Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-10-01 Public hearingNOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, at 7:00 p.m. on the 1st day of October, 2013, in Emma J. Harvat Hall, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa, or if said meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of the City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk; at which hearing the Council will consider: A rezoning ordinance to amend the Planned Development Overlay / High Density Single - Family (OPD /RS -12) plan for Saddlebrook to allow 13 apartment buildings with 142 multi- family dwellings and 6 duplexes with 12 dwelling units on approximately 19.67 acres of land located south of Paddock Circle. Copies of the proposed ordinances and resolutions are on file for public examination in the office of the City Clerk, City Hall, Iowa City, Iowa. Persons wishing to make their views known for Council consideration are encouraged to appear at the above - mentioned time and place. MARIAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, at 7:00 p.m. on the 17th day of September, 2013, in Emma J. Harvat Hall, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa, or if said meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of the City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk; at which hearing the Council will consider: 1. An ordinance conditionally rezoning from Low Density Multi- family (RM12) zone to a�2. r Planned Development Overlay /Low Density Multi- family (OPD -RM12) zone for 1.31 acres of property located at the southwest corner of Melrose Ave. and Westwinds Dr. % 2. An ordinance conditionally rezoning from Community Commercial (CC2) zone to Low Density Multi- family (RM12) for 2.19 acres of property located east of N. Dodge St., north of Conklin Lane, an and west of Dodge St. Ct. 3. An ordinance amending title 14: Zoning to allow additional building height and floor area, alternative ground floor transparency and building articulation standards and lower parking requirements for properties zoned Central Business Support (CB2) in the Riverfront Crossings District. Copies of the proposed ordinances and resolutions are on file for public examination in the office of the City Clerk, City Hall, Iowa City, Iowa. Persons wishing to make their views known for Council consideration are encouraged to appear at the above - mentioned time and place. MARIAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the City Council of Iowa City will hold a public hearing on October 1, 2013, at 7:00 p.m. in the Emma J. Harvat Hall of the Iowa City City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa, or if said meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of the City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk; at which hearing the Council will consider a Resolution approving a purchase agreement with Ruppert Family, LLC for Lot 6 in North Airport Development Subdivision. Copies of the proposed resolution are available for public examination in the office of the City Clerk, City Hall, Iowa City, Iowa. Persons wishing to make their views known for Council consideration are encouraged to appear at the above - mentioned time and place. MARIAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK 1 k 1 =t�� � 1 r- CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: September 26, 2013 To: Thomas Markus, City Manager From: Airport Operations Specialist Re: Ruppert Parcel — Airport Acquisition, Lot #6 Sale Airport Commerce Park INTRODUCTION 10-01-13 5 O This memorandum is to update you on the current status of the acquisition of a 12.09 acre parcel at the end of runway 12 on Highway 1 to the east of the old Menard's. It is currently owned by the Ruppert Family LLC ( "Ruppert"). There is a current purchase agreement between the City and owner for $5 million contingent on 1) City Council Approval; 2) FAA Approval; 3) FAA Grant Funding; and 4) purchase by the owner of lots in North Airport Subdivision in the amount of $500,000. The 12.09 acres to purchased is located within the Runway Protection Zone ( "RPZ "). FAA Policy on RPZ land ownership is "Where practical, airport owners should own the property under the runway approach and departure areas to at least the limits of the RPZ." — FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300 -13A "Airport Design." BACKGROUND The Airport Master Plan was completed in July 1996, and Phase 1 (covering acquisitions in the years 1996 -2000) called for acquiring the 12.09 acres. In July 2000, City Council approved its acquisition. In February 2001, the City offered to buy the parcel for $2.505 million (appraised value in 2000) on contract ($275,000 at close, annual payments of $250,000 at 6% interest). The FAA would reimburse the City the costs for each annual payment less interest (interest totaled approximately $556,000). The Owner countered with $2.8 million in cash, but the FAA would not fund a cash purchase. Negotiations ceased shortly thereafter due to lack of funds. Over the following years the City would be contacted occasionally by the owners' representative about the City buying the property. The answer was that the FAA was not providing grant funding for the acquisition. In early 2012 FAA indicated there would be grant funding available for acquisitions. At that time staff and ownership resumed negotiations on a sale price. Staff relied on a 2000 appraisal by Cook Appraisals as well as updated information from Mr. Cook and Jeff Edberg, the City's broker for North Airport Subdivision lots, when negotiating the purchase price. Staff was also aware that the owner had the land appraised as part of a probate proceeding, and the appraiser placed a value of $4.2 million as of 2007 (the date of death valuation). Although the land is currently being farmed, it is zoned CI -1 and the owner has had it on the market for quite some time. In all likelihood, few developers were interested in purchasing it since the Master Plan has called for the city to acquire since 1996. A few months after the purchase agreement was reached in July 2012, Deery Deery & Deery LLC purchased 5.05 acres at 651 Highway 1 west for $2,459,000 (zoned CI -1). Greg Downes in an email to City Council dated 9/19/03, in addition to a question regarding the price, raised the issue of "avigation easements" that may limit the use of the property. There is only one easement, and it is not a "no build easement," but rather an easement allowing noise /dust and limiting obstructions. September 26, 2013 Page 2 Near the time staff and ownership had reached a verbal agreement of $5 million, congressional reauthorization of FAA increased the local grant share from 5% to 10% of cost. Following the change in grant matching requirements, Ruppert agreed to purchase lot 6 in North Airport Subdivision for $500,000 which would provide the necessary local funding for the grant match. The listing price for Lot 6 is $465,000. As part of the grant application, the staff submitted the purchase agreement to the FAA, and the FAA concurred with the purchase price as well as the use of the sale proceeds of Lot 6 for the grant matching funds. UPDATE A congressional announcement on the grant occurred on September 17, 2013 There are two parts to complete the overall transaction which require Council approval. First, Council will need to approve the sale of Lot 6 of North Airport Subdivision to Ruppert for $500,000. This would provide the local matching funds for the grant. The second part is Council will need to approve the purchase agreement with Ruppert for the purchase of the 12.09 acre parcel. 'Area of Land being purchased by Airport /City September 26, 2013 Page 3 *Lot being purchased BY Ruppert Family, provides proceeds for 10% local match FISCAL IMPACT: While the City will initially carry the purchase cost, the FAA is setting up the grant funding so that reimbursement of funds can be made nearly immediately following the closing of sales. The acquired land will initially be maintained as farm land and increase airport farming revenues (approximately $3600 /year). Additional use opportunities may be explored with respect to FAA land use restrictions. The impact of not purchasing the land now could have other negative impacts. The City (via FAA requirements) could be forced into a purchase without grant funding available, in which case the City would bear full cost. The grant matches could be further reduced by congressional mandate. The land value will presumably increase with the passage of time. With FAA funding and local match funds from the sale of Lot 6, the City is not obligating any additional levy dollars. Recommendation: Staff would recommend approval of the purchase agreement for the sale of Lot 6 and the acquisition of the 12.09 acres. Cc: Airport Commission Marian Karr From: Greg Downes <GregD @downesre.com> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 11:03 AM To: Council Subject: Airport Grant This correspondence will become a public record. I am concerned about the price for the 12 acres of Ruppert Land noted in the newspaper. I am a real estate appraiser as well as a pilot. The land discussed in the paper at the approach end of Runway 12 is extensively covered with existing avigation easements. These easements restrict the utility of the land. I would have to do a detailed study but I assume that the property in question has very limited utility in light of the existing easements. Please do not proceed without getting a detailed appraisal from a party with knowledge and expertise in work with avigation easements. I am not soliciting the assignment but feel that this is very important before proceeding. Value is based upon the utility of the land as well as its location. Greg Downes Downes & Associates Inc. 601 Hollywood Blvd. Suite 6 Iowa City, Iowa 52240 319 - 338 -5491 CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: September 26, 2013 To: Tom Markus, City Manager From: Rick Fosse, Public Works Director .?_h_.F,_ Re: Gateway Project The Federal Highway Administration has indicated that their process for responding to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation will not be complete prior to the October 15t City Council meeting. This will prevent us from taking any formal action on design parameters at that meeting. Based on that, our plan for the evening of October 1 st is as follows. Work Session: HNTB and staff will follow up on the questions from the September 17th work session, outline recommendations and answer questions from the City Council. Formal Meeting: There will be an agenda item for discussion and public input on the Gateway Project. Staff will outline recommendations and then open the floor for public comment. Staff will make note of questions from the public and follow up in the October 10th information packet. Formal council action regarding design parameters will not occur until after the NEPA process is complete. Answers to the questions asked at the September 17th work session have been prepared by HNTB and city staff and are attached. HNTB will briefly outline this information at the work session. Recommendations At the September 17, 2013 work session, staff outlined three design parameters that need to be defined to begin design of the Gateway Project. These parameters are: 1. Level of protection for Dubuque Street 2. Backwater reduction goals 3. Structural type of the bridge Many of the questions at the September 17th work session were centered on design details that contribute to the project footprint, such as sidewalks, lane width, and green space in the median or between the back of curb and the sidewalk. Each of these design elements are important to the function, safety, comfort and appearance of this multimodal corridor. Optimizing the width of each of these elements while balancing their impact on the adjacent properties is best accomplished during the design phase of the project when detailed survey information is available and everything is evaluated at a higher level of detail. Staff recommends that we remain focused on the three major design parameters at this time and these other design elements be addressed early in the design process and then seek City Council concurrence before submitting the concept statement to