X where anti - degradation requirements apply, the recommended alternative is consistent with the anti - degradation alternatives analysis approved by the Department. Additional questions (14 through 17) for Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) Loan Projects Project is not SRF funded. 14. NA the proposed project is a fundable category (Refer to Subrule 567 IAC 90.2) for receipt of a CWSRF loan. 15. NA the Intended Use Plan application (Exhibit 8) is enclosed with the Facility Plan, including EPA Form 4700 -4 and the 'Assurance with Respect to Real Property Acquisition" form. 16. NA the Property /Easement Acquisition Schedule is included. 17. NA the Owner has submitted all required Exhibit 5 information to the Environmental Review Services Coordinator in order to initiate the SRF environmental review. Conclusions: 9/10 Appendix C Technical Information and Design Criteria Influent hydraulic and organic loading is included in Section 3 of this report. A detailed analysis of existing treatment facilities is included in Section 5. Section 6 discusses alternative development and evaluation criteria for each unit process for both liquid and solids treatment processes. Section 6 presents recommended facilities to meet effluent requirements established by IDNR. Detailed information including unit dimensions, rates and velocities, loading and removal efficiencies through each unit, chemical and energy requirements, control systems, and similar items will be provided as part of the Preliminary Engineering Report. bdr: mjh: ds1: Docs :IFBU:22800:06:04:FacPlan:Final C -1 Stanley Consultants 9-00 -am MM01% I Stanley Consultants A Stanley Group Company Engineering, Environmental and Construction Services -Worldwide M� m 14 Prepared by: Brian Boelk, Civil Engineer, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356 -5437 RESOLUTION NO. 11 -54 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST AN IOWA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FUNDING AGREEMENT FOR THE BUTLER BRIDGE PEDESTRIAN TRAIL PROJECT STP -U- 3715(651)-- 70 -52. WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City, Iowa has negotiated an agreement with the Iowa Department of Transportation, said agreement being attached to this Resolution and by this reference made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the City Council deems it in the public interest to enter into said agreement with the Iowa Department of Transportation for STP project STP -U- 3715(651)- -70 -52 for the construction of a new wide sidewalk and a separated bridge crossing over the Iowa River along Dubuque Street; and WHEREAS, funds for this project are available in the Butler Bridge Pedestrian Trail account #4217. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, THAT: 1. It is in the public interest to enter into the above - mentioned agreement, and the agreement is hereby approved as to form and content. 2. The Mayor is authorized to sign and the City Clerk to attest the agreement in duplicate between the City of Iowa City and the Iowa Department of Transportation. Passed and approved this 15th day of February, 2011. tea - Q Jr ATTEST: City Clerk Approved by: City Attorney's Office;zA /f Resolution No. 11 -54 Page 2 It was moved by Wilburn and seconded by Mims the Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: X X X x x x wpdata /glossary/resolution - ic.doc NAYS: ABSENT: Bailey Champion Dickens Hayek Mims Wilburn Wright November 2008 IOWA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal -aid Agreement for a Surface Transportation Program Project Recipient: Iowa City Project No.: STP- U- 3715(651)- -70 -52 Iowa DOT Agreement No.: 6- 10- STPU -34 This is an agreement between the city of Iowa City, Iowa (hereinafter referred to as the Recipient) and the Iowa Department of Transportation (hereinafter referred to as the Department). Iowa Code Sections 306A.7 and 307.44 provide for the Recipient and the Department to enter into agreements with each other for the purpose of financing transportation improvement projects on streets and highways in Iowa with Federal funds. Federal regulations require Federal funds to be administered by the Department. The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA -LU), Public Law 109 -59, as amended by the SAFETEA -LU Technical Corrections Act, Public Law 110 -244, reestablished the Surface Transportation Program (STP), now codified at Section 133(b) of Title 23, United States Code (U.S.C.). This program makes Federal funds available for construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, resurfacing, restoration and operational or safety improvement projects on highways, bridges on any public road, and several other types of projects, as specified in 23 U.S.C. 133(b). Funding for highways is limited to Federal -aid highways, except that up to 15 percent of a State's sub - allocation of STP funds for areas with less than 5,000 population may be used for projects on rural minor collectors. Federal -aid highways include all Federal Functional Classifications, except for rural minor collectors or local roads. Pursuant to the terms of this agreement, applicable statutes, and administrative rules, the Department agrees to provide STP funding to the Recipient for the authorized and approved costs for eligible items associated with the project. Under this agreement, the parties further agree as follows: 1. The Recipient shall be the lead local governmental agency for carrying out the provisions of this agreement. 2. All notices required under this agreement shall be made in writing to the appropriate contact person. The Department's contact person will be the District 6 Local Systems Engineer. The Recipient's contact person shall be the City Engineer, or their designated representative. 3. The Recipient shall be responsible for the development and completion of the following described STP project: PCC trail along Dubuque Street, beginning at the Waterworks Prairie Park trail head, just south of the bridge over the Iowa River, to just north of Quarry Road. Includes widening the bridge over the Iowa River to accommodate the trail. 4. Eligible project activities will be limited to the following: construction, engineering, inspection, and right -of -way acquisition. Under certain circumstances, eligible activities may also include utility relocation or railroad work that is required for construction of the project. 5. The Recipient shall receive reimbursement for costs of authorized and approved eligible project activities from STP funds. The portion of the project costs reimbursed by STP funds shall be limited to a maximum of either 80 percent of eligible costs or the amount stipulated in the Johnson County Council of Governments current Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and approved in the current Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), whichever is less. 6. If the project described in Section 3. drops out of the Johnson County Council of Governments current TIP or the approved current STIP prior to obligation of Federal funds, and the Recipient fails to reprogram the project in the appropriate TIP and STIP within 3 years, this agreement shall become null and void. STP Project Agreement Page 2 7. If any part of this agreement is found to be void and unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this agreement shall remain in effect. 8. It is the intent of both parties that no third party beneficiaries be created by this agreement. 9. This agreement shall be executed and delivered in two or more copies, each of which so executed and delivered shall be deemed to be an original and shall constitute but one and the same agreement. 10. This agreement and the attached Exhibit 1 constitute the entire agreement between the Department and the Recipient concerning this project. Representations made before the signing of this agreement are not binding, and neither party has relied upon conflicting representations in entering into this agreement. Any change or alteration to the terms of this agreement shall be made in the form of an addendum to this agreement. The addendum shall become effective only upon written approval of the Department and the Recipient. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties hereto has executed this agreement as of the date shown opposite its signature below. City Signature Block (City Projects Only) By Date February 15 20 11 Matthew J. Hayek Mayor Title of city official I, Marian K. Karr certify that I am the City Clerk of Iowa City, and that Matthew J. Hayek who signed said Agreement for and on behalf of the city was duly authorized to execute the same by virtue of a formal resolution duly passed and adopted by the city on the 15 th day of February 120 11 Signed -rte'- Date February 15 -'20 11 City Clerk of Iowa City, Iowa IOWA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Highway Division By. Kent L. Ellis, P.E. Local Systems Engineer District 6 Date 20 November 2008 EXHIBIT 1 General Agreement Provisions for use of Federal Highway Funds on Non - primary Highways 1. General Requirements. a. The Recipient shall take the necessary actions to comply with applicable State and Federal laws and regulations. To assist the Recipient, the Department has provided guidance in the Federal -aid Project Development Guide (Guide) and the Instructional Memorandums to Local Public Agencies (I.M.