the Iowa Department of Transportation. Staff's recommendations for each of the major design parameters are outlined below: 10-0 1-10 7 September 26, 2013 Page 2 Level of Protection for Dubuque Street Staff recommends protecting Dubuque Street to the 2008 + 1' level. While this recommendation offers less protection than the option outlined in the Environmental Assessment (EA), staff feels that this is a reasonable level of protection and provides a good balance of performance while limiting impacts. The table below outlines the estimated number of days each option would have been closed over the past 20 year period and compares the relative elevations of each option to the recommended option. Level of Protection Option Estimated number of days closed over the past 20 years due to Iowa River flooding Relative Comparison: inches above /below the 2008 + 1' protection level Existing 150 NA 100 year + 1' 7* -39" 200 year + 1' 5* -11" 2008 flood + 1' Recommended 0 0" 500 year + 1' EA Preferred Alt 0 +19" *Including one day for cleanup, inspection and repair after inundation Backwater Reduction Goals and Bridge Type Three bridge options are outlined below. The first provides the maximum level of protection and backwater reduction and is the option that is represented in the Environmental Assessment (EA). The next two options represent staff's recommendation for the optimization of backwater reduction, bridge deck elevation and cost. Two recommendations are made because of the unique properties of each bridge type. The factors used for this recommendation are outlined on attached Figure 1, Bridge Type and Level of Protection Comparison. Although both recommendations sacrifice some backwater reduction when compared to the EA's Preferred Alternative, they offer substantially less elevation of the intersection of Dubuque Street and Park Road. This translates to reduced impact on the wooded bluffs. Bridge Options Option Bridge Low Elevation Backwater Dubuque Construction Type Steel at the Reduction Street Cost Elevation Dubuque at Protection Estimate of St/Park Rd Idyllwild Level Bridge and Intersection and Taft Road Speedway Maximum Deck 500yr + 1' 665.03 7" 500yr + 1' $36.65 M Protection and Girder Backwater Reduction (EA Preferred Alternative Recommended Through 200yr + 1' 659.02 4.9" 2008 + 1' $38.31 M Arch Arch Recommended Deck 200yr + 1' 662.52 6.1" 2008 + 1' $35.01 M Girder Girder To assist in evaluating the staff recommendations, comparisons of each option to the Environmental Assessment's preferred alternative are outlined below as well as a comparison to each other. September 26, 2013 Page 3 Comparison of Recommended Arch to EA Preferred Alternative Bridge Type Backwater Reduction Deck Elevation Cost Through Arch @ 200yr +1' 1 1 Ad--vantage by 6' Advantage by $1.64M EA Preferred Alternative I Advantage by 2.1" I Advantage by $1.66M Comparison of Recommended Girder to EA Preferred Alternative Bridge Type Backwater Reduction Deck Elevation Cost Deck Girder @ 200yr +1' 1 1 Ad-vantage by 2.5' Advantage by $1.64M EA Preferred Alternative I Advantage by 0.9" 1 Advantage by $3.3M Comparison of Recommended Arch to Recommended Girder Bridge Type Backwater Reduction Deck Elevation Cost Through Arch @ 200yr +1' 1 1 Td-vantage by 3.5' Deck Girder @ 200yr +1" I Advantage by 1.2" 1 Advantage by $3.3M Staff recommends that we proceed with either the Through Arch Bridge with a low steel elevation of 200yr + 1' or the Deck Girder Bridge with a low steel elevation of 200yr + 1'. The final decision will need to weigh backwater reduction and cost against deck elevation. Aesthetics will also be an important factor. Through Arch Deck Girder C O •y Q E O u Y O U 0) O L a O 0) J C � O � N C r-I H v L bo C MO cL LL m N c �} a W U ~ a a Lri o O > c y N O > V y N N w ry L f0 + V1 i L CO O Y C 0 •y,, Y� O tD Q a Oi Oi UU W 3oLn +nW +n +n c Y Ql 7 CO tD CO M E 7 oo N O �--� M V1 M 7 tD V1 M 7 lq Y L C w Y m W CO CO W CO CO O O vYi O M M M M M M M M M M M M � Y L Q + OM y � O Ql M QMl a C w •y, Y O 7 v1 1-z W 1-z W � Y O � L _ + ON 7 ]• t^D 7 O n a) a) a) Y L O O yYj Y O M M M M M M M M M f0 Y Y V a O o Y a L VG4 a W N O CO .--i O CO O aJ 'i n .ti Oi n .ti Oi Vi ti Oi C O ' O N V1 M O N V1 M N V1 M M Y N N V1 7 O N V1 7 O 00 CO O Ql V 9 O N M V1 C1 14 N 7 t6 C1 C1 14 � W tD tD tD tD tD tD tD tD tD tD tD tD rL � � Y Y O N N CL ca m C N 1� in 7 .--i in 7 in M iD E C L � a 0 3 T � Ql N CO m V1 V1 M 7 V1 V1 Y + + + + + + + + + + + + N Y T T CO T T T CO T T T CO T 3 ? , 0 0 o O C o c o O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i i i i L L L L N a a a a Op Op Op Op W u u u u u u u u J 0 J 0 J J C v° v° v L L L L a0 H n (7 n (7 n (7 n (7 p p p p H a H a H a H a LGATEWAY Questions and Comments generated from the September 17, 2013 City Council Work Session: Roadway Elevation Is it correct that Dubuque Street has been closed 150 days in the last 20 years due to flooding, and that it would have been closed only 6 days if the road/bridge were at the 100 + 1 elevation? Have you assessed any other intermediate flood levels; e. g., 200 + 1? It is correct that if the roadway was elevated to the 100 +1 elevation, the 2008 closure would have been 6 days due to flooding, not including any required clean up or repair work. Since the last Work Session, the 200 +1 flood elevation has been evaluated. The 200 +1 elevation is approximately 3.4 feet higher than the 100 +1 elevation & the resulting information is summarized in the cover memo. We have updated Backwater Comparisons (Figure 2), Key Spot Elevations (Figure 3), Cost Comparisons (Figure 4) and the Cross - Sections at Mayflower and Bella Vista (Images 2 and 3) to reflect the 200 +1 elevation and the Partial Through Arch Options. 2. Would you please clarify and elaborate on why you think using removable Hesco barriers in combination with a lower roadway elevation is not a reasonable option. Early on during the Environmental Assessment, it was determined that it would be too risky to keep Dubuque Street open with temporary flood protection measures actively holding flood waters off the roadway. Under current rules, eligible costs associated with flood preparation and cleanup are eligible for 85% reimbursement from FEMA if their deployment is part of a federally declared disaster. We have observed that the cost to deploy HESCO barriers varies widely. Our best estimate is that it would cost approximately $690, 000 to deploy HESCO barriers and pumps to provide about 3.5' of temporary additional protection for this corridor. Keep in mind that the traffic will be significantly impaired while the HESCOs are deployed and removed, and since the HESCOs would be placed on the sidewalks, they would be closed. This estimate does not include potential sidewalk repairs. 3. How will water runoff from the east side of Dubuque Street be handled? Runoff from the hillside on the east side of Dubuque Street, flowing from east to west, will be conveyed westward to the river, similar to the existing condition, through open ditches and cross -road culverts. Adequate sizing and improved grading to these ditches and culverts will provide better conveyance than the existing infrastructure. It is important to note that the new, elevated roadway will not be designed to function as a `levee" type embankment with gated culverts and interior pumping stations. Just as in the existing condition, when river stages are high, water will backup and inundate the region east of Dubuque Street. During LGATEWAY high intensity rainfall events, an elevated Dubuque Street would not be expected to be closed as is currently experienced. 4. Additional images or renderings have been requested of the east side of Dubuque Street. Included in the packet are additional cross - sections (XS -1 through XS -7) showing preliminary design of the Preferred Alternative and how it impacts properties adjacent to Dubuque Street. The top image is the plan view with the cross section line delineating what the section below illustrates. Additional copies of these cross - sections will be provided to you at Tuesday's Work Session. Flooding Issues 5. Can more information be provided on the future road closures by various impact levels? We can only project the next 20 years based on history from the past 20 years. Based on the past 20 years, approximately 150 days of road closures due to Iowa River flooding with additional closures expected when 1 "or more of rain falls in one hour. That being said, we cannot predict flooding and whether or not it will occur. . 6. What is the economic impact to the City and its users when Dubuque Street is closed? This question has been asked before and a solid answer is difficult to develop. Staff is in communication with Iowa City Economic Development Division, Summer of the Arts (event attendance) and the Chamber of Commerce. Our goal is to develop an answer that addresses this question to the best of our knowledge for the 2008 flood as well as the 2013 flood that closed Dubuque Street while all other arterial roads remained open. This information will be provided in an upcoming Information Packet. How will the project relate to the Army Corps of Engineers operation plan for the Coralville Reservoir? The maximum release from the dam (20,000 cfs) could be achieved without impact to an elevated Dubuque Street. This would give the Corps the flexibility to open the gates as needed without giving Iowa City time to prepare and close the roadway. Construction 8. How would cost overruns during construction be paid for? The current estimates include a 20% contingency at this time. Cost overruns would likely be paid for with G. 0. Bond proceeds. Our $55 Million Wastewater project is over 70% complete with less than 1% change orders. 9. Cost Clarification between Iowa City Gateway options and the No -Build option The Cost Estimates for the Gateway Project as presented during the September 17 Work Session were for Construction only, with a note at the bottom stating "Environmental Assessment, Final Design, Construction Administration and Inspection Fees = $8 Million. LGATEWAY Trunk sewer construction not included in these costs. " The amount shown for the No Build Option did include the Final Design, Construction Administration and Inspection Fees. Desion Considerations / Footprint Reduction 10. Travel lanes in the Preferred Alternative are 12' wide. Can this width be reduced and if so, what will the affects be? According to the Iowa Statewide Urban Design and Specifications (SUDAS) Design Manual, the Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT) Design Manual and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Green Book, an arterial lane width is recommended to be 12' wide. This lane width is set to accommodate all vehicles including some major users of this corridor such as buses and delivery vehicles. Something less than a 12' wide lane can degrade traveler safety. For instance, the Highway Safety Manual (HSM), shows that a reduction of a lane from 12' wide to 11' wide is expected to result in a 4 percent increase in the number of crashes. 11. To increase safety on Dubuque and Park Roads, would it be better to reduce speed from 35 mph to 25 mph? Would a reduction in lane width result in a reduction in speed? During the design phase, speed management will be studied and considered. A reduction in lane width can be an effective method of speed control. However, as mentioned above, it can also result in an increase in the number of crashes. The 12' lane width is set to accommodate all vehicles including some users of this corridor such as buses and delivery vehicles. It is recognized that traffic speeds along this stretch of Dubuque Street often exceed the posted 35 mph and during final design, speed reduction measures on Dubuque Street will be analyzed. With the installation of new traffic signals and exit ramp configuration, traffic from 1 -80 now travels through a controlled intersection that requires slowing or stopping before it reaches Dubuque Street. It is expected that with this new interchange and its proximity to the Foster Road traffic signal, traffic speeds through the corridor will be reduced simply because the free -flow exit ramp has been removed. Dubuque Street's current classification is an arterial street with contolled access. 