$) that are referenced by the Guide. Both are available on -line at: http: / /www.iowadot.gov /local_systems/ publications /im /lpa_ims.htm. The Recipient shall follow the applicable procedures and guidelines contained in the Guide and I.M.s in effect at the time project activities are conducted. b. In accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and associated subsequent nondiscrimination laws, regulations, and executive orders, the Recipient shall not discriminate against any person on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability. In accordance with Iowa Code Chapter 216, the Recipient shall not discriminate against any person on the basis of race, color, creed, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, pregnancy, or disability. The Recipient shall comply with the requirements of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), and the associated Federal regulations that implement these laws. When pedestrian facilities are constructed, reconstructed, or altered, the Recipient shall make such facilities compliant with the ADA and Section 504. Pedestrian facilities include facilities that are designed for pedestrian use, such as pedestrian signals and push buttons, sidewalks, multi- use trails, curb ramps, and the street surface in the pedestrian crossing area. Alterations are changes to the structure, grade, function, or use of the pedestrian facility, and include such activities as: full depth pavement replacement, widening, resurfacing, signal installation, pedestrian signal installation, and other projects of similar scale and effect. In addition, by signing this agreement, if the Recipient has 50 or more employees, it certifies one of the following: it has provided ADA compliant curb ramps at all intersections of sidewalks with public streets under its jurisdiction; it has a transition plan that meets the requirements of 28 CFR 35.150(d), including provisions for installation of curb ramps at all intersections of sidewalks with public streets under its jurisdiction; or it is working to develop such a transition plan. If the Recipient does not have a transition plan or its transition plan does not include curb ramps, the Recipient shall prepare or modify its transition plan to include curb ramps in accordance with I.M. 1.080, ADA Requirements. d. The Recipient agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold the Department harmless from any action or liability arising out of the design, construction, maintenance, placement of traffic control devices, inspection, or use of this project. This agreement to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless applies to all aspects of the Department's application review and approval process, plan and construction reviews, and funding participation. e. In case of dispute concerning the terms of this agreement, the parties shall submit the matter to arbitration pursuant to Iowa Code Chapter 679A. Either party has the right to submit the matter to arbitration after 10 days notice to the other party of their intent to seek arbitration. The written notice shall include a precise statement of the dispute. The Department and the Recipient agree to be bound by the decision of the appointed arbitrator. Neither party may seek any remedy with the State or Federal courts absent exhaustion of the provisions of this paragraph The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A -133 requires the Department to inform the Recipient of the appropriate Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number and title to be used on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) that is required by OMB Circular A -133. CFDA #20.205 and title, "Highway Planning and Construction" shall be used for the Federal funds awarded for this project. If the Recipient will pay initial project costs and request reimbursement from the Department, the Recipient shall report this project on its SEFA. If the Department will pay initial project costs and then credit those accounts from which initial costs were paid, the Department will report this project on its SEFA. In this case, the Recipient shall not report this project on its SEFA. 2. Federal Authorization. a. The Recipient shall be responsible for including the project in the appropriate Regional Planning Affiliation (RPA) or Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The Recipient shall also ensure that the appropriate RPA or MPO, through their TIP submittal to the Department, Exhibit 1 Page 2 includes the project in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). If the project is not included in the appropriate fiscal year of the STIP, Federal funds cannot be authorized. b. Before beginning any work for which Federal funding reimbursement will be requested, the Recipient shall contact the Department to obtain the procedures necessary to secure FHWA authorization. The Recipient shall submit a written request for FHWA authorization to the Department. After reviewing the Recipient's request, the Department will forward the request to the FHWA for authorization and obligation of Federal funds. The Department will notify the Recipient when FHWA authorization is obtained. The cost of work performed prior to FHWA authorization will not be reimbursed with Federal funds. 3. In -House Services. a. If Federal funding is requested for in -house services, the Recipient shall follow the procedure outlined in I.M. 3.310, Federal -aid Participation in In -House Services. If the Recipient desires to claim indirect costs under Federal awards, the Recipient shall prepare an indirect cost rate proposal and related documentation in accordance with the requirements of 2 CFR 225. Before incurring costs for in -house services, such an indirect cost rate proposal shall be certified by the FHWA or the Federal agency providing the largest amount of Federal funds to the Recipient. 4. Consultant Services a. If the Recipient requests Federal funds for consultant services, the Recipient and the Consultant shall prepare a contract for consultant services in accordance with Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 172 - Administration of Negotiated Contracts (23 CFR 172). These regulations require a qualifications -based selection process. The Recipient shall follow the procedures for selecting and using consultants outlined in I.M. 3.305, Federal -aid Participation in Consultant Costs. b. If preliminary engineering is Federally funded, and if the "do nothing" alternate is not selected, and if right -of- way acquisition for or actual construction of the road is not started by the close of the tenth fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the Federal funds were authorized, the Recipient shall repay to the Department an amount equal to the amount of Federal funds made available for such engineering. 5. Environmental Requirements and other Agreements or Permits. a. The Recipient shall take the appropriate actions and prepare the necessary documents to fulfill the FHWA requirements for project environmental studies including historical /cultural reviews and location approval. The Recipient shall complete any mitigation agreed upon in the FHWA approval document. b. If farmland is to be acquired, whether for use as project right -of -way or permanent easement, the Recipient shall submit the U.S. Department of Agriculture Farmland Conversion Impact Rating form, when required, to the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). c. The Recipient shall obtain agreements, as needed, from railroad and utility companies; and shall obtain project permits and approvals, when necessary, from the Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs (State Historical Society of Iowa; State Historic Preservation Officer), Iowa Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Department, etc. d. The Recipient shall comply with the Policy for Accommodating Utilities on City and County Federal -aid Highway Right of Way, and the Policy for Accommodating Utilities on Primary Road System when on State's right of way. Certain utility relocation, alteration, adjustment, or removal costs to the Recipient for the project may be eligible for Federal funding reimbursement. If the Recipient desires Federal reimbursement of these costs, it shall submit a request for FHWA Authorization prior to beginning any utility relocation work, in accordance with the procedures outlined in I.M. 3.650, Federal -aid Participation in Utility Relocations e. In all contracts entered into by the Recipient, and all subcontracts, in connection with this project that exceed $100,000, the Recipient shall comply with the requirements of Section 114 of the Clean Air Act and Section 308 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and all their regulations and guidelines. In such contracts, the Recipient shall stipulate that any facility to be utilized in performance of or to benefit from this agreement is not listed on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) List of Violating Facilities or is under consideration to be listed. Exhibit 1 Page 3 6. Right -of -Way. The Recipient shall acquire the project right -of -way, whether by lease, easement, or fee title, and shall provide relocation assistance benefits and payments in accordance with the procedures set forth in IN. 3.605, Right -of -Way Acquisition, and the Department's Office of Right of Way Local Public Agency Manual. The Recipient shall contact the Department for assistance, as necessary, to ensure compliance with the required procedures, even if no Federal funds are used for right -of -way activities. The Recipient shall obtain environmental concurrence before acquiring any needed right -of -way. With prior approval, hardship and protective buying is possible. If the Recipient requests Federal funding for right -of -way acquisition, the Recipient shall also obtain FHWA authorization before purchasing any needed right -of -way. b. If the project right -of -way is Federally funded and if the actual construction is not undertaken by the close of the twentieth fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the Federal funds were authorized, the Recipient shall repay the sum or sums of Federal funds in the right -of -way to the Department. 