35 mph is an appropriate speed for this type of roadway. 12. Could a pedestrian - actived signal be installed at Mayflower? This will be considered during final design. This shall contribute to pedestrian safety and have a secondary benefit of reducing speeds on Dubuque Street between Foster Road and Park Road, but will have the negative impact of traffic delay. 13. The Preferred Alternative recommends wide sidewalks on both sides of Dubuque Street. Can these widths be minimized or perhaps eliminated on the east side? One part of the Purpose and Need of the project was to maintain and enhance the bicycle, pedestrian and transit amenities. By reducing widths or eliminating the sidewalk on the east side of Dubuque Street, all or in part would not address the goals of the project. Walkability LGATEWAY of the corridor would be reduced and potential winter maintenance issues would be created if the width were reduced. The Iowa River Trail is an existing resource on the west side of Dubuque Street and has been designed to AASHTO standards for trails. This is the most heavily used trail in the metro area and is expected to be maintained in the proposed design. There is currently a 4' sidewalk on the east side of Dubuque Street between Kimball Road and Park Road. The need to provide a continuous walk on the east side of Dubuque Street from Brown to Foster was expressed by the public at all of the public meetings in order to provide the Northside residents and students at Mayflower access to controlled intersections at Park and Foster Roads. Mixed bike and pedestrian usage is predicted on this multi -use path similar to the Iowa River Trail. 14. Can parkway widths be reduced? Eliminating or reducing the parkway (the grass buffer between the back of curb and sidewalk) would create winter maintenance issues related to snow storage and snow removal from sidewalks. It would also reduce the safety buffer and lessen pedestrian sense of security that the current parkway configuration provides between the sidewalk and travel lanes. 15. Can the median width be reduced from 0 -25' to 0 -12'? On Dubuque Street, south of Kimball Road, there is currently no median proposed to reduce impact on the wooded bluffs. Between Kimball Road and Ridge Road, the alignment of the roadway has been shifted west to reduce impacts to properties along the northbound travel lanes. Staff made a conscious decision to shift the roadway and maintain the existing median between the northbound and southbound lanes in this location because it is important to the character of the corridor. It also serves to provide sufficient storage for Cambus to be able to perform their northbound to southbound turning movement at the relocated intersection of Ridge Road and the entrance to Terrell Mill Park. At the relocated intersection of Taft Speedway and Dubuque Street, maintaining the current median width provides storage between the northbound and southbound lanes for cars traveling east to north or north to west. Travelers seeking to make these turns would not have to cross all travel lanes at one time to complete the movement. North of Ridge Road, the roadway has maintained a shift to the west in order to reduce impacts to adjacent properties. The Foster Road/ Dubuque Street intersection was recently improved in 2005 and the Preferred Alternative minimizes impact to this area. The existing left hand turn lane will be maintained. The median width throughout this section of roadway transitions the roadway from the Taft Speedway intersection to the Foster Road intersection. 16. It has been indicated that a right turn lane from southbound Dubuque to westbound Park is warranted by the Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County (MPOJC). Why is the new turn lane necessary? LGATEWAY Based upon the existing traffic volumes at Dubuque Street and Park Road the southbound right turn lane is warranted. The threshold where a right turn lane becomes necessary is approximately 300 vehicles in the peak hour making a turning movement. In this case the current model shows 715 vehicles making the southbound right turn in the AM Peak Hour. The addition of the right turn lane will increase function and safety at the intersection. The Highway Safety Manual (HSM) confirms this safety benefit, indicating a 4 percent reduction in intersection crashes with the addition of the one turn lane (HSM pg. 14 -26). The attached Figure 5, Peak Hour Traffic Counts ( MPOJC) depicts the failure of the southbound thru lane in both the AM and the PM Peak Hours if the outer lane was simply converted to a dedicated right turn lane. The addition of this turn lane adds width on the west side of Dubuque Street and does not have an effect on the impacts to the wooded bluff. 17. Are dual left turn lanes required on eastbound Park Road? Can we have a shared right and left -turn lane to reduce the width of the new bridge? In January, 2011 HNTB Consultants completed a Build Traffic Operations Analysis. This analysis uses peak 2040 traffic forecasts as provided by MPOJC to develop future peak hour traffic volumes in the study area. As a result of the analysis, a second eastbound left turn lane was needed to achieve an acceptable level -of- service of C or better. This movement will be analyzed more closely during final design. 18. Is the 3d lane on Park Road from the bridge to Riverside Drive really needed? This improvement was recommended by MPOJC prior to 2008 and was included in the approved CIP. It is needed to achieve an acceptable level -of- service of C or better on Park Road. Without the improvement, delays on Park Road would be experienced as left turning vehicles are not able to leave the traveled way while waiting to turn. In the future, the volumes at Dubuque Street and Park Road are expected to remain relatively the same. However, the volume coming into and out of the lot at Hancher Auditorium due to events and commuter traffic is expected to grow with a majority of the exit traffic travelling north. 19. Are there additional options available for shrinking the horizontal footprint and minimizing impact along the Bella Vista Hillside at Dubuque Street and Park Road? Geometric options: • Use of retaining walls along the east sidewalk to match into existing grade faster. • Steeper slopes could be used along the east side of Dubuque Street • Reduced parkway width between the curb and sidewalk • Reduced sidewalk width There are potential maintenance, drainage and cost issues associated with these changes. Landscaping options: • Tree wells to protect mature trees —adding soil (beyond 6" in depth) around existing trees can cut off air circulation to the tree roots and limits access to moisture and nutrients, causing damage to the tree. Tree wells are a possible solution, but could be costly and are not always effective in salvaging the tree. Tree wells should be LGATEWAY constructed to not exceed 3' of additional soil cover and should be a minimum of 3' from the trunk, with special accommodations for drainage and air circulation within the fill material. Tree replanting — planting additional trees on the hillside is a preferred method of mitigating any tree loss during construction. Although the new trees will be smaller, planting soil conditions, tree type /species, and location can be controlled to ensure future success of the landscape and address any concerns with screening and buffers. Native plantings — to address maintenance and steep slope concerns, the hillside and adjacent slopes could be planted in a native mix of grasses and groundcovers. Once established, these low- maintenance plantings would require only seasonal mowing and minimal watering. The bases of steep slopes could also be designed with plantings that act as a linear rain garden, helping to manage storm water runoff. 20. What, if any, are the design criteria affecting clear zone and the use of barriers? The large retaining wall on Dubuque Street will be set back from the roadway at a distance greater than the required clear zone from the AASHTO roadside design guide. As such, the top of the wall does not require a crash worthy barrier ( AASHTO Roadside Design Guide Table 3 -1). This clear zone will be verified and analyzed more during final design. L I IS 1 Timeline of Outreach related to the Section 106 and NEPA Process for the Iowa City Gateway The NEPA and Section 106 processes for the Iowa City Gateway Project began in December 2010. Throughout both processes, City of Iowa City, consultant and the Iowa DOT staff have actively sought to conduct an open, transparent process. Traditional public involvement activities included: • Three public meetings and a public hearing, • Multiple paid advertisements and media stories related to the milestones associated with each public event, • A project mailing list of nearly 2,000 residents and property owners, • A project web site that encouraged citizen participation and kept citizens apprised of each stage of the project, • Coordination with the City of Iowa City's Historic Preservation Commission regarding the Section 106 process that was led by the Office of the State Archaeologist and Iowa City based architectural historians, • Presentations to neighborhood and civic groups, • City and consultant staff made available for on -site and neighborhood based meetings, • City and consultant staff available for in- person meetings, email correspondence and telephone conversations. Very early in the process, and in some cases prior to the start of each process, residents of the Bella Vista neighborhood, 1818 Dubuque Street and 1501 Ridge Road took full advantage of City staff's willingness to meet and discuss resident concerns about the project. Repeatedly over the past three years, staff met and discussed the project with residents, provided answers and sought to minimize or avoid impacts to their properties. Following below is a summary timeline of communications and meetings that have occurred the past three years with residents of Bella Vista and Dubuque Street. The summary includes references to the Bates page numbers where more information about a given meeting, correspondence, or event may be found. Fall 2010 — Spring 2011 Activities Although the project kicked off in December of 2010, conversations with concerned residents in the project corridor began as early as August of that year. August 18, 2010 — Prior to the formal project kickoff, Dr. Tony Colby, owner of 5 Bella Vista contacted City staff with multiple questions regarding the project. This correspondence continued back and forth between Dr. Colby and staff through early 2011. It culminated with an in person visit to Dr. Colby's home to discuss the project. LGATEWAY January 2011 —Soon following the project kick off, Joe Coulter, owner of 1818 Dubuque Street visited City staff in person with questions regarding the project. City staff met with Mr. Coulter again in person at his home in February 2011 to discuss the project. These were the first of multiple conversations that have taken place with Mr. Coulter during the course of the project. March 3, 2011 Public Meeting #1— More than 150 attendees had an opportunity to learn about the project process, provide input regarding corridor needs, ask questions, sign up to receive project information, and see a short presentation and the project and its current status. The meeting was publicized via postcards mailed to over 2,000 addresses within and adjacent to the study area, paid advertising in six issues of the Iowa City Press - Citizen and online edition, and press releases sent to the local media and posted on the city web site. March —April 2011 — Through contact with Dr. Colby and at his urging, City staff corresponded repeatedly with Bella Vista residents to schedule an in person meeting at one of the Bella Vista homes. Residents contacted as part of the discussion included Barbara Latenser (12 Bella Vista), Scott McDonough (10 BV), James Harris (8 BV), Tony Colby (5 BV) and another nearby homeowner, Jen Wagner. Number 6 Bella Vista was for sale /unoccupied at the time. City and Consultant staff met in person with Scott McDonough and Barbara Latenser, at Mr. McDonough's home on April 6, 2011 to discuss the project and better understand homeowner questions and concerns. This included