7. Letting the Project. a. The project plans, specifications, and project cost estimate (PS &E) shall be prepared and certified by a Professional Engineer licensed in the State of Iowa. The Recipient shall submit the plans, specifications, and other contract documents to the Department for review and approval to let the project. b. The project shall be constructed under the Department's Standard Specifications for Highway and Bridge Construction. Prior to their use in the PS &E, specifications developed by the Recipient for individual construction items shall be approved by the Department. c. The Recipient shall forward a completed Project Development Certification (Form 730002) and final PS &E to the Department. As a condition for the Department to let the project, the Recipient agrees that the Recipient has the financial resources to proceed with the project if bids submitted are 110% of the project cost estimate or less. If the Recipient is a city, the Recipient shall comply with the public hearing requirements of the Iowa Code section 26.12. d. If the project is to be accomplished via a contract awarded by competitive bidding, the project will be let by the Department in accordance with its normal letting procedures. After bids are received and reviewed, the Department will furnish the Recipient with a tabulation of responsive bids. e. When let by the Department, the Department will prepare an Iowa DOT Staff Action identifying the lowest responsive bidder. The Department will mail three originals of the unexecuted contract to the Recipient. f. The Recipient shall take action to award a contract to the lowest responsive bidder or reject all bids. Following award of a contract, the Recipient shall forward to the Department two copies of the fully executed contract, two copies of the performance bond, and two copies of the certificate of insurance. 8. Construction. a. Traffic control devices, signing, or pavement markings installed within the limits of this project shall conform to the "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways" per 761 IAC Chapter 130. The safety of the general public shall be assured through the use of proper protective measures and devices such as fences, barricades, signs, flood lighting, and warning lights as necessary. b. If Federal funding is requested for construction performed by local agency forces, the Recipient will follow the procedures outlined in 1. M. 3.810, Federal -aid Construction by Local Agency Forces. c. The Recipient shall comply with the procedures and responsibilities for materials testing according to Department's Material I.M.s. The Department will bill the Recipient for testing services according to its normal policy. The Recipient should use the Department's Construction Manual as a guide for conducting other construction inspection activities. Exhibit 1 Page 4 9. Payments. a. After costs have been incurred, the Recipient may submit to the Department periodic itemized claims for reimbursement for eligible project costs. Reimbursement claims shall include certification that all eligible project costs, for which reimbursement is requested, have been paid in full and completed in substantial compliance with the terms of this agreement. b. The Department will reimburse the Recipient for properly documented and certified claims for eligible project costs, less a withholding of 5% of the Federal and / or State share of construction costs. Reimbursement will be made either by State warrant or by crediting other accounts from which payment was initially made. If, upon final audit or review, the Department determines the Recipient has been overpaid, the Recipient shall reimburse the overpaid amount to the Department. After the final audit or review is complete and after the Recipient has provided all required paperwork, the Department will release the Federal or State funds withheld. c. The total funds collected by the Recipient for this project shall not exceed the total project costs. The total funds collected shall include any Federal or State funds received, and any special assessments made by the Recipient (exclusive of any associated interest or penalties), pursuant to Iowa Code Chapter 384 (cities) or Chapter 311 (counties). The total project costs shall include all costs that can be directly attributed to the project. In the event that the total funds collected by the Recipient does exceed the total project costs, the Recipient shall either: 1) refund to the assessed property owners the excess special assessments collected (including interest and penalties associated with the amount of the excess), or 2) refund to the Department all funds collected in excess of the total project costs (including interest and penalties associated with the amount of the excess).within 60 days of the receipt of any excess funds. In return, the Department will either credit reimbursement billings to the FHWA or credit the appropriate State fund account in the amount of refunds received from the Recipient. 10. Project Close -out. a. Upon completion of the project, a Professional Engineer licensed in the State of Iowa shall certify in writing to the Department that the project was completed in substantial compliance with the plans and specifications set out in this agreement. Final reimbursement of Federal funds shall be made only after the Department accepts the project as complete. The Recipient shall maintain all books, documents, papers, accounting records, reports, and other evidence pertaining to costs incurred for the project. The Recipient shall also make these materials available at all reasonable times for inspection by the Department, FHWA, or any authorized representatives of the Federal Government. Copies of these materials shall be furnished by the Recipient if requested. Such documents shall be retained for at least 3 years from the date of FHWA approval of the final amendment / modification to the project in the FHWA's Fiscal Management Information System (FMIS). Upon receipt of such approval by FHWA, the Department will notify the Recipient of the record retention date. c. The Recipient shall maintain, or cause to be maintained, the completed improvement in a manner acceptable to the Department and the FHWA. 15 city of iowa city PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT 220 S. Gilbert Street TO: City Council FROM: Naming Policy Ad -Hoc Committee Maggie Elliott, Parks & Recreation Commission Liz Ford, Friends of the Animal Shelter Foundation Eric Goers, City Attorney's Office Misha Goodman, Animal Services Linda Kopping, Senior Center Patty McCarthy, ICPL Development Office Michael Moran, Parks & Recreation Mary Niichel, Purchasing/ Chair DATE: February 10, 2011 RE: Naming Policy Recommendation At your request, an ad -hoc committee of various city stakeholders was formed to develop a draft proposal of a naming policy for the City of Iowa City. We reviewed many policies from around the state, the University of Iowa, other universities, and a couple from Tom Markus and his previous city. The group felt that a short, sweet and simple policy that would give some discretion along the way, due to the many options that may arise would be the best way to go. This will serve as a set of guidelines for us to adopt and work with as the various fundraising projects occur throughout the city. The policy is attached to the resolution for your review. If there is anything that you would like us to revisit, rework or consider please let us know. Otherwise there is a resolution in place for your Tuesday formal meeting. There will be some members of the group available to answer questions at the Monday informal meeting. Prepared by Mike Moran, Parks and Recreation Director, 220 S. Gilbert St., Iowa City, IA, (319) 356 -5104 RESOLUTION ADOPTING A CITY OF IOWA CITY NAMING POLICY FOR BUILDINGS, FACILITIES OR PARCELS OF REAL PROPERTY WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City wishes to establish a policy for the naming of City buildings, facilities or parcels of real property; and WHEREAS, this policy will assist in the fundraising efforts of the many city departments, commissions and foundations by providing guidelines for the recognition of both donors and those of historical significance to the City; and WHEREAS, a city ad -hoc committee that assisted in developing this policy recommends adopting this policy for the benefit of these activities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, THAT; The City Council adopts the attached City Naming Policy. Passed and approved this day of Attest: CITY CLERK 2011. MAYOR Approved by City Attorney's Office CITY NAMING POLICY The naming of an entire building, facility or parcel of real property in recognition of an individual, organization, business or corporation, or other entity, shall first require the approval of both an ad hoc naming committee and City Council. The ad hoc naming committee shall be made up of the City Manager, the relevant City Department Head, and one member from the relevant City - affiliated foundation, if any. If the naming is in recognition of a financial donation to the City, the donation shall be in an amount no less than 50% of the total value of the entire building, facility or parcel of real property. Such donations shall be memorialized in writing in a standardized City Naming Agreement. The naming of any other City property shall require the approval of the relevant City Department Head. 2. The entity having ultimate authority to approve the naming (City Council or the Department Head) shall also have the authority to approve both the wording of the naming and the means by which the naming is displayed and /or published. Appropriate naming recognition for a philanthropic act may be made in the form of a plaque, engraving, or other suitable form of recognition in acknowledgement and appreciation of a specific gift. 3. The decision to name a public facility after an individual on account of their historical significance or impact on the community shall be made no sooner than two years following their death. 