tours of both 12 and 10 Bella Vista, as well as a tour of the neighborhood with Mr. McDonough and Ms. Latenser. (Materials related to these meetings and activities may be found between Bates numbered pages 01 to 65) Summer— Winter 2011 Activities July 13, 2011 Public Meeting #2 — More than 100 persons attended an open -house from 4:30 to 5:30, followed by a presentation and short question and answer session. This meeting included information on improvement alternatives, reasonable alternatives, alternative screening criteria, and bridge alternatives. The meeting was advertised via postcards mailed to over 2,000 addresses within and adjacent to the study area, email notifications to past meeting attendees who had provided valid email address, paid advertising in six issues of the Press - Citizen and advertising in the Daily Iowan, press releases to the local media, and the presentation was recorded and aired by local access cable TV. December 8, 2011— Drop -in Center to present three alternatives — Because of wide public interest in the project, the draft alternatives were posted to the project website on November 25, 2012. For those that wanted to review maps, ask questions, or submit comments in person, a drop -in center was held on December 8, 2011 at the Robert A. Lee Community Center. Approximately 30 citizens attended the drop -in center, including Joe Coulter, owner of 1818 Dubuque and John Stefaniak, owner of 1501 Ridge Road. Prior to this event, Joe Coulter twice met with City staff in person at City offices to discuss issues related to the project and the three alternatives presented at the drop -in center. LGATEWAY (Materials related to activities during this period are found between Bates numbers 66 to 90) 2012 Activities Following the drop in center, the project team spent most of 2012 working on the environmental assessment of the reasonable alternatives. This included the analysis related to the Section 106 process. However, during this time project and consultant staff continued to be in contact with residents. In late March 2012, homeowners along the study corridor were reminded of the project as City staff sent notices regarding the noise analysis and other field work. Also in March of 2012, television media outlets interviewed City Manager Tom Markus regarding progress on the project August of 2012 — City staff met with the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission to review study progress. The City's Project Manager made a presentation on study progress and the impacts of the preferred alternative on cultural resources. The meeting concluded with the Historic Preservation Commission voting unanimously by a vote of 8 -0 on a motion to send a statement to the Iowa DOT Cultural and Historic Resources Staff and to the State Historic Preservation Office, finding that the proposed Gateway Project is a needed community improvement. The Commission found that efforts had been made to avoid and mitigate impacts on historic properties and were in favor of the project as presented. Fall 2012 — Activities related to cultural resources wrapped up in fall 2012. On September 9, 2012 the Iowa State Historic Preservation Office concurred with Iowa DOT Cultural Resource staff with the conditions proposed of avoidance and minimum impact, the determination for this project is Conditional No Adverse Effect. On November 2, the FHWA concurred with the Iowa DOT's recommendation that a de minimus impact and its associated documentation be required for the project. (Materials related to activities during this period are found between Bates numbers 91 and 217) Winter — Spring 2013 Activities January 2013 —The Stefaniaks, owners of 1501 Ridge Road asked for and received a status update regarding the project. February 2013 —Tony Colby contacted City staff regarding rumors that the project would include demolition or alterations to structures on Bella Vista. The City's Project Manager assured Dr. Colby and Jen Wagner that this was not the case. She also provided updated exhibits to Dr. Colby regarding the temporary construction impacts to his property and made Dr. Colby and Ms. Wagner aware of the upcoming public hearing and EA comment period. April 2, 2013 — Following a phone call and email correspondence with Tony Colby, city staff followed up with an email to all Bella Vista residents to share the latest information regarding the project. April 4, 2013 Drop -In Center and Public Hearing —The April 4, 2013 Public Hearing included a drop -in center from 4:30 -6:00 pm and a formal presentation and question and answer session at 6:30 pm. At LGATEWAY the meeting, roughly 45 attendees had an opportunity to learn about the recommendations in the Environmental Assessment. Attendees also had the opportunity to provide formal comments that were recorded in the official Public Hearing Transcript provided to Iowa DOT and FHWA along with all other comments provided during the public comment period from March 13 to April 15, 2013. The meeting was advertised via postcards mailed to over 2,000 addresses within and adjacent to the study area, email notifications to past meeting attendees who had provided valid email address, paid advertising in six issues of the Press - Citizen and advertising in the Daily Iowan, press releases to the local media April 12, 2013 — Public Works Director Rick Fosse and City Planner Bob Miklo met at Joe Coulter's house to discuss Historic Preservation. JB Barnhouse was present as well to discuss moving the garage to the north side of the property and providing an alternate access. April — May 2013 — Following the public hearing and after the conclusion of the EA comment period, there was a great deal of communication between staff and residents of Bella Vista and Dubuque Street. During this time, the City Manager and staff toured the Bella Vista neighborhood with residents and met to answer questions and concerns regarding the project. (See material related to these activities starting at Bates number 218 through 555) Summer 2013 May 31, 2013 — Prior to FHWA's signing of the Finding of No Significant Impact, local citizens appealed to the Iowa DOT Cultural Resources Section to re- evaluate the finding of a Conditional No Adverse Effect to historic resources in the Dubuque Street corridor. As a result, Iowa DOT Cultural Resources engaged the Highway Archeology Program (HAP) to conduct an independent review of the Section 106 Historic Evaluation process. The conclusion of the independent review agreed that there had been no design changes since the original finding of Conditional No Adverse Effect was made in October 2012. The reviewers also agreed with the October 2012 finding of Conditional No Adverse Effect on cultural and historic resources in the project area. At about this same time, Bella Vista residents invited City staff to a neighborhood meeting and tour. At the meeting, residents were able to express concerns and ask questions. The meeting was attended by the City Manager as well as engineering staff. (See material related to the HAP Evaluation starting at Bates number 0556 to 590, 866 to 877 and 1052 to 1065) June and July 2013 — Coinciding with the request of the DOT to engage the Highway Archaeology Program, local citizens appealed to the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) to rescind its letter of support for the Iowa City Gateway Project. The original appeal was made at the June HPC meeting. Residents in the project corridor were invited to attend and present their concerns at the July 11 HPC meeting. City Project Manager, Melissa Clow, and resident Joe Coulter each provided a powerpoint presentation. Other Bella Vista residents expressed their concerns throughout the four -plus hour LGATEWAY meeting. The HPC tabled the request to rescind its letter of support in order to obtain more information and consider the request. At its meeting on July 26, 2013, the HPC voted 7 -1 with one abstention to amend the previous letter of support. While still in support of the project, the HPC amended the previous letter with strong recommendations to: Minimize grading and tree removal on historic properties; Address drainage issues at 1818 N. Dubuque Street; and Adopt design methods that would allow a thinner bridge deck therefore lowering the proposed grade of the Dubuque Street and Park Road intersection. (See material related to the appeal to the HPC and their summer meetings starting at Bates number 591 through 1286) August 2013 Following the decisions of the Highway Archaeology Program and the Historic Preservation Commission, Bella Vista residents contacted the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation (ACHP) regarding their concerns about the project. } }}}}} ...... o ...... } }} }}} \ ) { } \: \ \,Z \,Z \,Z \� \ \ }/ \ }/ « « m< « -: §/; \\ \ § \\ \ { }\ { }\ :\f\ . :.a> ` -- � \\\ � ! } \ } } } }} \ \ \ } }} } } } } }} } } \ } }} ; 0 \ ...... ...... ...... ..... ! \ } }}}}} } } {}}} ...... } }} }}} zrr;< £ \ ...... ...... ...... ) < : : :: } a 0 1 \= i , _ -�_ _-�_ _- -�- - (\ i \7 - (\ - () - () %: -: -: \ ! J \ )\ { }: (} }( }E (} }( }: )} { }: \ \ \ \ \ \j { {\ \ \ \ \j { {\ ) \ \ \j { {\ ) \ \ \j { {\ N W W c� LL E E m a y ry m a N ry m N a ry m a N ry a m a m a m a m a ry am a am .,a tea., mc� aaaaam aaaaam .aaam aaaaam a ��orvory �o rvary ry orv� Mary �mm�mry mv� mvv� mv� cc� yam maw yam mao rvam mao m ai m ai m ai n . o 0 a o 0 0 o a 0 0 ry 0 a 0 a ry 0 0 ry a 0 0 ry 0 m n 0 0 o 0 .Y .Y o ry .Y o m n 0 0 o .Y 0 o .Y .Y ry o O b E E E E Y E a 0 a 0 a 0 a o L 3 o E L 3 o E L 3 o E L 3 o E z Q �, v E z ®,r O> w E® z ,r O> w E ®,r x 3 m ¢ 3 m v i 1, m v i m Y a F m E E o_ Y a F m E E o_ a F m E E o_ a F m E E o_ E E E E t E E 0 t -m E E 0 Flillill § § > > §> > > >>>> } ! } }} } } }} } } } } }} { £ \ ...... ...... ) ! \ {} {}}} {} {}}} \ £ \ )))) }} )))) }} ( E I {{ -`^ 0 1 }} -- \ }: \ )\ { } )\ { }: :E \ \ 0° § } } :\f\ § } } :\f/ ) \ \ \j ) \ \ \j { {0 j\\ {E, \ {}}{} j\ }} }\} + IT + IT .-TTU- ,+ THITH THITH j \ / /jj \} j\ / /jj \} + IT THITH j \ / /jj \} + IT j \ / /jj \} j / } ®\& }&) /� ) \ /\ \ )\ °\ } ®'iCcl }C /C � \ \ } ®} & /}\ §\ \ } ® } & �� /}k \ \ } ®}C /C � \ \ } ® } & /}k \ \ w � w $5! ) !/ $�! ) \ 0 \ \ \§ \ \) \ \ \ \ \) \ \\ § 2, j / } ®\& }&)��)\ /� ©)\ §/ \ )\ °\ } ®'iCcl }C /C � \ \ } ® } & �� /}k \ \ } ®}C /C � \ \ w � w $5! ) \ 0 \ \ \§ \ \) \ \ \ § j / }&)��)\ )\ ^\ } ® }C /C � \ } ®}C /C � \ \ w � !/ $5! ) 0 \ \ \) \ \ \ § W W c� LL �emam�rvm MM w w w ww BE m` _ +� gg.m. u w� ww 11 Z K� �rvmau ��ee��Nrn wNrn m` pill 10111 CN im o MMnio�m�ry °Oa ° m °n _ wMm1O-w wNn BEEN Om m�aoio�m�m�`n� a o +�wo��yiw�a7 w w w 4 m 4 + A IM MIN O ry �tmory �im mry � Ory �tmo�WIN; tmory °m +mu N w ww w ww ls N JUMM °m �emeo�ry AN +$w��'nw r'-n w w� w w� m` m` it 111111 Ig +� °m Ke °m Ke rym +$wa��yi w ww w ww w w _ _ w _ _ w T _ _ m � 041 'ia Q ma ❑ � m MW m< m � 041 m � ma ❑ � �emam�rvm MM w w w ww BE m` _ +� gg.m. u w� ww 11 Z K� �rvmau wM�1O-w wNrn m` CN +� wMm1O-w wNn BEEN Om m�aoio�m�m�`n� +�wo��yiw�a7 w w w m m 4 + A IM MIN O ry �tmory �im mry � Ory �tmo�WIN; tmory °m +mu N w ww w ww ls N °m �emeo�ry AN +$w��'nw r'-n w w� m` it 111111 Ig +� °m Ke rym w ww w w _ _ w T _ _ m � 041 'ia Q ma ❑ � m MW m< ma ❑ � �emam�rvm w BE m` 11 Z K� �rvmau m` +� wMm1O-wwryn +�wo��yiw�a7 m � `a m Ory �tmo�WIN; °m �eme�om N w ww °m �emeo�ry +$w��'nw r'-n w w� m` it 111111 Ig °m Ke rym w ww w w T _ _ m � 041 'ia Q ma ❑ � me�__�et da tr Z I J :) W (Y i kk IK I c�1 i k 4 ! i $ yl •fh �t u 1 � 4:c ter. 88 J �J'pp J ^m 1111 O p 0 m m 0 LL 0 � O� IL 'OLLIi� N� S _ca U C a N L c cco �.a V V! C Q 0 v��_ 1L O$ILL� L .� N 6 -10V SS Vi O W z 0 N w z 00' M m Z z I LLI 5 KOO idill WOK GKI ATHR ANN; popup 4199 TRA MAN A= ZINN 311, tin iz al Z Z 1 yon nqqq opm 4199 INS I PINK 1 WANK A 01 pm� W- STS Hill ZINN I jqq� Ann i qq KENN Q K S 44 WO I IN K EAlm . .. al V :qq 1pw� �o N w V7 op3 X paw x > w J V' $ a w J m_ 3 O � c Q X N F w a v Z N b N O p°N F= J N N U n rc W z U � w X ?k rt t °5 Ai t.. L y0 J ss o�y J .lam a £ £ g R 3 S s 4 • z S S R 3 e All imp z V, 12 MUM O Cf .