4. The City Council reserves the right to rescind any naming or recognition given to any individual, organization, business or corporation, or other entity if at any time the individual, organization, business or corporation, or other entity is found to have neglected to uphold the standards of good citizenship. 5. The individual, organization, business or corporation, or other entity after whom the City structure /facility, property, or improvements is named shall possess no additional rights to the City structure /facility, property, or improvements bearing their name, or to any other City property. 6. All City Boards, Commissions, Departments, affiliated foundations, other City entities shall take into account these policy guidelines when conducting fundraising campaigns, or making naming recommendations to the City Council or Department Head. CITY OF IOWA CITY 16 MEMORANDUM Date: February 10, 2011 To: City Council From: Eric Goers, Asst. City Attorney Re: Banning of Guns on City Property For the reasons outlined in my earlier Memo to Susan Craig, a copy of which is attached for your reference, the City is empowered, as property owner, to control its own buildings, grounds, and facilities. That control extends to an ability to prohibit firearms and other weapons. Enforcement of prohibition would be through state criminal trespass charges. After contacting the Department Heads to ascertain their positions on the banning of firearms on property they supervise, Eleanor Dilkes and I met with Tom Markus to formulate a City policy on the matter. Following that discussion, I drafted the Resolution on your agenda for your February 15th meeting. In summary, staff proposes banning weapons, including firearms, on all City property, with some exceptions. Those exceptions include the following: • Any sworn peace officers, including those from agencies other than the Iowa City Police Dept. • Any person possessing a professional (as opposed to the recently amended non- professional) permit to carry. These permits are issued to State - licensed private investigators and private security officers, such as armored car drivers. • Firearms capable only of firing blanks, for use in military funerals in the City's cemetery, but only with written permission of the Cemetery Supervisor. • Unloaded and properly cased firearms in vehicles, but not in the passenger compartment of the vehicles, in City parking lots and ramps. Firearms may not be carried on one's person in the lots or ramps. City property where bans are implemented will be signed to provide notice to the public, and to make prosecution possible upon a violation. Firearms will be banned at City construction sites not open to the public not through this resolution, but through contract specifications. With those sites closed to the public, the concern is more related to site contractors and subcontractors than the public. City staff would also consider whether banning firearms and other weapons would be appropriate in City property leased to private entities. The Library Board of Trustees has already banned firearms and other weapons on Library property, and the Airport Commission plans to consider its options at the February meeting. All other City property is ultimately managed by the City Manager. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. I will also be present and available to answer your questions at your February 14th Work Session. Copy to: Tom Markus, City Manager Dale Helling, Asst. City Manager Marian Karr, City Clerk Eleanor Dilkes, City Attorney !„ r OR CITY OF IOWA CITY dailloN MEMORANDUM Date: January 4, 2011 To: Susan Craig, Library Director From: Eric Goers, Asst. City Attorney Re: Prohibiting guns on City property Question Presented: Can the Iowa City Public Library prohibit firearms in the library despite the recent change to Iowa Code Section 724.7? Conclusion:: Yes. The state law does not prevent a city from regulating firearms on property owned by the city. Any weapons restrictions should be adopted by formal action of the Library Board, clear signage should appear on all entrances and the restrictions may be enforced by way of a criminal trespass charge. I am copying all Department Directors on this opinion as the same conclusion applies to all municipal property with the exception, of course, that the resolution adopting the restriction must be by the entity in control of the property (e.g. City Council or Airport Commission) On January 1, 2011, Iowa became a "shall issue" state, meaning that the sheriff of the county in which the applicant resides must issue, without limitation or qualification, a nonprofessional permit to carry firearms to anyone "not unqualified" under State Code. See Iowa Code Section 724.7 and 724.11. County sheriffs may no longer place limitations on what weapon or ammunition may be carried, or insist that the carrying be concealed. The law also indicates that the permit "shall be valid throughout the state except where the possession or carrying of a firearm is prohibited by state or federal law." Iowa Code Section 724.7. It is this last sentence that has sparked debate about what limitations property owners can impose on those wishing to enter onto their property. There are two primary interpretations of this last phrase. The first is that the permits are no longer limited to the county in which they were issued, but are valid throughout all 99 counties. The second is that the permits are good literally anywhere in the state of Iowa, regardless of the wishes of property owners, save only for regulation by the state or federal government. Under Iowa Code Section 724.4, a person commits an aggravated misdemeanor when they, within city limits, go armed with a pistol or revolver, or any loaded firearm at any time. There are exceptions, including 724.4(4)(i), for those in possession of a permit to carry. By the same token, "A person... shall not operate any motor vehicle upon a highway in this state unless the person has a driver's license...." Iowa Code Section 321.174. That driver's license is clearly `valid throughout the state', and "highway" includes all public roads. It is equally clear that if the City chose to close a road to motor vehicle traffic for maintenance purposes, for a street festival, or for dangerous conditions, the fact that someone possessed a driver's license, issued by the state, allowing them to drive on public highways, would not trump the closure and allow them to drive there. While the analogy is far from perfect, as the structures of the two regulatory schemes are not identical, the notion that falling within an exception to a state crime empowers one to "exercise" that exception outside of the original parameters of the state law, is flawed. January 6, 2011 Page 2 Simply put, falling under an exception to a single rule doesn't make moot all other rules. In this case, the Constitutionally protected rights of property owners to control their own property must prevail, even if the property is owned by the government. The Attorney General's Office has twice weighed in on this issue within the past several years. In 2003, they concluded that Iowa Code Section 724.28, which prohibits cities and counties from passing their own regulation of firearms registration, licensure, transportation, possession and transfer when such activities are otherwise lawful under the state law, would not bar the city from regulating firearms on their own property. The Attorney General stated: Finally, we have surveyed cases and opinions from other jurisdictions addressing preemption in the context of weapons regulation. The majority of courts addressing the narrow issue presented here - whether an express statutory preemption of firearms regulation by a municipality prohibits the municipality from regulating the possession of firearms on municipally -owned or controlled property - have recognized the inherent authority of a municipality to manage property which it owns or controls. Iowa Op. Atty. Gen. #03 -4 -1, page S The Iowa Attorney General's Office was asked to render an opinion on the most recent change to 724.7. Noting that there were many changes to Iowa Chapter 724, but none to 724.28, they concluded that