< ;z cn aww LU U 4 � iG w w m � 2 U_ N � d Z w w mw j N � y _ O y w J I z o LIJ C-10 o X m B R R R S R 0 0 R S R n R B 8 0 R S� 'a r �. rr 3 i 3 k a= F W' g f a B R R R S R 0 0 R S R n R B 8 0 R S� 'a OP m MEN j f MENEM MENEM .......... ................... .............. MENEM........... MEMO MENEM Ltw MENEM MEMO EUMME MENEM EMEMIN NEON OMENS MENEM MENEM moolom momimm F ¢1{ X y w � a J J m j H W' r 2 g i O X J F F W w w U m w w Z K N N y U W O U X m r E .................. .... ............................... $ 3 ..........::..........:... :.:.:.:. ?. R R A k o g o € I g y P f R € a R B • • • LJ s ; r R R •.�t s ., AP O O „= p t 1 a I Ch 0 a LLI p t 1 a I Mi MEN NOME qmm in MEMIN MEMBER p t 1 a I O 7T 43tP# ch W 00 LLI 0 O o CJI m C.? LLI 0 ....... ...... . . . . ZI ZI . . . . . ZI ZI z . . . . ZI ZI . . ZI . ......... ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . LO W (7 LL U O C 7 O t 7 O O d N 7 6 7 7 D C 7 O U U a O x Y a CL U O C 7 O t 7 O O d N 7 6 7 0 i 0 x Y a CL r' U O C 7 O t 7 O O d N 7 6 7 0 i 0 x Y a CL CL Marian Karr From: Mary Lu Callahan <marylucall @g mail. com> Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 11:05 AM To: Council Subject: Gateway Project This correspondence will become a public record. Iowa City Council Members: live at 824 N. Gilbert Street, having moved there in September of last year. Most of my life has been spent in Iowa City, and we lived for 20 years in the more distant north end, on Northwood Drive off of Whiting Avenue. I know full well the inconvenience of North Dubuque being closed due to flooding after living through the extended period of closure in 1993, although we were not in Iowa City for the 2008 closure. After living away from here for a few years, when we moved back we became aware of the Gateway Project being proposed. I was curious, and went onto the Iowa City website to study the plans. The first thing I noticed was that this project has been put in the public eye for the past two years, and there have been several opportunities for public input and comment as well as an invitation to comment online. Secondly, I studied the exhibits online and I can see that this has been a careful and deliberate process, involving local and federal guidelines and recommendations. It is imperative that we solve the problem of Dubuque Street flooding: it is a problem that will recur, we cannot ignore the changes in our rivers and our weather, and the closures impact many, many people and businesses. When it is closed, it forces traffic onto side roads that were not designed for the extra cars and speed. The north end of Gilbert Street with its steep incline and blind spots is one example. This is a project that will serve the greater good of the community, and while I realize that there will be an impact on a few properties near the Gateway Project we cannot make decisions that serve the community as a whole to this extent based on the objections of a few. And I say that as someone in the north end who knows that the changes may affect me as well, perhaps in noise level, perhaps in loss of some trees. Change is never without loss, but it must be balanced against the greater good. It seems, also, that to do it halfway will be a mistake. Let's do it the most effective way the first time and not have regrets in hindsight later. After living away from this community for several years in a place with uncontrolled sprawling growth, I have been very impressed with the thoughtful, creative planning that Iowa City is engaged in for its development. This is a project much needed and much considered that needs to go forward. Mary Lu Callahan 824 North Gilbert Street Iowa City, IA 52245 319- 333 -1556 Marian Karr From: Eric Gidal <eric.gidal5 @g mail. com> Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 3:58 PM To: Council Subject: Dubuque Street - Gateway Project Dear Council Members: The poet William Blake once wrote, "Improvement makes straight roads, but the crooked roads without Improvement, are roads of Genius." I take Blake's sense of "Genius" to mean not so much intellectual brilliance as the spirit of a place, an expression of the dynamic processes that have shaped an area, a city, a people. I won't be so foolhardy as to argue against Improvement; that's a lost cause. But I would urge, that in attempting to create a proper response to floods past, present, and future, you find some balance with the Genius of Iowa City. It would be easy to discount my concerns as provincial, as I am a resident of the Northside (328 Brown St.) who will be more directly impacted than many by the proposed elevation of Dubuque Street. But a number of very important questions have been raised by people far wiser than I as to the effects of these plans on the environment, infrastructure, and social fabric of the community. I should hope that those questions would at least give you pause in your deliberations. With thanks for your attention, Eric Gidal Marian Karr From: Meriam Belli <meriam @me.com> Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2013 1:21 PM To: Council Subject: gateway This correspondence will become a public record. Dear City Council members and City Manager Tom Markus, I am writing to join my voice to that of other citizens regarding the Gateway project as currently proposed. I have very recently become aware of this project and although I am not directly affected by river flooding -- I live on Summit Street - - I believe like many others that much of the beauty of downtown Iowa City lies in the buffs and the elevation of the North -End. I ask the City Council to address flooding issues with a vision, and with respect to the city's patrimony, which includes its topography. As Jesse Singerman wrote in an earlier mail to the council, Dubuque is truly "the most beautiful entryway into the city", because of its elevation, because of the buffs, because of the woods. The scenery for visitors is not just the river view, but the woods, buffs, and hill too. The buffs are a hidden jewel that add diversity to the cityscape. With the present gateway project, Dubuque Street would become a "high speed elevated highway" indeed, and reduce the spectacular buffs (as see from Ridge Street, Shimek school, Bella Vista...) to some insignificant hill with permanent damage to the beauty of the city. The "simulation" pictures posted on the Iowa City Gateway website do not show the effect of this high traffic highway on the landscape, as seen from the buffs, from Bella Vista or Ridge or the North Side. Mistakes were made a few decades ago, when Iowa City's old historic downtown was destroyed and buildings built without consideration for historical preservation and architectural integrity. Downtown reminds me of some cities in Europe, that were bombed during WWII, or the business district in DC, which was built after the 1968 riots and fire. Historic Iowa City was small to start with. There are many proofs that functionality and business do not have to be at the expense of our precious heritage and patrimony. The higher good sometimes implies some degree of "inconvenience," if inconvenience means adaptation to and respect of topography and architectural spirit. Think of Venice: very unpractical canals and marshes, isn't it? Buildings sink, St Mark's square was flooded last year in 2012 and 200 people were forced from their Venetian homes, and even without flood, one cannot drive in downtown Venice. Should the canal be closed and the marshes filled? St. Mark elevated? So, Iowa City is not Venice, and precisely because it is not Venice, we should cherish whatever is special about the city: the Buffs, the topography of the North -End are part of it! Now there are flooding issues in Iowa City and they need to be addressed. And the City Council can address them sensitively, with a vision, with respect for the heritage we will be leaving to future generations, so that young men and women in the future, when seeing pictures of "what Dubuque used to be" do not despise our expediency. Best, Meriam Belli Iowa City citizen Marian Karr From: Matthew J. Hayek <mhayek @hhbmlaw.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 9:40 AM To: Marian Karr Subject: FW: Iowa City Gateway- Dubuque Street Elevation Project (Gateway Project) - - - -- Original Message---- - From: steve tannen [mailto:steve @stevetannen.com] Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 2:58 PM To: mike.lapietra @dot.gov Cc: Office of Federal Agency Programs; MaryAnn Naber; Ralph Christian; matt.donovan @dot.iowa.gov; jseter @msn.com; johnfredericthomas @gmail.com; dcummins @pactiv.com; Rick Dobyns; Jim Throgmorton; Matt Hayek; Susan Mims; Terry Dickens; Michelle Payne; connie- champion @iowa - city.org; Kelly Yasaitis Fanizzo Subject: Re: Iowa City Gateway- Dubuque Street Elevation Project (Gateway Project) Hi Mike, We'd like to request an update. Was there any consideration given to the ACHP letter? Was the FONSI approved? Thank you. Steve Tannen Iowa City On Fri, September 13, 2013 11:15 am, Office of Federal Agency Programs wrote: > From: Office of Federal Agency Programs Advisory Council on Historic > Preservation Attached is our letter on the subject undertaking. (in > Adobe Acrobat PDF format) > If you have any questions concerning our letter, please contact: Kelly Fanizzo > 202) 606 -8507 > kfanizzo @achp.gov > Case # 7293 > Note: Please do not reply to this email. > A free copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader can be downloaded from: www.adobe.com ,:�e? Good evening. My name is Laurie Cummins, and I'd like to read this letter on behalf of my husband, Dan, who is out of town tonight. Dear Mayor Hayek and Members of City Council, Over the last four months you've heard many points of view concerning the Gateway Project. I'd like to focus on communication and citizen involvement. As informed citizens, our objective is to be part of the solution. I trust you remember your meetings with concerned Northside residents, where you were presented with thoughtful questions about the Gateway Project as well as creative ideas regarding those problems. As we have stated many times, we support flood mitigation but believe the solution proposed by the Gateway team is extreme. Our role as citizens is not to passively attend presentations, then go home and complain, but to engage in projects and to leverage the expertise of citizens. This is our community, and the decisions being made will impact us for decades. I 'd like to point out two items for your consideration: First, in any organization, whether it be business or government, there should be open, transparent and clear communication to insure that all stakeholders understand the facts and the implications of decisions. Successful communication requires that the sender of the message and the receiver both have the same understanding. Creating a website, or sending email updates or holding public meetings does NOT insure good communication. In the case of the Gateway Project, there has been communication, but it has not been effective. How do we, those of us at Ground Zero, know that? Because many citizens who should have been aware (Northside residents, real estate professionals, Historical Preservation Commission members, to name a few) did not realize that the 500 yr +1 recommendation equated to raising Dubuque Street by 10 -15 feet! ! This affected initial levels of outrage that you, or the engineers, might, or might not have heard about. Future communication with the public needs to be concise, descriptive, and in terms that any citizen can understand. Second, I'd like to highlight two sections from the letter you received from Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) dated September 13, 2013: "Consultation is the process of seeking, discussing and considering the views of other participants and, where feasible, seeking agreement with them regarding matters arising in the Section 106 process. Consultation is fundamentally different from the process that an agency may undertake to disclose information to the public and ask for general public input on a project." and... "We recommend FHWA and DOT reopen the Section 106 review, reengage the SHPO, invite concerned property owners to be consulting parties, and consult to develop a MOA to resolve the adverse effects to historic properties.... We urge FHWA and DOT to consider what reasonable options may be available to minimize and mitigate the adverse effects of this project, as well as the opportunities that may