nothing in the statutory amendments changed their earlier interpretation that cities and counties had the legal right to regulate firearms on their own property. See attached letter from Assistant Iowa Attorney General Michael Bennett to Patrick Jackson, Des Moines County Attorney, dated December 29, 2010. The Attorney General's Office suggested, as would I, that policies be officially adopted via resolution of City Council, or in your case, the Library Board. Special attention should be paid to exceptions you might consider, such as for police officers, members of the armed services, or those with private security firms, such as armored car drivers. Iowa Code Section 724.4(4) would be a good starting point for your discussions. I also share their view that violations of City prohibitions against carrying firearms on City property should be met with trespass charges. To ensure public notice and effective prosecution, there should be clear signage at all entrances to the buildings to which the prohibition applies. Should you have questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to call. Cc w/o encl.: Tom Markus, City Manager Dale Helling, Assistant City Manager Marian Karr, City Clerk Department Directors City Council Eleanor Dilkes, City Attorney I ,&Va rtment of Justir>e THOMAS J. MILLER ATTORNEY GENERAL December 29, 2010 Patrick Jackson Des Moines County Attorney 215 Columbia Street Burlington, Iowa 52601 Dear Pat: AADRESS REPLY TO: HOOVER BUILDING DES NOW". IOWA SM 19 TELE PNO W. 515 -251 -5164 FACSIMILE, 515- 261 -4502 This letter is in response to your inquiry regarding the ability of city or county authorities to place restrictions on the use of firearms by persons with nonprofessional permits to carry weapons on city/county property after the enactment of Senate File 2379, which becomes effective January 1, 2011. Senate File 2379, 83`d G.A, 2 "d Sess., § 19. This legislation made significant changes in the process of issuing nonprofessional permits to carry weapons under Iowa Code Chapter 724. Iowa Code §724.28 restricts the scope of local ordinances limiting firearm registration, licensure, transportation, possession and transfer when such activities are otherwise lawful under the state law. Iowa Code §724.28 is not changed by Senate File 2379. Section 5 of Senate File 2379 amends Iowa Code §724.7, "nonprofessional permits to carry weapons ", and provides these nonprofessional permits are valid throughout the state except where carrying a firearm is prohibited by state or federal law. In 2003, this office issued the attached formal opinion, Op. Atty. Gen. #03 -4 -1, interpreting the power of a city or county to restrict use of its property by persons with firearms in light of the limitations of Iowa Code §724.28. That opinion determined that Iowa Code §724.28 would not bar a city or a county from regulating firearms on the city or county's own property; however, Iowa Code §724.28 does not allow more generalized regulation of firearms within these jurisdictions. This office has reviewed Opinion #03- 4-1 in light of the changes to Iowa Code Chapter 724 contained in Senate File 2379, and concluded that the opinion remains an accurate interpretation of the law. While the city ordinance reviewed in Op. Atty. Gen. #03 -4 -1 provided a criminal penalty for possession of weapons in violation of the city ordinance, the best practice may be enforcement through the existing state criminal trespass statute, Iowa Code §716.7(2)(b). Entering public property with notice of a weapons prohibition or remaining thereon after being asked to vacate would be punishable under this statute. Local authorities seeking to bar such use by armed persons should clearly post weapon restrictions on entryways to affected public property to give adequate notice to users to allow compliance. Enforcement through the criminal trespass statute is consistent with the means cities and counties have generally used to deal with use of their facilities in violation of regulations or use that disrupts normal business thereon. Finally, the limited, local regulation of firearm possession on county or city property would be best implemented through a resolution or motion by a city council or county board of supervisors. These actions by cities and counties are defined by Iowa Code §331.101(13) and §362.2(21) as a statement of policy or order for action to be taken. Ordinances are laws of a general and permanent nature to be applied throughout the jurisdiction. See §331.101(10) and §362.2(16). Therefore, a motion or resolution would comport with the narrow regulation by a city or county necessary for the orderly use of only its own facilities. I hope your find this information helpful in resolving your question. Best regards, Michael Bennett Assistant Iowa Attorney General PATC Division Prepared by: Eric Goers, Assist. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356 -5030 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION PROHIBITING FIREARMS AND WEAPONS ON CITY PROPERTY AND CITY BUSSES WHER AS, the City of Iowa City, to preserve the safety of the public and City employees and fficials, desires to prohibit the presence of firearms and weapons in and on property owne leased, or otherwise occupied by the City of Iowa City; and WHEREAS, t City of Iowa City, pursuant to Iowa Constitution A icle III, section 38A and Iowa Code s tion 364 1, has the authority, except as expres y limited by the Constitution and if not i onsistent with the laws of the general ass bly, to exercise any power and perform a function it deems appropriate to prote and preserve the rights, privileges and propert of the City or of its residents, and to reserve and improve the peace, safety, health, and Ifare of its residents; and WHEREAS, because City uildings and prope provide venues for the assembly of large numbers of pe le, or may be a forum for discussion of controversial issues or for the conduct f unpopular a vities, the presence of firearms or weapons in or on City buildings or pro erty gives r' a to an undue risk of threats and intimidation against democratic processe and ivities and physical harm to City employees, peace officers and the general p lic; nd WHEREAS, City employees are alrq6dy prohibited from carrying dangerous weapons while on duty, with the exception o swo peace officers; and WHEREAS, in the opinion of b the Iowa ttorney General's Office and the City Attorney the amendments to CL er 724 contai d in Senate File 2379 (effective January 1, 2011) relating to the iss nce of non - profe Tonal permits to carry firearms does not infringe on the authority the City of Iowa City o enact regulations and pass resolutions regarding the protec ' n of City property, as II as the protection of the health, safety and welfare of ' y employees and officials a d the public who may be present on City property by re ricting firearms and weapons o roperty owned, leased, or occupied by the City of to a City; and WHEREAS, the ty wishes to continue to allow military fune Is with gun salutes in the City Cemetery, swell as the ability of drivers to keep unto ed and properly cased firearms in the' vehicles while in City lots or ramps, with the exce ion of any area set aside for Farm s Markets, and possession by anyone with a profess' nal permit to carry. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, THAT: 1. All firearms and weapons are prohibited in or on all property that is owned, leased or otherwise occupied by the City of Iowa City, including but not limited to City hall, all City office buildings, all property owned, leased or otherwise occupied by the City of Iowa City which adjoins said buildings, and any City - owned parks. 2. For purposes of this resolution, weapon is defined as any "dangerous weapon" as defined in Iowa Code Section 702.7, as well as any pellet gun, BB gun, or offensive weapon, as defined in Iowa Code Section 724.1. 3. 8Worn peace officers, those persons possessing a professional permit to carry weapQps, and persons with written permission from the Chief of Police, or designe are exempted from the prohibitions of this resolution. Firearms only capable o firing blank ammunition are permitted in City cemetery property for purposes of articipating in military funerals only with the written permission of the Cemetery pervisor. 4. Persons may poss ss firearms that are both unloaded and properly cased in City parking lots and mps in their vehicles, but not within the passenger compartment. Perso may not carry said firearms with them on their person in City lots or ramps. No irearms may be possessed in any area designated as a Farmers Market, whether n a vehicle or not. 5. Any person entering City pr %sh may be subject t metal detection testing or, upon probable cause to behe person is trying or in possession of a firearm or weapon, the persoI be subject t a personal search. 