exist for ongoing consultation as the project design continues to evolve." As of yet, there has been no proactive attempt by the Gateway Project team to engage the impacted citizens in a meaningful, consultative process aimed at coming to agreement. I urge the City Council not only to select an alternative that minimizes the impact on the Dubuque Street Corridor, but also to select one that requires the Gateway Project team to engage with impacted citizens in a way that TRULY communicates. As noted above, we want to be part of the solution. Thank you. Dan Cummins 12 Bella Place Iowa City Jacobsen - Coulter House Building a Better Gateway: Objections to the "Preferred Alternative" Plan Joe Dan Coulter 10/01/2013 As the owner of the Jacobsen - Coulter House at 1818 N. Dubuque Street, which fronts N. Dubuque Street from just south of Foster Road to the intersection of Ridge Road, I am well aware of the need to improve Iowa City's "Gateway" to avoid closures during heavy rains and during ongoing maintenance and construction of the Dubuque Street road way, traffic controls, sidewalks, sewers and utilities. Though the City's planning, I have favored designs that would move N. Dubuque Street away from my property, to the west, from Foster Road through Terrell Mill Park, and elevate the road way by no more than 1 to 2 feet. (See Gateway Project Alternative C). However, my efforts, and those of my neighbors, to mitigate impacts of the Gateway Preferred Alternative on our historical homes and properties have been largely ignored. I am here this evening to tell the Council to take no action on the Gateway Preferred Alternative until the historic preservation issues have been resolved. In order to obtain the necessary federal funding for the Gateway Project, the City must have Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Environmental Assessment /National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) approval. The City has yet to receive this approval. The federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation has recommended that the Iowa FHWA, the Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT) and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) need to reevaluate the Gateway Project impacts in consultation with affected property owners to minimize and mitigate the adverse effects of the Gateway Project. This process would include discussions and evaluation of options regarding, grading, drainage acquisition /condemnation of property, limitations to property access, and temporary construction easements affecting historical properties. This process has not yet been initiated and I urge the Council to take no actions until the FHWA approval process has been successfully completed. 1 In closing, I wish to again register my strong objections to the Iowa City Gateway "Preferred Alternative" design. The planned elevation of N. Dubuque Street by 10 -20 ft. above the present roadway along and in front of my entire property frontage at 1818 N. Dubuque Street would: 1. Significantly detract from the overall historical, aesthetic, and property value of the house, garages, stairway and landscaping; 2. Restrict owner and guest access to the garages, and parking for the property, and stairway access to the front of the house; 3. Result in destruction of the few remaining original spruce trees and all other landscaping and vegetation along the entire frontage of the property on N. Dubuque Street; 4. Result in loss of property, with a redirection of Ridge Road, into a smaller northern section with the house and garages, and increase vehicular and pedestrian traffic and consequent noise, trash and ecological damage to the property and adjacent areas, including Ball Heights; 5. Create a safety hazard to both vehicular and pedestrian traffic, especially in proximity to the garage area in front of the house which would fall sharply to 10 -15 ft. below the level of the planned roadway and sidewalk; 6. Result in substantial flooding potential along the front of the property facing N. Dubuque St., and the Foster Road /Bjaysville Lane, especially in the area of the garages, as no provision for storm water drainage from the property, the Foster Road /Bjaysville Lane, the Ridge Road street, and Ball Heights areas are part of the "Preferred Alternative" plan; 7. Increase the vehicular and pedestrian traffic and consequent noise, trash and other ecological damage to the property's residents, the house, garages, gardens /lawns, and other areas of the property, and adjacent properties of the Ball Heights neighborhood; 8. Fails to provide any plan for owner access to the property during planned construction or access subsequent to construction by City /public services including USPS mail /package delivery, refuse /garbage pick -up /removal, fire protection (hydrant access), gas, water and sewage services; IOWA CirvY GATEWAY Gateway Proje I Tonight's Objectives: • Outline Staff Recommendations • Provide Opportunity for Public Input • No formal action will be taken tonight IOWA ciTY • - • • GATEWAY • Level of Protection for Dubuque Street • Backwater Reduction Goals • Structural Type of the Bridge 12 Recommendation for Elevation of Dubuque Street Recommended minimum level of protection for Dubuque Street: One foot above the 2008 flood. * Including one day for cleaning, inspection and repair Post Flood of `93 Projects to Consider, All Designed to 100 year + 1' • Rocky Shore Drive /Highway 6 Flood Gate • Riverside Drive Lift Station • South Gilbert /Stevens Drive Flood Gate • Floodplain Map Update Rocky Shore Drive / Highway 6 Flood Gate , shoji 1 . y a 71 M169 2011: . After 2008 we are now implementing a $6.6M upgrade that is part of a 5 project $26.9M collaborative regional effort to protect this area. South Gilbert / Stevens Drive Flood Gate I�: 201 9 After 2008 upgrades to the existing level of protection were investigated, but the estimated cost exceeded funding that was available. Floodplain Map Update 2013 � IJl After 2008 the Floodplain Management Ordinance was 200Q amended to require O protection to 1' above the 500 year event. IOWA CITY Bridge Type Low Steel Backwater Incremental Deck Incremental ConstrulConstructi Construct"Construction Elevation Reduction Improvement Elevation Height of on Cost Cost GATEWAY at Idyllwild in Backwater Bridge Deck Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Reduction with with with with Dubuque Dubuque Dubuqueat Dubuqueat at at 2008 +1' 50Gyr +1' 100yr +1' 20Gyr +1' Deck Girder 100yr +1' 3.4" 660.20 $32.67M $34.26M Deck Girder 200yr +1' 6.1" 2.7" 662.52 27.8" $34.63 M $35.01 M Deck Girder 2008 +1' 6.6" 0.5" 663.45 11.2" $33.41 $35.17M Deck Girder 500yr +1' 7.0' 0.4" 665.03 19.0' $34.20 M $35.01 M $35.34 M $36.65 M EA Preferred Alternative Deck Arch 100yr +1' 3.6" 659.20 $36.01 M $37.59 M Deck Arch 200yr +1' 4.7" 1.1" 661.52 27.8" $37.96M $38.34M Deck Arch 2008 +1' 5.2" 0.5" 662.45 11.1" $36.71M $38.48M Deck Arch 500yr +1' 5.6" 0.4" 664.03 19.0' $36.94 M $38.33 M $38.66 M $39.98 M Through 100yr +1' 3.4" 656.87 $35.99M $37.58M Arch Through 200yr +1' 4.9" 1.5" 659.02 25.8" $37.93 M $38.31 M Arch Through 2008 +1' 5.2" 0.3" 659.95 11.1" $36.70M $38.47M Arch Through SOOyr +1' 5.8" 0.6" 661.53 19.0' $36.90 M $38.30 M $38.63 M $39.60 M Arch IOWA CITY • • Bridge Type Low Steel Backwater Incremental Deck Incremental Constructi Construct! Construction Construction Elevation Reduction Improvement Elevation Height of on Cost on Cost Cost Cost GATEWAY at Idyllwild in Backwater Bridge Deck Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Reduction with with with with Dubuque Dubuque Dubuqueat Dubuqueat at at 2008 +1' 500yr +1' 100yr +1' 20Dyr +1' Deck Girder 100yr +1' 3.4" 660.20 $32.67M $34.26M Deck Girder 200yr +1' 6.1" 2.7" 662.52 27.8" $34.63M $35.01M Deck Girder 2008 +1' 6.6" 0.5" 663.45 11.2" $33.41 $35.17M - Deck Girder 500yr +1' 7.0' 0.4" 665.03 19.0' $34.20 M $35.01 M $35.34 M $36.65 M EA Preferred Alternative Deck Arch 100yr +1' 3.6" 659.20 $36.01 M $37.59 M Deck Arch 200yr +1' 4.7" 1.1" 661.52 27.8" $37.96M $38.34M Deck Arch 2008 +1' 5.2" 0.5" 662.45 11.1" $36.71M $38.48M Deck Arch 500yr +1' 5.6" 0.4" 664.03 19.0' $36.94 M $38.33 M $38.66 M $39.98 M Through 100yr +1' 3.4" 656.87 $35.99M $37.58M Arch Through 200yr +1' 4.9" 1.5" 659.02 25.8" $37.93 M $38.31 M Arch Through 2008 +1' 5.2" 0.3" 659.95 11.1" $36.70M $38.47M Arch Through 500yr +1' 5.8" 0.6" 661.53 19.0' $36.90 M $38.30 M $38.63 M $39.60 M Arch IOWA CITY 0 . Bridge Type Low Steel Backwater Incremental Deck Increment7Estimate i Constr7S34.26 on Construction Elevation Reduction Improvement Elevation Height of on Cost Cost GATEWAY at Idyllwild in Backwater Bridge Dec Estimat Estimate Reduction with with Dubuqt Dubuqueat at S00yr +1' 200yr +r 100yr +1' 3.4" 660.20 Deck Girder 200yr +1' 6.1" 2.7" 662.52 27.8" $34.63M $35.01M Deck Girder 2008 +1' 6.6" 0.5" 663.45 11.2" $33.41 $35.17M ` Deck Girder 500yr +1' 7.0' 0.4" 665.03 19.0' $34.20 M $35.01 M $35.34 M $36.65 M EA Preferred Alternative Deck Arch 100yr +1' 3.6" 659.20 $36.01 M $37.59 M Deck Arch 200yr +1' 4.7" 1.1" 661.52 27.8" $37.96M $38.34M Deck Arch 2008 +1' 5.2" 0.5" 662.45 11.1" $36.71M $38.48M Deck Arch 500yr +1' 5.6" 0.4" 664.03 19.0' $36.94 M $38.33 M $38.66 M $39.98 M Through 100yr +1' 3.4" 656.87 $35.99M $37.58M Arch Through 200yr +1' 4.9" 1.5" 659.02 25.8" $37.93 M $38.31 M Arch Through 2008 +1' 5.2" 0.3" 659.95 11.1" $36.70M $38.47M Arch Through 500yr +1' 5.8" 0.6" 661.53 19.0' $36.90 M $38.30 M $38.63 M $39.60 M Arch IOWA CITY Bridge Type Low Steel Backwater Incremental Deck Incremental Constructs Construct! Construction Construction Elevation Reduction Improvement Elevation Height of on Cost on Cost Cost Cost GATEWAY at Idyllwild in Backwater Bridge Deck Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Reduction with with with with Dubuque Dubuque Dubuqueat Dubuqueat at at 2008 +1' 500yr +1' 100yr +1' 200yr +1' Deck Girder 100yr +1' 3.4" 660.20 $32.67M $34.26M Deck Girder 200yr +1' 6.1" 2.7" 662.52 27.8" $34.63M $35.01M Deck Girder 2008 +1' 6.6" 0.5" 663.45 11.2" $33.41 $35.17M Deck Girder 500yr+ 1' 7.0" 0.4" 665.03 19.0" $34.20 M $35.01 M $35.34 M $36.65 M EA Preferred Alternative Deck Arch 100yr +1' 3.6" 659.20 $36.01 M $37.59 M Deck Arch 200yr +1' 4.7" 1.1" 661.52 27.8" $37.96M $38.34M Deck Arch 2008 +1' 5.2" 0.5" 662.45 11.1" $36.71M $38.48M Deck Arch 500yr +1' 5.6" 0.4" 664.03 19.0" $36.94 M $38.33 M $38.66 M $39.98 M Through 100yr +1' 3.4" 656.87 $35.99M $37.58M Arch Through 200yr +1' 4.9" 1.5" 659.02 25.8" $37.93 M $38.31 M Arch Through 2008 +1' 5.2" 0.3" 659.95 11.1" $36.70M $38.47M Arch Through 500yr +1' 5.8" 0.6" 661.53 19.0" $36.90 M $38.30 M $38.63 M $39.60 M Arch IOWA CITY Bridge Type Low Steel Backwater Incremental Deck Incremental Constructi Constructi Construction Construction Elevation Reduction Improvement Elevation Height of on Cost on Cost Cost Cost GATEWAY at Idyllwild in Backwater Bridge Deck Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Reduction with with with with Dubuque Dubuque Dubuqueat Dubuqueat at at 2008 +1' 500yr +1' 100yr +1' 200yr +1' Deck Girder 100yr +1' 3.4" 660.20 $32.67 M $34.26 M Deck Girder 200yr +1' 6.1" 2.7" 662.52 27.8" $34.63 M $35.01 M Deck Girder 2008 +1' 6.6" 0.5" 663.45 11.2" $33.41 $35.17M Deck Girder 500yr +1' 7.0' 0.4" 665.03 19.0' $34.20 M $35.01 M $35.34 M $36.65 M EA Preferred Alternative ' Deck Arch 100yr +1' 3.6" 659.20 $36.01 M $37.59 M Deck Arch 200yr +1' 4.7" 1.1" 661.52 27.8" $37.96M $38.34M Deck Arch 2008 +1' 5.2" 0.5" 662.45 11.1" $36.71M $38.48M Deck Arch 500yr +1' 5.6" 0.4" 664.03 19.0' $36.94 M $38.33 M $38.66 M $39.98 M Through 100yr +1' 3.4" 656.87 $35.99M $37.58M Arch Through 200yr+ 1' 4.9" 1.5" 659.02 25.8" $37.93 M $38.31 M Arch Through 2008 +1' 5.2" 0.3" 659.95 11.1" $36.70M $38.47M - Arch `• Through 500yr +1' 5.8" 0.6" 661.53 19.0' $36.90 M $38.30 M $38.63 M $39.60 M Arch IOWA CITY Bridge Type Low Steel Backwater Incremental Deck Incremental Constructs Constructs Construction Construction Elevation Reduction Improvement Elevation Height of on Cost on Cost Cost Cost G ATEWAY at Idyllwild in Backwater Bridge Deck Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Reduction with with with with Dubuque Dubuque Dubuqueat Dubuqueat at at 2008 +1' 500yr +1' 100yr +1' 20Dyr +1' Deck Girder 100yr +1' 3.4" 660.20 $32.67 M $34.26 M Deck Girder 200yr +1' 6.1" 2.7" 662.52 27.8" $34.63 M $35.01 M Deck Girder 2008 +1' 6.6" 0.5" 663.45 11.2" $33.41 $35.17M Deck Girder 500yr +1' 7.0' 0.4" 665.03 19.0' $34.20 M $35.01 M $35.34 M $36.65 M EA Preferred Alternative Deck Arch 100yr +1' 3.6" 659.20 $36.01 M $37.59 M Deck Arch 200yr +1' 4.7" 1.1" 661.52 27.8" $37.96M $38.34M C6 - Deck Arch 2008 +1' 5.2" 0.5" 662.45 11.1" $36.71M $38.48M =.. Deck Arch 500yr +1' 5.6" 0.4" 664.03 19.0' $36.94 M $38.33 M $38.66 M $39.98 M _ Through 100yr +1' 3.4" 656.87 $35.99M $37.58M Arch Through 200yr+ 1' 4.9" 1.5" 659.02 25.8" $37.93 M $38.31 M Arch '�� Through 2008 +1' S.2" 0.3" 659.95 11.1" $36.70M $38.47M `• Arch Through 500yr +1' 5.8" 0.6" 661.53 19.0" $36.90 M $38.30 M $38.63 M $39.60 M Arch IOWA CITY Bridge Type Low Steel Backwater Incremental Deck Incremental Constructi Constructi Construction Construction Elevation Reduction Improvement Elevation Height of on Cost on Cost Cost Cost GATEWAY at Idyllwild in Backwater Bridge Deck Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Reduction with with with with Dubuque Dubuque Dubuqueat Dubuqueat at at 2008 +1' 500yr +1' 100yr +1' 200yr +1' Deck Girder 100yr +1' 3.4" 660.20 $32.67 M $34.26 M Deck Girder 200yr +1' 6.1" 2.7" 662.52 27.8" $34.63 M $35.01 M Deck Girder 2008 +1' 6.6" 0.5" 663.45 11.2" $33.41 $35.17M Deck Girder 500yr +1' 7.0' 0.4" 665.03 19.0' $34.20 M $35.01 M $35.34 M $36.65 M EA Preferred Alternative Deck Arch 100yr +1' 3.6" 659.20 $36.01 M $37.59 M Deck Arch 200yr +1' 4.7" 1.1" 661.52 27.8" $37.96M $38.34M e6 _ Deck Arch 2008 +1' 5.2" 0.5" 662.45 11.1" $36.71M $38.48M Deck Arch 500yr +1' 5.6" 0.4" 664.03 19.0' $36.94 M $38.33 M $38.66 M $39.98 M - Through 100yr +1' 3.4" 656.87 $35.99 M $37.58 M Arch Through 200yr +1' 4.9" 1.5" 659.02 25.8" $37.93 M $38.31 M Arch Through 2008 +1' 5.2" 0.3" 659.95 11.1" 36.70M $38.47M _ Arch `� Through SOOyr +1' S.8" 0.6" 661.53 19.0" 36.90 M $38.30 M $38.63 M $39.60 M Arch IOWA CITY Bridge Type Low Steel Backwater Incremental Deck Incremental Constructs Constructs Construction Construction Elevation Reduction Improvement Elevation Height of on Cost on Cost Cost Cost GATEWAY at Idyllwild in Backwater Bridge Deck Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Reduction with with with with Dubuque Dubuque Dubuqueat Dubuqueat at at 2008 +1' 500yr +1' 100yr +1' 200yr +1' Deck Girder 100yr +1' 3.4" 660.20 $32.67 M $34.26 M Deck Girder 200yr+ 1' 6.1" 2.7" 662.52 27.8" $34.63 M $35.01 M Deck Girder 2008 +1' 6.6" 0.5" 663.45 11.2" $33.41 $35.17M - Deck Girder 500yr+ 1' 7.0' 0.4" 665.03 19.0' $34.20 M $35.01 M $35.34 M $36.65 M EA Preferred Alternative Deck Arch 100yr +1' 3.6" 659.20 $36.01 M $37.59 M Deck Arch 200yr +1' 4.7" 1.1" 661.52 27.8" $37.96M $38.34M Deck Arch 2008 +1' 5.2" 0.5" 662.45 11.1" $36.71M $38.48M Deck Arch 500yr +1' 5.6" 0.4" 664.03 19.0' $36.94 M $38.33 M $38.66 M $39.98 M Through 100yr +1' 3.4" 656.87 $35.99M $37.58M Arch Through 200yr +1' 4.9" 1.5" 659.02 25.8" $37.93 M $38.31 M Arch & _ Through 2008 +1' 5.2" 0.3" 659.95 11.1" $36.70M $38.47M Arch `• Through 500yr +1' 5.8" 0.6" 661.53 19.0' $36.90 M $38.30 M $38.63 M $39.60 M Arch IOWA CITY Bridge Type Low Steel Backwater Incremental Deck IncrementponCost tructi Construction Construction Elevation Reduction Improvement Elevation Height of ost Cost Cost GATEW AY at Idyllwild in Backwater Bridge Deck Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Reduction with with with with Dubuque Dubuque Dubuqueat Dubuqueat at at 2008 +1' 500yr +1' 100yr +1' 200yr +1' Deck Girder 100yr +1' 3.4" 660.20 $32.67 M $34.26 M Deck Girder 200yr +1' 6.1" 2.7" 662.52 27.8" $34.63 M $35.01 M M 6 _ Deck Girder 2008 +1' 6.6" 0.5" 663.45 11.2" $33.41 $35.17M - Deck Girder 500yr +1' 7.0" 0.4" 665.03 19.0' $34.20 M $35.01 M $35.34 M $36.65 M EA Preferred Alternative _ Deck Arch 100yr +1' 3.6" 659.20 $36.01 M $37.59 M Deck Arch 200yr +1' 4.7" 1.1" 661.52 27.8" $37.96M $38.34M Deck Arch 2008 +1' 5.2" 0.5" 662.45 11.1" $36.71M $38.48M Deck Arch 500yr +1' 5.6" 0.4" 664.03 19.0' $36.94 M $38.33 M $38.66 M $39.98 M Through 100yr +1' 3.4" 656.87 $35.99 M $37.58 M Arch Through 200yr +1' 4.9" 1.5" 659.02 25.8" $37.93 M $38.31 M Arch Through 2008 +1' 5.2" 0.3" 659.95 11.1" $36.70M $38.47M Arch `• Through SOOyr +1' 5.8" 0.6" 661.53 19.0' $36.90 M $38.30 M $38.63 M $39.60 M Arch IOWA CITY Bridge Type Low Steel Backwater Incremental Deck Incremental Construct! Constructi Construction Construction Elevation Reduction Improvement Elevation Height of on Cost on Cost Cost Cost GATEWAY at Idyllwild in Backwater Bridge Deck Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Reduction with with with with Dubuque Dubuque Dubuqueat Dubuqueat at at 2008 +1' 500yr +1' 100yr +1' 200yr +1' Deck Girder 100yr +1' 3.4" 660.20 $32.67 M $34.26 M Deck Girder 200yr+ 1' 6.1" 2.7" 662.52 27.8" $34.63 M $35.01 M M6 _ Deck Girder 2008 +1' 6.6" 0.5" 663.45 11.2" $33.41 $35.17M Deck Girder SOOyr+ 1' 7.0' 0.4" 665.03 19.0" $34.20 M $35.01 M $35.34 M $36.65 M EA Preferred Alternative _ Deck Arch 100yr +1' 3.6" 659.20 $36.01 M $37.59 M Deck Arch 200yr +1' 4.7" 1.1" 661.52 27.8" $37.96M $38.34M C6 - Deck Arch 2008 +1' 5.2" 0.5" 662.45 11.1" $36.71M $38.48M Deck Arch 500yr +1' 5.6" 0.4" 664.03 19.0" $36.94 M $38.33 M $38.66 M $39.98 M Through 100yr +1' 3.4" 656.87 $35.99M $37.58M Arch Through 200yr +1' 4.9" 1.5" 659.02 25.8" $37.93 M $38.31 M Arch 2008 +1' S.2" 0.3" 659.95 11.1" $36.70M $38.47M Arch `• Through 500yr +1' 5.8" 0.6" 661.53 19.0' $36.90 M $38.30 M $38.63 M $39.60 M Arch IOWA CITY Bridge Type Low Steel Backwater Incremental Deck Incremental Constructs Constructs Construction Construction Elevation Reduction Improvement Elevation Height of on Cost on Cost Cost Cost GATEWAY at Idyllwild in Backwater Bridge Deck Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Reduction with with with with Dubuque Dubuque Dubuqueat Dubuqueat at at 2008 +1' 500yr +1' 100yr +1' 200yr +1' Deck Girder 100yr +1' 3.4" 660.20 $32.67 M $34.26 M Deck Girder 200yr +1' 6.1" 2.7" 662.52 27.8" $34.63 M $35.01 M Deck Girder 2008 +1' 6.6" 0.5" 663.45 11.2" $33.41 $35.17M - Deck Girder 500yr +1' 7.0' 0.4" 665.03 19.0" $34.20 M $35.01 M $35.34 M $36.65 M EA Preferred Alternative Deck Arch 100yr +1' 3.6" 659.20 $36.01 M $37.59 M Deck Arch 200yr +1' 4.7" 1.1" 661.52 27.8" $37.96M $38.34M Deck Arch 2008 +1' 5.2" 0.5" 662.45 11.1" $36.71M $38.48M Deck Arch 500yr +1' 5.6" 0.4" 664.03 19.0' $36.94 M $38.33 M $38.66 M $39.98 M Through 100yr +1' 3.4" 656.87 $35.99M $37.58M Arch Through 200yr +1' 4.9" 1.5" 659.02 25.8" $37.93 M $38.31 M Arch & _ Through 2008 +1' 5.2" 0.3" 659.95 11.1" $36.70M $38.47M Arch `• Through 500yr +1' 5.8" 0.6" 661.53 19.0" $36.90 M $38.30 M $38.63 M $39.60 M Arch IOWA CITY Bridge Type Low Steel Backwater Incremental Deck Incremental Constructs Constructs Construction Construction Elevation Reduction Improvement Elevation Height of on Cost on Cost Cost Cost GATEWAY at Idyllwild in Backwater Bridge Deck Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Reduction with with with with Dubuque Dubuque Dubuqueat Dubuqueat at at 2008 +1' 500yr +1' 100yr +1' 200yr +1' Deck Girder 100yr +1' 3.4" 660.20 $32.67 M $34.26 M Deck Girder 200yr +1' 6.1" 2.7" 662.52 27.8" $34.63 M $35.01 M Deck Girder 2008 +1' 6.6" 0.5" 663.45 11.2" $33.41 $35.17M - Deck Girder 500yr +1' 7.0' 0.4" 665.03 19.0' $34.20 M $35.01 M $35.34 M $36.65 M EA Preferred Alternative Deck Arch 100yr +1' 3.6" 659.20 $36.01 M $37.59 M Deck Arch 200yr +1' 4.7" 1.1" 27.8" $37.96M $38.34M Deck Arch 2008 +1' 5.2" 0.5" 662.45 11.1" $36.71M $38.48M Deck Arch 500yr +1' 5.6" 0.4" 664.03 19.0' $36.94 M $38.33 M $38.66 M $39.98 M Through 100yr +1' 3.4" 656.87 $35.99M $37.58M Arch Through 200yr +1' 4.9" 1.5" 659.02 25.8" $37.93 M $38.31 M Arch & _ Through 2008 +1' 5.2" 0.3" 659.95 11.1" $36.70M $38.47M Arch `• Through 500yr +1' 5.8" 0.6" 661.53 19.0' $36.90 M $38.30 M $38.63 M $39.60 M Arch IOWA CITY s M - Bridge Type Low Steel Backwater Incremental Deck Incremental Constructs Construct! Construction Construction Elevation Reduction Improvement Elevation Height of on Cost on Cost Cost Cost G ATEWAY at Idyllwild in Backwater Bridge Deck Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Reduction with with with with Dubuque Dubuque Dubuqueat Dubuqueat at at 2008 +1' 500yr +1' 100yr +1' 200yr +1' Deck Girder 100yr +1' 3.4" 660.20 $32.67 M $34.26 M Deck Girder 200yr +1' 6.1" 2.7" 662.52 27.8" $34.63 M $35.01 M Deck Girder 2008 +1' 6.6" 0.5" 663.45 11.2" $33.41 $35.17M ra C - Deck Girder 500yr +1' 7.0' 0.4" 665.03 19.0" $34.20 M $35.01 M $35.34 M $36.65 M _ EA Preferred Alternative Deck Arch 100yr +1' 3.6" 659.20 $36.01 M $37.59 M Deck Arch 200yr +1' 4.7" 1.1" 661.52 27.8" $37.96M $38.34M Deck Arch 2008 +1' 5.2" 0.5" 662.45 11.1" $36.71M $38.48M Deck Arch 500yr +1' 5.6" 0.4" 664.03 19.0' $36.94 M $38.33 M $38.66 M $39.98 M Through 100yr +1' 3.4" 656.87 $35.99M $37.58M Arch Through 200yr+ 1' 4.9" 1.5" 659.02 25.8" $37.93 M $38.31 M -c Arch Through 2008 +1' 5.2" 0.3" 659.95 11.1" $36.70M 538.47M Arch Through 500yr +1' 5.8" 0.6" 661.53 19.0' $36.90 M $38.30 M $38.63 M $39.60 M Arch IOWA CITY s M - Bridge Type Low Steel Backwater Incremental Deck Incremental Constructs Construct! Construction Construction Elevation Reduction Improvement Elevation Height of on Cost on Cost Cost Cost G ATEWAY at Idyllwild in Backwater Bridge Deck Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Reduction with with with with Dubuque Dubuque Dubuqueat Dubuqueat at at 2008 +1' 500yr +1' 100yr +1' 200yr +1' Deck Girder 100yr +1' 3.4" 660.20 $32.67 M $34.26 M Deck Girder 200yr +1' 6.1" 2.7" 662.52 27.8" $34.63 M $35.01 M Deck Girder 2008 +1' 6.6" 0.5" 663.45 11.2" $33.41 $35.17M ra C Deck Girder SOOyr+ 1' 7.0' 0.4" 665.03 19.0" $34.20 M $35.01 M $35.34 M $36.65 M _ EA Preferred Alternative Deck Arch 100yr +1' 3.6" 659.20 $36.01 M $37.59 M Deck Arch 200yr +1' 4.7" 1.1" 661.52 27.8" $37.96M $38.34M Deck Arch 2008 +1' 5.2" 0.5" 662.45 11.1" $36.71M $38.48M Deck Arch 500yr +1' 5.6" 0.4" 664.03 19.0' $36.94 M $38.33 M $38.66 M $39.98 M Through 100yr +1' 3.4" 656.87 $35.99M $37.58M Arch Through 200yr+ 1' 4.9" 1.5" 659.02 25.8" $37.93 M $38.31 M -c Arch Through 2008 +1' 5.2" 0.3" 659.95 11.1" $36.70M $38.47M Arch Through SOOyr +1' S.8" 0.6" 661.53 19.0' $36.90 M $38.30 M $38.63 M $39.60 M Arch IOWA CITY s M - Bridge Type Low Steel Backwater Incremental Deck Incremental Constructi Construct! Construction Construction Elevation Reduction Improvement Elevation Height of on Cost on Cost Cost Cost G ATEWAY at Idyllwild in Backwater Bridge Deck Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Reduction with with with with Dubuque Dubuque Dubuqueat Dubuqueat at at 2008 +1' 500yr +1' 100yr +1' 200yr +1' Deck Girder 100yr +1' 3.4" 660.20 $32.67 M $34.26 M Deck Girder 200yr +1' 6.1" 2.7" 662.52 27.8" $34.63 M $35.01 M Deck Girder 2008 +1' 6.6" 0.5" 663.45 11.2" $33.41 $35.17M ra C Deck Girder 500yr+ 1' 7.0' 0.4" 665.03 19.0" $34.20 M $35.01 M $35.34 M $36.65 M _ EA Preferred Alternative Deck Arch 100yr +1' 3.6" 659.20 $36.01 M $37.59 M Deck Arch 200yr +1' 4.7" 1.1" 661.52 27.8" $37.96M $38.34M Deck Arch 2008 +1' 5.2" 0.5" 662.45 11.1" $36.71M $38.48M Deck Arch 500yr +1' 5.6" 0.4" 664.03 19.0' $36.94 M $38.33 M $38.66 M $39.98 M Through 100yr +1' 3.4" 656.87 $35.99M $37.58M Arch Through 200yr+ 1' 4.9" 1.5" 659.02 25.8" $37.93 M $38.31 M -c Arch Through 2008 +1' 5.2" 0.3" 659.95 11.1" $36.70M $38.47M Arch Through 500yr +1' S.8" 0.6" 661.53 19.0' $36.90 M $38.30 M $38.63 M $39.60 M Arch IOWA CITY s M - Bridge Type Low Steel Backwater Incremental Deck Incremental Constructi Construct! Construction Construction Elevation Reduction Improvement Elevation Height of on Cost on Cost Cost Cost G ATEWAY at Idyllwild in Backwater Bridge Deck Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Reduction with with with with Dubuque Dubuque Dubuqueat Dubuqueat at at 2008 +1' 500yr +1' 100yr +1' 200yr +1' Deck Girder 100yr +1' 3.4" 660.20 $32.67 M $34.26 M Deck Girder 200yr +1' 6.1" 2.7" 662.52 27.8" $34.63 M $35.01 M Deck Girder 2008 +1' 6.6" 0.5" 663.45 11.2" $33.41 $35.17M ra C Deck Girder 500yr+ 1' 7.0' 0.4" 665.03 19.0" $34.20 M $35.01 M $35.34 M $36.65 M _ EA Preferred Alternative Deck Arch 100yr +1' 3.6" 659.20 $36.01 M $37.59 M Deck Arch 200yr +1' 4.7" 1.1" 