6. Any person who enters on or is n on any property owned, leased, or otherwise occupied by the City of low ity while having a firearm or weapon in his or her possession contrary to po ed ' nage shall be considered by the City of Iowa City to be trespassing put ant to 1 a Code section 716.7(2)(b) and will be subject to arrest and punis ent under sta law. Passed and approved this �_ day of ATTEST: CLERK MAYOR 20 Approved by City Attorney's Office PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of 12011. Marian Karr From: Erin Irish [erin -irish @uiowa.edu] Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 3:04 PM To: Council Subject: ban guns from City of Iowa City property This correspondence will become a public record. I urge members of City Council to vote to ban guns from city property. The new gun laws do not require that permit holders be sane, proficient with a gun, and law - abiding. I would prefer not to be in public with those who are carrying guns. If it is not practical to ban guns from all city properties, please consider banning them from the parking ramp where the Farmer's Market is held during market times. Erin Irish 314 Hutchinson Ave. Iowa City 1 Marian Karr From: Steven Rackis Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 12:42 PM To: *City Council Cc: Tom Markus; Dale Helling; Doug Boothroy; Marian Karr Subject: Support of Proposed Weapons Ban Good morning! Staff of the Iowa City Housing Authority has requested I convey the following message: As employees of the City of Iowa City, we strongly encourage you to adopt a weapons ban policy for the City of Iowa City Buildings and Grounds. As with other City Departments, we deal with persons in crises, who are often emotional and volatile. The intimidation factor alone, that a weapon - concealed of otherwise - would be introduced into the work environment is reason enough to enact a weapons ban. On behalf of the Housing Authority, thank you for your consideration. 1 Page 1 of 1 10 Marian Karr From: Christina Carlson [ccarlson1965 @msn.com] Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2011 3:06 PM To: Council Subject: Banning Guns on City Property I would like to express my support for a ban on guns on city property, including parks and the pedestrian mall. I have been employed by the UI Registrar's Office for over 28 years, working for the last 19 years in Jessup Hall- -the scene of horrific gun violence in November 1991. I have never forgotten that day. Working in a public office, I know that people can quickly become upset and even violent. The presence of a gun increases the likelihood of tragedy. There is no reason for a person to carry a gun into a city office or park. According to the Mayors Against Illegal Guns, 400,000 Americans have died since 1968 as a result of gun violence. That's 34 people every day. It sickens me to think that all Americans are not outraged enough about this to understand that we have a serious problem. Our Founding Fathers would be appalled at the gun violence in this country. Allowing people to carry guns everywhere feels like a violation of MY civil rights. Don't I have a right to go for a walk in my neighborhood without worrying about people with guns? Shouldn't I be able to go to City Park or the ped mall without wondering if someone has a gun? If people carry guns in public spaces, we are setting ourselves up for an eventual tragedy -- again. There will be a misunderstanding, tempers will flare, someone will have a gun, and people will be injured and killed. I don't want that to happen again in Jessup Hall, on campus, on the ped mall, in City Park, or anywhere else where people have a right to enjoy life in peace. Please proceed with the ban on guns on city property. Christina Carlson 1222 Arthur St Iowa City, IA This correspondence will become a public record. 2/13/2011 P Marian Karr From: Dana McFarlane <drmac22 @gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 11:53 AM To: Council Subject: Fwd: Your vote on the ban of firearms on City property. Good Morning, I would like to express to you my thoughts on your vote today. I would first like to say, I just retired after 22yrs in the military with 2 tours in the gulf. And I decided to move back to my home state of Iowa and in the Iowa City area for many reason but mostly because I love my state and appreciate all the freedoms we have here. I had to carry a weapon in a foreign country to defend the Constitution of the United States, and now your telling me that I am allow to have and carry a weapon in Iowa, just not in Iowa City? Banning the right for Iowa Citizens to carry a weapon in Iowa city or anywhere goes against the current state law that allows for all Iowa residents to have, purchase and carry a weapon, as long as they pass the required background checks, the required courses and are not a criminal, as well as paying a fee for a Constitutional Right that really should be free. After all that you are still considering banning the right to carry a weapon in the City of Iowa City. You do realize that if you pass a law that stops law abiding citizens from having a weapon that could protect them from a bad situation that you open up for lawsuits and you will only make it safer and easyer for a criminal to do bad things with out worry of chosing the wrong target. The police are a great resource for the city, but lets face it, if you are a victim of a violent crime it has usually happened and is long done before the police arrive. Law abiding Citizens are not the problem. I think you should strongly consider what you are voting on today. Banning firearms from city properties is not a good idea. I also had an issue with Assistant City Attorney Eric Goers statement to a local press that "We really see ourselves like any other property owners," I would like to clear things up and remind you who actually owns the city properties, its not you the City council or the City Attorney, its the people of Iowa City and the tax dollars we all pay to support it, we vote you in to make good decision, don't vote for the Ban. Thank you. V/r Dana McFarlane US Navy Chief Petty Officer (ret) Dana McFarlane Hp C &A Team 319 - 210 -3431 N Marian Karr From: army7l@windstream.net Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 12:04 PM To: Council Subject: Restricting firearms I've just been informed that the city will be voting on a measure tonight to ban firearms on city owned propery. If this is voted in my family and I will no longer feel safe on city owned property. I hope you please take a look at this and reconsider. Best regards., Kelly Curtis iG Marian Karr From: Mike Wright Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 12:15 PM To: Marian Karr Subject: FW: Your vote on the ban of firearms on City property. - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Dana McFarlane [mailto:drmac22 @gmail.com] Sent: Tue 2/15/201111:51 AM To: Matt Hayek; Regenia Bailey; Ross Wilburn; connie- champion @iowa - city.org; terry- dickens @iowa - city.org; Susan Mims; Mike Wright; Eleanor M. Dilkes Subject: Your vote on the ban of firearms on City property. Good Morning, I would like to express to you my thoughts on your vote today. I would first like to say, I just retired after 22yrs in the military with 2 tours in the gulf. And I decided to move back to my home state of Iowa and in the Iowa City area for many reason but mostly because I love my state and appreciate all the freedoms we have here. I had to carry a weapon in a foreign country to defend the Constitution of the United States, and now your telling me that I am allow to have and carry a weapon in Iowa, just not in Iowa City? Banning the right for Iowa Citizens to carry a weapon in Iowa city or anywhere goes against the current state law that allows for all Iowa residents to have, purchase and carry a weapon, as long as they pass the required background checks, the required courses and are not a criminal, as well as paying a fee for a Constitutional Right that really should be free. After all that you are still considering banning the right to carry a weapon in the City of Iowa City. You do realize that if you pass a law that stops law abiding citizens from having a weapon that could protect them from a bad situation that you open up for lawsuits and you will only make it safer and easyer for a criminal to do bad things with out worry of chosing the wrong target. The police are a great resource for the city, but lets face it, if you are a victim of a violent crime it has usually happened and is long done before the police arrive. Law abiding Citizens are not the problem. I think you should strongly consider what you are voting on today. Banning firearms from city properties is not a good idea. I also had an issue with Assistant City Attorney Eric Goers statement to a local press that "We really see ourselves like any other property owners," I would like to clear things up and remind you who actually owns the city properties, its not you the City council or the City Attorney, its the people of Iowa City and the tax dollars we all pay to support it, we vote you in to make good decision, don't vote for the Ban. Thank you. V/r Dana McFarlane US Navy Chief Petty Officer (ret) /6 Marian Karr From: Robert Foster <rfos47 @charter. net> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 1:17 PM To: Council Subject: criminal empowerment zones A comment from Michigan regarding your nonsensical misguided attempts at ill conceived and illegal control of the populace: Great, they will have another do nothing feel good law that will give criminals more security. Will you ever learn? 