661.52 27.8" $37.96M $38.34M Deck Arch 2008 +1' 5.2" 0.5" 662.45 11.1" $36.71M $38.48M Deck Arch 500yr +1' 5.6" 0.4" 664.03 19.0' $36.94 M $38.33 M $38.66 M $39.98 M Through 100yr +1' 3.4" 656.87 $35.99M $37.58M Arch Through 200yr+ 1' 4.9" 1.5" 659.02 25.8" $37.93 M $38.31 M -c Arch Through 2008 +1' 5.2" 0.3" 659.95 11.1" $36.70M $38.47M Arch Through 500yr +1' S.8" 0.6" 661.53 19.0' $36.90 M $38.30 M $38.63 M $39.60 M Arch IOWA CITY s M - Bridge Type Low Steel Backwater Incremental Deck Incremental Constructi Construct! Construction Construction Elevation Reduction Improvement Elevation Height of on Cost on Cost Cost Cost G ATEWAY at Idyllwild in Backwater Bridge Deck Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Reduction with with with with Dubuque Dubuque Dubuqueat Dubuqueat at at 2008 +1' 500yr +1' 100yr +1' 200yr +1' Deck Girder 100yr +1' 3.4" 660.20 $32.67 M $34.26 M Deck Girder 200yr +1' 6.1" 2.7" 662.52 27.8" $34.63M $35.01M Deck Girder 2008 +1' 6.6" 0.5" 663.45 11.2" $33.41 $35.17M ra C Deck Girder 500yr+ 1' 7.0" 0.4" 665.03 19.0" $34.20 M $35.01 M $35.34 M $36.65 M _ EA Preferred Alternative Deck Arch 100yr +1' 3.6" 659.20 $36.01 M $37.59 M Deck Arch 200yr +1' 4.7" 1.1" 661.52 27.8" $37.96M $38.34M Deck Arch 2008 +1' 5.2" 0.5" 662.45 11.1" $36.71M $38.48M Deck Arch 500yr +1' 5.6" 0.4" 664.03 19.0' $36.94 M $38.33 M $38.66 M $39.98 M Through 100yr +1' 3.4" 656.87 $35.99M $37.58M Arch Through 200yr+ 1' 4.9" 1.5" 659.02 25.8" $37.93 M $38.31 M -c Arch Through 2008 +1' 5.2" 0.3" 659.95 11.1" $36.70M $38.47M Arch Through 500yr +1' S.8" 0.6" 661.53 19.0' $36.90 M $38.30 M $38.63 M $39.60 M Arch IOWA CITY s M - Bridge Type Low Steel Backwater Incremental Deck Incremental Constructi Construct! Construction Construction Elevation Reduction Improvement Elevation Height of on Cost on Cost Cost Cost G ATEWAY at Idyllwild in Backwater Bridge Deck Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Reduction with with with with Dubuque Dubuque Dubuqueat Dubuqueat at at 2008 +1' 500yr +1' 100yr +1' 20Dyr +1' Deck Girder 100yr +1' 3.4" 660.20 $32.67 M $34.26 M Deck Girder 200yr +1' 6.1" 2.7" 662.52 27.8" $34.63M $35.01M Deck Girder 2008 +1' 6.6" 0.5" 663.45 11.2" $33.41 $35.17M ra C Deck Girder 500yr+ 1' 7.0" 0.4" 665.03 19.0" $34.20 M $35.01 M $35.34 M $36.65 M _ EA Preferred Alternative Deck Arch 100yr +1' 3.6" 659.20 $36.01 M $37.59 M Deck Arch 200yr +1' 4.7" 1.1" 661.52 27.8" $37.96M $38.34M Deck Arch 2008 +1' 5.2" 0.5" 662.45 11.1" $36.71M $38.48M Deck Arch 500yr +1' 5.6" 0.4" 664.03 19.0' $36.94 M $38.33 M $38.66 M $39.98 M Through 100yr +1' 3.4" 656.87 $35.99M $37.58M Arch Through 200yr+ 1' 1.5" 659.02 25.8" $37.93 M $38.31 M -c Arch Through 2008 +1' S.2" 0.3" 659.95 11.1" $36.70M $38.47M Arch Through 500yr +1' S.8" 0.6" 661.53 19.0' $36.90 M $38.30 M $38.63 M $39.60 M Arch IOWA CITY s M - Bridge Type Low Steel Backwater Incremental Deck Incremental Constructi Construct! Construction Construction Elevation Reduction Improvement Elevation Height of on Cost on Cost Cost Cost G ATEWAY at Idyllwild in Backwater Bridge Deck Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Reduction with with with with Dubuque Dubuque Dubuqueat Dubuqueat at at 2008 +1' 500yr +1' 100yr +1' 20Dyr +1' Deck Girder 100yr +1' 3.4" 660.20 $32.67 M $34.26 M Deck Girder 200yr +1' 6.1" 2.7" 662.52 27.8" $34.63M $35.01M Deck Girder 2008 +1' 6.6" 0.5" 663.45 11.2" $33.41 $35.17M ra C Deck Girder 500yr+ 1' 7.0" 0.4" 665.03 19.0" $34.20 M $35.01 M $35.34 M $36.65 M _ EA Preferred Alternative Deck Arch 100yr +1' 3.6" 659.20 $36.01 M $37.59 M Deck Arch 200yr +1' 4.7" 1.1" 661.52 27.8" $37.96M $38.34M Deck Arch 2008 +1' 5.2" 0.5" 662.45 11.1" $36.71M $38.48M Deck Arch 500yr +1' 5.6" 0.4" 664.03 19.0' $36.94 M $38.33 M $38.66 M $39.98 M Through 100yr +1' 3.4" 656.87 $35.99M $37.58M Arch Through 200yr+ 1' 1.5" 659.02 25.8" $37.93 M $38.31 M -c Arch Through 2008 +1' S.2" 0.3" 659.95 11.1" $36.70M $38.47M Arch Through 500yr +1' S.8" 0.6" 661.53 19.0' $36.90 M $38.30 M $38.63 M $39.60 M Arch IOWA CITY s M - Bridge Type Low Steel Backwater Incremental Deck Incremental Constructi Construct! Construction Construction Elevation Reduction Improvement Elevation Height of on Cost on Cost Cost Cost G ATEWAY at Idyllwild in Backwater Bridge Deck Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Reduction with with with with Dubuque Dubuque Dubuqueat Dubuqueat at at 2008 +1' 500yr +1' 100yr +1' 20Dyr +1' Deck Girder 100yr +1' 3.4" 660.20 $32.67 M $34.26 M Deck Girder 200yr +1' 6.1" 2.7" 662.52 27.8" $34.63M $35.01M Deck Girder 2008 +1' 6.6" 0.5" 663.45 11.2" $33.41 $35.17M Deck Girder 500yr+ 1' 7.0" 0.4" 665.03 19.0" $34.20 M $35.01 M $35.34 M $36.65 M _ EA Preferred Alternative Deck Arch 100yr +1' 3.6" 659.20 $36.01 M $37.59 M Deck Arch 200yr +1' 4.7" 1.1" 661.52 27.8" $37.96M $38.34M Deck Arch 2008 +1' 5.2" 0.5" 662.45 11.1" $36.71M $38.48M Deck Arch 500yr +1' 5.6" 0.4" 664.03 19.0' $36.94 M $38.33 M $38.66 M $39.98 M Through 100yr +1' 3.4" 656.87 $35.99M $37.58M Arch Through 200yr+ 1' 1.5" 659.02 25.8" $37.93 M $38.31 M -c Arch Through 2008 +1' 5.2" 0.3" 659.95 11.1" $36.70M $38.47M Arch Through 500yr +1' 5.8" 0.6" 661.53 19.0' $36.90 M $38.30 M $38.63 M $39.60 M Arch IOWA CITY s M - Bridge Type Low Steel Backwater Incremental Deck Incremental Constructi Construct! Construction Construction Elevation Reduction Improvement Elevation Height of on Cost on Cost Cost Cost G ATEWAY at Idyllwild in Backwater Bridge Deck Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Reduction with with with with Dubuque Dubuque Dubuqueat Dubuqueat at at 2008 +1' 500yr +1' 100yr +1' 20Dyr +1' Deck Girder 100yr +1' 3.4" 660.20 $32.67 M $34.26 M Deck Girder 200yr +1' 6.1" 2.7" 662.52 27.8" $34.63M $35.01M Deck Girder 2008 +1' 6.6" 0.5" 663.45 11.2" $33.41 $35.17M Deck Girder SOOyr+ 1' 7.0" 0.4" 665.03 19.0" $34.20 M $35.01 M $35.34 M $36.65 M _ EA Preferred Alternative Deck Arch 100yr +1' 3.6" 659.20 $36.01 M $37.59 M Deck Arch 200yr +1' 4.7" 1.1" 661.52 27.8" $37.96M $38.34M Deck Arch 2008 +1' 5.2" 0.5" 662.45 11.1" $36.71M $38.48M Deck Arch 500yr +1' 5.6" 0.4" 664.03 19.0' $36.94 M $38.33 M $38.66 M $39.98 M Through 100yr +1' 3.4" 656.87 $35.99M $37.58M Arch Through 200yr+ 1' 1.5" 659.02 25.8" $37.93 M $38.31 M -c Arch Through 2008 +1' 5.2" 0.3" 659.95 11.1" $36.70M $38.47M Arch Through 500yr +1' 5.8" 0.6" 661.53 19.0' $36.90 M $38.30 M $38.63 M $39.60 M Arch IOWA CITY s M - Bridge Type Low Steel Backwater Incremental Deck Incremental Constructi Construct! Construction Construction Elevation Reduction Improvement Elevation Height of on Cost on Cost Cost Cost G ATEWAY at Idyllwild in Backwater Bridge Deck Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Reduction with with with with Dubuque Dubuque Dubuqueat Dubuqueat at at 2008 +1' 500yr +1' 100yr +1' 20Dyr +1' Deck Girder 100yr +1' 3.4" 660.20 $32.67 M $34.26 M Deck Girder 200yr +1' 6.1" 2.7" 662.52 27.8" $34.63M $35.01M Deck Girder 2008 +1' 6.6" 0.5" 663.45 11.2" $33.41 $35.17M Deck Girder SOOyr+ 1' 7.0" 0.4" 19.0" $34.20 M $35.01 M $35.34 M $36.65 M _ EA Preferred Alternative Deck Arch 100yr +1' 3.6" 659.20 $36.01 M $37.59 M Deck Arch 200yr +1' 4.7" 1.1" 661.52 27.8" $37.96M $38.34M Deck Arch 2008 +1' 5.2" 0.5" 662.45 11.1" $36.71M $38.48M Deck Arch 500yr +1' 5.6" 0.4" 664.03 19.0' $36.94 M $38.33 M $38.66 M $39.98 M Through 100yr +1' 3.4" 656.87 $35.99M $37.58M Arch Through 200yr+ 1' 1.5" 659.02 25.8" $37.93 M $38.31 M -c Arch Through 2008 +1' 5.2" 0.3" 659.95 11.1" $36.70M $38.47M Arch Through 500yr +1' 5.8" 0.6" 661.53 19.0' $36.90 M $38.30 M $38.63 M $39.60 M Arch IOWA CITY s M - Bridge Type Low Steel Backwater Incremental Deck Incremental Constructi Construct! Construction Construction Elevation Reduction Improvement Elevation Height of on Cost on Cost Cost Cost G ATEWAY at Idyllwild in Backwater Bridge Deck Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Reduction with with with with Dubuque Dubuque Dubuqueat Dubuqueat at at 2008 +1' 500yr +1' 100yr +1' 200yr +1' Deck Girder 100yr +1' 3.4" 660.20 $32.67 M $34.26 M Deck Girder 200yr +1' 6.1" 2.7" 662.52 27.8" $34.63M $35.01M Deck Girder 2008 +1' 6.6" 0.5" 663.45 11.2" $33.41 $35.17M Deck Girder SOOyr+ 1' 7.0" 0.4" 19.0" $34.20 M $35.01 M $35.34 M $36.65 M _ EA Preferred Alternative Deck Arch 100yr +1' 3.6" 659.20 $36.01 M $37.59 M Deck Arch 200yr +1' 4.7" 1.1" 661.52 27.8" $37.96M $38.34M Deck Arch 2008 +1' 5.2" 0.5" 662.45 11.1" $36.71M $38.48M Deck Arch 500yr +1' 5.6" 0.4" 664.03 19.0' $36.94 M $38.33 M $38.66 M $39.98 M Through 100yr +1' 3.4" 656.87 $35.99M $37.58M Arch Through 200yr+ 1' 1.5" 659.02 25.8" $37.93 M $38.31 M -c Arch Through 2008 +1' 5.2" 0.3" 659.95 11.1" $36.70M $38.47M Arch Through 500yr +1' 5.8" 0.6" 661.53 19.0' $36.90 M $38.30 M $38.63 M $39.60 M Arch IOWA CITY s M - Bridge Type Low Steel Backwater Incremental Deck Incremental Constructi Construct! Construction Construction Elevation Reduction Improvement Elevation Height of on Cost on Cost Cost Cost G ATEWAY at Idyllwild in Backwater Bridge Deck Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Reduction with with with with Dubuque Dubuque Dubuqueat Dubuqueat at at 2008 +1' 500yr +1' 100yr +1' 200yr +1' Deck Girder 100yr +1' 3.4" 660.20 $32.67 M $34.26 M Deck Girder 200yr +1' 6.1" 2.7" 662.52 27.8" $34.63M $35.01M Deck Girder 2008 +1' 6.6" 0.5" 663.45 11.2" $33.41 $35.17M Deck Girder SOOyr+ 1' 7.0" 0.4" 19.0" $34.20 M $35.01 M $35.34 M $36.65 M _ EA Preferred Alternative Deck Arch 100yr +1' 3.6" 659.20 $36.01 M $37.59 M Deck Arch 200yr +1' 4.7" 1.1" 661.52 27.8" $37.96M $38.34M Deck Arch 2008 +1' 5.2" 0.5" 662.45 11.1" $36.71M $38.48M Deck Arch 500yr +1' 5.6" 0.4" 664.03 19.0' $36.94 M $38.33 M $38.66 M $39.98 M Through 100yr +1' 3.4" 656.87 $35.99M $37.58M Arch Through 200yr+ 1' 1.5" 659.02 25.8" $37.93 M $38.31 M -c Arch Through 2008 +1' 5.2" 0.3" 659.95 11.1" $36.70M $38.47M Arch Through 500yr +1' 5.8" 0.6" 661.53 19.0' $36.90 M $38.30 M $38.63 M $39.60 M Arch IOWA CITY s M - Bridge Type Low Steel Backwater Incremental Deck Incremental Constructi Construct! Construction Construction Elevation Reduction Improvement Elevation Height of on Cost on Cost Cost Cost G ATEWAY at Idyllwild in Backwater Bridge Deck Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Reduction with with with with Dubuque Dubuque Dubuqueat Dubuqueat at at 2008 +1' 500yr +1' 100yr +1' 200yr +1' Deck Girder 100yr +1' 3.4" 660.20 $32.67 M $34.26 M Deck Girder 200yr +1' 6.1" 2.7" 662.52 27.8" $34.63M $35.01M Deck Girder 2008 +1' 6.6" 0.5" 663.45 11.2" $33.41 $35.17M Deck Girder SOOyr+ 1' 7.0" 0.4" 19.0" $34.20 M $35.01 M $35.34 M $36.65 M _ EA Preferred Alternative Deck Arch 100yr +1' 3.6" 659.20 $36.01 M $37.59 M Deck Arch 200yr +1' 4.7" 1.1" 661.52 27.8" $37.96M $38.34M Deck Arch 2008 +1' 5.2" 0.5" 662.45 11.1" $36.71M $38.48M Deck Arch 500yr +1' 5.6" 0.4" 664.03 19.0' $36.94 M $38.33 M $38.66 M $39.98 M Through 100yr +1' 3.4" 656.87 $35.99M $37.58M Arch Through 200yr+ 1' 1.5" 659.02 25.8" $37.93 M $38.31 M -c Arch Through 2008 +1' 5.2" 0.3" 659.95 11.1" $36.70M $38.47M Arch Through 500yr +1' 5.8" 0.6" 661.53 19.0' $36.90 M $38.30 M $38.63 M $39.60 M Arch IOWA CITY- s M's 16rol Bridge Type Low Steel Backwater Incremental Deck Incremental Constructi Construct! Construction Construction Elevation Reduction Improvement Elevation Height of on Cost on Cost Cost Cost GATEWAY at Idyllwild in Backwater Bridge Deck Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Reduction with with with with Dubuque Dubuque Dubuqueat Dubuqueat at at 2008 +1' 500yr +1' 100yr +1' 200yr +1' Deck Girder 100yr +1' 3.4" 660.20 $32.67 M $34.26 M Deck Girder 200yr +1' 6.1" 2.7" 662.52 27.8" $34.63M $35.01M Deck Girder 2008 +1' 6.6" 0.5" 663.45 11.2" $33.41 $35.17M Deck Girder SOOyr+ 1' 7.0" 0.4" 19.0" $34.20 M $35.01 M $35.34 M $36.65 M _ EA Preferred Alternative Deck Arch 100yr +1' 3.6" 659.20 $36.01 M $37.59 M Deck Arch 200yr +1' 4.7" 1.1" 661.52 27.8" $37.96M $38.34M Deck Arch 2008 +1' 5.2" 0.5" 662.45 11.1" $36.71M $38.48M Deck Arch 500yr +1' 5.6" 0.4" 664.03 19.0' $36.94 M $38.33 M $38.66 M $39.98 M Through 100yr +1' 3.4" 656.87 $35.99M $37.58M Arch Through 200yr+ 1' 1.5" 659.02 25.8" $37.93 M 8.31 M -c Arch Through 2008 +1' 5.2" 0.3" 659.95 11.1" $36.70M $38.47M Arch Through 500yr +1' 5.8" 0.6" 661.53 19.0' $36.90 M $38.30 M $38.63 M $39.60 M Arch