1� Marian Karr From: Granny36 <granny36 @gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 2:28 PM To: Council Subject: My thoughts regarding the proposed weapons ban Attachments: Iowa Code.pdf Please see the attached comments /questions for the City Council. I plan to attend the meeting tonight. Thanks, Aaron Granquist 521 Huntington Drive Iowa Code, Section 724.28: Prohibition of regulation by political subdivisions. A political subdivision of the state shall not enact an ordinance regulating the ownership, possession, legal transfer, lawful transportation, registration, or licensing of firearms when the ownership, possession, transfer, or transportation is otherwise lawful under the laws of this state. A few questions: 1. How does the proposed ordinance conform to the section of Iowa Code that I just read? 2. If the City is justified to enact this ordinance on City -owned property, would not guns be banned from City street Right -of -Ways? 3. If so, doesn't this ordinance effectively make a criminal of an ordinary citizen who legally buys and transports a firearm to his residence using City streets? 4. How much taxpayer dollars are anticipated to be spent defending this ordinance in court, considering the inevitable legal challenges that will be filed? 5. If the ordinance is upheld, how much will it cost the taxpayers to have City Police patrolling City properties to provide citizen protect when the right to defend oneself are taken away? 6. How does the proposed ordinance keep unlawful criminals from bringing guns on City property, especially in light of the following incidents where guns were banned from the respective properties? a. Shooting at University of Iowa in 1991 b. Shooting at Columbine High School in 1999 c. Shooting at Virginia Tech University in 2007 Finally, I'll leave you with the following article excerpt: "On Oct. 16, 1991, Suzanna Hupp helplessly watched her mother and father die as George Hennard Jr. methodically blasted away at a crowd of stunned customers at Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen(TX). At one point during the slaughter, she had a clear shot at the assailant and reached for her purse to get her gun. But Hupp soon realized she didn't have it with her, as state law prohibited citizens to carry guns concealed inside pocketbooks or clothing." http://boston.com/community/``blogs/crime punishment /2011/01/gun laws and mass murder.html It has been shown time and again, that gun bans put law- abiding citizens at the mercy of deranged criminals. I certainly hope the City's actions here tonight do not lead to such a scenario. Respectfully submitted, Aaron Granquist 521 Huntington Drive (District B) 0 Marian Karr From: Jeffrey Cox <jeffrey- cox @uiowa.edu> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 2:30 PM To: Council Subject: Fwd: Undeliverable: dangerous weapons Dear Council Members, I was a little confused in the press coverage about whether the resolution banning guns on city property extends to other kinds of "dangerous weapons ". When the School Board adopted a "dangerous weapons" policy, they found that a sharpened pencil was included in the same category as an AK -47 in the language of the policy. Similar embarrassments have occurred around the country. We don't want to get into a position where someone who has been working in the yard comes in later in the day to pay a water bill, and violates the law by having a pocket knife in her pocket. Nor do we want someone boarding a city bus to be caught up in the regulation for carrying a fork to a city park to eat lunch. The list of potentially dangerous weapons is pretty much endless. Surely it's possible to just ban guns. Maybe this isn't a problem with the language of this resolution, but I wanted to bring this to your attention. Best, Jeff Cox Marian Karr From: Russel Peck <rpeck @atlantic.k12.ia.us> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 3:19 PM To: Council Subject: weapons ban Really wish the council would think about this before you go ahead and pass it as we all know you will. I think it's a good idea letting everyone know what property is owned by the city for future law suits though! It will be interesting to see what happens when, say a person with a gun who won't have a permit to carry uses it, and I hope the victim is still around so they will also be able to say they own some Iowa City property. I can say it won't be me or my wife because we'll find another city to visit. M �9 Ito Prepared by: Eric Goers, Assist. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356 -5030 RESOLUTION NO. 11 -55 RESOLUTION PROHIBITING FIREARMS AND WEAPONS ON CITY PROPERTY AND CITY BUSSES WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City, to preserve the safety of the public and City employees and officials, desires to prohibit the presence of firearms and weapons in and on property owned, leased, or otherwise occupied by the City of Iowa City; and WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City, pursuant to Iowa Constitution Article III, section 38A and Iowa Code section 364.1, has the authority, except as expressly limited by the Constitution and if not inconsistent with the laws of the general assembly, to exercise any power and perform any function it deems appropriate to protect and preserve the rights, privileges and property of the City or of its residents, and to preserve and improve the peace, safety, health, and welfare of its residents; and WHEREAS, because City buildings and property provide venues for the assembly of large numbers of people, or may be the forum for discussion of controversial issues or for the conduct of unpopular activities, the presence of firearms or weapons in or on City buildings or property gives rise to an undue risk of threats and intimidation against democratic processes and activities and physical harm to City employees, peace officers and the general public; and WHEREAS, City employees are already prohibited from carrying dangerous weapons while on duty, with the exception of sworn peace officers; and WHEREAS, in the opinion of both the Iowa Attorney General's Office and the City Attorney the amendments to Chapter 724 contained in Senate File 2379 (effective January 1, 2011) relating to the issuance of non - professional permits to carry firearms does not infringe on the authority of the City of Iowa City to enact regulations and pass resolutions regarding the protection of City property, as well as the protection of the health, safety and welfare of City employees and officials and the public who may be present on City property by restricting firearms and weapons on property owned, leased, or occupied by the City of Iowa City; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to continue to allow military funerals with gun salutes in the City Cemetery, possession by anyone with a professional permit to carry, and the ability of drivers to keep unloaded firearms inside a closed and fastened container in their vehicles while in City lots or ramps, with the exception of any area set aside for Farmer's Markets. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, THAT: Resolution No. Page 2 11 -55 1. All firearms and weapons are prohibited in or on all property that is owned, leased or otherwise occupied by the City of Iowa City, including but not limited to City hall, all City office buildings, all property owned, leased or otherwise occupied by the City of Iowa City which adjoins said buildings, any City -owned parks, and all City busses. 2. For purposes of this resolution, weapon is defined as any "dangerous weapon" as defined in Iowa Code Section 702.7, as well as any pellet gun, BB gun, or offensive weapon, as defined in Iowa Code Section 724.1. 3. Sworn peace officers, those persons possessing a professional permit to carry weapons, and persons with written permission from the Chief of Police, or designee, are exempted from the prohibitions of this resolution. Firearms only capable of firing blank ammunition are permitted in City cemetery property for purposes of participating in military funerals only with the written permission of the Cemetery Supervisor. 4. Persons may possess firearms in City parking lots and ramps so long as the firearms are unloaded, kept inside a closed and fastened container, and not within the passenger compartment. Persons may not carry said firearms with them on their person in City lots or ramps. No firearms may be possessed in any area designated as a Farmers Market, whether in a vehicle or not. 5. Any person entering City property may be subject to metal detection testing or, upon probable cause to believe the person is carrying or in possession of a firearm or weapon, the person shall be subject to a personal search. 6. Any person who enters on or is found on any property owned, leased, or otherwise occupied by the City of Iowa City while having a firearm or weapon in his or her possession contrary to posted signage shall be considered by the City of Iowa City to be trespassing pursuant to Iowa Code section 716.7(2)(b) and will be subject to arrest and punishment under state law. 7. This resolution shall not apply to airport and library property which is managed by the Airport Commission and Library Board, respectively. Passed and approved this 15th day of February , 201 —• MA p ro d by ATTEST: CITY tEERK City Attorney's Office Resolution No. 11 -55 Page 3 It was moved by Bailey and seconded by Wright the Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: _x_ Bailey x Champion x Dickens x Hayek x Mims x Wilburn x Wright wpdata/g lossa ry/resol ution-ic. doc 724.28 Prohibition of regulation by political subdivisions. A political subdivision of the state shall not enact an ordinance regulating the ownership, possession, legal transfer, lawful transportation, registration, or licensing of firearms when the ownership, possession, transfer, or transportation is otherwise lawful under the laws of this state. An ordinance regulating firearms in violation of this section existing on or after April 5, 1990, is void. 724.4A Weapons free zones - enhanced penalties. 1. As used in this section, "weapons free zone" means the area in or on, or within one thousand feet of, the real property comprising a public or private elementary or secondary school, or in or on the real property comprising a public park. A weapons free zone shall not include that portion of a public park designated as a hunting area under section. 2. Notwithstanding sections and , a person who commits a public offense involving a firearm or offensive weapon, within a weapons free zone, in violation of this or any other chapter shall be subject to a fine of twice the maximum amount which may otherwise be imposed for the public offense. 94 Acts, ch 724.7 Nonprofessional permit to carry weapons. Any person who is not disqualified under section 724.8, who satisfies the training requirements of section 724.9, and who files an application in accordance with section 724.10 shall be issued a nonprofessional permit to carry weapons. Such permits shall be on a form prescribed and published by the commissioner of public safety, which shall be readily distinguishable from the professional permit, and shall identify the holder of the permit. Such permits shall not be issued for a particular weapon and shall not contain information about a particular weapon including the make, model, or serial number of the weapon or any ammunition used in that weapon. All permits so issued shall be for a period of five years and shall be valid throughout the state except where the possession or caring of a firearm is prohibited by state or fede%L law. ac-) M HOME RULE cn r 364.1 Scope. rn = 0 A city may, except as expressly limited by the Constitution of the State of , a if not inconsistent with the laws of the general assembly, exercise any power nd pesfkrm any function it deems appropriate to protect and preserve the rights, privileges, an? property of the city or of its residents, and to preserve and improve the peace, safety, health, welfare, comfort, and convenience of its residents. This grant of home rule powers does not include the power to enact private or civil law governing civil relationships, except as incident to an exercise of an independent city power. 364.3 Limitation of powers. 3. A city may not set standards and requirements which are lower or less stringent than those imposed by state law, but may set standards and requirements which are higher or more stringent than those imposed by state law, unless a state law provides otherwise. IA CONSTITUTION Municipal home rule. SEC. 38A. Municipal corporations are granted home rule power and authority, not inconsistent with the laws of the general assembly, to determine their local affairs and government, except that they shall not have power to levy any tax unless expressly authorized by the general assembly. The rule or proposition of law that a municipal corporation possesses and can exercise only those powers granted in express words is not a part of the law of this state. ARTICLE I. BILL OF RIGHTS. Rights of persons. SECTION 1. All men and women are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights - among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safe and happiness. 1868 Representative Stevens emphasized the necessity of the right: "Disarm a community and you rob them of the means of defending life. Take away their weapons of defense and you take away the inalienable right of defending liberty. The fourteenth amendment, now so happily adopted, settles the whole question. N O r -� CO =� m-° a x O A Ln 00 Marian Karr From: Patrick Murray <predcl30 @bellsouth.net> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 4:23 PM To: Council Subject: Firearms ban on city property I am horrified that you seem set on banning firearms on city property. I was born and raised in Iowa and would like to return but feel the only state I truly love is determined to make itself a haven for murderers, rapists and thieves. The facts on concealed carry are out there and plentiful to see. Firearms protect us all and "victim disarmament zones" only give the oppressors greater freedom to abuse the innocent. I feel the city is making itself far too dangerous for my wife and kids to return. Perhaps you wish to be more like Mexico with their total gun ban which has permitted an open drug war. Maybe your goal is to copy England which has nearly eliminated gun crime only and resulted in an overall tripling of violent crimes with other implements. During the time England has suffered under their gun ban, the United States has continued to increase our firearm ownership resulting in a 40 -year low in violent crime. How can you, as elected representatives, be so willing to sacrifice the lives of your constituents? Pat "Snap -Tite" Murray, USAF (Retired) (843) 797 -1166 Home (843) 708 -1529 Cell In God we trust Prepared by: Eric Goers, Assist. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356 -5030 RE S LUTION NO. RESOLUTION PROHI TING FIREARMS AND WEAPONS ON CITY P OPERTY AND CITY BUSSES WHEREAS, the City ofjowa City, to preserve the safety of t public and City employees and officials, desires`to prohibit the presence of firearms a d weapons in and on property owned, leased, or otherwise occupied by the City of Iowa ity; and WHEREAS, the City of Iowa%City, pursuant to Iowa Constit on Article III, section 38A and Iowa Code section 364.1, has the authority, except as pressly limited by the Constitution and if not inconsistent with the laws of the gener assembly, to exercise any power and perform any function 'it deems appropriate to protect and preserve the rights, privileges and property of the City or of its residents, d to preserve and improve the peace, safety, health, and welfare of+�its residents; and WHEREAS, because City built assembly of large numbers of people controversial issues or for the conduct of or weapons in or on City buildings or prop intimidation against democratic processe employees, peace officers and the general Is and pr perty provide venues for the or may/be the forum for discussion of ipopu!oii activities, the presence of firearms ty giVes rise to an undue risk of threats and qKd activities and physical harm to City �iblic; and WHEREAS, City employees are alr ady prohibited from carrying dangerous weapons while on duty, with the exception of s orn peace officers; and WHEREAS, in the opinion of both the loin City Attorney the amendments to Chapter 724 or January 1, 2011) relating to the issuance of no -I does not infringe on the authority of the City of I v resolutions regarding the,protection of City prop health, safety and welfare of City employees an present on City property by restricting firearms and or occupied by the City of Iowa City; and a Attorney General's Office and the tained in Senate File 2379 (effective irofessional permits to carry firearms Fa City to enact regulations and pass rty, as well as the protection of the officials and the public who may be �eapons on property owned, leased, WHEREAS, the City wishes to continue to al in the City Cemetery, possession by anyone with a ability of drivers to keep unloaded firearms inside their vehicles while in City lots or ramps, with the Farmer's Markets. o military funerals with gun salutes pro ssional permit to carry, and the a cl ed and fastened container in exception of any area set aside for NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, THAT: 1. All firearms and weapons are prohibited in or on all property that is owned, leased or otherwise occupied by the City of Iowa City, including but not limited to City hall, all City office buildings, all property owned, leased or otherwise occupied by the City of Iowa City which adjoins said buildings, and any City - owned parks. 2. For purposes of this resolution, weapon is defined as any "dangerous weapon" as defined in Iowa Code Sectiofx`702.7, as well as any pellet gun, B� gun, or offensive weapon, as defined inrlowa Code Section 724.1. 3. Sworn peace officers, those oersons possessing a professional pe it to carry weapons, and persons with Written permission from the Chief of Police, or designee, are exempted from f.e prohibitions of this resolution Firearms only capable of firing blank ammuni{ on are permitted in City cern�iery property for purposes of participating in militefy funerals only with the wfitten permission of the Cemetery Supervisor. \ 4. Persons may possess firearms in city parking lots and ramps so long as the firearms are unloaded, kept inside aN,closed and :fastened container, and not within the passenger compartment. �grsons may not carry said firearms with them on their person in City lots or ramp No firearms may be possessed in any area designated as a Farmers Market, wh ther in a vehicle or not. 5. Any person entering City property may be subject to metal detection testing or, upon probable cause to believe the pers is carrying or in possession of a firearm or weapon, the person shall be subje t to a personal search. 6. Any person who enters on or is found o any property owned, leased, or otherwise occupied by the City of Iowa City ile having a firearm or weapon in his or her possession contrary to posted sigridge shall be considered by the City of Iowa City to be trespassing pursuant to lowA Code section 716.7(2)(b) and will be subject to arrest and punishment under stat A law. Passed and approved this day of MAYOR ATTEST: CGTY CLERK 1 by City Attorney's Office